Ethics Board — Green Bay, WI
Date: 2022-05-12
Time: 17:00

AGENDA OF THE ETHICS BOARD
 THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2022, 5:00 PM
 Virtual Meeting. Public may join via Zoom.


A. Zoom Meeting Instructions.

 1. This item contains Zoom information for the May 12th Ethics Board meeting, instructions,
 and a link to the Virtual Comment Form.

B. Roll Call.

 1. William Vande Castle, Chair; Aaron Weinschenk, Vice Chair; Alder Bill Galvin; Cheryl
 Renier-Wigg; Said Hassan; Janet Hathaway

C. Approval of the Agenda.

 1. Approval of the Agenda for the May 12, 2022 Ethics Board Meeting.

D. Approval of Minutes.

 1. Approval of the Minutes from the April 28, 2022 Ethics Board meeting.

E. Regular Business.

 1. Consideration with possible action on General Ordinance 18-22, repealing and recreating
 Chapter 2, Article IX, Green Bay Municipal Code, relating to Ethics.

F. Adjournment.




 1) THIS MEETING IS RECORDED: THE VIDEO OF THIS MEETING AND MINUTES ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE
 AT www.greenbaywi.gov
 2) ACCESSIBILITY: Any person wishing to attend who requires special accommodation because of a disability,
 should contact the City Safety Manager at 920-448-3125 at least 48 hours before the scheduled meeting time so
 that arrangements can be made.



Agenda of the Ethics Board
May 12, 2022
Page 1
 3) QUORUM: Please take notice that a majority or quorum of the Common Council will attend this Ethics Board
 meeting and will constitute a meeting of the Common Council for purposes of discussion and information
 gathering relative to this agenda.
 4) REPRESENTATION: The party requesting the communication, or their representative, should be present at this
 meeting.




Agenda of the Ethics Board
May 12, 2022
Page 2

AGENDA OF THE ETHICS BOARD
 THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2022, 5:00 PM
 Virtual Meeting. Public may join via Zoom.


A. Zoom Meeting Instructions.

 1. This item contains Zoom information for the May 12th Ethics Board meeting, instructions,
 and a link to the Virtual Comment Form.

B. Roll Call.

 1. William Vande Castle, Chair; Aaron Weinschenk, Vice Chair; Alder Bill Galvin; Cheryl
 Renier-Wigg; Said Hassan; Janet Hathaway

C. Approval of the Agenda.

 1. Approval of the Agenda for the May 12, 2022 Ethics Board Meeting.

D. Approval of Minutes.

 1. Approval of the Minutes from the April 28, 2022 Ethics Board meeting.

E. Regular Business.

 1. Consideration with possible action on General Ordinance 18-22, repealing and recreating
 Chapter 2, Article IX, Green Bay Municipal Code, relating to Ethics.

F. Adjournment.




 1) THIS MEETING IS RECORDED: THE VIDEO OF THIS MEETING AND MINUTES ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE
 AT www.greenbaywi.gov
 2) ACCESSIBILITY: Any person wishing to attend who requires special accommodation because of a disability,
 should contact the City Safety Manager at 920-448-3125 at least 48 hours before the scheduled meeting time so
 that arrangements can be made.



Agenda of the Ethics Board
May 12, 2022
Page 1
 3) QUORUM: Please take notice that a majority or quorum of the Common Council will attend this Ethics Board
 meeting and will constitute a meeting of the Common Council for purposes of discussion and information
 gathering relative to this agenda.
 4) REPRESENTATION: The party requesting the communication, or their representative, should be present at this
 meeting.




Agenda of the Ethics Board
May 12, 2022
Page 2
Virtual Meeting Instructions
Ethics Board 5/12/2022
Zoom Meeting Information

  Join Zoom Meeting
  https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85784478631?pwd=M3lKZjFsQVZSSWlHYWlkdmRkeHRWQT09

  Meeting ID: 857 8447 8631
  Passcode: 249864


  One tap mobile
  +19292056099,,85784478631#,,,,*249864# US (New York)
  +13017158592,,85784478631#,,,,*249864# US (Washington DC)

  Dial by your location
 +1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
 +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
 +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
 +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
 +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
 +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
  Meeting ID: 857 8447 8631
  Passcode: 249864
  Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kclpBlnTnU
Public Comments
  If you wish to speak at this public meeting or leave a comment, please fill out the online
  Comment Form prior to the meeting.

Additional Information
  1. Wisconsin Open Meetings Law still applies
 a. Persons interested in speaking to an item must state their name and address for
 the minutes.
 b. Committee/Commission/Board members will still follow Roberts Rules of Order
 Newly Revised 12th edition.
  2. Please log into the Zoom meeting at least 10 minutes before the meeting begins to
 ensure a proper connection and that your technology is working.
 a. If you are a Board Member, please log into CivicClerk with a computer, laptop, or
 tablet device.
  3. Once you are in the meeting please mute yourself.
 a. You may unmute yourself when you are called upon to speak.
  4. Waiting room
 a. When you call in or connect via web or Zoom app, you will be placed in a
 “waiting room.”
 b. The meeting host will then admit you to the meeting, and mute you upon
 entrance (you will still be able to hear and or otherwise observe the meeting).
  5. Registering
 a. The host may ask you to register for the meeting. A registration link will be sent to
 you along with the invite. You’ll receive another email confirming that you’re
 registered for the meeting.
 b. If you’re using a phone, your registration will be tied to an email.
  6. Raising your hand
 a. Committee/Commission/Board members—you can either use CivicClerk and
 request to speak or you can also utilize the “raise your hand” tool in the Zoom
 platform (you’d need to use a computer or tablet) to let the host know you would
 like to speak. You can also un-mute yourself and start speaking.
 b. Persons with items on the agenda or other interested parties —you can also utilize
 the “raise your hand” tool on the Zoom platform via computer or mobile device.
 You will be allowed to speak once the committee, commission, or board has
 moved to “open the floor for interested parties to speak.” Once discussion on
 your agenda item has concluded, the host will mute you, unless the committee
 opens the floor again.
  7. What devices should I use?
 a. Smart phone (please see more detailed instructions on page 3)
 b. Land line
 c. Tablet— in advance of the meeting, please download the Zoom Meeting app by
 using either the Apple Store or the Play Store. You will be asked to input your
 name, to identify you for the meeting.
 d. Computer— you can access the meeting through a web browser by clicking on
 the meeting link, or through the Zoom Meeting app. If using the app, please
 download it in advance of the meeting. You will be asked to input your name, to
 identify yourself for the meeting.
 e. For tablet and computer users--if you download the app you may be asked to
 verify your email.
  8. Zoom etiquette
 a. Muting yourself when you’re not speaking will prevent your background noise from
 interfering with others’ ability to listen to and participate in the meeting.
 b. If you’re using a telephone, please identify yourself with your phone number and
 state your name and address before you speak. Zoom meeting hosts can see
 only your telephone number and will ask you to identify yourself.
  9. Closed session
 a. Persons in the Zoom meeting will be put into a waiting room while the
 committee/commission/board meets in Closed Session. Participants will be
 admitted back into the Zoom meeting once the committee reconvenes in Open
 Session.
 b. Persons watching a Common Council meeting live on YouTube will see a gray
 screen with the City logo during closed session.
  10. Persons interested in attending anonymously or listening to the meeting may call in by
 dialing *67 followed by the phone number in the Zoom Meeting Information box.

Calling into the Zoom meeting using a smartphone
  1. Dial the phone number listed at the beginning of this document.
  2. When prompted, enter the Meeting ID number followed by #
  3. Once you are in the meeting, notify the meeting host that you are in and state your
 name.
  4. If you do not wish to speak, please make sure your phone is on Mute
 a. If you’re using a smartphone, look at your screen and click the Mute button
 MINUTES OF THE ETHICS BOARD
 THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2022, 5:00 PM
 Virtual Meeting. Public may join via Zoom.


 A. ZOOM MEETING INSTRUCTIONS.

1. This item contains documents which provide call in information and instructions for the Zoom
meeting.

 B. ROLL CALL.

1. William Vande Castle, Chair; Aaron Weinschenk, Vice Chair; Alder Bill Galvin; Cheryl Renier-
Wigg; Said Hassan; Janet Hathaway
Present: Chair William VandeCastle, Vice Chair Aaron Weinschenk, Alder Bill Galvin, Cheryl Renier-
Wigg, Janet Hathaway.

 C. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

1. Approval of the Agenda for the April 28, 2022 Ethics Board meeting
Moved by Ald. Bill Galvin, seconded by Staff Cheryl Renier-Wigg to approve the agenda.
Motion Passed.
Yes- Bill Galvin, William VandeCastle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway, No-
None, Abstain- None.

 D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

1. Approval of the Minutes from the February 24, 2022 Ethics Board meeting
Moved by Ald. Bill Galvin, seconded by Aaron Weinschenk to approve the minutes from February
24, 2022.
Motion Passed.
Yes- Bill Galvin, William VandeCastle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway, No-
None, Abstain- None.

 1
 E. REGULAR BUSINESS.

 1. Deliberation with possible action on the Ethics Complaint filed by Kimber Rollin against Mayor Eric
 Genrich under the City of Green Bay Code of Conduct for Elected Officials

 The Board may convene in closed session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(a), Wis. Stats., for purposes of deliberating concerning a case
 which was the subject of any judicial or quasi-judicial trial or hearing before that governmental body. The Board will thereafter
 reconvene in open session pursuant to Section 19.85(2), Wis. Stats., to take action on items discussed in closed session, if appropriate,
 and to consider the remainder of the agenda.

 Moved by Aaron Weinschenk, seconded by Board Member William VandeCastle to enter closed
 session.
 Motion Passed.
 Yes- Bill Galvin, William VandeCastle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway, No-
 None, Abstain- None.

 Moved by Staff Cheryl Renier-Wigg, seconded by Board Member William VandeCastle to return to
 regular session.
 Motion Passed.
 Yes- Bill Galvin, William VandeCastle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway, No-
 None, Abstain- None.

 Moved by Aaron Weinschenk, seconded by Board Member William VandeCastle to approve Findings
 of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision.
 Motion Passed.
 Yes- Bill Galvin, William VandeCastle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway, No-
 None, Abstain- None.

 2. Schedule next Board meeting for discussion of revised ethics ordinance
 Next Ethics Board meeting will be May 12, 2022 to discuss revised ethics code

 F. ADJOURNMENT.

Moved by Aaron Weinschenk, seconded by Staff Cheryl Renier-Wigg to adjourn.
Motion Passed.
Yes- Bill Galvin, William VandeCastle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway, No-
None, Abstain- None.

 VERBATIM MINUTES
- Go ahead.

- All right, so we're ready to start?

- Hmm.

- Do we have a quorum?

- Yes.
 2
- All right, very good. So, we are started, this is the city of Green Bay Ethics Board meeting for
Thursday, April 28th, 2022. This meeting is being conducted via Zoom, and we have an agenda. We've
got roll call electronically. So, we'll move into first action item here, which is approval of the agenda.
You all would've received that in your packet. Are there any additions or modifications to the agenda?

- No.

- Hearing none, is there a motion to approve?

- No, move.

- Is there a second?

- Second.

- We have a motion and a second to approve the agenda for the April 28th, 2022 meeting of the City
of Green Bay Ethics Board all in favor, signify by saying aye.

- [Panel] Aye.

- Aye.

- Any oppose? Hearing none, motion carries. Item D, approval of minutes from the February 24th,
2022 Ethics Board meeting. That was also in your packet. Are there any additions or corrections to
those minutes? Good, hearing none, I forgot, is there a motion to approve?

- Motion to approve.

- Is there a second? All right, you have a motion and a second. And I'd just like to say, having read
through those minutes, Aaron, nice job conducting that meeting. That was a complicated set of
procedural things to go through and it was done very well, nicely done, very good. All right, all in favor
of approval of those minutes from February 24 signified by saying aye.

- [Panel] Aye.

- Any opposed? Motion carries. Item E. Excuse me. Deliberation of possible action on ethics complaint
filed by Kimber Rollin against Mayor Eric Genrich under the City of Green Bay Code of Conduct for
elected officials. So, we will be considering going into closed sessions, so, I will read that provision from
the statute. It states the following, "The board may convene in closed session pursuant to section 19.85
.8. of the Wisconsin statutes for the purpose of deliberating concerning the case, which was the subject
of any judicial or hearing before that governmental body. The board will thereafter reconvene an open
session pursuant to 19. of the Wisconsin statutes to take action on any items discussed and close the
session if appropriate and to consider the remainder of the agenda." And just before we take a vote,
I'm going into closed session, I'd like to say that as chair, I think this meeting was scheduled sooner, I
know attorney May was out of town for a while and then I ended up being out of the office for most of
March and early April. So, this was as soon as we could get it available when have a quorum, so my
apologies. So, we've a consideration to go into closed session is there a motion to go into closed
 3
session?

