WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:12.320 Alright. Okay, ready? It is 5 30 p.m. and on Thursday July 27, 2023 and this is a special call 00:00:12.320 --> 00:00:18.320 meeting of the Board of Ethics for the City of Denton, Texas. We have one item for consideration 00:00:18.320 --> 00:00:29.280 tonight and that is item BOE 23-031. I request for an advisory opinion for 23-003 00:00:30.560 --> 00:00:35.440 from Councilmember Meltzer concerning potential pending matters, conflict of interests, 00:00:35.440 --> 00:00:45.680 or improper use of influence, applicability, and refusal recommendation. So we have a couple 00:00:45.680 --> 00:00:54.160 of questions that I think will help us determine the decision. So the first question would be, 00:00:54.160 --> 00:01:00.640 would a discussion or vote made by the Deep Denton Economic Development Partnership Board 00:01:00.640 --> 00:01:09.120 regarding the board's composition be a pending matter? So I ask the members what you think. 00:01:09.120 --> 00:01:20.880 If I may ask, in our background, the 12 members, their titles listed here, not their names, but 00:01:21.600 --> 00:01:30.160 these would be the titles of the membership that we will be using for this. And Councilman 00:01:30.160 --> 00:01:36.720 Meltzer, I'm assuming, is one of the two Councilmembers? Yes, that's correct. Thank you 00:01:36.720 --> 00:01:43.120 for that clarification. Okay. And if I may ask, who is the second City Councilmember? I couldn't 00:01:43.120 --> 00:01:48.160 look it up. Well, I'm just curious why we're just dealing with one. He requested the advisory 00:01:48.160 --> 00:01:56.960 opinion because he's a member of LULAC. He is concerned that there is no Latino representation 00:01:56.960 --> 00:02:04.320 on this board and the Latino population is now 25% of the city. And I agree with that. I mean, 00:02:04.320 --> 00:02:10.000 I saw that. That was fun. I'm just curious. Right. And then we're not really posted to discuss what 00:02:10.000 --> 00:02:14.560 the composition of the board should be, just if he can recommend to the board being a member of 00:02:14.560 --> 00:02:20.640 LULAC, that LULAC replace the Hispanic Chamber. But that does not release any responsibility 00:02:20.640 --> 00:02:26.080 of the second Councilmember if they feel like there's conflict. I mean, if they had a different 00:02:26.080 --> 00:02:30.160 conflict, they could. I don't know what that would be. That's my question. Right. Thank you. 00:02:30.160 --> 00:02:41.040 Okay. Can I clarify what we're asked to determine, right? First of all, so at the moment, this is not 00:02:41.040 --> 00:02:48.080 before the City Council, correct? Correct. Essentially, we're in the hypothetical situation, 00:02:48.080 --> 00:02:52.400 we're asking if he would be allowed to do this per the rules of the other board. Right. And 00:02:52.400 --> 00:03:00.160 have dual roles, one being a member of LULAC and secondly, being on the Economic Development 00:03:00.160 --> 00:03:07.680 Partnership Board, correct? I think that his concern is, is there an issue with him recommending 00:03:07.680 --> 00:03:13.760 LULAC, an organization he's a member of, replace the Hispanic Chamber on the board 00:03:13.760 --> 00:03:20.000 by having a member? Because he believes the Hispanic Chamber is now a defunct organization. 00:03:20.000 --> 00:03:27.840 So I, then I have, I've got the record facts correct. Okay, that was mine. So do you think, 00:03:27.840 --> 00:03:33.520 do you guys think that is a pending matter? And maybe we need to look at the pending matter 00:03:33.520 --> 00:03:44.560 definition. And while they're doing that, if I could ask, is, is this being, is the Council 00:03:44.560 --> 00:03:50.880 member being, is he asking to, in a sense, fill two spots, one being the City Council member and the 00:03:50.880 --> 00:03:57.840 other one filling the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce? I think he's just asking if, as a member of LULAC, 00:03:57.840 --> 00:04:03.840 it would be a conflict of interest of him to recommend that LULAC be the one to... Right. I 00:04:03.840 --> 00:04:09.840 don't think, my understanding is he's not asking to be both met, both appointed positions. He's just 00:04:09.840 --> 00:04:15.520 saying, instead of the Hispanic Chamber, can I recommend LULAC replace them essentially? Thank you. 00:04:15.520 --> 00:04:23.200 So it's not, that's what I was curious, I appreciate that. So this is the pending matter. 