Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates fee, screening steps in proposed ethics ordinance update
Summary
Councilmembers reviewed six decision points in a redline ethics ordinance, debating administrative screening, frivolity fees and the role of hearing officers. Members asked staff to refine the wording on the frivolity/administrative review and return with an updated draft.
The Johns Creek City Council discussed proposed changes to the city's ethics ordinance during its April 20 work session, focusing on six staff-identified decision points meant to reflect prior consensus.
Councilmembers wrestled over how to screen complaints and whether to shift costs to filers in cases found to be frivolous. One councilmember argued for an administrative “first‑flush” review by the city clerk or the city attorney to assess basic submission requirements before a hearing officer is appointed. Assistant City Manager Haggard and staff outlined the intended two‑step process: an administrative check for completeness followed by a separate frivolity review if needed.
Councilmember Bob suggested a fee if a complaint is found frivolous, proposing a capped flat amount as an alternative to obligating filers to pay full hearing‑officer costs. As Bob put it in debate over the options: “When I say have a flat fee, it's not that we are giving them a free [something]. Have a flat fee.” The suggestion prompted discussion over whether charging a filer would chill legitimate complaints.
Members also debated whether the hearing officer should act as a factfinder who only recommends, or whether the mayor and council must take action on the hearing officer’s recommendation, with one proposal calling for a supermajority to overturn findings. Council concluded there was general agreement on several items but asked staff to workshop item 3 (the frivolity review language) and return with clarifying edits. No ordinance vote was taken; staff will draft a revised ordinance for a future meeting.
Why it matters: The ordinance defines how resident complaints about elected officials are processed, balancing access to accountability with protections against abusive filings. The council’s changes could affect who pays costs in dismissed cases and how quickly meritorious complaints move forward.
