The Durango City Council is making steady progress on crafting a code of conduct and ethics policy and is incorporating community feedback along the way. What began as a relatively boilerplate draft is taking shape as a policy that reflects Durango’s specific needs as well as its residents’ concerns. There is still room for improvement – as well as input – before the code is finalized and implemented.
Perhaps the most critical shift between the code’s early drafts and the one considered at a City Council study session Tuesday is the make-up of the Board of Ethics itself. Originally, the commission would have comprised the city manager, city attorney and the municipal judge. While these are surely seasoned professionals, they could quite conceivably have found themselves in the position of reviewing ethics charges against one of more of their bosses – members of the City Council. That is not a particularly good setup for instilling public confidence that the board would conduct unimpeded consideration of any ethical or conduct-code violations.
Best intentions notwithstanding, a board solely populated by high-level city officials is less than ideal for a role in which conflict of interests must be minimized, as much as possible, to the point of nonexistence. To that end, the latest iteration of the policy would have a five-member board appointed by the City Council, with the city manager and attorney functioning as advisers. That is a far more comfortable arrangement wherein the City Council can choose from among applicants with expertise and experience dealing with ethics issues that can serve at an appropriate distance from any city official, employee or volunteer who might require a review. It is also appropriate for the city manager and city attorney to advise the board so as to help guide it through the city’s personnel, legal or other relevant policies that could pertain to any ethics charge under consideration. To the extent that it can and ought to be, a citizen advisory board is better positioned to operate independently than one staffed by city employees. When it comes to ethics, this is crucial.
So, too, is the idea of heading off any violations before they occur. By adding an advisory capacity to the ethics board’s list of duties, the board can help city staff and officials avoid running afoul of the policy. That is a subtle structure change that can have significant impacts on how the city operates. Rather than existing solely to hear any complaints of violations, in on advisory role, the ethics board can help sort through any potential trouble before it actually occurs.
The code still contains troubling remnants of earlier drafts that seem unduly focused on confidentiality “in the best interest of the city.” While the code is careful to remind those who will be bound by the code that confidentiality is allowed only to the extent accorded by local, state or federal law, it has some puzzling language that seems to suggest a somewhat higher standard of secret-keeping. “Confidential information shall also include information which, by determination of the city manager or city attorney, would not be in the best interest of the city if such information was made available to the public at the time it is provided to the recipient; provided, however, such determination shall be in compliance with any applicable law.” This is redundant and unnecessary, and suggests a higher level of secrecy than the law or a commitment to open government requires. It should be stricken from the ethics code. In large measure, though, the city is crafting a responsible and responsive policy that can serve it well.
