City Council clarifies special prosecutor’s role

A misunderstanding between the two attorneys investigating alleged charter violation by four Loveland City Council members prompted a special meeting on Tuesday.

The special counsel hired by Loveland City Council to look into potential city charter violations by four members will not be a part of the special prosecutor Kathy Haddock’s ongoing review. On Tuesday, the council told Christopher Gregory that his responsibilities will be limited to any potential civil claims arising from the alleged open meeting violations and he should stop trying to assist Haddock.

“I think we need to have clear lines of demarcation between the criminal aspect and any potential civil aspects,” Councilor Troy Krenning said. “The criminal justice system is where I spend my days. And the less convoluted and the less bleed-over we have between these issues is my preference.”

Gregory was hired as special counsel by the City Council on March 19 to look into allegations that Dana Foley, Pat Mcfall, Steve Olson and Andrea Samson violated the state open meeting law and Loveland city charter open meeting guidelines last year when they signed letters to the governor or Colorado state legislators opposing an urban renewal bill.

The special counsel was asked to determine whether there was enough probable cause to pursue criminal charges on the alleged charter violations. On March 26, Gregory reported back to members that, in his estimation, criminal charges could be supported. He also delivered a written report with supporting evidence.

On March 29, the council hired Haddock, a former attorney for the city of Boulder, to get the case into court, if warranted. On April 2, Haddock made her first appearance before the council and Gregory’s engagement was extended.

The two attorneys appeared at a special meeting added to Tuesday’s agenda at the last minute after a request by Gregory, who had questions about the council’s April 2 motion and his continued role on the case

Gregory said that he understood the extension included further investigation on the criminal matter, and was surprised when, on April 4, Haddock directed him to stop his work on her behalf.

“But that left me questioning whether I would still be able to request records or look into issues related to the exhibit side of things,” he said.

In response, Haddock disputed the characterization that she had directed Gregory to do anything, and said it seemed to be a matter of different interpretations of their positions in the case.

“I didn’t direct him to stop anything. I don’t have the authority to direct him to stop anything, that comes from the mayor,” Haddock said. “What I did say, as far as a prosecutor, is that I thought his report was very thorough, and I was not asking him for any more documents or any more investigation.”

After some discussion that included acting City Attorney Vince Junglas, council members determined that Gregory’s ongoing responsibilities in the case would be limited to pursuing other legal matters raised in his report involving “civil” actions. He was also asked to report directly to Marsh and Mallo, who would bring any future legal maneuvers in the case to council for further action.

Though not specified in Tuesday’s discussion, Gregory’s report does recommend that the city file declaratory action in district court “to determine if violations of the COML (Colorado open meeting law) have occurred and, if so, what the effect of such violations are on formal actions taken and/or being taken by the City Council.”

The report also suggests that the “collateral consequences” could raise questions about the validity of the City Council’s May 2 vote to approve Centerra South.

Bx