WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.800 >> Yes. 00:00:02.800 --> 00:00:07.600 >> Hello, welcome to this meeting of the City of Denton's Board of Ethics. 00:00:07.600 --> 00:00:14.260 It is 5.30 p.m. This is a special call meeting, so we have all three panel members that we meet. 00:00:14.260 --> 00:00:21.860 The first item on the agenda today is to select a presiding officer in this panel, so I'll hand it over to you all. 00:00:21.860 --> 00:00:26.600 >> I would like to nominate Dustin, the presiding officer. 00:00:26.600 --> 00:00:29.000 >> I'll second that. 00:00:29.000 --> 00:00:32.640 >> Motion and a second for presiding officer. 00:00:32.640 --> 00:00:36.200 >> I'm going to vote. 00:00:36.200 --> 00:00:37.500 >> Do we need a vote for that? 00:00:37.500 --> 00:00:38.740 >> Yeah, it's a motion. 00:00:38.740 --> 00:00:40.340 >> Okay. 00:00:40.340 --> 00:00:41.100 All in favor? 00:00:41.100 --> 00:00:41.500 >> All in favor. 00:00:41.500 --> 00:00:41.840 >> Aye. 00:00:41.840 --> 00:00:43.240 >> Aye. 00:00:43.240 --> 00:00:44.600 >> I can second the vote. 00:00:44.600 --> 00:00:46.240 >> All right, I'll hand it over to you. 00:00:46.240 --> 00:00:54.200 >> Okay, so we have one item for consideration today, BOE 25-024, 00:00:54.200 --> 00:01:00.600 request for advisory opinion number 25-001, received May 20th, 2025, 00:01:00.600 --> 00:01:09.840 from Commissioner Sherry McDade concerning potential conflicts of interest and refusal recommendations. 00:01:09.840 --> 00:01:21.700 So there was a letter provided to Madison's office that summarized on the agenda information sheet that I think is all public. 00:01:21.700 --> 00:01:27.400 And maybe before we start, there are -- in the discussion of that letter, 00:01:27.400 --> 00:01:37.000 there are six numbered items under discussion that are kind of broken out in pairs. 00:01:37.000 --> 00:01:45.600 And unless I'm mistaken, the way this is worded, number one and two are worded the same way, 00:01:45.600 --> 00:01:55.700 but the beginning of the sentence is any deliberation or vote, and number one, any discussion with city and staff or other city officials, 00:01:55.700 --> 00:01:58.900 and number two, and then the rest of that is the same. 00:01:58.900 --> 00:02:12.300 Under our ethics code, under definitions, whether it is -- it's written down as deliberation or vote and discussion with city officials and staff, 00:02:12.300 --> 00:02:16.600 that all falls under deliberations under our definition. 00:02:16.600 --> 00:02:23.300 So maybe if we can kind of simplify this and say items one and two in the request are the same, 00:02:23.300 --> 00:02:30.100 items three and four are the same, and items five and six are the same question. 00:02:30.100 --> 00:02:38.600 So it's -- maybe we can simplify the discussion a little bit that way. 00:02:38.600 --> 00:02:46.600 And I don't know where we want to start. Do we need to read any of this, or since it's posted, we don't have to read? 00:02:46.600 --> 00:02:50.200 >> It's all public, so I don't think we need to read the letter. 00:02:50.200 --> 00:02:57.100 I think that we want to -- we also have our special counsel here to help walk you through it, too, as well. 00:02:57.100 --> 00:02:57.600 >> Okay. 00:02:57.600 --> 00:03:04.700 >> And these do seem -- I'll just point out, I think one and two seem a little bit different, but I might be reading that wrong. 00:03:04.700 --> 00:03:08.700 >> Oh, no, you're right. You're right. You're right. It's all right. 00:03:08.700 --> 00:03:09.700 >> Yeah, so I think -- 00:03:09.700 --> 00:03:13.700 >> No, I felt the same. I mean, I'm reading you, and I thought the same thing. 00:03:13.700 --> 00:03:18.700 >> Yeah, I was just trying to find out if there's something in our code that made those -- 00:03:18.700 --> 00:03:24.400 >> I don't think -- I agree with you that deliberation seems to influence all of this. 00:03:24.400 --> 00:03:30.800 >> We can -- just to simplify this, we can just say deliberation, and that covers -- based on our code, 00:03:30.800 --> 00:03:36.300 that covers what she's referring to as deliberation or vote and discussion. 00:03:36.300 --> 00:03:41.900 Those are all under the deliberations definition in our code. 00:03:41.900 --> 00:03:53.000 So maybe the best way to do this is to take the first two items and discuss those, 00:03:53.000 --> 00:04:03.000 unless you guys want to have some general discussion first before we do that. 00:04:03.000 --> 00:04:03.500 Okay. 00:04:03.500 --> 00:04:14.300 >> One of the legal issues I wanted to point out before you start your discussion is under Section 270 of your ethics ordinance. 00:04:14.300 --> 00:04:21.300 So even though it's not in the ethics ordinance, it's cumulative of any obligation under any other rules, 00:04:21.300 --> 00:04:23.400 state or federal law or anything like that. 00:04:23.400 --> 00:04:32.900 So your code is a little bit broader on people's conduct than just the numerator prohibitions. 00:04:32.900 --> 00:04:42.600 And then also, in making an advisory opinion, the request fairly and accurately disclosed the relevant facts. 00:04:42.600 --> 00:04:55.200 So the items, when you look at them, you can treat them as being very broad and not that specific. 00:04:55.200 --> 00:05:07.900 So that could -- you could take that under consideration as to whether or not you adequately stated facts necessary for you to render your advisory opinion. 00:05:07.900 --> 00:05:09.400 >> That is a very good point. 00:05:09.400 --> 00:05:20.600 That was -- so under Section 2-278 of our code, advisory opinions, paragraph C is reliance. 00:05:20.600 --> 00:05:23.000 And I'll just read this first part of this. 00:05:23.000 --> 00:05:30.700 It shall be an affirmative defense to a complaint that the respondent relied upon an advisory opinion. 00:05:30.700 --> 00:05:37.700 In making a determination on the proper disposition of a complaint, the Board of Ethics may dismiss the complaint 00:05:37.700 --> 00:05:43.200 if the Board finds that the respondent reasonably relied in good faith upon an advisory opinion. 00:05:43.200 --> 00:05:48.500 The request for advisory opinion fairly and accurately disclosed the relevant facts. 00:05:48.500 --> 00:05:58.400 And then three, less than five years of the last, between the date the advisory opinion was issued and the date the conduct was in question. 