Whistleblower protection policy, code of conduct add to city's ethics ordinance
The City Council’s adoption of a whistleblower protection policy and code of conduct for elected and appointed officials merits accolades from reform-minded residents, especially the 22,415 who voted “yes” on the ethics ordinance in last November’s balloting.
The ordinance, approved by 85.1 percent of voters, the largest margin on any of the 14 measures ever submitted to the city’s voters, required council to adopt a conduct code and procedures to protect city employees who report “improper governmental action.”
The conduct code, listing eight key principles and specific conduct areas, two levels of informal sanctions and, with an “investigative process,” two levels of formal sanctions, was adopted by resolution on a 5-0 vote and took effect Jan. 4.
The whistleblower policy, outlining a procedure for city employees to report alleged improper actions and a five-step process to seek relief against retaliatory action, was adopted by ordinance on a 5-0 vote and is effective Feb. 17.
However, unlike the voter-approved ethics ordinance that can only be modified or discarded in a public vote, the current or future councils can change or drop either the conduct code or whistleblower policy or both on a majority vote.
An interesting aspect of the code of conduct, especially since council members so often have been sharply divided by political and personal differences during the city’s 43-year history, is a lengthy section dealing with “complaint handling procedures and sanctions.”
The least severe sanction is an “admonishment,” which reminds an official that a specific behavior violates local, state or federal law “or city policy” and could result in “sanction” or “censure” and can be imposed by a majority vote “prior to any findings of fact….”
The next level is a “sanction,” which requires that an accused official receive a notice of the allegation with the opportunity to provide a written response before council takes action. “Admonishment” and “sanction” are not considered punishment or discipline.
“Censure,” the most severe action council can take, is considered punitive and “serves as a penalty imposed for wrongdoing,” even though a “censure” involves “no fine or suspension of the rights of an official” if the accused is elected rather than appointed.
“Censure” can be imposed after a written complaint has been filed with the city manager, an investigation is conducted by an “appropriate” authority and findings are presented to council, with a written response by the accused. Council can impose “admonishment,” if after the investigation, a council majority decides a violation doesn’t deserve “censure.”
With all of the accusations leveled during this city’s super-heated election campaigns, the conduct policy might get a vigorous workout every two years. Just imagine the variety of sanction motions that might have been introduced during the fierce John Gullixson-Hank Wedaa warfare of the 1990s and, more recently, the John Anderson-Jan Horton quarrels.
More reform is needed, especially for transparency, but council members are unlikely to tackle further improvements. Increases in council compensation, for example, should be voted on separately, not bundled with routine items for one vote in a “consent calendar.”
The ordinance, approved by 85.1 percent of voters, the largest margin on any of the 14 measures ever submitted to the city’s voters, required council to adopt a conduct code and procedures to protect city employees who report “improper governmental action.”
The conduct code, listing eight key principles and specific conduct areas, two levels of informal sanctions and, with an “investigative process,” two levels of formal sanctions, was adopted by resolution on a 5-0 vote and took effect Jan. 4.
The whistleblower policy, outlining a procedure for city employees to report alleged improper actions and a five-step process to seek relief against retaliatory action, was adopted by ordinance on a 5-0 vote and is effective Feb. 17.
However, unlike the voter-approved ethics ordinance that can only be modified or discarded in a public vote, the current or future councils can change or drop either the conduct code or whistleblower policy or both on a majority vote.
An interesting aspect of the code of conduct, especially since council members so often have been sharply divided by political and personal differences during the city’s 43-year history, is a lengthy section dealing with “complaint handling procedures and sanctions.”
The least severe sanction is an “admonishment,” which reminds an official that a specific behavior violates local, state or federal law “or city policy” and could result in “sanction” or “censure” and can be imposed by a majority vote “prior to any findings of fact….”
The next level is a “sanction,” which requires that an accused official receive a notice of the allegation with the opportunity to provide a written response before council takes action. “Admonishment” and “sanction” are not considered punishment or discipline.
“Censure,” the most severe action council can take, is considered punitive and “serves as a penalty imposed for wrongdoing,” even though a “censure” involves “no fine or suspension of the rights of an official” if the accused is elected rather than appointed.
“Censure” can be imposed after a written complaint has been filed with the city manager, an investigation is conducted by an “appropriate” authority and findings are presented to council, with a written response by the accused. Council can impose “admonishment,” if after the investigation, a council majority decides a violation doesn’t deserve “censure.”
With all of the accusations leveled during this city’s super-heated election campaigns, the conduct policy might get a vigorous workout every two years. Just imagine the variety of sanction motions that might have been introduced during the fierce John Gullixson-Hank Wedaa warfare of the 1990s and, more recently, the John Anderson-Jan Horton quarrels.
More reform is needed, especially for transparency, but council members are unlikely to tackle further improvements. Increases in council compensation, for example, should be voted on separately, not bundled with routine items for one vote in a “consent calendar.”
posted by Jim Drummond at 12:00 PM
<< Home