HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/11/1974Pledge
Roll Call
City Staff
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1974 - 7:30 P.M.
CITY HALL
PRESENT: John C. Broom, Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee,
Jesse Norris and Mayor Kenneth E. Schwartz
ABSENT: None
PRESENT:.. J.H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; R.D. Miller, Administrative
Officer; E.L. Rodgers, Chief of Police; D.F. Romero,
City Engineer; A.J. Shaw, City Attorney; David Williamson,
Assistant Administrative Officer
Members of the Citizens Advisory Committee
PRESENT: Charles Dills, Chairman; Foster Gruber, Alice Welliver,
Shirlev Horton
Members of the Human Relations Commission
PRESENT: Rick Islay, Louis Giuffrida; Patricia Barlow, Chairwoman;
Mike Reynolds, Walt Lambert, Gail Sorenson, Nadine BeDell,
Bill Greenelsh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' 1. A joint meeting with the representatives of the Citizens Advisory
Committee to discuss the proposed Conflict of Interest ordinance, which was
continued from the October 14, 1974 meeting.
The City Council discussed with the members of the Citizens Advisory Committee
the proposed ordinance on conflict of interest, Sections 1 through 4, and
also Section 5, Board of Review.
Section 1 listed the objectives of the ordinance, which was to help City
officials and employees in achieving a standard of conduct:
1. Inasmuch as the public judges its government by the way its officials
and employees conduct themselves in the posts to which they have been
elected or appointed, the people have a right to expect that each
official and employee will conduct himself or herself in a manner
that will tend to preserve public confidence in and respect for the
government entity or agency which he or she represents.
2. Such confidence and respect can best be promoted if every official
and employee, whether elected or appointed, will uniformly:
A. Treat all citizens with courtesy, fairness, impartiality,
and equality under the law, and
B. Avoid both actual and potential conflicts between their private
self- interest and the public interest and trust.
It was also established in Section 1 that the provisions of Section 3601 of
the California Government Code would be a part of this ordinance.
Section 2 listed the definitions.
Citv Council Minutes
November 11, 1974
Page 3
Section 3 contained the conflict of interest. This section of the ordinance
would apply equally to:
1. All elected and appointed officials and employees of the City,
full or part time;
?. All members of permanent or ad hoc advisory boards, committees,
commissions, or authorities of the City;
3. All consultants or advisors retained by the City on a specific
time or task basis, unless otherwise exempted.
It was expected that each would conduct himself or herself in a manner that
would take into account the public image being established.
It then said that no official, employee, consultant, or advisor should
have economic interests which would be in conflict with the proper exercise
of his or her official duties and powers. This part of the ordinance then
continued to define this section more clearly.
In item 3, it was stated that no official or employee should incur suspicion
of unethical conduct by:
1. Recommending or lobbying for the adoption or defeat of any City
legislation or for the institution or defense of any legal or
quasi -legal City action whatever in which he or she had or may have
a direct or indirect economic or private interest. This was not to
be construed as prohibiting any City employee or authorized repre-
sentative of any recognized employee body or agency from appearing
before the City Council or any other agency of the City in behalf of
any employee group or endeavor, provided any benefits to be derived
from such appearance are shared by all members of such group or
endeavor.
2. Granting or making available to any person any treatment, consideration,
advantage, or favor beyond that which is made available to members of the
public.
3. Requesting, using, or permitting to be used any publicly -owned or
publicly- supported property, vehicle, equipment, labor, or service
for the personal convenience or for the private advantage of himself,
herself, or any other person. This shall not be construed as pro-
hibiting any such person identified with the City from requesting,
using, or permitting to be used such publicly -owned or publicly- supported
property, vehicle, equipment, material, labor, or service which it is
the practice to make available to the public at large, or which are
provided as a matter of stated public policy for the use of such
persons identified with the City in their conduct of City business.
4. Disclosing, without prior formal authorization of the City Personnel
Officer, any confidential personal information or permitting the use
of such confidential information to advance the economic or personal
interest of himself, herself, or any other person or entity.
Section 4 was the disclosure of interests and listed the various officials who
would be required to come under the proposed ordinance.
The City Council and members of the Citizens Advisory Committee reviewed in
detail making various word changes, interpretative changes, etc. in Sections 1 t
through 4 of the proposed ordinance.
Mayor Schwartz declared the public hearing open.
David Hughes, Attorney, stated it was his understanding that Proposition 9,
which would take effect on January 1, 1975, would replace Government Code
Sections 3601 through 3760, now in existence. Further, he stated that any
City ordinance on conflict of interest must be approved by a State Commission
before it could be effective. He hoped the City Council was just not passing
laws that were popular at the moment rather than trying to come up with the
proper decision.
