HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 4/30/2019 - Ethics Review Board Meeting - April 26, 2019City of
Fort Collins
City Attorney's Office
300 Laporte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221,6520
970.221.6327
fcgov.com
AGENDA
Ethics Review Board Meeting
City Attorney's Large Conference Room
Garden Level, City Hall (300 Laporte Avenue)
April 26, 2019
(1:00 p.m.)
1. Select new Chair for the Board.
2. Review and Approval of the August 28, 2018 Minutes of the Ethics Review
Board.
3. Consider if a complaint filed by a citizen alleging that Mayor Wade Troxell
violated ethical rules of conduct by reaching out to Officer Chris Renn as part of
the election process warrants formal investigation.
4. Other Business.
5. Adjournment.
Ethics Review Board Meeting Minutes
August 28, 2018
5:00 p.m.
Members in Attendance: Board members Ken Summers, Ray Martinez and Kristin Stephens.
Staff in Attendance: Carrie Daggett, City Attorney, Jeanne Sanford, Paralegal, Tyler Marr, City
Manager's Office.
Public in Attendance: None.
A meeting of the City Council Ethics Review Board ("Board") was held on Tuesday, August 28,
2018, in the City Attorney's Office Large Conference Room, to consider an advisory opinion,
No. 2018-01 regarding whether councilmembers have conflicts of interest in matters involving 1)
outside bodies that have been appointed to represent the City on; or 2) organizations' to which
they have donated funds (pursuant to a request under "Other Business" at the Council meeting on
February 20, 2018).
The meeting began at 5:00 p.m. The Board reviewed the Agenda which contained the following
items:
1. Review and Approval of the July 25. 2018 Minutes of the Ethics Review Board.
2. Consideration and possible adoption of Ethics Review Board Opinion 2018-01
whether Councilmembers have conflicts of interest in matters involving: 1) outside
bodies they have been appointed to represent the City on; or 2) organizations to which
they have donated funds (pursuant to a request under "Other Business" at the Council
meeting on February 20, 2018).
3. Other Business.
4. Adjournment.
Chair Martinez stated this was an Ethics Review Board Meeting on August 28, 2018 at 5:00 p.m.
and after roll call, declared that a quorum of the Board was present. It was noted
Councilmember Stephens was not present in the meeting at this time.
Councilmember Ken Summers called for the approval of the July 25, 2018 Minutes and Chair
Martinez seconded the motion, and the Board then adopted the minutes by unanimous consent.
Chair Martinez discussed item two (2) from the Agenda which is the proposed Ethics Opinion.
At 5:03, Councilmember Stephens arrived at the meeting.
City Attorney Daggett stated that included in the meeting packet, attached to the agenda item
summary for the action item was a first draft of the Ethics Opinion that reviews the language of
extenuating circumstances based on the discussion from the last meeting.
Chair Martinez asked if the other Board members were okay with the language of the Opinion.
Councilmember Summers replied that legal staff did a very good job providing detail with the
Opinion. Councilmember Summers made a motion to approve Opinion 2018-01 and
Councilmember Stephens seconded the motion. The Opinion was adopted by unanimous
consent.
City Attorney Daggett stated she should be able to get this matter on agenda for Sept 4, 2018 and
the resolution will be straight -forward with the opinion attached.
Chair Martinez made a motion to adjourn and Councilmembers Summers seconded the motion.
The Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 5:07 p.m.
Carrie M. Daggett, City Attorney
Agenda Item 3
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Ethics Review Board
April 26, 2019
STAFF
Carrie Daggett, City Attorney
SUBJECT
Consideration of whether a Complaint filed by Lori Brunswig alleging City Code violations by Mayor
Wade Troxell warrants further investigation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to complete the initial screening by the Ethics Review Board of a complaint
filed with the Board under City Code Section 2-569(d), as described below.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board consider the Complaint and determine whether to proceed with an
investigation of the Complaint.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Under City Code Section 2-569(d), any person who believes a Councilmember or board or commission
member has violated any provision of state law or the City Charter or City Code pertaining to ethical
conduct may file a complaint with the City Clerk. After notice to the complaining party and subject of
the complaint, the Ethics Review Board then considers the complaint. A copy of Section 2-569 is
provided as an attachment to this Agenda Item Summary.
