Our city attorney has rejected two ethics complaints related to the serial council meetings that appear to have been held in violation of state law.
Our city ethics ordinance requires the city attorney to take one of four actions within twenty days after a complaint is filed:
- Refer the matter to the ethics review commission if the complaint meets the necessary requirements.
- In the event of deficiencies the city attorney “may” notify the complainant and request correction.
- Dismiss the complaint if the matter would not violate the ethics ordinance.
- “Refer complaints that cannot be readily assigned to the ethics review commission because of deficiencies, complaints that lack specificity in identifying the alleged violations of this chapter, and complaints that appear to have been frivolously filed to a panel of the commission.”
According to a recent Times article the city attorney wrote two letters that say the complainant “failed to identify a specific section of the ethics ordinance you believe has been violated.”
See number four above.
She also did not act within twenty days as the ordinance requires.
New complaints can be submitted that would make the city attorney’s action moot.
Here the city attorney could have chosen to do the right thing and follow the actions required in number four above. Instead she has chosen to setup a road block. She does after all work for council.
It would appear that she chose to try to protect her bosses instead of obeying the law.
We deserve better