Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Of Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends ethics acknowledgement after hearing 'credible allegations' of charter violations; language softened for report
Summary
After hearing what it characterized as credible testimony about charter provision violations by some past or present governing body members, the committee recommended a non‑punitive step: require officials to sign a code of ethics acknowledgement; committee members agreed to soften stronger penalty language in the explanatory text.
The Citizens Government Review Committee debated how to present allegations that some past or present members of the governing body had, at times, appeared to violate the charter provision that limits elected officials from dealing directly with employees under the city manager's supervision. Committee members and staff discussed possible enforcement language, referral options under state law, and how strongly to frame the report’s explanatory statement.
Committee member Jim Koff read a proposed lead sentence for the recommendation section: "The committee heard credible testimony that at least in the recent past, there have been violations of section A‑2‑28(c) of the charter, the provision prohibiting council members from dealing with officers and employees under the city manager's supervision." Several members supported including a brief explanatory lead for context; others cautioned against wording that might be read as endorsing punitive measures the committee had not voted on.
Members contrasted local options with examples from other cities. The committee discussed an Olathe charter provision described in a memorandum that prescribes a sequence of responses — investigation, censure, request for resignation, then possible ouster proceedings — and noted that some remedies stem from state law rather than local ordinance. Staff reminded the committee that criminal misdemeanor penalties exist in the general penalty provision of the municipal code but that prosecution and ouster actions are pursued by district or state prosecutors, not the city attorney.
After extended discussion, the committee agreed to keep its formal recommendation limited to requiring incoming and newly seated members to sign an acknowledgement of the code of ethics and to add a brief contextual sentence in the summary noting the committee had received credible testimony alleging past instances of noncompliance. Members also directed staff to remove a sentence in the explanatory text that committee members described as too prescriptive ("it is this committee's stance that you must have firm non‑negotiable consequences with penalties"). Brenda (staff member) will reword the explanatory language to reflect allegations were received and taken seriously while aligning the recommendation to a signature/acknowledgement approach.
Ending: The committee agreed the report will note credible allegations without naming individuals and will recommend an acknowledgement/signature practice; staff will clean the explanatory language and circulate the revised draft for final review before posting.
