Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2020-7-311 Ethics Review Board Meeting Minutes July 31, 2020 5:00 p.m. Meeting Via Zoom Ethics Review Board members in attendance: Mayor Wade Troxell, Councilmembers Julie Pignataro, Ken Summers. Staff in attendance: Carrie Daggett, City Attorney; Clay Douglas, Special Counsel, Jeanne Sanford, Paralegal Other Attendees: Councilmember Susan Gutowsky, Mayor Pro Tem Kristin Stephens; Kevin Jones, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce and Michael Pruznick. A meeting of the City Council Ethics Review Board (“Board”) was held on Friday, July 31, 2020, at 5:00 p.m. via Zoom Meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Stephens stated since she was named in one of the complaints, she would not be chairing or participating in Councilmember Gutowsky’s complaint and would return to the meeting for the next item as the subject of the complaint. Ms. Stephens indicated during the first item she would mute her microphone and turn off her camera. Michael Pruznick indicated there was no objection from him. Councilmember Gutowsky asked Mr. Pruznick whether he would be on camera and Mr. Pruznick indicated he had technology issues and did not wish to be on camera. City Attorney Daggett called the Board’s attention to the first item on the Agenda – selection of a temporary presiding officer. Councilmember Summers suggested Councilmember Pignataro serve as Chair; Councilmember Pignataro nominated Mayor Wade Troxell to chair. Councilmember Summers made a motion to select Mayor Wade Troxell as presiding officer and Councilmember Pignataro seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. City Attorney Daggett introduced Clay Douglas as special counsel for this Ethics Review Board Meeting. She explained that Mr. Douglas was hired to prepare the Board materials and advise the Board in order to avoid any conflict of interest in connection with Mr. Pruznick’s complaint against Councilmember Gutowsky. Chair Troxell called the first item on the Agenda which was the approval of the July 24, 2020, Minutes. Chair Troxell stated he would not vote on this item as he did not participate in the that Ethics Review Board meeting. Councilmember Pignataro made a motion to approve the July 24, 2020, Minutes. Councilmember Summers seconded the Motion. The Minutes were unanimously approved. 2 The Board moved to the first discussion item -- initial screening of the complaint filed by Michael Pruznick against Councilmember Susan Gutowsky alleging she had experienced a personal and financial benefit not afforded to others, had a conflict of interest participating in the performance review and salary setting for the City Manager, City Attorney, Chief Judge, failed to report her alleged candidacy for the 2021 Council election and interfered with administrative service of the City. Special Counsel, Clay Douglas, discussed the procedure, the meeting packet materials and checklist provided. Mr. Douglas noted this Board would proceed using the process it has used in the past. Chair Troxell discussed the major points of the conflict of interest contained in the Pruznick complaint. He announced that the Board would allow each party to talk for five minutes. There would be no rebuttal time but the Board would have time to seek clarification and ask questions. The complainant, Michael Pruznick, stated he was okay with this procedure. He went on to state that Councilmember Gutowsky’s statement referenced his Respectful Workplace Policy complaint and in doing so revealed confidential information. Mr. Pruznick stated he wants to file a second complaint about that issue. Mr. Pruznick then went through the allegations contained in his complaint. Councilmember Gutowsky then read her filed statement, which was provided to the Board and Mr. Pruznick in advance. Chair Troxell then asked the Board if anyone had any follow-up questions. Councilmember Summers stated that it sounds like the basis of Mr. Pruznick’s complaint against Councilmember Gutowsky is that somehow leniency was obtained due to other actions Councilmember Gutowsky was involved in. Special Counsel Douglas stated that sounded like a good summary and drew the Board’s attention to the checklist found on page 0014 and noted that only if the answer to all questions were yes would there be a potential violation. Chair Troxell stated that the complaint is based on only the alleged notion of leniency from the judge, attorney, and investigator in this matter. Special Counsel Douglas called the Board’s attention to the fact that, in response to Mr. Pruznick’s argument that the prosecutor agreed to a deferred prosecution, the prosecutor was not a City employee, but an outside retained counsel and the judge who decided this matter was not a City employee either. The Intergovernmental Agreement proves this; the judge was an employee of the City of Loveland. Since there were no other questions, Chair Troxell suggested the Board answer the questions in the checklist and address those issues. The Board then went through the checklist, answering the questions and found the answers to be “no”. The Board then discussed the issue of whether Councilmember Gutowsky was required to have filed her affidavit regarding candidacy for a Council seat in 2021. Special Counsel Douglas discussed what triggers initiation of a Council candidacy. 