1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:12,120 >> Hello. I'm Madison Rocha, the city auditor and currently neither chair or the vice chair 2 00:00:12,120 --> 00:00:18,960 is present at this board of ethics meeting. But we do have a quorum. So I'll call this 3 00:00:18,960 --> 00:00:29,640 meeting to order on February 25th, 2021 at 9/11 a.m. So first item of business is to 4 00:00:29,640 --> 00:00:35,280 elect a presiding officer for the purposes of this meeting. So I will open it up for 5 00:00:35,280 --> 00:00:38,680 nominations. >> I'm Don Cartwright. I'm not nominating 6 00:00:38,680 --> 00:00:53,040 as most as presiding officer for this meeting. >> Okay. Any other nominations? Okay. Hearing 7 00:00:53,040 --> 00:00:59,600 no other nominations, I'll close the nominations piece and then we'll vote on Ms. Cosimo for 8 00:00:59,600 --> 00:01:11,960 being the presiding officer. Don? Debra? >> Okay. Hi. 9 00:01:11,960 --> 00:01:20,520 >> And it looks like Ron says hi as well. So then I'll hand the meeting over to you. 10 00:01:20,520 --> 00:01:24,120 Debra? >> All right. Thank you. I'm Debra Cosimo 11 00:01:24,120 --> 00:01:30,600 and I have never done this before. So I will need some guidance along the way. So I beg 12 00:01:30,600 --> 00:01:40,420 your forbearance. We have before us a question that was submitted for an advisory opinion 13 00:01:40,420 --> 00:01:51,880 by Paul Meltzer, councilperson. And should I read this question into the record? So the 14 00:01:51,880 --> 00:01:57,600 question is, my wife resigned from UNT effective January 16th of this year, she earned more 15 00:01:57,600 --> 00:02:04,400 than $600 during that partial month, which will be reflected on her 2021 W-2 form. Does 16 00:02:04,400 --> 00:02:10,320 the conflict for me regarding pending matters involving UNT continue through 2021, perhaps 17 00:02:10,320 --> 00:02:16,320 even through January 15th, 2022? Or does the idea of a 12-month look back period not apply 18 00:02:16,320 --> 00:02:23,520 since the employment relationship has ended? And that question was submitted on February 19 00:02:23,520 --> 00:02:38,680 6th, 2021. Okay. So I guess I open it up for discussion and comments, questions. And thank 20 00:02:38,680 --> 00:02:43,440 you, Alan, for being here. >> Certainly. I'll say as a preliminary matter 21 00:02:43,440 --> 00:02:50,280 that Denton's Code of Ethics provides this procedure for advisory opinions under Section 22 00:02:50,280 --> 00:02:57,560 278. And it was done to encourage those that had a question to get guidance from the Board 23 00:02:57,560 --> 00:03:03,360 of Ethics before they had any conduct that would be called into question. And so this 24 00:03:03,360 --> 00:03:09,760 is a way to provide some guidance and direction to somebody who is unclear on how the code 25 00:03:09,760 --> 00:03:16,080 applies to them or an action that they're contemplating. And so the Board of Ethics 26 00:03:16,080 --> 00:03:21,880 is required to convene a panel. This is today's panel, at least three members. Our board has 27 00:03:21,880 --> 00:03:28,320 alternates. And so we're glad to have Debra here for that. And we're required to give 28 00:03:28,320 --> 00:03:36,040 our advisory opinion within 30 days. And certainly, Winter Storm Yuri and some other things has 29 00:03:36,040 --> 00:03:41,560 made preparing for this a challenge and getting everyone convened online has been a challenge. 30 00:03:41,560 --> 00:03:46,680 But I'm glad to be here today as a resource for you. I am special counsel to the City 31 00:03:46,680 --> 00:03:52,880 of Denton on ethical matters. It's not my job to rule or decide these things, but instead 32 00:03:52,880 --> 00:03:59,680 to help you understand the code or my opinions of how the code is applied. And we can have 33 00:03:59,680 --> 00:04:06,680 the conversations in open session, as tends to be the case. But also, like any other group, 34 00:04:06,680 --> 00:04:11,800 you're allowed to go into executive session, a private consultation with your lawyer, which 35 00:04:11,800 --> 00:04:18,760 is what I am in this case. I've looked at Councilman Melter's request, and I reviewed 36 00:04:18,760 --> 00:04:24,280 the code, and I'm happy to discuss it with you and help the best I can. 37 00:04:24,280 --> 00:04:32,000 Great. I do have a question while we have you here. When it talks about current conflict 38 00:04:32,000 --> 00:04:40,400 of interest, if the wife is not employed at the current time when they do the vote, is 39 00:04:40,400 --> 00:04:48,280 that the way I interpret the code with this conflict? It's 273(a)(1). 40 00:04:48,280 --> 00:04:55,480 Yes. We are looking at 273(a), and that is the very nature of the question we're being 41 00:04:55,480 --> 00:05:04,240 asked. That is the point. How do we interpret this? City Council chose to define the conflict 42 00:05:04,240 --> 00:05:13,280 in part based on what's reflected in a W-2. And so, can the conflict be extinguished? 43 00:05:13,280 --> 00:05:20,960 Does it expire when someone no longer is actively employed? And under Denton's code, much like 44 00:05:20,960 --> 00:05:29,480 in state law, the conflicts of certain relatives apply to the city officials themselves. So 45 00:05:29,480 --> 00:05:35,360 in this case, certainly a council member's spouse and their conflicts become the city 46 00:05:35,360 --> 00:05:43,880 councilman, councilwoman's conflicts. And if in fact this council member's spouse was 47 00:05:43,880 --> 00:05:51,800 employed by UNT, and that's going to appear on their W-2, then I think that is what the 48 00:05:51,800 --> 00:05:56,960 code would apply the conflict to. I don't see anything in the code that would say that 49 00:05:56,960 --> 00:06:03,520 disengagement, resignation, a severance of the relationship ends the conflict for any 50 00:06:03,520 --> 00:06:11,600 particular period of time. Alan, you said for a particular period of 51 00:06:11,600 --> 00:06:19,440 time, wouldn't it be the same as if a councilperson left the council, and then there's a one-year 52 00:06:19,440 --> 00:06:27,920 period where they're not to do matters that would conflict with their former position 53 00:06:27,920 --> 00:06:36,000 as a councilperson? So wouldn't that also apply to family members? 54 00:06:36,000 --> 00:06:46,480 I think the code under D2, where it talks about it solely applies to former city council 55 00:06:46,480 --> 00:06:55,080 members. So I don't see how it would apply to a relative at that point, or a spouse. 56 00:06:55,080 --> 00:07:04,600 If you look at, like I say, D2 about halfway down through it, it talks about solely applies 57 00:07:04,600 --> 00:07:11,080 to the former city council official and should not be consulted to apply to other affiliated 58 00:07:11,080 --> 00:07:16,240 persons. So that seems like that would rule out a spouse. 59 00:07:16,240 --> 00:07:25,640 Don, are you talking about the representation of others? 