It is Monday, April 13th, 2026.
It is 5.31 p.m. and we are having a special call meeting
at the Board of Ethics.
I'm going to begin with presentations from the public
and my understanding is we don't have any.
So we will skip to item two, items for consideration.
So item A, BOE 26-006, receive nominations
and hold an election of a Chair in question.
Open for nominations.
I guess we'll take Chair first.
>> Are there any requirements on this per term?
>> I don't believe, I mean you have to be a member of the Board,
but other than that I don't believe there are certain
requirements.
>> Would you be available, Justin?
>> For Chair?
>> Yeah.
>> I can be, do you want to do it again?
>> I would love to do it again.
>> Oh, I thought you were stepping down,
that's why you said that.
If you're not stepping down then we'll just keep.
>> I would love to do it, yeah.
>> Okay, then I nominate Annette to continue.
>> Okay, any other nominations?
>> I'll second that.
>> Okay.
>> And then I will go ahead and I will nominate Justin.
>> For Vice Chair.
>> Wait, let's vote on.
>> Oh, we can go voting first.
>> We're closing nominations for Chair.
So Annette Ramsey is nominating for Chair, all in favor?
>> Aye.
>> It passes unanimously.
Okay, we move on to Vice Chair.
>> I will nominate Justin.
>> I second.
>> Okay, Justin is nominating for Vice Chair.
>> Aye.
>> In favor?
>> Aye.
>> Passes unanimously.
So Justin public is the Vice Chair.
So item B, BOE 26-007, consider the approval of minutes
for June 2nd, July 14th, and February 9th, 2026 meeting.
So June 2nd, I want to move approval of it with one,
there's, on the fourth paragraph,
found that it should be found.
And so all in favor, does anybody else have any changes?
>> So you can, minutes can be handled kind of special.
So you can open up to people.
You have, you kind of say do you have any changes
or then people can offer changes.
>> Okay.
>> And you can take a motion to approve with the changes
that have been offered.
For all of them at the same time.
Okay, cool.
>> So move on the floor for changes.
>> Any other changes on June 2nd?
>> There is a, Kenneth's name is spelled wrong on page one.
>> Take the E off the end of his name.
Okay, any other changes for June 2nd?
>> No.
>> Okay, any changes for July 14th?
>> I didn't see any.
>> What about changes for November 10th?
>> I had no changes for that one.
>> Okay, so February 9th, draft minutes, any changes to that?
>> That was the one we canceled, right?
>> Does there have to be minutes for that?
>> Does there have to be minutes?
>> Okay, yes.
>> Okay.
>> Nice note.
>> Says that we canceled.
Okay, so all in favor of the proposal.
>> So now take a motion on accepting them
with the changes if you like.
>> I move that we accept the minutes,
including the changes mentioned in the second [inaudible]
>> Okay, all in favor of accepting the minutes
with the changes, passes unanimously.
Okay, onto item C, BOE 2026-008, hold a discussion
and consider the adoption of the 2026 meeting schedule.
So basically the question is should we meet monthly
or should we meet bimonthly?
So what are your thoughts on this?
>> I mean, we've had trouble getting a quorum for bimonthly,
so I think going to monthly would be a challenge.
And I would like to stick to bimonthly,
unless there's some reason why we should change.
>> Anybody have any concerns about going to bimonthly?
>> Well, bimonthly would be better than monthly.
Do we want to consider quarterly meetings, or just --
>> Let's start with bimonthly.
>> Start -- okay, start gradually.
>> As chair, I can always call a meeting off.
>> Okay.
>> So I have --
>> It's bimonthly.
>> So I know my rights.
So okay, so who wants to make a motion about meeting bimonthly?
>> I will.
I move that we adopt the bimonthly meeting schedule
on the agenda information sheet.
>> Okay. So the next meeting would be June 8th.
>> I second that.
>> Okay. All in favor?
>> Aye.
>> Passes unanimously.
>> Okay. So this next item is one that I wanted to do.
We're kind of moving into our season
when we've had the most complaints in the past.
So I thought that we needed to have like a little mock trial,
and Madison was kind enough to come up with a couple
of mock trial complaints.
So --
>> It was Sarah.
>> Oh, Sarah.
>> Yes.
>> Thank you, Sarah.
Nice job.
And she did a great job of getting us the, you know, packet.
So which one would you recommend that we look at?
>> I think since we kind of talked about the first --
example number one is maybe a little bit less complicated.
>> Is that Henry Thomas?
>> That's Kate.
>> Kate Smith is the complainant.
>> Okay. Okay. So what we're going to do is we're going
to pretend that we are a hearing board,
and we have four people instead of three.
I guess that would be fine.
>> Yeah. So we could -- the original idea was we'll have a --
we'll have the two complaints.
We'll have two preliminary panels basically for each
of the preliminary assessments started,
and then we have the ethics hearing all together.
