Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Roswell adopts revised ethics ordinance after lengthy council debate; PAC recusal amendment fails
Summary
The council adopted a rewritten code of ethics intended to standardize complaint intake and hearings and to deter frivolous complaints; an amendment to require recusal when a PAC has contributed to a council member failed, and the ordinance passed on second reading.
Mayor and council adopted a revised city ethics ordinance on second reading March 23 after extended debate over transparency, resident involvement, attorney selection and the role of political-action committees (PACs).
Assistant City Attorney Joseph Cusack summarized the rewrite as a procedural overhaul: complaints will be filed with the city clerk rather than the mayor, neutral outside hearing officers will be chosen from a prequalified bench, and the ordinance adds a mechanism for reimbursement of reasonable attorney fees if a hearing officer deems a complaint frivolous. Cusack said the new process is designed to reduce politicization and create consistent legal safeguards, including a standard burden of proof and rules of evidence.
Council members praised the effort to standardize procedure but questioned the removal of resident panelists and the use of outside attorneys. Several members asked how attorneys would be identified, whether hearings could be public, and how to preserve transparency. Cusack said findings — whether a violation is found or not — would be reported publicly and that records would remain subject to open-records rules.
Council member Alan Sells proposed an amendment to require recusal where a PAC that contributed to a member is affected by a council decision. After discussion about how broadly that could apply and concerns about unintended consequences and First Amendment limits, the amendment failed on a council vote. Council members debated but ultimately voted to adopt the ordinance as written.
Council members discussed implementation details including a rotating list of five qualified attorneys (chosen to avoid repeated selection of the same attorney), geographic and conflict constraints on hearing officers, and thresholds for public hearings (Cusack said a hearing officer could call for public testimony if merited after initial screening). The ordinance’s second reading included one narrow textual change carried from the first reading: a clause allowing reimbursement to respondents for attorney fees if a complaint is found frivolous.
The ordinance passed on second reading; council directed staff to continue refining implementation details and to consider further amendments in future sessions.
