Laserfiche WebLink
be changed by the Council. Conarroe has stated in his editorial <br />that it appears that the City Council is involved in a conspiracy <br />run by the Colorado Municipal League and the Colorado Counties, <br />Inc. to amend the State Constitution and that a local lawsuit is <br />necessary to stop City Council. Davidson stated that this is <br />another falsehood and he challenged Mr. Conarroe to bring the <br />lawsuit that he called for or admit that the statement is not true. <br />Conarroe then went on to accuse the Council of unethical behavior <br />in calling a work session in the Board Room of Avista Hospital, <br />with the Council voting to allow Avista Hospital to redeem their <br />industrial revenue bonds. Davidson stated that the truth is that <br />they were legally obligated to allow Avista to redeem their bonds <br />and could have been compelled to do so by the Court, if Council had <br />refused. He explained that the work session was held in full <br />compliance with state law and the city ordinances, was a public <br />meeting, and was so posted, as prescribed by law. Davidson <br />commented that in Mr. Conarroe's September 8 editorial, he <br />continues with his slander against Louisville's City Council, <br />stating that they had violated the ethics and open government <br />ordinance by using the Board Room of Avista Hospital to hold a work <br />session. Davidson challenged Mr. Conarroe to file a formal <br />complaint under the city's Ethics Ordinance for his allegation or <br />admit his allegation is untrue. He stated that Mr. Conarroe, <br />through a series of editorials, is attempting for political reasons <br />to slander the good names of each of the elected officials of the <br />City of Louisville. Conarroe's actions are offensive to the <br />Council and are a slander on the city and its citizens. He wanted <br />the truth brought out. Davidson stated that John Sackett had made <br />the offer to him for the use of the Board Room of Avista Hospital. <br />Therefore, Davidson, through the Ethics and Open Government <br />Ordinance, officially requested a legal opinion from an independent <br />judge as to whether Council had violated the Ethics Ordinance. He <br />requested that the judge issue the opinion on: <br /> <br />1.) Did any member of the City Council receive a favor, or <br /> service, or thing of value in violation of the Ethics <br /> Ordinance by attending the work session held by the city <br /> in the Board Room of Avista Hospital, as alleged by Mr. <br /> Conarroe? <br />2.) Did John Sackett and Avista Hospital violate the Ethics <br /> Ordinance by offering the use of their Board Room to the <br /> city for the work session, as alleged by Mr. Conarroe? <br />3.) As defined by the Ethics Ordinance, if Mr. Conarroe had <br /> formally filed a charge of violation in this matter, <br /> would that charge be considered to be frivolous? <br /> <br />Davidson stated that, if the judge issues an opinion that there was <br />not any violation of the Ethics Ordinance, he called upon Mr. <br />Conarroe to issue a formal apology to the people of Louisville for <br />his false and malicious statements. <br /> <br />Mayer and Howard were in favor of this issue being resolved. <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br /> <br />