2001 Annual Report

2001 ANNUAL REPORT
of the
UNIFIED GOVERNMENT ETHICS PROGRAM
Ethics Commission
and
Office of the Ethics Administrator

Presented to:
The Mayor, Board of Commissioners, and the People
of
The Unified Government of
Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The ethics program of the Unified Government enjoyed considerable success during 2001.  In only its second full year of operation, the Ethics Commission and the Office of the Ethics Administrator were responsible for presenting ethics education sessions to over 630 elected officials, officials and employees of the Unified Government, and responding to more than 120 inquiries for information, requests for advisory opinions, and allegations of ethical misconduct.  The program also featured numerous consultations with officials and administrative staff concerning ways to improve the ethical posture of government through policy initiatives and legislative liaison.  Throughout the year, the hard work of many dedicated citizens, officials and professionals came together to expand support for ethical practices and bolster public trust in local government.

Infrastructure and operations of the ethics program experienced significant stability during the period, with no key personnel turnover or dramatic organizational changes.  Member Kerry B. Herndon was reappointed to serve as Chair of the Ethics Commission,  Members Jim Ernst and Sara Gillespie were reappointed to serve additional four-year terms, and Members Loris Jones and Mark Mitchell continued to serve within their respective terms.  With a four-year contract renewal accomplished in 2000, and effective January 1, 2001, Dr. H. George Frederickson of The University of Kansas continued his service as the Ethics Administrator; Michael W. Manske of Washburn University continued to serve as the Assistant Director of the program.  Mr. Curt Wood, a doctoral student at The University of Kansas, joined the Office of the Ethics Administrator in the fall as an Ethics Instructor.

Program functions remained strong and effective throughout 2001.  With the addition of an approved continuing ethics education curriculum, the ethics training component expanded the amount and frequency of contact with elected officials, officials and employees of the Unified Government, as all are slated to complete the continuing education sessions within the next year.  With all existing UG employees having been previously trained in the basic ethics education session, focus of basic session presentations centered on newly elected officials and hired employees.  The program also presented two community ethics education sessions during the year, one to the Board of Public Utilities and one to a Park University Master of Public Affairs class.

Investigations into reports of unethical conduct in government, as well as requests for advisory opinions on ethics matters, continued to provide timely and accurate responses to jurisdictional concerns.  The Ethics Commission also made numerous consultations on ethical matters resulting in significant policy reviews and improvements to the general ethical posture of government.  Accordingly, the Code of Ethics was amended on January 4, 2001 to afford whistleblower protections to those employees making ethics complaints.  Program goals for 2002 include an expansion of these ethics consultations, as well as increased participation in community ethics education.  Improvements in administrative record keeping, and the development of an ethics website to better serve the citizens and personnel of the Unified Government, are also planned for 2002.

ETHICS PROGRAM

The Unified Government ethics program experienced relatively few substantive changes during the 2001 operating year.  Those changes that were made are summarized in the following section by relating some of the history of the program and The Code of Ethics, a brief description of the ethics infrastructure as it currently exists, and reciting changes in  the major functional areas of the program which occurred in 2001.

Historical Perspective

The original Code of Ethics for the Unified Government was adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the newly consolidated city and county governments on May 21, 1998.  Since that time the Code has undergone three major amendments and revisions.  The new Unified Government opted to hire a part-time Ethics Administrator from outside of government to oversee the program, and through an open bidding process conducted during the summer of 1998, Professor H. George Frederickson of The University of Kansas received a contract to provide services.  His appointment was formally approved by the Board of Commissioners in September of 1998.  Although the original Code–effective January 1, 1999–provided for ethics program infrastructure, the process for nomination of an Ethics Commission was struck down as unconstitutional by the Kansas Supreme Court.  A constitutionally sound process and procedure for nomination and service of the Ethics Commission, as well as further delineation of the duties of the Ethics Administrator, were adopted by amendment to the Code on March 18, 1999.  The first Ethics Commission was appointed on July 15, 1999, and they conducted their first open meeting on August 25, 1999.

