>> Hello. I'm Madison Rocha, the city auditor and currently neither chair or the vice chair
is present at this board of ethics meeting. But we do have a quorum. So I'll call this
meeting to order on February 25th, 2021 at 9/11 a.m. So first item of business is to
elect a presiding officer for the purposes of this meeting. So I will open it up for
nominations. >> I'm Don Cartwright. I'm not nominating
as most as presiding officer for this meeting. >> Okay. Any other nominations? Okay. Hearing
no other nominations, I'll close the nominations piece and then we'll vote on Ms. Cosimo for
being the presiding officer. Don? Debra? >> Okay. Hi.
>> And it looks like Ron says hi as well. So then I'll hand the meeting over to you.
Debra? >> All right. Thank you. I'm Debra Cosimo
and I have never done this before. So I will need some guidance along the way. So I beg
your forbearance. We have before us a question that was submitted for an advisory opinion
by Paul Meltzer, councilperson. And should I read this question into the record? So the
question is, my wife resigned from UNT effective January 16th of this year, she earned more
than $600 during that partial month, which will be reflected on her 2021 W-2 form. Does
the conflict for me regarding pending matters involving UNT continue through 2021, perhaps
even through January 15th, 2022? Or does the idea of a 12-month look back period not apply
since the employment relationship has ended? And that question was submitted on February
6th, 2021. Okay. So I guess I open it up for discussion and comments, questions. And thank
you, Alan, for being here. >> Certainly. I'll say as a preliminary matter
that Denton's Code of Ethics provides this procedure for advisory opinions under Section
278. And it was done to encourage those that had a question to get guidance from the Board
of Ethics before they had any conduct that would be called into question. And so this
is a way to provide some guidance and direction to somebody who is unclear on how the code
applies to them or an action that they're contemplating. And so the Board of Ethics
is required to convene a panel. This is today's panel, at least three members. Our board has
alternates. And so we're glad to have Debra here for that. And we're required to give
our advisory opinion within 30 days. And certainly, Winter Storm Yuri and some other things has
made preparing for this a challenge and getting everyone convened online has been a challenge.
But I'm glad to be here today as a resource for you. I am special counsel to the City
of Denton on ethical matters. It's not my job to rule or decide these things, but instead
to help you understand the code or my opinions of how the code is applied. And we can have
the conversations in open session, as tends to be the case. But also, like any other group,
you're allowed to go into executive session, a private consultation with your lawyer, which
is what I am in this case. I've looked at Councilman Melter's request, and I reviewed
the code, and I'm happy to discuss it with you and help the best I can.
Great. I do have a question while we have you here. When it talks about current conflict
of interest, if the wife is not employed at the current time when they do the vote, is
that the way I interpret the code with this conflict? It's 273(a)(1).
Yes. We are looking at 273(a), and that is the very nature of the question we're being
asked. That is the point. How do we interpret this? City Council chose to define the conflict
in part based on what's reflected in a W-2. And so, can the conflict be extinguished?
Does it expire when someone no longer is actively employed? And under Denton's code, much like
in state law, the conflicts of certain relatives apply to the city officials themselves. So
in this case, certainly a council member's spouse and their conflicts become the city
councilman, councilwoman's conflicts. And if in fact this council member's spouse was
employed by UNT, and that's going to appear on their W-2, then I think that is what the
code would apply the conflict to. I don't see anything in the code that would say that
disengagement, resignation, a severance of the relationship ends the conflict for any
particular period of time. Alan, you said for a particular period of
time, wouldn't it be the same as if a councilperson left the council, and then there's a one-year
period where they're not to do matters that would conflict with their former position
as a councilperson? So wouldn't that also apply to family members?
I think the code under D2, where it talks about it solely applies to former city council
members. So I don't see how it would apply to a relative at that point, or a spouse.
If you look at, like I say, D2 about halfway down through it, it talks about solely applies
to the former city council official and should not be consulted to apply to other affiliated
persons. So that seems like that would rule out a spouse.
Don, are you talking about the representation of others?