60 00:07:25,640 --> 00:07:30,160 Yes. You're correct in that there are certain provisions 61 00:07:30,160 --> 00:07:38,800 of our code that only apply to the city official, and that's in regards to representation of 62 00:07:38,800 --> 00:07:44,280 other people before the city or city boards or commissions. That's different than what 63 00:07:44,280 --> 00:07:51,080 we're talking about today. The conflict of interest rules apply not just 64 00:07:51,080 --> 00:07:57,000 to the city officials covered in the code, but to certain relatives. In this case, certainly 65 00:07:57,000 --> 00:08:02,840 it applies to a spouse. A spouse is related to a council member within the matter of degrees 66 00:08:02,840 --> 00:08:09,440 specified in the code. Doesn't this also kind of address the rollback 67 00:08:09,440 --> 00:08:16,720 that he had referred to in his second part of his question, where it doesn't apply to 68 00:08:16,720 --> 00:08:21,700 a spouse or someone other than the individual council member? 69 00:08:21,700 --> 00:08:30,120 The look back, I don't think there is an answer in the code that clearly addresses that. 70 00:08:30,120 --> 00:08:37,160 I think what the language is that we have is that if a council member or a relative 71 00:08:37,160 --> 00:08:47,320 as defined in the code receives income that's reported on a W-2, then that W-2 creates a 72 00:08:47,320 --> 00:08:55,640 conflict for that council member. If more than $600, the number chosen by the council 73 00:08:55,640 --> 00:09:01,240 was earned during that time period, and it's reflected on the W-2, there's a conflict of 74 00:09:01,240 --> 00:09:06,400 interest for that council member. There's nothing in the code that I have found that 75 00:09:06,400 --> 00:09:12,080 would suggest that the relationship is somehow severed for purposes of the code of ethics 76 00:09:12,080 --> 00:09:16,840 just because the employment relationship is severed. 77 00:09:16,840 --> 00:09:24,480 Alan, that conflict would apply as long as there was a W-2 within the past year that 78 00:09:24,480 --> 00:09:43,760 reflected more than $600? I believe so. Based on that then, would it be that the conflict 79 00:09:43,760 --> 00:09:52,320 using Mr. Melcher's language would still apply for him regarding pending matters involving 80 00:09:52,320 --> 00:10:02,440 UNT until throughout 2021 when that last W-2 form would be provided? And then would it 81 00:10:02,440 --> 00:10:12,240 extend into 2022? I believe that as long as you have the W-2 82 00:10:12,240 --> 00:10:18,160 that reflects that, that's the measurable amount that there is that conflict. Whether 83 00:10:18,160 --> 00:10:28,800 it applies into 2022, I question that. I think at the time that these rules were adopted, 84 00:10:28,800 --> 00:10:34,280 if I can recall correctly and provide you all with some history, there were some that 85 00:10:34,280 --> 00:10:43,240 were strenuously arguing that the threshold for a conflict of interest would be $1. And 86 00:10:43,240 --> 00:10:49,360 ultimately after considering various options, the council considered the $600 mark because 87 00:10:49,360 --> 00:10:56,760 at the time it was stated that was the threshold to trigger a 1099 report regarding income 88 00:10:56,760 --> 00:11:05,600 tax. And so to get to there, we went to the W-2 thinking this takes away some of the subjectivity, 89 00:11:05,600 --> 00:11:12,400 makes it a more objective measure and something that's easily quantifiable and verifiable to 90 00:11:12,400 --> 00:11:17,520 provide city officials with a clear line as to when they have a conflict and when they 91 00:11:17,520 --> 00:11:23,380 do not have a conflict. And I'll share with you that that's a far more precise means of 92 00:11:23,380 --> 00:11:30,680 determining a conflict than is even in state law. Where state law, there's a lot more room 93 00:11:30,680 --> 00:11:37,600 for negotiation and argument about whether somebody received income and how much, what 94 00:11:37,600 --> 00:11:45,160 that threshold is. So here we have this, we have a city council member who has a spouse 95 00:11:45,160 --> 00:11:51,920 who has at least $600 of reported income that will be on the W-2. There's nothing in the 96 00:11:51,920 --> 00:11:58,680 code that would say serving your relationship from the employer distinguishes the conflict. 97 00:11:58,680 --> 00:12:02,680 And what I would ask you to consider is would your answer be different if the threshold 98 00:12:02,680 --> 00:12:11,960 was $100,000 and they worked for a massive Fortune 500 company for 30 years, but they 99 00:12:11,960 --> 00:12:23,160 resigned January 15th. Do you think that their relationship, their judgment, their objectivity 100 00:12:23,160 --> 00:12:30,960 changed just because they left that company after 30 years and made $199,000? And so I 101 00:12:30,960 --> 00:12:36,880 wouldn't be caught up with the timing as much or the dollar amount as much as if when you 102 00:12:36,880 --> 00:12:43,120 read the code, do you think that there's a conflict of interest for a period of time 103 00:12:43,120 --> 00:12:50,040 after someone has left employment, but they crossed that $600 threshold? And for me, it 104 00:12:50,040 --> 00:12:56,720 appears that there is. And so I think that the most straightforward answer is that the 105 00:12:56,720 --> 00:13:03,480 council member would have to conduct himself as though he has that conflict for the financial 106 00:13:03,480 --> 00:13:10,200 year for which there is that W-2. Beyond that, it's less clear to me. 107 00:13:10,200 --> 00:13:18,520 Let me ask you, she's not going to receive the W-2 until 2022. And it talks about the 108 00:13:18,520 --> 00:13:28,240 preceding year. When does it take effect? When does it, when would it end? Would it 109 00:13:28,240 --> 00:13:36,840 not end until 2023 then? As I read the code, based on what you're saying, disclosure under 110 00:13:36,840 --> 00:13:42,840 the subsection shall be for the time period, including the previous calendar year and up 111 00:13:42,840 --> 00:13:49,680 to the date where the contracting interest arises for the city official. That's under 112 00:14:12,840 --> 00:14:27,320 I think the disclosure has to be made when an issue is before the council that involves 113 00:14:27,320 --> 00:14:34,760 the conflict. So in this specific case, it would be dealing with a contract or permit 114 00:14:34,760 --> 00:14:41,280 or authorization or approval with the University of North Texas. Once the disclosure is made, 115 00:14:41,280 --> 00:14:50,520 it's made. And the disclosure is on file. It's not a repeated requirement. It's a requirement 116 00:14:50,520 --> 00:14:58,160 to put this in writing in the form of an affidavit on file with the city auditor. And once that's 117 00:14:58,160 --> 00:15:06,920 done, the requirement is met. And so what you're discussing is the disclosure requirement. 118 00:15:06,920 --> 00:15:12,460 I believe that that's true. They have to make this disclosure in the form of the affidavit. 119 00:15:12,460 --> 00:15:16,200 Once it's done, that box is checked. 120 00:15:16,200 --> 00:15:27,440 Helen, it does mention in that section about disclosure pending matter, which I believe 121 00:15:27,440 --> 00:15:36,160 would come up. Currently we have council members who abstain basically complete an affidavit 122 00:15:36,160 --> 00:15:42,280 of abstention, which I believe is what this is actually talking about, but I could be 123 00:15:42,280 --> 00:15:48,560 incorrect. So they do have to every time a new pending matter comes up, in particular 124 00:15:48,560 --> 00:15:54,720 in this case about UNT, Councilmember Meltzer files an affidavit of abstention for that 125 00:15:54,720 --> 00:16:24,080 particular item. So section 2-273A2 does not apply to these. That's just, if I understand 126 00:16:24,080 --> 00:16:33,040 you, Helen, that's a one-time thing, and these affidavits of abstention are a separate matter. 