00:05:58.400 --> 00:06:08.600 So I've looked at this pretty carefully because what was given to us in the request is I thought it was very broad 00:06:08.600 --> 00:06:19.300 and it asks for an opinion on a lot of things that there weren't a whole lot of details on. 00:06:19.300 --> 00:06:33.000 So whatever opinion we issue would be -- if there is a subsequent complaint, 00:06:33.000 --> 00:06:42.700 the Commissioner McDade would be able to rely upon this advisory opinion as an affirmative defense to the complaint. 00:06:42.700 --> 00:06:53.200 So I think we need to be thoughtful about what is included in the advisory opinion 00:06:53.200 --> 00:07:00.800 because the wording of the request letter is very broad. 00:07:00.800 --> 00:07:11.100 And I think it is probably not in anyone's best interest if we just say none of these are conflicts of interest, 00:07:11.100 --> 00:07:16.000 no recusal or disclosure is required. 00:07:16.000 --> 00:07:18.800 I don't think that would be the outcome of this discussion, 00:07:18.800 --> 00:07:29.300 but I just want to make sure that we all are aware that our opinion in this would be an affirmative defense for any complaint. 00:07:29.300 --> 00:07:39.000 That's exactly the section that I was looking at as well, is that the concern about the reliance as a defense. 00:07:39.000 --> 00:07:51.000 So the second paragraph of the letter to Madison's office states very clearly, 00:07:51.000 --> 00:08:00.000 Commissioner McDade's understanding of the obligation that in the event that any issue before the Planning and Zoning Board arises 00:08:00.000 --> 00:08:11.300 in connection with a property in which DHA or its affiliates have ownership interest or a prospective ownership interest, 00:08:11.300 --> 00:08:16.000 I will disclose the conflict and recuse myself for consideration. 00:08:16.000 --> 00:08:26.600 And then it goes on to expand that for the first pair of requests here. 00:08:26.600 --> 00:08:33.800 Is to any item, project, proposed development project, potential development project, 00:08:33.800 --> 00:08:42.500 which involves the authority in any way, no matter how remote, or which purports to be affordable housing. 00:08:42.500 --> 00:08:50.800 So that is a extremely large, blanket statement. 00:08:50.800 --> 00:08:55.200 You could characterize it, it's not that specific enough. 00:08:55.200 --> 00:09:03.900 That's what I thought and I'm not sure how we can respond to that. 00:09:03.900 --> 00:09:14.500 So this basically says, I think the request is, 00:09:14.500 --> 00:09:31.900 would Commissioner McDade have to disclose a conflict of interest and recuse themselves from anything before the Planning and Zoning Commission, 00:09:31.900 --> 00:09:35.800 which purports to be affordable housing. 00:09:35.800 --> 00:09:53.000 So I'm not sure how to answer that because I spent some time trying to understand the role of the Denton Housing Authority 00:09:53.000 --> 00:09:59.600 and my understanding is they are not a city group, right. 00:09:59.600 --> 00:10:08.500 It is a company that resides in, it's a public corporation under Chapter 392 of the Texas Local Government Code. 00:10:08.500 --> 00:10:12.800 So it's considered to be a unit of government, it's not a business entity. 00:10:12.800 --> 00:10:18.200 And that is what I was looking at is, it is considered a public position. 00:10:18.200 --> 00:10:25.800 Her position as a CEO of the Denton Housing Authority is considered a public position. 00:10:25.800 --> 00:10:29.800 Although it is not a voted position, it is an appointed position. 00:10:29.800 --> 00:10:42.000 And that was one of the things I wanted to double check with you, is I, in my research found that that position is appointed by the Mayor. 00:10:42.000 --> 00:10:44.700 Not her position, the Board. 00:10:44.700 --> 00:10:45.600 The Board. 00:10:45.600 --> 00:10:48.100 And then the Board appoints her. 00:10:48.100 --> 00:10:56.000 But she's considered to hold under the Texas Constitution an office of emolument because she's a public officer and she receives compensation. 00:10:56.000 --> 00:10:56.800 Okay. 00:10:56.800 --> 00:11:03.800 Whereas a Planning and Zoning Commissioner is public official, but their office is not an office of emolument. 00:11:03.800 --> 00:11:16.800 So she could hold the office of the Planning and Zoning Commission member and the Denton Housing Authority Executive Director at the same time. 00:11:16.800 --> 00:11:21.300 There's no prohibition, no Attorney General decisions on that. 00:11:21.300 --> 00:11:31.200 The actual question is, is what can she do when a matter comes up that involves the Denton Housing Authority? 00:11:31.200 --> 00:11:36.600 So, I tried to look at the two perspectives, right? 00:11:36.600 --> 00:11:57.300 I was, like, in my opinion, is a reflective and ethical person that has insight through her position as the CEO of the Denton Housing Authority. 00:11:57.300 --> 00:12:06.000 She has information, I think, that could be very valuable in a discussion and conversation about affordable housing. 00:12:06.000 --> 00:12:21.800 However, when you're looking at the code, in terms of the, like, when you're looking at the prohibition under Section 2-273, 00:12:21.800 --> 00:12:27.400 the question is, under Point E, is it a business entity? 00:12:27.400 --> 00:12:33.300 It's not a business entity, so that section would not apply to her. 00:12:33.300 --> 00:12:35.500 Or is that? 00:12:35.500 --> 00:12:39.000 The Denton Housing Authority is not considered a business entity? 00:12:39.000 --> 00:12:41.700 No, it's considered a unit of local government. 00:12:41.700 --> 00:12:42.400 Okay. 00:12:42.400 --> 00:12:56.400 Under Chapter 392 of the Texas Local Government Code, it's a public corporation. 00:12:56.400 --> 00:12:59.300 Okay. 00:12:59.300 --> 00:13:05.800 Our definition of business entity is different from what you're describing, though. 00:13:05.800 --> 00:13:11.900 It's the same as a province, it's just not the same as the state code. 00:13:11.900 --> 00:13:12.500 Okay. 00:13:12.500 --> 00:13:24.800 So it includes government agencies and any other entity recognized by law. 00:13:24.800 --> 00:13:26.200 Could you repeat that, please? 