Yes. You're correct in that there are certain provisions
of our code that only apply to the city official, and that's in regards to representation of
other people before the city or city boards or commissions. That's different than what
we're talking about today. The conflict of interest rules apply not just
to the city officials covered in the code, but to certain relatives. In this case, certainly
it applies to a spouse. A spouse is related to a council member within the matter of degrees
specified in the code. Doesn't this also kind of address the rollback
that he had referred to in his second part of his question, where it doesn't apply to
a spouse or someone other than the individual council member?
The look back, I don't think there is an answer in the code that clearly addresses that.
I think what the language is that we have is that if a council member or a relative
as defined in the code receives income that's reported on a W-2, then that W-2 creates a
conflict for that council member. If more than $600, the number chosen by the council
was earned during that time period, and it's reflected on the W-2, there's a conflict of
interest for that council member. There's nothing in the code that I have found that
would suggest that the relationship is somehow severed for purposes of the code of ethics
just because the employment relationship is severed.
Alan, that conflict would apply as long as there was a W-2 within the past year that
reflected more than $600? I believe so. Based on that then, would it be that the conflict
using Mr. Melcher's language would still apply for him regarding pending matters involving
UNT until throughout 2021 when that last W-2 form would be provided? And then would it
extend into 2022? I believe that as long as you have the W-2
that reflects that, that's the measurable amount that there is that conflict. Whether
it applies into 2022, I question that. I think at the time that these rules were adopted,
if I can recall correctly and provide you all with some history, there were some that
were strenuously arguing that the threshold for a conflict of interest would be $1. And
ultimately after considering various options, the council considered the $600 mark because
at the time it was stated that was the threshold to trigger a 1099 report regarding income
tax. And so to get to there, we went to the W-2 thinking this takes away some of the subjectivity,
makes it a more objective measure and something that's easily quantifiable and verifiable to
provide city officials with a clear line as to when they have a conflict and when they
do not have a conflict. And I'll share with you that that's a far more precise means of
determining a conflict than is even in state law. Where state law, there's a lot more room
for negotiation and argument about whether somebody received income and how much, what
that threshold is. So here we have this, we have a city council member who has a spouse
who has at least $600 of reported income that will be on the W-2. There's nothing in the
code that would say serving your relationship from the employer distinguishes the conflict.
And what I would ask you to consider is would your answer be different if the threshold
was $100,000 and they worked for a massive Fortune 500 company for 30 years, but they
resigned January 15th. Do you think that their relationship, their judgment, their objectivity
changed just because they left that company after 30 years and made $199,000? And so I
wouldn't be caught up with the timing as much or the dollar amount as much as if when you
read the code, do you think that there's a conflict of interest for a period of time
after someone has left employment, but they crossed that $600 threshold? And for me, it
appears that there is. And so I think that the most straightforward answer is that the
council member would have to conduct himself as though he has that conflict for the financial
year for which there is that W-2. Beyond that, it's less clear to me.
Let me ask you, she's not going to receive the W-2 until 2022. And it talks about the
preceding year. When does it take effect? When does it, when would it end? Would it
not end until 2023 then? As I read the code, based on what you're saying, disclosure under
the subsection shall be for the time period, including the previous calendar year and up
to the date where the contracting interest arises for the city official. That's under
I think the disclosure has to be made when an issue is before the council that involves
the conflict. So in this specific case, it would be dealing with a contract or permit
or authorization or approval with the University of North Texas. Once the disclosure is made,
it's made. And the disclosure is on file. It's not a repeated requirement. It's a requirement
to put this in writing in the form of an affidavit on file with the city auditor. And once that's
done, the requirement is met. And so what you're discussing is the disclosure requirement.
I believe that that's true. They have to make this disclosure in the form of the affidavit.
Once it's done, that box is checked.
Helen, it does mention in that section about disclosure pending matter, which I believe
would come up. Currently we have council members who abstain basically complete an affidavit
of abstention, which I believe is what this is actually talking about, but I could be
incorrect. So they do have to every time a new pending matter comes up, in particular
in this case about UNT, Councilmember Meltzer files an affidavit of abstention for that
particular item. So section 2-273A2 does not apply to these. That's just, if I understand
you, Helen, that's a one-time thing, and these affidavits of abstention are a separate matter.
