Formal, lengthy process could be used to oust Watertown Councilman Olney

Dec. 11—WATERTOWN — The process to remove City Councilman Cliff G. Olney III from office would take about a month or more and cost thousands of dollars, City Attorney Kristen E. Smith said Monday night.

That was some of what council members learned during Monday night's work session about an ethics complaint brought against Olney by Mayor Jeffrey M. Smith.

The next City Council could take up the matter in a formal administrative hearing, which would include testimony and evidence presented by both the city and Olney.

It would be similar to a trial but it would not require reasonable doubt like in a criminal case, the attorney said. The city would most likely retain an independent, outside attorney to prosecute its case and the city would have to allow "due process" for Olney to defend himself, she said.

In his complaint, the mayor accused Olney of breaking council rules by making executive session material public.

After the mayor filed the complaint against Olney, the city's ethics board returned in September with a recommendation that Olney be removed from office.

Councilman Patrick J. Hickey argued that the ethics board went too far and should not have made a recommendation to remove Olney from office.

"It shows that they were biased," Hickey said.

The new council, with Councilmen-elect Benjamin P. Shoen and Robert O. Kimball taking office on Jan. 1, would decide whether Olney is culpable of the allegations.

Council also would decide Olney's punishment — whether to remove, censure or acquit him. Council also could ignore the ethics board recommendation altogether and do nothing.

Mayor Smith contended that the next council should not just ignore the ethics board's recommendation, saying its findings were based on facts and evidence.

He said the ethics board inquiry "was not willy-nilly."

Councilwoman and Mayor-elect Sarah V. Compo Pierce asked whether council could proceed with a less formal process that could include meeting with Olney and asking him questions to allow him to defend himself.

"I like your idea," Olney said.

If council takes up the matter, the administrative hearing must be the method used.

Councilwoman Lisa A. Ruggiero said she feared that moving forward with the matter "was a slippery slope," arguing future councils could use it to remove a council member for nonserious allegations.

They should only consider removing a council member for felony or misdemeanor allegations, she said.

Answering Ruggiero's question about its cost and how long it would take, attorney Smith guessed that the city could spend $5,000 on it and surmised it would take weeks to prepare for witnesses and evidence.

Last week, Olney sent emails to the city attorney, council members and City Manager Kenneth A. Mix requesting that the city pay to hire an attorney to represent him.

Earlier on Monday, the city attorney released her opinion that Olney is not entitled to an attorney and not entitled for reimbursement, according to city code, the state comptroller and state Public Officers Law.

Olney would most likely have to recuse himself from the matter and would not vote, the city attorney said.

No votes were taken on Monday night. Mayor Smith stressed that the subject of the work session was to discuss the process of ethics board referrals.