The Complaint:
The Board will consider a complaint lodged by email by Lori Brunswig, a Fort Collins resident,
against Mayor Wade Troxell, on Thursday, April 18 (the "Complaint"). The emailed Complaint is
provided in its entirety as an attachment to this Agenda Item Summary. The following is an excerpt
from the email expressing Ms. Brunswig's concern:
I am very disappointed at the conduct of Mayor Troxell for his inexcusable treatment of FOP
President and Police Officer, Chris Renn. We have rules that prohibit City Council members
from demanding from a City employee special treatment and this is exactly what Mayor
Troxell did during his conversation with Chris Renn. 1 contacted Chris Renn after the April
11, 2019 article ran and I believe his account of their conversation that Troxell threatened
Chris's employment with the Police Department due to the fact that the FOP did not endorse
him this year as they had in the past. Mr. Troxell, just because he is Mayor, cannot demand
special privileges per Municipal Code Sec. 2-568 (c)(6) under ethical rules of conduct.
Did Troxell "deliver a written disclosure to the City Clerk and the City Manager and to all other
members of City Council of this conduct? The written disclosure must describe the date, time
1
Agenda Item 3
and general subject matter of the contact, together with the identity of the officer or employee
contacted" on this conversation? I don't think so. In fact, Mr Troxell is claiming to other
Council members that this conversation never happened.
Troxell has put Chris Renn, the Police Department and the FOP under suspicion of wrong
doing and because of this conversation, he has publicly undermined the confidence in the
work that the Police Department does. This is not acceptable and Mr. Troxell needs to be put
on notice that he has violated the following code of ethics. Please respond. I need to hear
that this situation will be remedied and that Chris Renn's position and his reputation is
publicly restored.
Applicable City Code Provisions:
City Code Section 2-568(c)(5) (see attached):
The Complaint references the limitation in City Code on requests for special treatment, found in City
Code Section 2-568(c)(5), which reads as follows:
(5) No officer or employee shal I request on his or her own behalf, or for or through a relative or
related entity, from any other officer or employee, or grant to any other officer or employee, or
relative or related entity of the same, any consideration, treatment or advantage in the
interpretation, administration or enforcement of the Charter, Code, any City regulation, policy or
program or in the provision of public services, that is substantially different from that available to
other persons in the same circumstances or having the same need.
The term "public services" is defined in Section 2-568(a)(13) as follows:
Public services shall mean city services provided to or made available for the public's benefit.
The term "related entity" is defined in Section 2-568(a)(14) as follows:
Related entity shall mean any corporation, limited liability company, partnership, sole
proprietorship, joint venture, trust, estate, foundation, association, business, company or any other
organization, whether or not operated for profit, with respect to which an officer or employee, or a
relative of the same, has a substantial ownership interest in, is employed by, is an agent for or
otherwise represents in any legal capacity.
The term "relative" is defined in Section 2-568(a)(15) as follows:
Relative shall have the meaning given to this word in Section 9(a) of Charter Article IV, which
states:
Relative means the spouse or minor child of the officer or employee, any person claimed by
the officer or employee as a dependent for income tax purposes, or any person residing in
and sharing with the officer or employee the expenses of the household.
2
Agenda Item 3
City Code Section 2-568(c)(6) (see attached):
In addition, the Complaint references the requirement in the City Code that in certain
circumstances Councilmembers contacting a City officer or employee must disclose that contact
in writing by 5:00 p.m. the following business day to the Council, City Clerk and City Manager.
