09/10/2013 Public Safety and Personnel CommitteeMINUTES
Elected Officials Present:
City Staff Present:
Also Present:
• - -
Councilmember Bloom
Councilmember Peterson
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Ken Reidy
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m.
A. Proposed Code of Conduct for Elected Officials and Board Members.
Councilmembers Bloom and Peterson discussed the Kirkland Code of Conduct, Section
B from page 5 of the Bellevue Code of Ethics, and also the Snohomish County Code of
Conduct. Comments included:
• Preference to be very clear in distinguishing between what is an ethical violation
and what is conduct related.
• It would be more straight forward and cleaner to have a Code of Conduct as a
standalone document.
• Suggested combining portions of the Snohomish County Code and Section B
from the Bellevue Code with the Kirkland Code.
With regard to the Snohomish County Code of Conduct:
• Councilmember Bloom suggested numbers 1, 2, 9 and 10 from the Snohomish
County Code are relevant.
• Councilmember Peterson suggested number 4 may also be relevant — "No Board
member shall give anyone the impression they are representing the Board
without express written permission authorized by a simple majority vote of the
Board."
• Councilmember Bloom commented that she has difficulty with any board voting
by a simple majority to allow a member to speak on behalf of the entire board.
Considerable discussion followed on this issue. Councilmember Bloom stated
that if a board member is being asked to represent the opinion of the majority of
the board /commission to the City Council, that makes sense; however, if they
are being allowed to represent the opinion of the simple majority to outside
organizations, she does not think that is appropriate. It was determined that the
full City Council needs to discuss this issue.
• Councilmember Peterson suggested adding the portion of number 4 that reads:
No Board member should give the impression they are representing the entire
board. Councilmember Bloom agreed.
• It was agreed by both Councilmembers to include numbers 1, 2, the first half of 4,
9 and 10 of the Snohomish County Code. Also, include the statement at the
Public Safety & Personnel Committee
September 10, 2013
Page 1 of 4
end: "In the event that a Board member is unable to abide by the Code of
Conduct policies, the Board, with a super majority vote, can recommend removal
of the board member to the GOURty Mayor, for action by the City
Council."
With regard to the Bellevue Code:
• Retain numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 (eliminating 7, 8, 9 and 11).
With regard to the Kirkland Code of Conduct:
• It was agreed to also retain the first two paragraphs with the following change:
remove the first sentence that states "The Code of Conduct is supplemental to
the Kirkland Municipal Code and the Code of Ethics."
B. Consideration of Council Comments Regarding Code of Ethics.
Councilmember Bloom recalled comments previously received from Councilmembers
related to disclosure of financial information. Councilmembers did not want board and
commission members to have to disclose financial information.
Councilmember Bloom also recalled that Councilmember Johnson did not want the
policy to go "backwards." Councilmember Peterson stated that he would not want an
Ethics Policy to affect previous Councilmembers who did not have an opportunity to vote
on it. He would not want it to be retroactive.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the Bellevue Code of Ethics under 1.E. where it states
the complaint must be filed within two years of the date of the occurrence or occurrences
alleged to constitute a violation of the Code of Ethics. Councilmember Peterson stated
he reads this to mean moving forward; not retroactive. It was agreed by
Councilmembers to ask the City Attorney to look at this.
Councilmembers next discussed the complaint procedure. It was noted that Bellevue
has an Ethics Officer and Kirkland uses a Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Peterson
commented that he likes the idea of having an Ethics Officer, noting the Hearing
Examiner deals mostly with land use issues. Councilmember Bloom commented that
given the issues related to staff availability and Hearing Examiner availability, she
believes the Code should be modeled after Bellevue (versus Kirkland). Councilmember
Peterson agreed.
Councilmembers agreed to use the Bellevue Code of Ethics (eliminate Section B that
begins on page 5 — except for number 9. Number 9 deals with "Nepotism" and the
committee would like this included in the Code of Ethics.)
C. Discussion regarding Council attendance via speaker phone.
Councilmember Peterson stated that in reviewing the sample procedures included in the
packet, he thought the procedures from Spokane was the simplest and gives some
latitude to the Council President and the council member who would be calling in. The
other procedures seemed to be more detailed and included limiting the participation by
phone to only one item.
Public Safety & Personnel Committee
September 10, 2013
Page 2 of 4
Councilmember Bloom expressed concern with limiting participation to one item noting
that the Councilmember who is calling in needs to be able to hear such things as
"Audience Comments" that may include comments that would be important to hear for
the topic of interest. Councilmember Peterson agreed that the meeting should be
attended as a whole, but pointed out in reality it may not be possible.
