No ethics violations by Glew, county attorney says

Marion City Councilmember Nick Glew didn't violate state ethics laws when he made motions during council meetings to pay bills submitted by his employer, Linn County Attorney Jerry Vander Sanden has announced, throwing out a resident's complaint.

“I have concluded that the ethics complaint is unfounded and unsupported by the law and that there exists no legal conflict of interest for council member Glew to make a motion to approve resolutions for payments to Anderson-Bogert Engineers," Vander Sanden wrote in a statement released this morning . "His actions set forth in the complaint do not constitute a conflict of interest as set forth by the Iowa Code."

Glew, a communications specialist for the Cedar Rapids contractor,  abstained from voting on the resolutions, Vander Sanden noted.

“I would also note that council member Glew sought legal advice from the Marion City Attorney concerning this very issue and has made every effort to follow the dictates of the law and to avoid the appearance of impropriety so as to avoid any potential ethical conflict of interest,” added Vander Sanden.

Glew, an unsuccessful candidate for mayor earlier this month, said the charge raised by Marion resident Mike Dricken was politically motivated.

Full text of Vander Sanden's statement:

CEDAR RAPIDS, IA - On November 7, 2011, the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board referred an ethics complaint filed by Mike Dricken against Marion City Council Member Nick Glew to the Linn County Attorney's Office for review. Section 68B.34A(1) provides that complaints alleging violations of Chapter 68B shall be filed with the county attorney in the county where the accused resides. Mr. Glew resides in Linn County, Iowa.

The complainant, Mike Dricken, alleged that Marion City Council Member Nick Glew violated Section 68B.2A of the Iowa Code on two separate occasions by making a motion to approve resolutions to approve payments by the City of Marion to Anderson-Bogert Engineers. Council member Glew is employed by Anderson-Bogert Engineers and Surveyors, Inc. as a public information specialist. Minutes for the Marion City Council meetings on July 7 and October 20, 2011 show that council member Glew made a motion to approve a resolution to pay monies owed to Anderson-Bogert Engineers.

The complainant is suggesting that, as an employee of Anderson-Bogert Engineering, it is a conflict of interest for council member Glew to make a motion to approve a resolution that would result in compensation being paid by the City of Marion to Glew's employer. It should be noted that council member Glew abstained from voting on both of these resolutions.

“Having reviewed the facts and the applicable law, I have concluded that the ethics complaint is unfounded and unsupported by the law and that there exists no legal conflict of interest for council member Glew to make a motion to approve resolutions for payments to Anderson-Bogert Engineers. His actions set forth in the complaint do not constitute a conflict of interest as set forth by the Iowa Code,” said Linn County Attorney Jerry Vander Sanden.

“I would also note that council member Glew sought legal advice from the Marion City Attorney concerning this very issue and has made every effort to follow the dictates of the law and to avoid the appearance of impropriety so as to avoid any potential ethical conflict of interest,” continued Vander Sanden.

Council member Glew's position does not involve “the receipt of, promise of, or acceptance of money or other consideration by the person, or a member of the person's immediate family, from anyone other than the State or the political subdivision for the performance of any act that the person would be required or expected to perform as part of the person's regular duties or during the hours during which the person performs service or work for the State or political subdivision of the State” as set forth by Section 68B.2A(1)(b) of the Iowa Code.

Moreover, Chapter 362.5 of the Iowa Code more specifically addresses potential conflicts of interest by city officers and employees as they relate to employment contracts and this specific statute takes precedence over any general statute to the contrary. The provisions of this code section which provides for a prohibition against having an interest, direct or indirect, in a contract does not apply to contracts in which a city officer or employee has an interest solely by reason of employment if contracts are made by competitive bid in writing, publicly invited and opened, or if the remuneration of employment will not be directly affected as a result of the contract and the duties of employment do not directly involve the procurement or preparation of any part of the contract.

It is important to note there is no allegation that council member Glew took any official action concerning the establishment of a contract between the City of Marion and Anderson-Bogert Engineers. Rather, he made motions to approve resolutions which involved making routine payments that were due and owing under the terms of a legal and binding contract entered into with the City of Marion and which the City was legally obligated to honor.

It is also important to note that staff members of the City Manager randomly assign resolutions to the members of the City Council without regard to the contents or subject matter of the motion. The City Council members do not set the agenda assignments and both resolutions that form the basis of the conflict of interest allegation were randomly assigned for council member Glew to make by staff members of the City Manager. The Marion City Council has followed this procedure of randomly assigning agenda items for many years.

On November 8, 2011, Linn County Attorney Vander Sanden sent a copy of the ethics complaint to council member Glew to give him an opportunity to review the allegations made against him and to respond to the allegations in writing, which he did in a letter received by the County Attorney's Office on November 18.