WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:12.120 >> Hello. I'm Madison Rocha, the city auditor and currently neither chair or the vice chair 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 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 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 00:00:35.280 --> 00:00:38.680 nominations. >> I'm Don Cartwright. I'm not nominating 00:00:38.680 --> 00:00:53.040 as most as presiding officer for this meeting. >> Okay. Any other nominations? Okay. Hearing 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 00:00:59.600 --> 00:01:11.960 being the presiding officer. Don? Debra? >> Okay. Hi. 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. 00:01:20.520 --> 00:01:24.120 Debra? >> All right. Thank you. I'm Debra Cosimo 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 00:01:30.600 --> 00:01:40.420 your forbearance. We have before us a question that was submitted for an advisory opinion 00:01:40.420 --> 00:01:51.880 by Paul Meltzer, councilperson. And should I read this question into the record? So the 00:01:51.880 --> 00:01:57.600 question is, my wife resigned from UNT effective January 16th of this year, she earned more 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 00:02:04.400 --> 00:02:10.320 the conflict for me regarding pending matters involving UNT continue through 2021, perhaps 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 00:02:16.320 --> 00:02:23.520 since the employment relationship has ended? And that question was submitted on February 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 00:02:38.680 --> 00:02:43.440 you, Alan, for being here. >> Certainly. I'll say as a preliminary matter 00:02:43.440 --> 00:02:50.280 that Denton's Code of Ethics provides this procedure for advisory opinions under Section 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 00:02:57.560 --> 00:03:03.360 of Ethics before they had any conduct that would be called into question. And so this 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 00:03:09.760 --> 00:03:16.080 applies to them or an action that they're contemplating. And so the Board of Ethics 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 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 00:03:28.320 --> 00:03:36.040 our advisory opinion within 30 days. And certainly, Winter Storm Yuri and some other things has 00:03:36.040 --> 00:03:41.560 made preparing for this a challenge and getting everyone convened online has been a challenge. 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 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 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 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, 00:04:06.680 --> 00:04:11.800 you're allowed to go into executive session, a private consultation with your lawyer, which 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 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. 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 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 00:04:40.400 --> 00:04:48.280 that the way I interpret the code with this conflict? It's 273(a)(1). 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 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 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? 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 00:05:20.960 --> 00:05:29.480 in state law, the conflicts of certain relatives apply to the city officials themselves. So 00:05:29.480 --> 00:05:35.360 in this case, certainly a council member's spouse and their conflicts become the city 00:05:35.360 --> 00:05:43.880 councilman, councilwoman's conflicts. And if in fact this council member's spouse was 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 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 00:05:56.960 --> 00:06:03.520 disengagement, resignation, a severance of the relationship ends the conflict for any 00:06:03.520 --> 00:06:11.600 particular period of time. Alan, you said for a particular period of 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 00:06:19.440 --> 00:06:27.920 period where they're not to do matters that would conflict with their former position 00:06:27.920 --> 00:06:36.000 as a councilperson? So wouldn't that also apply to family members? 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 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. 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 00:07:04.600 --> 00:07:11.080 to the former city council official and should not be consulted to apply to other affiliated 00:07:11.080 --> 00:07:16.240 persons. So that seems like that would rule out a spouse. 00:07:16.240 --> 00:07:25.640 Don, are you talking about the representation of others? 00:07:25.640 --> 00:07:30.160 Yes. You're correct in that there are certain provisions 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 00:07:38.800 --> 00:07:44.280 other people before the city or city boards or commissions. That's different than what 00:07:44.280 --> 00:07:51.080 we're talking about today. The conflict of interest rules apply not just 00:07:51.080 --> 00:07:57.000 to the city officials covered in the code, but to certain relatives. In this case, certainly 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 00:08:02.840 --> 00:08:09.440 specified in the code. Doesn't this also kind of address the rollback 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 00:08:16.720 --> 00:08:21.700 a spouse or someone other than the individual council member? 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. 