Committee discusses codifying removal-for-cause procedures; bond, transcript and appeal questions raised

The Common Council Executive Committee on Jan. 14 debated a draft process to implement state statutes for removing an alder from office, focusing on who may file complaints, whether a bond should be required and whether hearings must be transcribed.

Attorney Haas, the committee's legal adviser, told members the statutes allow removal only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, official misconduct, or malfeasance in office” and that the statutes require a verified complaint filed with the clerk and a stenographic transcript of any hearing. “The statute... requires a stenographer to prepare a transcript of the hearing for potential review by a court,” Haas said.

Committee members sought clarification about who qualifies to file a complaint. Vice President Duncan asked whether the phrase “resident taxpayer” in the statute could be broadened to “resident.” Haas replied the wording appears in the statute and therefore the committee could not unilaterally change it; he noted the term is broad and not limited to a particular tax type. “It doesn't say property taxpayer, income taxpayer, sales taxpayer,” Haas said.

Other questions addressed procedural safeguards and appeals. Alder Gary asked whether council decisions on removal would be appealable; Haas replied they could be appealed to a court like any other council decision. Several members said formalizing procedures in an ordinance could reduce successful procedural appeals by establishing clear processes ahead of any complaint.

Members also discussed administrative details the draft covers, including whether the council would require a security bond (the draft proposes a $1,000 bond as an option), how the verified complaint is filed with the clerk's office, and whether the council can impose confidentiality restrictions. Haas said the statute contemplates an open hearing and does not authorize a gag order or a closed process; the complaint would be a public document.

Committee members asked how the new draft would interact with the city's existing ethics process. Haas explained the city’s ethics code (in municipal ordinance sec. 3.35) and the separate ethics board handle complaints about conflicts of interest and related ethics violations, but that the removal-for-cause statute is a separate process that may address neglect of duty or misconduct not covered by the ethics code.

President Figueroa Cole closed the discussion by directing Attorney Haas to proceed with drafting an ordinance that would codify the draft procedures so the council could consider them formally. No formal vote was taken on the ordinance at the committee meeting.

The committee invited additional written feedback from members and staff; Attorney Haas and city staff will return with a formal draft ordinance for consideration.