The Santa Fe city Code of Ethics would feature new definitions of what "recusal" means as well as other provisions intended to clear up apparent confusion over proper behavior for elected officials.

The city Ethics and Rules Committee met Tuesday for its annual review of the municipal rule and asked City Attorney Geno Zamora to craft language for potential amendments the group wants to consider over the next year.

The board, comprised of two city councilors and five members of the public, briefly discussed the recent revelation that Councilor Matthew Ortiz — also a board member — has represented a client in his private legal practice and voted on city contracts for that business without making their relationship public.

Ortiz said Tuesday that he continues to believe he complied with the code, but in light of media attention, the board might want to consider "heightened language regarding disclosure" and stricter requirements about when an official should recuse him or herself and how.

In some Finance Committee meetings where his client Advantage Asphalt was bidding for contracts, Ortiz was not in the room for votes. Other times, he did not participate in discussions or cast a vote, but did preside over meetings and declared that contracts had been approved as the chairman. At City Council, he voted on "consent calendars" where Advantage contracts were among a long list of approved items.

On Tuesday, he read a definition of the word "recuse" from a dictionary and said by leaving the room during finance hearings, he had taken this action.

"I followed the Code of Ethics as it's been defined, as you see it in front of you," Ortiz said, "However, given the public comment that has been generated because of my situation, it seems to me like the media and certain members of the public want a broader definition of what is a recusal. They want an announcement, a pre-emptive announcement, of what a recusal is and they want that done, really when an agenda item is published."

The councilor said he was not raising the issue because he believed it should be changed, but because of the "public interest over the last eight days."

Although Ortiz has represented Advantage Asphalt since the summer of 2007, he told The New Mexican last week that he never told anyone at City Hall about the relationship because it would violate attorney/client privilege. In May, he told a reporter he was the company's attorney and gave a brief statement on behalf of the company when Santa Fe County officials said Advantage was involved in an investigation about alleged misdeeds.

Other members of the city Ethics and Rules Board said Tuesday that they want to pursue such language changes, including Sloan Cunningham, who said the board should spend time talking about how recusal should be announced, for example, whether it should be in writing or at the beginning of a meeting.

"I think, at this point, it needs to be very detailed," she said.

Jim Harrington, a lawyer and chairman of Common Cause New Mexico, is not on the board, but spoke as a member of the public and suggested making it more clear which city body has jurisdiction in handling alleged ethics complaints. Common Cause did not file a complaint against Ortiz, he said, because the law seems to have ambiguity and uncertainty regarding conflicts of interest.

"We think if a city councilor undertook paid representation of a new paying client that at that time was already a substantial and frequent city contractor and then didn't say anything about it and then voted on contracts for that firm — regardless of whether they were on the consent calendar or not — that would be very inappropriate and ought to be illegal under the city's code," Harrington said.

Harrington said the city Ethics and Campaign Review Board also appears to have some jurisdiction in the matter. That board, made up entirely of appointed members of the public, met last week. Its recent practice has been to only investigate a case if a formal written complaint is levied on a specific topic. No such complaints regarding Ortiz have been received to date by the city clerk.

Marilyn Bane, a Canyon Road resident, also attended the meeting Tuesday. She asked Ortiz to seek an "advisory opinion" from the city attorney about the situation and about two allegations of other conflicts involving other councilors that he made in a My View column published in Sunday's New Mexican.

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