Loveland special attorneys wrangle in documents on council agenda tonight
LOVELAND — Attorneys hired by the Loveland City Council majority to determine whether criminal or civil charges for alleged open meeting law violations ought to be pursued through the courts are both expected to be at tonight’s council meeting.
And they’re not on the same page in terms of how they see potential open meeting violations alleged to have been committed by the prior council in the lead up to the approval of the Centerra South urban renewal area development.
In a 22-page memo to the council, followed by 89 pages of attachments, attorney Christopher Gregory, who is handling civil implications of the situation, took a broadside attack on attorney Kathy Haddock, the criminal attorney.
SPONSORED CONTENT
He intimated that she may have had undisclosed conflicts of interest, but didn’t name them, followed by “The legal premise for Ms. Haddock’s conclusions, however, are incorrect and there is evidence that her no-file decision was made with bias and to achieve a predetermined outcome.”
Haddock had informed the council in a 10-page memo dated April 14 that based upon Gregory’s March 26 report to the council and her reading of state and local open meeting laws, “I do not believe that the report includes evidence, or the likelihood that evidence exists, to prove a violation of the OML (open meeting law).”
Also, “…there is not probable cause for me to file any criminal charge.” She did suggest that the city consider policies or ordinances to prevent future occurrences “but the existing laws have not been violated.”
Gregory in his memo to be reviewed tonight took issue with virtually everything that Haddock noted in her memo, calling it an “extraordinary disservice to the city” and that she “exceeded the scope of her appointment.”
He urged the council to “disregard special prosecutor Haddock’s response and to adopt special counsel (Gregory’s) updated recommendations.” Those recommendations include preceding with further investigation of the open meeting violations and mounting a civil lawsuit in order for a district judge to determine if a violation occurred.
He said a social affair April 4 arranged by former members of the council, attended by some current members, to provide a sendoff for former city executives “is relevant to the motives of the involved council members when they signed” letters to the governor and legislature — the letters at the heart of the initial open meeting violation allegations.
A potential remedy for a violation of open meeting laws and the city charter could be removal of council members and/or rendering as moot council actions stemming from the violations — namely the Centerra South approvals.How that squares with a contractual agreement that the council approved 6-3 on March 26 to settle a lawsuit that McWhinney Real Estate Services Inc. had filed over the new council’s rescission of Centerra South was not mentioned in Gregory’s memo. In that settlement, McWhinney agreed to pay $750,000 and the city agreed to defend the company against any future challenges to the development. Gregory inferred in a footnote that council members under cloud of suspicion for open meeting violations didn’t recuse, and they voted for the settlement agreement.