The Code of Ethics exists as an ordinance of the Unified Government.  As such, the Code constitutes mandatory and prohibitory provisions which govern the ethical conduct of elected officials, officials and employees within the jurisdiction.  On August 17, 2000, the Code was amended to allow employees of the Unified Government to stand for election to the offices of District Attorney, Register of Deeds, and Sheriff without a requirement of prior resignation.  And on January 4, 2001, the Code was amended to include  “whistleblower” protection against retaliatory action for those employees of the Unified Government making allegations of ethical misconduct.  This whistleblower provision mirrors the Kansas state statutory protections, and with its adoption, has distinguished the Unified Government as one of only a few local governments to offer such protection.  With exception of the foregoing, the Code of Ethics has not been further amended or revised.

Infrastructure and Operations

The Unified Government ethics program is managed and administered pursuant to provisions of the Code of Ethics, as amended on March 18, 1999.  Program infrastructure consists of several governmental entities and offices that work closely together to serve the Unified Government, but in order to ensure objectivity and unbiased perspective, these entities exist outside of government.  A five-member Ethics Commission is charged with the responsibility of properly implementing the Code of Ethics in Unified Government, and to review and report on any violations of the Code.  These five Ethics Commission members, and the one member of the Commission designated to serve as Chair, are appointed by a three-member Ad Hoc Ethics Commission Appointment Panel staffed by the then-serving office holders of the Administrative Judge of the Wyandotte County District Court, the Wyandotte County District Attorney, and the Wyandotte County Legislative Auditor.  In addition, an Ethics Administrator is appointed by the Legislative Auditor to maintain an administrative office, provide services to the Ethics Commission as its executive agent, provide ethics training as provided by the Code, and to investigate and make recommendations concerning alleged violations of the Code of Ethics.  Details concerning infrastructure changes and operational highlights occurring during 2001 are as follows:

1.  Ad Hoc Ethics Commission Appointment Panel:  The Panel enjoyed the continued service throughout 2001 of the Honorable Philip L. Sieve (Administrative Judge of the Wyandotte County District Court), Nick A. Tomasic (Wyandotte County District Attorney), and Thomas E. Standish (Wyandotte County Legislative Auditor).  The Panel met three times during 2001: to confirm the Legislative Auditor’s reappointment of H. George Frederickson as Ethics Administrator (January 1, 2001); to consider nominations and make reappointments of Members Sara Gillespie and Jim Ernst to the Ethics Commission (July 5, 2001); and to consider nominations and make the reappointment of Kerry B. Herndon as Chair of the Ethics Commission (January 25, 2002).  Any action of the Panel requires a quorum of two members.  Panel members serve voluntarily, and without compensation for their service.

2.  Ethics Commission:  The Ethics Commission of the Unified Government is comprised of five members appointed by the Ad Hoc Ethics Commission Appointment Panel, and with one of the serving members designated by the Panel as Chair.  In order to provide staggered terms of service, two of the initial members of the Ethics Commission received two-year appointments, subject to one four-year reappointment; the remaining three initial members received four-year appointments.  All Ethics Commission members serve voluntarily, and without compensation, and each maintains a quasi-representational capacity over de facto geographical constituencies.  Ethics Commission members serving in 2001, and their respective geographical representations, are as follows:

Member and Chair, Kerry B. Herndon: western Wyandotte County

Member Jim Ernst: Turner Area

Member Sara Gillespie: Argentine Area

Member Loris Jones: Northeast Area

Member Mark Mitchell: Central Area

During 2001, Members Ernst and Gillespie were reappointed to another four-year term, with their terms of service expiring in 2005; Members Herndon, Jones and Mitchell are currently serving a four-year term set to expire in 2003.  Member Herndon was reappointed to another two-year term as Chair of the Ethics Commission, and her service will also expire in 2003.  Any action of the Ethics Commission requires a quorum majority, with a quorum constituting four of the serving members present during any properly convened meeting.  Although the Code of Ethics requires at least semi-annual meetings, due to the activity level and need for availability experienced in past years, the Ethics Commission notifies and conducts regularly scheduled open meetings once per month, normally on the first Monday of each month, excepting holiday and significant vacation periods.  Monthly Meeting Agendas and Minutes of Meeting are published and maintained in accordance with the Kansas Open Meetings Act and the Kansas Open Records Act.

