SYRACUSE — Maintaining she is on solid legal ground, Councilwoman Karianne Lisonbee has refused to recuse herself from discussions about changes in the city’s animal ordinance.
In a work session Tuesday, the first-term councilwoman stuck by her guns in defending her attendance at a Feb. 21 planning commission meeting, at which she offered input on language in the city’s ordinance relating to potential abuse of animals.
Lisonbee also dismissed Mayor Jamie Nagle’s concern that her input raised ethical concerns of what was deemed to be inappropriate.
Lisonbee attended both the Feb. 7 and Feb. 21 planning commission meetings, when specifics of the city’s animal ordinance were discussed.
Nagle also stuck by her concerns during Tuesday’s work session. She said council members’ concerns about the language of the ordinance should be weighed during council meetings, not at planning commission meetings.
“I want to maintain the proper check and balance system. There was no intent to try and stop any of this,” Nagle said of the proposed ordinance changes.
City Attorney Will Carlson suggested the input may be ethically questionable but the illegality was less clear.
On Tuesday, Carlson said it is his conclusion at Lisonbee was not in violation of the Municipal Officers’ and Employees’ Ethics Act in offering input at the commission level.
Lisonbee consulted with an outside attorney Monday regarding on her role in the hearing process and said she was within her rights as a citizen to offer input because any potential appeal of the animal ordinance would fall within the city’s land-use ordinance, which would be appealed to the appellate court, not the city council.
During the work session, Lisonbee again raised some concerns about language in the proposed ordinance in regard to animal cruelty and guidelines for animal husbandry.
She said she would like to see some reference to Utah code in the city ordinance about animal husbandry.
“It’s not about residential or commercial, it’s about cruelty,” she said.
She said her concerns on the issue are based on the fact that if a city ordinance does not address a specific issue, then the county ordinance is used as reference if it does address a specific use.
She claims the county ordinance contains language that exposes citizens who engage in animal husbandry to potential risk for animal cruelty.
“It concerns me to leave a judgment of that nature up to an employee of a city or county without clarifying language to protect citizens. It is disgusting to contemplate killing an animal ‘for kicks and giggles,’ ” Lisonbee said.
“Certainly, animal cruelty is a concern. However, I am not sure that all of the farmers in Davis county are aware that harvesting animals on their farms is expressly unlawful.”
Animals are a personal issue to the councilwoman. She said she has chickens, a duck, rabbits and a cat on the acre parcel she and her husband own in the city.
A Davis County official said Lisonbee’s concerns regarding the definition of animal harvesting versus animal abuse already have been explained to city staff.
Davis County Animal Care and Control Director Clint Thacker said there is a difference between killing a chicken for kicks and killing a fowl for consumption.
He said intent is a key element in the county ordinance in regard to cruelty.
If someone is killing an animal in the most humane way possible in order to eat the animal, he said, it is not considered animal cruelty.
Comments