by Joe Wilhelm Jr.
Staff Writer
The effort to return the City’s Ethics Code back to its charter will continue today as City Council member Glorious Johnson meets with Council President Jack Webb at 2 p.m. to discuss the ethics ordinance she is sponsoring.
The ordinance had received approval from both the City Council Rules and Charter Revision Commission Recommendations Special Committee, and is scheduled to be voted on at today’s regular meeting of the City Council, which begins at 5 p.m.
But Webb and finance committee chair Warren Jones have expressed interest in re-referring the measure back to both finance and rules committees for different issues.
“We just want to make sure we do this thing right,” said Jones, during an interview Thursday.
In asking to return the ethics code to the charter, the ordinance establishes an independent citywide ethics oversight and compliance office, jurisdiction of the office, duties of the office, a mechanism to obtain documents and testimony and the ability to levy civil fines or penalties authorized by the City Council for violations of the code.
Jones questioned the funding source of an independent ethics office and its ability to levy fines and penalties, and Webb wanted to discuss the “mechanism” for obtaining documents and testimony.
“The Ethics Officer is already funded by the Office of General Counsel, so what we need to do is separate that into a stand-alone account, instead of co-mingling the funding with another department,” said Council member John Crescimbeni, who has been working with Johnson to develop the ethics ordinance.
Returning the ethics code to the charter was recommended by the Charter Revision Commission in its report filed in February, but the amended ordinance goes beyond what was suggested in the report, said Webb.
The Commission is tasked with reviewing the operation of city government every 10 years and providing recommendations on how to improve operations to the City Council.
Webb wants to defer the ordinance to the rules committee to take a look at the differences between what the Charter Revision Commission recommended at what is being proposed in the ordinance.
356-2466