The mayor may be removed from office for breach of the public trust following the procedures set forth in this section:
A.
Willful and knowing breach of duty or culpable indifference to official duties may constitute a breach of the public trust. For the purposes of this section actions constituting a breach of the public trust shall include, but are not limited to:
1.
Acceptance of cash gifts from one doing business with the municipality;
3.
Perjury;
4.
Falsification of records;
5.
Filing false reports;
6.
Nepotism;
7.
Making personal use of municipal or school district property;
8.
Destruction of municipal or school district property;
9.
Actual or attempted official misconduct, as defined by state law;
10.
Ordering, or knowingly allowing a person appointed by the mayor to order, a municipal employee to undertake an unlawful act;
11.
Substantial breach of a statutory-, Code-or Charter-imposed duty;
12.
Failure to faithfully execute the directives of a duly enacted ordinance.
B.
Proceedings for removal from office may only be initiated by delivery of an accusation document to the municipal clerk setting forth the grounds for removal and specifying if delivery is to the assembly or the board of ethics. An accusation document may be submitted to the municipal clerk only by a majority vote of the assembly or decision of the municipal board of ethics and must allege specific actions by the mayor that breach the public trust.
C.
After a successful vote to submit it, the municipal clerk shall cause a copy of the accusation document to be delivered by personal service to the mayor and a copy delivered to the municipal attorney.
D.
The municipal attorney, or an impartial third-party attorney retained by the Assembly to serve as special counsel, shall review the accusation document for legal sufficiency. An accusation approved by the assembly shall specify whether the accusation shall be reviewed for legal sufficiency by the municipal attorney or special counsel. The municipal attorney, or the retained special counsel, shall determine the legal sufficiency of the allegations within ten days of receipt of the accusation document. If the municipal attorney, or special counsel, determines that the allegations are legally insufficient, the removal action shall be discontinued. The municipal attorney's or special counsel's determination, if it rejects the accusation document, may be appealed to the superior court within 30 days. No interlocutory appeal is permitted from a determination by the municipal attorney or special counsel that the accusation document is legally sufficient. Following a determination by the municipal attorney or special counsel that the accusation document is legally sufficient, the municipality shall employ an attorney of the mayor's choice, subject to the limitations of this subsection, to defend the charges. The attorney selected must be engaged in the active practice of law in the state. The fees charged by the attorney must be reasonable in both the rate and the amount of time expended. Reasonableness shall be evaluated in accordance with Alaska Bar Rule 35 and shall be subject to fee arbitration under the Alaska Bar Rules if the municipality disputes the reasonableness of the fees claimed.
E.
Within two weeks following the service of an accusation document, the municipal clerk shall request that six names be submitted as potential hearing officers by the American Arbitration Association unless otherwise mutually agreed to by the assembly and the mayor. Three of the names submitted should be from the state and three from out-of-state. From these names the assembly and the mayor shall agree upon a hearing officer who shall conduct the hearing concerning the allegations in the accusation document. If no agreement is reached within ten days of distribution of the list of potential hearing officers, the hearing officer shall be selected by each side exercising preemptory challenges to the six potential names in turn until only one remains.
F.
A hearing conducted by the appointed hearing officer shall be held no later than 30 days following appointment of the hearing officer. The hearing shall be open to the public and, unless otherwise provided in this section, shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in chapter 3.60, however the hearing officer shall expedite the matter within the required times set forth in this section and chapter 3.60 and shall grant extensions only for good cause. Good cause must be based upon matters either beyond the control of the party making application or conditions which would create a significant hardship if a continuance is not granted. Within ten days following the conclusion of the public hearing the hearing officer shall submit written findings and recommendations to the assembly. The recommendations shall include whether the mayor should be removed.
G.
The standard of proof of the allegations in the accusation document to be applied by the hearing officer is clear and convincing evidence. The hearing officer shall evaluate the evidence relating to the accusations set forth in the accusation document and evaluate both whether the allegations are supported and whether those actions alleged constitute a breach of the public trust as set forth in subsection A of this section. Wrongful acts or admissions occurring while the mayor was acting in a private capacity as opposed to in a capacity as a public officer shall not constitute a breach of the public trust.
H.
Within ten days of receiving the hearing officer's recommendations, the assembly shall vote on whether to remove the mayor. Removal shall occur only on the concurrence of two-thirds of the fully constituted body.
I.
The decision of the assembly acting upon the recommendations of the hearing officer may be appealed to the superior court within 30 days of the assembly's decision. If the assembly's decision is for removal, the office shall be considered vacant beginning at 12:01 a.m. seven days following the decision unless the appellate court issues a stay of the removal pending appeal. In evaluating whether to grant a stay of removal pending appeal, the fact that another individual may be seated as acting mayor shall not constitute irreparable harm. During a stay, unless otherwise ordered by the court the seat is considered vacant and shall be filled in accordance with Charter 7.02(c) pending the outcome of the court case. If, after exhaustion of appeals, the final ruling reverses the removal, the removed mayor shall be reseated for the remainder of the term for which the mayor was elected, and the acting mayor shall return to the person's prior position.
J.
The assembly shall submit specific written findings for the record showing good cause in the event that the assembly intends to reject the hearing officer's recommendation.
(AO No. 2022-60(S), § 3, 7-12-2022)