Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/05/2017 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 167, 2017, AMENDINGAgenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 5, 2017 City Council STAFF Carrie Daggett, City Attorney Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager Tyler Marr, Policy and Project Analyst SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 167, 2017, Amending Section 2-568(c)(2) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Rules of Conduct Applicable to Councilmember Conduct. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to amend Section 2-568(c)(2) of the City Code to add clarifying language that limits Councilmember interaction with City officers and employees regarding matters for which a conflict of interest has been declared. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Section 2-568 of the City Code establishes the ethical rules of conduct for officers and employees of the City. The Ethics Review Board met on February 7, 2017, February 14, 2017, March 21, 2017, and November 7, 2017, to review, address and clarify restrictions and permitted actions of Councilmembers with conflicts of interest. Code Section 2-568(c)(2) currently prohibits a Councilmember from representing any person or interest before the City Council or any board or commission of the City. The Ordinance amends Code Section 2-568(c)(2) to further address and clarify the limitations that apply once a Councilmember has declared a conflict of interest to prohibit that Councilmember from discussing with or attempting to influence any City officer or employee, and from representing any person or interest before Council or another City officer or employee. The proposed language establishes an exception for a Councilmember representing his or her own interest or that of a relative, as long as other ethics requirements are met. This amendment implements a recommendation in Ethics Opinion 2016-01 and 2017-01 to clarify this provision in the City Code. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Ethics Review Board recommends adoption of the Ordinance. PUBLIC OUTREACH The Ethics Review Board conducted several public meetings regarding this item on February 7, 2017, February 14, 2017, March 21, 2017, and November 7, 2017. Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 2 ATTACHMENTS 1. Ethics Opinion 2016-01 (PDF) 2. Ethics Opinion 2017-01 (PDF) 3. Ethics Review Board Meeting Minutes, February 7, 2017 (PDF) 4. Ethics Review Board Meeting Minutes, February 14, 2017 (PDF) 5. Ethics Review Board Meeting Minutes, March 21, 2017 (PDF) 6. Ethics Review Board Meeting Minutes, November 7, 2017 (DOCX) ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 2 Ethics Review Board Meeting Minutes February 7, 2017 3:15 p.m. Members in Attendance: Board members Ray Martinez, Gino Campana and Kristin Stephens and Ross Cunniff (alternate) Also Present: Kevin Jones, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce; Staff in Attendance: Carrie Daggett, City Attorney; Jeanne Sanford, Paralegal; A meeting of the City Council Ethics Review Board (“Board”) was held on Tuesday, February 7, 2017, in the City Attorney’s Office Large Conference Room, to review and recommend City Code amendments in follow up to and as discussed in Ethics Opinion 2016-01, and consideration of an inquiry by Councilmember Campana requesting that the Board consider and provide an advisory opinion regarding the question of whether a Councilmember is allowed to discuss with City staff a matter regarding which a conflict has been declared upon filing a conflict of interest disclosure. The meeting began at 3:18 p.m. The Board reviewed the Agenda which contained the following items: 1. Appointment of Chair for Meeting of the Ethics Review Board for February 7, 2017, Meeting. 2. Review and approval of the October 4, 2016 Minutes of the Ethics Review Board. 3. Review and recommend City Code amendments in follow up to and as discussed in Ethics Opinion 2016-01. 4. Consideration of an inquiry by Councilmember Campana requesting that the Board consider and provide an advisory opinion regarding the question of whether a Councilmember is allowed to discuss with City staff a matter regarding which a conflict has been declared upon filing a conflict of interest disclosure. 5. Other Business. 6. Adjournment. The Board discussed appointment of a permanent chairperson for the meetings. Councilmember Campana nominated Councilmember Ray Martinez to chair the meetings. Councilmember Stephens seconded the nomination and Councilmember Martinez accepted the role of chairperson with the unanimous consent of the Board. Chair Martinez stated that this was an Ethics Review Board meeting on February 7, 2017 at 3:15 p.m., and after roll call, declared that all members of the Board were present. Ross Cunniff was also present, although not participating as a Board member until later in the meeting. ATTACHMENT 3 2 Chair Martinez called for the approval of the October 4, 2016, Minutes of the Ethics Review Board. Chair Martinez asked the Board if anyone had questions or motions. Chair Martinez made a motion to approve the October 4, 2016, Minutes. Councilmember Camapana seconded the motion. The Board unanimously approved the October 4, 2016, Minutes. Chair Martinez called for the second agenda item, review and discussion of draft City Code and Charter