Arvada council advances one ethics matter, proposes dismissal of another

The council’s 6-0 procedural votes direct preparation of an Aug. 18 resolution advancing one investigation toward a hearing and another dismissing an investigation involving Councilmember Sharon Davis.

Published

Arvada City Council members meet during the July 28, 2026 council meeting, when the council discussed next steps under the city’s ethics code.
Source: supplied recording of the Arvada City Council meeting, July 28, 2026. Use as a meeting-context still; it does not depict a final ethics ruling, a finding of guilt, or identify an investigation subject.

Arvada City Council voted 6-0 July 28 to prepare two ethics resolutions for its Aug. 18 meeting: one advancing an investigation toward a hearing and another proposing dismissal of an investigation involving Councilmember Sharon Davis.

The votes were procedural, not final rulings. During the July 28 council meeting, special counsel Corey Hoffman said a disinterested third party had completed the investigations. Under the council’s initial post-investigation review, a finding that a violation was more likely than not to have occurred would begin the hearing process; a contrary finding would allow dismissal.

The public record identifies section 2-375 of the city’s Code of Ethics as the provision involved in both matters but does not provide its operative text or disclose the alleged conduct in the July 13 investigation. Hoffman said the investigative information was confidential attorney-client communication. The city’s municipal-code page directs readers to Municode.

One motion directed Hoffman to draft an Aug. 18 resolution dismissing the April 13, 2026, investigation involving Davis. It cited a “technical deficiency” in the ethics code and sections 2-375 and 2-378F but did not explain the deficiency. The proposed dismissal is not a merits finding that Davis complied with the code, and the investigation was not dismissed July 28.

The other motion directed Hoffman to draft a resolution finding that a violation was more likely than not to have occurred in the July 13, 2026, investigation and setting the matter for a hearing under section 2-378E(2). The record does not identify the investigation’s subject or the alleged conduct, and does not establish that a final violation occurred.

Davis was recused and did not vote. She said the process had felt like a surprise and described the six-month review as difficult. Mayor Lauren Simpson called the council’s action “the very, very, very beginning of a process.”

The city’s Aug. 18 calendar listing schedules a 6 p.m. City Council business meeting at City Hall, 8101 Ralston Road. The agenda is expected Aug. 14. The listing does not confirm that an ethics hearing will occur; the council may consider the proposed resolutions and schedule a later hearing.