Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates role of ethics hearing officer and timeline for council action
Summary
Councilors discussed proposed edits to the ethics ordinance, including whether a hearing officer should be only a fact-finder or also recommend discipline, the time frame for council action (30 vs 45 days), frivolity review and potential supermajority thresholds for overturning recommendations.
The council reviewed a draft ethics ordinance intended to clarify timelines and procedures for investigating allegations against elected officials and staff. The clerk said the draft incorporated prior comments and that the packet contains redlines for council review.
A council member argued that "the idea of the hearing officer gives recommendations" and said they preferred the hearing officer be a finder of fact rather than offering disciplinary recommendations; others said a hearing officer who conducts live hearings is in a better position to judge credibility and thus may be well-placed to make recommendations. The city attorney explained both models exist and outlined pros and cons: written fact-finding reports can leave the council with limited context, while a hearing officer who holds hearings can evaluate testimony and suggest appropriate remedies.
Councilors also debated whether the council should have a supermajority threshold to reject a hearing officer's recommendation and discussed timing language (30 vs 45 days) for council action; several members asked staff to collate edits and return with revised wording. Staff noted administrative checks (city clerk and city attorney review forms and statutes-of-limitations) and that a frivolity screening by a hearing officer also exists in the draft to limit unnecessary expense.