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 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 00:08:47.320 --> 00:08:55.640 conflict for that council member. If more than $600, the number chosen by the council 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 00:09:01.240 --> 00:09:06.400 interest for that council member. There's nothing in the code that I have found that 00:09:06.400 --> 00:09:12.080 would suggest that the relationship is somehow severed for purposes of the code of ethics 00:09:12.080 --> 00:09:16.840 just because the employment relationship is severed. 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 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 00:09:43.760 --> 00:09:52.320 using Mr. Melcher's language would still apply for him regarding pending matters involving 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 00:10:02.440 --> 00:10:12.240 extend into 2022? I believe that as long as you have the W-2 00:10:12.240 --> 00:10:18.160 that reflects that, that's the measurable amount that there is that conflict. Whether 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, 00:10:28.800 --> 00:10:34.280 if I can recall correctly and provide you all with some history, there were some that 00:10:34.280 --> 00:10:43.240 were strenuously arguing that the threshold for a conflict of interest would be $1. And 00:10:43.240 --> 00:10:49.360 ultimately after considering various options, the council considered the $600 mark because 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 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, 00:11:05.600 --> 00:11:12.400 makes it a more objective measure and something that's easily quantifiable and verifiable to 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 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 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 00:11:30.680 --> 00:11:37.600 for negotiation and argument about whether somebody received income and how much, what 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 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 00:11:51.920 --> 00:11:58.680 code that would say serving your relationship from the employer distinguishes the conflict. 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 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 00:12:11.960 --> 00:12:23.160 resigned January 15th. Do you think that their relationship, their judgment, their objectivity 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 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 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 00:12:43.120 --> 00:12:50.040 after someone has left employment, but they crossed that $600 threshold? And for me, it 00:12:50.040 --> 00:12:56.720 appears that there is. And so I think that the most straightforward answer is that the 00:12:56.720 --> 00:13:03.480 council member would have to conduct himself as though he has that conflict for the financial 00:13:03.480 --> 00:13:10.200 year for which there is that W-2. Beyond that, it's less clear to me. 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 00:13:18.520 --> 00:13:28.240 preceding year. When does it take effect? When does it, when would it end? Would it 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 00:13:36.840 --> 00:13:42.840 the subsection shall be for the time period, including the previous calendar year and up 00:13:42.840 --> 00:13:49.680 to the date where the contracting interest arises for the city official. That's under 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 00:14:27.320 --> 00:14:34.760 the conflict. So in this specific case, it would be dealing with a contract or permit 00:14:34.760 --> 00:14:41.280 or authorization or approval with the University of North Texas. Once the disclosure is made, 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 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 00:14:58.160 --> 00:15:06.920 done, the requirement is met. And so what you're discussing is the disclosure requirement. 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. 00:15:12.460 --> 00:15:16.200 Once it's done, that box is checked. 00:15:16.200 --> 00:15:27.440 Helen, it does mention in that section about disclosure pending matter, which I believe 00:15:27.440 --> 00:15:36.160 would come up. Currently we have council members who abstain basically complete an affidavit 00:15:36.160 --> 00:15:42.280 of abstention, which I believe is what this is actually talking about, but I could be 00:15:42.280 --> 00:15:48.560 incorrect. So they do have to every time a new pending matter comes up, in particular 00:15:48.560 --> 00:15:54.720 in this case about UNT, Councilmember Meltzer files an affidavit of abstention for that 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 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. 00:16:33.040 --> 00:16:48.160 And so the question would be how long after the severance of employment would these affidavits 00:16:48.160 --> 00:16:55.240 of abstention continue to have to be filed? Did that? 00:16:55.240 --> 00:17:12.000 Sure, I understand now. I misunderstood what was being asked a moment ago. 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 00:17:20.040 --> 00:17:28.840 period of time that abstention, affidavits of abstention would have to be filed, and 00:17:28.840 --> 00:17:34.320 that there would be a conflicting interest in a pending matter that would exist until 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 00:17:48.200 --> 00:17:52.000 be for 2021. 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 00:18:00.240 --> 00:18:04.440 January 31st, unless they give an extension. 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 00:18:10.760 --> 00:18:15.520 on that. She would have her last paycheck. So there would be documentation that she earned 00:18:15.520 --> 00:18:22.560 more than $600 during that year. 