The year was 1995, when then-mayor Wellington Webb made a comeback victory against challenger Mary DeGroot.

In 2019, Mayor Michael Hancock is hoping that history will keep repeating itself. Tuesday is the conclusion of the runoff election between him and challenger Jamie Giellis.

A comparison of the two elections shows what’s changed — and what hasn’t — in the city of Denver.

“A lot of people are comparing it to ‘95, saying that was the last really ugly negative mayor’s race. There’s some obvious analogies,” said Eric Sondermann, a political consultant who worked with DeGroot in the 1995 election. But there are some crucial differences, he warned.

RELATED: Denver mayoral race: Jamie Giellis and Michael Hancock on the issues

DeGroot, a former councilwoman, beat Webb by about 100 votes in the first round, setting off a runoff sprint that shared several narrative beats with the 2019 runoff between Hancock and Giellis.

Like Giellis, DeGroot’s support was strongest in the affluent neighborhoods of south and east Denver. And, like Hancock, Webb’s supporters tried to portray the challenger as out-of-touch with black and Latino neighborhoods. (Much of the criticism focused on DeGroot’s stance against race-based affirmative action, a policy that Giellis does not share.)

Webb won the runoff by 8 percentage points, apparently benefiting from improved turnout in black and Latino neighborhoods. “We had to beat the bushes to make sure that people would then turn back out for the second election,” Webb said. He thinks that his supporters stayed home from the first vote because they expected an easy victory.

There’s a difference this year.

Webb believes that Hancock faces a fundamentally more difficult situation propelled by an anti-incumbent mood. Members of the former mayor’s close staff and supporters have worked for Giellis and other challengers this cycle, but Webb himself is a staunch Hancock supporter.

“I think this race is much nastier — much more animosity towards Hancock that is not based on issues,” he said.

Giellis has aligned a “unity ticket,” with the endorsements of two former rivals, Lisa Calderón, who is black and Latina, and Penfield Tate, who is black. Together, they represented about 58 percent of the first-round vote.

“I think they have helped round Jamie out substantially,” said C.L. Harmer, a Hancock supporter who worked on the Webb ’95 campaign. Helped along by the endorsements, Giellis has won support from black and Latino voters who feel excluded or harmed by Hancock’s handling of gentrification and development.

Giellis also has criticized Hancock’s handling of race: At a Denver Post debate, she brought up Hancock’s alleged use of a meme in a 2012 text conversation with Detective Leslie Branch-Wise. The meme featured a picture of a dancing baby and a racial slur.

Giellis said it was Hancock said he didn’t use the word and didn’t remember sending the meme.

On the other side, a recent pro-Hancock ad features repeated clips of Giellis saying, “I come from a place of white privilege,” complete with sinister music and visual overlays, turning what was supposed to be a field-leveling acknowledgment into evidence of supposed ignorance. (It also rehashed her fumble on the full name of the “NAACP” and her “Chinatown” tweet from 2009.)

If Calderón and Tate’s voters break heavily for Giellis, Hancock will need an influx of new voters to survive. As of Saturday, this year’s runoff election turnout is trending about 4 percent higher than the general election in May, but it’s not clear who will benefit.

DeGroot, who could not be reached for comment for this article, and Giellis have shared a few pages of the playbook, too. Both challengers alleged corruption and cronyism, and they harangued the administration for problematic mega-projects. Both incumbents responded by pointing out that their challengers hadn’t run large organizations.

Within weeks, the ’95 race turned so negative that Webb himself said at the time that he might choose “none of the above” if it were an option.

This year has introduced another major new factor. Hancock admitted last year to sending sexually themed text messages to Branch-Wise in 2012. And he dug himself deeper in the final debate, when he said that the audience hadn’t seen “the back-and-forth conversation that occurred.” He apologized the next day, saying that he misspoke.

While DeGroot downplayed gender, Giellis has alleged that city hall has a culture of sexual harassment, and she promised that her collaborative leadership style could do better.

Meanwhile, Hancock has spent more time on offense than Webb, according to Sondermann.

“Yes, there were attacks against DeGroot, there was racial politics played, but Webb basically defended his record,” he said. “With Hancock, I just don’t see much defense. I just see them going all in on the scorched earth.”

The vitriol of 2019 also is fueled by new factors, he noted: social media, independent expenditure and much more money. Independent groups funded by developers have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars against Giellis in recent weeks, although she’s also had some independent support.

In 1995, the two candidates spent $1.5 million (that would be $2.5 million in today’s dollars); this year, they were nearing $3.5 million in total fundraising as of May 30, and Hancock had a 4-to-1 advantage.