We want to just do one.
You could have a preliminary assessment with just three of y'all,
or I think y'all have all done it.
So I don't know if you want to do that part or just do --
run through kind of the ethics complaint hearing process.
So that would be -- whatever is your preference really.
>> What's your preference?
>> I'm going to start with the first one.
>> I was thinking we could maybe do one today,
and since we don't have everybody here, maybe --
>> That's a good idea.
>> -- maybe do the other one at the next meeting.
So we'll go with -- we'll start on Kate right now.
So I guess if you could pull up the procedures.
>> Yes. So any hearing -- there would be three of us here.
This would be the initial one to determine if we need
to take it to the full board.
So --
>> This is the rules and procedure
for the preliminary assessment.
>> Okay.
>> The most important piece here is to go over the basis.
>> Yeah. So in the beginning the body would elect a chair
for the hearing, and the respondent would be here.
They would usually be sitting over in the --
>> They're not required to be here.
>> They're not required, yeah.
But normally they are here.
And the person who complained is required to be here.
>> Not for the preliminary assessment.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. Usually they're not allowed to speak generally.
It actually says that here in the rules, no public comments
or testimony will be accepted.
The purpose of the preliminary assessment is really just
to read the complaint as it's written, assume that it's true,
and if it was true, right, based on that assumption,
would the facts as presented be a violation
of the ethics ordinance?
>> Okay. So I'm going to go ahead and read this out loud.
>> Sure.
>> So Kate Smith is the complaint --
the accused, I guess.
>> The complainant.
>> The complainant, okay.
So they are complaining against John R. Matthews,
who's a member of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
And so they believe that Section 2-273,
outside employment, was one of the issues
in the otherish 2-273, improper influence.
From October 15, 2025 through January 10,
2026, John Matthews accepted paid consulting with Lakeside
Properties LLC, a local real estate firm
that regularly seeks zoning variances
from the city of Denton.
On January 26, John voted for a Lakeside Properties variance
request that he provided consulting services for.
John can be seen voting on item C during the January 26,
2026 meeting, which was submitted by Lakeside Properties,
and it has a link.
Payment records from Lakeside show consulting fees paid
to John in December 2025 and January 2026 for $10,000.
Lakeside's variance request includes language recommended
by John in the attached consulting report.
So now we deliver it.
Yeah, so again, the purpose of this
is to-- obviously, there isn't actually facts attached,
but we're assuming that there are.
But the preliminary assessment, you
assume that the complaint on its face, the things that are
alleged, are true.
And then if those things are true,
you're assuming that would they actually
be a violation of the ordinance.
And so we do have in here where they
can indicate which section of the ordinance
they believe has been violated.
So the first one that Kate Smith indicated
was the outside employment.
And so this is the outside employment section.
And so generally, what I would do
is present this information just to help you all walk through it.
And then sometimes, Dottie or outside counsel
might also say, this could also be this.
And you're allowed to consider other potential violations.
That's just to help the complainant as well as you all
guide your discussion.
So as you read that section C, outside employment,
if this is true, what do you think?
On the face of things, it looks like if those things are true,
but that does look like it could be a proper influence.
Andrew?
This says it applies to department heads?
Correct.
So the outside employment section, so the first section
that she alleged, 2-273(c), outside employment,
it says it applies only to department heads, which
is then defined as these people.
So if it's just a member of the zoning board, that doesn't--
Right, so 2-273 wouldn't apply to Mr. John Matthews.
But she also alleged the 2-273(e), improper influence.
And then Dottie would probably have you all vote
on each of these rights.
She would say, OK, based on what we just discussed,
2-273(c), outside employment, doesn't seem like it applies.
So that would be that part of the complaint would be baseless,
because it wouldn't apply to him.
Not actionable, it doesn't apply to him.
The one section.
But then this 2-273(e), then we would discuss--
So we would take about--
and I'm assuming, with what we just looked at,
that it doesn't fit.
So then we move on to the section, second allegation,
basically, which is that what is described
is improper influence.
And that's what's presented on the screen.
Is it helpful if I zoom in a little more?
No, I can read it.
OK.
I don't know that I could, so.
[LAUGHTER]
So what do you guys think?
They're not acting as a representative of the city,
are they?
Item five.
I mean, I guess--
So first off, I think this section
does apply, because it's city official.
So a board member would be considered city official.
Right.
I'm thinking two, definitely.
Oh, so item four would probably apply, too.
And if you provide consulting, then--
and even with the language, then he would need to recuse himself
from the vote.
Or he should not provide the consulting in that vote.
But he can't do both, I wouldn't think.
To me, it definitely looks like there's
something actionable in this area.
Yes, in this section, I would agree.
Because I'm looking at number three,
when there's advancing or harming private interest.
Payment is a private interest.