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 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 00:18:47.240 --> 00:18:56.360 ethics ordinance is new. We're testing it now. There are things in the ethics ordinance 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 00:19:04.680 --> 00:19:13.560 between the Councilperson having been employed by the institution and resigning in January 00:19:13.560 --> 00:19:24.280 versus the Councilperson's relative. Just like any law that's passed by a municipality 00:19:24.280 --> 00:19:30.000 that has an inconsistency, that law can be repealed or changed. This is one of those 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 00:19:37.200 --> 00:19:47.800 the impact is. What is the impact on Councilman Melser presiding over a pending matter in 00:19:47.800 --> 00:20:00.800 2021 when his wife resigned in January from that institution? It doesn't make sense that 00:20:00.800 --> 00:20:12.200 there be a conflict just because the ethics ordinance language suggests that it is. This 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 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 00:20:25.320 --> 00:20:33.600 that doesn't make sense, and it shouldn't exist in terms of our ordinance. 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 00:20:38.680 --> 00:20:51.360 up before with the polling sites because universities are listed as business in definitions. I feel 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 00:20:59.360 --> 00:21:11.160 and change that section to the polling places that someone with a conflict could still vote 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, 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 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 00:21:32.280 --> 00:21:35.280 changes, is my understanding. 00:21:35.280 --> 00:21:48.080 Yeah, I don't think our ethics document is clear on this particular request that Councilman 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. 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 00:22:01.520 --> 00:22:02.520 clear. 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 00:22:11.160 --> 00:22:20.520 of family, that the pending matters, conflicts of interest, pending matters applies to relationships 00:22:20.520 --> 00:22:26.640 of both council persons and their spouses and family members. 00:22:26.640 --> 00:22:34.880 Yeah, if she was currently employed when the vote would come up, then I absolutely agree 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 00:22:41.160 --> 00:22:48.280 the vote comes up in August, I don't see a conflict there. 00:22:48.280 --> 00:22:51.640 I agree with Dan. 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 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 00:23:03.100 --> 00:23:12.080 as a panel or as a board without City Council making some revisions. 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 00:23:18.080 --> 00:23:26.120 incomplete information or cloudy information. As Don indicated, it's not clear why this 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 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 00:23:43.920 --> 00:23:44.920 interpretation. 00:23:44.920 --> 00:23:48.040 Madison, you had your hand up. 00:23:48.040 --> 00:23:52.160 Just for some procedural things that have been mentioned, you're correct about the process 00:23:52.160 --> 00:23:58.140 of making changes to the ethics ordinance. The board is able to make recommendations 00:23:58.140 --> 00:24:02.720 about changes to the ordinance to council, and then council must ultimately approve those 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 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 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 00:24:26.400 --> 00:24:32.720 can make a recommendation. The other thing I just wanted to mention is that the ethics 00:24:32.720 --> 00:24:43.120 ordinance does specifically state that reliance on an advisory opinion is basically a defense 00:24:43.120 --> 00:24:49.040 if somebody submitted an ethics complaint against, like in this case, if councilmember 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 00:24:56.720 --> 00:25:01.520 opinion that that was fine, but somebody submitted an ethics complaint, he could say, well, they 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. 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 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 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 00:25:35.840 --> 00:25:42.200 ongoing list of potential amendments to be made to the code when the City Council is 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 00:25:48.040 --> 00:25:54.000 recommendations, and I think that would probably be very meaningful to the City Council to 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, 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, 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, 00:26:18.280 --> 00:26:25.840 it's the type of financial relationship between employer and employee that would be reflected 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 00:26:34.920 --> 00:26:45.320 surpassed, then that triggers the conflict of interest. The disclosure requirements, whenever 00:26:45.320 --> 00:26:51.000 an item comes before the City, there's the requirement to disclose it through the form 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 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 00:27:04.760 --> 00:27:13.200 will cover the time period that goes back to what will eventually be January of 2022. 