00:04:28.480 --> 00:04:31.920 So you want to read that definition or just something you think? 00:04:31.920 --> 00:04:37.360 To me, the pending matter definition is confusing. 00:04:37.360 --> 00:04:44.960 Right, and I framed it this way because if there's not a pending matter, 00:04:44.960 --> 00:04:47.200 there can't be a conflict of interest for the epics. 00:04:58.080 --> 00:05:06.160 My understanding is that it's something that's about to happen and once, once you get past that 00:05:06.160 --> 00:05:15.200 date, then, and that's the part that has always confused me about the pending matter definition. 00:05:20.160 --> 00:05:27.760 Madam Chair, I think not knowing the full ramification of the Economic Development Partnership Board, 00:05:27.760 --> 00:05:35.040 and looking at some of the explanation given to us, I would think if it does not conflict 00:05:35.040 --> 00:05:39.760 with the portion that says, "arranging with the city for the provision of good services, 00:05:39.760 --> 00:05:48.720 real property, or other things of value in case involving the city," if the operation or the 00:05:48.720 --> 00:05:54.400 guidelines of the Economic Development Partnership Board, if that doesn't cross that threshold, 00:05:54.400 --> 00:05:57.840 I personally do not see a conflict. I would agree. 00:05:57.840 --> 00:06:02.880 But I use that as a caveat. If that, if we find that the board 00:06:02.880 --> 00:06:11.920 is more than we think based on those criteria, then I may have a different vote. 00:06:11.920 --> 00:06:14.000 But as of right now, I do not see a conflict. 00:06:14.960 --> 00:06:18.640 I don't. I can't think. We're looking at pending matter, 00:06:18.640 --> 00:06:24.160 and we're looking at the question number one, is there a pending matter? Now, when you look 00:06:24.160 --> 00:06:31.520 at your definitions and you go back to your guidelines for definitions, it says these boards 00:06:31.520 --> 00:06:37.440 will have these meetings, except where the context clearly indicates a different meeting. 00:06:37.440 --> 00:06:44.560 So he's bringing up that this could be a pending matter. So it's up to the board to determine 00:06:44.560 --> 00:06:47.600 whether that may fall within the context of pending matter. 00:06:47.600 --> 00:06:51.120 I don't hear that there are goods or services or property 00:06:51.120 --> 00:06:56.960 hanging on this. I hear it is more of a representation issue. 00:06:56.960 --> 00:07:03.920 So I'm going to tease it apart this way. It's like, I believe just because it is about to happen, 00:07:03.920 --> 00:07:08.080 in my opinion, it is a pending matter, right? Because his actions will, you know, 00:07:08.080 --> 00:07:15.040 will depend on whether or not, right? So I would say, so therefore we can discuss it. 00:07:15.040 --> 00:07:19.840 But at the same time, I also don't believe that being a member in an organization, 00:07:19.840 --> 00:07:30.960 it's a non-profit organization, and there is no monetary benefit that Council Member Meltzer 00:07:30.960 --> 00:07:35.120 would have from making the recommendation he's about to make. 00:07:35.120 --> 00:07:43.520 So Rob, what do you think? I believe from my past experience 00:07:43.520 --> 00:07:49.920 with Council Member Meltzer that if he sees, while he's on here, something that would be 00:07:49.920 --> 00:07:58.880 considered a conflict, I would think that he would recognize that and then recuse himself. 00:07:58.880 --> 00:08:04.640 And I appreciate this. It's a great exercise for us to see how this whole process works. 00:08:05.760 --> 00:08:12.320 With that in mind, I would move forward with it not being, with the understanding that he knows 00:08:12.320 --> 00:08:16.480 if there is one that does pop up because he's familiar with the pending matter. 