Fountain Hills councilors direct halt to local ethics complaint process during rules-of-procedure work session

At a Fountain Hills Town Council work session, councilors spent an extended portion of the meeting debating proposed changes to the draft rules of procedure, focusing on sections that govern ethics complaints and sanctions.

Council members said the town's current ethics process has generated repeated complaints, consumed staff time and legal fees, and lacked clear, proportionate sanctions. Vice Mayor Toth told colleagues that "Fiscal year '24, we spent $10,554 on the process processes of these complaints, and that's money that could have gone to streets." Town Attorney Aaron and staff walked the council through legal options and practical consequences of each approach.

The discussion covered four broad options: (1) eliminate the local ethics complaint process and rely on other accountability mechanisms such as elections or existing state remedies; (2) refer complaints to the state attorney general (staff said that office typically will not handle local ethics code matters); (3) create a local ethics committee; or (4) keep a code but tighten definitions and create clear, proportional sanctions. Several council members voiced frustration that the existing language in Chapter 10 is ambiguous and invites frivolous complaints.

After extended discussion, a majority of council members present signaled support for a "clean sweep" approach: removing Chapter 10 from the rules of procedure going forward and ending use of the town's current local complaint-and-sanction process. Town Attorney Aaron said he would act on the body's direction: "I will call the investigator today and tell her to stop work. Don't bother putting a report together for any of the the existing ones," and later clarified that if the council directs elimination of Chapter 10, existing sanctions tied to that chapter would effectively be removed.

Council members also discussed how to proceed with the outstanding matters that had already reached investigative stages. Town Attorney Aaron advised that the council must choose whether to (a) allow reports in process to be completed and considered, or (b) direct investigators to stop and remove all pending and paused matters. Several council members favored sweeping all outstanding Chapter 10 matters to start fresh.

Council members underscored that whatever process the town keeps should contain clearer definitions and proportional sanctions if the council decides to preserve a local mechanism. Some members proposed directing the town attorney to prepare a narrowly tailored framework (illustrative violations with matched consequences) for later council review; others argued for full elimination and reliance on other accountability mechanisms.

The discussion also touched on operational impacts: staff time, legal fees and the number of pending complaints. A council member noted that three council members currently have complaints pending in various stages and said that any change to the process should apply equally to all pending matters.

The work session ended with council direction to the town attorney to stop active investigative work on Chapter 10 complaints pending a council decision on whether to remove Chapter 10 from the rules of procedure. Council members instructed staff to return a cleaned-up draft of the rules of procedure for formal council consideration; the precise disposition of paused or in-process investigation reports will be set by the council at that later meeting.

What happens next: staff and the town attorney will prepare options for the council's formal meeting agenda, including (a) an item to remove Chapter 10 entirely, and (b) an alternative draft that would narrow definitions and specify proportional sanctions. Council members said they expect to make a formal decision at a future meeting rather than in the work session.