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 00:27:20.520 --> 00:27:29.680 would be $600 or more, the reporting requirement is over and the abstention from action requirement 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:28:22.400 --> 00:28:29.720 official, in this case, the City Councilman, has publicly told everyone about this relationship, 00:28:29.720 --> 00:28:36.480 which at this point is a past relationship. And therefore, they're not influencing the 00:28:36.480 --> 00:28:42.840 matter in secret. It's very transparent. And so, the disclosure part is the transparency 00:28:42.840 --> 00:28:49.320 part. The second part is the abstention part, which is saying, because I have this past 00:28:49.320 --> 00:28:55.880 relationship through my spouse, I am not going to be deliberating this as a council member 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. 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 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 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? 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 00:29:42.600 --> 00:29:48.240 conservative reading of the entire section put together would yield is that he has the 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 00:29:54.400 --> 00:30:00.960 abstain from deliberations until January at some point, 2022. 00:30:00.960 --> 00:30:11.360 So, wasn't Mr. Meltzer censured because he voted on polling places despite the pending 00:30:11.360 --> 00:30:20.800 conflict? Am I remembering that correctly? That's correct. 00:30:20.800 --> 00:30:32.240 That was a clear interpretation of the ordinance in terms of what occurred that last time. 00:30:32.240 --> 00:30:40.560 Even though that, too, perhaps didn't make sense, there was no question about how the 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. 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 00:31:05.960 --> 00:31:15.720 in section 2-273A1, when it says city officials with a current conflicting interest, is that 00:31:15.720 --> 00:31:22.800 the piece, the current piece, is that what is the confusing piece? If the conflict is 00:31:22.800 --> 00:31:32.400 still current once the employment relationship is terminated? 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 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 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 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 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 00:32:10.200 --> 00:32:14.560 of interest. My opinion. 00:32:14.560 --> 00:32:28.120 What about the definition of family and the application that the code applies to council 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 00:32:38.600 --> 00:32:47.120 because of... I don't see anything that treats family members differently from council members 00:32:47.120 --> 00:32:50.560 in terms of conflicts of interest. 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 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 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 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 00:33:22.400 --> 00:33:23.400 conflict. 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 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 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 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 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 00:34:17.000 --> 00:34:21.040 eventually be helpful to have it settled. I think that this is something that we can 00:34:21.040 --> 00:34:27.720 take before the full board for discussion. But my recommendation, and I'm open for discussion, 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 00:34:34.400 --> 00:34:47.600 of interest until January 2022, based upon section 2-273(a), conflicts of interest (3), 00:34:47.600 --> 00:34:54.760 definition of conflicting interest (4), and b, the receipt of more than $600 in gross annual 00:34:54.760 --> 00:35:00.320 income evidenced by the 2 form, et cetera. 00:35:00.320 --> 00:35:10.860 As a board, we are constrained by the specific language of the ordinance in relationship 00:35:10.860 --> 00:35:18.160 to interpreting it and applying it. When the language is specific and unambiguous and there's 00:35:18.160 --> 00:35:26.280 no question about the intent, then I believe that Madison is correct in that the proper 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 00:35:32.400 --> 00:35:39.880 changing. In this case, I don't think that we have a clear, unambiguous interpretation 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 00:35:47.880 --> 00:35:55.860 we interpret it is not a violation of that principle that the council changes things. 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 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 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. 00:36:19.040 --> 00:36:28.360 But at this point, many governmental entities that find a law that is unenforceable, they 00:36:28.360 --> 00:36:38.960 stop enforcing it until the legislature or the applicable body changes it. So if we do 00:36:38.960 --> 00:36:49.560 not find that Councilman Meltzer is liable for conflict of interest in this matter, it 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 00:36:56.960 --> 00:37:05.480 that's favorable to him. And any changes, as I indicated, that are resulting after that 00:37:05.480 --> 00:37:10.240 can be handled by the council. 