Rules and Reports Committee — Portland, ME
Date: 2022-03-28
Time: 08:00

Councilor Andrew Zarro, District 4, Chair
Kate Snyder, Mayor
Councilor Pious Ali, At-Large
Councilor Mark Dion, District 5



 City Council Rules Committee
 Monday, March 28, 2022
 8:00 a.m., remote via Zoom

 AGENDA

Zoom Information:
This meeting will take place remotely using Zoom.

This meeting will be held remotely pursuant to the Remote Meeting Policy adopted by the
Portland City Council and as authorized under 1 M.R.S. 403-B because of the existence of an
emergency or urgent issue that requires the committee to meet by remote methods. Allow your
computer to install the free Zoom app to get the best meeting experience. If you are not able to
attend live, a recording will be available in the Agenda Center following the meeting.

 For public comment, you will need to use the "raise your hand" feature. To raise your hand via
the telephone, please hit *9. You will be unmuted by the host

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://portlandmaine-
gov.zoom.us/j/88320653716?pwd=cC9OZ3RXQUFrcytCRG1wVEg1V1pNUT09
Passcode: 298445
Or One tap mobile :
 US: +19292056099,,88320653716#,,,,*298445# or
+13017158592,,88320653716#,,,,*298445#
Or Telephone:
 Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
 US: +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1
253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799
Webinar ID: 883 2065 3716
Passcode: 298445
  International numbers available: https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/u/kd0oBoCWmA




1. Call to Order


2. Approval of February 28 and March 7, 2022 draft minutes


 a. Both draft minutes attached.
3. Review draft Code of Ethics


 a. Draft Code of Ethics and Portland, Oregon Code of Ethics, attached.

4. Public Comment on Council Code of Ethics


5. Adjournment

Councilor Andrew Zarro, District 4, Chair
Kate Snyder, Mayor
Councilor Pious Ali, At-Large
Councilor Mark Dion, District 5



 City Council Rules Committee
 Monday, March 28, 2022
 8:00 a.m., remote via Zoom

 AGENDA

Zoom Information:
This meeting will take place remotely using Zoom.

This meeting will be held remotely pursuant to the Remote Meeting Policy adopted by the
Portland City Council and as authorized under 1 M.R.S. 403-B because of the existence of an
emergency or urgent issue that requires the committee to meet by remote methods. Allow your
computer to install the free Zoom app to get the best meeting experience. If you are not able to
attend live, a recording will be available in the Agenda Center following the meeting.

 For public comment, you will need to use the "raise your hand" feature. To raise your hand via
the telephone, please hit *9. You will be unmuted by the host

Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://portlandmaine-
gov.zoom.us/j/88320653716?pwd=cC9OZ3RXQUFrcytCRG1wVEg1V1pNUT09
Passcode: 298445
Or One tap mobile :
 US: +19292056099,,88320653716#,,,,*298445# or
+13017158592,,88320653716#,,,,*298445#
Or Telephone:
 Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
 US: +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1




 Page 1
253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799
Webinar ID: 883 2065 3716
Passcode: 298445
  International numbers available: https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/u/kd0oBoCWmA




1. Call to Order


2. Approval of February 28 and March 7, 2022 draft minutes


 a. Both draft minutes attached.
3. Review draft Code of Ethics


 a. Draft Code of Ethics and Portland, Oregon Code of Ethics, attached.

4. Public Comment on Council Code of Ethics


5. Adjournment




 Page 2
 City Council Rules Committee

 Monday, February 28, 2022, 8:00 AM
 Remote Meeting Minutes

 Rules Committee Members:
 Councilor Andrew Zarro, Chair
 Mayor Kate Snyder
 Councilor Pious Ali
 Councilor Mark Dion


The meeting, held by ZOOM technology, convened at 8:00 a.m. on February 28, 2022.

Attendees: Committee members Councilor Andrew Zarro, Chair, Mayor Kate Snyder,
Councilor Pious Ali, and Councilor Mark Dion, and Acting Corporation Counsel Jen
Thompson, and assistant Nancy English. Members of the public Portland Regional
Chamber, Ian Paleologopoulos, and John P., attended.

Councilor Zarro convened the meeting and asked for a motion to accept the minutes of
the February 7, 2022 meeting. Councilor Dion moved and Mayor Snyder seconded his
motion to approve, which was approved by a roll call vote of 4-0.

Councilor Zarro began the meeting with the review of redlined changes attached to the
agenda, beginning with Rule 19, Reconsideration. A revision from the word "majority" to
"the prevailing side" was agreed to, to be repeated in the second paragraph of Rule 19.

During discussion of Rule 20, Failure to Pass, Acting Corporation Counsel Jen
Thompson said that when a motion fails, this rule provides a method for the Council to
make a clear decision to reject the item by voting to postpone it indefinitely. Mayor
Snyder said it was best to leave the rule in place. Councilor Dion asked if the time frame
should be specified, requiring this motion at the time of the failed motion, but it was
decided that this suggestion could be added in the future.

Discussion of the redline change to Rule 32 allowing questions to be directed at
individual councilors determined that this could prove disruptive. Jen Thompson said
comment was better addressed to the City Council as a whole. Mayor Snyder said this
change would be against the spirit of the other rules, and Councilor Zarro agreed it was
not advisable.




 Page 3
In discussion of Rule 32, Section 5, Councilor Dion said it was important for people
giving public comment to state where they are from. Mayor Snyder said identifying the
town is enough, without the person's specific address. Councilor Dion said the
commenter should provide a first and last name.

Chair Zarro said he did not want to cause discomfort or embarrassment to the unhoused
who may not have an address to share and stated that having speakers identify themselves
by name and town was acceptable. Mayor Snyder summarized the change as requiring
first and last name, city of residence, and/or district and/or organization represented.

Jen Thompson's revision of Rule 32 with the language, "abusive or disrespectful" in place
of the term "scurrilous" was approved by the committee.

A move or change of time of non-agenda item public comment was set for discussion at
the next meeting, to be scheduled following adjournment, as well as any further
discussion of Rules 32 and 38. Additional changes to the workshop rule language
requested by Councilor Ali will also be discussed at that time.

Acting Corporation Counsel Thompson asked that the committee members send her any
suggested changes soon in order to include them in a document for the next meeting.

Councilor Zarro asked if there were any public comment and seeing no hands raised,
closed public comment.

Mayor Snyder moved and Councilor Dion seconded the motion to adjourn, which passed
by a roll call vote of 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:11 a.m.




 Page 4
 City Council Rules Committee

 Monday, March 7, 2022, 8:00 AM
 Remote Meeting Minutes

 Rules Committee Members:
 Councilor Andrew Zarro, Chair
 Mayor Kate Snyder
 Councilor Pious Ali
 Councilor Mark Dion


The meeting, held by ZOOM technology, convened at 8:02 a.m. on March 7, 2022.

Attendees: Committee members Councilor Andrew Zarro, Chair, Mayor Kate Snyder,
Councilor Pious Ali, and Councilor Mark Dion, and Acting Corporation Counsel Jen
Thompson, and assistant Nancy English. Members of the public Sarah Michniewicz and
John P. attended.

