City of Sacramento Page 1
PERSONNEL AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
COMMITTEE
Lisa Kaplan, Chair, District 1
Karina Talamantes, District 3
Katie Valenzuela, District 4
Caity Maple, Vice Chair, District 5
COMMITTEE STAFF
Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk
Jacob Bredberg, Administrative Analyst
Brett Witter, Assistant City Attorney
Personnel and Public Employees
Committee
City Hall Complex
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
Published by the Office of the City Clerk
(916) 808-7200
SU
PPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Description of Attached: Attached is supplemental material received after publishing the agenda, the addition of attachments 2 and 3. The attached staff report replaces the original staff report in its entirety.
For
the Meeting of: Tuesday, September 10, 2024, at 11:00 a.m.
A
genda Item: Discussion Item 6
6. P
olicy Direction on 2018 Sacramento Ethics Commission Recommendations File ID: 2024-01382
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Committee to review and provide direction regarding 2018 Sacramento Ethics Commission recommendations, and take one of the following actions:
1) Pass a Motion directing the appropriate council appointive officer to continue work on the recommendation(s) and bring the matter back to the committee for review and consideration;
2) Pass a Motion directing the appropriate council appointive officer to continue work on the recommendation(s) with committee member(s) and forwarding the item to the city council for consideration without further review by the committee;
3) Pass a Motion sending the matter back to the sponsoring councilmember for additional information and/or research; or 4) Pass a Motion declining the recommendation(s).
C
ontact: Mindy Cuppy, MMC, City Clerk, (916) 808-5442, Office of the City Clerk; Gary P. Lindsey, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney, (916) 808-5346, [email protected], Office of the City Attorney
City of Sacramento
Personnel and Public Employees Committee Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2024-01382 9/10/2024 Discussion Item 6.
Policy Direction on 2018 Sacramento Ethics Commission Recommendations File ID: 2024-01382
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Committee to review and provide direction regarding 2018 Sacramento Ethics Commission recommendations, and take one of the following actions:
1) Pass a Motion directing the appropriate council appointive officer to continue work on the recommendation(s) and bring the matter back to the committee for review and consideration; 2) Pass a Motion directing the appropriate council appointive officer to continue work on the recommendation(s) with committee member(s) and forwarding the item to the city council for consideration without further review by the committee;
3) Pass a Motion sending the matter back to the sponsoring councilmember for additional information and/or research; or
4) Pass a Motion declining the recommendation(s).
Contact: Mindy Cuppy, MMC, City Clerk, (916) 808-5442, Office of the City Clerk; Gary P. Lindsey, Jr., Senior Deputy City Attorney, (916) 808-5346, [email protected], Office of the City Attorney
Presenter: Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk, (916) 808-5442, Office of the City Clerk Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-TBD Policy and Financial Implications to 2018 Sacramento Ethics Commission Recommendations
3-Sacramento Ethics Commission Recommendations
Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: On September 19, 2023 the Sacramento Ethics Commission submitted its annual report and recommendations to the Personnel and Public Employees (P&PE) Committee. At that meeting, the committee passed a motion to forward the annual report to the city council for consideration.
On September 21, 2023 Councilmember Valenzuela submitted a Councilmember Proposal Request to consider adoption of 2018 Sacramento Ethics Commission recommendations. Per Council Rules
File ID: 2024-01382 9/10/2024 Discussion Item 6.
of Procedure, Chapter 12, Mayor Steinberg reviewed the request and assigned it to the P&PE Committee to review.
On October 17, 2023 the P&PE reviewed the proposal and passed a Motion directing the appropriate council appointive officer to commence work on the proposal and bring it back to the committee for review and consideration.
On May 14, 2024 the P&PE Committee reviewed the policy and financial implications to the 2018 Sacramento Ethics Commission’s recommendations and passed a motion directing City Clerk and City Attorney to continue to work on the recommendations and bring the matter back to the committee for review and consideration.
This report is to provide an update on policy and financial implications regarding each recommendation.
Policy Considerations: The Commission’s recommendations may require Council action and, in some instances, a vote of the electorate.
Economic Impacts: Not applicable.
Environmental Considerations:
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): This action is not a project subject to CEQA because it involves only general policy and procedure making and does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15002(d), 15378(b)(2), 15061(b)(3)).
Sustainability: Not applicable.
Commission/Committee Action: The Sacramento Ethics Commission proposed the recommendations in question during their 2022 annual report.
