WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.880 We are all here for all of it. 00:00:04.880 --> 00:00:11.760 Okay, so now that we have the members that are expected to show up, I'll call the meeting 00:00:11.760 --> 00:00:12.760 order. 00:00:12.760 --> 00:00:20.240 The special call meeting of the Board of Ethics today, May 23, 2022. 00:00:20.240 --> 00:00:28.000 There's one item for consideration, BOE 22-018, consider and take necessary action regarding 00:00:28.000 --> 00:00:33.720 recommendation made by a panel of the Board of Ethics on May 9, 2022, to determine if 00:00:33.720 --> 00:00:38.880 the ethics complaint number 22011 concerning alleged violations of the ethics ordinance 00:00:38.880 --> 00:00:45.280 section 2-273 may be frivolous and this hearing is being conducted under the Ordinance Section 00:00:45.280 --> 00:00:46.280 2-281C. 00:00:46.280 --> 00:00:53.240 And, Madam Chair, did you state that a quorum is present for the record? 00:00:53.240 --> 00:00:57.000 You just read my mind because I was going to say four people is a quorum and we have 00:00:57.000 --> 00:01:05.360 five people here and the background on this is on May 2, there was a complaint by Scott 00:01:05.360 --> 00:01:13.640 Campbell for the misuse of information against then Councilperson Paul Meltzer and then on 00:01:13.640 --> 00:01:21.560 May 9, 2022, a panel of myself, Annette and Hannah found that the complaint was baseless. 00:01:21.560 --> 00:01:27.740 We also voted to have this frivolous hearing and we talked about how the flyer didn't say 00:01:27.740 --> 00:01:35.800 what the complaint said and that what was on the flyer that actually had the symbol 00:01:35.800 --> 00:01:36.800 was a public document. 00:01:36.800 --> 00:01:43.120 So now this is a hearing to determine if the complaint was frivolous and frivolous in the 00:01:43.120 --> 00:01:52.640 first place, I think we have to stop, I think the power just cut out, does that mean we're 00:01:52.640 --> 00:01:55.520 not live so we need to wait until we're live again? 00:01:55.520 --> 00:02:02.400 Well, technically it's still a public meeting, it's just not being streamed in further, 00:02:02.400 --> 00:02:09.280 I don't really know, everything came back. 00:02:09.280 --> 00:02:14.540 Should we, is there like IT we should contact or can we just go forward with it? 00:02:14.540 --> 00:02:18.920 I think we can just go forward, I'm going to step out just to make sure that we're doing 00:02:18.920 --> 00:02:19.920 alright. 00:02:19.920 --> 00:02:22.280 Okay, so should we pause for a minute while you... 00:02:22.280 --> 00:02:26.000 Let's pause to determine if we need to have this streamed. 00:02:26.000 --> 00:02:32.640 I don't think it's required by state law for us to be streamed, it just has to be a public 00:02:32.640 --> 00:02:33.640 meeting. 00:02:33.640 --> 00:02:34.640 Right. 00:02:34.640 --> 00:02:40.040 Well, how about we just pause and you let us know if we're still live in case people 00:02:40.040 --> 00:02:43.040 aren't watching. 00:02:43.040 --> 00:02:58.000 Yeah, we might still be streaming everyone, but yeah, really you should not drive wildly 00:02:58.000 --> 00:03:11.920 in a public meeting, you don't want to drive wildly in a public meeting, it's just a public 00:03:11.920 --> 00:03:12.920 meeting. 00:03:12.920 --> 00:03:19.720 Okay, we're still live, so where I was is that a frivolous complaint is defined in the 00:03:19.720 --> 00:03:23.880 ordinance as a complaint that is groundless and brought in bad faith or groundless and 00:03:23.880 --> 00:03:24.880 brought the purpose of harassment. 00:03:24.880 --> 00:03:30.400 It's not a complaint, it's a complaint related to an election, the publicity of the complaint, 00:03:30.400 --> 00:03:35.960 complaint tense, participation in the publicity, that's hard to say, the relationship between 00:03:35.960 --> 00:03:42.640 the complainant and respondent, and any relationship between the complainant and the candidate 00:03:42.640 --> 00:03:48.400 opposing the respondent, evidence that the complainant knows it was groundless and the 00:03:48.400 --> 00:03:49.560 complainant's motives. 00:03:49.560 --> 00:03:56.700 Before we jump into the actual hearing, Madison informed me today that complainants wish to 00:03:56.700 --> 00:04:00.280 either withdraw the complaint or postpone this hearing. 00:04:00.280 --> 00:04:06.520 I would start by, I believe withdrawal is not an option, the complaint has been filed, 00:04:06.520 --> 00:04:13.840 and if we just let people that, whether it's found frivolous or not tonight, if a panel 00:04:13.840 --> 00:04:19.320 thought it was enough to come to this point, I do not think we should let people withdraw 00:04:19.320 --> 00:04:23.440 the complaints, because it kind of just defeats the whole purpose of doing this, and everybody's 00:04:23.440 --> 00:04:27.640 nodding, so we're just going to move on from that, there's not going to be withdrawal. 00:04:27.640 --> 00:04:30.520 As far as postponing the meeting, under rule of- 00:04:30.520 --> 00:04:37.720 Would you like to take a voice vote on that request to withdraw, just for the record? 00:04:37.720 --> 00:04:41.200 Okay, do you want us to have a motion in a second, and then- 00:04:41.200 --> 00:04:42.200 In a vote. 00:04:42.200 --> 00:04:43.200 Okay. 00:04:43.200 --> 00:04:46.200 Do I have a motion as far as withdrawing the complaint? 00:04:46.200 --> 00:04:49.720 We do not approve, and we do not allow the complainant to withdraw. 00:04:49.720 --> 00:04:50.720 Thank you. 00:04:50.720 --> 00:04:53.920 In a second from Rob, all in favor say aye. 00:04:53.920 --> 00:04:54.920 Aye. 00:04:54.920 --> 00:04:55.920 Aye. 00:04:55.920 --> 00:04:56.920 Aye. 00:04:56.920 --> 00:04:57.920 Aye. 00:04:57.920 --> 00:04:58.920 And it appears to be unanimous. 00:04:58.920 --> 00:05:06.600 Okay, so the next thing we will consider is postponing, under rule of procedure E9, 00:05:06.600 --> 00:05:13.460 pre-trial matters, well pre-trial, I'm sorry, I'm a lawyer, so, but pre-hearing matters 00:05:13.460 --> 00:05:20.000 should have been filed four days before, my understanding is that the request was postponed 00:05:20.000 --> 00:05:29.040 was today, so it is outside of the time, but if we do want to consider it, the determination 00:05:29.040 --> 00:05:34.240 was made on the night to have this hearing, and that the complaint was baseless. 00:05:34.240 --> 00:05:39.300 It was sent to the complaint the next day, and my understanding is that the complaint 00:05:39.300 --> 00:05:45.240 came to City Hall last Friday, and then also, and then asked for the continuance today, 00:05:45.240 --> 00:05:46.240 May 23rd. 00:05:46.240 --> 00:05:52.800 Evidence has been submitted by members of the Board of Ethics, and by the respondent. 00:05:52.800 --> 00:05:57.240 The complaint has been given the chance to submit evidence, and waited until the day 00:05:57.240 --> 00:05:59.240 of the hearing to ask for the postponement. 00:05:59.240 --> 00:06:04.600 And I know it takes a lot of time to set up and get everybody here, and so, in my opinion, 00:06:04.600 --> 00:06:08.800 I think we should move forward today with what we have, but I'll open it up if anybody 00:06:08.800 --> 00:06:09.800 has any other opinions. 00:06:09.800 --> 00:06:15.960 I would like a motion that we will hold this hearing as scheduled. 00:06:15.960 --> 00:06:16.960 Okay. 00:06:16.960 --> 00:06:22.440 So, the motion, the motion needs to be because the Board, under the procedural request, has 00:06:22.440 --> 00:06:27.600 the discretion to determine whether to grant the request for the continuance that wasn't 00:06:27.600 --> 00:06:33.440 timely submitted, so I would make your motion around that. 00:06:33.440 --> 00:06:39.240 Can I say for the record, my name is Richard Gladden, I represent Mr. Melser, the respondent, 00:06:39.240 --> 00:06:42.240 and just for the record, we do oppose any continuance. 00:06:42.240 --> 00:06:45.240 We'd like to get this resolved today. 00:06:45.240 --> 00:06:50.240 And I'll give the vote, but I just want to make sure you don't worry about it. 00:06:50.240 --> 00:06:53.240 Alright, so, let me get to the rules and procedure. 00:06:53.240 --> 00:07:00.240 So, look on page eight, under procedural request, so they're supposed to submit it within four 00:07:00.240 --> 00:07:05.240 days, but then it says the Board shall determine whether to grant requests that have not been 00:07:05.240 --> 00:07:07.240 submitted in time for the preliminary hearing. 00:07:07.240 --> 00:07:12.240 So, your motion would be whether you want to grant that request or not grant that request, 00:07:12.240 --> 00:07:14.240 because it was untimely. 00:07:14.240 --> 00:07:18.240 I would like to make a motion to deny the request for the continuance. 00:07:18.240 --> 00:07:25.240 Okay, we have a motion to deny the continuance in our discretion, but Rob? 00:07:25.240 --> 00:07:30.240 I just wanted to ask, did we have a clarification why the delay? 00:07:30.240 --> 00:07:32.240 Why the delay? 00:07:32.240 --> 00:07:36.240 Why it wasn't submitted within the four days, why is it being asked today? 00:07:36.240 --> 00:07:38.240 I'm not sure. 00:07:38.240 --> 00:07:43.240 I guess I'm not prone to like have a secondary hearing before we have the hearing. 00:07:43.240 --> 00:07:46.240 Just appreciate it. 00:07:46.240 --> 00:07:52.240 Well, I was going to say that in Madison's email today, it says that the complainant asked 00:07:52.240 --> 00:07:57.240 for additional time to provide additional evidence. 00:07:57.240 --> 00:07:58.240 That is true. 00:07:58.240 --> 00:08:03.240 And so, I would think that it would surround that. 00:08:03.240 --> 00:08:07.240 Did anybody make a second to that motion? 00:08:07.240 --> 00:08:11.240 Is there a second to deny the request? 00:08:11.240 --> 00:08:12.240 I second it. 00:08:12.240 --> 00:08:13.240 Deborah, I second it. 00:08:13.240 --> 00:08:15.240 So, now's the time for discussion. 00:08:15.240 --> 00:08:24.240 Okay, I guess my thought is, you know, the termination was made on the 9th and sent the 00:08:24.240 --> 00:08:30.240 complaint on the 10th, and I think we have the evidence before us of what the complaint 00:08:30.240 --> 00:08:37.240 was, and I would like to move forward, but is there anybody else who proposes? 00:08:37.240 --> 00:08:44.240 Okay, well, let's take a vote on that motion to deny the untimely request for continuance 00:08:44.240 --> 00:08:45.240 all in favor say aye. 00:08:45.240 --> 00:08:46.240 Aye. 00:08:46.240 --> 00:08:47.240 Aye. 00:08:47.240 --> 00:08:48.240 All opposed? 00:08:48.240 --> 00:08:50.240 There's a giant spider right there. 00:08:50.240 --> 00:08:54.240 We'll just kind of get him over there. 00:08:54.240 --> 00:08:55.240 All right. 00:08:55.240 --> 00:08:56.240 Sorry. 00:08:56.240 --> 00:08:57.240 Distraction. 00:08:57.240 --> 00:08:58.240 Okay. 00:08:58.240 --> 00:09:01.240 So, we're going forward with the hearing today. 00:09:01.240 --> 00:09:05.240 It will be evidentiary hearing. 00:09:05.240 --> 00:09:12.240 So, under there can be witnesses, evidence, then we deliberate, and then we'll take a 00:09:12.240 --> 00:09:14.240 vote to make a determination. 00:09:14.240 --> 00:09:20.240 The structure under rule of procedure E5 would be one person speaks at a time, and the chair 00:09:20.240 --> 00:09:22.240 is in control of the discussion. 00:09:22.240 --> 00:09:25.240 So, kind of like a normal meeting. 00:09:25.240 --> 00:09:30.240 There are other, I put no pretrial procedure request, but we got one late, but there are 00:09:30.240 --> 00:09:36.240 no other pretrial procedure requests that were filed under rule of procedure E9. 00:09:36.240 --> 00:09:41.240 The parties were to submit witnesses and evidence prior to the hearing under rule of 00:09:41.240 --> 00:09:44.240 evidence, rule of procedure E10. 00:09:44.240 --> 00:09:53.240 We have documentary evidence that was compiled from the board of ethics members. 00:09:53.240 --> 00:09:57.240 There were no witnesses or documents sent from the complaint. 00:09:57.240 --> 00:10:01.240 There are no witnesses from the respondent, but there's one document from the respondent. 00:10:01.240 --> 00:10:07.240 As far as the presentation, under rule of procedure 16 through 18, there can be opening 00:10:07.240 --> 00:10:09.240 statements of three minutes each. 00:10:09.240 --> 00:10:17.240 Presentation of evidence and the closing statements of five minutes. 00:10:17.240 --> 00:10:20.240 And that's rule of procedure E21. 