Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Board topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council discusses three options for an ethics board structure; no vote taken
Summary
City Attorney Kevin Tallent outlined three ordinance options April 21 for structuring a municipal ethics board and asked council for direction; council discussed residency requirements, board size and confirmation rules but took no vote.
City Attorney Kevin Tallent presented three draft options April 21 for an ordinance to establish or revise a municipal ethics board and solicited council input before placing an ordinance on a future agenda.
Tallent summarized the options: Option 1 would keep a three‑member board with two city residents appointed by mayor and council and one appointed by two other named individuals, and would require one member to be a member of the bar; it would add a restriction that no two members reside in the same district. Option 2 would keep a three‑member board, require all members to reside in the city but not in the same district, and would remove the requirement that a member be an attorney. Option 3 would create a five‑member board with one at‑large member appointed by the mayor and one member appointed by each council post; appointments would be subject to council majority approval, and the mayor’s appointee would preside and only vote to break ties in the draft language Tallent presented.
Councilmembers discussed several governance points: whether appointment confirmations should require unanimous council consent or a majority; whether all members should live inside the city; whether the mayor’s appointee should be chair or the board should elect its own chair; and whether five members would better ensure quorum and continuity than three. One councilmember favored option 2 (three members, all city residents, no bar requirement) while others expressed preference for option 3 to provide district representation and staggered terms for continuity. Tallent said quorum rules would be two members for a three‑member board and three members for a five‑member board and that terms could be staggered in the ordinance language.
No ordinance was adopted and no appointments were made. Councilmembers asked staff to circulate draft ordinance language and suggested meeting informally before the next meeting; Tallent requested direction by the Monday before the next meeting so staff can place a first reading on the May agenda if council chooses to proceed.
The council did not act on an ordinance at the April 21 session but indicated a preference to continue work on the draft language and return an ordinance for first reading in May if council reaches a consensus on the preferred option.