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 00:37:15.840 --> 00:37:21.680 is absolutely positive, and the city council is quite lucky, and the citizens are quite 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 00:37:28.200 --> 00:37:35.040 at these sorts of incidents, these fact patterns, and this code, and try to reconcile them, 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 00:37:41.880 --> 00:37:48.600 I give individuals is designed to keep them out of trouble and help them avoid having 00:37:48.600 --> 00:37:53.560 complaints brought against them. Because I think that can be a very damaging thing to 00:37:53.560 --> 00:38:02.240 a person, and I want their behavior to be above reproach and above the appearance of 00:38:02.240 --> 00:38:08.560 impropriety, so they can go on and do their public service unscathed. What you're doing 00:38:08.560 --> 00:38:14.320 is looking at the code and the fact pattern from a very pragmatic standpoint, and seeing 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 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 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 00:38:38.440 --> 00:38:47.000 bureaucratic, and see if you can interpret the code in a way that makes sense. Because 00:38:47.000 --> 00:38:53.120 as Madison stated earlier, if you issue an advisory opinion, the council member who receives 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 00:39:00.440 --> 00:39:05.800 that comes forward. What I would hope is having that advisory opinion, which is deter them 00:39:05.800 --> 00:39:11.480 from being an ethics complaint, because this panel has made its decision and offered that 00:39:11.480 --> 00:39:18.320 guidance. So, hopefully, we would never get to that point. If you were inclined to apply 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 00:39:25.960 --> 00:39:34.120 year, 11 months, it would be because $600 was received within that time period. The 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 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, 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 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 00:40:12.160 --> 00:40:20.240 a current conflicting interest. And if this panel of the Denton Board of Ethics thinks 00:40:20.240 --> 00:40:27.240 there's no longer a current conflicting interest because the council member's spouse resigned 00:40:27.240 --> 00:40:35.080 in January, then that is the basis for you issuing an advisory opinion saying that this 00:40:35.080 --> 00:40:41.920 conflict doesn't apply. Now, I think there's still the disclosure requirement. Well, how 00:40:41.920 --> 00:40:50.600 does that make sense? Because if the councilman goes on and votes on matters regarding UNT, 00:40:50.600 --> 00:40:57.840 having disclosed that there's this matter and I have a conflict dating back to January 00:40:57.840 --> 00:41:05.000 2021, then the citizens are aware and the citizens can decide whether that matters to 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 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. 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 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 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 00:41:37.840 --> 00:41:45.560 that yield ethical behavior, not just bureaucratic technical results. And if you're not concerned 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 00:41:51.840 --> 00:41:57.800 councilman going forward and discussing and voting on UNT matters, despite having had 00:41:57.800 --> 00:42:03.600 a previous relationship through his spouse, if that's not problematic, then issue an advisory 00:42:03.600 --> 00:42:10.600 opinion that says so because we're supposed to be focusing on integrity and good behavior, 00:42:10.600 --> 00:42:17.720 not just on how the words can be interpreted to require something or prohibit something. 00:42:17.720 --> 00:42:19.880 Does that make sense? 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 00:42:34.840 --> 00:42:39.640 making it a violation of the ethics code if he voted. 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 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 00:42:53.400 --> 00:43:00.520 interpret the word current in section A1. You're basically saying in your opinion that 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 00:43:07.320 --> 00:43:12.400 while there needs to be disclosure because of the one year look back, he can actually 00:43:12.400 --> 00:43:17.760 discuss and vote on matters going forward. And if someone were to file a complaint against 00:43:17.760 --> 00:43:23.840 them, he would have an affirmative defense because he has your advisory opinion in his 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 00:43:28.960 --> 00:43:33.080 complaint. 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 00:43:38.400 --> 00:43:42.840 the full committee to review it for any possible changes. 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. 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 00:43:55.280 --> 00:44:01.160 addressed for administrative efficiency purposes. At some point, that list needs to go before 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, 00:44:07.360 --> 00:44:13.020 at which point you vote to send a list of recommendations forward to the city council 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 00:44:21.640 --> 00:44:27.720 a lengthy process, a very inclusive, deliberative process to draft it. But once it got inked 00:44:27.720 --> 00:44:34.120 and signed, administering it helps people understand it a little bit better, apply it 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 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 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 00:44:50.400 --> 00:44:55.600 of good people with good intentions from the board of ethics looking at a rule, applying 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 00:45:01.440 --> 00:45:08.160 can address it is to recommend an ordinance amendment. Another way you can address it 00:45:08.160 --> 00:45:13.680 is in your interpretation in the advisory opinion. And what I'm telling you as your 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 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 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. 