This content was originally published by the Longmont Observer and is licensed under a Creative Commons license.
Members of the Longmont City Council have begun to respond to the complaint filed by Julia Rush, President of the Board of Directors of the OUR Center.
Since the filing of the complaint, concerns have also been raised that both Councilmembers Polly Christensen and Joan Peck may have violated laws intended to ensure that official communications of elected officials can be monitored by constituents.
The message originally sent to Rush by Christensen was labeled "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line and was sent from her personal email address. In the email, Christensen invokes her positions on Longmont City Council and the Housing and Human Services Advisory Board (which makes budget recommendations to City Council). This would be Peck's second time being accused of violating public records laws. No charges were filed previously.
We requested interviews with all seven members of City Council.
Polly Christensen declined via email to be interviewed although she said there was "so very much [she] would like to say" and citing possible "legal examination" from the Boulder County District Attorney. She again noted that she considered her message to Julia Rush confidential, though it is not clear in her correspondence with the Longmont Observer what basis confidentiality was established.
Joan Peck declined to be interviewed, calling the controversy "ridiculous and a waste of time." She indicated that she was in the process of drafting an op-ed defending herself. She stated that she intends to address the controversy on Tuesday night at the regularly scheduled City Council meeting, but "[doesn't] want to give it any more bandwidth than that." In the op-ed, Peck denies threatening OUR Center funding but admits to placing the call to Julia Rush.
Brian Bagley cited concerns about both the apparent attempt by Christensen to intimidate the OUR Center and the possibility that both Peck and Christensen violated Colorado open records laws. "When I learned of this, I was shocked and surprised and that could even be termed disgust...Surprise, disbelief, surprise and just a sickening pit in my stomach."
Bagley continued, addressing both the appropriateness of the message and Colorado open records laws. "There's two issues here. There's an issue of abuse of power and acting unethically in your position as an elected official. And then there's a criminal element. Right now I leave the criminal aspect of the district attorney in law enforcement."
While Peck's op-ed had not been published at the time of the interview, Bagley anticipated the denial of any attempt to intimidate during the call. "The fact that Joan made the call was wrong...I don't care what was said to the call. Calling the OUR Center President was wrong. You should not get involved in the bidding process."
Tim Waters first learned of the emails sent by Christensen from Bagley, before the information was public. In an email reply, he told Bagley, "The email string forwarded to you from Julia Rush is serious and wrong." While noting he is not a legal expert, Waters stated it was his understanding that Christensen and Peck's conduct likely violated Colorado open records laws, corrupted the procurement process, and used their authority as Council members to further their personal aims. Waters suggested that the minimum was that Christensen and Peck should apologize.
In an interview with the Longmont Observer, Waters reiterated these points. When discussing possible ramifications, Waters declined to suggest appropriate action the City Council might take to discipline Christensen and Peck. He did say that his personal ethical standards would require him to resign.
Waters further suggested that there needed to be a "public reconciliation" for the Council to continue to work together effectively. Waters cited the July 23rd Longmont City Council meeting where Christensen "lectured" the remainder of the Council. Waters paraphrased Christensen as saying, "the Council members [should] do nothing to cast the Council in a negative light." Referring to Christensen's email, "I don't see how this meets that standard."
Marcia Martin is also on the Way Home committee of HOPE with Christensen and Peck. Martin distanced herself from them, saying that she was only able to attend meetings when they did not conflict with her official responsibilities. She could not recall a time when she was simultaneously at a Way Home meeting with both Christensen and Peck since February. She considers her involvement with HOPE to be an offshoot of her responsibilities as a Council member, saying "I doubt that I would have become involved in HOPE if I were not on Council."
Martin drew a clear line between her interest in HOPE and her obligations as a Council member, however, and vehemently asserted that no discussion of how to unfairly advantage HOPE in public funding solicitations ever involved her. At the time of her interview, Sunday night, she said she had not had any conversation with Christensen or Peck since Wednesday the 13th.
Martin described Christensen and Peck's comments as "unethical" and "wrong," but said she did not know the law well enough to know how District Attorney Michael Dougherty would react. Asked about possible action Council might take, Martin said that her ultimate goal was to wind up with a Council that could work together in good faith, but "that may no longer be possible."
Aren Rodriguez had only read the previously published reporting at the time he was interviewed on Monday afternoon. He said that he had discussed the complaint with Christensen and Bagley. After being provided with the complaint sent by Rush along with Christensen's emails, Rodriguez said that in his opinion, "It's become quite clear not to use our personal emails when doing any correspondence that can be construed as Council work." However, he attributed Christensen's use of her personal email account as an error rather than intent to conceal the communication despite the fact that it was marked "confidential."
Rodriguez expressed further doubts about the controversy, saying that he was unable to derive motive from the messages. He also did not ascribe malintent to Christensen identifying her Council affiliations in her message, or Peck identifying herself as a Council member on the phone, "as long as [they're] not speaking on behalf of Council" or purporting to. With regard to the threat to OUR Center funding, Rodriguez considered such a threat unlikely given how apparently complimentary Christensen was to the OUR Center.
Rodriguez also did not attribute anything nefarious to Christensen saying in writing that she would communicate on Peck's behalf due to the impending election. Rather, Rodriguez said that that was prudent given how dirty Longmont politics could be. Rodriguez did say, however, "I might take a different interpretation" after having the opportunity to read the messages more closely.
Susie Hidalgo-Fahring could not be interviewed in time to file this story due to personal and professional obligations. In response to the interview request, she did note that she was aware of the article in the Times Call which originated the story but did not feel she could provide additional insight.
