Log In


Reset Password
News Education Local News Nation & World New Mexico

Ethics complaint dismissed against City Councilor Sweetie Marbury

Councilor suggested tweak of secondary housing standards in her son’s neighborhood
Marbury

An ethics complaint against Durango City Councilor Sweetie Marbury that alleged she advocated for new rules to govern secondary housing units that might have benefitted her son was dismissed by the city’s Ethics Board this week.

The complaint, filed in January, claimed that Marbury tried to “promote her self-interest, personal agenda and family economic gain and attempt to influence other councilors through her public office.” The claim of conflict of interest was centered on her suggestion to reduce the lot sizes required to build secondary housing units in different parts of the city, including Established Neighborhood 2. The neighborhood is along Main Avenue from about 16th Street to about 32nd Street.

The complaint was filed after Marbury suggested in a council study session of decreasing the required lot size in that neighborhood to 6,500 square feet, and allowing more accessory dwelling units throughout the city. The change in Established Neighborhood 2 could have allowed her son and 27 other property owners to build a unit, according to a report by an independent investigator. The suggested changes were not implemented.

Marbury filed a motion to dismiss the ethics complaint, arguing that other “similarly situated” people would have benefited from the change in lot size, said Mike McLachlan, her attorney.

“I have always been in favor of ADUs and infill,” she said Tuesday.

The board asked an independent company to look into the issue.

The company found Marbury’s son, Dru English, owns a home in the neighborhood, and he was interested in building a secondary unit, but his property is too small.

The complaint, the first handled by the relatively new Ethics Board, was filed by English’s neighbor, Martha McClellan.

On Monday, the board discussed the appearance of impropriety, but decided there was no violation because other property owners would have benefitted if the lot-size restrictions were changed, according to a recording of the meeting.

“I think we got it right, and I’m glad we have this process. ... It helps give the electorate confidence in their elected officials,” said Katherine Burgess, an Ethics Board member.

Mike Todt, a board member, cast the only dissenting vote on the five-member board.

Marbury’s statement doesn’t rise to a violation of a specific standard of the ethics code, especially since the board was not voting on the issue, he said.

But he was disturbed by Marbury’s mention of 6,500 square feet specifically and argued Marbury violated the spirit of the code, which urges city officials to “strive to avoid situations that create impropriety or the appearance of impropriety.”

“The very fact that she did this may take away from public trust,” he said.

mshinn@durangoherald.com

City ethics report (PDF)



Reader Comments