00:13:26.200 --> 00:13:33.800 I have it on my screen here, too, but a business entity per our ethics ordinance is defined as a sole proprietorship, partnership, 00:13:33.800 --> 00:13:40.600 firm, corporation, holding company, joint stock company, receivership, trust, political subdivision, 00:13:40.600 --> 00:13:45.400 government agency, university, or any other entity recognized by law. 00:13:45.400 --> 00:13:48.200 So it is a government agency, right? 00:13:48.200 --> 00:13:56.900 You would say it's a, being a public corporation, it probably would fall under corporation, 00:13:56.900 --> 00:13:59.200 under business entity in your ethics ordinance. 00:13:59.200 --> 00:14:00.000 Okay. 00:14:00.000 --> 00:14:01.100 Okay. 00:14:01.100 --> 00:14:06.600 So we're saying DHA is considered a business entity by our definition? 00:14:06.600 --> 00:14:08.200 By our definition, okay. 00:14:08.200 --> 00:14:09.600 All right. 00:14:09.600 --> 00:14:20.600 In which case, she's not appointed by the city council, therefore, she has conflict of interest. 00:14:20.600 --> 00:14:22.500 Isn't that the logic of competing with that? 00:14:22.500 --> 00:14:31.900 So for anything that comes before the planning and zoning commission, 00:14:31.900 --> 00:14:40.800 that involves DIN housing authority, then she is, I would say, 00:14:40.800 --> 00:14:56.600 there is a conflict for under paragraph B, as long as her salary is more than $600 per year. 00:14:56.600 --> 00:15:07.700 And paragraph B, because she is the chief executive officer of that business entity. 00:15:07.700 --> 00:15:14.000 So part of the question, I think, is, and I think she has acknowledged that 00:15:14.000 --> 00:15:21.700 in her request for the advisory opinion. 00:15:21.700 --> 00:15:35.900 The question is, the wording of the request is very broad and it's aimed at any proposed project, 00:15:35.900 --> 00:15:40.300 potential development project, which involves the housing authority in any way. 00:15:40.300 --> 00:15:43.100 And then it says no matter how remote. 00:15:43.100 --> 00:15:53.700 So I don't understand what that would mean involving the DIN housing authority in any way. 00:15:53.700 --> 00:15:58.900 If she is the CEO of the DIN housing authority and they are involved in the project, 00:15:58.900 --> 00:16:09.700 then I can't imagine how she would not be conflicted based on our code. 00:16:09.700 --> 00:16:14.100 I would agree with you. 00:16:14.100 --> 00:16:20.100 Like looking at these details, I feel that she kind of answered her own question in that first paragraph. 00:16:20.100 --> 00:16:27.700 And I think that just based on what you said that it's not fact-specific enough, 00:16:27.700 --> 00:16:38.400 I figure that if there is a specific consideration coming in front of the zoning board, 00:16:38.400 --> 00:16:43.900 that she should just then seek an advisory opinion for that specific case 00:16:43.900 --> 00:16:54.500 if she feels that it may not be covered by that conflict of interest that we are pointing out. 00:16:54.500 --> 00:16:57.700 That would be my course of action. 00:16:57.700 --> 00:17:09.500 She should know as the executive director if the housing authority has voted on a project to file an application for the city. 00:17:09.500 --> 00:17:14.100 So she would know, it's not like the posted agenda, all of a sudden she's just like, 00:17:14.100 --> 00:17:16.500 "Oh, I don't know if I'm conflicted or not." 00:17:16.500 --> 00:17:22.700 She should know as the executive director what projects are coming up 00:17:22.700 --> 00:17:28.200 that would require the planning and zoning to consider it on their agenda. 00:17:28.200 --> 00:17:30.700 That's very true. 00:17:30.700 --> 00:17:47.100 So I feel like we can almost narrow this down to where we answer the least stringent problem presented. 00:17:53.100 --> 00:18:01.100 Which I think is five and it's parallel to six there. 00:18:01.100 --> 00:18:06.900 Any deliberation or vote of the planning and zoning commission on any item, project, 00:18:06.900 --> 00:18:14.100 proposed development project or potential development project which involves multifamily or affordable housing. 00:18:14.100 --> 00:18:35.100 So under five and six, the question is, is there a conflict when affordable housing or multifamily housing is a pending issue? 00:18:35.100 --> 00:18:41.900 And so it has nothing to do with DHA which removes our question of the business entity. 00:18:41.900 --> 00:18:52.900 So if we answer this question as that would be a conflict, then of course if it involves DHA it's conflict. 00:18:52.900 --> 00:19:01.900 So I think answering this question will answer everything that involves DHA. 00:19:01.900 --> 00:19:17.900 So you're saying because of her role in DHA does that require her to recuse herself from everything that is multifamily or affordable housing? 00:19:17.900 --> 00:19:22.900 So now if we go back to our definitions of conflict of interest. 00:19:22.900 --> 00:19:31.900 A conflict of interest is a situation in which personal considerations and I'm skipping to the relevant wording here. 00:19:31.900 --> 00:19:39.900 Personal considerations influence the judgment of a city official. 00:19:39.900 --> 00:20:03.900 And so when we take in the amounts of work and we look at her role and almost her moral compass of providing affordable housing, 00:20:03.900 --> 00:20:17.900 it seems like that is the personal interest is to make sure that affordable housing has been or is being provided. 00:20:17.900 --> 00:20:36.900 And so that personal interest of multifamily or affordable housing would seem to conflict her out of any deliberations regarding multifamily or affordable housing. 00:20:36.900 --> 00:20:44.900 And her role regardless of her, of the particular project that's being discussed? 00:20:44.900 --> 00:20:52.900 I would think so. I would think regardless of if DHA is involved or not. 00:20:52.900 --> 00:21:12.900 And it could be on the side of we want to benefit multifamily housing so we're going to have a detriment to regular residential housing, right? 00:21:12.900 --> 00:21:18.900 We will deny their permits but approve these permits, whatever it is. There can be the bias there. 00:21:18.900 --> 00:21:36.900 There could be the bias in let's deny this affordable housing program so that DHA would then have the leg up, the better market share. 