127 00:16:33,040 --> 00:16:48,160 And so the question would be how long after the severance of employment would these affidavits 128 00:16:48,160 --> 00:16:55,240 of abstention continue to have to be filed? Did that? 129 00:16:55,240 --> 00:17:12,000 Sure, I understand now. I misunderstood what was being asked a moment ago. 130 00:17:12,000 --> 00:17:20,040 So I'm not an attorney, and I make a whole disclosure, but it appears to me that that 131 00:17:20,040 --> 00:17:28,840 period of time that abstention, affidavits of abstention would have to be filed, and 132 00:17:28,840 --> 00:17:34,320 that there would be a conflicting interest in a pending matter that would exist until 133 00:17:34,320 --> 00:17:48,200 the end of 2021 because Councilperson Meltzer's wife severance, her last W-2 from UNT, would 134 00:17:48,200 --> 00:17:52,000 be for 2021. 135 00:17:52,000 --> 00:18:00,240 But she wouldn't get the W-2 until 2022, until, at least after, they'd have to get it by 136 00:18:00,240 --> 00:18:04,440 January 31st, unless they give an extension. 137 00:18:04,440 --> 00:18:10,760 But she would still have a severance in terms of her resignation. She would have the dates 138 00:18:10,760 --> 00:18:15,520 on that. She would have her last paycheck. So there would be documentation that she earned 139 00:18:15,520 --> 00:18:22,560 more than $600 during that year. 140 00:18:22,560 --> 00:18:37,640 I think that as an ethics board, we shouldn't be controlled by the specific language at 141 00:18:37,640 --> 00:18:47,240 all times. I think there's another test that has to be done as to what makes sense. The 142 00:18:47,240 --> 00:18:56,360 ethics ordinance is new. We're testing it now. There are things in the ethics ordinance 143 00:18:56,360 --> 00:19:04,680 that we have discovered don't make sense. I think this is one of them. I see a distinction 144 00:19:04,680 --> 00:19:13,560 between the Councilperson having been employed by the institution and resigning in January 145 00:19:13,560 --> 00:19:24,280 versus the Councilperson's relative. Just like any law that's passed by a municipality 146 00:19:24,280 --> 00:19:30,000 that has an inconsistency, that law can be repealed or changed. This is one of those 147 00:19:30,000 --> 00:19:37,200 areas of the ethics ordinance that I think we need to further define in terms of what 148 00:19:37,200 --> 00:19:47,800 the impact is. What is the impact on Councilman Melser presiding over a pending matter in 149 00:19:47,800 --> 00:20:00,800 2021 when his wife resigned in January from that institution? It doesn't make sense that 150 00:20:00,800 --> 00:20:12,200 there be a conflict just because the ethics ordinance language suggests that it is. This 151 00:20:12,200 --> 00:20:18,940 needs to be an area where we look to changing it or further defining what it means. If it 152 00:20:18,940 --> 00:20:25,320 means that he has to recuse himself just because he was employed for a month this year, then 153 00:20:25,320 --> 00:20:33,600 that doesn't make sense, and it shouldn't exist in terms of our ordinance. 154 00:20:33,600 --> 00:20:38,680 It's up to the City Council to make the changes. We can make those recommendations. This came 155 00:20:38,680 --> 00:20:51,360 up before with the polling sites because universities are listed as business in definitions. I feel 156 00:20:51,360 --> 00:20:59,360 like we've covered this ground before. Council is aware of the problem. They did go back 157 00:20:59,360 --> 00:21:11,160 and change that section to the polling places that someone with a conflict could still vote 158 00:21:11,160 --> 00:21:22,560 on polling places in the city budget. I think that what as an ethics board, in my opinion, 159 00:21:22,560 --> 00:21:28,260 we can only go by the language that's in the document. When we come up against the problem 160 00:21:28,260 --> 00:21:32,280 and we can make recommendations to City Council, but it's up to the City Council to make those 161 00:21:32,280 --> 00:21:35,280 changes, is my understanding. 162 00:21:35,280 --> 00:21:48,080 Yeah, I don't think our ethics document is clear on this particular request that Councilman 163 00:21:48,080 --> 00:21:57,000 Metzer has made. If it's not clear, then I'm kind of siding with what Mr. Johnson says. 164 00:21:57,000 --> 00:22:01,520 We shouldn't try to enforce something that's not clear, and I don't think it's particularly 165 00:22:01,520 --> 00:22:02,520 clear. 166 00:22:02,520 --> 00:22:11,160 As a lay person, when I look at this, it's clear to me that his wife meets the definition 167 00:22:11,160 --> 00:22:20,520 of family, that the pending matters, conflicts of interest, pending matters applies to relationships 168 00:22:20,520 --> 00:22:26,640 of both council persons and their spouses and family members. 169 00:22:26,640 --> 00:22:34,880 Yeah, if she was currently employed when the vote would come up, then I absolutely agree 170 00:22:34,880 --> 00:22:41,160 with you. But if she's been terminated or quit or for whatever reason in January and 171 00:22:41,160 --> 00:22:48,280 the vote comes up in August, I don't see a conflict there. 172 00:22:48,280 --> 00:22:51,640 I agree with Dan. 173 00:22:51,640 --> 00:22:57,960 Well, I agree with you as well. I think it's pretty silly, but this is the document we 174 00:22:57,960 --> 00:23:03,100 have to work with. These are the guidelines. I don't think that we can go outside of it 175 00:23:03,100 --> 00:23:12,080 as a panel or as a board without City Council making some revisions. 176 00:23:12,080 --> 00:23:18,080 It's one thing going outside of it, and it's another thing making decisions based upon 177 00:23:18,080 --> 00:23:26,120 incomplete information or cloudy information. As Don indicated, it's not clear why this 178 00:23:26,120 --> 00:23:36,920 applies. So if it's not clear, then our decision to honor his participation is not a violation 179 00:23:36,920 --> 00:23:43,920 of the ethics board or ethics ordinance. It is a conclusion that we reach based upon our 180 00:23:43,920 --> 00:23:44,920 interpretation. 181 00:23:44,920 --> 00:23:48,040 Madison, you had your hand up. 182 00:23:48,040 --> 00:23:52,160 Just for some procedural things that have been mentioned, you're correct about the process 183 00:23:52,160 --> 00:23:58,140 of making changes to the ethics ordinance. The board is able to make recommendations 184 00:23:58,140 --> 00:24:02,720 about changes to the ordinance to council, and then council must ultimately approve those 185 00:24:02,720 --> 00:24:14,160 before they become, I guess, law or code. I was also going to mention, if this is an 186 00:24:14,160 --> 00:24:21,440 area that you all think should be raised because it is cloudy, I can certainly put it on the 187 00:24:21,440 --> 00:24:26,400 list of items I have to bring up to the board to get clarification on so that the board 188 00:24:26,400 --> 00:24:32,720 can make a recommendation. The other thing I just wanted to mention is that the ethics 189 00:24:32,720 --> 00:24:43,120 ordinance does specifically state that reliance on an advisory opinion is basically a defense 190 00:24:43,120 --> 00:24:49,040 if somebody submitted an ethics complaint against, like in this case, if councilmember 191 00:24:49,040 --> 00:24:56,720 Meltzer voted down the line in August on a UNT matter, but this panel had issued an advisory 192 00:24:56,720 --> 