(b) The Ethics Commission will consider the following when determining whether mitigating circumstances exist:
(1) The nature and extent of the violation, which may include factors such as the following:
(A) The number of counts;
(B) Whether the violation was egregious;
(C) Whether the awarding authority notified the respondent of the legal requirements;
(D) Whether the violation was deliberate or coordinated; or
(E) Whether the respondent attempted to cure the violation.
(2) The extent to which the respondent cooperated with the Ethics Commission, which may include factors such as the following:
(A) Whether the respondent self-reported the violation to the Ethics Commission;
(B) Whether the respondent offered a full admission;
(C) The timeliness and extent of the respondent's cooperation with the audit and investigation of the violation that triggers debarment;
(D) The timeliness and extent of the respondent's cooperation with the audit and investigation of any other violation; or
(E) The prompt payment of fines recommended by staff or issued by the Commission.
(3) The extent to which debarment will affect the City or those receiving City services, which may include factors such as the following:
(A) The effect of debarment on City services;
(B) The effect of debarment on the City's finances;
(C) The effect of debarment on City projects and contracts; or
(D) The effect of debarment on the City's ability to fulfill any legal mandates.
(4) The respondent's enforcement history with the Ethics Commission for the same or different types of violations.
(5) Circumstances unique to the respondent or the contract.
(6) The overall interests of justice.
SECTION HISTORY
Added by Ord. No. 182,548, Eff. 7-8-13.