And so the question would be how long after the severance of employment would these affidavits
of abstention continue to have to be filed? Did that?
Sure, I understand now. I misunderstood what was being asked a moment ago.
So I'm not an attorney, and I make a whole disclosure, but it appears to me that that
period of time that abstention, affidavits of abstention would have to be filed, and
that there would be a conflicting interest in a pending matter that would exist until
the end of 2021 because Councilperson Meltzer's wife severance, her last W-2 from UNT, would
be for 2021.
But she wouldn't get the W-2 until 2022, until, at least after, they'd have to get it by
January 31st, unless they give an extension.
But she would still have a severance in terms of her resignation. She would have the dates
on that. She would have her last paycheck. So there would be documentation that she earned
more than $600 during that year.
I think that as an ethics board, we shouldn't be controlled by the specific language at
all times. I think there's another test that has to be done as to what makes sense. The
ethics ordinance is new. We're testing it now. There are things in the ethics ordinance
that we have discovered don't make sense. I think this is one of them. I see a distinction
between the Councilperson having been employed by the institution and resigning in January
versus the Councilperson's relative. Just like any law that's passed by a municipality
that has an inconsistency, that law can be repealed or changed. This is one of those
areas of the ethics ordinance that I think we need to further define in terms of what
the impact is. What is the impact on Councilman Melser presiding over a pending matter in
2021 when his wife resigned in January from that institution? It doesn't make sense that
there be a conflict just because the ethics ordinance language suggests that it is. This
needs to be an area where we look to changing it or further defining what it means. If it
means that he has to recuse himself just because he was employed for a month this year, then
that doesn't make sense, and it shouldn't exist in terms of our ordinance.
It's up to the City Council to make the changes. We can make those recommendations. This came
up before with the polling sites because universities are listed as business in definitions. I feel
like we've covered this ground before. Council is aware of the problem. They did go back
and change that section to the polling places that someone with a conflict could still vote
on polling places in the city budget. I think that what as an ethics board, in my opinion,
we can only go by the language that's in the document. When we come up against the problem
and we can make recommendations to City Council, but it's up to the City Council to make those
changes, is my understanding.
Yeah, I don't think our ethics document is clear on this particular request that Councilman
Metzer has made. If it's not clear, then I'm kind of siding with what Mr. Johnson says.
We shouldn't try to enforce something that's not clear, and I don't think it's particularly
clear.
As a lay person, when I look at this, it's clear to me that his wife meets the definition
of family, that the pending matters, conflicts of interest, pending matters applies to relationships
of both council persons and their spouses and family members.
Yeah, if she was currently employed when the vote would come up, then I absolutely agree
with you. But if she's been terminated or quit or for whatever reason in January and
the vote comes up in August, I don't see a conflict there.
I agree with Dan.
Well, I agree with you as well. I think it's pretty silly, but this is the document we
have to work with. These are the guidelines. I don't think that we can go outside of it
as a panel or as a board without City Council making some revisions.
It's one thing going outside of it, and it's another thing making decisions based upon
incomplete information or cloudy information. As Don indicated, it's not clear why this
applies. So if it's not clear, then our decision to honor his participation is not a violation
of the ethics board or ethics ordinance. It is a conclusion that we reach based upon our
interpretation.
Madison, you had your hand up.
Just for some procedural things that have been mentioned, you're correct about the process
of making changes to the ethics ordinance. The board is able to make recommendations
about changes to the ordinance to council, and then council must ultimately approve those
before they become, I guess, law or code. I was also going to mention, if this is an
area that you all think should be raised because it is cloudy, I can certainly put it on the
list of items I have to bring up to the board to get clarification on so that the board
can make a recommendation. The other thing I just wanted to mention is that the ethics
ordinance does specifically state that reliance on an advisory opinion is basically a defense
if somebody submitted an ethics complaint against, like in this case, if councilmember
Meltzer voted down the line in August on a UNT matter, but this panel had issued an advisory
opinion that that was fine, but somebody submitted an ethics complaint, he could say, well, they
told me I could do this, and that would be a defense basically. So that's just to know.
