An annual $300 limit on meals and event tickets a Denver City Council member could accept from a company doing business with the city may be too low compared to current prices, one councilman said at the Council’s third meeting to discuss ethics code changes proposed by Councilman Kevin Flynn.

The Finance and Governance Committee delayed action on Flynn’s proposed ordinance amending the city code until Jan. 17, 2017, after the most recent discussion included Councilman Paul Lopez‘s belief that the $300 limit was an inappropriate amount.

“It’s one thing if it’s someone who’s bidding on a city contract, that doesn’t pass the smell test,” Lopez said, and should be turned down. “But it would be easy to hit that $300 limit with some very benign events. And I have a hard time remembering if we’ve ever had a violation on any kind of rule like this.”

Lopez also felt the monetary limit should be based on “our realities, not California’s,” and wondered if Flynn’s proposed limit was premature.

Flynn noted many major cities have similar limits or those that are lower than $300, including the state of Colorado.

Councilwoman Mary Beth Susman pointed out a Council member could use money from their own budgets to purchase such tickets.

“It’s odd that it would be OK if I use taxpayer money, then I could go,” she said. “But if I don’t use taxpayer money, I might not be able to go. That might not play well in headlines.”

Flynn said the limits of $300 and four meals or events tickets per year would not apply to more public banquets or awards dinners, and a waiver provision is available that could be sought before an event a member of Council questioned. He also stressed the tickets would have to come directly from someone doing business with the city or who the council had some type of jurisdiction over in their dealings with the city.

“The entire ethics code is mostly concerned with the one-on-one influence, not the public meals and events,” Flynn said. “Things like meals with contractors or lobbyists are the ones we want to put limits on.”

Assistant City Attorney David Broadwell said if event tickets are offered to a council member by a nonprofit, they can be accepted and would count against the four-per-year limit.

“If there’s any indication the tickets come from one of the event sponsors and that sponsor does business with the city, there could be a problem,” Broadwell said.

Lopez and others also questioned Flynn’s proposal to ban the solicitation of donations for the city or charitable groups by Council members, if the person or entity being solicited holds “or reasonably could be anticipated to apply for a contractual relationship to the city,” and if the Council member exercises “official action” over the person or entity being solicited. The change is to avoid the appearance of “quid pro quo” for making charitable donations.

“I think the problem with undue influence of elected officials happens when we accept corporate campaign donations, not in the day-to-day stuff,” Lopez said. “That’s where we need to see a change.”

Also discussed was aligning Flynn’s bill with a recently approved measure regarding financial disclosure reporting. That bill awaits final approved by Council. Councilwoman Robin Kniech said she would like to amend the measure to require the reporting of all gifts received, no matter the amount. Currently, there is a $50 threshold amount for reporting gifts.

“I think that just makes it the cleanest, easiest way to do it and it’s the most common practice in other cities,” Kniech added.

Other changes in Flynn’s bill adds to the conflict of interest section of the ethics code to include immediate family members who are board members of a group that does business with the city, and the bill would ban the acceptance of cash or gift cards of any amount – instead of a $25 threshold- from a restricted source.

Flynn’s proposal would also add second-degree family relations, such as aunt, uncle, niece and nephew, along with first-degree in-laws, like parents, siblings and children in-law, to those considered first-degree or immediate family members. All such relations would be taken into account in cases of conflict of interest, gifts, supervision of family members and the use of public office for private gain violations.

Another change would set up an ethics board member nominating commission and process, taking that role out of the hands of the Council. Flynn said under the current code, “We select our own judge” to hear any potential code violations.

“I think it would help instill public confidence that the work we do is done without any undue influence,” he added.