Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Candidate Questionnaire topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Midwest City council delays vote on expanded candidate questionnaire after debate over scope and timing
Summary
After a lengthy discussion about additions prompted by an attorney general opinion, the Midwest City Council voted 4–3 to take no action and return the proposed candidate questionnaire to staff for further review; the item will return to the council on May 27.
The Midwest City Council on April 20 voted to take no action on proposed amendments to the city’s council candidate questionnaire and asked staff to return with revisions and additional information at the May 27 council meeting.
City Attorney Don and city staff had presented an expanded questionnaire that added several questions drawn from an attorney general opinion and recent local precedent. Officials said the form was intended to identify potential conflicts of interest, relationships that could create indirect benefits, and the possibility of dual‑office holding so voters would have information before filing.
Council members debated multiple issues for more than an hour: whether the questionnaire should be required at time of filing or after election, whether the added questions were narrowly tailored to catch only contracting conflicts, how broadly to define relatives and indirect benefits, and whether the questionnaire might chill potential candidates. Several council members asked staff to consult additional peer organizations and provide model questionnaires used by other jurisdictions.
Opponents of immediate approval said the council had time to refine the form and wanted staff to provide examples and outside comparisons. Supporters said the questionnaire would provide early transparency and help potential candidates determine whether they face a conflict.
A motion to take no action and bring the item back passed on a recorded voice vote: Councilwoman Eads, Councilman Byrne, Councilwoman Maxwell and Councilwoman Bana voted yes; Councilman Thompson, Councilmember Favors and Mayor Matt Dukes voted no.
City staff agreed to follow up with the council and to coordinate additional legal and peer‑jurisdiction research before the May 27 agenda.
