HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Mail Packet - 7/21/2020 - Ethics Review Board Meeting Agenda- July 17, 2020City Attorney’s Office
300 Laporte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6520
970.221.6327
fcgov.com
PUBLIC NOTICE
ETHICS REVIEW BOARD MEETING
An Ethics Review Board meeting will be held Friday, July 17, 2020 from 2:00
p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Due to COVID-19 precautionary measures in place this is a virtual
meeting only. The public access to this meeting will be via ZOOM by calling in to
the information below:
Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/93964879831
Meeting ID: 939 6487 9831
One tap mobile
+16699009128,,93964879831# US (San Jose)
+12532158782,,93964879831# US (Tacoma)
Dial by your location
+1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
Meeting ID: 939 6487 9831
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/achsHa0l3i
For technical assistance please call:
970-221-6505
0001
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
July 17, 2020
(2:00 – 3:00 p.m.)
Via Zoom Meeting: Ethics Review Board Meeting
Time: Jul 17, 2020 02:00 PM Mountain Time (US and Canada)
Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/93964879831
Meeting ID: 939 6487 9831
One tap mobile
+16699009128,,93964879831# US (San Jose)
+12532158782,,93964879831# US (Tacoma)
Dial by your location
+1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
Meeting ID: 939 6487 9831
Find your local number: 27TUhttps://zoom.us/u/achsHa0l3iU27T
1. Review and Approval of the July 15, 2020 Minutes of the Ethics Review Board.
2. Review and Approval of draft Ethics Opinion 2020-02, with continued
consideration of an inquiry by Councilmember Gorgol pursuant to City Code
Section 2-569(d)(2) requesting that the Board consider and provide an advisory
opinion regarding the questions of:
(a) Under the conflicts of interest provisions in the City Charter, does my
employment and role at the Family Center/La Familia prevent me from
participating in the City Council’s decision(s) regarding (1) the
establishment of manufactured housing zone district; or (2) the rezoning
of particular manufactured housing communities?
(b) Under the ethics provisions in the laws of the State of Colorado, does my
employment and role at the Family Center/La Familia prevent me from
participating in the City Council’s decision(s) regarding (1) the
establishment of manufactured housing zone district; or (2) the rezoning
of particular manufactured housing communities?
3. Other Business.
4. Adjournment.
1
Ethics Review Board Meeting Minutes
July 15, 2020
6:00 p.m. Via Zoom Meeting
Ethics Review Board members in attendance: Councilmembers Julie Pignataro, Ken Summers
and Mayor Pro Tem Kristin Stephens
Staff in attendance: Carrie Daggett, City Attorney; Jeanne Sanford, Paralegal.
Other Attendees: Councilmember Emily Gorgol; Kevin Jones, Fort Collins Chamber of
Commerce
A meeting of the City Council Ethics Review Board (“Board”) was held on Wednesday, July 15,
2020, at 6:00 p.m. via Zoom Meeting.
The meeting began at 6:00 p.m. Chair, Mayor Pro Tem Kristin Stephens, called the meeting to
order and reviewed the Agenda which contained the following items:
1. Consideration of a request by Councilmember Emily Gorgol for an advisory review
and opinion by the Ethics Review Board pursuant to City Code Section 2-569(d)(2)
of the following questions:
(a) Under the conflicts of interest provisions in the City Charter, does my
employment and role at the Family Center/La Familia prevent me from
participating in the City Council’s decision(s) regarding (1) the
establishment of manufactured housing zone district; or (2) the rezoning
of particular manufactured housing communities?
(b) Under the ethics provisions in the laws of the State of Colorado, does my
employment and role at the Family Center/La Familia prevent me from
participating in the City Council’s decision(s) regarding (1) the
establishment of manufactured housing zone district; or (2) the rezoning
of particular manufactured housing communities?
2. Other Business.
4. Adjournment.
City Attorney Carrie Daggett made introductory comments outlining the agenda item summary
which included a summary of Councilmember Emily Gorgol’s statement and job description and
various attachments which go through the Code, Charter and State law provisions that relate to
Ms. Gorgol’s questions to the Board.
