Council Democrats are questioning if the reforms in the new ethics ordinance are going in the right direction. The utility of even having the ordinance on the agenda is up in the air in many of their minds. If there’s nothing currently broken with the system in place then there is no reason for introducing the bill.

“We already have an ethics ordinance in place,” says Councilman Dan Johnson, D-21, “Why don’t we just vote this down?”

Councilman David Tandy, D-4, who co-sponsored the ordinance with Ken Fleming, D-7, says the suggestions made by colleagues were helpful, however, he appears to stand by the ordinance, attempting to calm his colleagues down and explain each point.

Council President Jim King, D-10, says his concerns have not been fully addressed. He highlights the sections that forbid Metro officers from endorsing nonprofit agencies, commercial products and services. King says the language is much too broad.

The latest version of the ethics ordinance that Democrats are reading is still not the final draft, according to Tandy. The final revisions are being typed up currently.

Councilwoman Madonna Flood, D-21, says after having conversations with both Tandy and Fleming, she’s received two different interpretations of the ordinance.

“I just think it’s very unforunate that council Republicans are portraying this as not wanting transparency in government,” she says. “If the two co-sponsors disagree, what do we expect the ethics comission to interpret? It’s not about trying to kill a bill.”