00:21:36.900 --> 00:21:53.900 So the same thing would apply to a real estate agent who does single family housing or a home builder that does single family housing only if they had a representative on the planning and zoning committee? 00:21:53.900 --> 00:22:03.900 I think it would. I think you really run into a conflict whenever you have that personal interest, that personal bias. 00:22:03.900 --> 00:22:26.900 So I guess the challenge we may have is that if we just blanket say because you were involved in this industry, tangentially to this project that is not at all related to whatever it is you're doing, 00:22:26.900 --> 00:22:41.900 you cannot really serve effectively on the planning and zoning board. There's a provision in our code under paragraph two of conflicts of interest where it talks about deliberation prohibited 00:22:41.900 --> 00:23:06.900 and it specifically excludes this requirement for recusal if a city official serves on council or one of these boards where a majority of the members of that body composed of persons who are likewise required to file and who do file disclosures for the same conflict of interest. 00:23:06.900 --> 00:23:30.900 So what I think that means is that if the entire planning and zoning commission is made up of people who have some conflict of interest, which if we say that anyone who is in real estate 00:23:30.900 --> 00:23:51.900 is potentially conflicted from any deliberation on anything before planning and zoning, everyone is going to have to file a disclosure and then no one would have to recuse themselves. 00:23:51.900 --> 00:24:07.900 I think you're correct. I agree with that analysis, but I also have to say that the number of people that have to recuse themselves is not our problem. 00:24:07.900 --> 00:24:22.900 We are here to say maybe the city council should exercise caution in who they appoint to boards because they could conflict the entire board out. 00:24:22.900 --> 00:24:30.900 Unless the entire planning and zoning commission has a similar conflict of interest, then she would recuse herself. 00:24:30.900 --> 00:24:43.900 Okay. I guess that maybe what I was trying to get to is what is written in the letter specifically refers to multi-family or affordable housing. 00:24:43.900 --> 00:25:05.900 So we would be differentiating between the types of projects or any matters or whatever is coming before the planning and zoning commission. 00:25:05.900 --> 00:25:20.900 I don't know the professions of the members of the planning and zoning commission, but I would guess that the majority of them are involved in development or real estate in some way. 00:25:20.900 --> 00:25:46.900 And there may be some that are just residents of the community, and I don't know if it's our role here to say, I guess what she's asked us to do is try and draw a line in the types of projects that she, you know, 00:25:46.900 --> 00:26:07.900 what would be crossing the line for a conflict of interest is because of her role in Dinn Housing Authority and the scope of projects they're involved with if they are all multi-family or affordable, 00:26:07.900 --> 00:26:18.900 then she would only be able to participate in deliberations for things that are not multi-family or affordable housing to those last two questions. 00:26:18.900 --> 00:26:41.900 I think that's, again, that's how I read it is any time a personal or financial, right, but personal consideration has an influence or could have an influence or reasonably likely to have an influence on the judgment. 00:26:41.900 --> 00:26:59.900 And if my lifelong goal is to provide affordable housing, you better believe that that goal, that personal interest is going to have an influence on my decision when it comes to affordable housing. 00:26:59.900 --> 00:27:11.900 Am I going to give the permit to the affordable housing people or am I going to give it to the multi-million, multi-billion dollar commercial construction person? 00:27:11.900 --> 00:27:29.900 Yeah, I guess, I mean, I understand what you're saying. I think the lifelong mission type thing is maybe separate from the conflict of interest the way it's written in our code. 00:27:29.900 --> 00:27:41.900 So there are, we have some pretty specific definitions of what that is. So it only has to do with her employer, right? 00:27:41.900 --> 00:27:54.900 So someone that is on the Planning and Zoning Commission, that may be their lifelong mission that there is only single-family housing in Dinn or only affordable housing in Dinn and we don't need to build more single-family housing. 00:27:54.900 --> 00:28:03.900 So that might be a personal goal or a mission and why they applied to be on the Planning and Zoning Committee so that they can try and influence that in some way. 00:28:03.900 --> 00:28:12.900 And a council member said this is a great perspective to have on the Planning and Zoning Commission. 00:28:12.900 --> 00:28:26.900 That would not necessarily be a conflict of interest based on how our code is written. Working for Dinn Housing Authority does preclude her from deliberation. 00:28:26.900 --> 00:28:55.900 Because she has a written, there is a conflict of interest here written on paragraph B, paragraph E. Like that's not a question to me. If there is, if the decision made or the deliberation, the discussion with city officials, the voting, any of that has any ability to impact the Dinn Housing Authority for their financial benefit. 00:28:55.900 --> 00:29:11.900 Because she is an employee of the Dinn Housing Authority and that is a business entity that she gets more than $600 a year from in salary, there is a clear written conflict of interest here. 00:29:11.900 --> 00:29:32.900 So I guess maybe where I'm struggling a little bit is if there is some project that, and I don't know exactly what the Dinn Housing Authority is doing for every project, if they are somehow involved in every one of these decisions for who gets to build what. 00:29:32.900 --> 00:29:55.900 If it is not a project that has anything to do with Dinn Housing Authority, I'm having trouble saying that there is a conflict of interest because this totally separate project is a multifamily or an affordable housing project. 