amendments discussed in Ethics Opinion 2016-01. City Attorney Daggett stated there were a few edits requested at the last meeting. Ms. Daggett stated she sent out tracked changes to Councilmembers in December and there were no concerns voiced but she wanted to give the committee a chance to formally approve and recommend this version. Ms. Daggett did note it was discussed at Leadership Planning Team that a question was raised about whether there should be public outreach about the Code changes before presenting the ordinance to Council for consideration. Members of the Board indicated they did not think an outreach was needed. City Attorney Daggett stated conflict issues affect all board and commission members and indicated she had discussed with the City Clerk whether a “super issues” meeting would be practicable. Ms. Daggett indicated that there was just a “super issue” meeting on February 6, 2017. Councilmember Campana stated he did not think an outreach was necessary but suggested putting the ethics opinion and Code provisions in new educational materials for on-boarding for board members which would provide additional clarity. Councilmember Martinez agreed it should provided as part of their training materials. Councilmember Campana made a motion to approve proposed amendments to City Code Section 2-568. Councilmember Stephens seconded the motion. The Board unanimously approved the changes to Code Section 2-568. Chair Martinez stated the next item was consideration of an inquiry by Councilmember Campana requesting that the Board consider and provide an advisory opinion regarding the question of whether a Councilmember is allowed to discuss with City staff a matter regarding which a conflict has been declared upon filing a conflict of interest disclosure. City Attorney Daggett noted for the record that Councilmember Campana was no longer acting as a member of the Board and Councilmember Cunniff was participating in his role as alternate. City Attorney Daggett stated the question was raised in part because of the decision and evaluation last summer of the actual effect of the Charter related to conflict of interest and how 3 that limits a board member or Councilmember’s activities under the Charter when a conflict has been declared. Ms. Daggett explained the focus of that discussion was distinguishing and participating in an individual or personal capacity. The analysis and interpretation in that opinion is that Charter really limits performance of functions, influencing decisions and participating as member of the Council. That opens up questions as to what other activities are permissible. Ms. Daggett explained the Code has a provision that says a Councilmember shall not represent any person or interest before the Council or any City board or commission. However, it does not address whether a Councilmember in his or her personal capacity as an individual can interact with City staff on an issue. In a nutshell, that is what the question is really about. Ms. Daggett stated there is a limit that is clear in the Code about a Councilmember with a conflict and prohibiting that person from interacting with Council or a board or commission but it does not address that Councilmember’s interactions with city staff. Chair Martinez asked if this was pertaining to personal business. City Attorney Daggett stated yes, in this case the issue was really about a Councilmember who has a conflict, was not participating as a Councilmember and now wants to be able to express personal opinions and work with staff on policy or other issues. There are some parts of the Code and Charter that bear on this to some extent. Ms. Daggett stated there was a provision adopted in 2014 that prohibits officers/employees from seeking special treatment, so clearly there is a limit to those activities. Ms. Daggett explained there is a Charter provision which may or may not bear on this question but which provides Councilmembers, except for purposes of inquiry, shall deal with the administrative services of the City solely through the City Manager and shall not give orders to subordinates of City Manager. It is unclear whether that Charter provision intends to address activities of a Councilmember speaking personally in his/her individual capacity rather than as a Councilmember giving direction to City staff on an issue. Ms. Daggett summed up there was some ambiguity here and her sense is that this is why Councilmember Campana has asked this question. Councilmember Stephens asked for clarification if this question would be about a personal or business matter. City Attorney Daggett stated the question could go to either situation and perhaps Councilmember Campana could explain the nature of the question. Councilmember Campana stated he recused himself from a topic and staff reached out to him as a professional in the industry that staff wanted professional input from. Councilmember Campana stated he has not responded and does not know how to react to this question. Mr. Campana stated it was suggested he be contacted by the Finance Committee, which probably did not know he had recused himself. Councilmember Cunniff stated that it seemed risky to him for a Councilmember, whoever that may be, who has recused himself on a matter because of a conflict of interest, to be giving policy advice to staff. 