Model City Charter Revision Project - Eighth Edition

Option Memo

Issue: Ethics

Seventh Edition: Section 7.01(a) states "(a) Conflicts of Interest. The use of public office for private gain is prohibited. The city council shall implement this prohibition by ordinance. Regulations to this end shall include but not be limited to: acting in an official capacity on matters in which the official has a private financial interest clearly separate from that of the general public; the acceptance of gifts and other things of value; acting in a private capacity on matters dealt with as a public official, the use of confidential information; and appearances by city officials before other city agencies on behalf of private interests. This ordinance shall provide for reasonable public disclosure of finances by officials with major decision-making authority over monetary expenditures and contractual matters and, insofar as permissible under state law, shall provide for fines and imprisonment for violations."

Proposed Ethics Provisions: While the ethics provisions in the charter are of good quality, they could include other issues that would make the provisions more comprehensive. The following areas should be considered:

• a purpose for the ethics provisions that justifies and explains their importance;
• the hiring of relatives;
• employment before, during, and after becoming an official or city employee; and,
• a provision allowing citizen complaints and protective screening out of frivolous complaints.

Finally, an innovative ethics/campaign finance hybrid should be considered that requires officials to recuse themselves from taking direct official action with respect to any campaign donor who gave more than a threshold dollar amount.

Explanation of Ethics Provisions: A model of good government should have fully developed provisions dealing with the ethical expectations essential to responsible government. Ethics provisions foster public trust in the integrity of city government and serve as a check on improper or abusive behavior by city officials and employees. Corrupt practices in government create fundamental dysfunction. Beyond the provisions in the seventh edition, the following should be added.

(1) A purpose provision would state the city's commitment to ethical government, and justifies the subsequent regulations, which may be helpful if court challenges are brought.

(2) A ban on the hiring of relatives by city officials and employees would speak for itself. The practice of hiring relatives creates cynicism and distrust in the public. The public does not want familial relationships elevated over qualifications and merit as criteria for hiring.

(3)(a) Provisions affecting prior employment would not be intended to punish new officials and employees for their prior work. Instead, the provision should prevent new government officials and employees from taking direct official action involving their previous employer for a period of at least six months.

(3)(b) Provisions affecting outside employment would apply to both appointed officials and employees. It would not ban such outside employment, it merely requires disclosure of it to the appointing authority which can then decide, based on the circumstances, whether such employment is compatible with ethical conduct of the duties of government service.

(3)(c) Provisions affecting subsequent employment would require a time period where a past official or employee can not be employed by an employer over which he or she had taken direct official action while in government service. This would help prevent, for example, a city official with oversight of a major telecommunications company from going to work for that company immediately after leaving.

[Proposed provisions (1), (2), and (3)(a-c) would appear as new clauses in 7.01(a)]

(4) A citizen complaint would allow citizens and citizens' groups to have a meaningful watchdog role in their local government. A provision that screens out frivolous complaints will help ensure that the system is not abused. 7.01(b) could be amended to read "conduct investigations on its own initiative and on referral or complaint FROM OFFICIALS OR CITIZENS, …."

(5) A conflict of interest approach to campaign finance is appealing because it focuses attention on campaign contributions as creating conflicts of interest and potential for corruption - both acceptable justifications for regulation of money given to public officials. It also weaves the concept of campaign regulation together with ethics efficiently, even naturally. Some cities feel compelled to carve out a campaign exception, specifying that their ethics codes do not apply to campaign contributions, even as the other provisions in the ethics code regulate the flow of money and financial interests to officials and employees. The proposed approach explicitly eliminates this exception. Westminster, Colorado, uses this approach, with a $100 contribution recusal threshold. Since 1996, when the law was enacted, a high proportion of contributions have been under $100, and the total amount of money raised and spent in elections has decreased.

Options: The Committee should decide whether to include one or more of the following ethics provisions by the end of the June 12 meeting:

1. A statement of purpose.
2. A ban on the hiring of relatives by officials or city employees.
3. Regulations affecting
   1. prior,
   2. outside, and
   3. subsequent employment.
4. A provision allowing a citizen complaint.
5. A provision requiring that an official not participate in official action involving a donor who gives more than a specified amount to an official's campaign.