00:25:01,520 opinion that that was fine, but somebody submitted an ethics complaint, he could say, well, they 193 00:25:01,520 --> 00:25:12,080 told me I could do this, and that would be a defense basically. So that's just to know. 194 00:25:12,080 --> 00:25:20,720 I think that's all accurate, and from a big picture, I agree whenever this board of ethics 195 00:25:20,720 --> 00:25:27,000 or this panel of the board of ethics sees something in the code that they think is either 196 00:25:27,000 --> 00:25:35,840 incorrect or no longer makes sense or is just not workable, that should be added to Madison's 197 00:25:35,840 --> 00:25:42,200 ongoing list of potential amendments to be made to the code when the City Council is 198 00:25:42,200 --> 00:25:48,040 ready to do that. Absolutely, this board of ethics is in a good position to make those 199 00:25:48,040 --> 00:25:54,000 recommendations, and I think that would probably be very meaningful to the City Council to 200 00:25:54,000 --> 00:26:02,240 do that. They've entrusted you with the administration of this code, and they may take your recommendations, 201 00:26:02,240 --> 00:26:08,640 they may take some of them or not all of them. That's their discretion. In this instance, 202 00:26:08,640 --> 00:26:18,280 I think that what the code as written suggests is that when it comes to these disclosures, 203 00:26:18,280 --> 00:26:25,840 it's the type of financial relationship between employer and employee that would be reflected 204 00:26:25,840 --> 00:26:34,920 on one of these IRS tax forms, in this case a W-2. And if the threshold of $600 has been 205 00:26:34,920 --> 00:26:45,320 surpassed, then that triggers the conflict of interest. The disclosure requirements, whenever 206 00:26:45,320 --> 00:26:51,000 an item comes before the City, there's the requirement to disclose it through the form 207 00:26:51,000 --> 00:26:57,240 of an affidavit. But it goes on to say that the period of that disclosure is basically 208 00:26:57,240 --> 00:27:04,760 for a time period that includes at least the previous year. And so I think filing a disclosure 209 00:27:04,760 --> 00:27:13,200 will cover the time period that goes back to what will eventually be January of 2022. 210 00:27:13,200 --> 00:27:20,520 And after that period, if there's no more work reported on one of these tax forms, that 211 00:27:20,520 --> 00:27:29,680 would be $600 or more, the reporting requirement is over and the abstention from action requirement 212 00:27:29,680 --> 00:27:38,080 is over. But until then, I think that's what the code requires. And there could be an argument 213 00:27:38,080 --> 00:27:44,680 that each time a new matter comes before the City, a permit, a contract, some form of authorization 214 00:27:44,680 --> 00:27:50,800 with UNT, that a new disclosure form would have to be filed. I don't know if that was 215 00:27:50,800 --> 00:27:58,120 the intention because of the one-year look-back period on the disclosure, but that is an argument 216 00:27:58,120 --> 00:28:03,880 that was raised today and I can see that as a legitimate argument. What is the normal 217 00:28:03,880 --> 00:28:09,960 procedure if we were just going under state law is you file that affidavit, it's on file 218 00:28:09,960 --> 00:28:16,560 with the City Secretary and it just exists. It's not filed each and every time a matter 219 00:28:16,560 --> 00:28:22,400 comes forward. Because the purpose, of course, is to put the public on notice that the City 220 00:28:22,400 --> 00:28:29,720 official, in this case, the City Councilman, has publicly told everyone about this relationship, 221 00:28:29,720 --> 00:28:36,480 which at this point is a past relationship. And therefore, they're not influencing the 222 00:28:36,480 --> 00:28:42,840 matter in secret. It's very transparent. And so, the disclosure part is the transparency 223 00:28:42,840 --> 00:28:49,320 part. The second part is the abstention part, which is saying, because I have this past 224 00:28:49,320 --> 00:28:55,880 relationship through my spouse, I am not going to be deliberating this as a council member 225 00:28:55,880 --> 00:29:03,400 or voting on it as a council member. And that's what I think the code says. 226 00:29:03,400 --> 00:29:13,600 Let me ask you just a simple question. If he discloses the fact that his wife works 227 00:29:13,600 --> 00:29:24,120 at UT, which everyone is aware of, and then he still votes, to me, would that be a violation 228 00:29:24,120 --> 00:29:35,720 of the code? If he discloses it, discloses it, and then votes, has he violated the code? 229 00:29:35,720 --> 00:29:42,600 I think he would be vulnerable to an ethics complaint for the next year. But I think the 230 00:29:42,600 --> 00:29:48,240 conservative reading of the entire section put together would yield is that he has the 231 00:29:48,240 --> 00:29:54,400 duty to disclose this relationship in the form of an affidavit, and he has a duty to 232 00:29:54,400 --> 00:30:00,960 abstain from deliberations until January at some point, 2022. 233 00:30:00,960 --> 00:30:11,360 So, wasn't Mr. Meltzer censured because he voted on polling places despite the pending 234 00:30:11,360 --> 00:30:20,800 conflict? Am I remembering that correctly? That's correct. 235 00:30:20,800 --> 00:30:32,240 That was a clear interpretation of the ordinance in terms of what occurred that last time. 236 00:30:32,240 --> 00:30:40,560 Even though that, too, perhaps didn't make sense, there was no question about how the 237 00:30:40,560 --> 00:30:52,560 ordinance was being interpreted. In this case, there is a question about how it's being interpreted. 238 00:30:52,560 --> 00:31:05,960 I'm seeing it as very similar. For my list, is the piece that is really cloudy, is that 239 00:31:05,960 --> 00:31:15,720 in section 2-273A1, when it says city officials with a current conflicting interest, is that 240 00:31:15,720 --> 00:31:22,800 the piece, the current piece, is that what is the confusing piece? If the conflict is 241 00:31:22,800 --> 00:31:32,400 still current once the employment relationship is terminated? 242 00:31:32,400 --> 00:31:40,640 I interpret that it ended when that conflict ended, and if it's not current, if she's not 243 00:31:40,640 --> 00:31:49,080 currently employed, then I don't see any reason for him not to be able to vote. If you found 244 00:31:49,080 --> 00:31:56,800 out later that there was some adagans dealing on her leaving the job and letting him vote 245 00:31:56,800 --> 00:32:01,960 and go back, then I think there's other areas in the code that we could find that he did 246 00:32:01,960 --> 00:32:10,200 violate the code. But with her leaving, I just don't believe that it's a current conflict 247 00:32:10,200 --> 00:32:14,560 of interest. My opinion. 248 00:32:14,560 --> 00:32:28,120 What about the definition of family and the application that the code applies to council 249 00:32:28,120 --> 00:32:38,600 members and their families? I don't see anything in the code that says that it no longer applies 250 00:32:38,600 --> 00:32:47,120 because of... I don't see anything that treats family members differently from council members 251 00:32:47,120 --> 00:32:50,560 in terms of conflicts of interest. 