Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994_06_23 Board of Ethics Minutes • BOARDETHICSmin 1 23 June 1994 At a regular/special meeting of the Town of Mamaroneck (TOM) Board of Ethics (BOE), held on 22 June 1994, at Conference Room A, Mamaroneck Town Center, 740 West Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, New York, meeting called to order by Chair. at 8:15 PM. Present: Anna Reisman, Chair. John Herz Robert P. Degen Barry Weprin, Liaison Absent: Nina Recio Carol Miller Levy No minutes. No reports. Chair.: Welcome to two new members - i.e. Degen, Weprin. encourages input and experience from both. Commence with agenda. Two issues: (sheet attached) Disclosure statements have only recently been mailed. When enough are received will arrange meeting. Issue A: Town Clerk's Office committed to BOE by Supervisor Price after Councilwomen O'Keeffe raised possibility that issue was "potential conflict of interest." O'Keeffe also hoped that BOE would make recommendations stating "clear policies for the hiring" [of all employees] to avoid the appearances of, or actual, conflicts of interest. Chair.: states Town Clerk DiCioccio wished to be present to explain circumstances surrounding hiring of son -unable to attend. Encourages discussion. Weprin: states employment position in question is nearly expired with work completed. Stresses issue is more about a policy for future hire than about this specific hiring. Herz: Issue is about "disclosure" With proper disclosure for all paid personnel the TOM Board (TB) can make properly informed decision. Herz: ? Who does hiring? TOM Supervisor or Board in total. Weprin: The entire Board votes on [all] positions. Recommendations made by department heads and administrator but must all be approved by Board. Degen: Suggests that a formal statement be completed by all prospective employees stating their affiliations with paid or elected employees of the TOM. Weprin: Since consensus has been agreed upon by BOE as to pre-hiring statement. Suggests that a statement be given by BOE as to why the BOE is not suggesting a complete prohibition of the hiring of relatives or friends of present employees/officials. BOARDETHICSmin 2 Chair.: The general feeling is that moat of the hiring will not present any problems. If a problem does arise it can be resolved by TB at the time to vote to approve hiring. Emphasize the usefulness of prior knowledge of relationships through the suggest statements. Herz: Has no problem with hiring of qualified applicants that may have relationships as long as those relationships are disclosed. Degen: Need to agree that in a small community a person should not be punished because of a relationship but should be expected to disclose such a relationship. Weprin: Specific situations can be evaluated on a case'by case basis and if problems develop, or there is an objection, than issue can be committed to BOE prior to hiring, unlike this case which is now mute (job completed). Chair.: DISPOSITION Each prospective employee should be supplied by prospective employer (dept. head or admin.) with a statement that asks prospective employee to enumerate and to disclose each relationship, if any, with employees of TOM, elected and hired, familial and other. With this statement each member of TB can make informed and comfortable decision prior to voting and this statement will also serve as part of the public record thus removing any possibility of an appearance of impropriety. Issue B Fire Department committed by O'Keeffe requesting BOE to evaluate the possibility of a conflict in granting contracts for goods and services to the volunteers and employees of the TOM. Hopes to have recommendation for the development of "clear policies for determining the permissibility of employees and volunteers doing business with the TOM." Weprin: issue seems to be, again, whether a person with a relationship with the TOM can also be paid for services rendered to the TOM. Degen: in agreement that the present arrangement does give the strong appearance of a conflict of interest if Fire Department Chief acting as administrator of the agency is assigning employment contacts to a business in which he has a significant ownership interest and is, in fact, his sole livelihood. This, however, should not exclude all volunteers from being offered payment for services that they are capable of performing, most times related to their livelihood. The problem is with the administrator of the department taking contracts. Herz: ? Is there a bidding procedure established for such department contracts. Weprin/Chair.: Yes, exists in "Purchasing Procedures" (Ch.3). (copy evaluated by members) consensus: ambiguity may exist in §3.3. a,b. for claims between $751.00 and $2500.00 procedure entails submitting requisition form and waiting for approval and the clause "if possible" price quotations should be made available from three different vendors. "if possible" is vague enough to be ignored. Degen: the only manner in which this practice i.e. FD chief contracting with TOM, could continue is through a fair bidding process in which sealed bids are submitted for all work that is not considered "emergency" work - - I • BOARDETHICSmin 3 Herz: ? What is "emergency?" Weprin/Chair.: Emergency would involve work that had to be completed immediately because of • safety, communications, etc. Thus, bidding process