Alright, ready to start? I'll call the meeting to order and then we'll elect the presiding officer.
Okay.
Alright, welcome to this difficult meeting of the Board of Ethics to conduct a preliminary assessment for our ethics complaint 24002.
It is 5 31 p.m. There are three members for the panel, so we'll begin the meeting.
And the first item is to elect the presiding officer.
Any volunteers?
Another night of discussion, Chair.
I shouldn't say anything.
Seconds for Dustin's nomination?
I'll second.
Do we have to have a vote?
I think so, yes.
Okay, all in favor?
We have one item for consideration tonight, BOE 24-032, ethics complaint number 24-002 filed September 23rd, 2024, concerning alleged violations of ethics ordinance section 2-273.
Do you have anything to put up or should we just talk through this?
The purpose of the preliminary assessment is to determine if the complaint on its face is actionable, baseless, or you can recommend that it be filed first.
I can pull up the ordinance for a process charge.
I think maybe the easiest thing is if we can pull up the exhibit number four, that's the ethics complaint process narrative,
just to make sure we're on the same page of what our job is today.
I believe we're on step number five of that.
So the complaint has already been accepted.
This is the preliminary assessment of the complaint.
We are the free member panel.
So today our goal is to determine if the complaint on its face is actionable, and that basically means if it's true, if what is written in the complaint is true,
what constitutes a violation of the ethics ordinance.
We're limited to the contents of the complaint, which is exhibit two.
Okay. The complaint has already been deemed complete by Madison and I guess someone else, whoever else approves that.
I think that part of it is done. It's just a matter of is this an actionable complaint.
Have you guys had issues reading the complaint?
Andrea, have you read the complaint?
I've had issues opening up.
Can we pull up the complaint?
Here's a printed copy of it.
So as far as the narrative of the complaint against Councilmember Brian Beck, District 2 representative,
the detailed evidentiary facts supporting the allocations,
it's written on 9/17/24, Councilmember Brian Beck possibly violated Section 2-273 of the Denton Ethics Ordinance,
specifically Section E, improper influence, paragraph 2, grant any special consideration,
treatment or advantage to any citizen, individual, business, organization, or group beyond that,
which is normally available to every other citizen, individual, business, organization, or group.
So I think that's directly quoting our ethics ordinance, that paragraph.
The complaint goes on to say Councilmember Brian Beck exercised improper influence
by participating in the deliberations regarding "value of solar study."
He has solar panels on his home and directly benefits from the rate discussion financially per Section 2-272.
And by saying "I am mandated and duty-bound to report this conduct,"
I believe that's referring to another section of the ethics code where if a violation is known and is not reported,
that becomes a violation of the ethics ordinance.
So I think our question is, if this is true and correct as it's written here,
and there are, as far as evidence, there is a statement from Councilmember Beck's campaign finance report
with his mailing address, and then there is a picture that looks like a satellite image of that location,
and I assume this is to show that there are solar panels on the house, but I can't tell from the picture.
So I'll open it up for discussion.
We're only allowed to discuss what's in this complaint,
or are we allowed to discuss prior advisory opinions or anything like that from the Board of Ethics?
My understanding is that you're only allowed to discuss what is in the complaint as part of determining if it's actionable or baseless.
You can consider things outside the complaint if you would like to recommend it for public hearing.
Do you guys have any comments to start?
I have a question, but I don't know if I'm allowed to ask the question.
I would be interested in a timeline of when was the value of solar study done, when did Brian Beck get his solar panels?
The value of solar deliberations occurred on September 17th, as indicated in the complaint.
I do not have information on when Councilmember Beck acquired the solar panels.
Can we discuss the value of solar study and what that is, just to make sure we're on the same page?
Yes.
Okay, so this was a study that I think was commissioned by Council or city staff to look at whether or not -- I don't want to mistake this.
Part of the study included a recommendation for a change in rate for citizens that have solar panels and potentially sell that power back to the --
Okay, so it's a totally different question, yes.
To the municipal electorate.
That's a very small part of what that was, but that's what I gleaned from reviewing the presentation that was given to the Council in that meeting.
So, as far as whether or not this would fall under that section of improper influence and granting any special consideration or treatment
or advantage to any citizen, individual, business, organization, I think that's the main question here. I think that -- David, do you have anything you want to add?
Well, I have several thoughts here, so when you're done, if we can --
Well, let's hear your thoughts before I --
Well, first of all, we have not had any deliberations, the three of us, so I am totally -- I'm by myself here, so we have not discussed this at all.