Rationale for Recommendation: The Commission made its annual report to the Council and made recommendations regarding subpoena power; hearing officer; independence and staffing; and education, training, and policy. This report outlines the next steps in addressing each of these recommendations.
Financial Considerations: Not applicable.
Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.
File ID: 2024-01382 9/10/2024 Discussion Item 6.
Background: During its 2018 annual report to the City Council, the Sacramento Ethics Commission made four primary recommendations: subpoena power; hearing officer; independence and staffing; and education, training, and policy. Staff subsequently presented to the commission on July 22, 2019 an update on actions required to enact their recommendations.
During the Commission’s 2022 annual report to the City Council, they re-submitted the 2018 recommendations.
Policy and Financial Implications – Rev. 09-05-2024 Page 1 of 3 Policy and Financial Implications to 2018 Sacramento Ethics Commission Recommendations
The 2
018 Sacramento Ethics Commission made the following recommendations that require policy direction from the City Council:
• S
ubpoena Power
• Hearing Officer
• Independence and Staffing
• Education, Training, and Policy
Subpoena Power
U
nder the City Charter, only the City Council or a committee composed of Council Members may subpoena witnesses (City Charter § 34) so one of the following actions would have to occur for the Commission to be granted subpoena power:
1. Co
uncil Action – Option 1: At the Commission’s request, the City Council could issue subpoenas ordering witnesses to appear before the Commission and testify or produce documents.
2. C
harter Amendment: The electorate could approve an amendment of the City Charter that expressly authorizes the City Council to delegate the subpoena power to the Commission or directly grants the subpoena power to the Commission.
Potential Budget implication: The estimated cost for a measure on the November 2024 ballot (with candidates) was estimated to be $31,000. If the election is still consolidated with the county but there were no other contests, the cost could be significantly higher. In addition to the cost for consolidating with the county for the election, there would be staff time involved in drafting the ordinance, the administrative approvals to put it on the ballot, and the process to take the item to the city council for approval.
Policy and Financial Implications – Rev. 09-05-2024 Page 2 of 3 Hearing Officer
The Commission requested the ability to use an administrative-law judge (ALJ) or hearing officer when potentially lengthy or complex administrative hearings make timely disposition of a complaint difficult. Specifically, the Commission requested the ability to use an ALJ or hearing officer to take the matter under submission, and the Commission would then conduct a streamlined hearing to adjudicate a complaint. Council action to amend Chapter 2.112 of the City Code to allow for the use of an ALJ or hearing officer would be needed. Budget allocation, also by Council action, would also be needed so that funding is available should the Commission choose to use an ALJ or hearing officer.
Potential Budget implication: The
California Department of General Services Price
Book 2023-2024 l ists the rate for an ALJ at $395 per hour. It is likely that there would be an increase in staff time to conduct a RFQ process, manage the ALJ contract(s), and support the hearing process. There could be a decrease in Ethics Commission meetings if the commission delegated their hearing authority to an ALJ or hearing officer, thus a decrease in staff time to support meetings and commissioner stipends.
Independence and Staffing
The Commission requested independent, dedicated staffing and a guaranteed budget, which requires Council action and possibly a vote of the electorate. Council could take action during the budget cycle to modify the City Clerk’s budget to add additional funding and staff or to create an entirely independent office. If the Council wishes to guarantee the Commission’s independence and funding within the City Charter, a vote of the electorate is required.
Of California’s eight largest cities, including Sacramento, all but one (Fresno) have an ethics commission, and four of these seven commissions are solely independent departments with budgeted staffing and authority to conduct education, policy, and enforcement work.
Sacramento and San Jose ethics commissions are organized and staffed within the City Clerk’s office’s and assisted by a contracted independent evaluator. Long Beach ethics commission is staffed by one position which is part of the City Manager’s budget.
Potential Budget implication: Below are budget allocations for independent commissions as of December 2023:
San Francisco $6.5 Million
Los Angeles $5.4 Million
Oakland $1.8 Million
San Diego $1.5 Million
Policy and Financial Implications – Rev. 09-05-2024 Page 3 of 3 Education, Training, and Policy
The 2018 Ethics Commission stated that: “Input and involvement regarding education, training, and policy development regarding the code sections under the Commission’s jurisdiction are critical to the success of the City’s ethics program”. Although Chapter
2.112 of the City Code is silent regarding the Commission’s role in education, training, and policy, the Office of the City Clerk and the Commission agree that Commission guidance and support is critical to the development and execution of training.
