A brief filed recently with the state Supreme Court challenges a 2005 appellate court ruling that former Des Moines City Councilman Gary Petersen was embroiled in a conflict of interest.

The “friend-of-the-court” brief by the state Auditor’s Office supports a petition for review filed by Citizens for Des Moines Inc. and Allan Furney of Des Moines, who filed suit against Petersen in 2002.

Shortly before Petersen was sworn into office in January 2003, questions were raised by then-City Manager Bob Olander and then-City Attorney Gary McLean about a possible conflict of interest involving Petersen and his business, Pete’s Towing.

At the time Petersen joined the Des Moines council, Pete’s Towing had routinely provided for several decades towing services for the police and other departments when vehicles needed to be removed from city streets and property.

Despite demands that he resign, Petersen refused to resign from the council and maintained emphatically that he had no conflict of interest in serving on the council while owning his towing business.

Furney and his citizens group then filed suit against Petersen, seeking his removal from office for the alleged conflict of interest.

King County Superior Court Judge Laura Gene Middaugh eventually held that Petersen was in violation of the state’s conflict-of-interest law governing local elected officials.

Middaugh also found the city of Des Moines was at fault for not having a contract with Pete’s Towing.

However, she noted that neither state law nor prior court decisions offered direction in this case and encouraged Petersen to appeal.

He did, and in a 12-page opinion issued in February 2005 a three-judge Court of Appeals panel rejected unanimously the conflict of interest claims against Petersen.

Furney and Citizens for Des Moines are asking the Supreme Court to reverse the appellate court ruling, find Petersen in violation of state law and impose appropriate penalties.

However, Petersen, who was elected in November 2001, lost his bid for re-election last fall. He was defeated by former Councilwoman Carmen Scott.

The Auditor’s Office, together with the state Attorney General’s Office which prepared the brief, supports conclusions reached in early 2002 by Olander and McLean.

Attorneys general representing the auditor argued in their brief that the Supreme Court should review this case to determine “whether vehicle impounds can be the subject of a ‘contract’” as defined by state municipal law, and whether a conflict of interest exists even if a councilman “disqualifies himself from decisions regarding a contract” under that statute.

Their brief claims the Court of Appeals ruling “incorrectly states that disqualification [by a councilman] is a remedy” from a conflict of interest in a situation like Petersen’s.

“The Des Moines City Council had the discretion to select a towing company through a formal contracting process or to continue its unwritten practice of its [police] officers calling Pete’s Towing for that service,” the brief continues.

“Councilman Petersen, therefore, had a prohibited beneficial interest in contracts within the meaning” of state law.

In addition, the Auditor’s Office, which audits local governments for compliance with state laws, argues that Petersen benefited from an arrangement under municipal supervision that should have been governed by a contract.