00:08:16.480 --> 00:08:21.360 That's a good way to put it, and this is why I don't like this pending matter working in an 00:08:21.360 --> 00:08:26.160 organization. I've said that before. But I think that's a good way to look at it, is that we need 00:08:26.160 --> 00:08:32.400 to rely on his ability to figure if there is something that could benefit him and that I 00:08:33.360 --> 00:08:40.080 would expect that he would recuse himself at that point. Right, I think he's just asking for advice 00:08:40.080 --> 00:08:47.200 on if he should. I would say because of the way we're looking at it, it's not a pending matter. 00:08:47.200 --> 00:08:52.880 But I hear what you're saying. Madam Chair, do we need a vote for each one of these or just a 00:08:52.880 --> 00:08:59.440 conversation? Okay, so would you make a motion? Is that how you would handle that? I would vote 00:08:59.440 --> 00:09:10.160 for each one. Madam Chair, I move that item one of the discussion is I don't think that it is not 00:09:10.160 --> 00:09:21.280 a pending matter concern or a violation of the ethics. Okay. I'll second that. Okay, all in favor 00:09:21.280 --> 00:09:29.120 say aye. Aye. So it is not a pending matter. So question number two, would a discussion or vote 00:09:29.760 --> 00:09:35.920 made by the City Council regarding economic development partnerships composition be a pending 00:09:35.920 --> 00:09:51.840 matter? Discussion? Madam Chair, I would once again revert back to my original statement. 00:09:51.840 --> 00:09:59.200 And everyone on that council is familiar with the pending matter on what we have discussed. So I 00:09:59.440 --> 00:10:05.360 would think that... Same kind of the same logic. I think it would fall in the same safe harbor. 00:10:05.360 --> 00:10:12.160 Yeah. And I would move Madam Chair, and I don't mean to speak to her, I move Madam Chair that 00:10:12.160 --> 00:10:22.000 item two also be considered a non-violation of the Board of Ethics. Okay. So number two, you're just 00:10:22.000 --> 00:10:27.840 considering whether it's a pending matter? For the City Council. For the City Council. That's correct. 00:10:29.520 --> 00:10:34.080 In fact, I don't think it would be as long as they don't fall within those criteria. 00:10:34.080 --> 00:10:38.160 Right. Is it your motion then that it's not a pending matter? That is correct. Yes ma'am. 00:10:38.160 --> 00:10:46.000 Would you be willing to second that? I second that. So all in favor of it not being a pending matter 00:10:46.000 --> 00:10:54.320 for the City Council? Aye. Third, if there is a pending matter, I guess we don't have to answer 00:10:54.320 --> 00:11:03.280 that question because we've decided it's not. Well this may be, would that be the case or is this just 00:11:03.280 --> 00:11:12.400 a standalone pending matter? Well you know this, I think we should vote on this too. So like what you 00:11:12.400 --> 00:11:20.880 said Rob, if there is a pending matter then he would have a conflict of interest regarding his 00:11:20.880 --> 00:11:26.160 membership in the black? I think that would be true. Okay. Could you say this again please? 00:11:26.160 --> 00:11:31.680 If there is a pending matter, does Council Member Meltzer have a conflict of interest 00:11:31.680 --> 00:11:41.280 per the definition of conflict of interest? So I would advise him to be cautious moving forward 00:11:41.280 --> 00:11:48.720 and to refuse himself if he believes there is a pending matter in the future. With the understanding 00:11:48.720 --> 00:11:55.600 of the outline that we have for what a conflict of interest is. Yeah. Which is? So the conflict of 00:11:55.600 --> 00:12:03.760 interest definition is that you're an officer of the non-profit. So he's not. He's not. Okay, good 00:12:03.760 --> 00:12:11.840 point. Well and if anything else of these that might come up, there may be some monetary issues 00:12:11.840 --> 00:12:18.080 of such. And that's why I think it's good that we cover all of those even though they may not be 00:12:18.080 --> 00:12:24.720 germane at this moment. But we don't know what the pending matter could become. I looked at Council 00:12:24.720 --> 00:12:34.400 Members Meltzer's territory, if you will, and it goes from Fulton Street all the way over to I-35. 