The Committee of the Whole of the Common Council of the City of Lawrence debated a proposed code of ethics (Proposal 7-2025) on Dec. 17, urging further public review before action.

Councilors raised concerns about city employees serving as voting members of multiple boards and commissions, possible law‑firm representation on decision bodies and whether the draft—largely modeled on Indianapolis's ordinance—fits Lawrence's resources. Councilor Wells said she was concerned by "city employees being on multiple boards and commissions, especially as voting and paying members," citing two city employees on the Board of Works.

Amber Finley, Corporation Counsel for the City of Lawrence, told the committee the administration supports an ethics ordinance but wants one the city can implement. "This is modeled after the city of Indianapolis' ethics ordinance," Finley said, noting the draft references the Office of Corporation Counsel repeatedly and raising staffing and resource concerns. She summarized parts of the draft on training and recordkeeping, saying the Office of Corporation Counsel "shall prepare and administer the training required by this section" and that appointees and employees would be required to participate at least every two years.

Adam Mills, an attorney with Taft Law representing the administration's review, said the mayor is supportive but the administration received the draft only a week prior and has identified implementation issues. Mills said counselors were not included in the draft's definitions and questioned how public confidence would be served if elected council members were excluded: "If you're going to have an ethics ordinance ... how can you have ethics rules for city?" Mills asked, pointing to what he described as gaps.

Councilor Terrell Giles pushed back on cost-focused objections, arguing that adopting an ethics code "don't cost the city a dime," and urged the council to move forward: "Let's get it here and get it done," he said. Giles pressed the administration to provide a concrete estimate if additional staff or budget were required to fulfill the draft ordinance's obligations.

The committee and counsel agreed to continue discussions and asked the administration and counsel to provide redlines or specific concerns for public review. After deliberation, a motion to table Proposal 7-2025 was made and seconded; the committee voted to table the ordinance pending further public committee meetings.

The committee then considered Resolution 10-2025, amending council rules and procedures. Councilor Wells reiterated that people who do business with the city should not serve on boards or commissions that make decisions affecting those business interests. That resolution was likewise moved, seconded and tabled for further public consideration.

The Committee of the Whole adjourned after tabling both items. The council scheduled additional public committee time to review the ordinance and related procedural rules.