I think that's all accurate, and from a big picture, I agree whenever this board of ethics
or this panel of the board of ethics sees something in the code that they think is either
incorrect or no longer makes sense or is just not workable, that should be added to Madison's
ongoing list of potential amendments to be made to the code when the City Council is
ready to do that. Absolutely, this board of ethics is in a good position to make those
recommendations, and I think that would probably be very meaningful to the City Council to
do that. They've entrusted you with the administration of this code, and they may take your recommendations,
they may take some of them or not all of them. That's their discretion. In this instance,
I think that what the code as written suggests is that when it comes to these disclosures,
it's the type of financial relationship between employer and employee that would be reflected
on one of these IRS tax forms, in this case a W-2. And if the threshold of $600 has been
surpassed, then that triggers the conflict of interest. The disclosure requirements, whenever
an item comes before the City, there's the requirement to disclose it through the form
of an affidavit. But it goes on to say that the period of that disclosure is basically
for a time period that includes at least the previous year. And so I think filing a disclosure
will cover the time period that goes back to what will eventually be January of 2022.
And after that period, if there's no more work reported on one of these tax forms, that
would be $600 or more, the reporting requirement is over and the abstention from action requirement
is over. But until then, I think that's what the code requires. And there could be an argument
that each time a new matter comes before the City, a permit, a contract, some form of authorization
with UNT, that a new disclosure form would have to be filed. I don't know if that was
the intention because of the one-year look-back period on the disclosure, but that is an argument
that was raised today and I can see that as a legitimate argument. What is the normal
procedure if we were just going under state law is you file that affidavit, it's on file
with the City Secretary and it just exists. It's not filed each and every time a matter
comes forward. Because the purpose, of course, is to put the public on notice that the City
official, in this case, the City Councilman, has publicly told everyone about this relationship,
which at this point is a past relationship. And therefore, they're not influencing the
matter in secret. It's very transparent. And so, the disclosure part is the transparency
part. The second part is the abstention part, which is saying, because I have this past
relationship through my spouse, I am not going to be deliberating this as a council member
or voting on it as a council member. And that's what I think the code says.
Let me ask you just a simple question. If he discloses the fact that his wife works
at UT, which everyone is aware of, and then he still votes, to me, would that be a violation
of the code? If he discloses it, discloses it, and then votes, has he violated the code?
I think he would be vulnerable to an ethics complaint for the next year. But I think the
conservative reading of the entire section put together would yield is that he has the
duty to disclose this relationship in the form of an affidavit, and he has a duty to
abstain from deliberations until January at some point, 2022.
So, wasn't Mr. Meltzer censured because he voted on polling places despite the pending
conflict? Am I remembering that correctly? That's correct.
That was a clear interpretation of the ordinance in terms of what occurred that last time.
Even though that, too, perhaps didn't make sense, there was no question about how the
ordinance was being interpreted. In this case, there is a question about how it's being interpreted.
I'm seeing it as very similar. For my list, is the piece that is really cloudy, is that
in section 2-273A1, when it says city officials with a current conflicting interest, is that
the piece, the current piece, is that what is the confusing piece? If the conflict is
still current once the employment relationship is terminated?
I interpret that it ended when that conflict ended, and if it's not current, if she's not
currently employed, then I don't see any reason for him not to be able to vote. If you found
out later that there was some adagans dealing on her leaving the job and letting him vote
and go back, then I think there's other areas in the code that we could find that he did
violate the code. But with her leaving, I just don't believe that it's a current conflict
of interest. My opinion.
What about the definition of family and the application that the code applies to council
members and their families? I don't see anything in the code that says that it no longer applies
because of... I don't see anything that treats family members differently from council members
in terms of conflicts of interest.
I can agree with that, but if a council member was... If he was employed at University of
North Texas, and he terminated, would he have a current conflict at that time as long as
he informed it, as long as everyone knew it? Would he not be able to vote on items that
came up to UNT? I'm saying it would go both ways because there would not be a current
conflict.
