Ethical considerations by a city official

All elected City Officials and appointed Commissioners take an oath of office and swear to uphold all City Ordinances and Country, State and Federal laws. There is no option in this oath that exempts a person from enforcing an existing law because they do not personally agree with it.

Officials have a responsibility to change or revoke ordinances that are no longer applicable or no longer reflect the opinion of the citizens. However, until such time that an ordinance is changed it must be enforced as written.

The City of Woodcreek recently experienced this very situation. A large parcel of land was purchased and the owner filed an application to subdivide the land into individual lots and build a single family home on each lot as allowed by the current zoning code. The neighbors would prefer larger lots with fewer homes and have expressed this at both City Council and P&Z Commission meetings. The owner submitted his plans to the City and they were reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure that all City Ordinances were satisfied. Once the engineer certified that the plans were compliant, the Council and Commission met to review, discuss and vote to approve or deny.

This voting process is when the responsibility of the oath of office comes into play. The owner has met the letter of the law that the Council Members and Commissioners were sworn to uphold, which would indicate voting for approval. A negative vote is a vote against an existing ordinance.

I would think most citizens expect their officials to uphold the ordinances as written. If a Council Member votes against an existing ordinance can we reasonably expect them to uphold any other ordinances?

Kathy Maldonado