WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.400
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

00:00:06.400 --> 00:00:08.800
 Okay, is everybody ready?

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.

00:00:14.860 --> 00:00:17.920
 It's by 30 May 9th, 2022.

00:00:17.920 --> 00:00:26.960
 And the item for consideration is BOE 22-017.

00:00:26.960 --> 00:00:31.700
 Ethics Complaint Number 22-001 filed on May 2nd,

00:00:31.700 --> 00:00:39.900
 2022 concerning Alleged Violations of Ethics Ordinance Section 2-273.

00:00:39.900 --> 00:00:43.080
 Madison has put together agenda information sheet.

00:00:43.080 --> 00:00:45.060
 I don't think I'll go through all of it.

00:00:45.060 --> 00:00:49.840
 But what we're doing today is finding whether this is an actionable claim,

00:00:49.840 --> 00:00:54.280
 meaning that the allegations or evidence contained in the complaint of true would

00:00:54.280 --> 00:00:58.160
 constitute a violation of the ethics ordinance, or whether it's baseless,

00:00:58.160 --> 00:01:01.880
 meaning the allegations and evidence contained in the complaint of true would

00:01:01.880 --> 00:01:04.400
 constitute a violation of the article.

00:01:04.400 --> 00:01:09.560
 So going to the ethics complaint, Scott Lewis Campbell has filed a complaint

00:01:09.560 --> 00:01:11.320
 about Paul Melter.

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.

00:01:18.480 --> 00:01:24.880
 But just going into the complaint, not even worrying about whether it's moot or not.

00:01:24.880 --> 00:01:30.960
 But going into the complaint, Mr.

00:01:30.960 --> 00:01:40.760
 Campbell is saying that Paul Melter had improper influence using a flyer,

00:01:40.760 --> 00:01:46.640
 and that he violated the article by using city facilities,

00:01:46.640 --> 00:01:51.920
 personnel equipment, software, et cetera, for private purposes.

00:01:51.920 --> 00:01:58.560
 But then going to the flyer that he attached, it doesn't have anything about

00:01:58.560 --> 00:02:01.440
 the city secretary's seal that he's complaining about.

00:02:01.440 --> 00:02:06.440
 So I think my opinion is that it's baseless because there's nothing on here

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

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.

00:02:17.160 --> 00:02:23.000
 So I would find this is baseless, and I'll, whoever else wants to join in?

00:02:23.000 --> 00:02:25.280
 >> I'm finding it baseless, too.

00:02:25.280 --> 00:02:28.840
 He talked about improper influence.

00:02:28.840 --> 00:02:30.440
 Am I supposed to be speaking into the mic?

00:02:30.440 --> 00:02:32.680
 >> No. >> Okay.

00:02:32.680 --> 00:02:36.680
 He's talking about improper influence, and then the wording he used was from

00:02:36.680 --> 00:02:43.240
 abuse of resources, which says that Melter would have used city facilities,

00:02:43.240 --> 00:02:47.760
 which he did not, personnel, which he did not, equipment, which he did not,

00:02:47.760 --> 00:02:53.600
 software, which he did not, supplies, which he did not, or staff time for

00:02:53.600 --> 00:02:57.760
 private purposes, so I find it to be baseless.

00:02:57.760 --> 00:02:59.440
 >> Can I add anything to add?

00:02:59.440 --> 00:03:02.560
 >> Yep, I agree, I found it baseless.

00:03:02.560 --> 00:03:07.880
 The piece of evidence that was attached did not include the notary seal,

00:03:07.880 --> 00:03:11.680
 which is clearly on page, I think, two of the document, and

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.

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?

00:03:22.440 --> 00:03:26.280
 We haven't done this, we have wanted to do this for a couple years.

00:03:26.280 --> 00:03:30.320
 So moved, I move to find this baseless, any second?

00:03:30.320 --> 00:03:31.280
 >> I'll second, yeah.

00:03:31.280 --> 00:03:33.320
 >> Any more discussion?

00:03:33.320 --> 00:03:38.040
 All right, I think our panel has- >> We need to call the vote.

00:03:38.040 --> 00:03:39.560
 >> Need to call the vote.

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,

00:03:44.200 --> 00:03:49.000
 but okay, all in favor of finding the complaint baseless, say aye.

00:03:49.000 --> 00:03:49.760
 >> Aye.

00:03:49.760 --> 00:03:53.800
 >> All opposed, we all said aye, so we all agree.

00:03:53.800 --> 00:03:59.080
 So this has been found baseless, is there anything else?

00:03:59.080 --> 00:04:01.520
 >> Yes, I would like to talk about frivolity.