00:12:34.400 --> 00:12:45.520 There is a large section of less expensive rent apartments that I think are probably, 00:12:47.200 --> 00:12:55.040 I do think there's, I think there's a lot of Latino people in his district and he is 00:12:55.040 --> 00:13:00.160 white. I'm glad that he's in the black and I'm glad that he's representing 00:13:00.160 --> 00:13:08.400 that group because it's important for inclusion. And unless there is a monetary thing, I'm not 00:13:08.400 --> 00:13:14.720 concerned that it is a conflict of interest. I think that would be a whole different matter. 00:13:15.440 --> 00:13:22.720 For him to be a member. Yeah. I mean for one, we've established the fact that he's not a board 00:13:22.720 --> 00:13:30.800 member. Yeah. Therefore, the conflict of interest does not, does not apply. And secondly, he's 00:13:30.800 --> 00:13:36.160 already being very transparent. If we're talking about being, you know, if you scrolled up a little 00:13:36.160 --> 00:13:42.560 bit, you know, he's already making, he's disclosing that he's a member. He's not hiding that fact. So 00:13:43.120 --> 00:13:51.120 I think. Yeah. So I would say it's not. No. Is that a motion? 00:13:51.120 --> 00:13:58.320 Do you want to make a motion, Andrea? I'm going to make the motion and it comes to a discussion 00:13:58.320 --> 00:14:04.240 point number three that council member Meltzer doesn't, does not appear to have a conflict of 00:14:04.240 --> 00:14:13.280 interest as a member of LULAC. I would second that with that term that you put it, does not. 00:14:13.280 --> 00:14:20.880 As not being an officer. Well, could you reread that motion, please? My understanding is 00:14:20.880 --> 00:14:27.120 the motion that council member Meltzer does not have a conflict of interest as a member of LULAC. 00:14:28.480 --> 00:14:35.440 You had added something else though I thought, as we understand, I think you put in. Oh, I did not 00:14:35.440 --> 00:14:39.520 put that in the motion, but that was part of my discussion. Oh, I thought that was part of the 00:14:39.520 --> 00:14:50.000 motion. Yeah. Okay. He's just a member. Simple member, yeah. So, so you seconded. So all in favor. 00:14:54.320 --> 00:15:01.280 And fourth point would council member Meltzer recommending that LULAC chapter, 00:15:01.280 --> 00:15:06.880 chapter replace the Denton Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on the Economic Development Partnership 00:15:06.880 --> 00:15:14.320 Board be considered improper use of influence per the ethics ordinance? Is there improper influence 00:15:14.320 --> 00:15:21.760 in the glossary? No, but this is the section that discusses improper influence, but there's no 00:15:21.760 --> 00:15:33.680 definition of anything. Secure special privileges. Greet any special consideration. 00:15:33.680 --> 00:15:38.880 Assist the 00:15:42.240 --> 00:15:55.520 prestige of the officials or employees in your position in order to advance private 00:15:55.520 --> 00:16:05.120 Madam Chair. Yes. I may ask with the letter of explanation from council member Meltzer, 00:16:07.840 --> 00:16:12.960 stating that the Denton Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, an organization 00:16:12.960 --> 00:16:21.040 that for all intents and purposes no longer exists. So my question is, 00:16:21.040 --> 00:16:26.320 is it our opinion that 00:16:26.320 --> 00:16:36.800 we have the authority to have that taken off as a title and be replaced from LULAC? I'm wondering 00:16:36.800 --> 00:16:43.600 if that should be done, let's say from council level, because if it is for all practical purposes. 00:16:43.600 --> 00:16:51.840 That's, that makes, that's a good point. I mean, whether, whatever we think, I believe it's a 00:16:51.840 --> 00:16:57.360 council, it's the city council's position or should be their position to make that change, 00:16:57.360 --> 00:17:02.480 because we don't have the authority to move names back and forth and such. But we, that's not on the 00:17:02.480 --> 00:17:08.960 agenda. You're not posted to discuss the composition of the EDPP, only if council member Meltzer can't 00:17:08.960 --> 00:17:14.400 suggest that the composition be changed. But I can address it from the letter that he gave us, 00:17:14.400 --> 00:17:20.960 can I not? No, you can't make like a recommendation. No, no, no, I'm not making a recommendation. I 00:17:20.960 --> 00:17:31.280 apologize if that was the