1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:08,880
Okay. Hey, Judge. It is 530-ish p.m. on

2
00:00:08,880 --> 00:00:12,720
Monday June 22nd, 2026. This is a special

3
00:00:12,720 --> 00:00:16,440
call meeting at the Board of Ethics and

4
00:00:16,440 --> 00:00:21,879
the items for consideration, it's BOE 26-013,

5
00:00:21,879 --> 00:00:24,120
consider and take necessary action

6
00:00:24,120 --> 00:00:26,600
regarding a recommendation made by a

7
00:00:26,600 --> 00:00:29,239
panel of the Board of Ethics on May 27th

8
00:00:29,239 --> 00:00:32,600
2026 to determine if the ethics

9
00:00:32,600 --> 00:00:36,439
complaint 26-01 concerning

10
00:00:36,439 --> 00:00:38,560
alleged violations of ethics ordinance

11
00:00:38,560 --> 00:00:43,920
section 2-273 may be frivolous.

12
00:00:43,920 --> 00:00:46,159
This hearing is being conducted under the

13
00:00:46,159 --> 00:00:47,840
authority of the Dent and Credit Ordinance

14
00:00:47,840 --> 00:00:53,600
Article 11, Ethics Section 2-2A1C.

15
00:00:53,600 --> 00:00:56,280
And the first for our business would be

16
00:00:56,280 --> 00:00:58,520
to elect a chair for this hearing,

17
00:00:58,520 --> 00:01:00,520
I know, I think you are. Oh, it's a full board of

18
00:01:00,520 --> 00:01:03,799
effective chair. And would you statement a quorum

19
00:01:03,799 --> 00:01:07,920
is present? A quorum is present.

20
00:01:07,920 --> 00:01:11,079
Got that for the record. Yep. For the record, a quorum is

21
00:01:11,079 --> 00:01:11,719
present.

22
00:01:11,719 --> 00:01:14,719
Do we need to introduce ourselves?

23
00:01:14,719 --> 00:01:17,120
You can introduce yourselves if you want, but kind of next

24
00:01:17,120 --> 00:01:18,239
item in the order

25
00:01:18,239 --> 00:01:20,599
procedures is if there are any recusals

26
00:01:20,599 --> 00:01:22,409
and then we'll enter the appearance of the parties, but if

27
00:01:22,409 --> 00:01:23,719
y'all want to go around and do that.

28
00:01:23,719 --> 00:01:25,799
I know we don't have little name cards, so that might just

29
00:01:25,799 --> 00:01:26,719
be helpful.

30
00:01:26,719 --> 00:01:30,719
Okay.

31
00:01:30,719 --> 00:01:35,120
So, do you want to, Diane, do you want to start

32
00:01:35,120 --> 00:01:38,840
with introductions?

33
00:01:38,840 --> 00:01:42,840
Diane Baker. Okay. Long time

34
00:01:42,840 --> 00:01:47,439
member of a couple boards here, who's Denton.

35
00:01:47,439 --> 00:01:51,439
Okay.

36
00:01:51,439 --> 00:01:55,640
Hi, I'm Pat Ranky.

37
00:01:55,640 --> 00:01:59,640
Mr. Pavlik.

38
00:01:59,640 --> 00:02:03,640
Dorthy Palumbo on special counsel for the board of ethics.

39
00:02:03,640 --> 00:02:07,640
And Kenneth Ferguson. Okay. Are there any potential

40
00:02:07,640 --> 00:02:11,639
for recusals to this?

41
00:02:11,639 --> 00:02:15,639
I just, can you speak up? I'm just having a hard time

42
00:02:15,639 --> 00:02:19,639
hearing. Yeah, it's me, it's not you, but I'm having a hard

43
00:02:19,639 --> 00:02:19,639
time hearing.

44
00:02:19,639 --> 00:02:23,639
That won't work. No.

45
00:02:23,639 --> 00:02:27,639
Okay, I'll try to speak up. I think it's this room too.

46
00:02:27,639 --> 00:02:31,639
Okay. So, no

47
00:02:31,639 --> 00:02:35,639
potential recusals?

48
00:02:35,639 --> 00:02:39,639
Okay. Alright. So,

49
00:02:39,639 --> 00:02:43,639
the appearance of the parties, the complainant is

50
00:02:43,639 --> 00:02:47,639
Adam Horwitz, and the

51
00:02:47,639 --> 00:02:51,639
respondent is the city attorney, Matt Rinewall.

52
00:02:51,639 --> 00:02:55,639
The complainant is here, but the

53
00:02:55,639 --> 00:02:59,639
respondent is not. Okay.

54
00:02:59,639 --> 00:03:03,639
And, so,

55
00:03:03,639 --> 00:03:07,639
the complainant requested to be allowed an additional 30

56
00:03:07,639 --> 00:03:07,639
minutes

57
00:03:07,639 --> 00:03:11,639
of time to present evidence, and I denied the request

58
00:03:11,639 --> 00:03:15,639
on June 17th, but I want the board to vote on whether or

59
00:03:15,639 --> 00:03:19,639
not you want to allow another 30 minutes. And he,

60
00:03:19,639 --> 00:03:23,639
they have 30 minutes for the presentation,

61
00:03:23,639 --> 00:03:27,639
but they want to double it to an hour.

62
00:03:27,639 --> 00:03:31,639
So, what is your pleasure?

63
00:03:31,639 --> 00:03:35,639
Well, I was not here last time,

64
00:03:35,639 --> 00:03:39,639
as you know, for surgery, but I would like to allow

65
00:03:39,639 --> 00:03:43,639
him to be able to speak for 30 minutes. I don't

66
00:03:43,639 --> 00:03:47,639
want me to get somewhere, I don't need to be, okay, but I

67
00:03:47,639 --> 00:03:47,639
don't,

68
00:03:47,639 --> 00:03:49,710
you know, there's things we have to, he has to cover, and

69
00:03:49,710 --> 00:03:51,639
things he doesn't have to cover.

70
00:03:51,639 --> 00:03:55,639
So, I think that 30 minutes is adequate time for him to

71
00:03:55,639 --> 00:03:55,639
speak

72
00:03:55,639 --> 00:03:59,639
on what his concerns are. Anybody else

73
00:03:59,639 --> 00:04:03,639
want to make a comment on the time?

74
00:04:03,639 --> 00:04:07,639
I don't

75
00:04:07,639 --> 00:04:11,639
have any comments on that. I mean, I think if we're

76
00:04:11,639 --> 00:04:15,639
just sticking to the ethics, whether or not it's frivolous,

77
00:04:15,639 --> 00:04:15,639
I think 30

78
00:04:15,639 --> 00:04:19,639
minutes should be adequate.

79
00:04:19,639 --> 00:04:23,639
But, I want Kenneth, do you have any? Are we taking a vote

80
00:04:23,639 --> 00:04:23,639
on it? We will take a vote.

81
00:04:23,639 --> 00:04:27,639
Yeah, I've got no comments on the vote. Okay.

82
00:04:27,639 --> 00:04:31,639
So, does somebody want to make a motion?

83
00:04:31,639 --> 00:04:35,639
I move that we

84
00:04:35,639 --> 00:04:39,639
stick to our 30 minutes without an additional 30 minutes.

85
00:04:39,639 --> 00:04:43,639
And is there a second to that? I'll second it. Kenneth

86
00:04:43,639 --> 00:04:43,639
Ferguson seconded it.

87
00:04:43,639 --> 00:04:47,639
Patricia Rink, you made the motion.

88
00:04:47,639 --> 00:04:51,639
So, all in favor of the motion to stick with the 30 minute

89
00:04:51,639 --> 00:04:55,639
time frame? Second, aye. Aye.

90
00:04:55,639 --> 00:04:59,639
It's unanimous. Five ayes.

91
00:04:59,639 --> 00:05:03,639
Okay. So,

92
00:05:03,639 --> 00:05:07,639
the complainant has three minutes for opening

93
00:05:07,639 --> 00:05:11,639
statements. You want to come up to them? I will keep the

94
00:05:11,639 --> 00:05:11,639
time. Okay.

95
00:05:11,639 --> 00:05:15,639
So, we'll help with three minutes on it or whatever.

96
00:05:15,639 --> 00:05:19,639
Do you need to address you as Adam? Yeah, Adam is great.

97
00:05:19,639 --> 00:05:23,639
Okay. Do you want to come to the podiums? Sure. Yeah, I'm

98
00:05:23,639 --> 00:05:23,639
just

99
00:05:23,639 --> 00:05:27,639
going to go there. Okay. And

100
00:05:27,639 --> 00:05:31,060
Madison will be the time people. So, you've got three

101
00:05:31,060 --> 00:05:31,639
minutes

102
00:05:31,639 --> 00:05:35,639
for your opening segments

103
00:05:35,639 --> 00:05:39,639
once you get the podium.

104
00:05:39,639 --> 00:05:43,639
Hello. Hello.

105
00:05:43,639 --> 00:05:47,639
Are you okay? Yep. Yes. Okay.

106
00:05:55,639 --> 00:05:59,639
According to the ethics ordinance, the board of

107
00:05:59,639 --> 00:06:02,930
ethics had one job to do when initially evaluating this

108
00:06:02,930 --> 00:06:03,639
complaint.

109
00:06:03,639 --> 00:06:07,639
To see if it was actionable or baseless.

110
00:06:07,639 --> 00:06:11,639
To fulfill this basic duty, the board of ethics moved to

111
00:06:11,639 --> 00:06:11,639
dismiss the complaint

112
00:06:11,639 --> 00:06:15,639
as baseless in a whopping two minutes. During a meeting in

113
00:06:15,639 --> 00:06:15,639
which

114
00:06:15,639 --> 00:06:19,639
no effort was taken to even read the complaint or examine

115
00:06:19,639 --> 00:06:19,639
whether it did

116
00:06:19,639 --> 00:06:23,639
in fact meet the elements of improper influence. In fact,

117
00:06:23,639 --> 00:06:23,639
at no point

118
00:06:23,639 --> 00:06:26,720
did the board even accurately state what the complaint had

119
00:06:26,720 --> 00:06:27,639
even alleged.

120
00:06:27,639 --> 00:06:31,639
The board of ethics had one job to do and chose not to do

121
00:06:31,639 --> 00:06:31,639
it.

122
00:06:31,639 --> 00:06:35,639
What they did instead was regurgitate legal talking points

123
00:06:35,639 --> 00:06:35,639
from

124
00:06:35,639 --> 00:06:39,290
special counsel for the city that they admitted to meeting

125
00:06:39,290 --> 00:06:39,639
with before the ethics

126
00:06:39,639 --> 00:06:43,639
meeting. These talking points not only fail on their face,

127
00:06:43,639 --> 00:06:46,519
but contradict the foundational ethical standards that

128
00:06:46,519 --> 00:06:47,639
legal professionals are bound to

129
00:06:47,639 --> 00:06:51,639
by the state bar of Texas.

130
00:06:51,639 --> 00:06:54,910
So not only did the board of ethics violate the ethics

131
00:06:54,910 --> 00:06:55,639
ordinance during the

132
00:06:55,639 --> 00:06:59,639
processing of the complaint.

133
00:06:59,639 --> 00:07:03,639
The board of ethics also violated the Texas Open Meetings

134
00:07:03,639 --> 00:07:03,639
Act.

135
00:07:03,639 --> 00:07:07,639
By effectively ruling on my complaint in closed doors,

136
00:07:07,639 --> 00:07:07,639
discussions,

137
00:07:07,639 --> 00:07:11,639
with special counsel, rather than in a genuine

138
00:07:11,639 --> 00:07:15,639
public forum as mandated. I believe that's a criminal

139
00:07:15,639 --> 00:07:15,639
offense.

140
00:07:15,639 --> 00:07:19,639
After refusing to engage with what my complaint stated,

141
00:07:19,639 --> 00:07:23,639
even going so far as to misstating its contents,

142
00:07:23,639 --> 00:07:26,800
the board then pivoted to the issue of frivolity,

143
00:07:26,800 --> 00:07:27,639
essentially

144
00:07:27,639 --> 00:07:31,639
sanctioning me for making the complaint in the first place,

145
00:07:31,639 --> 00:07:31,639
which is what this meeting concerns.