3.  Ethics Administrator:  H. George Frederickson, Ph.D. continued to serve as Ethics Administrator for the Unified Government throughout 2001.  Dr. Frederickson is the Edwin O. Stene Distinguished Professor of Public Administration for The University of Kansas.  He submitted for, and was awarded another four-year contract, effective January 1, 2001, to serve as Ethics Administrator for the Unified Government.  This contract is allowed two, two-year extensions, subject to approval by the Panel.  On July 1, 2000, and after a year of prior work as a contract ethics instructor in the program, Professor Michael W. Manske, J.D. accepted a position on Dr. Frederickson’s contract to serve as Assistant Director of Ethics Administration for the Unified Government.  Mr. Manske is a former prosecutor, City Attorney, and practicing attorney, and is currently employed as a full-time professor at Washburn University, teaching in the areas of law, criminal justice and political science.  He is also a doctoral student in political science at The University of Kansas.   During the period, the Office of the Ethics Administrator also retained the services of Mr. Curt Wood to serve as an Ethics Instructor in the program.  Mr. Wood is the former City Clerk and Finance Director for the City of Manhattan, Kansas, and is currently a full-time doctoral student in political science at The University of Kansas.  The Ethics Administrator, Assistant Director and all retained Ethics Instructors are compensated for their services through a contract between the Unified Government and The University of Kansas, and as such, the contract is administered and supervised by the Legislative Auditor.

Program Functions

Pursuant to the Code of Ethics, as amended on March 18, 1999, the Ethics Program of the Unified Government is comprised of three functional areas: ethics training of elected officials, officials and employees of the Unified Government, investigation and disposition of alleged violations of the Code of Ethics, and ethics consultation with, and legislative liaison to, the elected officials of the Unified Government.  As summary of these program functions which occurred during 2001 are as follows:

1.  Ethics Training:  The Code of Ethics charges the Ethics Commission with the responsibility of conducting training to familiarize all persons subject to the provisions of the Code (elected officials, officials and employees of the Unified Government) with the Ethics Oath, the Ethics Handbook, the Code of Ethics, and the general subject of local governmental ethics.  All ethics training is conducted by the Office of the Ethics Administrator at times and locations as convenient for the instructors and the parties trained.  In order to fulfill this mission, and to best serve the interests of the Unified Government and the community it serves, the Office of the Ethics Administrator has devised a three-phased ethics education program.  Each of these three phases of training, together with developments which occurred during 2001, are presented as follows:

BASIC ETHICS EDUCATION (Phase I):  Upon adoption of the Code of Ethics, an aggressive basic ethics education program commenced in the spring of 1999.  Through utilization of several ethics instructors and numerous weekly training sessions during 1999 and 2000, all elected officials, officials and employees of the Unified Government then-currently serving received a two-hour basic ethics training program.  Basic sessions during this time were conducted primarily at the Reardon Civic Center and the Kansas City, Kansas Police Department Training Facility.  Since completing the training of then-existing officials and employees in the fall of 2000, the focus of basic ethics education has been with those newly elected officials and newly hired employees of the Unified Government.  Pursuant to policy mandate, all recently elected/hired Unified Government officials/employees are to receive their basic education within ninety days of starting their service or employment.  For non-police personnel, these basic sessions have been scheduled for once-per-quarter in order to ensure that sufficient numbers for training are achieved; such sessions are normally scheduled on the afternoon of the first Monday of the month beginning each new quarter, and are now conducted in the Board of Commissioners meeting room on the lobby level of the Municipal Building, 701 North 7th Street, Kansas City, Kansas.  For newly hired police personnel, basic ethics education is presented during their Recruit Academy at the KCKPD Training Facility off of 79th and State Ave.

CONTINUING ETHICS EDUCATION (Phase II):  Pursuant to policy mandate, each elected official, official and employee of the Unified Government would receive a one-hour continuing ethics education presentation between the second and third year after receiving the basic session, and every two years thereafter.  The purpose of continuing education is to familiarize Unified Government personnel of Code of Ethics changes, review and analyze some of the more common ethical dilemmas occurring during the preceding period, and review contact information for making an allegation of ethics violations and the ethics complaint process for investigating same.  A continuing ethics education curriculum was approved by the Ethics Commission on March 15, 2001 (see copy of Curriculum Proposal attached as Appendix 1 to this report), and the first continuing education sessions commenced during the summer of 2001.  For non-police and non-fire personnel, continuing education sessions have been scheduled at various times in conjunction with other Human Resources training in order to accomplish same in the least obtrusive manner possible.  Continuing education sessions have are also scheduled at various sites within the jurisdiction so as to maximize meeting opportunities.  KCKFD and KCKPD have set aggressive continuing education schedules which should provide complete coverage of all existing personnel by the end of March 2002 (for KCKFD) and the end of June 2002 (for KCKPD).