252 00:32:50,560 --> 00:32:59,880 I can agree with that, but if a council member was... If he was employed at University of 253 00:32:59,880 --> 00:33:07,280 North Texas, and he terminated, would he have a current conflict at that time as long as 254 00:33:07,280 --> 00:33:13,640 he informed it, as long as everyone knew it? Would he not be able to vote on items that 255 00:33:13,640 --> 00:33:22,400 came up to UNT? I'm saying it would go both ways because there would not be a current 256 00:33:22,400 --> 00:33:23,400 conflict. 257 00:33:23,400 --> 00:33:32,240 Well, it would be because if they were paid more than $600 in gross annual income, then 258 00:33:32,240 --> 00:33:46,640 it would be a conflict, is how I'm reading it. I think we're stuck because I think we're 259 00:33:46,640 --> 00:33:55,480 all in agreement that this is rather silly. But then based upon what we have in the code 260 00:33:55,480 --> 00:34:08,440 of ethics, how do we apply it to this situation? I think personally that we should add it to 261 00:34:08,440 --> 00:34:17,000 the list of things to clear up. Mr. Meltzer stated that this was not urgent, but it would 262 00:34:17,000 --> 00:34:21,040 eventually be helpful to have it settled. I think that this is something that we can 263 00:34:21,040 --> 00:34:27,720 take before the full board for discussion. But my recommendation, and I'm open for discussion, 264 00:34:27,720 --> 00:34:34,400 is that we apply the code as it is written, which would be that it would be a conflict 265 00:34:34,400 --> 00:34:47,600 of interest until January 2022, based upon section 2-273(a), conflicts of interest (3), 266 00:34:47,600 --> 00:34:54,760 definition of conflicting interest (4), and b, the receipt of more than $600 in gross annual 267 00:34:54,760 --> 00:35:00,320 income evidenced by the 2 form, et cetera. 268 00:35:00,320 --> 00:35:10,860 As a board, we are constrained by the specific language of the ordinance in relationship 269 00:35:10,860 --> 00:35:18,160 to interpreting it and applying it. When the language is specific and unambiguous and there's 270 00:35:18,160 --> 00:35:26,280 no question about the intent, then I believe that Madison is correct in that the proper 271 00:35:26,280 --> 00:35:32,400 way to address something like that is to put it on a list for council's consideration for 272 00:35:32,400 --> 00:35:39,880 changing. In this case, I don't think that we have a clear, unambiguous interpretation 273 00:35:39,880 --> 00:35:47,880 of the matter before us, and basically it boils down to how we interpret it. And how 274 00:35:47,880 --> 00:35:55,860 we interpret it is not a violation of that principle that the council changes things. 275 00:35:55,860 --> 00:36:04,520 How we interpret it is how we see it. So if we interpret it to mean that there should 276 00:36:04,520 --> 00:36:10,840 be no conflict, then yes, that should also still go on the list for council, but it should 277 00:36:10,840 --> 00:36:19,040 give council added impetus to change it so that it won't be a question in the future. 278 00:36:19,040 --> 00:36:28,360 But at this point, many governmental entities that find a law that is unenforceable, they 279 00:36:28,360 --> 00:36:38,960 stop enforcing it until the legislature or the applicable body changes it. So if we do 280 00:36:38,960 --> 00:36:49,560 not find that Councilman Meltzer is liable for conflict of interest in this matter, it 281 00:36:49,560 --> 00:36:56,960 is not that we're not following the ethics ordinance. We're interpreting it in a way 282 00:36:56,960 --> 00:37:05,480 that's favorable to him. And any changes, as I indicated, that are resulting after that 283 00:37:05,480 --> 00:37:10,240 can be handled by the council. 284 00:37:10,240 --> 00:37:15,840 If I could chime in, I think this is a fantastic discussion. And I think what you all are doing 285 00:37:15,840 --> 00:37:21,680 is absolutely positive, and the city council is quite lucky, and the citizens are quite 286 00:37:21,680 --> 00:37:28,200 lucky to have a group of you doing this sort of thing. Because, believe me, when I look 287 00:37:28,200 --> 00:37:35,040 at these sorts of incidents, these fact patterns, and this code, and try to reconcile them, 288 00:37:35,040 --> 00:37:41,880 my advice is a little bit broad, and I'm choosing to call it conservative, in that the advice 289 00:37:41,880 --> 00:37:48,600 I give individuals is designed to keep them out of trouble and help them avoid having 290 00:37:48,600 --> 00:37:53,560 complaints brought against them. Because I think that can be a very damaging thing to 291 00:37:53,560 --> 00:38:02,240 a person, and I want their behavior to be above reproach and above the appearance of 292 00:38:02,240 --> 00:38:08,560 impropriety, so they can go on and do their public service unscathed. What you're doing 293 00:38:08,560 --> 00:38:14,320 is looking at the code and the fact pattern from a very pragmatic standpoint, and seeing 294 00:38:14,320 --> 00:38:22,400 does this rule, as it could be applied, make sense in this situation. And I get a sense 295 00:38:22,400 --> 00:38:29,160 that all three of you think it does not make sense in this situation, and is even characterized 296 00:38:29,160 --> 00:38:38,440 by one as being silly. And so, at this point, I'm going to encourage you not to be purely 297 00:38:38,440 --> 00:38:47,000 bureaucratic, and see if you can interpret the code in a way that makes sense. Because 298 00:38:47,000 --> 00:38:53,120 as Madison stated earlier, if you issue an advisory opinion, the council member who receives 299 00:38:53,120 --> 00:39:00,440 it and relies on it in good faith is able to have that as a defense to any ethics complaint 300 00:39:00,440 --> 00:39:05,800 that comes forward. What I would hope is having that advisory opinion, which is deter them 301 00:39:05,800 --> 00:39:11,480 from being an ethics complaint, because this panel has made its decision and offered that 302 00:39:11,480 --> 00:39:18,320 guidance. So, hopefully, we would never get to that point. If you were inclined to apply 303 00:39:18,320 --> 00:39:25,960 the rule and say that there's a conflict requiring disclosure and abstention for, in effect, a 304 00:39:25,960 --> 00:39:34,120 year, 11 months, it would be because $600 was received within that time period. The 305 00:39:34,120 --> 00:39:45,280 word in Section 3B is receipt. Not that you're going to receive someday, but there was received 306 00:39:45,280 --> 00:39:55,360 $600. That's what you would do, and that creates a conflict for a year going forward. If, however, 307 00:39:55,360 --> 00:40:03,360 you think applying this rule does not make sense, then I think what you would focus on 308 00:40:03,360 --> 00:40:12,160 is what Madison pointed out earlier, accurately, is that above in 273(a)(1), it talks about 309 00:40:12,160 --> 00:40:20,240 a current conflicting interest. And if this panel of the Denton Board of Ethics thinks 310 00:40:20,240 --> 00:40:27,240 there's no longer a current conflicting interest because the council member's spouse resigned 311 00:40:27,240 --> 00:40:35,080 in January, then that is the basis for you issuing an advisory opinion saying that this 312 00:40:35,080 --> 00:40:41,920 conflict doesn't apply. Now, I think there's still the disclosure requirement. Well, how 313 00:40:41,920 --> 00:40:50,600 does that make sense? Because if the councilman goes on and votes on matters regarding UNT, 314 00:40:50,600 --> 00:40:57,840 having disclosed that there's this matter and I have a conflict dating back to January 315 00:40:57,840 --> 00:41:05,000 2021, then the citizens are aware and the citizens can decide whether that matters to 316 00:41:05,000 --> 00:41:11,040 them or not. They're able to pick up the phone and call their councilman. They're able to 317 00:41:11,040 --> 00:41:18,080 vote. There are various means. What they would not have at their disposal is an ethics complaint. 