00:10:20.240 --> 00:10:25.240 And then we'll deliberate, and it can be a closed session, but I do not plan on closing 00:10:25.240 --> 00:10:31.240 session because I don't foresee a legal question, and I think it's important that we're 00:10:31.240 --> 00:10:32.240 transparent. 00:10:32.240 --> 00:10:36.240 What we're doing here as part of board of ethics and the ethics code is transparency. 00:10:36.240 --> 00:10:44.240 And at that time, if there's a motion for a vote, it will have to be a super majority 00:10:44.240 --> 00:10:50.240 under rule of procedure E27, which means two-thirds of the vote, two-thirds of the members of 00:10:50.240 --> 00:10:51.240 the board of ethics. 00:10:51.240 --> 00:10:56.240 And I'll probably request a roll call just for accuracy since we'll have to make sure 00:10:56.240 --> 00:10:58.240 it's two-thirds of the members. 00:10:58.240 --> 00:11:04.240 And then after that, if there's a motion, if it's passed by super majority, then we 00:11:04.240 --> 00:11:07.240 will discuss the sanction. 00:11:07.240 --> 00:11:17.240 So I will open the hearing and allow, if there's an opening statement for the complaint, you 00:11:17.240 --> 00:11:19.240 may do that. 00:11:19.240 --> 00:11:21.240 Do I sit here? 00:11:21.240 --> 00:11:22.240 You can sit here. 00:11:22.240 --> 00:11:23.240 You can sit there. 00:11:23.240 --> 00:11:25.240 I guess as long as I get picked up on the mic. 00:11:25.240 --> 00:11:28.240 I guess you need to be over here. 00:11:28.240 --> 00:11:32.240 Doesn't he need to get sworn in by the chair? 00:11:32.240 --> 00:11:34.240 Yeah. 00:11:34.240 --> 00:11:38.240 Well, I mean, this is an opening statement, so he's not a witness yet. 00:11:38.240 --> 00:11:41.240 I mean, that's how it is in real trials. 00:11:41.240 --> 00:11:42.240 So here? 00:11:42.240 --> 00:11:43.240 Yes. 00:11:43.240 --> 00:11:45.240 You don't have to speak into the microphone. 00:11:45.240 --> 00:11:46.240 It just exists in there. 00:11:46.240 --> 00:11:51.240 And actually, if you would like, we could -- you can also waive the opening statement 00:11:51.240 --> 00:11:54.240 if you would just like to testify today. 00:11:54.240 --> 00:11:56.240 No, I'd like to make a quick opening statement. 00:11:56.240 --> 00:11:57.240 Okay. 00:11:57.240 --> 00:11:59.240 Would you like me to start? 00:11:59.240 --> 00:12:01.240 Yes, please. 00:12:01.240 --> 00:12:02.240 How much time? 00:12:02.240 --> 00:12:03.240 Three minutes. 00:12:03.240 --> 00:12:06.240 Okay. 00:12:06.240 --> 00:12:07.240 I'm Scott Campbell. 00:12:07.240 --> 00:12:12.240 Good evening, board, staff, Mr. Meltzer, Mr. Gladden. 00:12:12.240 --> 00:12:19.240 On May 2nd, I filed a complaint in good faith with this body recording -- excuse me -- regarding 00:12:19.240 --> 00:12:24.240 Mr. Meltzer's use of the city secretary's notary seal, which could easily be interpreted 00:12:24.240 --> 00:12:26.240 as an endorsement. 00:12:26.240 --> 00:12:30.240 I became aware of this by an article in the Denver Record Chronicle. 00:12:30.240 --> 00:12:36.240 I did not subscribe to or read the paper and heard about it on May 1st or 2nd. 00:12:36.240 --> 00:12:38.240 I based my complaint on that article. 00:12:38.240 --> 00:12:43.240 After filing the complaint on May 2nd, I received all the subsequent correspondence 00:12:43.240 --> 00:12:45.240 from this group. 00:12:45.240 --> 00:12:50.240 Nowhere in that correspondence was the reason for the baseless determination stated. 00:12:50.240 --> 00:12:55.240 Subsequently, I learned that the review panel had been televised. 00:12:55.240 --> 00:13:01.240 Through that, I learned about the mysteriously missing page with the notary seal in question. 00:13:01.240 --> 00:13:07.240 I learned of and watched the meeting last Thursday evening, May 19th, and I have had 00:13:07.240 --> 00:13:09.240 it several times since. 00:13:09.240 --> 00:13:14.240 My request to pull the complaint was based on the video and claimed that evidence was 00:13:14.240 --> 00:13:16.240 missing. 00:13:16.240 --> 00:13:22.240 So, first thing the next morning, Friday, last Friday, May 20th, I requested that my 00:13:22.240 --> 00:13:27.240 complaint be withdrawn in order to determine what became of the missing page. 00:13:27.240 --> 00:13:31.240 It makes no sense for me not to have included the key part of the complaint, and there was 00:13:31.240 --> 00:13:33.240 no mistake on my part. 00:13:33.240 --> 00:13:37.240 I absolutely maintained that the page was included in the complaint file. 00:13:37.240 --> 00:13:43.240 I carefully reviewed the complaint one last time in the parking lot outside before presenting 00:13:43.240 --> 00:13:45.240 it, and the page was there. 00:13:45.240 --> 00:13:50.240 In summary, I filed a good faith complaint with all necessary evidence. 00:13:50.240 --> 00:13:57.240 I did so to hold Paul Meltzer accountable for what I believe to be misuse of the seal. 00:13:57.240 --> 00:14:00.240 The ethics board was written for just such situations. 00:14:00.240 --> 00:14:08.240 Additionally, the ordinance does not limit the number of complaints, which can be filed. 00:14:08.240 --> 00:14:13.240 So I believe the only other filing which I made in good faith, which concerned Deb Armentor, 00:14:13.240 --> 00:14:21.240 potentially campaigned from the dais to be moot, that was mentioned in the initial panel 00:14:21.240 --> 00:14:23.240 review. 00:14:23.240 --> 00:14:29.240 And then I thought this, just this afternoon, one last thing, and I think I know the answer. 00:14:29.240 --> 00:14:35.240 I thought this afternoon and wondered why, or how the DRC article came to be included 00:14:35.240 --> 00:14:38.240 in the evidence included in today's agenda. 00:14:38.240 --> 00:14:43.240 And I was under the impression that this hearing is based solely on my complaint, and the 00:14:43.240 --> 00:14:45.240 article in fact backs my complaint. 00:14:45.240 --> 00:14:47.240 So thank you for your time. 00:14:47.240 --> 00:14:49.240 Thank you. 00:14:49.240 --> 00:14:52.240 Respondent, if you could, if you mind switching out. 00:14:52.240 --> 00:14:53.240 Sure. 00:14:53.240 --> 00:15:04.240 That way we can hear everybody. 00:15:04.240 --> 00:15:05.240 Good evening. 00:15:05.240 --> 00:15:11.240 My name is Richard Gladden, I'm an attorney, and I'm here representing Paul Meltzer, who 00:15:11.240 --> 00:15:18.240 was the target of the complaint filed by the complainant, Scott Campbell. 00:15:18.240 --> 00:15:22.240 And I'll try to be quick, because I know I only got three minutes. 00:15:22.240 --> 00:15:27.240 First of all, I don't appear here with pleasure, particularly because Scott Campbell voted 00:15:27.240 --> 00:15:31.240 in favor of my solar panels at my house a few years ago. 00:15:31.240 --> 00:15:38.240 And we had to go from the Historical Landmark Commission to the City Council in order for 00:15:38.240 --> 00:15:39.240 me to get solar panels. 00:15:39.240 --> 00:15:44.240 So I do appreciate that, but I'm here doing what I think is right. 00:15:44.240 --> 00:15:50.240 For those of you who are around to follow the adoption of the current ethics ordinance, 00:15:50.240 --> 00:15:56.240 one of the greatest concerns was is that the ethics process and not be used for political 00:15:56.240 --> 00:16:03.240 purposes, so that shortly before elections, people like Mr. Campbell could file frivolous 00:16:03.240 --> 00:16:09.240 complaints and then call the newspaper and try to get as much publicity as they could 00:16:09.240 --> 00:16:15.240 as a political device to harm the campaigns of people who they did not agree with politically. 00:16:15.240 --> 00:16:21.240 Unfortunately, even though you have those criteria as the foremost criteria and determine 00:16:21.240 --> 00:16:27.240 whether, in this case, that occurred, that is, using your body and your process for political 00:16:27.240 --> 00:16:32.240 purposes, there are no sanctions that really have any teeth at all. 00:16:32.240 --> 00:16:37.240 I would suggest that, although you can't do it today, obviously, that be changed, because 00:16:37.240 --> 00:16:41.240 this is not the first frivolous complaint that Mr. Campbell has filed shortly before 00:16:41.240 --> 00:16:42.240 an election. 00:16:42.240 --> 00:16:49.240 As you have in your packet, back shortly before the November of 2020 election, Mr. Campbell 00:16:49.240 --> 00:16:55.240 filed another frivolous complaint challenging and attacking Deb Arnmentor for some comments 00:16:55.240 --> 00:16:58.240 she was making at a city council meeting. 00:16:58.240 --> 00:17:04.240 In this case, Mr. Campbell filed this on May 2nd, his complaint, and the election was set 00:17:04.240 --> 00:17:06.240 on May 7th. 00:17:06.240 --> 00:17:12.240 The very next day, as the evidence you have in your packet show, he went on Facebook and 00:17:12.240 --> 00:17:17.240 started blasting to everybody he could blast that someone had filed the complaint, meaning 00:17:17.240 --> 00:17:25.240 he had filed the complaint, and that that complaint had been provided to the local newspaper. 00:17:25.240 --> 00:17:33.240 As you've already found, that complaint was baseless because notary seals, or document 00:17:33.240 --> 00:17:40.240 stamped with a notary seal, are public documents, and if I gave you a dollar bill that had the 00:17:40.240 --> 00:17:48.240 Secretary of Treasurer's stamp on it, that would hardly indicate that the Secretary of 00:17:48.240 --> 00:17:52.240 State of the United States, or the Secretary of Treasurer, had endorsed me as a political 00:17:52.240 --> 00:17:57.240 candidate, because the dollar bill had on it, and the same thing would apply. 00:17:57.240 --> 00:18:01.240 I don't think there's any question that what the motives were of Mr. Campbell, particularly 00:18:01.240 --> 00:18:03.240 in a lot of his past experience. 00:18:03.240 --> 00:18:10.240 Okay, and I think the evidence is going to support everything I've just talked about. 00:18:10.240 --> 00:18:32.240 Okay, so, since this is a, just to mention, so this is a frivolous hearing, and our rules 00:18:32.240 --> 00:18:37.240 of procedure are obviously written for a hearing on a complaint, and that would be something 00:18:37.240 --> 00:18:41.240 that we will address at a later time once the Board of Ethics, but we're going to work 00:18:41.240 --> 00:18:44.240 within the standards we have here. 00:18:44.240 --> 00:18:50.240 And before we get into the complaintants, any testimony about the complaintant, I'll 00:18:50.240 --> 00:18:56.240 briefly summarize the evidence that was given to board members as part of the packet. 00:18:56.240 --> 00:19:01.240 It's on the website as well for anybody following along. 00:19:01.240 --> 00:19:11.240 The Board B-1 piece of evidence is the April 21st, 2022 DRC article about Mr. Meltzer's 00:19:11.240 --> 00:19:17.240 mailer, and it was about 11 days before the complaint was made. 00:19:17.240 --> 00:19:30.240 B-2 is a May 3rd meeting, and during the public comment, now, Councilperson Chris Walker, 00:19:30.240 --> 00:19:35.240 Councilperson Chris Watts then, I don't believe he was not elected yet to that position, talked 00:19:35.240 --> 00:19:38.240 about the Meltzer mailer. 00:19:38.240 --> 00:19:45.240 B-3 is the actual ethics complaint that's at issue that was, or, oh no, I'm sorry, 00:19:45.240 --> 00:19:54.240 B-3 was the previous complaint against Dem Arbitor that was filed on 10/15/2020 when 00:19:54.240 --> 00:19:59.240 the next election was in November that year because of COVID, and that complaint was found 00:19:59.240 --> 00:20:05.240 baseless because what the complaint said happened did not actually happen during that meeting, 00:20:05.240 --> 00:20:13.240 and there was actually a discussion of frivolity during that panel, and that panel was appealed, 00:20:13.240 --> 00:20:19.240 and the full board also talked about whether that was frivolous, but because we had not 00:20:19.240 --> 00:20:23.240 changed the rules at that time, we did not know how to then have a frivolous hearing. 00:20:23.240 --> 00:20:30.240 A piece of evidence, B-4, shows the election dates being 5/7/2022 and 11/3/2020. 00:20:30.240 --> 00:20:37.240 B-5 is the notary statutes, Madison, did you add those, or, who has to add those? 00:20:37.240 --> 00:20:40.240 Okay, I asked. 00:20:40.240 --> 00:20:49.240 Yeah, so those are the statutes about the notary seal, and I believe that was it, that's 00:20:49.240 --> 00:20:53.240 all the Board of Ethics evidence. 