January 17, 2008

 Colleen Lynn has organized another group called Families & Dogs Against FightingBreeds 

She has called a meeting for;

Tuesday, February 12th

Uptown Cafe
2504 4th Ave (4th & Wall)

 “An open meeting of Families and Dogs Against Fighting Breeds (FDAFB) will take place on February 12, 2008, in the meeting room at the Uptown Cafe from 6:45-8 pm.

Goals will be to introduce ourselves, talk about various volunteer roles and discuss the finalized legislation for a Seattle Citizen’s Initiative regarding fighting breeds.”

She says that it is an open meeting, so all of you Seattle dog owners be sure to attend. Since the name of the group includes “dogs” we wonder just how many dogs are members of her little group. Will the dogs be welcome at the meeting?


Having been a recent target of the Dogsbite.org blog, I decided to do a bit of research to find out who, and what is the driving power behind this radical website. It is the brainchild of Kory Nelson, Assistant District Attorney Denver Colorado who feeds biased information to Ms. Colleen Lynn of Seattle, who is a graphic designer, and website builder. Apparently Kory Nelson researches the same news articles that I, too research.

Ms. Lynn was bitten by a dog while jogging in June 2007.


 There was another recent article depicting Ms. Lynn’s plight http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004112928_brodeur08m.html?syndication=rss

I found a whole lot more background when researching Ms. Lynn, she is quite the self promoter, and far from being unable to work at her chosen profession, she is now the mouthpiece for “Kill ’em All” Kory Nelson. Her business Vain Notion lists her clientele, and it is available to anyone running a search engine.

It is a tragic fact that Ms. Lynn was bitten severely while jogging. It is another fact that her bite originated from one dog, not everyone’s dog. One wonders if Ms. Lynn understands that breed specific dog laws do not prevent dog bites?

Great Britain passed nationwide BSL in 1989. The dog bite statistics remained the same. That is indicative that dog bites have nothing to do with dog breeds, but rather with negligent owners.

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States recognizes that neither “Dangerous” Dog Laws, or Breed Specific Dog Laws protect the public. That is why RDOWS Model Dog Owner Regulations were developed. RDOWS Model Dog Owner Regulations are applied to the human factor in the human/dog equation. Of the two, only the human being has the capacity to understand, and to function to law. Only human beings have rights, and are expected to respond accordingly to the attendant responsibilities that come with those rights.

When legislators focus their legislation on animal behaviors, and mete out punishments to animals, they have taken American juris prudence back to the dark ages. Laws must be written for human beings. We look to the Constitution of the United States as being the foremost authority for laws in these United States. There isn’t one mention of animals, as our founding fathers knew then that animals were, and would always be the property, and thus the responsibility of their human owners. I will attach the letter that I sent to Kory Nelson, and cc’d to Colleen Lynn.

Cherie Graves, chairwoman

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States

P.O. Box 1406 Newport, WA 99156







Having continued to research Colleen Lynn I’ve discovered some very interesting ommissions. The owner of the dog that allegedly bit Ms. Lynn has never been referenced in print. The dog was allegedly immediately euthanized, which is unorthodox, as most dogs that cause severe injury are held in quarantine, and then ethanized and the head sent for rabies testing. I have not yet been able to find a police report of the incident.  Ms. Lynn has not filed suit against the dog’s owner in Seattle, or King County.   Instead, Ms. Lynn would far prefer to cause harm to all of the dogs that were not involved in her alleged bite, and to all of the owners of those dogs.


From: Cherie Graves To: kory.nelson@ci.denver.co.us ; colleen@vainnotion.com

Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:28 PM

Subject: Dogsbite.org

Kory Nelson, Assistant District Attorney, Denver Colorado

Kory Nelson,

I smell your foul stench behind Ms. Colleen Lynn’s Dogsbite.org blog. I’m sure that you directed her attention to my kennel’s website. Have you also revealed to Ms. Lynn that you are a minion of the animal rights movement whose sworn goal is the eradication of pet ownership?

Have you advised Ms. Lynn that breed specific dog ordinances set a legal precedent that allows the enacting body to add any, or all other breeds of dogs, and even all domestic species of animals?

Watch TRUTHS FROM RDOWS blog as I publicly expose your evil deeds once again. I have the courage of my convictions. I use my real name. You hide behind victims to plot against the ownership of animals, and you used your position to persuade Colleen Lynn to create her blog.

If Ms. Lynn is subpoenaed into Court, would she state that you initiated contact with her, and that you suggested that she use her computer skills to fight your war for you?

Shall we test the waters?

If Ms. Lynn were struck by a Ford truck, would you encourage her to work toward banning all Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury products? Of course not. How dare you put Ms. Lynn into such a precarious predicament, if not to appease your own ego driven obsession?

I’ve got you pegged, you are truly a pathetic piece of work.

Cherie Graves

CC: Colleen Lynn

Cherie Graves, chairwoman 

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States

P.O. Box 1406 Newport, WA 99156



  1. pork chop said

    sic em.. he is trash.. and it is about time people knew it..

  2. Myra Cabal said

    Geez, when someone’s careless (not dog related) caused me to have 4 broken ribs, a fractured pelvis, 2 cracked vertebra in my neck, a collapsed lung, and one month hospitalization, no one interviewed me!

    Nor have I gone on a mission to punish all other individuals who have the same physical characteristics as my “attacker”

  3. Kory Nelson said

    Friday 1/18/08

    Wow, you’ve got quite a bout of paranoia up there in rural Washington. I don’t know whether to laugh or just feel proud that you would make such an assumption that I am “the driving power behind this radical website” or that “It is the brainchild of Kory Nelson”. Well, we all know about “assumptions”, right? The truth is that Colleen Lynn deserves 100% of the credit for her website. She has done her research all right, but I’ve never posted anything to her blog. If I did, I would put my name to it, so there would be no doubt as to the authenticity; you’ll just have to wait for the book to be published and read the dedication page.

    It’s so nice of you to think of me, but your propaganda bubble doesn’t float – again.

  4. rdows said

    Thank you for posting. I appreciate hearing from a person who is level headed, and not obsessed.
    Most of us have had adversity in our lives, some to a greater degree than others, but we do not point fingers of blame at others who have had nothing to do with our situation. I was severely bitten by a German Shorthaired Pointer, but I do not cast aspersions on the entire breed, or upon all of the other field dog breeds, nor do I look for ways to destroy them. It was one dog, and one incident that involved me. Obsession is a dangerous sickness that can lead to even more harm to innocents. I pray that you are healing well, and will have a full recovery.

  5. rdows said

    I don’t make “assumptions”. I do research.

  6. Jan said

    Thank you, Cherie, for doing this research. It is amazing how some people continue to ignore all the facts related to this wonderful breed and to bas their prejudice on individual incidents.

  7. rdows said

    Thank you for posting. Breed specific legislation has moved, as intended, far beyond the scope of one or two breeds of dogs. RDOWS has tracked legislation across the United States that names close to eighty breeds of dogs, plus any mixed breed that contains as an element of its breeding any of those breeds, that are either restricted, or prohibited from ownership.

    Animals are the most ancient property of human beings. When we, the people, allow governments to take our animals, then nothing else that we own is safe from taking.

    A chilling truth is that the people of the former Soviet Union have more freedom to own the dog of their choice, than do we who are citizens of the United States of America.

    The United States, a nation whose original laws were based upon rights, individual liberties, and individual responsibilities are being perverted by radical animal rights agendas. Animal behaviors are written into laws that are meant to control the human populace. Animals are being treated, under the law, as though they are responsible for their actions, and animals are being meted out criminal labels, and punishments. That is outrageous! Animals are being dragged through our Court system! What a degradation of juris prudence!


  8. rdows said

    Hey Kory,
    How’s this? And on Denver’s Letterhead!!
    I guess we can chalk this up to paranoia, too?

