Good evening. It is Wednesday, May 27, 2026, 530 p.m.
And this is the Board of Ethics Special Call meeting.
So we are going to look at BOE 26-012,
an ethics complaint number 26-001, filed on May 6, 2026,
concerning alleged violations of ethics ordinance 2-278.
That's correct. This is just the preliminary assessment.
So right now, today we're determining if the complaint,
assuming everything alleged action is true, if it's
actionable, we're basing this.
Just to be clear, all the people listening, actionable
means it would go forward to an ethics hearing.
Baseless means it would be dismissed at this time because
it would not be a violation of the ordinance due to what's
alleged and it is true.
So, do we need to be able to check the information sheet?
Whatever you would like to look at, I've got the agenda
information sheet pulled up on this. All the screens nicely
situated behind you.
Can we list the panel?
Oh, yes.
Yes, we need to elect a presiding officer.
Okay.
So, Timon Wright is the committee member.
And I'm Annette Aramstein.
And I'm Justin Pavlik.
So, elect a presiding officer.
I'll nominate Annette.
I'll second.
Okay.
All in favor?
Aye.
Thank you.
So, I'm going to look at the agenda information sheet.
We don't have a copy of the card.
And I do just want to mention the complaint, amended the
complaint a couple of days ago.
The additional information is provided in your packet.
I don't know if you know what.
So, I didn't correct the entire packet. I printed the
amended information.
Okay.
Okay. So, not the entire packet. The amended information is
printed.
So, we can review this?
If you would like to, you can.
So, all of this information is from the amended?
I believe so.
The top page of the city charter, that came from special
counsel.
Okay.
The table allows the city charter to be public.
And in the city charter, the city charter shower represents
the city council.
I printed out that page from the city charter and I
highlighted that statement.
So, you can take notes of this.
Okay.
The home roll charter is the charter.
I think I have the complaint pulled up as well.
But yeah, the allegation is that the improper influence
section of the ordinance is being violated.
I can also pull up the definition of that as well. Whenever
you all are ready.
Okay.
I printed out the same thing.
Provided by special counsel.
This is from city charter.
I highlighted that first sentence because my, my.
I guess my concern on this was the core of the complaint is
that the city attorney should not represent the city.
And in this case, when they are.
Defendant.
Right. And so I guess there's two parts to this. One is
that the city charter requires the city attorney.
To represent the city in all litigation.
So that's the first part.
And then.
In the.
What was provided the original complaint.
It has.
City attorney listed as one of the attorneys.
That's in that motion to stay and the city defendants are
listed.
As all of the defendants on the first page of that.
So I don't think there's any kind of.
Like this is there's no way ambiguity here.
And who the city attorney representing is all of the city
defendants.
On page one.
So I between the city charter.
The city attorney shall represent the city and all
litigation.
And then.
I guess.
As a defendant, their right to represent themselves.
I don't.
And the fact that there's no ambiguity.
I don't see any kind of.
All of the city complaints or sorry, city defendants.
I don't see how there could be.
This could be construed as.
Improper.
I mean, they're.
They're exercising their right to represent themselves.
And doing his job required by the city.
And.
I mean, I guess that.
I don't see any kind of.
Of the complaint.
It was filed.
So I haven't looked at the amended.
Stuff here.
It looks like they're seeing.
So far I haven't seen anything that looks like it's related
.
And I think this is all.
The original.
The city.
The complainant.
It was filed in the.
Eastern district of Texas.
So I don't know if there's.
I mean, I don't think we're here.
Right.
These are allegations.
These aren't necessarily.
Yeah.
I don't know if they're.
Regardless of what's in there.
By the city charter.
The sixth amendment, the city attorney.
As a right to defend himself.
And.
As an obligation.
So.
I don't know what you guys think.
That's what I.
Spent a considerable amount of time today.
I think it's a good thing.
This is the cases that this person has filed in the.
County courts.
With several of them against.
City officials or city organizations.
Along with all of the violence from this Eastern district.
