Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Integrity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances rewrite of Roswell's ethics ordinance to add independent hearing officers and clearer procedures
Summary
Council advanced a first reading of a comprehensive rewrite of the city's ethics ordinance to remove perceived political conflicts from investigations, require complaints to be filed with the city clerk, and use pre‑qualified independent attorneys as hearing officers; council members asked for further consideration of resident participation and possible anti‑retaliation measures.
The council advanced a first reading of a comprehensive rewrite of Roswell's code of ethics that changes how ethics complaints are initiated, investigated and resolved.
Assistant City Attorney Joseph Cusack explained that staff compared Roswell's existing process with recent ordinances in peer cities and found it susceptible to political conflict. Under the existing ordinance complaints were filed with the mayor or mayor pro tem and an ad hoc group drawn from council and an appointed pool could control investigations and create a perception of political decision‑making. The proposed rewrite moves initial filings to the city clerk, requires the case screening and investigative mechanics to be performed by pre‑qualified independent hearing officers (attorneys with no business or residence ties to Roswell within 10 miles), defines a burden of proof for findings, and clarifies how the board of ethics and council would receive a hearing officer's findings.
The rewrite also expands confidentiality protections to include information provided in confidence and clarifies the types of sanctions available (public or private reprimand, requests for resignation, or removal as allowed by state law); the draft does not create a monetary fine mechanism but does propose due‑process safeguards designed to make judicial review in superior court more straightforward. Councilmembers asked about resident participation in panels and whether a role for local citizen reviewers should remain. Several councilmembers and members of the public expressed a preference for independent attorneys to reduce perceived bias; others urged maintaining meaningful resident involvement. Councillor Cells asked whether the ordinance should include campaign‑finance or PAC‑related restrictions; staff said some campaign finance oversight (including PAC regulations) is handled at the state level but that the draft could be revisited on related topics.
Public commenters included past and prospective ethics pool members who recommended clarifications: a penalties section, clear definitions for "family member," anti‑retaliation protections for complainants and witnesses, and a formal procedure to recuse or disqualify a hearing officer. The item passed first reading; councilmembers indicated they will return suggestions for the second reading on specific procedural points.
What happens next: staff will incorporate council feedback and technical edits (definitions, anti‑retaliation language, and disqualification/recusal mechanics) and return the ordinance for a second reading and final action.