    Wednesday, August 03. 2005


    DEPT. 1207
    PHONE: (720) 913-8050
    FAX: (720) 913-8010

    RE: Offer of Assistance on Pit Bulls & Breed Specific Legislation

    To Whom It May Concern:
    It has come to my attention that your community is contemplating governmental action regarding pit bull dogs in some type of restriction or ban, generically referred to as Breed Specific Legislation (aka. “BSL”). I would like to offer my assistance in this area, as I have obtained a significant amount of expertise in this area as a result of my recent involvement as the lead attorney in litigation on behalf of the City & County of Denver, Colorado against the State of Colorado over Denver’s pit bull ban ordinance (enacted in 1989) and municipal home rule authority, in response to the Colorado Legislature’s attempts to prohibit BSL in Colorado by enacting HB04-1279 in April of 2004. Denver was successful in its litigation as our ordinance was determined to supersede the state statute as the regulation of dangerous dogs is a matter of pure local concern. .

    Through this litigation, I have obtained a high level of understanding of not only the legal issues surrounding the constitutionality of BSL, but also the underlying factual issues that provide a legitimate and logical basis for BSL. As this issue usually brings a large amount of irrational emotional rhetoric from anti-BSL advocates. it is easy for any governmental official to become confused over what are the relevant facts, .and who are the reliable sources of. information. I believe I have a number of resources that may be helpfuI to you along these lines.

    First, you have to understand tbat tbe anti-BSL pundits organize over a number of web group sites that help distribute mass emails to al1 of tbeir registered members. While you could find these groups on any major web group site, one I recommend to examine and sign up for is BSL-­UPDATES@Yahoogroups.com I find this site to be a good source of information and strategic intelligence gathering. If you have been targeted by these groups (most likely how I found out about your recent interest in this topic of BSL). that your organization will be flooded with emails, letters, and telephone calls from members of these groups. You should contact your leaders and advise them of this, as it has been my experience the same members will send emails. letters, or telephone calls to each jurisdiction revjewing this issue in hopes of intimidating them into a full retreat away from the issue. I can cite you specific examples where these groups have promised to bring litigation against local governmental entities, but failed to follow tbrough with the threat when their threats bad been called. Many of these emails and letters will have either fake or bad names and/or addresses. as our attempts to respond to them resulted in this discovery.

    Second, many of these groups have questionable funding sources., as they are usually willing to take donations without keeping records of the true identity of the donor. For this reason, the rumors of big donations from dog fighting proponents have been unconfirmed. But it would make sense that with all of the money involved in the illegal dog fighting circles, those involved would be donating funds to support their straw man advocates.

    Third most animal control organizations tasked with duties on behalf of loca1 government take a position against BSL. This is to be expected, given two important facts: (1) Many of these animal control personnel have either come from or have been trained by non profit animal welfare organizations. (2) The ongoing “political correctness'” involved within this field .would prevent any organization from admitting the obvious truth that “The Emperor Has No Clothes”, because these organizations are heavily dependant upon the donations of charitable individuals who are either incapable or unwilling to learn the truth, and are more susceptible to the emotional rhetoric of anti-BSL advocates.

    Fourth, there are no known organized groups. of victims of dog attacks. Only plastic surgeons, prosecutors, and a few brave legislators appear to be the publicized advocates in favor of BSL

    Fifth, the anti-BSL pundits will attempt to bring illogical emotional phrases such as “breed racism” against BSL efforts or mottos as “it’s the deed, not the breed”. They will also attack the only statistical studies on dog bites resulting in fatalities as being unreliable. In only the last point do I occur, as BSL is independently justifiably rational on other evidence.

    The truth is this: No on e can perform a satisfactory reliable statistical study of dog bites to determine the rankings of dangerous dog breeds braced. upon their probability of biting or attacking human beings or other domesticated animals. However, it is easily proven that SHOULD a pit bull attack a person or other domesticated animal, the attack is significantly more likely to result in serious bodily injury or death. It is not the probability but the severity of an attack that makes pit bulls more dangerous.

    I would invite you to examine two separate web pages for more detailed information and documents that may be helpful to you:
    I. The official webpage of the Denver City Attorney’s Office regarding our pit bull ordinance and the litigation against the State of Colorado, including a complete historical review of the ordinance and the prior judicial reviews:

    2. A restricted web group site for local government officials interested in the factual and legal issues involved with BSL and the strategic and tactical issues involved in dealing with the anti BSL advocates: DangerousDogLaw@Yahoogroups.com

    If you have any questions. please do not hesitate to contact me.

    Kory A. Nelson, Esq. Assistant City Attorney-Senior

  9. rdows said

    More from Kory Nelson:


    The opponents to SB861 and BSL have interjected irrelevant issues and misleading facts into the debate. Those California legislators who are interested in objective analysis should consider the most recent results of actual legal litigation over the same issues, as courts of law consider only relevant legal issues and reliable evidence. During the recent litigation in 2004-2005 in Denver, Colorado, I was the lead attorney for the City and County of Denver against the State of Colorado, which passed a state statute prohibiting breed specific legislation. In the litigation, there were 2 legal issues: (1) Who gets to decide what the regulations are over dangerous dogs – local government or state government? And (2) Is there rational evidence to support the differential treatment of pit bulls from other breeds of dogs. While much more detailed information, including the full judicial rulings, copies of legal briefs, trial exhibits, and full historical reviews of Denver’s ordinance and the litigation is available online at the official website of the Denver City Attorney’s Office at: Link I will summarize the two answers here.

    Regulation of Dangerous Dogs is a “Municipal Affair” w/o a Need for Statewide Uniformity

    The State of Colorado, like the State of California, has provisions in their state constitution that provide that matters of pure local concern should be decided by local government. Local government’s regulations in such an area would supersede conflicting state law. The propriety of such regulation of a matter of local concern is not for the State or the Courts to decide. The decision on the type and manner of Breed Specific Legislation, which is a matter of pure local concern, should be decided at that level of government that is closest to the people and is most informed about the unique nature of their community’s problems and attitudes. The Denver District Court ruled in favor of the City & County of Denver on this issue, stating:

    The Court concludes that the issue of which dog breeds are permitted, prohibited, or restricted within a city is a matter of purely local concern. The State has not articulated, and the Court cannot conceive, a need for statewide uniformity. In fact, there seems to be a need for local control in this area. Each community has its own attitudes and preferences with respect to dogs. In each community, depending on culture and demographics, dogs occupy a different role. It would not make sense for the owners of mountain dogs in Telluride, farm dogs in Lamar, and urban dogs in Denver to be subject to the same kinds of laws and restrictions. . . . local control of breeds means flexibility in crafting locally-acceptable solutions to the problems created by dogs. As the largest and most populous metropolitan area in Colorado, Denver faces unique challenges in ensuring that dogs enhance the lives of citizens rather than threaten their safety.

    The California Constitution, Article XI, § 5(a), states:
    (a) It shall be competent in any city charter to provide that the city governed thereunder may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters and in respect to other matters they shall be subject to general laws. City charters adopted pursuant to this Constitution shall supersede any existing charter, and with respect to municipal affairs shall supersede all laws inconsistent therewith.

    The California Supreme Court has already determined that matters that are a “municipal affair” supersede any conflicting state law:

    When the charter city measure “‘implicates a “municipal affair” and poses a genuine conflict with state law,’ ” the determinative question is whether the subject of the statute is of statewide concern. (Johnson v. Bradley, 4 Cal. 4th 389, 399 (Cal., 1992)) If it is not, “‘the conflicting charter city measure is a “municipal affair” and “beyond the reach of legislative enactment.” Cawdrey v. City of Redondo Beach, 15 Cal. App. 4th 1212, 1222-1223 (Cal. Ct. App., 1993)

    A Constitutional Rational Basis for Differential Treatment of Pit Bulls Continues To Exist

    In 1991, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in the case of Colorado Dog Fanciers v. Denver, that there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that despite there being unreliable evidence as to which breed of dog may be more likely to attack, should a pit bull attack it was more likely to result in severe bodily injury or death.