- Motion.

- Alright, I'll make the second for that. And so to do that, we need a roll call vote. So , you wanna call
the roll on that?

- You bet. Alder Galvin.

- Aye.

- VandeCastle.

- Aye.

- Miss Reiner-Wigg.

- Aye.

- Mr. Weinschenk.

- Aye.

- Ms. Hathaway.

- Yes, aye.

- That passes, it's five to zero.

- All right. So, as soon as we get everybody separated in their appropriate rooms, we'll go into closed
session.

- Okay and I'm going to do breakout rooms this time, so that I don't have to leave my office 'cause I
gotta keep running.

- Okay. Very good. We are coming out of closed session, is there a motion to return to open session.
Cheryl. All right, you have a motion and I will make the second to come out of closed session. All in
favor, signify by saying aye.

- [Panel] Aye.

- All right. Any opposed? Motion carries. We are back in open session. All right, for the record, we've
been in closed session in a discussion. Is there a motion from the board with respect to the findings and
conclusions of law and decision that was discussed with the changes?

- I'll make the motion.

- And I will second that motion. So, the motion on the floor is to approve the findings-
 4
- Bill Lindsey?

- We're good, thank you. I'm just making sure it was a motion to approve.

- Yeah, motion to approve, yes. The findings of fact conclusions of law in decision of the Ethics Board in
regard to Ms. Rowland's complaint against mayor Genrich with the changes that were discussed in
closed session. So, we have a motion and a second, any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the
motion signify by saying aye.

- [Panel] Aye.

- Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion carries. So, based on the discussion in closed session, we will
be issuing a full set of findings of fact conclusions of law and a written decision regarding those findings
and conclusions but the substance of that decision is that because the complaint was found to be
deficient under the provisions of section 8 of the code of conduct for the city of Green Bay elected
officials and because it alleges actions that are not encompassed by the code of conduct, that complaint
is hereby dismissed. And again, the full findings of fact, be a document about four pages in length listing
the findings and the conclusions of law that, that decision was based on, as soon as the revised draft
that was discussed in closed session tonight is made available, it will be entered into the record and
provided to all the parties. All right. Anything further on this issue from the board before we move on
to item two and regular business? Hearing none. Okay, item two, schedule the next board meeting for
discussion of revised ethics ordinance. Lindsey, is that something you wanna work out with the board
as to when we could get together next or do you wanna set a date now?

- I would like us to or like you all to discuss a date that works. I wanted to do this while attorney May
was here because he's been on outside counsel working on the revisions but we're very excited 'cause
we're very close on presenting you with our ethics ordinance.

- Okay.

- And I will defer to attorney May but I think, relatively soon or relatively quick turnaround time is
appropriate.

- Okay.

- As far as when we would be ready to bring this back. So, it's really going to depend on everyone's
availability as far as that goes. We typically try for Thursday evenings at 5:00, if that continues to work
for everyone.

- Yeah.

- Yeah, if we are gonna do that, I would suggest if it works in people's schedules, either May 12th or
May 19th.

- The 19th doesn't work for me.

- What time are we thinking?
 5
- At 5:00 again. Sorry, Alder, I couldn't hear you.

- I was just mumbling.

- Oh. You're allowed.

- Yeah, the 12th, is fine.

- 12th, works for me as well.

- And for me.

- Okay.

- Yep, 12th, is fine.

- Great, looks like we have a date.

- Fantastic.

- Lindsey, has this ordinance been drafted in a rough form already or is this like discussion starting from
square one?

- No, it's been- Well, attorney May, do you wanna speak to it?

- Sure, it has been drafted. We've gone back and forth. I've had several consultations with the city
attorney's office on the draft. And we would like to have to you hopefully, well, ahead of that meeting a
copy of the draft and we're including some commentary on what is the change, if any, from the existing
code? If there's a change, where did it come from? And why do we think it's important? And hopefully if
you get it it'll give you some time to think about that and be ready to discuss it. I'm sure it'll take more
than one meeting for the board to go through it and figure out where we go with it. But I think the
attorneys are pretty confident that we're in a state where probably sometimes next week, we can get
that out to you.

- Very good. That's something that we've been waiting for, for at least five years.

- Five.

- If not longer.

- I won't say anything about the liquor laws.

- It's next I promise.

- I hope I'm still here by then.

- I've said that to you, how many times now though?
 6
- Yeah, I could have lost this time and then what would that have accomplished?

- Yeah, there you go, yeah.

- What was you asking about Alder Gavin?

- I asked to have the liquor laws revised.

- Oh my God.

- About five, six years ago.

- Yeah, that's a real, well, yeah. I won't comment.

- Yeah.

- Yeah. Okay, so we've got a date for the meeting. Anything more on that issue before we move to
adjournment? No. Is there a motion to adjourn?

- Yes.

- Got a motion, is there a second?

- I'll second.

- All right, motion to adjourn is second. All in favor of adjournment, signify by saying aye.

- [Panel] Aye.

- Looks like the motion carries. Thank you all very much for your time tonight. And hopefully we will
get a new updated current code of conduct here shortly. So, very good. Thank you all. Very good.
Have a good night.

- [Panel] Goodnight.

- Thank you all, goodnight everyone.




 7
 Report to the
 Ethics Board
 of the City of Green Bay


 MEETING DATE PREPARED BY
 May 12, 2022

AGENDA ITEM # E.1
Consideration with possible action on General Ordinance 18-22, repealing and recreating Chapter 2, Article
IX, Green Bay Municipal Code, relating to Ethics.

BACKGROUND


RECOMMENDATION


FISCAL IMPACT


ATTACHMENTS
1. DRAFT Revised Ethics Code with comments




 100 North Jefferson Street, Room 608, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54301-5026
 (p) 920.448.3400 (f) 920.448.3426  greenbaywi.gov
 DRAFT -- GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 18-22

 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RECREATING
 CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE IX, GREEN BAY MUNICIPAL CODE,
 RELATING TO ETHICS

THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GREEN BAY DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:

 SECTION 1. Chapter 2, Article IX, Green Bay Municipal Code, is hereby
repealed and recreated to read:

ARTICLE IX. Ethics.

Sec. 2-321. Declaration of policy.

 The proper operation of democratic government requires that public officials and
employees be independent, impartial, and responsible to the people; that governmental
decisions and policy be made in proper channels of the governmental structure; that
public office not be used for personal gain; and that the public have confidence in the
integrity of its government. To assist in attaining these goals, there is established a
Code of Ethics for all City officials, including members of boards, committees, and
commissions, and employees, whether elected or appointed, paid or unpaid. The
purpose of this code is to establish guidelines for ethical standards of conduct for all
such officials and employees by setting forth those acts or actions which are
incompatible with the best interests of the City and by requiring such officials and
employees to disclose personal interests, financial or otherwise, in matters affecting the
City. The purpose of this code and the rules and regulations established hereby are
declared to be in the public interest. This article may be called the “Code of Ethics.”

 Comment: No change from current sec. 2-321, but see new sec. 2-328(c).
Sec. 2-322. Responsibility of public office.
 Public officials and employees hold office for the benefit of the public. They are
bound to uphold the state and federal constitutions; to observe the highest standards of
law in the exercise of the powers and duties of their office; to impartially carry out the
laws of the nation, state, and City; to discharge faithfully the duties of their office
regardless of personal considerations; and to recognize that the public interest must be
their prime concern.
 Comment: No change from current sec. 2-321, but see new sec. 2-328(c).
Sec. 2-323 Definitions.

Definitions. As used in this section:




 1
(a) Anything of value means any money or property, favor, service, payment,
advance, forbearance, loan, or promise of future employment, but does not include
compensation and expenses paid by the City, money or items which are permitted and
reported under 2-324(i), political contributions which are reported under Wis. Stats.
Ch. 11, or hospitality extended for a purpose unrelated to City business by a person
other than an organization.

(b) Associated, when used with reference to an organization, includes any
organization of which an individual or a member of their immediate family is a director
or officer or owns or controls, directly or indirectly, and severally or in the aggregate,
at least five percent (5%) of the outstanding equity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an
elected official or employee who is appointed by the Mayor or approved by the Council
to serve as an officer or board member of a private non-profit organization, or a public
committee or board, does so in their official capacity as a representative of the City
and, as such, is not "associated" with the private or public organization.

(c) Board means the Ethics Board.

(d)  City-Related Purpose means those purposes authorized by the Common
Council of the City, its boards, commissions, or committees.

(e) Covered Official means and includes all persons who are covered by and
subject to this Code. Covered Official includes:

 (1) All elected officials of the City.

 (2) All City employees.

 (3) All members of City boards, authorities, committees, or commissions, including
 subcommittees and ad hoc committees.

When a part of this ordinance only covers some Covered Officials, the ordinance will
so state.

(f) Economic interest or financial interest means a business or cause in which a
person or their immediate family member has a concern, responsibility, share, right, or
title in the ownership of property in a commercial or financial undertaking which relates
to the source, production, distribution, or use of the person's or immediate family
member's income, wealth, or goods, including debts, or which affects or is likely to
affect the welfare or the material resources of the person or immediate family member.

(g) Immediate family means 1. An individual's spouse or designated family or
domestic partner, or 2. An individual's relative by marriage, lineal descent, or adoption,
or any similar step relations of any of the above.




 2
(h) Organization means any public or private, profit or non-profit, religious,
educational, charitable, or political organization or entity but does not include
governmental bodies.

(i) Personal interest means any interest greater than nominal, direct or indirect,
arising from blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship, or designated family or domestic
partner relations or from close business, political, or other associations.

 Comment: This section is new. It takes some definitions spread out in the
existing Ethics code and adds others taken from municipal codes or the State Code,
Sec. 19.42, Wis. Stats. Unlike some codes, the definition of “immediate family” does
not include a requirement of any level of financial support. The new definitions use the
phrase “Covered Official” for persons subject to the Code.

Sec. 2-324 Standards of Conduct.

(a) Financial gain. No Covered Official may use their public position or office to
obtain financial gain or anything of value for the Covered Official's private benefit or
that of their immediate family, or for an organization with which they are associated.
This subsection does not prohibit an elected official from using the title or prestige of
their office to obtain contributions permitted and reported under Wis. Stats. Ch. 11.

 Comment: This section replaces sections of old sec. 2-325 with language more
precise and more commonly used in Ethics Codes.

(b) Offer, solicitation, or acceptance of anything of value. No person may offer or
give to any Covered Official, directly or indirectly, and no Covered Official may solicit
or accept from any person, directly or indirectly, anything of value if it could reasonably
be expected to influence the Covered Official's vote, official actions, or judgment, or
could reasonably be considered as a reward for any official action or inaction on the
part of the Covered Official. This subsection does not prohibit a Covered Official from
engaging in outside employment, except as may be prohibited elsewhere in this
chapter.

 Comment: This section replaces the ambiguous prohibition in former sec. 2-
325(c)(3). Note that the question of whether a gift may violate this section is an
objective standard (“reasonably be expected to influence”) and is not to be judged by
the subjective belief of the Covered Official.

(c) Conflict of interest.

 (1) No Covered Official may:

 a. Take any official action affecting, directly or indirectly, a matter in which
 they, a member of their immediate family, or an organization with which they
 are associated has a financial or personal interest.


 3
 b. Use their office or position in a way that produces or assists in the
 production of a benefit, direct or indirect, for them, a member of their
 immediate family either separately or together, or an organization with which
 the Covered Official or an immediate family member is associated.

 (2) This subsection does not prohibit a Covered Official from taking any action
 concerning the lawful payment of salaries or employee benefits or
 reimbursement of actual and necessary expenses or prohibit a Covered Official
 from taking official action with respect to any proposal to create, modify, or
 repeal a City ordinance, resolution, or matter benefiting the public.

 Comment: This section is new. It is modeled on sec. 19.59(1)(c), Wis. Stats.,
part of the state law on local government ethics limitations.

(d) Outside employment.

 (1) No Covered Official shall engage in or accept private employment, or render
 service for a private interest, compensated or uncompensated, when such
 employment or service is incompatible with the proper discharge of their official
 duties or would tend to impair such Covered Official's independence of
 judgment or action in the performance of such duties.

 (2) No City employee shall engage in non-City related activities for which
 compensation is received for so many hours or to such an extent as to interfere
 with the proper performance of the duties and responsibilities of their official
 position.

 (3) All Covered Officials shall disclose to their supervisor or, in the case of a
 Covered Official without a recognized supervisor (such as elected officials or
 committee members), to the City Clerk, any outside employment by a third party
 other than the City.

 Comment: This section expands upon the prohibition in former sec. 2-325(c)(1).

