Mulling investigation of mayor

Denver City Council still deliberating if it should start probe in sex harassment case.

The latest word from the Denver City Council about a potential sexual harassment investigation of Mayor Michael Hancock is that its members are still deliberating whether to start one, even as they seek to tamp down public expectations.

Denver police Detective Leslie Branch-Wise has asked for an open investigation into revelations last month that Hancock sent her several suggestive text messages six years ago, when she was on his security detail. The mayor has apologized — but also has said he didn’t realize the texts made her uncomfortable.

While Branch-Wise’s attorney this week suggested a council probe could focus on whether the texts amounted to sexual harassment, the council said in a document released Thursday night to the media that that may not happen.

“The purpose of a sexual harassment investigation is to determine whether the alleged conduct occurred, not to determine whether the alleged conduct rises to the level of sexual harassment, which is a legal definition to be determined by a court of law,” says the two-page document, titled “Frequently Asked Questions.” “This is why most sexual harassment investigations end with the conclusion that it is more likely than not that an action occurred.”

The FAQ document, in addressing other questions, outlined what an investigation would look like if the council took advantage of the little-used investigatory power given to it by the city charter.

It makes clear that council members themselves wouldn’t investigate, for starters. And a statement from President Albus Brooks repeated earlier assertions that because state law withholds sexual-harassment complaints and investigations from public disclosure, a probe of Hancock may not occur in the open.

Instead, the document says that if Branch-Wise were to file a written complaint — which the council’s attorney requested but hasn’t yet received — the council could vote to launch an investigation. The council would then ask the Hancock administration to hire “a third-party investigator.”

The document says the use of an outside investigator would “ensure an investigation was neutral and unbiased,” though it doesn’t say why Hancock’s office would have a role in the selection.

What about using a council subpoena to question Hancock directly about his intentions? In reply to that question, the document says only: “Intention is not relevant to a determination of whether sexual harassment has

MAYOR » 4A

occurred.”

Sean Lane, an attorney representing Branch-Wise, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

The city of Denver lacks a process to report harassment against elected officials.

The council’s FAQ document says it “will clarify our own agency policy” to establish a path for reporting concerns and encourages other city elected officials to do so, too.

Most of the council’s members met for more than two and a half hours in a closed-door meeting with the body’s legislative counsel Tuesday night. Another private executive session is set for Monday night’s council meeting.

“Council continues to deliberate over (BranchWise’s) request and receive legal advice from our own city attorney,” Brooks said in Thursday’s statement. “Council is a deliberative body made up of 13 members and we do not expect to come to any conclusions until next week at the earliest. … We will be responding privately to Detective Branch-Wise and her attorney once Council has finished deliberating.”

Under the city charter, the council lacks authority to discipline Hancock or even issue a formal censure, but it could issue a report of findings. The second-term mayor, who can be removed only through a voter recall, is expected to seek re-election in May 2019.