May 23, 2022 Board of Ethics on 2022-05-23 5:30 PM (Special Called Meeting)

We are all here for all of it. Okay, so now that we have the members that are expected to show up, I'll call the meeting order. The special call meeting of the Board of Ethics today, May 23, 2022. There's one item for consideration, BOE 22-018, consider and take necessary action regarding recommendation made by a panel of the Board of Ethics on May 9, 2022, to determine if the ethics complaint number 22011 concerning alleged violations of the ethics ordinance section 2-273 may be frivolous and this hearing is being conducted under the Ordinance Section 2-281C. And, Madam Chair, did you state that a quorum is present for the record? You just read my mind because I was going to say four people is a quorum and we have five people here and the background on this is on May 2, there was a complaint by Scott Campbell for the misuse of information against then Councilperson Paul Meltzer and then on May 9, 2022, a panel of myself, Annette and Hannah found that the complaint was baseless. We also voted to have this frivolous hearing and we talked about how the flyer didn't say what the complaint said and that what was on the flyer that actually had the symbol was a public document. So now this is a hearing to determine if the complaint was frivolous and frivolous in the first place, I think we have to stop, I think the power just cut out, does that mean we're not live so we need to wait until we're live again? Well, technically it's still a public meeting, it's just not being streamed in further, I don't really know, everything came back. Should we, is there like IT we should contact or can we just go forward with it? I think we can just go forward, I'm going to step out just to make sure that we're doing alright. Okay, so should we pause for a minute while you... Let's pause to determine if we need to have this streamed. I don't think it's required by state law for us to be streamed, it just has to be a public meeting. Right. Well, how about we just pause and you let us know if we're still live in case people aren't watching. Yeah, we might still be streaming everyone, but yeah, really you should not drive wildly in a public meeting, you don't want to drive wildly in a public meeting, it's just a public meeting. Okay, we're still live, so where I was is that a frivolous complaint is defined in the ordinance as a complaint that is groundless and brought in bad faith or groundless and brought the purpose of harassment. It's not a complaint, it's a complaint related to an election, the publicity of the complaint, complaint tense, participation in the publicity, that's hard to say, the relationship between the complainant and respondent, and any relationship between the complainant and the candidate opposing the respondent, evidence that the complainant knows it was groundless and the complainant's motives. Before we jump into the actual hearing, Madison informed me today that complainants wish to either withdraw the complaint or postpone this hearing. I would start by, I believe withdrawal is not an option, the complaint has been filed, and if we just let people that, whether it's found frivolous or not tonight, if a panel thought it was enough to come to this point, I do not think we should let people withdraw the complaints, because it kind of just defeats the whole purpose of doing this, and everybody's nodding, so we're just going to move on from that, there's not going to be withdrawal. As far as postponing the meeting, under rule of- Would you like to take a voice vote on that request to withdraw, just for the record? Okay, do you want us to have a motion in a second, and then- In a vote. Okay. Do I have a motion as far as withdrawing the complaint? We do not approve, and we do not allow the complainant to withdraw. Thank you. In a second from Rob, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. And it appears to be unanimous. Okay, so the next thing we will consider is postponing, under rule of procedure E9, pre-trial matters, well pre-trial, I'm sorry, I'm a lawyer, so, but pre-hearing matters should have been filed four days before, my understanding is that the request was postponed was today, so it is outside of the time, but if we do want to consider it, the determination was made on the night to have this hearing, and that the complaint was baseless. It was sent to the complaint the next day, and my understanding is that the complaint came to City Hall last Friday, and then also, and then asked for the continuance today, May 23rd. Evidence has been submitted by members of the Board of Ethics, and by the respondent. The complaint has been given the chance to submit evidence, and waited until the day of the hearing to ask for the postponement. And I know it takes a lot of time to set up and get everybody here, and so, in my opinion, I think we should move forward today with what we have, but I'll open it up if anybody has any other opinions. I would like a motion that we will hold this hearing as scheduled. Okay. So, the motion, the motion needs to be because the Board, under the procedural request, has the discretion to determine whether to grant the request for the continuance that wasn't timely submitted, so I would make your motion around that. Can I say for the record, my name is Richard Gladden, I represent Mr. Melser, the respondent, and just for the record, we do oppose any continuance. We'd like to get this resolved today. And I'll give the vote, but I just want to make sure you don't worry about it. Alright, so, let me get to the rules and procedure. So, look on page eight, under procedural request, so they're supposed to submit it within four days, but then it says the Board shall determine whether to grant requests that have not been submitted in time for the preliminary hearing. So, your motion would be whether you want to grant that request or not grant that request, because it was untimely. I would like to make a motion to deny the request for the continuance. Okay, we have a motion to deny the continuance in our discretion, but Rob? I just wanted to ask, did we have a clarification why the delay? Why the delay? Why it wasn't submitted within the four days, why is it being asked today? I'm not sure. I guess I'm not prone to like have a secondary hearing before we have the hearing. Just appreciate it. Well, I was going to say that in Madison's email today, it says that the complainant asked for additional time to provide additional evidence. That is true. And so, I would think that it would surround that. Did anybody make a second to that motion? Is there a second to deny the request? I second it. Deborah, I second it. So, now's the time for discussion. Okay, I guess my thought is, you know, the termination was made on the 9th and sent the complaint on the 10th, and I think we have the evidence before us of what the complaint was, and I would like to move forward, but is there anybody else who proposes? Okay, well, let's take a vote on that motion to deny the untimely request for continuance all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? There's a giant spider right there. We'll just kind of get him over there. All right. Sorry. Distraction. Okay. So, we're going forward with the hearing today. It will be evidentiary hearing. So, under there can be witnesses, evidence, then we deliberate, and then we'll take a vote to make a determination. The structure under rule of procedure E5 would be one person speaks at a time, and the chair is in control of the discussion. So, kind of like a normal meeting. There are other, I put no pretrial procedure request, but we got one late, but there are no other pretrial procedure requests that were filed under rule of procedure E9. The parties were to submit witnesses and evidence prior to the hearing under rule of evidence, rule of procedure E10. We have documentary evidence that was compiled from the board of ethics members. There were no witnesses or documents sent from the complaint. There are no witnesses from the respondent, but there's one document from the respondent. As far as the presentation, under rule of procedure 16 through 18, there can be opening statements of three minutes each. Presentation of evidence and the closing statements of five minutes. And that's rule of procedure E21. And then we'll deliberate, and it can be a closed session, but I do not plan on closing session because I don't foresee a legal question, and I think it's important that we're transparent. What we're doing here as part of board of ethics and the ethics code is transparency. And at that time, if there's a motion for a vote, it will have to be a super majority under rule of procedure E27, which means two-thirds of the vote, two-thirds of the members of the