Councilor Zarro began the meeting with the review of redlined changes attached to the
agenda, beginning with Rule 19, Reconsideration. Acting Corporation Counsel Jen
Thompson said the redline changes began with the substitution of the words "Prevailing
side" for the word "majority." In Rule 32, subsection 5, and Rule 36 the changes
concerned how members of the public identify themselves. In Rule 32, "abusive or
disrespectful" was proposed in place of the term "scurrilous."

Mayor Snyder said the revisions looked good except that Rule 32, subsection 4,
concerning the time of the non-agenda item public comment period, which could be, as it
is in the School Board agenda, set at the end of the meeting.

The change of time of non-agenda item public comment was discussed at length, with
Mayor Snyder and Councilor Dion stating why the end of the meeting was best – since it
would prioritize the items on the agenda already vetted by committee, with staff members
ready to answer questions. Chair Zarro and Councilor Ali stated their preference for this
public comment to be scheduled at the beginning of the meeting, which would make it
certain when it would occur. Although scheduled for 6:00 p.m., it often comes later, after
the council finishes deliberating on an item on the agenda started before the 6:00 p.m.
hour. Chair Zarro said putting this comment at the end of the agenda would mean fewer
people would participate.




 Page 5
Given the split in support between the beginning and the end of the meeting for non-
agenda item comment, Mayor Snyder suggested the other changes could go forward with
unanimous approval from the Rules Committee while the time of the non-agenda item
period would be left to the full council for a decision.

Further discussion concerned changes proposed by Councilor Ali to allow public
comment by Council-invited participants at workshops. Jen Thompson said workshops
are now limited to councilors and city staff. If workshops were opened up to comment
by Council- guests, the workshop would likely become a public forum and likely
necessitate that all public comment be permitted, which might impede the unique aims of
workshops. However, if comment by members of the public is desired at a workshop, the
Council’s existing rules would permit public comment by a vote to waive the usual rule.

Discussion of process followed. Councilor Dion said workshops were for educating the
city councilors following the work on items in committee, where public comment is
invited, and before the public hearing that is required once the item is being considered
for a vote before the full City Council.

Mayor Snyder said outside experts are best enlisted while a committee is reviewing an
item. Chair Zarro said if more information is needed at the workshop, an item should
return to committee for additional review.

Councilor Ali agreed that the exploratory process in committee was a good process and
that he would let this proposal go.

Chair Zarro opened the meeting for public comment and attendee Sarah Michniewicz
asked what would happen if a member of the public declined to give a last name. She also
said it can be frustrating to wait all night to speak, and that no mention had been made of
the behavior of councilors during the non-agenda item public comment period.

Chair Zarro closed the public comment period and asked for a motion to approve the
revisions in the rules attachment. Mayor Snyder moved to approve, and Councilor Dion
seconded that motion. The vote was 4-0 in favor.

Mayor Snyder moved and Councilor Dion seconded approval of moving the non-agenda
item public comment period to either the beginning or the end of a council meeting,
which passed by a vote of 4-0.

Councilors and the Mayor noted that the minutes of the last meeting had been left off the
agenda, and their approval was scheduled for the next Rules Committee meeting, that
date to be set following this meeting.

Mayor Snyder moved and Councilor Zarro seconded the motion to adjourn, which passed
by a roll call vote of 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:13 a.m.




 Page 6
 CITY OF PORTLAND
 CODE OF ETHICS



 ARTICLE I

 General Provisions

§ 1. Declaration of policy.
The proper operation of democratic government requires that City Councilors and their
appointees be fair, impartial and responsive to the needs of the people and each other in
the performance of their respective functions and duties; that decisions and policy be
made in proper channels of the City's governmental structure; that public office not be
used for personal gain; and that City councilors and City appointees maintain a standard
of conduct that will inspire public confidence in the integrity of the City's government.
In recognition of these goals, a Code of Ethics is hereby established for City Councilors
and members and associate members of the all City boards and commissions now
existing or hereafter created.

§ 1.1. Nonpartisanship.
To meet the purpose of this Code, the nonpartisanship of City Councilors and their
appointees is important for the public confidence in their conduct in fulfilling their duties.
In fulfilling their duties and obligations to the citizens of the City of Portland, City
Councilors and their appointees are expected to maintain the nonpartisan structure and
intent of Portland's form of local governance. To this end, City Councilors and their
appointees shall conduct themselves in a nonpartisan manner, favoring no political party,
and shall refrain from active participation in the election campaign of any particular
candidate, whenever they are identified with, or closely associated with, their roles as
Portland public officials or appointees. In such circumstances, public officials and
appointees should take care to identify themselves as private individuals, explicitly
separating their statements and actions from their office or appointment.

§ 2. Definitions.
As used in this code, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:
BOARD — All statutory and nonstatutory boards now existing or hereafter created under
the City Charter or by virtue of any ordinance, order or resolve adopted by the Portland
City Council, including, without limitation, the following:
A. Portland Development Corporation Board of Directors.
B. Zoning Board of Appeals.
C. Board of Assessment Review.
D. Planning Board.
E. Historic Preservation Board
F. Portland Fish Exchange,
G. Fish Pier Authority,

 33:1

 Page 7
 H. Creative Portland
 I. Rent Board
 J. Rental Housing Advisory Committee
 K. Community development block grant allocation committee
 L. Police Citizen Review Subcommittee


 BOARD MEMBER — Any person elected to membership or associate
membership on a City board or appointed to such a board by or under the authority of
the Portland City Council.
 BUSINESS — Any corporation, partnership, individual, sole proprietorship, joint
venture or any other legally recognized entity organized for the purposes of making a
profit.
 CITY COUNCIL — For purposes of this code, references to the City Council shall
be construed to mean the City Council of the City of Portland and any of the committees
or subcommittees thereof.
 CITY COUNCILOR — A member of the Portland City Council.
 COMMISSION — All committees, commissions or other public bodies now
existing or hereafter created by virtue of any ordinance, order or resolve adopted by the
Portland City Council, including, without limitation, the following
 A. Parks Commission
 B. Land Bank Commission
 C. Pesticide Advisory Commission
 COMMISSION MEMBER — Any person appointed to membership or associate
membership on a City commission or committee by or under the authority of the Portland
City Council.
 FINANCIAL INTEREST — A direct or indirect interest having monetary or
pecuniary value, including but not limited to the ownership of shares of stock. A City
Councilor, board member or commission member or any member of that person's
immediate family who holds a financial interest in a disclosed blind trust shall not be
deemed to have a conflict of interest with regard to matters pertaining to assets held by
the trust.
 IMMEDIATE FAMILY — Spouse, children, parents. siblings, including step, half,
and in-law relations, and domestic partner of a City Councilor, board member or
commission member.
 PERSONAL INTEREST — Any interest of a City Councilor, board member or
commission member acting in his/her/their private capacity as a resident, landowner, taxpayer,
citizen, or member of the general public.




 Page 8
 SPECIAL INTEREST — A direct or indirect interest having value peculiar to a certain
individual or group, whether economic or otherwise, which value may accrue to such
individual or group as a result of the passage or denial of any order, ordinance or resolution or
the approval or disapproval thereof by the City Council, board or commission and which
interest is not shared by the general public.

 § 3. Violations and penalties.


