Fairbanks North Star Borough assembly pauses penalty decision after hours of public testimony on ethics complaint

The Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly on April 29 paused its adjudicatory proceeding on an ethics complaint against former assembly member Savannah Fletcher after hours of public comment and multiple recusal declarations, and set a new meeting time for May 16 at 6 p.m. to continue penalty deliberations.

The Board of Ethics had found Fletcher responsible for three violations in a complaint filed Sept. 25, 2024; the assembly’s role at the April 29 special session was limited to imposing any penalty allowed under borough code. Attorney Scott Brent Erickson, the assembly’s adviser, told the body it was acting in an adjudicatory capacity and must avoid financial conflicts, disclose ex parte contacts and ensure both parties’ due‑process rights were protected.

Public testimony split sharply. Dozens of speakers — many identifying themselves as borough residents — urged the assembly to impose the maximum penalty because Fletcher is a licensed attorney and “knew better,” while others called the findings technical and asked for a minimal fine to avoid discouraging civic participation. Aaron Crooks, a Fox resident, said, “She had a legal and ethical obligation to uphold [the rules], yet she chose to break them three times.”

Several speakers compared the case to a July 2024 ethics finding involving then‑assembly member Barbara Haney. Multiple commenters pointed to what they called inconsistent enforcement and urged either equal treatment or leniency; others sought the maximum fine and censure. Pamela Shamash, calling in from Nenana, urged censure, saying Fletcher “knew full well what she was doing.” Against that, speakers including John Davies and several Esther‑area residents described the violations as technical and urged a minimal monetary penalty.

During the proceeding, Erickson explained procedural limits: the board of ethics’ findings are final on violation determinations, and the assembly’s task was to decide penalty within the limits of borough code, including fines up to $1,000 per violation. He advised members to disclose personal relationships, campaign contributions or other contacts that could create an appearance of bias and to allow the complainant and respondent to object before any member participated in the penalty decision. “When you’re doing that, you’re acting as a judge,” Erickson said, urging disclosure of ex parte communications and that any off‑record information be placed on the record and offered for response by both parties.

Multiple assembly members then declared potential conflicts. Assembly Member Liz Ries Ramos disclosed that Fletcher had represented her in an October 2023 protective‑order hearing and said they were friends; Ries Ramos and Assembly Member Mindy O’Neil both said they could not be impartial and were ruled to have conflicts. Assembly Member Mr. Guttenberg also stated the perception of conflict was too great and recused himself; Assembly Member Kress disclosed a $136.66 post‑campaign donation to Fletcher and, after discussion and an objection from the complainant, was also ruled to have a conflict. Several other members debated recusal requests; the chair allowed statements from both parties before ruling.

Because four members were excused from participation after the conflict rulings, the assembly no longer had a quorum for an adjudicatory decision on penalty. Rather than proceed without the required membership, the assembly voted on two procedural matters earlier in the meeting and then on a motion to adjourn the special session to a fixed time for continuation of the penalty phase. The agenda had been approved earlier by roll call (motion by Assembly Member Kress, second by Assembly Member Roterman; vote 8‑0). The assembly later amended a motion and voted to reconvene on Friday, May 16, at 6 p.m.; that adjournment motion passed on a 5‑3 recorded vote (Yes: Guttenberg, Leginas, Ries Ramos, Haney, O’Neil; No: Wilson, Crass, Roterman).

The assembly also designated Assembly Member Roterman to serve briefly as pro tem chair to handle recusal and procedural matters while the presiding chair disclosed conflicts. No penalty was imposed at the April 29 session; the Board of Ethics’ findings and the maximum fine amount under borough code (up to $1,000 per violation) remain the legal framework for the follow‑up meeting.

The May 16 session is scheduled to allow the assembly to restore a quorum and complete the penalty phase, where members will weigh the Board of Ethics’ findings, public testimony, legal guidance and any disclosures or objections entered on the record.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to approve agenda — moved by Assembly Member Kress; seconded by Assembly Member Roterman. Roll call: Guttenberg, Ries Ramos, Wilson, Roterman, Haney, Lodynus, Kress, O’Neil — vote: 8‑0; outcome: approved.

- Motion to adjourn the special assembly to a fixed time (amended to May 16 at 6 p.m.) — moved by Assembly Member Haney; seconded by Assembly Member O’Neil. Recorded roll‑call vote: Yes — Guttenberg, Leginas, Ries Ramos, Haney, O’Neil; No — Wilson, Crass, Roterman. Tally: 5‑3; outcome: approved. Meeting adjourned to May 16 at 6 p.m.

What’s next

The assembly will reconvene on May 16, 2025, at 6 p.m. to complete the penalty determination on the Board of Ethics’ findings in complaint BEA (filed Sept. 25, 2024) against Savannah Fletcher. The public may provide additional comment at that meeting; members who recused themselves on April 29 will not participate in the penalty decision unless they withdraw their recusal and the chair rules otherwise on the record.