City Council

CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2012 IN CITY HALL Mayor Richard J. Notte called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Notte led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and Mark Carufel, Acting City Clerk, gave the Invocation. Council Members present at roll call: Deanna Koski, Richard J. Notte, Joseph V. Romano, Maria G. Schmidt, Paul Smith, Michael C. Taylor, Barbara A. Ziarko. Also Present: Mark D. Vanderpool, City Manager; Jeffrey Bahorski, City Attorney; Mark Carufel, Acting City Clerk; Madeline L. Ranella, Recording Secretary. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved by Koski, seconded by Romano, to approve the Agenda as presented. Yes: All. The motion carried. REPORT FROM CITY MANAGER Mr. Vanderpool advised the audience and those at home that the City of Sterling Heights is beginning to prepare for a major road project. The good news is it is still a few years off, but the bad news is that it requires a couple years of planning and once it does happen it will be a major inconvenience. The project involves the complete reconstruction of Van Dyke from 15 Mile Road to 18 Mile Road in 2015. He welcomes input from the residents during this planning stage. Mr. Vanderpool highlighted the regional collaborative effort to promote the defense industry in southeast Michigan. He explained the new website and marketing effort that brings the area’s reputation into the future as the “Arsenal of Innovation”. To assist this effort, Sterling Heights’ Economic Development staff participated in this grant-funded effort through Macomb Community College to generate new branding through regional collaboration. He explained our team worked side-by-side with representatives from Macomb Community College, the City of Warren and Macomb County to drive this initiative. Sterling Heights has a strong presence in the defense industry with prime companies including General Dynamics Land Systems and BAE System calling the Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 21, 2012 Page 2 community home. The goal is for all key regional partners to adopt this common messaging to enhance the whole regions identity and standing nationally as a center for defense. A video was shown highlighting this effort. Mr. Vanderpool reported the State of Michigan recognized the important assets the City of Sterling Heights has and moved their Michigan Defense Center from Lansing to Sterling Heights. Mr. Vanderpool reported this Saturday, August 25th is our Community Pride and Shine Day. He encouraged residents to make their properties shine. Interested volunteers are invited to meet at Heritage Church. Mr. Vanderpool reported on upcoming open houses over the next couple of months. The Nature Center’s Open House is scheduled for Saturday, September 8 at 10 am – 4 pm. It is a free event and an excellent opportunity to become acquainted with the Center and all it has to offer. Back by popular demand, the Sterling Heights Fire Department Open House is scheduled for October 14 from 11 am to 3 pm at Fire Station No. 4, which is located on 15 Mile Road near Baumgartner Park. Mr. Vanderpool reminded residents Labor Day would be celebrated on Monday, September 3, 2012 and all City offices and the 41-A District Court Building will be closed for the entire Labor Day weekend. There would be no refuse collection on Monday, but will resume on Tuesday and delayed one day through the end of the week. PRESENTATION Councilman Paul Smith explained how the doctors and staff at Advanced Animal Hospital treated a dog that was severely injured after being hit by a car. They stabilized the dog while Animal Control attempted to locate the owners. Thanks to the quick and excellent care that was provided by them, the dog has fully-recovered and is now back with its owners. Animal Control Officer Jeff Randazzo explained how Dr. Lindsay VanHusan and Dr. Benjamin Wilson and their professional staff accept injured animals from the Sterling Heights Police Department’s animal control officers for care and treatment of injuries.  Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 21, 2012 Page 3 They provide professional veterinary services at reduced cost to animal rescue organizations such as A New Leash on Life. Donations can be made to this organization by calling (586) 726-5200. Councilman Smith presented the Nice Neighbor award to Advanced Animal Hospital, 43065 Mound Road, Sterling Heights, MI 48314. Councilwoman Maria Schmidt read the Nice Neighbor award being presented to Wilson Veterinary Hospital, 12000 Durham Street, Romeo, Michigan. She pointed out how Dr. Wilson and his staff accepted an injured dog from the Sterling Heights Police Department’s animal control officers and administered great care and compassion to the injured animal. The veterinarians and professional staff at Wilson Veterinary Hospital also exhibited generosity and community spirit by covering the costs of treatment for the dog. She pointed out they also provide veterinary services at reduced cost for the benefit of animal rescue organizations such as the Sparky Fund and provided residents with that website. Animal Control Officer Jeff Randazzo pointed out their generosity and community spirit that qualifies them for the Good Neighbor award and since Dr. Wilson or his representative was unable to attend the meeting, he would deliver the award to them. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Moved by Koski, seconded by Romano, RESOLVED, to approve the Consent Agenda: A. To approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 8, 2012, as presented. B. To approve payment of the bills as presented: General Fund - $1,028,681.70, Water & Sewer Fund - $1,507,157.60, Other Funds - $1,598,459.05, Total Checks - $4,134,298.35. C. RESOLVED, to adopt the resolution designating September 17th – 23rd, 2012 as Constitution Week in the City of Sterling Heights: ~ Resolution ~ Sterling Heights City Council A resolution of the Sterling Heights City Council designating September 17th through September 23rd, 2012 as Constitution Week in the City of Sterling Heights Whereas, the Constitution of the United States of America sets forth this Nation’s fundamental laws, providing the framework for its governance and the principles under which it must operate; and,  Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 21, 2012 Page 4 Whereas, signed on September 17, 1787 by 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, the Constitution and its amendments were written to define and protect the rights and liberties of all American citizens, and were intended to endure for ages to come; and, Whereas, through the years, the Constitution has been amended to meet the changing needs of the American people, but continues to protect our rights as citizens by exercising the principle “to rule by law, not by men;” and, Whereas, it is of great importance that all citizens fully understand the provisions and principles of the Constitution in order to support, preserve, and defend it against all encroachments; and, Whereas, Public Law 915 guarantees the issuing of a proclamation each year by the President of the United States of America designating September 17th through 23rd as Constitution Week. Whereas, to commemorate the 225th anniversary of the Constitution of the United States of America and to encourage patriotism and reaffirmation of the ideals set forth by our Founding Fathers, the General Josiah Harmar Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution, Sterling Heights, MI, encourages all citizens to observe Constitution Week. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Sterling Heights, County of Macomb, and State of Michigan, hereby designates September 17th through September 23rd, 2012 as Constitution Week in the City of Sterling Heights and encourages residents to proudly fly the flag of the United States, celebrate the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, and reaffirm their commitment as citizens of this great nation to uphold the duties and responsibilities that good citizenship requires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and caused the Official Seal of the City of Sterling Heights to be affixed hereto on this 21st day of August, 2012. WALTER C. BLESSED, City Clerk D. RESOLVED, to approve TCO #6-76 to prohibit on-street parking on the east side and restrict on-street parking on the west side of R. Mancini Drive. E. RESOLVED, to waive the competitive bidding requirements in accordance with Code §2-223(A) and approve the purchase of a 2006 JCB 3CX backhoe from Earthborne, Inc., 160 Titus Ave., Warrington, PA 18976, at a total cost of $45,700.00 and to authorize a budget amendment appropriating $5,700.00 of Capitol Project Fund reserves to DPW Street Services – Machinery & Equipment (Account 43744444-982.000). F. RESOLVED, to receive the report of the Purchasing Manager pursuant to City Code §2-221(B) regarding the emergency repair of a sanitary sewer line located on Justin Lane at 18 Mile Road, by Lakeview Contracting, Inc., 45470 Mound Road, Utica, MI 48317, in the amount of $24,192,57, and by Utility Services Authority, LLC, 6001 Schooner, Belleville, MI 48112, in the amount of $10,450.00. Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 21, 2012 Page 5 G. RESOLVED, to approve the offers to purchase interests in real property in connection with the Utica Road Sanitary Sewer Project, City Project #06-142 and authorize the City Manager or his designee to sign all closing documents on behalf of the City. Yes: All. The motion carried. CONSIDERATION 2. Mr. Donald Mende, Interim City Planner, made a presentation on the request to consider approval of the third amendment to the Conditional Rezoning Agreement to modify the terms and conditions related to the site development and use characteristics for Case No. Z-1095, Poplar Properties, LLC. He pointed out this third amendment is to amend specific conditions contained in the original agreement, specifically at paragraph 2c and 3b. The amendment at paragraph 2c would allow the north and south building sites of the proposed development to be developed in phases with fast food restaurants and drive- through facilities. The amendment in paragraph 3b recognizes that two deviations to the Zoning Ordinance requirements are necessary: 1. To allow a freestanding fast food restaurant with drive-through lane to be located within 300’ of residentially zoned property. 2. To allow a fast food restaurant to be located within 500’ of an existing fast food restaurant. Mr. Mende explained the petitioner is offering certain conditions to the City which would control development and uses of the property should the amendment be approved and he highlighted each of them. Mayor Notte opened the discussion to the audience: Mr. Harry Marchlones pointed out all the trash and debris that comes with a fast food restaurant. Ms. Linda Godfrey questioned whether this is the same site location as the original request and whether a gas station was part of this development. Mrs. Marcia Anklem pointed out Mr. Ruggeri has listened to the residents that were concerned enough to give their opinions and ideas to him. She believes this new agreement is something the residents can work with him on and the fact that Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 21, 2012 Page 6 City Council would have control over the development is why she thinks this would work. Mrs. Anklem stated she is not aware of any gas station on this site. Mrs. Fiorella Adair, 6091 Poplar, stated a lot of the residents are against drive- through restaurants and there is already enough traffic in this area. Mr. Harley Pilarski, 6015 Poplar, is strongly against having a drive-through at this location. Mr. Kevin Spelich, 6133 Poplar, wants to trust the City Council, but he is nervous about this whole situation and hopes the Council thinks about the citizens when making their decision. Mrs. Frances Madalinski, 6010 Poplar, is against a fast food restaurant and stated it would be a detriment to the area. Mr. Mike Lombardi questioned whether the City Council members have received campaign contributions from the person requesting the variances. Moved by Romano, seconded by Notte, RESOLVED, to approve the third amended Conditional Rezoning Agreement between the City of Sterling Heights and Poplar Properties, LLC and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City. Councilman Romano stated he has heard both sides of the residents and heard the conditions that were presented by Mr. Ruggeri. He questioned whether there is a gas station proposed for this site. Mr. Ruggeri stated this proposal has nothing to do with a gas station, never has been, never will. Councilman Romano asked Mr. Ruggeri to explain the development, detailing the six- foot wall and buffer areas. Mr. Ruggeri pointed out the ingress and egress areas, the six-foot wall in the back and the additional landscaping to muffle any noise. Mr. Roy Rose, architect for the petitioner, further explained the location of the building on the parcel and stated they took the north building and moved it as close as they could to Mound Road to stay as far away as possible from the residents. Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 21, 2012 Page 7 Councilman Romano stated there was discussion about a fast food restaurant and any proposal for a fast food restaurant has to come before the City Council. He pointed out if we are talking about Starbucks or Panera he has no problem with that, but he would be against a McDonalds or that type of restaurant that would bring in a great deal of traffic. He stated there is going to be development along Mound Road because it is a major thoroughfare, but with the additional conditions that have been agreed upon, this is the reason he made the motion. Mayor Notte stated the property is zoned local convenience business and that is what they are proposing. As far as fast food, one of the conditions states the owner shall not be permitted to construct a fast food restaurant on the property unless the City Council approves it. If they come back with a proposal for a fast food restaurant the residents would be aware of it and could voice their opinion. He stated a development would fit there without any fast food restaurant. Councilwoman Koski questioned why the petitioner brought up fast food. Mr. Ruggeri pointed out the residents were opposed to a Taco Bell at this location and that is the reason they prohibited Taco Bell. He stated fast food with drive- through is the way it is and what the market demands. Councilwoman Koski questioned whether Mr. Ruggeri wants the option of having fast food and whether he plans to divide and sell off this property. Mr. Ruggeri stated there are five partners and their intent is not to sell the property. Councilwoman Koski questioned how the drive-through would work and the distance from the speakers to the residential homes. Mr. Rose showed the location of the drive-through and stated on the north parcel it would be about 200 feet and the south parcel 100 to 150 feet. Councilwoman Ziarko questioned the distance from the wall to the first home that is behind the wall. Mr. Rose stated the distance would be within ten feet. Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 21, 2012 Page 8 Councilwoman Ziarko pointed out the economic environment and the fact that they are not the only ones affected. She questioned why they believe a drive-through restaurant would be the only use for this property and what other attempted uses they researched. Mr. Ruggeri responded complete medical offices, hotel, senior housing and a variety of retail outlets. Councilwoman Ziarko questioned whether the conditions that were presented were all voluntary on their part or whether the City suggested any of them. Mr. Ruggeri responded it is all voluntary. Councilwoman Ziarko questioned if they had to have two buildings with two drive- through restaurants. Mr. Ruggeri responded it might turn out that they only need one; they don’t know for sure, but they want to provide that option. Councilwoman Ziarko questioned the other restaurants that stated if they have a drive- through they might consider this property. Mr. Ruggeri stated Jimmy Johns, Jersey Mike’s and Tim Horton’s. They have also tried to get Panera and Little Ceasars. Mr. Rose pointed out the problem is until they get approval for a drive-through they don’t want to talk to them. Councilwoman Ziarko questioned whether the petitioners were willing to accept rejection if they bring something to the City Council that they don’t like. Mr. Ruggeri stated yes. Councilwoman Schmidt questioned whether they would consider only one drive-through in the south building and what building they would start with if they had Phase I. Mr. Ruggeri responded the Council would control what is going on the property and the Council has the right to say one is enough. The City Council has complete discretion to say no. Councilwoman Schmidt questioned the different phases and whether the two ends would be first and then the middle. Mr. Ruggeri responded it would be very costly to do it all at one time, so they believe they would do it in phases; the north property would be first because they Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 21, 2012 Page 9 have to tear down the existing house. The wall would be next and then the property by the wall. Councilwoman Schmidt expressed concern for the resident that is only 8 feet from the wall and stated noise travels over walls. She has not made up her mind on this issue. Mayor Notte pointed out the City Council is spending a lot of time on fast food and that is not the issue tonight. Councilman Smith acknowledged an email from the Moore family on Poplar. They are opposed to any commercial development on this property. Councilman Smith asked Mr. Mende to explain the rationale and details of the measurement of fast food 300 feet from a residential property and inquired whether this is from the house on the property or the property itself. Mr. Mende responded it means the property line. Councilman Smith questioned the rationale behind the 500 feet. Mr. Mende responded that was in the ordinance for a number of years and he believes the Planning Commission and City Council were concerned that there might be a proliferation of fast food. Councilman Smith stated fast food restaurants create a great deal of traffic coming and going. He suggested they consider a multiple-family development and there would be no need for Council action or any variances. He stated in answer to one of the residents, he has never been offered any money from any landlord, developer or realtor and he would never accept it anyway. Councilman Taylor pointed out his campaign committee has not received any money from Mr. Ruggeri and even if they did, it would