In response to what he described as a growing misuse of the ethics complaint process, Assemblyman Scott Crass has introduced an ordinance that would significantly amend the Fairbanks North Star Borough’s ethics code.
The proposed changes, scheduled for the Assembly’s Thursday, June 26 meeting, would streamline complaint procedures, deter politically motivated filings, and clarify ethical expectations for public officials, particularly when the Assembly is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. Recent ethics trainings and case reviews have revealed ambiguities in the current code and highlighted the need to clarify violations and codify standards for impartiality, Crass’s ordinance says.
Crass was involved in an ethics hearing concerning a former Assembly member Savannah Fletcher. During that hearing, Crass declared a conflict of interest due to a $136 donation to Fletcher’s state Senate campaign and because his wife and Fletcher served together on the HopeLink shelter board. He also stated he didn’t think he could fairly evaluate the concerns raised by complainant Rita Trommeter, leading to his recusal from the hearing.
His ordinance notes a rise in what it characterizes as “de minimis or purely technical violations,” that are filed not for oversight but as political grandstanding. Crass’s proposal would give the Borough’s Board of Ethics explicit authority to summarily dismiss complaints that are frivolous, harmless, self-reported, or duplicative.
One of the most consequential additions is the creation of a new initial screening process for ethics complaints. Under the ordinance, the Borough Clerk would be given the power to conduct an initial review to determine whether the complaint meets the legal standards and falls within the board’s jurisdiction.
The Board of Ethics would then have 30 days to conduct its own screening, during which it may dismiss complaints that:
- Present an existing adequate remedy,
- Involve only minor or technical violations with no harm,
- Were self-disclosed within 30 days,
- Appear to be filed in bad faith, or
- Are substantially similar to previously reviewed complaints.
Dismissals by the Ethics Board would be final and unappealable, though new complaints could be filed if new evidence emerges or circumstances materially change.
Complainants whose filings are rejected by the Clerk would have a 10-day window to amend and refile their complaints.
A new section — FNSBC 6.08.040 — would codify ethical conduct specifically for when the Assembly functions as a quasi-judicial body, such as during Board of Adjustment hearings. The ordinance mandates that members:
- Make decisions based only on law and the record,
- Act without personal or financial bias,
- Disclose any relevant prior involvement,
- Reveal disqualifying circumstances, and
- Flag any potential conflicts of interest that could impair impartiality.
Amendments to existing code seek to tighten regulations on how Assembly members represent the body’s position in public. Members would be barred from misrepresenting themselves as official spokespeople unless specifically authorized, and they must clearly distinguish between personal views and the Assembly’s official stance.
An explicit prohibition on retaliation against ethics complainants or witnesses is also added, defining retaliation to include actions such as harassment, demotion, or denial of benefits.
The proposed ordinance also establishes a new section outlining how penalties will be determined. The Assembly would hold a public hearing to consider the Ethics Board’s findings, hear testimony from both the complainant and respondent, and then determine whether penalties are warranted under existing provisions.
Both parties would be allowed to submit evidence, speak publicly, and respond to each other before the Assembly makes its final decision.
The ordinance reflects a growing concern among local officials about the abuse of the integrity and efficiency of the ethics oversight system.