The Orting City Council postponed consideration of an ethics complaint alleging misconduct by a sitting council member until Nov. 5, 2025, after a lengthy public meeting in which council members debated procedure, confidentiality and overlapping legal matters. Councilmember Hogan originally moved to refer the complaint to a hearing examiner; later the council voted to postpone that referral until the Nov. 5 council meeting.

The complaint, submitted to the city administrator and provided to council, alleges multiple claims tied to city personnel decisions, disclosure of privileged information and conflicts of interest. City Attorney Kendra Rosenberg reviewed the complaint and wrote that, "these allegations on the face of the complaint, if true, would substantiate a violation of the code of ethics," and recommended the council decide whether to refer the matter to a hearing examiner for investigation.

The council debated whether the allegations are part of ongoing litigation and what information is subject to attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality. Mayor Josh Benner and council members repeatedly cautioned members and speakers not to treat the meeting as a trial. Councilmember Moore asked procedural questions about the status of related litigation and whether deposition material is generally disclosable; Rosenberg advised that deposition transcripts generally are public records but that specific confidentiality and privilege issues depend on content and legal protections.

After motions and amendments, the council voted 5-2 to postpone action until the Nov. 5 meeting (or the next regular council meeting thereafter). Councilmembers Moore, Tracy, Sprowell, Koenig and Gunther voted to postpone; Councilmembers Hogan and Holland opposed. Council discussion also included a secondary motion (approved by the same 5-2 margin) to suspend a portion of the council's ethics-policy timeline (section 3.d) as it applies to this matter so that scheduling and related procedures could be adjusted.

City Attorney Rosenberg provided a written memorandum to council dated Aug. 25, 2025, analyzing the complaint under the City Council Code of Ethics and identifying sections of the code that the allegations could implicate if proven. The memo also noted that some allegations may implicate state law. The clerk read the relevant code-of-ethics language into the record before the council considered Rosenberg's analysis.

The council did not direct substantive investigative work at the meeting. Councilmembers and staff noted that a separate counter-complaint exists and that both documents will be available to the council before the Nov. 5 consideration. The hearings-examiner process referenced in the city's policy would produce an investigative report and findings for the council to consider; the council may take further action after it receives that report.

The action is procedural only: the council did not find guilt or impose sanctions. Council members said the Nov. 5 meeting will include both the original complaint material and the counter-complaint so the council and any appointed hearing examiner can review the matters together.