Attorney for Boulder Police Oversight Panel member Lisa Sweeney-Miran challenges call for her removal

Apr. 18—An attorney for Lisa Sweeney-Miran filed a response to the findings of an independent investigator who recommended that Sweeney-Miran be removed from Boulder's Police Oversight Panel, saying such a removal would be "illegal and improper."

The response was sent Tuesday to the Boulder City Attorney's Office and third-party investigator Clay Douglas by Dan Williams, an attorney with Hutchinson, Black and Cook LLC.

Douglas was hired as special counsel by the city to investigate five code of conduct complaints that three community members filed over the recent appointment of new panel members.

Douglas in his report sustained an allegation that the selection committee had "failed to adequately evaluate whether candidates 'immediately prior to appointment' 'demonstrate' 'absence of any real or perceived bias (or) prejudice.'"

Opponents of her appointment expressed concern Sweeney-Miran's participation in an ongoing ACLU lawsuit against Boulder's camping ban and posts on social media criticizing police or policing meant she would not impartially carry out her police oversight duties.

In his report, Douglas ruled that Sweeney-Miran's social media posts and the lawsuit "demonstrate real or perceived bias or prejudice and should have been explored prior to appointment."

But in a response to Douglas' recommendation, Williams noted that the conduct violations do not actually accuse Sweeney-Miran of wrongdoing, but rather the oversight panel and Boulder City Council.

The response states that removing Sweeney-Miran without finding she personally violated the code of conduct would be a violation of due process and city code.

Williams also notes the city ordinance would not allow City Council to remove Sweeney-Miran, and that such a decision can only be made by the oversight panel.

"To the extent the City Council might consider circumventing the restrictions on discipline under the code of conduct by removing Ms. Sweeney-Miran for some other reason, that would not be permissible either," the response read.

At least one other member of the panel, Sam Zhang, has already come out in support of Sweeney-Miran following Douglas' ruling.

Williams' response also alleged several errors and shortcomings in Douglas' investigation and conclusions.

Williams, who is assisting the ACLU in the camping lawsuit, noted that Sweeney-Miran disclosed her participation in the lawsuit and agreed to drop out if she became appointed to the oversight panel.

Williams also accused Douglas of failing to speak to any oversight panel members, failing to properly research some of the terms and movements Sweeney-Miran referenced on social media, and misquoting or misrepresenting statements by Sweeney-Miran.

The response also notes removing Sweeney-Miran would harm the integrity of the oversight panel.

"Three members of the Police Oversight Panel resigned last year, largely because they were being silenced. ... Removal of Ms. Sweeney-Miran would only exacerbate the problem of panelists feeling that their voices are being silenced, further undermining the panel's work and effectiveness."

Williams also wrote, "A good-faith difference in judgment is not a code of conduct violation," and that treating it as such would open the city up to countless code violation allegations.

"The code of conduct was never designed to create a way for every conceivable city decision to be challenged by literally anyone in the city, prompting a lengthy and expensive investigation each time any Boulderite believes the Council or a board made the wrong decision on something," the response read.

"Indeed, the risk posed by the Council sustaining the special counsel's findings and recommendations is that it creates a precedent that every and any decision made by Council or a board or commission is subject to second-guessing by any disgruntled resident, to be resolved based on the views of an unelected special counsel appointed by the city attorney. That is at odds with the fundamental purpose of having a code of conduct, and threatens the orderly functioning of city business."