00:20:53.240 --> 00:21:03.240 No documentary evidence was brought in by complaint, and after the complaint gets a 00:21:03.240 --> 00:21:10.240 chance, I will let the respondent talk about the evidence, the evidence that they brought 00:21:10.240 --> 00:21:16.240 forth, but I guess for now, the complaint, Mr. Campbell, would you like to, do you have 00:21:16.240 --> 00:21:28.240 any testimony today? 00:21:28.240 --> 00:21:30.240 Well, I want to make a point that- 00:21:30.240 --> 00:21:35.240 Okay, Mr. Campbell, if you could please sit up here so everybody can hear, and if you 00:21:35.240 --> 00:21:41.240 are giving testimony, then we'll have to swear you in, which I'm not an actual judge- 00:21:41.240 --> 00:21:43.240 You said there, here before, so- 00:21:43.240 --> 00:21:49.240 Yeah, yeah, whoever's speaking at the moment should be there, and I guess, will you raise 00:21:49.240 --> 00:21:51.240 your right hand? 00:21:51.240 --> 00:21:54.240 You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 00:21:54.240 --> 00:21:55.240 I do. 00:21:55.240 --> 00:21:56.240 All right. 00:21:56.240 --> 00:21:57.240 Okay. 00:21:57.240 --> 00:22:02.240 There seems like some confusion in the ordinance. 00:22:02.240 --> 00:22:11.240 In the May 10th correspondence I got, I was told that you may provide testimony and evidence 00:22:11.240 --> 00:22:13.240 at this meeting. 00:22:13.240 --> 00:22:20.240 Later on, it says that, or I was told that the time had passed to present evidence, so 00:22:20.240 --> 00:22:30.240 there's, I mean, I didn't prepare because I didn't think you could do it, so there's 00:22:30.240 --> 00:22:32.240 some confusion, like I said. 00:22:32.240 --> 00:22:40.240 In one, it says you may attend to provide testimony and evidence, and then later on, 00:22:40.240 --> 00:22:52.240 I was told that I couldn't provide it in me, and that the time had passed to do so. 00:22:52.240 --> 00:22:55.240 Any more testimony? 00:22:55.240 --> 00:23:00.240 I, like I said, I filed the complaint. 00:23:00.240 --> 00:23:09.240 I used the Record Chronicle article, and there was part of this mailer. 00:23:09.240 --> 00:23:15.240 I couldn't find the whole mailer, but I found, you know, the Record Chronicle, just the 00:23:15.240 --> 00:23:28.240 facer sheet and the part with all the information about Mayor Hudspeth and the seal. 00:23:28.240 --> 00:23:36.240 And so I included both those, turned them in, and then, like I said, when I later saw 00:23:36.240 --> 00:23:43.240 the video, they said that it was not there, and I disagree with that when I turned it 00:23:43.240 --> 00:23:48.240 in, everything was there. 00:23:48.240 --> 00:23:55.240 Are you aware that the ordinance rules are public? 00:23:55.240 --> 00:23:56.240 Sure. 00:23:56.240 --> 00:24:01.240 And you were able to read those to make your complaint? 00:24:01.240 --> 00:24:06.240 I read through them, like I didn't read the whole thing, and then went through it and 00:24:06.240 --> 00:24:08.240 looked at it, yeah. 00:24:08.240 --> 00:24:13.240 Are you aware that those rules also say that you can present evidence and that you need 00:24:13.240 --> 00:24:20.240 to give evidence to the city auditor prior to the hearing? 00:24:20.240 --> 00:24:25.240 No, I was basing all mine on all the correspondence I got immediately from, directly from you 00:24:25.240 --> 00:24:26.240 guys. 00:24:26.240 --> 00:24:30.240 But you had access to the rules of procedure and those city ordinance? 00:24:30.240 --> 00:24:31.240 Oh, yeah. 00:24:31.240 --> 00:24:37.240 I didn't do it, but like I said, I mean, you guys were telling me one thing, so I had to 00:24:37.240 --> 00:24:39.240 go with what you guys were saying. 00:24:39.240 --> 00:24:45.240 And you said that you sent both sides of the mailer, you turned them into the city, correct? 00:24:45.240 --> 00:24:47.240 Yes, that was part of my file. 00:24:47.240 --> 00:24:51.240 But you also just said that you couldn't find the mailer, is that correct? 00:24:51.240 --> 00:24:53.240 No, I said I couldn't find the complete mailer. 00:24:53.240 --> 00:25:00.240 All I had, as I said, was the facer page, it's about a four or six page mailer. 00:25:00.240 --> 00:25:06.240 So, I couldn't turn it off, since then I couldn't find it, I looked for it, but of course it 00:25:06.240 --> 00:25:16.240 went out to the people I don't have access to. 00:25:16.240 --> 00:25:25.240 So this mailer, where did you find that one? 00:25:25.240 --> 00:25:30.240 That was in the record chronicle, I believe. 00:25:30.240 --> 00:25:33.240 That was part of the complaint, correct? 00:25:33.240 --> 00:25:42.240 Yes, yes, that was part of the complaint. 00:25:42.240 --> 00:25:46.240 But that does not appear to be the one that's on the record, that record chronicle. 00:25:46.240 --> 00:25:50.240 And then I have one last question before I would let anyone else ask questions. 00:25:50.240 --> 00:25:55.240 Did you post about the complaint on Facebook? 00:25:55.240 --> 00:26:01.240 I don't recall, I might have. 00:26:01.240 --> 00:26:07.240 And I don't remember, as Mr. Gladden said, reporting it on, I don't remember a whole 00:26:07.240 --> 00:26:11.240 lot about that, it was three or four years ago with Deb Armentor. 00:26:11.240 --> 00:26:16.240 Did you share the debt and record chronicle article on Facebook? 00:26:16.240 --> 00:26:18.240 No. 00:26:18.240 --> 00:26:21.240 Are there any more questions from Annette? 00:26:21.240 --> 00:26:25.240 I'm curious, you said somebody made you aware of it, can you say who that was? 00:26:25.240 --> 00:26:27.240 That somebody made you aware of the mailer? 00:26:27.240 --> 00:26:28.240 I don't recall. 00:26:28.240 --> 00:26:29.240 You don't remember? 00:26:29.240 --> 00:26:30.240 No. 00:26:30.240 --> 00:26:35.240 I talked to lots of people and there were lots of people, I don't recall. 00:26:35.240 --> 00:26:41.240 Okay, I'm just curious who else you might have talked with about it. 00:26:41.240 --> 00:26:44.240 Yeah, sorry, I don't recall. 00:26:44.240 --> 00:26:46.240 Any more questions about it? 00:26:46.240 --> 00:26:47.240 Rob? 00:26:47.240 --> 00:26:53.240 Were your conversations with the city on your thought of when you were going to present 00:26:53.240 --> 00:26:58.240 it, was this all verbally or did you have a paper as if you had received emails of some 00:26:58.240 --> 00:27:00.240 sort or is it just all verbal? 00:27:00.240 --> 00:27:02.240 Concerning the evidence and when I could present it? 00:27:02.240 --> 00:27:03.240 As you, yes. 00:27:03.240 --> 00:27:08.240 All that came from you guys, all that came from Madison. 00:27:08.240 --> 00:27:09.240 And what? 00:27:09.240 --> 00:27:12.240 And maybe, what's her name, Peel? 00:27:12.240 --> 00:27:15.240 And your understanding, was it all verbal? 00:27:15.240 --> 00:27:16.240 No, it was written. 00:27:16.240 --> 00:27:21.240 I got it written right here. 00:27:21.240 --> 00:27:26.240 Everything was written. 00:27:26.240 --> 00:27:30.240 So you received something from the city stating that if you make, under your thought, that 00:27:30.240 --> 00:27:34.240 you may present evidence at the meeting, but then when we got here you found out that you 00:27:34.240 --> 00:27:35.240 could not. 00:27:35.240 --> 00:27:37.240 No, no, that's not how it worked. 00:27:37.240 --> 00:27:46.240 Okay, on May 9th, panel, I'll read the whole thing, but it does say you may attend to provide 00:27:46.240 --> 00:27:48.240 testimony and evidence. 00:27:48.240 --> 00:27:53.240 Then later on, in one of the other ones, I could look through and find it if we wanted 00:27:53.240 --> 00:27:56.240 to spend the time doing it, but it... 00:27:56.240 --> 00:27:57.240 I would like to. 00:27:57.240 --> 00:27:58.240 Okay. 00:27:58.240 --> 00:28:00.240 I'll open the book. 00:28:00.240 --> 00:28:19.240 What was in that, what was in that last, last flyer she sent out, not the last flyer, the 00:28:19.240 --> 00:28:22.240 last notifications she sent out. 00:28:28.240 --> 00:28:55.240 I don't see it here, but it was, I was given several different ones, several notifications 00:28:55.240 --> 00:29:02.240 from the, from you guys, from Madison, and they came, you know, every couple of days. 00:29:02.240 --> 00:29:10.240 In fact, I got, one of them came via email and by mail, snail mail. 00:29:10.240 --> 00:29:15.240 Madam Chair, can I ask again? 00:29:15.240 --> 00:29:16.240 Yes, go for it. 00:29:16.240 --> 00:29:23.240 So, the document that you do have, that you could present, was it the one that stated 00:29:23.240 --> 00:29:26.240 that you could come and present evidence? 00:29:26.240 --> 00:29:30.240 This was the first one I got on May the 9th. 00:29:30.240 --> 00:29:31.240 I'll read the book. 00:29:31.240 --> 00:29:37.240 "Dear Mr. Campbell, the panel of the Board of Ethics met on May 9th, 2022 to conduct 00:29:37.240 --> 00:29:44.240 preliminary assessment of the complaint you submitted, Ethics Complaint 22-001 against 00:29:44.240 --> 00:29:46.240 Council Member Paul Nelson. 00:29:46.240 --> 00:29:53.240 The panel determined that your complaint was baseless in accordance with Section 2-280 00:29:53.240 --> 00:29:55.240 of the Ethics Ordinance. 00:29:55.240 --> 00:30:01.240 In addition, the panel recommended that a hearing be held to determine if Ethics Complaint 00:30:01.240 --> 00:30:05.240 22-07 may be frivolous. 00:30:05.240 --> 00:30:11.240 This hearing will be scheduled to occur within 30 days. 00:30:11.240 --> 00:30:16.240 A separate notification will be sent out to notify you of the exact time and date of the 00:30:16.240 --> 00:30:17.240 hearing. 00:30:17.240 --> 00:30:20.240 You may attend to provide testimony and evidence. 00:30:20.240 --> 00:30:26.240 The full written determination received from the panel is attached to this notification. 00:30:26.240 --> 00:30:31.240 Please let me know if you have any questions." 00:30:31.240 --> 00:30:32.240 Any more questions? 00:30:32.240 --> 00:30:41.240 Were you given an email that all evidence had to be given to the city auditor by May 00:30:41.240 --> 00:30:42.240 18th? 00:30:42.240 --> 00:30:44.240 Well, that's what I was talking about. 00:30:44.240 --> 00:30:45.240 There's confusion on it. 00:30:45.240 --> 00:30:48.240 This one says that I may. 00:30:48.240 --> 00:30:52.240 But you were told that May 18th you needed to have any evidence into the city auditor. 00:30:52.240 --> 00:30:55.240 Yeah, but at the time I didn't know that I needed to. 00:30:55.240 --> 00:30:57.240 I had no clue that... 00:30:57.240 --> 00:31:01.240 You didn't know you needed to, yet you were told that you needed to? 00:31:01.240 --> 00:31:03.240 No, it gave me the option to do it. 00:31:03.240 --> 00:31:11.240 It said I could, but I didn't know until a day or two later that supposedly this key 00:31:11.240 --> 00:31:15.240 piece of the filing was missing. 00:31:15.240 --> 00:31:17.240 Any more questions? 00:31:17.240 --> 00:31:19.240 So that's why I filed it when I did. 00:31:19.240 --> 00:31:27.240 I watched the original video, and again, I've watched it several times since. 00:31:27.240 --> 00:31:34.240 That's when I found that, I guess some of y'all, I can't remember the faces, said that 00:31:34.240 --> 00:31:36.240 there was a page missing. 00:31:36.240 --> 00:31:39.240 And a key one. 00:31:39.240 --> 00:31:45.240 And the Record Chronicle article is included in this, and it backs it up. 00:31:45.240 --> 00:31:47.240 It's got it right there, too. 00:31:47.240 --> 00:31:51.240 So it backs up what I had alleged. 00:31:51.240 --> 00:31:55.240 Did you bring this piece of key evidence with you today? 00:31:55.240 --> 00:31:58.240 That you said was missing out of the original complaint? 00:31:58.240 --> 00:32:00.240 Do you have it with you today? 00:32:00.240 --> 00:32:01.240 Yeah. 00:32:01.240 --> 00:32:07.240 Have we seen it? 00:32:07.240 --> 00:32:12.240 Would you like to see it? 00:32:12.240 --> 00:32:15.240 Is this the same evidence that you got out of the DRC article? 00:32:15.240 --> 00:32:16.240 Right. 00:32:16.240 --> 00:32:18.240 So the DRC article is part of our evidence? 00:32:18.240 --> 00:32:23.240 Yeah, it's in what's given today. 00:32:23.240 --> 00:32:25.240 I have one last question. 00:32:25.240 --> 00:32:28.240 The complaint you filed was on May 2nd. 00:32:28.240 --> 00:32:31.240 The election was on May 7th. 00:32:31.240 --> 00:32:33.240 You said you talked to lots of people. 00:32:33.240 --> 00:32:39.240 Did you or anybody you talked to consider what sort of ramifications that could have 00:32:39.240 --> 00:32:43.240 on the election, and what kind of stress it would cause? 