Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Ethics Post Employment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council member introduces proposed post-employment restriction for city employees; discussion on duration and scope

2966716 · February 25, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A proposed ordinance would restrict former city employees from immediately accepting employment with city vendors or contractors. The measure was introduced for later consideration; council members debated duration and intent to prevent 'revolving door' conflicts.

Council Member Grisel introduced an ordinance Feb. 25, 2025 that would add a post-employment restriction for City of Jackson employees, aiming to limit former employees from taking positions with vendors or contractors that do business with the city for a set period after leaving city service.

Grisel said the ordinance is meant to "help safeguard the public trust, ensuring that, city employees do not exploit their prior positions for personal gain," and to "promote fairness in procurement processes." He said the proposal could be modeled on noncompete or ethics-related provisions used elsewhere, and described the measure as preventive. Council members discussed possible durations, with references to two- and five-year options; Council Member Bush asked whether it was patterned on another city's ordinance, and Grisel said he did not copy a specific city but said he was open to a two-year amendment.

Council Member Hartley asked how widespread the problem is; Grisel said it is not pervasive but can be costly when it occurs and cited previous instances where employees left to work for vendors. Council Member Banks described the proposal as a preventive measure that could assist retention and ethics efforts. The matter was introduced and will return for further consideration at the March 11 meeting; council invited colleagues to submit possible amendments in advance.

Ending: The ordinance was introduced but not adopted; staff and council members requested additional review and potential amendments ahead of the March 11 council session.