Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Allegations over past development prompt calls for process review and ethics updates in Fort Thomas
Summary
A resident accused the mayor of potential impropriety related to a prior development agreement; supporters defended the mayor and the council agreed to review procedures and update the ethics ordinance rather than take immediate punitive action.
The City Council meeting also turned into a heated exchange over allegations that Mayor Haas may have had a financial interest while acting as a city liaison on a past development.
Adam (a resident speaker who filed a formal letter) alleged the mayor had a put option and remained involved with city discussions connected to a development deal; he urged an investigation and suggested the state auditor or attorney general could review the matter. "When we went into executive session, he announced that he had a put option on it," Adam said in public comment.
Several residents and former officials pushed back. Former council chair Ken Bowman called the accusations "slanderous" and defended the mayor, saying the mayor was acting to advance a community outcome when private funds were offered to preserve a downtown building and that there was no evidence of personal gain. Several current council members said the mayor had sought legal advice at the time and had been released from any financial obligation before votes on the project.
Council discussed three procedural options raised in the meeting: (1) file a formal ethics complaint to the city—s ethics board; (2) request an outside, independent review or counsel to investigate process questions and return findings to the council; or (3) pursue no formal action if the evidence was judged insufficient. Several members urged updating the city—s ethics ordinance before relying on the current advisory mechanisms; the transcript shows council intends to update the code and to consider whether an outside review is appropriate.
No formal sanction or removal motion was filed during the meeting. Instead, councilors generally agreed to review the process by which development agreements and any conflicts are handled, to consider advisory opinions, and to ask the ethics board or outside counsel for guidance if warranted. The item remained a live issue for follow‑up rather than a concluded disciplinary proceeding.
The council also discussed clarifying conflict‑of‑interest lines for officials who may later have financial relationships tied to local projects so that similar concerns will be less ambiguous in the future.
