City attorney urges San Luis council to route staff questions through city manager and follow code of conduct

Justin Pierce of Pierce Coleman Law gave the San Luis City Council an overview of the city’s code of conduct, open meeting obligations and state conflict rules, stressing civility and the limits of council authority in administrative matters. Pierce said the code’s aspirational goals include “demonstrating kindness, consideration, and courtesy” and that members should “treat all staff as professionals.” Pierce advised council members to route operational or personnel concerns to the city manager rather than approaching staff directly, saying that doing otherwise can confuse staff chains of command and risk eroding the council’s role as a policymaking body. He warned against using staff to solicit political support and recommended that elected officials avoid disrupting staff in their duties. On interacting with the public and other agencies, Pierce told the council to be “welcoming” at public meetings, to avoid personal attacks, and not to debate members of the public from the dais. He advised members that attendance at external events does not remove them from their public role: “You are always on display,” he said, when discussing private encounters and written communications. Pierce reviewed Arizona open meeting law reminders: meetings or deliberations can occur in person, virtually, by text or email, and a majority of members communicating about a matter outside a publicly noticed meeting can create an open-meeting violation. He urged members to avoid serial communications about agenda matters and to be cautious with texts, emails and group chats that include more than a single colleague on an issue that may later come before the council. On conflicts of interest, Pierce summarized the state standard: a public official with a substantial pecuniary interest in a contract, sale, purchase, service or decision before the body must not participate. He discussed the “rule of 10” (an interest shared among a class of at least 10 people may be remote) and said members should seek a written opinion from the city attorney when unsure. He added that routine abstentions are discouraged and that abstaining should be reserved for actual legal conflicts, not merely perceived bias. Finally, Pierce described the practical limits of sanctions under the municipality’s code: outside investigations and public censure or removal from committee assignments are possible remedies, but removal from elected office is not generally available in a general-law city absent charter provisions. “Don’t be a jerk and stay in your lane,” he said, summarizing his practical advice; he added that his firm enforces a “no jerk” rule internally and urged members to govern accordingly. Council members asked questions about how to handle longstanding personal relationships with staff, what to do if the mayor or presiding officer repeatedly ignores procedure, and when it is appropriate to abstain. Pierce recommended getting formal, written attorney guidance for close or recurring questions and reminded members that filing a code-of-conduct complaint triggers an investigation but that remedies available to the council are often limited to committee removals, withholding travel or public censure rather than removal from office. No formal council action resulted from the presentation; members asked that trainings of this type be repeated when new council members take office.