Building Inspection Commission asks Ethics Commission for ombudsman help and invites Controller review after ethics presentation

The Building Inspection Commission voted unanimously on Monday to ask the city Ethics Commission for help finalizing and implementing a Department of Building Inspection statement of incompatible activities and to explore placing an Ethics Commission ombudsman in the department to advise staff.

The action followed a public ethics presentation by John St. Croix, director of the Ethics Commission, who outlined state and local conflict-of-interest rules, disclosure thresholds and post-employment restrictions. St. Croix noted that ‘‘real property is defined as anything with a fair market value of $2,000 or more anywhere in the jurisdiction,’’ and reviewed Form 700 filing and gift-reporting requirements.

‘‘The voters passed Prop E in 2003 requiring these statements for each department,’’ St. Croix told commissioners during the presentation. He described an ombudsman-type role as an educational, on-site resource that could provide informal advice and written guidance where needed.

Commissioners framed the motion as a partnership: the Ethics Commission would assist with final language, training and outreach so staff could understand and comply with the new rules. One commissioner who moved the motion said the department needs ‘‘professionals on this body to help make decisions about this professional activity.’’ Another commissioner proposed that ethics training be mandatory for all employees and new hires; commissioners said they would pursue more frequent training.

The vote was taken by roll call and recorded seven ayes and no nays; the motion carried. (President Walker: yes; Vice President Lee: yes; Commissioner Grub: aye; Commissioner Hirsch: yes; Commissioner Romero: yes; Commissioner Theriault: aye; one commissioner absent/excused.)

Separately, the commission agreed to invite the Controller's Office to review the department’s code-enforcement processes and analyze whether current disclosure and checks-and-balances adequately address possible conflicts of interest when staff or contractors buy property subject to enforcement actions. The chair said the Controller’s Office will be asked to present its planned timeline and approach at the next meeting.

Public comment at the session reflected divided views. Several speakers, including industry representatives, praised DBI staff and warned against broad prohibitions that could disqualify licensed professionals. ‘‘If somebody has a contractor's license, they work very hard for that,’’ one commenter said, urging care in rulemaking. Other commenters pressed for greater independence for the Ethics Commission’s funding and more aggressive outside oversight.

Acting Director Amy Lee spoke near the meeting’s end as a member of the public, saying she had cooperated with federal investigators and asked that judgments be reserved until investigations conclude. ‘‘I approached the FBI myself,’’ she said, ‘‘and they have no issue with me.’’

The commission’s decision creates two next steps: staff and Ethics Commission representatives will coordinate on the final statement of incompatible activities, training and possible placement of an ombudsman, and the Controller’s Office will be asked to brief the commission on a management review of code-enforcement practices.

The motion to seek Ethics Commission assistance passed unanimously; the Controller’s Office was asked to present at the next meeting. The commission then moved to other agenda items.