318 00:41:18,080 --> 00:41:24,400 It would not be successful because if he goes forward and votes on UNT matters in reliance 319 00:41:24,400 --> 00:41:30,480 on your advisory opinion, then he has that defense. And I think that is a way forward 320 00:41:30,480 --> 00:41:37,840 because what I'm always going to be encouraging the people of Denton to do is make decisions 321 00:41:37,840 --> 00:41:45,560 that yield ethical behavior, not just bureaucratic technical results. And if you're not concerned 322 00:41:45,560 --> 00:41:51,840 about the behavior, if you're not concerned about the conduct, you don't think that the 323 00:41:51,840 --> 00:41:57,800 councilman going forward and discussing and voting on UNT matters, despite having had 324 00:41:57,800 --> 00:42:03,600 a previous relationship through his spouse, if that's not problematic, then issue an advisory 325 00:42:03,600 --> 00:42:10,600 opinion that says so because we're supposed to be focusing on integrity and good behavior, 326 00:42:10,600 --> 00:42:17,720 not just on how the words can be interpreted to require something or prohibit something. 327 00:42:17,720 --> 00:42:19,880 Does that make sense? 328 00:42:19,880 --> 00:42:34,840 To sum up what I think I understand you said is that requiring the disclosure, but not 329 00:42:34,840 --> 00:42:39,640 making it a violation of the ethics code if he voted. 330 00:42:39,640 --> 00:42:45,240 Correct. I think if that's what you want to do, I'm listening to the conversation and 331 00:42:45,240 --> 00:42:53,400 I think there's a consensus, then the basis, the hook you hang your head on is how you 332 00:42:53,400 --> 00:43:00,520 interpret the word current in section A1. You're basically saying in your opinion that 333 00:43:00,520 --> 00:43:07,320 there may have been a previous conflict, but there's not a current one going forward. And 334 00:43:07,320 --> 00:43:12,400 while there needs to be disclosure because of the one year look back, he can actually 335 00:43:12,400 --> 00:43:17,760 discuss and vote on matters going forward. And if someone were to file a complaint against 336 00:43:17,760 --> 00:43:23,840 them, he would have an affirmative defense because he has your advisory opinion in his 337 00:43:23,840 --> 00:43:28,960 hand, which would make it easy for the board of ethics at that point to dispose of that 338 00:43:28,960 --> 00:43:33,080 complaint. 339 00:43:33,080 --> 00:43:38,400 And then I guess our third point would be we would like to have this brought up before 340 00:43:38,400 --> 00:43:42,840 the full committee to review it for any possible changes. 341 00:43:42,840 --> 00:43:49,720 Yes. I know that y'all are keeping some sort of list of things you spot big and small. 342 00:43:49,720 --> 00:43:55,280 I'm sure that Madison's office has a list of things that her office would actually like 343 00:43:55,280 --> 00:44:01,160 addressed for administrative efficiency purposes. At some point, that list needs to go before 344 00:44:01,160 --> 00:44:07,360 the full board of ethics. And you need to have a thorough discussion of it, in my opinion, 345 00:44:07,360 --> 00:44:13,020 at which point you vote to send a list of recommendations forward to the city council 346 00:44:13,020 --> 00:44:21,640 for the city council to then deliberate. Because this is your first code of ethics. It was 347 00:44:21,640 --> 00:44:27,720 a lengthy process, a very inclusive, deliberative process to draft it. But once it got inked 348 00:44:27,720 --> 00:44:34,120 and signed, administering it helps people understand it a little bit better, apply it 349 00:44:34,120 --> 00:44:38,960 to real-world examples, and we learn things. And some things that seem to make sense at 350 00:44:38,960 --> 00:44:43,760 one point may not make sense in the future. There's nothing wrong with amending and updating 351 00:44:43,760 --> 00:44:50,400 ordinances. Municipalities do it all the time. But what matters to me is we've got a panel 352 00:44:50,400 --> 00:44:55,600 of good people with good intentions from the board of ethics looking at a rule, applying 353 00:44:55,600 --> 00:45:01,440 it to a particular fact pattern, and saying this doesn't make sense. Well, one way you 354 00:45:01,440 --> 00:45:08,160 can address it is to recommend an ordinance amendment. Another way you can address it 355 00:45:08,160 --> 00:45:13,680 is in your interpretation in the advisory opinion. And what I'm telling you as your 356 00:45:13,680 --> 00:45:19,840 lawyer in this matter is if that's the direction you want to go, I can support that. And the 357 00:45:19,840 --> 00:45:26,200 way you do it is with the way we talked about current in that earlier section. I agree with 358 00:45:26,200 --> 00:45:32,640 what you're all saying. This is why this is hard. This is why we have these kind of meetings. 359 00:45:32,640 --> 00:45:37,720 The same word can mean something different to different people. It's a matter of interpretation. 360 00:45:37,720 --> 00:45:43,960 And more than anything, I want this code to be fairly applied. I want it to make sense. 361 00:45:43,960 --> 00:45:48,900 And I want when you're done with your meetings, I want you to feel like you've done your part 362 00:45:48,900 --> 00:45:57,080 to further integrity at City Hall in Denton. And so that is a path forward if you choose 363 00:45:57,080 --> 00:46:04,500 to take it. The other option is to say, "Nope, our advisory opinion says you have a conflict. 364 00:46:04,500 --> 00:46:11,560 You can't vote for a year. You must disclose for a year." And then say, "City Council, 365 00:46:11,560 --> 00:46:21,440 please address this when the time is right." So Alan, for this advisory opinion, it would 366 00:46:21,440 --> 00:46:32,520 just apply to this case, right? Yes. It is specific to the fact patterns that we're doing. 367 00:46:32,520 --> 00:46:46,480 I have some concerns about opening a can of worms, if other advisory, if other questions. 368 00:46:46,480 --> 00:46:54,680 Yes, Madison. I just wanted, and maybe I'll just wait until 369 00:46:54,680 --> 00:47:00,480 we have the advisory opinion. Never mind. I apologize for interrupting. 370 00:47:00,480 --> 00:47:16,040 Okay. No problem. Because I can see hanging, using the A1 as the framework. That makes 371 00:47:16,040 --> 00:47:22,760 a lot of sense to me, and I'm comfortable with that. But my concern is that we may have 372 00:47:22,760 --> 00:47:31,320 a lot, unless there are some changes to the ordinance, we may have to do a lot of parsing 373 00:47:31,320 --> 00:47:40,960 along the way, if that makes. And so that bit concerns me. And in terms of, yes, Madison, 374 00:47:40,960 --> 00:47:45,080 you look like you have something to say. Yeah, I was just going to, I think if you issue 375 00:47:45,080 --> 00:47:49,960 an advisory opinion to Council Member Meltzer specifically, because your concern was about 376 00:47:49,960 --> 00:47:56,080 opening a can of worms, that does not, I think if something else came up where some other 377 00:47:56,080 --> 00:48:02,600 council member had a relationship with another entity and their spouse terminated that, but 378 00:48:02,600 --> 00:48:09,040 it was facts were different, right? I don't think that having issued that advisory opinion 379 00:48:09,040 --> 00:48:14,440 would prevent the board in any way from seeing those facts and interpreting them differently 380 00:48:14,440 --> 00:48:19,960 at this point without a change to the ordinance. But Alan, do you have a different opinion 381 00:48:19,960 --> 00:48:23,480 on that? Basically, I don't think it sets precedent. 