(e) Contracts or leases. No Covered Official, member of a Covered Official’s
immediate family, nor any organization in which the Covered Official or a member of
their immediate family owns or controls at least five percent (5%) of the outstanding
equity, indebtedness, or voting rights may enter into any contract or lease involving a
payment or payments of more than $3,000 within a 12-month period, in whole or in
part derived from funds administered by the City, unless the Covered Official has first
made written disclosure of the nature and extent of such relationship or interest to the
Common Council, the Board, Commission, or Authority, and to the department acting
for the City in regard to such contract or lease. In addition to such disclosure, the
Covered Official shall recuse themself from taking any actions in their official capacity
with respect to the contract. In addition to any other remedy under this Article, any
contract or lease entered into in violation of this provision may be voided by the City in


 4
an action commenced within 3 years of the date on which the City or any agent of the
City discovered that a violation of this subsection had occurred. Nothing in this
provision affects the application of Wis. Stats. § 946.13, as amended from time to time,
relating to a Covered Official’s activity concerning a direct or indirect financial interest
in a proposed City contract.

 Comment: This section is a modification and expansion of sec. 2-325(d). It
provides for the ability to void a contract entered into in violation of the section.

(f) Misuse of information. No Covered Official shall, without proper legal
authorization, disclose confidential information concerning the property, government,
or affairs of the City. This includes information protected by attorney-client privilege or
discussed in a closed session. No Covered Official may use or disclose information
gained in the course of or by reason of their official position or activities in any way
that could result in the receipt of anything of value for themself, for a member of their
immediate family, or for any other person or entity if the information has not been
communicated to the public or is not a public record.

 Comment: This section expands on the current prohibition in sec. 2-325(c)(2).

(g) Appearance before City bodies and in other proceedings.

 (1) (a) No elected official shall appear on behalf of private interests with or without
 compensation before any City entity nor represent private interests in any
 action or proceeding against the City.

 (b) No member of any board, committee, commission, or authority of the City
 shall appear on behalf of private interests with or without compensation before
 any board, committee, or commission of which they are a member nor represent
 private interests in any action or proceeding against the City which involves, is
 related to, or arises out of the work or jurisdiction of the board, committee
 commission, or authority of which they are a member or negotiate with any
 Covered Official in connection with any such matter.

 (c) No employee of the City shall appear on behalf of private interests with or
 without compensation before any entity for or with which they work nor appear
 on behalf of private interests, with or without compensation, in any action or
 proceeding against the City.

 (2) These provisions shall not apply to the appearance of any Covered Official
 when subpoenaed as a witness by a party involved in litigation which may also
 involve the City nor to employee representatives of a certified labor organization
 representing any group of City employees.

 (3) An elected official may appear before any City entity and confer with any
 Covered Official on any matter in the course of their duties as a representative


 5
 of the electorate or in the performance of public or civic obligations; however,
 they shall not accept any compensation therefore.

 (4) A Covered Official may appear without compensation before any City entity on
 any matter involving their own property or interests.

 Comment: This section is new. It limits the ability of Covered Officials to appear on
 behalf of third parties before the City. For employees and members of boards or
 commissions, the limitation only covers those areas of authority of the
 employee or member.

(h) Solicitation of funds. No Covered Official shall solicit private donations or funds
for any City-Related Purpose unless authorized to do so in their official capacity by
ordinance, resolution, or rule of the City. Any Covered Official who receives funds for
any City-related purpose shall file a report of the receipt and expenditure of such funds
with the City Clerk within 30 days thereof. Nothing contained herein shall limit the
statutory powers and authority of any public official, nor shall the provisions of this
subsection prohibit the private solicitation of funds by any person or public official for
any charitable, campaign, or other private purpose.

 Comment: This section essentially tracks existing sec. 2-325(c)(4).

(i) Honoraria and Gifts.

 (1) No Covered Official shall accept any honoraria, gifts, or Anything of Value
except as allowed by this section.

 (2) A Covered Official may accept gifts unrelated to a Covered Official’s
relationship to the City (e.g., birthday presents from family members).

 (3) A Covered Official may not accept, and no person shall offer, a gift of more
than de minimus value if the gift could be perceived by a reasonable person as likely
to affect the judgment or actions of the Covered Official, or be perceived by a
reasonable person as a reward for official action taken or an inducement to take
official action by the Covered Official.

 (4) A Covered Official may accept reimbursement from a third party for the
costs of attending a conference or other event approved by the City, provided that the
reimbursement of costs does not exceed the reimbursement that the Covered Official
would receive from the City. A Covered Official invoking this provision shall obtain
approval of the City Finance Director and file a report of reimbursement with the City
Clerk. The Covered Official may only seek reimbursement from the City or a third
party when they are attending a conference or engaged in other activities that are
primarily for the benefit of the City and not for their private benefit.




 6
 (5) In the event a Covered Official receives a gift that is not allowed under this
Article, the Covered Official shall either (a) pay to the City Treasurer the value of the
gift, (b) give the gift back to the person who made the gift, or (c) give the gift to a non-
profit organization such as a homeless shelter.

 Comment: This section is new. It covers explicitly the general ban on
acceptance of gifts by Covered Officials, and the sometimes troublesome issue of
Covered Officials accepting reimbursement from third parties for the costs of attending
conferences or other events.

(j) Use of City property. No Covered Official shall use or permit the use of City-
owned vehicles, equipment, materials, or property by or for the benefit of any private
person or entity, or for personal or financial gain, unless authorized to do so by City
ordinance, resolution, or rule.

 Comment: This follows exiting sec. 2-324. The language about arbitrarily or
capriciously treating one person differently than another was removed due to concerns
about enforcement and possible misuse of the section.

Sec. 2-325. Post Employment Limitations.

(a) No Covered Official shall, within 12 months of leaving their position with the
City, engage in lobbying as set forth in Ch. 10, Art. XIII of this Code before any
Covered Official, City entity, board, committee, or commission with which the Covered
Official had duties or authority while with the City.

(b) Employment within the City. No Alderperson, during their term of office, or one
year thereafter, is eligible for any employment with the City, whether by regular
employment or contractual services. Exceptions to this policy will be as follows:

 (1) Where an Alderperson is appointed to fill a vacancy for another elected
office or is elected;

 (2) Where an Alderperson serves as a poll worker or at any other position which
has a stipend of less than $1,000.00 a year; or

 (3) Where an Alderperson is appointed to a post with an 80 percent majority
consent of the Council.

 Comment: The first paragraph is new and is a limitation on lobbying for one
year after leaving City government. The second paragraph is former sec. 2-325(c)(5).

Sec. 2-326. Political Activity.




 7
(a) No employee while on duty or on official City business shall, for the apparent
purpose of influencing the outcome of any referendum or improving the chance of
election of a person seeking elective office:

 (1) Wear or display any campaign material.

 (2) Distribute any campaign literature.

 (3) Solicit, receive, or give subscriptions, contributions, or service for any candidate
 or referendum position.

 (4) Actively campaign for or against any candidate or referendum position.

(b) No employee shall wear or otherwise use official uniforms, insignia, seals, etc., in
political ads or for the purpose of influencing an election or referendum unless the
image of such official emblem originates from a publicly available image first made
public during the course of City employment and not for purposes of a campaign.

(c) No employee shall use their employment or any indicia of such employment
with the City as a means of endorsement of any candidate or referendum.

(d) No employee shall in any way coerce or attempt to coerce subscriptions,
contributions, or service from other employees in support of a political party or a
candidate for elective office or for or against a referendum position, or retaliate against
or reward an employee for refraining from participating in any political activity. All
persons are subject to the limitations on solicitation from public employees contained
in Wis. Stat. § 11.1207.

(e) This subsection does not apply to a response by a legal custodian or
subordinate of the custodian to a request to locate, reproduce, or inspect a record
under Wis. Stat. § 19.35, if the request is processed in the same manner as the
custodian or subordinate responds to other requests to locate, reproduce, or inspect a
record under such section or to an employee providing other information within the
knowledge of the employee by virtue of their City position, if such information is made
equally available upon request to any other person.

(f) Persons subject to the federal Hatch Act shall comply with all applicable
provisions of the Act.

(g) Solicitation of staff forbidden. Elected officials shall not solicit any type of
political support (financial contributions, display of posters or lawn signs, name on
support list, collection of petition signatures, etc.) from City employees. City employees
may, as private citizens within their constitutional rights, support political candidates, but
all such activities must be done away from the workplace.




 8
 Comment: This section pulls together a number of provisions in the City’s Ethics
Code and Code of Conduct. Almost all ethics codes have similar limitations on political
activity.

Sec. 2-327. Disclosure of Interests.

(a) General filing for employment or appointment. A person elected, appointed, or
hired for any office or position of employment or appointed to any board, commission,
or authority set forth below shall file initial and amended statements of economic
interest as required by the provisions of this section.

 (1) Elected officials.

 a. Mayor.

 b. Municipal Judge.

 c. Alderpersons.

 (2) Appointed officials.

 a. Assessor.

 b. City Attorney.

 c. Chief Building Official.

 d. Chief of Operations.

 e. City Clerk.

 f. Comptroller.

 g. Director of Community and Economic Development.

 h. Director of Parks, Recreation, and Forestry.

 i. Director of Public Works.

 j. Fire Chief.

 k. Police Chief.

 l. Treasurer.

 m. Zoning Administrator.


 9
 (3) Employees.

 a. Human Resources Manager.

 b. Mayor’s Chief of Staff.

 c. Purchasing Manager.

 (4) Boards.

 a. Board of Review.

 b. Ethics Board.

 c. Zoning and Planning Board of Appeals.

 (5) Commissions.

 a. Annexation Commission.

 c. Plan Commission.

 d. Police and Fire Commission.

 e. Room Tax Commission.

 f. Traffic, Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission.

 g. Water Commission.

 h. Neighborhood Preservation Commission.

 (6) Authorities.

 a. Economic Development Authority.

 b. Housing Authority.

 c. Redevelopment Authority.

 d. Transit Authority.

(b) Filing statement of economic interest with Clerk. Within seven (7) days after
such person becomes a candidate for any elective City office enumerated in this
section, or within seven (7) days of appointment to such office, such person shall file a
statement of economic interest with the City Clerk.


 10
(c) Form of statement. A person filing any statement of economic interest under
this section shall file the statement on a form prescribed by the Ethics Board and shall
supply the following information to the Board.

 (1) Interest in land. The statement shall include a description of all parcels of real
 estate within the City and adjoining towns or villages in which the person owns
 any interest, including an option to purchase, except for homestead property.

 (2) Corporate interests. The statement shall identify all of the person’s corporate
 interests in any business organization, either as an owner, part owner, partner,
 or silent partner, in which such individual owns more than two (2) percent of the
 outstanding stock or more than two (2) percent of any other business ownership
 that is doing business with the City in an amount in excess of $5,000.00
 annually.

 (3) Other financial holdings. The statement shall identify any of the person’s other
 stock or securities or other financial holdings of any type exceeding $10,000,
 but excluding personal checking and savings accounts, money market funds,
 and any funds held in a bona fide retirement account.

(d) Amended statements. Any person required to file a statement hereunder shall
not be required to file an amended statement unless that person undergoes a change
in those economic interests that are required to be disclosed by this section. Such
person shall file the amended statement in the manner prescribed by subsection (b) of
this section within seven days of the date of any change in circumstances requiring
filing thereof. In addition, all persons covered by this section shall file an annual
update of the statement no later than January 31 of each year. The City Clerk shall
send a notice to all person covered by this section no later than December 15 of each
year, notifying them of the annual update requirement.

 Comment: This section picks up most of the language in sec. 2-326 of the
existing Green Bay Code. It modifies current law to require filings within 7 days of the
application of this section to an individual and provides that persons covered are to
update their filings annually.

Sec. 2-328. Exceptions.

(a) Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to cover the actions of a Covered
Official in the official action of approving or amending City ordinances, resolutions, or
rules, unless such official action was accompanied by a violation of this ordinance.

(b) Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to limit the authority of Covered
Officials to approve the lawful payment of salaries or employee benefits or
reimbursement of actual and necessary expenses.




 11
(c) Sec. 2-321 and 2-322 are aspirational statements to be used in application and
interpretation of this Article. No complaint may be filed under this section solely
claiming a violation of either of those two sections.

 Comment: This section is new. The first two paragraphs are common in ethics
codes to make it clear that certain routine acts of Covered Officials are not to be
considered as violations. The final section solves the problem of persons using the
first two sections of the Code as a basis for a complaint, as they are aspirational and
not to be used to create a violation where no other provision was violated.

Sec. 2-329. Disclosure and Recusal.

