1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:06,400
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

2
00:00:06,400 --> 00:00:08,800
 Okay, is everybody ready?

3
00:00:08,800 --> 00:00:14,860
 All right, we will go ahead and start the special call meeting of the Board of Ethics.

4
00:00:14,860 --> 00:00:17,920
 It's by 30 May 9th, 2022.

5
00:00:17,920 --> 00:00:26,960
 And the item for consideration is BOE 22-017.

6
00:00:26,960 --> 00:00:31,700
 Ethics Complaint Number 22-001 filed on May 2nd,

7
00:00:31,700 --> 00:00:39,900
 2022 concerning Alleged Violations of Ethics Ordinance Section 2-273.

8
00:00:39,900 --> 00:00:43,080
 Madison has put together agenda information sheet.

9
00:00:43,080 --> 00:00:45,060
 I don't think I'll go through all of it.

10
00:00:45,060 --> 00:00:49,840
 But what we're doing today is finding whether this is an actionable claim,

11
00:00:49,840 --> 00:00:54,280
 meaning that the allegations or evidence contained in the complaint of true would

12
00:00:54,280 --> 00:00:58,160
 constitute a violation of the ethics ordinance, or whether it's baseless,

13
00:00:58,160 --> 00:01:01,880
 meaning the allegations and evidence contained in the complaint of true would

14
00:01:01,880 --> 00:01:04,400
 constitute a violation of the article.

15
00:01:04,400 --> 00:01:09,560
 So going to the ethics complaint, Scott Lewis Campbell has filed a complaint

16
00:01:09,560 --> 00:01:11,320
 about Paul Melter.

17
00:01:11,320 --> 00:01:18,480
 And I'll note that Paul Melter is not a council member as of, I guess, Tuesday.

18
00:01:18,480 --> 00:01:24,880
 But just going into the complaint, not even worrying about whether it's moot or not.

19
00:01:24,880 --> 00:01:30,960
 But going into the complaint, Mr.

20
00:01:30,960 --> 00:01:40,760
 Campbell is saying that Paul Melter had improper influence using a flyer,

21
00:01:40,760 --> 00:01:46,640
 and that he violated the article by using city facilities,

22
00:01:46,640 --> 00:01:51,920
 personnel equipment, software, et cetera, for private purposes.

23
00:01:51,920 --> 00:01:58,560
 But then going to the flyer that he attached, it doesn't have anything about

24
00:01:58,560 --> 00:02:01,440
 the city secretary's seal that he's complaining about.

25
00:02:01,440 --> 00:02:06,440
 So I think my opinion is that it's baseless because there's nothing on here

26
00:02:06,440 --> 00:02:11,680
 that shows that, and even if there was a city seal on it, if it was like a public

27
00:02:11,680 --> 00:02:17,160
 document that had a city seal, it's not, anybody can pick that out and use it.

28
00:02:17,160 --> 00:02:23,000
 So I would find this is baseless, and I'll, whoever else wants to join in?

29
00:02:23,000 --> 00:02:25,280
 >> I'm finding it baseless, too.

30
00:02:25,280 --> 00:02:28,840
 He talked about improper influence.

31
00:02:28,840 --> 00:02:30,440
 Am I supposed to be speaking into the mic?

32
00:02:30,440 --> 00:02:32,680
 >> No. >> Okay.

33
00:02:32,680 --> 00:02:36,680
 He's talking about improper influence, and then the wording he used was from

34
00:02:36,680 --> 00:02:43,240
 abuse of resources, which says that Melter would have used city facilities,

35
00:02:43,240 --> 00:02:47,760
 which he did not, personnel, which he did not, equipment, which he did not,

36
00:02:47,760 --> 00:02:53,600
 software, which he did not, supplies, which he did not, or staff time for

37
00:02:53,600 --> 00:02:57,760
 private purposes, so I find it to be baseless.

38
00:02:57,760 --> 00:02:59,440
 >> Can I add anything to add?

39
00:02:59,440 --> 00:03:02,560
 >> Yep, I agree, I found it baseless.

40
00:03:02,560 --> 00:03:07,880
 The piece of evidence that was attached did not include the notary seal,

41
00:03:07,880 --> 00:03:11,680
 which is clearly on page, I think, two of the document, and

42
00:03:11,680 --> 00:03:17,120
 I did not see it anywhere in the attached evidence, so I found it baseless as well.