3 Chair Troxell stated based on a review of the evidence provided and the presentation by the complainant, Michael Pruznick and response by Councilmember Gutowsky, there is not an ethics violation alleged and nothing further needs to be done with regards to this complaint. Chair Troxell made a motion that after having reviewed and considered the allegations of Mr. Pruznick’s complaint, the Board finds there is no violation of any ethics laws and this Board determines not to investigate this matter further as the allegations are without merit. Paralegal Jeanne Sanford took a role call of the vote on this motion: Chair Troxell, yes; Councilmember Pignataro, yes; Councilmember Summers, yes. The motion was passed. Councilmember Pignataro made some final comments on this matter and stated there is a clear line that both the City and Councilmember Gutowsky took to make sure this was completely separate from her duties as a councilmember, so she does not agree that a reasonable and prudent person would come to those conclusions as Mr. Pruznick stated. The Board moved on to the next complaint by Michael Pruznick against Mayor Pro Tem Kristin Stephens which contained allegations of financial conflict of interest, personal conflict of interest, interest in other decisions and other matters. The same five minutes of speaking time was given to both the complainant and the subject of the complaint. Mr. Pruznick gave an overview of the questions raised starting on pages 135-136 of the materials. Mayor Pro Tem Kristin Stephens spoke about the allegations made against her regarding affordable housing and the perceived conflict of interest, donations to her campaign and possible motives of Mr. Pruznick in filing his complaint. Chair Troxell asked the Board if there were questions. The Board discussed and made clarifications on the process for board and commission appointments, including the Energy Board. The Board then went to the checklist for this matter found on page 0135 of the materials. The Board discussed the answers to the relevant questions and shared the view that the answer to each was “no.” Councilmember Pignataro addressed the issue of appointments to various Boards and stated she was trying to make a connection as to board appointments and the allegations contained in Mr. Pruznick’s complaint; she could find no connection. Councilmember Summers stated this situation is so far removed from Mayor Pro Tem Stephens and in reality, on advisory boards, these are citizens that function in an advisory role that concern the City. Mr. Summers stated the facts presented make it clear that this is within the normal course of business for a councilmember to participate in the vote for these board selections. 4 Councilmember Pignataro stated she believes there is no connection with regard to campaign contributions. She worries about the motives and emotions of Mr. Pruznick related to his solar home spilling over and leading to these kinds of complaints, which she noted is unfortunate. Chair Troxell stated that using the process of an ethics complaint is an abuse of a system intended to support trying to run an ethical city. Councilmember Summers then made a motion that the Ethics Review Board find the allegations of Mr. Pruznick’s complaint against Mayor Pro Tem Stephens unfounded, without merit and deserving of no further formal investigation. Paralegal Jeanne Sanford took a roll call on the vote of the motion. Chair Troxell, yes; Councilmember Pignataro, yes, Councilmember Summers, yes. The motion passed. Chair Troxell asked if there were any follow-up or final comments from the Board. Mayor Pro Tem Stephens stated she wanted to acknowledge that she has been very careful not to talk about her County campaign and is trying to separate that matter and does take it very seriously. Under the next Agenda item, Other Business, Councilmember Pignataro asked City Attorney Carrie Daggett about the options for the Ethics Review Board when complaints are brought against other (peer) Councilmembers. City Attorney Daggett stated she has a list of topics and options to discuss with Council related to ethics review. One is the process of an alternative decision-making body for complaints made against Councilmembers. There will also be further follow up regarding the definitions in our Charter and how conflicts of interest are defined specifically related to officers’ employment. Ms. Daggett explained she and staff are working on preparing for follow up on this but have experienced some delay due to competing work (including multiple ethics complaints and requests) but hopes to get that information to Council by sometime in September to enable Council to discuss how to proceed. Ms. Daggett stated the Ethics Review Board process is set in the City Code and can be changed by Council. Conflicts of interest definitions are in the City Charter and must be amended with voter approval. The soonest these could be considered would be April, 2021. The Board then noted the upcoming Knebgle complaint and the scheduling for that screening meeting. Staff will be looking at mid-August to schedule that next meeting in. Councilmember Pignataro stated she would like to add to the list of topics Council will be considering is the issue of this Board hearing and screening complaints that have already been decided on. Ms. Pignataro stated in this instance, it seems to become a stalling tactic for citizens to lodge similar complaints already decided on. City Attorney Daggett noted that this could be considered as part of Council’s upcoming discussions. Ms. Daggett thanked the Board and thanked Clay Douglas for stepping in and assisting with this matter. The meeting was adjourned at 6:24 pm.