would have to be disregarded in these instances. - Degen: Perhaps the administrator would be the only one who could authorize such emergency work. It would involve only a telephone call. Weprin: Agreed with above. Also agreed with the establishment of a bidding process for such contracts. Degen: If even after fair bids are taken for contracts and it appears to any member of the TB that one person, namely a volunteer or worse the administrator of a volunteer division of TOM is being granted a disproportionate number of contracts, than the issue can be re-committed to the BOE for further evaluation. Weprin/Degen: It does not make much sense to exclude volunteers from contracting with the TOM by virtue of their volunteer status, a necessary and beneficial facet of the TOM. This would appear as punishment for volunteering. Where no conflict exists, according to the Code, it seems at this time that no volunteer should be precluded from contracting. Degen: Perhaps, the greater appearance of conflict comes from the deputy chief acting as administrator of the division and contracting, in effect, with himself to do be compensated for performing work. Perhaps it is in the administrative capacity that the conflict develops and not in the mere status' as volunteer. The administrator makes decisions and thus it may appear that s/he may have the divergent concerns that this BOE is mandated to make suggestions to avoid. Chair.: DISPOSITION to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest and an actual conflict of interest the BOE suggest that a clear policy be established for the contracting of service employees. This may include .amending some sections of the "Purchasing Procedures." All work that the administrator expects to be above a certain dollar amount (decided on by TB and/or included in "Purchasing Procedures") should be sent out to bid. The bidding procedure must be of the standard fair version. Only in situations that are verified as "emergencies" by the TOM administrator can this bidding procedure be avoided. If any TB member has questions about or objections to any contractor obtaining more than a reasonable number of contracts or there appears to be a possibility of a conflict of interest the issue can be re-committed to the BOE. The 80E does not think that all volunteers should be excluded from all contracting with the TOM, perhaps only those in administrative capacity should be forbidden from contracting while in office or for a certain time after, this is left to the TB to decide or can be re-committed. We all understand the importance of volunteers in this community. BOE feels that volunteers should not be punished because they are volunteers. The Code recognizes volunteers as employees for the purpose of the Code. / Problems or the potential for problems come from a volunteer acting as administrator sometime and volunteer other times. There must be a clear distinction between those two circumstances and fairness must be upheld despite someone's status as a volunteer. / r BOARDETHICSmin 4 Ill/ Issue C: (not on agenda) possibility of a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest existing in the present status of the members of the two ambulance corps serving as presidents of their respective corps., serving on the tri-municipal ambulance board, and being compensated for professional services rendered, i.e. as paid paramedics. issue raised by Degen - volunteer corp. member and member of the corporation's board of directors. Degen: asks that the BOE examine the issue to determine if there is a conflict or the appearance of the conflict. Chair.: unfamiliar with present organization of ambulance corp. • needs explication of differences between paid personnel and volunteer. Does status as volunteer present problem if member does accept compensation for other activities? Degen: those members who had formerly volunteered as ALS (advanced life support) providers, i.e. paramedics, have since started to accept payment for services. The problem, as far as concerned now, is not with every paramedic member being paid, it is with those in the administrative capacity that may cause a conflict / appearance of conflict. Divergent interests could develop. The Code seems clear in its attempt to avoid occasion for conflict. As it stands now, and this is in the developing stages, it appears that it could cause a conflict. It would be advisable to refine the policy at this stage before a conflict does develop. Much like the situation in Issue B. (above) the problem seemed to be more about the deputy chief (FD C "administrator") soliciting and accepting contracts to a company in which he had a significant ownership interest. Weprin: Suggests contacting Cnclmn. P. Ryan, re. VAC liaison, also suggest that a formal question with presentation of issues and facts and development of the idea of a conflict be prepared by Degen and sent to members of BOE for review prior to next meeting. Chair.: agrees with Weprin, still unclear as to relationship and new administrative status. Herz: would also like to have more time to review issue. Thanks Degen for bringing issue to table. Chair.: N DISPO� issue "C" tabled until next regular meeting. Next meeting scheduled for Thursday, 14 July 1994 at 7:30 PM, Conference Room A. meeting adjourned 9:05 PM all discussi n paraphrased for brevity and clarity ;i)clerked d r corded by Degen