[BLANK_AUDIO]
Okay, is everybody ready?
All right, we will go ahead and start the special call meeting of the Board of Ethics.
It's by 30 May 9th, 2022.
And the item for consideration is BOE 22-017.
Ethics Complaint Number 22-001 filed on May 2nd,
2022 concerning Alleged Violations of Ethics Ordinance Section 2-273.
Madison has put together agenda information sheet.
I don't think I'll go through all of it.
But what we're doing today is finding whether this is an actionable claim,
meaning that the allegations or evidence contained in the complaint of true would
constitute a violation of the ethics ordinance, or whether it's baseless,
meaning the allegations and evidence contained in the complaint of true would
constitute a violation of the article.
So going to the ethics complaint, Scott Lewis Campbell has filed a complaint
about Paul Melter.
And I'll note that Paul Melter is not a council member as of, I guess, Tuesday.
But just going into the complaint, not even worrying about whether it's moot or not.
But going into the complaint, Mr.
Campbell is saying that Paul Melter had improper influence using a flyer,
and that he violated the article by using city facilities,
personnel equipment, software, et cetera, for private purposes.
But then going to the flyer that he attached, it doesn't have anything about
the city secretary's seal that he's complaining about.
So I think my opinion is that it's baseless because there's nothing on here
that shows that, and even if there was a city seal on it, if it was like a public
document that had a city seal, it's not, anybody can pick that out and use it.
So I would find this is baseless, and I'll, whoever else wants to join in?
>> I'm finding it baseless, too.
He talked about improper influence.
Am I supposed to be speaking into the mic?
>> No. >> Okay.
He's talking about improper influence, and then the wording he used was from
abuse of resources, which says that Melter would have used city facilities,
which he did not, personnel, which he did not, equipment, which he did not,
software, which he did not, supplies, which he did not, or staff time for
private purposes, so I find it to be baseless.
>> Can I add anything to add?
>> Yep, I agree, I found it baseless.
The piece of evidence that was attached did not include the notary seal,
which is clearly on page, I think, two of the document, and
I did not see it anywhere in the attached evidence, so I found it baseless as well.
>> Okay, let's see, do we need to have a motion to find it baseless, I guess?
We haven't done this, we have wanted to do this for a couple years.
So moved, I move to find this baseless, any second?
>> I'll second, yeah.
>> Any more discussion?
All right, I think our panel has- >> We need to call the vote.
>> Need to call the vote.
Call the vote, okay, it's kind of funny cuz we all obviously know what the vote is,
but okay, all in favor of finding the complaint baseless, say aye.
>> Aye.
>> All opposed, we all said aye, so we all agree.
So this has been found baseless, is there anything else?
>> Yes, I would like to talk about frivolity.
>> Okay.
>> I move that we consider that this is a frivolous request as per
the Code of Ethics, section 2-282-282 and item C.
>> Would you like me to bring up the ordinance?
>> Yeah, if you bring up the ordinance, the pagination's weird.
But on page 19 of the ordinance, if you add 3 to the,
it's actually probably 22 of the actual document because-
>> The next page?
>> Yes, well, the next page.
So under item three, there are factors that we need to look at in determining frivolity.
So if we look, we'll need to look at A, B, C, D, E, and F.
>> Okay, all right, so frivolous complaint is defined in the code as a sworn complaint
that is groundless and brought in bad faith for groundless and brought for the purpose of harassment.
And then we actually, well, I was wondering if I know, can we discuss that in this hearing?
>> You can recommend that a hearing be held to determine frivolity.
>> Okay.
>> So the factors are the timing, which I guess the timing is right before an election.
>> Five days.
>> What's that?
>> Five days before the election.
>> The nature and type of any publicity surrounding the filing of this sworn complaint,
and the degree of participation by the complaint in publicizing the fact that the complaint was filed.
I don't think we have any evidence of that.
>> Well, actually, B, the nature of publicity, there was a big article in the paper on April 21st about this.
>> Okay, I didn't see that, so.
>> Okay, I do.
>> And the mayor was quoted quite a bit in it, so I printed out the copy of the article.
But yes, there was some publicity.
And they were going to the AG's office, or the Secretary of State's office.
So yes, there was publicity.
>> The existence and nature of any relationship between the respondent complaint and the fourth complaint was filed.
I don't know of any, but if.
>> They were running against each other, and he was representing, he filed a complaint before.
>> Was it against Malter?
I don't remember.
>> Against Armin Thorpe, but it was kind of against, my point in calling this frivolous is that it's political.
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.
And I think D kind of goes with C, and goes with what you just said.
>> As far as ENF, I don't know that we know what he was thinking.
>> Yeah, any evidence of complaint newer recently, and you should have known the allegations of the complaint when Brown was.
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.
And any evidence of the complaint's motives, which I guess we don't know the evidence of that yet.
But I guess, you know, you consider all the factors, but you don't have to find, you know.
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.
>> So we need to recommend that there be a hearing about frivolity?
>> Correct, and we need to make a motion to recommend.
>> That we send this to a panel to determine if this is frivolous or not.
>> It would be a full hearing, it would be a full, the full board would be, it would be like a normal hearing.
It would just be a pre-determined frivolity.
>> Okay, anybody want a second?
>> Any seconds?
>> I'll second that, yeah.
>> All right, any more discussion?
A vote that we recommend to the board to consider whether this is frivolous.
All in favor, please say aye.
>> Aye.
>> All opposed?
So we are going to recommend to, for the board to look at this for frivolity.
Okay, I think, I think that's all we can really do here.
I think if there's nothing else, then I guess Madison will have to get together with a letter,
get together a letter for under the code about the outcome of this meeting.
Technically it's a letter from you, but I can prepare it for you and have you review it.
That would be great.
Thank you.
Okay, and I think the meeting could be adjourned.
All right, thanks.
>> Thank you.