have no impact on his decision. Councilman Taylor questioned the timeframe for the petitioners to find a potential tenant if this agreement were to be approved this evening. Mr. Ruggeri responded he is looking at the next ninety days to find a viable prospect and probably five or six months before they could actively do anything with the property. He believes the site would take six to seven months to develop. Councilman Taylor pointed out the petitioner is giving up a lot of rights to the City and residents and he appreciates the fact that they are doing this. He stated the market has to Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 21, 2012 Page 10 dictate whether there are enough fast food restaurants in the City. Councilman Taylor pointed out the petitioner owns this piece of property and the City Council should not tell a property owner to go somewhere else. He pointed out there would be another opportunity to make sure all the concerns are addressed and that is why he is in favor of the motion. Roll call vote: Yes: Romano, Notte, Schmidt, Taylor, Ziarko, Koski. No: Smith. The motion carried. 3. Mr. Vanderpool made a presentation as it relates to the City of Sterling Heights Governing Body Rules of Procedure and Ethics Principles and Guidelines Resolution. He explained the proposed amendments suggested by Councilman Taylor and Councilwoman Ziarko. Ms. Linda Godfrey suggested a postponement on all three issues. She stated this document is worthless when you use the word “should”, which has no weight and stated it should be “shall”. There are no repercussions if the City Council violates this code of ethics or procedures. She questioned the total cost to the taxpayers for the preparation of this document. Suggested Action No. 1: Moved by Taylor, seconded by Notte, RESOLVED, to approve an amendment to Rule No. 23 of the City of Sterling Heights Governing Body Rules of Procedure to establish a two-step procedure for the nomination and appointment of members to the Planning Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, Board of Ordinance Appeals, Board of Review, Police & Fire Pension Board and General Employees Retirement System Board. Councilman Taylor responded to comments made by Ms. Godfrey and stated with regard to the entire rules and procedures, the City Council is a self-governing body. He stated if the rules said “shall” instead of “should” it would not have made any difference when the Council passed a resolution last week stating that a member of this Council had violated the rules. With regard to collecting signatures or doing things at the Library, the Council rules state that we should not as Council members be using public facilities in a manner that other members of the public do not have equal access to. Any resident can collect Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 21, 2012 Page 11 signatures at the Library and the City Council does not have any advantage just because they are on the City Council. This is a First Amendment right. Councilman Taylor stated with regard to this particular issue, he has been outspoken for the past two years that he wants to see changes to the nominating process for board and commission members. There are six boards and commissions with a little higher importance in terms of the policy that can come out of those boards and he wants to see a little more oversight on those boards. Councilman Taylor stated this is an improvement and if it is determined six months or a year from now that it is not an improvement, it could be scrapped and the process could go back to the way it was. Mayor Notte stated he doesn’t have a problem with the two-step process, as it shows the importance of these six boards and he believes it would work. Councilman Romano stated after consideration and because of the importance of these boards, he has reconsidered his views and would support Councilman Taylor’s motion. Councilwoman Schmidt asked for clarification on the nominating process and inquired if a second nomination could be made at the appointment or second meeting. Councilwoman Koski wants to know exactly how this would work and whether we would have to set a limit on the number of people that could be appointed for the vacant positions. She discussed how research could be done on the nominees. Councilman Smith questioned the procedure for a nomination and the length of time between the nomination and the appointment. Councilman Smith stated in regard to petitioning at the Library, he talked to the Library Director and one of the groups challenged our restrictions to petition in front of the Library and as of now you can petition in front of the Library in ways that were prohibited in the past. Councilwoman Ziarko suggested the nominations be made at the first meeting in June and the appointments made at the second meeting in June to make the appointments effective July 1st. She can see an advantage to the two-step process. Councilman Taylor inquired how the City Council would vote if more than one nomination is made. Vote on Suggested Action No. 1: Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 21, 2012 Page 12 Yes: All. The motion carried. Suggested Action No. 2: Moved by Ziarko, seconded by Notte, RESOLVED, to approve the amendment to the Ethics Principles and Guidelines Resolution adding Principle No. 4B to Section II to prevent impermissible contacts by a Council member with City boards, commissions and committees for the purpose of influencing a pending case or item of official business. Councilwoman Ziarko stated the City Council should not be micromanagers or try to influence anybody on a board or commission. They are appointed to make the decisions and listen to the residents and the City administration. Mayor Notte supports the motion and agrees with the comments made by Councilwoman Ziarko. Councilman Smith stated an “open” meeting means open meeting and every meeting is open to everybody. He feels he has as much right to attend a meeting as any other citizen. He opposes this amendment. Councilman Taylor stated he could appreciate the board and commission members not wanting to be intimidated or harassed by Council members, but he feels he still has rights as a citizen who has a personal stake in something that happens in the City. He wants