board of ethics. And I'll probably request a roll call just for accuracy since we'll have to make sure it's two-thirds of the members. And then after that, if there's a motion, if it's passed by super majority, then we will discuss the sanction. So I will open the hearing and allow, if there's an opening statement for the complaint, you may do that. Do I sit here? You can sit here. You can sit there. I guess as long as I get picked up on the mic. I guess you need to be over here. Doesn't he need to get sworn in by the chair? Yeah. Well, I mean, this is an opening statement, so he's not a witness yet. I mean, that's how it is in real trials. So here? Yes. You don't have to speak into the microphone. It just exists in there. And actually, if you would like, we could -- you can also waive the opening statement if you would just like to testify today. No, I'd like to make a quick opening statement. Okay. Would you like me to start? Yes, please. How much time? Three minutes. Okay. I'm Scott Campbell. Good evening, board, staff, Mr. Meltzer, Mr. Gladden. On May 2nd, I filed a complaint in good faith with this body recording -- excuse me -- regarding Mr. Meltzer's use of the city secretary's notary seal, which could easily be interpreted as an endorsement. I became aware of this by an article in the Denver Record Chronicle. I did not subscribe to or read the paper and heard about it on May 1st or 2nd. I based my complaint on that article. After filing the complaint on May 2nd, I received all the subsequent correspondence from this group. Nowhere in that correspondence was the reason for the baseless determination stated. Subsequently, I learned that the review panel had been televised. Through that, I learned about the mysteriously missing page with the notary seal in question. I learned of and watched the meeting last Thursday evening, May 19th, and I have had it several times since. My request to pull the complaint was based on the video and claimed that evidence was missing. So, first thing the next morning, Friday, last Friday, May 20th, I requested that my complaint be withdrawn in order to determine what became of the missing page. It makes no sense for me not to have included the key part of the complaint, and there was no mistake on my part. I absolutely maintained that the page was included in the complaint file. I carefully reviewed the complaint one last time in the parking lot outside before presenting it, and the page was there. In summary, I filed a good faith complaint with all necessary evidence. I did so to hold Paul Meltzer accountable for what I believe to be misuse of the seal. The ethics board was written for just such situations. Additionally, the ordinance does not limit the number of complaints, which can be filed. So I believe the only other filing which I made in good faith, which concerned Deb Armentor, potentially campaigned from the dais to be moot, that was mentioned in the initial panel review. And then I thought this, just this afternoon, one last thing, and I think I know the answer. I thought this afternoon and wondered why, or how the DRC article came to be included in the evidence included in today's agenda. And I was under the impression that this hearing is based solely on my complaint, and the article in fact backs my complaint. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Respondent, if you could, if you mind switching out. Sure. That way we can hear everybody. Good evening. My name is Richard Gladden, I'm an attorney, and I'm here representing Paul Meltzer, who was the target of the complaint filed by the complainant, Scott Campbell. And I'll try to be quick, because I know I only got three minutes. First of all, I don't appear here with pleasure, particularly because Scott Campbell voted in favor of my solar panels at my house a few years ago. And we had to go from the Historical Landmark Commission to the City Council in order for me to get solar panels. So I do appreciate that, but I'm here doing what I think is right. For those of you who are around to follow the adoption of the current ethics ordinance, one of the greatest concerns was is that the ethics process and not be used for political purposes, so that shortly before elections, people like Mr. Campbell could file frivolous complaints and then call the newspaper and try to get as much publicity as they could as a political device to harm the campaigns of people who they did not agree with politically. Unfortunately, even though you have those criteria as the foremost criteria and determine whether, in this case, that occurred, that is, using your body and your process for political purposes, there are no sanctions that really have any teeth at all. I would suggest that, although you can't do it today, obviously, that be changed, because this is not the first frivolous complaint that Mr. Campbell has filed shortly before an election. As you have in your packet, back shortly before the November of 2020 election, Mr. Campbell filed another frivolous complaint challenging and attacking Deb Arnmentor for some comments she was making at a city council meeting. In this case, Mr. Campbell filed this on May 2nd, his complaint, and the election was set on May 7th. The very next day, as the evidence you have in your packet show, he went on Facebook and started blasting to everybody he could blast that someone had filed the complaint, meaning he had filed the complaint, and that that complaint had been provided to the local newspaper. As you've already found, that complaint was baseless because notary seals, or document stamped with a notary seal, are public documents, and if I gave you a dollar bill that had the Secretary of Treasurer's stamp on it, that would hardly indicate that the Secretary of State of the United States, or the Secretary of Treasurer, had endorsed me as a political candidate, because the dollar bill had on it, and the same thing would apply. I don't think there's any question that what the motives were of Mr. Campbell, particularly in a lot of his past experience. Okay, and I think the evidence is going to support everything I've just talked about. Okay, so, since this is a, just to mention, so this is a frivolous hearing, and our rules of procedure are obviously written for a hearing on a complaint, and that would be something that we will address at a later time once the Board of Ethics, but we're going to work within the standards we have here. And before we get into the complaintants, any testimony about the complaintant, I'll briefly summarize the evidence that was given to board members as part of the packet. It's on the website as well for anybody following along. The Board B-1 piece of evidence is the April 21st, 2022 DRC article about Mr. Meltzer's mailer, and it was about 11 days before the complaint was made. B-2 is a May 3rd meeting, and during the public comment, now, Councilperson Chris Walker, Councilperson Chris Watts then, I don't believe he was not elected yet to that position, talked about the Meltzer mailer. B-3 is the actual ethics complaint that's at issue that was, or, oh no, I'm sorry, B-3 was the previous complaint against Dem Arbitor that was filed on 10/15/2020 when the next election was in November that year because of COVID, and that complaint was found baseless because what the complaint said happened did not actually happen during that meeting, and there was actually a discussion of frivolity during that panel, and that panel was appealed, and the full board also talked about whether that was frivolous, but because we had not changed the rules at that time, we did not know how to then have a frivolous hearing. A piece of evidence, B-4, shows the election dates being 5/7/2022 and 11/3/2020. B-5 is the notary statutes, Madison, did you add those, or, who has to add those? Okay, I asked. Yeah, so those are the statutes about the notary seal, and I believe that was it, that's all the Board of Ethics evidence. No documentary evidence was brought in by complaint, and after the complaint gets a chance, I will let the respondent talk about the evidence, the evidence that they brought forth, but I guess for now, the complaint, Mr. Campbell, would you like to, do you have any testimony today? Well, I want to make a point that- Okay, Mr. Campbell, if you could please sit up here so everybody can hear, and if you are giving testimony, then we'll have to swear you in, which I'm not an actual judge- You said there, here before, so- Yeah, yeah, whoever's speaking at the moment should be there, and I guess, will you raise your right hand? You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. All right. Okay. There seems like some confusion in the ordinance. In the May 10th correspondence I got, I was told that you may provide testimony and evidence at this