    The history of pit bulls clearly shows these dogs were selectively bred by humans to maximize their dog’s chances of winning in a fight against another animal – initially bulls, then other dogs. Humans bred these dogs in order to enhance specific behavioral traits: strength, agility, tolerance to pain, tenacity to continue attacking, and the infliction of maximum damage to their opponent. Other breeds of dogs, when they do attack, are more likely to bite their victim and release. Pit bulls were specifically developed for their bite, hold and shake behavior. They will bite their victim and hold that bite for long periods of time, refusing to let go. Some mistakenly use the incorrect term “Lock”, but there is no physiological mechanism – these dogs just are so tenacious that they refuse to release their bite, despite having massive pain and injuries inflicted upon them. One reported incident had the pit bull owner cutting off their dog’s legs, one at a time, to display their dogs continued drive to attack their opponent in the ring (the dog died, but its progeny’s value multiplied several times). Once a pit bull, with its well developed and stronger jaw muscles, has grabbed its victim, it will shake its head back and forth, ripping the victim’s skin, muscle, blood vessels and tissue. Pit Bulls were first selected to encourage its predatory behavior passed down from their wolf ancestors, who would run along side larger caribou, elk, and moose, jump up and bite, holding their bite until joined by other pack members to drag the large animal down for a kill. Single Pit Bulls would hang onto fighting bulls for hours! Their advocates call them loyal – sure they are – they will engage in a battle to the death for their masters – that’s loyalty no one needs.

    Randall Lockwood, one of the nation’s leading experts on pit bulls, has reported that pit bulls were also selected for their tendencies not to display body language or other behaviors that might tip off an opponent of their intent to attack. The tactical advantage of getting one’s pit bull attack to come off as a “surprise” has been intentionally bred into these dogs, resulting in a breed of dog that would similarly surprise any human victim. The lack of growling, barking, etc., which may give a human sufficient warning to avert an attack or retreat to a location of safety will obviously increase the likelihood of serious injuries being sustained. Furthermore, because pit bulls were bred to be tenacious despite the infliction of pain or injury, stopping a pit bull attack is extremely difficult.

    No one can define an “irresponsible” pit bull owner until their dog has attacked someone – and then it’s too late. In balancing the right of the public to keep their innocent members of their community safe from such horrific, gruesome, and mutilating maulings by such strong animals – it is the weakest amongst us that need our protection : the young, the elderly, the weak. The attempts of anti-BSL advocates only offer up the non-existent right of dog owners to own the breed of their choice to attempt to counterbalance the interests of the public’s safety. If there is no debate over a citizen’s right to own a tiger or lion, there is no logical reason to even consider this debate. If we could have removed all Weapons of Mass Destruction from the hands of terrorists, they would switch to conventional explosives; but the result would be that their explosions would have a lessor likelihood of causing serious bodily injuries or death. People will still be hurt by dog bites – but that doesn’t mean communities should allow lions or tigers or pit bulls.

    Finally, those who support pit bulls support dog fighting, by providing dog fighters their favorite gladiators. Dog fighting is still a multi-million dollar illegal enterprise that goes on across this county in closed groups, like the mafia, that are extremely difficult for law enforcement officials to penetrate. As these dog fighters’ activities are so “underground”, do you believe that they would obey any ban on pit bulls – of course not! But, if pit bulls were illegally to possess, law enforcement officials could obtain search warrants where pit bulls are discovered and during such a search, additional evidence of their dog fighting could be discovered and seized for felony prosecutions. By giving them the legal ability to possess their favorite gladiator, they are insulated to continue in their horrible acts of cruelty. These dog fighters can’t hire their own political lobbyists to openly advocate their position, so as to protect their millions of gambling income. So how and where are they going to oppose such BSL activities? These anti-BSL groups who accept anonymous donations to support their organizational efforts are being deliberately indifferent to the support they give dog fighters.

    There is no legitimate necessity for the pit bull breed to continue. They provide no unique traits that are beneficial to any organized society based upon socially redeeming qualities that can not be provided by other breeds. Nothing offered by pit bulls can possibly justify the deaths and maiming this breed has inflicted upon innocent humans and other domesticated companion animals. The bite of a Chihuahua is one thing, the bite of a pit bull is of a completely different category, described by doctors at the University of Texas Department of Medicine as being closer to a “shark attack”.

    As no litigation on the merits of the increased dangerousness of pit bulls has ever resulted in a victory for pit bull advocates, their emotional illogical anthropomorphic rhetoric should be discounted and disregarded, and the results of actual litigation should be respected and followed. America had long ago decided where disputes of fact and law should be decided, and the pro-pit bull advocates can’t win there. SB861 should be passed so that each and every charter municipality in California can decide for themselves if they want to avail themselves of a very practical tool in the form of BSL to protect their community.

    Kory Nelson, Esq.
    Denver, Colorado
    –Kory Nelson, Esq. (07-25-05)

  10. rdows said

    Kory Nelson; From Chow-Chows to “pit bulls”:

    Copyright 1996 Denver Publishing Company
    Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO)

    March 18, 1996, Monday

    SECTION: LOCAL; Ed. F; Pg. 4A

    LENGTH: 440 words

    HEADLINE: Few dog bite cases result in orders for euthanasia
    Punishments vary for thousands of incidents reported each year

    BYLINE: Marlys Duran; Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer

    Attacking a human can send man’s best friend to the euthanasia chamber, but most often the punishment is less severe.

    Metro area animal-control officials log thousands of dog bites every year. They can range from a minor nip to scarring slashes.

    Rare are life-threatening maulings like the one Monday that severely injured 5-year-old Alexander Murphy. A neighbor’s Rottweiler broke through a fence and attacked the boy as he played in his back yard in Jefferson County.

    Alexander was so badly bitten his mother thought he was dead. The mother, Elizabeth Murphy, also was attacked.

    The Rottweiler’s owners face probable charges. ”We’re looking at a couple of different options,” said Jefferson County sheriff’s spokesman Jim Parr.

    The dog, who neighbors said has a history of aggressive behavior, is under a mandatory 10-day quarantine at the Table Mountain Animal Center to determine whether she has rabies. The animal’s fate could rest with a judge.

    Only a few dog attacks result in court-ordered euthanasia, officials said. A greater number are destroyed at their owners’ request.

    ”Most people feel so awful when that kind of thing happens that they are the first to say, ‘Put it down,’ ” said Cheryl Conway, spokeswoman for the Aurora animal care division.

    In the vast majority of dog bites, lesser sanctions are imposed. The owner might be ordered to provide a secure enclosure for the dog, muzzle it in public, take it to obedience school or enlist the help of a behavior therapist.

    In unincorporated Adams County animal-control officials recorded 165 cases in 1994 and 163 in 1995. Among those, 12 dogs were euthanized in 1994 and 20 last year.

    Jefferson County animal-control officials logged 322 dog bites in 1993, 366 in 1994 and 334 in 1995.

    In Denver, the number of bites averages about 1,000 a year. Kory Nelson, who prosecutes dog-bite cases in Denver County Court, said many owners request destroying their dog partly because of a Denver law requiring anyone convicted of harboring a vicious dog to build a secure enclosure.

    He said he knows of only one complaint about a dog being seen at large after it was ordered confined in such an enclosure.

    Although a Rottweiler was the culprit in the Murphy attack, that breed doesn’t take top billing among canine biters.

    ”There’s no doubt in my mind that chows or chow mixes by far are the No. 1 bite dog in Denver. The numbers are just overwhelming,” Nelson said.

    The high incidence of chow bites is due partly to the breed’s popularity as pets, said Eugene Pei, public health veterinarian for Denver Health and Hospitals.

    LOAD-DATE: March 19, 1996

  11. pork chop said

    There is no legitimate necessity for the pit bull breed to continue
    says Kory aka Dr Death”
    I was propose that there is no reason for Ass Dirtict Attoneys.. none.. why bother…we have others who look the same.. but just aren’t as bigoted.. or pedjudiced as Nelson..he should be replaced based on the way he looks.. no other reason..just as he does with the dogs that he kills..out wiht Nelson.. he is a menace to human beings.. not to mention innocent dogs..

  12. rdows said


    Denver Revised Municipal Code



    (including amendments adopted July 30, 2007)

    Sec. 2-51. Legislative intent.

    It is the intent of the city that its officers, officials, and employees adhere to high levels of ethical conduct so that the public will have confidence that persons in positions of public responsibility are acting for the benefit of the public. Officers, officials, and employees should comply with both the letter and spirit of this ethics code and strive to avoid situations, which create impropriety or the appearance of impropriety.

    The council and mayor recognize that ethical issues will arise in the course of public service. It is the intent of the code of ethics:

    (1) To clarify which actions are allowed and which constitute a breach of the public trust and, specifically relating to the use of public office for private gain, employment and supervision of family members, gifts, conflicts of interest, prior employment, outside employment, subsequent employment and other ethics matters not inconsistent with the Charter;

    (2) To establish a board of ethics empowered to issue advisory opinions so that officers, officials, and employees may seek guidance about ethical issues connected with their service; and

    (3) To establish a system that enables citizens to report possible wrongdoing and seek enforcement so that any breach of the public trust may be discovered and dealt with appropriately.