COMMUNITY ETHICS EDUCATION (Phase III): In an effort to provide information to the community concerning the state of the ethics program in the Unified Government, the Office of the Ethics Administrator developed general information presentations for community education sessions.  The first community education presentation was made on May 16, 2001 with 11 Directors and senior staff of the Board of Public Utilities (BPU) in attendance.  The BPU had inquired about the possibility of adopting a Code of Ethics and training regimen similar to that employed by the Unified Government, and as such, requested a presentation to familiarize them with the UG program.  Another session was conducted on June 27, 2001 as a guest lecture presentation in a Park University class, with 30 Master of Public Affairs students attending.  Since then, other such presentations have been made to civic groups, independent contractors and private vendors of UG goods and services, and other quasi-governmental and private organizations.  Presentations have also been made during 2001 to the Board of Public Utilities Board of Directors and the Kansas City, Kansas Police Advisory Board.  Community education presentations represent Phase III of the ethics program, and are designed to bolster public awareness of the Unified Government program.  The Office of the Ethics Administrator has provided an open invitation to civic groups, educational institutions and other agencies for such presentations.

2.  Ethics Investigations:  The Code of Ethics empowers the Ethics Commission with plenary authority to review, investigate and comment on any office and/or activity of the Unified Government, as such pertains to ethical conduct and compliance with the Code.  As executive agent for the Ethics Commission, the Office of the Ethics Administrator serves as the primary focal point for the coordination and conduct of ethics investigations.  In this regard, the Ethic Commission is also authorized, through the Office of the District Attorney, to issue subpoenas to procure documents and/or witnesses to appear before the Ethics Commission and answer questions related to such investigations, and authorized to refer matters to the District Attorney for prosecution of criminal offenses.  The Ethics Administrator is also assisted in this work by the Legislative Auditor.  As the supervising administrator for budgetary resources and support to the Ethics Commission and the Office of the Ethics Administrator, the Legislative Auditor will lend investigatory assistance when necessary and appropriate (especially in financial matters), and is kept appraised of the status of all investigations (see copy of Ethics Complaint Process attached as Appendix 2 to this report).  The Ethics Commission does not have the authority to issue disciplinary orders, but rather, will issue advisory opinions to senior staff in the supervisory chain on matters of unethical conduct committed by employees, with such written opinions issued as proper recommending that appropriate action be taken.  The Ethics Commission refrains from involvement in matters found to be politically motivated or where allegations relate to the action or inaction of elected officials in the political or democratic process;  alleged violations of the Code of Ethics by elected officials are handled by discussing, deciding, and making advisory opinions in open forum so that the media may report same to the citizens.  Likewise, the Ethics Commission refrains from involvement in matters deemed to be purely  personnel discipline or managerial issues (those matters that may be most effectively handled by managers in the supervisory chain).  In such a case, the Ethics Administrator will meet with officials and senior staff to advise and consult on management issues.  For those agencies that administer ethical standards particular to their respective professional fields, and for which an investigatory department exists within the agency (e.g. police ethics administered by Internal Affairs), the Office refers matters to the agency’s process and procedure, but retains oversight capacity.   The Ethics Administrator continues to maintain an office on the Mezzanine Level of the Justice Complex, 710 North 7th Street, Kansas City, Kansas, wherein a confidential telephonic hotline, telefax machine, and mail delivery is monitored every 48 hours to receive complaints and contact.  The status of all new matters, pending investigations, and completed dispositions are reported to the Ethics Commission at regularly scheduled monthly meetings.  According to the requirements of the Kansas Open Meetings Act, those matters that are of public record are discussed in open forum, and those matters not of public record are discussed in executive session.