The Office of the City Clerk currently collaborates with the Commission on training processes and materials and is appreciative of their input. The Commission has regularly reviewed and given feedback on training materials developed so that their input can be incorporated into final programs.
The scope of the commission includes reporting to the city council regarding activities of the commission and making recommendations, if any, regarding the subjects of its purview. It is within the scope of he commission to make policy recommendations to the city council and it is the city council’s purview to make policy decisions.
Potential Budget implication: If the City Council recommends additional training in ethics and compliance there could be a budget augmentation to include additional staff to be dedicated to creating and conducting training or to contract with a consultant to develop a training program.
Sacramento Ethics Commission Recommendations Page 1 of 2 Sacramento Ethics Commission Recommendations
The following recommendations were included in the Commission’s 2018 annual report to the City Council. The Commission asked that these recommendations be presented to the Personnel and Public Employees (P&PE) Committee for consideration. Below is the text from the 2018 annual report.
As part of the process to develop procedures for implementing chapter 2.112, the Commissioners spent significant time reviewing procedures and best practices of ethics commissions in the following cities: City and County of San Francisco, City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, City of Oakland, City of San Jose, and City of Riverside. Based on this review, the Commission offers the following recommendations:
Independence & Staffing
Two ways in which Commission differs from most other ethics commissions statewide are (1) budget source and guaranteed levels of funding and (2) the reporting structure of staff.
Most commissions are created by city charter and, as such, are independent of the city council and have an independent budget. The benefit of an independent commission that draws its power from a city charter is that it is not beholden for funding or authority to the individuals who are subject to its jurisdiction. The Commission suggests that in the future the City Council consider amending the City Charter to establish an independent Ethics Commission with a guaranteed budget and authority derived from the City Charter, not the City Code.
Second, most California ethics commissions have adopted a staffing structure that is also independent. Staff report to the commissions themselves, not to officers whose positions are subject to commission oversight. Currently, the Commission has a single staff member—the Administrator—and he reports directly to the City Clerk, who is subject to the Commission’s regulation. Since the Administrator makes an initial determination of jurisdiction, and possibly an initial referral to an independent evaluator (whose contract the City Clerk awards), there is the potential in this reporting structure for conflicts of interest to arise. The Commission recommends that this reporting structure be reconsidered and that the Administrator should report directly to the Commission.
Sacramento Ethics Commission Recommendations Page 2 of 2 Subpoena Power
For the Commission to fulfill its duties as an investigative and enforcement body, it needs the ability to compel testimony and the production of documents related to a complaint. Currently, the City Charter only provides the City Council with subpoena power (City Charter § 34). The Commission would like the City Council to consider a process to grant the Commission subpoena authority, either as a conduit of the City Council or through amendment of the City Charter. The Commission understands that a Charter amendment would require voter approval and so suggests that the City Council consider an interim measure. One suggestion would be an ordinance allowing for the routine delegation of subpoena power when the Commission is sitting as an administrative-hearing adjudicator. The adjudicative function would be the primary role in which the Commission would need authority to compel a witness’s presence or testimony or the production of other evidence.
Hearing Officer
Because the commission is comprised of voluntary Commissioners, and in the course of the commission’s activities may have matters that require more lengthy administrative hearings, the commission asks the City Council to consider amendments to City Code chapter 2.112 to allow the Commission to authorize the use of an administrative hearing officer to conduct administrative hearings. The Commission would continue to be the final decision maker in all complaints brought before the commission. The ability to bring in a hearing officer would allow for flexibility in situations where it appears that a hearing will either be long, politically sensitive (including situations where one or more Commissioners may have conflicts of interest) or require expertise that the Commission does not have.
Education, Training and Policy
The ability for the Commission to guide activities related to ongoing education, training, and compliance of governmental ethics laws in Sacramento would promote the work of the Office of Ethics and Compliance. City Code chapter 2.112 is silent on the Commission’s promoting education and training. Although the Commission believes that education, training, and policy development fall within the spirit of the chapter 2.112, the Commission asks the City Council to add language to City Code § 2.112.030 (powers and duties) that expressly designates these activities as within the Commission’s purview.
Additionally, numerous commissions statewide engage in policy activities to ensure that their jurisdictions remain leaders on governmental ethics and to provide innovative solutions to complex ethical issues. The Commission believes that these activities are consistent with City Code § 2.112. The Commission asks the City Council to add language to City Code § 2.112 that would expressly encourage the Commission to prioritize engagement in policy activities related to government ethics.