Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY - 3/26/2015- GERRY HORAKAgenda Item Item 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 26, 2015 City Council-Ethics Review Board STAFF Carrie M. Daggett, City Attorney SUBJECT Review of Complaint submitted by citizen, Michael Pruznick, under Section 2-569(d)(1)(a) of the City Code concerning Councilmember Horak. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This matter comes before the Ethics Review Board (“Board”) based on a complaint submitted by Michael Pruznick, a citizen alleging the Councilmember Gerry Horak violated the Fair Campaign Practices Act through statements made at the City Council meeting. The City Code calls for the Board to first determine if the complaint merits formal investigation. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION This matter comes before the Ethics Review Board (“Board”) based on a complaint submitted by Michael Pruznick, a citizen. Mr. Pruznick’s complaint is attached. It alleges specifically that Councilmember Horak violated the Fair Campaign Practices Act prohibition on local government officials using City money or resources to support a candidate’s campaign through statements he made during the City Council meeting of March 17, 2015. The complaint further states that Councilmember Horak acted “in conflict of interest between his duty to serve now and his desire to get elected at any cost,” and also alleges that Councilmember Horak “injected political campaigning” into the discussion at a meeting of a nonprofit group “SOSH”. The Colorado Fair Campaign Practices Act (the “Act”) (Colorado Revised Statutes (“CRS”), Title 1, Article 45) establishes election campaign regulations that, among other things, prohibit local governments and their officials from using City money or resources to support a candidate's campaign. Complaints under the Act are filed with the Colorado Secretary of State and referred to an administrative law judge for a determination as to whether a violation has occurred. The Code provides for the Board to consider complaints that a councilmember has violated any provision of state law or the Charter or Code pertaining to ethical conduct. The City’s ethics provisions are established in Article IV, Section 9 of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins, and in Fort Collins Municipal Code (“Code”) Section 2-568. Those provisions relate to conflicts of interest (financial and personal) and to 1) use and disclosure of confidential information; 2) representing interests of other persons before the City Council or any City board or commission; 3) acceptance of payment for speeches, debates or other public events, or certain gifts or favors; 4) requesting special treatment from the City; 5) reporting of contacts regarding personal interests. Colorado law (Title 24, Article 18, CRS) establishes rules of conduct and ethical principles for public officers that address issues similar to those covered in the City’s Charter and Code. Agenda Item Item 1 Page 2 Ordinance 159, 2014 (passed on November 18, 2014) amended Section 2-569(d) of the Code, regarding the procedure for Ethics Review Board complaints. Regarding the complaint process, Section 2-569(d)(1) and (2) of the Code state as follows (with the initial review process provisions highlighted): (d) Complaints and inquiries shall be submitted to the Review Board only according to the following procedures: (1) Complaints. a. Any person who believes that a Councilmember or board and commission member has violated any provision of state law or the Charter or Code pertaining to ethical conduct may file a complaint with the City Clerk, who shall immediately notify the chairperson of the Review Board, the Councilmembers or board and commission members named in the complaint and the City Council. The complaint shall be promptly scheduled for consideration by the Review Board. No more than ten (10) working days after the date of filing of the complaint, the Review Board shall meet and consider the complaint. All Councilmembers or board and commission members named in the complaint, as well as the complainant, shall be given written notice of such meeting at least three (3) working days prior to the meeting. A notice of the complaint, including the identity of the complainant shall be posted along with the meeting notice. b. Upon receipt of any such complaint, the Review Board shall, after consultation with the City Attorney, decide by majority vote whether to formally investigate the complaint. In making such determination, the Review Board shall consider the following: (1) whether the allegations in the complaint, if true, would constitute a violation of state or local ethical rules; (2) the reliability and sufficiency of any facts asserted in support of the allegations; and (3) any other facts or circumstances that the Review Board may consider relevant. If the Review Board determines that the complaint does not warrant investigation, the Review Board shall send written notice to the complainant of its determination and the reasoning behind that determination, and shall provide a copy of such notice, together with a copy of the complaint, to all Councilmembers or board or commission members named in the complaint, as well as the City Council. If the Board believes that the allegations in the complaint, if true, would constitute a violation of state or local ethics rules, it should consider the reliability and sufficiency of the facts presented and any other relevant facts or circumstances, and determine whether an investigation of the matter should proceed. If not, then the Board should issue a notice of its determination that no investigation is warranted. PUBLIC OUTREACH/NOTICES No public outreach was conducted. Public notice of the Board meeting was posted and emailed notice of the Board meeting was provided to the complainant and to the subject of the complaint three working days prior to the Board’s meeting. ATTACHMENT Public Notice (with March 20, 2015 E-mail and Complaint from Michael Pruznick to Wanda Nelson attached)