Report: Elliott violated ethics laws

“I think he’s been very self-serving and, as an elected official, he should have been more concerned about serving the public than himself,” said Wood.

Elliott could not be reached for comment.

In its May 25 report that followed a six-month investigation, the commission found that Elliott had committed the following violations:

• He took office on Jan. 12, 2015, and then participated in a series of meetings where property development guidelines were being adopted that could or would have financially benefitted Elkhorn Development, the company he owns and manages.

• Meeting minutes and audio recordings of council meetings reflected that Elliott used or attempted to use his position as a councilor to avoid a financial detriment when he asked for, and was granted, a policy exception regarding gravel street renovation that benefitted only his development.

• Elliott availed himself of the services of Gene Parker, city attorney, to prepare a response to the complaint filed by Wood, thereby avoiding the financial detriment of hiring a private attorney.

• A preponderance of evidence showed that Elliott failed to disclose conflicts of interest when discussions about policy changes were taking place and decisions were made that financially benefitted his company.

Oregon law holds that a public official, such as Elliott, is met with either an actual or potential conflict of interest when participating in his capacity as councilor in any action, decision or recommendation if its effect would or could be to the private financial benefit of himself, a relative or business with which he is associated.

The official is required to publicly announce the nature of his conflict. If it is actual, he must refrain from any discussion, debate or vote on the issue. If it is potential, he may participate in official actions following his disclosure.

Parker argued in defense of Elliott that the councilor was part of a “class” of property owners who benefitted equally from the city’s actions, which is not a violation of ethics law.

At issue are improvements made to Thompson Street, where Elkhorn’s development was occurring.

Parker told state officials that Elliott sought his advice about a possible conflict each time a council decision was made that concerned Thompson and was advised about what action he needed to take, if any.

Parker said he had been contacted by Elliott after Wood’s complaint was filed with a request for assistance. He explained that he is in-house counsel to the city and that no individual councilor is his client, but he did agree to assist Elliott in the matter.

“Parker shouldn’t have given Elliott any more legal services than he would have given you or me,” said Wood on Friday morning.

The ethics commission disagreed with Parker’s argument that Elliott had not gained any more than other citizens could have from his actions as an elected official.

State officials determined that Elliott’s actions had created the class of property owners benefitting from changes to city policy regarding Thompson.

“Mr. Elliott’s official participation in creating and adopting the guidelines that would establish the class is an actual conflict of interest. When met with an actual conflict of interest, Mr. Elliott should have publicly announced the nature of his conflict…and refrained from discussion or vote on the issue,” wrote the commission in its report.

After Wood’s complaint was filed on Oct. 11, 2016, Parker reported to the city council that he had investigated the issues raised and did not believe Elliott had done anything unethical.

In her preliminary review of documentation provided by both parties, Diane Gould, investigator for the ethics commission, noted that Parker did not have the authority to determine whether ethics violations had occurred. She said that authority rested with the commission, which she recommended further investigate the matter.

Parker requested on Elliott’s behalf that the investigation not be initiated until after the Nov. 8, 2016, election to avoid influencing voters, which is allowed by state law.

Elliott won a second two-year term in his at-large position by a 66.19 percent margin, beating challenger Andretta Schellinger, who took 33.11 percent of the vote.

On Dec. 16, the commission began its probe into Wood’s complaint, which alleged that Elliott saved nearly $80,000 in street improvement costs tied to his development on Thompson Street and another $12,000 from a onetime exception made to a city policy regarding the upgrading of primitive roads.

The investigative body listened to the council’s audio recordings and reviewed minutes before making its preliminary findings.

In one instance, Elliott participated in the discussion about the city assuming financial responsibility for engineering costs, storm sewers and curbs when new development takes place on Thompson and other high traffic streets. The council ultimately decided to pay for installation of storm water lines along Thompson and then repave without the safety enhancements required for other well-travelled streets.

The commission noted that Elkhorn was the sole beneficiary of that change in policy because no other development was taking place along Thompson at that time.

Elliott also actively sought, and was granted, a variance to the city’s gravel street restoration policy. Elkhorn owned two of four lots at East 15th Street and Thompson streets that were affected by the change in policy.

The variance granted by the council accommodated the paving of about one-half block of a “ungraded jeep trail” on East 15th Street, which terminated in a dead end.

The ethics commission report noted that Public Works Director Dave Anderson said at a council meeting: “There isn’t currently a roadway at this location; normally we have applied this to existing gravel streets.”

Wood objected at the Nov. 9, 2015, council meeting to the city agreeing to improve East 15th when it had placed a three-year moratorium on construction of new streets so it could focus on repairs and maintenance needs.

“I think this goes to show that Mayor (Steve) Lawrence and his cronies are in business for themselves and not the city,” said Wood on Friday. He was strongly criticized during the 2016 political season by supporters of the mayor and Elliott for filing the complaint.

“I did not do this for ego, I did this because I believe he (Elliott) was wrong,” said Wood.