HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 3/26/2015- GERRY HORAKEthics Review Board Meeting Minutes
March 26, 2015
4:30 p.m.
Members in Attendance: Board members Karen Weitkunat, Gino Campana, and Ross Cunniff
(alternate).
Also present: Gerry Horak, Michael Pruznick, Kevin Duggan
Staff in Attendance: Carrie Daggett, City Attorney; Cary Carricato Alton, Paralegal.
A meeting of the City Council Ethics Review Board ("Board") was held on Thursday, March 26,
2015, in the City Attorney's Office Large Conference Room, to consider the following issue:
A Complaint submitted by citizen, Michael Pruznick, under Section 2-569
(d)(1)(a) of the City Code concerning Councilmember Horak as it relates to an
allegation that Councilmember Horak violated provisions of state law or the
Charter or Code pertaining to ethical conduct. Specifically, Mr. Pruznick alleges a
violation of the Colorado Fair Campaign Practices Act. Mr. Pruznick's complaint
and materials are attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
The meeting began at 4:38 p.m. The Board reviewed the Agenda which contained the following
items:
1. Appointment of Chair for Meeting of the Ethics Review Board for the
March 26, 2015, Meeting.
2. A Complaint before the Ethics Review Board (`Board") as 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.
3. Other Business.
4. Adjournment.
The Board discussed appointment of a chairperson for the meeting. Councilmember Cunniff
nominated the Mayor to chair the meeting. Councilmember Campana seconded the nomination
and the Mayor accepted the role of chairperson with the unanimous consent of the Board. The
Mayor summarized the specifics alleged by Mr. Pruznick and indicated this meeting would be
conducted under the procedure adopted on November 18, 2014. She indicated that if the Board
believes that the allegations, if true, would constitute a violation of state or local ethics rules, the
Board will determine whether an investigation of the matter should proceed. The Mayor
indicated that she would like Mr. Pruznick to address his complaint and then would give Mr.
Horak time to respond.
Mr. Pruznick indicated that he had little additional information to add to what he had previously
submitted to the City Clerk. Mr. Pruznick summarized that his understanding of the Fair
Campaign Practices Acts was that no person could use city resources for campaigning. Mr.
Ethics Review Board
Meeting Minutes
March 26, 2015
Page 2 of 4
Pruznick explained that during the March 17, 2015, City Council meeting, he believes that Mr.
Horak used city resources by speaking to some of the comments made by citizens and asserted
that Mr. Horak spoke in a negative fashion at the City Council Meeting, using city resources to
campaign. Mr. Pruznick stated that when Mr. Horak made the statement that his "other job" was
"going door-to-door" this was an obvious campaign statement, and an attempt to solicit votes
from people. Mr. Pruznick said that his minor complaint was that Mr. Horak had campaigned at
an event of a 501(c)(3) organization.
The Mayor then asked Mr. Horak to respond to Mr. Pruznick's allegations.
Mr. Horak indicated that during his commentary on March 17, 2015, he stated two facts, and that
he did not make any disparaging comments. He said that he made no reference to a campaign
during his commentary, but was referring to an activity which was a fact. Mr. Horak explained
that the meeting he attended was a private meeting, and that he was answering questions at that
event, to which he had been invited to by a constituent.
Mr. Cunniff asked for clarification from Mr. Pruznick as to what provisions of the Fair
Campaign Practices Act he believed were violated, so as to clarify what his complaint relates to.
Mr. Pruznick answered that he had gathered the information submitted in his complaint from the
City's website. Mr. Cunniff asked for clarification on Mr. Pruznick's filing under the ethics
provision of the City Municipal Code and Charter, as well as clarification from Mr. Pruznick to
how he ties the Municipal Code and Charter ethics provisions to the Fair Campaign Practices
Act. Mr. Cunniff indicated that his understanding of the Fair Campaign Practices Act is that it is
the domain of the Colorado Secretary of State.
Mr. Pruznick explained that his understanding of the purpose of the Ethics Review Board was to
discuss potentially illegal activities, real or hypothetical. He stated that the Ethics Review Board
seemed like the place to bring his complaint.
Mr. Cunniff asked Mr. Pruznick's opinion as to how Section 1-45-117(b)(H), which states that
"Nothing in this subsection (1) shall be construed to prevent an elected official from expressing a
personal opinion on any issue," fits into Mr. Pruznick's complaint. Mr. Pruznick responded that
he interprets that section to only pertain to a ballot issue as opposed to a candidate.
