A Santa Fe city councilor on Monday formally leveled charges of unethical conduct against another councilor.

Councilor Miguel Chavez delivered documents to the city clerk alleging that Councilor Matthew Ortiz failed to disclose a conflict of interest.

Ortiz, an attorney by occupation, has been publicly criticized for not telling other members of the City Council or the general public that one of his clients contracted to do work for city.

Although the complaint doesn't spell out that situation, Ortiz issued a statement Monday afternoon saying he presumes the complaint is related to his representation of Advantage Asphalt and Seal Coating.

The company has been the subject of a Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office investigation regarding its dealings with the county, but the city hasn't uncovered any problems with Advantage, and officials just last week awarded the company a new contract for city work.

During the more than two years since he took on the company as a client, Ortiz presided over meetings of the city Finance Committee at which the company was discussed and other times voted on a list of items that included contracts with Advantage. Ortiz has maintained that he didn't violate any rules.

Chavez's complaint was filed at the same time as an identical complaint by Alfred Flatt. Both complaint forms appear to have been handwritten by Flatt, although they contain a typed attachment that lists nine instances in which Advantage contracts were discussed at public meetings and Ortiz was not forthcoming about his relationship to the company.

Chavez said he filed the complaint along with Flatt so that "he wouldn't be out there on his own by himself."

Chavez said much of the public discourse about the issue has revolved around the question of whether a city committee needs a formal complaint in order to begin an investigation of a potential ethics violation.

"People were asking when someone would file a complaint and who would file it," Chavez said.

One issue has been whether Ortiz had a duty to announce that he was recusing himself from discussions about the company or whether by not actively participating in discussions he effectively recused himself. The councilor has represented the firm since 2007.

Following newspaper reports about the issue, several policymakers proposed amendments to the city ethics code that would specify that recusals must be made in an affirmative manner, in writing or orally at the time of the meeting.

"As I have stated before, I have not participated in any meaningful manner in any contract awarded to Advantage by the city," Ortiz wrote in a statement issued to news media Monday afternoon. "I have actually removed myself from every discussion of every contract that was properly and lawfully awarded to my client. I will continue to actually recuse myself, by not being present during discussion or vote on matter, unless and until the ethics ordinance is amended."

Ortiz also jabbed at Chavez, questioning whether Chavez should vote on matters regarding his wife's employer, Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center, and writing that he believes Chavez took the action regarding the complaint "for no other reason than to gain publicity for himself by disparaging me."

"I feel sorry for Miguel Chavez that he feels he has to take this action in order to remain relevant," Ortiz wrote. "Miguel is politically isolated on the governing body, he has been absent from committee meetings, when in attendance at meetings he has been increasingly shrill and bitter, and he has been ineffective in introducing and passing any initiatives over the past four years."

Chavez, who ran unsuccessfully for mayor earlier this year, doesn't deny that he's been a loner on the City Council lately. At last week's City Council meeting, for example, he cast the sole vote against the new Advantage contract. He said he's isolated not because he's irrelevant, but because he is "not part of the clique."

In an earlier interview, Chavez said that even the perception that there could be a conflict of interest on the council is bad for elected officials.

"I think it would have been right and fair for him to have disclosed months or years ago that this was his client," Chavez said of Ortiz in June. "In the name of open government and being transparent, I think it would have been really the right thing for Councilor Ortiz to do."

Chavez also noted that he is not the only member of the council to miss committee hearings; Ortiz was absent from Monday's Finance Committee meeting. Chavez also said that he had informed other councilors that his wife worked for the hospital before voting on any matters related to the hospital.

City rules allow the subject of a complaint 10 business days to offer a written response. A meeting of the Ethics and Campaign Review Board will be scheduled in about two weeks to review both the complaint and any response, said Fred Rowe, board chairman.

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