Willow Park charter fight centers on proposed ethics board and legal risks

At a Jan. 13 meeting of the Willow Park City Council, debate over a draft home-rule charter focused on how the city would handle ethics oversight, with several residents and commission members sharply divided over whether a new ethics board should have strong enforcement powers.

Scott Karen, a local resident who addressed the council during the home-rule discussion, warned that language giving an ethics panel subpoena or binding authority would be a ‘‘deal breaker.’’ He argued such powers could become ‘‘an unfunded mandate’’ and predicted that an empowered board could ‘‘remove city council members’’ and impose costs the city had not budgeted.

Jean Martin, chair of the Home Rule Commission, said the charter commission had revisited and rolled back much of the more controversial language and now intends to ask the city council to define the ethics board and code by ordinance if the charter is approved. ‘‘We deleted all that stuff because it’s new and complicated,’’ Martin said, explaining that the commission had restored a simpler approach and would expect the council to implement details later.

Other speakers urged caution. Bill Green, a longtime resident, said he supported the broader charter effort as a way to give residents more direct tools such as initiative, referendum and recall, but he urged the commission and council to ensure the charter’s language matches what the community wants before it goes to voters.

The commission’s report to council noted it had held town halls and multiple meetings and hoped to deliver a final charter draft to the council by Jan. 27 so it could be considered for placement on the May ballot. Commissioners and staff acknowledged the charter text has changed repeatedly during the drafting process and that legal review has been ongoing. City attorney Fritz Messer told the body that attorney–client communications on legal questions were privileged and that the commission had addressed identified legal concerns from the attorney’s review.

Council members and members of the public also raised procedural questions about timing, transparency and whether voters would be better served by placing the charter question on a November ballot when turnout is higher. The commission said it chose May because it is the municipal election date and the commission worried a charter question could be ‘‘lost in the noise’’ of higher-profile state and federal races in November.

The home-rule discussion produced no council action at the Jan. 13 meeting. The commission and staff will continue legal review, finalize the charter text, and return to council with next steps, including potential ballot placement and guidance on how the council would implement any ethics provisions by ordinance if voters approve the charter.