Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Council schedules pretrial hearing in removal petition and accepts articles of impeachment
Loading...
Summary
After extended public comment, the City Council adopted rules for a removal process, scheduled a May 19 pretrial hearing (motions/witness lists due five days prior), and accepted petitioners' articles of impeachment to move the charter process forward.
The City Council on a majority vote moved paperwork in a petition to remove the mayor forward, adopting procedural rules based on a 1987 precedent and setting a May 19 pretrial hearing. The council also accepted the petitioners' articles of impeachment for formal inclusion in the record.
Mayor Pro Tem and council staff said the action is procedural and does not itself remove the mayor. "This is part of the process — it's not a finding of guilt or innocence," the presiding official told council when introducing the procedural resolution. Council amended the scheduling resolution to require all motions, witness lists and requests for subpoenas be filed with the city secretary at least five days before the May 19 pretrial hearing.
Context: Petitioners collected signatures and submitted articles alleging misconduct; those allegations were detailed in packet material provided to council members. The charter provides that when a petition meeting the filing threshold is received, the council shall address procedural matters and may schedule hearings under the charter rules.
Public response: Dozens of residents spoke from the podium both in favor of and opposed to the procedural actions. Supporters said they want transparency and a public airing of the claims; opponents called it political and urged referral to the ethics commission or other investigative venues.
Process and next steps: Council advised that the city attorney recused from advising on the removal matter and the council consented to outside procedural counsel on hearing matters. Staff said the schedule for May 19 is intended to allow for pretrial motions and witness coordination; council members who opposed the move argued for referral to the ethics commission instead of a full hearing. The council majority voted to proceed with the schedule and to accept the articles filed by petitioners.
The council's action was administrative and procedural; no final determination on the mayor's status was taken at the meeting.
