October 4, 2000:

(Under "Warrants"): The work session on October 11, 2000 will include: Comp Plan Amendments; Streeter & Assn./Public Works Bldg; Ethics Policy, proposed ordinance/amend bidding procedures and proposed ordinance/construction public works/improvements.

Misc.: Council would like to complete the Code of Ethics Policy before the end of the year. The Policy will be on the November 29th work agenda.

Miscellaneous: Bob Wilcox, W. Main, referred to a couple of issues in the proposed Code of Ethics policy that he felt could be detrimental and would like the Council to use caution if implemented.

Human Resources Manager Shelley Carpenter explained that changes had been made to the draft Code of Ethics policy per Council discussions.

Council discussions further minor changes and whether this should be considered as an ordinance rather than as a policy.

The motion was made by Councilperson Mechling and seconded by Councilperson Walser, that this be considered as first reading of a proposed ordinance with amended changes to section 6.2 (5) (12) (delete strikethrough), and section 6.1 (residency on Board-1year) and 3 members for 3 years.

On vote: Councilpersons Berger, Rodland-nay; Motion carried. 5/2

June 6, 2001:

Barbara Headrick, Old Owen Road, expressed her displeasure of the appointment of Jim Hager to the Ethics Board and requested that he not be confirmed.

Don Foltz, Old Owen Road, requested that the appointment of Jim Hager to the Ethics Board not be confirmed.

Mayor Holman explained that a committee that included Grace Kirwan and Vince Smith had held interviews with interested persons for the Ethics Board. Out of the ten that were interviewed, 5 had been recommended for appointment.

The motion was made by Councilperson Sopris-Kegerreis and seconded by Councilperson Mechling, that confirmation of the Ethics Board members should be voted on individually. (Vote: Councilperson Berger-Rodland/nay, Motion carried. 5/2)

The motion was made by Councilperson Berger and seconded by Councilperson Rodland, that Jim Hager be confirmed on the Ethics Board.

On vote: Councilperson Berger-Rodland/yea;, Councilperson Balk/abstained; Motion failed. 2/4

Eric Olsen and R. Todd Frederickson introduced themselves to the Council.

July 11, 2001:

Miscellaneous: Council would like to review if the City newsletter is necessary. They would be comfortable with the stuffer in the utility bills to cut costs.

September 5, 2001

CONFIRM APPOINTMENT/ETHICS BOARD

Assistant City Administrator Perry Asher explained that interviews were held with candidates for the Ethics Board vacancy. Mrs. Vicki Berg had previously expressed interest in the library board and was advised that she would be considered for the Ethics Board. She was advised that another letter of interest was not necessary. One of the candidates that had previously expressed interest was contacted 3 times with no response.

The motion was made by Councilperson Berger and seconded by Councilperson Balk, that Mayor Holman's, appointment of Vicki Berg to fill the vacancy on the Ethics Board, be confirmed.

On vote: Motion carried. 6/0

Vicki Berg was introduced to the Council.

November 21, 2001:

COUNCILPERSON COMMENTS: Councilperson Sopris-Kegerreis expressed deep concern over a possible disregard of the ethics ordinance. Councilperson Mechling suggested a joint meeting with the Ethics Committee to discuss their role and potential changes to the ordinance.

August 7, 2002:

(Agenda subject): "Authorize Mayor Sign/Agreement Concessionaire/Parks"): Public Works Director Brazel explained the particulars of the request. Proposals were advertised for concession stands at Lake Tye and Sky River. One proposal was received from Richard Fuller, Orris Inc. for two years. They are proposing to pay 15% of gross revenue generated from the sale of goods at the concessions. The private company is a city employee.

Discussion. Attorney Lyderson explained that the proposal was publicly advertised and the company is a separate corporate entity but he would like to review RCW to see if this is a conflict. Council inquired if this would be a conflict according to the Ethics Rules.

Staff will research rules for conflicts and report at the work session.

August 21, 2002:

(Follow-up To above 8/7/02 item): Attorney Lyderson explained that previously questions were raised about an employee contracting for services with the City. This particular agreement does not violate either the RCW or the City's Ethic Code. The contract has been properly advertised.

Council discussed the Ethics Code and felt that the Board should revisit section 2, conflict with duties.

The motion was made by Councilperson Hunnicutt and seconded by Councilperson Balk, to accept the bid from Orris, Inc. for concessionaire at the Sky River and Lake Tye Parks for 2002-2003.

December 18, 2002:

Vicki Berg, whose term expired in December, was appointed and confirmed to the Ethics Board, 6/0

March 5, 2003:

Councilperson Mechling noted that he had requested that the Ethics Board address two issues: if it was a violation for a Commissioner to work on a direct contract or as a subcontractor.