146
00:07:31,639 --> 00:07:35,639
In order to find my complaint frivolous, two conditions

147
00:07:35,639 --> 00:07:39,639
must be met. One, it must be groundless. And two, it must

148
00:07:39,639 --> 00:07:39,639
be

149
00:07:39,639 --> 00:07:43,639
made in bad faith for the purpose of harassment.

150
00:07:43,639 --> 00:07:47,639
A frivolous complaint must meet both of these criteria.

151
00:07:47,639 --> 00:07:47,639
Mine meets neither.

152
00:07:47,639 --> 00:07:51,639
Thank you.

153
00:07:55,639 --> 00:07:59,639
Because the respondent is not here, we can

154
00:07:59,639 --> 00:08:03,639
move on to the presentation of evidence.

155
00:08:03,639 --> 00:08:07,639
So, Adam, you have 30 minutes to present

156
00:08:07,639 --> 00:08:11,639
your evidence.

157
00:08:27,639 --> 00:08:31,639
I don't have it printed out.

158
00:08:31,639 --> 00:08:35,639
Is there something you submitted? I can pull it up on the

159
00:08:35,639 --> 00:08:35,639
screen.

160
00:08:35,639 --> 00:08:39,639
No. I would

161
00:08:39,639 --> 00:08:42,820
kind of be going back and forth, so it might be easier just

162
00:08:42,820 --> 00:08:43,639
to read it. And if you have

163
00:08:43,639 --> 00:08:46,899
those exhibits, I can see the exhibits on the screen, so I

164
00:08:46,899 --> 00:08:47,639
'll make sure that we actually have it on there.

165
00:08:47,639 --> 00:08:51,639
Here and here is the...

166
00:08:51,639 --> 00:08:55,639
Sarah, did you know what happened with that?

167
00:08:55,639 --> 00:08:59,639
It worked the first time we did it.

168
00:09:03,639 --> 00:09:07,639
I can pull it up on the screen.

169
00:09:07,639 --> 00:09:11,639
I'm seeing if it'll work through differently.

170
00:09:11,639 --> 00:09:15,639
Okay. I apologize. Have y'all all seen the

171
00:09:15,639 --> 00:09:19,639
exhibits that were submitted? Yes.

172
00:09:23,639 --> 00:09:27,639
I sent you the file.

173
00:09:27,639 --> 00:09:31,639
I'm sorry, what? Do you want the file that happened

174
00:09:31,639 --> 00:09:31,639
together?

175
00:09:31,639 --> 00:09:35,639
I don't know how to get that to this computer.

176
00:09:35,639 --> 00:09:39,639
Well, I guess I have the flash drive.

177
00:09:39,639 --> 00:09:43,639
Because there was the one that was part of the initial

178
00:09:43,639 --> 00:09:47,639
complaint. I saw that one online, but not the ones I sent

179
00:09:47,639 --> 00:09:51,639
you last week.

180
00:09:51,639 --> 00:09:55,639
I don't know what I was supposed to...

181
00:10:21,639 --> 00:10:25,639
[inaudible]

182
00:10:51,639 --> 00:10:55,639
[inaudible]

183
00:11:21,639 --> 00:11:25,639
[inaudible]

184
00:11:25,639 --> 00:11:29,639
[inaudible]

185
00:11:29,639 --> 00:11:33,639
[inaudible]

186
00:11:33,639 --> 00:11:37,639
Here's what was submitted.

187
00:11:37,639 --> 00:11:41,639
Okay, it's not...

188
00:11:41,639 --> 00:11:45,639
It includes all of it. It's all in one

189
00:11:45,639 --> 00:11:49,639
document? Correct. Okay. Are they labeled as

190
00:11:49,639 --> 00:11:53,639
exhibits here? Yes. I think this is in A and then there's

191
00:11:53,639 --> 00:11:57,639
exhibit B somewhere. Okay, so it should be four total.

192
00:11:57,639 --> 00:12:00,539
I just want to make sure they're correct upon referring to

193
00:12:00,539 --> 00:12:01,639
them correctly so it doesn't

194
00:12:01,639 --> 00:12:05,639
throw people off. Exhibit A is the city's

195
00:12:05,639 --> 00:12:09,639
motion... the city defendant's motion to dismiss.

196
00:12:09,639 --> 00:12:13,639
Exhibit B is...

197
00:12:19,639 --> 00:12:23,639
[inaudible]

198
00:12:23,639 --> 00:12:27,639
[inaudible]

199
00:12:27,639 --> 00:12:31,639
[inaudible]

200
00:12:31,639 --> 00:12:35,639
[inaudible]

201
00:12:35,639 --> 00:12:39,639
They're labeled by number, not letter.

202
00:12:39,639 --> 00:12:43,639
Is that our exhibits or is that the exhibits from...

203
00:12:43,639 --> 00:12:47,639
Those are mine. So they're like sub...

204
00:12:47,639 --> 00:12:51,639
[inaudible]

205
00:12:51,639 --> 00:12:55,639
Are they labeled there? Do you remember?

206
00:12:55,639 --> 00:12:59,639
No. I didn't... I saw them compiled as my document.

207
00:12:59,639 --> 00:13:03,639
Okay.

208
00:13:03,639 --> 00:13:07,639
This is...

209
00:13:07,639 --> 00:13:11,639
[inaudible]

210
00:13:11,639 --> 00:13:15,639
[inaudible]

211
00:13:15,639 --> 00:13:19,639
[inaudible]

212
00:13:19,639 --> 00:13:23,639
[inaudible]

213
00:13:23,639 --> 00:13:27,639
Here's this email. Okay.

214
00:13:27,639 --> 00:13:31,639
The very last one was the...

215
00:13:31,639 --> 00:13:35,639
The last one was the June 9th email to

216
00:13:35,639 --> 00:13:39,639
Matt Green Laundry. Okay. Correct.

217
00:13:39,639 --> 00:13:43,639
Okay. Thank you. So I'm guessing that B is

218
00:13:43,639 --> 00:13:47,639
ODV petition and it has those sub exhibits. What was the...

219
00:13:47,639 --> 00:13:51,639
It looks like maybe there's only three total. It looks like

220
00:13:51,639 --> 00:13:51,639
maybe there's just

221
00:13:51,639 --> 00:13:55,269
the motion to dismiss from the city, then my petition, and

222
00:13:55,269 --> 00:13:55,639
then

223
00:13:55,639 --> 00:13:59,639
June email to Matt Green Laundry. Is that right?

224
00:13:59,639 --> 00:14:03,639
Yeah. Here's some emails.

225
00:14:03,639 --> 00:14:07,639
That's all part of the...

226
00:14:07,639 --> 00:14:11,639
That second one. Okay.

227
00:14:11,639 --> 00:14:15,639
This is one, then there's this.

228
00:14:15,639 --> 00:14:19,639
Okay. Okay. It looks like there might be two missing

229
00:14:19,639 --> 00:14:23,639
if that's the second one. And those would be...

230
00:14:23,639 --> 00:14:27,639
[inaudible]

231
00:14:27,639 --> 00:14:31,639
[inaudible]

232
00:14:31,639 --> 00:14:35,639
Those would be a...

233
00:14:35,639 --> 00:14:39,639
[inaudible]

234
00:14:39,639 --> 00:14:43,639
June 1st, 2026 letter to the attorney

235
00:14:43,639 --> 00:14:47,639
general from Deputy City Attorney Amanda Brown.

236
00:14:47,639 --> 00:14:51,639
And... That's included?

237
00:14:51,639 --> 00:14:55,639
That's on page 16. That's on page 16? Okay.

238
00:14:55,639 --> 00:14:59,639
Does it have a name? Sorry. I went from the back.

239
00:14:59,639 --> 00:15:03,639
[inaudible]

240
00:15:03,639 --> 00:15:07,639
Okay.

241
00:15:07,639 --> 00:15:11,639
[inaudible]

242
00:15:11,639 --> 00:15:15,639
That looks like the first one. So, that for Exhibit A,

243
00:15:15,639 --> 00:15:19,639
I guess. So, the...

244
00:15:19,639 --> 00:15:23,639
The July 11th one was...

245
00:15:23,639 --> 00:15:27,639
July 11th starts on page 11. Starts on page 11?

246
00:15:27,639 --> 00:15:31,639
Okay. That sounds like it would be Exhibit

247
00:15:31,639 --> 00:15:35,639
B then, right?

248
00:15:35,639 --> 00:15:39,639
So, calling it.

249
00:15:39,639 --> 00:15:43,639
[inaudible]

250
00:15:43,639 --> 00:15:47,639
[inaudible]

251
00:15:47,639 --> 00:15:51,639
[inaudible]

252
00:15:51,639 --> 00:15:55,639
[inaudible]

253
00:15:55,639 --> 00:15:59,639
[inaudible]

254
00:15:59,639 --> 00:16:03,639
You said this is D?

255
00:16:03,639 --> 00:16:07,639
I believe so. So, what I have is...

256
00:16:07,639 --> 00:16:11,639
It looks like one might be missing.

257
00:16:11,639 --> 00:16:15,639
There was another letter to the attorney general from May

258
00:16:15,639 --> 00:16:15,639
20th, 2026.

259
00:16:15,639 --> 00:16:19,639
And I didn't see that in the...

260
00:16:19,639 --> 00:16:23,639
[inaudible]

261
00:16:23,639 --> 00:16:27,639
[inaudible]

262
00:16:27,639 --> 00:16:31,639
[inaudible]

263
00:16:31,639 --> 00:16:35,639
That looks... Oh, yeah. That looks like the June...

264
00:16:35,639 --> 00:16:39,639
This is June 1st.

265
00:16:39,639 --> 00:16:43,639
Okay. What's this one called?

266
00:16:43,639 --> 00:16:47,639
We call it Exhibit C. Exhibit C, okay.

267
00:16:47,639 --> 00:16:51,639
[inaudible]

268
00:16:51,639 --> 00:16:55,639
[inaudible]

269
00:16:55,639 --> 00:16:59,639
[inaudible]

270
00:16:59,639 --> 00:17:09,640
[tapping]

271
00:17:09,640 --> 00:17:19,640
[tapping]

272
00:17:19,640 --> 00:17:29,640
[tapping]

273
00:17:29,640 --> 00:17:39,640
[tapping]

274
00:17:39,640 --> 00:17:49,640
[tapping]

275
00:17:49,640 --> 00:17:57,640
[tapping]

276
00:17:57,640 --> 00:18:02,640
So just for clarification, those people were the city

277
00:18:02,640 --> 00:18:05,640
manager, the city attorney,

278
00:18:05,640 --> 00:18:12,640
who were those other people that were being sued?

279
00:18:12,640 --> 00:18:17,630
Some of them are from the city attorney's office, some of

280
00:18:17,630 --> 00:18:21,640
them are employees of our Daily Bread.

281
00:18:21,640 --> 00:18:29,640
Okay. Okay, just want to be clear.

282
00:18:29,640 --> 00:18:33,650
Okay, just to make sure I'm on the same page here, so Exhib

283
00:18:33,650 --> 00:18:37,640
it A is the motion to dismiss from the city defendants.

284
00:18:37,640 --> 00:18:43,640
Exhibit B is the July 11th letter on page C, right?

285
00:18:43,640 --> 00:18:44,640
Yes.

286
00:18:44,640 --> 00:18:48,640
Okay. And then Exhibit C is the June 1st, 2026 letter?

287
00:18:48,640 --> 00:18:49,640
Correct. On page 16.

288
00:18:49,640 --> 00:18:56,279
D is the long ODB petition, and then E is the June 9th

289
00:18:56,279 --> 00:18:57,640
email.

290
00:18:57,640 --> 00:19:00,640
This is their petition, ODB's.

291
00:19:00,640 --> 00:19:03,640
Okay, so that's D, right?

292
00:19:03,640 --> 00:19:07,640
This appears to be your petition, or restraint order.

293
00:19:07,640 --> 00:19:11,240
Okay, so I guess that's D, and then the last one is the

294
00:19:11,240 --> 00:19:12,640
June 9th email?

295
00:19:12,640 --> 00:19:13,640
Correct.

296
00:19:13,640 --> 00:19:14,640
Okay.

297
00:19:14,640 --> 00:19:42,640
Exhibit D begins on page 19.

298
00:19:42,640 --> 00:19:47,640
Thank you, that was some good work.

299
00:20:12,640 --> 00:20:32,640
Okay, are we ready?

