Draft ethics policy panned by city staff
The draft version of a proposed ethics policy for city officials and employees met with general criticism after it was passed on to city staff for review.
City councilor Turner Askew characterized the situation as a “rebellion in the staff” during the Whitefish City Council’s Feb. 7 meeting.
“It’s not ‘no’ but ‘heck no,’” he said.
The council agreed to meet in a work session with the ad hoc committee that drafted the policy sometime in the future.
The committee was formed in July 2010 after several citizens suggested some councilors were being influenced by their supporters from the 2009 municipal election. The 11-page document the committee came up with establishes a new three-member board to handle complaints, conduct hearings and determine how to proceed.
The committee’s first draft, however, was met with critical questions by concerned councilors during their Jan. 3 meeting. The council directed staff to review the draft policy and bring it back.
In his comments, city manager Chuck Stearns said he personally supports such a policy, but the draft “may over-reach a little bit, and that may affect its intended results.”
If the policy is extended to cover all city employees, Stearns said, then it should be simplified and streamlined so the likelihood of its acceptance by city employees is improved. One of the city’s three unions, however, had already said having a policy apply to all employees would require negotiations, he said.
The city currently has “too many advisory boards,” so providing staff support for a new Board of Ethics could “detract from employees getting their work done,” Stearns said. Requiring an annual workshop or training program for elected officials and city employees would be “unnecessary, redundant and expensive,” he said.
Stearns also noted that “despite the best intentions,” city employees have expressed concern that the policy could provide an avenue for complaints to be filed “in a retaliatory or malicious manner.”
Whitefish police chief Bill Dial said the proposed policy “will produce more work for an already overworked, understaffed administration.” He called the process “cumbersome,” “redundant” and “another layer of government.”
“We already have an ethics policy in place for our work force, which works very well,” he said.
Among his concerns, Dial wanted to know who would determine morality, impartiality and fairness, and what were the qualifications for the proposed Board of Ethics. While many parts of the draft policy are covered by the city’s personnel regulations and state law, Dial pointed out that “a city cannot dictate what a person does on his or her own time if it is legal.”
Sgt. Rob Veneman, president of the Whitefish Police Protective Association, informed Stearns that the union “would like to refrain from being involved with the new ethics policy.” He noted that law enforcement personnel work under the state’s ethics policy, which supersedes any policy enacted by the city.
Whitefish city clerk Necile Lorang also weighed in on the draft policy. She said she did not support it because it “duplicates other governing documents that are already in place and have served the city, its employees and its constituents well over the years.”
Sherri Baccaro, at the public works department, called one section in the draft policy “very limiting” and “controlling of an employee’s private time.” She warned that another section “breeds negative intentions and could become more of a ‘witch hunt’ than what is intended,” and she questioned whether the city should be allowed to reprimand a city employee.
Public works director John Wilson told the council Baccaro’s comments reflected concerns of most public works department employees.