The motion was made by Councilperson Hansen and seconded by Councilperson Hunnicutt, that the work session minutes of February 26, 2003, as amended, be accepted, as written and placed on file.

March 19, 2003:

Miscellaneous: David Nelson, Chain Lake Road, explained that the Council had requested and received an opinion from the Ethics Board, in regards to conflict of interest. He would like a chance to discuss at the next work session. He presented a letter in support of his position and opinion.

"Miscellaneous":

• Dianne Hansen Chain Lake Road, explained that she felt that the intent of the Ethics Code was to clarify conflicts of interest and appearance of fairness. The Ethics Board concept seemed very necessary when it was adopted. The intent was to ensure that the decision makers were serving the citizens and not benefiting from the city because of positions. She felt that the Council should have discussed the intent of the ordinance before sending to the Ethics Board. She felt that it was the right thing to do, to write a letter of support for Dave Nelson. The intent of the Code was not to punish good law-abiding citizens from making a contribution to their city.
• Councilperson Mechling requested that the Ethics Code and the Open Meetings Act be distributed immediately to persons joining boards.

ORDINANCE NO. 009/2003/AMENDMENT ETHICS CODE

City Administrator Southworth explained that the Council recently reviewed the Ethics Board advisory recommendation concerning a hypothetical case of a City official being a subcontractor on a City project. The Ethics Board advised that per section 2.52.040, this would create a conflict of interest violation. The consensus of the Council was that such conflicts created by the existing ordinance were not intended and should be reviewed for possible revision. Staff met to review the situation. The violations this section provides for and creates, go beyond the provisions of state law and court rulings and interpretations of state law. It should not be the intent of the City to preclude people from service to the City by occupation or business interest, but rather, that the City benefit from their background and experience by their service on City boards and commissions. The intent should be to identify where conflicts of interest and/or appearance of fairness violations under state law and the person be recused from the matter causing the violation, rather than complete exclusion and participation on City boards and commissions. To maintain the Ethics Board and the intent of the Code of Ethics ordinance while all concerns are reviewed and a desirable balance found, it was determined that Section 2.52.040 could be amended to adopt established state laws for conflict of interest and appearance of fairness. Also, three terms that are defined, but (currently) are not otherwise reference in the ordinance would be repealed. It is the consensus of Staff to recommend that the Council adopt the proposed interim ordinance, amending the Monroe Code of Ethics, temporarily replacing conflict of interest prohibitions with state law requirements to provide time for study and revision.

Attorney Haney explained that 2 ordinances have been prepared. The Interim Ordinance replaces section 2.52.040 with state conflict of interest and appearance of fairness requirements. The second ordinance suspends all City ethic rules while keeping the ethics board intact to provide advice on ethics issues at the direction of the Council The Interim ordinance would expire in six (6) months. During that period, the Ethics Board would be directed to assess the effectiveness of the ethics code and recommend changes to the City Council as necessary.

Attorney Lyderson read by title a proposed ordinance to amend Code of Ethics, temporarily replacing conflict of interest prohibitions with State law requirements in order to provide time for study and revision.

The motion was made by Councilperson Berger and seconded by Councilperson Frye, to accept as first and final reading of proposed ordinance and that Ordinance No. 009/2003, amending the Monroe Code of Ethics, Chapter 2.52, temporarily replacing conflict of interest prohibitions with State law requirements in order to provide time for study and revision, be adopted.

Discussion. Council pointed out that the Code of Ethics was written by Staff, Attorney and City Council, not the Ethics Board. There is a need to review the Planning Commission ordinance for such issues as: terms, pay and residency. Council commented that the ordinance is about perception. It was drafted to restore trust. All parties were given copies. The Code is stricter than State law. The Code was drafted from other cities. The request for an opinion from the Ethics Board was to see if this was a violation of City ordinance. It was suggested that a Council Committee review the Code, get input from the Ethics Board and then bring back recommendations to the Council. (Vote: 7/0.)

September 17, 2003:

Attorney Olbrechts explained that 2 ordinances were prepared, one to extend the current suspension ordinance and the other to revive the Ethics Code.

The motion was made by Councilperson Mechling and seconded by Councilperson Berger, that Ordinance 021/2003, extending Ordinance No. 009/2003, a temporary ordinance, suspending the Monroe Ethics Code for an additional 6 months.

The agenda for September 24, 2003 was reviewed. The Ethics Code public review will be forwarded to a later date, possibly October 22, in order to give more time to publish.

December 3, 2003:

Because of continuing discussions that included the Ethics Board, Planning Commissioners, and the City Council, the original ordinance (adopted December 20, 2000) amended for a six-month review period on 4/2/03. The amendment repealed four definitions not otherwise referenced in the ordinance and repealed/replaced section 2.52.040 with the conflicts of interest/appearance of fairness provisions of state law. This temporary amendment was extended an additional six months on 9/17/03.