4 Councilmember Stephens stated her concern is that if you have recused yourself and you are not part of the policy discussion but you are still part of that policy discussion behind the scenes that gives the impression of something happening behind the scenes and not in front of Council. City Attorney Daggett stated another angle to look at this is to say, when Council adopted Code Section 2-568(c)(2), what was intended? City Attorney Daggett read Code Section 568(c)(2). Ms. Daggett stated it did not expressly state that Councilmembers shall not represent any personal interest in dealings with City staff in matters that will come to Council or a board or commission, and it may not have intended that. Ms. Daggett asked, was this part of the intent or envisioned by this section? City Attorney Daggett stated the language in the Code was to define council-driven expectations. Ms. Daggett explained there is a provision in the Code now that was put in by Council, so there may be an area where Council can adopt language for further clarification or interpret it as is and determine there is no desire for the Code to say anything different. This issue may come up more frequently under most recent ethics opinion of Charter about participating in discussions. Ms. Daggett stated that the Charter provision applies to all board members, commission members and Councilmembers. Ms. Daggett believes the stricter treatment of Councilmembers in the Code that goes beyond what the Charter provides was motivated by the sense of basic ethical expectations dictating stricter treatment in some instances. Councilmember Campana stated he believed additional language should be added to the Code Section 2-568(a)(1) previously discussed. Councilmembers Campana and Martinez discussed adding the word “directly” to Code language. City Attorney Daggett asked if all were more comfortable in reopening item 2 under agenda looking at this Code language? Councilmember Campana stated he thinks City Attorney Daggett is right in that the answer goes to item 2 on the agenda, and the Board may want to discuss further, in the previously discussed ordinance, revisions to the proposed ordinance and apply it to the question. City Attorney Daggett explained that this language “attempt to influence” does not apply to Councilmember contacts. Councilmember Cunniff suggested that the “attempt to influence” language would probably say, “attempt to influence or influence, as it pertains to this Section, shall mean take any action intended instead of the previously discussed calculated, to impact, shape, control, sway, bias or prejudice.”, because the word calculated is a little vague. City Attorney Daggett stated that this language in that Section (§2-568(a)(1)) of the Code is still only addressing board or commission members. If the desire is to clarify in Code what Councilmembers may do, then the Board would need to look at Section 2-568(c)(2) which talks 5 about what Councilmembers can do. Ms. Daggett stated there is potential confusion from the Code because it only talks about Councilmembers contacts with Council and boards, and does not answer what Councilmember can do with staff. City Attorney Daggett explained that Code Section 568(c)(2) – could say, no Councilmember shall attempt to influence the City Council or any board or commission of the City. City Attorney Daggett stated her recommendation would be to address this provision by separate ordinance rather than modify the previously drafted ordinance, because it relates to Ethics Opinion 2016-01 from last July. She indicated a separate ordinance could be ready to approve with the already drafted one. Ms. Daggett further explained if the Board renders an opinion that includes a recommendation for a Code change, the opinion would need to go to Council for approval by resolution but the ordinance could be considered at the same time. Ms. Daggett inquired the Board’s opinion regarding what restrictions apply in the interim period before a Code change. Councilmember Cunniff stated it is not explicitly prohibited by the current Code and Charter provisions for Councilmember Campana to answer staff’s question. Councilmember Cunniff stated he believed this was a consensus of the Board. City Attorney Daggett indicated she would include as part of the opinion a recommendation that Council clarify the section regarding Councilmembers. Under Other Business in the Agenda, Councilmember Cunniff moved that the question that Councilmember Campana had is not directly raised in the Code or Charter and therefore his answering staff questions is not prohibited. The Board unanimously approved Councilmember Cunniff’s motion. City Attorney Daggett stated she would draft the opinion, circulate it among the Board and schedule another 15 minute meeting to circle back and approve the language. Ms. Daggett stated her understanding of what the Board desired for Code language to say is along the following lines: “No Councilmember shall influence or attempt to influence directly or indirectly, the City Council or any commission or board of the City regarding any matter that which that Councilmember has declared a conflict of interest.” City Attorney Daggett asked the Board to go back and reconsider the previous unanimous vote and for Councilmember Cunniff to be the alternative board member for Councilmember Campana. Councilmember Campana made a motion to reconsider Code Section 2-568 proposed changes. Councilmember Stephens seconded the motion. All board members unanimously approved the motion. 