(a) Any Covered Official who faces a situation where they may violate the
standards of conduct in sec. 2-324, or any other provision of this Article, shall
determine whether such a situation requires the Covered Official to make a disclosure
or to recuse themself. Such disclosure or recusal shall take place before the matter
comes before the Covered Official.

(b) The Covered Official shall disclose any conflict or financial interest or other
section of the Code, as well as whether they can reasonably and objectively determine
that the situation presents a tangential interest that will not conflict with their official
duties, and will not influence their actions, independence, or judgment.

(c) The Covered Official need not make a disclosure if they recuse themselves. If
the Covered Official determines that the situation reasonably and objectively would
conflict with their official duties, or impair their independence, action, or judgment, the
Covered Official shall recuse themself from any action with respect to the matter.
Recusal is accomplished by announcing that the Covered Official will take no part in
the proposed action, will not discuss it with any person, will not attempt to influence
any other person’s action, and effectively will be absent when any aspect of the matter
is considered.

 Comment: This section is new. The City’s Code had no provisions directing
when and how an official was to disclose a potential conflict, or in what instances
recusal was required, or what recusal means. It adopts an objective standard
(“reasonably and objectively would conflict with their official duties, or impair their
independence, action, or judgment”) to determine when recusal is necessary. Note,
however, that the Code retains the current situation that the determination is to be
made by the Covered Official. Nobody may force an official to recuse themselves. The
remedy if an official violates this section is to file a complaint with the Ethics Board.

Sec. 2-330. Ethics Board: Composition and Duties

(a) There shall be an Ethics Board which shall consist of five (5) regular members
and one (1) alternate member: one (1) Alderperson; one (1) City officer or employee;
and four (4) residents of the City, one of whom shall be an alternate who shall vote


 12
only in the absence or abstention of a regular member. Each member shall be
appointed by the Mayor and subject to confirmation by the Common Council. The
resident members shall not be City employees. Terms of office of citizens shall be
three (3) years, and shall be staggered, so that no more than two (2) appointments are
made annually. The Ethics Board shall elect its own Chairperson and Vice-
Chairperson annually. If any member of the Ethics Board petitions the Board for a
hearing and advice regarding their own conduct, or if a complaint is filed against a
member of the Ethics Board, such member shall not be eligible to sit in their own case,
and the alternate shall substitute therefor when the need arises. In the event a
complaint is filed against two (2) or more members of the Ethics Board, the Personnel
Committee shall sit as the ad hoc Ethics Board for any hearing.

(b) The City Attorney shall advise the Ethics Board and shall not represent any
person requesting an advisory opinion, filing a complaint, or subject to a complaint
before the Board. The City Attorney may, but need not, issue advisory opinions to any
City employee covered by this Article who has a question as to the applicability of any
portion hereof themselves. If the facts stated in the request for an Advisory Opinion
are accurate, and the requestor follows the advice of the City Attorney, it will be prima
facie evidence that no violation of this Code took place. The City attorney may refer
any request for an advisory opinion to the Ethics Board.

(c) The Ethics Board may issue advisory opinions. Any person who questions
whether they may be in a position to violate the Ethics Code may make a request for
an Advisory Opinion. The Board may issue an opinion to the person. The opinion shall
be public, unless the person in the original request asked that it be a confidential
inquiry. Any opinion issued in response to a request for a confidential inquiry may be
made public by the person obtaining the opinion. The Board also may issue
summaries of confidential opinions written to protect the identity of the person
requesting the opinion. If the facts stated in the request for an Advisory Opinion are
accurate, and the requestor follows the advice of the Ethics Board, it will be prima
facie evidence that no violation of this Code took place.

(d) Any adult resident of the City of Green Bay may file a sworn complaint alleging
that a Covered Official has violated the Ethics Code. The complaint shall be filed with
the City Attorney. Upon receipt of the complaint, the official(s) complained of shall be
provided a copy and be given no less than 15 nor more than 30 days to file a written
response.

(e) Jurisdictional Hearing. The Board shall hold a jurisdictional hearing to
determine if the allegations of the complaint merit a hearing on the substance of the
allegations. The Board shall assume that allegations in the complaint are true unless
contradicted by public documents of which the Board may take notice. The Board shall
determine if the complaint alleges sufficient provable facts to have an evidentiary
hearing. No evidentiary testimony shall be taken at a jurisdictional hearing. Any
complaint filed more than one hundred eighty (180) days after the actions alleged, or




 13
the discovery of those actions by the complainant who acted with reasonable efforts to
discover the actions, shall be summarily dismissed at the jurisdictional hearing.

(f) If the Board determines an evidentiary hearing shall be held, both the
complainant and respondent may present such relevant evidence as will assist the
Board in determining if a violation of the Code occurred. The City Attorney shall advise
the Board in any hearing. If the Board finds no violation, it shall dismiss the complaint.
The Board may adopt rules and procedures to govern complaints, responses to
complaints, the conduct of hearings, and any other matters relevant to its duties.

(g) If the Board finds the complaint was brought in bad faith, with no reasonable
basis in fact or law, or with an intent to harass the respondent, the Board may
recommend that the City Attorney bring an action in the name of the City in municipal
court for a forfeiture not to exceed $200.

(h) If the Board finds that a violation occurred, the Board may take any of the
following actions:

 (1) Find that any violation was de minimis and no further action is needed.

 (2) Issue an order censuring the respondent for the violation.

 (3) Recommend that the Common Council censure the respondent.

 (4) Recommend that the City Attorney bring an action in municipal court in the
 name of the City, seeking a forfeiture of not less than $100 and nor more than
 $500 per violation.

 (5) Recommend that the Common Council or other appropriate authority remove
 the respondent from public position for cause.

(i) Except as provided for a confidential advisory opinion, the meetings and
records of the Board are subject to the Open Meetings Law and Public Records Law.

(j) The Ethics Board may recommend amendments of the Ethics Code to the
Common Council.

 Comment: This section takes some provisions from the existing Code of Ethics
(sec. 2-328), the Code of Conduct, and adds some common provisions from other
codes of Wisconsin municipalities. It retains the jurisdictional hearing and the power to
recommend amendments to the Code. It changes the period during which a complaint
is to be brought from one year after the alleged violation to 180 days after the violation
and retains the discovery rule. It clarifies that complaints may only be filed by
residents of Green Bay.




 14
 SECTION 2. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed.

 SECTION 3. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect on and after its
passage and publication.


 Dated at Green Bay, Wisconsin, this ______day of ________________, 2022.



 APPROVED:



 Mayor

ATTEST:



Clerk

MM/ljm

06/xx/22




 15

Titletown, USA

 MINUTES OF THE ETHICS BOARD

 THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2022, 5:00 PM
 Virtual Meeting. Public may join via Zoom.


 A. ZOOM MEETING IN ST RUCT IO N S.
I . This item contains Zoom information for the May 12th Ethics Board meeting, instructions,
and a link to the Virtual Comment Form.

 B. ROLL CALL.
I. William Vande Castle, Chair; Aaron Weinschenk, Vice Chair; Alder Bill Galvin; Cheryl
Renier-Wigg; Said Hassan; Janet Hathaway

Present: Bill Galvin, William Vande Castle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway

 C. APPROVAL OF THE AGEND A.
I . Approval of the Agenda for the May 12, 2022 Ethics Board Meeting.
Moved by Staff Cheryl Renier-Wigg, seconded by Ald. Bill Galvin to
approve. Motion Passe d.
Yes- Bill Galvin, William Vande Castle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet
Hathaway, No- None, Abstain- None.

 D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
I . Approval of the Minutes from the April 28, 2022 Ethics Board meeting.

Moved by Aaron Weinschenk, seconded by Board Member William Vande Castle to
approve. Motion Passed.
Yes- Bill Galvin, William Vande Castle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway,
No- None, Abstain- None.

 E. REGULAR BUSINESS.
I. Consideration with possible action on General Ordinance 18-22, repealing and recreating Chapter
2, Article IX, Green Bay Municipal Code, relating to Ethics.
Moved by Board Member William Vande Castle, seconded by Aid. Bill Galvin to refer to
staff. Motion Passed.
Yes- Bill Galvin, William Vande Castle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk, Janet Hathaway,
No- None, Abstain- None.
 F. ADJOURNMENT.

Moved by Staff Cheryl Renier-Wigg, seconded by Janet Hathaway to
adjourn. Motion Passed.
Yes- Bill Galvin, Janet Hathaway, William Vande Castle, Cheryl Renier-Wigg, Aaron Weinschenk,
Janet Hathaway, No- None, Abstain- None.


 VERBATIM MINUTES

- My computer. There we go.

- All right, very good. All right, so let's call this meeting to order. This is the City of Green Bay
Ethics Board Meeting for Thursday, May 12th, 2022. It's 5:00 p.m and we've got roll call which is
electronically done here in CivicClerk. So we'll move on to approval of the agenda for this May
12th, 2022 Ethics Board Meeting. Is there a motion to approve the agenda?

- Motion to approve.

- Approve.

- All right, we have a motion and a second. Are there any additions or modifications to the
agenda? I'm hearing none. So all in favor of approving tonight's agenda, signify by saying aye.

- [All] Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to the minutes. Is there a motion to approve
the minutes from the April 28th, 2022 meeting of the Ethics Board if those documents or those
minutes were in your packet? Is there a motion to approve?

- Motion.

- Right, we have a motion. I'll second. Are there any additions or modifications that anyone would
propose. Hearing none. All in favor of the approval of the minutes from the April 28th, 2022
meeting of the Ethics Board, signify by saying aye.

- [All] Aye.

- Any opposed? Very good, motion carries. Now on our purpose for being here tonight, our
regular business, deliberation with possible action on general ordinance 18-22, repealing and
recreating chapter two, article nine of the City of Green Bay Municipal Code, a code relating to
ethics. And attorney May is the scrivener of this documents so I'll open the floor, motion to open
the floor and turn it over to him to begin addressing where we are with this.

- He's standing in his staff so you don't have to open the floor.

- Okay, very good. Then I withdraw that statement.

- I resign my second.
- All right, Mike, it's yours.

- Okay, well, I'll start talking. What you have in front of you is a draft of a complete repeal and
recreation of your ethics code. And what we did when we put this together, this is a result of a
number of meetings between me and the members of the Green Bay City Attorney's Office, in
which we considered various options and proposals and went through them and changed them
back and forth and we eventually got to this point where we thought we're far enough along that
we ought to take it to the board and try and get some feedback, see what they like, what they
don't like, et cetera. When we put this together, we decided to put just a short commentary after
each section to give you a general idea of where we were going with it. I have to admit, we didn't
try to cover every item or every change we may have made that would've been quite voluminous .
And some of the sections you'll see are new. So the whole thing is something that you probably
didn't have in your old code. What we were aiming at here was more precise than your existing
code which frankly has a few parts of it that are pretty clear but some parts of it that are not, and
something that I thought at least more closely tracked with either the state law or other ethics
codes that I've seen in other municipalities. And then we also had to tweak it for very specific
things that Green Bay had that other people did not add it in there. I can either go through each
section or start to ask questions. The other point I would make is that, oh, Lindsay, whether
you've talked to the board about this at all, this does not deal at all with the code of conduct for
elected officials. And we specifically left that out in my recommendation, and I think what the city
attorney's recommendation is that should be taken out of the jurisdiction of the Ethics Board. It
should be rewritten and given to the elected officials and they should be the ones who have their
code and they should have specific remedies that they can impose such as censure, something
like that for a violation of their code of conduct. But most of the things in that code of conduct
were just not appropriate in my view for an ethics board to be dealing with in most situations. So
that has not been done yet, but I think that's the second shoe is that once we get this going is to
take that code of conduct, make the recommendation to, I don't know if that it would go through
this Ethics Board or right to the council. Look, this is your code for how you're supposed to
behave, it really isn't about the usual way we think of ethical rules. This is about personal codes of
conduct. Since it's yours, you should be the ones who figure out a way to enforce the code of
conduct. So that's one of the things that you don't see in front of you because we really didn't
think that it was appropriate for a board of ethics to be dealing with some of those that are sort of
personal and/or are political type issues in terms of what they do. With that said, whatever you
wish to do, we can either go through section by section or I can open it up for questions. I don't
know how much time people have had to review it. If they have specific questions, whatever is
your desire.

- Go ahead, Bill.

- Yeah, I read through it and I also had a very good phone conversation with Attorney Mather
today which really made it a lot easier for me to read through it and understand what was going
on. I don't have any specific questions but you never know, someone starts talking about
something and it might put a little bell off in my head, and then, I don't, have a question. But I like
what you're talking about, separating the two from each other. I felt many of the complaints that's
come before this committee in the last six years have not belonged in front of this committee. And
I also agree with your comments about the code of conduct but I don't wanna get off the highway
here and start talking about that. But I agree with you. I think that there needs to be a system
worked out where the council holds itself and other elected officials responsible in whatever way
they can work out amongst themselves to everyone's satisfaction. But overall what I'm seeing
here, this is dramatically better than what we've been dealing with since I got on this committee
six years ago. So I applaud you and everyone else that's been involved with this.