300
00:20:32,640 --> 00:20:33,640
Yep.

301
00:20:33,640 --> 00:20:36,640
Okay, I'm ready.

302
00:20:36,640 --> 00:20:42,829
Okay, from Chapter 2 of the Ethics Ordinance, an actionable

303
00:20:42,829 --> 00:20:43,890
complaint is an accepted complaint that has been deemed by

304
00:20:43,890 --> 00:20:46,829
a panel to contain allegations and evidence that, if

305
00:20:46,829 --> 00:20:50,180
accepted as true, would support the finding that a

306
00:20:50,180 --> 00:20:52,640
violation of this article occurred.

307
00:20:52,640 --> 00:20:55,460
A baseless complaint is the opposite, does not pledge

308
00:20:55,460 --> 00:20:58,640
conduct that would constitute a violation of the article,

309
00:20:58,640 --> 00:21:02,420
or does not provide evidence that should support a

310
00:21:02,420 --> 00:21:04,640
violation of the article.

311
00:21:04,640 --> 00:21:09,230
Of course, a baseless complaint has to be groundless, so it

312
00:21:09,230 --> 00:21:13,549
's baseless as well, and brought in bad faith, or for the

313
00:21:13,549 --> 00:21:15,640
purpose of harassment.

314
00:21:15,640 --> 00:21:20,319
I find odd that what I touched upon briefly in my

315
00:21:20,319 --> 00:21:25,970
introduction is that the substance of the complaint was

316
00:21:25,970 --> 00:21:32,089
never actually addressed at the initial meeting, or even in

317
00:21:32,089 --> 00:21:34,640
writing afterwards.

318
00:21:34,640 --> 00:21:38,690
In the preliminary panel determination filed by the panel

319
00:21:38,690 --> 00:21:43,119
chair, Annetta Ramsey, she states, in part, "City Attorney

320
00:21:43,119 --> 00:21:47,079
Raynmond had 'improper influence on the matter' by using

321
00:21:47,079 --> 00:21:50,710
his official position to assert the prestige of that

322
00:21:50,710 --> 00:21:54,400
position for the purpose of harming the private interest of

323
00:21:54,400 --> 00:21:55,640
Adam Horowitz."

324
00:21:55,640 --> 00:21:59,000
That's not what I said, but it actually said verbatim on

325
00:21:59,000 --> 00:22:02,569
the very first page of the complaint, where it says, "The

326
00:22:02,569 --> 00:22:05,950
private interest being advanced is Raynmond's personal

327
00:22:05,950 --> 00:22:09,529
interest in defeating claims that expose him to individual

328
00:22:09,529 --> 00:22:10,640
liability.

329
00:22:10,640 --> 00:22:14,250
The official position and resources being used to advance

330
00:22:14,250 --> 00:22:18,089
that private interest are his authority, title, and office

331
00:22:18,089 --> 00:22:21,809
as City Attorney. This is the precise conduct that Section

332
00:22:21,809 --> 00:22:25,640
273(e)(3) prohibits 'improper influence.'"

333
00:22:25,640 --> 00:22:28,799
It goes on to state that Raynmond has used his official

334
00:22:28,799 --> 00:22:32,339
title as City Attorney as office, or city office address,

335
00:22:32,339 --> 00:22:35,869
and authority over subordinate City Attorneys to appear as

336
00:22:35,869 --> 00:22:39,410
counsel over record and federal litigation, in which he is

337
00:22:39,410 --> 00:22:42,640
simultaneously a named individual defendant.

338
00:22:42,640 --> 00:22:47,079
The private interest being advanced is for the sake of this

339
00:22:47,079 --> 00:22:51,609
complaint is not mine, it is Raynmond's personal interest

340
00:22:51,609 --> 00:22:56,230
in defeating claims that expose him to individual liability

341
00:22:56,230 --> 00:22:56,640
.

342
00:22:56,640 --> 00:23:00,569
It appears that there were two arguments that City used for

343
00:23:00,569 --> 00:23:04,410
the baseless prong here, both of which failed, and both

344
00:23:04,410 --> 00:23:08,349
arguments also ignore the entire ethical dimension of the

345
00:23:08,349 --> 00:23:12,190
conduct, which I would assume would be the point of these

346
00:23:12,190 --> 00:23:13,640
types of hearings,

347
00:23:13,640 --> 00:23:17,349
instead implying that the ethical issues are somehow swept

348
00:23:17,349 --> 00:23:20,950
under the rug or waived by erroneous and hyper-legalistic

349
00:23:20,950 --> 00:23:22,640
misinterpretations.

350
00:23:22,640 --> 00:23:25,940
The argument is twofold. First, it states that the City

351
00:23:25,940 --> 00:23:29,049
Attorney has to represent the City because it says so in

352
00:23:29,049 --> 00:23:32,640
the Charter, therefore he just has no choice no matter.

353
00:23:32,640 --> 00:23:36,890
That's ridiculous. This job description does not override

354
00:23:36,890 --> 00:23:39,640
basic ethical and professional standards.

355
00:23:39,640 --> 00:23:42,720
According to this line of reasoning, if the City Attorney

356
00:23:42,720 --> 00:23:45,849
had a bar complaint filed against him and lost his license,

357
00:23:45,849 --> 00:23:49,019
for example, he would be obligated to violate professional

358
00:23:49,019 --> 00:23:51,990
ethics and practice law without a license to appease the

359
00:23:51,990 --> 00:23:53,640
dense and city Charter.

360
00:23:53,640 --> 00:23:57,680
If it doesn't hold in that situation, why would that

361
00:23:57,680 --> 00:24:00,640
reasoning hold in this situation?

362
00:24:00,640 --> 00:24:05,559
Secondly, there's a Sixth Amendment argument, which is the

363
00:24:05,559 --> 00:24:09,640
second, "he has a right to represent himself."

364
00:24:09,640 --> 00:24:12,609
My understanding is that the Sixth Amendment applies to

365
00:24:12,609 --> 00:24:15,730
criminal cases, which this isn't, and it might be later,

366
00:24:15,730 --> 00:24:20,089
but I'm not prosecuted on that. I'm not a district attorney

367
00:24:20,089 --> 00:24:21,640
, obviously.

368
00:24:21,640 --> 00:24:25,910
Well, it's true that he has a right to represent himself in

369
00:24:25,910 --> 00:24:30,640
civil matters. That was never the focus of the complaint.

370
00:24:30,640 --> 00:24:33,299
The focus of the complaint is the conflict of interest

371
00:24:33,299 --> 00:24:35,640
between representing both himself and the City.

372
00:24:35,640 --> 00:24:39,680
This does not succeed as an argument either. The conflict

373
00:24:39,680 --> 00:24:44,380
of interest... rewind the date. Texas attorneys have basic

374
00:24:44,380 --> 00:24:48,339
ethical standards. They have to go by conduct standards

375
00:24:48,339 --> 00:24:51,640
outlined in the Texas Disciplinary Rules.

376
00:24:51,640 --> 00:24:56,890
The conflict of interest rules, click here. You don't have

377
00:24:56,890 --> 00:25:02,990
to dig too deep. It's rule number one, 1.03, I believe. It

378
00:25:02,990 --> 00:25:06,549
's on the first page there. This type of conflict of

379
00:25:06,549 --> 00:25:08,640
interest we're dealing with is pretty self-evident.

380
00:25:08,640 --> 00:25:12,230
If you look at the basic details of the case, that the City

381
00:25:12,230 --> 00:25:15,910
Attorney's Office was alleged to have been tampering with

382
00:25:15,910 --> 00:25:19,450
evidence in a criminal case and engaged in a civil rights

383
00:25:19,450 --> 00:25:23,630
conspiracy, any reasonable person would say, "Yeah, if both

384
00:25:23,630 --> 00:25:27,509
that individual and the City are named as defendants,

385
00:25:27,509 --> 00:25:31,640
perhaps there is a conflict of interest there."

386
00:25:31,640 --> 00:25:35,019
And the concerns over that, of course, are not just

387
00:25:35,019 --> 00:25:38,799
hypothetical. And that's why I brought up the stuff from

388
00:25:38,799 --> 00:25:43,710
the Ardeny-Bread case. Because it's not just a hypothetical

389
00:25:43,710 --> 00:25:46,640
thing that's already happened.

390
00:25:46,640 --> 00:25:53,009
That case, which I believe is a long one, it's our exhibit

391
00:25:53,009 --> 00:25:59,509
D here, which is quite long, but the factual background is

392
00:25:59,509 --> 00:26:05,390
only 60 pages or 30 pages. If you're not counting double

393
00:26:05,390 --> 00:26:08,789
space, it's not going to take forever to go through. It's

394
00:26:08,789 --> 00:26:09,640
extensively sourced.

395
00:26:09,640 --> 00:26:13,880
With 81 exhibits there, it involved false submissions to

396
00:26:13,880 --> 00:26:17,880
the Attorney General by the City Attorney's Office, false

397
00:26:17,880 --> 00:26:22,200
statements to the Texas Workforce Commission investigators,

398
00:26:22,200 --> 00:26:26,640
which were repeated verbatim in their investigative report.

399
00:26:26,640 --> 00:26:30,740
And then it also notes that around that very same time that

400
00:26:30,740 --> 00:26:35,119
the City Attorneys were making fraudulent representations

401
00:26:35,119 --> 00:26:39,430
to the Attorney General and the state agencies, the City's

402
00:26:39,430 --> 00:26:43,720
contractor for the city shelter was engaging in forgery and

403
00:26:43,720 --> 00:26:45,640
evidence tampering.

404
00:26:45,640 --> 00:26:49,480
Presumably, what I'm guessing the goal was to falsely cert

405
00:26:49,480 --> 00:26:53,319
ify compliance and also hide a lot of misconduct in multiple

406
00:26:53,319 --> 00:26:57,640
locations, all of which are extensively documented as well.

407
00:26:57,640 --> 00:27:02,079
I don't believe that that timing there is really a

408
00:27:02,079 --> 00:27:07,609
coincidence between what the City Attorneys were doing with

409
00:27:07,609 --> 00:27:13,039
the shelter management were doing. Because if you look at

410
00:27:13,039 --> 00:27:18,650
that July 11 letter attached to exhibit B, Deputy City

411
00:27:18,650 --> 00:27:23,640
Attorney Amanda Brown sought to withhold some records.

412
00:27:23,640 --> 00:27:28,380
This was actually, to give a little context here, last Jun

413
00:27:28,380 --> 00:27:32,940
eteenth an African American gentleman at the shelter had

414
00:27:32,940 --> 00:27:36,309
been, I wasn't there for this, but I heard that he had been

415
00:27:36,309 --> 00:27:38,640
assaulted by security staff at the shelter.

416
00:27:38,640 --> 00:27:42,970
And so I sought to obtain records regarding communications

417
00:27:42,970 --> 00:27:47,400
between the City Attorney, sorry, just the City officials

418
00:27:47,400 --> 00:27:51,910
and the City shelter management regarding this event, which

419
00:27:51,910 --> 00:27:55,009
had been reported. And Amanda Brown, Deputy City Attorney,

420
00:27:55,009 --> 00:27:58,240
sought to withhold the records based on attorney client

421
00:27:58,240 --> 00:27:59,640
privilege.

422
00:27:59,640 --> 00:28:03,890
Section 9 of their contract claims that they're completely

423
00:28:03,890 --> 00:28:08,069
separate. Their legal defenses submitted to the district

424
00:28:08,069 --> 00:28:12,180
court claim that they're completely separate. They don't

425
00:28:12,180 --> 00:28:15,079
know anything about what they're doing, it's a separate

426
00:28:15,079 --> 00:28:15,640
thing.

427
00:28:15,640 --> 00:28:20,779
And then they're telling the Attorney General that they're

428
00:28:20,779 --> 00:28:25,900
advising them in the capacity as an attorney. And context

429
00:28:25,900 --> 00:28:31,000
of that, the Juneteenth, well that's just mere weeks away

430
00:28:31,000 --> 00:28:36,029
from the pattern of misconduct that both parties have been

431
00:28:36,029 --> 00:28:38,640
extensively engaged in.

