HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 6/11/2014- DEFINITIONS AND PROCEDUREEthics Review Board Meeting Minutes
June 11, 2014
10:45 a.m.
City Attorney Large Conference Room
Members in Attendance: Board members Karen Weitkunat, Gino Campana, Lisa Poppaw, and
Russ Cunniff (alternate).
Staff in Attendance: Steve Roy, City Attorney; John R. Duval, Senior Assistant City Attorney,
Cary Carricato Alton, Paralegal.
A meeting of the City Council Ethics Review Board ("Board") was held on Wednesday, June 11,
2013, to consider the following issues:
1. Proposed revisions to the definitions contained in City Code Sec. 2-568, relating
to ethical rules of conduct.
2. Proposed revisions to the complaint process as referenced in City Code Sec.
2-569.
The meeting began at 10:51 a.m.
City Attorney confirmed with the members of the Board they had had an opportunity to review
the materials provided to them in advance of the meeting. The Mayor indicated a preference of
starting with the complaint process revisions.
Proposed Revisions to the Complaint Process, City Code Sec. 2-569
Mr. Roy summarized the intent to amend the current complaint process to streamline the process
and screening of complaints. He also summarized the proposed new process. Essentially, any
complaint would be submitted to the City Clerk's office instead of the Mayor, which is how the
current process currently operates. The Review Board would meet within ten (10) working days
of the filing of a complaint. Based on the specific criteria set out in the revised complaint
process, the Review Board would decide whether a complaint should be formally investigated.
If the Review Board determined that a complaint does not warrant investigation, the Review
Board would notify the complainant in writing and explain the reasoning behind the conclusion.
An Alternate Review Board would be appointed if a complaint alleges ethical violations on the
part of two or more members of the Review Board. Any Councilmember whose conduct or
circumstances is the subject of an opinion of the Review Board would refrain from participating
in deliberations of the Council regarding that opinion. The Board Members spent a few minutes
reviewing the suggested modifications. The Mayor asked if Mr. Roy had received any feedback
from the commissions and boards that were asked to comment on the streamlining of the current
complaint procedure. Mr. Roy indicated that no comments had been received to date, and that
the modifications had been sent to all of the boards and commissions.
Ethics Review Board
Meeting Minutes
June 11, 2014
Page 2 of 3
The Board had a short discussion regarding the revisions proposed to the complaint process and
the goal of streamlining the process. Mr. Roy indicated that the initial feedback had been that
this modification might be viewed as shuttling the complaints out of the public eye, at least for
the initial screening. Mr. Cunniff indicated that the Ethics Review Board is a public meeting, so
he didn't see that this was taking the concerns out of public view, and he indicated that the
meeting is just not televised as the Council meetings are. Mr. Cunniff also indicated that the
intent is to streamline the process, and not to hide anything.
Complaints would not be sent to the Council as a whole unless and until the Ethics Review
Board finds that the complaint has merit, instead of every complaint going to the entire Council.
However, notice would be given to the Council that a complaint had been filed. (Lisa Poppaw
arrived at this time). Mr. Roy outlined how the process would work, including a decision by
majority vote as to whether or not a complaint needs to be submitted to the entire Council for
consideration. Mr. Roy indicated that, historically, all complaints that have gone to the Council
have been sent to the Ethics Review Board for consideration, so the new process would eliminate
the extra time between Council meetings and give the complaint quicker consideration.
The Mayor indicated that her only concern revolved around the criteria to be used in determining
whether or not a full investigation should be done. Mr. Campana indicated that the criteria are
essentially what the Ethics Review Board has always worked from and always applied to
complaints. Mr. Roy indicated that even if the Ethics Review Board determined that a complaint
did not merit a full investigation, the entire Council could recommend that a full investigation be
completed.
The Board unanimously agreed that the suggested revisions to the complaint process make sense
and would likely accomplish the streamlining of the process. Mr. Roy indicated that the
revisions to the complaint process should be available for Council consideration on July 15,
2014.
Proposed Revisions definitions contained in City Code Sec. 2-568
The Board then moved on to the consideration of modifying the definitions contained in City
Code Section 2-568. Mr. Roy asked that Mr. Duval explain how he came up with the revised
definitions.
Mr. Duval indicated that the terms that the Board is dealing with pertain to personal interest, as
defined in the Charter. Mr. Duval indicated that he looked at case law as to how courts have
treated the specific terms in this Code section. He went on to explain that whenever there are
disagreements about terms, the courts have generally applied the standard of what a reasonably
prudent person understands a term to mean. Mr. Duval did some research about whether or not
the courts had defined "detriment different in kind". He did find that they have defined the term
the context of public nuisance law and condemnation proceedings. He also discussed what
courts have found "different in degree" to mean. Mr. Duval indicated that the court has found
that "different in kind from that experienced by the general public" to mean of a type or nature
Ethics Review Board
Meeting Minutes
June 11, 2014
Page 3 of 3
not shared by the general public as a whole and not merely different in degree from that
experienced in general by the public. He also discussed the term "substantial" and "direct' as
defined by the courts, as well as "benefit' and "detriment'.
The Board then discussed examples of prior situations in which Council members have recused
themselves because of a benefit or detriment that was either "different in degree" or "different in
kind". Mr. Campana indicated a desire to reduce the gray area of the definition of terms, because
they are currently so broad. Mr. Roy indicated that although some things in this Code provision
could be revised to try to clarify the meanings of certain terms, they cannot be modified in such a
way that they conflict with the Charter.
Mr. Roy indicated that "general public' does not necessarily mean everyone in the City of Fort
Collins. The Board also discussed the term "similarly situated".
The Board generally agreed that the following definitions are appropriate:
Benefit shall mean an advantage or gain.
Different in kind shall mean of a different type or nature not merely different in degree.
Direct shall mean resulting immediately and proximately from the circumstances and
not from an intervening cause.
Detriment shall mean disadvantage, injury, damage or loss_
Substantial shall mean more than nominal in value or extent.
Mr. Cunniff indicated that he believed it was necessary to also define "different in degree".
The Board then discussed a possible need to further define the terms "general public',
"community", "public services", and possibly "geographic proximity".
Mr. Campana indicated he would like to meet one more time to finalize these definitions prior to
bringing them to Council.
Meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
Stiphen oy; Ci Attorney