00:32:43.240 --> 00:32:47.240 I don't remember talking to a lot of people, as you mentioned. 00:32:47.240 --> 00:32:51.240 I talked to probably about two or three friends. 00:32:51.240 --> 00:32:55.240 The timing of it is problematic to me. 00:32:55.240 --> 00:33:00.240 Well, the timing is that I found out that this piece was missing. 00:33:00.240 --> 00:33:06.240 No, I'm talking about the original complaint. 00:33:06.240 --> 00:33:09.240 I just found out about the record chronicle article. 00:33:09.240 --> 00:33:13.240 I said I don't read it, and someone mentioned it to me. 00:33:13.240 --> 00:33:18.240 When I read that, I thought, no, that sounds like something needs to be addressed. 00:33:18.240 --> 00:33:23.240 It had been sent to the state by the city manager. 00:33:23.240 --> 00:33:26.240 Then, of course, the record chronicle had it. 00:33:26.240 --> 00:33:30.240 Mr. Gladden mentioned it blasted it all over the place. 00:33:30.240 --> 00:33:33.240 Actually, the city manager, I don't think took it. 00:33:33.240 --> 00:33:39.240 I think Alan Rosa contacted the state to make sure that there wasn't a problem. 00:33:39.240 --> 00:33:41.240 I'm sorry, I'm out of time. 00:33:41.240 --> 00:33:45.240 Hold on a moment. I'll allow you to ask questions in a moment. 00:33:45.240 --> 00:33:48.240 Deborah, do you have any questions? 00:33:48.240 --> 00:34:00.240 I'm very sorry. Could you put an end to everything what you just said about? 00:34:00.240 --> 00:34:08.240 My understanding was that Rosa Rios contacted the state to make sure there wasn't a problem with that. 00:34:08.240 --> 00:34:18.240 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. 00:34:18.240 --> 00:34:23.240 They can take it any time they want to. It's a public thing. 00:34:23.240 --> 00:34:28.240 I guess let's stick to questions right now. We can deliberate after. 00:34:28.240 --> 00:34:30.240 Deborah, did you have any questions? 00:34:30.240 --> 00:34:34.240 I do. There was a 10-day span between the time that it was in the record chronicle. 00:34:34.240 --> 00:34:37.240 Can you speak up a little bit? I can't hear with the mask on. 00:34:37.240 --> 00:34:45.240 There was a 10-day span between the record chronicle article and your complaint. 00:34:45.240 --> 00:34:49.240 Why 10 days? It was so vital. 00:34:49.240 --> 00:34:57.240 I didn't know it existed. Like I said, I don't read record chronicle. I don't subscribe to it. 00:34:57.240 --> 00:35:03.240 I don't think it's, in my personal opinion, I don't think it's worth reading, so I don't read it. 00:35:03.240 --> 00:35:12.240 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. 00:35:12.240 --> 00:35:41.240 When did you see it? I don't know. 00:35:41.240 --> 00:35:59.240 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. 00:35:59.240 --> 00:36:04.240 This warrants a complaint. 00:36:04.240 --> 00:36:06.240 Can I have another question? 00:36:06.240 --> 00:36:08.240 Yeah, go for it. 00:36:08.240 --> 00:36:18.240 When you learned that a page was missing, did you contact Ms. Wörthauk? 00:36:18.240 --> 00:36:22.240 Who? Ms. Wörthauk, magazine editor. 00:36:22.240 --> 00:36:24.240 That's her last name. 00:36:24.240 --> 00:36:41.240 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. 00:36:41.240 --> 00:36:44.240 So yeah, I sent her a letter. 00:36:44.240 --> 00:36:46.240 When did you send the letter? 00:36:46.240 --> 00:36:48.240 I'm sorry. 00:36:48.240 --> 00:36:53.240 When did you send the letter? 00:36:53.240 --> 00:37:00.240 20th, I believe. 00:37:00.240 --> 00:37:11.240 Yeah, I watched the video when I learned of it on the 19th, Thursday the 19th. 00:37:11.240 --> 00:37:22.240 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. 00:37:22.240 --> 00:37:24.240 All right. 00:37:24.240 --> 00:37:31.240 If there's no more questions from the board, respondents, attorney can ask questions. 00:37:31.240 --> 00:37:37.240 Thank you. 00:37:37.240 --> 00:37:39.240 Scott, we've met before, have we not? 00:37:39.240 --> 00:37:41.240 Oh, many times, yep. 00:37:41.240 --> 00:37:45.240 I want to go over just a few things with you. 00:37:45.240 --> 00:37:57.240 Do you recall filing a complaint in October of 2020 challenging the ethics of Councilmember Deb Armador? 00:37:57.240 --> 00:37:58.240 Is that a yes? 00:37:58.240 --> 00:37:59.240 That's a yes. 00:37:59.240 --> 00:38:12.240 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. 00:38:12.240 --> 00:38:34.240 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? 00:38:34.240 --> 00:38:37.240 Do you recall getting that instruction back in October of 2020? 00:38:37.240 --> 00:38:39.240 No, I do not recall it. 00:38:39.240 --> 00:38:57.240 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? 00:38:57.240 --> 00:38:59.240 I don't remember. 00:38:59.240 --> 00:39:09.240 And, of course, you indicated that you had access to and you were familiar with the ethics provisions or the ethics code provisions. 00:39:09.240 --> 00:39:10.240 That's true, isn't it? 00:39:10.240 --> 00:39:12.240 You looked them over? 00:39:12.240 --> 00:39:13.240 I've reviewed them. 00:39:13.240 --> 00:39:14.240 Okay. 00:39:14.240 --> 00:39:28.240 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 00:39:28.240 --> 00:39:39.240 or any city staff unless or until the complaint has gone through the process and placed on the board's agenda or dismissed? 00:39:39.240 --> 00:39:47.240 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? 00:39:47.240 --> 00:39:48.240 Well, I can say that. 00:39:48.240 --> 00:39:50.240 No, can you answer yes or no? 00:39:50.240 --> 00:39:52.240 Please repeat it. 00:39:52.240 --> 00:39:54.240 Did you know? 00:39:54.240 --> 00:39:56.240 Well, actually. 00:39:56.240 --> 00:40:10.240 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? 00:40:10.240 --> 00:40:14.240 Are you denying you knew that? 00:40:14.240 --> 00:40:15.240 No. 00:40:15.240 --> 00:40:17.240 Okay, so you admit that you knew that. 00:40:17.240 --> 00:40:18.240 Okay. 00:40:18.240 --> 00:40:20.240 What can I make a statement about? 00:40:20.240 --> 00:40:22.240 Okay, you can in a minute, but what I'm asking -- 00:40:22.240 --> 00:40:31.240 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. 00:40:31.240 --> 00:40:34.240 I think that's how we would do it here, that's how it's done in a courtroom. 00:40:34.240 --> 00:40:36.240 Okay, okay, okay. 00:40:36.240 --> 00:40:47.240 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? 00:40:47.240 --> 00:40:48.240 Yes. 00:40:48.240 --> 00:40:51.240 But you did it anyway, didn't you? 00:40:51.240 --> 00:40:52.240 Somewhat. 00:40:52.240 --> 00:40:56.240 What do you mean some what? Yes or no? Did you just publicly disclose it? 00:40:56.240 --> 00:40:57.240 Yes. 00:40:57.240 --> 00:41:06.240 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? 00:41:06.240 --> 00:41:07.240 Yeah. 00:41:07.240 --> 00:41:17.240 Okay. Did you get a copy of the exhibits that were submitted to the board in connection with this hearing? 00:41:17.240 --> 00:41:19.240 About, with the agenda or what are you talking about? 00:41:19.240 --> 00:41:20.240 Yeah, with the agenda. 00:41:20.240 --> 00:41:27.240 Okay. Could you, do you have a copy of those there with you? 00:41:27.240 --> 00:41:41.240 Could you look at respondent Paul Messler's exhibit, I believe it's marked as exhibit five, and the board's packet. 00:41:41.240 --> 00:41:45.240 I don't have the packet printed out, I don't believe it. I see that. 00:41:45.240 --> 00:41:53.240 Well, may I approach? Oh yeah, just go for it. I mean, it's not a courtroom, I guess. 00:41:53.240 --> 00:41:55.240 I think it's okay. 00:41:55.240 --> 00:41:59.240 Do y'all have copies of this? Yes. 00:41:59.240 --> 00:42:06.240 First of all, do you have a Facebook page that you host called If You Love Denton You May Want to Know? 00:42:06.240 --> 00:42:07.240 I do. 00:42:07.240 --> 00:42:22.240 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. 00:42:22.240 --> 00:42:25.240 Were you remember being asked that question? 00:42:25.240 --> 00:42:29.240 I don't recall putting the Record Chronicle article in there, I said no. 00:42:29.240 --> 00:42:37.240 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. 00:42:37.240 --> 00:42:41.240 I'd like it if we could put it up on the screen. 00:42:41.240 --> 00:42:45.240 Yeah, Madison can do that. 00:42:45.240 --> 00:42:48.240 I'm sorry, I answered for everybody. It was sent to everyone. 00:42:48.240 --> 00:42:50.240 Yeah, I don't know if I had it in front of me. 00:42:50.240 --> 00:42:52.240 But I did not print the copy. 00:42:52.240 --> 00:42:55.240 Okay, you can proceed. 00:42:55.240 --> 00:43:09.240 Okay, thank you. Now, Scott, are you denying that you posted that on Facebook? 00:43:09.240 --> 00:43:10.240 No, I posted that. 00:43:10.240 --> 00:43:24.240 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? 00:43:24.240 --> 00:43:27.240 Can you answer yes or no? 00:43:27.240 --> 00:43:28.240 Yes. 00:43:28.240 --> 00:43:37.240 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? 00:43:37.240 --> 00:43:39.240 I'm not sure. Is that on there? 00:43:39.240 --> 00:43:42.240 Do you see where it says yesterday? 00:43:42.240 --> 00:43:44.240 Okay, yeah. 00:43:44.240 --> 00:43:45.240 Do you see that? 00:43:45.240 --> 00:43:46.240 Yep. 00:43:46.240 --> 00:43:50.240 Alright, so that would be consistent with you posting that on May 3rd, correct? 00:43:50.240 --> 00:43:51.240 Yes. 00:43:51.240 --> 00:43:56.240 And you don't identify yourself as the person that filed the complaint, though, do you? 00:43:56.240 --> 00:43:59.240 I've heard about another one, so yeah. 00:43:59.240 --> 00:44:03.240 But you're referring to the one you posted in this post, right? 00:44:03.240 --> 00:44:06.240 I assume so. It looks like it. I don't recall. 00:44:06.240 --> 00:44:18.240 Alright, and this would have been four days before the city council elections, correct? 00:44:18.240 --> 00:44:21.240 Four days before the election. 00:44:21.240 --> 00:44:24.240 This is the 3rd, and the election was on the 7th, so it was about four days. 00:44:24.240 --> 00:44:25.240 Yep. 00:44:25.240 --> 00:44:35.240 Alright, and of course you also mentioned in your post that your complaint had been provided to the local newspaper, is that correct? 00:44:35.240 --> 00:44:36.240 I believe so. 00:44:36.240 --> 00:44:45.240 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? 00:44:48.240 --> 00:44:49.240 Repeat that, please. 00:44:49.240 --> 00:44:58.240 Did you or did you not testify a moment ago that you knew the fact that you'd filed the complaint was confidential? 00:44:58.240 --> 00:44:59.240 Yes. 00:44:59.240 --> 00:45:13.240 So you were deliberately, by posting this Facebook post, you were deliberately violating the Denton Ethics Code, correct? 00:45:13.240 --> 00:45:14.240 Yes. 00:45:14.240 --> 00:45:20.240 Okay. 00:45:20.240 --> 00:45:27.240 And the reason why you did that is because you were supporting the political opponent of Paul Meltzer, isn't it? 00:45:27.240 --> 00:45:29.240 Not necessarily, no. 00:45:29.240 --> 00:45:30.240 Well, yes, I'm not. 00:45:30.240 --> 00:45:31.240 Okay, no. 00:45:31.240 --> 00:45:32.240 Okay, alright. 00:45:32.240 --> 00:45:33.240 No. 00:45:33.240 --> 00:45:40.240 So, well, what motivated you to violate the Denton Code of Ethics deliberately? 00:45:40.240 --> 00:45:42.240 Well, this is a small group. 00:45:42.240 --> 00:45:47.240 Okay, can you tell us what the motivation you had was for doing this? 00:45:47.240 --> 00:45:49.240 Just let people know. 00:45:49.240 --> 00:45:57.240 And you want there to be consequences or to affect people's opinions about Paul Meltzer when you posted this, did you not? 00:45:57.240 --> 00:45:58.240 No, I just stated the fact. 00:45:58.240 --> 00:45:59.240 Oh, okay. 00:45:59.240 --> 00:46:05.240 So you don't think this, you intended this to affect people's perspective of Paul Meltzer? 00:46:12.240 --> 00:46:21.240 Like I said, I was just letting people know. 00:46:21.240 --> 00:46:22.240 Yeah. 00:46:22.240 --> 00:46:29.240 It didn't have anything to do with any intention you claim on your part to harm Metzler's political campaign. 00:46:29.240 --> 00:46:34.240 Well, I could think that within four days it's going to make a difference, but yeah. 00:46:34.240 --> 00:46:43.240 Well, why did you send the, why did you inform the local paper that you had filed a complaint? 00:46:43.240 --> 00:46:44.240 Courtesy. 00:46:44.240 --> 00:46:46.240 They had done the original article. 