City officials on Tuesday updated an ethics policy for public servants, encompassing elected officials, city employees, department heads, along with appointees to city boards.

Columbus City Council members updated the policy, which hasn’t received a refresh since 2013, via resolution by an 8-0 vote. Resolutions only need to be approved once to be finalized. Council member Chris Bartels, R-District 1, was absent.

The updated policy generally involved a few main changes: solidifying dates for when certain forms, namely conflict of interest forms, are to be turned in; slightly increasing the value amount of gifts public servants can receive; and requiring continued education of employees to keep them aware of requirements. The policy also has a mechanism where public servants can see an advisory opinion from supervisors if they are unsure whether they are treading into violation territory.

Those interested can read the policy beginning on Page 51 of the materials packet for Tuesday’s meeting.

Council President Frank Miller, R-District 4, said he had asked Alex Whitted, the city’s corporate council, and Jeff Rocker, city council attorney, to begin working to give the policy an update earlier in the year. It was ultimately devised in collaboration between the two attorneys, with input from Mayor Mary Ferdon and Arlette-Cooper Tinsely, the city’s human resources director. It went through about nine drafts before the final version was reached, Miller said.

Some of the changes are to modernize the policy to align with Columbus now being a second class city. It also updates old terminology, eliminate redundancies, tightens processes and “strengthens the resolve of the city council and other bodies to avoid conflicts of interest, whether real or perceived,” Rocker explained.

The previous ethics policy was more focused on elected officials, and the newest version is more inclusive, using the broader term of public servants, meaning anyone working for the city, including elected officials, appointees, department heads or employees.

While the resolution in of itself “doesn’t have any teeth,” Rocker said, “other than obviously if people are violating it willy-nilly that it could blow back on people politically,” Indiana Code is referenced throughout.

“From my perspective, for the people at this table, the enforcement mechanism is the ballot box,” Rocker said. “That is the tool we have here, on top of the Indiana Criminal Code.”

In places where Indiana Code is not referenced, that’s sometimes because what is outlined sets an even lower threshold for violations in an effort to foster a more integrity-infused environment, but also to protect public servants from even getting close to potential violations of Indiana Code.

Some parts of the resolution are more aspirational. For example, some portions of, “Sec. 120. Conduct” states that public servants “shall practice civility and decorum in discussion and debates” and should “act as cooperatively as possible and may be required, from time to time, to modify to some extent, their positions so that a decision can be reached.”

It’s also notable that individual city bodies or agencies could be governed by their own separate set of rules that are even more restrictive, Rocker said, adding that police and fire in particular have their own rules “that are beyond these systems.”

The new policy raises the value of individual gifts public servants can accept from less than $25 to less than $50. Public servants can’t accept gifts from the same person or employer if it reaches a cumulative value of over $250 in a year.

If a given public servant wonders whether something would be a potential violation, the policy defines “a pyramidic approach” that states where those questions should go, whether to the president of a given body, an attorney or supervisor.

The advisory opinion function states a public servant would be able to reach out to human resources, Whitted, Rocker, or a supervisor to see if something they are considering doing is a violation of the ethics resolution. As an example, someone could reach out to see if it would be a violation to enter a raffle at a workplace conference. If human resources, or whomever in a particular matter, were to determine that it is not a violation and issue an advisory opinion in “good faith” along those lines, that would protect that public servant, according to Cooper-Tinsley.

“Most employees want to follow the rules and they just need to know how,” she said.

“I will say, just from my seat, in two years, the people that I’m privileged to work with on the council, have aired on the side of being overly cautious, nine out of 10 times,” Rocker said.

The resolution is also referenced in the personnel handbook for city employees, and public servants are required to take part in continuing education on what is expected every two years.

Council Vice President Grace Kestler, D-at-large emphasized letter B under under Sec. 80. “Conflicts of interest: discussion, decisions and voting” which states that a public servant “shall not participate in discussion, deliberation, or vote on, any matter where their business, or their employer may reasonably be expected to bid, apply, or compete for a contract, incentive, or other benefit arising directly from the matter under consideration.”

Kestler encouraged the city to “consistently think about our appointments” and reference back to the policy to ensure people aren’t being appointed “that could theoretically bid on every project as they would need to abstain from, in theory, every vote.”

Council member Elaine Hilber, D-District 2, who was first elected to the council in 2015, agreed with Kestler, and mentioned to Rocker that: “I appreciate for the last two years while you’ve been here, that everyone on this council has been very respectful of this, (and) has not financially benefited from votes that we’ve made, but that has not always been the case.”

Kent Anderson, R-District 5, called the policy “well-written,” “easy to read,” and not “overly legalistic,” but pointed out that “it all boils down to spirit” ultimately.

“In a nation where respect for norms and the spirit of our nation is in an absolute tailspin, it’s kind of odd, one, to sit here and see a refreshing discussion like this,” Anderson said. “And two, a strong juxtaposition— I’m sad we can’t send this up north to people above us in government to maybe get the hint.”
© 2025 The Republic