meeting. Later on, it says that, or I was told that the time had passed to present evidence, so there's, I mean, I didn't prepare because I didn't think you could do it, so there's some confusion, like I said. In one, it says you may attend to provide testimony and evidence, and then later on, I was told that I couldn't provide it in me, and that the time had passed to do so. Any more testimony? I, like I said, I filed the complaint. I used the Record Chronicle article, and there was part of this mailer. I couldn't find the whole mailer, but I found, you know, the Record Chronicle, just the facer sheet and the part with all the information about Mayor Hudspeth and the seal. And so I included both those, turned them in, and then, like I said, when I later saw the video, they said that it was not there, and I disagree with that when I turned it in, everything was there. Are you aware that the ordinance rules are public? Sure. And you were able to read those to make your complaint? I read through them, like I didn't read the whole thing, and then went through it and looked at it, yeah. Are you aware that those rules also say that you can present evidence and that you need to give evidence to the city auditor prior to the hearing? No, I was basing all mine on all the correspondence I got immediately from, directly from you guys. But you had access to the rules of procedure and those city ordinance? Oh, yeah. I didn't do it, but like I said, I mean, you guys were telling me one thing, so I had to go with what you guys were saying. And you said that you sent both sides of the mailer, you turned them into the city, correct? Yes, that was part of my file. But you also just said that you couldn't find the mailer, is that correct? No, I said I couldn't find the complete mailer. All I had, as I said, was the facer page, it's about a four or six page mailer. So, I couldn't turn it off, since then I couldn't find it, I looked for it, but of course it went out to the people I don't have access to. So this mailer, where did you find that one? That was in the record chronicle, I believe. That was part of the complaint, correct? Yes, yes, that was part of the complaint. But that does not appear to be the one that's on the record, that record chronicle. And then I have one last question before I would let anyone else ask questions. Did you post about the complaint on Facebook? I don't recall, I might have. And I don't remember, as Mr. Gladden said, reporting it on, I don't remember a whole lot about that, it was three or four years ago with Deb Armentor. Did you share the debt and record chronicle article on Facebook? No. Are there any more questions from Annette? I'm curious, you said somebody made you aware of it, can you say who that was? That somebody made you aware of the mailer? I don't recall. You don't remember? No. I talked to lots of people and there were lots of people, I don't recall. Okay, I'm just curious who else you might have talked with about it. Yeah, sorry, I don't recall. Any more questions about it? Rob? Were your conversations with the city on your thought of when you were going to present it, was this all verbally or did you have a paper as if you had received emails of some sort or is it just all verbal? Concerning the evidence and when I could present it? As you, yes. All that came from you guys, all that came from Madison. And what? And maybe, what's her name, Peel? And your understanding, was it all verbal? No, it was written. I got it written right here. Everything was written. So you received something from the city stating that if you make, under your thought, that you may present evidence at the meeting, but then when we got here you found out that you could not. No, no, that's not how it worked. Okay, on May 9th, panel, I'll read the whole thing, but it does say you may attend to provide testimony and evidence. Then later on, in one of the other ones, I could look through and find it if we wanted to spend the time doing it, but it... I would like to. Okay. I'll open the book. What was in that, what was in that last, last flyer she sent out, not the last flyer, the last notifications she sent out. I don't see it here, but it was, I was given several different ones, several notifications from the, from you guys, from Madison, and they came, you know, every couple of days. In fact, I got, one of them came via email and by mail, snail mail. Madam Chair, can I ask again? Yes, go for it. So, the document that you do have, that you could present, was it the one that stated that you could come and present evidence? This was the first one I got on May the 9th. I'll read the book. "Dear Mr. Campbell, the panel of the Board of Ethics met on May 9th, 2022 to conduct preliminary assessment of the complaint you submitted, Ethics Complaint 22-001 against Council Member Paul Nelson. The panel determined that your complaint was baseless in accordance with Section 2-280 of the Ethics Ordinance. In addition, the panel recommended that a hearing be held to determine if Ethics Complaint 22-07 may be frivolous. This hearing will be scheduled to occur within 30 days. A separate notification will be sent out to notify you of the exact time and date of the hearing. You may attend to provide testimony and evidence. The full written determination received from the panel is attached to this notification. Please let me know if you have any questions." Any more questions? Were you given an email that all evidence had to be given to the city auditor by May 18th? Well, that's what I was talking about. There's confusion on it. This one says that I may. But you were told that May 18th you needed to have any evidence into the city auditor. Yeah, but at the time I didn't know that I needed to. I had no clue that... You didn't know you needed to, yet you were told that you needed to? No, it gave me the option to do it. It said I could, but I didn't know until a day or two later that supposedly this key piece of the filing was missing. Any more questions? So that's why I filed it when I did. I watched the original video, and again, I've watched it several times since. That's when I found that, I guess some of y'all, I can't remember the faces, said that there was a page missing. And a key one. And the Record Chronicle article is included in this, and it backs it up. It's got it right there, too. So it backs up what I had alleged. Did you bring this piece of key evidence with you today? That you said was missing out of the original complaint? Do you have it with you today? Yeah. Have we seen it? Would you like to see it? Is this the same evidence that you got out of the DRC article? Right. So the DRC article is part of our evidence? Yeah, it's in what's given today. I have one last question. The complaint you filed was on May 2nd. The election was on May 7th. You said you talked to lots of people. Did you or anybody you talked to consider what sort of ramifications that could have on the election, and what kind of stress it would cause? I don't remember talking to a lot of people, as you mentioned. I talked to probably about two or three friends. The timing of it is problematic to me. Well, the timing is that I found out that this piece was missing. No, I'm talking about the original complaint. I just found out about the record chronicle article. I said I don't read it, and someone mentioned it to me. When I read that, I thought, no, that sounds like something needs to be addressed. It had been sent to the state by the city manager. Then, of course, the record chronicle had it. Mr. Gladden mentioned it blasted it all over the place. Actually, the city manager, I don't think took it. I think Alan Rosa contacted the state to make sure that there wasn't a problem. I'm sorry, I'm out of time. Hold on a moment. I'll allow you to ask questions in a moment. Deborah, do you have any questions? I'm very sorry. Could you put an end to everything what you just said about? My understanding was that Rosa Rios contacted the state to make sure there wasn't a problem with that. But I want to say that anybody who has a license with the state, and I have one, it's abundantly clear that we don't own it, the state does. They can take it any time they want to. It's a public thing. I guess let's stick to questions right now. We can deliberate after. Deborah, did you have any questions? I do. There was a 10-day span between the time that it was in the record chronicle. Can you speak up a little bit? I can't hear with the mask on. There was a 10-day span between the record chronicle article and your complaint. Why 10 days? It was so vital. I didn't know it existed. Like I said, I don't read record chronicle. I don't subscribe to it. I don't think it's, in my personal opinion, I don't think it's worth reading, so I don't read it. Somebody mentioned it to me, so that's when I looked at it, and when I did, I thought, well, I think this justifies complaint. When did you see it? I don't know. On or about May 1st or 2nd? So that's why the next day, the 2nd, is when I followed this, because I said one of the things. This warrants a complaint. Can I have another question? Yeah, go for it. When you learned that a page was missing, did you contact Ms. Wörthauk? Who? Ms. Wörthauk, magazine editor. That's her last name. Okay. No, because that was just right when I filed the request to have this postponed or try to get to the root of it to find out why. So yeah, I sent her a letter. When did you send the letter? I'm sorry. When did you send the letter? 