The city of Durango’s Board of Ethics has dismissed as groundless a complaint alleging City Councilor Barbara Noseworthy and an advisory board member wrongfully shared a draft of the city’s Water System Master Plan.
Former city councilors Sweetie Marbury and Dick White filed the formal complaint against Noseworthy and Infrastructure Advisory Board member John Simpson on June 30.
The complaint stemmed from an email between Noseworthy and Simpson on June 6.
Marbury and White argued that Noseworthy shared the draft plan with Simpson without the knowledge or consent of City Council and gave special treatment or advantage to Simpson by sending it, thereby threatening public confidence in the integrity of government.
Additionally, Marbury and White argued that Simpson violated city code by responding only to Noseworthy and Mayor Kim Baxter with his comments about the plan.
After two months of meeting in executive sessions, the Board of Ethics came to a conclusion on Aug. 28. The board determined the complaints were groundless and should be dismissed.
“They had a false premise,” Noseworthy said. “They made a groundless claim that took eight weeks of staff time, and the city had to hire an external attorney to support the Board of Ethics.”
The board concluded the draft was never identified as a confidential document and had been shared publicly in a PowerPoint presentation at a meeting March 24.
“Former city councilors knew, or should have known, what constitutes a confidential document,” Noseworthy said. “They would have had the same information from the city attorney that I have.”
The board found that Noseworthy shared the draft plan with Simpson the day before the Infrastructure Advisory Board was scheduled to meet and discuss the water plan.
Noseworthy indicated to the Ethics Board that she would have shared the plan with anyone who requested it, which the board agreed was proof she did not give special treatment or advantage.
Because the first two complaints were groundless, the board said, the final claim that Noseworthy’s action threatened public confidence in the integrity of government also was groundless.
Finally, the ethics board decided Simpson’s action – that he shared his comments with Baxter and Noseworthy instead of the whole council – was not a potential violation. The board concluded that Simpson was not in violation because he acted logically by sending the comments to Noseworthy, who is the advisory board’s liaison to City Council, and his comments were forwarded to City Council within 24 hours by the mayor.
In his response to the complaint, Simpson said he felt the complaint was filed as a means of harassment. He cited a number of tensions between himself and Marbury and White while the two served on City Council.
“I ask the board to consider that the main purpose of this complaint is to harass me,” Simpson said. “The Board of Ethics has full authority to consider harassment as a motive. ... If requested, I will provide more specifics on Sweetie and Dick’s harassment and the harassment by their subordinates.”
Noseworthy also said Marbury and White’s complaint was an attempt to embarrass her, but she would not elaborate.
In a response to the board’s preliminary findings about the complaint, Marbury agreed with findings that the draft plan was not labeled “confidential,” but she still felt Noseworthy gave Simpson special consideration by sharing it with him.
“The communications are improper, and are concealed from the members of the IAB and City Council,” Marbury said. “There is nothing transparent or honorable about the situation they created, in my opinion.”
The board recommended that a communications policy about confidentiality be set and disseminated to members of City Council, city staff members and appointed advisory boards.
njohnson@durangoherald.com