432
00:28:38,640 --> 00:28:43,339
Along those lines, of course, in that case, the reason why

433
00:28:43,339 --> 00:28:48,039
this is all relevant is that, of course, Mack Rainwound and

434
00:28:48,039 --> 00:28:52,660
Devon Brown, Deputy City Attorney and Amanda Brown, were

435
00:28:52,660 --> 00:28:55,640
named as defendants in that case.

436
00:28:55,640 --> 00:29:02,099
And they also represented both themselves and the city in

437
00:29:02,099 --> 00:29:03,640
that case.

438
00:29:03,640 --> 00:29:06,839
So, I talk about conflict of interest, it's not a

439
00:29:06,839 --> 00:29:10,819
conspiracy theory about like the Loch Ness Monster doing 9/

440
00:29:10,819 --> 00:29:15,640
11. It's actually a pretty clear cut here.

441
00:29:15,640 --> 00:29:22,309
And you can read, I guess this is their exhibit A here, on

442
00:29:22,309 --> 00:29:29,400
page A of that, they said, this was their individual, just

443
00:29:29,400 --> 00:29:37,059
sorry, we'll rewrite it here, this was just the individual,

444
00:29:37,059 --> 00:29:42,190
these folks, the individual city defendants' motion to

445
00:29:42,190 --> 00:29:44,640
dismiss not the cities itself.

446
00:29:44,640 --> 00:29:58,640
So, page eight, they said,

447
00:29:58,640 --> 00:30:02,890
"No reasonable person would believe that the city attorneys

448
00:30:02,890 --> 00:30:07,029
committed any acts falling outside this course and scope of

449
00:30:07,029 --> 00:30:11,299
their employment and representation of the city. Thus the

450
00:30:11,299 --> 00:30:15,240
allegations lack of basis in fact and law." That's weird,

451
00:30:15,240 --> 00:30:19,880
so can you seriously look at the public filings that they

452
00:30:19,880 --> 00:30:22,640
've made while representing themselves, while representing

453
00:30:22,640 --> 00:30:24,640
the city at the same time previously?

454
00:30:24,640 --> 00:30:27,529
They claim, oh yeah, it's not a conflict of interest, they

455
00:30:27,529 --> 00:30:30,279
're just defending themselves by saying that the alleged

456
00:30:30,279 --> 00:30:33,160
federal felonies that they committed were actually within

457
00:30:33,160 --> 00:30:35,890
this course and scope of their employment with the city of

458
00:30:35,890 --> 00:30:36,640
Denton.

459
00:30:36,640 --> 00:30:41,359
How could the city of Denton possibly go wrong with that

460
00:30:41,359 --> 00:30:44,640
type of defense, conflict three?

461
00:30:44,640 --> 00:30:49,640
That was a joke.

462
00:30:49,640 --> 00:30:55,640
How much time do I have left?

463
00:30:55,640 --> 00:31:06,640
19 minutes and 30 seconds.

464
00:31:06,640 --> 00:31:09,640
Well I'm glad I didn't get the whole hour.

465
00:31:09,640 --> 00:31:12,660
I don't think I'm going to get half an hour, so I just went

466
00:31:12,660 --> 00:31:13,640
through this.

467
00:31:13,640 --> 00:31:20,890
So, to, I guess, wrap this up here, I'd like to share

468
00:31:20,890 --> 00:31:25,329
another story that somewhat dovetails with the pattern of

469
00:31:25,329 --> 00:31:28,640
conduct that I've already outlined here.

470
00:31:28,640 --> 00:31:37,299
On the night of May 14th, 2026, I was at the park by Texas

471
00:31:37,299 --> 00:31:43,799
Women's University in Locust around that area. A 13 year

472
00:31:43,799 --> 00:31:44,440
old girl approached me and asked if I had a safe place to

473
00:31:44,440 --> 00:31:44,640
stay.

474
00:31:44,640 --> 00:31:47,230
She told me that she was being sexually abused by her

475
00:31:47,230 --> 00:31:50,160
father and her brother. She told me that because of that

476
00:31:50,160 --> 00:31:54,000
abuse she had to hurt herself and ended up at University

477
00:31:54,000 --> 00:31:56,640
Behavioral Health of Denton.

478
00:31:56,640 --> 00:32:00,109
And she told me that she had escaped from UBH because she

479
00:32:00,109 --> 00:32:03,269
didn't feel safe there and that when she told UBH staff

480
00:32:03,269 --> 00:32:05,640
about the sexual abuse nothing was done.

481
00:32:05,640 --> 00:32:18,329
And she was obviously distressed, but she was queer,

482
00:32:18,329 --> 00:32:26,640
coherent, and 13 years old. Excuse me, I'm on the street at

483
00:32:26,640 --> 00:32:26,640
night.

484
00:32:26,640 --> 00:32:32,400
And shortly after she approached me, multiple Denton PD

485
00:32:32,400 --> 00:32:37,720
officers chased her down to detain her. During that

486
00:32:37,720 --> 00:32:42,640
encounter, she fell to the ground multiple times.

487
00:32:42,640 --> 00:32:46,750
And I called Denton PD twice to report what the girl had

488
00:32:46,750 --> 00:32:50,309
told me. I then submitted a public information request to

489
00:32:50,309 --> 00:32:53,640
the city of Denton for the police records from that night.

490
00:32:53,640 --> 00:32:58,210
And Texas law requires law enforcement to make mandatory

491
00:32:58,210 --> 00:33:02,759
referral to DFPS the moment they receive a report of child

492
00:33:02,759 --> 00:33:03,640
abuse.

493
00:33:03,640 --> 00:33:07,650
It doesn't appear that Denton PD ever made that referral.

494
00:33:07,650 --> 00:33:10,809
When Deputy City Attorney Amanda Brown submitted the city's

495
00:33:10,809 --> 00:33:13,640
response to the Attorney General, she claims CPS had been

496
00:33:13,640 --> 00:33:18,230
notified that she didn't include any cross report, no DFPS

497
00:33:18,230 --> 00:33:21,640
intake number, no documentation of any kind.

498
00:33:21,640 --> 00:33:25,519
When I brought this directly to City Attorney Graham Watt's

499
00:33:25,519 --> 00:33:28,900
attention and gave him until, I shared it within the June

500
00:33:28,900 --> 00:33:32,029
11th deadline to submit that documentation to the Attorney

501
00:33:32,029 --> 00:33:34,640
General, nothing was provided.

502
00:33:34,640 --> 00:33:42,970
And that is what Exhibit E, I think that's the last one

503
00:33:42,970 --> 00:33:51,759
here, it's the email I sent to Matt Graham Launtier. It's

504
00:33:51,759 --> 00:33:53,250
the last page. The last page? Yeah, you can just scroll all

505
00:33:53,250 --> 00:33:53,640
the way down.

506
00:33:53,640 --> 00:34:05,640
Okay, yeah, it's up right here. Thank you.

507
00:34:05,640 --> 00:34:09,550
I also want to share with them about his deputy's

508
00:34:09,550 --> 00:34:14,750
submission contained no evidence of the CPS notification. I

509
00:34:14,750 --> 00:34:19,639
told them that three out of the four requested categories,

510
00:34:19,639 --> 00:34:24,150
the incident report, the CAD dispatch log, and the call

511
00:34:24,150 --> 00:34:25,639
recording were never submitted to the Attorney General as

512
00:34:25,639 --> 00:34:27,639
required.

513
00:34:27,639 --> 00:34:31,670
And I shared the deadline, he didn't do anything. That's

514
00:34:31,670 --> 00:34:35,619
not an oversight, that's a choice. The City Attorney's

515
00:34:35,619 --> 00:34:39,650
Office knew the mandatory CPS referral was never made, and

516
00:34:39,650 --> 00:34:43,699
rather than correct the record, they let the misrepresent

517
00:34:43,699 --> 00:34:46,639
ation to the Attorney General stand.

518
00:34:46,639 --> 00:34:50,550
Now why I feel like that's relevant for this board. The

519
00:34:50,550 --> 00:34:54,119
city officials involved in this incident acted and

520
00:34:54,119 --> 00:34:58,019
continued to act without any apparent concern that they

521
00:34:58,019 --> 00:35:01,639
would be held accountable in any shape or form.

522
00:35:01,639 --> 00:35:05,190
They moved with all records, they misrepresented compliance

523
00:35:05,190 --> 00:35:08,570
to the Attorney General, they ignored direct notice from a

524
00:35:08,570 --> 00:35:11,880
private citizen who witnessed what happened to that girl,

525
00:35:11,880 --> 00:35:14,820
and they acted that way because there was some type of

526
00:35:14,820 --> 00:35:17,659
pattern in place of them being able to get away with

527
00:35:17,659 --> 00:35:19,639
apparently anything.

528
00:35:19,639 --> 00:35:22,900
And from what I witnessed from viewing the last hearing,

529
00:35:22,900 --> 00:35:26,219
this board appears to be part of that pattern. While these

530
00:35:26,219 --> 00:35:29,559
officials were covering up a Denton PD's failure to protect

531
00:35:29,559 --> 00:35:33,019
a 13-year-old girl, this board was moving to sanction me

532
00:35:33,019 --> 00:35:36,639
for filing a legitimate ethics complaint against those same

533
00:35:36,639 --> 00:35:37,639
city officials.

534
00:35:37,639 --> 00:35:56,780
So thank you for your time, go ahead and pat yourselves on

535
00:35:56,780 --> 00:35:59,639
the back.

536
00:35:59,639 --> 00:36:04,530
As the respondent is not here, there will be no

537
00:36:04,530 --> 00:36:08,639
presentation of evidence from him. So we can move into

538
00:36:08,639 --> 00:36:08,639
closing statements if that's your pleasure.

539
00:36:08,639 --> 00:36:10,639
Yes.

540
00:36:10,639 --> 00:36:14,989
Complaintant, this person has five minutes to close. Would

541
00:36:14,989 --> 00:36:16,639
you like to use that time?

542
00:36:16,639 --> 00:36:17,639
That was my closer.

543
00:36:17,639 --> 00:36:18,639
Okay.

544
00:36:18,639 --> 00:36:20,639
Yeah, thank you.

545
00:36:20,639 --> 00:36:26,460
The respondent again is not here, so there's no closing

546
00:36:26,460 --> 00:36:32,039
statement from him, and there is no time reserved for

547
00:36:32,039 --> 00:36:35,639
closing the closure for the final.

548
00:36:35,639 --> 00:36:36,639
Sorry.

549
00:36:36,639 --> 00:36:42,639
Okay, so we're going to close now.

550
00:36:42,639 --> 00:36:45,639
And deliberations can begin.

551
00:36:45,639 --> 00:36:49,789
I just have this down here as a reminder of kind of the

552
00:36:49,789 --> 00:36:54,639
burden of responsibility to establish evidence.

553
00:36:54,639 --> 00:36:58,449
And then I also have kind of, this is the outline of the

554
00:36:58,449 --> 00:37:01,639
different determinations that can be made.

555
00:37:01,639 --> 00:37:03,639
So I can be on whatever page you would like.

556
00:37:03,639 --> 00:37:07,760
And then there is the potential that we could go into

557
00:37:07,760 --> 00:37:12,269
executive session, as long as it complies with the open

558
00:37:12,269 --> 00:37:16,789
meetings act and I would refer to special counsel on if we

559
00:37:16,789 --> 00:37:18,639
would be able to do so.

560
00:37:18,639 --> 00:37:22,159
Before we move on, can you state for the record that the

561
00:37:22,159 --> 00:37:24,639
hearing was closed at 6 o'clock.

562
00:37:24,639 --> 00:37:28,639
Yes.

563
00:37:28,639 --> 00:37:29,639
You say it.

564
00:37:29,639 --> 00:37:33,639
Yes, the hearing did close at 6 o'clock.

565
00:37:33,639 --> 00:37:38,639
Is there anywhere in that we can ask questions?

566
00:37:38,639 --> 00:37:41,639
Well, we're about to do the deliberation.

567
00:37:41,639 --> 00:37:46,909
I wanted to start by stating that the complaint was read at

568
00:37:46,909 --> 00:37:51,980
the beginning of the meeting and the complaint was that

569
00:37:51,980 --> 00:37:57,260
city attorney Mac Brian wall should not have represented

570
00:37:57,260 --> 00:38:00,639
the city since he was a city attorney.

571
00:38:00,639 --> 00:38:04,760
And what we discussed was that the city charter said that

572
00:38:04,760 --> 00:38:07,639
he does have to represent the city.