Well, it would be because if they were paid more than $600 in gross annual income, then
it would be a conflict, is how I'm reading it. I think we're stuck because I think we're
all in agreement that this is rather silly. But then based upon what we have in the code
of ethics, how do we apply it to this situation? I think personally that we should add it to
the list of things to clear up. Mr. Meltzer stated that this was not urgent, but it would
eventually be helpful to have it settled. I think that this is something that we can
take before the full board for discussion. But my recommendation, and I'm open for discussion,
is that we apply the code as it is written, which would be that it would be a conflict
of interest until January 2022, based upon section 2-273(a), conflicts of interest (3),
definition of conflicting interest (4), and b, the receipt of more than $600 in gross annual
income evidenced by the 2 form, et cetera.
As a board, we are constrained by the specific language of the ordinance in relationship
to interpreting it and applying it. When the language is specific and unambiguous and there's
no question about the intent, then I believe that Madison is correct in that the proper
way to address something like that is to put it on a list for council's consideration for
changing. In this case, I don't think that we have a clear, unambiguous interpretation
of the matter before us, and basically it boils down to how we interpret it. And how
we interpret it is not a violation of that principle that the council changes things.
How we interpret it is how we see it. So if we interpret it to mean that there should
be no conflict, then yes, that should also still go on the list for council, but it should
give council added impetus to change it so that it won't be a question in the future.
But at this point, many governmental entities that find a law that is unenforceable, they
stop enforcing it until the legislature or the applicable body changes it. So if we do
not find that Councilman Meltzer is liable for conflict of interest in this matter, it
is not that we're not following the ethics ordinance. We're interpreting it in a way
that's favorable to him. And any changes, as I indicated, that are resulting after that
can be handled by the council.
If I could chime in, I think this is a fantastic discussion. And I think what you all are doing
is absolutely positive, and the city council is quite lucky, and the citizens are quite
lucky to have a group of you doing this sort of thing. Because, believe me, when I look
at these sorts of incidents, these fact patterns, and this code, and try to reconcile them,
my advice is a little bit broad, and I'm choosing to call it conservative, in that the advice
I give individuals is designed to keep them out of trouble and help them avoid having
complaints brought against them. Because I think that can be a very damaging thing to
a person, and I want their behavior to be above reproach and above the appearance of
impropriety, so they can go on and do their public service unscathed. What you're doing
is looking at the code and the fact pattern from a very pragmatic standpoint, and seeing
does this rule, as it could be applied, make sense in this situation. And I get a sense
that all three of you think it does not make sense in this situation, and is even characterized
by one as being silly. And so, at this point, I'm going to encourage you not to be purely
bureaucratic, and see if you can interpret the code in a way that makes sense. Because
as Madison stated earlier, if you issue an advisory opinion, the council member who receives
it and relies on it in good faith is able to have that as a defense to any ethics complaint
that comes forward. What I would hope is having that advisory opinion, which is deter them
from being an ethics complaint, because this panel has made its decision and offered that
guidance. So, hopefully, we would never get to that point. If you were inclined to apply
the rule and say that there's a conflict requiring disclosure and abstention for, in effect, a
year, 11 months, it would be because $600 was received within that time period. The
word in Section 3B is receipt. Not that you're going to receive someday, but there was received
$600. That's what you would do, and that creates a conflict for a year going forward. If, however,
you think applying this rule does not make sense, then I think what you would focus on
is what Madison pointed out earlier, accurately, is that above in 273(a)(1), it talks about
a current conflicting interest. And if this panel of the Denton Board of Ethics thinks
there's no longer a current conflicting interest because the council member's spouse resigned
in January, then that is the basis for you issuing an advisory opinion saying that this
conflict doesn't apply. Now, I think there's still the disclosure requirement. Well, how
does that make sense? Because if the councilman goes on and votes on matters regarding UNT,
having disclosed that there's this matter and I have a conflict dating back to January
2021, then the citizens are aware and the citizens can decide whether that matters to
them or not. They're able to pick up the phone and call their councilman. They're able to
vote. There are various means. What they would not have at their disposal is an ethics complaint.
