Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Interpretation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council relies on city charter: removal needs five votes, reprimand and suspension use majority
Summary
Council members and the city attorney clarified that removal triggers a two-year ineligibility and requires five affirmative votes under the charter; other penalties are decided by majority.
Council leadership and the city attorney spent part of the meeting resolving conflicts between the printed charges and the city charter, and they agreed to follow the charter’s provisions. The chair said the charter requires five votes to remove an official, while other penalties (suspension or reprimand) are decided by a majority vote.
A council member asked whether a reprimand could include making someone ineligible to run in the next cycle; the city attorney (Lisa) said that subsection e ties ineligibility specifically to removal: “a member who is removed from office … shall not be eligible to be appointed to or run as a candidate for city office for 2 years from the date of removal, recall, or resignation.” The clarification guided later penalty votes, including failed removal motions because they did not reach the five-vote threshold.
The chair also proposed striking a subsection of the printed charges that created confusion and reverting the term "censure" back to "reprimand" to align with the charter language. The meeting proceeded with the clarified legal framework in place before the council voted on predicate questions and penalties.
