Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects proposed anti-campaigning subsection but adopts limited financial-disclosure updates
Summary
After an extended debate about First Amendment risk and enforceability, council declined to adopt a proposed prohibition on campaigning while acting in official capacity and instead approved amended financial-disclosure language, asking staff to draft non-ordinance guidance for officials and volunteers.
The independent ethics commission and the city's ethics counsel proposed an amendment to Article 9.05.004 adding a new subsection to prohibit "political activity while acting in their official capacity." Counsel Josh Brockman Weber said the recommended language aimed to avoid officials wearing dual hats at city events.
Council members raised constitutional and practical concerns. Several said the proposed language was vague about what constitutes "campaigning," could invite politically motivated complaints, and might raise First Amendment risks if enforced. Council Member Michael Herrera and Council Member Becky Ross specifically questioned whether an ordinance could legally restrict political speech by volunteers or elected officials while they are present at public events, and asked whether internal policy and clearer, nonbinding guidance for boards, commissions and event volunteers might solve the problem without codifying a new prohibition.
After an extended discussion, council voted to approve only the financial-disclosure amendments (Section 9.05.009) and to strike the new subsection 2B (the proposed ban on political activity while acting in official capacity). Council asked staff to return with clearer policy-level guidance and example scenarios for boards and commission members and for elected officials to avoid ambiguity and reduce the risk of weaponized ethics complaints.
The motion to approve the financial-disclosure changes and remove the 2B subsection passed unanimously. Council also discussed the idea of a broader ethics-ordinance review or rewrite in the future, with possible subcommittee work to bring back recommended revisions.
