Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After lengthy debate, Clemson council adopts revised ethics and code-of-conduct policy
Summary
Council debated and revised language in an ethics and code-of-conduct policy—particularly disclosure requirements for information received outside public meetings—then approved the policy with edits to require disclosure of substantive information relevant to matters under consideration.
Council spent an extended portion of the Dec. 10 meeting discussing a proposed ethics and code-of-conduct statement for elected and appointed officials and approved a revised policy after debate and amendment.
Staff said points 7 and 9 were edited since the last circulation. A central dispute concerned language in Section 7 requiring members to "have and consider the same information when making decisions" and an accompanying sentence that had required members to "publicly disclose substantive information that is relevant to the matter." Multiple council members warned the initial wording could be impractical or overly broad. One council member (Speaker 10) said, "There's no way in the world you can live up to that as it is written," arguing the clause might prohibit routine out-of-meeting inquiries and learning. Another member and staff proposed revisions to narrow the provision to "substantive information" and allow staff to disseminate material information to all members.
The city attorney said the document is a policy and that violations would be handled internally (for example, censure); it is not, by itself, a legal enforcement mechanism. After discussion, a motion was made and then withdrawn; a subsequent motion (made by Speaker 6) to approve the policy with revised language—changing the relevant clause to require members to "disclose substantive information that is relevant to the matter under consideration by the body which they may have received from sources outside the public decision making process"—passed by voice/hand-raise.
Council members also suggested creating an accompanying definition or separate document that outlines what counts as "substantive" to avoid requiring disclosure of every minor interaction or confidential matter. The transcript shows a mix of concern about confidentiality, practicality, and the need for shared evidence in adjudicative matters; the adopted wording was intended to strike that balance, according to staff and council comments.
