The city’s Council Culture and Society Committee met to review suggested changes to the city’s code of ethics on Feb. 12, which, if adopted by the council following an open public meeting, would alter how the city proceeds with ethics complaints against the city. 

Changes, discussed by committee members Deputy Mayor Amy Howard, city council members Ben Thomas and Owen Rowe, and the city’s attorney, included proposed revisions from the city attorney, who used feedback from the city’s hearing examiner on the current code, Howard wrote in an email. 

“The proposed revisions aim to strengthen the code, ensure it aligns with state law, clarify the complaint process, introduce penalties, and better define the roles of the hearing officer and the council,” Howard wrote in an email to The Leader. “This is the second time the code has been reviewed during my tenure on the council; it is not uncommon for cities to revise the code based on insights gained during its implementation.” 

The ethics code revision will follow the standard process of an open public meeting, including public comment, open deliberation, and a council vote. While the agenda for the March 17 city council meeting has not yet been finalized, Howard wrote that the council will likely host an open public meeting on the changes that night. 

“While we would prefer to make adjustments when no active complaints are pending, the revision process was already underway, and none of the individuals with active complaints will be involved in the revision process,” Howard wrote.

Rev. Crystal Cox, a frequent city critic, filed an ethics complaint again City Manager John Mauro on March 2.  Last fall she filed a six count ethics complaint against Mayor David Faber. Two met sufficiency standards to move forward but were ultimately dismissed in summary judgement by the hearing examiner.

In an email to The Leader, Mayor David Faber wrote, “Because I have had another ethics complaint filed against me by Crystal Cox, I will not be participating in discussion or adoption of any potential changes to the ethics code.” 

Councilmember Libby Wennstrom, who had a lengthy ethics complaint filed against her by Cox last year that was reduced to a single allegation before being withdrawn by Cox, said she did not anticipating stepping away from a potential vote. “Unless there’s something new over the weekend that I’m unaware of, I do not have any currently pending ethics complaints against me,” wrote Wennstrom,” I don’t see any current reason why it would be a potential conflict for me to weigh in on discussion of possible Ethics Code updates at this time.”  

If approved, the new code would shorten the statute of limitations from three years to one, eliminate the hearing examiner’s ability to independently investigate claims and add stricter complaint requirements so complainants must live, work or own property within the Port Townsend city limits. Complainants would also have to file the complaint under oath and provide detailed evidence of the alleged violation, including the date, time and place of each violation. 

Further, the new code requires that all complaints be filed with the city clerk, who will then send a copy to the subject of the complaint. The city clerk or a separate designee will be tasked with receiving all ethical complaints to determine the completeness of the complaint. The new code also gives the city clerk or their designees the authority to reject complaints if they find it incomplete. 

The standing code establishes that for complaints relating to city employees, officials and members of advisory boards, the supervisor or appropriate individual deemed by the city manager will investigate the complaint and report their findings to the city manager. The new code would allow the city manager to determine if a complaint against employees, officials, and advisory board members should or should not move forward to the hearing examiner. 

The city council’s code was last changed in 2017. At the time, the council formed a temporary code of ethics committee to collect more public input on changes to the code, after city council meeting attendees said the process seemed rushed and lacked public input.

Code changes then included extending the statute of limitations from one year to three and gave hearing examiners independent investigative authority — something the current council may vote to reverse. 

Olbrechts said he hasn’t seen the current proposed changes.

“The city council and city staff have not asked for my input, so there is no need for me to look at any proposed rules until they are adopted,” he wrote. “I will consider the rules when they’re adopted and pertinent to the ethics complaints currently under review. Especially in the case of ethics complaints, one of the most important functions I have to offer hearing participants is objectivity. In this regard, I don’t share opinions about the process or ethics complaints beyond the comments I make in the course of an ethics proceeding or in response to the city council and/or staff requests for input on code or rule amendments.” 

The agenda for the March 17 meeting should be finalized by March 13 but will not be “set in stone,” Howard wrote.