Blog note: this article references a grand jury report.
A proposed ordinance debated Tuesday night by the City Council left two council members feeling specifically targeted for their work with nonprofit organizations.
The item was drafted by City Attorney Thomas Watson to prohibit certain contracts between the city and elected or appointed representatives or appointed civic employees and their immediate family members.
“On June 5 there was a request from council to draft a document related to contracts, and that was in the context of the fireworks permitting discussions,” Watson said, referring to accusations by a member of the public that Councilwoman Nancy Young had used her office to benefit nonprofits she is involved with — organizations that won a city lottery that granted them the right to sell safe-and-sane fireworks before the Fourth of July as a fundraiser.
Councilwoman Rhodesia Ransom was the first to question the intent of the legislation.
“I have concerns about the representation of this item as well as the memory of our council in regards to when we had the public discussion about the code of conduct that came back to us in March,” Ransom said. “We were supposed to be doing a comprehensive code of conduct and then they (city staff) got a request to do this item.”
Ransom referred to a June 21 report by the San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury that found that Tracy lacked a code of conduct for elected officials and recommended that the City Council adopt one.
“The person who asked to bring this back was me,” Mayor Robert Rickman said in response. “One of the things I had an issue with is the lottery system and why is it allowed for a council member to financially benefit from any grant.”
Ransom said that although she has repeatedly recused herself from decisions affecting the Sow A Seed Community Foundation, which she founded to help at-risk youth in Tracy, she has been targeted by two residents intent upon undermining her work in the community and on the council.
Rickman interjected when Ransom began to talk about these issues, asking the city attorney whether her statements were proper during this discussion.
“We’re getting way beyond. … We’re talking about contracts and an ordinance,” he said, looking to Watson for his legal interpretation.
“You brought this up,” Ransom replied immediately. “We’re talking about contracts and an ordinance, but we have to put things into context as to why we’re having this discussion.”
When Watson said she was free to do so, Ransom cited numerous public records requests about her and public attacks against her and members of the Sow a Seed board of directors.
“It’s an attack. There’s nothing been found. There’s nothing nefarious. The record shows that I’ve not gotten any money,” Ransom said. “This is just to show that this is so political, that this is so personal. These are the same people who tried to do everything they could to stop me from getting here who are orchestrating this.”
Rickman said there was language missing from the proposed ordinance that would address his real concern — elected members profiting “financially” through city contracts awarded to organizations they were involved with.
“I don’t think it’s proper and you sit up here on this dais and you benefit financially from any city funds,” Rickman said. “I don’t think it’s fair, for one. I don’t think it’s fair to the other nonprofits that we sit in this position.”
Rickman later clarified that he did not intend to single out anyone and that he hoped Ransom did not think his request for an ordinance was about her. But the mayor also said he had no idea why the issue elicited objections.
“I don’t see why this is so hard and we can’t agree on this,” Rickman said. “It’s any council member or any elected official, department head, appointed official that financially benefits from a grant, from a lottery or any kind of monies from the city, shouldn’t be able to participate. How hard is that?”
Councilwoman Juana Dement said she would not want to discourage council members from serving community groups.
“I’m not going to sit here and point fingers at anybody. That’s not my job to do that,” she said after the heated exchange between Rickman and Ransom. “I think we should make some sort of amendment in this particular ordinance to make it clear that City Council people, elected officials, appointed officials and so forth could serve on boards throughout the community as long as they are not financially benefiting from the board. Because that is the issue.”
“I am not objecting to a policy. I am all for it,” Ransom said, adding that everything taken together — the city staff having to respond to voluminous records requests and drafting new laws with a narrow focus — appeared directed at her and Young. “I am concerned it’s out of context. It is weaponizing our staff against council members.”
Young said attacks on her service to the community and Ransom’s had no basis in fact.
“I think the frustration has come from the assumption that those of us that are working in nonprofits are actually paid to be on staff. Whereas many of us are actually paying into and helping raise money for the benefit of our community,” she said. “In no way and no how should any person who ever sits at this dais be punished for the work that they do in the community.”
Young said she felt the proposed ordinance should be part of a larger discussion.
“My concern is that we are piecemealing parts of the code of conduct that goes back years of requests,” she said. “This is something that’s been going on the entire six years, and prior to my coming on the council, that this has been asked for. It’s been requested. It’s been approved, but it’s been ignored. And just to take a little piece of it, that seems very contradictory to what the report that the grand jury gave.”
City Manager Randall Bradley told the council that this was what he and Watson believed the council wanted.
“When you requested us to bring back code of conduct, we did lots of research. We brought you that. That was rejected,” Bradley said, referring to an item discussed during the March 20 council meeting. “So we’re only responding to your request. That’s what this is tonight.”
Mayor Pro Tem Veronica Vargas said she supported a broader conversation.
“I’m glad to know that this is a portion of a larger piece,” she said. “This is just a start and a beginning of something that we need to work further. Following the next step, we can do whatever the council’s wish is, a subcommittee or a workshop. Maybe it’s time to start.”
Planning commissioner Cliff Hudson rose during public comment and said the council might not have considered the impact of such an ordinance.
“Your unintended consequences may cause me to have to make a decision,” Hudson, who is also a member of the Tracy Chamber of Commerce board of directors, said. “I love my work as a planning commissioner. I love my work on the board of the Chamber of Commerce. We need good people in this city. We need good people to step up and be part of the discussion.”
Several other community members accused the council of politicizing an ethics conversation.
At the end of the almost two-hour conversation, the council unanimously asked Watson to make four changes to the ordinance to make it more specific: clarifying that it applied only to elected and appointed officials who benefit financially; defining “immediate family members”; excluding volunteer positions that are unpaid; and looking into how this ordinance would apply to memorandums of understanding or labor contracts.
Watson said he would draft a new version of the ordinance and present it at a future meeting for the City Council’s consideration.
July 21, 2018
Tracy Press
By Michael Ellis Langley
No comments:
Post a Comment