20th, I believe. Yeah, I watched the video when I learned of it on the 19th, Thursday the 19th. Of course, my request to pull it was based on that, so the very next morning I came here and filed a request to have it moved so that we could determine why that was missing when it was there before. All right. If there's no more questions from the board, respondents, attorney can ask questions. Thank you. Scott, we've met before, have we not? Oh, many times, yep. I want to go over just a few things with you. Do you recall filing a complaint in October of 2020 challenging the ethics of Councilmember Deb Armador? Is that a yes? That's a yes. I'm sorry, I'm a lawyer and court reporters go crazy if we don't have one here, but if you nod or say uh-huh or uh-huh, sometimes it's harder for people to know later what your answer was. In connection with the filing of that complaint, did you receive a letter from the city auditor informing you that the fact that you had filed a complaint was confidential and that it could not be or should not be disclosed publicly to anyone until it had either been placed on the agenda of the Ethics Board or dismissed? Do you recall getting that instruction back in October of 2020? No, I do not recall it. In connection with this complaint, did you receive a letter from the city auditor telling you, quote, the submitted complaint is confidential and should not be publicly disclosed? I don't remember. And, of course, you indicated that you had access to and you were familiar with the ethics provisions or the ethics code provisions. That's true, isn't it? You looked them over? I've reviewed them. Okay. Are you denying that you were aware after reading them that you were informed in the code that the fact that someone has filed an ethics complaint is confidential and cannot be disclosed by the complainant or the respondent or any city staff unless or until the complaint has gone through the process and placed on the board's agenda or dismissed? Are you saying that you just didn't know that from the last complaint, didn't know that from this complaint, didn't know that from reading the city ordinance? Well, I can say that. No, can you answer yes or no? Please repeat it. Did you know? Well, actually. You're saying, are you denying that you were familiar with the fact that these things are confidential when you file a complaint and that you're not going to disclose it to anybody unless or until it's placed on the board's agenda or dismissed? Are you denying you knew that? No. Okay, so you admit that you knew that. Okay. What can I make a statement about? Okay, you can in a minute, but what I'm asking -- Let me, real quickly, so he's asking a question and you'll have a moment afterwards to say what you'd like if you were taking notes. I think that's how we would do it here, that's how it's done in a courtroom. Okay, okay, okay. You can answer yes or no. Were you or were you not aware that the fact that you filed a complaint was confidential and not to be disclosed by you? Yes. But you did it anyway, didn't you? Somewhat. What do you mean some what? Yes or no? Did you just publicly disclose it? Yes. All right. And didn't you do that because it was right before the election and you wanted to harm Paul Messler's campaign for mayor? Yeah. Okay. Did you get a copy of the exhibits that were submitted to the board in connection with this hearing? About, with the agenda or what are you talking about? Yeah, with the agenda. Okay. Could you, do you have a copy of those there with you? Could you look at respondent Paul Messler's exhibit, I believe it's marked as exhibit five, and the board's packet. I don't have the packet printed out, I don't believe it. I see that. Well, may I approach? Oh yeah, just go for it. I mean, it's not a courtroom, I guess. I think it's okay. Do y'all have copies of this? Yes. First of all, do you have a Facebook page that you host called If You Love Denton You May Want to Know? I do. And you were asked earlier by one of the members of the board whether you posted a link to the Denton Record Chronicle article concerning the notary dispute, let's say. Were you remember being asked that question? I don't recall putting the Record Chronicle article in there, I said no. Let me pause for a second. I just want to make sure, does everybody have a copy of the Facebook post? Okay. I don't have it in front of me, I know that I've seen it. I'd like it if we could put it up on the screen. Yeah, Madison can do that. I'm sorry, I answered for everybody. It was sent to everyone. Yeah, I don't know if I had it in front of me. But I did not print the copy. Okay, you can proceed. Okay, thank you. Now, Scott, are you denying that you posted that on Facebook? No, I posted that. Alright, and can you see that in that post on Facebook, you referred to someone filing a complaint against Paul Metzler the day before. Do you see that? Can you answer yes or no? Yes. Alright, and so if you file a complaint on May 2nd, which I think we've established by the Record, you posted that on May 3rd, correct? I'm not sure. Is that on there? Do you see where it says yesterday? Okay, yeah. Do you see that? Yep. Alright, so that would be consistent with you posting that on May 3rd, correct? Yes. And you don't identify yourself as the person that filed the complaint, though, do you? I've heard about another one, so yeah. But you're referring to the one you posted in this post, right? I assume so. It looks like it. I don't recall. Alright, and this would have been four days before the city council elections, correct? Four days before the election. This is the 3rd, and the election was on the 7th, so it was about four days. Yep. Alright, and of course you also mentioned in your post that your complaint had been provided to the local newspaper, is that correct? I believe so. Alright, and you testified a moment ago that you knew your complaint, or the fact that you'd filed the complaint, was confidential, didn't you? Repeat that, please. Did you or did you not testify a moment ago that you knew the fact that you'd filed the complaint was confidential? Yes. So you were deliberately, by posting this Facebook post, you were deliberately violating the Denton Ethics Code, correct? Yes. Okay. And the reason why you did that is because you were supporting the political opponent of Paul Meltzer, isn't it? Not necessarily, no. Well, yes, I'm not. Okay, no. Okay, alright. No. So, well, what motivated you to violate the Denton Code of Ethics deliberately? Well, this is a small group. Okay, can you tell us what the motivation you had was for doing this? Just let people know. And you want there to be consequences or to affect people's opinions about Paul Meltzer when you posted this, did you not? No, I just stated the fact. Oh, okay. So you don't think this, you intended this to affect people's perspective of Paul Meltzer? Like I said, I was just letting people know. Yeah. It didn't have anything to do with any intention you claim on your part to harm Metzler's political campaign. Well, I could think that within four days it's going to make a difference, but yeah. Well, why did you send the, why did you inform the local paper that you had filed a complaint? Courtesy. They had done the original article. I knew they wouldn't print it. No way they would print it. Well, I noticed you had some disparaging remarks of the Denton Record Chronicle in your post as well. Was that intended to disparage the Denton Record Chronicle? May we see the whole article? That's the bottom right there. Okay, thank you. Go ahead. Yeah, I'm no fan of the Record Chronicle, I don't know. Okay. And of course, when you share comments about political candidates, would you agree with it? It's designed to influence people to agree with your position? Say it again, first part. All right, when you post things or when you communicate with people about political campaigns or your adversity to political candidates, don't you, aren't you doing that for the purpose of influencing? Not influencing, no. Okay. Is there a reason why you didn't disclose