That Section, Section 2-568(c)(6), reads as follows:
(6) If any Councilmember contacts an officer or employee regarding a request in connection with
that contacted officer's or employee's role and in relation to a matter that is not a routine City
matter and is not within the Councilmember's role as an officer of the City, said Councilmember
shall no later than 5:00 p.m. on the next business day after such contact deliver a written disclosure
to the City Clerk and the City Manager and to all other members of City Council. The written
disclosure must describe the date, time and general subject matter of the contact, together with the
identity of the officer or employee contacted. Any private or confidential information, such as tax,
utility account, or other personal information may be excluded or redacted from such disclosure.
Disclosure by means of an electronic message shall be deemed to constitute written disclosure for
purposes of this provision.
The term "routine City matter" is defined in Section 2-568(a)(16) as follows:
Routine City matter shall mean a usual and ordinary registration, reservation, or other request or
application, within a program or for public services or City approval, such as a registration for a
recreation class, reservation of a park shelter, request for standard utility services or application for a
building permit, development approval or variance, or an appeal, provided that the same is carried out
using a routine process or system or in a manner consistent with standard practices.
The Board Determination:
The Board is required under the Code to evaluate the Complaint and determine by majority vote
whether to formally investigate the Complaint. In doing so, the Board should consider:
1. Whether the allegations in the Complaint, if true, would constitute a violation of state or local
ethical rules;
2. The reliability and sufficiency of any facts asserted in support of the allegations; and
3. Any other facts or circumstances the Board may consider relevant.
If the Board determines that the Complaint does not warrant investigation, the Board then sends
written notice to the complainant of that determination and the reasoning behind it. A copy of that
notice is also sent to the subject of the Complaint and the City Council.
1. Is a violation alleged?
The following is a checklist to assist the Board in evaluating whether the Complaint, under the facts
asserted, alleges a violation of either of the relevant Code sections:
3
A. Section 2-568(c)(5) (Requests for Special Treatment:
Y /N /Maybe Element
1. Was Mayor Troxell an officer or employee?
2. Did he EITHER:
Agenda Item 3
- Make a request for himself, or for or through a relative or related entity from
an officer or employee (Chris Renn)?
OR
- Grant to an officer or employee or to a relative or related entity of such officer
or employee?
3. If there was a request or grant, was it for consideration, treatment or
advantage substantially different from that available to other persons in the
same circumstances or having the same need?
4. If there was a request or grant, was it about the interpretation, administration
or enforcement of the Charter, Code, any City regulation policy or program, or
the provision of public services?
If there are any "no" responses in the four items in the far left column (items 1 through 4),
there is no potential violation.
B. Section 2-568(c)(6) (Disclosure of Staff Contacts):
Y /N /Maybe Element
1. Is Mayor Troxell a Councilmember?
2. Did he contact an officer or employee?
3. If so, was the contact about a matter in connection with that officer's or
employee's role?
4. Was the contact outside his role as a Councilmember?
5. Was the contact about a matter that is not a "routine matter"?
If there is a "no" response in the five items (items 1 through 5) above, there is no potential
violation because no disclosure was required.
If all the responses above were "yes" or "maybe", disclosure may have been required, so:
1. Was the disclosure delivered in writing (including by email) to the City Clerk,
City Manager and City Council no later than 5:00 the business day following
the contact?
2. Did the disclosure describe the date, time and general subject matter of the
contact, together with the identity of the officer or employee contacted?
4
Agenda Item 3
If a disclosure may have been required and the response to either of these two items is "no",
then there may have been a violation, and the Board will need to consider items 2 and 3
below.
If the Board determines that there is no potential violation under the facts alleged, the Board should
make a motion to that effect that explains the Board's reasoning, and then vote to make that
determination. If the Board makes this determination, no further action is needed on the Complaint
(other than the provision of notice as required in the Code).
2. Are the facts alleged reliable and sufficient to support the allegation of a violation?
If the Board determines that there may be have been a violation, then the Board will need to
evaluate whether the facts asserted are reliable and sufficient enough to support the allegation in the
Complaint that a violation occurred, making an investigation of the Complaint appropriate. The Board
may have knowledge of information that contradicts the asserted facts, or there may be a lack of
information needed to form a reasonable suspicion that the violation alleged in the Complaint
occurred.
