Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-028-02/28/1995-CONFLICT OF INTEREST COUNCILMEMBER WANNER ETHICS REVIEW BOARD OPINION 95-1 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RESOLUTION 95-28 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ACCEPTING THE ADVISORY OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION NO. 95-1 OF THE E'rincS REVIEW BOARD WHEREAS, the City Council has established an Ethics Review Board ("the Board"), consisting of three members of the City Council; and WHEREAS. the Board_ is-empowered_under- Section-2-569-of Lire City Code to render advisory opinions and recommendations regarding actual or hypothetical situations of COnnCihnembers or board and commission members of the City; and WHERLAS, the Board ntet on February 27, 1995, to consider the question of whether a Cottncilntember's contacts with certain appellants in an appeal of a decision of the Planning and Zoning Board created it conflict of interest which would prevent the Councilmember from participating in hearing that appeal; and W IIEREAS, after review of the relevant facts and the standards contained in the City Charter, the Board rendered an advisory opinion and recommendation oil the foregoing subject; and WHEREAS, Section 2-569(e) of the City Code provides that all advisory opinions and recommendations of the Board be placed on the agenda for the next special or regular City Council meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt such opinirvt_amL recommendation; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the opinion and recommendation of the Board and wishes to adopt the same. NOW,THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF T11E CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Opinion No. 95-1 of the Ethics Review Board, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, has been submitted to and reviewed by the City Council, and the Council hereby adopts the opinion and recommendations contained therein. Passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Council o- th'CCity of Fort Collins-held this 28th day ,of February, A.D. 1995. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 95-1 OPINION OF THE ETHICS REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF 111E CITY OF FORT COLLINS February 27, 1995 'file Ethics Review Board ("the Board") met on the above-referenced dale to address a question presented by Councilmember Chuck Wanner. In attendance were Ethics Review Board members Mayor Ann Az.ari and Councilmember Bob McCluskey, as well as Councilmember Wanner. 'rile purpose of the meeting was to formulate an advisory opinion regarding an upcoming hearing on the appeal of a decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. The decision in question has to do with the site plan review of The Ponds at Overland Trail ("The Ponds"), a cluster plan development in the foothills area of the City. The appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's decision, which is to be heard by the City Council on March 7, 1995, was filed by several individuals, two of whom had contacted Councilmember Wanner prior to filing the appeal to request that he file the appeal on behalf of the City Council. Councilmember Wanner's question is whether his conversations with these appellants creates a conflict of interest which prevents him from participating in hearing the appeal. FACTUAL BACKGROUND: After the Planning and Zoning Board's decision regarding The Ponds, Councilmember Wanner received two or three telephone calls from two of the appellants inquiring whether he would be willing to appeal the Planning and Zoning Board's decision under the provisions of the City Code which permit appeals to be tiled by Councilmenibers. Initially, Councilmember Wanner indicated that he might be sympathetic to the callers' concerns but that he would have to gather more information about the matter. In the interim, he spoke to the City Attorney about the procedure for the filing of an appeal and about the advisability of his filing an appeal at the request of other parties-in-interest. Following that conversation, lie recommended to the prospective appellants that they make an independent decision whether to appeal the Planning and Zoning Board's decision, and he advised them of the pertinent provision of the City Code that appeared to be at issue. Of the two parties-in-interest who were involved in these conversations, one is in acquaintance of Councilmember Wanner's (and resides within his District); the other is not. Although Councilmember Wanner believes that his political views may be similar to those of the callers, he is not closely acquainted with either of them, nor does he socialize with them. In the Board's view, then, the issue of whether a personal conflict of interest exists in this situation hinges upon the significance of the telephone conversations that were held between Councilmember Wanner and the prospective appellants prior to the filing of the appeal. Ethics Opinion 95-1 February 27, 1995 Page 2 ANALYSIS: "file Charter defines two kinds of interests in a decision: financial and personal. Clearly, there is no financial interest at issue here. As to a personal interest, that is defined under the Charter to mean: .,any interest (other than a financial interest) arising from blood or marriage relationships or from close business, political, or personal associations or concerns which would, in the judgment of a reasonably prudent person, tend to impair independence of judgment or action in the performance of official discretionary duties. In the Board's last opinion (Opinion No. 94-2), it established certain guidelines to use in determining whether a Councilmember's social or political contacts create a conflict of interest. That opinion cites various factors to be considered in determining whether a particular political, social, or business relationship is close enough to create a conflict of interest. These include the frequency and nature of the contacts, the number of people who share the same relationship with the Councilmember in question, and the likelihood that an adverse decision by the Councilmember would have a significant impact on his or her relationship with the affected party. The opinion also utilizes a definition of the term "close" which has proved to be helpful. "Close" has been defined to mean "bound by mutual interests, loyalties, or affections; intimate." This definition emphasizes that the mere sharing of similar interests, loyalties, or affections is generally not sufficient to create a conflict of interest. Instead, a conflict would appear to exist under this definition only when a social or political relationship is close enough that the parties feel bound by loyalty to one another to such an extent that if one makes a decision contrary to the other's interests, a reasonable person would expect that decision to undermine or have a serious adverse effect on the relationship. In applying these tests to the situation at hand, there is no indication that the conversations between Councilmember Wanner and the two appellants created such a "close" association among them that a reasonably prudent person would believe that Councilmember Wanner had become "bound by mutual interests or loyalties" to the appellants. Instead, Councilmember Wanner responded to the inquiries of the appellants by informing them of the relevant Code provisions and advising them they should make an independent decision regarding the filing of the appeal. 'file Board believes that Councilmember Wanner's response to these inquiries was entirely appropriate and does not impede his ability to participate in hearing the appeal.. This advisory opinion was reviewed and approved by Mayor Azari and Councilmember Bob McCluskey, regular members of the Ethics Review Board. Pursuant to Section 2-569(e) of the City Code, this opinion and recommendation is to be immediately filed with the City Clerk and Ethics Opinion 95-1 February 27, 1995 Page 3 made available for public inspection. Additionally, this opinion and recommendation shall be considered by the City Council at the continuation of its regular meeting on February 28, 1995. Dated this 28th day of February, 1995. v Stephen . Roy, Cit Attorney SJR:meg