I have several issues here that involve not only the accuracy of these statements, but the timeline about when it all occurred.
Now, one of the things that we went through, I forget which last advisory, September the 16th, I think, the question was raised about the accuracy of Mayor's request about when that was turned in.
And I'm glad to believe, thinking about this, that possibly this -- the apologies that -- I don't know if any apologies have ever come to this Board or to Madison or anyone
from the statements that were made during that first meeting that this was not an accurate portrayal of Mayor -- of Mayor Husband's feelings at the time.
And so he made an apology during the council meeting about, "Oh, that's really not what I said." So I'm very confused here about the timeline about when this all happened.
So I guess if we can back up a little bit. I don't think we're going through all the details of this, since this is just the three-member preliminary panel.
We're sort of just focused on what's here in the complaint and is this actionable, assuming this is correct.
That's all we can do today. And we're not making a decision whether there was a violation or not. It's a decision on is this an actionable --
and that's the only place I'm heading right now because I spent a lot of time thinking about this and the circumstances as they played out in this room.
So I'm left with several things here, whether or not this initial advisory report was fictitious or not.
And so just -- I believe we owe it to the citizens of this town to, from this point, go straight to an open report by the ethics board on this particular complaint.
There's enough here, enough confusion, and whether or not we're not at a point that deciding whether this is fictitious or not, we're not there.
I understand that completely. So what I'm reading here and what we were told after this last meeting about this not being an accurate advisory opinion request going to the very first,
then I'm going to suggest that this needs to move ahead to a full investigation and open hearing by the board of ethics.
Okay. So I guess just to make sure we're clear, you're talking about an advisory opinion that was already issued, but we're only focused on this particular complaint.
I'm aware of the advisory opinion that went through that. So that, I think, is a separate thing. We just kind of have to make our recommendation based on what's in the complaint.
Well, that's the difference between the law and ethics. I believe that all of this is on the table from my standpoint.
I understand completely what you're saying and where you're going towards. Like, I understand that, and I think that is completely warranted.
I don't know that -- I'm with you. Today we can't do anything about any of that. All we can say is, is this an actionable complaint or not?
And I'll throw in -- I mean, as I read this and assuming this is all correct, this would appear to be an actionable complaint to me,
which doesn't mean it's valid or there was a violation of the ethics ordinance.
It just means that my recommendation today would be that we have this proceed on to a full panel of the board.
I would agree. If the value of solar study is indeed -- if part of that is an increase in the rates and Council Member Beck would benefit from that increase in rates,
since he has solar panels, then I think it is worth having a look at it, yes. So I would agree.
Okay. I think it sounds like we're in agreement that -- Can I just make some comments? Sure.
It's a two-part test, so it has to be valued. That's, to him, not available to every other citizen, individual, business, organization, or group.
Right. So it was, number one, because he had solar panels, it was a value to him, but was the value also to everybody else.
Do you have two things for improper influence? I think -- I struggle with that a little bit, too, because it's not for an individual,
but the deliberation on the discussion, I think, is where the question is.
And to me, that -- I think what is written in our code, which I think we as a board made a very strong attempt to correct some of the issues of the conflict of interest section
by making proposals for revising this, but that was rejected by Council. But what is written in there today is that if you look at item number one under section 2-273,
conflicts of interest, paragraph one, deliberation prohibited. So we tried to remove a large part of this from the ordinance. That was rejected, and so here we are today trying to fit something into this code as it's written today.
So if we look at what's written in our current code, whether or not that is -- whether or not it is a value to one person or another,
it's the deliberation part of it that I think is under question based on what's written in the complaint.
And that's what it states in the complaint, right, participated in the deliberations regarding it.
So if -- I mean, if the question is, should the complaint have also highlighted or specifically stated paragraph one of section A of that, I mean, that's valid, but I think that, I mean, we're -- it calls out the correct section and then adds to that.
I'm not saying that I think any of this was wrong or with ill intent, but based on what our role is today, to me, I still think this is an actionable complaint, and that would be my recommendation to this family.
I think we can vote. Okay. So I move that we -- we conclude that this is an actionable complaint, and that this be reviewed by the entire board.
Second. Member Goldberg seconds that, so we'll have a vote. All in favor? Aye. Okay. So that's a unanimous vote.
The complaint was deemed actionable, and we will follow the procedure in our code, and this will move on to, I guess, that.
I believe the code allows 30 days to schedule, and so I'll be in touch trying to make sure we do that.
Okay. And that's the -- that concludes the only item for consideration. So this meeting is adjourned at 5.48.