Guidance on investigatory power requested

Behavior of Mayor Hancock at root of a potential probe by the council

Several Denver City Council members have asked the council’s attorney to provide guidance on a potential investigation of the mayor one day after a former security detail officer said she wanted a formal sexual harassment probe into his behavior.

Councilwoman Robin Kniech, who has asked for a legal memo, says that could be the first step toward starting a council investigation into recently disclosed suggestive text messages that Mayor Michael Hancock sent to the police officer in 2012.

President Albus Brooks confirmed that other members have asked for guidance about the council’s investigatory power, too.

Both said in interviews that such advice and information would help the council weigh Detective Leslie Branch-Wise’s new public request, as voiced in an interview Sunday with Denver7. And the guidance also may aid Branch-Wise and the public in understanding the details of how a council investigation would work, they said, since it’s an unheard-of occurrence in Denver.

The council doesn’t have the authority to discipline or remove the mayor, but an investigation could result in public findings or possibly an informal censure. Only voters, by petitioning for a recall election, can force out a mayor.

“This is unprecedented, so it’s going to take us a while to actually understand the scope of work — what are we investigating, given that we have heard a lot of questions,” Brooks said. “So we need to meet with Ms. Branch-Wise and really figure out what it is she is asking us to do.”

The council’s renewed attention comes after a joint statement last week indicated that its members were ready to put the matter to rest. That was unless Branch-Wise, who first made Hancock’s old text messages to her public in a Denver7 interview on Feb. 27, wanted otherwise, the statement said.

Branch-Wise, in the new interview, supported an investigation. She also took exception to the council’s rationale in its statement, including its speculation that a public investigation could “re-victimize” her.

The only council member to call outright for an independent probe has been Rafael Espinoza. But he later signed on to the statement deferring to Branch-Wise’s wishes.

Kniech took issue Monday with an assertion by Branch-Wise that nobody from the council had asked about her wishes. She provided an email thread showing that she reached out to BranchWise on March 8, and that Branch-Wise acknowledged receiving her email — but did not follow up with a more substantive response.

After referring to an investigation as a possibility, Kniech wrote in that message: “If at any point you want to share any thoughts on the question of what if anything you think we as a Council should (or should not) be doing as it pertains to your wishes or well being, or want to share anything else you want me to hear as one of your elected Council members, I wanted you to know that my door is open to listen and hear you.”

Kniech said Monday she “did my best to reach out to (BranchWise) in as gentle of a way as I could . ... I’m still very interested in what she wants and needs.”

Branch-Wise’s attorney, in a letter to the council Monday, acknowledged Kniech’s March 8 email but said Branch-Wise was unclear about whether Kniech was proposing an investigation as a possibility because the email also indicated that the council has no legal authority to impose consequences on the mayor.

Branch-Wise left the mayor’s security detail in 2012 after reporting separate sexual harassment by a mayoral aide. But she says now that the mayor’s texts also made her feel uncomfortable.

Hancock has apologized publicly. On Monday, he said he didn’t see any reason for more investigation — but he added that he would cooperate with the council if its members chose to launch hearings.

“I’ve been very transparent. I don’t know what else to share from six years ago,” Hancock said. He added that he would stand by his “heartfelt, sincere apology.”