that you were the person who contacted the newspaper and you were about your filing complaint and that it was you that filed the complaint? Why did you just say, "I filed the complaint today and I sent this complaint over to the newspaper"? I don't recall. It was because you knew you were violating the code, correct? No. Well, you already admitted that you knew you were violating the code, was it? Yeah, that's not why I did that. Okay, so there was another reason why you didn't disclose you were the one that filed the complaint? I said I don't recall why I didn't put my name in there. Now, you supported Mr. Messler's opponent, that is, Mayor Hesbitt, in this race, did you not? Actively, no. Well, how about inactively? I prefer him over Mr. Messler. And so you had some, at least maybe not a personal relationship, but you had already concluded before you made this post that you were supporting Mr. Messler's opponent, correct? As do most people, yes. We know that the mayor won by 500 votes, right? So that would be most. Now, what I'm asking you though is, isn't it true that part of your reason for posting this is consistent with and designed to support the mayor? No. As opposed to his opponent, Mr. Messler? No, absolutely not. And did you donate any money to? No. I'm going to finish the question. Ask one question, go ahead. Did you, in this race, donate any money to Gerard Hesbitt, the mayor who was the opponent of Mr. Messler? No. Have you ever met Gerard Hesbitt? Sure. I know lots of people in town. Are you friends with Mr. Hesbitt? When they say we're friends, I'm going. Okay. Did you communicate with anyone between the time you decided to make this post and when you posted? No. Who was it that notified you of the fact that Mr. Hesbitt was complaining about Mr. Messler's conduct in relation to the flyer? Are you talking about the record Chronicle article? I'm saying from any source, when you found out that Mayor Hesbitt was complaining publicly about... Someone mentioned the Chronicle article. Who was the someone? I don't remember. I've already mentioned that. Okay, hold on a second. So under the rules of procedure, parties are permitted 30 minutes per side to present all witness testimony, cross-examine opposing witnesses, and present evidence. And I want to let you know you've used 13 minutes. 13 minutes, okay. So you have 17 minutes left for your presentation as well. And proceed. Okay. I'll use just a few more minutes. What kind of sanction or punishment would you think is appropriate for someone who, as you've admitted, deliberately violated the code of ethics by breaching the confidentiality four days before an election in a matter that was and would likely have had an effect on the outcome of the race? What kind of punishment do you think someone should get for that? I hadn't read it. Do you think they should be barred from continuing to file frivolous complaints for political purposes? Frivolous complaints? Yeah. So if your complaint was found frivolous before this body, would you agree to refrain from filing any future complaints for 12 months? No? Okay. I'll pass the witness. Okay. Do you have any more statements to make? No. All right. Any more questions from board members? Okay. Let me read. You've used 13 minutes, 52 seconds for the respondent. I think you were far below, so I haven't kept. Anyway. All right. So does anyone need a break? I know we've been sitting here an hour. Can we move forward? I think we can move forward. Okay. All right. So next up, and we don't have any documentary evidence that was presented, so I think we can move forward with a presentation of evidence by the respondent. And Mr. Campbell, if you can take us back in, I guess, the galley. And if you would like to present evidence or call witnesses, it's the floor is yours. Okay. At this time, the respondent, I would call the respondent, Paula Belsior, as a witness. All right. And raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. All right. Proceed. Okay. Mr. Melser, we know each other. Do we not? We do. I just want to make sure. Is the mic on? It's on. Yeah. I think it's up here. Correct. It's just a decoration. Yeah. I'm sorry. Okay. I'll start over. We know each other. Do we not, Paula? We do. As a matter of fact, you live two or three doors down from it, right? That's true. Now, I'm going to ask you, it sounds like we kind of got the facts straight, at least, or most of them, so I don't have too many questions for you. Were you a candidate for the office of mayor of the city of Denton related to the election on May 7th of 2022? Yes. All right. And who was your opponent? Jordan Hudson. All right. At some point in time, did you become aware that the mayor was publicly making statements where he had believed that you had done something wrong by sending political flyers out that included a notary suit? I became aware by, well, short answer is yes, I did not want to. Okay. All right. So, in what opinion was that being made by the mayor as a more political maneuver or a political issue that he wanted the voters to know about? The notary seal, use of the notary seal was associated with notarized statements from his campaign disclosure forms showing tens of thousands of dollars of funds received from interested parties and I felt that moving the focus to the seal that indicated those were true was a way to distract from facts that might feel would hurt him politically. Okay. First of all, Paul, you're not still running for office, okay? Secondly, if you can answer my question rather than speak about things that I'm not asking about, okay? And I'm sorry that I'm a lawyer and I'm trying to get straight to the point where we're going to run out of time. What I asked you was when, or if at all, did you ever become aware that the mayor, your own husband, was making a political issue out of the content of your political flyers? Yes. Okay. You became aware of that. When did you become aware of that? I would say around the day before the article came out when I was approached by the reporter. Okay. Now, did you receive a letter dated May 2nd from the city auditor concerning this complaint? Yes. Did that letter include a notification to you that the code, that is the Denton City Ethics Code, prohibited you from disclosing the fact that you had received a complaint or been the target of a complaint, at least until the time the complaint was screened and placed on the agenda or dismissed? Yes. All right. And is that something that was new to you or had you seen that warning before? I was acquainted with it from previous interactions. Okay. Now, can you look at the screen behind you? Do you recognize that? Yes. All right. And that's actually your exhibit, is it not? Yes, it is. All right. Can you tell us what that exhibit is? It's a Facebook post on a page hosted by the complainant revealing the fact that there was an ethics complaint made the day prior to its posting. And of course, it also reveals that someone known to the complainant, if not the complainant himself, had provided that information, the filing of a complaint, to the local newspaper, correct? Yes. And that information violates the City Ethics Code, doesn't it, disclosing that information the day after a complaint's filed? Yes, it does. In your opinion, what was the motivation for that post being made? The motivation was evidently political, intended to discredit me in the eyes of voters. All right. Do you know whether or not that violation of the City Ethics Code adversely affected your chances of being elected mayor? You can never know for certain, but it certainly inclined in that direction. All right. And is it your opinion that Mr. Campbell intended it to have that effect? I think it's the only reasonable explanation, yes. And you didn't hear any other explanation from Mr. Campbell for him doing that, did you? No, I did. I'll pass the witness. All right. Are there, Mr. Campbell, do you have any questions for Mr. Melter? Sure. Do you know that this particular -- I mean, it's down right there. Do you mind sitting up here in that chair to make sure the mics catch it, if anyone's watching at home for the recording? Yeah, just sit there, and then when you're done with the questioning, you can go back to your seat. Yeah, sure. Are you aware that this is a closed group, that there are very few people who are part of it? I mean, it's not -- I didn't blast it out on my personal page and all that. It was right there. On the contrary, I'm aware that it's a public group. Well, I have to approve people when they come in. I was able to see it without being a member. Okay. That's all. Okay. Thank you. All right. What about members of the Board of Ethics? Do you -- anyone have any questions for Mr. Melter? I'm not seeing any questions. Anything else