    The City Charter addresses the ethical conduct of officers, employees, and officials. It is the intent of this article that it shall serve to enhance and clarify the Charter and to provide practical guidance.

    Agencies may adopt a stricter code of ethics for their own use through published rules or policies. Those agencies which wish to adopt a stricter code of ethics are encouraged to consult with the board of ethics, shall provide information and training to employees of the agency and shall provide a copy to the board of ethics.

    Sec. 2-52. Definitions.

    (a) Employee means any person in the employ of the city or of any of its agencies or departments and any person employed without compensation under the terms and provisions of chapter 18, article II, division 19 of this Code.

    (b) Direct official action means any action which involves:

    (1) Negotiating, approving, disapproving, administering, enforcing, or recommending for or against a contract, purchase order, lease, concession, franchise, grant, or other similar instrument in which the city is a party. With regard to “recommending,” direct official action occurs only if the person making the recommendation is in the formal line of decision making.

    (2) Enforcing laws or regulations or issuing, enforcing, or regulating permits;

    (3) Selecting or recommending vendors, concessionaires, or other types of entities to do business with the city;

    (4) Appointing and terminating employees, temporary workers, and independent contractors.

    (5) Doing research for, representing, or scheduling appointments for an officer, official, or employee, provided that these activities are provided in connection with that officer’s, official’s, or employee’s performance of (1) through (4) above.

    Direct official action does not include acts that are purely ministerial (that is, acts which do not affect the disposition or decision with respect to the matter). With regard to the approval of contracts, direct official action does not include the signing by the mayor, the auditor, or the clerk, as required by Charter, unless the mayor, auditor, or clerk initiated the contract or is involved in selecting the contractor or negotiating or administering the contract. A person who abstains from a vote is not exercising direct official action.

    (c) Immediate family means husband, wife, son, daughter, mother, father, step-son, step-daughter, step-mother, step-father, grandmother, grandfather, grandchildren, brother, sister, domestic partner, any person with whom he or she is cohabiting and any person to whom he or she is engaged to be married. The term includes any minor children for whom the person or his or her domestic partner provides day-to-day care and financial support. A “domestic partner” is an unmarried adult, unrelated by blood, with whom an unmarried officer, official, or employee has an exclusive committed relationship, maintains a mutual residence, and shares basic living expenses.

    (d) Officer means any of the following: the mayor, the auditor, the members of city council, the two (2) elected election commissioners, the manager of public works, the manager of parks and recreation, the manager of revenue, the manager of environmental health, the manager of general services, the manager of safety, the city attorney, the manager of human services, the clerk and recorder, the manager of aviation, and the manager of community planning and development.

    (e) Official means a member of a city board or commission.

    Sec. 2-53. Board of ethics.

    (a) Creation and appointment. There is hereby created a board of ethics to consist of five members. The purpose of the board shall be to issue advisory opinions and waivers on ethical issues arising under this article and to hear inquiries and issue findings and recommendations regarding alleged violations of this article.

    (b) Qualifications.

    (1) One and only one member of the board of ethics shall be an officer or employee of the city.

    (2) At least one member of the board of ethics shall be a former judicial officer.

    (3) At least one member of the board of ethics shall have expertise in ethics acquired through education or experience.

    (c) Method of appointment.

    (1) The member of the board of ethics who is an officer or employee of the city shall be nominated by the mayor and appointed by council acting by ordinance.

    (2) The mayor shall appoint two of the remaining members.

    (3) The council shall appoint the other two members by ordinance.

    (d) Terms of appointment.

    (1) Members shall be appointed to terms of four years; however, the first member appointed by the mayor and the first member appointed by the council shall initially serve two year terms to achieve staggered ending dates.

    (2) If a member is appointed to fill an unexpired term, that member’s term shall end at the same time as the term of the person being replaced.

    (3) Each member shall continue to serve until a successor has been appointed, unless the member is removed or resigns.

    (e) Removal.

    (1) The unexcused absence of any member of the board from three (3) consecutive meetings, unless the board has excused the absence for good and sufficient reasons as determined by the board, shall constitute a resignation from the board.

    (2) The appointing authority may remove a member for inappropriate conduct before the expiration of the member’s term. Before removing a member, the appointing authority shall specify the cause for removal and shall give the member the opportunity to make a personal explanation. Before removing the member who is jointly appointed, either the mayor or the council shall specify the cause for removal and the mayor and council shall give the member the opportunity to make a personal explanation. Members appointed by the council and the member who is nominated by the mayor and appointed by council may only be removed by ordinance.

    (f) Compensation. Members of the board of ethics shall serve without compensation. The member who is an officer or employee of the city shall not receive any additional compensation for serving on the board of ethics. Members may be reimbursed for reasonable expenses pursuant to the rules of the city.

    (g) Consultation with city attorney. The board of ethics may consult with the city attorney or a designee of the city attorney regarding legal issues which may arise in connection with this article and may request advisory assistance from the city attorney in conducting hearings on inquiries during any stage of the process.

    (h) Disqualification. Any member or employee of the board of ethics shall disqualify himself or herself from participating in any matter before the board in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including, but not limited to, instances where he or she has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of or involvement in disputed evidentiary facts concerning the matter. In the event that an employee of the board of ethics receives a request for an advisory opinion, a request for a waiver or an inquiry from which the employee is disqualified, and the employee has recused himself or herself, the board shall request a designee of the city attorney or a member of the board to perform all functions the employee would otherwise perform.

    Sec. 2-54. Advisory opinions and waivers.

    (a) Any current or former officer, official, or employee or the appointing authority of a non-elected officer, an official, or an employee may submit a written request to the board of ethics for advisory opinions on whether any conduct by that person would constitute a violation of the code of ethics. The board of ethics shall render an advisory opinion pursuant to written rules adopted by the board, but in no case shall the board take longer than six (6) weeks from the time it received the request to issue an advisory opinion or to give written notice explaining the reason for delay and stating an expected issuance date.

    (b) The board of ethics may render advisory opinions to individuals who intend to become employees, officers, or officials upon written request of the person or the person’s appointing authority. The board of ethics shall render an advisory opinion pursuant to written rules adopted by the board.

    (c) The board of ethics may publish its advisory opinions. It shall do so with deletions as may be lawful and necessary to prevent disclosure of the identity of the individual involved. The board may publish guidelines based on advisory opinions.

    (d) A person whose conduct is in accordance with an advisory opinion or a published unreversed advisory opinion of the board of ethics shall not be found in violation of any of the provisions of this article.

    (e) Noncompliance with advisory opinions. When the board of ethics has reason to believe that the advisory opinion has not been complied with, it shall inform the person, the person’s appointing authority, and the city attorney. The appointing authority, after consulting with the city attorney, shall take appropriate action to ensure compliance.

    (f) Waivers. Any current, former, or prospective officer, official, or employee may submit a written request for a waiver of any provision of the code of ethics. The board of ethics is empowered to grant a waiver if it finds that the waiver will serve the best interests of the city. The board shall issue appropriate notice of its meeting on the waiver and its meeting shall be open to the public. The board shall either issue or deny the waiver within six (6) weeks of receiving the request.

    (Ord. No. 96-01, § 1, 1-29-01)

    Sec. 2-55. Complaints or inquiries to the board of ethics.

    Any person may file a complaint or inquiry with the board of ethics asking whether a current officer, official, or employee has failed to comply with this code of ethics. Subject to section 2-56 and the rules adopted by the board pursuant to section 2-56, the board of ethics shall:

    (1) Conduct a hearing in a meeting, which shall be open to the public on all complaints or inquiries which have not been dismissed pursuant to paragraph (6) of section 2-56 or resolved under paragraph (7) of section 2-56.

    (2) Except as otherwise provided in this article, make public written findings and recommendations, if any, on complaints or inquiries. Board findings should characterize the seriousness of the violation, if any.

