During last night's city council meeting, attorneys made their case on whether council should move forward with the contested case hearing to determine whether or not Councilman Craig Hedquist has a conflict of interest.
The meeting lasted several hours before councilmembers went into executive.
After Hearing Officer Sharon Rose recommended to council that they dismiss the case against Councilman Hedquist last week... Attorneys for both parties presented their cases last night to council on whether to proceed.
Council attorney Judy Studer and Patterson's attorney Wes Reeves say Rose misinterpreted the law.
"As she says, it's your decision and not hers. And reasonable minds differ on subjects like this. and so long as there is good faith and arguable basis on that decision, you should exercise that liberty.” said Reeves.
Both say council needs to move forward with the case. Councilmembers expressed a desire to see the issue come to a resolution.
Tom Valdez, who represents councilman Hedquist, argued council has no authority to initiate these proceedings and must be convicted of crimes to be removed from council. "Craig Hedquist was not convicted of these crimes and that is what is required by 2.64."
Councilmembers say the point of the hearing was never to remove Hedquist from office, but rather to address concerns that have been raised.
“Right wrong or indifferent, allegations have been made. as the council and as a governing body. You owe it to the electorate to investigate those charges. that has never been done. As Councilman Bertoglio indicated, it appears we have jumped over that to you can't do anything to him even if he is so just throw it out." said Councilman Steve Cathey.