0003
2
Ms. Daggett further explained a checklist was emailed out guiding the Board through the ethics
standards as they relate to the inquiry. Ms. Daggett pointed out that Council will be considering
various actions – most significantly Council is expected to consider a Land Use Code change to
create a new zone district and a series of quasi-judicial decision regarding properties to be
rezoned into this new district. Ms. Daggett explained in contrast to the consideration of ethics
complaints, this meeting is informal, so the Board members are able to ask Ms. Gorgol any
questions they may have. Ms. Daggett suggested the Board ask Ms. Gorgol to walk through her
job descriptions and then ask questions as they come up.
Chair Stephens asked Ms. Gorgol to briefly talk about her current position, which she
understands is different now in nature than in the past.
Emily Gorgol stated that her position at The Family Center/La Familia has changed and where
she used to be in more of an advisory role working directly with the community, she has now
moved into a project/grant manager role. She is an advisor for the team that is in her old role,
working on issues such as how to talk to elected officials, and how to participate in city/county
processes. She creates bridges between the Spanish speaking community with those in a role of
power. Ms. Gorgol stated she now works more with staff on how to navigate these areas.
Questions from Councilmember Julie Pignataro:
• Ms. Gorgol stated her compensation is not tied to the success of the program, but
rather in meeting certain deliverables. Is that true in your current position?
Ms. Gorgol Response: Because my salary is funded from the CDHP, yes
it is. Our grant contract outlines the number of meetings that need to be
held, or certain number of resident grocery cards for participating; it is not
tied to whether the program leads to successful outcomes.
• Do the number of meetings increase or decrease due to the number of mobile
home parks in the city?
Gorgol response: No, our work with the mobile home parks only get so
much money per year and we can only afford like 6 meetings; that’s how
it works. The success of our program is tied to whether we met our
deliverables.
• Does Sarah Zule (sp?) work for you? She reached out to me.
Gorgol response: No, I just advise her. In my role, I do not tell people to
call certain Councilmembers.
• Ms. Pignataro asked Carrie Daggett if a creation of mobile home zone falls under
the land preservation designation umbrella and for confirmation that currently,
there is no mobile home zoning designation.
Ms. Daggett replied yes, it probably does fall under “preservation” as it is
designed to preserve manufactured housing communities. There is no
mobile home zoning currently within the City.
• Ms. Pignataro asked Ms. Gorgol if a creation of a mobile home zoning increases
or decreases her job duties or compensation.
0004
3
Ms. Gorgol replied there is no impact for either. Financially, there is no
bearing on finances due to the grant. Our program focuses on community
navigation and teaching individuals how to participate in that process.
Questions from Councilmember Ken Summers:
• It sounds like your role is a political consultant or lobbyist to advise others. Do you meet
with City staff?
o Ms. Gorgol replied, yes, sometimes I do meet with City staff, but I do not advise
on lobbying; I advise on a process.
• Mr. Summers stated your title is still Policy Advisory on the La Familia website.
o Ms. Gorgol replied yes, and Policy and Grants Director.
• Mr. Summers stated the website talks about the council priorities of mobile home park
preservation.
o Ms. Gorgol replied, yes those are accomplishments of the program.
• Mr. Summers asked if Ms. Gorgol’s role is directly involved with that.
o Ms. Gorgol replied, yes.
Chair Stephens asked City Attorney Daggett why she picked the Opinion re: Wanner and why
that was relevant to this situation.
City Attorney Daggett replied she looked for an opinion in the archives that was similar to this
situation. Most past advisory opinions involved questions around property ownership that was
close to property owned by a Councilmember which was the subject of some action. The
Wanner opinion was the only past advisory opinion that related to something other than property
ownership.
Chair Stephens stated she was having a hard time seeing a financial interest in Ms. Gorgol’s
participation in the mobile home park Council decision, but she could see the case for a personal
interest.
Chair Stephens asked the Board if anyone had more questions for Ms. Gorgol.
City Attorney Daggett suggested Ms. Gorgol describe the actions she takes in the course of doing
her job.
Ms. Gorgol replied that the mobile home parks is just a piece of her job; she does other things
such as grant management, managing state level grants, finding them and applying for grants.