573
00:38:07,639 --> 00:38:13,159
So we were accused of closed door violations of the Texas

574
00:38:13,159 --> 00:38:17,639
Open Meetings Act and criminal behavior.

575
00:38:17,639 --> 00:38:24,639
We did not, to my knowledge, have any discussion.

576
00:38:24,639 --> 00:38:27,539
I was there and I didn't have any discussion with anyone

577
00:38:27,539 --> 00:38:31,210
before the meeting and I've never had any discussion with

578
00:38:31,210 --> 00:38:32,639
outside counsel.

579
00:38:32,639 --> 00:38:33,639
Outside of the meeting.

580
00:38:33,639 --> 00:38:39,639
We did not talk with, you know, attorney Ron want.

581
00:38:39,639 --> 00:38:45,639
So there were a lot of accusations made in the complaint,

582
00:38:45,639 --> 00:38:48,639
but no evidence that those things happened.

583
00:38:48,639 --> 00:38:53,639
So what other deliberation?

584
00:38:53,639 --> 00:38:57,639
Kenneth, I'd like to hear from you.

585
00:38:57,639 --> 00:38:58,639
Can I answer that?

586
00:38:58,639 --> 00:38:59,639
Yes.

587
00:38:59,639 --> 00:39:06,639
So that there is a discussion about conflicts of interest

588
00:39:06,639 --> 00:39:06,639
today.

589
00:39:06,639 --> 00:39:10,809
That was not in the original complaint we reviewed the only

590
00:39:10,809 --> 00:39:14,639
section that was referenced with a section to dash two

591
00:39:14,639 --> 00:39:20,639
seven three paragraph E improper influence.

592
00:39:20,639 --> 00:39:25,280
That is the only thing that is checked on the original

593
00:39:25,280 --> 00:39:26,639
complaint form.

594
00:39:26,639 --> 00:39:31,639
And the ethics of the attachment to that.

595
00:39:31,639 --> 00:39:36,280
There are two chapters, chapter three and chapter four that

596
00:39:36,280 --> 00:39:37,639
are called out.

597
00:39:37,639 --> 00:39:41,639
And those are.

598
00:39:41,639 --> 00:39:51,639
See.

599
00:39:51,639 --> 00:39:56,639
Yes.

600
00:39:56,639 --> 00:39:57,639
Yeah, we get here.

601
00:39:57,639 --> 00:39:59,639
So it was sort of individual.

602
00:39:59,639 --> 00:40:02,639
Yeah, I just want to make sure we're on the same page here.

603
00:40:02,639 --> 00:40:06,639
What was discussed was an original complaint.

604
00:40:06,639 --> 00:40:10,690
So the improper influence survey was that city attorney

605
00:40:10,690 --> 00:40:14,820
asserted the privilege, the prestige of the officials or

606
00:40:14,820 --> 00:40:17,760
employees city position for the purpose of advancing or

607
00:40:17,760 --> 00:40:20,639
hard and private interests.

608
00:40:20,639 --> 00:40:25,889
Or chapter paragraph for a state or by the city official

609
00:40:25,889 --> 00:40:30,639
was able to influence the actions on any basis.

610
00:40:30,639 --> 00:40:34,639
So that was what the original complaint was.

611
00:40:34,639 --> 00:40:37,639
It wasn't a conflict of interest.

612
00:40:37,639 --> 00:40:42,150
And the other thing in the discussion or the presentation

613
00:40:42,150 --> 00:40:46,639
evidence was regarding whether or not the city attorney.

614
00:40:46,639 --> 00:40:51,460
I think comparing the city attorney being reprimanded by

615
00:40:51,460 --> 00:40:58,130
the state bar and potentially losing their license and how

616
00:40:58,130 --> 00:41:01,639
and how would they represent the city based on the charter

617
00:41:01,639 --> 00:41:05,639
that we discussed during our panel review.

618
00:41:05,639 --> 00:41:10,210
The charter states that the city attorney shall be a

619
00:41:10,210 --> 00:41:15,500
qualified attorney and law license to practice in the state

620
00:41:15,500 --> 00:41:16,639
of Texas.

621
00:41:16,639 --> 00:41:25,570
So if they violate some requirement of their their law

622
00:41:25,570 --> 00:41:28,800
license, I don't believe that they would be licensed to

623
00:41:28,800 --> 00:41:30,639
practice law in the state of Texas.

624
00:41:30,639 --> 00:41:32,639
And they would no longer be the city attorney.

625
00:41:32,639 --> 00:41:36,639
So I understand the comparison, but that doesn't apply.

626
00:41:36,639 --> 00:41:39,639
I mean, the charter is kind of laid out.

627
00:41:39,639 --> 00:41:42,639
This is what their position is.

628
00:41:42,639 --> 00:41:48,639
And I guess those were a couple of things that I wanted to.

629
00:41:48,639 --> 00:41:53,639
Thank you, Dustin.

630
00:41:53,639 --> 00:41:59,460
Yeah, on the city charter versus the city ordinance

631
00:41:59,460 --> 00:42:05,010
argument about the city charter says that the city attorney

632
00:42:05,010 --> 00:42:06,639
should represent the city.

633
00:42:06,639 --> 00:42:09,800
But then the city ordinance, the ethics code says that you

634
00:42:09,800 --> 00:42:12,639
can't represent the city because you're a named.

635
00:42:12,639 --> 00:42:16,639
But the Texas Constitution is quite clear.

636
00:42:16,639 --> 00:42:23,179
So it's Article 11, Section 5, it called the Home Rule

637
00:42:23,179 --> 00:42:27,139
Amendment, which says that the cities with population like

638
00:42:27,139 --> 00:42:30,639
five thousand or more can enact their own charters.

639
00:42:30,639 --> 00:42:34,179
And a city charter takes precedent and has authority over

640
00:42:34,179 --> 00:42:35,639
the city ordinance.

641
00:42:35,639 --> 00:42:40,639
So if the ordinance is wrong, the city charter controls.

642
00:42:40,639 --> 00:42:45,929
So city charter before attorney represents city and then

643
00:42:45,929 --> 00:42:50,639
city ordinance, whatever you want to read that as.

644
00:42:50,639 --> 00:42:54,630
We're going off the city charter that that is the control

645
00:42:54,630 --> 00:42:55,639
involved.

646
00:42:55,639 --> 00:42:59,780
And then we look to the city charter and Dustin just read

647
00:42:59,780 --> 00:43:00,639
it to us.

648
00:43:00,639 --> 00:43:02,940
The city attorney shall represent the city in all

649
00:43:02,940 --> 00:43:04,639
litigation and controversies.

650
00:43:04,639 --> 00:43:08,699
Hard stop there under the last antecedent rule, this this

651
00:43:08,699 --> 00:43:12,780
last section and shall prosecute all cases brought before

652
00:43:12,780 --> 00:43:14,639
the minister of court.

653
00:43:14,639 --> 00:43:17,969
Well, that's talking about prosecuting claims, not

654
00:43:17,969 --> 00:43:19,639
representing the city.

655
00:43:19,639 --> 00:43:23,269
So, yes, the city attorney represents the city in all

656
00:43:23,269 --> 00:43:25,639
litigation and controversies.

657
00:43:25,639 --> 00:43:27,639
And that is the job of the city attorney.

658
00:43:27,639 --> 00:43:30,440
Now, if the city attorney wants to represent themselves,

659
00:43:30,440 --> 00:43:32,639
they have a right to represent themselves.

660
00:43:32,639 --> 00:43:35,179
You can represent yourself in court just as you are

661
00:43:35,179 --> 00:43:36,639
representing yourself.

662
00:43:36,639 --> 00:43:38,639
That is our right as an American citizen.

663
00:43:38,639 --> 00:43:39,639
We can represent ourselves.

664
00:43:39,639 --> 00:43:43,599
We cannot represent an LLC or entity unless you're an

665
00:43:43,599 --> 00:43:44,639
attorney.

666
00:43:44,639 --> 00:43:46,639
But you can represent yourself.

667
00:43:46,639 --> 00:43:50,230
The city attorney, if I'm not mistaken, could probably

668
00:43:50,230 --> 00:43:53,639
represent all of the other city officials as well.

669
00:43:53,639 --> 00:43:57,639
And so, no, I don't see a violation of an ethics ordinance.

670
00:43:57,639 --> 00:44:01,710
No, I did not meet nor did I see any of my panel members

671
00:44:01,710 --> 00:44:05,690
meet with anybody outside of the meeting at the last

672
00:44:05,690 --> 00:44:07,639
scheduled meeting.

673
00:44:07,639 --> 00:44:13,050
I think the ordinance is rather clear in what we're looking

674
00:44:13,050 --> 00:44:13,639
at.

675
00:44:13,639 --> 00:44:20,639
Let me jump back over to it so I don't misquote this thing.

676
00:44:20,639 --> 00:44:24,469
And that it's a violation for city officials to use their

677
00:44:24,469 --> 00:44:28,639
official position to advance or harm a private interest.

678
00:44:28,639 --> 00:44:34,639
They're not advancing or harming anybody's interest.

679
00:44:34,639 --> 00:44:36,940
I mean, I guess they're going to harm your case because

680
00:44:36,940 --> 00:44:40,409
they're defending against the case, but they have a right

681
00:44:40,409 --> 00:44:41,639
to defend themselves.

682
00:44:41,639 --> 00:44:43,639
Again, that's not what I said.

683
00:44:43,639 --> 00:44:45,639
So it's misrepresented in writing.

684
00:44:45,639 --> 00:44:47,639
Now you're misrepresenting it in court as well.

685
00:44:47,639 --> 00:44:52,429
It's a violation and I don't think that a discussion is a

686
00:44:52,429 --> 00:44:53,639
good idea.

687
00:44:53,639 --> 00:44:55,639
Okay, so advancing their position.

688
00:44:55,639 --> 00:44:56,639
Let's go with that side.

689
00:44:56,639 --> 00:44:58,920
Advancing their position because they're defending

690
00:44:58,920 --> 00:44:59,639
themselves.

691
00:44:59,639 --> 00:45:03,639
Again, you're allowed to defend yourself.

692
00:45:03,639 --> 00:45:08,550
It would be asinine to think that just because they are an

693
00:45:08,550 --> 00:45:11,639
attorney, they cannot defend themselves.

694
00:45:11,639 --> 00:45:13,639
I am an attorney, so I cannot defend myself.

695
00:45:13,639 --> 00:45:15,639
That is no.

696
00:45:15,639 --> 00:45:18,639
Okay, so that is not how that works.

697
00:45:18,639 --> 00:45:21,630
Conflict of interest, as Dustin said, that is not before us

698
00:45:21,630 --> 00:45:24,639
, and so we're not going to discuss conflict of interest.

699
00:45:24,639 --> 00:45:28,639
To imply that the city official is able to influence.

700
00:45:28,639 --> 00:45:32,639
Again, nothing presented was anything about influencing.

701
00:45:32,639 --> 00:45:35,639
This is a city attorney.

702
00:45:35,639 --> 00:45:37,639
Federal judge.

703
00:45:37,639 --> 00:45:41,360
The city attorney is not going to influence a federal judge

704
00:45:41,360 --> 00:45:41,639
.

705
00:45:41,639 --> 00:45:42,639
They are appointed.

706
00:45:42,639 --> 00:45:43,639
They do not have constituents.

707
00:45:43,639 --> 00:45:47,519
They do not care what the general population think, want,

708
00:45:47,519 --> 00:45:48,639
or anything.

709
00:45:48,639 --> 00:45:50,639
They're appointed for life.

710
00:45:50,639 --> 00:45:54,949
So no, they're not influencing the case because they're an

711
00:45:54,949 --> 00:45:58,130
attorney representing themselves and them representing

712
00:45:58,130 --> 00:46:00,639
their clients as their charter dictates them to do.

713
00:46:00,639 --> 00:46:06,639
So no.

714
00:46:06,639 --> 00:46:09,639
Yeah, no.

715
00:46:09,639 --> 00:46:10,639
I am.

716
00:46:10,639 --> 00:46:11,639
Diane.

717
00:46:11,639 --> 00:46:14,639
First, thank you for your statement.

718
00:46:14,639 --> 00:46:17,639
You have the right as an individual to give that statement.

719
00:46:17,639 --> 00:46:18,639
Thank you.

