A Topeka city committee reviewing governance concerns recommended that the governing body publish a one‑page refresher on existing ethics and conduct rules, ask newly elected or appointed council members to sign the code of ethics, and add clearer, non‑exhaustive enforcement language to the rules document for transparency.

The recommendation follows a staff memorandum circulated by Jim and testimony at an earlier meeting that council members had, at times, contacted city staff directly instead of routing inquiries through the city manager. Committee members said the memorandum — which compared Topeka language to ordinances and codes in Olathe, Lenexa, Emporia and Kansas City — showed Topeka already has multiple enforcement paths in place but that clearer documentation and a simple acknowledgement could improve public confidence.

Committee members cited several enforcement mechanisms during discussion: informal reminders by the city manager or mayor, internal discipline up to censure by the governing body, legal remedies such as mandamus or ouster pursued by a district attorney, and recall petitions by voters. City legal staff also pointed out that the municipal code contains a general penalty provision (identified in the meeting as Section 10.07) that applies to code violations and classifies such violations as misdemeanors subject to fines and/or imprisonment.

The committee did not propose new criminal penalties. Instead members agreed the report should explain what already exists and recommend three practical steps: place a short refresher on the governing body rules and the city’s code of ethics in the committee’s final report; encourage or require newly elected or appointed council members to sign a receipt/acknowledgement of the code and rules when they take office; and add a non‑exhaustive list in the rules or accompanying guidance that identifies possible outcomes for violations — "up to and including censure and legal action," language members discussed — while noting ultimate authority in some areas lies with state law and the charter.

Members discussed the possibility of creating an independent ethics commission (as exists in Wichita) but did not reach a recommendation to form one; the committee concluded that establishing an additional independent body would require further study and was not necessary to include in the final report at this time. Several members said that, after reviewing the memorandum and legal context, they were satisfied that existing remedies and the municipal code provide enforcement options, though they emphasized transparency for staff and the public about how those options are used.

The committee asked staff to draft the recommended language for inclusion in its final report and a simple PowerPoint to present the recommendations to the governing body. Committee members said they expect to present the report to the governing body in mid‑June (the committee referenced a presentation date of June 17 and a committee meeting on June 11 for final review). The committee reached consensus to include the recommendations in its report; no formal, recorded vote on the substance of the policy recommendations was taken during the meeting.

The committee also approved the minutes from the prior meeting as amended early in the session and planned to compile individual written recommendation sections into a single report for governing body consideration.