3. Are there any other facts or circumstances relevant to the Board's determination of
whether the Complaint warrants further investigation?
If there is additional information available or presented to the Board that leads the Board to conclude
that the Complaint does not merit further investigation, the Board should identify that information and
explain how it affects the Board's decision as to whether further investigation is warranted.
After the completion of its review of all factors, if it has not already made a determination, the Board
will need to make a motion and vote on whether it has determined that further investigation is
warranted, explaining the reasoning for its decision.
Next Steps:
As noted above, if the Board makes this determination, no further action is needed on the Complaint
(other than the provision of notice as required in the Code).
Alternatively, if the Board determines that further investigation is warranted, staff will suggest a
schedule for next steps for the Board to proceed to that phase of the process. At the end of the
Board's review and investigation, if any, the Board will issue an Ethics Opinion stating the outcome
of its action. The Board's Ethics Opinion is then presented to the City Council for consideration and
possible adoption by resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Code Section 2-569.
2. Email from Lori Brunswig to Darin Atteberry and Carrie Daggett, dated April 18, 2019, at 3:18 p.m.,
with the subject line: "Private — Troxell's violation of City Code"
3. City Code Section 2-568 (excerpts).
5
Sec. 2-569. - Board of ethics.
(a) In order to assist the Councilmembers and board and commission members in interpreting and
applying the definitions, rules and procedures pertaining to ethics established by the Charter and
Code and by the applicable provisions of state statute, there is hereby created a Board of the City to
be known as the Ethics Review Board, hereafter referred to in this Division as the "Review Board."
(b) The Review Board shall consist of three (3) Councilmembers elected by the City Council, one (1) of
whom shall be elected by the Review Board to serve as a chairperson. One (1) alternate shall also
be appointed by the City Council to serve in the event that a regular member of the Review Board is
unavailable or in the event that any particular complaint or inquiry is directed towards a member of
the Review Board.
(c) Subject to the provisions of Subsection (d) below, the duties and responsibilities of the Review
Board shall be as follows:
(1) To review and investigate complaints of unethical conduct filed against Councilmembers or
board and commission members by any person;
(2) To review and investigate actual or hypothetical situations involving potential conflicts of
interest presented by individual Councilmembers or board and commission members;
After review and investigation, to render advisory opinions or interpretations pertaining to such
complaints or inquiries under the relevant provisions of the Charter and Code and the applicable
. provisions of state law, if any, and to make written recommendations to the City Council and
any affected board or commission concerning the same; and
(4) To propose any revisions to the provisions of the Charter or Code or other regulations, rules or
policies of the City pertaining to ethical conduct as the Review Board may deem necessary and
appropriate in the best interests of the City.
(d) Complaints and inquiries shall be submitted to the Review Board only according to the following
procedures:
(1) Complaints.
a. Any person who believes that a Councilmember or board and commission member has
violated any provision of state law or the Charter or Code pertaining to ethical conduct may
file a complaint with the City Clerk, who shall immediately notify the chairperson of the
Review Board, the Councilmembers or board and commission members named in the
complaint and the City Council. The complaint shall be promptly scheduled for
consideration by the Review Board. No more than ten (10) working days after the date of
filing of the complaint, the Review Board shall meet and consider the complaint. All
Councilmembers or board and commission members named in the complaint, as well as
the complainant, shall be given written notice of such meeting at least three (3) working
days prior to the meeting. A notice of the complaint, including the identity of the
complainant shall be posted along with the meeting notice.
b. Upon receipt of any such complaint, the Review Board shall, after consultation with the City
Attorney, decide by majority vote whether to formally investigate the complaint. In making
such determination, the Review Board shall consider the following: (1) whether the
allegations in the complaint, if true, would constitute a violation of state or local ethical
rules; (2) the reliability and sufficiency of any facts asserted in support of the allegations;
and (3) any other facts or circumstances that the Review Board may consider relevant. If
the Review Board determines that the complaint does not warrant investigation, the
Review Board shall send written notice to the complainant of its determination and the
reasoning behind that determination, and shall provide a copy of such notice, together with
a copy of the complaint, to all Councilmembers or board or commission members named in
the complaint, as well as the City Council.
