[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Agenda item 3A, Code of Conduct

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Appelbaum, Matt



Some first reading questions/concerns regarding Agenda item 3A, “Code of Conduct”:
 
P. 12, 2-7-5 (5):
I had asked that nonprofits be included as possible funding sources, since that has sometimes been the case.  Since that of course includes all sorts of organizations, it seems appropriate to me that for any such funding that might cause
 concern, council is notified in advance if possible.  Don’t know if that needs to explicitly be in the code or just be part of our process.
 
In addition, I wonder if there would ever be cases where a for-profit organization (that also isn’t “governmentally-related,” a rather broad description) might invite us to speak at an event that would be beneficial to attend, and pay our
 way?  That seems to be prohibited here, even if council approved.
 
P.13, 2-7-5 (d), (e), and (f):
As written, these seem to mean that the “official action” could have taken place at any time, including many, many years ago (say, in my case, in a previous term, 25 years ago); should there be a time limit of some sort, as there is in
 some other sections, of perhaps one year?
 
P. 15, 2-7-7(g):
Does this really mean that if a city vehicle hit me I couldn’t sue unless the council agreed to it?
 
P. 17, 2-7-8(e)(8):
This is written very broadly, as perhaps it should be, although taken literally (how else would one take it?) I think we’d need to disclose potential, indirect benefit on much of what we do.  As an example, some of us own rental properties. 
 Fair enough that we should disclose that – as we always do, I think – but as discussed at the retreat, our handling of rental properties almost certainly “indirectly” affects the value of nearby properties, so that pretty much all residential property is affected. 
 That is of course true of many other actions we take.  While disclosure is not a particular problem, it becomes almost meaningless in this interpretation.
 
P.18, 2-7-8(f)(5):
This is the critical implementing section of (e)(8) above.  It specifies only “direct” benefit, not “indirect,” although I think that differentiation is more than a bit fuzzy.  Let’s use the rental property example again.  As written, this
 would appear to prevent anyone who owns such property from voting on rental issues – unless you think that any potential benefit is “indirect” since our action doesn’t specify specific properties; if that’s our interpretation, that’s fine, but if not then
 remember that nearby properties (which is Boulder is just about every property) could have similar benefit.  Properties of course can benefit from all sorts of public infrastructure improvements – parks, libraries, roads, transit, etc. – but so long as these
 are not considered “direct” benefits then we don’t all need to recuse ourselves.  So, is a “direct” benefit limited to actions that are specifically about an individual property, or a property that is in a certain location, or a “class” of properties, or what? 
 (Yes, I realize this doesn’t relate only to property, but that’s the simplest example.)  We’ve generally been OK when an action refers to a “big enough class” of property; is that still the case?
 
P.18, 2-7-8(f) (12)
I get the rationale, but it could make it even harder for someone who actually works for a living to serve on council/board.  For example, as soon as someone “solicits” employment with a company that does business with the city, even if
 the job is a long-shot or needs to be kept quiet for obvious reasons, it would need to be made public.
 
P. 21, 2-7-4:
(c) hmmm
defining rude would be interesting
 
(g) We’ve agreed that we can have a single cell phone and use it for personal and city use so long as it is mostly used for city use; that’s what I do, but it is very likely that, therefore, during the campaign, that city phone was used
 in a quite minimal way for campaign activities.  If that is really not allowed, everyone will be forced to have two cell phones (I suspect that many/most do have two cell phones, but one is for business purposes; for those of us without visible means of support,
 a single cell phone really makes way more sense).
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

(j) This is just an example of the rule I commented on above in 2-7-8(f)(5), although the perhaps even broader 2-7-8(f)(2) is cross-referenced here.
 
(k) I have no idea what “expensive” means, since that by itself is not a violation of 2-7-8(f)(3).  So long as an expense is within our standards, it’s OK; although councilmembers probably don’t know it, and I don’t use it, we can in theory
 get per diem based on federal rates, so it doesn’t matter if one outing is “expensive” or not.  Maybe 2-7-8(f)(3) is too broad – or I’m misinterpreting it – since I would consider eating or accommodation to be “personal use,” but obviously OK when done on
 city business and following city rules.
 
P 22, 2-7-4:
(r) Yes, but
we get invited to the CVB lunch and they pay since it would be very difficult to figure an individual price – and the CVB does business with the city.  There are other, similar examples, of course – at certain events there
 is food available that can’t easily, if at all, be paid for.  Now these all may be covered by the gift provision in 2-7-4(7), although these events are not always actually “open to the public.”
 
(x) I’m not sure why this is in the original code: if I endorse someone then my name and title can be shown, but if, say, a planning board member endorses someone because of that candidate’s planning knowledge, the PB member’s title can’t
 be used?  What are we protecting here?
 
--Matt