It’s been enough to leave voters disenchanted. Said Sondermann: “In ’95, there was no sense around the city that somehow neither one of them was up to it — that somehow the city’s in trouble no matter which one wins.”

The mayor’s statement came out shortly before the officer, Denver police Detective Leslie Branch-Wise, spoke out at a news conference alongside mayoral challenger Jamie Giellis, charging that Hancock was “blatantly telling additional lies.”

Last year, Hancock apologized after Branch-Wise released a series of text messages he sent to her in 2012, during his first year in office. But they disagreed about whether the texts amounted to harassment.

Asked why during a Denver Post-hosted debate Tuesday night, Hancock suggested the released exchanges didn’t include some of Branch-Wise’s comments: “When you see the texts from Detective Branch-Wise, you see my texts,” he said, prompting outcries from the crowd. “The reason I said it wasn’t sexual harassment is because you don’t see the back-and-forth conversation that occurred.”

“It’s clear to me that the mayor is blatantly telling additional lies,” Branch-Wise said at Giellis’ campaign headquarters in south Denver.

“I have nothing to hide and nothing to prove,” Branch-Wise added, challenging the mayor to bring forth any inappropriate text messages written by her. She said some apparent gaps in the text chains were pauses prompted by her shock at what the mayor had written.

Hancock had complimented Branch-Wise’s dress and appearance in some of the texts and asked in another why women take pole-dancing classes. In one, he wrote that Branch-Wise “(makes) it hard on a brotha to keep it correct.”

In his Wednesday statement, Hancock said: “I misspoke last night in a heated debate, and I want to apologize. The most important thing in all of this is that my behavior seven years ago was unacceptable and inappropriate. There is no justification for it, and it����ap something I am deeply sorry for.”

Branch-Wise provided a copy of the hand-written apology letter sent to her by Hancock in early 2018. She said the letter didn’t refer to any of her own text messages or the role of any back-and-forth conversation.

Hancock’s new statement said he understood that “the power dynamic between an employer and employee puts a special responsibility on the person in charge to make sure their interactions and communications with subordinates are professional.”

Giellis last week called a news conference to decry the “culture of sexual harassment” at city hall. She reiterated that point Wednesday and said: “I believe Leslie.”

On Wednesday afternoon, seeking to rebut Giellis’ claims, Hancock’s campaign issued signed by more than two dozen current and former female appointees. The letter said “the rampant mischaracterization of our workplace by the mayor’s opponent is insulting to the highly skilled, experienced and qualified professional women who have chosen careers in public service in collaboration with and under the leadership of Mayor Hancock.”

Branch-Wise, who had not spoken publicly about the election , said she is supporting Giellis in Tuesday’s runoff.

Giellis accused Hancock of waffling on what sexual harassment is.

“The mayor continues to blame the victim,” Giellis said. “… If he hasn’t learned, perhaps he continues to do it to others.”

She and Branch-Wise were joined by former candidates Lisa Calderón and Penfield Tate, who both have endorsed Giellis.

It energized his critics and spurred calls by activists for his resignation, even as Hancock apologized. In the fallout, both the City Council and Hancock’s own office adopted new harassment policies for public officials.

As Hancock seeks his third term in a June 4 runoff with challenger Jamie Giellis, the issue has faded from the forefront. But plenty of voters haven’t forgotten.

“How is he supposed to lead when he’s not even taking responsibility for what he did?” said Hillary Potter, 49, an ethnic studies professor who lives in Clayton, citing Hancock’s unwillingness to label the texts sexual harassment. “I never really made a decision where he should step down because of it … but I knew we had this election coming up.”

Some political observers, and even Hancock’s own supporters, speculate that the scandal may be among the reasons he fell well short of 50 percent in the first-round election May 7. There hasn’t been any public polling on the issue.

“Anecdotally, it����ap still out there and he’s still paying a price,” political analyst Eric Sondermann said. “He might have been headed to a runoff in any event, but that might have been the difference between a runoff … with very little ground to make up, versus a very underperforming 39 percent.”

Several voters interviewed by The Denver Post in recent weeks expressed discomfort with Hancock based on the scandal. But that doesn’t mean all have come to the same conclusions — especially as they weigh the two runoff candidates and their views on other issues.

Giellis stepped up her attempts to seize on the issue Tuesday, citing several sexual harassment-related city payouts during a news conference. She said a “culture of sexual harassment in city hall” starts with Hancock.

