WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:12.240 Okay. Hello, everyone. We are here for the special called meeting of the Board of Ethics. 00:00:12.240 --> 00:00:21.400 And we have one item for consideration today, BOE 20-023, ethics complaint number 20-001 00:00:21.400 --> 00:00:28.520 filed on October 15th, 2020 concerning alleged violations of ethics ordinance section 2-273. 00:00:28.520 --> 00:00:42.160 And I'll go ahead and share my screen. So this is the agenda information sheet. So the 00:00:42.160 --> 00:00:47.800 background is that the complaint was made by a citizen named Scott Campbell, and it 00:00:47.800 --> 00:00:54.880 was concerning Deb Armitour, and he claimed that she was in violation of 2-273. And he 00:00:54.880 --> 00:01:02.720 talked about a video that she had, well, the video of a city council meeting. And our Board 00:01:02.720 --> 00:01:08.440 of Ethics met on October 22nd, or a panel of our Board of Ethics met, and they found 00:01:08.440 --> 00:01:14.720 that the complaint was baseless. And on the 27th, they sent the letter that it was baseless. 00:01:14.720 --> 00:01:23.800 And on the 29th, Mr. Campbell appealed that, which now brings us to why we're here today. 00:01:23.800 --> 00:01:31.120 And Madison had previously talked to Alan, who's in the meeting, too. And the nature 00:01:31.120 --> 00:01:36.920 of this hearing is limited to the question of whether the panel's determination on the 00:01:36.920 --> 00:01:44.140 26th in dismissing the case was erroneous. And so the standard is whether the allegations 00:01:44.140 --> 00:01:48.680 and evidence contained in the complaint, if true, would constitute a violation of the 00:01:48.680 --> 00:02:01.920 Code of Ethics. And so the complaint's on the screen now. And like I said at the beginning, 00:02:01.920 --> 00:02:09.040 he claimed that Deb Armitour actively campaigned for reelection during a meeting, and he claimed 00:02:09.040 --> 00:02:13.260 it was unethical for several reasons, conflict of interest, using official post-it meeting 00:02:13.260 --> 00:02:21.640 of Denton Council to campaign for reelection during an active campaign. And hopefully we've 00:02:21.640 --> 00:02:28.760 all read that and are familiar with that. So my initial thoughts are he claims conflict 00:02:28.760 --> 00:02:33.880 of interest, and it reminds me of some of our first complaints, where he might be thinking 00:02:33.880 --> 00:02:40.640 conflict of interest, but not using the ordinance's definition of conflict of interest. I would 00:02:40.640 --> 00:02:48.000 agree with the panel at the initial hearing that the complaint is baseless and doesn't 00:02:48.000 --> 00:02:55.360 fall under 2-273A. And they also talked about whether it fell under 2-273G, which I also 00:02:55.360 --> 00:03:00.240 agree with them that it did not. They discussed a lot about whether the video is included 00:03:00.240 --> 00:03:05.320 in this complaint. And I think what we're supposed to do is follow the four corners 00:03:05.320 --> 00:03:09.960 of this complaint and not look at evidence outside of that. But that would be something 00:03:09.960 --> 00:03:15.240 that Mia Madison has talked about in January, maybe talking about and clarifying our rules 00:03:15.240 --> 00:03:20.120 and the ordinance as far as whether we can look at that when there's a complaint. But 00:03:20.120 --> 00:03:24.120 I think it doesn't even matter in this case, because I don't even think we get there. I 00:03:24.120 --> 00:03:37.640 think it's baseless. So is there any discussion on this? Anybody have any thoughts? Let's 00:03:37.640 --> 00:03:44.080 see. Is anybody? Oh, Alan? Hey, Madam Chair. If you don't mind, if no one's fighting for 00:03:44.080 --> 00:03:51.080 the microphone since I haven't gotten to speak with you all, Ian helped early on in the faces 00:03:51.080 --> 00:03:57.920 of this. But by way of orientation, I wanted to just remind the board that when the City 00:03:57.920 --> 00:04:04.000 Council adopted this ordinance, one of the features they wanted to include was basically 00:04:04.000 --> 00:04:10.760 pre-screening or pre-filtering complaints before they get to the full board. And so 00:04:10.760 --> 00:04:17.240 the standard is very straightforward and simple, and our chairperson has spelled it out precisely. 00:04:17.240 --> 00:04:24.360 And so we have these panels that have these predeterminations. If perhaps either party 00:04:24.360 --> 00:04:30.960 thinks the panel got it wrong, there's a procedure to have a hearing just on that point, not 00:04:30.960 --> 00:04:35.480 on the merits of the complaint, but on the point of whether or not it was rightfully 00:04:35.480 --> 00:04:43.000 dismissed as being baseless, as that term is defined under Denton's code. And we talked 00:04:43.000 --> 00:04:47.800 about this a lot when we do the training and that sort of thing. There may be conduct that 00:04:47.800 --> 00:04:55.200 a member of the public finds offensive or inappropriate or outrageous or something. 