Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-2-12 FINAL draft Minutes 1 Ethics Review Board Meeting Minutes February 12, 2021 4:15 p.m. Meeting Via Zoom Ethics Review Board members in attendance: Mayor Wade Troxell, Councilmembers Julie Pignataro, Ken Summers. Staff in attendance: Carrie Daggett, City Attorney; Doug Marek, Greeley City Attorney (as special legal counsel to the Board), Jeanne Sanford, Paralegal; Other Attendees: Councilmember Melanie Potyondy, Michael Pruznick, citizen, A meeting of the City Council Ethics Review Board (“Board”) was held on Friday, February 12, 2021, at 4:15 p.m. via Zoom Meeting. The meeting started at 4:15 pm. The Board reviewed the Agenda which contained the following items: 1. Review and Approval of the January 29, 2021 Minutes of the Ethics Review Board. 2. Review and Approval of the draft Ethics Advisory Opinion 2021-01, with continued consideration of an inquiry by Councilmember Potyondy pursuant to City Code Section 2-569(d)(2) requesting that the Board consider and provide an advisory opinion regarding the questions of: (a) Possible conflicts of interest that may arise from her husband, Eric Potyondy, being employed as an assistant city attorney in the City Attorney’s Office; and (b) Possible conflicts of interest that may arise from her employment with Poudre School District (“PSD” or the “District”). 3. Other Business. 4. Adjournment. Chair Troxell called meeting to order at 4:17 pm and stated this meeting was available via Zoom with the link available on the City’s website. The Mayor conferred with City Manager Darin Atteberry and City Attorney Carrie Daggett and determined the board should conduct this meeting remotely due to the public health emergency re: COVID and per the County’s emergency orders. Paralegal Jeanne Sanford took roll call: Julie Pignataro – here; Wade Troxell – here; Ken Summers – here. The first item was review and approval of Minutes of the January 29 meeting. 2 Councilmember Pignataro made a motion to approve the January 29, 2021 Minutes. Councilmember Summers seconded the motion. The Minutes were approved by unanimous vote. Mayor Troxell confirmed that members of the Ethics Review Board were agreeable to his continuing as Chair of the Board. The second agenda item, review and approval of the draft Ethics Opinion 2021-01 regarding the inquiry of Councilmember Potyondy regarding possible conflicts of interest concerning her husband, Assistant City Attorney Eric Potyondy and her employment with Poudre School District (“PSD”) was read. City Attorney Carrie Daggett gave an overview of the Opinion and noted for the record that Greeley City Attorney Douglas Marek was present at the meeting. Ms. Daggett noted Mr. Marek worked on the portion of the draft Opinion related to the City Attorney’s Office. Ms. Daggett noted that a summary of conclusions is included near the beginning of the draft Opinion. Chair Troxell asked City Attorney Daggett if there were any specific suggestions going forward on this issue. City Attorney Daggett noted that members of the Board may have suggestions not included in the Opinion that they would like to add and explained the Opinion was prepared based on the Board’s January 29 discussion. In the discussion of conflicts and the summary in the Opinion, it was noted it might be helpful for Councilmember Potyondy to obtain from the Poudre School District an affirmation that the District recognizes that she is carrying out her role as a councilmember independent of her work at the District and commits to assuring that her actions as a councilmember will have no bearing or impact on the District’s treatment of her as an employee. City Attorney Daggett noted this was just a suggestion and not a requirement. Greeley City Attorney Douglas Marek then spoke of the relationship of Councilmember Potyondy to Eric Potyondy and the indirect ways Council actions might impact her personally or financially, such as City Attorney’s Office budget approvals, and more specifically budget cuts for reduction of force. Mr. Marek stated Councilmember Potyondy would be wise to evaluate, in those instances, if she or her husband has a financial or personal stake in the outcome and if so, to recuse herself from those matters. Mr. Marek stated, regarding the issue of performance evaluations and Councilmember Potyondy’s participation in performance review of the City Attorney, there was no inherent financial or personal conflict in that regard. Mr. Marek stated he reviewed the organizational chart of the City Attorney’s Office and found it to be very rare for any Council decision making to have a direct impact on Eric Potyondy in his role as Assistant City Attorney. Mr. Marek noted City Attorney Daggett will need to erect an ethical wall on certain confidential matters, as is commonly done in legal offices, so Eric Potyondy cannot access information about matters he or Councilmember Potyondy have a conflict of interest in, but stated those issues would be rare since he is a specialist attorney. 