by Joe Wilhelm Jr.
Staff Writer
The rights of the accused and the accuser were the issues taking up most of the debate Wednesday as City Council members discussed the development of new ethics legislation for the City of Jacksonville.
After voting the City’s ethics code back into the City Charter in the fall, the City Council has begun to work out the details of its ethics code and that was the job of the City Council Rules Committee’s Ethics Bills Subcommittee Wednesday.
The meeting focused on proposed legislation that would update Section 9 of Ordinance Code Chapter 602.
The changes would include how the ethics commission members are selected, terms of commission members and how investigations would be conducted.
Subcommittee Vice Chair Richard Clark proposed amendments to the ordinance to include a requirement for the commission to obtain judicial approval for any subpoena it felt necessary for an investigation; that any investigation by the commission begin with a sworn, written complaint; that the commission be chosen by the mayor (two members), chief circuit judge (two members), sheriff (one member), City Council president (one member). The ethics commission would select the remaining three members and all “shade” meetings would be electronically recorded to serve as the record of the meetings.
“I understand that we have to protect the accusers, but we also have to be fair to the accused,” said Clark. “The accused should have the right to face their accuser.”
City Ethics Officer Carla Miller said she feared that if the hotline callers were required to sign a sworn complaint that the commission would receive few calls.
“You are not going to get whistleblower complaints if you have a sworn, written complaint,” said Miller. “Those people aren’t going to use the hotline if they fear for their jobs.”
Presently, people can call the ethics hotline to report a violation of the City’s Ethics Code and their identity remains anonymous during the investigation.
The hotline process involves someone calling in a complaint, which is then investigated to determine if there is any basis to the complaint. If there is no basis, the commission can decide not to pursue the case. If there is evidence to support the complaint, the investigation is forwarded to the proper office, possibly the City’s inspector general or the State Attorney.
Clark has been the subject of two Ethics Commission investigations in the last two years.
One complaint involved his use of an emergency amendment to begin a batting cage project at a park in his district because a construction company was already working near the site of the project. Clark said at the time he felt the proximity could expedite construction of the batting cage.
The second involved Clark leaving a council meeting early to have dinner with persons who were involved with an issue voted on at the meeting.
Both investigations determined no ethics violations had occurred.
“(The batting cage complaint) was never an issue. They should never have looked at it,” said Clark. “Their job is not to look at what the City Council votes up or down. Their role is to investigate violations of the ethics code.”
The subcommittee voted to refer two of the proposed ordinances to the Council’s Rules Committee for consideration and another ordinance, created to update the language of the ethics code for “transparency and organizational purposes,” was not discussed at the meeting.
The subcommittee will convene at least one more time to consider another ordinance which would establish an Office of Ethics, Compliance and Oversight.
The meeting was attended by Chair Art Shad, Vice Chair Clark, and committee members Bill Bishop, John Crescimbeni, Stephen Joost and Clay Yarborough. Committee member Denise Lee was excused.
356-2466