with this witness? No. Why aren't we going to be able to do a short close? Yes. Yes, we are. Oh. All right. Madam Chair. Oh, go ahead. I was just reading my notes. If I could ask -- Yes, go for it. You received the May 2nd letter talking about the complaint. You were aware that you were not to share it with anyone. So I guess my question is, between then and when you talked with your counsel, had you shared that with anyone? No, I didn't. Thank you. Any more questions? Okay. All right. You can take a seat. And I believe we've already discussed the Respondents Exhibit. Anything else on that exhibit to share? Okay. Let me get back to my notes. I might want to have it back out there when I do my close. Okay. All right. So closing statements under the Rules of Procedure -- or actually, is there any rebuttal, evidence, or testimony from Mr. Campbell? No. He is indicating no in case the speakers aren't picking it up. And so under Rules of Procedure E21, we can now have a closing statement of five minutes per side. Let me look that up real quick to make sure there's not one side that's supposed to go first. The complaint goes first. Okay. Mr. Campbell, would you like to make a closing statement? If you could either sit in that seat or this seat, just so the speakers pick it up. Sorry to play musical chairs, but I just don't know what they pick up. Sure. And the time is five minutes, and you can reserve a time for a rebuttal. So as he gives his closing, if you want to say something back, we have five minutes altogether. Okay, that'll be quick. Now, the reason we're here is because of that original review panel that then referred to this board stating that there was a page missing. And as I've said, I absolutely maintained that it was there when I turned it in. I don't know what happened to it, and that hadn't been addressed, so I don't know. So we wouldn't be here -- well, I don't know. I can't say that. But this meeting is because of that meeting in which that was discussed. That's all I have. Is there anything else? I just think that that's being completely dismissed when the reason we're here is because of that. That's all I have. All right, thank you. Thank you. You can take a seat again. All right, you can begin whenever you're ready. Thank you, members of the board. As I mentioned in my opening statement, one of the primary issues in revising our debt and ethics code was to prevent people like Mr. Campbell from using this form for political purposes. You have it in the criteria for determining whether something is frivolous or not. It's not by accident that you think that you look to factors. 3A is the timing of the complaint with respect to the date of any pending election. Subsection B, the nature and type of publicity surrounding the filing and the degree of participation of the complainant in publicizing the fact that a complaint was filed. Under D, if the respondent, meaning Mr. Meltzer in this case, is a candidate for election to office, any relationship between the complainant and any candidate or group opposing the respondent. You've heard testimony. Of course, Mr. Campbell wasn't shy about it, that he supported the mayor, your art husband, and opposed Mr. Messler's candidacy. Any evidence that the complainant knew or reasonably should have known that the allegations in the complaint were groundless. I don't think it's reasonable for someone to contend that a document with a notary seal on it creates an inference that the notary public who stamped it supports the views of the person who created the document, which in this case would actually be the mayor, or the views of someone who has a copy of that and distributes it to others. As a matter of fact, if Mr. Campbell had introduced that very document before this hearing panel, he could be accused of endorsing Mr. Meltzer, because he gave you a copy of the document that was notarizing documents that belonged to Mr. Husband. I think that's baloney. I think this whole mess was created as a political floy, and as you heard Mr. Campbell himself admit, he knew that he was violating confidentiality. He put in his exhibit, "Somebody filed another complaint against Paul Meltzer. Somebody sent it to the local newspaper." Well, he's that person, and he knew he was violating the code. Well, the problem we have here is not just the fact that it's totally obvious what was going on with this, but that you don't have an ordinance that has any teeth. There were drafts before this eventual ordinance was adopted that provided you could ban somebody like Scott Campbell from abusing your process for a year. I guess I would say move on from changing the ordinance. Here, we're just determining the ordinance. Okay, I understand. I haven't heard any possible motivation that Mr. Campbell has mentioned, other than the fact that he did this for a frivolous purpose, and as defined under the ordinance, he did it for political purposes. He did it four days before the election. He had done it before in October of 2020, when he filed a complaint against Deb Armand for it, if not near, during the early voting period. And it was found to be baseless. How many times are you going to let Mr. Campbell do it? And if Mr. Campbell can do it, why don't we all get to do it? Well, because we don't want an ethics ordinance as being abused in that fashion. If you don't do something, I urge all of you unanimously, I think we need to send a signal out here that we're not going to let people like Scott Campbell use your ethics board as a vehicle to break the rules. He gets to go post on Facebook to who knows how many thousands of people four days before an election. I submit to you, you couldn't have a more classic example of a frivolous complaint, and unfortunately, you can't do anything to stop it, but that doesn't mean you can't vote to find a frivolous complaint. Thank you. Thank you. Any rebuttal argument for Mr. Campbell? And if you could, again, thank you. I can't remember the wording that Mr. Gladden used about my support for Gerard Hutsford, but I wouldn't say it was strenuous or whatever the word he used. I prefer him over Paul, and everybody has their opinion. So I didn't, like I said, I didn't provide any money, I didn't work for his campaign, I didn't talk to him, I don't think any during the campaign. So that's not correct. Other than a supporter, you've got to support somebody, so he was my choice. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, at this point, under rule of procedure E22, I will declare the hearing closed. I'll again ask to make sure, does anybody need a break before we go into deliberations? Everybody good? Okay. And then we will go straight into deliberations. Madison, can you pull up the factors under 2-82, I believe it's C3? Yes, I can. And I guess, unless anybody wants to challenge it, I say that we keep these deliberations in open meeting. My thoughts about the evidence that we've heard, you know, so there's, well first of all, me and Annetta were on that panel, and while the flyer in the DRC was not in the flyer complaint, and we discussed that, we also discussed even if the correct flyer was in the complaint, we would have come to the same conclusion. It was interesting to me, Mr. Campbell said that he never actually saw the planner to solve the DRC, yet the flyer that is in the complaint that he filed is a completely different mailer from the DRC one, which is confusing to me about how that all worked out. He said he did not remember the Facebook post, but we saw the Facebook post, and it was also online as part of this agenda. He complained of not knowing about bringing evidence, but I just don't think it matters because we can consider the correct flyer or the non-correct flyer. The ordinance and the rules of procedure are available online, and Madison did email everybody about how this would go. He also said that he doesn't read or subscribe to the DRC, he did share it on Facebook, which is interesting to me. As far as the confidentiality of the complaint, I think that's something in our ordinance, it's supposed to be confidential, but we can only do anything about public figures. That doesn't really weigh into this, even though he was told it was confidential under the ordinance, I don't think there's anything that can be done about that, so that doesn't really weigh into my opinion. But he did send a complaint, and I'll give everybody a chance to speak, but as far as the factors, when you're looking at the timing, I think the timing was definitely before the election. As far as the publicity under 3B, the DRC, he posted the DRC article, he talked about the complaint being filed, he sent his complaint to the DRC, so he appeared to be trying to publicize it. As far as 3C and D, I guess go together, I think there's opinion tests