She advises on long term goals and finding funds that fit those goals. Ms. Gorgol explained she
is a bridge between the Spanish speaking community and the leaders in our community – the
people in power. Her job is to focus on the mobile home parks but also economic mobility and
meeting with the economic developers of the City or work force. She educates on the barriers
the Spanish speaking people are facing and she works with entities creating programming so the
0005
4
Spanish community can participate. She also focuses on how residences can create a park; she
works with the Parks Department, she creates connections so they form relationships. Once that
happens, her role is no longer needed. She also works with non-profits in this role.
Ms. Daggett asked, in speaking about mobile home park issues, what that would look like?
Ms. Gorgol replied that part of her role when community issues are identified in mobile home
parks, is to work with the residents to identify the issues, which takes a lot of community trust to
build up to get to that point. Ms. Gorgol stated she coordinates with groups for trainings and
works with residents on how to look at the Council’s 6-12 month calendars; she advises how
they can connect with Council by providing options.
Chair Stephens stated that in a way, many of us do that not just for our jobs, but lots of times
advising community members how to speak to council, how to participate in public comment,
etc.; we guide people through the process so I don’t feel that piece of your job is different than
this situation. That’s not unusual.
Councilmember Summers stated we are talking about something different, this is part of
someone’s job. Engaging with the groups, working with them and then being in on a decision-
making board that then decides those issues you are advocating for – that is where the rub comes
in. This is an issue in State law and part of Amendment 41. The issue is more about
safeguarding the integrity of the process.
City Attorney Daggett clarified that the provision in Amendment 41 is narrowly viewed and
wanted to call attention to the definition of “personal interest” in the Charter that is “…interest
equated with money or its equivalent…” Ms. Daggett explained when looking at opinions over
the years, it struck her that very seldom were there issues about financial interests – those are
easier to spot. The situations that don’t raise these facts end up being Ethics Review Board
fodder for opinions. Ms. Daggett focused on the definition of “personal interest”.
The Board discussed past situations of financial interest. Ms. Daggett explained there are two
broad categories of decisions – code change decisions or rezoning decisions.
Chair Stephens stated with rezoning or creating a new zone district, she does not see a conflict.
City Attorney Daggett affirmed that creating a zone district does not change anything for a
particular property until an action is taken to put properties into that zone district. Ms. Gorgol
may have a personal interest then with the particular mobile home parks she worked with
different from an interest in the zone district itself.
Councilmember Pignataro asked to that point, when would Council have a list of the specific
mobile home parks?
0006
5
City Attorney Daggett responded the Council work session discussion is planned for July 28th
.
That Work Session is to talk about legal issues related to mobile home parks, district design,
process of rezoning properties and moratorium. The current schedule is for those items to come
forward on August 18th. The Board will need to give Emily guidance before the list comes out
to see if she has a conflict with any of those mobile home parks.
Ms. Daggett reiterated that is the point of this meeting, to give Emily guidance to make that call
when those items are discussed or come forward.
City Attorney Daggett read the personal interest definition. Ms. Daggett reminded the Board that
benefit means advantage or gain; different in kind means a different type or nature not shared
with the public. Those are the steps to be thinking about when deciding Ms. Gorgol’s questions.
The Board discussed the checklist and the state law provisions that needed to be discussed, most
which were about economic benefit. Ms. Daggett stated it may be fair to say that Emily Gorgol
operates as an agent for the community she is working with, but it is not clear if that economic
benefit is here.
Chair Stephens stated it is hard with a nonprofit to see an economic benefit. Is there an
economic benefit here to mobile home park residents if they are rezoned? That would be the
beginning of my analysis.
Ms. Pignataro stated that Emily’s job is complicated and we will probably not find all the
answers we are seeking. Because of the situations of the past year and the number of ethics
complaints coming in, she would encourage Emily to step down based on the appearance part
which keeps coming back to this Board. She knows it’s not quantifiable, but she wanted to
speak her opinion.
Chair Stephens asked Ms. Pignataro if she felt that way about both questions.
Ms. Pignataro stated yes she does.