- Again, I would add, I don't have any, I've read through it, and I'm familiar with the state code
provisions, state statutory provisions that are referenced in here. And I think this goes a long way
to cleaning up a lot of the ambiguities that we had in the old code. Unless anybody's got some
specific questions for attorney May, I would suggest maybe Mike, that you kind of go through and
maybe give us some highlights of some of the major changes that are in here 'cause I know
there's a few so--

- Yeah, okay, the first two sections are the same except there's a provision later that says these
two sections are really sort of aspirational and to be used in guiding an interpretation. We don't
want somebody filing a complaint solely based on either of these two sections. There has to be
some other violation of the code. And I think that's consistent with the way this board has acted
and the way other boards that I've seen have acted. The definition section is expanded because
you really didn't have a lot of definitions in your code. And when you had them, they were
sometimes spread out in different part. You know, you'd get to a separate section of the code and
would say for this these words mean this in this section. So we tried to pull those to those in here.
We used a new term called covered official. So that's the new term that here, which includes
elected officials, employees, and members of city boards, commissions, and committees. And
there are some sections that will, for example, only cover an elected official or city employees,
and it'll say so when it does that.

- Can I jump in?

- Yup.

- I think covered official does not, like when I was reading through that, when I see covered
official, I don't think that's an employee. To me that was a little confusing when you're going back
and forth between officials and employees. Like officials to me always mean like board members
or council members or... So when I was reading through the whole document, you know, there
were some places where it was covered official which would mean both of them, and some were
employee, right?

- Right.

- So what are non employee?

- If we were refer to them, we would probably refer to members of boards, committees and
commissions.

- Okay, okay. It's just that was a weird term to me, so duly noted.

- We can use a different phrase if you want.
- Well, I was just throwing it out there. Like I'm not gonna die in the sword for me on this, but I
don't know if anybody else had those thoughts when they read through it. I'm of course a city
employee so I have my head in a different place when I'm reading this probably than you guys
are, but...

- Yeah, you normally don't think of a city employee as a city official, but that's why we gave it the
name covered official. I can't remember where I know Madison uses a term incumbent, which I
think is even more confusing 'cause...

- I agree.

- You don't think of an employee at all as an incumbent. I can't remember where I got covered
official or this, I think we talked around what we wanted to use and came up with this as probably
being the best way to describe it.

- Okay.

- But it makes sense because a covered official is anyone that the ethics code applies to, correct?

- Yep.

- So if Cheryl's acting as an ethics committee member, she's a covered official. If she's not acting
in her role as a committee official, then she's not a covered official.

- Well, she...

- But I am though.

- She is, she's a city employee and is covered to the extent that's covered city employees.

- Yes. Yes.

- So I'd be two ways, but like just a straight employee, straight not sitting on any boards or
commissions. Is a covered official, correct?

- Correct.

- Yes.

- Like Lindsay.

- Yeah. Like when we had that fire official, that personnel that came before the committee to ask
for permission to get involved in a private business on the side, he's a cover official.

- Yeah.
- Yes.

- I'm throwing it out there.

- If something like, I mean, would covered individual work or something like that where if, is that
just the issue is the official part of it.

- I think the name official, I don't think employees would relate to the name official. I don't think
any employee you've talked to would consider themselves an official.

- I do.

- Well in the definition does it say all city employees are considered covered officials?

- It does.

- It does.

- What about if we change it to covered person?

- Could be covered person.

- Yeah. I mean, that makes it like you're a covered person if you're an employee or you're an
official or member of a board or an authority.

- I don't have a problem with that. I can see what the point you're making Cheryl, so we can do
that. So that'll just be a universal change throughout the provision.

- And then I had another one on that page. The anything of value, that's really meant to be an
ambiguous thing. I'm assuming, because anything of value is right. Like, okay. Let me tell you, my
experience as an employee from the law department from a gazillion years has been $50. If this
is less than $50, it's not considered anything of value.

- Yeah.

- Right. It was kinda a weird thing 'cause you know, in your role as employees, people give you
stuff. So I don't know if it would be easier to add, and this is addressed further on in this document
as well. I have some notes, like I went to an event where I got a whole lot of beef. Which was
more than $50. Like I brought that into the office, I cut it up and I brought it into the office and I
shared it with the department. But did I have to do that? Like I think it would be good to have
some clarification for employees who get gifts in the field. What you do with them.

- Yeah.

- Would that apply to this ordinance? Or would that be more of a, well, we don't really have...

- I think there's a section in here on honor area which may cover some of the questions you have,
but the debate on this is exactly the one you identified. When you say anything of value or
nominal value, which we use elsewhere, you can define it as a dollar amount, which means you
can only get a series of $50 gifts. So they can't give you 60 bucks, but they can give you two $30
gifts.

- Or you leave it undefined and you begin to define it as people ask. For myself, I used a really
strict definition I didn't want a cup of coffee from somebody because I didn't want that ever to be
seen. When you get gifts, there's a specific provision later that governs what you're supposed to
do with those and we can talk about that when we get to honor area. But the basic rule is you're
not supposed to accept it unless it's nominal. If you get something that's more than nominal, you
either give it back. Say, I can't take this. I'm under the city's ethics code, I can't accept a gift this
large.

- Right.

- Or you pay the city for it. You write a check to the treasurer then you have no benefit. You've
eventually essentially have bought it. Or I think I put it in here, but you take it to a nonprofit. Like if
it's food, take it to one of the soup kitchens or something and they can hand it out to people.

- Yep.

- The whole point.

- Written out somewhere. Maybe it's a personnel policy procedure, not this.

- It is in here.

- Yeah. Let's maybe we can find it quickly. Section on...

- It's on page six. I just wanna add while you're all flipping to that section, this actually was
something that we discussed with attorney May, because we had had those of you that were on
the committee or the board will remember. We had had that issue with the question of alders
being able to provide a $5 gift card or something to employees. And the board had tasked our
office with me looking into what the if there was a dollar amount cut off and what that would be.
And so in discussions with attorney May. This is what we kind of came around to was from our
perspective, we didn't necessarily want to put a dollar amount on it because that's something you
guys can do. But we definitely just... that this is a way of codifying that earlier discussion and the
research that I found as a result of that, because we weren't really sure at the time that we had
that discussion. So that's why it was particularly important for us to include it here in a more
explicit kind of way.

- Okay.

- And if you look on page six, under this section on honorary gifts at the bottom. First section says
you can't accept any honorary gifts or anything of value, except as allowed here. Two, you can
accept gifts that are totally unrelated to your position as a covered person.
- Right.

- And three, this I think is the key one, you can accept and no person is to offer a gift of more than
de minimis value if the gift could be perceived by a reasonable person, not by the person who's
getting the gift, but by a reasonable person as likely to affect the judgment or actions of the
covered person, or be perceived by a reasonable person as a reward for official action taken or
an inducement to take official action by the covered official. That doesn't give you a dollar
amount, but it allows this board to say, look, you're accepting $55 worth of beef that's gonna be
seen as something that might impact the way you're gonna treat that person. Maybe a cup of
coffee, isn't it? Maybe a double cappuccino from some place that's worth 20 bucks is I don't know.
But that's sort of the test that I put in here. And it sort of is the gift of a value that it might be
perceived by not the person getting it, but by the fable reasonable person as likely to affect your
judgment or is being seen as perhaps a reward for something you have done or might do in the
future.

- Yeah. Okay.

- Then this section also has a long thing on accepting reimbursement of the cost of defending a
convention or something from a third party, which is normally a thorny issue. And it's set up
essentially that you aren't too accepted from a third party, unless you've advised, I think I put the
financial finance director of what you're gonna get. The amount can't exceed the cost that the city
would cover for you to attend the convention.

- Oh right. 'Cause you're making some bank on.

- Right. So you can't say, well, they're willing to cover my cost by the way I'm in the penthouse
suite and I've got an unlimited budget for food. Well, no, that isn't the amount the city would cover.
But if it's limited to what the city would cover, there's no, really no real benefit for the covered
person. They're getting what they would get from the city and in fact, there is a benefit to the city.
The city doesn't have to pay the money out of its treasury it's paid by some third party. So there's
a benefit to the city, no benefit to the covered person and so that's when it's allowed. And I think I
included say that they're supposed to... Yeah. File a report that you got reimbursement, file it with
the city clerk. So again, sunshine like that is good. Sixth page.

- So this is good, 'cause it actually then defines that a little bit more for employees, which I don't
think it did before. Which just kinda left, open.

- Yep.

- Okay.

- If you get a gift that's not allowed under the article, you either pay the city treasurer for the
value, you give the gift back to the person who made it or give it to a nonprofit organization and it
says such as a homeless shelter.

- Okay.
- Again, the idea is to allow a way that you don't personally benefit from it. I don't know if I'd bring
it to give to the employees, then everybody's benefiting a little bit. This gets very sticky and
sometimes you just have to use a little common sense, like with Christmas gifts that get dropped
off by somebody.

- Exactly.

- Now out at the front desk, you're gonna worry about a box of cookies. I generally don't. But I
remember employee who got like a sort of like the beef that you're talking, they got one of these
cheese and sausage baskets and they went online and it was lurk 125 bucks or something. And
they said, I can't accept that. And I think they took it over to the soup kitchen or something like
that.

- Yeah. I think people just drop 'em off.

- Yeah.

- One of those things.

- I was always the cookie tester.

- Pardon me?

- I was always the cookie tester.

- Oh good.

- So yeah. So that's a new section to talk about explicitly talking about gifts and how you decide
when they're allowed and not allowed.

- Gotcha.

- Back to the definitions, the one I think I pointed out in the commentary and we went back and
forth on it is, some codes and I think the state code, but I'd have to look talks about your relatives.
And it says, if it's your son or your daughter or your parent and you aren't providing them with
financial support, they're not covered by it. We didn't include that. I think that's kind of silly. I don't
think you can be helping out your kid because you provide 48% of the support as opposed to over
50%. It still creates a conflict of some sort. Let me shut this off there. Okay. Then the next section
tries to gather a number of provisions that were in some cases spread around the code or had
been in the code, but didn't specifically call 'em standards of conduct. And there's one on financial
gain, accepting something of value and as that same provision that if it looks like it could influence
your official actions or considered as a reward, that's not allowed. There's this third section is on
conflicts of interest, which is modeled on the state code. And I don't know whether, I don't know if
you had anything this specific in the existing code. I don't recall seeing it. It tries to decide, define
not to use your office for the benefit of your family or for organizations that you're associated with
or to obtain a financial gain. And that really... I think this section is kind of the meat of the ethics
code. We talked quite a bit about outside employment and what we should do. A lot of this comes
from your existing code. We added subsection three, I think was new about if you're gonna get
some outside employment disclose it to the supervisor or if you don't have a supervisor to the city
clerk. Just because then again, you're shining sunlight on it. The supervisor may say to the
employee I don't think that's a good idea. That's gonna look like a conflict or you're trying to serve
two masters or something like that. But the idea of we thought about, do you want to require
everybody to file that? We weren't sure that we thought that was a little going a little too far, but
disclose it to your supervisor or if you're just a committee member and elected official to the city
clerk.

- Can you give me an example? I'm on page four. You're talking about outside employment.

- Yep.

- Can you give me an example of number one? Like, so this is really talking about people who
have second jobs other than their city jobs, right?

- Yeah. Well, I would say somebody who works in the assessor's office and is also a real estate
broker.

- Okay.

- That's the one that I always use as the most because how they wanna evaluate what they
wanna sell a house for in terms of what their commission might be and what they think it would do
in the market may conflict with what the proper assessment might be seen by the city. Now,
theoretically you say, well, we're always looking for fair market value, but I think those are two
very different viewpoints of the value of some property. So that's the kind of employment that
might directly conflict.

- And the only way you know about that is if the employees disclose, which is why you've added
three.

- Yes.

- So if you have a second job outside of the city, you should disclose that?

- Correct. And what that job is, so that it's on record. Okay. That goes to the clerk directly, it looks
like.

- No, the supervisor of an employee.

- Yep.

- The clerk, if you don't have a supervisor. For example, if you're chair of the Ethics Board, you
don't really have a supervisor, you should file city clerk.

- Gotcha. Otherwise it goes to the supervisor and then the supervisor just has it a record or gives
it to HR or...
- They can do with it what they want. Supervisor should probably tell 'em if they think it's a
problem.

- Okay. We don't do that now, right? I'm thinking I've never done as a supervisor. I've never asked
for that second job. I mean, I guess I knew about some people, but we've never had that as
official record.

- No, this is new.