Possible revisions to section 2.52.040 of the original ordinance were discussed during this review period. The revisions were drafted as amendment of the original ordinance and discussed at the Council's public forum on 12/3/03. The few suggestions from the public forum have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance.

(E.) Notwithstanding MMC 2.52.040(D), public officials and City employees may have a beneficial interest in a contract with the City under the following circumstances:

1. If an item of business relating to the contract comes before the public official or City employee, the official or employee must identify the contract on the record and recuse him or herself from acting in anyway on that item, including remaining in the meeting room during any discussion of the item; and

2. The official or employee has not lobbied the City to enter into the contract; and

3. The official or employee has not influenced City policy with the primary purpose of creating the need for the contract; and

4. The contract can not be made by, through or under the supervision of the official or employee, in whole or in part, or for the benefit of his or her office.

Attorney Olbrechts clarified that with the addition of (E) that a member of any Board could have a beneficial interest in a contract with circumstances.

Council discussed the original intent of the ordinance was to clarify so that it was clear that a member would need to step down from a Board if there a business interest.

A few of the Councilmembers felt that the proposed ordinance should have the original language, that the Ethics Board had felt that stricter language were good. It was felt that perception was important and to have faith re-established in the City. Board candidates have a choice whether or not to be on Boards if they know ahead of time that they can't do business with the City. If section (E) were left in it would be more business friendly to those wishing to be on Boards. It was felt that the Code was weakened with (E) as an amendment.

The motion was made by Councilperson Balk and seconded by Councilperson Hunnicutt, that this be considered as the first and final reading of proposed ordinance and that Ordinance 028/2003, amend ethics code, with the deletion of 2.52.040, paragraph E, and changing remote interest paragraph 4 from $250 to $1200, be adopted.

On vote: Councilpersons Berger, Thomas, Zimmerman-nay; Councilpersons Balk, Frye, Hunnicutt, Mechling-yea. Motion carried. 4/3

December 17, 2003

Miscellaneous: Council discussed the confirmation of appointments to the Planning Commission, Library Board and Ethics Board. Council would like to review the length of terms of the Boards. Council decided to consider the appointments in January.

January 7, 2004:

Council discussed the proposed re-appointment of Todd Fredrickson to the Ethics Board.

Questions were raised about letters that were written by Fredrickson during the recent election and the question if there was a conflict. Councilmembers felt that an Ethics Board member should be fair, open-minded and impartial. Council would like Fredrickson to come to a Council meeting to clarify issues.

The motion was made by Councilperson Balk and seconded by Councilperson Minnick, that the re-appointment of Todd Fredrickson to the Ethics Board be tabled. (Vote: 6/0.)

Mayor Walser will contact Frederickson to see if he would like to do that.

The motion was made by Councilperson Balk and seconded by Councilperson Thomas that the Mayor's re-appointment of Vicki Berg (1 year) to the Ethics Board, be confirmed. (Vote: 6/0.)

The motion was made by Councilperson Berger and seconded by Councilperson Zimmerman, that the Mayor's re- appointment (6 yrs) of Dennis Gallagher, to the Planning Commission, be confirmed. (Vote: 6/0.)

(Before the end of the meeting, Councilperson Thomas requested that his vote be nay on the appointment of Gallagher. He stated that in principle he felt that it was inappropriate because Gallagher was not in the City limits or the GMA area).

Councilpersons Berger and Minnick requested that the Ethics ordinance be brought back to the Council for review.

January 21, 2004

Mayor Walser explained that a letter of resignation from the Ethics Board had been received from Eric Olsen. He explained it was a personal decision and not a reaction to current issues. Jim Shiner, Ethics Board member recommended support of Todd Fredrickson to reconsider his decision to not accept another term on the Board. Todd Fredrickson had made a decision not to accept another term on the Board.

Council discussed whether or not Fredrickson could remain impartial. He had been invited to discuss the issues with Council and he chose not to. Council discussed whether or not the Council should be confirming a Board member that would be involved in judging a Councilmember. Politics and Boards should not be mixed.

The motion was made by Councilperson Zimmerman and seconded by Councilperson Berger, to accept the resignations of Ethics Board members Fredrickson and Olsen.

City Administrator Southworth explained that the Council had requested that the Ethics ordinance be placed on the agenda for reconsideration. The previous ordinance that was in effect before the amended ordinance that was adopted in December is attached. The differences in the ordinances is paragraph E, pertaining to conflict of interest.