6 Councilmember Stephens left the meeting and Councilmember Campana returned to the discussion of the Board. City Attorney Daggett stated her understanding that the desired Code amendment would change the definition of influence or attempt to influence and substitute the word intended where it previously said calculated so it would read, “Attempt to influence or influence, as it pertains to this Section, shall mean take any action intended to impact, shape, control, sway, bias or prejudice.” Chair Martinez stated let the record reflect the Board unanimously approved the Motion. Councilmember Campana asked City Attorney Daggett if he should wait to talk with staff. City Attorney Daggett stated that technically, the opinion is not in force until Council acts on it – which it cannot do at tonight’s Council session, but would be asked to consider on February 21. Councilmember Campana stated he would hang tight until then. Chair Martinez asked the Board if there was other business. City Attorney Daggett noted she would work on drafting an opinion for Board review, would modify the previously drafted ordinance, and would prepare a new ordinance per the Board’s action. She indicated she would work with staff to schedule a Board meeting for review of the new materials prior to the print deadline for the February 21 meeting (February 15). The Board voted unanimously to adopt Chair Martinez’s Motion to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 4:06. ________________________________________ Carrie M. Daggett, City Attorney Ethics Review Board Meeting Minutes February 14, 2017 5:00 p.m. Members in Attendance: Board members Ray Martinez, Gino Campana and Kristin Stephens and Ross Cunniff (alternate) Also Present: Kevin Jones, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce; Staff in Attendance: Carrie Daggett, City Attorney; Jeanne Sanford, Paralegal; A meeting of the City Council Ethics Review Board (“Board”) was held on Tuesday, February 14, 2017, in the City Attorney’s Office Large Conference Room, to review and recommend City Code amendments in follow up to and as discussed in Ethics Opinion 2017-01, and continued consideration of an inquiry by Councilmember Campana requesting that the Board consider and provide an advisory opinion regarding the question of whether a Councilmember is allowed to discuss with City staff a matter regarding which a conflict has been declared upon filing a conflict of interest disclosure. The meeting began at 5:00 p.m. The Board reviewed the Agenda which contained the following items: 1. Review and approval of the February 7, 2017 Minutes of the Ethics Review Board. 2. Review and Approval of draft Ethics Opinion 2017-01, with continued consideration of an inquiry by Councilmember Campana requesting that the Board consider and provide an advisory opinion regarding the question of whether a Councilmember is allowed to discuss with City staff a matter regarding which a conflict has been declared upon filing a conflict of interest disclosure. 3. Revie and recommend City Code amendments in follow-up to and as discussed in Ethics Opinion 2017-01. 4. Other Business. 5. Adjournment. Chair Martinez stated that this was an Ethics Review Board meeting on February 14, 2017 at 5:00 p.m., and after roll call, declared that all members of the Board were present. Also present were Carrie Daggett, City Attorney, Jeanne Sanford, Paralegal, Kevin Jones, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce. Ross Cunniff, as alternate, was also present. Chair Martinez called for the record reflect that Councilmember Cunniff, as alternate, was acting on the Board and Councilmember Campana was acting as audience member, excluding his participation on item 2. ATTACHMENT 4 2 Chair Martinez called for the approval of the February 7, 2017, Minutes of the Ethics Review Board. Councilmember Cunniff made a motion to approve the February 7, 2017, Minutes. Councilmember Stephens seconded the motion. The Board unanimously approved the February 7, 2017, Minutes. Chair Martinez called for and read the second agenda item, which was review and discussion of draft Ethics Opinion 2017-01, with continued consideration of an inquiry by Councilmember Campana requesting that the Board consider and provide an advisory opinion regarding the question of whether a Councilmember is allowed to discuss with City staff a matter regarding which a conflict has been declared upon filing a conflict of interest disclosure. City Attorney Daggett explained this was the first draft of Ethics Opinion 2017-01 based on discussion from last Tuesday. Ms. Daggett stated there had not been specific discussion about Article 2, Section 13 of the Charter which contains the language limiting Councilmembers dealing with administrative services City, except through the City Manager. Ms. Daggett further explained that implicitly from things being discussed, she took from the Board discussion that it was the interpretation that was intended to imply as pertaining to Councilmember activities as opposed to as an individual citizen. Ms. Daggett stated she wrote about that because it was implied by what the Board talked about but since there was not specific discussion regarding that specifically, she wanted to bring that to the Board’s attention. Ms. Daggett asked the Board to look at Page 