Who's Overstepping in Providence and Why?

Here's a bit of reporting that has me puzzled... A piece on RIFuture.org titled "New Complaints Against Providence's Ethically Challenged Architect" states:

"Sources are telling Ethics RI that the Mayor's office is desperately lobbying members of the City Council to save the failing re-appointment of Providence's ethically challenged architect Stephen Durkee who is the subject of an active state Ethics Commission investigation.  Apparently the City Solicitor is going around telling Council members that the Olneyville Neighborhood Association's complaint against Durkee is without merit and that it's no big deal that he actively chaired multiple City Plan Commission hearings where his clients had a direct interest in the outcome.  Just watch the video evidence and ask yourself if Durkee followed the Ethics Commission's guidelines for recusal."

The piece then goes on to describe a number of activities that certainly sound like poor boundaries between Mr. Durkee's seemingly conflicting roles in several matters before the community. Although the appropriateness (or not) of his re-appointment is the focus of the reporting, I actually came away with two very different concerns.

1. At the moment, regardless of how questionable Mr. Durkee's behavior appears to be, it really doesn't matter what he is accused of having done as long as he is accused and not more; he remains innocent unless proven otherwise. Now, one might question his judgment and make that the basis for choosing not to re-appoint him. However, to not re-appoint solely on the basis of as-yet unsubstantiated accusations is inappropriate. Suspend him pending further investigation? That could be an option if it would solve more problems than it would create which, frankly, I don't think would likely be the case. Postpone the vote until the investigations are completed? Sounds like an entirely reasonable idea. I would assume that he could stay on in the interim under a modified agreement of some kind. Just don't make the decision to terminate or not re-appoint based on a 'guilty-until-proven-innocent' point of view. That smells terrible from an ethical standpoint.

2. If this piece's sources are correct that the mayor's office (via the City Solicitor) is lobbying for Mr. Durkee's re-appointment, how appropriate is that? It sounds like overreaching for a Mayor - or for the solicitor if s/he is doing this on their own - to be passing along this type of judgment on the acceptability of an official's or employee's behavior that is currently under investigation. There is a fine line - sometimes perhaps not so fine - between offering an opinion as to the appropriateness of someone else's behavior and asking others to ignore that person's alleged wrong-doing in deciding on their appropriateness for a municipal post or contract. This is especially true when coming from someone in a position of power or from a representative of such a person. The mayor's office is certainly in such a position of power.

Am I missing something(s) here in either my understanding of the situation or my concerns? Please let me know what you know about this situation as well as your thoughts.