After nearly a year in committee, Springfield City Council settled on a ballot measure establishing a code of ethics for council members, appointed officials and city staff.
The City Council’s Committee of the Whole voted to recommend that council members formally put the issue before voters in the April 2 election. The City Council is set to vote on it, in addition to another ballot measure that proposes lengthening the mayor’s term from two years to four, at its Jan. 8 meeting.
If passed, both measures would revise the Springfield City Charter, which essentially acts as the city’s constitution.
While some concerns were raised by council members on matching the mayor’s length of term with their own, the ballot issue was recommended for a formal vote of the City Council 8-0 on Dec. 4.
However, consensus on a conflict of interest policy remained elusive, until Wednesday, Jan. 3.
Revisions made to proposed ballot measure
The proposed changes to Section 19.16 of the city charter are meant to provide more guidance on how to discipline a conflict of interest, distinguishing between a violation of the policy by council members and city staff.
Currently, a breach of the charter section, which bars any financial interest — no matter the amount or circumstances — would result in a forfeiture of employment or office and nullifies the contract or transaction.
An amendment to the policy proposed to council members on Dec. 4 would have more closely aligned with state statutes, and taken into consideration the circumstances of the conflict and allow a limited amount of financial interest. The City Council asked for more clarity on the charter change in an effort to add protections for staff while continuing to hold themselves and other appointed officeholders to a higher standard.
The revised ballot measure presented Jan. 3 took the City Council’s input into consideration, and ultimately scaled down the impact a charter change would have, keeping it more restrictive than what is allowed under state law.
The amendment would continue to bar any financial interest, direct or indirect, while providing a defense for city staff. Council members, officers and board members still face forfeiture of offices, whereas employees are subject to “traditional disciplinary review.”
“We thought it was important for anyone who would be reviewing this to vote to know that there is not, in essence, a get-out-of-trouble-free situation, and you're still subject to the full breadth of disciplinary process,” City Manager Jason Gage said.
City government staff also added language, at Councilmember Abe McGull’s request, to allow formal advice of the city attorney prior to a policy violation as a legal defense from forfeiture of office or employment.
By addressing previous concerns raised by council members, McGull said the ballot measure was a “step in the right direction.”
While the ballot measure groups all city employees, Gage said a tiered disciplinary approach might be considered for people at different levels of employment.
“One of the things we want to make sure that happens is that all who are affected clearly understand what this is, what it means in the impact of the violation,” he said. “That's the most important thing because that's what helps you to prevent violations.”
Mayor Ken McClure was absent from the meeting and Councilmember Brandon Jenson, who joined the meeting virtually, abstained from a vote because he didn't receive the revised draft of the charter change, he said.
Preview of ballot language
The ballot language the City Council is set to vote on, and may subsequently appear on the April ballot, reads:
“Shall Section 19.16 of the Springfield City Charter be amended to require enactment of a code of ethics, to be reviewed by Council not less than every other year, revise provisions to address employee violations with disciplinary action up to and including termination, and add a legal defense to forfeiture of office or termination of employment if a prior, written advisory opinion from the city attorney was obtained and relied upon in good faith.”
Council members will consider it alongside the measure to extend the mayor’s term, which was recommended by the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 4:
“Shall Sections 2.1(1) and 2.6 of the Springfield City Charter be amended to provide a four-year term for the mayor instead of a two-year term, with the four-term to first apply at the municipal election held in 2025? The maximum consecutive years a mayor may serve will remain limited to eight years.”