Texts released amid #MeToo movement

The series of text messages from 2012 came to light in February 2018 when Denver7 broadcast an interview with Leslie Branch-Wise. Now a Denver police detective, she said the recent national spotlight on treatment of women by men in power had given her the confidence to come forward.

In the texts from his first year in office, Hancock complimented Branch-Wise’s dress and appearance. In one, he asked her why women take pole-dancing classes. In another, he said she “(makes) it hard on a brotha to keep it correct.”

Branch-Wise didn’t file a harassment claim against Hancock back then, but she did pursue a claim alleging harassing conduct by an aide to the mayor around the same time. She has connected the texts to her receipt of a $75,000 settlement for the harassment claim involving the aide, but city attorneys have disputed that contention.

For his part, Hancock said in his frequent apologies that he had acted “too casual and too familiar” with Branch-Wise.

Few politicians abandoned Hancock, helping him to recover. In the last week, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Denver, tweeted their endorsements of Hancock — though prompted a barrage of responses bringing up Hancock’s scandal.

Hancock’s campaign organized a “Women for Hancock” event for Wednesday afternoon that was set to feature community leaders and supporters including his wife, Mary Louise Lee; Wilma Webb, a former state legislator and Denver first lady; state Rep. Leslie Herod; and Denver Public Schools board members Angela Cobian and Barbara O’Brien.

Campaign volunteers have faced questions about the scandal from voters on doorsteps, but Hancock downplays the frequency the issue comes up.

He said he once broached the subject himself while speaking at a women’s event — addressing a likely elephant in the room — but rarely has been asked about it, suggesting to him that voters are more focused on quality-of-life issues.

“I’m happy to continue answering questions about it,” Hancock said in an interview, citing his philosophy: “You are judged as much by your responses to circumstances as the mistakes you have made.”

But Potter isn’t the only voter who has found Hancock’s responses lacking.

Chase Middaugh, 37, compared Hancock’s decision not to admit to harassment with his disappointment over what he saw as the mayor’s tepid responses to the way gentrification has forced longtime residents out of some neighborhoods.

“If you’re going to be a leader of a city like Denver that����ap growing and changing, especially at a time when so much is changing economically and culturally, you should not … just play things safe,” said Middaugh, a graphic designer who lives in City Park West.

After supporting Hancock’s re-election in 2015, Middaugh backed Lisa Calderón, a vocal critic of Hancock’s conduct, in this month’s election; she came in third. Now Middaugh likely will support Giellis in the runoff — despite having misgivings, he said, over Giellis’ recent handling of a flap over racial and cultural issues.

Differing responses by voters

Potter, who at one time was a Hancock appointee on the Denver Civil Service Commission, said she couldn’t vote for Hancock because of the texting issue as well as dissatisfaction with his “irresponsible” approach to growth-related issues.

She supported Calderón but now is torn on Giellis, saying her only alternative is not voting in the mayor’s runoff. Her conundrum illustrates how for some voters, the calculus about their values gets more complex when faced with actual candidates.

Some sorted out their reactions to Hancock’s scandal early.

Amanda Caldwell, 36, said after casting her vote for Hancock on May 7 that the harassment issue was among those she weighed: “I just think it’s a very sticky situation, no matter what,” the Capitol Hill resident said. “You kind of have to set some of those things aside. I don’t know if it was anything so drastic to where it would kind of derail my vote.”

Laura “Pinky” Reinsch, a longtime Denver political activist, holds a stronger judgment about Hancock’s texts.

“I think any elected official should conduct themselves with integrity. Sexual harassment — that is not having integrity,” said Reinsch, 36.

Yet she now finds herself strongly considering something that was unthinkable a year ago: voting for Hancock.

After supporting musician and disability-rights activist Kalyn Heffernan, in the first round, she recoils at two runoff candidates who both have ties to developers.

Her reasoning for leaning toward Hancock: It would guarantee an open race in 2023, when term limits would prevent him from running again. By deferring, Reinsch hopes for the chance in four years to elect a progressive candidate she likes.

“I’ve been thinking about this a lot. I’m decided on every other runoff I get to vote in,” she said. “I guess I’m hugely concerned about the conduct of Hancock in regards to the sexual harassment. I’m also concerned about what I see as a lack of awareness of issues of race by Jamie.”

Staff writer Andrew Kenney contributed to this report.

Giellis went on the attack against Hancock, but she broadened the sexual-harassment frame to include several sexual harassment-related payouts involving other city employees, too.

“As your mayor, I will be implementing ethics reforms to end the culture of sexual harassment in city hall that is out of control under Michael Hancock,” Giellis said during a news conference at her campaign headquarters in south Denver.