    (3) Inform the person who is the subject of the complaint or inquiry and the person who submitted the complaint or inquiry of its findings, and recommendations; and

    (4) If the person who is the subject of the complaint or inquiry is an employee, non-elected officer, or appointed official, and if the board feels corrective action may be necessary, notify the person’s appointing authority and recommend that the appointing authority take action, appropriate to the finding, including discipline. If the person who is the subject of the complaint or inquiry is an elected officer, the board may propose actions appropriate to the finding, ranging from a recommendation that the person abstain from further action on the matter or seek a waiver, to adopting a resolution reprimanding the person.

    (Ord. No. 96-01, § 1, 1-29-01; Ord. No. 523-02, § 1, 7-1-02; Ord. No. 631-04, § 4, 9-7-04)

    Sec. 2-56. Procedures for complaints or inquiries.

    The board of ethics shall adopt written rules for complaints or inquiries that create a process that is fair both to the person who submitted the complaint or inquiry and the person who is the subject of the complaint or inquiry. In addition to rules which the board may in its discretion adopt, the rules shall:

    (1) Establish time lines for all aspects of its handling of complaints or inquiries. The time lines shall be sufficiently long to enable a person who is the subject of a complaint or inquiry to have adequate time to understand the complaint or inquiry and prepare a response. The rules shall allow the board to alter the time lines upon a request of the subject of a complaint or inquiry for more time to prepare;

    (2) Require the complaint or inquiry to be in writing on a form approved by the board, to be signed, and to show the home or business address and telephone number of the person who submitted it. The form shall contain a statement that must be signed and which states that, to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable reflection, the information in the complaint or inquiry is true. The rules shall require the complaint or inquiry to describe the facts that constitute the violation of this code of ethics in sufficient detail so that the board and the person who is the subject of the complaint or inquiry can reasonably be expected to understand the nature of any offense that is being alleged;

    (3) Prohibit the board from accepting complaints or inquiries about actions that took place more than two years prior to the date of filing;

    (4) Require the board to notify the person who is the subject of the complaint or inquiry that a complaint or inquiry has been filed. The rules shall require the board to provide the notification in a timely manner, but no more than five (5) days from the day the complaint or inquiry was filed, provided that they shall require the board to notify the person who is the subject of the complaint or inquiry immediately if he or she so requests. The rules shall require the notification to include a copy of the full complaint or inquiry; a copy of any portion of this article that is alleged to have been or that may be violated; and the board’s rules for dealing with complaints or inquiries;

    (5) Require the board to provide the subject of the complaint or inquiry with a copy of the complaint or inquiry before it provides copies to any other parties. The rules shall recognize that distribution to the public of a complaint or inquiry prior to screening by the board as required in (6) below could harm the reputation of an innocent person and is contrary to the public interest; therefore, the rules shall prohibit the public release of the complaint or inquiry until the screening process in (6) below has been completed;

    (6) Require the board or a committee of the board to consult in confidence within fourteen (14) days of receiving a complaint or inquiry to screen the complaint or inquiry. The rules shall allow the board to immediately dismiss a complaint or inquiry if:

    a. It has no jurisdiction;

    b. The alleged violation, if true, would not constitute a violation of this article;

    c. The alleged violation is a minor or de minimis violation;

    d. The complaint or inquiry is, on its face, frivolous, groundless, or brought for purposes of harassment;

    e. The matter has become moot because the person who is the subject of the complaint or inquiry is no longer an officer, official, or employee;

    f. The person who is the subject of the complaint or inquiry had obtained a waiver or an advisory opinion under section 2-54 permitting the conduct; or

    g. The appointing authority has already taken action as a result of finding a violation and the board believes the action was appropriate.

    The rules shall require the dismissal and the reason for dismissal to be in writing and available to the public.

    (7) Allow the board, at its discretion, to make a finding solely on the basis of written arguments without holding a public hearing, if it determines that there is no significant discrepancy in the facts as presented by the person filing the complaint or inquiry and the person who is the subject of the complaint or inquiry; and the board determines that it doesn’t need any additional information. However, the person charged retains the right to request a hearing, which shall be open to the public.

    (8) Require the board to have hearings at meetings, which are open to the public on complaints or inquiries, which have not been dismissed pursuant to paragraph (6) of section 2-56 or resolved under paragraph (7) of this section.

    (9) Allow any person who is the subject of a complaint or inquiry to designate a representative if he or she wishes to be represented by someone else, to present evidence, and to cross-examine witnesses. The rules shall allow the person who submitted the complaint or inquiry and the subject of the complaint or inquiry sufficient time to examine and respond to any evidence not presented to them in advance of the hearing;

    (10) Require deliberations on complaints or inquiries to be conducted in closed session;

    (11) Allow the board to dismiss a complaint or inquiry without a finding for or against the subject of the complaint or inquiry if the person committed the violation due to oversight and comes into voluntary compliance;

    (12) Allow the board to dismiss a complaint or inquiry if the person who submitted it does not appear at hearing and if, in the opinion of the board, it would be unfair to the subject of the complaint or inquiry not to have the opportunity to examine the person. The rules shall, however, require the board to schedule the hearing at a time that is reasonably convenient to both the person who submitted the complaint or inquiry and the subject of the complaint or inquiry;

    (13) Require the board to base a finding of a violation upon clear and convincing evidence;

    (14) Require the board to inform the person who submitted the complaint or inquiry and the subject of the complaint or inquiry in writing if it believes a complaint or inquiry is frivolous, groundless, or brought for purposes of harassment;

    (15) Prohibit members who have not been present for the hearing from participating in a recommendation;

    (16) Require that findings and recommendations be made only by a majority of the board;

    (17) Allow the board to consider, when it makes findings and recommendations, the severity of offense; the presence or absence of any intention to conceal, deceive, or mislead; whether the violation was deliberate, negligent, or inadvertent; and whether the incident was isolated or part of a pattern;

    (18) Allow the board to issue an advisory opinion in response to a complaint or inquiry, in lieu of making findings and recommendations, where deemed appropriate by the board.

    Sec. 2-57. Reimbursement of reasonable legal expenses.

    A person who is the subject of a complaint or inquiry pursuant to section 2-55 who is subsequently exonerated may apply to the city attorney for reimbursement of reasonable legal expenses from the “liability claims” appropriations. The city attorney shall promptly provide reimbursement subject to the limitations of this section. As used in this section, the term “legal expenses” shall include reasonable attorney fees, witness fees, stenographer fees, investigator fees, and other direct costs in connection with the answer to a complaint or inquiry. The person applying for reimbursement shall submit his or her application for reimbursement to the city attorney within fourteen (14) days of the board’s decision. The city attorney, or in the case of a conflict, a designee of the city attorney, shall determine, in his or her sole discretion, the reasonableness of the legal expenses. The exonerated person may not appeal or challenge the city attorney’s determination with the board or any other entity. The maximum reimbursement from the city shall not exceed the sum of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500.00).

    Sec. 2-58. Subpoenas.

    The board of ethics shall have the power to subpoena documents and to subpoena witnesses to make statements and produce documents. Persons who are subpoenaed or whose records are subpoenaed may object to testimony or production of documents based upon such information being privileged as recognized by Colorado law. The board may issue a subpoena only after a written request to appear or provide records has not been complied with and after consultation with the city attorney.

    Sec. 2-59. Employment and supervision of family members.

    (a) Unless he or she obtains a waiver pursuant to section 2-54, no officer, official, or employee shall appoint or hire a member of his or her immediate family for any type of employment, including, but not limited to, full time employment, part time employment, permanent employment, temporary employment, and contract employment.

    (b) No officer, official, or employee shall supervise or be in a direct line of supervision over a member of his or her immediate family. If an officer, official, or employee comes into a direct line of supervision of a member of his or her immediate family, he or she shall have six (6) months to come into compliance or to obtain a waiver pursuant to section 2-54.

    (c) When waivers from this section are sought so that a member of the immediate family may be hired or may be in the direct line of supervision, it is the intent of the council that the board of ethics not unreasonably withhold waivers. Examples of circumstances which might result in a waiver include, but are not limited to:

    (1) The family member who is proposed to be hired was certified through a competitive process conducted pursuant to law and the officer, official, or employee who would make the appointment did not influence or affect the certification.

    (2) The officer, official, or employee who would officially make the appointment is acting ministerially and did not select the family member or attempt to influence the person who did.