00:04:01.520 --> 00:04:02.160
 >> Okay.

00:04:02.160 --> 00:04:09.080
 >> I move that we consider that this is a frivolous request as per

00:04:09.080 --> 00:04:26.840
 the Code of Ethics, section 2-282-282 and item C.

00:04:30.040 --> 00:04:31.920
 >> Would you like me to bring up the ordinance?

00:04:31.920 --> 00:04:35.560
 >> Yeah, if you bring up the ordinance, the pagination's weird.

00:04:35.560 --> 00:04:41.280
 But on page 19 of the ordinance, if you add 3 to the,

00:04:41.280 --> 00:04:50.400
 it's actually probably 22 of the actual document because-

00:04:50.400 --> 00:04:51.080
 >> The next page?

00:04:51.080 --> 00:04:52.360
 >> Yes, well, the next page.

00:04:54.760 --> 00:05:02.600
 So under item three, there are factors that we need to look at in determining frivolity.

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.

00:05:09.280 --> 00:05:16.160
 >> Okay, all right, so frivolous complaint is defined in the code as a sworn complaint

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.

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?

00:05:34.440 --> 00:05:39.320
 >> You can recommend that a hearing be held to determine frivolity.

00:05:39.320 --> 00:05:40.320
 >> Okay.

00:05:40.320 --> 00:05:48.240
 >> So the factors are the timing, which I guess the timing is right before an election.

00:05:48.240 --> 00:05:49.320
 >> Five days.

00:05:49.320 --> 00:05:50.080
 >> What's that?

00:05:50.080 --> 00:05:52.400
 >> Five days before the election.

00:05:52.400 --> 00:05:56.760
 >> The nature and type of any publicity surrounding the filing of this sworn complaint,

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.

00:06:01.400 --> 00:06:03.520
 I don't think we have any evidence of that.

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.

00:06:12.400 --> 00:06:14.760
 >> Okay, I didn't see that, so.

00:06:14.760 --> 00:06:15.920
 >> Okay, I do.

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.

00:06:25.000 --> 00:06:27.440
 But yes, there was some publicity.

00:06:27.440 --> 00:06:32.120
 And they were going to the AG's office, or the Secretary of State's office.

00:06:32.120 --> 00:06:34.800
 So yes, there was publicity.

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.

00:06:39.720 --> 00:06:41.240
 I don't know of any, but if.

00:06:41.240 --> 00:06:52.920
 >> They were running against each other, and he was representing, he filed a complaint before.

00:06:52.920 --> 00:06:53.840
 >> Was it against Malter?

00:06:53.840 --> 00:06:55.320
 I don't remember.

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.

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.

00:07:10.080 --> 00:07:14.760
 And I think D kind of goes with C, and goes with what you just said.

00:07:14.760 --> 00:07:19.240
 >> As far as ENF, I don't know that we know what he was thinking.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

00:07:51.960 --> 00:07:56.320
 >> So we need to recommend that there be a hearing about frivolity?

00:07:56.320 --> 00:07:59.840
 >> Correct, and we need to make a motion to recommend.

00:07:59.840 --> 00:08:05.000
 >> That we send this to a panel to determine if this is frivolous or not.

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.

00:08:09.000 --> 00:08:11.320
 It would just be a pre-determined frivolity.

00:08:11.320 --> 00:08:16.080
 >> Okay, anybody want a second?

00:08:16.080 --> 00:08:17.960
 >> Any seconds?

00:08:17.960 --> 00:08:19.880
 >> I'll second that, yeah.

00:08:19.880 --> 00:08:22.800
 >> All right, any more discussion?

00:08:22.800 --> 00:08:27.040
 A vote that we recommend to the board to consider whether this is frivolous.

00:08:27.040 --> 00:08:29.320
 All in favor, please say aye.

00:08:29.320 --> 00:08:30.480
 >> Aye.

00:08:30.480 --> 00:08:32.360
 >> All opposed?

00:08:32.360 --> 00:08:39.280
 So we are going to recommend to, for the board to look at this for frivolity.

00:08:39.280 --> 00:08:42.840
 Okay, I think, I think that's all we can really do here.

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,

00:08:50.480 --> 00:08:56.360
 get together a letter for under the code about the outcome of this meeting.

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.

00:09:01.080 --> 00:09:02.760
 That would be great.

00:09:02.760 --> 00:09:04.120
 Thank you.

00:09:04.120 --> 00:09:09.040
 Okay, and I think the meeting could be adjourned.

00:09:09.040 --> 00:09:09.960
 All right, thanks.

00:09:09.960 --> 00:09:10.800
 >> Thank you.