00:29:55.900 --> 00:30:09.900 I don't know the answer to this. Can I just point out that there is also this part of the definition that it has to impact the interest in a way that is not shared with the substantial segment of the city's population. 00:30:09.900 --> 00:30:31.900 It's a new definition so I want to make sure we are including all of the factors that will talk about it. But I'm thinking to your point is that is where we are saying if you have a specific project that maybe includes multifamily and affordable housing but has nothing to do with the agency she works for, 00:30:31.900 --> 00:30:53.900 then come back to us and ask for an advisory opinion if you can be part of this conversation, this discussion, this vote. That would be my recommendation just to encourage checking back on the specific case because I am not ready to just give blanket. 00:30:53.900 --> 00:31:16.900 You know what I mean? I think where I'm struggling a little bit is the first two questions here are items where she specifically asked about projects that the authority has some involvement in and says no matter how remote, 00:31:16.900 --> 00:31:30.900 those seem to be, that's a clear conflict of interest. They are involved in it and whether or not they have, like they could possibly financially gain from that based on our definition of conflict of interest. 00:31:30.900 --> 00:31:52.900 That is kind of the, that is a more clear conflict of interest question to me. The last one is different because it's not necessarily, I'm reading, maybe I'm adding words to her question here but I assume, which is probably a bad idea, 00:31:52.900 --> 00:32:04.900 that she's asking about projects that the housing authority is not involved with because in the first two questions she said there is some involvement even though it's remote. 00:32:04.900 --> 00:32:19.900 So I'm reading the last two as there is no involvement whatsoever other than the fact that they are multifamily and affordable housing. That's why I'm having a little trouble separating these two. 00:32:19.900 --> 00:32:38.900 Right and I don't disagree with you because yes, it is, there is no clear involvement of the dental housing authority in five and six but in my opinion it would still be better to just come back if there is something, a project for you to double check. 00:32:38.900 --> 00:32:51.900 Just like any realtor should, right? Right. Any realtor should check in the same, in the same way with us in terms of like what the conflict, the potential conflict of interest for them are. 00:32:51.900 --> 00:33:11.900 I think we can add three and four to one and two because those deal with a vendor that does business with the authority so I think we could add those that specifically involves the authority. Right. But yeah, five and six are very broad. 00:33:11.900 --> 00:33:24.900 I would be inclined to say that those should be considered on a case by case basis. 00:33:24.900 --> 00:33:52.900 We should consider disclosing those and if she has questions she should ask for an advisory opinion with the facts of what's actually listed there and part of that is because of what we discussed on section on reliance on advisory opinions. 00:33:52.900 --> 00:34:00.900 I'm sorry. 00:34:00.900 --> 00:34:19.900 I mean I think that the request was maybe it's, we're saying that the advisory opinion fairly and accurately disclosed the relevant facts, sorry the request for the advisory opinion fairly and accurately disclosed the relevant facts. 00:34:19.900 --> 00:34:27.900 I would say that there's there's not really any relevant facts for any specific item here to make a decision on. 00:34:27.900 --> 00:34:31.900 The questions that she asked are very broad. 00:34:31.900 --> 00:34:56.900 The first two are definite conflicts of interest because her employer is involved in those projects. The second two are maybe not quite as obvious, because there are lots of vendors that the housing authority may use. 00:34:56.900 --> 00:35:12.900 That have nothing to do, they may come before, I don't know why they would come before planning and zoning, but if it's something that has nothing to do with development, I guess they wouldn't come before planning and zoning. 00:35:12.900 --> 00:35:41.900 The last two are. For number three, when she's asking about the authority has or has had any business relationship, that again is vague, because what if she needs, we had a joint project, or we're doing a joint project, so that's another one where she needs to provide the factual basis of the business relationship. 00:35:41.900 --> 00:35:59.900 And I think that's exactly what, where all of this is just too broad and vague, right, because we're not talking about a specific, we're not talking about a specific project, we do not have the specifics of what that project involves or vendors it involves and how DHA is involved. 00:35:59.900 --> 00:36:24.900 So I think. So number one, something that purports to be affordable housing, that's not specific enough, because we don't have enough facts to be able to render the opinion that the authority having, on number three, had or had any business relationship, unless we have the facts of the business relationships, it's difficult to provide that opinion. 00:36:24.900 --> 00:36:33.900 And then the last one, five, which involves multifamily or affordable housing. 00:36:33.900 --> 00:36:59.900 I think we could treat this as because the Denton Housing Authority provides affordable housing, and then multifamily, whether, you know, she's participating on planning and zoning, voting it up or down, it would still be because of her position as executive director, 00:36:59.900 --> 00:37:07.900 almost be inherent bias, but anyway, that's my legal two cents. 00:37:07.900 --> 00:37:33.900 So I think we have to issue an opinion on all six categories because the read B of 278, the panel shall issue an advisory opinion upon request, and then nowhere in here does it say unless the request is vague, the facts are vague. 00:37:33.900 --> 00:37:50.900 However, it places the burden on the request, or as it should, with paragraph number two, or C2, by saying, yeah, you can use this as an affirmative defense only if you disclosed enough facts for them to give you a proper opinion. 