Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Investigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fairview board orders third-party probe of ethics complaint against Commissioner Don Buffellini
Summary
After discussing a June 6 complaint alleging multiple categories of misconduct, the Fairview Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to refer Resolution 40-26 to a neutral investigator to determine whether ethics code violations occurred.
The Fairview Board of Commissioners on June 18 voted unanimously (5–0) to refer an ethics complaint against Commissioner Don Buffellini to an independent third-party investigator under Resolution 40-26.
Commissioner Don Buffellini recused himself from the discussion and vote because the complaint addresses allegations against him. City attorney Mr. Carter summarized five categories alleged in the complaint submitted June 6: possible misuse of city resources for private benefit; material omissions on statements of disclosure of interest; campaign-related misconduct; alleged misrepresentations on city employment applications; and conduct toward city staff and residents.
Mr. Carter advised the board it could (A) find no merit, (B) find the complaint meritorious but not refer it, or (C) find sufficient merit to warrant a third-party investigation. After discussion about procedural limits and whether an anonymously delivered “overview” pamphlet should be considered (the board excluded it from the formal packet because it lacked provenance), the board selected option C and directed staff to engage an outside investigator to interview witnesses, review documents, and report findings and recommendations back to the commission.
Speakers noted the complaint contains many distinct allegations that may fall under different jurisdictions: some items could be within the municipal ethics code while others may be election-related or potentially criminal and therefore outside the ethics code’s narrow scope. Commissioners emphasized adherence to the city’s written process, confidentiality of investigative procedures, and the need to avoid conflating election- or employment-board matters with the ethics review.
The board discussed a recommended investigator (name provided to the board by the attorney’s office) as a qualified, independent attorney who has previously conducted municipal ethics investigations; members said they expected the investigator to interview the complainant, the subject and relevant witnesses, review records, and produce a report with findings and recommended next steps.
The motion to refer the complaint for external investigation passed by roll call (Vice Mayor McDonald, Commissioners Roberts and Hall, Mayor Anderson, and one other voting yes) and was recorded as 5–0 with Buffellini recused. The board instructed the city manager and city attorney to proceed with hiring the investigator and to return with a scope, cost estimate, and timeline.
