The Durango Board of Ethics concluded last week that a former advisory board member violated three sections of the city’s codes of ethics and conduct when he privately emailed a city councilor about public business and attempted to shield the correspondence from the public eye.
Former City Councilor Melissa Youssef filed an ethics complaint against former Infrastructure Advisory Board member John Simpson on Jan. 19, 2024, which alleged Simpson violated 10 sections of the ethics code.
Many of the allegations stemmed from emails between Simpson and former Councilor Olivier Bosmans obtained by The Durango Herald in a November 2023 records request. In the emails, the two city officials discussed upcoming public business and how to outmaneuver City Council on specific issues.
Over the course of its review of the complaint – a process that lasted nearly two years – the Board of Ethics dismissed all but three of the allegations, finding some to be untimely and others to be unsubstantiated. The allegations of violations that ultimately stuck were:
- The duty of city officials to avoid appearances of conflict and impropriety as outlined in Section 2-203(a) (15) in the city’s code of ethics and conduct policy.
- The duty to avoid granting anyone special consideration beyond that available to “every other person in similar circumstances or need,” as outlined in Section 2-205(p).
- The duty to avoid conduct that “threatens the public confidence in the integrity of government,” as described in Section 2-205(u).
The ethics board also rejected Simpson’s demand for a public hearing and motions he submitted to dismiss Youssef’s complaint; grant a stay of proceedings; strike an investigative report from the record; and to disqualify Special Counsel Michael Blackwell and Board of Ethics member Christ Elias.
Responding to a request for comment from The Durango Herald, Simpson said in an email the Board of Ethics found he committed only three minor violations, noting seven of the allegations against him were dismissed.
He questioned the fairness of the process.
“The structure of the system – where a complaint filed by an elected official is then decided by a board composed of that same official’s appointees and punishment decided by that same official – raises questions about consistency and fairness,” he said.
He said the ethics board’s findings are based on “inconsistent interpretations and vague, undefined standards” and he is “evaluating an appeal in District Court.”
He added ethics laws are supposed to prevent corruption and financial conflicts. They aren’t intended to “regulate communication styles,” he said.
Ethics board members Jay Eagen and Thomas Pollich credited Simpson for his watchdog work on city finances “that have helped this city improve how it conducts business,” as Eagen said.
Simpson twice claimed victory in district court over a dispute about 2021 draft financial documents the city denied him on the basis the documents were “work product.”
Eagen said Simpson carried the U.S.’s historic tradition of watchdog work as a private citizen.
Pollich said watchdogs are important, and he applauds Simpson for his past efforts and diligence.
But that changed when he accepted an appointment to the city’s Infrastructure Advisory Board, Eagen said.
“It appears pretty clear that prior to making that jump from private citizen to a city official, which is how it’s defined in the definitions of this code, he had a close relationship with one city councilor,” he said. “When the opportunity presented itself to receive an appointment, he had to be approved for that role by the entire City Council to serve on the Infrastructure Advisory Board.”
Emails between Simpson and Bosmans demonstrated a continuance of their relationship at the exclusion of service to City Council as a whole, he said. As a city official, Simpson had an obligation to serve all councilors equally – not just a single councilor with whom he had an established relationship.
Eagen cited several sections of the ethics and conduct code that outline how city officials “shall comply with both the letter and spirit of the ethics code”; “honor and respect” the letter and spirit of laws, rules and policies; and avoid “conduct that constitutes impropriety or creates the appearance of impropriety which otherwise benefits a city official.”
Ethics board members said Simpson’s communications with Bosmans – which he attempted to protect from records requests with disclaimers in his emails that said variations of “this email is not subject to CORA (Colorado Open Records Act)” – threatened public confidence in the city.
Ethics board chairman Andrew Dennison said the disclaimers in Simpson’s emails indicated Simpson did not want the public to read his messages to Bosmans.
Dennison referenced a district-court ruling last year that concluded although the disclaimers did not violate CORA to the letter of the law, they did violate the “spirit and public policy behind the law.” The court also found Simpson violated CORA when he failed to provide some emails sought by the Herald in its request.
Dennison dismissed Simpson’s prior arguments that CORA is not an ethics law and not subject to the Board of Ethics’ jurisdiction. He said it doesn’t matter whether or not CORA is explicitly subject to the board’s purview as an “ethics law” – the city’s ethics code states city officials are obligated to abide by federal, state and city laws.
He said Simpson’s emails are ironic in comparison to councilors’ emails, which contain disclaimers clearly stating their communications are subject to CORA.
“He selectively communicates with a single councilor in a manner that constitutes an attempt to solicit an opinion or influence something outside of normal channels,” Pollich said.
Pollich was initially against the idea Simpson’s conduct undermined or threatened public confidence in local government. But the more he discussed it, the more he came into agreement with Dennison and other board members.
“Does it erode or threaten public confidence? I suppose in a general sense, in a broad sense, if that was the way we had behavior throughout City Council, it would do that,” he said.
City Attorney Mark Morgan said in an interview on Tuesday he had never seen someone so “blatantly” conceal public information.
The Board of Ethics will deliver its findings to City Council, which can decide to take punitive action or not.
Morgan said City Council, should it take action on the ethics board’s findings, has three options at its disposal:
- Prohibit Simpson from being appointed in any capacity for the city.
- Admonish Simpson – telling him to not commit the violations again.
- Censure – issue a public statement condemning Simpson’s actions.
cburney@durangoherald.com
