top of page
Search

Movement on Ethics Investigations: First Case Dismissed, Second Set for Hearing

Updated: 7 hours ago

Summary: Arvada City Council has been investigating ethics complaints against Councilmember Sharon Davis since February 2026. On July 28, Council threw out the first complaint on a technicality and sent a second one toward a formal hearing. Even in a worst-case outcome, Davis can't be removed from office over this — the most she could face is a public censure and a fine capped at one month of her council pay (less than $1,700). Council will finalize both decisions in writing on August 18; a date for the actual hearing hasn't been announced yet.



At a July 28, 2026 special meeting, Arvada City Council took action on two pending ethics investigations involving Councilmember Sharon Davis, dismissing one and setting the other for a formal hearing.


Background

The first investigation stems from Davis's conduct related to the Welby Gardens/Avalon Bay housing development, a project that came before the Planning Commission and City Council for a quasi-judicial vote earlier this year. Councilmembers are required to remain impartial ahead of such hearings under the Arvada Code of Ethics.


Before the vote

Ahead of the executive session where Council received legal advice on next steps, Davis spoke publicly about the toll the process had taken, telling her colleagues:


"This has been going on for almost six months, people. I mean, this — it seems like we're spending a lot of resources in time and money on something that probably could have been a conversation between us."


She also raised concerns about being kept apart from the substance of the investigations while it moved forward: "I am concerned that I have not received anything regarding these investigations to which I can respond to... The only thing I've had are the meetings with the investigator."


What happened July 28

Special counsel Corey Hoffman told Council that two investigations, dated April 13, 2026 and July 13, 2026, had been completed. Davis was recused from the vote on next steps and left the dais.


Hoffman outlined the process for Council: "The process under the Code of Ethics is to have an initial investigation by a disinterested third party to determine whether it is more likely than not that a violation may have occurred... If council were to find that a violation is more likely than not to have occurred, it has the opportunity to set the matter for a hearing. If council determines it is more likely than not that a violation did not occur, then this is the opportunity for council to dismiss such a violation."


Councilmember Griffith asked whether the investigations' findings had been shared with the public or with Davis, Hoffman said: "It is not. It is confidential attorney client privilege communication at this point." On whether Davis or her counsel had seen the findings, he said: "To my knowledge, it has not. She has been notified of the existence of the investigations and participated in the investigations."


Council then voted 6-0 twice:


  • To direct special counsel to draft a resolution finding that, due to a "technical deficiency" in the Arvada Code of Ethics, the April 13 matter should be dismissed — concluding it was more likely than not that Davis did not violate the code's conflict-of-interest provision.

  • To direct special counsel to draft a resolution finding it more likely than not that a violation did occur in the July 13 matter, and setting that matter for a formal hearing.


Before the vote, Davis read a statement on the record expressing frustration with the length of the process, calling it "a six month long road" and saying it had made it difficult for her "to serve you, the public and staff in an efficient and trustful way."


What's actually at stake

Both motions cited the same code provision: Section 2-375, "Restrictions on conduct," of the Arvada Code of Ethics. It's a broad section covering 13 separate categories of prohibited conduct for city officers — among them, misuse of confidential information, accepting substantial gifts, using one's office to grant special treatment to a citizen, and ex parte communications on quasi-judicial matters. Neither Council's public discussion nor the resolutions read into the record specified which of the 13 provisions the investigations focused on.


The code also sets a firm ceiling on what can happen even if a violation is found. Under Section 2-381, a proven violation of Section 2-375 can result in:


  • A verbal admonition, if the conduct was unintentional;

  • A written reprimand, if the conduct was negligent; or

  • Censure and/or a fine of up to one month of the officer's council pay, if the conduct was intentional ($1,666.67/month).


Critically, the code states outright: "A conviction, arbitration, or entry of judgment... of a violation of section 2-375 shall not be grounds for removal pursuant to this Code." Regardless of how the pending hearing on the July 13 matter concludes, removal from office is not among the possible outcomes.


Where things stand now

Both resolutions are scheduled to be formally considered at Council's August 18, 2026 meeting. The July 13 matter will then proceed toward a hearing under the Code of Ethics' hearing procedures.


Arvada Voices has submitted several Colorado Open Records Act requests seeking additional documentation — including records on when Council received investigation-related materials, the costs of outside counsel and the investigations to date, and materials related to potential penalties and hearing procedures. We'll report further as those records come in, and again following the August 18 meeting.



Sources:


Disclosures: Karen DeAguero, an Arvada Voices founder and board member who is currently a candidate for Adams County Commissioner, was not involved in the reporting, writing, or editing of this story.

Comments

bottom of page