Most members of the Santa Fe Ethics and Campaign Review Board are refusing to decide whether a city councilor violated ethics rules because they believe they're too close to both parties to remain impartial.

That leaves just two people to figure out whether City Councilor Rebecca Wurzburger broke the rules the way former City Councilor Karen Heldmeyer says she did.

Patricio Larragoite, a dentist and former Santa Fe County commissioner, and Fred Friedman, a retired state transit planner, are now tasked to consider a complaint Heldmeyer filed this spring. Four board members announced that they were recusing themselves from the matter.

Fred Rowe, who chairs the board, said he couldn't participate because he was appointed to the ethics board by Wurzburger and had subsequently worked closely with Heldmeyer on neighborhood law issues.

"I am not convinced that I can muster the requisite impartial objectivity which a case of this complexity warrants," Rowe said, noting a board rule calls for members to recuse themselves if they are in doubt about their ability to remain unbiased.

Member Rebecca Frenkel, a civic activist with the League of Women Voters, said she couldn't participate because Heldmeyer was a friend, and member Ruth Kovnat, an attorney, said she had given political support to both parties. Member Nancy Long, another lawyer, also told Rowe that she planned to recuse herself, but then was unable to attend a Thursday meeting.

Even though they said they would opt out of discussion, both Kovnat and Frenkel made motions about how to proceed with consideration of the complaint.

"If it's important enough for someone to bring it up, my opinion is that it ought to be considered," said Frenkel, who voted along with Larragoite to refer the complaint to a subcommittee that consists of the members who hadn't recused themselves.

Kovnat wanted the board to table the matter and refer it to a new ethics board scheduled to convene July 1 under the terms of a revised city Code of Ethics adopted by the City Council in April.

Heldmeyer alleges that Wurzburger violated the city ethics code by using services, personnel or equipment for personal benefit, convenience or profit. Issues she raised involve Wurzburger's fledgling consulting business on creative tourism, the councilor's involvement with a 2008 conference the city hosted on the topic and Wurzburger's official travel to international destinations.

Heldmeyer argues that marketing for Wurzburger's consulting business inappropriately refers to trips she took on the city's dime and other endeavors that received city funding.

In response, Wurzburger wrote the board that the complaint "is so entirely lacking in factual or legal support that it is clearly brought for purpose of attempting to harass and intimidate."

The board's of review of the complaint has been complicated already.

Last month, the board met briefly but members had questions about whether the recent revisions to the city ethics ordinance had removed the powers of sitting members.

City attorney Geno Zamora wrote in a memo that the board was legally permitted to make decisions. He also opined that once a quorum is declared, members may recuse themselves from voting on an agenda item and the majority of other members shall decide any questions. No city rule prevents a two-member committee of the whole from making a decision, but they would have to agree to be considered " a majority." The next board meeting is scheduled for June 2.

Contact Julie Ann Grimm at 986-3017 or jgrimm@sfnewmexican.com.