inference. Speaking just as an open mic situation, I would 00:17:32.960 --> 00:17:37.920 I would be, I would not be in favor of passing that on. 00:17:37.920 --> 00:17:44.160 I'm looking at the improper influence and if you look down to number five, 00:17:44.160 --> 00:17:53.120 stating or implying to state that the city official is a representative of the city 00:17:54.240 --> 00:18:05.760 in an organization or to recommend to the city council without having those, having been submitted 00:18:05.760 --> 00:18:14.800 to the city council. That's the area I think we need to look at. So are you asking, like, is this 00:18:14.800 --> 00:18:19.760 a process issue? Like, could the EDPP do this without going to council? Is that your question? 00:18:20.960 --> 00:18:26.480 I don't think number five applies. Yeah. Because that is stated or applied to state or local 00:18:26.480 --> 00:18:32.400 government agencies. That's not what he's, that would, this in making a recommendation kind of 00:18:32.400 --> 00:18:39.040 in front of the city council would not, number five would not apply in my opinion. The other part that 00:18:39.040 --> 00:18:48.160 I, I think that if you were elected to an office like, like city council, your job is to influence 00:18:48.160 --> 00:18:54.320 the other members with your opinion because you're representing your constituents and I don't think 00:18:54.320 --> 00:19:02.160 that's improper influence. So. I would agree with that. Yeah. In my opinion, the influence that he's 00:19:02.160 --> 00:19:10.000 exerting as a representative of Hispanics is part of what he's, what his role is as a city council 00:19:10.000 --> 00:19:17.040 member. Because this is sadly a marginalized group and they need all the, in my opinion, they need 00:19:17.040 --> 00:19:23.440 all the representation they can get. Our fair representation would be better, you know. I have no, 00:19:23.440 --> 00:19:31.120 I have no conflict with that. I just, the way this is worded, recommending LULAC to be, 00:19:31.120 --> 00:19:35.040 to replace Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, I don't even think that that would be 00:19:35.040 --> 00:19:42.000 that procedure, that mechanism. I'm not sure that's even in the Board of Ethics 00:19:42.960 --> 00:19:49.920 anyway. That's why I bring that up that way. Now is that a proper process or thinking? 00:19:49.920 --> 00:19:56.560 It's kind of like legislation. There's a mental health law that was on the books 00:19:56.560 --> 00:20:04.400 since 1983 that didn't include my license and therefore I could not get reimbursed for Medicare 00:20:04.400 --> 00:20:11.040 or Medicaid because only psychologists existed when the law was written. We finally got that 00:20:11.040 --> 00:20:19.120 changed this year. So sometimes what's written in documents becomes outdated and then it becomes 00:20:19.120 --> 00:20:25.280 problematic. I think that's something that we might want to encourage city council to fix, 00:20:25.280 --> 00:20:30.880 but it's not our, and maybe that's a whole different matter. The composition of the EDP? 00:20:30.880 --> 00:20:36.800 Yes, we are not discussing whether or not they should change it. You don't have any authority to 00:20:36.800 --> 00:20:45.360 do that. I wanted to bring up a point. When they talk about city official and whether they have 00:20:45.360 --> 00:20:51.600 conflicts, they talk about council members, department heads, member of the Board of Ethics, 00:20:51.600 --> 00:20:57.440 Planning and Zoning Commission, Board of Adjustment, Landmark, or Public Utilities. It doesn't list 00:20:57.440 --> 00:21:09.120 the Economic Development Board. That's a really good point. That's a hyper-technical point. 00:21:09.120 --> 00:21:14.720 The ordinance needs to be amended. That's my point, and if we can't make that suggestion to 00:21:14.720 --> 00:21:22.000 the council, to me that handcuffs us. In your motion you could say because the Economic Development 00:21:22.000 --> 00:21:31.280 Board is not listed. Yes. It's not an improper influence. You can't be subject to the ordinance 00:21:31.280 --> 00:21:37.200 as improper influence on number four. Because it doesn't exist. Because it doesn't follow the 00:21:37.200 --> 00:21:42.960 ordinance, but you can go on to say a recommendation that you consider. 