Council narrows ethics-ordinance review to clerk-plus-hearing-officer model, punts penalty question to staff

Johns Creek’s council advanced a final approach to its ethics-ordinance validity review, directing staff to adopt a clerk-level format check followed by a hearing officer determination rather than assigning initial screening to elected officials.

"The 1st item of business under ongoing projects is the ethics ordinance update," the mayor said, framing two remaining decisions: who conducts the validity review and whether to impose a penalty for frivolous complaints. Several council members supported Option 1—clerk review followed by hearing-officer consideration—and most said they were uncomfortable imposing a substantive penalty that could chill whistleblowers or raise due-process problems. As one council member cautioned, "we can't put that burden on our residents" when good-faith complainants may misunderstand statutory thresholds.

Legal staff informed the body that research raised procedural and due-process issues with assessing a fine or administrative penalty for complaints ultimately deemed frivolous; that counsel’s analysis prompted several members to step away from an earlier proposal to charge a fee. One member suggested a small $50 administrative charge could discourage repeat frivolous filings, but others said the clerk filter and hearing-officer gate were sufficient and preferred no fee. Council asked staff to bring back final ordinance language reflecting the clerk-plus-hearing-officer model and to include the attorney’s analysis of legal risk.

Next steps: staff will prepare revised ordinance language for a future consent agenda and will include the attorney memo on due-process implications.