00:46:46.240 --> 00:46:49.240 I knew they wouldn't print it. 00:46:49.240 --> 00:46:51.240 No way they would print it. 00:46:51.240 --> 00:46:56.240 Well, I noticed you had some disparaging remarks of the Denton Record Chronicle in your post as well. 00:46:56.240 --> 00:47:00.240 Was that intended to disparage the Denton Record Chronicle? 00:47:00.240 --> 00:47:04.240 May we see the whole article? 00:47:04.240 --> 00:47:07.240 That's the bottom right there. 00:47:07.240 --> 00:47:08.240 Okay, thank you. 00:47:08.240 --> 00:47:09.240 Go ahead. 00:47:09.240 --> 00:47:11.240 Yeah, I'm no fan of the Record Chronicle, I don't know. 00:47:11.240 --> 00:47:12.240 Okay. 00:47:12.240 --> 00:47:19.240 And of course, when you share comments about political candidates, would you agree with it? 00:47:19.240 --> 00:47:25.240 It's designed to influence people to agree with your position? 00:47:25.240 --> 00:47:26.240 Say it again, first part. 00:47:26.240 --> 00:47:34.240 All right, when you post things or when you communicate with people about political campaigns 00:47:34.240 --> 00:47:42.240 or your adversity to political candidates, don't you, aren't you doing that for the purpose of influencing? 00:47:42.240 --> 00:47:43.240 Not influencing, no. 00:47:43.240 --> 00:47:50.240 Okay. 00:47:50.240 --> 00:47:56.240 Is there a reason why you didn't disclose that you were the person who contacted the newspaper 00:47:56.240 --> 00:48:04.240 and you were about your filing complaint and that it was you that filed the complaint? 00:48:04.240 --> 00:48:09.240 Why did you just say, "I filed the complaint today and I sent this complaint over to the newspaper"? 00:48:09.240 --> 00:48:10.240 I don't recall. 00:48:10.240 --> 00:48:15.240 It was because you knew you were violating the code, correct? 00:48:15.240 --> 00:48:16.240 No. 00:48:16.240 --> 00:48:20.240 Well, you already admitted that you knew you were violating the code, was it? 00:48:20.240 --> 00:48:22.240 Yeah, that's not why I did that. 00:48:22.240 --> 00:48:27.240 Okay, so there was another reason why you didn't disclose you were the one that filed the complaint? 00:48:27.240 --> 00:48:37.240 I said I don't recall why I didn't put my name in there. 00:48:37.240 --> 00:48:48.240 Now, you supported Mr. Messler's opponent, that is, Mayor Hesbitt, in this race, did you not? 00:48:48.240 --> 00:48:50.240 Actively, no. 00:48:50.240 --> 00:48:52.240 Well, how about inactively? 00:48:52.240 --> 00:48:56.240 I prefer him over Mr. Messler. 00:48:56.240 --> 00:49:00.240 And so you had some, at least maybe not a personal relationship, 00:49:00.240 --> 00:49:06.240 but you had already concluded before you made this post that you were supporting Mr. Messler's opponent, correct? 00:49:06.240 --> 00:49:09.240 As do most people, yes. 00:49:09.240 --> 00:49:14.240 We know that the mayor won by 500 votes, right? 00:49:14.240 --> 00:49:16.240 So that would be most. 00:49:16.240 --> 00:49:29.240 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? 00:49:29.240 --> 00:49:30.240 No. 00:49:30.240 --> 00:49:32.240 As opposed to his opponent, Mr. Messler? 00:49:32.240 --> 00:49:34.240 No, absolutely not. 00:49:34.240 --> 00:49:36.240 And did you donate any money to? 00:49:36.240 --> 00:49:37.240 No. 00:49:37.240 --> 00:49:39.240 I'm going to finish the question. 00:49:39.240 --> 00:49:41.240 Ask one question, go ahead. 00:49:41.240 --> 00:49:50.240 Did you, in this race, donate any money to Gerard Hesbitt, the mayor who was the opponent of Mr. Messler? 00:49:50.240 --> 00:49:51.240 No. 00:49:51.240 --> 00:49:54.240 Have you ever met Gerard Hesbitt? 00:49:54.240 --> 00:49:56.240 Sure. I know lots of people in town. 00:49:56.240 --> 00:49:58.240 Are you friends with Mr. Hesbitt? 00:49:58.240 --> 00:50:00.240 When they say we're friends, I'm going. 00:50:00.240 --> 00:50:10.240 Okay. Did you communicate with anyone between the time you decided to make this post and when you posted? 00:50:10.240 --> 00:50:11.240 No. 00:50:11.240 --> 00:50:22.240 Who was it that notified you of the fact that Mr. Hesbitt was complaining about Mr. Messler's conduct in relation to the flyer? 00:50:22.240 --> 00:50:25.240 Are you talking about the record Chronicle article? 00:50:25.240 --> 00:50:32.240 I'm saying from any source, when you found out that Mayor Hesbitt was complaining publicly about... 00:50:32.240 --> 00:50:36.240 Someone mentioned the Chronicle article. 00:50:36.240 --> 00:50:37.240 Who was the someone? 00:50:37.240 --> 00:50:38.240 I don't remember. 00:50:38.240 --> 00:50:40.240 I've already mentioned that. 00:50:40.240 --> 00:50:43.240 Okay, hold on a second. 00:50:43.240 --> 00:50:52.240 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. 00:50:52.240 --> 00:50:55.240 And I want to let you know you've used 13 minutes. 00:50:55.240 --> 00:50:56.240 13 minutes, okay. 00:50:56.240 --> 00:51:01.240 So you have 17 minutes left for your presentation as well. 00:51:01.240 --> 00:51:02.240 And proceed. 00:51:02.240 --> 00:51:05.240 Okay. I'll use just a few more minutes. 00:51:05.240 --> 00:51:19.240 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 00:51:19.240 --> 00:51:26.240 in a matter that was and would likely have had an effect on the outcome of the race? 00:51:26.240 --> 00:51:29.240 What kind of punishment do you think someone should get for that? 00:51:29.240 --> 00:51:30.240 I hadn't read it. 00:51:30.240 --> 00:51:38.240 Do you think they should be barred from continuing to file frivolous complaints for political purposes? 00:51:38.240 --> 00:51:39.240 Frivolous complaints? 00:51:39.240 --> 00:51:40.240 Yeah. 00:51:40.240 --> 00:51:50.240 So if your complaint was found frivolous before this body, would you agree to refrain from filing any future complaints for 12 months? 00:51:50.240 --> 00:51:51.240 No? 00:51:51.240 --> 00:51:52.240 Okay. 00:51:52.240 --> 00:51:54.240 I'll pass the witness. 00:51:54.240 --> 00:51:55.240 Okay. 00:51:55.240 --> 00:51:57.240 Do you have any more statements to make? 00:51:57.240 --> 00:51:58.240 No. 00:51:58.240 --> 00:51:59.240 All right. 00:51:59.240 --> 00:52:03.240 Any more questions from board members? 00:52:03.240 --> 00:52:04.240 Okay. 00:52:04.240 --> 00:52:05.240 Let me read. 00:52:05.240 --> 00:52:09.240 You've used 13 minutes, 52 seconds for the respondent. 00:52:09.240 --> 00:52:14.240 I think you were far below, so I haven't kept. 00:52:14.240 --> 00:52:15.240 Anyway. 00:52:15.240 --> 00:52:16.240 All right. 00:52:16.240 --> 00:52:18.240 So does anyone need a break? 00:52:18.240 --> 00:52:20.240 I know we've been sitting here an hour. 00:52:20.240 --> 00:52:21.240 Can we move forward? 00:52:21.240 --> 00:52:23.240 I think we can move forward. 00:52:23.240 --> 00:52:24.240 Okay. 00:52:24.240 --> 00:52:25.240 All right. 00:52:25.240 --> 00:52:35.240 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. 00:52:35.240 --> 00:52:40.240 And Mr. Campbell, if you can take us back in, I guess, the galley. 00:52:40.240 --> 00:52:46.240 And if you would like to present evidence or call witnesses, it's the floor is yours. 00:52:46.240 --> 00:52:47.240 Okay. 00:52:47.240 --> 00:52:58.240 At this time, the respondent, I would call the respondent, Paula Belsior, as a witness. 00:52:58.240 --> 00:52:59.240 All right. 00:52:59.240 --> 00:53:01.240 And raise your right hand. 00:53:01.240 --> 00:53:04.240 Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 00:53:04.240 --> 00:53:05.240 I do. 00:53:05.240 --> 00:53:06.240 All right. 00:53:06.240 --> 00:53:07.240 Proceed. 00:53:07.240 --> 00:53:08.240 Okay. 00:53:08.240 --> 00:53:09.240 Mr. Melser, we know each other. 00:53:09.240 --> 00:53:10.240 Do we not? 00:53:10.240 --> 00:53:11.240 We do. 00:53:11.240 --> 00:53:12.240 I just want to make sure. 00:53:12.240 --> 00:53:13.240 Is the mic on? 00:53:13.240 --> 00:53:14.240 It's on. 00:53:14.240 --> 00:53:15.240 Yeah. 00:53:15.240 --> 00:53:16.240 I think it's up here. 00:53:16.240 --> 00:53:17.240 Correct. 00:53:17.240 --> 00:53:18.240 It's just a decoration. 00:53:18.240 --> 00:53:19.240 Yeah. 00:53:19.240 --> 00:53:20.240 I'm sorry. 00:53:20.240 --> 00:53:21.240 Okay. 00:53:21.240 --> 00:53:22.240 I'll start over. 00:53:22.240 --> 00:53:23.240 We know each other. 00:53:23.240 --> 00:53:24.240 Do we not, Paula? 00:53:24.240 --> 00:53:25.240 We do. 00:53:25.240 --> 00:53:28.240 As a matter of fact, you live two or three doors down from it, right? 00:53:28.240 --> 00:53:29.240 That's true. 00:53:29.240 --> 00:53:35.240 Now, I'm going to ask you, it sounds like we kind of got the facts straight, at least, 00:53:35.240 --> 00:53:38.240 or most of them, so I don't have too many questions for you. 00:53:38.240 --> 00:53:46.240 Were you a candidate for the office of mayor of the city of Denton related to the election 00:53:46.240 --> 00:53:48.240 on May 7th of 2022? 00:53:48.240 --> 00:53:49.240 Yes. 00:53:49.240 --> 00:53:50.240 All right. 00:53:50.240 --> 00:53:51.240 And who was your opponent? 00:53:51.240 --> 00:53:52.240 Jordan Hudson. 00:53:52.240 --> 00:53:53.240 All right. 00:53:53.240 --> 00:54:05.760 At some point in time, did you become aware that the mayor was publicly making statements 00:54:05.760 --> 00:54:10.600 where he had believed that you had done something wrong by sending political flyers out that 00:54:10.600 --> 00:54:13.080 included a notary suit? 00:54:13.080 --> 00:54:19.240 I became aware by, well, short answer is yes, I did not want to. 00:54:19.240 --> 00:54:20.240 Okay. 00:54:20.240 --> 00:54:21.240 All right. 00:54:21.240 --> 00:54:26.240 So, in what opinion was that being made by the mayor as a more political maneuver or 00:54:26.240 --> 00:54:33.240 a political issue that he wanted the voters to know about? 00:54:33.240 --> 00:54:39.240 The notary seal, use of the notary seal was associated with notarized statements from 00:54:39.240 --> 00:54:47.240 his campaign disclosure forms showing tens of thousands of dollars of funds received 00:54:47.240 --> 00:54:57.240 from interested parties and I felt that moving the focus to the seal that indicated those 00:54:57.240 --> 00:55:03.240 were true was a way to distract from facts that might feel would hurt him politically. 00:55:03.240 --> 00:55:04.240 Okay. 00:55:04.240 --> 00:55:07.240 First of all, Paul, you're not still running for office, okay? 00:55:07.240 --> 00:55:13.240 Secondly, if you can answer my question rather than speak about things that I'm not asking 00:55:13.240 --> 00:55:14.240 about, okay? 00:55:14.240 --> 00:55:19.240 And I'm sorry that I'm a lawyer and I'm trying to get straight to the point where we're 00:55:19.240 --> 00:55:20.240 going to run out of time. 00:55:20.240 --> 00:55:28.240 What I asked you was when, or if at all, did you ever become aware that the mayor, your 00:55:28.240 --> 00:55:34.240 own husband, was making a political issue out of the content of your political flyers? 00:55:34.240 --> 00:55:35.240 Yes. 00:55:35.240 --> 00:55:36.240 Okay. 00:55:36.240 --> 00:55:37.240 You became aware of that. 00:55:37.240 --> 00:55:40.240 When did you become aware of that? 00:55:40.240 --> 00:55:49.240 I would say around the day before the article came out when I was approached by the reporter. 00:55:49.240 --> 00:55:50.240 Okay. 00:55:50.240 --> 00:56:04.240 Now, did you receive a letter dated May 2nd from the city auditor concerning this complaint? 00:56:04.240 --> 00:56:05.240 Yes. 00:56:05.240 --> 00:56:12.240 Did that letter include a notification to you that the code, that is the Denton City 00:56:12.240 --> 00:56:18.240 Ethics Code, prohibited you from disclosing the fact that you had received a complaint 00:56:18.240 --> 00:56:24.240 or been the target of a complaint, at least until the time the complaint was screened 00:56:24.240 --> 00:56:26.240 and placed on the agenda or dismissed? 00:56:26.240 --> 00:56:27.240 Yes. 00:56:27.240 --> 00:56:28.240 All right. 00:56:28.240 --> 00:56:36.240 And is that something that was new to you or had you seen that warning before? 00:56:36.240 --> 00:56:40.240 I was acquainted with it from previous interactions. 00:56:40.240 --> 00:56:41.240 Okay. 00:56:41.240 --> 00:56:46.240 Now, can you look at the screen behind you? 00:56:46.240 --> 00:56:48.240 Do you recognize that? 00:56:48.240 --> 00:56:49.240 Yes. 00:56:49.240 --> 00:56:50.240 All right. 00:56:50.240 --> 00:56:51.240 And that's actually your exhibit, is it not? 00:56:51.240 --> 00:56:52.240 Yes, it is. 00:56:52.240 --> 00:56:53.240 All right. 