Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics And Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ethics, recall procedures and mayor vs. city manager powers draw debate in charter review
Summary
Committee members discussed deleting or clarifying an ambiguous 'charges against mayor' clause, formalizing an ethics code with limited remedies, and debated the balance of power between the mayor and the city manager, along with recall thresholds and investigatory/penalty language.
The Charter Review Committee considered several governance‑control and accountability items May 27, including an ethics/charges provision, recall mechanics, investigatory penalties and the distinction between mayoral and city manager authority.
City Attorney Ritchie (speaker 3) advised that a paragraph labeled "charges against mayor or commissioner" (section 3.13) is vague and could be misleading; rather than charter‑based removal, case law and practice typically limit charters to admonishment or censure and leave removal to recall or criminal processes. Ritchie told the committee that an ethics code with defined procedures and remedies would be more legally durable than a broad 'charges' clause: "A lot of the ethics provisions, that's kind of the process that's laid out... the case law basically is very protective of preserving the resident's right to elect their commissioners."
Members pressed about the recall process and thresholds. The draft provision the committee reviewed requires a petition by 30% of qualified electors citywide to trigger a recall election; the attorney explained the city secretary must verify signatures under state law and that committees may choose different thresholds or treatment (citywide vs. ward‑based counts). The committee asked the attorney to draft clearer, possibly more robust recall language and to clarify who may sign and how verification will work.
The group also reviewed investigatory powers and penalties for noncompliance with subpoenas in a charter investigation, noting that many charters create ordinance‑level penalties (e.g., class C misdemeanor, fines up to $200) but rarely use them in practice; the attorney offered to bring alternative language that moves penalties to ordinance text when appropriate.
Separately, members discussed text that calls the mayor the "chief executive officer" while the charter also designates the city manager as "chief administrative officer." The conversation flagged the risk of creating unclear chains of command. Ritchie recommended clarifying the mayor’s role (policy/legislative head and emergency powers) while confirming that day‑to‑day executive administration normally resides with the city manager; the committee asked staff to identify conflicting sentences for redraft.
The committee asked for redrafted language on ethics, recall thresholds, investigation penalties and mayor/manager duties for the next meeting.