So I would say there is.
Absolutely.
So do you want to take a vote on that?
Dustin, do you have any comments you want to make?
No, I agree.
I'm wondering, when I read through the text,
it sounds like also it would be a conflict of interest issue.
But that was not marked on--
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
--or that section of the complaint form.
Yeah, that's OK.
We can--
We can bring that up.
So we can bring that up and it down.
So I guess for this one, though, I
would agree that the description here,
and assuming that this is all correct,
kind of like what we would do in the preliminary panel,
I would agree that this would be an actionable part
of the complaint.
Should we go ahead and look at conflicts of interest?
Yeah, I would think--
What's the rule on that?
Can you do that in the preliminary panel,
or does it have to be in the--
In the preliminary assessment, you
are able, as long as you're looking just at the complaint,
you're just determining if what is in the complaint
appears to be a violation of the ordinance,
that the check boxes are intended to help the complainant
and the board.
But it's not a requirement that they--
Correct, yeah.
So even if you were like, well, improper influence doesn't
really fit, but we, as the board,
have better knowledge of the code,
we think the facts presented would be conflict of interest,
you can still advance it to a hearing
based on your understanding that what is presented
would be a violation of the ordinance.
OK.
Thank you.
I'm rusty.
That's the point of this exercise, right?
So yeah, so I would definitely--
so we would take a vote on the improper influence.
It sounds like we all agree that that fits.
And then at this point, we would bring up
that we might also want to look at conflicts of interest.
I can scroll up to second.
Reminded of a conflict of interest section.
So that would be--
More than, yeah, more than $600.
So then we would deliberate about that,
and then take a vote on that, I guess.
Right, if you believed it to be actionable.
Remember, at the preliminary assessment panel,
you're just assuming what's written is true,
and saying, yes, or is it actionable?
Meaning, it would be a violation of the ordinance
if it was all provable, right?
And then, if not, or even if it does allege something,
if there's nothing under the violation of the ordinance,
it's baseless, right?
Part of what makes this easy is that there
are payment records for this money,
and you would not normally see that.
Right, right.
So that's-- I mean, just--
Well, you're assuming that, right?
So, you know.
Yeah, so--
And then that's what the hearing is for, is they would then
have to produce that evidence, if they hadn't already, right?
So then we would vote on that, and we would inform--
a letter would then be sent to the accused,
said, you need to show up for a hearing.
So, yeah, so at this point, it seems
as though the preliminary assessment, mock preliminary
assessment, has decided that this complaint example, 01,
is actionable.
So at that point, you would inform me.
You would create a letter that would notify the complainant
and the respondent about the panel's determination,
and then when the hearing would be scheduled.
And then before the hearing is scheduled,
they would both have the opportunity
to provide additional evidence, the written documentation,
and then the complainant, so Kate Smith--
not the respondent, but Kate Smith--
would be required to attend, or the complaint
would be dismissed when we got to the actual hearing.
So what I would like to ask is that, at the next meeting,
why don't we take Kate's complaint
and assume it's a full board?
So then we'll say, this is what we decided,
and maybe we could fabricate a letter that
goes to John Matthews, and then we walk everybody through
with a full board website.
So you want to do the mock hearing next time,
and see what they can do?
That's fine with me, if that is good with you all.
Sure.
Well, just for one thing, I think we've all been through it,
and I'm hoping that the next time we're here,
we have more people that we can walk through it.
Am I cutting it too short?
Not in my opinion.
My opinion is not what matters.
There's a couple of things I wanted to bring up.
And first of all, there's two issues
that are really important for us to--
you've got to remember that when we're having a hearing,
it's pretty emotional.
And you can feel for everybody involved.
And so you're going to want to debrief afterwards,
and you can't.
So we can't stand around and talk about it after it's over.
That would be what the city considers
ex parte communication.
Ex parte communication is a Latin thing
that means to the judge.
And honestly, I won't say my opinion
about how the city interprets that,
but they have a very strict definition of it.
So we cannot be talking about it.
You can't be talking about it in the room.
You can't be talking about it in the hallway
or in the parking lot.
But the other issue is a willing quorum,
and that's a different matter.
It's the state's determination about open meetings.
And so we cannot be talking about cases in the parking lot.
Let's say we have a heated discussion during the meeting.
We go out in the parking lot and decide
to continue discussion in the parking lot,
trying to convince people that we should see it my way.
That's a rolling quorum, could be a rolling quorum.
And so we don't want to do that.
So I want to really stress the importance
of both of those things.
We shouldn't be talking to each other.
We can't talk outside of the meeting.
And if I can just clarify a little bit.
So ex parte communication specifically
applies to ethics complaints.
So we receive an ethics complaint.
You might receive it ahead of time, before the meeting,
because you get the agenda of that information.