 Violations of this code shall be punishable by civil fine as provided in Chapter 1, of the
City of Portland Code ofOrdinances, § 1-15. In addition to any other penalties or remedies as
may be provided by law, violation of this code shall constitute cause for censure, after notice
and hearing conducted by the City Council. A majority of the Portland City Council shall
conduct such proceedings.


 ARTICLE II
 Standards of Conduct

 § 4. Purpose.
 The purpose of this Code is to establish ethical standards of conduct for all City
Councilors and board and commission members by setting forth those acts or actions deemed
to be in conflict or incompatible, or to create the appearance of conflict or incompatibility, with
the best interests of the City of Portland.

 § 5. Statutory standards.
 There are certain provisions of the general statutes of the State of Maine which should,
while not set forth herein, be considered an integral part of this code. Accordingly, the
provisions of the following sections of the general statutes of the State of Maine, as may be
amended, are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Code of Ethics and shall
apply to all City Councilors, board members and commission members of the City of Portland
whenever applicable as if more fully set forth therein:
 A. 17 M.R.S.A. § 3104, Conflicts of interest; purchases by the state.
 B. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 456, Tampering with public records or information.
 C. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 602, Bribery in official and political matters.
 D. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 603, Improper influence.
 E. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 604, Improper compensation for past action.
 F. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 605, Improper gifts to public servants.
 G. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 606, Improper compensation for services.




 Page 9
 H. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 607, Purchase of public office.
 I. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 608, Official oppression.
 J. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 609, Misuse of information.
 K. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 903, Misuse of entrusted property.
 L. 21-A M.R.S.A. § 504, Persons ineligible to serve.
 M. 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2605, Conflicts of interest.
 N. 30-A M.R.S.A. § 5122, Interest of public officials, trustees or employees.

§ 5.1. Unbiased conduct.
A. The purpose of this provision is to clearly establish the expectation of unbiased, fair,
 impartial, and equitable treatment of all persons.
 City Councilors, board members, and commission members shall conduct themselves in
 a manner that does not discriminate unlawfully against any person because of race, color,
 religion, sex, national origin, age, physical or mental disability, genetic information,
 gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, cultural group, or
 political status.
B. All persons, irrespective of personal characteristics or other distinctions, to include, but
 not limited to, race, ethnic background, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual
 orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, age, cultural group, or political status, shall be
 treated in the same basic manner under the same or similar circumstances.

§ 6. Contracts, purchases and employment.
A. No City Councilor, board member or commission member shall participate directly,
 by means of deliberation, approval or disapproval or recommendation, in the
 purchase of goods and services for the City and the award of any contracts with the
 City, except as permitted under the City's Purchasing Regulations and under the
 laws of the State of Maine, where to his/her/their knowledge there is a financial
 interest, or special interest other than that possessed by the public generally, in such
 purchase or award held by:
 (1) That individual or a member of his/ her/their immediate family;
 (2) A business in which that individual or a member of his/her/their immediate
 family serves as an officer, director, trustee, partner or employee in a
 supervisory or management position; or
 (3) Any other person or business with whom or with which that individual or a
 member of his/her/their immediate family is in business or is negotiating or has
 an arrangement concerning future employment.




 Page 10
B. No City Councilor, board member or commission member shall participate, by
 means of deliberation, approval or disapproval or recommendation, in the decision
 to hire, promote, discipline, lay off or to take any other personnel action in respect
 to any applicant for City employment or City employee where said applicant or
 employee is:
 (1) A member of the Councilor's, board member's or commission member's immediate
 family; or
 (2) A person with whom either the Councilor, board member, commission member or a
 member of his/her/their immediate family is in business.
 § 7. Confidential information
 No City Councilor, board member or commission member shall, without proper legal
authorization, disclose confidential information concerning the property, government or affairs
of the City, nor shall he or she use such information to advance his/her/their financial, special,
or personal interest or the financial, special, or personal interest of others. For purposes of this
section, the term "confidential information" shall mean any information, oral or written, which
comes to the attention of, or is available to, such City Councilor, board member or commission
member only because of his/her/their position with the City and is not a matter of public record.
Information received and discussed during an executive session of the Portland City Council
or any City agency called pursuant to 1 M.R.S.A. § 405 et seq. shall be considered within the
constraints of this section and shall not be disclosed to any third party unless permitted by
affirmative vote of such body.

 § 7.1. Use of social media.
 This provision provides parameters to be followed when using social media while
working or during activities related to work for the public. Its purpose is to offer a means to
distinguish between personal opinions or comments and opinions or comments in one's
official capacity. Its intent is to respect protected speech and First Amendment rights.
 A. The use of online social networks can blur the lines between private opinions and
 comments and those that are made in one's official capacity. Any use of social media
 by a person associated with the City may be perceived as representing the City and
 City government. Hence, discretion and caution are needed.
 B. Social media refers to online communications tools, including but not limited to
 online social networks such as Facebook, professional networks such as Linkedin®,
 microblogging tools such as Twitter and Tumblr, photograph and video sharing sites
 such as Pinterest and YouTube, and personal blogging and online forum sites.
C. All those governed by the Code of Ethics must, on their personal social media accounts,
 include a qualifying statement that substantially adheres to the following form: "The views
 I express on this site are my own and do not reflect any official view or position of the
 City of Portland."
 Inappropriate uses of private social media include, but are not limited to:



 Page 11
 (1) Disclosure of confidential or proprietary information about or relating to the
 City, its customers, or its employees, private citizens, or private businesses;


 (2) Any statements or posted materials that could reasonably be considered to
 represent the views or position of the City or one of its departments, unless
 an official position has been taken;

 (3) Posting or messaging in a manner that could reasonably give rise to an
 expectation that someone contacting the person would receive an official
 response.

 § 8. Use of City property.
 No City Councilor, board member or commission member shall use or permit the use of
any City-owned property, including but not limited to motor vehicles, equipment and
buildings, for any private purposes. Nothing herein shall prohibit use of City buildings and
equipment at rates and/or on terms as may be established. Nothing herein shall prohibit the use
of City equipment or motor vehicles by City employees in accordance with written policies
established by the City Council, City Manager or City department head concerned, nor shall
this code be deemed to prohibit private use of surplus City property legally disposed of by the
City or its departments in compliance with established procedures.

 § 8.1. Solicitations by City officials and employees. The following provisions apply
to solicitations by City of Portland officials for the benefit of the City or for the support of
City programs or activities.
A. City Council. No member of the City Council, during his/her/their term of office, shall
 solicit donations of money, property or items of value from any individual or business for
 the benefit of the City of Portland or for the support of any City program or activity. No
 City Council member may directly receive or accept any such donation, whether or not
 solicited by the Council member concerned. This subsection does not prohibit the
 following:
 (1) Solicitations of individuals related to the Councilor concerned by blood, marriage or
 adoption;
 (2) Solicitations of businesses in which the Councilor concerned holds an equity interest
 as proprietor, partner or shareholder;
 (3) General statements of support for particular fund-raising efforts, provided that the
 statements of support are directed at the public at large and not at any particular
 individual or business; and
 (4) Solicitations expressly authorized by City Council ordinance or order.
 § 9. Representing third party interest before City agencies.




 Page 12
A. No City Councilor shall either appear on behalf of any third party interest before any City
 agency or represent a third party interest in any action, proceeding or litigation in which
 the City or one of its agencies is a party. Nothing herein shall prohibit a Councilor, on
 behalf of a constituent in the course of his/her/their duties as a representative of the
 electorate, or any Councilor, on behalf of his/her/their personal interest, from appearing
 before a City agency.
B. No board or commission shall appear on behalf of any third party interest before a City
 agency of which he or she is a current member. Nothing herein shall prohibit a board
 member or commission member, on behalf of his/her/their personal interest, from
 appearing before any City agency, including that of which he or she is a current member,
 but such board member or commission member shall not deliberate or vote on the item
 concerned.

 § 10. Conflicts of interest.
A. Deliberation and vote prohibited. No City Councilor, board member or commission
 member shall, in such capacity, participate in the deliberation or vote, or otherwise take
 part in the decision-making process, on any agenda item before his/her/their collective
 body in which he or she or a member of his/her/their immediate family has a financial or
 special interest, other than an interest held by the public generally.
B. Disclosure of conflict. Any City Councilor, board member or commission member who
 believes that he or she or a member of his/her/their immediate family has a financial or
 special interest, other than an interest held by the public generally, in any agenda item
 before his/her/their collective body shall disclose the nature and extent of such interest,
 and the City Clerk or his/her/their designee shall make a record of such disclosure. Such
 disclosure shall be made no later than the date of the first meeting of the City Council,
 board, commission or committee thereof at which the agenda item concerned is to be
 taken up for consideration, recommendation, discussion or vote and at which the City
 Councilor, board member or commission member is present. Additionally, any City
 Councilor, board member or commission member who believes that any fellow City
 Councilor, board member or commission member, or a member of such fellow City
 Councilor's, board member's or commission member's immediate family has a financial
 or special interest, other than an interest held by the public generally, in any agenda item
 before his/her/their collective body shall disclose the nature and extent of such interest,
 and the City Clerk or his/her/their designee shall make a record of such disclosure.
C. Determination of conflict. Once the issue of conflict has been raised relative to an
 individual City Councilor, committee member, board member or commission member
 and disclosure has been made as provided above, such individual's fellow City
 Councilors, committee members, board members or commission members shall review
 the facts as disclosed to them and shall vote on whether or not such individual has a
 financial or special interest with respect to the agenda item concerned. All conflict of
 interest questions relating to a particular agenda item shall be resolved prior to any
 consideration of the item concerned, and each City Councilor, committee member, board
 member or commission member present shall be entitled to vote on all conflict of interest




 Page 13
 questions except those questions pertaining to that individual Councilor's, committee
 member's, board member's or commission member's alleged conflict of interest.
 (1) All votes of conflict of interest questions shall be recorded. A majority vote shall
 determine the question, but a vote by committee may later be reviewed by the full
 City Council upon the City Council's consideration of the same agenda item.
 (2) Upon determination that a conflict of interest in fact exists, the City Councilor,
 committee member, board member or commission member concerned shall be
 excused from participating in discussion, deliberation or vote on the relevant agenda
 item.
D. Avoidance of appearance of conflict. To avoid the appearance of a violation of this
 section, once any individual City Councilor, board member or commission member is
 determined to have a conflict of interest in respect to any agenda item and once all conflict
 of interest questions relating to the agenda item concerned have been determined as
 provided in Subsection C above, said individual shall immediately remove himself or
 herself from the meeting room. He or she shall not return to his/her/their regular seat as a
 member of the body until deliberation and action on the item is completed. If the item has
 not been finally resolved when the conflict of interest is first determined, said individual
 shall not be present for any subsequent action on the agenda item. Nothing herein shall
 require an individual Councilor, board member or commission member to remove himself
 or herself for any item contained on a consent agenda on which there is no deliberation,
 the individual's conflict has been determined by the other members and the right to abstain
 from voting on the item has been granted.
E. Personal interest. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit any City Councilor, board
 member or commission member from representing his/her/their own personal interest by
 appearing before his/her/their collective body on any such agenda item.
F. Municipal budget.
 (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of §§ 11, no City Councilor shall abstain from or be
 prohibited from voting on the municipal budget when it comes before the Council
 on a Council agenda for approval.
 (2) If during the Council discussion of the approval of the municipal budget the Council
 decides to deliberate upon a line item of the budget on which a councilor has been
 previously determined to have a conflict or has previously abstained, then the
 Councilor shall not participate in the deliberations on that particular line item. Upon
 the conclusion of any such deliberation, the Councilor shall continue to participate
 in other budget deliberations and vote on the municipal budget.
 (3) It is the intent of this provision that all Councilors shall participate in the deliberation
 and vote on the municipal budget when it is presented to the Council for approval,
 but that no Councilor shall participate in a deliberation on or vote on any specific
 provision in the municipal budget for which the Councilor has previously been
 determined to have a conflict or has previously abstained.




 Page 14
 § 11. Abstention; exercising the right to abstain.
 Any City Councilor, board member or commission member who believes that he or she
or a member of his/her/their immediate family has a special or financial interest, other than an
interest held by the public generally, in any agenda item before his/her/their collective body
may, after disclosure of the nature and extent of such interest, publicly state his/her/their intent
to abstain from participation in the deliberation or vote, or otherwise taking part in the decision
making process on the agenda item. However, the City Council, board, or commission may by
motion and vote determine that there is no conflict and that the City Councilor, board member
or commission member shall not be permitted to abstain from participating and voting on the
agenda item.

 § 12. Political activities.
 No City Councilor, board member or commission member shall participate in any
political activity which would be in conflict or incompatible with the performance of
his/her/their official functions and duties for the City. In conjunction therewith, City Councilor,
board member or commission member may use his/her/their official authority or position for
the purposes of influencing or interfering with or affecting the results of any election, nor shall
he or she solicit funds or contributions or accept or receive funds or contributions from City
employees for political purposes. No City Councilor, board member or commission member
may distribute pamphlets or handbills while he or she is performing official functions and
duties with the City. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit any City Councilor, board
member or commission member from participating in the political process in their private
capacity as candidates for elected office or as private citizens.
 § 12.1. Use of titles and disclaimers
A. Background. Portland public officials, whether elected or appointed, retain their full,
 constitutionally guaranteed, First Amendment rights as private individuals. The Code of
 Ethics respects and protects these rights. One of the responsibilities of elected or
 appointed officials is to separate protected personal discourse from matters of governance.
 This section of the Code of Ethics addresses this responsibility. For the general duties of
 a public official to exercise fairness and impartiality see § 1.
B. Use of titles. In making written or oral statements, elected or appointed City officials may
 use their titles upon, and only upon, the following circumstances:
 (1) When so doing does not violate any other provision of this Code of Ethics or any
 provision of the Code of ordinances, state law, or federal law; and
 (2) When:
 (a) The City Council has specifically authorized the official to speak on behalf of
 the City; or
 (b) The information conveyed:
 [1] Is consistent with the official position of the City as that position was
 adopted by the Council or is consistent with the official decision of an



 Page 15
 applicable board, commission, or committee and the context of the
 communication only involves that applicable board,
 commission, or committee; and
 [2] References the appropriate decision by or position of the City Council, or
 to the decision of the applicable board, commission, or committee; or
 (c) When it is made clear and unambiguous that the official is speaking in their
 individual capacity and not on behalf of the entire City or a board, commission,
 or committee.
C. Disclaimers. Disclaimers are only required when there could be ambiguity regarding the
 capacity in which an elected or appointed official is communicating. In a typical
 disclaimer, a speaker (or writer) might say (or write), "Speaking for myself;" or "Speaking
 as an individual;" or "Although I hold the office of ________, I am speaking tonight as a
 private individual. My remarks should not be interpreted as representing my office or the
 City of Portland's official policy." A speaker (or writer) might also say (or write), "I make
 these remarks in my personal capacity, and not as ________. These remarks should not
 be interpreted as representing the City of Portland." The most important aspect of any
 disclaimer is to remove ambiguity. Section 12.1B(2)(c) makes it the official's duty to
 ensure that there is no ambiguity. In this regard, City officials should be cautious of the
 circumstances or conditions of any statement and be wary of concerted or group action,
 which increases the likelihood that such action will be perceived as an act or endorsement
 of the City itself.
D. Other considerations. Other ordinances and laws relate to the use of titles, and each must
 be followed. Without limitation and before using their titles, City officials should consider
 the following provisions: the Freedom of Access Act (Title 1, Chapter 13, of the Maine
 Statutes);1 Title 17-A, Section 608, of the Maine Revised Statutes;

 § 13. Incompatible employment or office.
 No City Councilor, board member or commission member shall occupy any other office,
elected or appointed, in any other governmental entity when the duties of such office are
incompatible with the proper discharge of his/her/their official duties with the City. For
purposes of this code, the occupancy of any office, elected or appointed, with any other
governmental entity by any City Councilor, board member or commission member is hereby
prohibited in the following circumstances:
A. Where the duties of the other office make it a physical impossibility to discharge the duties
 of the City position;
B. Where one office is subordinate to the other;
C. Where one office carries the power of removal of the other; or



1 Editor's Note: See 1 M.R.S.A. § 400 et seq.




 Page 16
D. Where the occupancy of both offices is prohibited by the City Charter or by other
 provisions of law.




 Page 17
 Code of Ethics
 Explanations and
 Examples

 For Elected Officials, City Employees,
Appointees to Boards and Commissions,
 and City Volunteers




 City of Portland


 1

 Page 18
 2

Page 19
Introduction


December 2009

To: Elected Officials
 City Employees
 Appointees to Boards and Commissions
 City Volunteers

In 1994, City Auditor Barbara Clark proposed that Council
adopt a new chapter to the City Code, consisting of a code of
ethics. Auditor Clark involved other elected officials, bureau
managers, union representatives, City employees, attorneys,
and members of the public to develop that code.

The Code of Ethics continues to provide an important set of
standards, conveying the principles of the City organization
to officials, employees, volunteers, and the public. For the
Office of City Auditor, the Code of Ethics has served as a
significant tool for emphasizing positive and reasonable
expectations for well over a decade.

The attached report is a guide for the reader, with
explanations and examples that may help in navigating
through some situations. A good source for additional
information and guidance about ethics is the City Auditor's
Office of the Ombudsman - (503) 823-0144.



LAVONNE GRIFFIN-VALADE
Portland City Auditor



This material, as adapted, is reprinted with permission from the Joseph-
son Institute of Ethics.
 3

 Page 20
 4

Page 21
 City Code Chapter 1.03

 CODE OF ETHICS
Sections:
1.03.010 Definitions
1.03.020 Trust
1.03.030 Objectivity
1.03.040 Accountability
1.03.050 Leadership

1.03.010 Definitions.
1. “City official” means any elected official, employee,
 appointee to a board or commission, or citizen volunteer
 authorized to act on behalf of the City of Portland,
 Oregon.
2. “Ethics” means positive principles of conduct. Some
 ethical requirements are enforced by federal, state, or
 local law. Others rely on training, or on individuals’
 desire to do the right thing. The provisions of this
 Chapter which are not elsewhere enforced by law shall
 be considered advisory only.

1.03.020 Trust. The purpose of City government is to serve
the public. City officials treat their office as a public trust.
1. The City’s powers and resources are used for the benefit
 of the public rather than any official’s personal benefit.
2. City officials ensure public respect by avoiding even the
 appearance of impropriety.
3. Policymakers place long-term benefit to the public
 as a whole above all other considerations, including
 important individuals and special interests. However,
 the public interest includes protecting the rights of
 under-represented minorities.
4. Administrators implement policies in good faith, as
 equitably and economically as possible, regardless of
 their personal views.
5. Whistle-blowing is appropriate on unlawful or improper
 actions.
 5
 5

 Page 22
6. Citizens have a fair and equal opportunity to express
 their views to City officials.
7. City officials do not give the appearance of impropriety
 or personal gain by accepting personal gifts.
8. City officials devote City resources, including paid
 time, working supplies, and capital assets, to benefit the
 public.
9. Political campaigns are not conducted on City time or
 property.

1.03.030 Objectivity. City officials' decisions are based on the
merits of the issues. Judgment is independent and objective.
1. City officials avoid financial conflict of interest and do
 not accept benefits from people requesting to affect
 decisions.
2. If an individual official’s financial or personal interests
 will be specifically affected by a decision, the official is
 to withdraw from participating in the decision.
3. City officials avoid bias or favoritism, and respect
 cultural differences as part of decision-making.
4. Intervention on behalf of constituents or friends is
 limited to assuring fairness of procedures, clarifying
 policies or improving service for citizens.

1.03.040 Accountability. Open government allows citizens to
make informed judgments and to hold officials accountable.
1. City officials exercise their authority with open meetings
 and public records.
2. Officials who delegate responsibilities also follow up
 to make sure the work is carried out efficiently and
 ethically.
3. Campaigns for election should allow the voters to make
 an informed choice on appropriate criteria.
4. Each City employee is encouraged to improve City
 systems by identifying problems and proposing
 improvements.

 6
 6

 Page 23
5. City government systems are self-monitoring, with
 procedures in place to promote appropriate actions.

1.03.050 Leadership.
1. City officials obey all laws and regulations.
2. City officials do not exploit loopholes.
3. Leadership facilitates, rather than blocks, open
 discussion.
4. Officials avoid discreditable personal conduct and are
 personally honest.
5. All City bureaus and work teams are encouraged
 to develop detailed ethical standards, training, and
 enforcement.
6. The City Auditor will publish a pamphlet containing
 explanations and examples of ethical principles.




 7
 7

 Page 24
 Explanations and Examples

1.03.010 Definitions.

1. “City official” means any elected official, employee,
appointee to a board or commission, or citizen volunteer
authorized to act on behalf of the City of Portland,
Oregon.
 The Code of Ethics is intended to apply to everyone.
 However, specific groups such as employees or elected
 officials may be mentioned in some examples.

2. “Ethics” means positive principles of conduct. Some
ethical requirements are enforced by federal, state, or local
law. Others rely on training, or on individuals’ desire to
do the right thing. The provisions of this chapter which
are not elsewhere enforced by law shall be considered
advisory only.
 The Code of Ethics is not intended to legislate morality,
 but rather to convey general expectations of appropriate
 conduct. It is included in City Code to make it easy
 to find, and to emphasize the seriousness of Council’s
 intent.

 Just because an action is legal does not necessarily mean
 it is right or good. Similarly, not every action that is
 wrong needs to be punished under the law. The role of
 ethics is particularly to question those actions which are
 neither prohibited nor required by law.

 In this pamphlet, the applicable laws are summarized in
 the boxes adjacent to the explanatory text. If no law is


 8

 Page 25
 indicated for a numbered subsection, its provisions are
 only advisory.

1.03.020 Trust. The purpose
 ORS Chapter 244
of City government is to serve declares public office
the public. City officials treat a public trust, prohibits
their office as a public trust. certain actions, and
 provides penalties.
 City officials have special An explanatory guide
 powers, along with a special is available from the
 Oregon Government
 obligation to act only on
 Ethics Commission.
 behalf of the public.

1. The City’s powers and
resources are used for the benefit of the public rather than
any official’s personal benefit.

 To function effectively, the City needs the public’s respect
 and confidence that its power will be used on behalf of
 the community as a whole. In this context, improper acts
 are doubly wrong: a selfish decision is not only wrong
 in itself, but also wrong because it violates the public’s
 trust in government.

2. City officials ensure public respect by avoiding even the
appearance of impropriety.

 Public service requires a continual effort to overcome
 cynical attitudes and suspicions about the people in
 government. For example, conduct which could appear
 dishonest to a reasonable observer will undermine the
 public trust even if the conduct is not illegal.




 9

 Page 26
3. Policymakers place long-term benefit to the public as a
whole above all other considerations, including important
individuals and special interests. However, the public
interest includes protecting the rights of under-represented
minorities.

 Public service involves a complex network of competing
 loyalties -- to country, state, community, employer,
 mentors, colleagues, subordinates, family and self. Often
 constituent interests can be satisfied without violating the
 public interest, but policy formulation requires evaluating
 information objectively and deciding what is best for the
 public as a whole.

 There is no formula for the most difficult decisions.
 The long-term public interest demands that the will of
 the majority be tempered by a commitment to consider
 the rights and interests of minority groups, especially
 those who are not sufficiently represented in the normal
 decision-making process.

 Elected officials have a duty to engage in dialogue with
 the public, to hear their concerns and to increase their
 awareness of long-term efforts for the community as a
 whole.

4. Administrators implement policies in good faith, as
equitably and economically as possible, regardless of their
personal views.
 City managers and service providers are supposed to
 implement the policies and laws enacted by City Council.
 Not every aspect of every situation will be specifically
 covered in the law, so virtually every employee will have



 10

 Page 27
opportunities to make decisions. These decisions should
be guided by an honest effort to understand and carry out
the policymakers’ instructions.

Elected officials sometimes become frustrated dealing
with a large, unresponsive bureaucracy. Civil servants
can become equally frustrated by the passage of laws
which have not sufficiently drawn on the expertise
of administrators and are impractical, contradictory,
ambiguous, underfunded, or ineffective. To keep these
frustrations from paralyzing the organization, two-way
dialogue is essential.

City workers at all levels generally have personal
convictions which affect the way they interpret and
implement policies. This is proper so long as their values
and attitudes do not impede or nullify instructions from
policy-makers.

City workers who find their
 City Code Section
personal convictions are
 1.01.140 provides
irreconcilably incompatible a general penalty
with lawful policies should for violating or
openly state their conflict. In failing to comply
 with City Code of a
some cases such workers may
 fine up to $500 or
request reassignment, or even imprisonment up to
resign. It is not ethical to express 6 months, or both.
personal convictions covertly
by blocking or ignoring lawful
policies.




 11

 Page 28
5. Whistle-blowing is appropriate on unlawful or improper
actions.

 Anyone who observes significant unlawful or improper
 actions by a city official is expected to report them.
 Customarily, the actions are reported to the official’s
 supervisor. If the supervisor appears to be involved in
 the improper actions, the report can be made to a higher
 level, to the City Auditor, or to the Oregon Government
 Ethics Commission. This decision is not to be made
 lightly, as whistleblowing may result in estrangement
 and workplace discord.

 “Whistleblowing” differs from “leaking” because leakers
 act covertly and are essentially unaccountable for the
 consequences of their actions.

 Conscientious City workers
 Employer retaliation
 protect the public from improper is prohibited by
 governmental activities, illegal ORS 659A.230 and
 secret policies and arrogant civil and criminal
 decision-making. Therefore, it penalties are
 provided.
 is unlawful to harass or punish BHR 11.03 also
 City workers who seek to prohibits retaliation.
 hold government accountable
 through whistle-blowing.

6. Citizens have a fair and equal opportunity to express
their views to City officials.

 Often it is impossible for an official to talk personally with
 every concerned member of the public, but obtaining an
 appointment should not appear to depend on the ability
 of the person making the request to provide personal
 benefits or campaign contributions.

 12

 Page 29
7. City officials do not give the appearance of impropriety
or personal gain by accepting personal gifts.

 In general, personal gifts should be refused or returned
 with a friendly but firm message that City officials are
 not allowed to receive gifts. A personal gift, lunch, or
 entertainment gift under $50 in value may be legal, but
 no amount is too small to be
 ethically questionable.
 ORS 244.020
 The official should think about (6) defines “gift.”
 ORS 244.025 (1)
 the decisions and activities prohibits soliciting
 before him/her and exercise or accepting gifts
 conservative judgment. The with a cumulative
 key question for an individual value over $50 in a
 calendar year from
 City official is, "Would I receive a single source that
 this gift/meal/entertainment if I could reasonably
 did not hold a City position?" be known to have
 City officials should not a legislative or
 administrative
 obtain personal gain from the interest.
 performance of their duties, ORS 244.350
 except for official compensation (1) provides civil
 and the satisfaction of a job well penalties up to
 $5000.
 done.

 Members of the public can best
 show their appreciation to a City official with a letter
 of commendation. Even small promotional gifts such
 as imprinted pens or t-shirts from business or nonprofit
 entities should not be used on the job, because the use
 of such items can create the impression that the vendor
 is regarded with particular favor by the City official.

 City officials as representatives of the City, or while
 conducting official business on behalf of the City may

 13

 Page 30
 accept gifts for the City, and may be guests at official
 meals or entertainment activities. For example, gifts
 presented as part of the Sister Cities program should be
 graciously accepted, and become the property of the City
 of Portland.

 Certain gifts for employee or retirement awards, prizes
 or promotional items are allowed under BHR-4.07. Gifts
 exchanged between co-workers for occasions such as
 birthdays and holidays are not prohibited. Donations to
 City programs are also allowed.

8. City officials devote City resources, including paid
time, working supplies, and capital assets, to benefit the
public.

 Time paid for by the City is
 City Charter
 intended for City business. Section 2-610
 Personal errands and calls should requires time
 be confined to break periods or on the job to be
 devoted to City
 official time off.
 Business.
 Supervisors should not ask
 subordinates to perform personal services.

 Office supplies are for City use only. Some work groups
 allow personal photocopies and toll calls to be made
 during break periods and reimbursed to the City.

 Some work groups permit after-hours personal tasks on
 City computers, in the belief that the public will benefit
 from the employee’s additional practice. Other groups
 prohibit any personal use even if the cost to the public
 would be too small to measure. If public benefit is the
 guiding criterion, either decision is ethically defensible.


 14

 Page 31
 City workers should not use their position to acquire
 personal benefits such as surplus City equipment, tickets
 to events, or special treatment. City workers should not
 use official letterhead or refer to their public position
 when requesting personal benefits or resolving personal
 disputes.

9. Political campaigns are not conducted on City time or
property.

 State law requires posting
 ORS 260.432
 a notice stating, “No public prohibits
 employee shall solicit any solicitation of, or
 money, influence, service or campaigning by
 other thing of value or otherwise public employees
 during working
 promote or oppose any political hours, with an
 committee or promote or oppose exception for
 the nomination or election of elected officials.
 a candidate, the gathering of
 signatures on an initiative,
 referendum or recall petition, the adoption of a measure
 or the recall of a public office holder while on the job
 during working hours. However, this section does not
 restrict the right of public employees to express personal
 political views. It is therefore the policy of the state and
 of your public employer that you may engage in political
 activity except to the extent prohibited by state law when
 on the job during working hours.”

 For example, a City employee while on City property
 during a lunch break can express personal political views
 to co-workers but not distribute flyers for a campaign.

 As a further example, for an election such as a tax limitation
 or bond measure, Council may declare an official position

 15

 Page 32
 for the City. City officials are State law does
 permitted to provide information not prohibit
 on the measure’s impact, but campaigning on
 public property,
 not to use public resources to
 but does require
 promote a specific vote. such property
 to be equally
 It may be difficult to distinguish available to
 official duties from campaign both sides of a
 activities in cases such as speeches campaign.
 or articles communicating an
 elected official’s opinion. In such
 cases, the participation of public employees is justified
 so long as a substantial public purpose is served.

1.03.030 Objectivity. City officials' decisions are based
on the merits of the issues. Judgment is independent and
objective.

 Financial disclosure regulations
 ORS 244.050
 are designed to prevent bribery requires statements
 and extortion yet protect of economic
 individuals’ freedom of interest, and ORS
 expression and association. Chapter 260
 requires disclosure
 The theory is that an informed of campaign
 public will decide on the contributions.
 propriety of financial links and
 hold the officials accountable.
 It is ethical for officials not only to scrupulously comply
 with the law, but also to personally examine each
 transaction in order to avoid any conflict of interest.

1. City officials avoid financial conflict of interest and
do not accept benefits from people requesting to affect
decisions.

 16

 Page 33
 Many people seek to influence
 Bribery is a crime
 government actions. Some do under ORS 162.015
 so by offering benefits such as and 162.025. City
 personal favors, entertainment, Charter Section
 gifts, loans, and special 2-609 prohibits any
 favoring of bidders,
 investment opportunities. City enforced by removal
 officials are to refuse and to from office.
 educate the public that such
 offers are not allowed. If the
 attempt to unduly influence is clear, the matter should
 be reported to law enforcement authorities.

2. If an individual official’s financial or personal interests
will be specifically affected by a decision, the official is to
withdraw from participating in the decision.

 Recusal and disqualification
 ORS Chapter 244
 involves a statement such as, defines conflict
 “My brother-in-law is part of interest, limits
 owner of the property under participation, and
 discussion. Therefore, I will provides for civil
 penalties. An
 not be speaking or voting on explanatory guide is
 this matter.” available from the
 Oregon Government
 State law distinguishes between Ethics Commission.
 actual conflict of interest,
 which definitely would affect
 the official, and potential
 conflict, where the effect is not certain. In the case of a
 potential conflict, the official must disclose the conflict
 but may participate in the decision.

 The law also makes an exception where the official’s
 financial interests are included with a whole class of
 people, such as property taxpayers. For a non-specific

 17

 Page 34
 link, an informational disclosure is appropriate, such as,
 “We will be voting on the Albina Neighborhood Plan. I
 live in Albina, but the plan does not specifically refer to
 my property.”

 State law focuses on elected officials and appointees to
 boards and commissions, but the ethical principle extends
 to all officials. For example, a building inspector would
 not inspect his or her own residence. City workers also
 undermine objectivity when they award a contract, then
 leave to become an employee of the contractor.

3. City officials avoid bias or favoritism, and respect cultural
differences as part of decision-making.

 When selecting a committee Official City policy
 or task force, it is desirable (Res. 35162) requires
 to provide as much diversity that all cultures
 be recognized,
 as the size of the group will
 honored, and mutually
 allow. respected.




4. Intervention on behalf of constituents or friends is limited
to assuring fairness of procedures, clarifying policies or
improving service for citizens.
 City officials should avoid giving the public any reason
 to believe they would receive better or different services
 if they had a personal connection with the official.

 Elected officials, in particular, should be clear
 about discussing information rather than pressuring
 administrators toward a particular decision.



 18

 Page 35
1.03.040 Accountability. Open government allows
citizens to make informed judgments and to hold officials
accountable.

1. City officials exercise their authority with open meetings
and public records.

 The laws of open government
 Public records and
 balance the public’s right to open meetings are
 know against the need for covered by ORS
 confidentiality in matters such as Chapter 192.
 medical records and employee
 discipline.

2. Officials who delegate responsibilities also follow
up to make sure the work is carried out efficiently and
ethically.
 Managers are to make sure routines are developed that
 support appropriate follow-up, and should sponsor staff
 training to handle delegated responsibilities.

3. Campaigns for election should allow the voters to make
an informed choice on appropriate criteria.

 Elections offer the ultimate accountability for City
 officials. Therefore, candidates should strive for respectful
 and accurate discourse on important issues.

 To protect freedom of speech and of the press, Oregon
 law does not prohibit ethically questionable actions such
 as untrue statements, unkept promises, or deliberate
 deception. Nevertheless, such actions are unethical. It is
 also not ethical to focus a campaign on trivial matters or
 on the kind of negative exchanges that could discourage
 civic participation.
 19

 Page 36
4. Each City employee is encouraged to improve City systems
by identifying problems and proposing improvements.

 City workers who believe a law or policy is not achieving
 its stated purpose, is creating unintended harm, or
 is inefficient, should express such concerns to their
 supervisors and suggest possible improvements.

 City managers should share “big picture” information
 with their subordinates and reward suggestions for
 improvement.

5. City government systems are self-monitoring, with
procedures in place to promote appropriate actions.
 City workers are often in the best position to observe
 fraud, waste, or abuse of public power, and their refusal
 to participate is a necessary part of protecting the public.
 City managers should support a workplace atmosphere that
 encourages employees’ pride in their work, and should
 constructively address problems that are called to their
 attention.

 City managers should make sure
 their practices for purchasing, BHR - 3.10 prohibits
 nepotism, and City
 contracting, and hiring include
 Code 5.33.070
 routines that elicit fair choices states that City
 and assure protection of City employees may not
 assets. Such routines include also be City vendors
 without specific
 checklists, separation of duties,
 Authorization from
 bank account reconciliations, City Council.
 and reports to management.

 Safeguards should be as simple
 as possible, so the cost of protection will be reasonable for


 20

 Page 37
 the situation. Often mere record-keeping is sufficient: for
 example, an administrator could record and periodically
 report all contacts from elected officials on behalf of
 specific constituents.

1.03.050 Leadership.

 Ethical leadership sets a good example and treats all
 citizens with respect.

1. City officials obey all laws and regulations.

 Law-abiding behavior by City Knowlingly violating
 officials sets a good example a statute applicable
 for the public to respect the law. to one's office is
 Laws governing their public official misconduct,
 a crime under ORS
 duties are especially important, 162.405.
 but even actions in private life
 carry a public message.

 In rare cases, an official may invoke this country’s long
 tradition of civil disobedience, which is the open refusal
 to abide by an unjust law, as a matter of conscience and
 an impetus to change. Such actions must be subject to
 legal consequences.

 Because of their knowledge of the law, public officials
 may be aware of ambiguities or incomplete enforcement,
 but they should nevertheless comply with the laws’ spirit
 and purpose.

2. City officials do not exploit loopholes.




 21

 Page 38
3. Leadership facilitates, rather than blocks, open
discussion.

 Any official who controls a parliamentary process has an
 ethical obligation to avoid behavior such as strained
 interpretation of the rules, refusal to recognize a person, or
 arbitrarily delaying a decision.

4. Officials avoid discreditable personal conduct and are
personally honest.

5. All City bureaus and work teams are encouraged
to develop detailed ethical standards, training, and
enforcement.

 This Code of Ethics covers the relationship of the City as a
 whole to the public. Organizations within the City should
 develop additional standards as needed.

 Also, ethical standards require training and enforcement,
 which may lead to refinement of the standards. Even the
 City-wide Code should be reviewed periodically.

6. The City Auditor will publish a pamphlet containing
explanations and examples of ethical principles.

 For comments about this pamphlet, or for additional
 copies, contact:
 Portland City Auditor
 1221 SW Fourth Ave., Room 320
 Portland OR 97204
 (503) 823-4078 (Phone)
 (503) 823-4571 FAX
 Interoffice Mail: 131/320
 web: www.portlandoregon.gov/auditor


 22

 Page 39
 23

Page 40
 24

Page 41

City Council Rules Committee

 Monday, March 28, 2022, 8:00 AM
 Remote Meeting Minutes
 Approved on April 11, 2022

 Rules Committee Members:
 Councilor Andrew Zarro, Chair
 Mayor Kate Snyder
 Councilor Pious Ali
 Councilor Mark Dion


The meeting, held by ZOOM technology, convened at 8:05 a.m. on March 28, 2022.

Attendees: Committee members Councilor Andrew Zarro, Chair, Mayor Kate Snyder,
Councilor Pious Ali, and Councilor Mark Dion, City Clerk Katherine Jones, and Acting
Corporation Counsel Jen Thompson, and assistant Nancy English. Members of the public
Sarah Michniewicz, George Rheault and John P. attended.

Councilor Zarro convened the meeting and asked for a motion to accept the minutes of
the February 28, 2022 and March 7, 2022 meetings. Councilor Ali moved and Councilor
Dion seconded his motion to approve those minutes, which was approved by a roll call
vote of 4-0.

Councilor Zarro asked Attorney Thompson to start the review of the draft Code of Ethics,
based on a document from the City of Bangor, and available in the back-up material.

In her review, Attorney Thompson explained that she had revised the version adopted by
Bangor to reflect discussions by the Committee about its policy preferences. For
example, provisions making the Code applicable to City employees had been removed
due to other existing provisions in the City Code and personnel policies. She also
explained that, if the Rules Committee wanted its own code of ethics to apply to all the
city boards and commissions rather than just the City Council, that would need to be done
in the form of an ordinance rather than a policy.

Councilor Zarro asked if the Rules Committee could ask other boards to adopt the Code
of Ethics it approves, and Attorney Thompson said it could suggest that be done but that
an ordinance is the way to make a code of ethics binding on other boards.


 1
Mayor Snyder asked if, on page 9, Section 12, Political Activities, the City Councilors
may not use their official status in political campaigns, to solicit assistance for an
institution, for example, and Attorney Thompson explained that section was primarily for
donations of money.

Mayor Snyder asked if Section 10, Paragraph C, "Conflicts of Interest," would give a
decision about a conflict of interest to the whole council, and Attorney Thompson said it
would indeed be different from how such conflicts had been decided in the past, by the
individual councilors, and would require a vote of the whole council.

Mayor Snyder added that she believed a Code of Ethics should "live" in the council rules
and not in the City Charter – where it is being considered by the Charter Commission,
and where it would become too onerous to change.

Councilor Ali asked if the reference to the use of city property found in Article II,
paragraph 8, would prohibit that use by a group of young people, for instance at a school
or park, when the City officials would like any fee to be waived. Attorney Thompson said
that use would be eligible under rules already in place, and that this section covers
individual private use.

Councilor Ali asked how the previous section, paragraph 7.1, would affect First
Amendment freedom of speech in the use of social media. Attorney Thompson said the
rule provides guidance about how to exercise that freedom, including by identifying in
which capacity you are speaking and being sure not to appear as if you are presenting an
“official” position.

Councilor Ali asked if stating support or no support for an issue would be a violation of
the proposed language, and Attorney Thompson said it would not be a violation for a
councilor to express support for an issue if they correctly identified the capacity in which
they were speaking. Councilor Ali noted that he had seen social media sites for other
political figures that are official pages and inquired whether the City could manage social
media pages for individual councilors. Attorney Thompson said such a site would create
a public forum in which comments received would be difficult to restrict because of First
Amendment concerns. Attorney Thompson suggested the City Manager could answer the
question of whether the City would host such social media accounts.

Councilor Dion said it was better to consider how to distinguish between speaking as a
councilor and speaking as a private individual. It is hard to make the difference clear, he
said, and the public cannot be expected to know when the private individual is speaking
versus the councilor. He did not have the confidence to believe there was a way to
effectively disclaim his own identity as a councilor when speaking publicly.

Mayor Snyder asked again about the vote needed for a conflict of interest, in particular,
would a vote be needed if a councilor had already recused themselves. Attorney
Thompson said she would review that question.



 2
In Section 5.1, Unbiased Conduct, Chair Zarro asked if "political status" was
appropriately included in the list of protected classes. He suggested it should be removed
from this section.

Chair Zarro also asked where an "alleged violation" noted in Section 3 would come from.
Attorney Thompson said an alleged violation would be reported by a councilor, be
considered at a council hearing, and a fine could be imposed if recommended.

Councilor Ali asked if a City Councilor could simultaneously serve as a Legislator, and
Attorney Thompson said she would check under state statutes relating to incompatible
offices.

Chair Zarro said the Code of Ethics would be revised according to remarks made at this
meeting and considered again at the next Rules Committee Meeting, to be scheduled
later. He asked the committee members to email any additional questions and suggestions
before that time.

During the period for public comment, Sarah Michniewicz said she agreed that, although
the Charter Commission was considering adding a Code of Ethics to the Charter, that was
not the best place for such a document. She had provided the Code of Ethics from
Portland, Oregon, and suggested that the section on Norms could be useful.

Councilor Ali moved and Mayor Snyder seconded the motion to adjourn, which passed
by a roll call vote of 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:03 a.m.




 3