Council discussed the reason for reviewing the ordinance was to have the new Councilmembers take a look at. The ordinance that was adopted in December made stricter rules than state law with an amendment that prohibits those who do business with the city from sitting on city advisory committees, such as the planning commission. Some of the Council felt that a change should be made to allow those that do business with the city can serve on boards under certain conditions, such as, they must disclose conflicts of interest between their businesses and the city and in such cases they must stay out of the process. Others of the Council felt that the present ordinance makes sure that board members have no business interests with the city. This helps to distill mistrust in government. A strong ordinance is needed and the present ordinance provides just that.

After lengthy discussion on the merits of whether or not amending to allow businesspersons be on boards and commissions would weaken the present ordinance,

the motion was made by Councilperson Berger and seconded by Councilperson Minnick, that the current ordinance be amended to add back in (what is known as) paragraph E.

February 4, 2004:

RESIGNATION/COUNCILPERSON HUNNICUTT: Mayor Walser read a letter of resignation from Councilperson Hunnicutt, effective immediately. Councilperson Hunnicutt has served the City for 16 years. (Resigned in protest over Ethics Ordinance/Board issues.) Under "Miscellaneous", the following related to this item: " Council expressed appreciation for the long-term dedication as shown by Councilperson Hunnicutt. A resolution will be prepared to recognize his 16 years of service."

Miscellaneous:

• David Demarest, Monroe, explained that he lives outside the City limits and is on the Planning Commission. He explained that he has never used his position on the Planning Commission for personal gain. He feels that when the Ethics Code was adopted in December, that it would prohibit Windermere agents from doing business in the City. The proposed amendment to the Code would help to maintain professional and experienced persons on Boards and Commissions.

• Bob Riordan, Monroe, explained that he questioned the time frame of effect on the publication of the Ethics Code that was adopted in December. He feels that it should be 30 days after adoption by the Council.

Attorney Olbrechts explained that the proposed ordinance to amend the Ethics Code was not before the Council when the amendment was proposed on January 21, 2004. The proposed ordinance spells out the amendment as well as identifies that it will not be effective until 30 days after approval.

Attorney Olbrechts read by title the proposed ordinance to amend Ethics Code.

The motion was made by Councilperson Berger and seconded by Councilperson Minnick, that this be considered as the first and final reading of proposed ordinance and that Ordinance No. 002/2004, amending the Code of Ethics, Chapter 2.52, Monroe Municipal Code, in order to allow City officials and employees to have a beneficial interest in a contract with the City under specified circumstances and establishing an effective date, be adopted.

On vote: Councilpersons Balk/Frye-nay; Motion carried. 4/2

Council briefly discussed the difference between a referendum and initiative process.

Todd Frederickson explained that he would be petitioning for an initiative and that he has 6 months to gather signatures. Voters would be exercising their rights for such a process.

April 7, 2004:

Consent agenda items approved: bills in the amount of $152,050.01. Warrant #'s 56422-56563; Approve School Bus Routes; Ordinance 004/2004 Amend Ethics Code.

August 4, 2004:

Miscellaneous: Todd Fredrickson, explained that he has turned in a petition for initiative to Snohomish County. The Auditors office now needs to validate the signatures. Once validated, the City will need to amend the Ethics Ordinance or adopt a stand-alone ordinance.

August 18, 2004

Attorney Olbrechts explained the proposed amendments to the Ethics Code as the result of the Initiative. The Initiative is less restrictive than the state law in several aspects and more restrictive in other aspects. The net result is that the Initiative is not significantly different than the city ordinance as it applies to Council members and it is generally more restrictive when applied to members of boards and commissions.

Council invited Todd Fredrickson to share his thoughts.

Fredrickson stated that the Initiative supports efforts for ethical standards in government. Exemptions of RCW and WAC were included but not intended to weaken the results.

He would prefer that the issue not go to the voters for approval, but that the Council adopt proposed ordinance.

Councilperson Thomas suggested additions to the Whereas , referencing RCW's and notation that ordinance could not be amended without voter approval.

The motion was made by Councilperson Thomas and seconded by Councilperson Balk, that proposed ordinance, amending Code of Ethics, be adopted.

Discussion: Council discussed options. Petition could be withdrawn and redrafted; put on General Election ballot.

Discussion. Expense of the election and if the amendment weakened the current code.

The motion was made by Councilperson Minnick and seconded by Councilperson Frye, to reconsider previous motion.

Council discussed the Initiative. Some felt that the exceptions made changes that petitioners were not aware of; others felt that given the number, petitioners had voiced approval of the Initiative and felt that it should go forward.

Mayor Walser called for vote on the original motion.

The motion was made by Councilperson Zimmerman and seconded by Councilperson Thomas, that the Initiative be placed on the General Election ballot in November.