00:56:53.240 --> 00:56:55.240 Can you tell us what that exhibit is? 00:56:55.240 --> 00:57:08.240 It's a Facebook post on a page hosted by the complainant revealing the fact that there 00:57:08.240 --> 00:57:14.240 was an ethics complaint made the day prior to its posting. 00:57:14.240 --> 00:57:19.240 And of course, it also reveals that someone known to the complainant, if not the complainant 00:57:19.240 --> 00:57:26.240 himself, had provided that information, the filing of a complaint, to the local newspaper, 00:57:26.240 --> 00:57:27.240 correct? 00:57:27.240 --> 00:57:28.240 Yes. 00:57:28.240 --> 00:57:34.240 And that information violates the City Ethics Code, doesn't it, disclosing that information 00:57:34.240 --> 00:57:37.240 the day after a complaint's filed? 00:57:37.240 --> 00:57:39.240 Yes, it does. 00:57:39.240 --> 00:57:43.240 In your opinion, what was the motivation for that post being made? 00:57:43.240 --> 00:57:52.240 The motivation was evidently political, intended to discredit me in the eyes of voters. 00:57:52.240 --> 00:57:53.240 All right. 00:57:53.240 --> 00:58:01.240 Do you know whether or not that violation of the City Ethics Code adversely affected 00:58:01.240 --> 00:58:03.240 your chances of being elected mayor? 00:58:03.240 --> 00:58:11.240 You can never know for certain, but it certainly inclined in that direction. 00:58:11.240 --> 00:58:13.240 All right. 00:58:13.240 --> 00:58:16.240 And is it your opinion that Mr. Campbell intended it to have that effect? 00:58:16.240 --> 00:58:19.240 I think it's the only reasonable explanation, yes. 00:58:19.240 --> 00:58:24.240 And you didn't hear any other explanation from Mr. Campbell for him doing that, did 00:58:24.240 --> 00:58:25.240 you? 00:58:25.240 --> 00:58:26.240 No, I did. 00:58:26.240 --> 00:58:28.240 I'll pass the witness. 00:58:28.240 --> 00:58:30.240 All right. 00:58:30.240 --> 00:58:38.240 Are there, Mr. Campbell, do you have any questions for Mr. Melter? 00:58:38.240 --> 00:58:39.240 Sure. 00:58:39.240 --> 00:58:43.240 Do you know that this particular -- 00:58:43.240 --> 00:58:44.240 I mean, it's down right there. 00:58:44.240 --> 00:58:47.240 Do you mind sitting up here in that chair to make sure the mics catch it, if anyone's 00:58:47.240 --> 00:58:49.240 watching at home for the recording? 00:58:49.240 --> 00:58:52.240 Yeah, just sit there, and then when you're done with the questioning, you can go back 00:58:52.240 --> 00:58:53.240 to your seat. 00:58:53.240 --> 00:58:54.240 Yeah, sure. 00:58:54.240 --> 00:59:02.240 Are you aware that this is a closed group, that there are very few people who are part 00:59:02.240 --> 00:59:03.240 of it? 00:59:03.240 --> 00:59:06.240 I mean, it's not -- I didn't blast it out on my personal page and all that. 00:59:06.240 --> 00:59:07.240 It was right there. 00:59:07.240 --> 00:59:11.240 On the contrary, I'm aware that it's a public group. 00:59:11.240 --> 00:59:18.240 Well, I have to approve people when they come in. 00:59:18.240 --> 00:59:23.240 I was able to see it without being a member. 00:59:23.240 --> 00:59:24.240 Okay. 00:59:24.240 --> 00:59:25.240 That's all. 00:59:25.240 --> 00:59:26.240 Okay. 00:59:26.240 --> 00:59:27.240 Thank you. 00:59:27.240 --> 00:59:28.240 All right. 00:59:28.240 --> 00:59:38.240 What about members of the Board of Ethics? 00:59:38.240 --> 00:59:43.240 Do you -- anyone have any questions for Mr. Melter? 00:59:43.240 --> 00:59:44.240 I'm not seeing any questions. 00:59:44.240 --> 00:59:45.240 Anything else with this witness? 00:59:45.240 --> 00:59:46.240 No. 00:59:46.240 --> 00:59:47.240 Why aren't we going to be able to do a short close? 00:59:47.240 --> 00:59:48.240 Yes. 00:59:48.240 --> 00:59:49.240 Yes, we are. 00:59:49.240 --> 00:59:50.240 Oh. 00:59:50.240 --> 00:59:51.240 All right. 00:59:51.240 --> 00:59:52.240 Madam Chair. 00:59:52.240 --> 00:59:53.240 Oh, go ahead. 00:59:53.240 --> 00:59:54.240 I was just reading my notes. 00:59:54.240 --> 00:59:55.240 If I could ask -- 00:59:55.240 --> 00:59:56.240 Yes, go for it. 00:59:56.240 --> 01:00:01.240 You received the May 2nd letter talking about the complaint. 01:00:01.240 --> 01:00:04.240 You were aware that you were not to share it with anyone. 01:00:04.240 --> 01:00:09.240 So I guess my question is, between then and when you talked with your counsel, 01:00:09.240 --> 01:00:11.240 had you shared that with anyone? 01:00:11.240 --> 01:00:12.240 No, I didn't. 01:00:12.240 --> 01:00:14.240 Thank you. 01:00:14.240 --> 01:00:17.240 Any more questions? 01:00:17.240 --> 01:00:18.240 Okay. 01:00:18.240 --> 01:00:19.240 All right. 01:00:19.240 --> 01:00:20.240 You can take a seat. 01:00:20.240 --> 01:00:23.240 And I believe we've already discussed the Respondents Exhibit. 01:00:23.240 --> 01:00:26.240 Anything else on that exhibit to share? 01:00:26.240 --> 01:00:29.240 Okay. 01:00:29.240 --> 01:00:31.240 Let me get back to my notes. 01:00:31.240 --> 01:00:35.240 I might want to have it back out there when I do my close. 01:00:35.240 --> 01:00:36.240 Okay. 01:00:36.240 --> 01:00:37.240 All right. 01:00:37.240 --> 01:00:42.240 So closing statements under the Rules of Procedure -- or actually, 01:00:42.240 --> 01:00:47.240 is there any rebuttal, evidence, or testimony from Mr. Campbell? 01:00:47.240 --> 01:00:48.240 No. 01:00:48.240 --> 01:00:51.240 He is indicating no in case the speakers aren't picking it up. 01:00:51.240 --> 01:00:56.240 And so under Rules of Procedure E21, 01:00:56.240 --> 01:01:01.240 we can now have a closing statement of five minutes per side. 01:01:01.240 --> 01:01:04.240 Let me look that up real quick to make sure there's not one side 01:01:04.240 --> 01:01:14.240 that's supposed to go first. 01:01:14.240 --> 01:01:16.240 The complaint goes first. 01:01:16.240 --> 01:01:21.240 Okay. 01:01:21.240 --> 01:01:23.240 Mr. Campbell, would you like to make a closing statement? 01:01:23.240 --> 01:01:26.240 If you could either sit in that seat or this seat, 01:01:26.240 --> 01:01:28.240 just so the speakers pick it up. 01:01:28.240 --> 01:01:31.240 Sorry to play musical chairs, but I just don't know what they pick up. 01:01:31.240 --> 01:01:32.240 Sure. 01:01:32.240 --> 01:01:37.240 And the time is five minutes, and you can reserve a time for a rebuttal. 01:01:37.240 --> 01:01:42.240 So as he gives his closing, if you want to say something back, 01:01:42.240 --> 01:01:44.240 we have five minutes altogether. 01:01:44.240 --> 01:01:46.240 Okay, that'll be quick. 01:01:46.240 --> 01:01:53.240 Now, the reason we're here is because of that original review panel 01:01:53.240 --> 01:02:02.240 that then referred to this board stating that there was a page missing. 01:02:02.240 --> 01:02:08.240 And as I've said, I absolutely maintained that it was there when I turned it in. 01:02:08.240 --> 01:02:13.240 I don't know what happened to it, and that hadn't been addressed, so I don't know. 01:02:13.240 --> 01:02:16.240 So we wouldn't be here -- well, I don't know. 01:02:16.240 --> 01:02:17.240 I can't say that. 01:02:17.240 --> 01:02:35.240 But this meeting is because of that meeting in which that was discussed. 01:02:35.240 --> 01:02:36.240 That's all I have. 01:02:36.240 --> 01:02:38.240 Is there anything else? 01:02:38.240 --> 01:02:44.240 I just think that that's being completely dismissed 01:02:44.240 --> 01:02:52.240 when the reason we're here is because of that. 01:02:52.240 --> 01:02:54.240 That's all I have. 01:02:54.240 --> 01:02:55.240 All right, thank you. 01:02:55.240 --> 01:02:56.240 Thank you. 01:02:56.240 --> 01:03:00.240 You can take a seat again. 01:03:00.240 --> 01:03:02.240 All right, you can begin whenever you're ready. 01:03:02.240 --> 01:03:05.240 Thank you, members of the board. 01:03:05.240 --> 01:03:10.240 As I mentioned in my opening statement, 01:03:10.240 --> 01:03:17.240 one of the primary issues in revising our debt and ethics code 01:03:17.240 --> 01:03:25.240 was to prevent people like Mr. Campbell from using this form for political purposes. 01:03:25.240 --> 01:03:32.240 You have it in the criteria for determining whether something is frivolous or not. 01:03:32.240 --> 01:03:37.240 It's not by accident that you think that you look to factors. 01:03:37.240 --> 01:03:45.240 3A is the timing of the complaint with respect to the date of any pending election. 01:03:45.240 --> 01:03:51.240 Subsection B, the nature and type of publicity surrounding the filing 01:03:51.240 --> 01:03:54.240 and the degree of participation of the complainant 01:03:54.240 --> 01:04:01.240 in publicizing the fact that a complaint was filed. 01:04:01.240 --> 01:04:06.240 Under D, if the respondent, meaning Mr. Meltzer in this case, 01:04:06.240 --> 01:04:09.240 is a candidate for election to office, 01:04:09.240 --> 01:04:12.240 any relationship between the complainant 01:04:12.240 --> 01:04:16.240 and any candidate or group opposing the respondent. 01:04:16.240 --> 01:04:18.240 You've heard testimony. 01:04:18.240 --> 01:04:21.240 Of course, Mr. Campbell wasn't shy about it, 01:04:21.240 --> 01:04:24.240 that he supported the mayor, your art husband, 01:04:24.240 --> 01:04:28.240 and opposed Mr. Messler's candidacy. 01:04:28.240 --> 01:04:33.240 Any evidence that the complainant knew or reasonably should have known 01:04:33.240 --> 01:04:38.240 that the allegations in the complaint were groundless. 01:04:38.240 --> 01:04:44.240 I don't think it's reasonable for someone to contend 01:04:44.240 --> 01:04:50.240 that a document with a notary seal on it 01:04:50.240 --> 01:04:55.240 creates an inference that the notary public who stamped it 01:04:55.240 --> 01:05:00.240 supports the views of the person who created the document, 01:05:00.240 --> 01:05:03.240 which in this case would actually be the mayor, 01:05:03.240 --> 01:05:09.240 or the views of someone who has a copy of that and distributes it to others. 01:05:09.240 --> 01:05:16.240 As a matter of fact, if Mr. Campbell had introduced that very document 01:05:16.240 --> 01:05:27.240 before this hearing panel, he could be accused of endorsing Mr. Meltzer, 01:05:27.240 --> 01:05:30.240 because he gave you a copy of the document 01:05:30.240 --> 01:05:34.240 that was notarizing documents that belonged to Mr. Husband. 01:05:34.240 --> 01:05:36.240 I think that's baloney. 01:05:36.240 --> 01:05:39.240 I think this whole mess was created as a political floy, 01:05:39.240 --> 01:05:42.240 and as you heard Mr. Campbell himself admit, 01:05:42.240 --> 01:05:46.240 he knew that he was violating confidentiality. 01:05:46.240 --> 01:05:52.240 He put in his exhibit, "Somebody filed another complaint against Paul Meltzer. 01:05:52.240 --> 01:05:54.240 Somebody sent it to the local newspaper." 01:05:54.240 --> 01:05:59.240 Well, he's that person, and he knew he was violating the code. 01:05:59.240 --> 01:06:03.240 Well, the problem we have here is not just the fact that it's totally obvious 01:06:03.240 --> 01:06:08.240 what was going on with this, but that you don't have an ordinance that has any teeth. 01:06:08.240 --> 01:06:12.240 There were drafts before this eventual ordinance was adopted 01:06:12.240 --> 01:06:15.240 that provided you could ban somebody like Scott Campbell 01:06:15.240 --> 01:06:18.240 from abusing your process for a year. 01:06:18.240 --> 01:06:22.240 I guess I would say move on from changing the ordinance. 01:06:22.240 --> 01:06:24.240 Here, we're just determining the ordinance. 01:06:24.240 --> 01:06:25.240 Okay, I understand. 01:06:25.240 --> 01:06:29.240 I haven't heard any possible motivation that Mr. Campbell has mentioned, 01:06:29.240 --> 01:06:33.240 other than the fact that he did this for a frivolous purpose, 01:06:33.240 --> 01:06:37.240 and as defined under the ordinance, he did it for political purposes. 01:06:37.240 --> 01:06:39.240 He did it four days before the election. 01:06:39.240 --> 01:06:42.240 He had done it before in October of 2020, 01:06:42.240 --> 01:06:45.240 when he filed a complaint against Deb Armand for it, 01:06:45.240 --> 01:06:50.240 if not near, during the early voting period. 01:06:50.240 --> 01:06:52.240 And it was found to be baseless. 01:06:52.240 --> 01:06:54.240 How many times are you going to let Mr. Campbell do it? 01:06:54.240 --> 01:06:57.240 And if Mr. Campbell can do it, why don't we all get to do it? 01:06:57.240 --> 01:07:02.240 Well, because we don't want an ethics ordinance as being abused in that fashion. 01:07:02.240 --> 01:07:07.240 If you don't do something, I urge all of you unanimously, 01:07:07.240 --> 01:07:10.240 I think we need to send a signal out here 01:07:10.240 --> 01:07:13.240 that we're not going to let people like Scott Campbell 01:07:13.240 --> 01:07:18.240 use your ethics board as a vehicle to break the rules. 