Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics And Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mayor Whitfield vetoes council ethics ordinance, cites references to non‑existent offices and exemptions for councilors
Summary
Chief of staff read a veto letter from Mayor Deb Whitfield saying the council's ethics ordinance contains multiple errors, references to non‑existent offices, and an exemption that would leave councilors and council contractors outside the ordinance’s coverage; the mayor urged collaboration to craft a tailored, enforceable ethics code.
The mayor’s office delivered a formal veto April 15 of an ethics ordinance the Common Council had passed, saying the draft is riddled with structural errors, inaccurate cross‑references and a broad exemption for councilors and council contractors that would undercut the ordinance’s purpose.
Chief of Staff (reading a statement from Mayor Deb Whitfield) told the council the ordinance “appears to be largely cut and pasted from the city of Indianapolis's ethics ordinance without tailoring it to our own city's government structure,” and cited multiple concrete problems: references to an “Office of Corporation Council” and other offices that do not exist in Lawrence; cross‑references to code sections that are not in the ordinance or the city code; numerous typos and misidentified state statutes; and provisions that exempt councilors, council staff and council contractors from the rules that would otherwise apply to city employees and contractors.
The veto letter argued those exemptions are unjustified and would create important gaps in enforcement. It also criticized the ordinance’s enforcement mechanisms, saying it lacks a workable process to determine violations and that, as written, the ordinance would be “likely unenforceable.” The mayor’s statement urged the council to work with the administration to produce a version that applies across city personnel, corrects non‑existent references and is tailored to Lawrence’s government structure.
Council members asked a handful of procedural questions after the reading but did not take immediate action to override the veto. The mayor’s office requested collaborative drafting and provided written comments to the council previously; the letter said those comments had not been incorporated.
Next steps: The mayor asked the council to revise the ordinance with the administration; the council did not set a date to return the ordinance to the floor during the meeting.
