Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Recall topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee questions charter ethics, recall and investigatory language
Summary
Members debated deleting a dated "charges" provision and instead establishing an enforceable code of ethics and recall mechanics; the city attorney warned that removal of elected officials is legally constrained and that recall procedures and signature verification should be clarified.
The committee turned to ethics and accountability language in the charter, focusing on Section 3.05 (code of ethics) and Section 3.13 (charges against mayor or commissioner).
City Attorney Ritchie (S3) urged caution about broad removal powers and recommended replacing the opaque "charges" paragraph with a clearer code-of-conduct provision codified by ordinance. "A lot of the ethics provisions'you might say censor?'if you are going to create [them], know that it's even legally enforceable," Ritchie told the group. He noted case law generally prevents a commission from removing an elected official and that recall is the primary legal remedy for addressing misconduct.
Committee members asked about recall thresholds and procedure. Ritchie said recall mechanisms are a product of home-rule charters and vary: some cities require 30% of qualified electors citywide, others use a lower percentage or a ward-based trigger. He warned that a 30% citywide threshold is a high bar and recalled that signature verification is performed by the city secretary as a ministerial step before ordering an election. "So recall is completely an invention of home rule charters," Ritchie said, adding the committee could revise thresholds or timing (for example, 3 months vs. 6 months after election).
Members also discussed investigatory powers and municipal penalties. Ritchie said many charters include investigatory authority and municipal contempt penalties (class C misdemeanor up to $200) for failing to comply with subpoenas or document requests, though he had rarely seen such penalties enforced. The committee favored keeping investigatory authority but asked Ritchie to return proposed, streamlined language for an enforceable code of conduct and clarified recall mechanics.
What happens next: Ritchie will draft proposed edits that (a) either delete or meaningfully reword Section 3.13, (b) insert an ethics/code-of-conduct approach that can be codified by ordinance, and (c) clarify recall thresholds and signature verification process for the charter.
