Officer’s attorney assails city decision
The Denver police officer who accused Mayor Michael Hancock of sexual harassment responded Wednesday to the City Council’s decision not to investigate with a blistering letter that accused it of denying the city transparency.
The letter from her attorney also says that by relying on a legalistic rationale for backing off, the council and its lawyer “miss the point entirely.”
“We know that many questions remain unanswered in this matter and that the council has decided that discovering those answers is not worth the exercise of the council’s inherent power to investigate,” Sean Lane, Detective Leslie Branch-Wise’s attorney, wrote in a letter to the council’s legislative counsel. “We disagree.”
In announcing the council’s decision in a public statement Monday night, President Albus Brooks asserted that its members, unlike a court, lacked the authority to conclude whether Hancock’s suggestive text messages to Branch-Wise were sexual harassment, a point she had asked the council to consider.
Hancock has apologized for sending the messages six years ago, while Branch-Wise served on his security detail. She disclosed the texts publicly in late February.
A complication, cited both in Brooks’ statement and by legislative counsel Kirsten Crawford in a letter sent to Lane on Tuesday, is that Branch-Wise waived any further legal claims against the city in 2013 when she received a $75,000 city settlement. That award resulted from a separate harassment claim against a mayoral aide, city officials have said. (The aide, who contested his firing and the accusations, later received a $200,000 city settlement.)
Lane wrote in Wednesday’s letter that Branch-Wise was not seeking a legal proceeding but rather a public consideration of the mayor’s conduct, given that he has characterized the texts as “inappropriate” but has denied they amounted to harassment. The decision not to investigate left Branch-Wise “extremely disappointed,” Lane wrote.
“Why won’t the council admit that they chose not to investigate the mayor on behalf of the citizens of Denver, without blaming that decision on Detective Branch-Wise in one fashion or another?” he wrote.
Brooks declined to comment on the new letter and referred to Monday’s statement, which was issued after council members discussed the potential investigation in their second closed-door executive session in a week.
The statement said council members considered the mayor’s actions unacceptable, then added: “Based on extensive additional legal advice, council is unable to grant Detective Branch-Wise’s request for an investigation. Since we are not the judicial branch, we are unable to make a legal conclusion about the mayor’s conduct, and there are no disputed facts.”
Brooks’ statement called for the development of a process to report and investigate complaints against elected officials, who aren’t covered under the city’s sexual harassment policies. Mayoral spokeswoman Amber Miller said Wednesday that Hancock agreed with the suggestion.
“The mayor will work with City Council and other elected leaders to evaluate how best to address workplace claims by a city employee that involve an elected official,” she said.
This week’s council decision was only the latest twist in its members’ decision-making.
On March 13, after Councilman Rafael Espinoza suggested an independent investigation, a council statement cited a concern that a formal probe might “revictimize” Branch-Wise, and it said council members wouldn’t support one unless she requested it.
Within days, that statement prompted a backlash, including from Branch-Wise — who said the council’s stance was covering up for the mayor’s conduct. She requested a formal probe.
Several council members then asked the council’s attorney to start a review of its little-used investigatory power over city officials and departments under the city charter, which led to the two closed-door legal briefings and discussions on March 27 and this past Monday.
But hopes for an investigation soon fizzled among some supporters of Branch-Wise, as well as among Hancock’s critics.