Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Hearing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rock Springs council votes 5–1 to dismiss ethics complaint against Mayor Max Mickelson
Summary
The Rock Springs City Council dismissed an ethics complaint filed by Councilman Rick Maloneis alleging whistleblower retaliation, misuse of office and harassment by Mayor Max Mickelson, voting 5–1 that the complainant had not met the ordinance's clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard.
Hearing officer Vicky Scofield convened an administrative ethics hearing where Councilman Rick Maloneis accused Mayor Max Mickelson of violating Rock Springs ordinance 30.48, including whistleblower retaliation, misuse of official position and harassment. Maloneis told the council he had "become a city councilman to make Rock Springs a better place" and said the exhibits submitted would show a pattern of intimidation and misuse of process.
In his opening statement, Councilman Rick Maloneis summarized three formal allegations: a violation of whistleblower protections (cited in the transcript as "30.48 l"), misuse of official position and abuse of the ethics process, and harassment, lack of civility and alleged election interference. Maloneis said the incidents culminated when deputies delivered an ethics complaint to his home and he was subsequently interviewed by the Sweetwater County Sheriff's Office.
Mayor Max Mickelson reserved his opening statement until the complainant's case concluded and later moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing Maloneis had not produced the clear and convincing evidence required by the ordinance. "Because the evidentiary record fails to establish a nexus between specific conduct by me and the alleged ordinance violations," Mickelson said, asking the council to dismiss on the basis that the record relied primarily on temporal proximity rather than direct evidence.
Council members questioned Maloneis about the timeline and whether external authorities he contacted had responded. Maloneis said the sheriff's office had interviewed him; council members repeatedly pressed for documentary or witness evidence showing coordination, direction or retaliatory intent beyond timing. The hearing officer admitted most exhibits offered by both sides but sustained objections and did not admit two complaint exhibits (referred to in the record as complaint exhibit 2 and complaint exhibit 6) for relevance.
After the complainant declined to call witnesses or testify under oath and the parties confirmed the exhibits "speak for themselves," Mayor Mickelson formally moved to dismiss. The governing body then voted, by voice on each allegation, and the hearing officer announced each charge was dismissed by a 5'to—1 vote for lack of clear and convincing proof.
Scofield closed the hearing and said a written decision would be issued following deliberations. The council did not impose sanctions and no additional formal actions were recorded at the hearing.
Details from the hearing record: Maloneis repeatedly framed his case as a pattern of intimidation he said began after he took office; Mickelson countered that temporal proximity alone does not satisfy the ordinance's evidentiary requirement. The hearing officer repeatedly cautioned parties about the limits of opening statements and evidence rules and explained that admitted exhibits are considered by the council but that witnesses must be sworn before giving testimony subject to cross-examination.
A written decision and any further procedural steps will be set out in the council's forthcoming written ruling.
