Durango Guardian--The Eyes, Ears, Voice of the People, for LaPlata County, Colorado

I could not believe my eyes and ears at the September 2, 2008 Durango City Council meeting during a discussion and ensuing vote regarding the Twin Buttes development annexation petition. It was a simple agenda item, but it turned into a strange scene.

The agenda item asked Council if it should accept the petition to annex Twin Buttes, a near-600 home development effort located west of current city boundaries, and if acceptable, to place it on a future Council agenda to begin the process of multiple public hearings on the project.

Prior to all that, Mayor Renee Parsons opened up the agenda item for public discussion, because a member of the public (citizen) can ask for any meeting agenda item to be taken off the consent agenda.

Citizen John Viner took the mayor up on the offer and proceeded with an in-depth analysis, pointing out to Council what was wrong with the Twin Buttes project. Viner stated that his reading of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan confirmed that if this particular agenda item passed, it should be done in a way that the annexation hearing, which is legislative, and a comprehensive plan, which is quasi-judicial, should be addressed separately.

In the middle of Viner’s 30 to 40 minute lecture, Councilor Lee Meigs opined that it was the wrong place for such a discussion as all citizens needed notice for an opportunity to address Council on the subject, not just Viner. Meigs also stated that no member of the Council could talk about the project until a public hearing, and the question should only be about putting the item on a future agenda for a full public hearing. City Attorney David Smith confirmed that the meeting was not a public hearing and explained that to Mayor Parsons and Viner. Viner was told to state his point succinctly. He did and concluded his presentation.

Then, to my amazement, a member of the audience in front of me gave hand signals to Mayor Parsons to recognize another audience member, apparently to keep people coming up to the podium in regard to the Twin Butte’s issue. The mayor acknowledged the hand signal with a head nod and another person arose to continue opposition to the agenda item.

After two more people got up to oppose the project, but in a much-abbreviated manner, they were told they could speak about anything they wanted in the later-planned public participation segment of the Council meeting.

The motion to accept the annexation petition and place it on the agenda for a future public hearing was made and seconded, but Mayor Parsons wasn’t done. She wanted to know why the Council couldn’t discuss the project. During discussion, other members of the Council and the City Attorney told her it was the Council’s legal duty not to discuss Twin Buttes except in a public hearing, and it was the four other councilors desire to have a public hearing on the annexation petition.

The question was called, but the mayor went on for another ten minutes on her issue. Councilor Doug Lyons jumped in to point out to the mayor that when a question is called, there must be an immediate vote and it was her job to enforce the parliamentary rules. Looking a bit confused, Mayor Parsons finally called for the vote, which was 4-1 in favor of putting the petition on a future public hearing agenda. Long trip for a simple question.

The public understands that city councilors have their own agendas, ideas and interests. However, the public, especially in a non-partisan political position, should expect public officials to represent the OVERALL PUBLIC, not just the special interest groups or causes that are the councilors’ favorites.

This particular meeting demonstrated that Durango has a need at this point in time to begin discussion of codes of ethics. Such codes, used in other communities, contain clauses to define accepted and unacceptable behaviors, conflicts of interest, conduct and civility; promote high standards of practice; provide benchmarks for members to establish self-evaluation; establish frameworks for professional behavior and responsibility; and guarantee stewardship of the public interest.

What behaviors are expected of the political leaders in the City of Durango? Should we expect them to work for the common good, not their personal interests? Should we expect public officials to not use their official position to influence decisions in which they may have a material (financial) interest? Or where they have an ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY or a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with groups or individuals or situation which gives the APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST? Should we expect public officials not to appear to be working on behalf of private interests or third parties when performing their official jobs for the citizens of Durango?

The City of Boulder, Colorado has simple “Conflicts of Interest” guidelines which could serve as a guide to create a similar code of ethics for the City of Durango.

The Boulder guidelines include non-financial conflicts such as extent of neighborhood pressure on the potential decision-maker, close friendships with people involved in the decision, and any other situation which could lead to a clear APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.

In its February 26, 2008 editorial regarding Amendment 41 setting ethics for Colorado public officials, the Durango Herald stated, “Voters mainly want assurances that their elected representatives’ loyalties will lie with them, not with lobbyists and campaign contributors.” The Herald ended this editorial by asking Durango citizens to “settle down to holding government employees to standards set by the people who are and should be paying their salaries through their tax dollars, not through lobbyists.”

This is the time to start examining and passing a code of ethics . . . before the next election. Printer Friendly Version

Reader comments received on this article:

On September 22, 2008, at 10:33 am, Original Durangotang wrote:

I agree that a code of ethics should be adopted by Durango. Actually they already have one. It should be enforced.

Which would mean that many, if not most, of the members of the Boards and Commissions in Durango, those who have conflicts of interest, should resign.

The Design Review Board should not have members who are developers of downtown property. The Planning Commission should not have developers. Neither should have architects who contract with the developers. The Water Commission should not include members who have a fiduciary responsibility to organizations trying to sell water to Durango.

Durango doesn't need a new code of ethics. It simply needs to enforce the one (and State law) it already has.

Submit your comments about this article. All comments are reviewed prior to posting. No libel, slander or inappropriate content allowed.