3 The Board discussed if the matters of budget cuts and raises would raise conflicts of interest. It was noted that in the organization, employees are granted salary increases, but department heads may give some employees different percentages so there is some latitude on discretionary decisions of those salary increases which could present a presumption. City Attorney Daggett confirmed that is way the City Attorney’s Office handles salary adjustments. The department gets a “pot of money” to be distributed according to methods in use at that time. Ms. Daggett explained she sets the approach to be used for the raises for the attorneys. She also noted that the attorney pay plan is not included in the classified pay plan that the City Council approves. Chair Troxell asked Councilmember Potyondy for her input and responses to the Opinion, and asked it is helpful or if she would like more, noting that it was designed to help her out with her questions. Chair Troxell did note that he was hoping it would be more like a conflicts management plan, however, he hoped Councilmember Potyondy has discussed this issue with her employer as it falls on Councilmembers to make the determination of when there is a conflict. Councilmember Pignataro stated she was fine after reading the conclusions of the Opinion but wanted to check in with Councilmember Potyondy on how she felt. Councilmember Potyondy stated she felt the Opinion was very helpful on specific issues and noted she was free to consult with Carrie Daggett and Darin Atteberry to identify and understand up-coming agenda items that may raise a question for her. Councilmember Potyondy stated her take-away from the Opinion was that she will work to always know what’s coming, be up-front regarding concerns on financial or personal gain and plan to consult with folks on areas of concern. Councilmember Potyondy did state, regarding issues raised in an email earlier on the 12th by a member of the public, Michael Pruznick, she did disclose this issue as part of her application for the District 4 appointment and in discussion with the Mayor and others, so that has been transparent and out in the open. Councilmember Potyondy stated she is open to any structure or type of guidance, and will proceed with caution, always vetting these issues. Chair Troxell indicated that individual Councilmembers have an obligation to evaluate these issues and Councilmember Potyondy has stated that correctly. The Board discussed the issue of water as not being a common issue and whether Poudre School District is ever given money from the City. City Attorney Daggett answered that there were some instances when the City and PSD work together, such as on infrastructure where a grant has come from CDOT or where the City and PSD develop a park together. City Attorney Daggett noted the City does provide services to PSD, such as after school programs for example. Councilmember Summers felt these types of situations were pretty broad and don’t relate directly to Councilmember Potyondy’s role as school psychologist. 4 Councilmember Potyondy agreed and discussed the notion of values vs. financial/personal interest. Ms. Potyondy stated she does not get a raise based on anything so the School District issues will be pretty clear. Chair Troxell asked Councilmember Potyondy if there was anything with the advisory opinion she wanted added to help her out? Councilmember Potyondy stated the way the Opinion was written is as clear as it can be considering the fluid nature of Council and how unpredictable it is what items will come forward and noted she has folks to touch base with if sticky issues do come up. Councilmember Pignataro noted as Councilmembers, we have access to the attorneys to discuss complicated issues, such as water. One can always arrange a 1x1 meeting with an attorney to ask question. City Attorney Daggett noted that she can arrange for specific discussions with Councilmembers about legal issues, also noting, though, that since her role is to advise Council as a body rather than individual Councilmembers, the City Attorney’s Office works hard to make sure any legal advice or information is provide to the entire Council rather than with individual Councilmembers and that she manages and coordinates those communications with Council. City Attorney Daggett then explained if the Opinion as presented was acceptable and the Board approves it by motion, then it can come forward to Council on Tuesday, February 23 at an adjourned meeting, if Council is willing to adjourn the February 16 meeting to February 23rd for that purpose. The Code requires that the Opinion be presented promptly to Council once the Ethics Review Board approves it. Councilmember Ken Summers made a motion to approve Ethics Opinion 2021-01 and Chair Troxell seconded the motion. Paralegal Jeanne Sanford took a roll call vote: Mayor Wade Troxell: yes; Julie Pignataro: yes; Ken Summers: yes. The motion was approved by unanimous vote. Councilmember Potyondy thanked the Board as this was helpful to have this conversation and think the issues through. As there was no other business, the meeting adjourned 5:02 pm.