2 under Board Conclusions and Recommendations. Ms. Daggett stated the Article 2, Section 13 of the Charter is not intended to limit every interaction with City organization by a person who is a Councilmember. Ms. Daggett directed the Board take a particularly close look at that to make sure everyone was comfortable with that. Councilmember Cunniff stated it was consistent with his understanding of a professional role. Mr. Cunniff explained that professional role actually covers the situation the Board discovered last meeting with Councilmember Campana’s question of staff asking him for feedback in his professional role. City Attorney Daggett explained this ethics opinion was not as extensive as other opinions in the past in the areas of analysis and discussion, since this situation was more of a discussion about looking at the requirements that are in Charter and Code. Ms. Daggett explained that since drafting the ethics opinion and related Code language, she did a further review and thought the Board needed to take a slightly more refined approach. Ms. Daggett stated she understood the Board wants to see the ethics opinion language change, but the absolute language discussed last week would prevent Councilmembers from protecting their own interests in any way in the four (4) years they are on Council which could become an issue for someone. For example, if a Councilmember’s property was taken for a project which they have declared a conflict and are not acting as Councilmember, it would be hard for that 3 Councilmember to protect his/her interests without directly or indirectly attempting to influence. Ms. Daggett explained the current language creates an opening that eliminates the clarity talked about before, but is suggesting it because it most likely creates an indefensible barrier to someone protecting their own interests and exercising their first amendment rights to protecting their own interests when they have no other way to do that. Councilmember Cunniff asked if there was a way to narrow it down to matters under appeal in quasi-judicial. Ms. Daggett explained that the place where she was trying to narrow it down was where it said, “the prohibition shall not apply if the subject matter of the conflict is an individual and personal matter of the Councilmember.” Councilmember Cunniff stated he felt more comfortable being explicit with that because on policy level issues, there is normally not the opportunity for individual citizens to have a structured role in discussions with City Council and restricting City Council from participating in general public comments seems consistent with the intent of Charter. Ms. Daggett suggested one way to get past the ethics opinion piece is she could make the discussion in #3 more general suggesting the change to Code and move on from there. Councilmember Cunniff approved of this idea. Councilmember Campana stated his intent to finalize the Opinion, reconvene and work on Code changes next meeting. Mr. Campana stated it would be best to wrap this up before April 4 th . City Attorney Daggett stated her suggestion to modify #3 would be to say, “the Board recommends that the Board further consider a recommendation to Council to amend City Code Section 2-568(c)(2) to more clearly address the actions permitted.” Chair Martinez asked if City Attorney Daggett could work on alternative language and she stated she would. Councilmember Cunniff stated the big picture is to develop language that allows a Councilmember to directly or indirectly represent their personal property interests without basically completely nullifying the conflict of interest provision. City Attorney Daggett agreed. City Attorney Daggett stated if you start out with the interpretation of Charter that says that a Councilmember cannot influence, then she wanted to make clear we are tightening down from there. Ms. Daggett stated she was not deviating from Charter, but defining the outlines of what Council thinks is appropriate. Ms. Daggett stated she would be happy to work on and present different options for the Board to look at. 4 Chair Martinez stated he would like that and that he did not think you could tell an elected official they cannot protect their own property interests. Councilmember Cunniff brought up a zoning issue that is coming up by his house and he would like an ethics opinion on whether this will require him to recuse himself. Mr. Cunniff stated his property will be in within the notification area, but they are not rezoning the property. Mr. Cunniff also suggested saving this issue until it comes forward. The Board discussed the similar situation which came up with the mall redevelopment. City Attorney Daggett stated the gist of the situation which came up with the mall redevelopment project was that the mere fact you are in a notice area does not necessarily mean you have a conflict, but certain circumstances could create a conflict. Councilmember Cunniff stated it was important to take this issue all the way through to conclusion. City Attorney Daggett asked if the Board was prepared to approve the ethics opinion to get it on the agenda next Tuesday night. Councilmember Cunniff made the motion to approve the Ethics Opinion 2017-01 and Councilmember Stephens seconded the motion. The Board unanimously approved Ethics Opinion 2017-01. Councilmember Campana asked if he should fill out a new conflict form and