00:37:50.900 --> 00:38:12.900 If you ask for a very broad opinion, they gave you an opinion saying it wasn't a conflict, and then you come in with the more specific facts when a complaint is filed, and those facts clearly showed that there is a conflict, then you cannot rely on that opinion because you gave a vague request or a very broad request. 00:38:12.900 --> 00:38:38.900 But I think we're required to issue some type of an opinion that says, you should use caution here. Maybe we don't give her, yep, that's good to go, or no, you can't do that, we just say, you've got to use caution, and we recommend that you submit or request an opinion based on the facts on the case-by-case scenario, but I think we're required to issue an opinion on all six categories. 00:38:38.900 --> 00:38:58.900 And there is, just so you know, this part of the rules of procedure that provides a little more detail about what an opinion looks like, but it's not very detailed about what an opinion is. 00:38:58.900 --> 00:39:08.900 So it limited the facts presented and writing by the requester. No additional material will be considered. The opinion should reflect the majority of the position of the panel. 00:39:08.900 --> 00:39:21.900 I mean, I don't want to mistake this. I think we're all in agreement that the first two questions would fall under a conflict of interest. 00:39:21.900 --> 00:39:29.900 Her, the Dinn Housing Authority, is involved in these projects. She's an employee of the clear conflict. 00:39:29.900 --> 00:39:34.900 Would you like me to make a motion on those two? 00:39:34.900 --> 00:39:38.900 Sure. If you would like to. 00:39:38.900 --> 00:39:44.900 I'm gonna start chipping away. 00:39:44.900 --> 00:40:00.900 I would move that the board determine, as to the first request, that this would be a conflict of interest and require disclosure and recusal. 00:40:00.900 --> 00:40:27.900 And the request reads that any deliberation or vote of the Planning and Zoning Commission on any item, project, proposed development project, or potential development project, which involves the authority in any way, no matter how remote, or which purports to be affordable housing. 00:40:27.900 --> 00:40:30.900 I'll second that. 00:40:30.900 --> 00:40:33.900 All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? 00:40:33.900 --> 00:40:34.900 Aye. 00:40:34.900 --> 00:40:35.900 Aye. 00:40:35.900 --> 00:40:40.900 Okay. 00:40:40.900 --> 00:40:59.900 And just so the record's clear, the reason that there's a conflict of interest is because of, under the definition of conflict of interest, DHA is a business entity and she meets the BNE. 00:40:59.900 --> 00:41:17.900 BNE, correct. 00:41:17.900 --> 00:41:31.900 Okay. For, do we need to have any more discussion about two? I think we're all in agreement. Those are the same question because we define deliberation. 00:41:31.900 --> 00:41:44.900 Do you want to just include a motion on two? And since one was found to be a conflict of interest, the motion would be number two would also be a conflict of interest? 00:41:44.900 --> 00:42:02.900 I would move that the board find category number two to be the same as category number one because under our definitions, deliberation includes the term discussion with city and staff. 00:42:02.900 --> 00:42:11.900 And with that finding that the board find it to be a conflict of interest and require recusal as well. 00:42:11.900 --> 00:42:14.900 I'll second that. All in favor? Aye. 00:42:14.900 --> 00:42:22.900 Aye. 00:42:22.900 --> 00:42:38.900 Okay. So that's going to end us for item number three. I don't know that we have a conclusion here. I think based on what has been provided, 00:42:38.900 --> 00:42:53.900 I think in our response to Commissioner McDade, we can let her know that there are not enough facts listed in her request for an advisory opinion to make a determination if there is a, 00:42:53.900 --> 00:43:16.900 if the business relationship between her employer and any item project, proposed development project or potential development project which involved any developer, vendor, entity with which the authority has had any business relationship. 00:43:16.900 --> 00:43:23.900 I don't think that we can make a determination, a point of determination on whether that is a conflict of interest. 00:43:23.900 --> 00:43:33.900 I think you're correct just because of the word developer or other entity, but when we look at the definition of vendor, it's any person who provides or seeks to provide. 00:43:33.900 --> 00:43:34.900 Right. 00:43:34.900 --> 00:43:50.900 So if it was just a vendor, then I think it would be a little clearer that it could probably be a conflict, but I would agree that this needs more facts and should be brought up on a case-by-case basis. 00:43:50.900 --> 00:43:55.900 Okay. And we can include that in our advisory opinion. 00:43:55.900 --> 00:43:58.900 Right. Your opinion can be there's not enough facts. Please come back. 00:43:58.900 --> 00:44:12.900 That doesn't have to be definitive. This is absolutely correct. But I think that is a fair way to move forward with that. 00:44:12.900 --> 00:44:15.900 And I don't think it would be an emotion to have. 00:44:15.900 --> 00:44:26.900 I think to Doug's point, if you want to, if you're going to come up with the same conclusion for all of them, especially since you've established why B&E are implicated and that deliberation includes city staff, 00:44:26.900 --> 00:44:34.900 you could probably just do them all in one motion, the rest of them, or maybe I'm speaking out of turn. 00:44:34.900 --> 00:44:45.900 I would think if you do the motion on three, that there's not enough facts that that would apply before you can say, combine that in your motion on three and four. 00:44:45.900 --> 00:44:53.900 Do we need to have a motion? I guess if we include that in the opinion, we have to have a vote to establish majority. 00:44:53.900 --> 00:44:57.900 You can move three and four together. 00:44:57.900 --> 00:45:15.900 I move that our advisory opinion note that the questions posed in paragraph three and four do not require enough facts for us to establish whether there is a conflict of interest 00:45:15.900 --> 00:45:27.900 as they're worded in the request and that we would recommend a separate advisory opinion be requested on a case-by-case basis. 00:45:27.900 --> 00:45:29.900 Second that. 00:45:29.900 --> 00:45:31.900 I have a motion and a second. All in favor? 