Executive committee approves ordinance establishing removal-hearing procedures for alders

MADISON — The Madison Common Council Executive Committee on March 11 approved a draft ordinance to create section 2.37 of the Madison General Ordinances that prescribes procedures for removal hearings concerning alderpersons. The motion passed on a 5–1 roll-call vote.

The ordinance instructs the council to determine, at an initial stage, whether allegations — assumed true for the purpose of that review — would state a claim for removal under applicable statute; if the council finds they would, the city attorney is directed to prepare and introduce an authorizing resolution to start a hearing process. The committee approved the item after extended legal and procedural discussion.

Committee members and the city attorney debated the proper sequencing of review, fact-gathering and the attorney’s advisory role. City Attorney Haas explained the proposed screening step as a procedural filter: "the council is to determine whether the allegations, if true, would state a claim for removal of an alder under the statute," adding that the step is similar to a judge deciding whether allegations, even if assumed true, state a legal claim. Haas said the office would help "explain what the legal standard is" and assist with logistics if the council proceeds to a hearing, including drafting resolutions and helping to hire a hearing examiner.

Alder Harrington McKinney expressed discomfort with moving forward before the attorney was present, saying, "I'm not comfortable with moving forward without him being in the in in these discussions." Committee members ultimately resumed the item after the city attorney joined the meeting and received clarification on legal standards and on what the ordinance does and does not do.

Haas told the committee that the statute does not narrowly define "taxpayer" and that the draft therefore uses the statutory language "resident taxpayer" without adding a specific restriction on the type of tax paid. He also confirmed the ordinance does not replace the recall procedure: "No, that's in, chapter 9," he said when asked about recall. Haas further noted that state law requires transcription of the hearing record.

Committee discussion noted that the initial screening is not the final fact-finding step: if the council determines a complaint would state a claim, a hearing — potentially conducted by a hired hearing examiner — would follow, during which evidence would be collected and transcribed. The city attorney's office described its role as advising the council on standards and facilitating the hearing process rather than directing how individual members should vote.

On the motion the committee recorded Vice President Duncan: Aye; Alder Govinda Rajan: Aye; Alder Conklin: Yes; Alder Martinez Rutherford: Yes; Alder Ugar: Aye; Alder Harrington McKinney: No. After the vote the committee moved on to the next agenda item.

The ordinance, as approved by the committee, adds a local procedural framework for complaints that seek the removal of an alder. The committee’s discussion identified several implementation issues — including the definition of "resident taxpayer," the city attorney’s advisory role, and logistics such as hiring an examiner and securing a transcription — that officials said they would address as the item progresses.