00:04:55.200 --> 00:04:59.960 And that may be legitimately how they feel. That doesn't mean there's always a remedy 00:04:59.960 --> 00:05:05.480 under the City of Denton's code of ethics. So you have this process for pre-filtering 00:05:05.480 --> 00:05:10.520 and then appeal before this board, and you get to decide not to the person do what they're 00:05:10.520 --> 00:05:17.340 alleged to have done, but if you take everything in the complaint as true, you assume, does 00:05:17.340 --> 00:05:23.640 it add up to anything? Does it add up to something actionable that warrants a full-blown hearing? 00:05:23.640 --> 00:05:29.880 And that's where you are today. The only question is, did the three-person panel get it wrong? 00:05:29.880 --> 00:05:36.440 Yes or no? And if you think they got it wrong, well, then you can, by majority vote, go forward 00:05:36.440 --> 00:05:41.760 with the full-blown hearing. I will work with your city auditor, Madison, to schedule the 00:05:41.760 --> 00:05:46.880 hearing and get you prepared for it. Or you can uphold what the panel did. That really 00:05:46.880 --> 00:05:53.080 is the extent of what we're doing here this afternoon. 00:05:53.080 --> 00:06:00.920 And I see Ronnie has joined us as well. And Ronnie, we had just gone over, we don't see 00:06:00.920 --> 00:06:05.400 you, but if you can hear us, we just went over the complaint and what happened in the 00:06:05.400 --> 00:06:11.280 initial hearing. And I had shared my opinion that I agree with the panel, and I think that 00:06:11.280 --> 00:06:20.160 we should uphold what the panel found on the 26th. Does anybody have, is everybody in agreement 00:06:20.160 --> 00:06:27.080 or does anybody disagree with that, Patricia? I don't disagree. I just had a question. Were 00:06:27.080 --> 00:06:31.260 you saying that we should have watched the video or not watched the video? I did watch 00:06:31.260 --> 00:06:37.320 the video, but is there a problem with watching the video of the meeting? 00:06:37.320 --> 00:06:44.560 So well, I watched the video of the meeting and we are deciding whether the panel, well, 00:06:44.560 --> 00:06:49.560 I watched both videos. There's the panel meeting video and there's the video from the city 00:06:49.560 --> 00:06:54.940 council meeting. I'm not sure if the city council meeting should be included or not. 00:06:54.940 --> 00:06:58.400 That slips unclear. And you probably heard them talk about that in the panel meeting 00:06:58.400 --> 00:07:04.840 is he specifically mentioned it and puts on a timestamp. So what Ian was saying at that 00:07:04.840 --> 00:07:09.760 panel meeting is that that's just going to be up to us to decide whether we would include 00:07:09.760 --> 00:07:15.440 that or not. But I'm not sure because to me, it seems like it would just be the four corners 00:07:15.440 --> 00:07:20.560 of this complaint and we wouldn't go out by that at all. But I think that's something 00:07:20.560 --> 00:07:25.440 me and Madison have already talked about a few things to talk about in the January meeting, 00:07:25.440 --> 00:07:29.920 but I think that's something we should clear up. So in the future, we don't have the panel 00:07:29.920 --> 00:07:36.520 asking about it the night of the hearing or the afternoon of the hearing. Oh, I see. So 00:07:36.520 --> 00:07:42.440 I don't even think we got to see the video, but you know, I'm not, but you know, it seems 00:07:42.440 --> 00:07:48.160 like it would be harder to decide without seeing the video. But yeah, I get what you're 00:07:48.160 --> 00:07:53.360 saying. And that's just what we're going to have to decide is if we can go outside of 00:07:53.360 --> 00:07:58.240 the complaint at all. Or in this case, when he is specifically telling us what to do, 00:07:58.240 --> 00:08:01.400 can we look at that before the panel meeting? And I don't know if you have a thought about 00:08:01.400 --> 00:08:07.880 that, Alan. I do. I don't think that it was wrong or a problem that that someone viewed 00:08:07.880 --> 00:08:13.660 the video link. No need for it to be stricken from the record or, you know, forget what 00:08:13.660 --> 00:08:19.720 you saw or that sort of thing. But I do think the way the ordinance is worded, it's just 00:08:19.720 --> 00:08:26.200 the written materials that are submitted. Or so I wanted to submit a flash drive or 00:08:26.200 --> 00:08:31.500 something else with evidence on it. I think they could have done that. But I agree with 00:08:31.500 --> 00:08:37.360 our chairperson that the purposes of this meeting today, it doesn't really matter. You 00:08:37.360 --> 00:08:45.320 have an allegation that someone spoke at a city council meeting, that they talked, they 00:08:45.320 --> 00:08:51.040 were basically campaigning at a council meeting, and that the complainant thinks that is wrong. 