3.  Ethics Consultation and Legislative Liaison:   Pursuant to Code of Ethics authorization, the Ethics Commission is specifically empowered to recommend ways to improve the Code to the Unified Government Board of Commissioners.  This power, coupled with the previously mentioned power of advising governmental officials and senior staff as to unethical conduct and activities, is accomplished by the Ethics Commission through the use of advisory opinions presented at regularly scheduled meetings of the Board of Commissioners.  Following established governmental procedure, the Ethics Commission first presents all official advisory opinions to the Standing Committee for Administration and Human Services, which discusses, decides and makes recommendations for action upon reference to the Board.  During 2001 the Ethics Commission aggressively argued in favor of a number of changes to governmental policy, procedure and ordinance–to include one amendment to the Code of Ethics–all of which deemed by the Ethics Commission to be important to the support and promotion of ethical conduct in government.  In addition to these official methods of communication, both the Ethics Commission and the Office of the Ethics Administrator maintained numerous and close contacts with elected officials and senior staff throughout 2001 on a variety of matters pertaining to ethical activities and good government.

STATISTICS AND ANALYSIS

The Ethics Commission and the Office of the Ethics Administrator were productively engaged in program administration throughout the calendar year, with significant and beneficial results experienced through all program functions.  The following sections provide a summary of statistical data for each functional area, together with analysis and commentary as appropriate:

Ethics Education

STATISTICS:  The Office of the Ethics Administrator conducted the following ethics education training sessions, designated by the respective phase of training, for elected officials, officials and employees of the Unified Government:

Basic Ethics Education Sessions (Phase I)               143
Continuing Ethics Education Sessions (Phase II)       450
Community Ethics Educations Sessions (Phase III)      41
TOTAL PERSONS TRAINED                                    634

ANALYSIS:  Phase I basic sessions have been completed for all existing personnel, with the focus of all future sessions on training newly hired or elected/appointed officials.  Two newly elected officials received a special basic ethics education training session during the period.  Phase II continuing education has been aggressively pursued, especially for police and fire personnel, with sessions for general employees occurring as scheduling will permit.  Phase III community education has been less than expected, and although information concerning availability of training sessions continues to be advertised, the demand for such sessions has not matched program expectations.  Further analysis and commentary on this matter is contained in the Program Goals section of this report.

Ethics Investigations

STATISTICS:  The Ethics Commission and the Office of the Ethics Administrator received a total of 128 contacts during the calendar year.  These contacts have been categorized as one of four types: reports of alleged violations, requests for advisory opinions, general information requests, or reports made that were unclear/unintelligible.  Statistical report totals for each type of contact, as well as the source vehicle through which the contact was made, is reported in the table below.  A disposition is also reported for each contact, together with a descriptive note in the analysis portion of this report concerning the manner of receipt and characterization of disposition made:

ANALYSIS: The telephonic hotline remains the most popular communication method through which contacts were made.  The hotline is maintained in the Office of the Ethics Administrator, and consists of a confidential answering machine which is remotely accessed every 48 hours (necessary since the office is not otherwise staffed, nor is telephone reception available during normal working hours).  In order to increase access with the Office, the answering machine message was changed at the beginning of the year to advise callers about the confidentiality of their calls, as well as providing the Assistant Director’s home telephone number in case their call was not returned within 48 hours.  Although the number of contacts received by verbal report is less than those received by the hotline, the total number of contacts received by verbal report increased significantly as compared to prior years.  This increase has been attributed to the substantial amount of ethics education training which occurred during the year, sparking spirited discussion during the sessions, and resulting in reports made to the instructors.  With establishment of the ethics website (see Program Goals) the amount of contact through electronic mail is anticipated to increase.

Of the 128 total contacts received during the year, more than 71% are described as “unclear reports” in which no action could be taken.  These contacts represent calls to the hotline, recorded on the answering machine by time and date, but comprised of various types of calls for which no action could be taken:  calls were terminated without message (dial tone or hang up indicated), recordings where the caller’s message is unintelligible (garbled or inaudible), messages where information was reported–and a return telephone number was called–but no further contact could be made due to either wrong number or no call back by the originator, or an anonymous call reporting information that was insufficient upon which to found an action.  In the latter two instances, although a preliminary investigation was conducted to attempt resolution, the allegations were determined not to be meritorious.  Considering the very serious nature of ethical misconduct, and balanced against the adverse effects of a false report, complaining witnesses were asked to make a written statement to clearly state their complaints and to memorialize their allegations.  In many cases, those “unclear reports” disposed of as “No Action-Insufficient” represented complaining witnesses that failed or refused to make written statements.  Although anonymous complaints received investigatory attention, most resulted in no finding for lack of credibility or merit.

