Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Skagway Assembly amends ethics proposal repeatedly but fails to adopt ordinance
Summary
After hours of debate and multiple amendments — including a $5,000 threshold for ‘‘substantial financial interest’’ and a prohibition on discriminatory conduct — the assembly did not adopt Ordinance 25-12 at second reading and final vote. Members expressed both support for clearer ethics rules and concern about deterring volunteers and small business owners.
Mayor Collodi opened a public hearing and the assembly spent the bulk of the evening considering Ordinance 25‑12, a proposed rewrite of the municipality’s ethics standards for officials and employees. Assemblymember Hillis submitted amendments (labeled 7a0.6) that the body debated, amended and then put to final vote; the final adoption failed at roll call.
Supporters said the revised language would remove ambiguity from code and create a clear process for handling alleged conflicts. Manager Deach and Vice Mayor Potter both described the proposal as an attempt to provide the public and elected officials with a proportionate, impartial review process rather than relying solely on censure. Potter said the proposal “takes it out of our hands” and creates “an impartial third party that can review any possible accusations,” arguing it would build trust in municipal government.
Opponents worried the code could discourage volunteer service and exclude local tradespeople who also serve the municipality. Assemblymember Hanson said the structure could “dissuade people from serving” if local independent contractors feared being labeled conflicted. Assemblymember Hillis, who authored the amendment language, said she remained uneasy about one section that would let the assembly itself vote to determine whether an undisclosed conflict exists and had removed that provision from her amendment after attorney feedback.
Key changes adopted as amendments during the meeting included: adding a standards-of-conduct clause that officials “shall not engage in discriminatory, harassing, or retaliatory conduct”; clarifying language to require officials to “display courteous conduct with staff, speakers, and fellow assembly and board members”; and a definition of “substantial financial interest” that would read as a financial interest that exceeds $5,000 or “affects the official’s financial circumstances in a manner that is not generally shared by a broad class of residents, property owners, or taxpayers.” Potter explained the dollar threshold as a way to add clarity while retaining a qualitative test for unusual influence.
Assemblymember Henry recounted a prior accusation of conflict tied to a seawall project, illustrating the practical difficulties in the field: even when an official stood to gain modestly, the public discussion could be destabilizing. Henry warned that more precise rules might deter candidates who fear being scrutinized for routine commercial ties.
After extensive discussion and several roll-call votes to amend the amendment, the assembly took a final roll-call on the ordinance as amended. The clerk recorded the result as a failed motion on final adoption. The mayor said he hopes a clarified code will move forward in the future but that the body could not adopt this version at the Oct. 2 meeting.
The assembly indicated possible next steps would include further revision by civic affairs, additional attorney review and an assembly-of-the-whole discussion to try to resolve lingering concerns.
Ending: The ordinance failed to pass on final adoption and the assembly left unchanged the municipality’s existing ethics code; members suggested continuing work in committee and seeking further legal input.
