Independent Ethics Commission Formal Complaint Form

For Commission Use Only

Before the Independent Ethics Commission

of the State of Colorado

Received date:__________
Case. No.: _____________

The Complainant is: Charles Wibby

Mailing Address (including city and zip code):
4569 South Meadow Drive Boulder, CO 80301

Daytime telephone number: 720-837-4932

Email address: cxwibby1@gmail.com

The Respondent is:

Elise Jones, Chair, Board of County Commissioners, Boulder County

Mailing Address (including city and zip code):

PO Box 471 Boulder CO 80306

Daytime telephone number: 303-441-3500

Email address: commissioners@bouldercounty.org

When did the alleged violation occur:

Sixteen times; (see attached complaint)

Describe the specific acts or things complained of, with facts that provide a full understanding of
the alleged violation(s). If possible, cite the specific ethical standards alleged to have been
violated and describe how the violation(s) occurred. Use additional pages if necessary. Attach
any documentary evidence you wish to submit.
See attached document.

Additional Space on Next Page

Description of acts or things complained of (continued):

Check the box or boxes indicating the remedy sought:

Public Admonishment

Fines

I hereby acknowledge that the facts presented herein are true to the best of my knowledge, and I
will cooperate in the process regarding this complaint and will appear at any proceeding of the
Independent Ethics Commission if the complaint is scheduled for a hearing.
Signature:______________________________________________
Attorney (if applicable):___________________________________
Boulder
16
September 20____.
14
Dated at _________________
(City), Colorado, this ___________
day of __________,

Created by Article XXIX of the Colorado Constitution, the Independent Ethics Commission may
review and hold hearings on matters falling within its jurisdiction as outlined in Article XXIX.

Summary of Complaint
On January 8, 2013, Elise Jones was sworn in as a Boulder County Commissioner. A little over ten months later
on October 23, 2013, her twin sister and partner in a home rental business, Suzanne Jones, was hired as the
Executive Director of Eco-Cycle, Inc. From the day Suzanne Jones was hired as Executive Director of Eco-cycle
to today, the Board of Boulder County Commissioners have approved contracts for Eco-cycle worth $11,724,841.
Of this total Commissioner Jones failed to abstain or recuse herself and voted to approve contracts for EcoCycle totaling $5,094,107. In addition Ms. Jones voted on July 28, 2016, to advance to the ballot this November
a ballot issue that if approved would funnel tens of millions of dollars of public funding to Eco-Cycle. By failing to
recuse herself, Ms. Jones' actions have and will benefit an immediate family member who also happens to be a
partner with her in a family business. Ms. Jones' actions are prima facia evidence of a conflict of interest by a
public official that creates a lack of public confidence in our public officials and the duties they are sworn to
uphold. In addition to the July 28th meeting, Ms. Jones has failed to recuse herself from meetings or decisions
impacting Eco-Cycle four other times. Details of all five instances of conflict of interest by Ms. Jones are detailed
below.
Recusal or abstain?
A very common mistake made by public board members is to equate recusal for conflict of interest with a vote to
abstain. To recuse means To disqualify from participation in a decision on grounds such as prejudice or
personal involvement. American Heritage Dictionary, 1143 (3d ed., 1997). To abstain means To refrain from
something by ones own choice. Id. At 6 Recusal is the proper response to a conflict of interest. When a conflict
of interest exists, a member of a deliberative body must recuse him or herself from all participation in the matter,
i.e. from discussing, questioning, commenting and voting. Ideally, the person should leave the room so that there
is no way that she or he can influence the procedure (for instance by smiles, glares or other body language). All
members who participate in a hearing must be and appear to be impartial in their judgment. In Re State Aid
Highway No. 1, Peru, Vt., 133 Vt. 4 (1974). In summary, a recused board member should not participate in a
hearing or deliberation concerning a matter in which he or she has a conflict of interest. The recused member
should not be present, and is not counted as one of those present or as an abstention. REF: Vermont League of
Cities and Towns News, March 1999.
Commissioner Jones as do all Commissioners who serve Boulder County receive training in how to recuse
themselves from a process that involves a conflict of interest. They are trained to get up from their seat in the
room and leave the room. It is clear that Commissioner Jones understands that she needs to recuse herself from
matters involving Eco-Cycle but on at least five occasions has has failed to do so in an apparent conflict of
interest. These five instances are detailed below.
July 28, 2016
Reading from a prepared statement less than 15 minutes into the July 28, 2016 Boulder County Commissioners
Public Hearing regarding Resolution 2016-79, which proposes to place on the November 2016 ballot a 0.125%
countywide sales and use tax for the purpose of funding Sustainability infrastructure and programs,
Commissioner Elise Jones made the following statement.
I wanted to go on the record about zero waste. As some of you may know, my sister is the Executive
Director of Eco-cycle. She took that position after I was County Commissioner. She began in January
2014. Transparency and ethics is a very, very important thing to the county and to me personally and so
we have been very squeaky clean ever since then on any decision involving zero waste funding. I have
recused myself. Even when perhaps I didn't have to just even if there was no connection to Eco-cycle I
have done so to make sure everyone felt perfectly comfortable about that. So zero waste is one of the
potential buckets of funding if we are to move forward with the sustainability proposal....
In spite of the fact that Commissioner Jones acknowledged that zero waste i.e., Eco-Cycle, is one of the
buckets of potential funding of the sustainability tax potentially to the tune of tens of millions of dollars and that
she knew she should recuse herself from meetings and decisions involving Eco-Cycle and the county, she did
not recuse herself from the public hearing. In fact she did just the opposite. Commissioner Jones as the Chair of
the Board of County Commissioners ran the meeting and gave a speech that quickly set the tone for the meeting
and clearly indicated that the Commissioners were in favor of this ballot measure. It should be noted that the first
two people to testify at the public hearing were members of the Board of Directors of Eco-Cycle who serve as
her sister's boss. They were even so blatant as to wear Eco-Cycle tee shirts while they testified. Even this
reminder of her conflict of interest did not persuade Commissioner Jones to recuse herself from the meeting.

