After 'fact-finding,' then what?

Could this be one of those instances where the best advice might be: Don't just do something, stand there?

The Boston City Council seems intent on doing something about the federal bribery charges facing Councilor Chuck Turner, even though no one is really sure what that something might be, and several councilors say they can't imagine that the body will try to oust the Roxbury district councilor before a verdict has been reached.

City Council President Maureen Feeney announced the hiring earlier this month of an independent "fact finder" to look into the allegations against Turner, who has been charged with taking a $1,000 bribe in exchange for his help securing a liquor license for a Roxbury nightclub.

The city law department has concluded that removal from office is provided for in a single line in the city charter, which states that the City Council "shall be the judge of the election and qualifications of its members." To help the council render judgment on Turner's qualifications to continue serving, the law department has retained a retired federal judge, Charles Swartwood, who will be paid an eye-popping $500 an hour for his work.

Feeney's letter to Swartwood laying out his task emphasizes that the goal of the process "is not to determine guilt or innocence" but to decide whether there are sufficient facts to judge Turner unqualified to serve. But a judgment that Turner is not qualified to hold office seems to hinge almost entirely on whether he accepted a bribe in exchange for his help with a liquor license, a matter of guilt or innocence that will be the focus of his criminal trial.

"If he's found guilty by a jury of his peers, then sign me up, he's got to go," says Councilor John Tobin. "But I don't think anybody wants to take a vote on whether he's fit to serve before the rendering of a verdict by jury."

That was the approach in Congress, where two members remained in office over the past year while facing criminal charges. Voters ended up delivering farewell verdicts to both in last month's election.

Feeney's urge to demonstrate how seriously the allegations against Turner are being taken is understandable. The council is not always held in the highest regard, even absent an indictment of one of its members. Her move to strip Turner of his committee assignments may have been the right response to the initial charges. The most appropriate next step, however, may be to let the case run its course in court.

In the court of public opinion, Turner has cranked up a vocal public defense campaign befitting his background as a rabble-rousing activist. He is quick to invoke his due process rights and all the other protections afforded to the accused under our system. But for a guy with such an appreciation for constitutional rights - who has been turning out a torrent of news releases to promote his cause - Turner has developed a rather authoritarian view of press freedoms. Specifically, he's against them.

Turner has been on a tirade against the news media, accusing it of colluding with prosecutors to proclaim his guilt before any trial. He went so far as to write to Governor Deval Patrick, asking him to push for new laws that would ban the media from reporting anything that "conflicts with the presumption of innocence."

Turner's constitutional scholarship apparently missed the ban on laws that conflict with First Amendment rights to free speech and press.

Michael Jonas can be reached at jonas@globe.com.