00:45:32.640 --> 00:45:37.720 The same word can mean something different to different people. It's a matter of interpretation. 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. 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 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 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. 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, 00:46:11.560 --> 00:46:21.440 please address this when the time is right." So Alan, for this advisory opinion, it would 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. 00:46:32.520 --> 00:46:46.480 I have some concerns about opening a can of worms, if other advisory, if other questions. 00:46:46.480 --> 00:46:54.680 Yes, Madison. I just wanted, and maybe I'll just wait until 00:46:54.680 --> 00:47:00.480 we have the advisory opinion. Never mind. I apologize for interrupting. 00:47:00.480 --> 00:47:16.040 Okay. No problem. Because I can see hanging, using the A1 as the framework. That makes 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 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 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, 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 00:47:45.080 --> 00:47:49.960 an advisory opinion to Council Member Meltzer specifically, because your concern was about 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 00:47:56.080 --> 00:48:02.600 council member had a relationship with another entity and their spouse terminated that, but 00:48:02.600 --> 00:48:09.040 it was facts were different, right? I don't think that having issued that advisory opinion 00:48:09.040 --> 00:48:14.440 would prevent the board in any way from seeing those facts and interpreting them differently 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 00:48:19.960 --> 00:48:23.480 on that? Basically, I don't think it sets precedent. 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 00:48:29.520 --> 00:48:37.240 opinion would necessarily be binding on a future panel or the Board of Ethics, but we 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 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 00:48:49.280 --> 00:48:55.880 would ever do that. So my recommendation would be if another council member comes forward 00:48:55.880 --> 00:49:03.880 with a similar situation, that either we would give them a similar advisory opinion or we 00:49:03.880 --> 00:49:10.720 would seriously have the council amend the ordinance to make clear what people want in 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 00:49:19.160 --> 00:49:26.640 a process for advisory opinions. Or in some cities, advisory opinion comes from, you know, 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 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 00:49:40.680 --> 00:49:47.400 today. Because I think the more that we ask questions and converse about ethics, the better 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 00:49:52.720 --> 00:49:57.360 going on at City Hall. So more conversations, deliberations, decisions is a good thing, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:50:40.360 --> 00:50:46.920 at requests for advisory opinions as a bad thing. We want our city officials when in 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 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, 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 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 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? 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 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 00:52:11.200 --> 00:52:32.880 in that anything he deliberates on after January 2021 does not constitute a current conflict 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, 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 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 00:53:01.840 --> 00:53:09.000 previous employment, which terminated in January 2021, is not a conflict in that anything he 00:53:09.000 --> 00:53:15.720 deliberates on after January 2021 does not constitute a current conflict of interest. 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 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 00:53:32.400 --> 00:53:40.220 the disclosure requirement. The disclosure would still need to happen for any new pending 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? 00:53:51.040 --> 00:53:59.680 So, as a procedural question, that would mean, because as I mentioned currently, they file 00:53:59.680 --> 00:54:06.760 affidavits of abstention, which specifically say for this item, I am abstaining because 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 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 00:54:20.480 --> 00:54:27.960 instead of abstaining. That's the direction I'm hearing procedurally. That's probably 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 00:54:32.820 --> 00:54:41.040 clarification. I'm imagining, Madison, it may have to be a slightly different form. A different 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, 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 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, 00:55:00.600 --> 00:55:06.360 but that there's still the disclosure requirement for a calendar year, then I would include 00:55:06.360 --> 00:55:11.400 that in your- I would suggest that we do that in two motions. 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 00:55:19.120 --> 00:55:29.800 original motion. I will second the motion. 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 00:55:45.320 --> 00:55:59.860 carries. So, second motion. Do I hear a motion on disclosure? 00:55:59.860 --> 00:56:07.400 Let me- Committed his motion to include that on our 00:56:07.400 --> 00:56:13.160 last vote, didn't we? No, I thought we were doing it on two motions. 