Ethics officer report recommends clarifying role, improving public process transparency

Representatives from Ogden Murphy Wallace presented the city’s annual ethics officer report and outlined four areas for council consideration: clarify the relationship and information-sharing processes between the ethics officer and the city attorney; publish more public-facing process information (including timing and decisional criteria for advisory opinions and complaints); identify and resolve conflicts between the ethics code and other city policies (such as the council protocol manual); and evaluate where local code should be more stringent than state law.

Oscar Ray, a municipal attorney with Ogden Murphy Wallace, said the city attorney serves as staff liaison but recommended the council consider clarifying role boundaries and communications. Karen Sutherland, the firm’s partner serving as ethics officer, urged clearer public process materials and pointed out that the current code allows administrative dismissal of frivolous complaints at multiple review steps.

Council members generally saw the recommendations as non-urgent but useful. Several members emphasized that clarifying internal processes and publishing criteria for complaints would help prevent confusion and reduce opportunities to weaponize the complaint process. Councilmember Kirk recommended a formal procedure for ethics review when major policy documents—such as the council protocol manual—are updated. City staff and the ethics officers agreed that incremental code changes and added guidance could address many of the concerns.

No changes were adopted at the study session; staff will work with the ethics officer to return with options for council consideration.