Loading...
11/11/1974Pledge 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