An ethics complaint filed against Durango City Councilor Olivier Bosmans by four fellow councilors, including former councilors Kim Baxter and Barbara Noseworthy, is coming to a head.
The city of Durango’s Board of Ethics voted unanimously this week to schedule a public hearing about the complaint, which alleges Bosmans attended a Library Advisory Board meeting and voiced opinions contrary to City Council’s decision to back the formation of a library district.
The public hearing will provide ethics board members the opportunity to hear testimony from complainants, respondents and witnesses; review allegations and facts; and ultimately issue a ruling that could result in the dismissal of a complaint or lead to recommendations for possible penalties. Penalties could include censure, a public or written reprimand, remedial training, suspension from liaison roles and/or direction to issue a letter of apology.
The public hearing will be the culmination of nearly two years of infighting between councilors, which included several ethics complaints filed by Bosmans that were dismissed, as well as heated back-and-forths between councilors in relation to Bosmans’ behavior.
Ethics board members themselves are nearing their wit’s end.
One board member, Katherine Burgess, argued for a swift ruling on the complaint against Bosmans.
She said he clearly violated the city’s code of ethics by attending a Library Advisory Board meeting that he was not a liaison to in which he spoke his opinion that differed from City Council’s decision to back the formation of a library district.
Bosmans’ actions were problematic because councilors are prohibited from speaking at advisory board meetings for which they are not a liaison and are expected to “speak with one voice” on decided subjects.
“The part of the code allegedly violated was that a city councilor should not speak to a city commission or board in anything other than his or her official position. It says that very clearly. Councilor Bosmans obviously did that,” Burgess said. “So as a point of fact, that happened.”
She said Bosmans was seeking an exception because he merely expressed his opinion at the library meeting, but the city code offers no exceptions.
“So he admitted to the act but claimed that he could speak his opinion even though it differed from the supposed intent of the council, which was to back this tax authority of the library,” she said.
In an interview on Saturday, Bosmans argued he did not violate the city’s code of ethics because he attended the Library Advisory Board meeting in question as a private resident and not as a councilor. And he said he attended the meeting not to provide his opinion but to speak to facts about how the joint sales tax gets broken up, where money comes from and how it is distributed across city departments.
“I’m spending my personal time to voluntarily attend during this Library Advisory Board meeting as a resident during public comment because I care about our community and that they (LAB) make informed decisions and they have all the information that they need,” he said.
He said he is “very disappointed” about the amount of time and money being wasted on the ethics complaint. But, he is confident in the current City Council and optimistic about what it can accomplish. He described a “night and day” difference between the current council and the previous one, with shorter and more civil meetings since the transition.
Burgess said Bosmans also made conflicting claims to the Board of Ethics by saying he never received the complaint, yet he sent two responses to the complaint to the board; and he demanded a public hearing after already admitting to violating the code.
He also expressed a willingness to undergo educational training and issue an apology to his colleagues on the condition that a formal ruling was not issued against him, she said.
“And he indicated that he would approve the findings and not ask for a hearing; he’d only ask for a hearing if we found him to be in violation of the code,” Burgess said. “But he wanted to know that before (a ruling). Which, in my mind, was totally inappropriate.”
She said how the Board of Ethics handles the situation reflects back on the city and the board itself, and that the board has a duty to uphold the city’s values of integrity and trust.
She said the Board of Ethics’ own validity is at stake, and holding more closed-door meetings out of the public eye does it no favors.
“I think we need to make a judgment on this case,” Burgess said. “And not retreat to another room to discuss things.”
Bosmans has every right to request a public hearing, per city code, Jay Eagen, chair of the Board of Ethics, pointed out.
“I regret terribly that he has made this decision, because he is going to cost the city more time – more of my time, more of your time – and more money than to me seems warranted,” she said. “... It should not be drawn out. It should be remedied by the exact thing he volunteered to do, which was to be educated and write a letter of apology.”
Bosmans said he did offer to undergo remedial training and write an apology, but he is pursuing a public hearing because he wants to ensure the community is well-informed about how this all unfolded.
Burgess said the Board of Ethics must honor Bosmans’ request for a public hearing, but a hearing is “entirely unnecessary,” “unwarranted” and “unethical.” She said Bosmans is holding the Board of Ethics “hostage” by dragging out the process and delaying an eventual ruling.
Bosmans, who has filed three ethics complaints against another councilor or councilors – all of which have been dismissed – has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.
In past interviews, he said he is “attacked” by other councilors during meetings for sharing his opinions that his colleagues disagree with, and that councilors have consistently intimidated him about the complaints he filed.
Ethics board members Burgess and David Smith said a public hearing would be a waste of time, but it is Bosmans’ right to request one and he has done just that.
Mark Morgan, city attorney, said in an interview Thursday that the most time-consuming factor of a public hearing is scheduling and allotting time for due notice.
He said the length of a public hearing would depend on the complexity of the alleged violations. If the facts of a case are simple to explain, a hearing shouldn’t take too long.
Morgan avoided commenting on the merits of the complaint against Bosmans. He said it would be a conflict of interest to discuss it because he represents City Council as a whole.
As for the expenses of a public hearing, he said the cost of litigation can be difficult to predict and did not provide an estimate.
Infighting on City Council has cost the city tens of thousands of dollars in the last several years and prompted councilors to consider revisions to its code of conduct as recommended by the Board of Ethics.
Morgan said since 2019, special counsels to the Board of Ethics have been paid $39,723.41 for complaints between councilors. About $26,000 was paid before Baxter and Noseworthy left City Council. Since two new councilors were seated on April 18, the city has spent about $14,000 on special counsel regarding ethics complaints.
cburney@durangoherald.com
