CC_Minutes_2014_0106 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,January 06, 2014 Page 8 Process of Ethics Complaints The Commission requested a discussion with the City Council related to the pro- cess for handling alleged violations detailed in Chapter 5.F of the Ethics Code; specifically concerns related to data privacy restrictions that may be present when an ethics complaint is filed and whether or not the Commission would have suffi- cient information to meet the standard covered by Section 3 of the Code for "clear and convincing evidence. With initial concerns expressed by City Attorney Gaughan with the Ethics Commission, the Commission questioned whether the standard of proof should be revised from current "clear and convincing evidence," to a standard using a"preponderance of evidence" instead. Vice Chair Lehman provided the Commission's concerns, and asked for the City Council's perspective on which standard to apply when a formal complaint was forwarded to the Commission from the City Manager or City Attorney. At the re- quest of Councilmember Willmus, Vice Chair Lehman further clarified the Com- mission's rationale in seeking feedback on the current process standard before any potential future complaints came before the body, noting that the Commission had only received one complaint since its re-establishment, which had been subse- quently withdrawn. Mayor Roe recognized the Commission's concerns that, if private data was re- dacted and not available to the Commission, their concern was whether they would be able to determine if there was clear and convincing evidence. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Attorney Bartholdi defined "clear and convincing evidence"just short of a situation being beyond reasonable doubt and the standard for a"preponderance of evidence," determined at 51% or a majority of evidence available, and not as difficult to prove as the former stand- ard. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Attorney Bartholdi advised that he was unable to provide a sufficient response tonight without further review, regarding why the Ethics Commission could not be privy to confidential or non- public data in their role, or if they would have the same standards as other citizen advisory commissions to the City Council. Mr. Bartholdi noted that the City Council had much more latitude in what they could have access to under the State's data privacy laws. At the request of Mayor Roe, Vice Chair Lehman advised that City Attorney Gaughan had raised the issue under current Ethics Code language; basically relat- ed to the Commission's inability to go into Closed Executive Session to consider items that may fall into data privacy areas, making them out of compliance with Open Meeting laws. Mayor Roe noted that, while the Ethics Commission may be able to review the private data, the public could not, with the Commission required to carry out their business in public.