Mail ballots went out to voters Monday for the June 4 runoff between Hancock and Giellis, who were the top two finishers in the May 7 election.

Hancock campaign spokesperson April Valdez Villa suggested Giellis was trying to distract from her own recent missteps involving racial and cultural issues.

“There’s nothing new in what she said today,” Valdez Villa wrote in an email. “The mayor has been completely transparent about this from Day 1 — from all settlement and legal costs to the strengthening of the city’s personnel and workplace policies and training. … Jamie is just trying to divert attention away from the serious misgivings voters are having about her inability and lack of qualifications to lead Denver forward.”

Giellis’ conference attempted to put more focus on the mayor’s acknowledgment early last year that he had sent a series of suggestive text messages to a security detail officer in 2012. He apologized to Detective Leslie Branch-Wise, who still worked for Denver police, but rejected her characterization of the conduct as sexual harassment.

Branch-Wise connected the mayor’s texts with her receipt of a $75,000 settlement for a separate harassment claim against a mayor’s aide in 2013, but city attorneys have disputed that contention.

A large chart displayed by Giellis of city payouts rooted in sexual harassment claims included Branch-Wise’s settlement and a separate $200,000 city payment to the aide, who had contested his firing after Branch-Wise brought her claim.

Other cases cited on the chart involved firefighters, and the chart’s $1.5 million total also included reported or estimated legal fees involving several cases.

Valdez Villa pointed out that in on Sunday, Giellis incorrectly characterized that same total as “the $1.5 million paid by Denver taxpayers to cover up Michael Hancock’s sexual indiscretions.”

The settlements, along with a jury award, have all been reported by Denver media.

On Tuesday, Giellis announced several reforms she would implement, including making details of sexual harassment claims “fully transparent” to the public. She also would ask the City Council to approve a measure requiring any city employee or appointee whose conduct results in a harassment payout to reimburse the city for the costs — similar to .

Hancock’s office confirmed the new policy Monday, just as the City Council adopted its own “respectful workplace” policy and a new censure rule for council members. The actions all were spurred by public reaction to a sexual harassment claim made against Hancock in February, when former security detail officer Leslie Branch-Wise revealed suggestive text messages sent to her by Hancock six years ago.

Hancock apologized to the Denver police officer, but the council decided against launching an outside investigation. In part, the episode revealed a lack of guidance from existing city policies for the handling of allegations of improper treatment involving the mayor.

The new Mayor’s Office Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation Policy, as well as an expanded anti-fraternization policy, took effect July 30. The prior harassment policy applied to employees and mayoral appointees, but the new one explicitly covers the mayor, too.

“Complaints against the mayor will be promptly investigated, as appropriate, by a third-party investigator retained by the City Attorney’s Office,” the policy reads. “The City Attorney’s Office will coordinate the investigation and make recommendations based on the results of the investigation.”

Since the mayor is elected, potential penalties still would be limited, and it’s unclear whether any reports would be made public. The city charter doesn’t grant the council the ability to censure the mayor, though it does allow for recall elections.

Similarly, reporting behavior by the top city official could be tricky, given the city’s power dynamics.

The policy urges employees who experience harassing behavior by the mayor or an appointee to speak to the person involved, if they’re comfortable doing so. If not, they are urged to report the behavior of an appointee up the chain of command or to human resources.

For harassment by the mayor, the policy says, employees should take the complaint to the mayor’s chief of staff, the city attorney or the executive director of human resources — all high-level officials, but the first two are direct mayoral appointees.

However, the new policy is intended to standardize the outlets for reporting inappropriate behavior.

“The mayor is proud to implement this new (workplace) policy, which will help ensure that all employees and appointees of this office work in an atmosphere of dignity, respect and equality,” chief of staff Alan Salazar wrote in a staff email last week.

While a claim against the mayor would go to an outside investigator under the policy, complaints involving appointees could be investigated either externally or by the Office of Human Resources.

The council’s separate “Respectful Workplace Policy” sets out a new complaint process for claims of discrimination, harassment or retaliation that involve council members, their staff members and council attorneys.

The city’s human resources office will handle complaints, and the policy says those filed against council members must be reviewed by outside investigators.

In a separate resolution, the council created a censure policy. For the first time, council members can be censured by their colleagues, or publicly shamed, for harassment or other violations of the council’s rules if at least 10 of the 13 members agree.

The council approved both measures in a block vote Monday night.

Document: the mayor’s office revised workplace conduct policy.