Chair Stephens stated she does not see the conflict in the rezoning of districts. That is just a
zoning mechanism we use in the community. Ms. Stephens does see a personal conflict in the
individual mobile home park, manufactured housing and Ms. Gorgol might not vote on the
zoning in those.
Councilmember Summers stated he concurs with Ms. Pignataro’s expression of wisdom on this.
Ms. Gorgol is still involved with advocating to work with communities to preserve mobile home
parks, lobby communities and sits on the board that makes that decision; that is a classic example
of a conflict of interest. Councilmember Summers further stated that Ms. Gorgol works with
staff and her employer has specific goals to engage support to facilitate the actions coming
before the City Council. Further, Ms. Gorgol is getting paid state funds in her job which creates
more of a complication, which seems pretty sticky.
0007
6
City Attorney Daggett stated the purpose of this process is to provide Ms. Gorgol with a
thoughtful analysis of the issues to help her think through issues to lead her to a good decision on
how to proceed. Ms. Daggett stated sometimes the most challenging Ethics Review Board
discussions lead to really good advisory opinions as there are a lot of different factors that weigh
in.
Ms. Pignataro stated Ms. Gorgol recusing herself would be a good decision based on the
appearance of this situation. Because she works with mobile home parks specifically named, it
gets to the appearance part, although it may not go against any of our specific ethics codes, but
she would suggest to leave it up to Ms. Gorgol to recuse herself or not.
City Attorney Daggett stated she is hearing a general sense that most are not comfortable with
saying it’s okay to go ahead as there’s not an issue. Ms. Daggett stated she is hearing a range of
positions regarding whether participation is not allowed or would violate specific language in the
Charter, but is hearing a sense that participation would violate the intent of the Charter – at least
from Mr. Summers and Ms. Pignataro on both decisions and from Chair Stephens on at a
minimum the rezoned mobile home properties Emily has relationships with.
Ms. Daggett proposed to the Board that she has heard the discussion and can write up two
versions of an opinion or one opinion with option language so the Board can see it in written
form which may help them choose an option, then the Board will vote on it or suggest changes.
Chair Stephens and Councilmember Pignataro stated they thought that was a great idea on how
to proceed.
City Attorney Daggett stated she will get to work on a draft of public documents to be sent out
that this Board will work on at the next meeting on Friday. Any feedback requested by any
Board members should be directed to Carrie and she will try to be as prepared as she can on
Friday to make changes as the discussion is finalized.
City Attorney Daggett asked Councilmember Gorgol, when you say you “advise staff”, do you
mean La Familia staff?
Ms. Gorgol replied yes, also the Spanish speaking community and those working on policy
issues.
Chair Stephens asked if anything else was on the agenda under other business to which there was
no replies.
Meeting adjourned 7:30 pm.
0008
2020-02
OPINION OF THE ETHICS REVIEW BOARD
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
July 17, 2020
The City Council Ethics Review Board (“the Board”) met on July 15 and July 17, 2020, to consider
and render an advisory opinion addressing two questions submitted to the Board by
Councilmember Emily Gorgol on July 8, 2020. Councilmember Gorgol asked the following
questions related to her participation in Council’s upcoming decisions regarding manufactured
housing:
1. Under the conflicts of interest provisions in the City Charter, does my employment and
role at the Family Center/La Familia prevent me from participating in the City Council’s
decision(s) regarding (1) the establishment of manufactured housing zone district; or (2)
the rezoning of particular manufactured housing communities?
2. Under the ethics provisions in the laws of the State of Colorado, does my employment and
role at the Family Center/La Familia prevent me from participating in the City Council’s
decision(s) regarding (1) the establishment of manufactured housing zone district; or (2)
the rezoning of particular manufactured housing communities?
Background
Under City Code Section 2-569, councilmembers may present to the Council’s Ethics Review
Board inquiries regarding the application of state or local ethical rules to actual or hypothetical
situations involving potential conflicts of interest. Upon completion of its review, the Ethics
Review Board adopts an Ethics Opinion that is then presented to the City Council for consideration
and possible adoption by the Council by resolution.
