Sandy City Council debates wording, recusal rules in draft code of conduct; staff to return revised draft

SANDY, Utah — The Sandy City Council spent more than an hour on June 10 reviewing a draft council code of conduct that lays out expectations for civility, fitness for duty and a process for responding to allegations of misconduct. Council members asked staff to revise several provisions — most notably language about recusal when an elected official is impaired — and directed staff to return the document as a voting item at the council’s next meeting.

The draft, prepared by council office staff, would add a preamble, a set of rules and accountability measures to the council policy manual. It addresses compliance with existing laws and policies, “sobriety and fitness for duty,” preparation for meetings, respect for staff roles and a range of possible disciplinary steps, the staff presentation said. Dustin Frato, who presented the draft, said the document is closer to the more comprehensive codes other cities use and recommended adding it to the council policy manual rather than leaving it voluntary.

Why it matters: The code would become the council’s internal standard for conduct and create a formal process for handling complaints against council members — including a path to adjourn to closed session when impairment is alleged. Council members said precise language is needed so the policy is enforceable but not overbroad.

Key points of debate - Recusal and impairment: Section 4 would require a member “impaired by illness, injury, medication, alcohol or illegal substances” to recuse. Councilmembers questioned whether the draft’s text inadvertently raised the bar to require two members to trigger a closed session. Ryan Meekum said the two-member requirement might make the rule “more difficult than it is right now.” Marcy Hausman asked for language clarifying what happens if the impaired member does not recuse herself and how other members should raise the issue. Dustin Frato said the intent is that the council would address it in closed session if a member does not recuse.

- Choice of measuring word: Members debated whether the draft’s phrase “thus unable to actively participate” should use “actively,” “appropriately” or “effectively.” Cindy Sharkey and others urged stronger language to avoid subjective claims of impairment based on fatigue or minor issues. Several members agreed to replace or expand “actively” with wording that includes “actively, effectively or appropriately participate.”

- Medical and prescription use: Some council members sought explicit language to avoid excluding members under prescribed medication or recovering from surgery. Staff and the city attorney cautioned that individual circumstances will be case‑by‑case and that the council body must make the determination.

Next steps and staff direction Council members offered several wording edits and asked staff to return a revised draft for formal consideration at the next meeting. Dustin Frato said staff can make edits on the fly or bring back a revised version; the council gave direction by consensus to prepare the item as a voting matter.

What was not decided: There was no vote to adopt the code on June 10. The council did not adopt specific disciplinary steps at this meeting; the draft’s accountability measures will be refined and re-presented.

Speakers quoted in this article are identified in the council’s transcript and include Dustin Frato (council staff) and council members who debated the draft. The council’s discussion began with staff presentation at the June 10 meeting and concluded with direction to bring back the revised code at the next regular meeting.