City Attorney Daggett stated he could do that. Chair Martinez read the next agenda item which was review and recommend City Code amendments and follow up to and as discussed in Ethics Opinion 2017-01. City Attorney Daggett stated she felt there was a desire to see different permutations to this to get to the idea of the matter of things uniquely affecting Councilmembers but not other citizens. Ms. Daggett stated she would work on some variations on that to compare side by side to see the issues. She is happy to do that and get out well ahead of time. Chair Martinez called for other business. As there was no other business, Chair Martinez made a motion to adjourn and Councilmember Campana seconded. The Board voted unanimously to adopt Chair Martinez’s Motion to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 5:39 p.m. _______________________________________ Carrie M. Daggett, City Attorney Ethics Review Board Meeting Minutes March 21, 2017 3:00 p.m. Members in Attendance: Board members Ray Martinez, Gino Campana and Kristin Stephens and Ross Cunniff (alternate) Staff in Attendance: Carrie Daggett, City Attorney; Jeanne Sanford, Paralegal. A meeting of the City Council Ethics Review Board (“Board”) was held on Tuesday, March 21, 2017, in the City Attorney’s Office Large Conference Room, for review of and possible recommendation regarding City Code amendments in follow up to and as discussed in Ethics Opinion 2017-01. The meeting began at 3:00 p.m. The Board reviewed the Agenda which contained the following items: 1. Review and approval of the February 14, 2017 Minutes of the Ethics Review Board. 2. Review of and possible recommendation regarding City Code amendments in follow up to and as discussed in Ethics Opinion 2017-01. 3. Other Business. 4. Adjournment. Chair Martinez stated that this was an Ethics Review Board meeting on March 21, 2017 at 3:00 p.m., and after roll call, declared that all members of the Board were present. Also present were Carrie Daggett, City Attorney, Jeanne Sanford, Paralegal. Ross Cunniff, as alternate, was also present. City Attorney Daggett pointed out and called for the record to reflect that Councilmember Cunniff, as alternate, was not acting as a member of the Board, but rather as attending as an audience member. Councilmember Campana called for the approval of the Minutes of the February 14, 2017 meeting of the Ethics Review Board. Councilmember Campana made a motion to approve the February 14, 2017, Minutes. Chair Martinez seconded the motion. The Board unanimously approved the February 14, 2017, Minutes. Chair Martinez called for and read the second agenda item, which was review of and possible recommendation regarding City Code amendments in follow up to and as discussed in Ethics Opinion 2017-01. ATTACHMENT 5 2 Discussion was made about the Agenda Item Summary sheet used in the packet. Councilmember Campana stated this was a great format to use, but perhaps change the color of the form and make sure it states Ethics Review Board in the title so it stands out next time. City Attorney Daggett stated she would like to recap the events leading up to this latest meeting. There was the ethics opinion last summer that related to board member activity after declaring a conflict. The follow on to that was a Code revision that addressed permitted board member actions after declaring a conflict and that action was adopted on 2 nd reading on March 7 th , so that action was completed. That issue had prompted a discussion about a Councilmember’s activities along with specific question that had come up related to Councilmember Campana. The question that came up was what Councilmember actions are permissible once a Councilmember has declared a conflict. City Attorney Daggett explained that currently, we have a Code provision shown as the struck out portion of the Code language the Board had in its packet. Ms. Daggett read the Code provision and explained that after the discussion in the last Ethics Review Board meeting, she was asked to explore other options, so she has provided with the Agenda Item Summary, four different examples of how this issue could be approached. Ms. Daggett further explained that Attachment 3 illustrated examples of what other Colorado jurisdictions have done on this subject. Councilmember Campana asked if other jurisdictions are allowing what the City is currently proposing. City Attorney Daggett responded that many jurisdictions are silent on the issue and this leaves open the question we have struggled with. One jurisdiction sets up a process where the remainder of council votes on whether that Councilmember should be allowed to present in front of Council. Councilmember Campana replied he did not like that as it could get very political. The Board read and discussed the options presented. Option 3 was discussed at length with questions on relatives and family members and the need to state a broad definition. City Attorney Daggett stated our Charter definition of relative includes spouse, minor children, any person claimed as a dependent for tax purposes or any person sharing expenses of a household. Definition of relative in the Charter is narrower than the list of relatives included in Option 3. Ms. Daggett stated Option 3 could be modified to strike the rest of sentence after, “….his or her own interest or that of a relative,” in order to tie in to the term “relative” as