The local ethics provisions considered as part of this inquiry are City Charter Article IV, Section
9(a), regarding conflicts of interest, and City Code Section 2-568(a), establishing related
definitions. The state ethics provisions considered as part of this inquiry include the following
Colorado Revised Statutes: Sections 24-18-102 through -105 and Section 24-18-109. The Board
also considered the applicability of Article XXIX of the Colorado Constitution (referred to as
“Amendment 41”). These provisions are discussed and examined below as applicable.
Councilmember Gorgol’s Position and Role at The Family Center/La Familia
Councilmember Gorgol is employed by a local nonprofit, The Family Center/La Familia
(TFC/LF), as the Policy and Grants Director, a position that is primarily funded by the Health
Disparities Grant Program administered by the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment, with additional grant funding from the Larimer County Department of Health and
Environment’s Cancer, Cardiovascular, and Chronic Pulmonary Disease Grant Program. All of
this funding originates from the state tobacco tax revenues and is dependent upon completion of
work deliverables not focused on specific outcomes but rather on completion of contacts and
0009
Ethics Opinion 2020-02
July 17, 2020
Page 2
meetings with the subjects of the project, including Mi Voz (My Voice) program staff and
participants. Mi Voz is a community-led project working with Spanish-speaking residents in
mobile home parks to address housing insecurity through civic engagement, leadership
development and advocacy.
According to the summary provided:
The project addresses toxic community stress among low income and
Hispanic/Latinx families living in mobile home parks in Larimer County by
increasing protective local policies for land preservation/designation, facilitating
resident ownership of property, and transforming the delivery of community-based
trauma informed care and supportive services to families with young children.
This Mi Voz work is directed to three particular mobile home parks (Hickory Mobile Home Park
in Fort Collins and Poudre Valley Mobile Home Park and Parklane Mobile Home Park in Larimer
County), and also includes community members from Harmony Mobile Home Park and Collins
Aire Mobile Home Park (both also in Larimer County). Her work is mainly advisory to the Mi
Voz program, and involves:
• Advising staff on advocacy opportunities for community members;
• Working with elected officials on how to engage with residents;
• Advising residents on civic engagement opportunities;
• Bridging between government processes and mobile home park residents; and
• Expanding the presence of TFC/LF and Mi Voz in other policy processes.
In her prior role as Special Projects Manager at TFC/LF from July 2018 to January 2020,
Councilmember Gorgol was more directly engaged in outreach and education for mobile home
park residents, and she was responsible for:
• Holding events with mobile home park residents to learn about community issues;
• Holding events to educate mobile home park residents on “Resident Rights;”
• Connecting residents to elected officials and city/county staff to advocate for community
improvements;
• Connecting residents to leadership development opportunities; and
• Advising residents on advocacy and engagement opportunities.
Council Decisions Regarding Manufactured Housing
Councilmember Gorgol’s inquiry expressly relates to the following anticipated Council decisions:
• Scheduled for Council consideration in July and August is the proposed adoption of
amendments to the City’s Land Use Code establishing a Manufactured Housing zone
district to preserve and maintain manufactured housing (mobile home parks).
0010
Ethics Opinion 2020-02
July 17, 2020
Page 3
• Assuming such amendments are adopted, the Council may subsequently consider
ordinances to rezone properties into this zone district (mainly existing manufactured
housing/mobile home parks) after such proposed rezonings had been considered by the
Planning and Zoning Board for recommendation to Council.
In addition, Council may consider, and a similar ethics question may be raised by, the following:
• If City Plan amendments are needed in order to reflect the policies underlying the
Manufactured Housing zone district, Council would consider those amendments after
consideration and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Board.
• Council enacted a moratorium on redevelopment of manufactured housing communities in
August 2019 and that moratorium will terminate at the end of August 2020 unless extended
by the Council. Council may wish to consider an ordinance extending the moratorium
and if so consideration of an extension would likely occur in July or August.
• Council has asked staff to prepare for Council consideration City Code changes to protect
the interests of manufactured housing/mobile home park residents from landlord practices
related to utility bills and arrangements, property maintenance and leasing practices and
other similar matters, including potential licensing of manufactured housing communities.
This Opinion addresses each of these potential Council decisions below.