It would not be successful because if he goes forward and votes on UNT matters in reliance
on your advisory opinion, then he has that defense. And I think that is a way forward
because what I'm always going to be encouraging the people of Denton to do is make decisions
that yield ethical behavior, not just bureaucratic technical results. And if you're not concerned
about the behavior, if you're not concerned about the conduct, you don't think that the
councilman going forward and discussing and voting on UNT matters, despite having had
a previous relationship through his spouse, if that's not problematic, then issue an advisory
opinion that says so because we're supposed to be focusing on integrity and good behavior,
not just on how the words can be interpreted to require something or prohibit something.
Does that make sense?
To sum up what I think I understand you said is that requiring the disclosure, but not
making it a violation of the ethics code if he voted.
Correct. I think if that's what you want to do, I'm listening to the conversation and
I think there's a consensus, then the basis, the hook you hang your head on is how you
interpret the word current in section A1. You're basically saying in your opinion that
there may have been a previous conflict, but there's not a current one going forward. And
while there needs to be disclosure because of the one year look back, he can actually
discuss and vote on matters going forward. And if someone were to file a complaint against
them, he would have an affirmative defense because he has your advisory opinion in his
hand, which would make it easy for the board of ethics at that point to dispose of that
complaint.
And then I guess our third point would be we would like to have this brought up before
the full committee to review it for any possible changes.
Yes. I know that y'all are keeping some sort of list of things you spot big and small.
I'm sure that Madison's office has a list of things that her office would actually like
addressed for administrative efficiency purposes. At some point, that list needs to go before
the full board of ethics. And you need to have a thorough discussion of it, in my opinion,
at which point you vote to send a list of recommendations forward to the city council
for the city council to then deliberate. Because this is your first code of ethics. It was
a lengthy process, a very inclusive, deliberative process to draft it. But once it got inked
and signed, administering it helps people understand it a little bit better, apply it
to real-world examples, and we learn things. And some things that seem to make sense at
one point may not make sense in the future. There's nothing wrong with amending and updating
ordinances. Municipalities do it all the time. But what matters to me is we've got a panel
of good people with good intentions from the board of ethics looking at a rule, applying
it to a particular fact pattern, and saying this doesn't make sense. Well, one way you
can address it is to recommend an ordinance amendment. Another way you can address it
is in your interpretation in the advisory opinion. And what I'm telling you as your
lawyer in this matter is if that's the direction you want to go, I can support that. And the
way you do it is with the way we talked about current in that earlier section. I agree with
what you're all saying. This is why this is hard. This is why we have these kind of meetings.
The same word can mean something different to different people. It's a matter of interpretation.
And more than anything, I want this code to be fairly applied. I want it to make sense.
And I want when you're done with your meetings, I want you to feel like you've done your part
to further integrity at City Hall in Denton. And so that is a path forward if you choose
to take it. The other option is to say, "Nope, our advisory opinion says you have a conflict.
You can't vote for a year. You must disclose for a year." And then say, "City Council,
please address this when the time is right." So Alan, for this advisory opinion, it would
just apply to this case, right? Yes. It is specific to the fact patterns that we're doing.
I have some concerns about opening a can of worms, if other advisory, if other questions.
Yes, Madison. I just wanted, and maybe I'll just wait until
we have the advisory opinion. Never mind. I apologize for interrupting.
Okay. No problem. Because I can see hanging, using the A1 as the framework. That makes
a lot of sense to me, and I'm comfortable with that. But my concern is that we may have
a lot, unless there are some changes to the ordinance, we may have to do a lot of parsing
along the way, if that makes. And so that bit concerns me. And in terms of, yes, Madison,
you look like you have something to say. Yeah, I was just going to, I think if you issue
an advisory opinion to Council Member Meltzer specifically, because your concern was about
opening a can of worms, that does not, I think if something else came up where some other
council member had a relationship with another entity and their spouse terminated that, but
it was facts were different, right? I don't think that having issued that advisory opinion
would prevent the board in any way from seeing those facts and interpreting them differently
at this point without a change to the ordinance. But Alan, do you have a different opinion
on that? Basically, I don't think it sets precedent.