to see this rule reworded because he doesn’t know where to go with this. Councilman Romano stated if the City Council member influences a board or commission to benefit him personally or one of his friends that is what these rules are applying to. He has stated to the board and commission members, no matter what he says or what anyone else on Council says, they should vote their conscience. Councilwoman Koski wants to continue to have discussions with the board and commission members if she has questions or if a member asks her opinion. She wants to be able to keep that relationship with the board and commission members. She would also like to see this reworded in such a way to deliver that message to Council members that if they want to discuss something with a board or commission member they do it in a professional informative way, with no threats and no ultimatums. Councilwoman Schmidt agrees with the comments made by Councilwoman Koski. She wants to see Mr. Bahorski clean this up a little bit. She believes it is important for the Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 21, 2012 Page 13 City Council members to be able to communicate and the way they communicate is very important. Moved by Ziarko, seconded by Schmidt, to postpone this motion to the second meeting in September to allow Mr. Bahorski an opportunity to further review the amendment. Yes: All. The motion carried. Suggested Action No. 3: Moved by Ziarko, seconded by Notte, RESOLVED, to approve the amendment to the Ethics Principles and Guidelines Resolution adding Principle No. 9D to Section 1 to preclude a Council member from using a public meeting or other official City function to introduce or advance the candidacy of a candidate for public office. Councilwoman Ziarko stated she has no problem with another elected official from another community coming in and being a part of our celebration and introducing them as one of our guests. She has a problem with the introduction of candidates and that is why she suggested this amendment. Mayor Notte stated it has been a policy not to introduce candidates at City celebrations and this would make it one of the Council rules and not only a policy. Councilman Smith stated this policy slants the system in favor of the incumbent and the candidate has just as much right as an incumbent. He stated leaving it to the discretion of the chairperson of the event to introduce who he or she wants is a good way to have it. This does not need to be a matter of Council procedure whether a candidate could get introduced. Councilman Smith is opposed to this amendment. Councilman Taylor stated in response to Councilman Smith’s comments, the system is set up to slant in favor of the incumbents and that is not necessarily a bad thing. He stated the City Council should not be up here trying to balance the scales. We should not allow incumbents or non-incumbents to make political statements and we should not be introducing them at Council meetings. He agrees with this amendment. Councilman Taylor expressed an interest in another amendment that if someone comes up to the podium and says they are a candidate for other office, we can say you cannot do that; that is not in our rules. Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 21, 2012 Page 14 Councilwoman Ziarko is not sure she wants to amend the motion and suggested this be included in the rules for Communications From Citizens on the agenda. Mr. Bahorski stated they would bring this back at the second meeting in September and research whether it could be placed in the rules for Communications From Citizens. RESOLUTION A resolution of the City Council of the City of Sterling Heights to amend the resolution adopted by City Council on December 19, 1990 that established the ethical principles to be followed by all officers and employees, Board and Commission members and setting forth guidelines to use in compliance with the existing City ethics code. BE IT RESOLVED THAT; the City Council hereby adopts and directs compliance with the following PUBLIC SERVICE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES and establishes the following guidelines: I. PUBLIC OFFICE AS A PUBLIC TRUST Public servants should treat their office as a public trust, only using the powers and resources of public office to advance public interests, and not to attain personal benefits or pursue any other private interest incompatible with the public good. 1. PURSUIT OF PUBLIC INTERESTS In treating their office as a public trust, public servants, whatever their role, should diligently and in good faith pursue the public interest to the best of their ability and subordinate self-interest to the public good. 2. ENSURING PUBLIC RESPECT In treating their office as a public trust, public servants should act so as to ensure the reality and perception that government is conducted according to the highest principles of democracy with honesty, integrity and a concern for justice and is, therefore, worthy of respect, trust, and support. A. Avoiding impropriety – Public servants should maintain public trust in government by avoiding acts, which place personal or private interests above pursuit of the public interest. B. Avoiding appearances of impropriety – Public servants should avoid conduct, which tends to undermine public trust by creating in the minds of reasonable impartial observers the perception that government office has been used improperly. 3. FORMULATION OF PUBLIC POLICY Persons with the responsibility for making public policy and laws should place the public interest over all other considerations. A. Elected officials should make policy. In a representative democracy, public interest should be determined and translated into policies and programs by or under the direction of elected officials who are ultimately accountable to the public. Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 21, 2012 Page 15 B. Dealing with conflicting loyalties – In pursuing the public interest, public servants should put loyalty to democratic principles and to the broadest public good above loyalty to political party, their constituencies and individuals. C. Ranking loyalty obligations – When allocating public funds and formulating general public policies, elected officials should evaluate information objectively and decide what is best for the public as a whole, not just a narrow constituency. D. Organizational vs. personal loyalties – Public servants with supervisory authority should safeguard and protect the public interest, the reputation of government and the integrity and efficiency of their department, even at the cost of injuring a superior, colleague, or friend. E. Protection of minority rights – It is in the overall public interest that the will of the majority is tempered by a commitment to consider and protect the rights and advance the interests of minorities especially those that are not sufficiently represented in the normal decision making process. 4. IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY Public administrators and executives should interpret and implement policies and laws in good faith and energetically pursue the goals of policy and lawmakers. A. Subordination of personal views – Public servants charged with the administration of policies and laws should do so as equitable, efficiently, and economically as possible, regardless of their personal views. B. Dealing with policy disagreements – Public servants who find that their personal convictions are irreconcilably incompatible with lawful policies should openly state their conflict and, in some cases, withdraw from the administration of such policies. C. Whistle-blowing: disclosure of unlawful or improper policies or actions – Public servants who have a good faith belief that the public interest requires the disclosure of governmental policies or actions thought to be unlawful or improper should reveal their information to appropriate authorities. D. Leaking – Except in matters of great public importance where identifying oneself as the source of information would involve unreasonable personal risks, public servants should not secretly reveal confidential governmental matters or allege improprieties. 5. PERSONAL GAIN FROM THE PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC DUTIES Except for official compensation, public servants should neither seek nor accept any form of payment, gratuity or other personal benefit relating to the performance of their responsibilities. A. Performance of duty – Public servants should neither seek nor accept any form of personal benefit for the performance of their duty to deal with a matter promptly, efficiently or fairly or for the exercise of appropriate but discretionary representational authority. B. Accessibility of elected officials – Elected officials should assure that constituents and others who may be affected by public policies have a fair and equal opportunity to express their concerns, grievances, and ideas without regard to their willingness or ability to provide personal benefits or political support to the official. C. Personal benefits should never appear to be necessary – Public servants should not engage in any conduct, which could create in the mind of a reasonable observer the belief that persons will receive better or different service if they provide personal benefits or political support to a government official. Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 21, 2012 Page 16 6. USE OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR PERSONAL BENEFIT Public servants should not use public employees on government time for private benefit. A. Subordinate's responsibility to say no – Public employees should refuse to perform improper personal tasks on government time. 7. USE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY FOR PERSONAL BENEFIT A public servant should not use government property or facilities for private benefit. 8. USE OF TITLE OR PRESTIGE FOR PERSONAL BENEFIT Public servants should not use, nor allow others to use, the authority, title, or prestige of public office for the attainment of private financial, social or political benefits in any manner that is inconsistent with public interests. A. Use for commercial purposes – Public servants should not permit their names nor official titles to be used by a nonpublic enterprise in any manner, which would lead reasonable observers to believe that those who deal with the enterprise may receive special treatment or advantages as a result of a formal association with the public servant. B. Exploitive fees – The present or former holder of a high public office which carries with it substantial prestige should not appear to sell the stature of the office by accepting sums that create a general perception that the office has been exploited for private gain. C. Use for private advantage – Public servants should not use official letterhead or refer to their public position as a means of inducing or intimidating persons to resolve disputes more favorably, provide preferential treatment, or give free tickets, discounts, favors or other advantages. 9. USE OF PUBLIC POWERS FOR POLITICAL ADVANCE A public servant should not use the resources, prerogatives and powers of office primarily to advance political interests. A. Use of public employees – A public servant should not seek to use public employees, on government time, to assist in political party activities, campaigning, fund raising, or other partisan or personal political activities. B. Use of public facilities – A public servant should not conduct nor allow campaign and fundraising activities on government premises nor use government resources for these purposes. C. Use of public authority – A public servant should not use public authority primarily to achieve personal political advantage or favorable press coverage. D. Use of public meetings for political advance. A public servant should not use a public meeting or other City function as an opportunity to introduce or otherwise advance the candidacy of a candidate for political office. 10. USE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS FOR PRIVATE BENEFIT Public servants who run for office should use campaign funds only for expenses directly relating to campaigning (e.g., salaries, consultant fees, travel, printing, media, polling, communication with voters and constituents) and not for personal or other political purposes. Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 21, 2012 Page 17 A. Improper expenditures – Campaign funds should not be used to supplement personal income or enhance a personal life style. B. Loans – Candidates should not borrow from campaign funds nor loan them to any other person, whether or not interest is paid. C. Disclosure about the use of funds – Public servants who raise campaign funds with the intent or known possibility that they will be used for a purpose other than direct campaign expenses relating to a current election should disclose their intent to the donor in order to avoid any possibility of raising money under false pretenses. II. PRINCIPLES OF INDEPENDENT OBJECTIVE JUDGMENT Public servants should employ independent objective judgment in performing their duties, deciding all matters on the merits, free from conflicts of interest and both real and apparent improper influences. 1. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Public servants should safeguard their ability to make independent, objective, fair and impartial judgments by scrupulously avoiding financial, social and political relationships and transactions, which may compromise or give the appearance of compromising their objectivity, independence or honesty. A. Disclose of financial conflicts of interest – Public servants subject to disclosure of financial interest requirements should comply with both the letter and spirit of the regulations and not seek to circumvent them by evasion strategies or legalisms. B. Avoidance of financial conflicts – Despite laws that permit financial conflicts, public servants should make all reasonable efforts to avoid transactions which may compromise or give the appearance of compromising their objectivity, independence or honesty. C. Benefits intended to influence – Public servants should not accept benefits of any sort under circumstances in which it could be reasonably inferred that the benefit was intended to influence them in the performance of their public responsibilities. D. Duty to report improper offers – When the possibility of improper motive requires refusal of a gratuity, the official should firmly warn the person about bribery laws and improper influence; if the attempt to unduly influence is clear, the matter should be reported to law enforcement authorities. E. Appearance of undue influence – Regardless of the actual intent of the provider or recipient, public servants should not accept benefits of any sort under circumstances, which would create in the mind of a reasonable observer the belief the benefit, may influence them in the performance of their public responsibilities. i. Earned income from persons directly affected by actions or decisions – Public servants should avoid engaging in financial relationships that might reasonably be construed to affect their judgment or actions, especially from lobbyists or other persons who are likely to be affected directly by their actions or decisions. ii. Gratuities from persons directly affected by actions or decisions – Public servants should refuse to accept any gratuities, which may reasonably be construed to affect their judgment or actions, especially from lobbyists or other persons who are likely to be affected directly by their actions or decisions. Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 21, 2012 Page 18 iii. Campaign contributions from persons directly affected by decisions – Public servants should be cautious about accepting campaign contributions, which may reasonably be construed to affect their judgment or actions, especially from lobbyists or other persons who are likely to be affected by their decisions. iv. Personal relationships with persons directly affected by decisions – Public servants should be cautious about accepting campaign contributions, which may reasonably be construed to affect their judgment or actions, especially from lobbyists who are likely to be affected directly by their decisions. 2. RECUSAL AND DISQUALIFICATION Public servants should not take any public action under circumstances where, due to a conflict in interests, they are not certain that they can do so fairly and objectively. 3. BIAS OR FAVORITISM Public servants should exercise the powers and prerogatives of office fairly without prejudice or favoritism. It is improper to use public authority to reward relatives, friends or political supporters or to hinder or punish enemies and opponents. 4. INTERVENING ON BEHALF OF CONSTITUENTS AND FRIENDS Public officials should be extremely cautious about directly or indirectly intervening with normal decision making, investigative, or adjudicative processes of governmental bodies on behalf of constituents or friends since such intervention can threaten the ability of government administrators to exercise independent objective judgment on the merits. A. General rule – Generally, intervention on behalf of constituents or friends is proper only it if is strictly limited to assuring fairness of the procedures and the intervener consciously avoids seeking to unduly influence the decision making process. Those who intervene should firmly, explicitly and unambiguously convey their limited purpose to reduce the possibility of direct or indirect pressure on administrators, which could reasonably appear to influence the substantive decision. III. PRINCIPLE OF ACCOUNTABILITY Public servants should assure that government is conducted openly, efficiently, equitably and honorably in a manner that permits the citizenry to make informed judgments and hold government officials accountable. 1. OVERSIGHT Public servants should assure that those to whom they have delegated public power, including their staffs and administrative agencies, carry out their responsibilities efficiently, equitably and ethically. 2. OPENNESS Public servants should exercise the authority of their offices openly so that the public is informed about governmental decisions and the citizenry can hold them accountable for their actions. 