Document: the mayor’s office revised anti-fraternization policy.

Document: the City Council’s workplace conduct policy.

As advanced by a committee, the new rules would apply only to council members and the council’s employees and advisers. They wouldn’t apply to the mayor’s office, though a spokeswoman says separate workplace conduct policies are being formulated that would cover the elected offices of the mayor, auditor, clerk and recorder.

Under one of the council’s proposed policies, its members for the first time could be censured by their colleagues — amounting to a public shaming — including for harassment allegations or other claimed violations that are found to be credible.

And a proposed “Respectful Workplace Policy” sets out a new complaint process that would provide a venue for claims against council members and staffers involving discrimination, harassment or retaliation. The policy would require the city’s human resources office to handle complaints, with those against council members probed by outside investigators.

Councilman Kevin Flynn said in an interview that he’d like to see the council’s censure rule and harassment policies apply to other city officials — including the mayor — but council members to make that move yet.

“I’m happy we’re taking this first step,” said Flynn, who chairs the Finance and Governance Committee. “But I think there needs to be something in the city’s Code of Ordinances that extends this to other elected officials and appointees.”

Mayoral spokeswoman Amber Miller said the administration was working to revise harassment policies so that they apply to elected officials, including the mayor, and provide a complaint process. A draft was not yet available.

“The mayor’s office has had a sexual harassment policy for appointees since 2015,” she said. “We are making changes to it as well as the clerk and recorder and auditor’s policies to expand the scope to include electeds, to clarify the complaint process and to make other improvements. We have collaborated with council and the (Denver) Women’s Commission on the development of the policies, and the revisions are expected to be finalized at about the same time” as the council’s policies.

During its afternoon meeting Tuesday, the committee moved these proposals to the full council on a voice vote: the workplace policy, a proposed Code of Conduct that would set anti-violence and anti-bullying policies, and a resolution that would insert the proposed censure provision into the council’s rules. Final votes are expected in coming weeks.

While endorsing the thrust of the policies, one councilman expressed a concern: “I fear that a lot of folks will use this for political warfare,” Paul López said.

But Kirsten Crawford, the legislative counsel, said provisions governing the handling of complaints are intended to elevate “good-faith complaints” so that they are taken seriously.

Changes were spurred by claim against Hancock

Hancock apologized in February after veteran Denver police detective Leslie Branch-Wise revealed publicly that the mayor had sent her several suggestive text messages six years ago when she was on his security detail. She said the recent #MeToo moment helped give her the confidence to speak out.

The council, after meeting with its attorney behind closed doors, decided against launching an investigation of Hancock’s conduct. That investigation could have included whether the text messages amounted to harassment, as Branch-Wise contended.

Currently, there is no formal process in the city for filing harassment complaints against elected officials, and the city charter provides no penalties for misbehavior beyond the ballot box.

At one point after Hancock’s scandal broke, Flynn suggested to a mayoral adviser that Hancock should suspend himself without pay as self-punishment. The mayor declined to do so.

Flynn said that aside from the claim against Hancock, the council had seen no influx of complaints. But he saw the lack of a complaint process as a “glaring omission” in need of correcting.

More details on censure, other proposed policies

The censure rule would set the threshold for a censure at 10 votes on the 13-member body. Before the vote, the target of the censure resolution would have a chance to rebut its basis.

The proposed workplace policy says that complaints against council members and staffers, as well as the resulting findings, would be handled confidentially. Non-public findings involving a council member would be shared with the rest of the council.

“There is a large emphasis in this policy on remediation,” Crawford told the committee.

While an elected council member could face only a censure by his or her colleagues, hired staffers found to violate the policy could face demotion or termination, the proposed policy says. Hired staffers already are subject to regular city employee conduct rules, unlike elected officials.

Document: City Council’s proposed workplace policy

Document: Proposed censure rule

Document: Proposed council code of conduct

On Tuesday afternoon, The Denver Post and Denver7 jointly reported that city attorneys were shown some of Hancock’s text messages to Detective Leslie Branch-Wise before the city reached a $75,000 settlement with her in 2013. That settlement resolved her claim of sexual harassment involving a mayoral aide.

Branch-Wise that, before the settlement, she alleged harassment by the mayor and was told “that the city would settle with me if I did not name the mayor in the suit” — a contention disputed by the City Attorney’s Office and an outside lawyer who handled the matter for the city. But they confirmed that the attorneys were aware in 2013 of at least some of Hancock’s text messages, which had been sent in 2012.

“That information is consistent with what I know to be fact,” said Espinoza, referring to the text-message timeline.