You're not allowed to talk to either the complainant,
the respondent, or other members of the board
about the contents, the substance of that complaint.
The complainant or the respondent
contacts you and tries to be like, hey,
this is what really happened.
You're supposed to say, we can't do that.
That's a violation of the ethics ordinance.
That is definitely ex parte.
The Open Meetings Act applies to anything
that the Board of Ethics is discussing.
So it includes complaints, but everything else as well.
So if you're discussing an amendment,
a closed amendment in the meeting,
and then you-- like the Chair Renzi was saying,
go outside in the parking lot, and there's
more than three of you there, you
are what is called a rolling quorum.
Scott, stop me if I'm wrong.
But that is a violation of the Open Meetings Act.
Well, if you have four people, then you just have a quorum.
So you're holding a meeting, but it's not a public meeting.
It's an unauthorized closed meeting.
The public isn't able to hear you guys discussing
the business of the board.
So that's a violation of the Meetings Act.
Rolling quorum would be, you go out
and you keep talking about it, just two of you or three of you.
That risks a rolling quorum, and the AG
tends to presume there will be a rolling quorum,
because then all that has to happen
is one of you has to go talk to another person,
and now a discussion has happened outside of the meeting.
It's also called a daisy chain quorum,
but the idea is if you talk to one person
and that person, one of you, talks to somebody else,
you've broken that.
So to be clear, extra clear, one, the quorum issue,
the Open Meetings Act, is a violation of state law.
The other is an ethics ordinance violation,
so a violation of the local city law.
So there are two separate governments involved,
but the state law covers all of our meetings
with the city hold.
So if you have a question about that,
I was trying to make sure it's clear.
Yeah, there are two separate issues.
Yeah.
I don't think so.
OK.
Yeah, I would like to just take this into a full board
format the next time.
Yeah, the next item is the future meeting,
so we can certainly put that on the next agenda.
So the next meeting we just determined
with is scheduled for June 8, 2010.
Is that the second Monday?
That might be the fifth.
The first is Monday.
Should be the second.
June 8.
OK.
June 8 is the second Monday of June.
So it will be scheduled for June 8 at 5:30 in this very room.
Something horrible happens.
And then my understanding, obviously, we'll do the minutes.
We'll have the future of meeting topics.
And then currently, just on the agenda
is the continued training that we just had.
Is there anything else that you all
would like to put on the agenda for the next--
Not really next meeting.
We have some ideas for Dublin Road goods.
We're not there.
Is this item, the guidance line interaction with petitioners,
is that a new request?
No, it's been there for a little while.
It was a two minute pitch from Councilmember Beck.
I can't remember exactly when it happened.
Maybe last September.
And if y'all would like to discuss that further,
I can provide additional details at the next meeting.
Yeah, I'm not sure what they're getting at.
I think they were looking for just some additional guidance
on trying not to do improper influence.
If somebody comes to me, what am I about to say?
What am I not-- what should I not be trying to say?
A little more nitty gritty, maybe, I guess, of that.
Trying to figure out how to avoid [INAUDIBLE]
That has sort of come up lately.
That has, and I--
Yeah.
No.
It's not on our agenda.
Can't talk about it, but it has come up in the actual situation.
Yeah.
So we do, but it's a good thing to talk about.
Sorry.
So we could include that on the June agenda,
just to see like, well, if we're going
to provide that guidance, maybe what would that look like?
What would we want to be included?
What would it cover based on the request that we received?
We can include that.
It seems like there's consensus for that.
Do we have more board members?
Are the people missing board members anymore?
We have two people that were missing for illness on board.
Yeah.
We have two excused absences, and we have one vacancy currently.
OK.
So Kenneth and--
Diane.
Diane are still on board.
That's correct.
Well, it doesn't sound like we have any more business.
Yeah.
No other things to add to the June 8th agenda.
So to double check, the ethics complaint processing freeze
period, is that going to stay on there?
Because that is something that is on here as a potential topic?
It's possible.
We've had a lot of moves in this agenda,
so it's possible we just haven't taken that off.
I think you all determined not to do that, but--
I don't think so.
I don't think we ever discussed it.
I thought we talked about it, but I'll go back to check.
I very much would like to--
I'm nervous going into this season, but because--
Yeah, I mean, any freeze period would
have to be put into the ordinance.
So it wouldn't impact this election cycle, just to be clear.
So it is not-- so it's not pressing anyway.
But we can certainly include it on the June 8th,
but there's no way to get it implemented
before this actual election can end.
I definitely would like to leave it in the queue.
Yes.
Leave it in the queue.
That is on the list for tentative meeting topics.
I'll make sure it's in this list on the slide.
But we won't put it on the June 8th at the later stage.
Oh, yeah.
All right.
Sounds good.
Any other business?
No.
Seeing none, I declare this meeting adjourned at 6.03 PM.
Thank you so much.