The City Council unanimously approved changes Tuesday to the city's ethics code that require the Board of Ethics to give equal weight to evidence from both complainants and accused officials during pre-hearing conferences—a reform prompted by four council members' recent experience with complaints.
The most significant change states that "all evidence submitted by the complainant and public official shall be taken in its totality with equal weight given to both parties." Previously, board members had to assume complainants' allegations were true when determining whether to advance cases to formal hearings.
Conder criticized the current standard. "In the rules and procedures for the Board of Ethics, they must take the evidence from the applicant as being factual," he said. "And that's just not right."
The change addresses council members' complaints that the board scheduled hearings based solely on accusers' statements while dismissing contrary evidence.
The Governmental Processes Committee advanced the reforms in November after cannabis businesses withdrew ethics complaints against Chuck Conder, Steven Robillard, Jim Perry and Sean Mill. Attorney Dana Cisneros acknowledged city-provided photographs showed a staffer—not Perry—attended the chamber event that formed the basis of the allegations.
The Board of Ethics had scheduled formal hearings despite Perry's sworn statement that he wasn't present and multiple colleagues confirming his absence. Mill described spending four to five hours waiting for his pre-hearing and approximately 10 to 12 hours preparing his defense. "It was a kangaroo court," Mill said. "It was people that were angry that they didn't get their way and they were using the ethics process to waste the council's time dealing with silliness."
Perry said his sworn statement that he wasn't present was "basically given no consideration, no weight," but the attorney's mistaken identification "was taken and given full weight."
The changes add whistleblower protections: "complainants are covered by whistleblower policies and the City will not retaliate nor tolerate retaliation against those who, in good faith, report suspected fraud, waste, or abuse." The revisions also clarify that vendors and contractors can file complaints and correct a clerical error in complaint procedures.
"We have to just give our Board of Ethics members the ability to weigh things equally," Councilmember Steven Robillard said. "This was a gross misuse of the Board of Ethics. Giving them the ability to kind of make that judgment for themselves in the process would I think expedite things, make the Board of Ethics more authentic and honest."
The discussion renewed debate about whether ethics oversight should remain with the volunteer Board of Ethics or eventually shift to the Office of Inspector General, which the city established last month.
Mill, who raised the idea in November, reiterated Tuesday that the city should dissolve the Board of Ethics once the Inspector General begins operations. "I think its office is uniquely set up to take over this function," he said.
The Inspector General position, approved by voters through Measure L in November 2024, will have authority to investigate both elected officials and city staff, unlike the Board of Ethics which can only review complaints against elected and appointed officials.
The council deferred action on proposed restrictions on digital communications by public officials, sending the provisions back to committees after Senior Deputy City Attorney Ruthann Salera raised First Amendment concerns.
Dr. Danielle Kilchenstein, a newly appointed Board of Ethics member, spoke as a private citizen to oppose the evidence requirements the board had recommended. She urged the council to reconsider both the one-year statute of limitations—which she said should be extended to at least two years to allow complainants time to obtain records—and the equal-weight mandate.
"The proposed requirement that all evidence submitted by both parties be considered in its totality with equal weight creates unnecessary ambiguity," Kilchenstein said. "Not all evidence is equally credible, relevant or material."
She argued the changes risk making the complaint process "more burdensome, complex, and ultimately less accessible" to community members, suggesting increased training for board members would be more effective than tightening procedural requirements.
Resident and attorney Malissa McKeith called the current ethics process "cumbersome and expensive" and said it needs to be professionalized. She raised concerns about vendors misusing the process "for their own particular business reasons," noting "that was never the intention."
McKeith urged the council to consider eventually transferring ethics oversight to the Inspector General's office, explaining that the ethics code currently doesn't apply to city staff—one of the original reasons for creating the Inspector General position. "I've listened to some of these proceedings, and you know, it kind of makes me cringe," McKeith said. "You've got a lot of people who are just lay people trying to do their best, but they're dealing with evidentiary issues and complicated findings, and I think that's unfair to them."
Pete Benavidez, who chaired the Charter Review Committee that recommended creating the Inspector General position, also urged the council to place the Board of Ethics under Inspector General jurisdiction.
The council voted unanimously to approve the revisions. The City Attorney's office will draft an ordinance for formal adoption.
