Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Council Governance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council votes 5–4 to publicly censure councilmember after emailed criticism of city manager

2803251 · March 25, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Broomfield City Council voted 5–4, with one abstention, on March 18 to publicly censure a councilmember for an email criticizing the city and county manager’s conduct and alleging intentional sabotage and gross negligence.

Broomfield City Council voted 5–4, with one abstention, on March 18 to publicly censure a councilmember for an email that attacked the city and county manager and accused her — in phrasing the council majority called improper — of intentional sabotage and gross negligence.

Mayor Pro Tem Schaff introduced the motion to censure, citing violations of council rules of conduct (including requirements to be respectful and refrain from attributing improper motives to staff) and pointing to an email the councilmember sent to a colleague that later became public. The mayor pro tem said the language in the email had undermined the manager’s reputation and staff morale and argued a public reprimand was warranted.

The councilmember in question declined to withdraw his statements and defended his right to criticize executive performance publicly. He said he intended to pursue an executive‑session personnel discussion to present documentation that, in his view, substantiates his concerns and that his March messages reflected long‑held frustrations about managerial decisions. Several councilmembers said they would prefer to move disputed personnel concerns into an executive session for a confidential review. Others said public censure was appropriate because the email had been published and harmed staff reputations.

Public comment was mixed: some residents urged civility and reconciliation and recommended mediation or conflict resolution instead of public reprimands; others said the councilmember had legitimately raised performance concerns and should not be censured for expressing dissent.

The censure motion passed on a council roll call. The censure itself is a formal public statement of disapproval but does not carry legal penalties such as removal from office. Council members said the next steps should include a special meeting or executive session to address personnel concerns raised by the censured member; council members discussed scheduling a special executive‑session meeting after the council packet and availability were coordinated.

Quote (selected): "When we say or do something to harm someone else, we own our actions. We name our hurt, we apologize for our actions, and we do things differently in the future to not continue to cause repeat or additional harm." — Mayor Pro Tem Schaff.

Ending: The council’s censure closes with an instruction to staff and council to pursue a confidential personnel review at a future special meeting or in executive session to consider the underlying concerns separately from the public censure vote.