EVMWD adopts code of conduct

The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) passed a code of conduct in a 4-1 vote, with Director Chris Hyland casting the dissenting vote. She said she believed the district needed to adopt a code but voted against it in its present form suggesting postponement for one month to make refinements.

The code was modeled after the city of Murrieta’s newly-enacted code of ethics. The Murrieta code’s ethical guidelines are categorized by integrity/honesty; accountability/responsibility; respect and fairness. The Murrieta code includes clauses supporting “the public’s right to know and promotion of their meaningful participation in the conduct of the public’s business” and avoiding personal attacks against fellow officials.

“I think it is important for us to have this code of conduct and be proactive rather than reactive,” said Director Harvey Ryan.

Legal counsel for EVMWD, Steve noted that the water district would be on the cutting edge by creating a code of conduct for its public officials. With the heightened interest in the ethical behavior of public servants passed by the legislature in Assembly Bill 1234 to require ethics training, Director Phil Williams felt the code could become a model for other agencies.

Director Hyland proposed adding clauses such as “the implicit duty to represent the best interests of your constituents and their majority viewpoint as you can best determine.” She said she believed the code seemed to be seeking conformity from the board members rather than encourage them to appropriately represent their constituents.

The code lists key principles such as integrity, leadership, selflessness, objectivity, respect and governs board member conduct between the public, general manager and staff and fellow board members.

Failure to adhere to the guidelines may result in informal sanctions of admonishment or a reminder given to all directors, or a sanction directed to a particular director. The sanction would be given after a board review and the director’s opportunity to provide written response to the violation.

Serious charges may warrant formal sanctions with a formal investigation, notice of allegation and an opportunity to respond. The case would be determined by the majority vote of the board of directors. The most severe penalty may be a censure or a formal statement by the board officially reprimanding one of its members. There is no fine or suspension of duties.

EVMWD counsel explained why code provisions restrict legal advice to be given on matters with the approval of the majority viewpoint of the board. A potential conflict of interest may arise from the dispensing of legal advice for different viewpoints and it keeps legal costs down.

“We as your attorneys work for you as a board, meaning you as a majority of the board whatever decisions you undertake,” he said.

Clause #3.6(d) forbids board members from requesting legal research or opinions from district counsel without board approval. If a board member seeks outside legal advice on district business, the advice “shall be provided to district counsel for review and comment.”

Chapman University School of Law constitutional law professor John C. Eastman said in an e-mail, other than the fact that he “did find it a bit troubling that the Board would essentially block a member of the board from obtaining legal opinions that might impact board action,” he did not immediately see a constitutional or other legal problem.