Yeah. Precedent is always a concern. That's the magic word. I don't think that this advisory
opinion would necessarily be binding on a future panel or the Board of Ethics, but we
do want similar facts to be treated similarly. We do want to treat people fairly and not
issue opinions based on do we like this person or like this entity? And I don't think y'all
would ever do that. So my recommendation would be if another council member comes forward
with a similar situation, that either we would give them a similar advisory opinion or we
would seriously have the council amend the ordinance to make clear what people want in
Denton. And I'll share with you that not all municipalities that have Codes of Ethics have
a process for advisory opinions. Or in some cities, advisory opinion comes from, you know,
an outside lawyer, not from a group like yours, or there just is no process. And for me, I
am glad that the City Council chose to have this process that you're working through to
today. Because I think the more that we ask questions and converse about ethics, the better
behavior we're going to have, and the more confidence the citizens can have in what's
going on at City Hall. So more conversations, deliberations, decisions is a good thing,
not a bad thing. And the second thing is, I think we're a great resource for folks who
can look at the code and maybe it just either they don't understand it or it doesn't make
sense in their situation. And this is a really good safety valve. And so if it creates more
meetings for you and more advisory opinions for you, then it's good to be needed. You've
got some work to do. But I think that it's through these advisory opinions, we breathe
more life into the code, rather than just hearings on a complaint, where it's more like
a trial and there may be some punishment for somebody. And so I don't necessarily look
at requests for advisory opinions as a bad thing. We want our city officials when in
doubt to ask in advance versus having to defend themselves at a hearing. And so I would consider
approaching it that way if you're so inclined. Any other discussion? So then in the process,
do we vote on this or make a motion? Someone would make a motion. There'd be a second
and a vote. And based on whatever the motion is in this discussion, I would work with Madison
to draft a very short advisory opinion or the chairperson's signature. Do I hear a motion?
I move that we find that Councilman Meltzer's request to determine if there is a conflict
of interest related to his wife's termination of employment in January 2021 is not a conflict
in that anything he deliberates on after January 2021 does not constitute a current conflict
as it relates to his wife's previous employment. That can probably be reduced a little bit,
but... Could I try to read that back? The motion is that the panel finds that Councilmember
Meltzer's request to determine if there is a conflict of interest related to his wife's
previous employment, which terminated in January 2021, is not a conflict in that anything he
deliberates on after January 2021 does not constitute a current conflict of interest.
Is that the end? I think that's the end. That's pretty good. And if I may suggest, there needs
to be a friendly amendment to your motion before it's seconded, and that is to address
the disclosure requirement. The disclosure would still need to happen for any new pending
matters for the calendar year prior to the separation from UNT. Is that y'all's intent?
So, as a procedural question, that would mean, because as I mentioned currently, they file
affidavits of abstention, which specifically say for this item, I am abstaining because
of this conflict of interest reason, which he has put in the past the $600 in gross annual
income. So, we would require him to still complete that, but he would be able to vote
instead of abstaining. That's the direction I'm hearing procedurally. That's probably
a little more detailed than it needs to be. Well, that's not the motion. That's just my
clarification. I'm imagining, Madison, it may have to be a slightly different form. A different
form. So, it's a disclosure of the relationship, but it's not abstaining. And so, that way,
if we're going to give the councilman guidance, let's give him guidance on both points. And
so, if it is your intention to say there's not a current conflict, thus allowing action,
but that there's still the disclosure requirement for a calendar year, then I would include
that in your- I would suggest that we do that in two motions.
All right. So, I'll step back from that, excuse me, and see if there's a second on Mr. Johnson's
original motion. I will second the motion.
So do- and we vote on the motion. So, ayes? All ayes? All ayes. Any opposed? No. Motion
carries. So, second motion. Do I hear a motion on disclosure?
Let me- Committed his motion to include that on our
last vote, didn't we? No, I thought we were doing it on two motions.