- Okay.

- Some places do like PD does. So if you have outside employment outside of the police
department, but yeah, by and large, this is not a requirement. This is actually like Alder Galvin
brought up. This is kind of to address the type of situation or to at least bring into view the types of
situations like the employee that came and asked if an outside employment would be a conflict. If
you're disclosing that to your supervisor, whenever you get a second job or any other, any
additional job the supervisor can say, well, I think that's a conflict you should go to the Ethics
Board and make sure and then we kind of have it all kind of coming together.

- Gotcha.

- Yeah. And I'll be honest with you. When I was on the PD in 34 years, I was never made aware
that I needed to get side jobs cleared by my bosses. I mean I taught at TC, I was a jewelry, I
escorted jewelry dealers throughout the state. You know, I did things that were police related and
things that were non-police related. But I think if and when this is passed, I think we need to send
out maybe a bullet point not this whole code, unless they wanna look it up but some bullet points
for all employees to be aware of, because I knew of someone with the water department that was
doing plumbing on the side, which is, I guess, acceptable to a certain extent, unless like there
was something ethical that came up with a job they were doing or not doing or something like
that.

- And just to clarify for PD, that is actually there was a policy that was kind of loosely enforced, I
guess. I don't know how recently, but a year or two or three, I don't know. I just time doesn't mean
anything anymore. Not that long ago we passed up and we instituted an updated policy with PD
to ensure that any outside employment, whether law enforcement related or not had to be
reported. Just also because there are some positions where you don't want somebody like
working a full shift and then going and working a second eight hour shift and then coming back,
back in and driving a truck for DPW or something like that and not having had sufficient rest,
those kinds of things.

- Yep. Are also the kinds of things we want to be kind of catching with something like this.

- Yeah. And I didn't even think about that, but that actually makes sense 'cause we struggled with
officers that were working with two little sleep and they can take on the aspects of someone that's
intoxicated while they're driving and other things.
- A question to think about here. And I don't know if we didn't talk about this, Lindsay. We put
some of these comments in here. I don't know whether you plan on leaving those in there when
this goes to the council, whether you wanna make them part of the legislative record, most
actually being in the actual ordinance. In either event, I noticed that I didn't pull that sub three out
here and highlight it. And I think we probably should 'cause that's a new provision. So that should
have been put into the commentary.

- Yeah. I think that makes sense. I think also we will attach both a clean version of the ordinance
and this version with the commentary for council so that they can see like, because we do wanna
pass a clean version without the comments, but we'll make sure that they also have an Alder
Galvan actually asked that we like highlight the section so that they're a little bit easier to pull out
for the council when they're scrolling through, which is a great suggestion 'cause even I even did
it for myself for my notes right now 'cause I make it easier. So yeah we'll definitely be providing
council information so they can see, but we will include a clean version as well.

- Yep. Next section is pretty close to what you had before although it added that if there's a
contract entered into, in violation of it, the city also has the right to void the contract, which I
thought was a good idea. The misuse of information is pretty close to what you have now. This is,
to me, a unique provision. I haven't seen this in other codes. I mean, I think it's a good provision. I
think there might be some question as to whether or not you could always enforce it if there are
first amendment issues that somebody might raise that this was a matter of public policy and I
had the right to leak this to the press, even though the ethics code says I can't. But I understand
the purpose of it and I think we had to leave it in there.

- Well, I there's been a lot of discussion. I think Lindsey can back this up at the council level about
close session discussions and we've had some elders really doing what I perceive to be some
thin ice to dancing around that restriction and they really don't want closed sessions, they really
want that information out there. We've had a past Alder in the recent past who had an oops I think
at least that's what I'll put it down to. But yeah, I have a real concern that eventually someone is
going to release some information that they shouldn't just because they feel it's not right to have it
enclosed session. And I think that needs to be spelled out clearly here.

- The next section is new. Again, I've seen this in other codes and it basically limits the ability of
elected officials or members of boards, and here you split it out to appear in front of city boards on
behalf of third parties. And while you're on a board, you can't be appearing in front of that board
on behalf of a third person. And now it's limited to, if you're on a board, you can appear in front of
other boards if you want, but not the one that you're on or the one that's within your jurisdiction
and the same with city employees, you can't appear in the area that you work, but if it's totally
unrelated, you can appear. And does have a provision that if you're appearing to get a variance to
put a new deck on the back of your own house, you can do that no matter where it is, 'cause
that's just something that you have the right to do as a citizen.

- So and this is an example again from the past and that's why I like it, and we can't always
anticipate everything. And we certainly found that out with the old code and the old code of
conduct and ethics. But so we had a city employee working for say a private company and they
came before the protection and policy committee to get a liquor license. Would that be a conflict?
Maybe acting as an attorney or something like that.
- Well, setting aside whether or not it falls under your lobbying ordinance, which I don't know
enough about and whether that is it. So they're not an employee in the area that they're appearing
in front of the protection service.

- Oh God, let's just throw it out there. Municipal judge, the side job with the Green Bay Packers
and came before the protection and policy asking for a variance on liquor.

- Yeah, I would think that would be contrary to the code 'cause a judge is one of those officials
like the mayor, council member, city attorney, there may be others, maybe finance director where
their span of authority is essentially the whole city. The judge may have to deal with the question
related to that liquor license or related to something else. So he should not be appearing in a
private capacity on something that could possibly come before them, and that's the purpose of
this section here. You have to judge the span of authority of the person appearing in front of the
committee. And I always took the position that there are elected members of the council, the
mayor, and certain other what I call the big officials like city attorney finance director, that their
span of authority is the entire city and so they can only appear if it's on their own behalf to get
something for themself and then it's okay.

- That makes sense.

- Where are we?

- Can you talk to me about number three on page five on the bottom there? What are you saying
with that?

- I think this is in the current code, but I'm not sure. This is simply to protect elected officials, that
if they want to go to a committee to talk about a proposed ordinance or something like that,

- Yep.

- that they can do it as long as they're doing it as the public official and not doing it being paid by
a third party to do it. And basically to protect their right, to talk about matters of public interests
that might be before other committees.

- OK.

- I'm not sure it's necessary, but I've seen it in some places to, just to make that point clear so
that somebody doesn't file against an Alder who shows up to say, I think this is a bad piece of
legislation in front of the committee that's looking at it. And in your case, you've also got alders
who are on these committees, who obviously are making the decisions. We've got a provision on
solicitation funds against which is very, somewhat similar to what you have in your current code. I
don't know if that, I think we may have added the provision about filing a report on the funds once,
if you are allowed to solicit with the city clerk. I think we talked through the honorary and gifts
already.

- Sorry. Just to answer the question that actually was already in the call.
- Okay.

- We just cleaned it up.

- Okay. On page seven, item J on use of city prep.

- Back up, can we back up to six?

- Sure.

- Before the covered official may accept reimbursement from a third party, for that cost of
attending a conference. I just have a question. It further talks about a covered official invoking this
provision shall obtain approval of the city finance director.

- Yes.

- And find the report of reimbursement. So that would go then that would not be handled internally
by departments that would go straight to the finance director.

- That's what I...

- It's still that reimbursement? For whatever reason, I don't know what that would be. But with
we're government employees, Mike, we don't really get to do that. Please find conferences. It's all
boring training stuff, but if something were to happen that then it would just strictly you'd make
that claim through the finance director for reimbursement purposes for the city clerk.

- No, you don't make the... you file with the finance director to say this third party is gonna
reimburse me. Here's what they're gonna reimburse me. The finance director will look at that and
say, fine, that's the same amount that we would give you for attending it so you're not making
extra money on it.

- And so that now is done departmentally.

- Okay.

- That would all go through the finance director because if you travel to an outside conference,
you fill out your sheets on whatever that is, hotel rooms and whatnot. And then it goes through
our budget you know, like our department budget. Is that now changing? So it's gonna go straight
through finance, I guess is my question.

- So my understanding is that your department director has to sign off and indicate like where in
the budget it falls, but ultimately it is up to the finance director or their designee in this case,
probably not the finance director, but perhaps somebody in payroll actually making the decision
as to whether what's on the, like your supervisor does kind of the initial review, does this qualify?
Are you whatever, are you entitled to it? And then before finance actually gives you any money
back, they also have to do their own kind of review for other fiduciary reasons. And so that
already some element of it already does happen at the finance level. So if we wanna have an
internal process where you go to your department director, who has to submit it to finance, 'cause
that's how we do it now, we can certainly do that, but ultimately there needs to be that approval
from finance.

- Ultimately finance is reviewing all of these travel things at that department.

- Anyway, yep.

- Yeah.

- Already doing that.

- Yeah. Just Cheryl, let me back up and make sure we're not confusing things. If you've got
money in your budget to go to the assessor's training.

- Yeah.

- And so you're gonna go to the assessor's training and you put in what it's gonna cost and it's in
the budget, your supervisor approves it and ultimately it goes to finance and they say fine, that's
not what we're talking about here.

- Okay.

- We're talking about, you're gonna go to the assessor's Institute and the assessor's Institute is
gonna pay your way. They're gonna cover your registration fee, they're gonna cover your lodging,
they're gonna cover trying to cover meals, they're gonna cover all this stuff.

- Yep.

- You can only accept that money from that third person if you go to the finance director ahead of
time and say, here's what they're gonna reimburse me, is this okay? And the finance director will
say yes or no either that's fine, that's what you would get reimbursed from the city and then you
would file a report with the clerk. So I think these situations are pretty rare where there's an
outside third party, who's gonna provide the reimbursements. And that's all we're talking about
here, 'cause if the city reimburses you again, you're just covering your costs and the city of
budgeted for it. But if a third party is giving you the money, then it looks like, well, wait a minute,
this is some group that is expecting some favor from them down the road, they're reimbursing
their expenses. And the point is to have a check in here to make sure that it's okay if the third
party does it, as long as it's nothing more than what the city would give you.

- Okay. And that's the finance that would review then.

- Right.

- Okay.
- Yes.

- Police officer is gonna attend a community policing conference. He clears it with his bosses,
he's gonna go and the conference is short, some speaker. So to ask this person, if you wouldn't
mind doing an hour long presentation and for that they'll pay for his conference fees, his meals
and his hotel room and reimburse him for travel. Is that acceptable? I mean, technically it's a
conference a third party and they're reimbursing this officer for his time merely because he
speaks.

- Yeah. My position would be that that officer should still clear it with finance and file it to clerk.

- Yeah, absolutely. But it happens from time to time and so I think, it's kind like something that I
don't think the average person would think about. They're like, oh, I'm saving the city money you
know, 'cause they're not paying for my hotel, they're not paying for my meals, I'm not paying for
the conference fee and I'm taking a city car anyway so they don't have to reimburse me for that.
But you still think that not only should they get permission from the bosses to attend the
conference and speak, but also go to the finance director and say, Hey, this is what they're doing.

- Right, to make sure that whatever they're being reimbursed is in line with whatever the city
policy is. The purpose is to avoid... They're gonna cover your meals and you get to the best
steakhouse in the town every night that's what we're gonna pay for you, which is probably not
what the city would cover. But yeah, and that is when you speak, that's pretty common that at
least say the conference fee will be waved or something like that.

- Right

- Yeah.

- Okay.

- Page seven, item J is a pretty standard one about use of city property. There was language in
there about not arbitrarily a capriciously treating one person differently than another. I saw that as
just being a can of worms. I don't know if that's ever come in front of you if somebody's filed a
complaint based on that. But I looked at that language and I thought, boy, you you're really asking
for somebody to use that as a political weapon of some sort.

- Yeah.

- And so got this and I didn't, that's a violation of the ethics code. Okay. The next section is on
post-employment it added just the only thing that's added B is in your current code A it says that
officials can't engage in lobbying for within 12 months and it just uses whatever the definition of
lobbying is in your code and that's just, again, sort of a good government thing that you don't go
right from being as the chair of the ethics committee to representing people in front of the ethics
committee two days later that kinda looks a little suspicious.

- How do you... so I was thinking of it in this capacity. So I've worked in housing my whole career
so I retire.
- Yep.

- But there's affordable housing legislation that's coming before city council. I'm not allowed then
to speak before council in favor or not for that housing?

- Well, this is not that broad. This is not that broad. It depends on whether you qualify as a
lobbyist doing that. And I don't know about your code, but most codes, you have to get paid to do
that. Now, if it's part of your new job and it's part of what you're, then you might be a lobbyist and
maybe you can't do it. Some codes have broader provisions. They just say, when you leave 12
years, you just stay away from the city, period. Don't appear at committee meetings, don't lobby,
don't you know.

- That's crazy.

- Yeah.

- Well that's... yeah.

- People like me are passionate about city stuff so I would think that's if you retire or whatever.
What would you do if someone did that? Like this is in this code, they're no longer employed with
the city you can't fire them. Would you just, not allow them to speak at me? Like what is the..?