382 00:48:23,480 --> 00:48:29,520 Yeah. Precedent is always a concern. That's the magic word. I don't think that this advisory 383 00:48:29,520 --> 00:48:37,240 opinion would necessarily be binding on a future panel or the Board of Ethics, but we 384 00:48:37,240 --> 00:48:44,160 do want similar facts to be treated similarly. We do want to treat people fairly and not 385 00:48:44,160 --> 00:48:49,280 issue opinions based on do we like this person or like this entity? And I don't think y'all 386 00:48:49,280 --> 00:48:55,880 would ever do that. So my recommendation would be if another council member comes forward 387 00:48:55,880 --> 00:49:03,880 with a similar situation, that either we would give them a similar advisory opinion or we 388 00:49:03,880 --> 00:49:10,720 would seriously have the council amend the ordinance to make clear what people want in 389 00:49:10,720 --> 00:49:19,160 Denton. And I'll share with you that not all municipalities that have Codes of Ethics have 390 00:49:19,160 --> 00:49:26,640 a process for advisory opinions. Or in some cities, advisory opinion comes from, you know, 391 00:49:26,640 --> 00:49:35,160 an outside lawyer, not from a group like yours, or there just is no process. And for me, I 392 00:49:35,160 --> 00:49:40,680 am glad that the City Council chose to have this process that you're working through to 393 00:49:40,680 --> 00:49:47,400 today. Because I think the more that we ask questions and converse about ethics, the better 394 00:49:47,400 --> 00:49:52,720 behavior we're going to have, and the more confidence the citizens can have in what's 395 00:49:52,720 --> 00:49:57,360 going on at City Hall. So more conversations, deliberations, decisions is a good thing, 396 00:49:57,360 --> 00:50:04,000 not a bad thing. And the second thing is, I think we're a great resource for folks who 397 00:50:04,000 --> 00:50:09,920 can look at the code and maybe it just either they don't understand it or it doesn't make 398 00:50:09,920 --> 00:50:16,200 sense in their situation. And this is a really good safety valve. And so if it creates more 399 00:50:16,200 --> 00:50:23,240 meetings for you and more advisory opinions for you, then it's good to be needed. You've 400 00:50:23,240 --> 00:50:27,720 got some work to do. But I think that it's through these advisory opinions, we breathe 401 00:50:27,720 --> 00:50:34,080 more life into the code, rather than just hearings on a complaint, where it's more like 402 00:50:34,080 --> 00:50:40,360 a trial and there may be some punishment for somebody. And so I don't necessarily look 403 00:50:40,360 --> 00:50:46,920 at requests for advisory opinions as a bad thing. We want our city officials when in 404 00:50:46,920 --> 00:50:55,640 doubt to ask in advance versus having to defend themselves at a hearing. And so I would consider 405 00:50:55,640 --> 00:51:11,280 approaching it that way if you're so inclined. Any other discussion? So then in the process, 406 00:51:11,280 --> 00:51:18,040 do we vote on this or make a motion? Someone would make a motion. There'd be a second 407 00:51:18,040 --> 00:51:27,200 and a vote. And based on whatever the motion is in this discussion, I would work with Madison 408 00:51:27,200 --> 00:51:41,480 to draft a very short advisory opinion or the chairperson's signature. Do I hear a motion? 409 00:51:41,480 --> 00:51:56,800 I move that we find that Councilman Meltzer's request to determine if there is a conflict 410 00:51:56,800 --> 00:52:11,200 of interest related to his wife's termination of employment in January 2021 is not a conflict 411 00:52:11,200 --> 00:52:32,880 in that anything he deliberates on after January 2021 does not constitute a current conflict 412 00:52:32,880 --> 00:52:41,400 as it relates to his wife's previous employment. That can probably be reduced a little bit, 413 00:52:41,400 --> 00:52:54,040 but... Could I try to read that back? The motion is that the panel finds that Councilmember 414 00:52:54,040 --> 00:53:01,840 Meltzer's request to determine if there is a conflict of interest related to his wife's 415 00:53:01,840 --> 00:53:09,000 previous employment, which terminated in January 2021, is not a conflict in that anything he 416 00:53:09,000 --> 00:53:15,720 deliberates on after January 2021 does not constitute a current conflict of interest. 417 00:53:15,720 --> 00:53:27,080 Is that the end? I think that's the end. That's pretty good. And if I may suggest, there needs 418 00:53:27,080 --> 00:53:32,400 to be a friendly amendment to your motion before it's seconded, and that is to address 419 00:53:32,400 --> 00:53:40,220 the disclosure requirement. The disclosure would still need to happen for any new pending 420 00:53:40,220 --> 00:53:51,040 matters for the calendar year prior to the separation from UNT. Is that y'all's intent? 421 00:53:51,040 --> 00:53:59,680 So, as a procedural question, that would mean, because as I mentioned currently, they file 422 00:53:59,680 --> 00:54:06,760 affidavits of abstention, which specifically say for this item, I am abstaining because 423 00:54:06,760 --> 00:54:14,840 of this conflict of interest reason, which he has put in the past the $600 in gross annual 424 00:54:14,840 --> 00:54:20,480 income. So, we would require him to still complete that, but he would be able to vote 425 00:54:20,480 --> 00:54:27,960 instead of abstaining. That's the direction I'm hearing procedurally. That's probably 426 00:54:27,960 --> 00:54:32,820 a little more detailed than it needs to be. Well, that's not the motion. That's just my 427 00:54:32,820 --> 00:54:41,040 clarification. I'm imagining, Madison, it may have to be a slightly different form. A different 428 00:54:41,040 --> 00:54:47,160 form. So, it's a disclosure of the relationship, but it's not abstaining. And so, that way, 429 00:54:47,160 --> 00:54:52,840 if we're going to give the councilman guidance, let's give him guidance on both points. And 430 00:54:52,840 --> 00:55:00,600 so, if it is your intention to say there's not a current conflict, thus allowing action, 431 00:55:00,600 --> 00:55:06,360 but that there's still the disclosure requirement for a calendar year, then I would include 432 00:55:06,360 --> 00:55:11,400 that in your- I would suggest that we do that in two motions. 433 00:55:11,400 --> 00:55:19,120 All right. So, I'll step back from that, excuse me, and see if there's a second on Mr. Johnson's 434 00:55:19,120 --> 00:55:29,800 original motion. I will second the motion. 435 00:55:29,800 --> 00:55:45,320 So do- and we vote on the motion. So, ayes? All ayes? All ayes. Any opposed? No. Motion 436 00:55:45,320 --> 00:55:59,860 carries. So, second motion. Do I hear a motion on disclosure? 437 00:55:59,860 --> 00:56:07,400 Let me- Committed his motion to include that on our 438 00:56:07,400 --> 00:56:13,160 last vote, didn't we? No, I thought we were doing it on two motions. 