I’ve attended many Town Council meetings and I don’t recall a time when a councilmember’s ethics complaints were detailed in an agenda attachment for a regular agenda item, even descriptions and outcomes of the frivolous complaints, of which several were listed in the March 5 Town Council agenda attachment.

As a recent example, former Councilmember Alan Magazine from Mayor Dickey’s last term had three serious ethic violations, one pertaining to election interference, and which involved Councilmember McMahon. Where was the public discussion and dissection concerning these serious violations on a regular Town Council agenda?

Councilmember Friedel pointed out during the March 5 meeting that the Rules of Procedure call for the Town Attorney to handle the discussion and outcome of ethics complaints in an executive session. Specifically, the Rules of Procedure state: “Once the review/investigation is concluded, outside counsel will provide the town attorney with a determination whether the complaint is sustained or not sustained. If the complaint is sustained, the town attorney will schedule an executive session for review and enforcement by the town council.”

What the Mayor and some on the council tried to orchestrate during the March 5 council meeting concerning Councilmember Skillicorn’s ethics complaints was outrageous and has the potential to expose the town to yet another lawsuit and, indeed, more chaos. In fact, Councilmembers Gryzbowski and Kalivianakis, along with Mayor Dickey, pushed for this to be on the regular agenda, as evidenced in the agenda attachment. Shame on all three of them. When can we expect ethics complaints filed against them to be on an upcoming agenda for public discussion?

I am not defending Councilmember Skillicorn’s actions. He has already explained his actions in his comments to The Times. However, this attempted abuse and weaponization of the ethics complaint process was completely out of line.

Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at AzOpinions@iniusa.org.