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 00:56:19.240 --> 00:56:26.480 be less- Madison, let me make sure I understand the 00:56:26.480 --> 00:56:33.720 purpose and the language of the second disclosure. I would imagine, based upon where we are, 00:56:33.720 --> 00:56:40.600 the second disclosure would say something like, "I, Paul Milster, had a previous conflict 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. 00:56:50.640 --> 00:56:56.680 When she ceased employment, I no longer have a current conflict, so I will not abstain 00:56:56.680 --> 00:57:04.320 from any votes related to UNT after January 2021." 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 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 00:57:18.800 --> 00:57:29.440 disclosure whereby you have to disclose that you have a business relationship or something 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 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 00:57:48.280 --> 00:57:53.600 a relationship with this," and then any time that became a pending matter, you would have 00:57:53.600 --> 00:58:01.180 to then say, "I'm abstaining because of this conflict of interest that I've previously 00:58:01.180 --> 00:58:09.600 disclosed." Did that make sense? And did you hear me because of my internet connection? 00:58:09.600 --> 00:58:14.960 Yeah, your video froze, but I could hear the audio just fine. 00:58:14.960 --> 00:58:26.600 Correct, Alan, is that your understanding? Yes. So I think the question here is, he's 00:58:26.600 --> 00:58:32.920 already disclosed that he had a relationship with UNT. Do we want to basically require 00:58:32.920 --> 00:58:39.560 him to, whenever there's a pending matter concerning UNT, to disclose that he had previously 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 00:58:47.480 --> 00:58:52.840 that that comes up. Why does he have to do it each time? 00:58:52.840 --> 00:59:01.480 That was my question as well. Why not just file another disclosure saying that that relationship 00:59:01.480 --> 00:59:13.960 terminated on January 2021? I think- I think you can. That's the point 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 00:59:19.800 --> 00:59:26.120 forward in light of your previous motion that there's no longer a current conflict? 00:59:26.120 --> 00:59:32.240 Right. You're just providing advice on what his disclosure requirements are at this point. 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 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 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 00:59:56.440 --> 01:00:07.120 has to be anything explaining that he had a conflict of interest. 01:00:07.120 --> 01:00:20.720 I would tend to agree. So would you like to make a motion? 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 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 01:00:40.960 --> 01:00:48.240 he give the other? He would disclose- he could basically issue 01:00:48.240 --> 01:00:56.960 one disclosure that says his relationship is terminated because his wife is no longer 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 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 01:01:08.400 --> 01:01:11.280 file. Oh, I'm sorry. 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 01:01:18.440 --> 01:01:24.360 an employee. Yes. Perhaps what the motion could be is that 01:01:24.360 --> 01:01:32.600 you advise him in this opinion to file an affidavit disclosing his previous and current 01:01:32.600 --> 01:01:40.320 relationship with the University of North Texas and leave it at that. And how he chooses 01:01:40.320 --> 01:01:45.560 to word it is up to his discretion. But that description of the relationship becomes a 01:01:45.560 --> 01:01:52.040 public record. It puts people on notice. And for our purposes, it checks the box under 01:01:52.040 --> 01:01:56.520 the code of ethics. Perfect. Perfect. Perfect. 01:01:56.520 --> 01:02:02.840 We're good. If Don's wording is appropriate, then I second. 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 01:02:12.520 --> 01:02:17.880 Meltzer to file an affidavit that discloses that his previous relationship with the University 01:02:17.880 --> 01:02:27.440 of North Texas has been terminated. Does that work for the motion language? 01:02:27.440 --> 01:02:39.560 Yes. So that's the motion. Do I have a second? 01:02:39.560 --> 01:02:48.400 I'll second, whosoever motioned it first. It was your motion. You can't second. 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 01:02:57.320 --> 01:03:10.800 motion. Yes. Yes. Yes. So three ayes, no nays. Motion is approved. 01:03:10.800 --> 01:03:21.600 All right. Any other comments or questions? We'll see you at three o'clock. 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. 01:03:27.600 --> 01:03:31.520 Is that how it works? Yes, that's what's next. And from my vantage 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 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 01:03:43.120 --> 01:03:47.720 folks may disagree with the outcome, but I think the process you went through in deliberating 01:03:47.720 --> 01:03:52.400 this was excellent. Thank you for letting me be a part of it. 01:03:52.400 --> 01:03:55.840 Thank you for being a part of it and for your guidance. 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 01:04:00.560 --> 01:04:07.880 this panel that we should at least bring up to the board clarifying what current conflicting 01:04:07.880 --> 01:04:13.200 interest means officially, formally in the ordinance language as a recommendation to 01:04:13.200 --> 01:04:27.840 council or just to discuss that as a board. Yes. Okay. Okay. Anything else? Meeting adjourned. 01:04:27.840 --> 01:04:32.800 Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Thank you, Don.