439 00:56:13,160 --> 00:56:19,240 Yeah, I suggested that we do the- it is two motions to make it clear, the motion language 440 00:56:19,240 --> 00:56:26,480 be less- Madison, let me make sure I understand the 441 00:56:26,480 --> 00:56:33,720 purpose and the language of the second disclosure. I would imagine, based upon where we are, 442 00:56:33,720 --> 00:56:40,600 the second disclosure would say something like, "I, Paul Milster, had a previous conflict 443 00:56:40,600 --> 00:56:50,640 and that my wife was employed with UNT up until January of 2021 when she ceased employment. 444 00:56:50,640 --> 00:56:56,680 When she ceased employment, I no longer have a current conflict, so I will not abstain 445 00:56:56,680 --> 00:57:04,320 from any votes related to UNT after January 2021." 446 00:57:04,320 --> 00:57:13,280 Well, and we might need an opinion from you on this, Alan. So there's basically two disclosure 447 00:57:13,280 --> 00:57:18,800 pieces required in the current code. There's the one that says- that's like the business 448 00:57:18,800 --> 00:57:29,440 disclosure whereby you have to disclose that you have a business relationship or something 449 00:57:29,440 --> 00:57:41,040 to, in general, to the public, which I believe, like, if you owned a business- can you hear 450 00:57:41,040 --> 00:57:48,280 me? I have internet. Okay, there we go. If you- you would have to disclose, "Hey, I have 451 00:57:48,280 --> 00:57:53,600 a relationship with this," and then any time that became a pending matter, you would have 452 00:57:53,600 --> 00:58:01,180 to then say, "I'm abstaining because of this conflict of interest that I've previously 453 00:58:01,180 --> 00:58:09,600 disclosed." Did that make sense? And did you hear me because of my internet connection? 454 00:58:09,600 --> 00:58:14,960 Yeah, your video froze, but I could hear the audio just fine. 455 00:58:14,960 --> 00:58:26,600 Correct, Alan, is that your understanding? Yes. So I think the question here is, he's 456 00:58:26,600 --> 00:58:32,920 already disclosed that he had a relationship with UNT. Do we want to basically require 457 00:58:32,920 --> 00:58:39,560 him to, whenever there's a pending matter concerning UNT, to disclose that he had previously 458 00:58:39,560 --> 00:58:47,480 had a conflict, but it is not currently a conflict? So that's why he's voting each time 459 00:58:47,480 --> 00:58:52,840 that that comes up. Why does he have to do it each time? 460 00:58:52,840 --> 00:59:01,480 That was my question as well. Why not just file another disclosure saying that that relationship 461 00:59:01,480 --> 00:59:13,960 terminated on January 2021? I think- I think you can. That's the point 462 00:59:13,960 --> 00:59:19,800 of this second motion, is what level of disclosure do you think is warranted under the code going 463 00:59:19,800 --> 00:59:26,120 forward in light of your previous motion that there's no longer a current conflict? 464 00:59:26,120 --> 00:59:32,240 Right. You're just providing advice on what his disclosure requirements are at this point. 465 00:59:32,240 --> 00:59:44,880 I don't know. I'm not sure he needs to refer to it as a prior conflict. I think just a 466 00:59:44,880 --> 00:59:50,720 provision that my wife has been employed with University of Texas for 15 years. She's terminating 467 00:59:50,720 --> 00:59:56,440 due to retirement or she's terminating as of January. And that's it. I don't think there 468 00:59:56,440 --> 01:00:07,120 has to be anything explaining that he had a conflict of interest. 469 01:00:07,120 --> 01:00:20,720 I would tend to agree. So would you like to make a motion? 470 01:00:20,720 --> 01:00:32,760 I'll make a motion that he would need to do an affidavit or- I'll make a motion that he 471 01:00:32,760 --> 01:00:40,960 would need to inform the public that his- I don't know. How would we- Madison, who does 472 01:00:40,960 --> 01:00:48,240 he give the other? He would disclose- he could basically issue 473 01:00:48,240 --> 01:00:56,960 one disclosure that says his relationship is terminated because his wife is no longer 474 01:00:56,960 --> 01:01:04,800 employed there. And I believe that ends up being filed with me. So he would just need 475 01:01:04,800 --> 01:01:08,400 to basically fill out a form that says that and then send it to me and it would be on 476 01:01:08,400 --> 01:01:11,280 file. Oh, I'm sorry. 477 01:01:11,280 --> 01:01:18,440 Okay. That his wife has been an employee of University of North Texas and is no longer 478 01:01:18,440 --> 01:01:24,360 an employee. Yes. Perhaps what the motion could be is that 479 01:01:24,360 --> 01:01:32,600 you advise him in this opinion to file an affidavit disclosing his previous and current 480 01:01:32,600 --> 01:01:40,320 relationship with the University of North Texas and leave it at that. And how he chooses 481 01:01:40,320 --> 01:01:45,560 to word it is up to his discretion. But that description of the relationship becomes a 482 01:01:45,560 --> 01:01:52,040 public record. It puts people on notice. And for our purposes, it checks the box under 483 01:01:52,040 --> 01:01:56,520 the code of ethics. Perfect. Perfect. Perfect. 484 01:01:56,520 --> 01:02:02,840 We're good. If Don's wording is appropriate, then I second. 485 01:02:02,840 --> 01:02:12,520 Let me try to read it back. So basically the motion states that the panel advises Councilmember 486 01:02:12,520 --> 01:02:17,880 Meltzer to file an affidavit that discloses that his previous relationship with the University 487 01:02:17,880 --> 01:02:27,440 of North Texas has been terminated. Does that work for the motion language? 488 01:02:27,440 --> 01:02:39,560 Yes. So that's the motion. Do I have a second? 489 01:02:39,560 --> 01:02:48,400 I'll second, whosoever motioned it first. It was your motion. You can't second. 490 01:02:48,400 --> 01:02:57,320 Well, I thought I seconded it. So Ron seconded it. I'll vote for it for the 491 01:02:57,320 --> 01:03:10,800 motion. Yes. Yes. Yes. So three ayes, no nays. Motion is approved. 492 01:03:10,800 --> 01:03:21,600 All right. Any other comments or questions? We'll see you at three o'clock. 493 01:03:21,600 --> 01:03:27,600 So Alan, you write this up with Madison and then I review and sign and then it goes forward. 494 01:03:27,600 --> 01:03:31,520 Is that how it works? Yes, that's what's next. And from my vantage 495 01:03:31,520 --> 01:03:36,840 point, which is very different from your point of view, I can opine that I think this went 496 01:03:36,840 --> 01:03:43,120 really well. And I think this is exactly what this process was meant to do. I think some 497 01:03:43,120 --> 01:03:47,720 folks may disagree with the outcome, but I think the process you went through in deliberating 498 01:03:47,720 --> 01:03:52,400 this was excellent. Thank you for letting me be a part of it. 499 01:03:52,400 --> 01:03:55,840 Thank you for being a part of it and for your guidance. 500 01:03:55,840 --> 01:04:00,560 Before we move on, I just want to confirm that it seems like there's a consensus from 501 01:04:00,560 --> 01:04:07,880 this panel that we should at least bring up to the board clarifying what current conflicting 502 01:04:07,880 --> 01:04:13,200 interest means officially, formally in the ordinance language as a recommendation to 503 01:04:13,200 --> 01:04:27,840 council or just to discuss that as a board. Yes. Okay. Okay. Anything else? Meeting adjourned. 504 01:04:27,840 --> 01:04:32,800 Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Thank you, Don.