00:21:42.960 --> 00:21:48.080 Well, I don't think we have that privilege, do we? 00:21:48.800 --> 00:21:53.760 Well, I mean, I don't know, as only three members of the board, I don't think you could make, 00:21:53.760 --> 00:21:57.920 give direction to tell council something, but you could bring it up at the next board meeting for 00:21:57.920 --> 00:22:02.800 discussion by the whole board, essentially, if that makes sense, to make that recommendation. 00:22:02.800 --> 00:22:08.320 I think it's better to just stick with that's not mentioned and it's not our thing. 00:22:08.320 --> 00:22:15.600 I think it's proven that we phrase it that way and in our own backdoor way, 00:22:15.600 --> 00:22:19.520 tell them they need to update. Do I hear a motion here? 00:22:19.520 --> 00:22:22.960 I'm trying, but I just love the way she phrased it and I can't quite. 00:22:22.960 --> 00:22:34.320 I would just say that the question is, because the Economic Development Board 00:22:34.320 --> 00:22:39.840 is not listed. A city official on the Economic Development Board is not covered by the ethics 00:22:39.840 --> 00:22:45.760 ordinance that number four, there's no improper influence. I move for that, please. 00:22:45.760 --> 00:22:59.600 And that's a way of telling the council. I think without having to 00:22:59.600 --> 00:23:08.160 even get the board, get the rest of the board involved, although I think it'll be prudent. 00:23:09.120 --> 00:23:12.480 Well, I'll wait for the vote. If you looked at it the way, 00:23:12.480 --> 00:23:17.840 I think the board was supposed to work. The board is part of the ethics ordinance. 00:23:17.840 --> 00:23:23.360 He's on the board. He's a member of LULAC. Had he been a board member of LULAC, yes, 00:23:23.360 --> 00:23:29.760 he should disclose and then not. None of those taxes. 00:23:29.760 --> 00:23:33.360 So we have a motion. I will second that. 00:23:33.360 --> 00:23:39.040 Oh wait, I believe the motion is that this would not be improper influence because 00:23:39.040 --> 00:23:44.160 the Economic Development Board, the Economic Development Partnership Board 00:23:44.160 --> 00:23:48.080 is not listed by the ethics ordinance. Yes. 00:23:48.080 --> 00:23:51.760 Or a city official acting on the Economic Development Partnership Board 00:23:51.760 --> 00:23:57.440 is not covered on the ethics ordinance. Yeah. Yes. And we have a second to that. 00:23:58.160 --> 00:24:03.760 All in favor? Aye. All right. Madam Chair, if I may ask, 00:24:03.760 --> 00:24:15.040 these findings from this special call to advisory panel, this will be brought before the ethics board? 00:24:15.040 --> 00:24:22.400 If we choose to bring it up. I'm going to, on the agenda, have basically a report that just says these 00:24:22.400 --> 00:24:27.920 advisory opinions were issued. So there'll be an item on the agenda during which you can discuss it. 00:24:27.920 --> 00:24:30.800 Then we could bring it up if we want to. If we want to, right. 00:24:30.800 --> 00:24:38.080 Because I'm wondering with number four, as it's now spelled out, we find the other three 00:24:38.080 --> 00:24:46.720 without any conflict because this whole matter is about an item that we don't have 00:24:46.720 --> 00:24:55.680 any, it's not at our ethics board. Is that correct? Well you found that it wasn't a pending matter. 00:24:55.680 --> 00:25:04.640 Correct. Either the council or the ethics board. And then you found that if the way three is boarded, 00:25:04.640 --> 00:25:10.080 you could have considered if it was a pending matter, we have a conflict interest. But you found 00:25:10.080 --> 00:25:15.600 against it interpreted that way. I just thought maybe four could have taken the thought for how 00:25:15.600 --> 00:25:20.160 we moved with four might have been able to take care of the other three. But it's fine. It's what we, 00:25:20.160 --> 00:25:25.280 it's the proper way. And I think for a question too, that was regards to the city council, which 00:25:25.280 --> 00:25:30.800 is covered by the order. Okay, thank you. So are there any more motions or points for discussion? 00:25:30.800 --> 00:25:37.120 It is 5.55 p.m. and this meeting is adjourned.