Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts removal-hearing procedures for alder misconduct after heated debate; retroactivity amendment fails
Summary
The Common Council on March 11 adopted an ordinance establishing procedures for removal hearings of alders, formalizing complaint intake, notice, hearing and deliberation steps after debate about retroactivity and due process.
The Common Council adopted a new removal-hearing ordinance on March 11 that lays out a process for filing complaints against alders and conducting hearings under the statutes. The ordinance spells out where complaints are filed, how they are processed, hearing-examiner retention and the rights of the accused alder. After extensive debate and a proposed amendment to prohibit retroactive complaints, the council adopted the ordinance by recorded vote.
What was added: The adopted ordinance provides a step-by-step process for receipt and referral of complaints alleging alder misconduct, details on notice and hearing procedures, and instructions on how the council would deliberate after a hearing. The city attorney explained that the statute already allows council removal by a supermajority vote, and the ordinance implements a more detailed procedure so staff and the council have clear steps to follow.
Debate and failed amendment: Alder Miyadze offered an amendment that would have barred complaints based on conduct that occurred before the alder's most recent reelection and added explicit due-process assurances and an "electoral mandate" consideration. The amendment required review by the city attorney and drew divided support; it failed in roll call (1 aye, 13 noes, 3 abstentions recorded in the transcript excerpt). Council members spoke about timing, prior briefings to the executive committee and the need to balance fairness and the public's right to file complaints. Concerns were raised about process timing and the need for the city attorney to review any late-filed language.
Costs and procedure: The city attorney said the ordinance does not change the basic cost structure for a removal hearing: a hearing examiner, transcript and any retained experts would incur costs similar to the current statute-driven process unless the council orders otherwise. Staff noted budget contingencies and the option to place funding into a contingency reserve if a hearing is required.
Outcome: The council adopted the removal-hearing ordinance (Legistar 87,288 as presented) after discussion; the transcript records a final roll call of 17 ayes, 1 no (and some members recorded as excused or absent) for adoption.
Ending: The new ordinance provides a written process the city will follow if a complaint is filed that proceeds to a hearing; council and staff said they will finalize administrative steps and coordinate with the city attorney and clerk for implementation.
