Longmont’s conflicts of interest policy is ineffective

Central to City Council’s ethics discussion should be the adoption of a conflicts of interest policy in the municipal code for City Council and boards and commissions. As it stands now, boards and commissions are instructed to follow Rule

7 of City Council’s rules of procedure, according to the planning director. Rule 7 is a two sentence statement which requires abstention from a vote regarding a matter before council if a council member (by extension, a board member or planning and zoning commissioner) has a “personal, financial or other conflict of interest or appearance thereof which would affect public confidence in any matter to be voted upon or otherwise officially considered.” There’s a loophole to this requirement. It’s up to the disclosing council member (commissioner or board member) to decide whether he/she has a conflict of interest requiring abstention, thereby making it an ineffective policy.

At the 2021 Rivertown annexation public hearing, a planning and zoning commissioner disclosed the Rivertown applicant was a client of his. The commissioner did not recuse himself from participating in discussion of the application nor from voting to recommend approval of the application. A deputy city attorney’s explanation to the commission of the city’s conflicts of interest policy was the commissioner who made the disclosure is the only one who determines whether he has a conflict of interest, no one else.

City Council needs to adopt stronger regulations in the municipal code to address conflicts of interest on council and boards and commissions. The policy should clearly spell out what constitutes a conflict. Decisions made by these entities profoundly impact our neighborhoods and open space. It’s important to maintain integrity of the deciding bodies’ processes so public trust in the system is not diminished and residents are confident they’re getting a fair and impartial hearing.