�����called for an outside investigation into Hancock’s conduct in mid-March.

But earlier this month, the council’s 13 members collectively decided not to launch a probe after receiving closed-door legal briefings by city attorneys. A statement issued by council President Albus Brooks at the time said the council lacked the authority to render a legal conclusion on the key question: whether Hancock’s communication with Branch-Wise, then a member of his security detail, amounted to sexual harassment.

The Post reached out to several council members Wednesday. Others have declined to comment so far, including Brooks and Kevin Flynn, who earlier suggested that Hancock consider self-imposing an unpaid suspension.

On Tuesday, attorney Tom Rice, who handled Branch-Wise’s settlement on contract with the city, told The Post: “While we were aware of the mayor’s text messages, Detective Branch-Wise’s personal attorney told us that neither she nor her client believed that the mayor had said or done anything that constituted sexual harassment.”

Espinoza said he was glad Rice and City Attorney Kristin Bronson have publicly acknowledged that the texts were on the city’s radar five years ago — long before Branch-Wise revealed screenshots of them in a late-February TV interview. Her revelation prompted an apology from Hancock, who called the texts inappropriate rather than harassing.

Several people who were City Council members in 2013 have confirmed that they were not told about the mayor’s texts before approving Branch-Wise’s settlement.

Espinoza said he did not view other undisclosed information as likely to cause public outrage.

“That little morsel that you’ve discovered, though, is just one fragment of this complete story, and it����ap so complicated,” he said.

Espinoza credited Branch-Wise, who still is a Denver police officer, for coming forward. He said he understood her stated reluctance to say anything publicly about Hancock five years ago, given that she wanted a long career in law enforcement and feared retaliation.

“Honestly, if you look at that time in that era, pre-Harvey Weinstein, I think she probably made a reasonable decision,” given Hancock’s position, “that there are certain fingers you don’t point.”

He added: “My goals in calling for an investigation were never to create controversy but to actually clear it. Because (#MeToo) is an important movement and her story, if it were true — and it����ap borne out that way — was worth fully understanding.”

The settlement was approved by the City Council in connection with Leslie Branch-Wise’s sexual harassment allegations against a mayoral aide. Several council members from that time say they don’t recall any disclosure of a link between Hancock’s behavior and the payout — a facet they said they probably would remember — while the Denver city attorney’s office disputes there was a connection.

But Branch-Wise says she was told in 2013 “that the city would settle with me if I did not name the mayor in the suit.”

She said that was conveyed to her through her attorney, adding: “And when we were closing out the suit, I was again told, by the city, not to name the mayor — Mayor Hancock — in my suit, and they would settle.” She added later in the interview with Denver7: “I didn’t share a lot with them, but I did tell them that (Hancock) also harassed me. I told them.”

City legal sources confirmed to The Denver Post and Denver7, The Post’s television partner, that at least one ranking city official became aware of inappropriate text messages sent by Hancock to Branch-Wise, when her side revealed them in an attempt at leverage.

A private attorney who represented the city in settlement talks disputed Branch-Wise’s characterizations even as he acknowledged seeing the texts.

“I had many conversations with (Branch-Wise’s) attorney over a period of months,” said that attorney, Thomas Rice, in an email Tuesday. “While we were aware of the mayor’s text messages, Detective Branch-Wise’s personal attorney told us that neither she nor her client believed that the mayor had said or done anything that constituted sexual harassment.”

Similarly, current City Attorney Kristin Bronson said, “We flatly deny that we pressured her attorney at all into settling that case.” She said Branch-Wise did not face a confidentiality clause that would have prohibited her from talking publicly about Hancock’s texts.

Bronson said that at least a couple of the text messages publicized by Branch-Wise this year were familiar to attorneys who handled the settlement in 2013, but they were unable to recall specifics of what they saw then.

Hancock’s text messages, as well as his public disagreement with Branch-Wise over whether they amounted to sexual harassment, fueled calls in March for the council to investigate his conduct. Earlier this month, the council announced that its members, despite viewing Hancock’s behavior as “unacceptable,” decided against an investigation.

Branch-Wise’s comments about the settlement negotiations came in her original interview with Denver7 earlier this year, but they are being reported now for the first time.

She repeatedly suggested a connection between the 2013 settlement and her treatment by the mayor. But she said she did not know which officials were aware of the mayor’s behavior, since all of her discussions with the city and its outside attorneys happened through her lawyers.

Bronson and Rice both said Branch-Wise’s attorney in 2013, Christina Habas, a former Denver District Court judge, was highly respected in the city and represented her client ethically.

