At least 50 “meritless” allegations. More than 3,000 emails to the city of Durango. And more than $177,000 in legal fees. These are the metrics by which city officials measured its prolonged dealings with a former advisory board member – which included litigation and an ethics investigation.
The 2024 ethics complaint concerned the activities of former Infrastructure Advisory Board member John Simpson during his time on the board, which was dissolved in July 2023.
Earlier this month, the Durango Board of Ethics found Simpson violated three provisions of the city’s ethics and conduct code.
Former Mayor Melissa Youssef filed a complaint against Simpson in January 2024 after The Durango Herald published a report about Simpson’s back-and-forth emails with former Councilor Olivier Bosmans.
The emails revealed conversations between the two city officials about public business, possible opposition from other councilors to stances held by Simpson and Bosmans, and Simpson’s attempts to shield his emails from the public by marking them with variations of the phrase, “not subject to CORA (Colorado Open Records Act) requests.”
City Attorney Mark Morgan summarized the Board of Ethics’ conclusion, reached after two-plus years of deliberations, which was in three parts:
- Simpson’s marking of emails about public business to a councilor who he had a prior relationship as “not subject to CORA” was improper.
- Simpson’s emails about public business to one single councilor was “special consideration and treatment” to that councilor over other councilors.
- Simpson’s conduct “threatened public confidence and integrity in government.”
Morgan said the city has paid an estimated $177,379.81 in legal fees so far, and that amount will rise because Simpson has pursued an appeal of a declaratory judgment in the city’s favor handed down by a district court judge.
He described a pattern by Simpson to stall the ethics complaint proceedings and attempts to have an investigative report about the complaint and the complaint itself thrown out.
He said Simpson filed numerous motions to get ethics board members and special counsels to the ethics board to recuse themselves. He demanded a public hearing despite the ethics board choosing to investigate the complaint and giving himself and Youssef opportunities to submit written statements for the report.
Simpson also threatened to sue the Board of Ethics and individual ethics board members, Morgan said, and to ask the 6th Judicial District Court for a ruling about whether the ethics board has jurisdiction to oversee cases involving questions about CORA.
Morgan said the city took him up on the CORA issue, and received a declaratory judgment Simpson violated CORA when he withheld emails sought by the Herald, and he violated the spirit of open records law when he claimed his public emails were immune from records requests.
“Particularly offensive was that in that last round of motions, he (Simpson) attempted to discredit and then remove the investigative report because Michael Goldman had died and wasn’t around to defend it,” Morgan said.
Morgan referenced a public comment submitted by Simpson to City Council in writing on Wednesday, saying the statement was “complete with every tactic that he’s used, which includes the false narrative, the deflection, the victimization that he claims, and the vilification of your public officials.”
In the statement, Simpson said he did not file the ethics complaint, pursue litigation or “seek conflict” ‒ he “reached out to mediate, but that olive branch was denied.”
He said he served on the Infrastructure Advisory Board to help the city.
The ethics board’s process was unstable, its findings were “vague” and based on “unworkable standards,” and it has left him with “structural concerns about neutrality,” he said in five subheadings in the written statement.
“My family and I have endured years of public accusations and financial strain from my volunteer service nearly three years ago,” he said. “I ask the Council to treat this as an opportunity to reset.”
He said acknowledging the ethics board’s findings are erroneous, City Council can “restore confidence in the process and encourage public service without fear of retribution.”
Mayor Gilda Yazzie said Simpson’s behavior was “unacceptable”
Councilor Jessika Loyer described the case as a “high-profile, high-pressure investigation” and the Board of Ethics delivered a “fair and balanced ruling that holds our city to the highest standards our residents deserve.”
She said ethics board members ‒ volunteer community members ‒ “were forced to navigate a documented pattern of harassment.”
Multiple ethics board members resigned midway through the investigative process, Loyer and Morgan observed. Morgan said in exit interviews, each board member told him they would not be bullied by Simpson, but they were exhausted with the sheer number of his filings.
“They performed their duties while a single individual inundated our city with over 3,000 emails in a single year and filed more than 50 meritless allegations,” Loyer said. “Our legal department had to dedicate 30% of its resources just to investigate and respond to these false claims.”
She added ethics board members endured legal threats and “pointed media scrutiny,” and said it’s “sobering” that the state of politics is public officials and volunteers are being targeted.
“Public service should be defined as a shared love for Durango ‒ not by an individual’s ability to endure harassment disguised as legitimate communication,” she said.
Morgan said it is up to City Council what to do with the information presented on Wednesday. Council can do nothing, or:
- Issue a written reprimand.
- Issue a public reprimand.
- Issue a public censure, to include a letter of apology and/or a written resolution of City Council of apology, to be sent to affected persons.
cburney@durangoherald.com
