A resolution authorizing and approving the expenditure and payment from the appropriation account designated “liability claims,” the total sum of Thirty-Eight Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-Seven Dollars and Thirteen Cents ($38,457.13), to be issued as follows: Twenty Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($20,000.00), payable to Lindsay Krajewski & Robert J. Potrykus, Esq. and Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-Seven Dollars and Thirteen Cents, ($18,457.13) to American Family Insurance as Subrogee of John Krajewski, in full payment and satisfaction of all claims related to Claim Number 2019.0610 and Claim Number 2019.0573. Settles a claim involving the Denver Police Department. This item was approved for filing at the Mayor-Council meeting on 7-14-20.
I believe, to answer this question. We have up. I'm not sure. I don't think we're sharing our screen yet. I believe we had a go ahead location. You said seven or seven and on 569, are we going to do the 569 or seven or seven? You know what? We have 707 cushioned in here between. So it's before 569. Awesome. Yeah. Well, then I will ask the questions on seven or seven. And if our city attorney is here, there were comments, public comments that spoke to this particular one tonight. And I and I know that we don't traditionally speak about settlement agreements on the floor. And so I'm wondering if the city attorney can do a little public education for us right now and explain what is possible with these particular settlement agreements. Do council members actually get to ever decide where the money comes from and what happens if we vote no against these settlement agreements? Thank you for your questions, Councilwoman. We need to have Connor Farley. Raise your hand in the attendees. He's our representative from the city attorney's office. And so, Connor, if you would, please raise your hand and we can get you into the panelist queue. Oh, okay. I guess we have Kirsten Crawford is going to answer instead. Hello, Kirsten. Good evening, everybody. Yes. So we are mandated by law in this particular situation to pay the traffic accident, as Councilman Flynn pointed out, and then Councilman, sit back. I may have missed your other question. What was the second question? Can you? So we had public comments addressing these settlements. And we want I would like you to do a little public education about what power and authority city council has to vote these down or to decide where the money comes from. Oh, so council members, of course, can vote yes or no on almost any matter. In particular, this one. And then this is before council members, because it's a payment out of the claims and liability fund. And there is a threshold amount in our city code that requires council approval. So the claims and liability fund is. Can you can you explain? How that works. Who sets that aside and how much it is every year that would be controlled through the budget process, which, as you know, council members have quite a bit of authority over the budget process. So if council members wanted to vote no against settlement agreements with any entity, whether it's DPD or sheriff or whomever. Can they vote? Can they vote no on a settlement agreement? And could they could they say what fund it would have to come from? You can vote no on this proposed settlement. I can think of examples where a proposed settlement might come with some court's obligations, and then establishing where the money comes from is not something Council can unilaterally decide outside the budgetary process. So the answer is no. You can't say where the money will come from to pay the the amount. And so our settlement agreements by the city offered. Contingent upon our approval. Or do they. Okay, got it. Awesome. Thank you. Just wanted to make sure that we are all on the same page about that. You bet. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We've got a few more council members in the queue. We have Councilman Hines. Mr. President. Miss Crawford, I, i i'm not sure I heard the answer to the question. If we vote no, what happens? So the this you know, I don't want to get into the terms of this particular settlement agreement as a general proposition. If a settlement agreement comes to council, it has a provision that is contingent on council approval. In general, if we vote no, does it go back to the attorneys or there's just no settlement dollars or I mean. I guess. I'm. I'm. I'm. I think I have unmuted again. Is it? Can you hear me? Yes. So you here hear? The answer to that question is, you know, kind of case by case specific. But I would expect that in this particular situation, there would be more negotiations by attorneys involved. The one thing I know about this particular situation is it's largely personal injury and traffic accidents are largely driven by state statute. Okay. Thank you, Mrs. Crawford. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. It is a little painful to listen to in the briefings that we got. What would happen is, if we were to reject this, then the attorneys for the plaintiff, for the the other part, the other party involved would have the option then of going to court. If this isn't already in court and file a lawsuit and if they won, then we'd have to pay out of the same fund where this money is coming from tonight. So. I guess I just wanted to leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman. We have Councilwoman Canete. Jump. Thank you. Two questions, I think so. We've established that this is an automobile accident. This is not a use of force case, generally speaking. Ms.. Crawford, if you can talk for a minute about if there's any differences between the police department and, for example, a public works situation. So we have city employees driving vehicles on the city's behalf and a number of departments. To your knowledge, is anything being treated differently here as it would another city driver. Who. Perhaps caused property damage and or injuries in the course of their work for the city? No, not to my knowledge. And I know Connor from litigation and Wendy Shay from the director of litigation are available if they need to correct me or correct the record. But I do want to caution everybody, let's be careful about getting into, you know, having discussions about the terms of the settlement publicly. But no. To answer your question, no. I just want to like Councilman Flynn, I want to establish generally that we as a city, if our employees hurt someone in a car accident on duty, there are limits to city's liability in state law. But we are responsible to make those individuals whole through an insurance settlement or through insurance, just like any other driver, if they cause an. Act is responsible. Correct? Absolutely. So this is a general proposition that if we cause some harm. So one thing I would say is if this settlement is an approved, potentially the person who is impacted in this accident is not compensated. Correct. That is one potential outcome. Right. Pending pending a trial or whatever may happen in court. The second thing I wanted to ask and again, this is a general proposition our city employees in any way exempt from traffic enforcement in terms of ticketing for if they're going unsafe. Some accidents are unintentional and no one did anything wrong and no tickets are issued. But in your experience, generally speaking, can city employees be ticketed for their driving? In terms of the official driver's license points system and and those types of citations. Generally speaking, city employees can be subject to those. Can you confirm? Yes. That's correct. And then in addition, can you just confirm generally that we have disciplinary systems as well where whether there is or is not a ticket involved in a law enforcement setting, that in addition, there could be disciplinary action or other general actions. Yes. Yes. And all of those proceedings are separate and apart from the personal injury or property damage settlement. Right. So I just I think that's important for folks to understand that no one, as an individual driver, if the accident was their fault, if they violated the law, if they did something wrong, is being protected in any way from those consequences. This is simply about city vehicles, injured, party making them whole, which you know again and even in our police accountability conversations I just this is a comment now even if you think about 217 the state bill, it does two things. It makes law enforcement officers partially liable for their own actions in terms of use of force, but it actually expands the liability for their actions as well to ensure that cities remain liable for the actions of their officers. And that is, you know, in order to ensure that we have a really high motivation to ensure that good things are happening on our watch and not bad things. And so I just want to clarify that nothing about making the victim of a car accident whole, is it all contrary to the idea of accountability for those who may be harmed in a car accident, whether it's their property or their person? So that was just a comment about why, of course, I'll be supporting this as a general proposition. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Madam President. I see my colleagues getting excited and just want to tell you, simmer down. I did not call this out for a vote. I called it out for questions because we had public comment about it. And I think it's important for us to be able to explain to the public what pieces of settlement and group agreements are disclosed to the public. And perhaps that's something that Kirsten could add right here. What are we allowed to disclose to the public during the set of some settlement agreement of any type? Right now, we've said that it's for a car accident. But if this was for if this was for use of force, what level of detail is available to the public when we're spending public dollars? You know, that is something I would really probably have to defer to my litigation team. So much of what is protected and what's, you know, what information can be waived by the client is is so facts and says so specific. And so if you want to give some time to let the litigation team jump on and and talk about that. But the reason the law provides for confidentiality and privilege is that, you know, it gives parties the opportunity to expose themselves in a way that will, you know, sometimes show the compromises and the weaknesses. And so it's to generate efficiency in the system. So but I don't I it's been a while. I have done a fair share of litigation, but it's been years now. So I will give the litigation team a time to jump on if we need more. I will tell you that I have been in communication with Connor and he did. I do want to correct the record that this would not come back. There would not be additional negotiations. It will go proceed to trial. And with our settlement agreements themselves available to the public in any case. But generally speaking, with certain redactions for private information, payments for settlement are subject to call once they're finalized. Got it. Thank you very much. That's it from my questions. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. Next up, Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screen. Well, I guess that's old language. Look at it on your own screens, everybody. But Councilmember Herndon, would you please put Council Resolution 569 on the floor for adoption, please?