Muncie Ethics Commission names fifth member, elects officers and sets timeline for complaints

The newly formed Muncie Ethics Commission appointed Sandra Whitaker as its fifth member and elected officers while moving quickly to set meeting schedules and rules to accept and process ethics complaints.

The commission — created by a recent city ordinance that established a city code of ethics, an enforcement process and a transparency portal — appointed Whitaker and elected Charles “Chip” Taylor chair, Susan Dillon vice chair and James Lowe secretary. The commission also voted to hold regular meetings on the second and fourth Wednesdays at 6 p.m. in the City Hall Auditorium and set a goal to have complaint intake procedures in place before March 1 so the commission can begin accepting filings.

Why this matters: The commission will review alleged ethics violations by current and former city elected and appointed officials and certain city employees, issue advisory opinions, investigate complaints and recommend corrective action or referrals. The ordinance and the commission’s implementing rules will determine how complaints are protected, when they become public records and what whistleblower protections are available.

At the meeting, Sandra Whitaker described her background and interest in the commission’s work. Whitaker said, “I’ve been with Muncie Community Schools for 20 years approximately ... I am now retired. I did serve on the advisory committee for ethics. And as I stated before, it’s a very positive experience.” The commission’s nomination for her appointment was made from the dais, seconded and carried by voice vote.

City Council attorney Dan Gibson, who helped draft the ordinance while serving on the advisory committee, told the commission the ordinance “really did four things. It created a code of ethics ... It created the ethics commission ... established a complaint and enforcement procedure ... and set forth some training and reporting requirements.” Gibson summarized the commission’s investigative powers (compel documents and witnesses, retain counsel), its limits (no authority to discipline or remove officials) and the requirement to publish certain materials on a transparency portal.

Commissioners discussed key implementation items the ordinance left for the commission to decide: a detailed complaint procedure; how to accept filings (paper first, online added later); how to protect whistleblowers while satisfying public-records law; and procedures for hearings. The draft rules the commission reviewed set a quorum at three members and would require a majority of commission members for certain actions listed in the ordinance.

On intake and confidentiality, commissioners agreed the Clerk’s Office will accept signed complaints, stamp them with the receipt date, assign file numbers and hold complaint materials as confidential until the complaint becomes a public record. The commission noted the ordinance requires that a respondent be provided a copy of the complaint and that the commission must notify respondents within seven days of filing. Commissioners asked city counsel and the Public Access Counselor for guidance on whether the complainant’s name can be redacted in initial notices to protect whistleblowers while preserving the respondent’s due-process rights.

The commission reviewed a draft complaint form and a proposed timeline. The draft would ask for the complainant’s contact information, identity of the alleged violator, an approximate date and location, a description of the alleged conduct, and any witnesses or documentary evidence (for example, emails). Commissioners agreed the form should be sufficient to permit an initial review but that complainants could amend or supplement a filing if the initial submission lacked detail.

Commissioners agreed to adopt a public-comment policy that would permit time-limited comments on routine agenda items but would not allow public comment as a substitute for filing a formal complaint. They also discussed training for city officials and board members required by the ordinance and the creation of a transparency portal that will link disclosed conflicts and related documents.

Next steps set by the commission included staff and the chair working with city counsel and the Clerk’s Office to finalize complaint forms and procedures, consult the Public Access Counselor on public-records and redaction questions, and return with a cleaned-up draft for the commission to consider at its next meeting. The commission indicated it will request counsel’s attendance for early meetings as it adopts procedures.

The meeting ended after the commission completed its organizing votes and set the schedule and work plan. The commission will meet again on its newly established second-Wednesday schedule unless special meetings are called.