    (3) The family member who would be in the line of supervision was already working in the agency before the officer, official, or employee came into the line of supervision, and the officer, official, or employee can and will abstain from participating in any personnel actions involving the family member.

    (d) The phrase “direct line of supervision” shall mean the supervisor of an employee and the supervisor of an employee’s supervisor.

    Sec. 2-60. Gifts to officers, officials, and employees.

    (a) Except when acceptance is permitted by paragraph (b) below, it shall be a violation of this code of ethics for any officers, officials, or employees, any member of their immediate familiesto solicit or to accept any of the following items if (1) the officer, official, or employee is in a position to take direct official action with regard to the donor; and (2) the city has an existing, ongoing, or pending contract, business, or regulatory relationship with the donor:

    (1) Any money, property, service, or thing of value that is given to a person without adequate and lawful compensation;

    (2) Any honoraria or payment for participation in an event;

    (3) Any loan of goods, equipment, or other items that is not available to the general public on the same terms and conditions;

    (4) Any loan of money that is not available to the general public at the same interest rate and the same conditions;

    (5) Any ticket to a sporting, recreational, or cultural event except as provided for in subsection (b)(4) of this section;

    (6) Travel expenses and lodging;

    (7) Any reduction in price or any discount that is not similarly available to all city officers, officials, and employees on the same terms; and

    (8) Parking passes except as provided for in subsection (b)(4) of this section.

    This prohibition shall also apply to gifts from a lobbyist or representative of a client if (1) the officer, official, or employee is in a position to take direct official action with regard to the client and (2) the city has an existing, ongoing, or pending contract, business, or regulatory relationship with the client.

    (b) Officers, officials, and employees and the members of their immediate family may accept the following even if the officer, official, or employee is in a position to take direct official action with regard to the donor, or, if the donor is a lobbyist or representative, the donor’s client:

    (1) Gifts from other officers, officials, or employees and their family members on appropriate occasions;

    (2) Campaign contributions as permitted by law;

    (3) Nonpecuniary awards that are publicly presented by an organization in recognition of public service if the award is not extraordinary when viewed in light of the position held by the recipient;

    (4) The donation of meals, tickets to events for which admission is charged, or free or reduced price admission to events for which a fee is charged, but only under the following conditions:

    a. No more than a total of four meals, tickets, or free or reduced price admissions may be accepted from the same donor in any calendar year, regardless of the value;

    b. A donation from an employee of a business or entity shall be counted as a gift from the business or entity;

    c. The individual or entity which pays for the meal, ticket, or admission shall be considered the donor for purposes of this subsection regardless of whether that individual or entity is reimbursed for the cost;

    d. Attendance must be reasonably related to the official or ceremonial duties of the officer, official, or employee;

    e. The donation of parking for the meal or event shall be allowed on the same terms and conditions;

    (5) Unsolicited items of trivial value. “Items of trivial value” means items or services with a value of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) or less, such as inexpensive tee shirts, pens, calendars, books, flowers, or other similar items;

    (6) Gifts while visiting other cities, counties, states, or countries or hosting visitors from other cities, counties, states, or countries when it would be a breach of protocol to refuse the gift;

    (7) Reasonable expenses paid by non-profit organizations or other governments for attendance at a convention, fact finding mission or trip, or other meeting if the person is scheduled to deliver a speech, make a presentation, participate on a panel, or represent the city;

    (8) Gifts on special and infrequent occasions if the gift is appropriate to the occasion. These occasions include weddings, funerals, and illnesses;

    (9) Gifts to commemorate a public event in which the officer, official, or employee participated in an official capacity, provided that the gift is appropriate to the occasion. Such occasions include ground breaking ceremonies and grand openings;

    (10) Memberships and passes from the Denver Art Museum, Denver Botanic Gardens, Denver Museum of Nature and Science, and Denver Zoo.

    (11) Gifts from family members;

    (12) Items which are similarly available to all employees of the city or the general public on the same terms and conditions.

    (c) It shall not be a violation of this article for an officer, official, or employee to solicit donations to the city or to solicit or redirect donations for charitable purposes to a 501(c) or other charitable organization or to provide assistance to individuals affected by illness, crime or disaster or who have educational or other charitable needs, provided that solicitation and financial records are maintained and provided that the soliciting person , or a member of the soliciting person’s immediate familydoes not keep or use the gift or receive any monetary benefit therefrom.

    (d) It shall not be a violation of this article for a member of an officer’s, official’s or employee’s immediate familyto accept a gift which arises from an independent relationship of an adult member, if:

    (1) The officer, official or employee does not use the gift; and

    (2) It cannot reasonably be inferred that the gift was intended to influence the officer, official, or employee in the performance of his or her duties.

    Sec. 2-61. Conflict of interest while employed.

    (a) Except when advised by the city attorney that the rule of necessity applies, an officer, official, or employee shall not take direct official action on a matter before the city if he or she or a member of the immediate family,a business associate or an employer other than the city of the officer, official or employee has any substantial employment, contractual, or financial interest in that matter. A substantial interest shall be deemed to exist if:

    (1) He or she or a member of the immediate family,a business associate or an employer other than the city is the other party in the matter;

    (2) He, she, a spouse, a domestic partner or minor children solely or aggregated together, a business associate or an employer owns or own one (1) percent or more, or a member of the immediate family other than a spouse, domestic partner or minor children own or owns five (5) percent or more, of another party in the matter;

    (3) He or she, a member of the immediate family, a business associate or an employer is an officer in another party in the matter;

    (4) He or she, a member of the immediate family,a business associate or an employer is directly involved in obtaining the city’s business for another party in the matter;

    (5) He or she, a member of the immediate family, a business associate or an employer is directly involved in negotiating the contract or preparing the bid, proposal, response to a request for qualifications, or similar document for another party in the matter, other than in a purely clerical capacity; or

    (6) A member of his or her immediate family performs more than a nominal portion of the work in the matter, or supervises or manages more than a nominal portion of the work.

    For purposes of this section, business associate means a person or entity with whom an officer, official or employee or a member of his or her immediate family is a partner or a co-owner of a business in which the business associate and the officer, official or employee or a member of his or her immediate familyeach own at least one percent of the business.

    (c) An officer, official, or employee may represent himself or herself before a board in accord with such board’s procedures, provided that the officer, official, or employee does not also participate in the board’s decision in his or her official capacity.

    (d) An officer, official, or employee may acquire an interest in bonds or other evidences of indebtedness issued by the city or the board of water commissioners so long as they are acquired on the same terms available to the general public.

    (e) It shall not be a violation of this code of ethics for an officer, official, or employee to take direct official action on the following matters even if the person or a relative employed by a city agency would benefit:

    (1) The city’s annual budget or an amendment to the annual budget; or

    (2) Establishing the pay or fringe benefit plans of city officers, officials, or employees

    (f) Officers, employees or officials who are prohibited from taking direct official action due to a substantial conflict of interest shall disclose such interest to his or her colleagues on a board or commission or to his or her supervisor or appointing authority, shall not act or vote thereon, shall refrain from attempting to influence the decisions of others in acting or voting on the matter and shall work with his or her supervisor or appointing authority to ensure that the matter is assigned to someone without conflicting interests.

    (g) No officer, employee or official may have any other employment or position which is incompatible with his or her duties or that adversely affect the interests of the City.

    Sec. 2-62. Prior employment.

    No person shall be disqualified from service with the city as an officer, official, or employee solely because of his or her prior employment. Officers, officials, and employees shall not take any direct official action with respect to their former employers for a period of six (6) months from the date of termination of the prior employment.

    Sec. 2-63. Contemporaneous or outside employment.

    (a) All officers other than elective officers and all employees shall report existing or proposed outside employment (excluding unpaid volunteer activity)or other outside business activity annually in writing to their appointing authorities and obtain his or her appointing authority’s approval thereof prior to accepting initial employment or outside business activity. All officials shall immediately report any change in employment status to their appointing authorities which could give rise to a conflict of interest.

    (b) If the appointing authority or the officer, official or employee believes that there is a potential conflict of interest between the person’s public responsibility and his or her possible outside employment or outside business activity, he, she or they are encouraged to consult the board of ethics.

    (c) An officer or employee who has received the written permission of the appointing authority may engage in outside employment or other outside business activity.