720
00:46:18,639 --> 00:46:21,639
I was not here last time.

721
00:46:21,639 --> 00:46:24,389
So I took this at face value, and I'm going to agree with

722
00:46:24,389 --> 00:46:24,639
you.

723
00:46:24,639 --> 00:46:29,909
I thought the whole premise was that we were coming here to

724
00:46:29,909 --> 00:46:36,000
decide that the city attorney had a conflict of interest

725
00:46:36,000 --> 00:46:40,639
over, you know, agreeing to be his own attorney and so on

726
00:46:40,639 --> 00:46:40,639
and so forth.

727
00:46:40,639 --> 00:46:43,639
And my only question was, was that fair?

728
00:46:43,639 --> 00:46:44,639
Was that right?

729
00:46:44,639 --> 00:46:45,639
Was that legal?

730
00:46:45,639 --> 00:46:50,639
You know, did he do anything wrong?

731
00:46:50,639 --> 00:46:53,639
Ken, you cleared that up for me a little bit.

732
00:46:53,639 --> 00:47:00,639
And I think we can't go through everything here.

733
00:47:00,639 --> 00:47:03,639
The complaint says, let me finish.

734
00:47:03,639 --> 00:47:06,639
The complaint says what the complaint says.

735
00:47:06,639 --> 00:47:08,639
And we should not be looking at anything else.

736
00:47:08,639 --> 00:47:10,639
Right.

737
00:47:10,639 --> 00:47:14,210
And so we're questioning if there was, you know, a conflict

738
00:47:14,210 --> 00:47:16,639
of interest based on max--

739
00:47:16,639 --> 00:47:17,639
It was proper influence.

740
00:47:17,639 --> 00:47:18,639
It wasn't.

741
00:47:18,639 --> 00:47:20,639
Proper influence.

742
00:47:20,639 --> 00:47:25,320
And that's the only thing that you're stating, have stated,

743
00:47:25,320 --> 00:47:27,639
that's what we're here for.

744
00:47:27,639 --> 00:47:28,639
Right.

745
00:47:28,639 --> 00:47:32,639
So I'm concerned that we're going a little bit south.

746
00:47:32,639 --> 00:47:33,639
Going off the--

747
00:47:33,639 --> 00:47:35,639
On message on this conversation.

748
00:47:35,639 --> 00:47:36,639
I agree.

749
00:47:36,639 --> 00:47:43,800
I think we both--the panel already determined that that was

750
00:47:43,800 --> 00:47:47,820
not--that it wasn't an ethics violation on the city

751
00:47:47,820 --> 00:47:48,639
attorneys.

752
00:47:48,639 --> 00:47:49,639
Yeah.

753
00:47:49,639 --> 00:47:56,389
So this hearing was--there was no determination made on

754
00:47:56,389 --> 00:48:00,639
whether or not this was a frivolous complaint.

755
00:48:00,639 --> 00:48:03,639
That's the purpose of this hearing.

756
00:48:03,639 --> 00:48:08,159
And so just as a reminder, the frivolous complaint is

757
00:48:08,159 --> 00:48:12,050
defined as a sworn complaint that is groundless and brought

758
00:48:12,050 --> 00:48:12,639
in bad faith.

759
00:48:12,639 --> 00:48:16,639
Or groundless and brought for the purpose of harassment.

760
00:48:16,639 --> 00:48:28,639
And that's what we're trying to determine today.

761
00:48:28,639 --> 00:48:30,639
So was it in bad faith?

762
00:48:30,639 --> 00:48:31,639
Was it?

763
00:48:31,639 --> 00:48:33,639
Or harassment?

764
00:48:33,639 --> 00:48:42,449
I mean, I'm listening to the discussion today and I think

765
00:48:42,449 --> 00:48:48,880
that--I think that Adam didn't make it in bad faith to--I

766
00:48:48,880 --> 00:48:53,639
don't know, just fear the city attorney.

767
00:48:53,639 --> 00:48:56,639
I think that Adam believed that this was a violation.

768
00:48:56,639 --> 00:49:01,409
I disagree that this was a violation based on what we

769
00:49:01,409 --> 00:49:06,639
discussed in that three-person preliminary panel.

770
00:49:06,639 --> 00:49:11,280
After hearing the discussion and seeing all of the effort

771
00:49:11,280 --> 00:49:17,639
that was put into the original complaint and this evidence,

772
00:49:17,639 --> 00:49:20,400
I think that Adam really thinks this is an ethics violation

773
00:49:20,400 --> 00:49:20,639
.

774
00:49:20,639 --> 00:49:26,639
So to me that's not bad faith, it's just incorrect.

775
00:49:26,639 --> 00:49:29,639
That's what I think.

776
00:49:29,639 --> 00:49:34,969
My read of it and from the three-person panel that we did

777
00:49:34,969 --> 00:49:38,639
was this is straightforward to me.

778
00:49:38,639 --> 00:49:42,150
I look at this and I see this improper influence saying

779
00:49:42,150 --> 00:49:46,199
that the city attorney can't represent themselves, they can

780
00:49:46,199 --> 00:49:49,460
't represent the city in a case where they're also a

781
00:49:49,460 --> 00:49:50,639
defendant.

782
00:49:50,639 --> 00:49:55,420
I completely disagree with that for the reason that stated

783
00:49:55,420 --> 00:49:57,639
in that preliminary panel.

784
00:49:57,639 --> 00:50:02,019
And my thought was at that time, if it is this obvious to

785
00:50:02,019 --> 00:50:06,630
me that this is not an ethics violation, that this should

786
00:50:06,630 --> 00:50:10,829
be obvious to someone that is putting forth this much

787
00:50:10,829 --> 00:50:14,639
effort to present a case that is an ethics violation.

788
00:50:14,639 --> 00:50:16,639
I don't know that that's true.

789
00:50:16,639 --> 00:50:19,420
I think that Adam thinks this was an ethics violation and I

790
00:50:19,420 --> 00:50:20,639
disagree with that.

791
00:50:20,639 --> 00:50:24,769
But I don't know that it was made in bad faith and I have

792
00:50:24,769 --> 00:50:28,639
no idea if it's for the purpose of harassment.

793
00:50:28,639 --> 00:50:32,960
I didn't hear anything today that sounded like Adam wants

794
00:50:32,960 --> 00:50:34,639
to harass someone.

795
00:50:34,639 --> 00:50:38,800
I think that there are just a lot of moving parts in

796
00:50:38,800 --> 00:50:43,969
lawsuits and in interaction with the city attorney's office

797
00:50:43,969 --> 00:50:49,130
, the attorney general, our daily bread staff, the police

798
00:50:49,130 --> 00:50:50,639
department.

799
00:50:50,639 --> 00:50:52,639
All of these things have been done.

800
00:50:52,639 --> 00:51:01,090
I have no idea if it's good faith or not, but I think my

801
00:51:01,090 --> 00:51:11,130
belief from going through 719 pages of a packet for this

802
00:51:11,130 --> 00:51:15,639
hearing and then listening to the statements that Adam made

803
00:51:15,639 --> 00:51:17,909
, I think that Adam really thinks this was an ethics

804
00:51:17,909 --> 00:51:18,639
violation.

805
00:51:18,639 --> 00:51:22,349
That's what this whole process is for, is we have this

806
00:51:22,349 --> 00:51:26,329
ordinance, it's imperfect, like all of this stuff that we

807
00:51:26,329 --> 00:51:29,440
have and we spend so much time trying to clean it up and

808
00:51:29,440 --> 00:51:31,639
fill in little holes here and there.

809
00:51:31,639 --> 00:51:34,960
But the point of it is that if a citizen believes that

810
00:51:34,960 --> 00:51:38,750
there is an ethics violation, they should be able to make a

811
00:51:38,750 --> 00:51:39,639
complaint.

812
00:51:39,639 --> 00:51:43,650
And from the initial review of that, to me I thought well

813
00:51:43,650 --> 00:51:47,650
maybe this was a frivolous complaint because this seems

814
00:51:47,650 --> 00:51:52,170
obviously to not be an ethics violation and this person has

815
00:51:52,170 --> 00:51:55,219
spent a lot of time putting together lawsuits, putting

816
00:51:55,219 --> 00:51:57,639
together evidence, backing up, all those things.

817
00:51:57,639 --> 00:52:03,489
And now it is apparent to me that Adam thinks this was an

818
00:52:03,489 --> 00:52:09,989
ethics violation, made a complaint and the panel deemed it

819
00:52:09,989 --> 00:52:13,639
to not be an ethics violation.

820
00:52:13,639 --> 00:52:15,639
That's kind of where I'm at right now.

821
00:52:15,639 --> 00:52:20,389
Dustin, I do know what you just said. I listened to all of

822
00:52:20,389 --> 00:52:25,039
you and not being here at the time, it's given me a clearer

823
00:52:25,039 --> 00:52:31,789
vision of what's going on. I don't think Adam set out in

824
00:52:31,789 --> 00:52:32,639
bad faith.

825
00:52:32,639 --> 00:52:37,869
I think, like you said, he believes in what he believes in

826
00:52:37,869 --> 00:52:43,110
and he's making the statement to that. I think we think he

827
00:52:43,110 --> 00:52:47,639
might be wrong, but he believes it to be true.

828
00:52:47,639 --> 00:52:52,469
So I did hear your comments and I appreciate your comments

829
00:52:52,469 --> 00:52:53,639
very much.

830
00:52:53,639 --> 00:52:59,639
So I will disagree with that.

831
00:52:59,639 --> 00:53:05,650
When we look at the factors that we are to look at in

832
00:53:05,650 --> 00:53:08,639
determining frivolity.

833
00:53:08,639 --> 00:53:10,639
What are we on here?

834
00:53:10,639 --> 00:53:12,639
Would you like me to pull that up?

835
00:53:12,639 --> 00:53:15,639
Yes, yes please. 282.

836
00:53:29,639 --> 00:53:46,639
So we look at E and F.

837
00:53:46,639 --> 00:53:50,809
Any evidence that the complainant knew or reasonably should

838
00:53:50,809 --> 00:53:54,489
have known that the allegations in the complaint were

839
00:53:54,489 --> 00:53:55,639
groundless.

840
00:53:55,639 --> 00:54:02,650
Well, I'm looking at 718 pages of information. 718 pages.

841
00:54:02,650 --> 00:54:03,639
That's a lot.

842
00:54:03,639 --> 00:54:09,300
I've not written a lot of petitions and complaints that are

843
00:54:09,300 --> 00:54:10,639
this long.

844
00:54:10,639 --> 00:54:14,400
I get that these are several different ones, but it shows

845
00:54:14,400 --> 00:54:20,639
that the complaint is not incompetent.

846
00:54:20,639 --> 00:54:25,639
Not dumb by any means. And he does his research.

847
00:54:25,639 --> 00:54:31,130
The problem is, I find it hard to believe that after all of

848
00:54:31,130 --> 00:54:34,639
this and making it into the federal court system,

849
00:54:34,639 --> 00:54:39,289
you don't run across the charter that says, hey, this is

850
00:54:39,289 --> 00:54:41,639
the job of the city attorney.

851
00:54:41,639 --> 00:54:46,280
That you make the allegations and you don't run across that

852
00:54:46,280 --> 00:54:46,639
?

853
00:54:46,639 --> 00:54:50,650
That's hard. And we're looking at this much information,

854
00:54:50,650 --> 00:54:54,639
this much research, this much drafting.

855
00:54:54,639 --> 00:54:58,650
That's a lot. And to not, and so that's why I'm like,

856
00:54:58,650 --> 00:55:01,639
reasonably should have come across this.

857
00:55:01,639 --> 00:55:09,849
Yeah. Should have. Definitely. And so that's where I'm, I

858
00:55:09,849 --> 00:55:11,639
don't think it's bad faith.

859
00:55:11,639 --> 00:55:21,639
I think it was intended to harass the city attorney.

860
00:55:21,639 --> 00:55:27,210
I don't know if it was a money thing. I don't know what it

861
00:55:27,210 --> 00:55:30,639
is, but there's no way you don't come across that

862
00:55:30,639 --> 00:55:33,199
and then still file the complaint and say, well, let's just

863
00:55:33,199 --> 00:55:34,639
do this and see what happens.

864
00:55:34,639 --> 00:55:37,519
I don't know if it's a, let me see if I can't get the city

865
00:55:37,519 --> 00:55:39,639
attorney to have an ethics violation,

866
00:55:39,639 --> 00:55:42,900
then I can throw that into my federal court complaint. Woo

867
00:55:42,900 --> 00:55:44,639
hoo! More exhibits.

868
00:55:44,639 --> 00:55:49,210
I don't know what it is, but it's certainly not incompet

869
00:55:49,210 --> 00:55:52,639
ence and it's certainly not an innocent mistake

870
00:55:52,639 --> 00:55:56,670
whenever I'm looking at that and the pleadings are good. I

871
00:55:56,670 --> 00:55:57,639
've seen a lot of bad pleadings.

872
00:55:57,639 --> 00:56:01,880
These are decent pleadings. And so I just don't get how you

873
00:56:01,880 --> 00:56:03,639
don't come across that city charter.

874
00:56:03,639 --> 00:56:10,139
Dustin, you found that. You found the charter. Yeah. That's

875
00:56:10,139 --> 00:56:10,639
, so I found, I went and searched for it

876
00:56:10,639 --> 00:56:14,630
in reviewing the original complaint and to me it was

877
00:56:14,630 --> 00:56:20,639
obvious. That's my interpretation of what should rule here.

878
00:56:20,639 --> 00:56:24,579
Like the city charter says this. Adam today said, the city

879
00:56:24,579 --> 00:56:28,639
charter said that, but it doesn't matter.

880
00:56:28,639 --> 00:56:33,780
That still is an ethics violation. We disagree on that. So

881
00:56:33,780 --> 00:56:36,639
to me, my biggest question was, if I review this,

882
00:56:36,639 --> 00:56:40,690
if I get the original complaint and read through it and

883
00:56:40,690 --> 00:56:43,639
then I say, alright, well let me do a little research

884
00:56:43,639 --> 00:56:46,650
in our ordinance, let me look at the city charter for the

885
00:56:46,650 --> 00:56:48,639
city attorney's responsibilities,

886
00:56:48,639 --> 00:56:51,300
and then I get to that and I come to the conclusion I get

887
00:56:51,300 --> 00:56:55,639
to, I don't think that, I'm guessing that Adam may have

888
00:56:55,639 --> 00:56:59,010
come, looked at the same thing, looked at the city charter

889
00:56:59,010 --> 00:57:02,449
and just disagreed with it. Because today Adam is disagree

890
00:57:02,449 --> 00:57:02,639
ing

891
00:57:02,639 --> 00:57:08,409
still that this is an ethics violation, right. So I, my

892
00:57:08,409 --> 00:57:13,210
thought originally was, they had to get to this point,

893
00:57:13,210 --> 00:57:13,639
right.

894
00:57:13,639 --> 00:57:19,360
If you're putting together that much information to support

895
00:57:19,360 --> 00:57:22,639
your claim, then probably you've done enough research.

896
00:57:22,639 --> 00:57:25,750
I'm 100% with you there. That's what I thought before. I

897
00:57:25,750 --> 00:57:32,889
think the difference today to me is that it's not lack of

898
00:57:32,889 --> 00:57:33,639
effort,

899
00:57:33,639 --> 00:57:37,920
it's not ignoring that, it's just a misinterpretation of

900
00:57:37,920 --> 00:57:40,639
that. That's what I think is going on.

901
00:57:40,639 --> 00:57:46,440
There's, you know, in those items you point out, any

902
00:57:46,440 --> 00:57:52,639
evidence the complainant knew or reasonably should have

903
00:57:52,639 --> 00:57:54,639
known that the allegations were groundless.

904
00:57:54,639 --> 00:57:58,159
I think that's where we're at. The complainant should have

905
00:57:58,159 --> 00:58:02,639
known, does not know today that they are groundless because

906
00:58:02,639 --> 00:58:04,639
that complaint is incorrect.

907
00:58:04,639 --> 00:58:10,230
And then there's an and there for, between paragraph E and

908
00:58:10,230 --> 00:58:13,949
F, any evidence of the complainant's motives in filing the

909
00:58:13,949 --> 00:58:14,639
complaint.

910
00:58:14,639 --> 00:58:19,969
And the motive that I'm hearing is that there is a belief

911
00:58:19,969 --> 00:58:23,639
that there is an ethics violation.

912
00:58:23,639 --> 00:58:31,989
I don't know what they expect to get out of this, right. I

913
00:58:31,989 --> 00:58:39,639
know that in the original complaint it did ask for relief,

914
00:58:39,639 --> 00:58:44,130
and the relief request it was, complainant requests that

915
00:58:44,130 --> 00:58:48,369
the Board of Ethics find that respondent Mac Ryan, I don't

916
00:58:48,369 --> 00:58:48,639
know,

917
00:58:48,639 --> 00:58:57,639
Ryan one has violated sections 2-273(e)(3) and 2-273(e)(4)

918
00:58:57,639 --> 00:59:03,400
of the city of Nantz code of ordinances and impose

919
00:59:03,400 --> 00:59:07,639
appropriate sanctions pursuant to section 2-282(b),

920
00:59:07,639 --> 00:59:12,590
including a letter of reprimand and recommendation of

921
00:59:12,590 --> 00:59:17,869
suspension to the city council. That was the relief that

922
00:59:17,869 --> 00:59:19,639
was requested.

923
00:59:19,639 --> 00:59:23,239
That, I don't really know what that gets in terms of like

924
00:59:23,239 --> 00:59:26,969
the whatever other legal proceedings are out there that

925
00:59:26,969 --> 00:59:29,639
have been provided to us as evidence,

926
00:59:29,639 --> 00:59:36,079
and I don't think it matters. We're not reviewing the

927
00:59:36,079 --> 00:59:45,659
federal case here. I read through not every word of the

928
00:59:45,659 --> 00:59:46,639
evidence packet for today,

929
00:59:46,639 --> 00:59:49,619
but I went through every page to try and understand where

930
00:59:49,619 --> 00:59:54,090
all was presented, and there's hundreds, literally hundreds

931
00:59:54,090 --> 00:59:57,400
of pages of historical documents over the last couple of

932
00:59:57,400 --> 00:59:57,639
years,

933
00:59:57,639 --> 01:00:02,969
court cases, all these things that a complainant is dealing

934
01:00:02,969 --> 01:00:07,639
with, with our daily bread, with the police department,

935
01:00:07,639 --> 01:00:13,639
with all of these people that I cannot begin to understand,

936
01:00:13,639 --> 01:00:22,489
but I don't think that there's anything that we can do with

937
01:00:22,489 --> 01:00:31,809
this complaint that is going to be productive in any way to

938
01:00:31,809 --> 01:00:33,639
help Adam's situation,

939
01:00:33,639 --> 01:00:39,940
to help with any federal case, to help with the alleged

940
01:00:39,940 --> 01:00:45,650
inadequacies of the conduct or security or all these things

941
01:00:45,650 --> 01:00:49,659
in our daily bread that I don't know anything about other

942
01:00:49,659 --> 01:00:52,639
than what I read in the complaint packet.

943
01:00:52,639 --> 01:00:57,119
We are not going to do that. All I know is that I don't

944
01:00:57,119 --> 01:01:01,929
believe that there was an ethics violation based on what

945
01:01:01,929 --> 01:01:04,949
was originally given to us. That's what I said in the

946
01:01:04,949 --> 01:01:05,639
preliminary thing, and that's what I think today.

947
01:01:05,639 --> 01:01:08,559
Today we're supposed to say is this a frivolous complaint.

948
01:01:08,559 --> 01:01:11,539
I think it is an incorrect complaint. I don't think it is

949
01:01:11,539 --> 01:01:14,480
frivolous because I think that Adam really thinks this was

950
01:01:14,480 --> 01:01:19,639
an ethics violation, and that's where I'm at.

951
01:01:19,639 --> 01:01:25,480
I'll gaslight you on two things real quick. You talk about

952
01:01:25,480 --> 01:01:29,610
a lot of history. There's a lot of history in there of past

953
01:01:29,610 --> 01:01:33,639
, our daily bread, and I don't care. I don't.

954
01:01:33,639 --> 01:01:38,530
That's not for us, but it is context surrounding it. If

955
01:01:38,530 --> 01:01:44,039
anybody files 15 different complaints in 15 different

956
01:01:44,039 --> 01:01:49,659
departments, are those departments allowed to look and say,

957
01:01:49,659 --> 01:01:52,110
"Well, he's done this in all these other departments. What

958
01:01:52,110 --> 01:01:53,639
's going on?"

959
01:01:53,639 --> 01:01:59,230
We're not allowed to look at that as what's going on and

960
01:01:59,230 --> 01:02:04,329
why are these continuously rolling in. That's the historic

961
01:02:04,329 --> 01:02:08,639
part. Look at all of this. There's something there.

962
01:02:08,639 --> 01:02:16,300
I don't know if it is somebody trying to be the hero. Cool.

963
01:02:16,300 --> 01:02:23,639
I get it, but not the proper way to do it, I don't think.

964
01:02:23,639 --> 01:02:27,880
Then your second point of we can't help you, right? We can

965
01:02:27,880 --> 01:02:32,400
't. There's nothing we can do about our daily bread. There's

966
01:02:32,400 --> 01:02:36,619
nothing we can do about the attorney general. None of that

967
01:02:36,619 --> 01:02:38,639
is in our realm of stuff.

968
01:02:38,639 --> 01:02:44,480
We simply address violations of the ethics ordinance and

969
01:02:44,480 --> 01:02:50,349
then on the other end is to prevent the abuse of the ethics

970
01:02:50,349 --> 01:02:53,639
ordinance complaint system.

971
01:02:53,639 --> 01:02:57,670
To reiterate, we can't help with that second one because we

972
01:02:57,670 --> 01:03:01,630
don't have any authority. We just declare frivolity and

973
01:03:01,630 --> 01:03:05,840
that's it. I know we've talked about implementing fines and

974
01:03:05,840 --> 01:03:08,639
suspensions, but it's not there.

975
01:03:08,639 --> 01:03:13,639
We don't have anything we can do anyways even if we

976
01:03:13,639 --> 01:03:18,639
declared it frivolous, if I'm not mistaken.

977
01:03:18,639 --> 01:03:23,639
Through our history, and please don't take this wrong,

978
01:03:23,639 --> 01:03:27,329
through our history we have had individuals throughout our

979
01:03:27,329 --> 01:03:31,070
history that fought when everybody thought that we were nut

980
01:03:31,070 --> 01:03:34,099
cases and didn't know what we were talking about and kept

981
01:03:34,099 --> 01:03:35,639
fighting for the human rights of people.

982
01:03:35,639 --> 01:03:39,960
Some of those branched out. I am a person that believes in

983
01:03:39,960 --> 01:03:44,099
people being able to speak their mind and if they believe

984
01:03:44,099 --> 01:03:48,329
to be true and they have backing of it, I think they should

985
01:03:48,329 --> 01:03:50,639
be allowed to go forward.

986
01:03:50,639 --> 01:03:53,920
I'm just going over that first part because it's

987
01:03:53,920 --> 01:03:58,179
insignificant to me if they've done something 15 times or

988
01:03:58,179 --> 01:04:02,639
25 times if they have the backing and they believe in it.

989
01:04:02,639 --> 01:04:10,590
I think that you see it through a lawyer's eyes. I'm just

990
01:04:10,590 --> 01:04:15,639
going to be layman here. I see it from a civil side.

991
01:04:15,639 --> 01:04:20,800
Individual fighting for what he believes in. Not right. If

992
01:04:20,800 --> 01:04:24,639
it was in a law court I would say I'm sorry, not guilty.

993
01:04:24,639 --> 01:04:27,639
But that's not what I'm looking at right now.

994
01:04:27,639 --> 01:04:32,139
I don't believe that he purposely set out to harm the city

995
01:04:32,139 --> 01:04:36,090
of debt nor the city of camp. He doesn't like them. Let's

996
01:04:36,090 --> 01:04:38,639
put it on the road. He doesn't like the policeman here.

997
01:04:38,639 --> 01:04:42,139
He doesn't like the city attorney here. Let's put it where

998
01:04:42,139 --> 01:04:44,730
it is. He's always fighting them, always battling them. It

999
01:04:44,730 --> 01:04:48,039
's public knowledge. He's always in the city council with

1000
01:04:48,039 --> 01:04:48,639
them.

