Inside Deal

From Dave Felice:

If you had any thought the city is altruistically adding five "new" acres of park land in Montbello to partially make up for the loss of Hentzell Park Natural Area, think again and read the attachment.

The proposal involves acquisition of the land by Urban Land Conservancy, which will then transfer the property to the city, which will lease the land to ELK (Environmental Learning for Kids). 

Founders of ELK?  Deputy Parks Manager Scott Gilmore and wife, Stacie.  ELK executive director is Stacie Gilmore.  Member of ELK Advisory Board is Scott Gilmore.

In May 2012 -- months before the November election, but apparently after the deal was made with DPS and the City for the park swap with 1330 Fox -- Gilmore sought an informal opinion.

Gilmore apparently seized the opportunity to be rewarded for good and faithful service to Michael B. Hancock as Council District 11 representative on Parks Advisory Board, even after getting appointed to Parks Department.  But Gilmore also created plausible deniability by stepping aside only slightly after the deal was in place. 

You would probably like for the city to provide property on which you could operate your business.

May 31, 2012

Mr. Scott Gilmore

Deputy Manager of Parks and Planning

201 West Colfax Avenue, Department 601

Denver, CO 80201

RE: Case 12-23 – your request for an advisory opinion

Dear Mr. Gilmore:

On May 24, 2012, after discussing the matter with you, Denver Board of Ethics considered the request for an advisory opinion that Manager of Parks and Recreation Lauri Dannemiller filed on March 15, 2012.

The facts as the Board understands them are as follows. You are the Deputy Manager for Parks and Planning of the Parks and Recreation Department. You and your wife, Stacie Gilmore, founded a non-profit organization called Environmental Learning for Kids (ELK) about 16 years ago. You have never been a paid employee of ELK. Your wife is now the executive director of ELK.

The Parks and Recreation Department is partnering with other communities in the metropolitan area to obtain funds from the federal government from a settlement of litigation concerning environmental contamination at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, now transformed into a National Wildlife Refuge. One of the four projects in Denver’s proposal is to purchase land in the Montbello neighborhood that would be leased to ELK. Manager Dannemiller says that:

In order to avoid a conflict of interest, before submitting the application (for funding to the federal government) Denver Parks and Recreation put a plan in place which removed Mr. Gilmore from the decision-making process. Mr. Gilmore took no direct official action in the decision to go forward with the application. Mrs. Gilmore met only with Manager Dannemiller and (Director of Planning) Gordon Robertson to provide background on the necessity of the project to the Montbello area…All recommendations for projects from this fund came from Gordon Robertson…directly to Lauri Dannemiller, Manager of Parks and Recreation.. Ultimately, funding will be accepted by the Mayor and City Council for final approval.

Manager Dannemiller asked: “Given these circumstances, does the Ethics Board perceive any conflict of interest in our proposed handling of the application process and future securing of funds from this settlement?”

On another subject, you and/or your wife informed several young people in the ELK program that paid summer internships will be available in the Parks and Recreation Department, with the selection process being managed by Career Service Authority. You say that you recognize that the ELK young people must be given no special preference in selection of the interns and that any non-ELK applicants must be treated fairly and measured by the same criteria.

Conflicts of interest are regulated by Section 2-61 of the Denver Code of Ethics:

Sec. 2-61. Conflict of interest while employed.

The purpose of this section is to avoid influence on the official actions of city officers, employees or officials by their private or family interests,

(a) Except when advised by the city attorney that the rule of necessity applies, an officer, official, or employee shall not take direct official action on a matter before the city if he or she or a member of the immediate family, a business associate or an employer other than the city of the officer, official or employee has any substantial employment, contractual, or financial interest in that matter. A substantial interest shall be deemed to exist if:

(1) He or she or a member of the immediate family, a business associate or an employer other than the city is the other party in the matter;

(2) He, she, a spouse, a domestic partner or minor children solely or aggregated together, a business associate or an employer owns or own one (1) percent or more, or a member of the immediate family other than a spouse, domestic partner or minor children own or owns five (5) percent or more, of another party in the matter;

(3) He or she, a member of the immediate family, a business associate or an employer is an officer in another party in the matter;

(4) He or she, a member of the immediate family, a business associate or an employer is directly involved in obtaining the city's business for another party in the matter;

(5) He or she, a member of the immediate family, a business associate or an employer is directly involved in negotiating the contract or preparing the bid, proposal, response to a request for qualifications, or similar document for another party in the matter, other than in a purely clerical capacity; or

6. A member of his or her immediate family performs more than a nominal portion of the work in the matter, or supervises or manages more than a nominal portion of the work…

(f) Officers, employees or officials who are prohibited from taking direct official action due to a substantial conflict of interest shall disclose such interest to his or her colleagues on a board or commission or to his or her supervisor or appointing authority, shall not act or vote thereon, shall refrain from attempting to influence the decisions of others in acting or voting on the matter and shall work with his or her supervisor or appointing authority to ensure that the matter is assigned to someone without conflicting interests.

(g) No officer, employee or official may have any other employment or position which is incompatible with his or her duties or that adversely affect the interests of the city. (emphasis added)

“Direct official action” is defined in Section 2-52(b) as:

(1) Negotiating, approving, disapproving, administering, enforcing, or recommending for or against a contract, purchase order, lease, concession, franchise, grant, or other similar instrument in which the city is a party. With regard to "recommending," direct official action occurs only if the person making the recommendation is in the formal line of decision making.

(2) Enforcing laws or regulations or issuing, enforcing, or regulating permits, licenses, benefits or payments;

(3) Selecting or recommending vendors, concessionaires, or other types of entities to do business with the city;

(4) Appointing and terminating employees, temporary workers, and independent contractors.

(5) Doing research for, representing, or scheduling appointments for an officer, official, or employee, provided that these activities are provided in connection with that officer's, official's, or employee's performance of (1) through (4) above. (emphasis added)

The Board of Ethics advises you and Ms. Dannemiller that the Code of Ethics will not be

violated if you did not and will not take any direct official action regarding the ELK

program, if the land is obtained and leased to ELK and that you must not attempt to

influence the decisions of others in the Parks and Recreation Department regarding ELK,

including Mr. Robertson. The Board urges you to be particularly mindful of the need to

separate yourself from any decisions at Parks and Recreation regarding ELK in order to

avoid the appearance of impropriety, particularly since Mr. Robertson directly reports to

you. In addition, in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety, you should remove

yourself from any role in interviewing or selecting young people from ELK for any Parks

and Recreation internships.

The Board thanks you and Ms. Dannemiller for submitting this request for an advisory opinion and you for attending the Board’s meeting on May 24, 2012.

For the Board of Ethics:

Leslie M. Lawson

Chair

Copy: Lauri Dannemiller