The Mayor indicated that it is the job of the Ethics Review Board at this stage to determine
whether the complaint alleges a violation by Mr. Horak of ethical rules of conduct and whether
or not the Ethics Review Board feels that an investigation is warranted under the circumstances.
The Mayor indicated that she does not believe that Mr. Pruznick's complaint falls within the
Ethics Review Board's authority. Based on this opinion, the Mayor indicated that she did not
believe that it is a complaint that the Ethics Review Board should consider.
Mr. Cunniff indicated that he was thinking something similar to the Mayor. He noted Colorado
Revised Statutes Section 1-45-117(3) which states:
Ethics Review Board
Meeting Minutes
March 26, 2015
Page 3 of 4
(3) If any candidate who is also an incumbent inadvertently or unavoidably
makes any expenditure which involves campaign expenses and official expenses,
such expenditures shall be deemed a campaign expense only, unless the
candidate, not more than ten working days after the such expenditure, files with
the appropriate officer such information as the secretary of state may by rule
require in order to differentiate between campaign expenses and official expenses.
Such information shall be set forth on a form provided by the appropriate officer.
In the event that public moneys have been expended for campaign expenses and
for official expenses, the candidate shall reimburse the state or political
subdivision for the amount of money spent on campaign expenses.
Councilmember Cunniff indicated that it was his opinion that if Mr. Horak believed he had
inadvertently spent City resources in making his statements on March 17, 2015, he still was
within the timeframe to report this to the Secretary of State. Mr. Cunniff stated that the Ethics
Review Board should find that there is insufficient evidence that Councilmember Horak
committed an ethical violation of either the Code or Charter of the City of Fort Collins, and that
Mr. Pruznick's complaint would be properly filed with the Colorado Secretary of State. On the
basis of these findings, Mr. Cunniff moved that the Board determine that no further action is
warranted.
Councilmember Campana seconded the Motion. He noted that he agreed with much of what
Councilmember Cunniff previously stated. He explained that the Ethics Review Board
assembles under Article IV, Section 9 of the Charter for the City as it relates to conflicts of
interest, disclosure of confidential information, representation of other persons before the City
Council or any board or commission of the City, acceptance of money for speeches, debates or
other public events, accepting any gift or favor, or requesting special treatment from the City.
Mr. Campana stated this is just not a complaint that falls within the Ethics Review Board's
purview.
The Board voted unanimously to adopt Councilmember Cunniff s Motion.
City Attorney Daggett indicated that she would write up the minutes from this discussion, and
would prepare a Public Notice concerning the determination by the Ethics Review Board to be
distributed to Board Members and all parties involved, as well as the public.
The Mayor inquired about whether there was other business. There was no other business to be
brought before the Ethics Review Board.
Mr. Pruznick asked some follow up questions about the Ethics Review Board process, which
were addressed by the Mayor. Mr. Cunniff indicated that the notice of the determination would
go to the entire Council, and they could take action if they felt it was warranted. Mr. Pruznick
also asked where the minutes and documents of the Ethics Review Board could be found in the
Ethics Review Board
Meeting Minutes
March 26, 2015
Page 4 of 4
public record. Attorney Daggett explained that the City Attorney's Office is working with the
City's Information Services staff to re -structure the Ethics Review Board page on the City's
website so the notices, agendas, and minutes would be more readily accessible.
Meeting adjourned at 4:57 p.m.
Carrie M. Daggett, City Atrney
Alton
-- A
From: Wanda Nelson
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 3:33 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Darin Attebery; Jeff Mihelich; Carrie Daggett; Rita Knoll
Subject: FW: Ethical Complaint Against Gerry Horak from 2015-03-17 council meeting
Ethics Review Board:
Pursuant to Section 2.569(d)(1) (included below), I am informing you of a complaint filed against Mayor Pro Tem Gerry
Horak. The provision states that the complaint must be considered by the Board within ten working days. Carrie
Daggett will provide details regarding the next steps.
Complaints and inquiries shall be submitted to the Review Board only according to the following procedures:
(1)
III ' LC I ber7rtaining to etnical conduct may lite a complaint with the City Clerk, •
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 o. 1 No more1) working days after the date of of
complaint, . Board . . • consider
• complaint. All bers or board
and
commission membersnamed in the comnlaint• , *.
meeting at least three (3) working days prior to the meeting. A notice of the complaint, including the identity
of • be postedalong with the meeting notice.
