BI Council discusses proposed updates to Ethics Board

Published 1:30 am Wednesday, October 29, 2025

The Bainbridge Island City Council discussed proposed changes to the city’s Ethics Board as part of their Oct. 21 study session.

Council discussed the window in which a complaint could be filed and concerns around frivolous complaints. Previously in May, council received a presentation about the board’s completed work in 2024, and outlined goals for 2025, including designing updates to ethics training and, in collaboration with city staff, ensuring individuals have received proper ethics program training.

Councilmember Kirsten Hytopoulos shared her support for bringing back further discussions about ethics complaints and limiting the time frame of when action may be taken.

“I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I just don’t think it’s reasonable to ask any of us, volunteer or elected, to be subject to our city ethics program after we’ve left and we’ve moved on with our lives,” she said.

Councilmember Clarence Moriwaki asked about the possibility of limiting the ethics policies to more closely align with state law and ethics best practices, and said he supports raising the ethical bar and balancing the need with frivolous complaints. Attorney Andrew Tsoming, with Ogen Murphy Wallace, the law firm the city contracts with for legal services, clarified the difference between city and state ethics standards.

“The state ethics code largely has to deal with financial interest contracts that establish essentially a basement for ethics for all local city councilmembers. As councilmember Hytopoulos had mentioned, the city’s ethics program kind of raises that bar. It’s a separate and distinct animal than it is from the state ethics,” he said.

Ethics Board chair Doña Keating clarified the role of the ethics board in investigating complaints.

“First of all, we don’t file complaints. The board does not file complaints. We don’t hunt people down. The filing of the complaints is a right given to citizens in almost every municipality…this is not the board writing this because we want you guys hunted down,” she said.

Keating said lowering the ethics standards for city advisory members or councilmembers alike may lead to additional public scrutiny.

“The contradiction is on the one hand, we say we don’t want to have complaints against advisory members or city council once they leave, but on the other hand, we want to talk about whether or not a complaint is valid based upon when that incident occurred versus when somebody was made aware of it, and theoretically speaking, someone might not become aware of something until two years later,” Keating said.

Councilmember Brenda Fantroy-Johnson shared her concerns about a two-year time frame and its impact on someone’s professional standing, and as a private citizen, an individual may not have the same legal resources available as their council counterparts.

“I know it’s not a matter of mistrust, I know there was some history with this a while back, and I kind of remember that, but I have to say, when I’m no longer on this council, I’m no longer on this council. I don’t want anybody hunting me down and then I have to defend myself because anybody can make a claim,” she said.

No formal action was taken at the meeting, and no time frame has yet been announced for when the council will revisit the topic, Shannon Hays, city communication manager, said.

“Next steps are back in the court of the Ethics Board to potentially make another recommendation moving forward,” she said.

The Ethics Board meets on the second Wednesday of each month.