- No, what you'd probably do is look at some of the other, trying to what are some of the... we've
got various penalties at the end.

- Okay.

- Including go city attorney could bring an action in municipal court, seek a forfeiture.

- Gotcha.

- So that would probably be it. There is an interesting existential dilemma about this is that, I've
seen many ethics decisions where somebody brings a claim against somebody and by the time
the Ethics Board gets around to dealing with it, that person is no longer employed and the board
says, well, we don't have jurisdiction anymore. You know, we can't do anything about it. This one
specifically says you can do it, something about it even if they've left. I don't know what would
happen if somebody challenged the constitutionality or whatever the ability to do that.

- Right.

- We had that with the Gizima situation a couple years ago where there an ethics com code of
conduct complaint was filed against him. And by the time it came to our board, he had lost the
election.

- Yeah.
- And we were gearing up, there were all kinds of procedural things going on beforehand, but by
the time we got to getting to a hearing, he was no longer an elected official so it was determined
that we no longer had jurisdiction to do anything about it.

- Right. Yeah.

- The next section is on political activity, and I think it's pretty close to what you have now. I don't
think we added too much that was new. Maybe the provision about the Hatch Act, but that's there
that's the law anyways.

- We did have the Hatch Act in there?

- Pardon me?

- We did have the Hatch Act provision but this kind of pulls together parts of... we had some stuff
like we had them into the two different places, some was in the code of conduct and some was in
the code. So this just kind of consolidates everything. But between the two, largely this is all kind
of just was already in existence, it just didn't all appear in the code.

- The next section is identifying those who have to file the disclosure of interest. I think about the
only change we made in here was about the time to make the filing that some of them were like
you had to do it before you were in office or something and some were after so it was all you
made that seven days. And we also added that a requirement that you update your filing annually.
You didn't have that in your code. Your code said, if there's a change, you have to update it. Well,
a lot of people don't think of that, but if they get a note from the clerk saying, Hey, it's time to
update your disclosure on an annual basis, then you'll go back and realize, oh, that's right, I
bought another piece of property that I'm not living in so I better add that. So I think that was the
main change here.

- We cleaned up some of the titles as well 'cause they were pretty outdated.

- Can I ask you on 10 under commissions? What the neighborhood preservation commission is?

- No, you can't ask me. I don't actually know. I'll find it.

- I've never heard of that, but maybe...

- That came outta your current code so I didn't ask the question either about these various
commissions. I assume they were real.

- Yeah. I don't think the neighborhood preservation commission is real, but I don't know if you
wanna add the public arts commission and the landmarks commission to that section under
commissions or not?

- We sure do.

- That was commission was all preservation commission was all about though I guess.
- It must be a holdover from previous days 'cause it's no longer in our code. So we will take that
out and I do think that's a good recommendation to include landmarks.

- There is two other commissions.

- Public arts.

- Landmarks.

- I think there used to be a historic preservation commission in the city and that's what the
neighborhood was, yeah.

- That you think that's what it was?

- Think that's what.

- That one actually became the landmarks commission. That was the historic preservation
commission was, is now the landmarks commission.

- Okay.

- It was overhauled.

- Gotcha. And then under authorities, it's actually the Green Bay housing authority. It just says
housing authority, but it's actually, I mean, that's the name of it, the green committee.

- Technically for all the commissions boards committees, they all have Green Bay in front of
them.

- Okay.

- It was something we took out when we were doing the reification, it was just part of the like
superfluous language that we were eliminating.

- Gotcha.

- Janet, if you don't mind just talking about whatever you put in the chat just for public records
purposes.

- Sure. I just went to the current code and copied out where has the definitions of lobbying in
chapter 10, article eight, just so we know. And I just wanted to point out that lobbying they're
describing it kind of differently than lobbyist, which is a compensated act where lobbying the way
it's defined doesn't seem to be a compensated act. So I don't know if that's relevant or not
relevant.

- Good point.
- Definitely something we can take a look at.

- What do you wanna do with that Lindsey? I mean, what did we say? We said engage in
lobbying didn't we? Or did we say become a lobbyist?

- I gotta scroll back up here.

- We said engage in lobbying.

- So the one of the sections does say does... so okay. Largely the article about lobbyists rather
does use the term lobbyists, the provision about conditions on lobbying or on part lobbyist
participation actually refers to engaging in lobbying. And so that's section 10-545. And so you do
have to include on your registration form, the amount of money that you do have to register, like
to actually be considered a lobbyist under this article, you do have to register with the city and
have documented the amount of compensation that you are receiving because it's defined in our
code as something that you are receiving money for, those are the only people to whom that
lobby section in the ethics code would apply.

- So is the question one of compensation or using one's knowledge to influence or potentially
influence outcomes?

- I believe the intention is for it to be compensation based on compensation, because if you're
somebody like Cheryl, who's coming in and talking about an area in which you have expertise, but
you're just doing that outta the goodness of your heart because you live in the city and you have
an interest in making sure that things go well in the city, that's fine. You can do that. But if you're
doing it because you have a new job as a housing, something, I don't know what else you could
do, Cheryl, but rule the world, I think. But you know, if in a new professional capacity, the
organization is paying you to go to the council and say, I support this for whatever reason, most
likely, because it benefits the business you work for now or something to that effect, that would be
the kind of lobbying activity that we're seeking to prohibit.

- Yeah. Lindsay, we might wanna take a look at this as I'm looking at your definitions I just
referenced the code. So the definition of lobbying itself as put up here, that makes no reference to
be paid. Lobbyist does make a reference to being paid, but exempts people who are basically full-
time lobbyists if you company and that's all you do is lobby, then you're a full-time employee and
you're not considered a lobbyist. So I'm not sure what if we're trying to get it people who get paid
for doing it, we might wanna say, act as a lobbyist instead of engage in lobbying. If we're trying to
cover everybody, including Cheryl's goodhearted help for other people, then we would continue to
use the phrase, just engage in lobbying. But I'm not sure which of those two we're aiming at. The
one is much more expansive and that's a question whether you want try and have that limitation
and whether you want it to be somebody who's paid with as a lobbyist is defined in your
ordinance. That's a lot easier to figure out.

- Good point Janet.

- Very nice.
- I think we should change it to lobbyist. Like we can't restrict Cheryl from... Cheryl has rights as a
private citizen. She can come before the council and because she's an expert on housing, say, I
think this is a really great idea. That's is that lobbying for something? I mean, people do that all
the time at council. So I don't think we wanna cover that.

- That was my question when I read that.

- Yeah. I think we want it to be more restrictive.

- If I definitely continue the conversation, my recommendation tonight on kind of the whole
ordinance anyway, is that we would not make any final approval vote or anything tonight anyway.
So I would just suggest that this be among the things that you direct us to look into a little bit more
closely. I'm just toggling back before all of these different things it's definitely something that I
need to wrap my head around a little bit better before I can even, I'll just defer to Mike on
everything tonight.

- Yeah. Well, I flagged it as something that we need to look at because if you use the phrase
become a lobbyist, that's much more limited than engage in lobbying. And you know, frankly,
when I put this in here, I didn't go read your code. I just said, we don't want them to be lobbyist
however you define it and that's a term of art that we have to be careful with. So I flag this as
something we need to think about Lindsay.

- Thanks. And I've flagged it as well. It may be that I think it's probably long that we take a look at
our lobbying ordinance as well. So I'll just make a note of that 'cause add it to the list. Behind
Alder gal's ordinance on liquor licenses.

- There's some exceptions, one that deals with sort of common acts that members do that we
don't think ought to be covered. And one I noticed before that the first two sections are
aspirational and no complaint may be filed without some violation other than those sections. I
think Lindsay, in that C on the top of page 12, I think the last sentence should say, no complaint
may be filed under this article. You see where I am?

- Sorry. Can you gimme the page reference again, please?

- Right at the top, there's a sub C and these are some of the exceptions and that's the one that
says those first two are aspirational used to interpret the ordinance and you can't file a complaint
solely based on a violation of those sections. But I think can't file a complaint under this article, I
think is what it should say.

- You're right. Thank you.

- I think that's really important to have, because people have been taking sections of the front end
of the ethics code and saying, I don't think this person has integrity or something like that. Well,
you could say that about anybody on anything. So I think that's really good to have that in there.
That should probably in the ethics code for like the officials, should probably be something like
that in there eventually. I mean the one we just got was a complaint with no reference to any
specific provision, which is like the mayor didn't have integrity when dealing with this issue.

- Yeah. That is going, I mean, our staff recommendation will, and it will be, I don't know if I said
this already, that the code of conduct will not be coming back to the board that will actually be
going to protection and policy because it's something that the council will be imposing against
itself. It's not actually going to fall within the purview of the Ethics Board at all so we don't want
you guys to even touch it so that we always have that separation between the two.

- Lindsey, can you tell me how someone would, if they feel an Alder had violated an ethic, like the
code of conduct, what would that process be? Then they'd have to go to the city council, make a
complaint to the city council?

- So yes. We haven't ironed out the complaint process yet because that's something that we want
the committee to take a closer look at.

- Okay.

- So that's something that we'll be kind of out as we go, but as it's kind of preliminarily structured,
you would inform either the mayor or the council president of the alleged violation, they would be
responsible for investigating, determining whether there was any violation and then any
consequences would kind of stem from there. As far as I think we have it right now, kind of tiered
there's like an informal complaint, a formal complaint, and then a possible resolution for censure,
and that could change subject to whatever PMPN council wanna do, and it's honestly just kind of
in the infant stages at this point, because we haven't had input from anyone other than Mike and
the law department. So we do need to get the stakeholders, which is council to really weigh in on
that, because it is something that any formal action would require a vote by council. And so we
wanna make sure that since it's the process that they'll be administering for themselves. We
wanna make sure that they are the ones that are kind of driving the bus as far as what the actual
enforcement mechanism will look like. Any complaints under it will not come before this board.
That's like a deliberate line that we're attempting to draw between the two to avoid these sort of
complaints that we've had recently, where they're based on the more subjective language in the
code of conduct.

- I thought like the social media complaint we had on Alders handle their Facebook pages and
that kind of stuff.

- That one is actually, and Michael probably get to this when we talk about the revisions to the
part about the Ethics Board, but that's actually more of a jurisdictional question. And so that is not
a social media type, a complete, like the one that was filed based on the social media allegations
is really more of a first amendment question. And so it's not something that the board ever had
jurisdiction over. And so that's why the way that we're setting it up now, that initial hearing, rather
than just being a date where everybody gets together and we schedule the first evidentiary
hearing, the initial hearing will actually be a jurisdictional hearing where if the board determines
that you don't have jurisdiction, it gets dismissed there and it doesn't go any further.

- Gotcha.
- Couple...

- I don't mean to cut off my Mike's presentation for later.

- No, that's okay.

- I've got a question about, I don't see anything in here giving a timeline for filing a complaint.

- It's also in that jurisdictional section. I'm sorry, Mike, that I'm jumping in.

- It's at 180 days.

- Yeah.

- Instead of, instead of a year, it's six months.

- Okay. All right.

- I like that.

- Yeah.

- I'll keep charging ahead. Page 12 is a totally new section on disclosure and recusal. You really
didn't have any provisions that gave guidance to members of boards, committees, or
commissions or council members, or even employees on when they were in a situation where
they had a conflict that would require them to either disclose it to somebody or actually recuse
themselves from taking action. And this basically draws a line between it's a situation that
reasonably and objectively would conflict with their official duties or impair their independence of
action or judgment, then they have to recuse themselves. If they have some more tangential
conflict and the one I often use is, I used to work for this company six years ago, but I haven't
done anything with them in the last six years, I don't think that's sufficient that it's gonna affect my
judgment and I won't recuse myself. And what recusal means. I've seen places where somebody
says, yeah, I'm recusing myself and they participate in a debate or something like that. And you
know, it's just gotta be clear that if you're recusing yourself, you're out. It retains what I've seen in
almost all the body cannot force a covered person or an official to recuse. They make their own
determination and that if somebody thinks they've made the wrong determination, the remedy is
to file a complaint in front of you. And you might find that they did have a conflict, they should
have recused and whatever remedy is appropriate at that point. The next section... Go ahead.
Yep.

- So many times council members at council will say, just so everybody knows I'm I work for
someone that is part of this organization and is asking for A, B and C, and so I'm gonna recuse
myself. Do the council members have to give a reason why they're recusing themselves or can
they just say I'm recusing myself?

- No, if you say I'm recusing myself on item 38, that's all you have to do.
- Okay.

- If you're gonna just disclose and not recuse, you've gotta tell what the relationship is and why it
is such that it doesn't justify recusal. But if you wanna recuse yourself, you can just announce I'm
recusing on item 36, and won't be participating in the debate or voting on that.

