by Joe Wilhelm Jr.
Staff Writer
“Due process” and “subpoena power” were two phrases that created concern among City Council members as they discussed an ethics bill during a meeting of the City Council’s Finance Committee Tuesday.
After discussing funding for an independent ethics commission with City Ethics Officer Carla Miller, the two phrases were the focus of the meeting.
“The ethics commission will cost the City zero dollars,” said Miller. “We can utilize existing resources to fund the commission.”
Miller is the only salaried employee of the commission and her salary is a part of the Office of General Counsel. Miller is assisted administratively by Susan Stewart, who is also the Duval Delegation coordinator and part of the Office of General Counsel.
The bill sponsored by City Council member Glorious Johnson seeks to return the City’s Ethics Code to the City Charter to install a framework that will guide the City’s ethics policy.
The City’s current ethics policy is enacted by ordinance, and is considered to be easier to amend as an ordinance than it would be if it was part of the charter.
The Charter Revision Commission recommended returning the ethics code to the charter, but after the commission fulfilled its responsibility of submitting a report to City Council in February, the City’s Ethics Commission worked with Johnson and the General Counsel’s Office to further develop legislation.
That legislation went beyond what the Charter Revision Commission recommended to the City Council in its report and those issues were discussed Tuesday at the Finance Committee meeting.
“I’m worried about due process with regards to the ability to levy civil fines,” said Duggan.
Duggan explained that there wasn’t a structure included in the bill to provide an appeal to the penalties.
“If there is a way to fine someone, there ought to be a way to appeal the fine,” said City Council and Finance Committee member Ronnie Fussell. “That seems a little egregious. We need to have a process in place to address that.”
Duggan also explained the Charter Revision Commission’s hesitation to grant subpoena powers to an independent ethics commission.
“These (subpoena) powers are used carefully by judges, the state attorney and the sheriff. The commission did not feel comfortable with assigning these powers to a volunteer commission,” he said.
Under Section 1.204 “Administrative Support,” the proposed bill states, “This support shall include a mechanism to obtain documents and testimony in connection with violations of the City’s ethics code.”
“It does not say subpoena power in the bill, but that is one of the mechanisms that could be considered,” said Fussell. “But there are multiple mechanisms that are available for this purpose and it would be up to the City Council to determine what mechanisms would be available to the Ethics Commission.”
Fussell proposed to change that language to read, “This support shall include all existing mechanisms to obtain documents and testimony.”
Ethics Commission Chair Kirby Oberdorfer attended the meeting to clear up the commission’s intentions.
“We are not asking for subpoena power,” said Oberdorfer.
City Council member Denise Lee wanted the Charter Revision and Ethics commissions to meet, discuss the issues and bring back a bill of mutual agreement.
“I would rather see these two bodies discuss this between themselves rather than us amending the bill,” said Lee. “That’s what needs to happen. The commissions need to talk to each other.”
Duggan explained that the two commissions met on multiple occasions during the Charter Revision process as the recommendation was being developed, and this information was also included in the report presented to City Council.
“No one said anything like that during the Rules Committee meeting,” said Lee, who chairs the committee.
“We have worked with the Ethics Commission and will continue to do so at the council’s discretion,” said Duggan.
According to the City’s Ordinance code, after the Charter Revision Commission submits its report, its members may be called back by City Council, but the commission’s work is finished, so it hasn’t been involved in the development of the legislation.
Fussell’s amendment was approved by a 4-1 vote, with Lee voting against it. The entire bill was deferred until the Nov. 2 meeting of the Finance Committee.
356-2466