Respect or overreach? Council debates code of conduct

A new code of conduct ordinance was brought forward by Mayor Waylon Clayton Tuesday at the city council meeting. Council members expressed concerns as none of this had been discussed with them prior to the meeting.

Code of conduct and meeting procedures had been brought up by Clayton as an issue with the council last May, resulting in a work session to review Robert’s Rules of Order.

Under Resolution 138-13, council meetings follow the 10th edition of “Robert’s Rules of Order.” This book provides instructions for meeting procedures and rules. Basic rules and principles include: majority rule; ability for each member to provide input; personal remarks or side discussions during debate are out of order; the chair should always remain impartial and no person should speak until recognized by the chair.

At Tuesday’s meeting, there were greater concerns brought up.

“Over the past year, I’ve witnessed and been a part of and made aware of multiple concerns of email correspondence between board members that raise serious questions about potential open meeting violations, board commission meetings with name calling, shouting, profanity, repeated disregard for Robert’s Rule of Order,” Clayton said. “Community complaints, some valid, others are not, about rude, dismissive treatment by city representatives, including elected officials, appointed members and staff.”

In response, Clayton put forward an ordinance establishing “enforceable standards of conduct for elected officials, appointed board and commission members, city staff and volunteers acting in an official city capacity.”

Some of the standards listed in the ordinance include following Robert’s Rules of Order for all meetings, avoiding use of public office for personal or political gain, not displaying unauthorized flags in city spaces and avoiding symbolic signaling. The mayor and city administrator would be jointly responsible for enforcing these rules, ranging from immediate action such as suspension, censure or removal of appointed officials to bringing complaints to appropriate state boards. While all enforcement would be subject to council approval, the council’s stance would have to wait until the next meeting.

Clayton said that while the ordinance itself was new, all the rules could already be found in various Iowa and city codes.

Council member Jocelyn Blazek said while she agreed the council needed a set of rules, this ordinance wasn’t the way to go about it.

“I don’t believe that this rises to a level where we need to adopt a law or decree that forbids or restricts something. That’s the definition of an ordinance. That is above and beyond what we need to do to address these concerns,” Blazek said.

With most of the information already found in various codes, Blazek also said the ordinance felt redundant. However, her biggest issue was with the section regarding enforcement and oversight.

“I feel like this section reads as some modicum of a grab for authority outside that which has already been granted. It has been disguised as some altruistic act of transparency and accountability when it has been established that we can accomplish the same goals in policy making rather than ordinances,” Blazek said. “Ultimately, at the end of the day, we’re all adults. If we as adults can not figure out how to work together in a respectful and responsible manner and resolve conflict without getting our feelings hurt, then maybe this isn’t a role we should be in.”

In response to policy over ordinance, Clayton said he was not married to the draft he put forward.

“Let me clarify something, this wasn’t a final draft; it’s a draft. It was meant to spark conversation,” Clayton said. “I have no intention that everything on this is going to stay there or that’s the way it’s going to be. It’s still going to be in our policy book and still going to be in our code books.”

Clayton said “community member after community member” had come to him with city issues, resulting in this proposal. However, council member Kiki Scarberry asked why council members hadn’t been notified about these complaints until now.

“I‘m offended that we’re acting like there are these egregious things happening, yet this council knows nothing about those things,” Scarberry said. “We’re jumping ahead to saying that people can be removed from meetings by certain individuals, but that’s never been brought to council before now? That’s an issue. That’s not transparent.”

The council eventually agreed to have a work session to amend an older code of conduct policy already in the city books.

In other council news...

A new development team has expressed interest in the redevelopment of Agnew Lofts at 110-112 N. Maple St. Though a name for the group was not given, Dustin Rand of Prole shared details with the council.

“I’m fully aware this is not the first time someone has brought a deal to present here. I’m aware that the last time a deal was brought through, the communication was lacking,” Rand said. “My partners and I are also bringing significant capital to this project, $300,000 between us. We’re also planning to fully guarantee the loan going forward on this. I guess the point we’re trying to make here is, you’re going to see from us, you’re going to hear from us.”

Rand said the group is looking to work with the city to find more funding and is open to continued discussion in the future.