43
00:03:17,120 --> 00:03:22,440
 >> Okay, let's see, do we need to have a motion to find it baseless, I guess?

44
00:03:22,440 --> 00:03:26,280
 We haven't done this, we have wanted to do this for a couple years.

45
00:03:26,280 --> 00:03:30,320
 So moved, I move to find this baseless, any second?

46
00:03:30,320 --> 00:03:31,280
 >> I'll second, yeah.

47
00:03:31,280 --> 00:03:33,320
 >> Any more discussion?

48
00:03:33,320 --> 00:03:38,040
 All right, I think our panel has- >> We need to call the vote.

49
00:03:38,040 --> 00:03:39,560
 >> Need to call the vote.

50
00:03:39,560 --> 00:03:44,200
 Call the vote, okay, it's kind of funny cuz we all obviously know what the vote is,

51
00:03:44,200 --> 00:03:49,000
 but okay, all in favor of finding the complaint baseless, say aye.

52
00:03:49,000 --> 00:03:49,760
 >> Aye.

53
00:03:49,760 --> 00:03:53,800
 >> All opposed, we all said aye, so we all agree.

54
00:03:53,800 --> 00:03:59,080
 So this has been found baseless, is there anything else?

55
00:03:59,080 --> 00:04:01,520
 >> Yes, I would like to talk about frivolity.

56
00:04:01,520 --> 00:04:02,160
 >> Okay.

57
00:04:02,160 --> 00:04:09,080
 >> I move that we consider that this is a frivolous request as per

58
00:04:09,080 --> 00:04:26,840
 the Code of Ethics, section 2-282-282 and item C.

59
00:04:30,040 --> 00:04:31,920
 >> Would you like me to bring up the ordinance?

60
00:04:31,920 --> 00:04:35,560
 >> Yeah, if you bring up the ordinance, the pagination's weird.

61
00:04:35,560 --> 00:04:41,280
 But on page 19 of the ordinance, if you add 3 to the,

62
00:04:41,280 --> 00:04:50,400
 it's actually probably 22 of the actual document because-

63
00:04:50,400 --> 00:04:51,080
 >> The next page?

64
00:04:51,080 --> 00:04:52,360
 >> Yes, well, the next page.

65
00:04:54,760 --> 00:05:02,600
 So under item three, there are factors that we need to look at in determining frivolity.

66
00:05:02,600 --> 00:05:09,280
 So if we look, we'll need to look at A, B, C, D, E, and F.

67
00:05:09,280 --> 00:05:16,160
 >> Okay, all right, so frivolous complaint is defined in the code as a sworn complaint

68
00:05:16,160 --> 00:05:20,520
 that is groundless and brought in bad faith for groundless and brought for the purpose of harassment.

69
00:05:21,640 --> 00:05:34,440
 And then we actually, well, I was wondering if I know, can we discuss that in this hearing?

70
00:05:34,440 --> 00:05:39,320
 >> You can recommend that a hearing be held to determine frivolity.

71
00:05:39,320 --> 00:05:40,320
 >> Okay.

72
00:05:40,320 --> 00:05:48,240
 >> So the factors are the timing, which I guess the timing is right before an election.

73
00:05:48,240 --> 00:05:49,320
 >> Five days.

74
00:05:49,320 --> 00:05:50,080
 >> What's that?

75
00:05:50,080 --> 00:05:52,400
 >> Five days before the election.

76
00:05:52,400 --> 00:05:56,760
 >> The nature and type of any publicity surrounding the filing of this sworn complaint,

77
00:05:56,760 --> 00:06:01,400
 and the degree of participation by the complaint in publicizing the fact that the complaint was filed.

78
00:06:01,400 --> 00:06:03,520
 I don't think we have any evidence of that.

79
00:06:03,520 --> 00:06:12,400
 >> Well, actually, B, the nature of publicity, there was a big article in the paper on April 21st about this.

80
00:06:12,400 --> 00:06:14,760
 >> Okay, I didn't see that, so.

81
00:06:14,760 --> 00:06:15,920
 >> Okay, I do.

82
00:06:15,920 --> 00:06:25,000
 >> And the mayor was quoted quite a bit in it, so I printed out the copy of the article.