00:45:31.900 --> 00:45:33.900 Aye. 00:45:45.900 --> 00:45:51.900 All right, and then, and I think I said, I didn't say three and four. 00:45:51.900 --> 00:45:52.900 Yes. 00:45:52.900 --> 00:46:03.900 So for items five and six, we've already established those are the same question about, because they're governing the definition of deliberation, 00:46:03.900 --> 00:46:14.900 and this includes any item project, proposed development project, potential development project, which involves multi-family or affordable housing. 00:46:14.900 --> 00:46:24.900 So I think I don't know that we have consensus on this or not. 00:46:24.900 --> 00:46:45.900 My opinion is that because it is multi-family or affordable housing does not automatically mean there is a conflict of interest because of your employer. 00:46:45.900 --> 00:47:00.900 And I think if we were to say that that would automatically result in a conflict of interest, well, I think I'll maybe just speak to what's asked of us here. 00:47:00.900 --> 00:47:23.900 I would move that the board opine on five and six that the requests are too vague and note in the opinion letter that the commissioner 00:47:23.900 --> 00:47:46.900 shall, should request a new advisory opinion or another advisory opinion with these specific facts on a case-by-case basis. 00:47:46.900 --> 00:48:03.900 I'll second your motion. 00:48:03.900 --> 00:48:27.900 I'm a little torn, and I'm not disagreeing. It's just that I'm thinking, I feel that the advisory opinion would have to include how she would be, 00:48:27.900 --> 00:48:36.900 how a position does not produce a conflict of interest when it comes to multi-family or affordable housing. 00:48:36.900 --> 00:48:39.900 That's if we were to say there wasn't a conflict. 00:48:39.900 --> 00:48:59.900 Right. But I think where Dustin is is where I'm just a little bit, there could be cases where there's absolutely no involvement of the housing authority, 00:48:59.900 --> 00:49:15.900 and in those cases, she, you know, there wouldn't be. So I think that the advisory opinion should include an outline of how the housing authority is involved or not involved in a specific project. 00:49:15.900 --> 00:49:32.900 Okay. Okay. I get where you're saying that we should, like, you need to be specific with this stuff so we can actually give you an opinion. Did I say the motion? No, no. 00:49:32.900 --> 00:49:45.900 No, I guess part of my hesitation here is because the way the question is worded, it doesn't specifically say that the housing authority is not involved. 00:49:45.900 --> 00:49:56.900 The first to specifically say they are involved, even though it's classified as no matter how remote, the last two do not say housing authority is not involved. 00:49:56.900 --> 00:50:06.900 It only asks about multi-family or affordable housing. So my problem with that is we don't understand if they have some involvement, 00:50:06.900 --> 00:50:14.900 if it is a competitor or whatever the situation is, land that they want to use or could potentially use later. 00:50:14.900 --> 00:50:28.900 Whatever the specifics of that are make it impossible for us to say this is or is not a conflict of interest and I'm not comfortable making some determination of that 00:50:28.900 --> 00:50:42.900 because I don't want some complaint later on to be completely dismissed based on the reliance clause of the advisory opinion section of our code. 00:50:42.900 --> 00:50:52.900 That's why I'm not comfortable saying, I don't want to be wishy-washy. We've gathered people here to try and review this and come to some determination, 00:50:52.900 --> 00:51:07.900 but we don't have a specific question about a specific thing. We have a broad request to issue an opinion and I don't think there's enough here to issue a definite opinion 00:51:07.900 --> 00:51:19.900 whether there is a conflict or it's not a conflict based on the way it's important. That's why I second the motion that was made. 00:51:19.900 --> 00:51:37.900 So the motion is that the board's opinion is that the requests are too vague and note that the Planning and Zoning Commissioner should request another advisory opinion with specific facts on a case-by-case basis. 00:51:37.900 --> 00:51:54.900 You should add to your motion on how the Benton Housing Authority is involved in the multifamily or affordable housing project. So if you want that as an amendment to the motion second, then you could vote on that. 00:51:54.900 --> 00:51:59.900 Okay. That is exactly what I was trying to get at. Thank you so much. 00:51:59.900 --> 00:52:01.900 I'll let you make the amendment. 00:52:01.900 --> 00:52:29.900 I'll make an amendment. I would like to amend the motion regarding our advisory opinion for Section 5 and 6 to include that any future advisory opinion should include how the Benton Housing Committee is involved in the project. 00:52:29.900 --> 00:52:32.900 So that's the amendment. Is there a second? 00:52:32.900 --> 00:52:33.900 Second. 00:52:33.900 --> 00:52:35.900 Or are there comments? 00:52:35.900 --> 00:52:38.900 We have a second. All in favor? 00:52:38.900 --> 00:52:39.900 Aye. 00:52:39.900 --> 00:52:40.900 Aye. So that's the end. 00:52:40.900 --> 00:52:58.900 And then you need to vote on the motion as amended. And so the motion as amended is that the board opinion that 5 and 6, that the requests are too vague and note that the Planning and Zoning Commissioner should request another advisory opinion with specific facts on a case-by-case basis on how the Benton Housing Authority is involved in the project. 00:52:58.900 --> 00:52:59.900 Okay. 00:52:59.900 --> 00:53:00.900 We need a motion for that. 00:53:00.900 --> 00:53:01.900 That's your motion. 00:53:01.900 --> 00:53:02.900 That's the motion where it's going to vote on. 00:53:02.900 --> 00:53:03.900 Okay. So all in favor? 00:53:03.900 --> 00:53:04.900 Aye. 00:53:04.900 --> 00:53:05.900 Aye. 00:53:05.900 --> 00:53:06.900 That's the end. 00:53:06.900 --> 00:53:07.900 Okay. 00:53:07.900 --> 00:53:14.900 Madison, can you pull back up the procedures on what's included in the opinion? 