Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews proposed ethics code changes targeting elected‑official use of city vehicles and security
Summary
An ordinance introduced by Councilmember Risley would add definitions and prohibitions to the city’s code of ethics to restrict elected‑official misappropriation of city resources, limit personal use of city‑funded security and require reimbursement for personal use of city vehicles; staff and the mayor’s chief of staff debated policy vs. code authority and next steps.
Councilmember Risley and Senior Legislative Analyst Carly Hoff presented draft amendments to the city code of ethics at the May 11 work session after an auditor report recommended clearer, enforceable standards governing elected officials’ use of city resources.
The draft would add definitions ("elected officials," "resources of the city"), clarify censure language, and add prohibitions that bar elected officials and their immediate family members from misappropriating city funds, services or other resources for personal benefit. It also specifies that city‑funded security may be used for official duties and for personal activities only where the Colorado Springs chief of police or designee determines reasonable security risks exist; it prohibits use for personal errands unrelated to safety. For city vehicles the draft says they are for official use only, should not be used for personal errands, and should be operated only by elected officials or city employees (except for maintenance or repair operations); passengers should be officials, employees, or persons on official business.
Council discussion turned to separation of powers and charter authority: Chief of Staff Williams said the mayor’s administrative authority (under charter and city code) authorizes the executive to issue regulations and manage fleet and police resources, that peer cities and state practice show security often accompanies officials on personal activities when threats exist, and that the administration issued an administrative regulation consistent with the auditor's recommendation. Councilmembers asked legal and operational questions—whether an ordinance could conflict with the charter authority to manage departments, whether the draft language should be adjusted (e.g., replace "personal errands" with "personal use"), and asked for examples and insurance exposure analysis.
Why it matters: The ordinance seeks to codify enforceable rules for elected‑official use of resources after the auditor reported insufficient clarity; it raises separation‑of‑powers issues and practical questions about balancing security needs with public accountability.
What’s next: Staff said the ordinance will come back for readings on the May 26 and June 9 agendas; council asked staff and the city attorney to analyze legal conflicts with charter authority and to work with the administration on definitions and implementation details.