83
00:06:25,000 --> 00:06:27,440
 But yes, there was some publicity.

84
00:06:27,440 --> 00:06:32,120
 And they were going to the AG's office, or the Secretary of State's office.

85
00:06:32,120 --> 00:06:34,800
 So yes, there was publicity.

86
00:06:34,800 --> 00:06:39,720
 >> The existence and nature of any relationship between the respondent complaint and the fourth complaint was filed.

87
00:06:39,720 --> 00:06:41,240
 I don't know of any, but if.

88
00:06:41,240 --> 00:06:52,920
 >> They were running against each other, and he was representing, he filed a complaint before.

89
00:06:52,920 --> 00:06:53,840
 >> Was it against Malter?

90
00:06:53,840 --> 00:06:55,320
 I don't remember.

91
00:06:55,320 --> 00:07:02,600
 >> Against Armin Thorpe, but it was kind of against, my point in calling this frivolous is that it's political.

92
00:07:02,600 --> 00:07:10,080
 And I think if we go down that path and we don't call it frivolous, we're going to open ourselves to a lot of other frivolity complaints.

93
00:07:10,080 --> 00:07:14,760
 And I think D kind of goes with C, and goes with what you just said.

94
00:07:14,760 --> 00:07:19,240
 >> As far as ENF, I don't know that we know what he was thinking.

95
00:07:19,240 --> 00:07:25,080
 >> Yeah, any evidence of complaint newer recently, and you should have known the allegations of the complaint when Brown was.

96
00:07:25,080 --> 00:07:31,880
 I mean, I don't know the, the attached document doesn't have what it says it has, which makes me kind of think like that.

97
00:07:31,880 --> 00:07:37,240
 And any evidence of the complaint's motives, which I guess we don't know the evidence of that yet.

98
00:07:37,240 --> 00:07:45,600
 But I guess, you know, you consider all the factors, but you don't have to find, you know.

99
00:07:45,600 --> 00:07:51,960
 As a lawyer, like when there's a factor test, it doesn't mean you necessarily have to find all of them, you know, you just kind of.

100
00:07:51,960 --> 00:07:56,320
 >> So we need to recommend that there be a hearing about frivolity?

101
00:07:56,320 --> 00:07:59,840
 >> Correct, and we need to make a motion to recommend.

102
00:07:59,840 --> 00:08:05,000
 >> That we send this to a panel to determine if this is frivolous or not.

103
00:08:05,000 --> 00:08:09,000
 >> It would be a full hearing, it would be a full, the full board would be, it would be like a normal hearing.

104
00:08:09,000 --> 00:08:11,320
 It would just be a pre-determined frivolity.

105
00:08:11,320 --> 00:08:16,080
 >> Okay, anybody want a second?

106
00:08:16,080 --> 00:08:17,960
 >> Any seconds?

107
00:08:17,960 --> 00:08:19,880
 >> I'll second that, yeah.

108
00:08:19,880 --> 00:08:22,800
 >> All right, any more discussion?

109
00:08:22,800 --> 00:08:27,040
 A vote that we recommend to the board to consider whether this is frivolous.

110
00:08:27,040 --> 00:08:29,320
 All in favor, please say aye.

111
00:08:29,320 --> 00:08:30,480
 >> Aye.

112
00:08:30,480 --> 00:08:32,360
 >> All opposed?

113
00:08:32,360 --> 00:08:39,280
 So we are going to recommend to, for the board to look at this for frivolity.

114
00:08:39,280 --> 00:08:42,840
 Okay, I think, I think that's all we can really do here.

115
00:08:42,840 --> 00:08:50,480
 I think if there's nothing else, then I guess Madison will have to get together with a letter,

116
00:08:50,480 --> 00:08:56,360
 get together a letter for under the code about the outcome of this meeting.

117
00:08:56,360 --> 00:09:01,080
 Technically it's a letter from you, but I can prepare it for you and have you review it.

118
00:09:01,080 --> 00:09:02,760
 That would be great.

119
00:09:02,760 --> 00:09:04,120
 Thank you.

120
00:09:04,120 --> 00:09:09,040
 Okay, and I think the meeting could be adjourned.

121
00:09:09,040 --> 00:09:09,960
 All right, thanks.

122
00:09:09,960 --> 00:09:10,800
 >> Thank you.