The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-01-21 Board of Ethics Minutes BOARD OF ETHICS January 21 , 1998 � MINUTES A meeting of the Board of Ethics of the City of Bangor was called to order at 6 : 20 p.m. on January 21, 1998, pursuant to prior public notice. The Board met in the office of the City Manager at Bangor City Hall, due to use of the Third Floor Conference Room by another City committee. Al1 Board members were present. The City Solicitor was also present. Minutes of the Board' s previous meeting (December 18, 1997) were approved as submitted. Pursuant to the published agenda, the Board reviewed additional materials submitted by the City Solicitor under a cover memo dated January 20 , 1998, consisting of excerpts from ordinances and policies adopted in other jurisdictions. In addition to the materials provided by the City Solicitor, Garth Chandler provided the Board with a "Donor Bill of Rights" and "Mission and Statement of Ethics" published by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education. The Board members then conducted an open discussion of all materials and information received to date. Three basic issues � were addressed. First, do the materials and information presented to date indicate existerice of a problem or problems with fund- raising activities involving the City of Bangor? Second, what problem areas have been identified? Third, what solutions is the Board able to recommend? Question One: Is there a problem? The consensus of all Board members was that the information received to date suggests that the City' s involvement in fundraising activities raises a number of problems, primarily in the areas of public information and public perceptions as to the nature and extent of the City' s role. Question Two: What is the precise nature of the problem(s) � . The Board identified the following problematic aspects of the City' s involvement in fundraising activities: 1. Companies and individuals that do business with the City may feel that they must contribute when they are solicited for contributions by the City, for fear of losing future City contracts . This is especially true when City Council members are � directly involved in the solicitation. 2. Businesses, especially bus 'inesses newly locating to the City, often are �the subject of multi�le solicitations by City employees or others raising funds for the City' s benefit. Different fundraising activities by the City are not coordinated � with each other, so that some businesses have been solicited by different City employees two or three times in a single week. -2- . 3 . The City is involved in a number o� fundraising ac�ivitie� , for the benefit of outside organiza�ions , e,Q. , the American Red Cross. For e�ample, the City Fire D�partment and the American Red Cross jointly raise fund� far a Red Cross pr�ject that donates smoke-detectors to parents a� newborn children at Eastern Maine Medical Center. Invalvement of the City in joint fundraising activities is of concern to �he extent that those solicited may no� be fully informed abaut who is running �he particular program far which funds are sought. 4. Outside organizations and individuals often raise maney that is later turned over to the Ci�y to fund a par�icular project , or program. At present, the City has no rules in place to assure the accountability flf such funds prior �a turnaver to the City. The Board' s consensus was that adequate con�rols are in place to assure proper accountability of donated funds once they are turned over �o the City. Accountability problems identified by the Board' s review arise prior to the City' s report of donated funds. Question Three: Passible salution� . 1. Management of Fundraising E�forts . The consensu� of the Board was that solici�atians by the City . of Bangor should be coordina�ed to avoid multipZe solicitati�ns af a single individual or business . In additiQn, �he Gity should � develop written fundraising guidelines, to be made available to the general puhlic and to ou�side argani2atians that want to raise money to bene�it �he City. It also was the consensus of Board members tha� outside organizations raising money for �he City, or using �he City` s name ta raise money on their own ar another' s behalf, should be required ta seek permission from �he City in advance, and should be �ubject ta financial reporting requirements concerning �heir fundraising activities . Organiza�ions uSing the City' s nam� to rai�e funds from �he general public should be required �fl s�ate on any literature used in the salicitation whe�her or not �he City has approved of the solicitation concerned. 2. �olicitation� by the City. The consensus of the Board was that all direct solicitatians , o� funds on the City' s behal� b� City employees should be centrally � caordinated, by the department head ar �he City Manager' s office. ' Several Board members felt that limi�ations should be placed on i one-on-one, face-�o-face salicitatians , espeeially by senior Ci�y �, o�ficials. Donations by check rather than cash should be ; enco�raged, to assure accoun�ability, and all check� should be made ', payable to the Ci�y a� Bangor, and not to the activity or program direc�ly. � � The Board' s Chair. Mr. Alpext, raised �he ques�ion of reducing the B�ard' s thoughts to a specific set af recommendations to the Bangor City Council . In response, the Board members discus�ed a . .. .. ..�. . -3- � need for City Council ac�ion in the following three areas: (1) preparation af speci�ic wri�.ten gtzidelines far fundraising effarts on the City' s behalf by outside groups ; (2) amendments to �.he Code af Ethics to address the role o� Ci�Gy offici.als, especially elected and appointed of�icials , in soliciting funds for the Ca.ty; and (3) adoption of a requirement that City employees involved in �und- raising projects for the Ci�y caordinate solicitations at least at the department head level. On �he last two points , Board rnembers stated �.hat they felt hampered in discussing what City ofticials should be restricted from direct solicita�.ions , and who �hould coordinate City fundraising activities, by �heir lack of knowledge of �.he City' s arganiza�ional s�.ruc�.ure. The City Solicitor brie�ly Qutlined differences between "elected of�icials" , "charter afficials" , "appoir�.ted officials" , department heads, and division head�. The Board discussed �he fact that same City employees may have specific appraval authority over particular i.tem�, e.a. , City building inspectors , even though they may no�. have the posi�.ion of department head ar division head. The City Solieitor was asked to pravide Board members with copies o� the Ci�y' s organizational chart to lend some insight. It was suggested that �.he Solicitor contact the Institute for Global E�.hics in Camden, as a further resour�e on fundraising � ethics . A recommendation was made and approved that Mr. Alpert and the City Solicitor meet within the week to attempt �.o draft a donor' s bill af righ�s, patt�rned after the CASE document, with a list of corresponding City respan.sibili�ies, incorporating the Board's earlier discussion o� the issues. It' was agreed that �.he draf� would be distribu.ted, together with the CASE dacuments, as a basis for further discussion at the Board' s next meeting. The Board' s next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, February 12th, at 6: 00 p.m. The Baard adjourn.ed at $: 04 p.m. Respectfully submi�ted, �?� ✓�� Erik M. Stumpfel City Solicitor tC �