Habas was not available to answer questions this week, according to her law office. And Doug Friednash, Hancock’s appointed city attorney at the time, referred questions to the city attorney’s office.

Claims go back to Hancock’s first year

Branch-Wise, a veteran police officer who still works for the city, left Hancock’s security detail in 2012, less than a year after the mayor’s first election. She cited sexual harassment by mayoral aide Wayne McDonald, who then was a close friend of Hancock’s and was the mayor’s special projects coordinator.

McDonald soon lost his job, and he filed a lawsuit challenging both the veracity of Branch-Wise’s claim and his firing by city officials.

In July 2013, while McDonald’s lawsuit against city officials and Branch-Wise was pending, officials agreed to pay Branch-Wise $75,000, including her attorneys’ fees. It was presented to the council as resolving her claim involving McDonald.

The city also needed Branch-Wise to testify in its defense in the McDonald suit, although his case would be settled in 2016, short of trial, with a $200,000 payout to McDonald and his attorneys.

Branch-Wise described the alleged harassment she faced while serving on the mayor’s detail as “an oppression that I felt hanging over me,” and she said she didn’t hide her discomfort with Hancock in 2013.

Asked whether the discussions that preceded the settlement led her to believe it was “hush money,” Branch-Wise answered, “Yes.”

Bronson, the current city attorney, pushed back against the term, calling it nothing more than Branch-Wise’s opinion about the settlement negotiations. Bronson repeated that no legal constraints were put on Branch-Wise regarding what she could say about the mayor.

Council members don’t recall settlement link

If worries about Hancock’s own conduct played a role in the Branch-Wise settlement, those were not disclosed to the City Council before it approved the deal. The Post and Denver7 recently reached out to all 13 people who were on the council in 2013. Of the eight who responded, none  could recall being aware of any texts or allegations against Hancock.

Susan Shepherd, also a former councilwoman, was emphatic that city attorneys did not disclose the existence of the mayor’s text messages. She says she has been disgusted and furious about Hancock’s conduct.

“Absolutely we were not given all the information,” Shepherd said. “There is physical evidence that this sexual harassment took place between the mayor and her,” she added, referring to the texts. “So absolutely, we were duped.”

When Branch-Wise spoke out about Hancock’s text messages earlier this year, the mayor apologized. He said he didn’t know until then that they had made her uncomfortable.

“Detective Branch-Wise served with me probably eight or nine months,” Hancock told The Post in late February. “We became friends, and I blurred the lines between our friendship and being a boss. And these text messages are inappropriate. They’re too familiar, too casual. For that, I accept responsibility, and I apologize.”

Tony Kovaleski is a reporter for Denver7 Investigates.

Newly released documents provide detail about outside attorney expenses that bring the total taxpayer cost for resolving the two matters to nearly $1.4 million.

In one case, $275,000 in settlements were split between each side after a 2012 sexual claim against a mayor’s aide. In the other, Denver paid $660,000 to a former assistant city attorney after he was investigated for misconduct for 19 months — and then cleared.

Both matters put a public spotlight on the inner workings of Mayor Michael Hancock’s administration. The outside lawyer fees, as detailed in the new billing records, included more than $65,000 spent to defend the city against a criminal probe into its handling of an open-records request.

The settlements related to the 2012 sexual harassment claim were thrust back to the fore this year. Denver police Detective Leslie Branch-Wise — a Hancock security detail officer who made the allegation against Wayne McDonald, then a close friend of Hancock’s — disclosed publicly in late February that Hancock also had sent her suggestive text messages around the same time.

The Denver Post this week received outside attorney billing invoices and summaries related to the McDonald allegation and the separate case of former senior assistant city attorney Stuart Shapiro. The Post joined a Colorado Open Records Act request for the billing and administration emails by a media consortium, which also consists of , , and radio station 710 KNUS; the city charged $1,410 to fulfill the request.

Another request by the consortium resulted in the release last week of City Council emails related to the mayor’s conduct toward Branch-Wise.

Branch-Wise received a $75,000 settlement in 2013, after McDonald filed a lawsuit challenging both her harassment claim and his firing. The council recently considered launching an investigation of Hancock’s text messages — ultimately deciding against the move — but Branch-Wise in her settlement gave up any right to sue other city officials.

In 2016, the city settled McDonald’s suit for $200,000.