Wanda Nelson, City Clerk
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
wnelson@fceov.com
970.416.2995
-----Original Message ---
From: mikepruz@gmail.com [mailto:mikepruz@email.coml
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 2:44 PM
To: Wanda Nelson
Subject: Ethical Complaint Against Gerry Horak from 2015-03-17 council meeting
City Clerk,
Per Sec. 2-569. - Board of ethics. (d)(1)(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"
Complaint is attached as follows:
2015-03-17.gerry-horak.cfcpa-ethics.txt -- The text of the complaint.
2015-03-17.gerry-horak.cfcpa-ethics.jpg — Screen shot of the facial expression referenced in the complaint.
I'm not familiar with the new process, please let me know my role and responsibilities are.
Thank you, Michael Pruznick, D3 Citizen
2015-03-17.gerry-horak.cfcpa-ethics.txt
The Colorado Fair campaign Practices Act prohibits local governments
and their officials from using City money or resources to support a
candidate's campaign.
At the 2015-03-17 council meeting Gerry Horak appears to violate this
on two occasions:
1H:28M:30S to 1H:28M:45S
Gerry Horak said, "Since this was really a political thing tonight I
think it is important for folks to know that the two accusations against
me were made by my opponent and his campaign manger." His demeaning
facial expressions (attached) should also be taken into account.
The Mayor is on the record saying the public cannot campaign during
public comments. The only reference I can specifically find is a
few years back from the 2012-04-18 Economic Board meeting minutes.
"Mayor weitkunat commented that political campaigning at Boards and
commissions meetings was not appropriate."
The candidates did their job by not campaigning and only bringing
up facts from their viewpoint. Gerry made assumptions about their
motives and used his public position to unfairly demean his competition.
Gerry should have had his campaign manger in the room. His campaign
manager could have used public comment to point out the political
aspect. Gerry didn't have to bring up the political aspect in his
official position, in view of the public, under color of authority
of the Mayor Pro Tem. His comments with the City Attorney clearly
explained his viewpoint. Bringing up the political aspect only served
his political campaign and added nothing to the discussion of the issue.
This is a clear violation of the law.
4H:41M:25S to 4H:41M:45S
Gerry Horak said, "I only say this because my other occupation these
days is walking door to door. So I've literally walked through the
Avery Park neighborhood and most of the other neighborhoods that, uh,
I mean I only have part of this. But the neighborhoods that in this
plan, that are district six, I've walked nearly every door and I can
tell you what they look like and we need to do something about this."
Gerry could have simply said that he's lived in the area for years,
has visited most neighborhoods during various time of the years,
knows what they look like, knows something needs to be done, and that
this west central Plan is a good thing to do based on his extensive
familiarly with the area. same, if not stronger message, without
using his position of authority to campaign.
This is clearly a political message attempting to let the people of
these areas know how he is campaigning for them to encourage their vote.
This is a clear violation of the law.
1H:10M:05S to 1H:10M:255
Michael Pruznick said, "Gerry and wade I'm going to pick on you tonight
because you are the only two council members seeking re-election
claiming you've done a great job serving this community. I would like
to know how allowing rapes to happen and allowing rapists to roam free
in our community is a great thing that deserves your re-election."
Page 1
2015-03-17.gerry-horak.cfcpa-ethics.txt
my statement was clearly political, but not campaigning, and yet
neither Gerry nor wade responded.
This clearly shows that Gerry was using his position to protect his
campaign and not serve the people.
why else would Gerry only go after his opponent and not candidates in
other races?
4H:22M:55S to 4H:23M:15S
Michael Pruznick said, "I would like to concluded by simply reminding
you that serve at our pleasure and at the election we will fix the
last vote and before that RECALL GINO. Anyone who would like to help
me do that, my number is in the public record."
No council member mentioned the political nor campaigning nature of
this message. why was Gerry only concerned about his opponent, and
not the general issue of campaigning politics during public comment?
Clearly, Gerry's action were focused on promoting his campaign while
discrediting his competition. Neither Gerry nor council as a whole was
worried about any other political motivation, campaign, or election race.
Gerry violated The Colorado Fair campaign Practices Act acting in conflict
of interest between his duty to serve now and his desire to get re-elected
at any cost.
ALSO: Please note that at the SOSH meeting on Monday, March 2nd, Gerry
Horaks who was invited as D6 representative, also injected political
campaigning into that meeting. Specifically targeting me. I disengaged
by saying this is not about that," apologized, withdrew my question,
and putting my head down. Gerry kept trying to .engage me, but I held
my round. Gerry should know better than to in'ect candidacies into
501(c)3 meetings. Everyone else knew and obeyed the rules. I've been
a member SOSH since early 2013. I was there in that capacity.
Michael Pruznick, D3 Citizen
Page 2