Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 1/31/2022- Minutes, Ethics Review Board, Conflicts of Interest 1 Ethics Review Board Meeting Minutes January 31, 2022 4:00 p.m. Meeting Via Zoom Ethics Review Board members in attendance: Mayor Jeni Arndt, Councilmembers Julie Pignataro, Councilmember Susan Gutowsky. Staff in attendance: Carrie Daggett, City Attorney; Jeanne Sanford, Paralegal. Other Attendees: Kevin Jones, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce. A meeting of the City Council Ethics Review Board (“Board”) was held on Monday, January 31, 2022, at 4:00 p.m. via Zoom Meeting. The meeting started at 4:01 pm. The Board reviewed the Agenda which contained the following items: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Review and Approval of the November 15, 2021, Minutes of the Ethics Review Board 4. Discuss and consider options for the screening and review process for ethics complaints. 5. Other Business 6. Adjournment Paralegal Jeanne Sanford took roll call for the Board. All members were in attendance. Item 4 of the agenda was discussed, the review and approval of the November 15, 2021, Minutes. Councilmember Pignataro made a motion to approve the November 15, 2021, Minutes. Mayor Arndt seconded the motion. The Minutes were approved by unanimous vote. Next, Item 5 was up - discuss and consider options for the screening and review process for ethics complaints. The Board asked City Attorney Carrie Daggett to provide some background information on this item. Ms. Daggett described the packet materials that contained ethics process examples from other municipalities and gave a historical background of the Ethics Review Board. Reference was made to the year 2019 where there was an increase in filed complaints due to the Hughes Stadium issue. City Attorney Daggett brought attention to the packet materials page 0006 which was a list of questions that came up while looking at other jurisdictions and their processes. 2 Councilmember Pignataro discussed the perception issue on complaints filed against fellow councilmembers. Would like to come up with a new process so it does not appear that councilmembers are judging their peers. The different jurisdictions in Colorado were discussed noting most ethics codes are different from one another. Councilmember Pignataro stated she liked Central City best so far as their City Council has the power to investigate, but can appoint the City Attorney to retain the service of others to investigate. City Attorney Daggett stated this meant retaining someone who has the training and experience to do the investigation. Ms. Daggett explained the role of outside parties varies in different jurisdictions; Some investigate and make recommendations and some make decisions and render opinions. There is a range of how the Council could set that up, and a range of costs depending on the role outside counsel is used for. Councilmember Pignataro expressed interest in retaining separate counsel or alternative outside people to deal with complaints against councilmembers, keeping related costs in mind. The standard for evaluating what is a conflict of interest was discussed, in particular the issue that had been raised about councilmember employers and noting the issue that had been raised with former Mayor Troxell as an employee of CSU. City Attorney Daggett inquired if the definition of personal interest was satisfactory as is and there was interest in further discussing the definition of conflict of interest. City Attorney Daggett reminded the Board that this issue was teed up as a discussion topic in the November 15, 2021, meeting and asked if the Board would like to review that now? Ms. Daggett reminded the Board that our conflict of interest provision is in the Charter, so the actual definition of a conflict is voter-approved. The current Charter language was last updated in early 2000’s. The Board then discussed the definition of personal/financial interest. The Hughes stadium issue was discussed and Mayor Arndt stated, as an outsider back then, it looked like the Board handled the complaint situation very well. It was noted that it is Code language (and not Charter language) that creates the Ethics Review Board process, so Council can change that by ordinance. City Attorney Daggett mentioned other issues that could be part of this discussion: • Is the Board interested in discussing amendments to the screening step criteria? • Is the board interest in additional provisions establishing appropriate response to a finding if there was a violation? If someone violated Charter, prosecution available. The Board discussed the screening step and next steps if a violation did occur by Councilmember, which could include: • Reprimand • A requirement for training 3 • Public censure • A requirement for a letter of apology Ms. Daggett explained that presently, the Council doesn’t have the power to remove a Councilmember from an elected council seat, although this could be added as a power granted in the Charter if that would be a helpful tool. Council does have the power to remove a Councilmember from board and commission appointments or to remove from office those Council has appointed to office (such as Board or Commission members). The Board expressed interest in continuing the discussion of using an outside person for the screening process. This would allow the discussion to include Councilmember Pignataro, who had to leave the Board meeting before it was completed due to a scheduling conflict. The Board noted there is no rush on the Board’s work on these issues. As next steps, City Attorney Daggett stated will prepare some ideas for ways to modify the process for complaints against councilmembers specifically in light of the Board’s discussion, keeping in mind the preference for simple, rather than complicated, processes and the potential costs of using outside resources for the process and the goal of increased neutral input while not handing over decision making to outside third party. It was noted the Board is not seeking a major overhaul of the present process but rather improvements to offer a more apparently neutral review. City Attorney Daggett stated the screening step was added about seven years ago as well as an update about notice time and meeting dates about 4 years ago. At that time, an alternative ERB was discussed for anytime there is a complaint filed against a board member, but the discussion evolved away from that. The Board expressed preference for a ready-made alternate board (rather than an ad hoc one appointed for a particular complaint) and City Attorney Daggett stated she would add that to the agenda for the follow up meeting. The Board discussed the timing for the next meeting to continue this discussion for no sooner than late April, working around the City Manager selection and appointment process. The Board would like to continue talking about what other jurisdictions are doing around this issue. Meeting adjourned at 5:34.