Conflicts of Interest under the City Charter
Article IV, Section 9(b)(3) of the City Charter requires a Councilmember to disclose upon
discovery any financial interest or personal interest in a Council decision and to refrain from
voting on, attempting to influence or otherwise participating in such decision in any manner as an
officer or employee.
Article IV, Section 9(a) of the City Charter defines the key terms financial interest and personal
interest, as follows:
Financial interest means any interest equated with money or its equivalent.
Financial interest shall not include:
a. the interest that an officer, employee or relative has as an employee of a
business, or as a holder of an ownership interest in such business, in a decision
of any public body, when the decision financially benefits or otherwise affects
such business but entails no foreseeable, measurable financial benefit to the
officer, employee or relative;
. . .
0011
Ethics Opinion 2020-02
July 17, 2020
Page 4
Personal interest means any interest (other than a financial interest) by reason of
which an officer or employee, or a relative of such officer or employee, would, in
the judgment of a reasonably prudent person, realize or experience some direct and
substantial benefit or detriment different in kind from that experienced by the
general public. . . .
For the purpose of interpreting and applying these provisions, the Council has adopted in
Section 2-568(a) of the City Code the following relevant definitions:
(2) Benefit shall mean an advantage or gain.
(6) Different in kind from that experienced by the general public shall mean of a different type
or nature not shared by the public generally and that is not merely different in degree from
that experienced by the public generally.
(7) Direct shall mean resulting immediately and proximately from the circumstances and not
from an intervening cause.
(8) Detriment shall mean disadvantage, injury, damage or loss.
(13) Public services shall mean city services provided to or made available for the public's benefit.
(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.
(17) Similarly situated citizens shall mean citizens in like circumstances having comparable legal
rights and obligations.
(18) Substantial shall mean more than nominal in value, degree, amount or extent.
State Law Ethics Provisions
1. Section 24-18-103, C.R.S., when read in conjunction with the rest of the statutory standards
of conduct, is interpreted to establish an ethical standard of conduct concerning activities that
could allow covered individuals to improperly benefit financially from their public office.
However, it is general in nature and does not specify a standard or rule to determine what is
permissible.
2. Section 24-18-104, C.R.S., prohibits disclosure or use of confidential information acquired in
the course of official duties and acceptance of certain gifts.
3. Section 24-18-105, C.R.S., sets out ethical principles that are “intended as guides to conduct
and do not constitute violations as such of the public trust of office or employment in state or
local government.”
0012
Ethics Opinion 2020-02
July 17, 2020
Page 5
i. Section 24-18-015(2) provides that:
(2) A … local government official … should not acquire or hold an interest in any business
or undertaking which he has reason to believe may be directly and substantially affected to
its economic benefit by official action to be taken by an agency over which he has
substantial authority.
ii. Section 24-18-105(4) provides that:
(4) A …local government official …should not perform an official act directly and
substantially affecting a business or other undertaking to its economic detriment when he
has a substantial financial interest in a competing firm or undertaking. (Emphasis added.)
4. Section 24-18-109(2), C.R.S., provides that a local government official or employee shall not
(in relevant part):
i. Engage in a substantial financial transaction for his private business purposes with a person
whom he inspects or supervises in the course of his official duties (§ 24-18-109(2)(a)); or
ii. Perform an official act directly and substantially affecting to its economic benefit a business
or other undertaking in which he either has a substantial financial interest or is engaged
as counsel, consultant, representative or agent (§ 24-18-109(2)(b));
iii. A member of a governing body of a local government who has a personal or private
interest (as described in Section 24-18-109) in any matter proposed or pending before the
governing body shall disclose such interest and refrain from participating in the decision
unless necessary to obtain a quorum (§ 24-18-109(3)).
5. Article XXIX of the Colorado Constitution – also referred to as “Amendment 41,” sets
out limits for state and local officers and employees, by establishing limits on the acceptance
of gifts and forming an Independent Ethics Commission to hear complaints about conduct of
covered officials. While the amendment applies to municipalities in general, Section 7
provides, “Any county or municipality may adopt ordinances or charter provisions with respect
to ethics matters that are more stringent than any of the provisions contained in this article. The
requirements of this article shall not apply to home rule counties or home rule municipalities
that have adopted charters, ordinances, or resolutions that address the matters covered by this
article.” (Emphasis added.)
In September 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution 2010-063, finding and determining
that the City’s Charter and Code adequately and appropriately address those matters covered
by Amendment 41, that no further action by the City Council is warranted or necessary in order
0013
Ethics Opinion 2020-02
July 17, 2020
Page 6
to further the purposes of Amendment 41 or address the matters contained therein, and that the
requirements of Amendment 41 shall not be applicable to the City of Fort Collins.
Application of Conflicts/Ethics Provisions to Council Decisions
Financial Interest Under City Charter
Considering the circumstances presented by Councilmember Gorgol, the Board readily concluded
that there is not a financial interest presented by any of the identified Council decisions regarding
manufactured homes. This is because there is no connection between the funding for her position
at TFC/LF and the decisions, nor any identifiable indirect connection.
State Ethics Provisions
Similarly, the state law ethics provisions each relate to personal or private interests in which some
economic benefit or detriment may be experienced by a local government official from official
actions. The Board did not identify any direct or indirect financial or economic impact to
Councilmember Gorgol or her employer TFC/LF that may result from the identified Council
decisions. Accordingly, the Board has concluded that the state law ethics provisions do not bar
participation by Councilmember Gorgol in the Council decisions identified above.
Personal Interest Under City Charter
As is frequently the case, the primary focus of the Board’s attention and discussion has been the
question of whether Councilmember Gorgol has a personal interest under the City Charter in any
of the identified Council decisions. In general, there was concern expressed by each member of
the Board arising from how Councilmember Gorgol’s work appears to be narrowly focused on a
part of the community that almost by definition has an interest in the outcome of Council’s
decisions regarding manufactured housing communities/mobile home parks, in a way that relates
directly to the issues that Council will be considering and creates at least some appearance of a
conflict or personal interest.
OPTION A:
The work Councilmember Gorgol does for TFC/LF is focused on and emphasizes promoting
effective advocacy and involvement by manufactured housing/mobile home park residents in
policy decisions. The members of the Board are concerned about how directly this work relates
to the Council’s decisions on (1) establishing a manufactured housing zone district; (2) deciding
whether to and which properties to rezone into the new district if it is established; (3)
determining whether to extend the existing moratorium on redevelopment of manufactured
housing communities/mobile home parks; (4) amending comprehensive plan documents for the
express purpose of preserving manufactured housing communities/mobile home parks; and (5)
enacting Code provisions intended specifically to protect tenants/occupants of manufactured
housing communities/mobile home parks.
The Board acknowledged that it is not uncommon for individual councilmembers to work with
members of the public to assist them in navigating the policymaking and decisionmaking process
0014
Ethics Opinion 2020-02
July 17, 2020
Page 7
and advocating for their interests. However, as the Board noted, the fact that Councilmember
Gorgol does this as part of her paid employment means that part of her overall success and
continuing interests in her position and in working with manufactured housing/mobile home park
community residents depends on promoting the interests of, and to some extent the success of,
these participants in the policymaking and decisionmaking processes.
In addition, with respect to the rezoning of particular properties, the Board is concerned that the
role Councilmember Gorgol has had working directly with and promoting the advocacy of
residents of manufactured housing communities/mobile home parks presents a more direct and
substantial link that is sufficient to constitute a personal interest and potential bias in those
rezoning decisions.
For these reasons, the Board has concluded that Councilmember Gorgol will have a personal
interest in the above-identified Council actions because she will experience a direct and
substantial benefit or detriment of a different nature from that experienced by the general public
as a result of the Council’s decisions for each of the above identified decisions. Consequently,
the Board recommends that Councilmember Gorgol declare a conflict of interest in these items
and refrain from voting on, attempting to influence or otherwise participating in such decision in
any manner as a Councilmember, including participation in related work session and executive
session discussions.
OPTION B:
The work Councilmember Gorgol does for TFC/LF is focused on and emphasizes promoting
effective advocacy and involvement by manufactured housing/mobile home park residents in
policy decisions. The members of the Board are concerned about how directly this work relates
to the Council’s decisions on (1) establishing a manufactured housing zone district; (2) deciding
whether to and which properties to rezone into the new district if it is established; (3)
determining whether to extend the existing moratorium on redevelopment of manufactured
housing communities/mobile home parks; (4) amending comprehensive plan documents for the
express purpose of preserving manufactured housing communities/mobile home parks; and (5)
enacting Code provisions intended specifically to protect tenants/occupants of manufactured
housing communities/mobile home parks.
The Board acknowledged that it is not uncommon for individual councilmembers to work with
members of the public to assist them in navigating the policymaking and decisionmaking process
and advocating for their interests. In addition, while Councilmember Gorgol does this as part of
her paid employment, her overall success or continuing interests in her position and in working
with manufactured housing/mobile home park community residents does not depend on their
success in promoting their interests and succeeding in the policymaking and decisionmaking
processes. For this reason, the Board has concluded that Councilmember Gorgol generally will
not experience a direct and substantial benefit or detriment of a different nature from that
experienced by the general public as a result of the Council’s decisions for most of the above
identified decisions.
0015
Ethics Opinion 2020-02
July 17, 2020
Page 8
However, with respect to the rezoning of particular properties, the Board is concerned that the
role Councilmember Gorgol has had working directly with and promoting the advocacy of
residents of manufactured housing communities/mobile home parks presents a more direct and
substantial link that is sufficient to constitute a personal interest and potential bias in those
rezoning decisions. Consequently, the Board recommends that Councilmember Gorgol declare a
conflict of interest in individual rezoning matters for manufactured housing community/mobile
home park properties whose residents she has worked with directly as part of her work for
TFC/LF. This means that for these items she should refrain from voting on, attempting to
influence or otherwise participating in such decision in any manner as a Councilmember,
including participation in related work session and executive session discussions.
Board Conclusions and Recommendations:
1. Councilmember Gorgol Does Not Have a Financial Interest in the Identified
Council Decisions.
The Board finds that Councilmember Gorgol does not have a financial interest in
any of the Council decisions identified above, based on the facts as presented in
this review.
2. Councilmember Gorgol Does Not Have a State Law Ethics Bar From
Participating in the Identified Council Decisions.
The Board finds that state law ethics provisions to do not bar Councilmember
Gorgol from participating in any of the Council decisions identified above, based
on the facts as presented in this review.
3. Councilmember Gorgol Has/May Have a Personal Interest in Some/Each of the
Identified Council Decisions.
OPTION A:
The Board finds that Councilmember Gorgol will experience a direct and
substantial benefit or detriment of a different nature from that experienced by the
general public as a result of the Council’s decisions for each of the above identified
decisions. Consequently, the Board recommends that Councilmember Gorgol
declare a conflict of interest in these items and refrain from voting on, attempting
to influence or otherwise participating in such decision in any manner as a
Councilmember, including participation in related work session and executive
session discussions.
OPTION B:
0016
Ethics Opinion 2020-02
July 17, 2020
Page 9
The Board finds that Councilmember Gorgol generally will not experience a
direct and substantial benefit or detriment different in kind from that
experienced by the general public as a result of the Council’s decisions for the
above identified decisions, except for the rezoning of individual properties. With
respect to the rezoning of particular properties, the Board finds that
Councilmember Gorgol has a personal interest and potential bias. Consequently,
the Board recommends that Councilmember Gorgol declare a conflict of interest
in individual rezoning matters for manufactured housing community/mobile
home park properties whose residents she has worked with directly as part of
her work for TFC/LF. This means that for those items she should refrain from
voting on, attempting to influence or otherwise participating in such decision in
any manner as a Councilmember, including participation in related work session
and executive session discussions.
This advisory opinion was reviewed and approved by Councilmembers Kristin Stephens, Ken
Summers and Julie Pignataro, as the designated regular members of the Ethics Review Board, at a
meeting of the Ethics Review Board on July 17, 2020. Pursuant to Section 2-569(e) of the City
Code, this opinion and recommendation is to be immediately filed with the City Clerk and made
available for public inspection. Additionally, this opinion shall be considered by the City Council
at its regular meeting on July 21, 2020.
Dated this 17th day of July, 2020.
____________________________________
Carrie M. Daggett, City Attorney
0017