3. DUTY TO IMPROVE THE SYSTEM Public servants, who believe that a law or policy is not achieving its intended purpose, is creating unintended harms, or is wasteful or inefficient, should take affirmative steps to improve procedures in a way that will increase the fairness and quality of government services and assure that policies are implemented equitably, efficiently, and economically. A. Making changes – Public servants should take whatever actions they can to correct problems, streamline procedures and improve services. Where desirable changes Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 21, 2012 Page 19 exceed authority, public servants should promptly and forcefully recommend reform to the appropriate person or body. B. Supervisor's duty – In order to encourage a broad sense of responsibility for both the results and methods of government action, supervisors should develop a working environment that fosters constructive criticism and creative problem solving. 4. SELF-POLICING Public servants should maintain the integrity and trustworthiness of government by taking whatever steps are necessary, including reporting improper conduct to appropriate authorities, to prevent the unlawful or unethical use of public position, authority or resources. IV. PRINCIPLE OF DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP Public servants should honor and respect the principles and spirit of representative democracy and set a positive example of good citizenship by scrupulously observing the letter and spirit of laws and rules. 1. OBEYING ALL LAWS Public servants have a special obligation to obey all laws and regulations. 2. ARTIFICES AND SCHEMES Public servants should not engage in artifices and schemes to exploit loopholes or ambiguities in the law in a way that undermines their spirit and purpose. 3. INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS In using procedural rules, public servants should maintain the integrity, fairness and efficiency of the process by honoring the substance and spirit of the rules and by refraining from conduct which undermines the principles of representative democracy. 4. USE OF LEADERSHIP POWER Legislative leaders and committee chairs should use their leadership powers only in a manner consistent with representative democracy. 5. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE In rare cases, a public servant may exercise the prerogative of conscientious objection by disobeying the law. In such cases, the illegal behavior should be open and the official should be willing to bear the appropriate legal and political consequences. V. PRINCIPLE OF RESPECTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR PUBLIC OFFICE Public servants should safeguard public confidence in the integrity of government by being honest, fair, caring and respectful and by avoiding conduct creating the appearance of impropriety or which is otherwise unbefitting a public official. 1. FITNESS FOR PUBLIC OFFICE Public servants should conduct their professional and personal lives so as to reveal character traits, attitudes, and judgments that are worthy of honor and respect and demonstrate fitness for public office. A. Honesty – Public servants should be scrupulously honest, avoiding any form of lying, deception, deviousness, hypocrisy, and cheating in their professional and personal lives. B. Integrity – A public servant should reflect personal integrity in all matters, placing principle over expediency and demonstrating courage of convictions. Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 21, 2012 Page 20 C. Private personal conduct – Public servants should avoid engaging in any conduct, which is likely to bring discredit on themselves and the governmental bodies in which they serve. 2. CAMPAIGNING Those seeking public office should conduct their campaign in a way that aids the citizenry to make an informed choice on appropriate criteria and which casts credit on government and the election process. Moved by: Ziarko Seconded by: Notte Ayes: Ziarko, Notte, Koski, Romano, Schmidt, Taylor. Nays: Smith. This resolution was adopted by the Sterling Heights City Council at its August 21, 2012 regular City Council meeting. WALTER C. BLESSED, City Clerk Vote on Suggested Action No. 3: Yes: Ziarko, Notte, Schmidt, Taylor, Koski, Romano. No: Smith. The motion carried. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS Mr. Harry Marchlones – Use of terms “should” and “shall”; Supports Councilman Smith; Use of City vehicles; Need for committee of technical people. Mr. Mike Lombardi – Campaign contributions. Mrs. Beverly Morocco – Support for Councilman Smith. Ms. Linda Godfrey – Governing Body Rules of Procedure. Mr. Guilio Russo – Sidewalk repairs. Ms. Karen Wiegand – Support for Councilman Smith. Ms. Annette Berg – Support for Councilman Smith. REPORTS FROM CITY ADMINISTRATION AND CITY COUNCIL There were no reports from Mr. Bahorski or Mr. Vanderpool at this time. UNFINISHED BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS 1. Councilman Smith stated in regard to boards and commission, if they are totally isolated from any Council action, that cuts the voters out of the loop and once they are appointed, there is no recourse whatsoever. 2. Councilman Smith discussed the emails he received and thanked his supporters. Regular City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 21, 2012 Page 21 3. Councilman Taylor addressed comments from residents. With regard to Ms. Godfrey’s comments about the Governing Body Rules of Procedure, Rule No. 7, he sees nothing prohibiting Council members at a Council meeting from adding items on the agenda. As far as the public being aware of the action at the last City Council meeting, the video went viral and that is how the public was made aware of it. Councilman Taylor stated to Ms. Morocco about information being sent to the newspapers, there was no directive from the City. This was done by the newspapers. As far as the Secret Service, he has no authority to contact the Secret Service. Councilman Taylor stated he pleaded with Councilman Smith to tone down the rhetoric and try to work with the City Council, but he doesn’t care. 4. Councilwoman Ziarko requested Mr. Vanderpool answer some of the questions from residents in regard to the parcel on Mound Road and the AMC liquor license. She wanted him to explain that it was a transfer, not a new license. 5. Councilwoman Ziarko inquired the number of employees that take home a City vehicle. 6. Councilwoman Ziarko stated campaign contributions are listed on the Macomb County website. ADJOURN Moved by Ziarko, seconded by Taylor, to adjourn the meeting. Yes: All. The motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:52 p.m. WALTER C. BLESSED, City Clerk