it has been defined already. City Attorney Daggett recapped what she was hearing from the Board in that there seemed to be a coalescing around option #3 modified to eliminate the laundry list of family members. Councilmember Campana made a motion to recommend to Council to adopt amendment No.3 less the text beyond “relative” in the last line. 3 Chair Martinez asked if all in favor. Since there were no opposed, Chair Martinez moved to unanimously approve the amendment #3 version. City Attorney Daggett brought up the one other question which was not addressed by this language and she apologized for not jumping in sooner before the vote, but asked if there was any desire to consider interactions covered in a private vs. public setting? The Board members discussed the matter and stated they believed the language of the Code revision “before City Council or any board or commission” was clear enough and would cover that the intent is for a public setting and anything else would be construed as an attempt to influence. City Attorney Daggett stated an additional sentence would be needed to tie in everything so the amendment #3 would read as follows: “With respect to any matter regarding which a Councilmember has declared a conflict of interest, said Councilmember is prohibited from discussing with, or otherwise attempting in any capacity to influence, directly or indirectly, any City officer or employee, and from representing any person or interest before the City Council or any board of commission of the City or in dealing with any City officer or employee, except that such Councilmember may represent with any City employee or before the City Council or a board or commission of the City his or her own interest or that of a relative provided said Councilmember does not violate Section 2-568(c)(4) or (c)(5).” Councilmember Campana made a motion to modify the recently approved amendment #3 to include what City Attorney Daggett just read. Councilmember Stephens seconded the motion. Chair Martinez stated the board unanimously approved the amendment #3 as Ms. Daggett had just read it. Chair Martinez called for other business. As there was no other business, Chair Martinez made a motion to adjourn and Councilmember Campana seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously to adopt Chair Martinez’s Motion to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 3:44 p.m. _______________________________________ Carrie M. Daggett, City Attorney 1 Ethics Review Board Meeting Minutes November 7, 2017 4:00 p.m. Members in Attendance: Board members Ray Martinez, Kristin Stephens and Ross Cunniff (as alternate). Staff in Attendance: Carrie Daggett, City Attorney; Jeanne Sanford, Paralegal, Tyler Marr, Ginny Sawyer, City Manager’s Office, Also Present: Kevin Jones, Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce. A meeting of the City Council Ethics Review Board (the “Board”) was held on Tuesday, November 7, 2017, in the City Attorney’s Office Large Conference Room, for review of recommended amendments to City Code Section 2-568(c)(2) in preparation for Council consideration. The meeting began at 4:04 p.m. The Board reviewed the Agenda which contained the following items: 1. Review and approval of the March 21, 2017 Minutes of the Ethics Review Board. 2. Review of recommended amendments to City Code Section 2-568(c)(2) in preparation for Council consideration. 3. Other Business. 4. Adjournment. Chair Martinez stated that this was an Ethics Review Board meeting on November 7, 2017 at 4:04 p.m., and after roll call, declared that a quorum of the Board was present with Ray Martinez and Ross Cunniff present to act as alternate for Ken Summers. Chair Martinez called for the approval of the March 21, 2017, Minutes. Councilmember Cunniff approved and Chair Martinez seconded with all in favor. The Board unanimously approved the March 21, 2017, Minutes. Chair Martinez then called for and read the second agenda item which was to review and recommend amendments to City Code Section 2-568(c)(2) in preparation for Council consideration. Chair Martinez called for the record to reflect that Ken Summers has asked Ross Cunniff to be alternate in this Ethics Review Board meeting. Chair Martinez and Councilmember Cunniff asked City Attorney Daggett to meet one-on-one with Councilmember Summers to bring him up to speed on the issues and to circle back to them if he had any questions. 2 Chair Martinez then asked if City Attorney Daggett had any presentations. Ms. Daggett explained that part of the reason this meeting was scheduled was due to the fact that it had been since last spring since the Ethics Review Board acted on the recommendation for Code changes to go forward to Council. Ms. Daggett explained not too long after that, she received feedback calling for more public outreach on items the City Attorney’s Office was in the lead on. After a series of conversations about that particular question with the City’s Public involvement office, the group realized that part of the public process is really the Ethics Review Board and due to the fact there is a new member on the Board, staff wanted to make sure we gave the public an additional chance to chime in about this matter before it went to Council. Councilmember Cunniff asked if the draft ordinance language was the same language that was reviewed last meeting? City Attorney Daggett stated yes and as