Again, I don't care.
One way or the other.
I'm not the judge of these cases.
But they all.
Seem to be the same thing.
Of.
Just.
If.
If I've ever seen something frivolous.
I'm looking at.
Not these cases.
Whether those are frivolous or not.
Is not for me to say.
This is.
Crazy frivolous.
Especially considering the charter.
It is.
Mind blowing how much money.
This person has cost.
The city.
And in defending against.
These allegations.
And now.
Luckily.
We are volunteers.
So we don't cost the city money.
But our time.
I'll do.
So the.
Privilege is the second stage.
So we're still.
Number one.
The preliminary assessment.
So if you determine.
That this complaint is actionable.
I don't see that it rises to that level.
Either of the two.
And so you would make a motion.
And then we could go on to.
So do I hear a motion.
I'll make a motion.
That we find.
Each one.
Yeah.
I think the first part is.
To make a motion.
That we find.
The complaint is.
Right.
All right.
I'll send you that.
All in favor.
I know.
Yeah.
We find.
Do we in the motion.
Have to say actionable.
So.
My understanding is.
The way that the ordinance is written.
Is that this stage you can find that it's actionable.
You can find that it's baseless.
Or you can recommend that it be.
That appearing on frivolity.
Okay.
So you don't find that it's baseless.
Before that is my.
What I remember.
I think I remember.
Yes.
Baseless is.
If you decide it's baseless.
It's dismissed.
Yeah.
I think there is.
Like it's just a little.
Yeah.
The first.
Is.
Is the complaint actionable.
So the motion would be to that effect.
Whether it's.
The motion would be.
Okay.
Find that it is not actionable.
Now.
I'm in my motion.
And I move that we find the.
Complaint not actionable.
On both counts.
Can we do.
Just one motion.
For both.
We need to do it separately.
What other counts.
I think there's just the improper.
The alleged.
The improper.
They did.
Mentioned something else in the body.
So.
I think.
The supporting document.
But the only thing that was indicated.
On the cut on the complaint form.
Is the improper influence.
Yeah.
Okay.
So.
The motion is.
But.
This is not.
Actionable.
On the.
To.
Two.
To.
Can you.
Give me that number.
2-273.
Paragraph E.
Improper influence.
Okay.
So.
And.
Is there a second.
I'll second that.
Okay.
So.
Do we need to have discussion or can we go ahead.
If there is discussion.
You can have it.
Okay.
Do you want to discuss this.
I'm ready to vote.
Okay.
I am too.
Okay.
So all in favor.
Raise your hand.
All right.
It's unanimous.
So now we decide.
I heard a comment about frivolity.
Yes.
So.
I would make a motion that we.
Elevate.
The motion.
Is to hear it.
Recommend.
For all the.
Work to.
Determine if the complaint is frivolous.
And have an evidentiary hearing.
I mean, I.
I'm a little conflicted on this.
I.
I think my.
I guess knowing that there.
I want to look at what our definition is and what the
requirements are because I have the same feeling.
Like.
I had the same feeling reading this.
And seeing that there is a.
I mean, it was, it was pretty clear to me and doing.
Some limited.
Research in our city charter.
This.
Doesn't make any sense.
This is a complaint.
This is a an actionable complaint.
So.
I pulled up the factors to the best of my ability.
A little.
I know it's hard to see.
I think there might be one more after E.
This is most.
So it doesn't have anything to do with politics.
And.
Publicity there.
I haven't heard any publicity.
So B is out.
I don't know if there's any.
Existence in nature of any relationship.
When you respond.
And the complaint.
Before the complaint was filed.
I'm not aware of anything.
That.
D. If the respondent is a candidate for election.
The office.
The existence.
I think.
Is really about.
The political process.
I think we're going to.
It's E and F.
So any evidence that the complaint.
And any evidence of the complaints motives and file.
Which comes from the seven.
Separate.
Lawsuits.
I can make the motion.
Someone can second.
We vote.
And it doesn't.
Okay.
It's a.
