Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022.12.14 Minutes - finalEthics Review Board Meeting Minutes December 14, 2022, Meeting Via Zoom Alternate Ethics Review Board members in attendance: Councilmember Julie Pignataro, Councilmember Tricia Canonico, Mayor Jeni Arndt Staff in attendance: Carrie Daggett, City Attorney; Briana McCarten, Paralegal Other Attendees: Brian Carnahan, Michelle Haefele, Kevin Jones-FC Chamber, Rebecca Everett, “Community Members” A meeting of the City Council Alternate Ethics Review Board (the “Board”) was held on Wednesday, December 14, 2022, at 3:30 p.m. City Attorney Daggett called the meeting to order at 3:33 pm. The Board reviewed the Agenda which contained the following items: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Selection of Presiding Officer for Ethics Review Board as it considers the pending complaint. 4. Review and Approval of the October 12, 2022 Minutes of the Ethics Review Board. 5. Initial screening of a November 18, 20220 ethics complaint filed by Brian Carnahan alleging that Planning and Zoning Commissioner Michele Haefele behaved unethically with respect to an application for a lot line adjustment at 3006 Rockborough Court when she: 1) had a conflict of interest at the August 18, 2022 appeal hearing due to a personal relationship with the appellant; and 2) made biased statements against the applicants at the August 11th work session. 6. Other Business. 7. Adjournment. Paralegal Briana McCarten took roll call for the Board. All members were in attendance. Mayor Arndt moved for Councilmember Pignataro to preside over the meeting as Chairperson Gutkowsky had recused. Councilmember Canonico seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote. Councilmember Canonico moved to approve the October 12, 2022 minutes. Mayor Arndt seconded the motion. The Minutes were approved by unanimous vote. The Board moved on to Agenda Item 5. Councilmember Pignataro asked City Attorney Daggett to clarify the purpose of today’s meeting with respect to the ethics complaint. City Attorney Daggett clarified that the Board’s task is to determine if what is alleged in the complaint, assuming all allegations are true, would constitute an ethics violation. Ethics Review Board Meeting Minutes December 14, 2022, Meeting Via Zoom Councilmember Pignataro asked why the minutes from the August 11, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission (the “Commission”) meeting were not included in their packet. Paralegal McCarten clarified that there were no minutes to provide because August 11, 2022 was a work session and minutes are not taken at work sessions. City Attorney Daggett provided an overview of the complaint. The complaint alleges that Planning and Zoning Commissioner Michele Haefele (“Haefele”), because of a personal relationship with the appellant in the matter before the Commission on August 11 and 18, 2022, had a personal interest in the appeal and should not have participated in the hearing. The basis of the complaint is not that she had a financial interest, but a personal interest. The complaint makes a general reference to an abuse of power; however, there is no language in City Code regarding abuse of power. There are State provisions for abuse of power, but they are extreme and focus on criminal activity. Biggest question before the Board today is whether Haefele had a conflict of interest in the appeal before the Commission on August 11 and 18, 2022. Councilmember Pignataro asked the other Board members to share any similar experiences. Mayor Arndt stated that she always recuses from a decision if there is any kind of personal relationship with a party and pointed out that, as Councilmembers, they will inevitably know people who come before City Council. Mayor Arndt asked about the definition of personal gain if it is not a financial gain. City Attorney Daggett reflected that recent ethics complaints have begged this same question. There could be times when a decision might have an effect on someone’s home or how they use their property. Sometimes a decision could have an impact on a person’s professional reputation. Councilmember Canonico stated that she also recuses if there is any hint or appearance of conflict. Councilmember Pignataro recalled that the most recent ethics complaints were mostly against City Councilmembers. Everyone’s individual willingness to take on risk is different. Councilmember Pignataro wondered what the Board needed to answer to determine if further investigation needs to happen. City Attorney Daggett suggested the Board focus on the City’s provision about personal interest. Allegations of abuse of power were very general and the complaint cited Code provisions related to personal interest. The main question before the Board is: assuming the facts set forth in the Complaint are true and in the judgment of a reasonable prudent person, would Haefele have realized or experienced a substantial benefit or detriment different in kind from that experienced by the general public? Mayor Arndt stated that her answer to that question is no. Haefele had a right to her own point of view and could vote accordingly and has the right to try to persuade other Commissioners. That is public process. In the end, vote was unanimous so there was no personal benefit or gain. Councilmember Canonico stated that her answer to the question is also no. The allegations in the complaint don’t meet the definition of personal interest because there was no financial gain and no personal gain. It might have been cleaner for Haefele to recuse but she wasn’t required to. Councilmember Pignataro reiterated that people choose their own level of risk and stated that the current policy allows for differences of opinion. Ethics Review Board Meeting Minutes December 14, 2022, Meeting Via Zoom Councilmember Pignataro noted that two of the three Board members are on the City’s Board and Commissions ad hoc committee and might want to talk about the definitions of abuse of power and personal gain. City Attorney Daggett discussed the process for making a determination. There will be a vote on a motion. If the Board finds that no further investigation is warranted, a letter explaining such a determination is sent to the complainant, the subject of the complaint, and anyone else who received the complaint initially. She went on to discuss that he Boards and Commissions ad hoc committee or this Board could consider creating a standard in the Code regarding participation in quasi-judicial proceedings. Mayor Arndt moved to dismiss the complaint based on the grounds of the screening review by Board today. Councilmember Canonic seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote. Councilmember Pignataro suggested the Board have a philosophical discussion about what might be a personal interest. Councilmember Canonico wondered if the definition is limited to familial relationship. Councilmember Pignataro reflected that Fort Collins is in many ways a small town. City Attorney Daggett suggested consideration of a heightened standard for quasi-judicial proceedings. City Attorney Daggett noted the Board could meet again to discuss these ideas. Mayor Arndt stated that it would be good to look at other municipalities’ definitions and standards. City Attorney Daggett requested the next Board meeting be scheduled for no earlier than March. The Meeting adjourned at 4:04 p.m.