the Board will recall, there was an ethics opinion about a year ago, in which the Board noticed there really was no guidance to Council when a conflict of interest was declared and there would be a benefit to clarifying what exactly Councilmembers can and cannot do when they have declared a conflict of interest. Ms. Daggett explained there were a number of meetings on that issue, so there were many different versions of language drafted, reviewed and discussed on this topic. The Code amendment language that is stated in the March 21, 1027 Minutes is the language the Board settled on. City Attorney Daggett and Councilmember Cunniff discussed the proposed draft ordinance language and Ms. Daggett confirmed the agreed upon language is as stated in the March 21, 2017 Minutes. Ms. Daggett stated the current Charter language is very minimal and the new language adds more detail in its place. Ginny Sawyer asked City Attorney Daggett for an explanation of City Code Section 2-568(c)(4) and (5) to bring her up to speed. Ms. Daggett read the pertinent Code sections and discussed the matter. Ms. Sawyer asked if this was already a scheduled agenda item. Ms. Daggett explained that due to timing, the matter would be brought before either the December 5 th or December 19 th Council session. Ms. Daggett then noted for the record that staff members Ginny Sawyer and/or Tyler Marr would now be participating in Ethics Review Board meetings due to public outreach and the need to have staff counterparts actively work with the Ethics Review Board. Chair Martinez made a motion to adjourn and Councilmember Cunniff seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously to adopt Chair Martinez’s Motion to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 4:24 p.m. 3 _______________________________________ Carrie M. Daggett, City Attorney -1- ORDINANCE NO. 167, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 2-568(c)(2) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO RULES OF CONDUCT APPLICABLE TO COUNCILMEMBER CONDUCT WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 9 of the Charter of the City establishes conflicts of interest provisions governing City officers and employees; and WHEREAS, Section 2-568 of the City Code establishes Ethical Rules of Conduct and Section 2-568(c)(2) currently prohibits a Councilmember representing “any person or interest before the City Council or any board or commission of the City”; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 2-569 establishes the Ethics Review Board (the “Review Board”) and sets out the procedures under which the Review Board operates; and WHEREAS, in 2016, the Review Board considered various questions related to the Charter and Code provisions related to conflicts of interest culminating in Ethics Opinion 2016- 01, which was adopted by the City Council in Resolution 2016-058; and WHEREAS, the Review Board met several times in 2017 to review, address and clarify restrictions and permitted actions of Councilmembers with conflicts of interest; and WHEREAS, the Ethics Review Board met on February 7 and February 14, 2017, to review and approve the draft Ethics Opinion 2017-01, responding to an inquiry by then Councilmember Campana requesting that the Board consider and provide an advisory opinion regarding whether under the City Charter and City Code City Councilmembers who have declared a conflict of interest regarding a matter may discuss that matter in his or her personal or professional capacity with City staff, which opinion was adopted by the City Council in Resolution 2017-025; and WHEREAS, the Review Board discussed specific revisions to Section 2-568(c)(2) at meetings on February 7, 2017, February 14, 2017, March 21, 2017, and November 7, 2017, and on both occasions recommended that the Council adopt the proposed amendment to the City Code as set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and intends that this amended language be enacted to clarify the effects of a Councilmember conflict of interest and to facilitate the enforcement of this provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. -2- Section 2. That Section 2-568(c)(2) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-568. Ethical rules of conduct. . . . (c) Rules of Conduct. . . . (2) No Councilmember shall represent any person or interest before the City Council or any board or commission of the City. With respect to any matter regarding which a Councilmember has declared a conflict of interest, said Councilmember is prohibited from discussing with, or otherwise attempting in any capacity to influence, directly or indirectly, any City officer or employee, and from representing any person or interest before the City Council or any board of commission of the City or in dealing with any City officer or employee, except that such Councilmember may represent with any City employee or before the City Council or a board or commission of the City his or her own interest or that of a relative provided said Councilmember does not violate Section 2- 568(c)(5) or (c)(6). . . . Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of December, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 19th day of December, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk -3- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 19th day of December, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk