Orting council pauses two ethics complaints until city secures attorney

The Orting City Council voted Oct. 8, 2025, to take no additional action on two revised ethics complaints (agenda bills AB 25-94 and AB 25-85) until the city has an attorney on staff to review the matters.

The committee motion — advanced by Council member Tracy and seconded — passed unanimously after extended debate about procedure and timing under Robert's Rules of Order and the council's ethics policy. The council spent substantial time debating whether revised or amended complaints should be treated as new filings and whether reconsideration rules barred reconsideration before the previously scheduled Nov. 5 date.

Council members repeatedly cited the city—s own code of ethics and procedural guidance. Council member Moore said the code calls for the city attorney to review complaints and "determine whether the complaint on its face alleges facts that if true would substantiate a violation of the code of ethics." Council member Moore also warned that proceeding without a proper legal review could expose the city to procedural defects.

Opponents of immediate action argued the revised complaint filed against the deputy mayor should be deferred to the Nov. 5 meeting because the council had previously postponed a related item. Supporters of delay said the practical effect of moving forward without counsel would be to sidestep the normal review process. Council member Sprowl and others read and cited passages from Robert's Rules and the council—s meeting materials while making their points.

Before the final, unanimous motion to delay, the council also considered and rejected an earlier motion to remove AB 25-94 from the agenda outright; that earlier motion failed on a roll-call vote (three votes in favor, four opposed), returning the item to the agenda for discussion.

The council instructed staff to await direction once an attorney is engaged. The hearing examiner named in staff materials for potential referral was Phil Obritz; staff advised that if a complaint is referred to a hearing examiner, the examiner would be expected to prepare written findings and conclusions within 60 days unless the council grants an extension.

The motion preserved procedural options for the council while directing that no substantive action, referral, or investigation proceed until legal review could be performed.

Votes at a glance: AB 25-94 — Motion to remove from the agenda (failed on roll call; approximately 3 yes, 4 no); Motion to take no further action until an attorney is on staff (passed unanimously). AB 25-85 — Motion to take no further action until an attorney is on staff (passed).