Laserfiche WebLink
information that was received back from the judge during Council Informational <br />Comments on Pertinent Items Not On the Agenda. <br /> <br />Mayer asked whether the advisory opinion would cover strictly the information contained <br />in the letter. <br /> <br />Davidson replied, yes. <br /> <br />Light explained that an advisory opinion is prepared based on facts presented to the <br />judge, and the judge does not act as a fact-finder. <br /> <br />Keany agreed with Levihn. He questioned the appropriateness of discussing issues that <br />are currently under evaluation. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that parliamentary procedure does allow for a motion to remove the item <br />from the Agenda. <br /> <br />Keany moved to remove Item H - Discussion of City' s Activities Relating to the Ten <br />Acres Along County Road Formerly Owned by the Flatirons Community Church from <br />the Agenda, seconded by Levihn. <br /> <br />Mayer stated that since there has been a request for an advisory opinion, this is obviously <br />an issue that significantly affects the City. He felt that there is a potential for the City to <br />have been damaged. He stated that it would be appropriate for the City to at least be <br />provided with some information as to what happened and to decide what further course <br />the city should take. Mayer explained that he placed this item on the Agenda for the <br />benefit of Council. He stated that Council should have the opportunity to at least address <br />the issue and decide if a formal recommendation should be made for referral to any <br />appropriate judicial agency. Mayer stated that if this is something that the Council feels <br />they should not be discussing, he is prepared to do so himself. He explained that he <br />believes that the Council will be judged on how they handle this as much as Councilman <br />Lathrop will. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that it would certainly not be his position to judge Councilman Lathrop's <br />conduct in this setting. However, Sisk felt that the ethics opinion is too narrowly drafted <br />and does not take into consideration and allow investigation by the judicial authority. <br />Sisk stated that he has had countless citizens approach him requesting to know what the <br />facts are. Unfortunately, an ethics opinion does not go into the facts other than those that <br />are recited in the memo. He suggested that an independent agency be in a position to talk <br />to witnesses so as to give Council a chronology. He stated that Council has received <br />chronologies from City Administrator Bill Simmons and Councilman Lathrop; however, <br />there are other parties involved. Sisk agreed with Mayer that if Council does not step <br />forward and allow the facts to come forward, Council will also be judged. He stated that <br />it would be a serious mistake to cause this issue to be pushed aside. He explained that he <br />is not trying to suggest what the facts are but numerous residents have told him that it is <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br /> <br />