    (d) Copies of documents arising from this section shall be placed in each officer’s or employee’s departmental personnel file.

    Sec. 2-64. Subsequent employment.

    (a) During six (6) months following termination of office or employment, no former officer, official, or employee shall obtain employment outside of the city government in which he or she will take direct advantage, unavailable to others, of matters with which he or she took direct official action during his or her service with the city.

    (b) For one (1) year following termination of service with the city, no former officer, official, or employee shall engage in any action or litigation in which the city is involved, on behalf of any other person or entity, when the action or litigation involves an issue on which the person took direct official action while in the service of the city.

    Sec. 2-65. Employee training.

    (a) At least annually, the board of ethics shall prepare and distribute an employee handbook on this code of ethics, after obtaining the city attorney’s review. In addition to the annual updates, the board may disseminate any change in policy that results from a finding of the board if it applies to other city employees.

    (b) Every appointing authority shall give a copy or electronic version to each employee annually and shall provide training to employees regarding the code of ethics.

    Sec. 2-66. Annual report.

    By February 15 of each year, the board of ethics shall submit an annual report to the mayor and council summarizing its activities during the previous calendar year. The report shall include any recommendations for modifying the code of ethics.

    Sec. 2-67. Use of public office for private gain.

    No officer, official or employee shall use his or her public office or position or disclose or use confidential information in order to obtain private gain for himself or herself, for his or her immediate family, for any business entity with which he or she is affiliated or for any person or entity with whom the officer, official or employee is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective employment.

    Secs. 2-68, 2-69. Reserved.

  13. Debra Thompson said

    Kory Nelson writes:

    Wow, you’ve got quite a bout of paranoia up there in rural Washington. I don’t know whether to laugh or just feel proud that you would make such an assumption that I am “the driving power behind this radical website” or that “It is the brainchild of Kory Nelson”.

    An ethical person with a sense of decency would feel shame…..not pride at the harm you have done to people, their families and their pets. There is nothing to admire about this or to feel proud of.

    Debra Thompson

  14. rdows said

    I fear that your words will have no effect upon a person who prides himself by playing Judas Iscariot in his Church’s Christmas pageant. Even the role he choses to portray is that of the most reviled betrayer of all time. What a power trip it must be to vicariously betray the LIVING GOD. What are real human lives, and multitudes of dogs compared to that?

  15. rdows said

    Kory Nelson’s Legacy…

    For all the effort, time, and thought expended to pass dog legislation; all
    the politics, back-room dealings, and strategic positioning, in the end
    what has Kory Nelson actually managed to accomplish?

    He banned a dog breed.

    However, while lobbying for his agenda, he manages to use his profession
    to deliver misery and pain to both families and animals. What’s more,
    municipal integrity becomes compromised as a matter of dictate. Community
    reputations become tainted, economies hurt, and feelings of ill-will are
    bound to be plentiful.

    The result is plain to see:
    . Nothing positive
    . Nothing creative
    . Nothing meaningful

    To be sure, his efforts are most certainly not worth a lasting legacy.
    History may very well choose to record Kory Nelson’s name, but it will not
    be listed under the category of serving the “greater good”. In truth,
    nothing great will ever be mentioned. It’s the ultimate consequence of a
    self-serving tragedy arrived at by
    endeavoring for legalized atrocity.

    Any time an animal rightist lobbies for stricter animal legislation, we
    should all ask lawmakers this question: What good is served by those who
    expend great time and resources to impose destructive “straight-jacket
    agendas” at the expense of the public?

    More importantly, why would any productive citizen ever choose to live in
    such a place that promotes such things?

    Breed Specific Legislation is a major sign of weakness and inadequacy.
    Succumbing to fear and ignorance is nothing to be proud of. As for those who
    seek to profit by exploiting those fears in others, it is the perfect
    illustration of a failure.

    Nick Van Duren
    “The Dutch Mutt”
    Truly embracing a rabid, but proud dedication to serving up a hot plate of
    open and active pet-friendly rants

  16. Debra Thompson said

    Kory is proud that he is viewed as an “expert” at twisting facts to support a destructive agenda.

    He is delighted that other minimal human-beings functioning in the capacity of governmental officials consult him to help them foist the same travesty on the constituents of their communities as Kory did to his.

    Kory is proud to be consulted, views everything that Nick addressed as an accomplishment, and feels that this is how he has made a name for himself.


  17. Mick said

    There are dozens and dozens of cases of fatal GSD attacks and thousands and thousands of cases of severe dog attacks by German Shepherds.
    Maybe I should start sending all these to DogsBite.org and then can then add the GSD to their dangerous dog BSL list.
    Then maybe Kory will have to say goodbye to Heidi. Hey, don’t worry Kory, Doug Kelly might let you spend a few minutes with Heidi to say goodbye and soothe her trembling and frightened body before they kill her.
    That is only a terrible dream we have for you, and we only wish it because we are LIVING THIS NIGHTMARE now! Because this is what you have done to our dogs!
    (My apologies to Heidi, I wish you no harm)

  18. rdows said

    I understand your frustration. Unfortunately the GSD is also named in BSL.

    Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States would actually work on Kory Nelson’s behalf if the GSD were targeted in his town of Parker. In fact RDOWS did work very hard along side of Nick Van Duren, and other dog owning residents of Parker, CO when there was a proposed breed ban.

    Parker city Councilman Jack Hilbert was very reasonable, and open to our information.

    Thank you for posting, Mick.

  19. pork chop said

    I have sent several even tempered non biased comments to “dogs bite.. that what they do” ( silly isn’t it?)blog None of my comments have made it to the board. These people prefer to trash individuals that they do not know.. and they are .. well I use the term .. “rabid” in their hatred of certain dogs and people. they are not logical and are using false information.. But heck they should change the name to “People Hate.. that’s what they do”.. a very sad commentary on Kory Nelson and his band of fanatics.

  20. Sean said

    Thanks for posting this information. People like this make me sick and I’m going to research some more to see what else I can find.

  21. rdows said

    Pork Chop, and Sean,
    I think that they only post the comments that are radically untrue, and hysterical in content, including the master work of Kory Nelson. They have expanded the term “pit bull” that used to mean; any dog being fought in the pit, to include Boxers, American Bulldogs, and any dog with teeth.

    Anyone with eyes can see that Dogsbite.org is a thinly veiled anti-dog owner site, pretending to be about victims. I’m still searching for that elusive police report on Ms. Lynn’s dog encounter.

  22. Francis said

    Interestingly the dogsbite.org domain was originally registered to a Gary Stevens with the address and phone number of the Seattle PD. It was changed very quickly when it was brought to the attention of the SPD.

  23. Brynna said

    Hi Cherie,

    Thank you for that blog! It was brought to my attention by a friend from a bully breed forum we belong to. Originally we were planning on attending the open meeting until it was “postponed”. Can’t help wondering if it was actually moved underground…

    I left my e-mail address. If you have time and are willing, would you pass along any information? I have a pitbull mix and even though I live just outside Seattle city limits, my fiance and I hope to move back down there some day, without getting rid of our dog. Thank you!

  24. Well, you’re pulling no punches on this matter! Good for you remaining such a thorn in their sides, RDOWS.

    Seems Kory Nelson is your version of Toledo’s Tom Sheldon. Would you have their karma for anything?

    There’s an open letter from the President of the U.K’s Dog Warden Association on our website re BSL that you may find an interesting read. It is a publicly scathing condemnation of BSL and the politicians who inflicted it on them.

    Keep up the good work.

  25. shawn said

    I happened across dogsbite last night, and it took very little time to discover what they are all about. None of my respectful comments in disagreement with how they conduct their site were published either. It is a scary thing that such profound hatred and ignorance of a subject has such a venue to instill terror to the uneducated. Dogsbite.org has Hitler minded values. Rather than focus on irresponsible owners, these poor creatures are being slandered and threatened. I am the proud owner of Rottweilers and have been for quite some time without incident. Never have I encountered a more loving, intelligent breed of dog. My dogs know their roles within the family unit and since pups have been raised with the utmost care in obedience. Where are the stories of our loving companions who have saved loved ones from certain tragedies over the years? Prevented home invasions, etc. You won’t find it at that pathetic website. It is devastating to see all of the victims who have suffered so much because of these animals ignorant owners, but while they are at it..let’s just exterminate the human race too, right? I mean, it’s all about the statistics, just read up at dogsbite.org. Gee wiz, I wonder what the homicide stats are every year, deaths by drunken drivers,sexual offenses, domestic abuse. oh yeah, wait, it’s not just the good old United states, they like to track stats all over the world. So lets not forget mass murder in Darfur, Rwanda, and Eastern Europe. Is a breed of dog capable of any of these horrors? With all of the problems mankind faces from fellow man on a daily basis, it is dumbfounding that these idiots place so much of their abundant time and misdirected energy into something so blind and arrogant.