(3)
EXHIBIT
(f)
(g)
c. In the event that a complaint is filed with the City Clerk under the provisions of this
Subsection which alleges a violation on the part of two (2) or more members of the Review
Board (including the alternate), such complaint shall not be referred to the regular Review
Board for review but shall instead be submitted to an alternate Review Board consisting of
all remaining Councilmembers who are not named in the complaint; provided, however,
that if five (5) or more Councilmembers are named in the complaint, the alternate Review
Board shall also include as many members of City boards and commissions as are
necessary to constitute a seven -member board. Said Board and commission members
shall be selected at random by the City Clerk within ten (10) working days of the date upon
which the complaint is filed with the City Clerk. Any board and commission members
selected by the City Clerk who elect not to serve on the alternate Review Board shall
immediately so notify the City Clerk, who shall thereafter select as many additional board
and commission members as are necessary to constitute the seven -member alternate
Review Board. The procedures utilized by the alternate Review Board for reviewing and
investigating the complaint and rendering an advisory opinion and recommendation shall
be as provided in Subsections (b) and (e) of this Section, except that: (i) the opinion and
recommendation of such Board shall be final and shall not be submitted to the City Council
for review or adoption by the City Council unless at least three (3) Councilmembers remain
available to consider and take action on the opinion and recommendation; and (ii) the City
Council and City staff shall, upon request by the alternate Review Board, make available to
such Board all information in the possession of the city that is relevant to the Board's
investigation, including, without limitation, tape recordings of any relevant executive
sessions, unless the release of said information is prohibited by state or federal law; and, in
reviewing and discussing such information, the Board shall abide by any local, state or
federal confidentiality requirements that might limit or prohibit the release of such
information to third parties.
(2) City Council inquiries. Any Councilmember may present directly to the Review Board any
inquiry regarding the application of ethical rules of conduct under state statute or the Charter or
Code to any actual or hypothetical situation of a Councilmember or board and commission
member.
(e) In performing its review and investigation of any complaint or inquiry submitted in accordance with
Subsection (d) hereof, the Review Board shall afford all affected Councilmembers or board and
commission members an opportunity to present their interpretations of the facts at issue and of the
applicable provisions of law before rendering its opinion and recommendation. The Review Board
may also request such additional materials or information from City staff or members of the public
which it considers reasonably necessary or helpful to its deliberations. In addition, in the case of a
complaint, the Review Board shall have the power to compel by subpoena the attendance and
testimony of witnesses and the production of such documents as the Review Board may consider
necessary to its investigation. After investigation, the Review Board shall forthwith issue an advisory
opinion and recommendation to the City Council, which shall immediately thereafter be filed with the
City Clerk and be available for public inspection. Said opinion and recommendation shall be
submitted to city Council at a regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall
determine whether to adopt the same. Any whose conduct or circumstance is the subject of the
opinion shall refrain from participating in any deliberations of the City Council regarding the opinion.
The City Attorney shall provide legal advice to the Review Board and shall prepare and execute all
advisory opinions and recommendations of the review board.
Compliance with the applicable provisions of the Charter and Code and the provisions of state law,
as well as decisions regarding the existence or nonexistence of conflicts of interest and the
appropriate actions to be taken in relation thereto, shall be the responsibility of each individual
Councilmember or board and commission member, except as provided in Subparagraph 2-
568(c)(1)(g). An opinion adopted by the City Council under Subsection (e) of this Section shall
constitute an affirmative defense to any civil or criminal action or any other sanction against a
Councilmember or board or commission member acting in reliance thereon.
(Ord. No. 112, 1989, § 1, 8-1-89; Ord. No. 17, 1993, 2-16-93; Ord. No. 64, 1993, 7-20-93; Ord.
132, 2001, § 2, 9-18-01; Ord. No. 110, 2002, §§ 1--3, 8-20-02; Ord. No. 144, 2014. 11-4-14 )
From: Lori Brunswig <IbrunswigPcomcast,ne >
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 3:18 PM
To: Darin Atteberry <DATTEBERRY(i) cbov,com>; Carrie Daggett <CDAGGETTIDfcgov.com>
Cc: Wade Troxell <W T roxell(afcgov.com>; Dan Coldiron <DCOLDIRONPfcgov.com>; Nick Coltrain
<nickcoltrainncoloradoan.com>
Subject: Private - Troxell's violation of City Code
EXHIBIT
„2_
Dear Mr. Atteberry and Ms. Daggett,
I am very disappointed at the conduct of Mayor Troxell for his inexcusable treatment of FOP
President and Police Officer, Chris Renn. We have rules that prohibit City Council members
from demanding from a City employee special treatment and this is exactly what Mayor
Troxell did during his conversation with Chris Renn. I contacted Chris Renn after the April
11, 2019 article ran and I believe his account of their conversation that Troxell threatened
Chris's employment with the Police Department due to the fact that the FOP did not endorse
him this year as they had in the past. Mr. Troxell, just because he is Mayor, cannot demand
special privileges per Municipal Code Sec. 2-568 (c)(6) under ethical rules of conduct.
Did Troxell "deliver a written disclosure to the City Clerk and the City Manager and to all
other members of City Council of this conduct? The written disclosure must describe the date,
time and general subject matter of the contact, together with the identity of the officer or
employee contacted" on this conversation? I don't think so. In fact, Mr Troxell is claiming to
other Council members that this conversation never happened.
Troxell has put Chris Renn, the Police Department and the FOP under suspicion of wrong
doing and because of this conversation, he has publicly undermined the confidence in the
work that the Police Department does. This is not acceptable and Mr. Troxell needs to be put
on notice that he has violated the following code of ethics. Please respond. t need to hear that
this situation will be remedied and that Chris Renn's position and his reputation is publicly
restored.
Thank you,
Lori Brunswig
970-443-5983
If any Councilmember contacts an officer or employee regarding a request in connection with
(6) that contacted officer's or employee's role and in relation to a matter that is not a routine City
matter and is not within the Councilmember's role as an officer of the City, said
Councilmember shall no later than 5:00 p.m. on the next business day after such contact
deliver a written disclosure to the City Clerk and the City Manager and to all other members of
City Council. The written disclosure must describe the date, time and general subject matter
of the contact, together with the identity of the officer or employee contacted. Any private or
confidential information, such as tax, utility account, or other personal information may be
excluded or redacted from such disclosure. Disclosure by means of an electronic message
shall be deemed to constitute written disclosure for purposes of this provision.
Thursday, April 11, 2019
Police union accuses mayor of election intimidation
Nick Coltrain Fort Collins Coloradoan USA TODAY NETWORK
A lawyer for the union representing Fort Collins police officers has accused Mayor Wade Troxell of
threatening its members if the group didn't endorse his re-election bid, according to emails obtained
by the Coloradoan.
Troxell walked to re-election and a third term as mayor on April 2 with nearly 75% of the vote,
despite the non -endorsement by the Northern Colorado Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 3,
which represents Fort Collins police.
Troxell and City Attorney Carrie Daggett denied any impropriety and question how the hullabaloo
even took off.
But in the lead -up to the election, a dispute erupted over the extent to which city employees
could participate in the democratic process.
A web of federal, state and local laws and ordinances govern what public employees are allowed to
do during election season. In Fort Collins, city employees are barred by the city's charter from
donating, campaigning or even planting signs for City Council candidates in their yards.
But as the police union read the situation, its decision not to endorse either mayoral candidate
prompted city attorneys to consider whether such an endorsement would violate the ban on
employee electioneering, causing the union worry about jeopardizing union members' jobs or
worse.
Marc Colin, the lawyer who represents the Lodge 3, wrote in an email to city attorneys that Troxell
threatened Lodge 3 president Chris! Renn, a current city police officer, and other union members
about consequences if they didn't endorse his re-election bid. Colin did not detail the alleged threat
in the email and did not respond to requests for clarification.
The day after the alleged threat by Troxell, Colin said an attorney with the city called him directly and
said employees on the union's board could face employment repercussions or even prosecution
over the FOP's endorsement practices.
The union has long weighed in on local races without incident.
The proximity of the two events couldn't be coincidence, Colin reasoned.
"I would think that it (is) not in the best interests of the City to further ratify the mayor's
unconstitutional conduct by acting on his unlawful threats," Colin wrote to cit! y attorneys in an
email obtained by the Coloradoan via the Co! lorado Open Records Act. "Indeed I would suggest that
the city would be better served by clearly and unequivocally withdrawing its recent reinterpretation
of the Charter and by denouncing the mayor for his unconstitutional behavior."
Troxell said Colin's claim has "no merit." He said he's supportive of the police, including work toward
and final approval of a joint police training facility, and working with the lodge on a new contract
that was approved in October.
Troxell understood the lodge declined to endorse him because he didn't support collective
bargaining between the police and the city. He said he accepted the decision and moved on.
"That's the only reason I could see as why they were neutral to me in the endorsement," Troxell said
in an interview. "In all these other claims t! he lawyer's making, I think he's just making claims he
doesn't know anything about."
Daggett wrote to Colin that his "accusation that this office is acting in the interests of any
particular candidate is both offensive and detrimental to rational discussion of this matter." There
had been no threat of prosecution or disciplinary action taken against employees, either, she
continued.
The city's focus has also been on that of individual employees, and not the union as an entity, she
wrote.
In an interview, Daggett said there needs to be further discussion about how to separate union and
individual employee actio! ns around elections and clarify the policy on what is or isn't allowe! d. She
doesn't know that there's ever been a real discussion about that prior to this election cycle. It was
prompted this year by candidates and their campaigns and other organizations.
"Clearly there is room for disagreement, and some of the questions that came up this time around
have kind of highlighted that room for disagreement," she said.
Colin said in an interview with the Coloradoan that separating the union from the active city
employees that make up the organization is "a distinction without a difference." The employees still
worry that their organization's endorsements could affect their employment status, or worse.
"You have to question the timing of this re -interpretation, because the timing has had the effect —
and 1 believe it to be an intended effect — of chilling the lodge's ability to partici! pate in the
election," Colin said said in an interview before the election.
The issue of public employees participating in campaigns was brought up by District 6 candidate Lori
Brunswig's campaign manager, Carl Wangsvick. He argued employees' inability to even post signs
supporting City Council candidates, much less give their personal money, violates their First
Amendment rights. Brunswig was endorsed by the FOP in her race but didn't win election.
Wangsvick threatened to sue the city in the election's lead -up, but nothing appears to have been
filed. He declined to elaborate in an email to the Coloradoan but said the issue is in the hands of
others now.
Nick Coltrain covers local, state and federal government and how it affects you and Fort Collins
residents. Email him at Nickc oltrain(Coloradoan.com and/ follow him on Twitter on @NColtrain.
Keep him employed by buying a dig/ ital subscription.
"Clearly there is room for disagreement, and some of the questions that came up this time
around have kind of highlighted that room for disagreement."
Carrie Daggett
City attorney
Sec. 2-568. - Ethical rules of conduct.
(a) Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Section, Section 2-569 and
in Section 9 of the Charter Article IV, shall have the following meanings:
(13) Public services shall mean city services provided to or made available for the public's benefit.
(14) Related entity shall mean any corporation, limited liability company, partnership, sole
proprietorship, joint venture, trust, estate, foundation, association, business, company or any
other organization, whether or not operated for profit, with respect to which an officer or
employee, or a relative of the same, has a substantial ownership interest in, is employed by, is
an agent for or otherwise represents in any legal capacity.