01:07:18.240 --> 01:07:22.240 He gets to go post on Facebook to who knows how many thousands of people 01:07:22.240 --> 01:07:24.240 four days before an election. 01:07:24.240 --> 01:07:30.240 I submit to you, you couldn't have a more classic example of a frivolous complaint, 01:07:30.240 --> 01:07:33.240 and unfortunately, you can't do anything to stop it, 01:07:33.240 --> 01:07:36.240 but that doesn't mean you can't vote to find a frivolous complaint. 01:07:36.240 --> 01:07:37.240 Thank you. 01:07:37.240 --> 01:07:40.240 Thank you. 01:07:40.240 --> 01:07:44.240 Any rebuttal argument for Mr. Campbell? 01:07:44.240 --> 01:07:46.240 And if you could, again, thank you. 01:07:46.240 --> 01:07:54.240 I can't remember the wording that Mr. Gladden used about my support for Gerard Hutsford, 01:07:54.240 --> 01:08:00.240 but I wouldn't say it was strenuous or whatever the word he used. 01:08:00.240 --> 01:08:05.240 I prefer him over Paul, and everybody has their opinion. 01:08:05.240 --> 01:08:12.240 So I didn't, like I said, I didn't provide any money, I didn't work for his campaign, 01:08:12.240 --> 01:08:16.240 I didn't talk to him, I don't think any during the campaign. 01:08:16.240 --> 01:08:21.240 So that's not correct. 01:08:21.240 --> 01:08:31.240 Other than a supporter, you've got to support somebody, so he was my choice. 01:08:31.240 --> 01:08:32.240 Thank you. 01:08:32.240 --> 01:08:33.240 Thank you. 01:08:33.240 --> 01:08:41.240 Okay, at this point, under rule of procedure E22, I will declare the hearing closed. 01:08:41.240 --> 01:08:46.240 I'll again ask to make sure, does anybody need a break before we go into deliberations? 01:08:46.240 --> 01:08:47.240 Everybody good? 01:08:47.240 --> 01:08:48.240 Okay. 01:08:48.240 --> 01:08:51.240 And then we will go straight into deliberations. 01:08:51.240 --> 01:08:58.240 Madison, can you pull up the factors under 2-82, I believe it's C3? 01:08:58.240 --> 01:09:03.240 Yes, I can. 01:09:03.240 --> 01:09:14.240 And I guess, unless anybody wants to challenge it, I say that we keep these deliberations in open meeting. 01:09:14.240 --> 01:09:22.240 My thoughts about the evidence that we've heard, you know, so there's, well first of all, 01:09:22.240 --> 01:09:31.240 me and Annetta were on that panel, and while the flyer in the DRC was not in the flyer complaint, 01:09:31.240 --> 01:09:35.240 and we discussed that, we also discussed even if the correct flyer was in the complaint, 01:09:35.240 --> 01:09:41.240 we would have come to the same conclusion. 01:09:41.240 --> 01:09:47.240 It was interesting to me, Mr. Campbell said that he never actually saw the planner to solve the DRC, 01:09:47.240 --> 01:09:55.240 yet the flyer that is in the complaint that he filed is a completely different mailer from the DRC one, 01:09:55.240 --> 01:09:59.240 which is confusing to me about how that all worked out. 01:09:59.240 --> 01:10:03.240 He said he did not remember the Facebook post, but we saw the Facebook post, 01:10:03.240 --> 01:10:07.240 and it was also online as part of this agenda. 01:10:07.240 --> 01:10:13.240 He complained of not knowing about bringing evidence, 01:10:13.240 --> 01:10:21.240 but I just don't think it matters because we can consider the correct flyer or the non-correct flyer. 01:10:21.240 --> 01:10:25.240 The ordinance and the rules of procedure are available online, 01:10:25.240 --> 01:10:31.240 and Madison did email everybody about how this would go. 01:10:31.240 --> 01:10:35.240 He also said that he doesn't read or subscribe to the DRC, 01:10:35.240 --> 01:10:39.240 he did share it on Facebook, which is interesting to me. 01:10:39.240 --> 01:10:44.240 As far as the confidentiality of the complaint, I think that's something in our ordinance, 01:10:44.240 --> 01:10:49.240 it's supposed to be confidential, but we can only do anything about public figures. 01:10:49.240 --> 01:10:56.240 That doesn't really weigh into this, even though he was told it was confidential under the ordinance, 01:10:56.240 --> 01:11:02.240 I don't think there's anything that can be done about that, so that doesn't really weigh into my opinion. 01:11:02.240 --> 01:11:08.240 But he did send a complaint, and I'll give everybody a chance to speak, 01:11:08.240 --> 01:11:11.240 but as far as the factors, when you're looking at the timing, 01:11:11.240 --> 01:11:14.240 I think the timing was definitely before the election. 01:11:14.240 --> 01:11:23.240 As far as the publicity under 3B, the DRC, he posted the DRC article, 01:11:23.240 --> 01:11:29.240 he talked about the complaint being filed, he sent his complaint to the DRC, 01:11:29.240 --> 01:11:34.240 so he appeared to be trying to publicize it. 01:11:34.240 --> 01:11:47.240 As far as 3C and D, I guess go together, I think there's opinion tests there. 01:11:47.240 --> 01:11:53.240 Mr. Campbell did support Hudspeth, I believe he said he didn't donate, 01:11:53.240 --> 01:11:57.240 Melter believes that this was to attack him, 01:11:57.240 --> 01:12:01.240 and I guess that's what we have with that. 01:12:01.240 --> 01:12:09.240 As far as E, any evidence of complaint recently should have known, 01:12:09.240 --> 01:12:13.240 I kind of feel like he has filed complaints before, 01:12:13.240 --> 01:12:20.240 and he should have known it was groundless considering he's filed a complaint against Deb before, 01:12:20.240 --> 01:12:25.240 and is aware of our ordinance, and what's a violation, 01:12:25.240 --> 01:12:28.240 and the fact that he filed it so close to the election, 01:12:28.240 --> 01:12:33.240 and as far as F, his motives, he said it wasn't a motive, 01:12:33.240 --> 01:12:38.240 but it's clear he wanted people to know about this days before the election, 01:12:38.240 --> 01:12:42.240 and I think while he says that's not his motive, 01:12:42.240 --> 01:12:47.240 I kind of feel like the evidence shows that there was motive to do this before the election, 01:12:47.240 --> 01:12:51.240 and he had also done it before with Deb, 01:12:51.240 --> 01:12:56.240 and then the fact that he wanted to withdraw the complaint today once we're looking at it for frivolous, 01:12:56.240 --> 01:12:59.240 also makes me question voters. 01:12:59.240 --> 01:13:03.240 Anything else like to speak on this? 01:13:03.240 --> 01:13:08.240 I'm concerned about the publicity that came out, 01:13:08.240 --> 01:13:11.240 especially that article on the debt and market chronicle, 01:13:11.240 --> 01:13:13.240 because I read the comments from readers, 01:13:13.240 --> 01:13:24.240 and I do think that putting the focus on that notary gate maybe seems to have turned some people, 01:13:24.240 --> 01:13:29.240 and the second thing and the most important thing is the timing of this complaint. 01:13:29.240 --> 01:13:34.240 Coming days before the election, the election was close. 01:13:34.240 --> 01:13:37.240 That's not how the code of ethics should be used. 01:13:37.240 --> 01:13:40.240 If he really thought it was a problem, 01:13:40.240 --> 01:13:44.240 he should have waited until the election was over and then filed, 01:13:44.240 --> 01:13:48.240 but he didn't do that. 01:13:48.240 --> 01:13:53.240 The timing is probably the critical issue for me. 01:13:53.240 --> 01:13:55.240 I guess I would disagree with one thing. 01:13:55.240 --> 01:13:57.240 I don't think he necessarily had to wait until the election's over, 01:13:57.240 --> 01:14:03.240 but I think it's questionable here because he's done it twice against council people, 01:14:03.240 --> 01:14:07.240 and both times have been baseless claims right before an election, 01:14:07.240 --> 01:14:12.240 where it just isn't a violation. 01:14:12.240 --> 01:14:19.240 I think that is my biggest, because we can never know the motivation, 01:14:19.240 --> 01:14:22.240 because we never will know specifically, 01:14:22.240 --> 01:14:30.240 but I think that the evidence shows that his desire was to make it more public than it had been just by the article, 01:14:30.240 --> 01:14:35.240 and that he's definitely weighing in on one side. 01:14:35.240 --> 01:14:44.240 I would agree that the Facebook post speaks to his motivation of why he longed for the complaint. 01:14:44.240 --> 01:14:47.240 I do think it is very concerning. 01:14:47.240 --> 01:14:51.240 Yes, we don't have a way of reacting to this necessarily, 01:14:51.240 --> 01:14:58.240 but I think the frivolity of the claim is a concern to me, 01:14:58.240 --> 01:15:09.240 because then the timing becomes questionable being so close to the election. 01:15:09.240 --> 01:15:18.240 I have a real concern because it's not really actionable, 01:15:18.240 --> 01:15:25.240 but at the same time it's like a key piece of evidence went missing out of a packet that was submitted, 01:15:25.240 --> 01:15:29.240 and then an email that prevented him from providing evidence that was sent out, 01:15:29.240 --> 01:15:34.240 but is not available for him to read to us either, 01:15:34.240 --> 01:15:40.240 so there's a lot of pieces missing that he's weighing very heavily on in his testimony, 01:15:40.240 --> 01:15:48.240 so that's a concern of mine. 01:15:48.240 --> 01:15:50.240 Comments? Deborah? 01:15:50.240 --> 01:15:55.240 You have pretty much stumped up my thoughts on this as well. 01:15:55.240 --> 01:16:03.240 I'm concerned about the time, but even if it was -- if he's gone ahead and submitted it, 01:16:03.240 --> 01:16:12.240 the fact that he publicized it and then denied the Facebook page when first asked about that, 01:16:12.240 --> 01:16:16.240 that also concerns me, 01:16:16.240 --> 01:16:23.240 and I think that we also need to review the ethics code of the morning frivolity. 01:16:23.240 --> 01:16:30.240 Yeah, I think whatever happens today, I think sanctions will be something we discuss at a later meeting, 01:16:30.240 --> 01:16:38.240 and just I think overall frivolous hearings and in hearings do not change things, 01:16:38.240 --> 01:16:43.240 because the hearing portions of the procedure and ordinance are just directed straight at complaints 01:16:43.240 --> 01:16:47.240 and not what we're doing here today, which today is the first frivolous hearing, 01:16:47.240 --> 01:16:51.240 so it's all good to us. 01:16:51.240 --> 01:16:53.240 Any more comments? Sorry, I might have busted it. 01:16:53.240 --> 01:17:01.240 Well, I also have a question about the testimony that there was a patient in the complaint, 01:17:01.240 --> 01:17:07.240 and I think that that needs to either be substantiated or not. 01:17:07.240 --> 01:17:10.240 I don't think it's fair to just kind of leave it hanging out there. 01:17:10.240 --> 01:17:20.240 Was it part of the process, or was it really not there? We don't know. 01:17:20.240 --> 01:17:25.240 Rob, any comments? 01:17:25.240 --> 01:17:30.240 Tiny. This is political. 01:17:30.240 --> 01:17:34.240 I don't know how many flyers you received, but I was thinking of getting a larger mailbox. 01:17:34.240 --> 01:17:40.240 I thought we were through with the scale mail, and I was getting flyers upon flyers upon flyers. 01:17:40.240 --> 01:17:49.240 How any of you could have kept it straight as to which one you got in a time frame, I marvel at you. 01:17:49.240 --> 01:17:52.240 Candles are a member of the public. 01:17:52.240 --> 01:18:00.240 Now, to that extent, this is a wonderful learning curve, I think, for the public, if they would look at this, 01:18:00.240 --> 01:18:05.240 as to what this ethics board and the document is for. 01:18:05.240 --> 01:18:12.240 But I asked myself, as I was listening to them, because Adam, excuse me, said, you know, this has motif. 01:18:12.240 --> 01:18:17.240 And we're not going to talk about that today, but we're going to see if this is frivolous or not. 01:18:17.240 --> 01:18:23.240 So my question would be, what is wrong with encouraging the public to use the ethics board? 01:18:23.240 --> 01:18:29.240 This current process was put in place to decide why we're here today. 01:18:29.240 --> 01:18:36.240 And so the question then is, are we to stifle complaints we view as unacceptable, 01:18:36.240 --> 01:18:39.240 but it is viewed as important to the public. 01:18:39.240 --> 01:18:45.240 I think we need to get, we're in a balance of, we have the frivolous and it's outlined. 01:18:45.240 --> 01:18:49.240 The public needs to understand that, because they may think that's very important, 01:18:49.240 --> 01:18:54.240 whatever Mr. Campbell thought, it was very important, because he went through the whole process. 