Less than 90 minutes after going on the record

saying she would recuse herself from any
decisions regarding zero waste, e.g., Eco-Cycle,
Commissioner Jones voted to place the
sustainability tax proposal on the November 2016
ballot. This triggered me to search county records
for other instances where Commissioner Jones
had failed to recuse herself from a meeting or
decision regarding Eco-Cycle after her sister had
been hired as the Executive Director. What I
found were four additional instances of a
deliberate pattern of not recusing herself
regarding county funding of Eco-cycle since her
sister was hired as Executive Director of EcoCycle on October 23, 2013.
December 5, 2013
There were thirteen consent items on the agenda
for the Commissioners. Consent items number 11
(b), 11 (c) and 11 (d) are for contract renewals
with Eco-Cycle for the year 2014. The contracts
awarded total funding to Eco-Cycle not to exceed $5,094,107.00 (see excerpt from the meeting minutes below).
Commissioner Jones did not recuse herself from the discussion of these contracts with Eco-Cycle. In fact she
seconded the motion to approve the contracts and then voted yes.

11. Resource Conservation Division:

b.
Contract renewal with Eco-Cycle, Inc. for in-house recycling services, with amendment
permitting renewals up to four one-year periods (not to exceed $27,000);
c.
Contract renewal with Eco-Cycle, Inc. for environmental education, the litterless and
waste-free lunch program, and growing green tours, with amendment permitting renewals up to
four one-year periods ($67,107);
d.

Contract renewal with Eco-Cycle, Inc. for Recycling Center operations ($5,000,000).

April 22, 2014

A public hearing was held on this date to take testimony from the public regarding a sustainability tax measure
to possibly be placed on the ballot in November 2014. Three Eco-cycle representatives, including two Board
members, testified at the hearing. Commissioner Jones did not recuse herself from the meeting. Instead she was
an active participant in the meeting and after the public testimony moved a motion to direct staff to draft text for
a sustainability tax to appear on the November 2014 ballot under the guidelines discussed in the hearing. The
Commissioners eventually decided not to put this initiative on the ballot in 2014 instead opting to place a flood
recovery tax on the ballot in 2014.
February 17, 2015
The Commissioners agenda for this date includes the following meeting.
Note: At approximately 2:00 p.m., the Commissioners met in their Small Conference Room with
Administrative Services Director Jana Petersen and representatives from Eco-cycle regarding capital
equipment needs.
A Colorado Open Records Request was filed for the list of attendees at the meeting and for the meeting minutes.
The County's response was that There are no meeting minutes from the February 17th meeting. This is in
violation of Colorado's Open Meetings law, CRS 24-6-402 2 (d) (II). Despite not having minutes from the meeting
and contrary to Commissioner Jones' calendar for that day that includes a 2:00 pm meeting with Jana Petersen
the county claims that Jones did not attend the meeting.

Subsequent CORA requests were filed with the County regarding this meeting revealed that one of the subjects
likely discussed at the meeting was that the capital needs of Eco-Cycle were going to exhaust the pool of
available county funding in 2015. The sustainability tax that Commissioner Jones had voted to be developed by
staff in 2014 was discussed as a good source of tax revenue for Eco-Cycle's capital needs in future years.
October 13, 2015
Commissioner Jones along with Gardner and Domenico voted for the Board of County Commissioners to go into
Executive session with Ruth Becker, County Attorney, on October 14, 2015 "for the purposes of discussing Ecocycle negotiations". Two Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) requests for information about this Executive
session were submitted to the County. One request was simply for a list of who attended the October 14, 2015
meeting. The second request was for a copy of the minutes of the meeting. The County denied both CORA
requests responding,
Your request(s) for a list of attendees and minutes from that executive session is being denied.
According to the meeting minutes, the executive session was held pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(b) for
legal advice.
So although the County does have minutes from the meeting, they will not even let us know who was at the
meeting that was approved by all three Commissioners including Jones.
Summary
Article 29 of the Colorado Constitution Ethics in Government, commonly referred to as Amendment 41, states
in Section 1 that the conduct of .local government officials...must hold the respect and confidence of the
people and that they shall, therefore, avoid conduct that is in violation of their public trust or that creates a
justifiable impression among members of the public that such trust is being violated. It is clear from
Commissioner Jones' actions regarding county decisions directly benefiting the company run by her twin sister
that she has violated the public trust and created a justifiable impression among members of the public that
such trust is being violated. As such, I request that Colorado's Independent Ethics Committee formally sanction
and publicly reprimand Commissioner Elise Jones.
NOTE: Copies of all county records cited in this complaint as well as video recordings of proceedings (where
available) can be provided to the Committee if necessary.