Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney: ethics board did not find ordinance violation; council debates 'weaponization' of process
Summary
Council members clashed over a recent ethics-board review that cost the city about $6,000; city attorney Kevin Tallent said the board concluded the alleged conduct did not violate the ethics ordinance and advised on limits of alleging oath-of-office violations.
Council members spent a substantial portion of the meeting debating a recent ethics-board review. One council member described the ethics meeting as costing the city over $6,000 and suggested comments by the ethics board implied a possible oath-of-office violation. Another council member criticized the process as being "weaponized," citing prior litigation and personal legal costs.
City attorney Kevin Tallent reviewed the ethics board’s handling and legal posture, saying he believed the board reached the correct result in finding no violation of the ethics ordinance and noting the appellate posture of Chang v. City of Milton. He explained the practical difference between alleys and streets under the city’s development regulations and said the code is silent on a single overarching minimum alley width in most contexts, which undercuts claims that council members automatically violated their oath by approving certain development features.
Council members said they would continue reviewing the ethics-complaint process and their charter and ordinances to reduce future confusion and potential misuse of the ethics board.