there. Mr. Campbell did support Hudspeth, I believe he said he didn't donate, Melter believes that this was to attack him, and I guess that's what we have with that. As far as E, any evidence of complaint recently should have known, I kind of feel like he has filed complaints before, and he should have known it was groundless considering he's filed a complaint against Deb before, and is aware of our ordinance, and what's a violation, and the fact that he filed it so close to the election, and as far as F, his motives, he said it wasn't a motive, but it's clear he wanted people to know about this days before the election, and I think while he says that's not his motive, I kind of feel like the evidence shows that there was motive to do this before the election, and he had also done it before with Deb, and then the fact that he wanted to withdraw the complaint today once we're looking at it for frivolous, also makes me question voters. Anything else like to speak on this? I'm concerned about the publicity that came out, especially that article on the debt and market chronicle, because I read the comments from readers, and I do think that putting the focus on that notary gate maybe seems to have turned some people, and the second thing and the most important thing is the timing of this complaint. Coming days before the election, the election was close. That's not how the code of ethics should be used. If he really thought it was a problem, he should have waited until the election was over and then filed, but he didn't do that. The timing is probably the critical issue for me. I guess I would disagree with one thing. I don't think he necessarily had to wait until the election's over, but I think it's questionable here because he's done it twice against council people, and both times have been baseless claims right before an election, where it just isn't a violation. I think that is my biggest, because we can never know the motivation, because we never will know specifically, but I think that the evidence shows that his desire was to make it more public than it had been just by the article, and that he's definitely weighing in on one side. I would agree that the Facebook post speaks to his motivation of why he longed for the complaint. I do think it is very concerning. Yes, we don't have a way of reacting to this necessarily, but I think the frivolity of the claim is a concern to me, because then the timing becomes questionable being so close to the election. I have a real concern because it's not really actionable, but at the same time it's like a key piece of evidence went missing out of a packet that was submitted, and then an email that prevented him from providing evidence that was sent out, but is not available for him to read to us either, so there's a lot of pieces missing that he's weighing very heavily on in his testimony, so that's a concern of mine. Comments? Deborah? You have pretty much stumped up my thoughts on this as well. I'm concerned about the time, but even if it was -- if he's gone ahead and submitted it, the fact that he publicized it and then denied the Facebook page when first asked about that, that also concerns me, and I think that we also need to review the ethics code of the morning frivolity. Yeah, I think whatever happens today, I think sanctions will be something we discuss at a later meeting, and just I think overall frivolous hearings and in hearings do not change things, because the hearing portions of the procedure and ordinance are just directed straight at complaints and not what we're doing here today, which today is the first frivolous hearing, so it's all good to us. Any more comments? Sorry, I might have busted it. Well, I also have a question about the testimony that there was a patient in the complaint, and I think that that needs to either be substantiated or not. I don't think it's fair to just kind of leave it hanging out there. Was it part of the process, or was it really not there? We don't know. Rob, any comments? Tiny. This is political. I don't know how many flyers you received, but I was thinking of getting a larger mailbox. I thought we were through with the scale mail, and I was getting flyers upon flyers upon flyers. How any of you could have kept it straight as to which one you got in a time frame, I marvel at you. Candles are a member of the public. Now, to that extent, this is a wonderful learning curve, I think, for the public, if they would look at this, as to what this ethics board and the document is for. But I asked myself, as I was listening to them, because Adam, excuse me, said, you know, this has motif. And we're not going to talk about that today, but we're going to see if this is frivolous or not. So my question would be, what is wrong with encouraging the public to use the ethics board? This current process was put in place to decide why we're here today. And so the question then is, are we to stifle complaints we view as unacceptable, but it is viewed as important to the public. I think we need to get, we're in a balance of, we have the frivolous and it's outlined. The public needs to understand that, because they may think that's very important, whatever Mr. Campbell thought, it was very important, because he went through the whole process. It's viewed by many that it was incorrect. But I don't think we should stifle the public from submitting this, for them to get, in a sense, their own learning curve, by not going, well, I didn't mean to point at you, sir. Mr. Campbell put away with rather quickly, maybe I will think twice before I file a complaint. But I just want to make sure that we don't stifle that in this thought of whether this was frivolous or not. More discussion, more deliberation? I mean, I would, I think, kind of made my thoughts clear that, you know, I think the timing that we have two complaints filed this close to an election, you know, while I don't want to stifle complaints in any way, I do not want to encourage people to file complaints that are not, are baseless complaints, and possibly, obviously baseless complaints, days within an election, to affect elections. Is there any comment, or is there any motion? I would actually like to make a comment, because I really do not think, I don't think that the influence that was potentially put on the election was not, was not effectuated by the actual complaint. It was effectuated by the Facebook case post about the complaint. And I think that is where, because if we're allowing a complaint, and the process remains confidential, there would have been no harm at all, potentially. The harm comes in when the ethicode was by the complainant misused, and then, and he made it public through other means. So I'm not, I don't necessarily see a concern if this is found frivolous, that it will stifle an actual complaint in the process at all, because in reality, the influence was put into the public by the Facebook post. Any more questions? Can we entertain a motion? Yeah, oh yeah, go for it. I move that we find this frivolous. I second that. Okay, motion and second it. Is there more, well, you know, it's kind of deliberation, so we've been discussing it the whole time. Is there more discussion on this? And just to make the record clear, the motion is to find the complaint frivolous, because I think you used the word "this" frivolous, so we need to be clear on the motion. Alright, so the motion that has been made by that and seconded by Andrea is that the motion is frivolous. No, not the motion, it's the complaint. I'm sorry, the complaint was frivolous. Alright, so is there one more call for any further discussion? Alright, so I am going to ask for a roll call vote, you know, not to call anyone out, but since, you know, it's important how many votes there are. Deborah? Yes. Annette? Yes. And myself? Laura? Yes. Andrea? Yes. Monroe? Yes. Okay, alright, so unanimously yes, and that's five members, and Dottie, I believe you said that you need at least five, because it's the super majority of the members of the board, Andrea? Correct, so it would be two-thirds of seven, which would be four point something, but you'd round it up to five. So we have five, so we have found the complaint frivolous, and now sanctions, which I've been trying to not get into because it's- Well, I don't think sanctions apply here, because when you look at page 18, it says, "determines by simple majority vote of those present and voted at the conclusion of a hearing that a violation has occurred." So you really don't have a remedy for a frivolous complaint other than the complaint may be subject to criminal prosecution for perjury or civil liability for torts of defamation or abuse of process. And I would remind you that your ethics ordinance is an ordinance of the city, so you could be prosecuted