Yeah, I suggested that we do the- it is two motions to make it clear, the motion language
be less- Madison, let me make sure I understand the
purpose and the language of the second disclosure. I would imagine, based upon where we are,
the second disclosure would say something like, "I, Paul Milster, had a previous conflict
and that my wife was employed with UNT up until January of 2021 when she ceased employment.
When she ceased employment, I no longer have a current conflict, so I will not abstain
from any votes related to UNT after January 2021."
Well, and we might need an opinion from you on this, Alan. So there's basically two disclosure
pieces required in the current code. There's the one that says- that's like the business
disclosure whereby you have to disclose that you have a business relationship or something
to, in general, to the public, which I believe, like, if you owned a business- can you hear
me? I have internet. Okay, there we go. If you- you would have to disclose, "Hey, I have
a relationship with this," and then any time that became a pending matter, you would have
to then say, "I'm abstaining because of this conflict of interest that I've previously
disclosed." Did that make sense? And did you hear me because of my internet connection?
Yeah, your video froze, but I could hear the audio just fine.
Correct, Alan, is that your understanding? Yes. So I think the question here is, he's
already disclosed that he had a relationship with UNT. Do we want to basically require
him to, whenever there's a pending matter concerning UNT, to disclose that he had previously
had a conflict, but it is not currently a conflict? So that's why he's voting each time
that that comes up. Why does he have to do it each time?
That was my question as well. Why not just file another disclosure saying that that relationship
terminated on January 2021? I think- I think you can. That's the point
of this second motion, is what level of disclosure do you think is warranted under the code going
forward in light of your previous motion that there's no longer a current conflict?
Right. You're just providing advice on what his disclosure requirements are at this point.
I don't know. I'm not sure he needs to refer to it as a prior conflict. I think just a
provision that my wife has been employed with University of Texas for 15 years. She's terminating
due to retirement or she's terminating as of January. And that's it. I don't think there
has to be anything explaining that he had a conflict of interest.
I would tend to agree. So would you like to make a motion?
I'll make a motion that he would need to do an affidavit or- I'll make a motion that he
would need to inform the public that his- I don't know. How would we- Madison, who does
he give the other? He would disclose- he could basically issue
one disclosure that says his relationship is terminated because his wife is no longer
employed there. And I believe that ends up being filed with me. So he would just need
to basically fill out a form that says that and then send it to me and it would be on
file. Oh, I'm sorry.
Okay. That his wife has been an employee of University of North Texas and is no longer
an employee. Yes. Perhaps what the motion could be is that
you advise him in this opinion to file an affidavit disclosing his previous and current
relationship with the University of North Texas and leave it at that. And how he chooses
to word it is up to his discretion. But that description of the relationship becomes a
public record. It puts people on notice. And for our purposes, it checks the box under
the code of ethics. Perfect. Perfect. Perfect.
We're good. If Don's wording is appropriate, then I second.
Let me try to read it back. So basically the motion states that the panel advises Councilmember
Meltzer to file an affidavit that discloses that his previous relationship with the University
of North Texas has been terminated. Does that work for the motion language?
Yes. So that's the motion. Do I have a second?
I'll second, whosoever motioned it first. It was your motion. You can't second.
Well, I thought I seconded it. So Ron seconded it. I'll vote for it for the
motion. Yes. Yes. Yes. So three ayes, no nays. Motion is approved.
All right. Any other comments or questions? We'll see you at three o'clock.
So Alan, you write this up with Madison and then I review and sign and then it goes forward.
Is that how it works? Yes, that's what's next. And from my vantage
point, which is very different from your point of view, I can opine that I think this went
really well. And I think this is exactly what this process was meant to do. I think some
folks may disagree with the outcome, but I think the process you went through in deliberating
this was excellent. Thank you for letting me be a part of it.
Thank you for being a part of it and for your guidance.
Before we move on, I just want to confirm that it seems like there's a consensus from
this panel that we should at least bring up to the board clarifying what current conflicting
interest means officially, formally in the ordinance language as a recommendation to
council or just to discuss that as a board. Yes. Okay. Okay. Anything else? Meeting adjourned.
Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Thank you, Don.