1001
01:04:48,639 --> 01:04:53,730
But he has a right. He has a right to do that. So we're not

1002
01:04:53,730 --> 01:05:00,349
debating that. We're debating if this was...he put this out

1003
01:05:00,349 --> 01:05:03,639
there to go out of his way.

1004
01:05:03,639 --> 01:05:08,679
700 pages. Surely Adam has something else in his life to do

1005
01:05:08,679 --> 01:05:13,639
than write 700 pages of this. He has to have some belief.

1006
01:05:13,639 --> 01:05:17,659
So I'm just going to put it that way. With due respect, I

1007
01:05:17,659 --> 01:05:21,789
respect you more than any one of the few people I know. But

1008
01:05:21,789 --> 01:05:25,960
I disagree with you on some things because this is not all

1009
01:05:25,960 --> 01:05:29,639
about being law, being a lawyer.

1010
01:05:29,639 --> 01:05:34,639
This is about being a civil person and about their rights.

1011
01:05:34,639 --> 01:05:38,809
Yeah. I'm glad. I am happy that people disagree on the

1012
01:05:38,809 --> 01:05:39,639
board. We should.

1013
01:05:39,639 --> 01:05:46,639
That's what's so good about this place is we all disagree.

1014
01:05:46,639 --> 01:05:51,639
So I wonder if there's any more discussion.

1015
01:05:51,639 --> 01:05:55,570
So when we decide, are we deciding if it's frivolous or bas

1016
01:05:55,570 --> 01:05:58,639
eless or just frivolous or not frivolous? I guess I'm not

1017
01:05:58,639 --> 01:05:58,639
sure.

1018
01:05:58,639 --> 01:06:02,400
I'm just wondering if there's a...I think there are two

1019
01:06:02,400 --> 01:06:06,289
motions. One, is it groundless, brought bad faith, or if it

1020
01:06:06,289 --> 01:06:10,369
's groundless and for the purpose of harassment. So I think

1021
01:06:10,369 --> 01:06:13,639
we need to make a finding on one of those.

1022
01:06:13,639 --> 01:06:19,989
It's hard to know because we're not in his head what his

1023
01:06:19,989 --> 01:06:26,760
intentions are. So if we err on the side of saying ground

1024
01:06:26,760 --> 01:06:29,639
less but not frivolous.

1025
01:06:29,639 --> 01:06:35,699
I'll add something to this. So there's a previous complaint

1026
01:06:35,699 --> 01:06:41,349
and a lot of the frivolous discussion is based on previous

1027
01:06:41,349 --> 01:06:45,639
complaints that were found to be frivolous and all this

1028
01:06:45,639 --> 01:06:45,639
stuff.

1029
01:06:45,639 --> 01:06:50,889
And a lot of it centers around election time. Political.

1030
01:06:50,889 --> 01:06:55,840
And there's political agenda. Like there's a previous

1031
01:06:55,840 --> 01:07:00,639
complaint that happened right before an election.

1032
01:07:00,639 --> 01:07:04,909
The complaint was advertised to the papers for the purpose

1033
01:07:04,909 --> 01:07:09,639
of advertising there is a complaint against this candidate.

1034
01:07:09,639 --> 01:07:12,719
And before the board even heard this. Before the board ever

1035
01:07:12,719 --> 01:07:15,320
, I think before the board even did the three person

1036
01:07:15,320 --> 01:07:16,639
preliminary panel.

1037
01:07:16,639 --> 01:07:27,650
The person that complained in that case, I believe they

1038
01:07:27,650 --> 01:07:32,460
missed a deadline for something or they did not, they said

1039
01:07:32,460 --> 01:07:36,639
at their hearing they did not watch the preliminary panel.

1040
01:07:36,639 --> 01:07:41,639
And they submitted the complaint right before the election

1041
01:07:41,639 --> 01:07:46,340
because they thought it was such a big deal that everyone

1042
01:07:46,340 --> 01:07:48,639
needed to know about it.

1043
01:07:48,639 --> 01:07:53,119
And those two things were total polar opposites. This is so

1044
01:07:53,119 --> 01:07:56,070
important I have to submit this complaint right before the

1045
01:07:56,070 --> 01:07:57,639
election and I have to tell the paper.

1046
01:07:57,639 --> 01:08:01,409
It's like five days before. Yeah. But I don't care enough

1047
01:08:01,409 --> 01:08:03,639
to even watch to see what the board says.

1048
01:08:03,639 --> 01:08:09,199
To me that is like. That's an example of frivolous. You are

1049
01:08:09,199 --> 01:08:13,760
intentionally like trying to make this person look bad and

1050
01:08:13,760 --> 01:08:14,639
you're taking extra steps.

1051
01:08:14,639 --> 01:08:18,170
You're violating what the ethics ordinance says if you were

1052
01:08:18,170 --> 01:08:20,640
subject to it and this person wasn't.

1053
01:08:20,640 --> 01:08:26,170
That is a frivolous complaint like exactly that. And I don

1054
01:08:26,170 --> 01:08:29,989
't think that that person even thought even believed their

1055
01:08:29,989 --> 01:08:32,640
case. They didn't even show up.

1056
01:08:32,640 --> 01:08:41,909
This is different to me. If this were put in the paper and

1057
01:08:41,909 --> 01:08:47,340
I suppose that it is possible that this could be used for

1058
01:08:47,340 --> 01:08:51,640
some other purpose but it has not been as far as I know.

1059
01:08:51,640 --> 01:08:55,659
Right. It hasn't been put in the paper. I don't know. I

1060
01:08:55,659 --> 01:08:59,289
didn't see anything about that in any of the complaint

1061
01:08:59,289 --> 01:09:02,640
packets being added to an existing lawsuit.

1062
01:09:02,640 --> 01:09:09,750
So that's what separates this from previous frivolous. Is

1063
01:09:09,750 --> 01:09:12,640
there anything else you need to say? Sorry to interrupt.

1064
01:09:12,640 --> 01:09:18,789
Oh, that's okay. I just think that even if there's a

1065
01:09:18,789 --> 01:09:24,970
pattern there wasn't anyone to defend to state that as

1066
01:09:24,970 --> 01:09:29,760
evidence. We don't know that. I mean I don't know that. I

1067
01:09:29,760 --> 01:09:32,640
don't know that pattern.

1068
01:09:32,640 --> 01:09:38,300
So let me clarify. The board has already decided that there

1069
01:09:38,300 --> 01:09:43,000
was no ethics complaint and I stand by that. Violation.

1070
01:09:43,000 --> 01:09:43,640
Yeah, no violation.

1071
01:09:43,640 --> 01:09:51,439
But the question is, was this frivolous? And I think that

1072
01:09:51,439 --> 01:09:59,109
should be the only thing that we make our decision on. So I

1073
01:09:59,109 --> 01:10:05,640
hear division. That's okay. This is still a democracy.

1074
01:10:05,640 --> 01:10:11,050
And that's a good thing. So I don't know if you're ready to

1075
01:10:11,050 --> 01:10:15,640
make a motion and then we vote for or against it.

1076
01:10:15,640 --> 01:10:20,279
So voting to say if it's frivolous or not frivolous. But

1077
01:10:20,279 --> 01:10:23,949
not frivolous means what? It has to be stated one way or

1078
01:10:23,949 --> 01:10:24,640
the other.

1079
01:10:24,640 --> 01:10:30,560
So you will either vote to dismiss the complaint because it

1080
01:10:30,560 --> 01:10:35,640
is baseless which was determined by the panel. Baseless.

1081
01:10:35,640 --> 01:10:35,640
Which was determined by the preliminary panel.

1082
01:10:35,640 --> 01:10:39,229
Or you could find that a violation has occurred because the

1083
01:10:39,229 --> 01:10:43,029
complainant submitted a frivolous complaint that requires a

1084
01:10:43,029 --> 01:10:44,640
super majority vote.

1085
01:10:44,640 --> 01:10:49,659
Those are kind of the two options at this point. I tend to

1086
01:10:49,659 --> 01:10:54,909
think it's baseless but not necessarily frivolous. Right.

1087
01:10:54,909 --> 01:10:57,329
So the motion in that case and what you're saying would be

1088
01:10:57,329 --> 01:10:59,359
you would move to dismiss the complaint because it is bas

1089
01:10:59,359 --> 01:10:59,640
eless.

1090
01:10:59,640 --> 01:11:04,840
That would be the motion. For example. And that would just

1091
01:11:04,840 --> 01:11:10,149
require a super majority. Correct. I'll make a motion that

1092
01:11:10,149 --> 01:11:14,920
we dismiss the complaint because it is baseless. Okay. Is

1093
01:11:14,920 --> 01:11:15,640
there a second to that?

1094
01:11:15,640 --> 01:11:22,800
I second the motion. Okay. So Dustin made the motion to

1095
01:11:22,800 --> 01:11:30,640
dismiss the complaint because it is frivolous. Baseless. I

1096
01:11:30,640 --> 01:11:30,640
'm sorry. And Pat seconded it.

1097
01:11:30,640 --> 01:11:35,739
Okay. I think it would be best if we did a vote. I think it

1098
01:11:35,739 --> 01:11:41,479
requires a vote by voice. Like individual. Okay. I think it

1099
01:11:41,479 --> 01:11:46,439
would just be best if we do it individually. Okay. So can

1100
01:11:46,439 --> 01:11:47,640
we start with Ken?

1101
01:11:47,640 --> 01:12:05,199
I will vote A. Okay. And I will vote A. I will vote A. And

1102
01:12:05,199 --> 01:12:05,640
yes. Yes. Voting.

1103
01:12:05,640 --> 01:12:15,930
You're voting. You're voting. If you say no, then you

1104
01:12:15,930 --> 01:12:21,949
believe that it was baseless. That's backwards. Is that

1105
01:12:21,949 --> 01:12:22,640
right? No. No. Can you restate the motion?

1106
01:12:22,640 --> 01:12:25,720
Yeah. Let's see if we can make sure that we're getting

1107
01:12:25,720 --> 01:12:28,699
confused. The motion on the floor is to dismiss the

1108
01:12:28,699 --> 01:12:32,189
complaint because it is baseless. Baseless being it's not a

1109
01:12:32,189 --> 01:12:35,529
violation of the ordinance, but not that the complaint was

1110
01:12:35,529 --> 01:12:36,640
frivolous.

1111
01:12:36,640 --> 01:12:42,050
So I will vote yes if I think it right. Okay. Correct. Make

1112
01:12:42,050 --> 01:12:44,640
sure you got the right vote.

1113
01:12:44,640 --> 01:12:54,640
The vote is one nay and four. No, you said nay also. I said

1114
01:12:54,640 --> 01:12:54,640
yes. She said yes. Oh, you said yes. Can we read? Yeah,

1115
01:12:54,640 --> 01:12:54,640
that's right. That's why I'm going to just say it the other

1116
01:12:54,640 --> 01:12:54,640
way.

1117
01:12:54,640 --> 01:12:59,390
To recap, the motion on the table was to dismiss the

1118
01:12:59,390 --> 01:13:04,810
complaint because it is baseless, meaning that board has

1119
01:13:04,810 --> 01:13:10,220
determined it is not frivolous in this instance. And the

1120
01:13:10,220 --> 01:13:14,880
motion was passed for one with one absence. And then I

1121
01:13:14,880 --> 01:13:17,899
think we have the record. Is that all? That good? That's

1122
01:13:17,899 --> 01:13:20,640
the summary.

1123
01:13:20,640 --> 01:13:23,810
So because there's no violation, there's no need to discuss

1124
01:13:23,810 --> 01:13:27,640
sanctions. Yep. So we just have the closing of the meeting.

1125
01:13:27,640 --> 01:13:38,449
So it is now 6 42 p.m. And this meeting is adjourned.

1126
01:13:38,449 --> 01:13:48,260
Before we adjourn, let me say please do not discuss this in

1127
01:13:48,260 --> 01:13:54,020
the parking lot. Don't discuss this in the room before you

1128
01:13:54,020 --> 01:13:54,640
leave. That will be the next part of the communication. I

1129
01:13:54,640 --> 01:13:54,640
know you know we're not going to do that. So just a

1130
01:13:54,640 --> 01:13:54,640
reminder. So we are now adjourned.