City Council Minutes
November 11, 1974
Page 3
A.J. Shaw, City Attorney, agreed with the comments made by David Hughes, stating
that the people of California had voted some major changes in the conflict of
interest laws, and there was a possibility that the City ordinance would not
comply with the new law.
Tim Beedle,.former member of the Citizens Advisory Committee, stated he
was in support of the ordinance as proposed by the Citizens Advisory Committee.
He also felt that a provision for some type of Board of Review must be appointed
to supervise people's morals, ethics, and honesty.
On motion of Councilman Norris, seconded by Councilman Brown that the City
Attorney be instructed to finalize the draft of the ordinance for a future
Council meeting on Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4. Motion carried, all ayes.
The City Council and Citizens Advisory Committee then reviewed Sections 5 and 6
dealing with the Board of Review, establishing the Board, setting forth rules
and regulations, outlining membership and operation. Section 6 stated the
enforcement provisions of the code.
The City Attorney reported to the City Council that this was one area of the
ordinance he felt would be the most susceptible to abuse and to court inter -
pretation and interference. Therefore, he felt that if this section were
passed, it should be passed-as a separate ordinance so as not to interfere
with the first four sections, just adopted in principle by the City Council.
The City Clerk brought to the Council's attention the matter of Section 5,
Paragraph 3B and 3C, which allowed written or verbal complaints against
individuals for conduct in opposition to the principles of this code, but yet
at no time may the complainant or the person bringing charges be known to the
person who was complained about. He felt this was a weakness in the ordinance,
and that at some time in this procedure the person who was being accused of
wrong doing should be allowed to face his accusor in public, because it was
easy to make statements and charges against public officials based either on
fact or on some.misinterpretation and at no time would the public official or
employee ever have a chance to face that person, yet the news media would
pick up rummors that a certain person.or official was under investigation for
alleged crimes that may be only an interpretation or may be a personal attack
by an individual against an official's capacity. Regardless of when the
charges were made, at some time everyone should be aware of who was making
charges against whom.
After discussion of the City Clerk's comments, the last section of paragraphs
3B and 3C were deleted so that at the filing of the report by the Board of
Review the person making complaints would be known and filed in the official
records of the City.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Mayor Schwartz the City Council
directed the City Attorney to finalize Sections 5 and 6 based on the public
hearing and discussion, and return to the City Council for further consider-
ation. Motion carried on the.following vote:
AYES: Councilman Gurnee, Mayor Schwartz, and Councilman Graham
NOES: Councilmen Brown and Norris
Councilman Morris stated he was-opposed to the Board of Review as conceived
by the Citizens Advisory Committee as he felt it was the duty of the City
Council to hear complaints on personnel, public officers, and members of
various boards and commissions who had violated any trust in their official
capacity.
9:25 Mayor Schwartz declared a recess.
ABSENT: None
Councilman Brown stated he was
opposed to the
Board of Review as proposed by
the Citizens Advisory Committee
as he felt it
would be used as a witch- hunting
group, but he would support the
concept of an
ombudsman who would take
complaints of citizens and try
to follow them
through to see just what was
happening.
Councilman Morris stated he was-opposed to the Board of Review as conceived
by the Citizens Advisory Committee as he felt it was the duty of the City
Council to hear complaints on personnel, public officers, and members of
various boards and commissions who had violated any trust in their official
capacity.
9:25 Mayor Schwartz declared a recess.
City Council 'Minutes
November 11, 1974
Page 4
9:40 P.M. The meeting reconvened with all council members present.
2. At this time the City Council met with the Human Relations
Commission to discuss mutual problems, such as exploration of the City's
reorganization plan, the relationship between the City and Cal Poly, Countv
and City revenue sharing plans, the problems related to TGIF's, and the City
Housing Code..
The City Council discussed in detail the City -Cal Poly relationship dealing
with the housing of students, their impact on the housing market, trans-
portation, recreation, police,.and public works all based on an estimated student
population of 15,000, and the estimated population in 1950.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Norris that the City
Council resolve that California Polytechnic State University be required to
prepare an Environmental Impact Report on any increase in enrollment at the
University and for their ultimate enrollment and its effect upon the City's
facilities to handle such growth.
Mayor Schwartz left the meeting due to possible conflict, Councilman Brown
assumed the chair.
After discussion by the City Council, Councilman Gurnee withdrew his motion
with the approval of Councilman Norris.