Councilmember Peterson suggested under "Code of Conduct" to add "attendance for
entire meetings; expected to show up on time and be available for the entire meeting."
Councilmember Bloom commented that she prefers the Bothell policy. Councilmember
Peterson agreed except recommended removing the limit to one agenda item.
It was the recommendation of the Councilmembers to adopt the Bothell policy with the
major change of not limiting to one agenda item and change the language that refers to
City Manager form of government.
Councilmember Bloom noted that the Bothell policy refers to "rare occasion." She
suggested this be defined and would like it to be limited as much as possible. She
suggested putting a cap on how many times it can happen.
Councilmembers recommended converting the Bothell policy to an Edmonds policy;
consider what "rare occasion" means to see if it would be desired to limit how many
times someone can call in; if there is a public hearing associated, being able to listen to
the entire public hearing is mandatory.
D. Public Comments
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, commented that he believes it is important that City Council
members hear public comment before a vote is taken.
He wanted to thank the committee for looking at the Code of Ethics and Code of
Conduct issues. As a citizen, he believes these issues need to be looked at more
broadly than only boards, commissions and council. He believes it should apply to staff,
Mayor and City Attorney. He has a hard time seeing how the Mayor can enforce a Code
of Conduct because of his relationship with the staff.
Mr. Reidy provided examples of why a Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics is important.
He referred to an email from the City Attorney replying to an email from Jeannie
McConnell telling her that there is no rush to respond to Mr. Reidy's request in the email.
He read an email that was sent by Mayor Haakenson to Michael Plunkett dated October
29, 2009. The email was sent from a private email account by Gary Haakenson. A
summary of the email includes: The email states that the Hearing Examiner was set to
hear the Reidy /Thuesen case on November 4. The email references an executive
session that was scheduled related to the case and also states a full discussion agenda
item was scheduled by DJ to talk about the Reidy /Thuesen issue. The email includes
the statements "If he persists and puts it on the agenda, you may want to rally three
other votes to remove it from the agenda on Tuesday night if you think its wise. Just
trying to keep you in the loop as to what he is doing. Why he is doing it is beyond me
but if he's working with Reidy .... it must be to get at you somehow."
Public Safety & Personnel Committee
September 10, 2013
Page 3 of 4
K8[ Reidy explained that for OOODthS, he went through the process kJ get reconsideration
Of his iGSVH. He ShOVVHd Up81the City Council K8H8tiDg thinking [HCODSid8rakiOD Of his
i8GV8 VVOV|d be OD the agenda and, after CODliDg out Of 8X8CUiiV8 S888iOD, the
reconsideration was off the agenda. Hg was asking for reconsideration Of the law.
K8[ Reidy applauds the committee for addressing Code Of Ethics and Code of CODdUC[.
He noted this situation has affected his life innrn8nSe|y.
There were OOother public comments.
COunCi|memberB|OUm reopened the discussion related tUCUunCi|memberattendance
via speaker phone. She referred to the Port Townsend pO|iCV and pointed out that DO
l8|HCODf8[9DCH is 8||Ow8d for 8 public hearing or quasi judicial proceeding. She VVOU|d
like tO consider not allowing teleconferencing when G public hearing iSinvolved.
COUOCi|090bHr B|000 [9fH[[Hd to the D9Hd to C|98dy define what is "uDVSU8|" Or
"extraordinary Ci[CV0St8OC8G'" and suggested |OOhiDg at the Port Townsend policy in
conjunction with the Bothell policy.
COUOCi|0e0b8r P8i8rSOD pointed out the b8|8DC8 is "do we VV8Oi more participation, Or
|8SS partiCip8tiUO?" |8 hearing 8 COUOCi| 08OObg['S opinion and 8||OvviOg them to meet
their SvvO[O duty more important? OOgS it out weigh their not being there? He vvOU|d
rather have another elected official's participation.
COunCi|member Bloom 8Shgd about the possibility Of combining parts of 1 and 2 in the
Port Townsend policy, and consider the possibility of teleconference participation only
with the vote Of the Council 8Sawhole. [|OUDCi|0H0b9[ Peterson agreed.
COUOCi|0e0b8rS agreed with using the HX80p|8G of HXt[8ORdiO8n/ Ci[CV0Gi8OC8 as
indicated iD the Port Townsend policy, HA, and take out "HtC."
C|0unCi|membgrS agreed to consider the idea of the Council as 8vvh0|g voting whether
O[ not 8COVOCi|0H0b8[can participate in@ vote related tO8 public hearing.
The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Public Safety & Personnel Committee
September |U,2U|3
Page 4 of 4