It would be a hearing.
I mean.
We would.
We would review that in the same way.
If we found that this was actionable.
That would mean we have a hearing with the entire.
Forth.
So.
Just.
Some of my concerns in reading the.
Reading through all of this and.
Knowing that there is a.
The.
The original complaint.
Provided.
Was the lawsuit.
That.
The.
The thing here is filing that lawsuit.
So there is a prior.
Some sort of relationship there.
I don't know what that is.
But it's, it's pretty clear that.
This was not an actionable thing.
So this was not an actionable.
Ethics.
Per our ordinance.
So.
It appears.
This is.
A frivolous complaint to me.
Just knowing what.
What the complainants submit.
Level of detail.
The review.
The statement of facts that they provided.
They knew that.
The city attorney.
They did some pretty.
Detailed review of the ethics ordinance.
Sided their case.
Sided the.
State the emergency motion.
To state proceeding.
So there's there's like.
I mean there's nothing.
There's nothing that's been done.
The detail they went to, to generate the ethics complaint
that we're now reviewing.
Makes me, it makes it seem that they would have.
Gone to the city attorneys.
Required responsibility.
Their powers and duties.
Listed in our charter.
Read the first sentence and say they have to do this.
This is their job.
And they're not going to be able to do this.
Without.
Without knowing that going into this level.
Detail and research.
Providing this.
Complaints.
I'm kind of conflicted. I, I definitely.
See this as a waste of city.
Time and money.
On the other hand.
The, the code from being weaponized.
And so.
Yeah.
I.
I'm halfway there.
I guess.
See and I think he.
It's exactly what they're doing is weaponizing it.
Right.
Yeah.
I'm upset that the city attorney defending themselves.
Instead of spending.
Another hundreds of thousands on an outside council.
So I'm going to now file something and see if I can't get
the city attorney.
Removed from office.
Place on suspension or whatever.
It is being.
100%.
That's what's in the.
In this.
The statement of facts.
I guess it's after that.
What part of their attachment to the ethics.
Ethics complaint.
Section.
Five.
They have a relief requested.
And part of that is.
That.
The city attorney.
We issue a letter of reprimand.
And a recommendation of suspension.
To the city council.
And that.
Normally when we talk about this in our normal meetings.
We.
I think we focus on, on election types.
Because that's the most obvious.
Application.
That's what we've seen in the past.
And I think that's what we've seen in the past.
There is, there is some external stuff that seems to be
happening.
And the court system.
And they are asking for.
They're asking us to recommend that.
The city attorney be suspended.
And.
That.
I don't know that I've ever seen.
A complaint that has been submitted.
That there has ever been a request for something like that.
And we recommend suspension.
City employee.
That seems really harsh.
And I don't.
I think it goes to the bigger board.
To make a determination of whether or not.
The city attorney is going to be able to influence the
action.
And I think that's the state.
Okay.
Is determined.
It's not actionable.
He was saying improper influence.
He was also saying.
It's actionable because.
The city attorney.
Is implying that they're able to influence the action on
any basis.
And that's the state.
So at this stage,
the city attorney is not.
Influencing.
See action.
On the basis of it in the merits because it's too early in
the process.
So.
You found that.
Complain is not actionable.
And then it would go to the board.
Whether you want to recommend to the board.
Ethics as a whole.
That's the correct.
Yeah.
Here we decide.
Do you want to recommend that the whole board consider it
as for less.
And then the next step would be.
Is it.
Yeah.
And then the other option is just to say it's just baseless
.
And then it doesn't go to the board.
The formality.
So those are, I think the two places.
And the formality hearing allows you to sanction.
The formality hearing allows you to do that.
And then the other option is to say,
I think the formality hearing is just a formality hearing.
It just means that the rest of our fellow board members
will then get to
weigh in.
It'll be evidentiary. So the complaint.
And respondent.
Will come in or should.
The respondent would not respond to it.
At that stage.
It's not required.
Complainant.
It is not required either.
Because.
Then.
