Council debates ethics, ways to remove elected officials
By Andy Hallman — Daily Freeman-Journal Staff WriterMeeting in special session Tuesday night, the Webster City City Council discussed a proposed Ethical Conduct Code for council members, an ordinance which provides grounds for the removal of a council member and a policy that sets the guidelines for city staff working with the council.
After much debate on the conduct code, an agreement was reached that City Attorney Gary Groves would rewrite the code, incorporating some of the proposals that were discussed at Tuesday's meeting. Groves will resubmit the code to the council for a vote at some future date. Groves said he would like to have the code in place before the end of the year.
On the issue of the ordinance, the council decided by consensus to delay a decision on the ordinance until May. In favor of the delay were council members Melissa Borer, Mark Gillette and Mayor Eugene Gray. Opposed were council members Jerry Kloberdanz and Janet Adams.
Kloberdanz and Adams said they would like to have the ordinance implemented sooner than May.
Groves began the debate with an overview of what the conduct code was intended for and why it applies to just council members.
"This ethical conduct code is only meant to include council members. Others already have procedures in place for what we call 'checks and balances,' like the city manager and me who operate at the will of the council. It's only council members who don't have a means of redress," said Groves.
"The ordinance I've written is simply another means for removing a council member in addition to going through district court. What this ordinance does is it brings a problem to your attention first. It gives you the first shot to dismiss a council member," said Groves.
Groves continued, "The problem with relying on the court system to remove a council member is that the cost of district court will deter some people from going through with it."
Gray was very hesitant to enact a policy he believed to be too extreme.
"This conduct code is really quite severe. It allows for the removal of a council member the people have voted for," said Gray.
Gray said he wanted to see how the conduct code would play out before enacting the ordinance.
"While we work on the conduct code, let's give it time to germinate and delay implementation of the ordinance," said Gray.
Borer shared Gray's reticence toward enacting the ordinance.
"It's much easier to change a code than an ordinance, and while we're ironing out the kinks in the ordinance there could be a miscarriage of justice. The problem is, members of the community can approach the city council and have a council member removed for a minor infraction," warned Borer.
"The public can interpret this code any way they want because it's too subjective. We need to wait and see if the conduct code will work before implementing the ordinance," said Borer.
Gray disagreed somewhat with Borer's assessment, saying, "I don't think the city council would hold a hearing if they didn't think the charges were substantive," responded Gray.
Groves argued that implementing the ordinance would go a long way towards controlling bad behavior. Groves singled out the dissemination of confidential information as something that was very worrisome to him.
"I have a real problem with confidential information that leaks out of our closed meetings. I'll be frank with you, I think the person who leaks confidential information should be removed from the city council," declared Groves.
"I have reason to believe we have a problem leaking confidential information. There's too much information out there and I don't know how it gets out. The need to control confidential information is an imperative," said Groves.
Groves continued, "With this ordinance, you're putting teeth into what you're saying in the conduct code. At the same time, you could pass the conduct code and not the ordinance or vice versa. One does not depend on the other."
In other matters, Borer said that she was concerned about the language of the code that prohibits "derogatory" speech towards a council member. Borer was curious about how far the prohibition extended.
"My impression is that we're trying to limit what council members can say. The community needs to understand that we're not trying to restrict the free speech of members of the council," said Borer.
City Manager Ed Sadler responded, "There's a difference between being derogatory towards an expressed idea and being derogatory towards the individual."
Adams disagreed with Borer's interpretation of the code, saying, "I don't think the conduct code restricts free speech; I don't think it says that at all."
Borer was also very concerned about whether or not the code dictates what council members can say to citizens in their private lives.
"Does this conduct code mean to regulate our public as well as private lives?" asked Borer.
Sadler responded that the code does indeed regulate some private matters.
"I'm sorry, but it does regulate your private life if you're talking about the city council and you're speaking about your position," exclaimed Sadler.
Kloberdanz added that council members need to be cognizant of their behavior at all times.
"If I make a fool out of myself, I make a fool out of the city as well. If we're not putting a positive face on the city, we don't have any right to be on this council," said Kloberdanz.
Adams concurred, stating, "Because we're in a small town, what we do in our daily lives is criticized on a regular basis," said Adams.
Groves said much the same, asserting, "The extra scrutiny you're under may be unfair, but it goes with the territory of your position," said Groves.
After the discussion, Borer felt there was a consensus about what kind of topics the code covered.
"I think we're in agreement then, that the code just covers issues pertaining to the city council," said Borer.
Regarding the policy that governs city staff relations with the council, Borer had concerns about how accessible the council was to the staff.
"I have heard from several city staffers who say they can't feel comfortable approaching the council because they're afraid of retribution from their department head," warned Borer.
Gray responded that laws are in place to ensure that staff members do not fear retribution from their superiors.
"We've already enacted the Whistleblower Policy so I'm not especially worried about that," said Gray.
Gillette submitted a proposal to the staff/council guidelines. Gillette's proposal stated, "Any appointee of the council found guilty by four-fifths of the council of misadministration shall be subject to immediate termination."
Not all members of the council agreed with Gillette's proposal. Sadler said that he believed the proposal was directed specifically at him.
Kloberdanz agreed with Sadler, stating, "This is micro-managing the city manager. I think this proposal is completely inappropriate."
Groves added, "You don't need these reasons in Mark's recommendation. The council doesn't have to justify the removal of a city appointee. Any three of you can get rid of me or Ed at the next council meeting," remarked Groves.
After hearing these complaints, Gillette withdrew his proposal.
Ultimately the policy guideline for city staff working with the council was adopted with a minor change.
