Shorewood City Council is approving bylaws (Oct. 14 consent agenda) to impose a code of conduct that outlines “appropriate behaviors and interactions of council members with each other, staff, and residents.” We disagree with the premise of the bylaws and find this controlling document, in our opinion, to be inconsistent, open-ended and poorly planned.
There is an abundance of unnecessary “regulation” in this document. Open meeting law rules, conflict of interest and accepting gifts are already governed by state law. Shorewood does not need to reinvent the wheel. Council member DiGruttolo raised questions about inconsistencies in the entire document. “We go from super prescriptive to very vague.” Watch the very interesting conversation here (start 4:29:20).
Importantly, some form of “limit” shows up at least five times in reference to resident interaction. The ultimate limitation seems to be:
IV f. Ex Parte Communications and Due Process (start p. 3) Because the council may function in a quasi-judicial capacity, ex parte communications are prohibited to protect the city and the council member personally from a legal challenge. Ex parte as defined in the bylaws:
Ex Parte* means a private communication with a member of the public directed to the merits or outcome of an official city proceeding. To ensure due process, members will consider testimony and facts only at meetings open to the public to ensure council decisions are made consistent with the public interest and without improper influence. Procedural interactions with no bearing on the outcome of a proceeding are not considered ex parte communications. **
__________
*Ex Parte” refers to situations in which only one party appears before a judge.
**The city attorney explained briefly that this section is related to land use or zoning matters, although not clarified in the actual text.
__________
SCA’s perspective on this clause is:
- Council members vote on everything from bills paid, paving contracts, to ordinance matters: Are citizens restricted from talking with a member about any of these items?
- According to this provision, when a resident has a particular concern, that person may not discuss such a concern with a council person because it would result in a “violation” of the ex parte clause.
- Punishment for a councilmember found in violation of ex parte, or other bylaws, may range from another member simply noting a concern and requesting its correction to a formal investigation and sanction of a member by the full council. Note: There is no definition of or process for “investigation” or “sanction” included.
As written, the bylaws are antithetical to the idea that council members are elected by us to represent us. Residents are tantamount to investors in a company and the council is our elected board. Yet, the walls continue to go up pushing us further from the public process. Our time to publicly comment is strictly limited, with no guarantee of response. Individual dialogue with council members appears to be limited, SeeClickFix was cancelled because it was too much like social media, and a resident cannot have an item put on an agenda.
Council member Gorham balked at language in App. B #7, (start 4:50) restricting council members from having dialogue with residents at Matters from the Floor–other than a clarifying question.
“…I reserve the right to be in dialogue, this is a public forum…if I want to say something, I’m going to say something and…I don’t want to be told how to interact with residents.”
Council member Maddy stayed consistent with his opinion that residents who came “complaining” to the council were wasting the time of those who paid $400 for a variance and are waiting in the audience to be heard.
Council will generally not respond at the same meeting where a member of the public initially raises an issue. Members may ask clarifying questions of the speaker but should not engage in debate or dialogue.
The mayor shared that if too many details were discussed, without previous notice to the public, it was unfair. Meanwhile, there is no guarantees that a matter referred to staff for further research and possible report or action at a future council meeting, is shared with the public, especially if staff to follow ups with the speaker directly.
SCA disagrees with the premise of the bylaws and finds this document, in our opinion, to be inconsistent, vague where it should not be, overly controlling in others and poorly planned. Placing it on the consent agenda on Oct. 14 is an attempt to blow it through the public comment process and, per ex parte, we cannot talk about this with a council member.
More reading:
SeeClickFix: Saying Goodbye (SCA, Feb. 2025)
Defining Mayor’s Role: Words Matter (SCA, May 25, 2025)
For background, the bylaws emerged at a work session in Sept. 2024. By December, passage became so urgent that the then sitting council wanted to vote approval at the last meeting of the year (Chapter 8A)-despite the fact that two of them were at their final meeting before leaving the council (Callies and Zerby). Meanwhile, newly elected council members (DiGruttolo and Gorham) were in the audience asking the council to hold off until they were sworn in, initially meeting with resistance. Only after Zerby and Sanschagrin stood together supporting the new council members, did the bylaw movement screeched to a halt.