Just not showing up with dismiss it. Right.
And then the other option is to say,
I think the formality hearing is just a formality hearing.
They are allowed to come and represent themselves.
You're not required to.
I think it.
Kind of essentially switches the board to.
Y'all to this.
The primary panel.
And then as the respondent.
And so I'm hearing.
And that's what's up.
What you want.
Yeah.
I guess.
The.
I'm trying to like wage.
To me.
The probability thing seems like it's going to.
Divide the attention.
But I mean, I hear what.
So the, I guess the concern.
With not doing that is that.
We, we end up with.
Another.
Ethics complaint next week.
That is also.
Not actionable and potentially frivolous.
And part of our.
Part of it.
If we go to.
Have an interior hearing for frivolity.
And.
Based on that, we find that it was frivolous.
We can.
Then we have some, some ability to limit.
Those.
Frivolous complaints.
Okay.
To the court.
To determine what.
Yeah.
Remedy or sanctions.
I guess.
So I'm hearing.
I think the recommendation is.
To.
To go to the frivolous.
I know there is a motion on the table.
I haven't heard a second.
Okay.
There is a motion to recommend that.
To recommend the frivolity.
Okay.
I think we're ready to go.
So let me just restate.
Yes.
The motion is.
To recommend to the board.
Of ethics as frivolous.
And for the board to hold the.
Right.
So.
To recommend that.
I think it's that we can forward considering this.
To the board.
To determine.
I don't think we can do that.
This chart.
Yeah.
I made that chart.
Let me look at what.
The three.
Member.
Says.
Could the ethics.
Be frivolous.
And if you say yes.
Then.
You go to the board.
With the.
Event.
Hearing.
Yeah.
The narrative says if a complaint is not actionable.
The panel may consider recommending that a hearing be first
held.
On an accepted complaint to determine if it may be frivol
ous.
Right.
Yeah.
So this is.
We would be recommending that.
Okay.
So you don't make.
Determination.
Recommend.
So we're.
Finding it.
And.
Not.
Not actionable.
Yeah.
Recommended.
So we're clear on the motion.
Would you mind saying it one more time.
Just for.
Clarity.
The motion to recommend.
To the board of ethics.
That.
Hearing first be held.
Ethics.
Complaint.
Could be.
Frivolous.
And.
To.
Hold the.
Evidence.
Hearing.
Yeah.
Hold a hearing to determine.
Ethics.
Complaint.
26.
One.
It's.
Frivolous.
Okay.
Ready to vote.
On the paper.
All right.
That's unanimous.
So I believe that.
And.
I believe we have 30 calendar days.
To schedule that.
Yeah.
So we will be in touch.
To.
Hold that.
Okay.
This is the attorney going to be there.
I.
Just kind of.
Joking.
I don't believe he's required to be there.
But.
I don't believe he's required to be there.
But.
I can ask him to be there.
I think last time we had a hearing that both came.
But.
I can't remember.
And the only other.
Issue.
In your opinion.
Do you want to attach the charter provision to it?
Yes.
I would definitely like to attach the.
So do I have a motion to recommend that.
I recommend.
I can.
I'm not going to.
Yeah.
Yes.
It's.
That would be our.
Our.
Basically your recommendation.
Letter notification letter.
Yeah.
So I can do it.
I'll make a motion that we attach section six point zero to
.
To our opinion.
From this.
I'll second that.
Okay.
Any discussion on that.
Paper.
I.
You know.
Is there anything else we should attach.
Just in the opinion.
I can make reference to the rights.
City attorney to represent himself in an individual
capacity.
Yeah.
I think that's.
It seems like that's the two things I know.
Recommendation.
Provide any information.
I don't want to.
Wait for the.
Yeah.
I think.
Well, yeah.
So I think that that's fine.
Yeah.
To attach that.
That way.
Anybody's reading this.
You know.
City attorneys just doing his duty.
Couldn't prevent.
Complaints like this.
That's the point.
Yeah.
Okay.
Thank you.