Mayor Schwartz returned to the Council meeting and the matter of the E.I.P.
requirements for California Polytechnic State University growth was continued
to the meeting of December 2, 1974.
As far as TGIF's were concerned, Mrs. Barlow, Chairwoman of the Human Relations
Commission, stated that the Interfraternity Council had declared a moratorium
on TGIF's in the fraternity operated area for this quarter and hoped that these
matters would be solved by the spring quarter.
The City Council continued discussing various areas of mutual concern with the
Human Relations Commission.
3. A communication from Councilman Gurnee to the City Council requesting
that the City Council adopt a resolution requiring that all staff and depart-
ment heads submit agenda items and any and all reports concerning agenda items
for subsequent Council meetings by 5 p..m. on the lVednesday preceding each
Monday Council meeting. It was the intent of the resolution to-minimize the
disturbance caused by items brought tardily before the Council. The
resolution requested would allow only exceptions of utmost urgency and
emergency, where waiting would endanger the public health, safety, and welfare.
lie asked his fellow councilmen to consider this matter as the City Clerk had
attempted to have all departments prepare these items by deadline time, but
the Council was aware that most of the important items were placed on their
desk on the night of the Council meeting, or delivered at 4 or 5 p.m., giving
little time for Council study.
The Council agreed with the comments of Councilman Gurnee, and then stated
this was their intent and policy in adopting their agenda policy and asked
that it be adhered to.
4. The City Clerk
reported on the
following bids received for motor
vehicles for the Police
Department. Bids
opened November 6, 1974 at 10 a.m.
ITEMS 1 THRU
5 (Sedan)
STANLEY MOTORS, INC.
$4,097.35
Bid Price
1330 Monterev Street
475.00
Less Trade
San Luis Obispo
$3,622.35
Net Price
City Council Minutes
November 11, 1974
Page 5
DEVIATIONS
Heavy duty, all vinyl trim available in black or gold only.
Federal regulations do not permit deactivating of rear door handles.
Color coded dash to match interior only.
Electric clock not available due to engine oil pressure and temperature
gages being standard..
Five (5) GR 70 x 15 BSW fabric belted radial ply police special tires
available for $39.00 less. Delivery: 60 - 90 days from receipt of order.
ITEMS 1 THRU 5 (Sedan)
HYSEN - JOHNSON FORD, INC. $4,531.55 Bid Price
2200 Los Osos Road 450.00 Less Trade
San Luis Obispo $4,081.55 Net Price
DEVIATIONS
Tires would be HR 78 x 15 BSW "Police Special" tires (non- steel).
It was recommended by the Administrative Officer that the low bid of Stanley
Motors in the total amount of $19,340.95 including tax be accepted, and that
Account No. 80 41 -4050 -000 be increased by $1,840.95.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Brown the low bid of
Stanley Motors was accepted. Motion carried.
APPROVED: January 6, 1975
1,4f.-Fit_z`patYick, City Clerk
5. The City Attorney, A.J. Shaw, recommended that the City Council
reject the claim of Charles Barrios Gonzales, Sam Wesley Berry, and Henry
Lee Battle for alleged violations to the California Vehicle Code Section 23102
rather than submit it to the insurance company for their consideration.
On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman Gurnee that the City
Council reject the claim of Gonzales, Berry, and Battle under the provisions
of Section 910 of the Government Code. Motion carried, all ayes.
6. The Administrative Officer, Richard D. Miller, brought to the City
Council's attention the need for approval of a purchase order in the amount
of $10,739.24 for miscellaneous fittings to be used on the cross -town feeder
project, and to be supplied by Taylor -Jet Company during the week of
November 15, 1974.
These fittings were part of the contract with U.S. Pipe and Foundry, who
now cannot supply them and because-of the lack of these fittings the City
had been unable to start three phases of the cross -town feeder project. The
contractor, R. Baker Construction, was being damaged by the delay of these
fittings and the City was responsible for providing them, and could be
obligated to pay damages.
In order to prevent further damages to the construction company, prevent
unnecessary cost to the City, and expedite the completion of the project the
City found another source for these fittings which would be supplied for the
cost listed. This was the only source available.
On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Brown the purchase
order in the amount of $10,739.24 was approved as an urgency matter a single
source supplier, no time to bid due to the conditions-of the present contract.
7. The City Council adjourned to Executive Session.
S. The City Council adjourned to Thursday, November 14, 1974 at
12 noon to discuss Ordinance No. 604, on motion of Councilman Graham, seconded
by Councilman Gurnee, all ayes.
APPROVED: January 6, 1975
1,4f.-Fit_z`patYick, City Clerk