in the municipal court. But I don't- if the board looks at sanctions, I don't- and it's up to the board if you believe sanctions- Well, I guess I would draw your attention to C2, which is up there, super majority, and it says that if it's found frivolous, the board may impose a sat sanction as provided from 2-282(b). Okay. So I feel like that two- while it says simple majority under sanctions, I feel like the super majority of two-thirds, it says then you can do any of the sanctions under the sanctions. So I don't know. I mean, you can tell me if that's wrong, but I guess that's how I read it. Make it clear that you're referring back to that if you are going to impose sanctions, it's going to be under C2, which allows you to use the sanctions for a- at a conclusion of a hearing. Because it's kind of confusing with these two words, vote and- It is. That's a very valid point. And I think once you go to sanctions, like we're kind of arguing over this, but truly the sanctions recommendation of suspension, that's just for board members, so that's not applicable. Ineligibility is just vendors, so that's not applicable. So I think the only thing we need to do is a letter. You know, it's not much, but I think we can do, you know, I think under, like Dottie had said, in a letter refer to the C2 that refers you back to 2-282(b), and you could do a letter of notification at admonation or referent. And actually, yeah, Madison, if you could go to the previous page. Like I said, I think suspension and ineligibility just doesn't apply. And I think later on we'll have to have a discussion of what do you do for frivolous folks, because you don't want to necessarily- you don't want somebody to not be able to file something because it's frivolous, because what if they got something good later? You know, I think that's going to be an interesting discussion for us to have. But for tonight, I think our only options are those three letters. So letter one is that the violation is clearly intentional, but I think by us finding it frivolous, I don't think that one applies. Letter of admonition, if the Board of Ethics finds that the violation is minor and may have been unintentional, I'm not so sure that applies since we're thinking it's intentional. And then letter of reprimand, if the violation is minor, was committed knowingly, intelligently, or in disregard of this article, or was serious and may have been unintentional. I guess I would- I would think letter of reprimand, just based on, I think by us finding it frivolous, we're finding that it was an intentional act. But I'll open it up if anybody has comments. Oh, go ahead. Oh, I thought you were trying to- I have nothing to say. Okay, I thought you were trying to get my attention. Alright, so let me go through the rules of procedure that I had to read through several times. Alright. Okay, so. Alright, so we made the determination. And as far as the sanctions, I guess, Dottie, can you just- again, not completely clear, but do we just ask for a motion and vote on it, and then we- later me and Madison get together and write a letter? I think if you're going to do a letter of reprimand, you need to first vote on whether it's under 3A or 3B. Okay. And then request that the letter be sent by the city auditor of your decision. But as far as what's in the letter of reprimand, I don't know if there's any guidance anywhere to tell you what to put in it other than we're issuing a letter of reprimand under 3A or 3B. Yeah, I guess not exactly clear. I guess, you know, if- So you can determine based on the evidence that you're issuing a letter of reprimand and say it's 3A because, you know, it was minor and committed knowingly and intentionally and disregarded the ethics ordinance. Or you could say we're issuing a letter of reprimand because it was serious but may have been unintentional. Which is another- Whatever you think kind of fits the evidence. Right, which is another interesting part of our- I don't think either one of those- Yeah, another interesting part of our sanctions that- that's kind of two choices that don't cover all situations. But I kind of think it might- I kind of think 3A would be the closest thing to fit. We didn't- we haven't really discussed whether this is minor or major. I mean, you know, it would be a lot longer hearing if we had a hearing of whether- how many votes- voters this affected and things like that to really determine how minor or committed this was. So I guess I would say, do we have any discussion or is there anyone that would like to make a motion on what kind of sanction we should file on this? Deborah? I move that we send a letter of reprimand to Mr. Cavill for 3A. So it's committed 9-way and 10-way in this regard. Do I have a second? A second, ma'am. A motion and second, and we've kind of been deliberating this whole time, but I think- I guess in the letter we would refer to the supermajority vote section, we would refer to the sanction section and to 3A. Is there any more discussion on that or should we vote? Yes, Rob? So the complainant will receive this letter. Yes. And a copy goes to the city secretary? I- do you know, Madison? The letter would be filed for your proceedings here and anybody that was requested from the city secretary would get a copy because it's a public record. So we will be submitting a motion to letter of reprimand A and what is the meat of the matter within the letter? Well, I guess we could discuss that now or after we- I mean, I think it's not clear what we have to put in it. I think we could just- honestly, I kind of think we could just put the evidence has shown that this was frivolous and maybe you can refer to this meeting and that you can go look at this meeting and watch the evidence and our discussions on it. I think you just make a finding that the board is issuing this letter of reprimand under 3A. They're making this finding and then authorize the chairman to sign it and send it to the complainant. So just very bare bones? Right. You know, this was- Because you don't have enough. Okay. And that's been discussed here today is there's really no teeth in this other than it will be on the record that it was found frivolous and that it under- and then the findings under 3A and then authorize the chairman to sign it. I think that's what we would need to comply. So just be a very kind of bare bones letter of this was violated and this is your letter of reprimand under this section of the ordinance. Any other discussion on that? I guess I'll call a vote on the motion to send the letter to Mr. Campbell. Letter of reprimand under 3A. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Aye. All right so we have the majority and we're out of the super majority so we can just go forward and put that majority, right? Simple majority. Okay. All right so then I think Madison and I will get to work on a letter and I think that that would conclude. Am I missing anything? So I think it does say somewhere that the chairman is authorized to sign that letter. Okay. Of notification but I think y'all just put that on the record to authorize the chairman to sign the letter on behalf of the board. Okay so if I could get a motion to authorize the chair, me and Laura Conlin, to sign the letter of reprimand. Cool. Cool. I'm sorry. Yes. I'll make that motion. I have a question. Okay. I second that motion. Okay. Motion is made and seconded. So if you'll sign this, does this go to the city council at all for any reason? I don't know. I mean I think it's going to be publicly available but I don't, I can't remember reading something in the ordinance or rules that it does. I think some things that we. It seems like everything we've done. Yeah. I don't know if that was the case with this or not. I'm not sure Dottie or Madison can answer but I kind of feel like that some of the issues we've found in the ordinance are going to eventually go to council when we discuss it. But you know how that timeline goes. This section here. Oh, there we go. Thank you Madison. It's right in front of our faces. I just scrolled down. Okay. Notice. There was a snake on this. Notice of all sanction imposed by the Board of Ethics shall be transmitted to the respondent, complainant, city auditor, city attorney, and city council. So yes, city council will get a copy of this. Okay. So any more discussion about me signing it? I don't know if that's necessarily a. Okay. All right. To take a vote, all in favor of the chairperson, me, Laura Tomlin. Motion for me, Laura Tomlin, the chairperson to sign the letter. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Okay. Anything else? Okay. All right. Well, if there's nothing else from the board, I will adjourn this meeting. Thank you all for your time and participation. I'll see you next time, people.