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.
So, once they get elected, they want to have carte blanch to do whatever they please, like the Anchorage Assembly does.
The fox guarding the hen house wanting to change the rules so the chickens don’t complain when they’re slaughtered. Hubris. Entitlement mentality? Perhaps a little of both. My guess is that Crass is used to changing the rules in the middle of the game (probably when no one is watching) to help him achieve the desired outcome. This proposed change should be soundly rejected and thrown back in his face.
Interesting that Crass didn’t mention his own decision to censure Barbara Haney when she wrote a letter to the editor about school safety issues. I guess Mr. Crass feels that ethics violations only matter if a conservative or minority member of the Assembly is involved. Savannah Fletcher got what she deserved….censureship….because she’s the Assembly member who engineered and abused the ethics process to punish conservative member Barbara Haney. Such a dishonest little attorney.
Savannah Fletcher is now a seated member of the Alaska Judicial Council. The AJC decides who is qualified to be a judge in Alaska. That is a very frightful proposition, knowing what we now know about the dishonest Savannah Fletcher.
This wasn’t by accident. We need to abolish the AJC.
Carol–the proposed changes most definitely included the Haney incident as well as the Fletcher incident. In both cases, the Assembly wasted hours and hours of time and energy to discuss very trivial complaints. Both complaints were found by the Ethics Board to be minor, technical complaints. But Borough code required that a penalty must be levied, even though the “violations” were not at all consequential. The proposed ordinance fixes that glitch, and makes the complaint process much more flexible in addition to preventing the kind of retaliation that occurred in both of the two cases.
I think it’s really unfair to cast these sorts of aspersions on Crass. Both Haney and Fletcher *did* commit ethics codes violations that were a nothing burger. Crass et. al. were obligated to review those complaints and pass judgement. They did so. Now, before this becomes a pattern, he’s trying to prevent future waste of time and unfruitful feuds. Kudos to him.
Look – we don’t want to become Anchorage up here. We mostly try to get along with each other. This ethics code has turned into a really dumb way to divide people. Less division is good. Simple enough.
I don’t know anyone in the Borough who wants to see this sort of tit-for-tat weaponization of the ethics code continue. Do you? Are you local?
Censoring will continue until everyone shuts up.
How ‘Crass’ of him! LOL! But, doesn’t this seem typical of the left lately: endless legalistic attempts to squash any objection to their agendas?
Yeah, Crass sure lives up to his name, doesn’t he?
😄
I guess if you have no idea what the word means, it’s funny, but it doesn’t make sense in this application.
Seems to fit Mr Crass perfectly. Look it up in the dictionary…..bozo.
Please explain to us what is crass about wanting to skip pointless ethics violations? Go on, don’t be shy, show us all your mastery of the word!
Finally someone with some brains.
Wasting all this time on Barbara N’ Friend’s bogus ethics complaints were a gigantic waste of time.
Sure, just like the complaints filed by Kristen Schupp, at the urging of Savannah Fletcher. The Marxist Democrats on the Assembly had to swallow their own medicine. Thank you, Barb N’ Friends. You got the FNSB taxpayer’s back.
Savannah Fletcher’s best friends, Kristen Schupp and her hubby, Bobby Burgess (the child massager and butthead) are a large part of Fletcher’s fall from grace. When friends of feather stick together they don’t fly far.
Bobby Burgess doesn’t massage children. You are once again confused in your accusations, “Naomi”
LOL. Correct, vaxxxxed. It’s Kristen that massages children. Bobby just raises his butthead for the camera. These two clowns are a scourge on Fairbanks.
Note to Crass: Any complaint I have against a political figure is by definition “politically motivated”. It sounds like you can’t stand the heat so get out of the kitchen! You obviously want unlimited authority over We the People.
Isn’t Barb Haney appealing her censure to the upper courts? Let’s wait and see how her appeal shakes out. Let’s wait and see what her legal arguments are going to be. This entire matter of ethics violations might be better resolved with the courts, rather than by a a bunch of partisans who use the ethics code to rat each other out.
Kristen Schupp is an angry old woman and looks the part when she shows up at Assembly meetings. Such hatred spewing from her testimony. I would not put my child in harms way by allowing Kristen Schupp to even be close to my child, let alone be touched or massaged by her.