A response was made to all other contacts received, and in the case of requests for advisory opinions or other information, 100% of these contacts received favorable resolution.  A little over half (almost 54%) of the contacts alleging an ethics violation were, in fact, not violations of the Code of Ethics, but rather complaints that were resolved through a referral to another agency either within or without of government.  Reports such as complaints by employees against their supervisors (constituting purely personnel issues properly handled by management), complaints for which only a private remedy existed (subject to private litigation), complaints of a political nature (alleging inadequate representation and/or service by elected officials), or general complaints about government (problems with services or benefits provided by local, state or federal government) were resolved with an appropriate referral.  All other contacts resulted in informal or formal reports made to supervisory staff recommending appropriate employee discipline, advisory opinions to officials or senior staff recommending policy attention, or referred to the District Attorney for prosecution as the alleged ethics violations also constituted criminal conduct.

The Office of the Ethics Administrator received an average of slightly more than ten contacts per month from various sources.  Although complaints associated with political activities were somewhat elevated during the election season, the volume of contacts remained more or less constant throughout the year.  Of those contacts in which complaining witnesses were referred to outside agencies for resolution of complaints, the vast majority were associated with attorney-client relations.  These complaints were referred to the Disciplinary Administrator for the Kansas Supreme Court for resolution.

Ethics Consultation and Legislative Liaison

The following represents a summary of ethics consultations made during the period, together with analysis and commentary concerning each initiative:

1.  Whistleblower Protection:  In order to better achieve efficacy in the program, and to bolster support for accurate and timely response to allegations of ethical misconduct, the Ethics Commission proposed to the Board of Commissioners an amendment to the Code of Ethics that would provide employment protections for those individuals making ethics complaints.  Modeled after the Kansas state statute, such ordinance protections include prohibitions against preventing employee complaints and/or retaliation against employees that make complaints.  The initiative resulted in an amendment adopted January 4, 2001.

2.  Standardized Appointment Procedure:  Based upon a citizen inquiry into the procedure for service on appointed boards and commissions, the Ethics Commission took up an initiative to offer a standardized procedure.  Unified Government ordinance provides that nominations for appointment to certain standing and ad hoc boards and commissions are to be made by sitting Board of Commissioners members, but no standardized procedure was provided for vacancy advertisement, application process, or service after appointment.  Through an advisory opinion to Unified Government, the Ethics Commission provided a recommended procedure which had been endorsed and suggested by the Kansas League of Municipalities, and patterned after a program currently in place in Riley County.  The initiative has been approved, and is pending implementation.

3.  Vendor Lists:  Pursuant to the Kansas Open Records Act, the Unified Government is required to maintain–and afford public access to–all records pertaining to individuals and entities that provide goods and services to the government under contract.  Such information consists of the term of the contract, dates of expiration and/or opening for bids, goods and/or services provided, total amount of the contract and amounts paid/pending, and name, address, telephone number and electronic mail address of the contract vendors.  Although the information is a matter of public record, and the Code provides strict prohibition against use of such information by public employees for private gain, the procedure for restricting use of such vendor lists for quasi-public or private purposes is not specifically delineated.  The initiative is currently under legal review, and will be subject to staff policy study.

4.  Political Activities: During operations in 2000, the Ethics Commission recommended to the Board of Commissions that the Code of Ethics be amended to allow employees of the Unified Government to run for elected offices without the requirement of prior resignation or termination.  This initiative resulted in a Code amendment adopted on August 17, 2000 allowing employees to run for the offices of District Attorney, Sheriff and Register of Deeds, but continuing the prohibition against employees running for the offices of Mayor or Board of Commissioners.  The Ethics Commission continues its support for this initiative as originally recommended.  The Code further prohibits certain political activities by employees during campaigns, which the Ethics Commission continues to support.  In order pro-actively address concerns of prohibited political activities, especially during the election season, the Ethics Commission recommended that the County Administrator provide a reminder to employees about such prohibition.This was accomplished by a personal memorandum from the County Administrator distributed with regular payroll disbursements during the pay period immediately preceding the 2001 elections.

5.  Information Disclosure:  Early in the year the Kansas City Star reported on details concerning proposed economic development of the downtown area.  Information for the news articles was purportedly received from unnamed sources within the Unified Government.  The Ethics Commission determined that the report constituted a disclosure of confidential information in violation of provisions of the Code of Ethics.  An advisory opinion was made, and the Unified Government Legal Department conducted an investigation into the unauthorized disclosures, resulting in no determinative findings.

6.  Board of Public Utilities:  At the request of several Directors of the Board of Public Utilities (BPU), the Assistant Director gave a presentation on the Unified Government ethics program at the BPU’s Regular Session on May 16, 2001.  As an independent authority separate and apart from the Unified Government, BPU officials and employees do not come under the authority of the UG Code of Ethics.  BPU Directors had expressed interest in adopting some form of ethics code, and providing training to personnel similar to that which is now being conducted in the Unified Government.  An invitation to assist BPU’s efforts is currently open, subject to BPU Board approval and appropriate contract compensation.

7.  Kansas Speedway Tickets:  Based upon inquiries made by both citizens and employees, the Ethics Commission investigated the policy and procedure which had been established by the Unified Government for the receipt, acceptance and distribution of complimentary tickets of free admission to Kansas Speedway races.  The Code of Ethics authorizes the receipt of such unsolicited gifts, so long as an appropriate procedure is followed.  After review of policy memoranda issued by the County Administrator, and upon further review of such policy in practice, it was determined that Unified Government officials and staff were in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the Code on this matter.

8.  Information Technology:  As a result of an investigation into alleged ethics violations, and in order to offer pro-active recommendations concerning ethical implications posed by the administration of information technology (IT), the Ethics Commission advised on the need for greater supervision of electronic mail between individuals utilizing UG computer access.  Under current policy, Internet access and useage by UG personnel is supervised and administered pursuant to departmental guidance.  Concern was raised about the existence of unsolicited and unauthorized personal email advertisements and communication, and recommendations were made about appropriate supervision.  The matter is currently under staff study pending issuance of revised policy guidance.

9.  Charitable Giving By Public Employees:  Several employees of the Unified Government had complained that they had received pressure concerning the amount and character of their charitable giving.  Purportedly, supervisors in Unified Government had been pressuring for 100% participation of employees in certain governmental departments, as well as the aggregate amounts of departmental contributions made.  Although no substantive evidence was uncovered which would reveal a specific violation, if true, such conduct would constitute a Code violation.  Through an advisory opinion to senior staff, the Ethics Commission recommended that closer oversight be given to this matter.  The County Administrator has issued cautionary memoranda to senior supervisors, and intends to issue a reminder to all employees just prior to the start of the next charitable giving campaign.

PROGRAM GOALS

The Unified Government ethics program enjoyed considerable success during 2001.  Much, if not all of this success was achieved through the dedicated efforts of many concerned citizens, officials, staff and professionals associated with the program.  In order to sustain these efforts, and take the program to new heights, the Ethics Commission and the Office of the Ethics Administrator have determined the following program goals for 2002:

•  Continued vigilance over ethical concerns of the jurisdiction, and increased activity in the functional area of ethics consultation and legislative liaison; follow-up on pending issues and initiatives previously proposed.

•  Develop and ethics website–separate from, but linked to, the Unified Government site–which will afford citizens and Unified Government personnel greater access to ethics program information; post to the site such invaluable information as a revised and reissued Code of Ethics, copies of Meeting Agendas and Minutes of Meeting, member biographies, ethics complaint procedure and contact information, and ethics-related news articles.

•  Increase participation in community ethics education through a more aggressive advertisement program; expand availability of presentations to civic groups, quasi-governmental entities, and professional organizations.

•  Develop and present a new curriculum for continuing ethics education specializing in ethical dilemmas encountered by elected and appointed officials.

•  Revise and improve the record keeping procedure associated with ethics training to provide more accurate and useful information to Unified Government personnel through a consolidated, computerized system.

•  Aggressively pursue continuing ethics education for non-police and non-fire personnel through close coordination with Human Resources; assist in the development and refinement of new employee orientation sessions, and establish basic ethics education as a part of such orientation.

Respectfully Submitted,

ETHICS COMMISSION OF THE UNIFIED GOVERNMENT:

____________________        ____________________        ____________________

Kerry B. Herndon, Chair          Jim Ernst, Member                   Sara Gillespie, Member

____________________        ____________________

Loris Jones, Member                Mark Mitchell, Member

 
OFFICE OF THE ETHICS ADMINISTRATOR:
____________________        ____________________

H. George Frederickson,          Michael W. Manske,
Ethics Administrator                  Assistant Director

APPENDIX 1  
APPENDIX 2