EXECUTIVE ETHICS BOARD Special Meeting Minutes
December 10, 2004
A. Preliminary Business
1. Roll Call - The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. Present were Chair Marilee Scarbrough, Member James Vache, Member Trish Akana, and Member Evelyn Yenson. Member Paul Zellinsky and new Member Judy Golberg appeared by telephone. Chair Scarbrough welcomed Judy Golberg as the State Auditor’s nominee appointed by Governor Locke. Also in attendance were Acting Executive Director Kent Nakamura and Board Counsel Linda Moran.
2. Approval of Agenda - Chair Scarbrough proposed moving agenda item “F” for discussion before “B. Election of Officers”. MOTION by Member Vache to approve the agenda as amended. Seconded by Member Yenson. Unanimous approval.
F. Public Comment/Election of Officers - Chair Scarbrough presented Member James Vache with a plaque in appreciation for his years of service on the Board.
B. Election of Officers - Chair Scarbrough proposed the approval of nominations: Paul Zellinsky as Chair and Trish Akana as Vice Chair. MOTION by Member Yenson to approve the nominations. Seconded by Member Vache. Unanimous approval.
C. Work Session - Board Counsel Linda Moran facilitated a brainstorm session on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats perceived by members as follows:
EEB Planning Session S.W.O.T. Analysis
|
STRENGTHS |
WEAKNESSES |
OPPORTUNITIES |
THREATS |
|
· Staff Changes |
· Staff Changes |
· To get EEB mission into state agencies at highest level |
· Limited or diminishing resources |
|
· Government Transition |
· Government Transition |
· Create a treatise to summarize EEB interpretations |
· Changing legislative climate – could be unfavorable to EEB |
|
· Reputation of Board |
· Workload backlog |
· Build continuity in staff and on advice |
|
|
· Mission of Board |
· Resources |
· Vision for Board direction (more policy – focus on the big issues) |
|
|
· Well known and understood as a regulator in the state government community |
· Staff structure/staffing level |
· Frame relationship with new AG re: Memorandum of Understanding – that describes roles/relationships/costs |
|
|
· Good foundational and precedential materials on the law available |
· Little state agency ownership of Ethics program goals |
· Enhancing relationship with State Auditor |
|
|
· Really committed board members and staff |
· Ethics law is not visible enough in institutions of higher education (state agency) |
· More independent Board Status |
|
|
· Training has been limited and touched only a few of the many |
· Establishing regular check points to meet with staff and board |
||
|
· Good law |
· Recent turnover in AAG advisors |
||
|
· Relationship with state auditor could be more cohesive and effective enough |
Member Akana facilitated the discussion on the Board’s calendar year 2005 strategic plan. Board member consensus was reached on the vision, mission, values, and goals as follows:
VISION: (what the Board wants to see in the future as a result of the Board’s efforts)
Greater public trust and confidence in government.
MISSION: (how the Board intends to achieve its Vision)
Raise awareness and communication on the ethics in public service act and ensure compliance with the law.
VALUES: (how the Board would like to be viewed)
Respectful Trust-worthy Fair
Competent Possessing Integrity
Stewards of the Ethics in Public Service Act
GOALS: (the core functions of the Board)
(1) Raise ethical awareness and communication.
(2) Fulfill legislatively-mandated responsibilities.
(3) Improve internal processes to bring about greater efficiencies and effectiveness.
Consensus was reached on the following objectives under each of the three (3) goals, with one (1) new objective added under Goal 2, as follows:
OBJECTIVES: (targets for achieving goals)
Goal 1: Raise ethical awareness and communication
Educate and inform senior-level executives on the role of ethics in an organization’s culture
Foster ethics dialogue throughout an organization
Publish accomplishments and Board actions
Provide informal ethics guidance and advice
Goal 2: Fulfill Legislative-Mandated Responsibilities
NEW Educate and inform private stakeholders
Develop educational materials and training
Adopt rules and policies
Issue advisory opinions
Investigate, hear, and determine complaints
Establish criteria regarding levels of civil penalties
May review and approve agency policies
Review and approve contracts and grants for outside employment
Goal 3: Improve internal processes to bring about greater efficiencies and effectiveness
Establish a structural foundation to build “constancy of purpose”.
Develop Board Member Policies
Track case management and monitor trends
The fifteen (15) objectives were prioritized with nine (9) objectives being designated as the highest priority.
With nine (9) objectives as the highest priority, the other six (6) were grouped into a lower priority.
The nine (9) highest priority objectives were then narrowed down to the top four (4) priorities to focus the Board’s resources.
|
Top Most – First Tier Priorities |
Second Tier Priorities |
Third Tier Priorities |
|
Publish accomplishments and Board actions Goal 1 |
Foster ethics dialogue throughout organizations |
Provide informal ethics guidance and advice |
|
Educate and inform senior executives Goal 1 |
Develop educational materials and training |
Educate and inform private stakeholders |
|
Investigate, hear, & determine complaints Goal 2 |
Issue advisory opinions |
Adopt rules and policies |
|
Establish a structural foundation Goal 3 |
May review and approve agency policies |
Establish criteria regarding civil penalties |
|
Develop Board Member Policies |
Review and approve contracts and grants for outside employment |
|
|
Track case management and monitor trends |
D. Lunch (12:05 – 1:05 p.m.)
Reconvene “C. Work Session”
From the four (4) highest ranking priorities, the Board then discussed and decided on a number of targets under each of the four (4) priorities.
Top Most – First Tier Priorities
Publish accomplishments and Board actions – objective under Goal 1
|
· Publish decisions on website |
|
· Annotate statute and regulations |
|
· Publish an annual report |
|
· Develop a publication or brochure |
Educate and inform senior executives – objective under Goal 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investigate, hear, & determine complaints – objective under Goal 2
|
|
|
|
Establish a structural foundation – objective under Goal 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Board agreed that the targets under the top-most 1st tier priorities would need further assessment and refinement by the Board and the new executive director who is hired. There was agreement that the Board’s strategic plan would be a regular topic at its meetings in 2005.
The Board discussed the staffing positions needed to achieve the goals defined in the calendar year 2005 strategic plan. The following consensus was reached on the staffing level to support and sustain the Board’s business of ethics in government:
Resource Needs
1 FTE – Executive Director
1 FTE – Administrative Officer
2 FTE – Senior Investigators
.5 FTE – Administrative Assistant
FTE means “full time equivalent”
Member Akana facilitated discussion on the November 28, 2004, Draft Board Member’s Policies document. The Board reached consensus on a number of modifications. The revised Policies will be put on the Board’s January meeting agenda for approval.
E. Executive or Closed Session
The Board did not move into executive or closed session.
F. Public Comment/Election of Officers – This item was moved on the agenda to after “A. Preliminary Business.”
G. Miscellaneous Matters/Adjournment
Board Counsel Linda Moran indicated she would develop guidelines for handling complaints against the Attorney General and Board Counsel. Kent Nakamura indicated that the hearing set for January 13 is moved for rescheduling and he would provide members with potential hearing dates in the next few weeks. The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.