- All right. 'Cause we had an pass who would abstain from voting, so he didn't have to vote up or
down. And then you could say, and later on, well, I didn't vote against it, I didn't add in that he
didn't vote for it either, but he would just abstain to avoid that being found in favor or not in favor
of a thing that was before the council.

- Well, assuming that person didn't have a conflict and...

- Well that's just it. I mean, what he was doing was he was avoiding being held responsible by his
constituents for voting something up or down.

- Yeah.

- So he just didn't vote, he just let it right.

- Yeah. There's actually constitutional decisions about that you can't force a member of an
elective body to vote.

- Okay.

- They have a first amendment right to abstain.

- All right. That's good information I have.

- Yeah. Okay. Then we get into the composition and duties of the board. I think most of this is
similar to what you had. There's an expanded provision in sub B about the city attorney issuing
advisory opinions. And it says the attorney May, but need not issue advisory opinions to any city
employee who has a question as to the applicability of it. And if the city attorney gives the advice
and they follow it's prima facie evidence of no violation. But the city attorney also has the right if
he gets any request to refer it to the Ethics Board and say, I don't want to touch this. You want an
advisory opinion, I'm sending it up to the Ethics Board. But to me, it's a situation. Some people
will just call up and say, Lindsay, I got this situation, am I okay? And it may be obvious that they're
okay or obvious that they're not okay and she can shoot off an email and say, here's the problem
or no, I think you're good. And so you wanna have that option. On the other hand, Lindsay was
very clear to me that there are sometimes we don't wanna issue an opinion and we want the
board to have to take it up. So we put this in here, but it gives the city attorney the option of
advising employees or the option of just saying, no, this has gotta go to the Ethics Board. It limits
the people who can bring a complaint to an adult resident of City of Green Bay. I don't know if
that's ever been an issue, but I don't think you want people coming in from outside the city and
making complaints. It's got the section on jurisdictional hearing and basically a new 180 day
statute of limitations. Goes on to state the various on page 14, the various actions that the board
can take, even after they hold the hearing is Diminimus censuring the respondent council
represent censure. Bring an action and can make a recommendation that the person be removed
even. It says the board may recommend amendments to the code. Somewhere in here, Lindsey,
we added the authority, the board to make its own rules. Where is it?

- Section F of that page.

- Section F.

- Yeah, section F. The board made up rules and procedures to go from complains to responses.

- Yeah very good. I knew I put it in here somewhere because I think that was one of the things I
heard a complaint about before is that we don't... there's no explicit authority for us to set up rule,
tell people how to file, what it should look like and things like that. So I think that's important.

- Mike, on that point, can we set that out as a separate item rather than embedding it in?

- Sure, Sure.

- Because I think that sets it up kind of distinguishes it from the hearing process.

- Yep. That sounds that's a good idea. Remember, I was trying to find a place to put it in here, but
I just stuck it off that section.

- And they're done that.

- Yep. That's it.

- And Mike, can I say kudos to you on G.

- Oh yeah.

- I mean, seriously this frivolous complaint stuff where there's no basis in fact, or right? I mean, I
don't see that getting any better with time, unfortunately. So I don't know if that was in there
before, but I like that provision.

- I think there was something in there in the code of conduct, but it was because of where it was
and how it was stated. There wasn't a stick, there wasn't anything to actually enforce it. And so
this actually allows for bringing in action.

- On that can I make a suggest or something for consideration that it says the city attorney May
bring an action in the name of the city? I'm wondering if we should just say the city may bring an
action, because there might be an issue where the city attorney might be conflicted out and allow
them to bring in another council. And I don't want somebody to come back and say, well, the
ordinance only says the city attorney can do it. Why am I being sued by the city, through ABC law
firm or something?

- True.
- I'm thinking about that because technically when I was hired to advise the Ethics Board, I'm a
special city attorney at that time. And I don't know whether that would be confused with this or
not. But if you say city, I guess the only person who can bring it is the city attorney or some other
attorney on behalf of the city. So I think we'd be okay.

- Yeah. I just don't want somebody to come up with some crafty defense attorney come up with
the idea that, well the code only says the city attorney and it's not the city attorney.

- Yeah. The question is, assume you're gonna invoke this bill who do you make the
recommendation to? To the city attorney and then let them decide whether they can bring it or do
you just make a recommendation at the end of your decision? We recommend that the city bring
this action.

- That's what I would say.

- Okay.

- If we don't have like outside counsel, then though it still falls on the city attorney to find outside
counsel to prosecute the action. So it still feels like one way or another, it's still ultimately going to
have to come through our office.

- Oh yeah. I agree with that. But by using the term city attorney, I think we're limiting the scope of
who can do it. Practically I think all of us understand that, but I think I don't wanna give somebody
an easy argument.

- Yeah. Okay. Any other comments or questions or? Yeah, sure.

- I have one thing and I don't know if this would fall under this code, but since the code of conduct
is kind of going away to maybe be redrafted by different body, how do you handle situations
where elected officials are abusing their power with regards to city employees trying to influence
them to do things for whatever reason? Would that be within this code? I mean, I've present
company excluded, I've worked with a lot of alders over time and sometimes you get some alders
that are like trying to influence inspectors or in a capacity where they're using their power to
influence a city employee to maybe not do their job properly. Is would that fall under this or would
that be something that should be addressed under the code of conduct for the council members?

- I believe it would be the latter. I'm not sure that there's any provision in here that would cover
that situation unless the Alder was doing it for the benefit of a family member or some
organization that they had some connection with. Or the financial gain of somebody, but just
being abusive, I don't think is covered by this ethics code.

- Okay.

- And I agree. I mean, I think that would have to be covered under the code of conduct. And
again, without getting off the highway here too much, I think a lot of work needs to be done with
that, and who knows what's gonna happen when you're finally presented to the council to go over
and try and implement how they're gonna do it. It's gonna be interesting to say the least, but I
think there needs to be code for the elected officials.

- Yep. Lindsay, here's a question for you. So we do this new ethics code and it moves forward on
a parallel path. You're starting to look at the code of conduct and what you may do. In the
meantime, the code of conduct still says that any complaints will come to the Ethics Board. Is that
a concern that this will be done in six months and the code of conduct will take two year? And the
plan was to remove it from the Ethics Board, but that doesn't happen because we have don't have
a new method for people to make complaints. I don't have a good answer for that. I mean, I don't
think you want to include a resolution that says we're striking the section on remedies, in the code
of conduct in the interim. On the other hand, maybe the Ethics Board will just say, well, we think
this is going away and we're not gonna deal with it in the interim. But that's a question that
occurred to me, 'cause I anticipate that this code will be approved much more quickly than
whatever the code of conduct is gonna end up looking like.

- So the original thought, and I should say as an initial matter, we are potentially going to be
ready to bring the code of conduct to PMP at the next PMP meeting, which is in like two weeks.
And then, so that would be discussed for the first time on June 7th at council. But my expectation
is that it will not obviously be resolved in one evening. It'll be the referred to staff after
considerable discussion for kind of redrafting. And our initial, our initial thought was to ask them to
suspend the code of conduct just because so much of it is subjective and difficult to enforce. One
of the difficulties with that is that our current code doesn't lay out the exact procedure for, like our
actual ethics code in chapter two doesn't lay out the procedure for bringing complaints again for
violations of the ethics provisions in chapter two. So one thought is to potentially just go to
committee still with the request to suspend the code of conduct while we with a relatively quick
turnaround time while we make the revisions, but then also come with a temporary interim at least
procedure or something to that effect that can still afford for that kind of mechanism for bringing
complaints before the Ethics Board, because we just wanna make sure that we don't remove the
board's jurisdiction for things like conflicts of interest. And so that's something that we're still kind
of figuring out, but at least that's the initial thought that I don't know that there's a great way to do
it without leaving the code of conduct kind of pending and then everything gets revised and the
board just has to hold stuff in the interim and then when it's revised, you just dismiss everything
'cause it's not there anymore. I don't know. So if anybody has any brilliant ideas, I'm open to
them.

- Well, I'm not sure if this is true in Green Bay, but in other places where I've seen it, that the
complaints that are brought either under the ethics code under your coded conduct, tend to
multiply as you get close to local elections.

- Yes.

- And you just had a local election. So you've got sort of a two year window here where maybe
you can get this done. And yes, there possibly could be some complaints under the code of
conduct in the interim, but it's less likely.

- Mike, we've already had complaints filed against the city clerk from the April election. And I see
some of these same people taking the path of the code of conduct code of ethics. And then
there's a lot, a lot of focus on this upcoming fall election. And I anticipate unless the courts start
putting out some rulings to either enforce or deny some of the things that are being done, I see
more complaints coming forward. And I think people are gonna grasp onto this and just start
throwing as much mud up, hoping something sticks somewhere. And so I hope we can get this
code of conduct up and running and somehow force council to get something in place sooner
than later. I'd like to see something before the end of June, end of July, because looking at what
we've done here with the code of ethics, I could see easily three quarters of the hearings I've
been at over the last six years. Never would never have gone anywhere or been filed. But I don't
know. Hope for the best prepare for the worst.

- Okay. I just thought I'd raise that. You're obviously thinking about it and...

- Yeah. I may sound glass half empty right now, but just experience over the last couple of years
has taught me kind of my beer's always half empty.

- Yeah.

- At the very least we can agree that the glass is not full and we have to accept that reality. But I
think Alder Gavin is probably right. Especially, because as long as the code of conduct remains in
effect, there's still that one year statute of limitations, there's still a lot of things that have
happened in the last year that would technically fall under that. And so we are trying to get it
remedied quickly and we do anticipate that there will be a lot of eyes on the upcoming elections
as well as potential issues that arise related to them. So we certainly don't wanna rush this
through because I don't know how much time was put into taking the care to really make the code
of conduct, what it should have been the first time around as we can see by some of the
difficulties we've had enforcing it. So we don't wanna get into that situation, but we also don't
wanna leave it just kind of as in dangling for too long.

- Yeah. You know, I guess to the extent that I was around back when this thing started, the
general intent was just for the Ethics Board to be a fact finder. So kind of the things that you were
talking about doing now would be the same sort of thing where if someone wanna file a complaint
against an Alder that would be sent, it's supposed to be filed with counsel, but then the council
would use the Ethics Board as the finder of, or the trier of fact finder of fact, to do that
investigative work and then report back to the council as to what it found. And the original draft
never included to my knowledge, any sort of hearing process, but we might have to go out and
hire special counsel to do the investigation or whatever, and then get a report back and file that
with counsel. But we were never intended to be a hearing officer on Alder file. So that it wouldn't
get bogged down in counsel with other political things going on, it would just go to the Ethics
Board to do the investigation and then send it back to council with a recommendation and for the
council then act on that recommendation if they chose not to. But it got pushed into this whole
where we're a trier of fact, rather than just a finder of effect. So that's where it started.

- It's the camel that the committee came up with.

- So what next Lindsay, do we need to talk about these changes or do you have 'em that you can
take care of 'em or where do we do from here? Or should we talk tomorrow and let these people
go.
- Let's at least circle back together on the lobbying question. I just wanna make sure I'm really
ironing that out with you as well once I have a chance to dig into our actual code a little bit more.
But other than that, I have most of these plus it's I did remember to record at this time, so we're
good. So I'll be able to catch the revisions here as well. So at this point I would suggest the board
just refer it back to staff just for now, just for us to make these changes that we've discussed and
the additional information ironed out for, I think the lobbying is the only substantive area we really
have to revise if I'm remembering correctly from the last hour and a half. But I think referring it
back to us gives us the time to then get the code of conduct to PMP and ideally kind of work
toward bringing the code of conduct and this to counsel around the same time, if possible. And so
if you guys are amenable to that, that would be my recommendation is just to refer back to staff at
this point.

- Well, I will make that motion that this discussion that we refer this back to staff to follow through,
and we have a second. Any further discussion from the board? Any further questions? Hearing
none, all in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

- [All] Aye.

- Any opposed? Motion carries.

- And so then I will just circle back with everybody about scheduling the next meeting when we
are ready for that point.

- Okay. Excellent. Very good. Well, thank you all, good discussion, considerable interest in this
topic I think from all of us having been down this road numerous times. And thank you, Lindsey
and Mike for all your work and effort on this.

- Absolutely.

- Yep.

- Thank you. Alright, so looks like we're ready for a motion to adjourn. Somebody wanna great us
with that motion. Thank you. Is there a second?

- Second.

- Yeah, a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor signify by staying Aye.

- [All] Aye.

- Any opposed? Motion carries. Again, thank you all for your time tonight and we'll be hearing
from staff on all of this, I'm sure.

- Thanks everyone.

- Thank you all.
- Good night.

- Good night.