(15) Relative shall have the meaning given to this word in Section 9(a) of Charter Article IV, which
states:
Relative means the spouse or minor child of the officer or employee, any person claimed by the
officer or employee as a dependent for income tax purposes, or any person residing in and
sharing with the officer or employee the expenses of the household.
(16) Routine City matter shall mean a usual and ordinary registration, reservation, or other request
or application, within a program or for public services or City approval, such as a registration for
a recreation class, reservation of a park shelter, request for standard utility services or
application for a building permit, development approval or variance, or an appeal, provided that
the same is carried out using a routine process or system or in a manner consistent with
standard practices.
Sec. 2-568. - Ethical rules of conduct. — excerpts.
(c) Rules of conduct.
(5)
No officer or employee shall request on his or her own behalf, or for or through a relative or
related entity, from any other officer or employee, or grant to any other officer or employee, or
relative or related entity of the same, any consideration, treatment or advantage in the
interpretation, administration or enforcement of the Charter, Code, any City regulation, policy or
program or in the provision of public services, that is substantially different from that available to
other persons in the same circumstances or having the same need.
(6) If any Councilmember contacts an officer or employee regarding a request in connection with
that contacted officer's or employee's role and in relation to a matter that is not a routine City
matter and is not within the Councilmember's role as an officer of the City, said Councilmember
shall no later than 5:00 p.m. on the next business day after such contact deliver a written
disclosure to the City Clerk and the City Manager and to all other members of City Council. The
written disclosure must describe the date, time and general subject matter of the contact,
together with the identity of the officer or employee contacted. Any private or confidential
information, such as tax, utility account, or other personal information may be excluded or
redacted from such disclosure. Disclosure by means of an electronic message shall be deemed
to constitute written disclosure for purposes of this provision.
(Ord. No. 112, 1989, § 1, 8-1-89; Ord. No. 162, 2000, § 2, 11-21-00; Ord. No. 109, 2002, §§ 1-
4, 8-20-02; Ord. No. 145. 2014, 11-4-14 ; Ord. No. 159. 2014, §§ 1-3, 11-18-14 ; Ord. No. 037, 2017,
§ § 2, 3, 3-7-17; Ord. No. 167, 2017 , § 2, 12-19-17)
CD t.y $1
Fort Collins
PUBLIC NOTICN
City Attorney's Office
300 Laporte Avenue
PO Box 560
Fort Collins. CO 80522
970.221.6520
970.221.6327
fcgov.com
Notice is hereby given that the City Council Ethics Review Board will meet on Friday,
April 26, 2019, at 1:00 p.m., in the City Attorney's Large Conference Room at City Hall, located
at 300 Laporte Avenue, City Hall West, Fort Collins, Colorado. The purpose of the meeting will
be to discuss and address the following agenda items:
1. Review and approval of the August 28, 2018 Minutes of the Ethics Review
Board.
2. Consider if a complaint filed by a citizen alleging that Mayor Wade Troxell
violated ethical rules of conduct by reaching out to Officer Chris Renn as part of
the election process warrants formal investigation.
3. Other Business.
4. Adjournment.
As the majority of Council may attend this meeting, the meeting is also being regarded as
a meeting of the City Council for the purposes of this notice.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City
services. programs. and activities and will make special communication arrangements for
persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Attorney's Office to arrange for such services
at 970-221-6520 or caoadmin@fcgov.com. Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons
with disabilities. V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado.
Fort Collins City Attorney
Posted: April 23.2019
(970) 221-6520
City of
Fort Collins
PUBLIC N
F ICE
City Attorney's Office
300 Laporte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6520
970.221.6327
fcgov.com
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed on April 18, 2018, by Lori Brunswig,
alleging that a contact was made by Mayor Wade Troxell in violation of City Code Section 2-
568(c)(6), that notice was required to be provided by Mayor Wade Troxell regarding those
communications, and that he failed to provide such notice.
Fort Collins City Attorney
Posted: Apri123, 2019
(970) 221-6520