Inter Governmental Committee

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban County Council Inter-Governmental Committee met on June 9, 2009, at 1:00 p.m., with CM James presiding. The committee addressed four agenda items during the session, taking two votes and hearing four public comments. The committee approved the Ethics Act Financial Disclosure for Boards & Commissions, while postponing action on the Oath for Boards & Commissions and deferring the Review Boards & Commissions item. An informational update on committee items was also provided during the meeting.

Attendance

The following individuals were present at the meeting on June 9, 2009:

• James
• Crosbie
• Myers
• Gray
• Blues
• Beard
• Henson
• Feigel
• Lawless
• Martin

No absences or late arrivals were recorded.

Votes and Decisions

Motion to Re-draft Oath Ordinance

A motion was made by Feigel and seconded by Lawless to direct the Department of Law to re-draft the oath ordinance incorporating committee comments. The motion passed by voice vote 1:08:54. The following members voted in favor: Feigel, Lawless, Myers, Blues, Beard, Henson, and Martin.

Motion to Amend Ethics Act Ordinance

A motion was made by Myers and seconded by Henson to amend the Ethics Act ordinance to require all boards and commissions appointed by the Mayor and approved by Council to comply with the Ethics Act and Statement of Financial Interest. The motion passed by roll call vote with 7 ayes and 3 nays 1:25:35.

Members voting in favor: - James - Crosbie - Myers - Gray - Feigel - Henson - Lawless

Members voting against: - Blues - Beard - Martin

As a condition of this motion's passage, the Department of Law was directed to research how other cities handle financial interest thresholds and include historical context for not adopting a dollar-value threshold.

Public Comment

Council members raised several concerns regarding proposed oaths for boards and commissions during the meeting.

Oath for Boards & Commissions

Council Member Lawless expressed concern about the lack of fiscal responsibility for many boards and commissions 1:40:36. Lawless argued that requiring financial disclosure for non-financial boards would deter volunteers and is not applicable to all entities.

Adoption of State Auditor's Report

Council Member Martin raised concerns that the oath relies on unreviewed state auditor recommendations 1:14:44. Martin questioned the legal enforceability of such an oath and highlighted the potential for unintended consequences if board members fail to follow recommendations that have not been formally adopted by the council.

Council Member Blues supported Martin's concerns 1:24:21, emphasizing that the auditor's recommendations function as a job description. Blues stated that the oath should not be tied to a report not formally adopted by the council.

Training for Board Members

Council Member Myers suggested creating a formal training program to address these concerns 1:36:34. Myers proposed possibly working through United Way's Get On Board initiative to educate board members on their responsibilities and the auditor's recommendations.

Contested Items

Scope of Financial Disclosure Requirements

The council voted on a motion requiring all boards and commissions to comply with the Statement of Financial Interest. The motion passed, but three members—Blues, Beard, and Martin—opposed it. Their concerns centered on the breadth of the requirement, specifically questioning whether financial disclosure obligations should apply to non-financial boards. These members also raised the concern that such requirements could serve as a deterrent to volunteerism, potentially discouraging citizens from serving on boards and commissions.

Legal Basis of the Oath

A heated discussion arose regarding the proper legal foundation for the oath, particularly whether it should reference the state auditor's unadopted recommendations. Members disagreed on several interconnected issues: the legal enforceability of incorporating unadopted recommendations into an oath, whether the council needed to conduct its own review before adopting such language, and the broader risk of establishing a uniform standard that would apply across diverse boards with different purposes and functions. The debate reflected tension between standardizing requirements for accountability and maintaining flexibility for boards with varying missions.

Oath for Boards & Commissions

The committee discussed a draft ordinance that would require appointees to boards, agencies, and commissions to take an oath acknowledging their review of the state auditor's recommendations. 1:05:10

Key Discussion Points

Committee members Beard, Lawless, Martin, Blues, Feigel, and Myers participated in the discussion. Several concerns were raised during the deliberation:

• Retroactivity: Questions were raised about whether the ordinance would apply retroactively to existing board members or only to future appointees.
• Legal weight of auditor's report: Committee members questioned what legal authority the state auditor's recommendations would carry and how binding they would be on board members.
• Applicability to non-financial boards: Concerns were expressed about whether the oath requirement should apply uniformly to all boards and commissions, including those without financial responsibilities.

Committee Action

A motion to table the item was initially made but was subsequently withdrawn. Rather than voting on the ordinance as drafted, the committee agreed to request that the law department re-draft the ordinance based on the feedback and concerns raised during the discussion.

Outcome

The agenda item was postponed pending revision of the ordinance by the law department.

Review Boards & Commissions

1:12:16

The committee reviewed the status of various boards and commissions during this agenda item.

Boards Discussed

Two boards were the focus of this review:

• Stonewall Appeals Board: The committee recommended that this board remain active. It was further recommended that members of the Board of Architectural Review serve as ex-officio members of the Stonewall Appeals Board.

• Urban Renewal Board: The committee noted that this board still holds funds. Due to the presence of these remaining funds, a decision on dissolution was deferred pending further review.

Key Speakers

Myers and George participated in this discussion.

Outcome

The matter was deferred, allowing for additional review before final decisions are made regarding the boards' status and structure.

Ethics Act Financial Disclosure for Boards & Commissions

1:20:53

The committee discussed a proposal to expand the Ethics Act and financial disclosure requirements to all boards and commissions appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by Council.

Discussion and Concerns

Key speakers in the debate included Myers, Beard, Blues, Martin, and Henson. During the discussion, concerns were raised about the potential burden of imposing financial disclosure requirements on non-financial boards. Committee members weighed the benefits of universal compliance against the administrative and practical challenges this expansion would create for boards whose primary functions do not involve financial matters.

Outcome

The motion to require universal compliance with the Ethics Act financial disclosure requirements passed, though it faced significant opposition. The vote resulted in three dissenting votes, indicating that while a majority supported the expansion, a notable portion of the committee had reservations about the proposal.

Update on Committee Items

1:27:00

The committee provided an update on items referred to the Inter-Governmental Committee. No changes were reported to the existing list of referred items.

The committee confirmed that the status of dissolved boards had been finalized. The remaining items on the referral list were identified for revisitation in future meetings.

This item was presented for informational purposes.