00:53:14.900 --> 00:53:15.900 Yes. 00:53:15.900 --> 00:53:43.900 Mm-hmm. 00:53:43.900 --> 00:53:50.900 And then are we going to -- can I draft this? 00:53:50.900 --> 00:53:51.900 She drafts it for us. 00:53:51.900 --> 00:54:02.900 So I'll draft it. And typically what we do is we put the questions presented, and then we do the discussion by board, and then we do the motions and the vote. 00:54:02.900 --> 00:54:09.900 And then I send it to the presiding officer to sign, and then we send it to the city official, and we also post it online. 00:54:09.900 --> 00:54:11.900 Okay. 00:54:11.900 --> 00:54:18.900 We'll have to -- I got the last motion pretty clear, but let's include the tape on the other ones. 00:54:18.900 --> 00:54:20.900 Okay. 00:54:20.900 --> 00:54:22.900 I wrote them down as clear as the last one. 00:54:22.900 --> 00:54:26.900 I would summarize it very, very vaguely. 00:54:26.900 --> 00:54:27.900 There's a tape, so come back. 00:54:27.900 --> 00:54:28.900 Yeah. 00:54:28.900 --> 00:54:37.900 One and two, you all determine that there was a conflict of interest if DHA was involved, no matter how remote, essentially. 00:54:37.900 --> 00:54:38.900 Three. 00:54:38.900 --> 00:54:39.900 Yeah, one and two. 00:54:39.900 --> 00:54:41.900 Three and four. 00:54:41.900 --> 00:54:43.900 And really, five and six. 00:54:43.900 --> 00:54:59.900 You determine there were not clear enough facts and recommended her come back on a case-by-case basis, especially for five and six, with information about how DHA is involved at all in a multifamily or a four-to-thousand project. 00:54:59.900 --> 00:55:01.900 Yes. 00:55:01.900 --> 00:55:03.900 Don't quote me. 00:55:03.900 --> 00:55:04.900 Watch the tape. 00:55:04.900 --> 00:55:12.900 We'll draft it, and we'll also check the tape to make sure we're accurate. 00:55:12.900 --> 00:55:13.900 Okay. 00:55:13.900 --> 00:55:15.900 You all good with that? 00:55:15.900 --> 00:55:16.900 All right. 00:55:16.900 --> 00:55:21.900 And then after that -- so after that's written, do we all review it, and then I sign it, or is the -- 00:55:21.900 --> 00:55:27.900 Typically, I just send it to the presiding officer, but I could send it to all of you if that's how you would prefer it to be done. 00:55:27.900 --> 00:55:30.900 But ultimately, we have the presiding officer sign it. 00:55:30.900 --> 00:55:32.900 Do you all want to review that? 00:55:32.900 --> 00:55:34.900 Okay. 00:55:34.900 --> 00:55:41.900 If you could send it to all three of us, and then -- can we do that? 00:55:41.900 --> 00:55:42.900 Send it to all three? 00:55:42.900 --> 00:55:43.900 Yeah. 00:55:43.900 --> 00:55:44.900 Sure. 00:55:44.900 --> 00:55:45.900 Is there a violation out there? 00:55:45.900 --> 00:55:47.900 Would there be any discussion or anything like that? 00:55:47.900 --> 00:55:49.900 No, there would be a discussion outside here. 00:55:49.900 --> 00:55:50.900 I don't want to -- 00:55:50.900 --> 00:55:53.900 That's a good question. 00:55:53.900 --> 00:55:54.900 I don't know. 00:55:54.900 --> 00:55:59.900 Do we need to call another meeting to approve the opinion letter as written? 00:55:59.900 --> 00:56:11.900 So typically, I present -- during our next board meeting, I would include on the agenda -- I call them management letters or something. 00:56:11.900 --> 00:56:13.900 I can't remember exactly right now. 00:56:13.900 --> 00:56:16.900 We're getting reports of, like, this existed, right? 00:56:16.900 --> 00:56:22.900 Like, we did an advisory opinion so that the rest of the board kind of knows what happened. 00:56:22.900 --> 00:56:26.900 I don't want -- they're not intended to have the whole board vote on them. 00:56:26.900 --> 00:56:27.900 It's not for discussion. 00:56:27.900 --> 00:56:32.900 Right, because then you're kind of into a different issue. 00:56:32.900 --> 00:56:46.900 So if there is something that sparked something in our code that there is question about, then that could be -- at the end of our next meeting, that could be added as a future discussion topic, if that's what you all -- 00:56:46.900 --> 00:56:47.900 No, I was getting at -- 00:56:47.900 --> 00:56:50.900 I don't think we can discuss that today. 00:56:50.900 --> 00:56:57.900 Yeah, no, I was getting at what if it gets drafted and I'm not saying that you're going to mess up the drafting, but -- 00:56:57.900 --> 00:56:58.900 Actually, if it comes out -- 00:56:58.900 --> 00:56:59.900 This is completely wrong. 00:56:59.900 --> 00:57:07.900 -- and it's signed by the chairman, and you guys disagree, you can ask Madison to do a reconsideration. 00:57:07.900 --> 00:57:08.900 Okay. 00:57:08.900 --> 00:57:16.900 And have a meeting on reconsidering the opinion and whether you want to add something to it or take something away. 00:57:16.900 --> 00:57:20.900 We can't have any discussion outside of your building, right? 00:57:20.900 --> 00:57:28.900 So just to be clear, so we're just receiving the document, and if we have any issue with what's in the document, it needs to go to Madison. 00:57:28.900 --> 00:57:30.900 You asked Madison to post a meeting -- 00:57:30.900 --> 00:57:33.900 To post a reconsideration of the opinion. 00:57:33.900 --> 00:57:34.900 Okay. 00:57:34.900 --> 00:57:36.900 And then if there's something you want to clarify -- 00:57:36.900 --> 00:57:40.900 So not even a conversation about what we're reconsidering, just -- 00:57:40.900 --> 00:57:47.900 Yeah, and if we sent it to you, it wouldn't be where you could email each other about it right now. 00:57:47.900 --> 00:57:49.900 It's after it's signed, it'll get emailed to everybody. 00:57:49.900 --> 00:57:57.900 When you read it, if you think something needs to be clarified, you can ask Madison to post a meeting to reconsider. 00:57:57.900 --> 00:57:59.900 But I can't just ask you to -- 00:57:59.900 --> 00:58:00.900 No. 00:58:00.900 --> 00:58:01.900 -- rewrite it. 00:58:01.900 --> 00:58:02.900 I understand. 00:58:02.900 --> 00:58:03.900 Rewrite it, no. 00:58:03.900 --> 00:58:09.900 No, no, I just -- I mean, I have good notes, and I know that you are a great note taker as well. 00:58:09.900 --> 00:58:15.900 Well, we'll -- and this one, we'll probably have to listen to it anyway. 00:58:15.900 --> 00:58:16.900 Okay. 00:58:16.900 --> 00:58:17.900 I understand. 00:58:17.900 --> 00:58:23.900 I think that that covers everything. 00:58:23.900 --> 00:58:26.900 So, right? 00:58:26.900 --> 00:58:27.900 Yeah. 00:58:27.900 --> 00:58:31.900 Okay, that is our only item on the agenda for this meeting. 00:58:31.900 --> 00:58:34.900 It is 6.8 p.m. in the meeting.