Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects super‑majority change and adopts ethics‑complaint procedure ordinance 4–3
Summary
Councilmember Aramelli proposed requiring a five‑member supermajority to reject an investigator's factual findings in ethics complaints; after extended debate the amendment failed and the council adopted Ordinance 26‑6‑9 on ethics complaint procedures by a 4–3 vote.
A lengthy debate on Ordinance 26‑6‑9 (amendments to ethics complaint procedures) dominated council discussion. Councilmember Aramelli proposed an amendment requiring a supermajority (five votes) to reject the findings of an independent investigator, arguing that a higher threshold would guard against politically motivated re‑investigations and protect the integrity of the investigative process. Aramelli said the higher bar would "establish a more durable and credible process" and compared the role of an investigator to a grand jury.
Other councilmembers questioned whether findings of fact should be subject to a supermajority requirement; the city attorney explained that while initiating removal proceedings could be accepted by a simple majority to start the process, actual removal is governed by a supermajority under the charter. The council called the question on Aramelli’s proposal and the amendment was defeated. Councilmember Coughlin then moved to adopt the ordinance as presented; that motion passed by voice and a recorded 4–3 result.
Supporters said the ordinance as adopted preserves the council’s ability to accept or reject recommendations and maintains existing thresholds for removal in the charter. Dissenting members said the proposed change would have raised due‑process protections for members accused of misconduct.
