HomeMy WebLinkAboutWORK SESSION SUMMARY-12/22/2020-Work Session
City Attorney’s Office
300 Laporte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6520
970.221.6327
fcgov.com
M E M O R AN D U M
Date: December 29, 2020
To: Mayor Troxell and City Councilmembers
From: Carrie Daggett, City Attorney
Re: December 22, 2020, Work Session Summary: Ethics Standards and Process
Councilmembers present were Mayor Troxell, Mayor Pro Tem Stephens, and Councilmembers
Cunniff, Gorgol, Gutowsky, Pignataro and Summers.
My staff presentation reviewed the City’s conflict of interest standards and the ethics review
process, together with some history regarding the pattern of ethics review requests and
complaints over the years. It also included an explanation of Ethics Review Board activity
during 2019 and 2020 and how that has led to interest in considering ways to improve the
current standards and processes.
Council then discussed interest in and ideas for changes to the Fort Collins City Charter and
City Code related to defining conflicts of interest and the process for reviewing ethics
complaints. The items reviewed and related summary follows:
1. Amending the Charter definition of “personal interest” or more generally the concept of
“conflict of interest:”
a. Councilmembers discussed how the relationship of a Councilmember’s
employment to matters of interest to that employer has come up repeatedly
during the past year, mainly, but not exclusively, in relation to the Hughes
Stadium item.
b. There was general consensus that the clearer and easier the standards are to
apply, the better able officers and employees are to identify, disclose and
appropriately act on conflicts.
c. Several Councilmembers expressed interest in continuing to review the standard
for possible revision at a later time, noting that it is important to be thoughtful and
work through any changes with care before taking action.
d. Several Councilmembers noted the difficulty in applying the “personal interest”
standard and suggested that it would be beneficial to revisit and improve that
aspect of the conflicts of interest provisions.
December 22 Work Session Summary
Ethics Standard and Process
December 29, 2020
Page 2 of 3
e. It was noted that the current Charter definitions may exclude situations that
would commonly be viewed as conflicts of interest, also something to consider in
connection with an overall review of the conflicts of interest standard.
f. There was not support expressed for bringing an item forward for the April
election and instead there was some interest in taking more time to consider
what changes may be beneficial. There was also some thought expressed that
the standard is not “broken” and no action is needed.
2. Amending the City Code to change the ethics review body for complaints against
Councilmembers to an “alternative ethics review board:”
a. There was substantial discussion about the idea of extending the role of the
“alternate ethics review board” in current Code to consider all complaints against
Councilmembers, and particularly about ways to improve on the alternate board
configuration:
i. An idea discussed at length was to select this body from among the
chairs of the boards and commissions (rather than all board and
commission members); and
ii. Additionally, it was discussed that such an alternate board could be
appointed annually after the boards and commissions have selected their
chairs for the year.
b. Ultimately, the discussion evolved and there was not clear interest in moving
forward with this approach as the discussion moved to other possibilities.
3. Amending the City Code to change the composition of the ethics review board generally
was also discussed.
a. One idea that was of some interest was to appoint members of the public with
expertise in ethics or law, including retired judges, attorneys or other experts, as
all or part of the ethics review board.
i. It was noted that this would offer the benefit of having board members
better able to independently consider and apply the standards.
ii. Some expressed an interest in this approach because it would appear
more objective.
b. It was noted that other jurisdictions have different approaches that it would be
worth learning more about, particularly with respect to the experiences with the
system, the successes and advantages and disadvantages that have been
experienced.
c. There was interest in developing more information related to the options for a
different structure for an ethics review board, recognized as likely a discussion
for the next Council given the timing and need to be deliberative about any
December 22 Work Session Summary
Ethics Standard and Process
December 29, 2020
Page 3 of 3
changes. There was also the view expressed that the current process works well
and there is not an immediate need to change it.
Some additional general comments and suggestions included:
• It was suggested that Council consider forming a Council governance committee to take
on the role of some of the current Council committees, including some of the policy-
oriented functions of the Ethics Review Board.
• It was suggested that Council consider a practice of developing management plans for
individual Councilmembers that would look forward to areas of potential conflicts of
interest and anticipate how those would be handled, to be updated annually or
periodically.
• There was a clear expression of desire to ensure a clear and effective ethics standard
and process to assist officers and employees with compliance and ensure public
confidence in the Council’s decisions and other actions of City officers and employees.
• The general outcome of the discussion was that the City Attorney’s Office will continue
to gather information about options for both updating the standards and the ethics review
process, for discussion with Council at an unspecified later time.
pc: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk
Jenny Lopez-Filkins, Sr. Assistant City Attorney
Claire Havelda, Assistant City Attorney