00:08:51.040 --> 00:08:55.720 And so if you assume that it's true, this person did talk, they did say these sorts 00:08:55.720 --> 00:09:01.920 of things at this meeting, and they're covered by this ordinance. Does that mean that if 00:09:01.920 --> 00:09:07.440 it's all true, there's a violation, we need to go in to have some evidence and decide 00:09:07.440 --> 00:09:13.540 whether there's an infraction or so. What's the consequence of that? So the video to me, 00:09:13.540 --> 00:09:21.320 the link is really extraneous. It's extra. Just assume the complaint is true. Does it 00:09:21.320 --> 00:09:27.300 add up to something? Your panel said no. Does the rest of the group think that perhaps the 00:09:27.300 --> 00:09:37.640 panel missed something, didn't understand what they were doing, or made a mistake? 00:09:37.640 --> 00:09:47.040 I've got a question to follow up on that. If there's no other new information beyond 00:09:47.040 --> 00:09:54.920 what was written in the complaint and the information from the panel, there's nothing 00:09:54.920 --> 00:10:00.400 additional that we can make a decision different from, is there? 00:10:00.400 --> 00:10:07.640 I would agree with you that there's no new information, there's no basis other than, 00:10:07.640 --> 00:10:13.600 and this happens, it happens in ethics world, it happens in municipal government. One group 00:10:13.600 --> 00:10:19.380 looks at the same data, comes to one conclusion, a different group looks at the same data later, 00:10:19.380 --> 00:10:23.320 and concludes that the first group got it wrong. They made a mistake, they didn't understand, 00:10:23.320 --> 00:10:29.240 they missed something. That does in fact happen. But the way Denton's code of ethics is written, 00:10:29.240 --> 00:10:35.440 it really does put the burden on the complainant to get the complaint correct, to provide the 00:10:35.440 --> 00:10:44.360 evidence up front, and to actually identify something that's covered by the code. Otherwise, 00:10:44.360 --> 00:10:50.360 what you end up becoming is sort of an all purpose complaint desk for people that don't 00:10:50.360 --> 00:10:54.760 like what someone did. And they may have a grievance. It doesn't mean that there is a 00:10:54.760 --> 00:11:01.560 remedy for that before the Board of Ethics. Okay, thank you. 00:11:01.560 --> 00:11:08.080 Yeah, and my opinion is that, you know, he might have a grievance with what happened, 00:11:08.080 --> 00:11:11.640 whether he believes it happened or not, whether it actually happened or not, but I don't think 00:11:11.640 --> 00:11:17.600 it falls under our ethics code. Does anybody think differently about that, or should we 00:11:17.600 --> 00:11:30.200 just, you know, have a motion and take a vote? I'm ready for a motion and a vote. 00:11:30.200 --> 00:11:35.160 All right, well, I guess, could I get, and I guess somebody can correct me if I'm saying 00:11:35.160 --> 00:11:41.160 this wrong, but if we could get a motion to, I guess, affirm the finding of the three person 00:11:41.160 --> 00:11:44.080 panel, I don't think I can make the motion as chair, but if somebody else will make that 00:11:44.080 --> 00:11:54.720 motion and second it, I still move. And do we have a second? Second by Bob. Well, the 00:11:54.720 --> 00:12:01.960 motion by Ron and the second by Bob and all in favor. I forget, Madison, do we, do I need 00:12:01.960 --> 00:12:07.080 to go through everybody? Is that how we want to do this on Zoom? Yeah, I think it's best 00:12:07.080 --> 00:12:13.520 for you to roll call. All right. And I'll just go on the screen from left to right. 00:12:13.520 --> 00:12:23.880 Bob, what's your vote? Affirm. Rob? Yes. Patricia? Oh, I think you're muted, if you don't mind 00:12:23.880 --> 00:12:37.680 unmuted. I think he said yes. Yes. Thank you. And Ron? Is Ron, Ron? Oh, Ron Johnson. Sorry. 00:12:37.680 --> 00:12:49.040 Right there, think. He's got an icon. Okay, I see it. And Ronnie, if you're on with us. 00:12:49.040 --> 00:12:57.240 I'm not sure if Ronnie's is working, but with or without Ronnie's vote, we don't hear him 00:12:57.240 --> 00:13:02.560 or see him. We'll go ahead and just not count them either way, but the majority does vote 00:13:02.560 --> 00:13:11.000 in favor of that motion. So we, yeah, so we have found that the panel, we don't disagree 00:13:11.000 --> 00:13:16.320 with the panel and that the complaint is baseless. And I think that's, that's all we need to 00:13:16.320 --> 00:13:22.240 do. Right, Madison or Alan, if anybody has any thoughts, I can just adjourn if we're 00:13:22.240 --> 00:13:27.280 done. I think you've completed the agenda for today. You can adjourn and then prepare 00:13:27.280 --> 00:13:35.680 the written letter at the conclusion. All right, thank you. Okay, so we will adjourn 00:13:35.680 --> 00:13:41.600 and I will get a letter to Madison and we'll go from there. Thank you everybody for taking 00:13:41.600 --> 00:13:46.880 some time out today for this. Thank you. Bye. Thank you everyone. Thank you. Bye bye.