Resident questions transparency of interim city attorney contract on consent agenda

Grand Junction — During public comment on Jan. 7, resident Dennis Simpson criticized the city's process for hiring an interim city attorney and raised questions about transparency and oversight.

Simpson said agenda documents show a motion and an ordinance approving a $240,000 salary but that the contract attached to the materials — which Simpson said defines duties and responsibilities — is not referenced in the ordinance or the agenda documentation distributed to the public. He said the contract has no end date and ‘‘starts now… and the way it goes until both parties, one of the parties says that's enough. That's the same as a permanent contract.’’

Simpson also said the contract language about the attorney returning to a prior position in police and fire was confusing given the city had hired another attorney for that role, and he said no resume for the contractor had been distributed to the public. He urged council to clarify whether this hire is intended to be truly interim and to describe the process for selecting a permanent city attorney.

Council did not respond at length during the public comment segment; the comment was entered into the public record for council consideration. No formal action was taken during the meeting on the interim attorney item beyond its placement on the consent agenda (consent items were approved by voice vote 7–0).