01:18:54.240 --> 01:18:57.240 It's viewed by many that it was incorrect. 01:18:57.240 --> 01:19:03.240 But I don't think we should stifle the public from submitting this, 01:19:03.240 --> 01:19:11.240 for them to get, in a sense, their own learning curve, by not going, well, I didn't mean to point at you, sir. 01:19:11.240 --> 01:19:18.240 Mr. Campbell put away with rather quickly, maybe I will think twice before I file a complaint. 01:19:18.240 --> 01:19:35.240 But I just want to make sure that we don't stifle that in this thought of whether this was frivolous or not. 01:19:35.240 --> 01:19:41.240 More discussion, more deliberation? 01:19:41.240 --> 01:19:51.240 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, 01:19:51.240 --> 01:19:55.240 you know, while I don't want to stifle complaints in any way, 01:19:55.240 --> 01:20:03.240 I do not want to encourage people to file complaints that are not, are baseless complaints, 01:20:03.240 --> 01:20:11.240 and possibly, obviously baseless complaints, days within an election, to affect elections. 01:20:11.240 --> 01:20:15.240 Is there any comment, or is there any motion? 01:20:15.240 --> 01:20:23.240 I would actually like to make a comment, because I really do not think, I don't think that the influence 01:20:23.240 --> 01:20:31.240 that was potentially put on the election was not, was not effectuated by the actual complaint. 01:20:31.240 --> 01:20:36.240 It was effectuated by the Facebook case post about the complaint. 01:20:36.240 --> 01:20:48.240 And I think that is where, because if we're allowing a complaint, and the process remains confidential, 01:20:48.240 --> 01:20:52.240 there would have been no harm at all, potentially. 01:20:52.240 --> 01:21:05.240 The harm comes in when the ethicode was by the complainant misused, and then, and he made it public through other means. 01:21:05.240 --> 01:21:15.240 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, 01:21:15.240 --> 01:21:24.240 because in reality, the influence was put into the public by the Facebook post. 01:21:24.240 --> 01:21:28.240 Any more questions? 01:21:28.240 --> 01:21:30.240 Can we entertain a motion? 01:21:30.240 --> 01:21:32.240 Yeah, oh yeah, go for it. 01:21:32.240 --> 01:21:35.240 I move that we find this frivolous. 01:21:35.240 --> 01:21:37.240 I second that. 01:21:37.240 --> 01:21:49.240 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? 01:21:49.240 --> 01:22:00.240 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. 01:22:00.240 --> 01:22:08.240 Alright, so the motion that has been made by that and seconded by Andrea is that the motion is frivolous. 01:22:08.240 --> 01:22:10.240 No, not the motion, it's the complaint. 01:22:10.240 --> 01:22:15.240 I'm sorry, the complaint was frivolous. 01:22:15.240 --> 01:22:20.240 Alright, so is there one more call for any further discussion? 01:22:20.240 --> 01:22:29.240 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. 01:22:29.240 --> 01:22:30.240 Deborah? 01:22:30.240 --> 01:22:31.240 Yes. 01:22:31.240 --> 01:22:32.240 Annette? 01:22:32.240 --> 01:22:33.240 Yes. 01:22:33.240 --> 01:22:34.240 And myself? 01:22:34.240 --> 01:22:35.240 Laura? 01:22:35.240 --> 01:22:36.240 Yes. 01:22:36.240 --> 01:22:37.240 Andrea? 01:22:37.240 --> 01:22:38.240 Yes. 01:22:38.240 --> 01:22:39.240 Monroe? 01:22:39.240 --> 01:22:40.240 Yes. 01:22:40.240 --> 01:22:51.240 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? 01:22:51.240 --> 01:22:57.240 Correct, so it would be two-thirds of seven, which would be four point something, but you'd round it up to five. 01:22:57.240 --> 01:23:07.240 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- 01:23:07.240 --> 01:23:36.240 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. 01:23:36.240 --> 01:23:44.240 And I would remind you that your ethics ordinance is an ordinance of the city, so you could be prosecuted in the municipal court. 01:23:44.240 --> 01:23:51.240 But I don't- if the board looks at sanctions, I don't- and it's up to the board if you believe sanctions- 01:23:51.240 --> 01:24:04.240 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). 01:24:04.240 --> 01:24:05.240 Okay. 01:24:05.240 --> 01:24:17.240 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. 01:24:17.240 --> 01:24:26.240 So I don't know. I mean, you can tell me if that's wrong, but I guess that's how I read it. 01:24:26.240 --> 01:24:46.240 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. 01:24:46.240 --> 01:24:50.240 Because it's kind of confusing with these two words, vote and- 01:24:50.240 --> 01:24:53.240 It is. That's a very valid point. 01:24:53.240 --> 01:25:04.240 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. 01:25:04.240 --> 01:25:09.240 Ineligibility is just vendors, so that's not applicable. 01:25:09.240 --> 01:25:26.240 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), 01:25:26.240 --> 01:25:40.240 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. 01:25:40.240 --> 01:25:51.240 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? 01:25:51.240 --> 01:26:01.240 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. 01:26:01.240 --> 01:26:11.240 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. 01:26:11.240 --> 01:26:23.240 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. 01:26:23.240 --> 01:26:33.240 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. 01:26:33.240 --> 01:26:42.240 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. 01:26:42.240 --> 01:26:52.240 But I'll open it up if anybody has comments. 01:26:52.240 --> 01:27:07.240 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. 01:27:07.240 --> 01:27:34.240 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? 01:27:34.240 --> 01:27:42.240 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. 01:27:42.240 --> 01:28:11.240 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 01:28:11.240 --> 01:28:18.240 we're issuing a letter of reprimand under 3A or 3B. 01:28:18.240 --> 01:28:43.240 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. 01:28:43.240 --> 01:28:50.240 Or you could say we're issuing a letter of reprimand because it was serious but may have been unintentional. 01:28:50.240 --> 01:28:51.240 Which is another- 01:28:51.240 --> 01:28:53.240 Whatever you think kind of fits the evidence. 01:28:53.240 --> 01:28:56.240 Right, which is another interesting part of our- 01:28:56.240 --> 01:28:57.240 I don't think either one of those- 01:28:57.240 --> 01:29:08.240 Yeah, another interesting part of our sanctions that- that's kind of two choices that don't cover all situations. 01:29:08.240 --> 01:29:16.240 But I kind of think it might- I kind of think 3A would be the closest thing to fit. 01:29:16.240 --> 01:29:33.240 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. 01:29:33.240 --> 01:29:46.240 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? 01:29:46.240 --> 01:29:47.240 Deborah? 01:29:47.240 --> 01:30:03.240 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. 01:30:03.240 --> 01:30:05.240 Do I have a second? 01:30:05.240 --> 01:30:06.240 A second, ma'am. 01:30:06.240 --> 01:30:26.240 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. 01:30:26.240 --> 01:30:29.240 Is there any more discussion on that or should we vote? 01:30:29.240 --> 01:30:30.240 Yes, Rob? 01:30:30.240 --> 01:30:35.240 So the complainant will receive this letter. 01:30:35.240 --> 01:30:36.240 Yes. 01:30:36.240 --> 01:30:41.240 And a copy goes to the city secretary? 01:30:41.240 --> 01:30:45.240 I- do you know, Madison? 01:30:45.240 --> 01:31:01.240 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. 01:31:01.240 --> 01:31:11.240 So we will be submitting a motion to letter of reprimand A and what is the meat of the matter within the letter? 01:31:11.240 --> 01:31:19.240 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. 01:31:19.240 --> 01:31:34.240 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. 01:31:34.240 --> 01:31:41.240 I think you just make a finding that the board is issuing this letter of reprimand under 3A. 01:31:41.240 --> 01:31:48.240 They're making this finding and then authorize the chairman to sign it and send it to the complainant. 01:31:48.240 --> 01:31:50.240 So just very bare bones? 01:31:50.240 --> 01:31:51.240 Right. 01:31:51.240 --> 01:31:52.240 You know, this was- 01:31:52.240 --> 01:31:53.240 Because you don't have enough. 01:31:53.240 --> 01:31:54.240 Okay. 01:31:54.240 --> 01:32:10.240 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. 01:32:10.240 --> 01:32:16.240 I think that's what we would need to comply. 01:32:16.240 --> 01:32:26.240 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. 01:32:26.240 --> 01:32:28.240 Any other discussion on that? 01:32:28.240 --> 01:32:33.240 I guess I'll call a vote on the motion to send the letter to Mr. Campbell. 01:32:33.240 --> 01:32:36.240 Letter of reprimand under 3A. 01:32:36.240 --> 01:32:37.240 All in favor say aye. 01:32:37.240 --> 01:32:38.240 Aye. 01:32:38.240 --> 01:32:39.240 All opposed. 01:32:39.240 --> 01:32:40.240 Aye. 01:32:40.240 --> 01:32:47.240 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? 01:32:47.240 --> 01:32:48.240 Simple majority. 01:32:48.240 --> 01:32:49.240 Okay. 01:32:49.240 --> 01:32:58.240 All right so then I think Madison and I will get to work on a letter and I think that that would conclude. 01:32:58.240 --> 01:33:00.240 Am I missing anything? 01:33:00.240 --> 01:33:05.240 So I think it does say somewhere that the chairman is authorized to sign that letter. 01:33:05.240 --> 01:33:06.240 Okay. 01:33:06.240 --> 01:33:13.240 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. 01:33:13.240 --> 01:33:23.240 Okay so if I could get a motion to authorize the chair, me and Laura Conlin, to sign the letter of reprimand. 01:33:23.240 --> 01:33:24.240 Cool. 01:33:24.240 --> 01:33:25.240 Cool. 01:33:25.240 --> 01:33:26.240 I'm sorry. 01:33:26.240 --> 01:33:27.240 Yes. 01:33:27.240 --> 01:33:28.240 I'll make that motion. 01:33:28.240 --> 01:33:29.240 I have a question. 01:33:29.240 --> 01:33:30.240 Okay. 01:33:30.240 --> 01:33:31.240 I second that motion. 01:33:31.240 --> 01:33:32.240 Okay. 01:33:32.240 --> 01:33:33.240 Motion is made and seconded. 01:33:33.240 --> 01:33:40.240 So if you'll sign this, does this go to the city council at all for any reason? 01:33:40.240 --> 01:33:42.240 I don't know. 01:33:42.240 --> 01:33:48.240 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. 01:33:48.240 --> 01:33:50.240 I think some things that we. 01:33:50.240 --> 01:33:52.240 It seems like everything we've done. 01:33:52.240 --> 01:33:53.240 Yeah. 01:33:53.240 --> 01:33:55.240 I don't know if that was the case with this or not. 01:33:55.240 --> 01:34:06.240 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. 01:34:06.240 --> 01:34:08.240 But you know how that timeline goes. 01:34:08.240 --> 01:34:09.240 This section here. 01:34:09.240 --> 01:34:11.240 Oh, there we go. 01:34:11.240 --> 01:34:12.240 Thank you Madison. 01:34:12.240 --> 01:34:13.240 It's right in front of our faces. 01:34:13.240 --> 01:34:15.240 I just scrolled down. 01:34:15.240 --> 01:34:16.240 Okay. 01:34:16.240 --> 01:34:17.240 Notice. 01:34:17.240 --> 01:34:18.240 There was a snake on this. 01:34:18.240 --> 01:34:25.240 Notice of all sanction imposed by the Board of Ethics shall be transmitted to the respondent, complainant, city auditor, city attorney, and city council. 01:34:25.240 --> 01:34:29.240 So yes, city council will get a copy of this. 01:34:29.240 --> 01:34:30.240 Okay. 01:34:30.240 --> 01:34:32.240 So any more discussion about me signing it? 01:34:32.240 --> 01:34:34.240 I don't know if that's necessarily a. 01:34:34.240 --> 01:34:35.240 Okay. 01:34:35.240 --> 01:34:36.240 All right. 01:34:36.240 --> 01:34:40.240 To take a vote, all in favor of the chairperson, me, Laura Tomlin. 01:34:40.240 --> 01:34:44.240 Motion for me, Laura Tomlin, the chairperson to sign the letter. 01:34:44.240 --> 01:34:45.240 All in favor say aye. 01:34:45.240 --> 01:34:46.240 Aye. 01:34:46.240 --> 01:34:47.240 All opposed. 01:34:47.240 --> 01:34:49.240 Okay. 01:34:49.240 --> 01:34:50.240 Anything else? 01:34:50.240 --> 01:34:51.240 Okay. 01:34:51.240 --> 01:34:52.240 All right. 01:34:52.240 --> 01:34:58.240 Well, if there's nothing else from the board, I will adjourn this meeting. 01:34:58.240 --> 01:35:01.240 Thank you all for your time and participation. 01:35:01.240 --> 01:35:04.240 I'll see you next time, people.