  26. Kris said

    I just came across this trying to figure out what’s the deal with DogsBite.org. My first thought: “Wow, this is the first website I’ve seen that was founded specifically to promote an anti-pitbull agenda.” And my second thought: “Who could possibly hate a breed of dog this much?”

    Seriously I still don’t get it. There are people who’ve been seriously bitten by dogs who don’t go campaigning for the breed that bit them to be made extinct. It’s honestly a little creepy, something that makes me wonder what is wrong with these people.

  27. Chris Underwood said

    Great bit of research, thanks for the story. Also, I might point out that some paranoia is bound to be the result when you’ve got people on the public payroll out to use the power of the state to murder your dog because of the way she looks.

    I love this site, very well done.

  28. eric meekins said

    wonderful website! being an APBT owner, after first hearing of the hate/fear mongering dogsbite.org i wanted to shove a pit bull up the creator/owners anus. however less fun, this blog is probably slightly more effective. keep up the good work!

  29. Cherie,

    Thanks for writing this. . . The people at dogsbite.org just love pointing the accusatory finger at innocent pit bull lovers. Hence their recent attack on our founder where they claim she is in support of dog fighting. . apparently in their book supporting the BILL OF RIGHTS is the same as supporting dog fighting.

    Strange how their minds work.

  30. Pit owner in NC said

    One thing that goes a long way to show the heart pit owners have is the fact we have balls enough to allow people with differing opinions post comments on our blogs. You’ll notice the fear mongers at dogsbite.org only allow comments that further their agenda, not contribute to an intelligent disscussion….Oh yeah that’s because they’re too dumb to realize that the dog that bit them should get a treat 🙂

    Kidding about that, but the dog that bit them is probably completely different than my dog. I just wish they would wake up and realize that.

  31. Dogsbite is pathetic. said

    “One thing that goes a long way to show the heart pit owners have is the fact we have balls enough to allow people with differing opinions post comments on our blogs. You’ll notice the fear mongers at dogsbite.org only allow comments that further their agenda, not contribute to an intelligent disscussion”

    I noticed that. It’s bloody pathetic.

  32. Marc Richard Parker said

    Hello from Mass,

    I had the pleassure of coming across this website and reading about Mrs. Lynn. I would like her to know I have been around “pitbulls” my whole life. I have been bit several times by dogs. NOT one of them was a “pitbull”. I will not say the type of dogs they were because I beleive that it was not the dogs fault. It was one thing and one thing only. IRRESPONSIBLE owners who do not have controll over THEIR dogs. I currently own a american staffordshire terrier that is a pure breed dog from akc champion parents.

    I am a very responsible owner and my dog knows who the pack leader is. It has taken time and research in order to train my wonderfull pup, but the rewards are endless.
    I wish no harm To Mrs. Lynn and that she had never been bitten, but the reality is that people will continue to get bit by any breed of dog that does not have a responible owner.

    If Mrs. Lynn wants to be a true leader she would consider trying to educate people on how to be proper dog owners who have controll over their dogs. Teach responsibility not hate or descimination on a few particular breeds.

    If you continue to isolate and label pitbulls negitivly you will continue to make them the dog of choice for negitive people.

    Mrs. Lynn please read the sports illistrated article on micheal vicks dogs. This would be a good starting point for you to become educated on the real side of pitbulls. Not the side that is exploited by the rotten few.

    Many people own pitbulls for their unmatched desire to please their master, their intelligence is striking, their looks are beautifull, their athletism is unmatched, readiness to protect their family and their natural kindness to children just to name a few.

    Mrs. Lynn Im sorry you were bit. I know you are an intelligent person please put your anger aside and try to educate the public to be responsible dog owners, that pitbulls are a breed of dog just like any other they are only as good as its master.

  33. Val said

    I just want to thank Dogsbite.org for making it so easy for me, as a pit owner, to fight BSL should it come my way. Seeing such a weirdly biased site just makes me that more versed in how to educate the ignorant masses, so thanks, Dogsbite.org, for making me that much more motivated to convert more people than you can! Whoo-ooo, more pit owners coming up! 🙂

    But Dogsbite.org, though I value the service you provided, I must protest only being able to address you here. Won’t you reconsider? After all, if you are the great social planners you believe yourselves to be, what’s the harm in allowing opposing viewpoints to be aired?

    Oh, that’s right, I forgot…your “evidence” doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny…and you don’t want your supporters figuring out that your “family-safe” agenda has more to do with your own biases than actual facts….

  34. woopwoop said

    just like to say there was NO bsl passed in great britain in 1989, tho thwere was the dangerous dogs act passed in 1991, but that covered the whole of the uk.

    But your right we still have pit bulls (i know of 2, and 1 mix that live in my city there luvly dogs), and obviously pit attacks.

    and to anyone who says its becuase the law is not being enforced, have you looked into the law, theres not even a set definition of wat a “pit bull type” actually is

  35. Fran Sullivan said

    When dogs bite received media attention for nominating “Tom Skelton” as “Dog Warden of the Year” I nearly passed out. HOW did they even get the print media to pick it up?

    Let’s see, there has been petitions to get Skelton OUT of office, but to no avail. It has been written in the papers that his political family connections have been keeping him in office. Still public outcry continued SO instead of FIRING him, Lucas County set up a 11 person “advisory committee” to “work with him” or, was that to “oversee him”. EVEN then, Skelton still managed to get a “family member” on THAT committee.

    The truly sad thing is if one reads his job description it is totally “opposite” to what he does.

    Kory’s main man, Skelton was the ONLY dog warden that testified FOR Ontario Canada’s ban. EVERY other credible professional dog organization was AGAINST Ontario’s ban including the American Medical Veterinary Association, Ontario Humane Society, Toronto Humane Society, Canadian Veterinary Association, Canadian Pet Trainers Association and THE LIST goes on and on.

    In the meantime Michael Bryant would NOT let the “Dog Warden” of the most successful City in North America testify AGAINST the ban, the ONE professional who has seen a 25% DROP in dog bites with NO BSL. Yes Calgary, Alberta’s professionals were NOT allowed to speak at the debates. A totally successful CANADIAN city with the highest success rate in stopping dog bits was shut down and Michael Bryant “brought up” AMERICA’s Tom Skelton to testify during Ontario CANADA debates instead.

    “Evil prevails when good men do nothing”.

    Thanks for ALL you do and for putting the truth out there, if only “at this time” few read it.

    Eventually this information WILL be acknowledged and obviously is being documenated. One day THIS witch hunt will be over. Those “responsible” for fostering and promoting these bans, will be remembered.

    It is really just a “matter of time”, in the meantime however, the massive damage done, by these “individuals” cannot be reversed. But mark my words, THIS WITCH HUNT will be seen for what it is. Eventually McCarthyism ended and so, in time, will this.

    Question is how many MILLIONS of innocent dogs and hundreds of thousands of RESPONSIBLE and caring dog owners and “their” families will pay the price until it does? I hope when “The Book” comes out, I will be alive to see it hit the New York Times best sellers list.

    Anyone know of a good “ghost” writer?

  36. Julie said

    Great post, keep spreading the truth and fighting the good fight.

  37. Miss Midnite said

    Dogsbite.org promotes itself as being a reliable source of information, but holds no credibility. All articles are open to the public to comment upon, but all comments must be ‘approved by the blog author’.

    Quote from the actual DogsBite.org Comment Policy:

    “We do not post comments by pit bull advocates, dogfighters, misguided animal activists or anything else of an offensive or untrue nature.”

    Basically, if you disagree with them, you will not be heard. Thus, they make it appear as if the general public agrees with them because those are the only comments that are published.

    Way to create a false sense of credibility, DogsBite.org

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: