Regular Meeting Minutes
A.
Preliminary Business
1.
Roll Call
The
regular meeting of the Washington State Executive Ethics Board (EEB) was called
to order by Vice Chair Trish Akana at
2.
Approval of Agenda
Members
Golberg moved, Scarbrough seconded to approve the
3.
Approval of
Corrections
to the minutes included page 2, first complete paragraph beginning with “Member
Yenson commented…” in the 5th sentence that begins with “Chair
Zellinsky indicated”, strike the word “Board” and substitute the word “staff”
to read: “Chair Zellinsky indicated that
staff vacancies needed to be…”
Page 3, 4
and 5 under Staff Report: add titles to
paragraphs indicating the change of subjects.
1. Scheduling of Hearings; 2. Frequently Asked Questions; etc.
Page 6,
last paragraph under the discussion of the Liquor Control Board’s policy: Add new sentence to read: “Motion was seconded and approved as
amended.”
Member
Scarbrough moved, Zellinsky seconded to approve the
B.
Strategic Plan/Board Policies & Procedures
1.
Board Policies, Board meetings
A clean
copy of the policies was handed out, eliminating the redline-tracking
marks.
Member
Golberg asked for a correction of a typographical error in section 4.5. Recording of Proceedings. Correction:
change “medial” to “media”.
Counsel
Moran suggested removing subsection 5.3 “Complaints Filed Against Employees in
Attorney General’s Office” until such time that policy language was
written. Vice Chair Akana indicated that
5.2 “Complaints Concerning a Board Member” could also be removed if 5.3 were
deleted. By consensus, it was agreed to
remove these subsections.
Member
Scarbrough suggested adding “Board Policies” to the Agenda of the September
meeting each year. The Board agreed that
reviews and updates could be proposed at any time throughout the year, as
needed.
Member
Yenson moved, Scarbrough seconded to approve Members’ Conduct Policies and
Procedures as amended. Motion carried.
Counsel
Moran informed the Board that an annual rule review by the Board was encouraged
by Governor Locke under Executive
Order
97-02. Chair Zellinsky
suggested that adequate time be provided for Board members to review and
comment on proposed rule amendments.
Members Yenson and Golberg agreed to serve on the rules-review ad hoc
committee and work with the new Executive Director.
2.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Attorney General’s
Office
Vice
Chair Akana suggested that the Board initiate a Memoradum of Understanding
between the Board and the AG. The idea
of a MOU was initially brought up at the Board’s June 2004 retreat. The purpose of the MOU is to set out the
Board’s and AG’s expectations, roles, and responsibilities to each other and
the Board’s relationship to staff provided by the AG.
Counsel
Moran provided a description on the current organization of the Board. Staff is provided to the Board by the AG and
resides under the Administration Division of the AG, reporting to the Chief of
Staff. The budget when
the Board was first created used to be general fund, but now it
is part of the administrative overhead of the AG. Staff consists of one Executive Director, one
investigator, and one human resource consultant. Approximately one-tenth of an Assistant Attorney General FTE is allotted for
legal counsel to the Board.
An allocation of FTE
for prosecution services is provided by the Governmental
Operations Division. The
AG has
come up with creative resource-sharing
options to provide additional
resources, including intern and extern services.
The Board
suggested that the overall structure of the office, how it operates, and how it
really functions be put in writing and included in the Board’s orientation
manual. Vice Chair Akana has requested a
copy of the new administration’s organization chart and will forward it to the
Board when made available.
It was
agreed that a Memorandum of Understanding will be drafted by the Board’s Chair,
the new Executive Director, and the AG’s Chief of Staff. Topics for the MOU include: facilities, staffing, supervisory
relationship of Executive Director and the Board’s role, budget, mutual
expectations, human resource element (job descriptions, CQ, Executive
Director’s annual performance evaluation), accountability, what the AG Office
would be providing the Board, communications, and training.
Board Budget Report
Vice
Chair Akana shared a copy of the EEB budget and expenditure report for the
month ending
Board and New Member Orientation Manual
Mr.
Nakamura will check with the Governor’s office on when the next orientation
will be held for new Board members. The
Board agreed that an orientation manual would be helpful for everyone. As the newest addition to the Board, Member
Golberg was asked to provide her perspective on information that would be
useful. Counsel Moran said she will
check with other Boards on their member orientation manual. Suggested topic
areas for an orientation manual include the Board’s role as an adjudicator, as well as enforcement
issues.
Board Member Compensation
Vice
Chair Akana reported that she asked the AG for an advisory opinion on the issue
of compensation for Board members who are state employees, who conduct the
Board’s business as directed on a Saturday or evening, and whose Board work
occurs outside the state employee’s scheduled work hours. The Board agreed that Vice Chair Akana and
other Board members who may be a state employee should be compensated for
her/their time when attending Board business on weekends and evenings as the
goal is to have a consistent and fair practice of compensation.
3.
Handling Complaints Against EEB Members/Staff, AG Office
Executives
Counsel
Moran asked for guidance before proposing
the options for handling complaints against EEB members, staff, the
AG,
or members of the AG’s
core leadership team. Handling
complaints against these individuals may
necessitate the temporary re-assignment of the Executive
Director’s administrative functions or the outsourcing of an investigation because of an apparent or actual
conflict of interest.
The Board
presented several possibilities to help with such investigations including the
Legislative Ethics Board, the Public Disclosure Commission and the State
Auditor’s office. Historically the Board
has tapped into the Legislative Ethics Board.
The fourth resource would be to hire through the procurement process
people with the required skills.
Counsel
Moran said that the process and options for handling complaints under these
circumstances will not require rule making.
The Board asked Counsel Moran to put in writing the proposed options for
handling complaints and present her proposal at a subsequent Board meeting.
4.
Guidance to Executive Director on Subjects to Work with
Chair
Chair
Zellinsky first proposed having written guidance on subject matters, such as
media inquiries, where the Board expects the Executive Director to consult with
the Chair. Chair Zellinsky agreed it
would be better to wait and discuss communications with the new Executive
Director.
Counsel
Moran said while it is acceptable for the Executive Director to communicate
with all Board members at the same time outside a public meeting, the Board
members cannot hold discussions amongst themselves that might result in the
Board taking any action outside a public meeting.
5.
Training for New Government Officials
Mr.
Nakamura and Counsel Moran have been contacted by the Governor’s office to
provide ethics training for new officials.
A simplified PowerPoint presentation is being finalized. The Board will receive a copy for their input
prior to its use. Other agencies have
also been asking for training.
Discussion
on the PowerPoint presentation, the website and other training resources took
place. Ethics Advisors Harvey Gertson
and Brian Jensen explained what training takes place in their agencies. Both use the EEB website in addition to other
materials.
Counsel
Moran will see if she can obtain a copy of the Records Retention training to see
whether a similar interactive program could be created for Ethics.
6.
Meeting with King County Ethics Board
Vice
Chair Akana attended the King County Ethics Board meeting
A
discussion on the origins of the electronic game – Ethics Challenge – took
place. The rights of ownership will be
investigated by staff.
C.
Frequently Asked Questions
A copy of
the FAQ from the Ethics Board website was in the packet with the addition of
the advisory opinion on political buttons.
Jeff Aguilar, webmaster, updated the site and updated its appearance. Mr. Aguilar has changed positions and will no
longer be the EEB webmaster.
Vice
Chair Akana has an idea for revising the Q&A written format so that it
would be more user-friendly. She will
bring her idea to the next meeting.
D.
Staff Report
Mr.
Nakamura provided an update on changes in the office staff. An email was sent to Board members regarding
a COGEL conference December 4-7 in
Follow up
letters to Liquor Control Board and
Hearings
are set for March 14-15 (Meeks), May 10 (Tjemsland) and possibly April 26-28.
Staff has
been tracking advice and contracts for review and approval and will report
twice a year to provide the Board a sense of the type of issues being reviewed
and from which agencies.
Mr.
Nakamura said he sent an unofficial survey to ethic advisors on the use of
state computers by employees to obtain training electronically. Mr. Nakamura will provide the Board with
possible policy options for a formal Advisory Opinion, if one is
necessary.
Mr.
Nakamura provided the Board with copies of new legislation that would impact
the Ethics law, although two of the bills affect only the Legislative Ethics
Board.
SB 5462
changes the terms for citizen members of the Legislative Ethics Board to
“unlimited” number of terms. After
discussion, it was agreed unlimited terms is not a good idea but having up to
two (2) terms would be an option that the Executive Ethics Board would like to
explore. Mr. Nakamura will have a
discussion with the Chief of Staff and the Governor’s Policy Director to find
out if there is a possibility of having similar legislation for the EEB.
SB 5046
and HB 1051 relate to ethics complaints to the Legislative Ethics Board and
would allow the LEB to dismiss a complaint for specified reasons and would
limit the circumstances under which the AG must investigate complaints of
certain ethics violations.
SB 5811
and HB 1623 relate to the life sciences and research at the Universities. These bills have already had a committee
hearing. Most importantly is the fact
that the bills ask for changes in the Ethics law and no one asked the EEB for
input. Concern was raised that this will
create two-tiered ethics standards and that the Governor’s office will set the
standards based on federal standards but the EEB will have to enforce them.
The Board
expressed its interest in having the impact of the legislation on the ethics
law with the Governor. Mr. Nakamura and
Vice Chair Akana agreed to hold a conference call following today’s meeting
with the Governor’s office. The Board
wants this project to be successful without carving out whole sections of the
ethics law and replacing them with an administrative process approved by the
Governor’s office.
E.
Lunch
F.
Public Comments / Board Members Comments
None
G.
Executive or Closed Session
At
At
H.
Miscellaneous Matters / Adjournment
Meeting
was adjourned at