Billing records show that three outside law firms assisted the city in handling the fallout over Branch-Wise’s original claim against McDonald, and the tab was $182,306. The city paid $147,952 to Senter Goldfarb & Rice; $25,992 to Wells, Anderson & Race; and $8,362 to Pendleton, Wilson, Hennessey & Crow.

City Attorney Kristin Bronson said McDonald’s lawsuit necessitated more use of outside counsel than usual to avoid potential conflicts of interest in legal representation of Hancock, press secretary Amber Miller and Branch-Wise, all of whom were targeted by the suit.

Legal costs also piled up in attorney case

The other employment case involved the city’s treatment of Shapiro, the assistant city attorney. He was suspended in the fallout of a jail abuse case that resulted in a $3.25 million settlement for former inmate Jamal Hunter in 2014.

A judge had accused city attorneys of mishandling the case. As the Hunter settlement was announced, City Attorney Scott Martinez placed Shapiro on paid investigatory leave for more than a year, initially for outside attorneys to look into his conduct.

At one point, the city terminated and quickly reinstated Shapiro — and Martinez withheld the termination letter from a TV reporter who requested it, saying that it didn’t exist. The Denver district attorney’s office investigated Martinez’s handling of the open-records request, ultimately deciding against filing charges.

Shapiro filed a whistle-blower claim alleging he was made a scapegoat for misconduct by his bosses. After Martinez stepped down from his appointed post in 2016, the city reached the $660,000 settlement with Shapiro — and issued a statement that asserted “a full and complete exoneration of Mr. Shapiro,” who agreed to retire.

The newly disclosed city billing records show two law firms were paid for work for the city on the Shapiro matter, totaling $244,848.

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie initially was hired on a $35,000 contract to investigate the handling of the Hunter case by the city attorney’s office, including Shapiro. Ultimately, it was paid a total of $135,660 “related to the Shapiro matter,” according the city’s CORA response.

And the city paid Davis Graham & Stubbs for two roles: $65,023 for representation in the district attorney’s investigation over Martinez’s handling of the termination letter CORA response; and $44,166 for assisting with “the Shapiro employment matter.”

In response to earlier records requests, the city attorney’s office has said the Lewis Roca firm did not produce a written report of its findings. Bronson, the current city attorney, said Thursday that Davis Graham & Stubbs’ reports to the city could not be released.

“There were written communications between the city and DGS, its counsel, relating to Mr. Shapiro’s employment and his claims against the city, but these were all privileged communications,” Bronson wrote in an email.

Denver has a large city legal office but often has hired outside lawyers to handle or assist with certain cases. In two jail abuse cases that were settled for a combined $9.25 million in 2014 — including Hunter’s settlement — the city paid $1.5 million to outside attorneys.

“The (city attorney’s office) works to preserve the taxpayer’s dollars in every case, and decisions to employ outside counsel are not made lightly,” Bronson said in a separate statement issued by the mayor’s office. “These difficult decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, as there are many factors to be considered.”

As he eyes a likely run for a third term in May 2019, Hancock brought in $44,780 in campaign donations from Jan. 1 through March 31, according to a finance report filed Monday. His fundraising pace slowed down from last year — and the total for the period fell far short of the nearly $70,000 raised by Kayvan Khalatbari.

The community activist and marijuana industry entrepreneur has taken issue with many of Hancock’s policies, including on homelessness, development and the mayor’s support for the Interstate 70 expansion project. Khalatbari’s finance report, filed last week, showed that he has become Hancock’s only challenger since the mayor’s first election in 2011 to raise more than $100,000 in total contributions.

On Feb. 27, Hancock apologized publicly after Denver police Detective Leslie Branch-Wise revealed in a TV interview that Hancock sent her several suggestive text messages in 2012, when she was on his security detail.

As news coverage continued, Hancock collected $13,250 in March, some of that resulting from a March 6 fundraiser. That amount was slightly below average for the three months.

Hancock’s campaign spent nearly $44,000 — nearly as much as it took in — during the first quarter.

He still maintains a big money advantage over any potential opponent, ending the period with more than $402,000 in the bank. Khalatbari’s campaign had more than $68,000 in cash on hand, but that includes a $30,000 loan from the candidate last year.

“Mayor Hancock is extremely grateful for the support from the Denver community,” Hancock campaign spokesman Jake Martin wrote in an email. “Re-election is more than a year out and he’s concentrating on running the city. He’s laser-focused on addressing Denver’s biggest challenges of affordable housing, traffic congestion, homelessness and the opioid crisis — and ensuring the city’s unprecedented economic opportunities are available to everyone in every neighborhood.”

Here is Michael Hancock’s first-quarter campaign finance report: