WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:08.880
Okay. Hey, Judge. It is 530-ish p.m. on

00:00:08.880 --> 00:00:12.720
Monday June 22nd, 2026. This is a special

00:00:12.720 --> 00:00:16.440
call meeting at the Board of Ethics and

00:00:16.440 --> 00:00:21.879
the items for consideration, it's BOE 26-013,

00:00:21.879 --> 00:00:24.120
consider and take necessary action

00:00:24.120 --> 00:00:26.600
regarding a recommendation made by a

00:00:26.600 --> 00:00:29.239
panel of the Board of Ethics on May 27th

00:00:29.239 --> 00:00:32.600
2026 to determine if the ethics

00:00:32.600 --> 00:00:36.439
complaint 26-01 concerning

00:00:36.439 --> 00:00:38.560
alleged violations of ethics ordinance

00:00:38.560 --> 00:00:43.920
section 2-273 may be frivolous.

00:00:43.920 --> 00:00:46.159
This hearing is being conducted under the

00:00:46.159 --> 00:00:47.840
authority of the Dent and Credit Ordinance

00:00:47.840 --> 00:00:53.600
Article 11, Ethics Section 2-2A1C.

00:00:53.600 --> 00:00:56.280
And the first for our business would be

00:00:56.280 --> 00:00:58.520
to elect a chair for this hearing,

00:00:58.520 --> 00:01:00.520
I know, I think you are. Oh, it's a full board of

00:01:00.520 --> 00:01:03.799
effective chair. And would you statement a quorum

00:01:03.799 --> 00:01:07.920
is present? A quorum is present.

00:01:07.920 --> 00:01:11.079
Got that for the record. Yep. For the record, a quorum is

00:01:11.079 --> 00:01:11.719
present.

00:01:11.719 --> 00:01:14.719
Do we need to introduce ourselves?

00:01:14.719 --> 00:01:17.120
You can introduce yourselves if you want, but kind of next

00:01:17.120 --> 00:01:18.239
item in the order

00:01:18.239 --> 00:01:20.599
procedures is if there are any recusals

00:01:20.599 --> 00:01:22.409
and then we'll enter the appearance of the parties, but if

00:01:22.409 --> 00:01:23.719
y'all want to go around and do that.

00:01:23.719 --> 00:01:25.799
I know we don't have little name cards, so that might just

00:01:25.799 --> 00:01:26.719
be helpful.

00:01:26.719 --> 00:01:30.719
Okay.

00:01:30.719 --> 00:01:35.120
So, do you want to, Diane, do you want to start

00:01:35.120 --> 00:01:38.840
with introductions?

00:01:38.840 --> 00:01:42.840
Diane Baker. Okay. Long time

00:01:42.840 --> 00:01:47.439
member of a couple boards here, who's Denton.

00:01:47.439 --> 00:01:51.439
Okay.

00:01:51.439 --> 00:01:55.640
Hi, I'm Pat Ranky.

00:01:55.640 --> 00:01:59.640
Mr. Pavlik.

00:01:59.640 --> 00:02:03.640
Dorthy Palumbo on special counsel for the board of ethics.

00:02:03.640 --> 00:02:07.640
And Kenneth Ferguson. Okay. Are there any potential

00:02:07.640 --> 00:02:11.639
for recusals to this?

00:02:11.639 --> 00:02:15.639
I just, can you speak up? I'm just having a hard time

00:02:15.639 --> 00:02:19.639
hearing. Yeah, it's me, it's not you, but I'm having a hard

00:02:19.639 --> 00:02:19.639
time hearing.

00:02:19.639 --> 00:02:23.639
That won't work. No.

00:02:23.639 --> 00:02:27.639
Okay, I'll try to speak up. I think it's this room too.

00:02:27.639 --> 00:02:31.639
Okay. So, no

00:02:31.639 --> 00:02:35.639
potential recusals?

00:02:35.639 --> 00:02:39.639
Okay. Alright. So,

00:02:39.639 --> 00:02:43.639
the appearance of the parties, the complainant is

00:02:43.639 --> 00:02:47.639
Adam Horwitz, and the

00:02:47.639 --> 00:02:51.639
respondent is the city attorney, Matt Rinewall.

00:02:51.639 --> 00:02:55.639
The complainant is here, but the

00:02:55.639 --> 00:02:59.639
respondent is not. Okay.

00:02:59.639 --> 00:03:03.639
And, so,

00:03:03.639 --> 00:03:07.639
the complainant requested to be allowed an additional 30

00:03:07.639 --> 00:03:07.639
minutes

00:03:07.639 --> 00:03:11.639
of time to present evidence, and I denied the request

00:03:11.639 --> 00:03:15.639
on June 17th, but I want the board to vote on whether or

00:03:15.639 --> 00:03:19.639
not you want to allow another 30 minutes. And he,

00:03:19.639 --> 00:03:23.639
they have 30 minutes for the presentation,

00:03:23.639 --> 00:03:27.639
but they want to double it to an hour.

00:03:27.639 --> 00:03:31.639
So, what is your pleasure?

00:03:31.639 --> 00:03:35.639
Well, I was not here last time,

00:03:35.639 --> 00:03:39.639
as you know, for surgery, but I would like to allow

00:03:39.639 --> 00:03:43.639
him to be able to speak for 30 minutes. I don't

00:03:43.639 --> 00:03:47.639
want me to get somewhere, I don't need to be, okay, but I

00:03:47.639 --> 00:03:47.639
don't,

00:03:47.639 --> 00:03:49.710
you know, there's things we have to, he has to cover, and

00:03:49.710 --> 00:03:51.639
things he doesn't have to cover.

00:03:51.639 --> 00:03:55.639
So, I think that 30 minutes is adequate time for him to

00:03:55.639 --> 00:03:55.639
speak

00:03:55.639 --> 00:03:59.639
on what his concerns are. Anybody else

00:03:59.639 --> 00:04:03.639
want to make a comment on the time?

00:04:03.639 --> 00:04:07.639
I don't

00:04:07.639 --> 00:04:11.639
have any comments on that. I mean, I think if we're

00:04:11.639 --> 00:04:15.639
just sticking to the ethics, whether or not it's frivolous,

00:04:15.639 --> 00:04:15.639
I think 30

00:04:15.639 --> 00:04:19.639
minutes should be adequate.

00:04:19.639 --> 00:04:23.639
But, I want Kenneth, do you have any? Are we taking a vote

00:04:23.639 --> 00:04:23.639
on it? We will take a vote.

00:04:23.639 --> 00:04:27.639
Yeah, I've got no comments on the vote. Okay.

00:04:27.639 --> 00:04:31.639
So, does somebody want to make a motion?

00:04:31.639 --> 00:04:35.639
I move that we

00:04:35.639 --> 00:04:39.639
stick to our 30 minutes without an additional 30 minutes.

00:04:39.639 --> 00:04:43.639
And is there a second to that? I'll second it. Kenneth

00:04:43.639 --> 00:04:43.639
Ferguson seconded it.

00:04:43.639 --> 00:04:47.639
Patricia Rink, you made the motion.

00:04:47.639 --> 00:04:51.639
So, all in favor of the motion to stick with the 30 minute

00:04:51.639 --> 00:04:55.639
time frame? Second, aye. Aye.

00:04:55.639 --> 00:04:59.639
It's unanimous. Five ayes.

00:04:59.639 --> 00:05:03.639
Okay. So,

00:05:03.639 --> 00:05:07.639
the complainant has three minutes for opening

00:05:07.639 --> 00:05:11.639
statements. You want to come up to them? I will keep the

00:05:11.639 --> 00:05:11.639
time. Okay.

00:05:11.639 --> 00:05:15.639
So, we'll help with three minutes on it or whatever.

00:05:15.639 --> 00:05:19.639
Do you need to address you as Adam? Yeah, Adam is great.

00:05:19.639 --> 00:05:23.639
Okay. Do you want to come to the podiums? Sure. Yeah, I'm

00:05:23.639 --> 00:05:23.639
just

00:05:23.639 --> 00:05:27.639
going to go there. Okay. And

00:05:27.639 --> 00:05:31.060
Madison will be the time people. So, you've got three

00:05:31.060 --> 00:05:31.639
minutes

00:05:31.639 --> 00:05:35.639
for your opening segments

00:05:35.639 --> 00:05:39.639
once you get the podium.

00:05:39.639 --> 00:05:43.639
Hello. Hello.

00:05:43.639 --> 00:05:47.639
Are you okay? Yep. Yes. Okay.

00:05:55.639 --> 00:05:59.639
According to the ethics ordinance, the board of

00:05:59.639 --> 00:06:02.930
ethics had one job to do when initially evaluating this

00:06:02.930 --> 00:06:03.639
complaint.

00:06:03.639 --> 00:06:07.639
To see if it was actionable or baseless.

00:06:07.639 --> 00:06:11.639
To fulfill this basic duty, the board of ethics moved to

00:06:11.639 --> 00:06:11.639
dismiss the complaint

00:06:11.639 --> 00:06:15.639
as baseless in a whopping two minutes. During a meeting in

00:06:15.639 --> 00:06:15.639
which

00:06:15.639 --> 00:06:19.639
no effort was taken to even read the complaint or examine

00:06:19.639 --> 00:06:19.639
whether it did

00:06:19.639 --> 00:06:23.639
in fact meet the elements of improper influence. In fact,

00:06:23.639 --> 00:06:23.639
at no point

00:06:23.639 --> 00:06:26.720
did the board even accurately state what the complaint had

00:06:26.720 --> 00:06:27.639
even alleged.

00:06:27.639 --> 00:06:31.639
The board of ethics had one job to do and chose not to do

00:06:31.639 --> 00:06:31.639
it.

00:06:31.639 --> 00:06:35.639
What they did instead was regurgitate legal talking points

00:06:35.639 --> 00:06:35.639
from

00:06:35.639 --> 00:06:39.290
special counsel for the city that they admitted to meeting

00:06:39.290 --> 00:06:39.639
with before the ethics

00:06:39.639 --> 00:06:43.639
meeting. These talking points not only fail on their face,

00:06:43.639 --> 00:06:46.519
but contradict the foundational ethical standards that

00:06:46.519 --> 00:06:47.639
legal professionals are bound to

00:06:47.639 --> 00:06:51.639
by the state bar of Texas.

00:06:51.639 --> 00:06:54.910
So not only did the board of ethics violate the ethics

00:06:54.910 --> 00:06:55.639
ordinance during the

00:06:55.639 --> 00:06:59.639
processing of the complaint.

00:06:59.639 --> 00:07:03.639
The board of ethics also violated the Texas Open Meetings

00:07:03.639 --> 00:07:03.639
Act.

00:07:03.639 --> 00:07:07.639
By effectively ruling on my complaint in closed doors,

00:07:07.639 --> 00:07:07.639
discussions,

00:07:07.639 --> 00:07:11.639
with special counsel, rather than in a genuine

00:07:11.639 --> 00:07:15.639
public forum as mandated. I believe that's a criminal

00:07:15.639 --> 00:07:15.639
offense.

00:07:15.639 --> 00:07:19.639
After refusing to engage with what my complaint stated,

00:07:19.639 --> 00:07:23.639
even going so far as to misstating its contents,

00:07:23.639 --> 00:07:26.800
the board then pivoted to the issue of frivolity,

00:07:26.800 --> 00:07:27.639
essentially

00:07:27.639 --> 00:07:31.639
sanctioning me for making the complaint in the first place,

00:07:31.639 --> 00:07:31.639
which is what this meeting concerns.

00:07:31.639 --> 00:07:35.639
In order to find my complaint frivolous, two conditions

00:07:35.639 --> 00:07:39.639
must be met. One, it must be groundless. And two, it must

00:07:39.639 --> 00:07:39.639
be

00:07:39.639 --> 00:07:43.639
made in bad faith for the purpose of harassment.

00:07:43.639 --> 00:07:47.639
A frivolous complaint must meet both of these criteria.

00:07:47.639 --> 00:07:47.639
Mine meets neither.

00:07:47.639 --> 00:07:51.639
Thank you.

00:07:55.639 --> 00:07:59.639
Because the respondent is not here, we can

00:07:59.639 --> 00:08:03.639
move on to the presentation of evidence.

00:08:03.639 --> 00:08:07.639
So, Adam, you have 30 minutes to present

00:08:07.639 --> 00:08:11.639
your evidence.

00:08:27.639 --> 00:08:31.639
I don't have it printed out.

00:08:31.639 --> 00:08:35.639
Is there something you submitted? I can pull it up on the

00:08:35.639 --> 00:08:35.639
screen.

00:08:35.639 --> 00:08:39.639
No. I would

00:08:39.639 --> 00:08:42.820
kind of be going back and forth, so it might be easier just

00:08:42.820 --> 00:08:43.639
to read it. And if you have

00:08:43.639 --> 00:08:46.899
those exhibits, I can see the exhibits on the screen, so I

00:08:46.899 --> 00:08:47.639
'll make sure that we actually have it on there.

00:08:47.639 --> 00:08:51.639
Here and here is the...

00:08:51.639 --> 00:08:55.639
Sarah, did you know what happened with that?

00:08:55.639 --> 00:08:59.639
It worked the first time we did it.

00:09:03.639 --> 00:09:07.639
I can pull it up on the screen.

00:09:07.639 --> 00:09:11.639
I'm seeing if it'll work through differently.

00:09:11.639 --> 00:09:15.639
Okay. I apologize. Have y'all all seen the

00:09:15.639 --> 00:09:19.639
exhibits that were submitted? Yes.

00:09:23.639 --> 00:09:27.639
I sent you the file.

00:09:27.639 --> 00:09:31.639
I'm sorry, what? Do you want the file that happened

00:09:31.639 --> 00:09:31.639
together?

00:09:31.639 --> 00:09:35.639
I don't know how to get that to this computer.

00:09:35.639 --> 00:09:39.639
Well, I guess I have the flash drive.

00:09:39.639 --> 00:09:43.639
Because there was the one that was part of the initial

00:09:43.639 --> 00:09:47.639
complaint. I saw that one online, but not the ones I sent

00:09:47.639 --> 00:09:51.639
you last week.

00:09:51.639 --> 00:09:55.639
I don't know what I was supposed to...

00:10:21.639 --> 00:10:25.639
[inaudible]

00:10:51.639 --> 00:10:55.639
[inaudible]

00:11:21.639 --> 00:11:25.639
[inaudible]

00:11:25.639 --> 00:11:29.639
[inaudible]

00:11:29.639 --> 00:11:33.639
[inaudible]

00:11:33.639 --> 00:11:37.639
Here's what was submitted.

00:11:37.639 --> 00:11:41.639
Okay, it's not...

00:11:41.639 --> 00:11:45.639
It includes all of it. It's all in one

00:11:45.639 --> 00:11:49.639
document? Correct. Okay. Are they labeled as

00:11:49.639 --> 00:11:53.639
exhibits here? Yes. I think this is in A and then there's

00:11:53.639 --> 00:11:57.639
exhibit B somewhere. Okay, so it should be four total.

00:11:57.639 --> 00:12:00.539
I just want to make sure they're correct upon referring to

00:12:00.539 --> 00:12:01.639
them correctly so it doesn't

00:12:01.639 --> 00:12:05.639
throw people off. Exhibit A is the city's

00:12:05.639 --> 00:12:09.639
motion... the city defendant's motion to dismiss.

00:12:09.639 --> 00:12:13.639
Exhibit B is...

00:12:19.639 --> 00:12:23.639
[inaudible]

00:12:23.639 --> 00:12:27.639
[inaudible]

00:12:27.639 --> 00:12:31.639
[inaudible]

00:12:31.639 --> 00:12:35.639
[inaudible]

00:12:35.639 --> 00:12:39.639
They're labeled by number, not letter.

00:12:39.639 --> 00:12:43.639
Is that our exhibits or is that the exhibits from...

00:12:43.639 --> 00:12:47.639
Those are mine. So they're like sub...

00:12:47.639 --> 00:12:51.639
[inaudible]

00:12:51.639 --> 00:12:55.639
Are they labeled there? Do you remember?

00:12:55.639 --> 00:12:59.639
No. I didn't... I saw them compiled as my document.

00:12:59.639 --> 00:13:03.639
Okay.

00:13:03.639 --> 00:13:07.639
This is...

00:13:07.639 --> 00:13:11.639
[inaudible]

00:13:11.639 --> 00:13:15.639
[inaudible]

00:13:15.639 --> 00:13:19.639
[inaudible]

00:13:19.639 --> 00:13:23.639
[inaudible]

00:13:23.639 --> 00:13:27.639
Here's this email. Okay.

00:13:27.639 --> 00:13:31.639
The very last one was the...

00:13:31.639 --> 00:13:35.639
The last one was the June 9th email to

00:13:35.639 --> 00:13:39.639
Matt Green Laundry. Okay. Correct.

00:13:39.639 --> 00:13:43.639
Okay. Thank you. So I'm guessing that B is

00:13:43.639 --> 00:13:47.639
ODV petition and it has those sub exhibits. What was the...

00:13:47.639 --> 00:13:51.639
It looks like maybe there's only three total. It looks like

00:13:51.639 --> 00:13:51.639
maybe there's just

00:13:51.639 --> 00:13:55.269
the motion to dismiss from the city, then my petition, and

00:13:55.269 --> 00:13:55.639
then

00:13:55.639 --> 00:13:59.639
June email to Matt Green Laundry. Is that right?

00:13:59.639 --> 00:14:03.639
Yeah. Here's some emails.

00:14:03.639 --> 00:14:07.639
That's all part of the...

00:14:07.639 --> 00:14:11.639
That second one. Okay.

00:14:11.639 --> 00:14:15.639
This is one, then there's this.

00:14:15.639 --> 00:14:19.639
Okay. Okay. It looks like there might be two missing

00:14:19.639 --> 00:14:23.639
if that's the second one. And those would be...

00:14:23.639 --> 00:14:27.639
[inaudible]

00:14:27.639 --> 00:14:31.639
[inaudible]

00:14:31.639 --> 00:14:35.639
Those would be a...

00:14:35.639 --> 00:14:39.639
[inaudible]

00:14:39.639 --> 00:14:43.639
June 1st, 2026 letter to the attorney

00:14:43.639 --> 00:14:47.639
general from Deputy City Attorney Amanda Brown.

00:14:47.639 --> 00:14:51.639
And... That's included?

00:14:51.639 --> 00:14:55.639
That's on page 16. That's on page 16? Okay.

00:14:55.639 --> 00:14:59.639
Does it have a name? Sorry. I went from the back.

00:14:59.639 --> 00:15:03.639
[inaudible]

00:15:03.639 --> 00:15:07.639
Okay.

00:15:07.639 --> 00:15:11.639
[inaudible]

00:15:11.639 --> 00:15:15.639
That looks like the first one. So, that for Exhibit A,

00:15:15.639 --> 00:15:19.639
I guess. So, the...

00:15:19.639 --> 00:15:23.639
The July 11th one was...

00:15:23.639 --> 00:15:27.639
July 11th starts on page 11. Starts on page 11?

00:15:27.639 --> 00:15:31.639
Okay. That sounds like it would be Exhibit

00:15:31.639 --> 00:15:35.639
B then, right?

00:15:35.639 --> 00:15:39.639
So, calling it.

00:15:39.639 --> 00:15:43.639
[inaudible]

00:15:43.639 --> 00:15:47.639
[inaudible]

00:15:47.639 --> 00:15:51.639
[inaudible]

00:15:51.639 --> 00:15:55.639
[inaudible]

00:15:55.639 --> 00:15:59.639
[inaudible]

00:15:59.639 --> 00:16:03.639
You said this is D?

00:16:03.639 --> 00:16:07.639
I believe so. So, what I have is...

00:16:07.639 --> 00:16:11.639
It looks like one might be missing.

00:16:11.639 --> 00:16:15.639
There was another letter to the attorney general from May

00:16:15.639 --> 00:16:15.639
20th, 2026.

00:16:15.639 --> 00:16:19.639
And I didn't see that in the...

00:16:19.639 --> 00:16:23.639
[inaudible]

00:16:23.639 --> 00:16:27.639
[inaudible]

00:16:27.639 --> 00:16:31.639
[inaudible]

00:16:31.639 --> 00:16:35.639
That looks... Oh, yeah. That looks like the June...

00:16:35.639 --> 00:16:39.639
This is June 1st.

00:16:39.639 --> 00:16:43.639
Okay. What's this one called?

00:16:43.639 --> 00:16:47.639
We call it Exhibit C. Exhibit C, okay.

00:16:47.639 --> 00:16:51.639
[inaudible]

00:16:51.639 --> 00:16:55.639
[inaudible]

00:16:55.639 --> 00:16:59.639
[inaudible]

00:16:59.639 --> 00:17:09.640
[tapping]

00:17:09.640 --> 00:17:19.640
[tapping]

00:17:19.640 --> 00:17:29.640
[tapping]

00:17:29.640 --> 00:17:39.640
[tapping]

00:17:39.640 --> 00:17:49.640
[tapping]

00:17:49.640 --> 00:17:57.640
[tapping]

00:17:57.640 --> 00:18:02.640
So just for clarification, those people were the city

00:18:02.640 --> 00:18:05.640
manager, the city attorney,

00:18:05.640 --> 00:18:12.640
who were those other people that were being sued?

00:18:12.640 --> 00:18:17.630
Some of them are from the city attorney's office, some of

00:18:17.630 --> 00:18:21.640
them are employees of our Daily Bread.

00:18:21.640 --> 00:18:29.640
Okay. Okay, just want to be clear.

00:18:29.640 --> 00:18:33.650
Okay, just to make sure I'm on the same page here, so Exhib

00:18:33.650 --> 00:18:37.640
it A is the motion to dismiss from the city defendants.

00:18:37.640 --> 00:18:43.640
Exhibit B is the July 11th letter on page C, right?

00:18:43.640 --> 00:18:44.640
Yes.

00:18:44.640 --> 00:18:48.640
Okay. And then Exhibit C is the June 1st, 2026 letter?

00:18:48.640 --> 00:18:49.640
Correct. On page 16.

00:18:49.640 --> 00:18:56.279
D is the long ODB petition, and then E is the June 9th

00:18:56.279 --> 00:18:57.640
email.

00:18:57.640 --> 00:19:00.640
This is their petition, ODB's.

00:19:00.640 --> 00:19:03.640
Okay, so that's D, right?

00:19:03.640 --> 00:19:07.640
This appears to be your petition, or restraint order.

00:19:07.640 --> 00:19:11.240
Okay, so I guess that's D, and then the last one is the

00:19:11.240 --> 00:19:12.640
June 9th email?

00:19:12.640 --> 00:19:13.640
Correct.

00:19:13.640 --> 00:19:14.640
Okay.

00:19:14.640 --> 00:19:42.640
Exhibit D begins on page 19.

00:19:42.640 --> 00:19:47.640
Thank you, that was some good work.

00:20:12.640 --> 00:20:32.640
Okay, are we ready?

00:20:32.640 --> 00:20:33.640
Yep.

00:20:33.640 --> 00:20:36.640
Okay, I'm ready.

00:20:36.640 --> 00:20:42.829
Okay, from Chapter 2 of the Ethics Ordinance, an actionable

00:20:42.829 --> 00:20:43.890
complaint is an accepted complaint that has been deemed by

00:20:43.890 --> 00:20:46.829
a panel to contain allegations and evidence that, if

00:20:46.829 --> 00:20:50.180
accepted as true, would support the finding that a

00:20:50.180 --> 00:20:52.640
violation of this article occurred.

00:20:52.640 --> 00:20:55.460
A baseless complaint is the opposite, does not pledge

00:20:55.460 --> 00:20:58.640
conduct that would constitute a violation of the article,

00:20:58.640 --> 00:21:02.420
or does not provide evidence that should support a

00:21:02.420 --> 00:21:04.640
violation of the article.

00:21:04.640 --> 00:21:09.230
Of course, a baseless complaint has to be groundless, so it

00:21:09.230 --> 00:21:13.549
's baseless as well, and brought in bad faith, or for the

00:21:13.549 --> 00:21:15.640
purpose of harassment.

00:21:15.640 --> 00:21:20.319
I find odd that what I touched upon briefly in my

00:21:20.319 --> 00:21:25.970
introduction is that the substance of the complaint was

00:21:25.970 --> 00:21:32.089
never actually addressed at the initial meeting, or even in

00:21:32.089 --> 00:21:34.640
writing afterwards.

00:21:34.640 --> 00:21:38.690
In the preliminary panel determination filed by the panel

00:21:38.690 --> 00:21:43.119
chair, Annetta Ramsey, she states, in part, "City Attorney

00:21:43.119 --> 00:21:47.079
Raynmond had 'improper influence on the matter' by using

00:21:47.079 --> 00:21:50.710
his official position to assert the prestige of that

00:21:50.710 --> 00:21:54.400
position for the purpose of harming the private interest of

00:21:54.400 --> 00:21:55.640
Adam Horowitz."

00:21:55.640 --> 00:21:59.000
That's not what I said, but it actually said verbatim on

00:21:59.000 --> 00:22:02.569
the very first page of the complaint, where it says, "The

00:22:02.569 --> 00:22:05.950
private interest being advanced is Raynmond's personal

00:22:05.950 --> 00:22:09.529
interest in defeating claims that expose him to individual

00:22:09.529 --> 00:22:10.640
liability.

00:22:10.640 --> 00:22:14.250
The official position and resources being used to advance

00:22:14.250 --> 00:22:18.089
that private interest are his authority, title, and office

00:22:18.089 --> 00:22:21.809
as City Attorney. This is the precise conduct that Section

00:22:21.809 --> 00:22:25.640
273(e)(3) prohibits 'improper influence.'"

00:22:25.640 --> 00:22:28.799
It goes on to state that Raynmond has used his official

00:22:28.799 --> 00:22:32.339
title as City Attorney as office, or city office address,

00:22:32.339 --> 00:22:35.869
and authority over subordinate City Attorneys to appear as

00:22:35.869 --> 00:22:39.410
counsel over record and federal litigation, in which he is

00:22:39.410 --> 00:22:42.640
simultaneously a named individual defendant.

00:22:42.640 --> 00:22:47.079
The private interest being advanced is for the sake of this

00:22:47.079 --> 00:22:51.609
complaint is not mine, it is Raynmond's personal interest

00:22:51.609 --> 00:22:56.230
in defeating claims that expose him to individual liability

00:22:56.230 --> 00:22:56.640
.

00:22:56.640 --> 00:23:00.569
It appears that there were two arguments that City used for

00:23:00.569 --> 00:23:04.410
the baseless prong here, both of which failed, and both

00:23:04.410 --> 00:23:08.349
arguments also ignore the entire ethical dimension of the

00:23:08.349 --> 00:23:12.190
conduct, which I would assume would be the point of these

00:23:12.190 --> 00:23:13.640
types of hearings,

00:23:13.640 --> 00:23:17.349
instead implying that the ethical issues are somehow swept

00:23:17.349 --> 00:23:20.950
under the rug or waived by erroneous and hyper-legalistic

00:23:20.950 --> 00:23:22.640
misinterpretations.

00:23:22.640 --> 00:23:25.940
The argument is twofold. First, it states that the City

00:23:25.940 --> 00:23:29.049
Attorney has to represent the City because it says so in

00:23:29.049 --> 00:23:32.640
the Charter, therefore he just has no choice no matter.

00:23:32.640 --> 00:23:36.890
That's ridiculous. This job description does not override

00:23:36.890 --> 00:23:39.640
basic ethical and professional standards.

00:23:39.640 --> 00:23:42.720
According to this line of reasoning, if the City Attorney

00:23:42.720 --> 00:23:45.849
had a bar complaint filed against him and lost his license,

00:23:45.849 --> 00:23:49.019
for example, he would be obligated to violate professional

00:23:49.019 --> 00:23:51.990
ethics and practice law without a license to appease the

00:23:51.990 --> 00:23:53.640
dense and city Charter.

00:23:53.640 --> 00:23:57.680
If it doesn't hold in that situation, why would that

00:23:57.680 --> 00:24:00.640
reasoning hold in this situation?

00:24:00.640 --> 00:24:05.559
Secondly, there's a Sixth Amendment argument, which is the

00:24:05.559 --> 00:24:09.640
second, "he has a right to represent himself."

00:24:09.640 --> 00:24:12.609
My understanding is that the Sixth Amendment applies to

00:24:12.609 --> 00:24:15.730
criminal cases, which this isn't, and it might be later,

00:24:15.730 --> 00:24:20.089
but I'm not prosecuted on that. I'm not a district attorney

00:24:20.089 --> 00:24:21.640
, obviously.

00:24:21.640 --> 00:24:25.910
Well, it's true that he has a right to represent himself in

00:24:25.910 --> 00:24:30.640
civil matters. That was never the focus of the complaint.

00:24:30.640 --> 00:24:33.299
The focus of the complaint is the conflict of interest

00:24:33.299 --> 00:24:35.640
between representing both himself and the City.

00:24:35.640 --> 00:24:39.680
This does not succeed as an argument either. The conflict

00:24:39.680 --> 00:24:44.380
of interest... rewind the date. Texas attorneys have basic

00:24:44.380 --> 00:24:48.339
ethical standards. They have to go by conduct standards

00:24:48.339 --> 00:24:51.640
outlined in the Texas Disciplinary Rules.

00:24:51.640 --> 00:24:56.890
The conflict of interest rules, click here. You don't have

00:24:56.890 --> 00:25:02.990
to dig too deep. It's rule number one, 1.03, I believe. It

00:25:02.990 --> 00:25:06.549
's on the first page there. This type of conflict of

00:25:06.549 --> 00:25:08.640
interest we're dealing with is pretty self-evident.

00:25:08.640 --> 00:25:12.230
If you look at the basic details of the case, that the City

00:25:12.230 --> 00:25:15.910
Attorney's Office was alleged to have been tampering with

00:25:15.910 --> 00:25:19.450
evidence in a criminal case and engaged in a civil rights

00:25:19.450 --> 00:25:23.630
conspiracy, any reasonable person would say, "Yeah, if both

00:25:23.630 --> 00:25:27.509
that individual and the City are named as defendants,

00:25:27.509 --> 00:25:31.640
perhaps there is a conflict of interest there."

00:25:31.640 --> 00:25:35.019
And the concerns over that, of course, are not just

00:25:35.019 --> 00:25:38.799
hypothetical. And that's why I brought up the stuff from

00:25:38.799 --> 00:25:43.710
the Ardeny-Bread case. Because it's not just a hypothetical

00:25:43.710 --> 00:25:46.640
thing that's already happened.

00:25:46.640 --> 00:25:53.009
That case, which I believe is a long one, it's our exhibit

00:25:53.009 --> 00:25:59.509
D here, which is quite long, but the factual background is

00:25:59.509 --> 00:26:05.390
only 60 pages or 30 pages. If you're not counting double

00:26:05.390 --> 00:26:08.789
space, it's not going to take forever to go through. It's

00:26:08.789 --> 00:26:09.640
extensively sourced.

00:26:09.640 --> 00:26:13.880
With 81 exhibits there, it involved false submissions to

00:26:13.880 --> 00:26:17.880
the Attorney General by the City Attorney's Office, false

00:26:17.880 --> 00:26:22.200
statements to the Texas Workforce Commission investigators,

00:26:22.200 --> 00:26:26.640
which were repeated verbatim in their investigative report.

00:26:26.640 --> 00:26:30.740
And then it also notes that around that very same time that

00:26:30.740 --> 00:26:35.119
the City Attorneys were making fraudulent representations

00:26:35.119 --> 00:26:39.430
to the Attorney General and the state agencies, the City's

00:26:39.430 --> 00:26:43.720
contractor for the city shelter was engaging in forgery and

00:26:43.720 --> 00:26:45.640
evidence tampering.

00:26:45.640 --> 00:26:49.480
Presumably, what I'm guessing the goal was to falsely cert

00:26:49.480 --> 00:26:53.319
ify compliance and also hide a lot of misconduct in multiple

00:26:53.319 --> 00:26:57.640
locations, all of which are extensively documented as well.

00:26:57.640 --> 00:27:02.079
I don't believe that that timing there is really a

00:27:02.079 --> 00:27:07.609
coincidence between what the City Attorneys were doing with

00:27:07.609 --> 00:27:13.039
the shelter management were doing. Because if you look at

00:27:13.039 --> 00:27:18.650
that July 11 letter attached to exhibit B, Deputy City

00:27:18.650 --> 00:27:23.640
Attorney Amanda Brown sought to withhold some records.

00:27:23.640 --> 00:27:28.380
This was actually, to give a little context here, last Jun

00:27:28.380 --> 00:27:32.940
eteenth an African American gentleman at the shelter had

00:27:32.940 --> 00:27:36.309
been, I wasn't there for this, but I heard that he had been

00:27:36.309 --> 00:27:38.640
assaulted by security staff at the shelter.

00:27:38.640 --> 00:27:42.970
And so I sought to obtain records regarding communications

00:27:42.970 --> 00:27:47.400
between the City Attorney, sorry, just the City officials

00:27:47.400 --> 00:27:51.910
and the City shelter management regarding this event, which

00:27:51.910 --> 00:27:55.009
had been reported. And Amanda Brown, Deputy City Attorney,

00:27:55.009 --> 00:27:58.240
sought to withhold the records based on attorney client

00:27:58.240 --> 00:27:59.640
privilege.

00:27:59.640 --> 00:28:03.890
Section 9 of their contract claims that they're completely

00:28:03.890 --> 00:28:08.069
separate. Their legal defenses submitted to the district

00:28:08.069 --> 00:28:12.180
court claim that they're completely separate. They don't

00:28:12.180 --> 00:28:15.079
know anything about what they're doing, it's a separate

00:28:15.079 --> 00:28:15.640
thing.

00:28:15.640 --> 00:28:20.779
And then they're telling the Attorney General that they're

00:28:20.779 --> 00:28:25.900
advising them in the capacity as an attorney. And context

00:28:25.900 --> 00:28:31.000
of that, the Juneteenth, well that's just mere weeks away

00:28:31.000 --> 00:28:36.029
from the pattern of misconduct that both parties have been

00:28:36.029 --> 00:28:38.640
extensively engaged in.

00:28:38.640 --> 00:28:43.339
Along those lines, of course, in that case, the reason why

00:28:43.339 --> 00:28:48.039
this is all relevant is that, of course, Mack Rainwound and

00:28:48.039 --> 00:28:52.660
Devon Brown, Deputy City Attorney and Amanda Brown, were

00:28:52.660 --> 00:28:55.640
named as defendants in that case.

00:28:55.640 --> 00:29:02.099
And they also represented both themselves and the city in

00:29:02.099 --> 00:29:03.640
that case.

00:29:03.640 --> 00:29:06.839
So, I talk about conflict of interest, it's not a

00:29:06.839 --> 00:29:10.819
conspiracy theory about like the Loch Ness Monster doing 9/

00:29:10.819 --> 00:29:15.640
11. It's actually a pretty clear cut here.

00:29:15.640 --> 00:29:22.309
And you can read, I guess this is their exhibit A here, on

00:29:22.309 --> 00:29:29.400
page A of that, they said, this was their individual, just

00:29:29.400 --> 00:29:37.059
sorry, we'll rewrite it here, this was just the individual,

00:29:37.059 --> 00:29:42.190
these folks, the individual city defendants' motion to

00:29:42.190 --> 00:29:44.640
dismiss not the cities itself.

00:29:44.640 --> 00:29:58.640
So, page eight, they said,

00:29:58.640 --> 00:30:02.890
"No reasonable person would believe that the city attorneys

00:30:02.890 --> 00:30:07.029
committed any acts falling outside this course and scope of

00:30:07.029 --> 00:30:11.299
their employment and representation of the city. Thus the

00:30:11.299 --> 00:30:15.240
allegations lack of basis in fact and law." That's weird,

00:30:15.240 --> 00:30:19.880
so can you seriously look at the public filings that they

00:30:19.880 --> 00:30:22.640
've made while representing themselves, while representing

00:30:22.640 --> 00:30:24.640
the city at the same time previously?

00:30:24.640 --> 00:30:27.529
They claim, oh yeah, it's not a conflict of interest, they

00:30:27.529 --> 00:30:30.279
're just defending themselves by saying that the alleged

00:30:30.279 --> 00:30:33.160
federal felonies that they committed were actually within

00:30:33.160 --> 00:30:35.890
this course and scope of their employment with the city of

00:30:35.890 --> 00:30:36.640
Denton.

00:30:36.640 --> 00:30:41.359
How could the city of Denton possibly go wrong with that

00:30:41.359 --> 00:30:44.640
type of defense, conflict three?

00:30:44.640 --> 00:30:49.640
That was a joke.

00:30:49.640 --> 00:30:55.640
How much time do I have left?

00:30:55.640 --> 00:31:06.640
19 minutes and 30 seconds.

00:31:06.640 --> 00:31:09.640
Well I'm glad I didn't get the whole hour.

00:31:09.640 --> 00:31:12.660
I don't think I'm going to get half an hour, so I just went

00:31:12.660 --> 00:31:13.640
through this.

00:31:13.640 --> 00:31:20.890
So, to, I guess, wrap this up here, I'd like to share

00:31:20.890 --> 00:31:25.329
another story that somewhat dovetails with the pattern of

00:31:25.329 --> 00:31:28.640
conduct that I've already outlined here.

00:31:28.640 --> 00:31:37.299
On the night of May 14th, 2026, I was at the park by Texas

00:31:37.299 --> 00:31:43.799
Women's University in Locust around that area. A 13 year

00:31:43.799 --> 00:31:44.440
old girl approached me and asked if I had a safe place to

00:31:44.440 --> 00:31:44.640
stay.

00:31:44.640 --> 00:31:47.230
She told me that she was being sexually abused by her

00:31:47.230 --> 00:31:50.160
father and her brother. She told me that because of that

00:31:50.160 --> 00:31:54.000
abuse she had to hurt herself and ended up at University

00:31:54.000 --> 00:31:56.640
Behavioral Health of Denton.

00:31:56.640 --> 00:32:00.109
And she told me that she had escaped from UBH because she

00:32:00.109 --> 00:32:03.269
didn't feel safe there and that when she told UBH staff

00:32:03.269 --> 00:32:05.640
about the sexual abuse nothing was done.

00:32:05.640 --> 00:32:18.329
And she was obviously distressed, but she was queer,

00:32:18.329 --> 00:32:26.640
coherent, and 13 years old. Excuse me, I'm on the street at

00:32:26.640 --> 00:32:26.640
night.

00:32:26.640 --> 00:32:32.400
And shortly after she approached me, multiple Denton PD

00:32:32.400 --> 00:32:37.720
officers chased her down to detain her. During that

00:32:37.720 --> 00:32:42.640
encounter, she fell to the ground multiple times.

00:32:42.640 --> 00:32:46.750
And I called Denton PD twice to report what the girl had

00:32:46.750 --> 00:32:50.309
told me. I then submitted a public information request to

00:32:50.309 --> 00:32:53.640
the city of Denton for the police records from that night.

00:32:53.640 --> 00:32:58.210
And Texas law requires law enforcement to make mandatory

00:32:58.210 --> 00:33:02.759
referral to DFPS the moment they receive a report of child

00:33:02.759 --> 00:33:03.640
abuse.

00:33:03.640 --> 00:33:07.650
It doesn't appear that Denton PD ever made that referral.

00:33:07.650 --> 00:33:10.809
When Deputy City Attorney Amanda Brown submitted the city's

00:33:10.809 --> 00:33:13.640
response to the Attorney General, she claims CPS had been

00:33:13.640 --> 00:33:18.230
notified that she didn't include any cross report, no DFPS

00:33:18.230 --> 00:33:21.640
intake number, no documentation of any kind.

00:33:21.640 --> 00:33:25.519
When I brought this directly to City Attorney Graham Watt's

00:33:25.519 --> 00:33:28.900
attention and gave him until, I shared it within the June

00:33:28.900 --> 00:33:32.029
11th deadline to submit that documentation to the Attorney

00:33:32.029 --> 00:33:34.640
General, nothing was provided.

00:33:34.640 --> 00:33:42.970
And that is what Exhibit E, I think that's the last one

00:33:42.970 --> 00:33:51.759
here, it's the email I sent to Matt Graham Launtier. It's

00:33:51.759 --> 00:33:53.250
the last page. The last page? Yeah, you can just scroll all

00:33:53.250 --> 00:33:53.640
the way down.

00:33:53.640 --> 00:34:05.640
Okay, yeah, it's up right here. Thank you.

00:34:05.640 --> 00:34:09.550
I also want to share with them about his deputy's

00:34:09.550 --> 00:34:14.750
submission contained no evidence of the CPS notification. I

00:34:14.750 --> 00:34:19.639
told them that three out of the four requested categories,

00:34:19.639 --> 00:34:24.150
the incident report, the CAD dispatch log, and the call

00:34:24.150 --> 00:34:25.639
recording were never submitted to the Attorney General as

00:34:25.639 --> 00:34:27.639
required.

00:34:27.639 --> 00:34:31.670
And I shared the deadline, he didn't do anything. That's

00:34:31.670 --> 00:34:35.619
not an oversight, that's a choice. The City Attorney's

00:34:35.619 --> 00:34:39.650
Office knew the mandatory CPS referral was never made, and

00:34:39.650 --> 00:34:43.699
rather than correct the record, they let the misrepresent

00:34:43.699 --> 00:34:46.639
ation to the Attorney General stand.

00:34:46.639 --> 00:34:50.550
Now why I feel like that's relevant for this board. The

00:34:50.550 --> 00:34:54.119
city officials involved in this incident acted and

00:34:54.119 --> 00:34:58.019
continued to act without any apparent concern that they

00:34:58.019 --> 00:35:01.639
would be held accountable in any shape or form.

00:35:01.639 --> 00:35:05.190
They moved with all records, they misrepresented compliance

00:35:05.190 --> 00:35:08.570
to the Attorney General, they ignored direct notice from a

00:35:08.570 --> 00:35:11.880
private citizen who witnessed what happened to that girl,

00:35:11.880 --> 00:35:14.820
and they acted that way because there was some type of

00:35:14.820 --> 00:35:17.659
pattern in place of them being able to get away with

00:35:17.659 --> 00:35:19.639
apparently anything.

00:35:19.639 --> 00:35:22.900
And from what I witnessed from viewing the last hearing,

00:35:22.900 --> 00:35:26.219
this board appears to be part of that pattern. While these

00:35:26.219 --> 00:35:29.559
officials were covering up a Denton PD's failure to protect

00:35:29.559 --> 00:35:33.019
a 13-year-old girl, this board was moving to sanction me

00:35:33.019 --> 00:35:36.639
for filing a legitimate ethics complaint against those same

00:35:36.639 --> 00:35:37.639
city officials.

00:35:37.639 --> 00:35:56.780
So thank you for your time, go ahead and pat yourselves on

00:35:56.780 --> 00:35:59.639
the back.

00:35:59.639 --> 00:36:04.530
As the respondent is not here, there will be no

00:36:04.530 --> 00:36:08.639
presentation of evidence from him. So we can move into

00:36:08.639 --> 00:36:08.639
closing statements if that's your pleasure.

00:36:08.639 --> 00:36:10.639
Yes.

00:36:10.639 --> 00:36:14.989
Complaintant, this person has five minutes to close. Would

00:36:14.989 --> 00:36:16.639
you like to use that time?

00:36:16.639 --> 00:36:17.639
That was my closer.

00:36:17.639 --> 00:36:18.639
Okay.

00:36:18.639 --> 00:36:20.639
Yeah, thank you.

00:36:20.639 --> 00:36:26.460
The respondent again is not here, so there's no closing

00:36:26.460 --> 00:36:32.039
statement from him, and there is no time reserved for

00:36:32.039 --> 00:36:35.639
closing the closure for the final.

00:36:35.639 --> 00:36:36.639
Sorry.

00:36:36.639 --> 00:36:42.639
Okay, so we're going to close now.

00:36:42.639 --> 00:36:45.639
And deliberations can begin.

00:36:45.639 --> 00:36:49.789
I just have this down here as a reminder of kind of the

00:36:49.789 --> 00:36:54.639
burden of responsibility to establish evidence.

00:36:54.639 --> 00:36:58.449
And then I also have kind of, this is the outline of the

00:36:58.449 --> 00:37:01.639
different determinations that can be made.

00:37:01.639 --> 00:37:03.639
So I can be on whatever page you would like.

00:37:03.639 --> 00:37:07.760
And then there is the potential that we could go into

00:37:07.760 --> 00:37:12.269
executive session, as long as it complies with the open

00:37:12.269 --> 00:37:16.789
meetings act and I would refer to special counsel on if we

00:37:16.789 --> 00:37:18.639
would be able to do so.

00:37:18.639 --> 00:37:22.159
Before we move on, can you state for the record that the

00:37:22.159 --> 00:37:24.639
hearing was closed at 6 o'clock.

00:37:24.639 --> 00:37:28.639
Yes.

00:37:28.639 --> 00:37:29.639
You say it.

00:37:29.639 --> 00:37:33.639
Yes, the hearing did close at 6 o'clock.

00:37:33.639 --> 00:37:38.639
Is there anywhere in that we can ask questions?

00:37:38.639 --> 00:37:41.639
Well, we're about to do the deliberation.

00:37:41.639 --> 00:37:46.909
I wanted to start by stating that the complaint was read at

00:37:46.909 --> 00:37:51.980
the beginning of the meeting and the complaint was that

00:37:51.980 --> 00:37:57.260
city attorney Mac Brian wall should not have represented

00:37:57.260 --> 00:38:00.639
the city since he was a city attorney.

00:38:00.639 --> 00:38:04.760
And what we discussed was that the city charter said that

00:38:04.760 --> 00:38:07.639
he does have to represent the city.

00:38:07.639 --> 00:38:13.159
So we were accused of closed door violations of the Texas

00:38:13.159 --> 00:38:17.639
Open Meetings Act and criminal behavior.

00:38:17.639 --> 00:38:24.639
We did not, to my knowledge, have any discussion.

00:38:24.639 --> 00:38:27.539
I was there and I didn't have any discussion with anyone

00:38:27.539 --> 00:38:31.210
before the meeting and I've never had any discussion with

00:38:31.210 --> 00:38:32.639
outside counsel.

00:38:32.639 --> 00:38:33.639
Outside of the meeting.

00:38:33.639 --> 00:38:39.639
We did not talk with, you know, attorney Ron want.

00:38:39.639 --> 00:38:45.639
So there were a lot of accusations made in the complaint,

00:38:45.639 --> 00:38:48.639
but no evidence that those things happened.

00:38:48.639 --> 00:38:53.639
So what other deliberation?

00:38:53.639 --> 00:38:57.639
Kenneth, I'd like to hear from you.

00:38:57.639 --> 00:38:58.639
Can I answer that?

00:38:58.639 --> 00:38:59.639
Yes.

00:38:59.639 --> 00:39:06.639
So that there is a discussion about conflicts of interest

00:39:06.639 --> 00:39:06.639
today.

00:39:06.639 --> 00:39:10.809
That was not in the original complaint we reviewed the only

00:39:10.809 --> 00:39:14.639
section that was referenced with a section to dash two

00:39:14.639 --> 00:39:20.639
seven three paragraph E improper influence.

00:39:20.639 --> 00:39:25.280
That is the only thing that is checked on the original

00:39:25.280 --> 00:39:26.639
complaint form.

00:39:26.639 --> 00:39:31.639
And the ethics of the attachment to that.

00:39:31.639 --> 00:39:36.280
There are two chapters, chapter three and chapter four that

00:39:36.280 --> 00:39:37.639
are called out.

00:39:37.639 --> 00:39:41.639
And those are.

00:39:41.639 --> 00:39:51.639
See.

00:39:51.639 --> 00:39:56.639
Yes.

00:39:56.639 --> 00:39:57.639
Yeah, we get here.

00:39:57.639 --> 00:39:59.639
So it was sort of individual.

00:39:59.639 --> 00:40:02.639
Yeah, I just want to make sure we're on the same page here.

00:40:02.639 --> 00:40:06.639
What was discussed was an original complaint.

00:40:06.639 --> 00:40:10.690
So the improper influence survey was that city attorney

00:40:10.690 --> 00:40:14.820
asserted the privilege, the prestige of the officials or

00:40:14.820 --> 00:40:17.760
employees city position for the purpose of advancing or

00:40:17.760 --> 00:40:20.639
hard and private interests.

00:40:20.639 --> 00:40:25.889
Or chapter paragraph for a state or by the city official

00:40:25.889 --> 00:40:30.639
was able to influence the actions on any basis.

00:40:30.639 --> 00:40:34.639
So that was what the original complaint was.

00:40:34.639 --> 00:40:37.639
It wasn't a conflict of interest.

00:40:37.639 --> 00:40:42.150
And the other thing in the discussion or the presentation

00:40:42.150 --> 00:40:46.639
evidence was regarding whether or not the city attorney.

00:40:46.639 --> 00:40:51.460
I think comparing the city attorney being reprimanded by

00:40:51.460 --> 00:40:58.130
the state bar and potentially losing their license and how

00:40:58.130 --> 00:41:01.639
and how would they represent the city based on the charter

00:41:01.639 --> 00:41:05.639
that we discussed during our panel review.

00:41:05.639 --> 00:41:10.210
The charter states that the city attorney shall be a

00:41:10.210 --> 00:41:15.500
qualified attorney and law license to practice in the state

00:41:15.500 --> 00:41:16.639
of Texas.

00:41:16.639 --> 00:41:25.570
So if they violate some requirement of their their law

00:41:25.570 --> 00:41:28.800
license, I don't believe that they would be licensed to

00:41:28.800 --> 00:41:30.639
practice law in the state of Texas.

00:41:30.639 --> 00:41:32.639
And they would no longer be the city attorney.

00:41:32.639 --> 00:41:36.639
So I understand the comparison, but that doesn't apply.

00:41:36.639 --> 00:41:39.639
I mean, the charter is kind of laid out.

00:41:39.639 --> 00:41:42.639
This is what their position is.

00:41:42.639 --> 00:41:48.639
And I guess those were a couple of things that I wanted to.

00:41:48.639 --> 00:41:53.639
Thank you, Dustin.

00:41:53.639 --> 00:41:59.460
Yeah, on the city charter versus the city ordinance

00:41:59.460 --> 00:42:05.010
argument about the city charter says that the city attorney

00:42:05.010 --> 00:42:06.639
should represent the city.

00:42:06.639 --> 00:42:09.800
But then the city ordinance, the ethics code says that you

00:42:09.800 --> 00:42:12.639
can't represent the city because you're a named.

00:42:12.639 --> 00:42:16.639
But the Texas Constitution is quite clear.

00:42:16.639 --> 00:42:23.179
So it's Article 11, Section 5, it called the Home Rule

00:42:23.179 --> 00:42:27.139
Amendment, which says that the cities with population like

00:42:27.139 --> 00:42:30.639
five thousand or more can enact their own charters.

00:42:30.639 --> 00:42:34.179
And a city charter takes precedent and has authority over

00:42:34.179 --> 00:42:35.639
the city ordinance.

00:42:35.639 --> 00:42:40.639
So if the ordinance is wrong, the city charter controls.

00:42:40.639 --> 00:42:45.929
So city charter before attorney represents city and then

00:42:45.929 --> 00:42:50.639
city ordinance, whatever you want to read that as.

00:42:50.639 --> 00:42:54.630
We're going off the city charter that that is the control

00:42:54.630 --> 00:42:55.639
involved.

00:42:55.639 --> 00:42:59.780
And then we look to the city charter and Dustin just read

00:42:59.780 --> 00:43:00.639
it to us.

00:43:00.639 --> 00:43:02.940
The city attorney shall represent the city in all

00:43:02.940 --> 00:43:04.639
litigation and controversies.

00:43:04.639 --> 00:43:08.699
Hard stop there under the last antecedent rule, this this

00:43:08.699 --> 00:43:12.780
last section and shall prosecute all cases brought before

00:43:12.780 --> 00:43:14.639
the minister of court.

00:43:14.639 --> 00:43:17.969
Well, that's talking about prosecuting claims, not

00:43:17.969 --> 00:43:19.639
representing the city.

00:43:19.639 --> 00:43:23.269
So, yes, the city attorney represents the city in all

00:43:23.269 --> 00:43:25.639
litigation and controversies.

00:43:25.639 --> 00:43:27.639
And that is the job of the city attorney.

00:43:27.639 --> 00:43:30.440
Now, if the city attorney wants to represent themselves,

00:43:30.440 --> 00:43:32.639
they have a right to represent themselves.

00:43:32.639 --> 00:43:35.179
You can represent yourself in court just as you are

00:43:35.179 --> 00:43:36.639
representing yourself.

00:43:36.639 --> 00:43:38.639
That is our right as an American citizen.

00:43:38.639 --> 00:43:39.639
We can represent ourselves.

00:43:39.639 --> 00:43:43.599
We cannot represent an LLC or entity unless you're an

00:43:43.599 --> 00:43:44.639
attorney.

00:43:44.639 --> 00:43:46.639
But you can represent yourself.

00:43:46.639 --> 00:43:50.230
The city attorney, if I'm not mistaken, could probably

00:43:50.230 --> 00:43:53.639
represent all of the other city officials as well.

00:43:53.639 --> 00:43:57.639
And so, no, I don't see a violation of an ethics ordinance.

00:43:57.639 --> 00:44:01.710
No, I did not meet nor did I see any of my panel members

00:44:01.710 --> 00:44:05.690
meet with anybody outside of the meeting at the last

00:44:05.690 --> 00:44:07.639
scheduled meeting.

00:44:07.639 --> 00:44:13.050
I think the ordinance is rather clear in what we're looking

00:44:13.050 --> 00:44:13.639
at.

00:44:13.639 --> 00:44:20.639
Let me jump back over to it so I don't misquote this thing.

00:44:20.639 --> 00:44:24.469
And that it's a violation for city officials to use their

00:44:24.469 --> 00:44:28.639
official position to advance or harm a private interest.

00:44:28.639 --> 00:44:34.639
They're not advancing or harming anybody's interest.

00:44:34.639 --> 00:44:36.940
I mean, I guess they're going to harm your case because

00:44:36.940 --> 00:44:40.409
they're defending against the case, but they have a right

00:44:40.409 --> 00:44:41.639
to defend themselves.

00:44:41.639 --> 00:44:43.639
Again, that's not what I said.

00:44:43.639 --> 00:44:45.639
So it's misrepresented in writing.

00:44:45.639 --> 00:44:47.639
Now you're misrepresenting it in court as well.

00:44:47.639 --> 00:44:52.429
It's a violation and I don't think that a discussion is a

00:44:52.429 --> 00:44:53.639
good idea.

00:44:53.639 --> 00:44:55.639
Okay, so advancing their position.

00:44:55.639 --> 00:44:56.639
Let's go with that side.

00:44:56.639 --> 00:44:58.920
Advancing their position because they're defending

00:44:58.920 --> 00:44:59.639
themselves.

00:44:59.639 --> 00:45:03.639
Again, you're allowed to defend yourself.

00:45:03.639 --> 00:45:08.550
It would be asinine to think that just because they are an

00:45:08.550 --> 00:45:11.639
attorney, they cannot defend themselves.

00:45:11.639 --> 00:45:13.639
I am an attorney, so I cannot defend myself.

00:45:13.639 --> 00:45:15.639
That is no.

00:45:15.639 --> 00:45:18.639
Okay, so that is not how that works.

00:45:18.639 --> 00:45:21.630
Conflict of interest, as Dustin said, that is not before us

00:45:21.630 --> 00:45:24.639
, and so we're not going to discuss conflict of interest.

00:45:24.639 --> 00:45:28.639
To imply that the city official is able to influence.

00:45:28.639 --> 00:45:32.639
Again, nothing presented was anything about influencing.

00:45:32.639 --> 00:45:35.639
This is a city attorney.

00:45:35.639 --> 00:45:37.639
Federal judge.

00:45:37.639 --> 00:45:41.360
The city attorney is not going to influence a federal judge

00:45:41.360 --> 00:45:41.639
.

00:45:41.639 --> 00:45:42.639
They are appointed.

00:45:42.639 --> 00:45:43.639
They do not have constituents.

00:45:43.639 --> 00:45:47.519
They do not care what the general population think, want,

00:45:47.519 --> 00:45:48.639
or anything.

00:45:48.639 --> 00:45:50.639
They're appointed for life.

00:45:50.639 --> 00:45:54.949
So no, they're not influencing the case because they're an

00:45:54.949 --> 00:45:58.130
attorney representing themselves and them representing

00:45:58.130 --> 00:46:00.639
their clients as their charter dictates them to do.

00:46:00.639 --> 00:46:06.639
So no.

00:46:06.639 --> 00:46:09.639
Yeah, no.

00:46:09.639 --> 00:46:10.639
I am.

00:46:10.639 --> 00:46:11.639
Diane.

00:46:11.639 --> 00:46:14.639
First, thank you for your statement.

00:46:14.639 --> 00:46:17.639
You have the right as an individual to give that statement.

00:46:17.639 --> 00:46:18.639
Thank you.

00:46:18.639 --> 00:46:21.639
I was not here last time.

00:46:21.639 --> 00:46:24.389
So I took this at face value, and I'm going to agree with

00:46:24.389 --> 00:46:24.639
you.

00:46:24.639 --> 00:46:29.909
I thought the whole premise was that we were coming here to

00:46:29.909 --> 00:46:36.000
decide that the city attorney had a conflict of interest

00:46:36.000 --> 00:46:40.639
over, you know, agreeing to be his own attorney and so on

00:46:40.639 --> 00:46:40.639
and so forth.

00:46:40.639 --> 00:46:43.639
And my only question was, was that fair?

00:46:43.639 --> 00:46:44.639
Was that right?

00:46:44.639 --> 00:46:45.639
Was that legal?

00:46:45.639 --> 00:46:50.639
You know, did he do anything wrong?

00:46:50.639 --> 00:46:53.639
Ken, you cleared that up for me a little bit.

00:46:53.639 --> 00:47:00.639
And I think we can't go through everything here.

00:47:00.639 --> 00:47:03.639
The complaint says, let me finish.

00:47:03.639 --> 00:47:06.639
The complaint says what the complaint says.

00:47:06.639 --> 00:47:08.639
And we should not be looking at anything else.

00:47:08.639 --> 00:47:10.639
Right.

00:47:10.639 --> 00:47:14.210
And so we're questioning if there was, you know, a conflict

00:47:14.210 --> 00:47:16.639
of interest based on max--

00:47:16.639 --> 00:47:17.639
It was proper influence.

00:47:17.639 --> 00:47:18.639
It wasn't.

00:47:18.639 --> 00:47:20.639
Proper influence.

00:47:20.639 --> 00:47:25.320
And that's the only thing that you're stating, have stated,

00:47:25.320 --> 00:47:27.639
that's what we're here for.

00:47:27.639 --> 00:47:28.639
Right.

00:47:28.639 --> 00:47:32.639
So I'm concerned that we're going a little bit south.

00:47:32.639 --> 00:47:33.639
Going off the--

00:47:33.639 --> 00:47:35.639
On message on this conversation.

00:47:35.639 --> 00:47:36.639
I agree.

00:47:36.639 --> 00:47:43.800
I think we both--the panel already determined that that was

00:47:43.800 --> 00:47:47.820
not--that it wasn't an ethics violation on the city

00:47:47.820 --> 00:47:48.639
attorneys.

00:47:48.639 --> 00:47:49.639
Yeah.

00:47:49.639 --> 00:47:56.389
So this hearing was--there was no determination made on

00:47:56.389 --> 00:48:00.639
whether or not this was a frivolous complaint.

00:48:00.639 --> 00:48:03.639
That's the purpose of this hearing.

00:48:03.639 --> 00:48:08.159
And so just as a reminder, the frivolous complaint is

00:48:08.159 --> 00:48:12.050
defined as a sworn complaint that is groundless and brought

00:48:12.050 --> 00:48:12.639
in bad faith.

00:48:12.639 --> 00:48:16.639
Or groundless and brought for the purpose of harassment.

00:48:16.639 --> 00:48:28.639
And that's what we're trying to determine today.

00:48:28.639 --> 00:48:30.639
So was it in bad faith?

00:48:30.639 --> 00:48:31.639
Was it?

00:48:31.639 --> 00:48:33.639
Or harassment?

00:48:33.639 --> 00:48:42.449
I mean, I'm listening to the discussion today and I think

00:48:42.449 --> 00:48:48.880
that--I think that Adam didn't make it in bad faith to--I

00:48:48.880 --> 00:48:53.639
don't know, just fear the city attorney.

00:48:53.639 --> 00:48:56.639
I think that Adam believed that this was a violation.

00:48:56.639 --> 00:49:01.409
I disagree that this was a violation based on what we

00:49:01.409 --> 00:49:06.639
discussed in that three-person preliminary panel.

00:49:06.639 --> 00:49:11.280
After hearing the discussion and seeing all of the effort

00:49:11.280 --> 00:49:17.639
that was put into the original complaint and this evidence,

00:49:17.639 --> 00:49:20.400
I think that Adam really thinks this is an ethics violation

00:49:20.400 --> 00:49:20.639
.

00:49:20.639 --> 00:49:26.639
So to me that's not bad faith, it's just incorrect.

00:49:26.639 --> 00:49:29.639
That's what I think.

00:49:29.639 --> 00:49:34.969
My read of it and from the three-person panel that we did

00:49:34.969 --> 00:49:38.639
was this is straightforward to me.

00:49:38.639 --> 00:49:42.150
I look at this and I see this improper influence saying

00:49:42.150 --> 00:49:46.199
that the city attorney can't represent themselves, they can

00:49:46.199 --> 00:49:49.460
't represent the city in a case where they're also a

00:49:49.460 --> 00:49:50.639
defendant.

00:49:50.639 --> 00:49:55.420
I completely disagree with that for the reason that stated

00:49:55.420 --> 00:49:57.639
in that preliminary panel.

00:49:57.639 --> 00:50:02.019
And my thought was at that time, if it is this obvious to

00:50:02.019 --> 00:50:06.630
me that this is not an ethics violation, that this should

00:50:06.630 --> 00:50:10.829
be obvious to someone that is putting forth this much

00:50:10.829 --> 00:50:14.639
effort to present a case that is an ethics violation.

00:50:14.639 --> 00:50:16.639
I don't know that that's true.

00:50:16.639 --> 00:50:19.420
I think that Adam thinks this was an ethics violation and I

00:50:19.420 --> 00:50:20.639
disagree with that.

00:50:20.639 --> 00:50:24.769
But I don't know that it was made in bad faith and I have

00:50:24.769 --> 00:50:28.639
no idea if it's for the purpose of harassment.

00:50:28.639 --> 00:50:32.960
I didn't hear anything today that sounded like Adam wants

00:50:32.960 --> 00:50:34.639
to harass someone.

00:50:34.639 --> 00:50:38.800
I think that there are just a lot of moving parts in

00:50:38.800 --> 00:50:43.969
lawsuits and in interaction with the city attorney's office

00:50:43.969 --> 00:50:49.130
, the attorney general, our daily bread staff, the police

00:50:49.130 --> 00:50:50.639
department.

00:50:50.639 --> 00:50:52.639
All of these things have been done.

00:50:52.639 --> 00:51:01.090
I have no idea if it's good faith or not, but I think my

00:51:01.090 --> 00:51:11.130
belief from going through 719 pages of a packet for this

00:51:11.130 --> 00:51:15.639
hearing and then listening to the statements that Adam made

00:51:15.639 --> 00:51:17.909
, I think that Adam really thinks this was an ethics

00:51:17.909 --> 00:51:18.639
violation.

00:51:18.639 --> 00:51:22.349
That's what this whole process is for, is we have this

00:51:22.349 --> 00:51:26.329
ordinance, it's imperfect, like all of this stuff that we

00:51:26.329 --> 00:51:29.440
have and we spend so much time trying to clean it up and

00:51:29.440 --> 00:51:31.639
fill in little holes here and there.

00:51:31.639 --> 00:51:34.960
But the point of it is that if a citizen believes that

00:51:34.960 --> 00:51:38.750
there is an ethics violation, they should be able to make a

00:51:38.750 --> 00:51:39.639
complaint.

00:51:39.639 --> 00:51:43.650
And from the initial review of that, to me I thought well

00:51:43.650 --> 00:51:47.650
maybe this was a frivolous complaint because this seems

00:51:47.650 --> 00:51:52.170
obviously to not be an ethics violation and this person has

00:51:52.170 --> 00:51:55.219
spent a lot of time putting together lawsuits, putting

00:51:55.219 --> 00:51:57.639
together evidence, backing up, all those things.

00:51:57.639 --> 00:52:03.489
And now it is apparent to me that Adam thinks this was an

00:52:03.489 --> 00:52:09.989
ethics violation, made a complaint and the panel deemed it

00:52:09.989 --> 00:52:13.639
to not be an ethics violation.

00:52:13.639 --> 00:52:15.639
That's kind of where I'm at right now.

00:52:15.639 --> 00:52:20.389
Dustin, I do know what you just said. I listened to all of

00:52:20.389 --> 00:52:25.039
you and not being here at the time, it's given me a clearer

00:52:25.039 --> 00:52:31.789
vision of what's going on. I don't think Adam set out in

00:52:31.789 --> 00:52:32.639
bad faith.

00:52:32.639 --> 00:52:37.869
I think, like you said, he believes in what he believes in

00:52:37.869 --> 00:52:43.110
and he's making the statement to that. I think we think he

00:52:43.110 --> 00:52:47.639
might be wrong, but he believes it to be true.

00:52:47.639 --> 00:52:52.469
So I did hear your comments and I appreciate your comments

00:52:52.469 --> 00:52:53.639
very much.

00:52:53.639 --> 00:52:59.639
So I will disagree with that.

00:52:59.639 --> 00:53:05.650
When we look at the factors that we are to look at in

00:53:05.650 --> 00:53:08.639
determining frivolity.

00:53:08.639 --> 00:53:10.639
What are we on here?

00:53:10.639 --> 00:53:12.639
Would you like me to pull that up?

00:53:12.639 --> 00:53:15.639
Yes, yes please. 282.

00:53:29.639 --> 00:53:46.639
So we look at E and F.

00:53:46.639 --> 00:53:50.809
Any evidence that the complainant knew or reasonably should

00:53:50.809 --> 00:53:54.489
have known that the allegations in the complaint were

00:53:54.489 --> 00:53:55.639
groundless.

00:53:55.639 --> 00:54:02.650
Well, I'm looking at 718 pages of information. 718 pages.

00:54:02.650 --> 00:54:03.639
That's a lot.

00:54:03.639 --> 00:54:09.300
I've not written a lot of petitions and complaints that are

00:54:09.300 --> 00:54:10.639
this long.

00:54:10.639 --> 00:54:14.400
I get that these are several different ones, but it shows

00:54:14.400 --> 00:54:20.639
that the complaint is not incompetent.

00:54:20.639 --> 00:54:25.639
Not dumb by any means. And he does his research.

00:54:25.639 --> 00:54:31.130
The problem is, I find it hard to believe that after all of

00:54:31.130 --> 00:54:34.639
this and making it into the federal court system,

00:54:34.639 --> 00:54:39.289
you don't run across the charter that says, hey, this is

00:54:39.289 --> 00:54:41.639
the job of the city attorney.

00:54:41.639 --> 00:54:46.280
That you make the allegations and you don't run across that

00:54:46.280 --> 00:54:46.639
?

00:54:46.639 --> 00:54:50.650
That's hard. And we're looking at this much information,

00:54:50.650 --> 00:54:54.639
this much research, this much drafting.

00:54:54.639 --> 00:54:58.650
That's a lot. And to not, and so that's why I'm like,

00:54:58.650 --> 00:55:01.639
reasonably should have come across this.

00:55:01.639 --> 00:55:09.849
Yeah. Should have. Definitely. And so that's where I'm, I

00:55:09.849 --> 00:55:11.639
don't think it's bad faith.

00:55:11.639 --> 00:55:21.639
I think it was intended to harass the city attorney.

00:55:21.639 --> 00:55:27.210
I don't know if it was a money thing. I don't know what it

00:55:27.210 --> 00:55:30.639
is, but there's no way you don't come across that

00:55:30.639 --> 00:55:33.199
and then still file the complaint and say, well, let's just

00:55:33.199 --> 00:55:34.639
do this and see what happens.

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

00:55:37.519 --> 00:55:39.639
attorney to have an ethics violation,

00:55:39.639 --> 00:55:42.900
then I can throw that into my federal court complaint. Woo

00:55:42.900 --> 00:55:44.639
hoo! More exhibits.

00:55:44.639 --> 00:55:49.210
I don't know what it is, but it's certainly not incompet

00:55:49.210 --> 00:55:52.639
ence and it's certainly not an innocent mistake

00:55:52.639 --> 00:55:56.670
whenever I'm looking at that and the pleadings are good. I

00:55:56.670 --> 00:55:57.639
've seen a lot of bad pleadings.

00:55:57.639 --> 00:56:01.880
These are decent pleadings. And so I just don't get how you

00:56:01.880 --> 00:56:03.639
don't come across that city charter.

00:56:03.639 --> 00:56:10.139
Dustin, you found that. You found the charter. Yeah. That's

00:56:10.139 --> 00:56:10.639
, so I found, I went and searched for it

00:56:10.639 --> 00:56:14.630
in reviewing the original complaint and to me it was

00:56:14.630 --> 00:56:20.639
obvious. That's my interpretation of what should rule here.

00:56:20.639 --> 00:56:24.579
Like the city charter says this. Adam today said, the city

00:56:24.579 --> 00:56:28.639
charter said that, but it doesn't matter.

00:56:28.639 --> 00:56:33.780
That still is an ethics violation. We disagree on that. So

00:56:33.780 --> 00:56:36.639
to me, my biggest question was, if I review this,

00:56:36.639 --> 00:56:40.690
if I get the original complaint and read through it and

00:56:40.690 --> 00:56:43.639
then I say, alright, well let me do a little research

00:56:43.639 --> 00:56:46.650
in our ordinance, let me look at the city charter for the

00:56:46.650 --> 00:56:48.639
city attorney's responsibilities,

00:56:48.639 --> 00:56:51.300
and then I get to that and I come to the conclusion I get

00:56:51.300 --> 00:56:55.639
to, I don't think that, I'm guessing that Adam may have

00:56:55.639 --> 00:56:59.010
come, looked at the same thing, looked at the city charter

00:56:59.010 --> 00:57:02.449
and just disagreed with it. Because today Adam is disagree

00:57:02.449 --> 00:57:02.639
ing

00:57:02.639 --> 00:57:08.409
still that this is an ethics violation, right. So I, my

00:57:08.409 --> 00:57:13.210
thought originally was, they had to get to this point,

00:57:13.210 --> 00:57:13.639
right.

00:57:13.639 --> 00:57:19.360
If you're putting together that much information to support

00:57:19.360 --> 00:57:22.639
your claim, then probably you've done enough research.

00:57:22.639 --> 00:57:25.750
I'm 100% with you there. That's what I thought before. I

00:57:25.750 --> 00:57:32.889
think the difference today to me is that it's not lack of

00:57:32.889 --> 00:57:33.639
effort,

00:57:33.639 --> 00:57:37.920
it's not ignoring that, it's just a misinterpretation of

00:57:37.920 --> 00:57:40.639
that. That's what I think is going on.

00:57:40.639 --> 00:57:46.440
There's, you know, in those items you point out, any

00:57:46.440 --> 00:57:52.639
evidence the complainant knew or reasonably should have

00:57:52.639 --> 00:57:54.639
known that the allegations were groundless.

00:57:54.639 --> 00:57:58.159
I think that's where we're at. The complainant should have

00:57:58.159 --> 00:58:02.639
known, does not know today that they are groundless because

00:58:02.639 --> 00:58:04.639
that complaint is incorrect.

00:58:04.639 --> 00:58:10.230
And then there's an and there for, between paragraph E and

00:58:10.230 --> 00:58:13.949
F, any evidence of the complainant's motives in filing the

00:58:13.949 --> 00:58:14.639
complaint.

00:58:14.639 --> 00:58:19.969
And the motive that I'm hearing is that there is a belief

00:58:19.969 --> 00:58:23.639
that there is an ethics violation.

00:58:23.639 --> 00:58:31.989
I don't know what they expect to get out of this, right. I

00:58:31.989 --> 00:58:39.639
know that in the original complaint it did ask for relief,

00:58:39.639 --> 00:58:44.130
and the relief request it was, complainant requests that

00:58:44.130 --> 00:58:48.369
the Board of Ethics find that respondent Mac Ryan, I don't

00:58:48.369 --> 00:58:48.639
know,

00:58:48.639 --> 00:58:57.639
Ryan one has violated sections 2-273(e)(3) and 2-273(e)(4)

00:58:57.639 --> 00:59:03.400
of the city of Nantz code of ordinances and impose

00:59:03.400 --> 00:59:07.639
appropriate sanctions pursuant to section 2-282(b),

00:59:07.639 --> 00:59:12.590
including a letter of reprimand and recommendation of

00:59:12.590 --> 00:59:17.869
suspension to the city council. That was the relief that

00:59:17.869 --> 00:59:19.639
was requested.

00:59:19.639 --> 00:59:23.239
That, I don't really know what that gets in terms of like

00:59:23.239 --> 00:59:26.969
the whatever other legal proceedings are out there that

00:59:26.969 --> 00:59:29.639
have been provided to us as evidence,

00:59:29.639 --> 00:59:36.079
and I don't think it matters. We're not reviewing the

00:59:36.079 --> 00:59:45.659
federal case here. I read through not every word of the

00:59:45.659 --> 00:59:46.639
evidence packet for today,

00:59:46.639 --> 00:59:49.619
but I went through every page to try and understand where

00:59:49.619 --> 00:59:54.090
all was presented, and there's hundreds, literally hundreds

00:59:54.090 --> 00:59:57.400
of pages of historical documents over the last couple of

00:59:57.400 --> 00:59:57.639
years,

00:59:57.639 --> 01:00:02.969
court cases, all these things that a complainant is dealing

01:00:02.969 --> 01:00:07.639
with, with our daily bread, with the police department,

01:00:07.639 --> 01:00:13.639
with all of these people that I cannot begin to understand,

01:00:13.639 --> 01:00:22.489
but I don't think that there's anything that we can do with

01:00:22.489 --> 01:00:31.809
this complaint that is going to be productive in any way to

01:00:31.809 --> 01:00:33.639
help Adam's situation,

01:00:33.639 --> 01:00:39.940
to help with any federal case, to help with the alleged

01:00:39.940 --> 01:00:45.650
inadequacies of the conduct or security or all these things

01:00:45.650 --> 01:00:49.659
in our daily bread that I don't know anything about other

01:00:49.659 --> 01:00:52.639
than what I read in the complaint packet.

01:00:52.639 --> 01:00:57.119
We are not going to do that. All I know is that I don't

01:00:57.119 --> 01:01:01.929
believe that there was an ethics violation based on what

01:01:01.929 --> 01:01:04.949
was originally given to us. That's what I said in the

01:01:04.949 --> 01:01:05.639
preliminary thing, and that's what I think today.

01:01:05.639 --> 01:01:08.559
Today we're supposed to say is this a frivolous complaint.

01:01:08.559 --> 01:01:11.539
I think it is an incorrect complaint. I don't think it is

01:01:11.539 --> 01:01:14.480
frivolous because I think that Adam really thinks this was

01:01:14.480 --> 01:01:19.639
an ethics violation, and that's where I'm at.

01:01:19.639 --> 01:01:25.480
I'll gaslight you on two things real quick. You talk about

01:01:25.480 --> 01:01:29.610
a lot of history. There's a lot of history in there of past

01:01:29.610 --> 01:01:33.639
, our daily bread, and I don't care. I don't.

01:01:33.639 --> 01:01:38.530
That's not for us, but it is context surrounding it. If

01:01:38.530 --> 01:01:44.039
anybody files 15 different complaints in 15 different

01:01:44.039 --> 01:01:49.659
departments, are those departments allowed to look and say,

01:01:49.659 --> 01:01:52.110
"Well, he's done this in all these other departments. What

01:01:52.110 --> 01:01:53.639
's going on?"

01:01:53.639 --> 01:01:59.230
We're not allowed to look at that as what's going on and

01:01:59.230 --> 01:02:04.329
why are these continuously rolling in. That's the historic

01:02:04.329 --> 01:02:08.639
part. Look at all of this. There's something there.

01:02:08.639 --> 01:02:16.300
I don't know if it is somebody trying to be the hero. Cool.

01:02:16.300 --> 01:02:23.639
I get it, but not the proper way to do it, I don't think.

01:02:23.639 --> 01:02:27.880
Then your second point of we can't help you, right? We can

01:02:27.880 --> 01:02:32.400
't. There's nothing we can do about our daily bread. There's

01:02:32.400 --> 01:02:36.619
nothing we can do about the attorney general. None of that

01:02:36.619 --> 01:02:38.639
is in our realm of stuff.

01:02:38.639 --> 01:02:44.480
We simply address violations of the ethics ordinance and

01:02:44.480 --> 01:02:50.349
then on the other end is to prevent the abuse of the ethics

01:02:50.349 --> 01:02:53.639
ordinance complaint system.

01:02:53.639 --> 01:02:57.670
To reiterate, we can't help with that second one because we

01:02:57.670 --> 01:03:01.630
don't have any authority. We just declare frivolity and

01:03:01.630 --> 01:03:05.840
that's it. I know we've talked about implementing fines and

01:03:05.840 --> 01:03:08.639
suspensions, but it's not there.

01:03:08.639 --> 01:03:13.639
We don't have anything we can do anyways even if we

01:03:13.639 --> 01:03:18.639
declared it frivolous, if I'm not mistaken.

01:03:18.639 --> 01:03:23.639
Through our history, and please don't take this wrong,

01:03:23.639 --> 01:03:27.329
through our history we have had individuals throughout our

01:03:27.329 --> 01:03:31.070
history that fought when everybody thought that we were nut

01:03:31.070 --> 01:03:34.099
cases and didn't know what we were talking about and kept

01:03:34.099 --> 01:03:35.639
fighting for the human rights of people.

01:03:35.639 --> 01:03:39.960
Some of those branched out. I am a person that believes in

01:03:39.960 --> 01:03:44.099
people being able to speak their mind and if they believe

01:03:44.099 --> 01:03:48.329
to be true and they have backing of it, I think they should

01:03:48.329 --> 01:03:50.639
be allowed to go forward.

01:03:50.639 --> 01:03:53.920
I'm just going over that first part because it's

01:03:53.920 --> 01:03:58.179
insignificant to me if they've done something 15 times or

01:03:58.179 --> 01:04:02.639
25 times if they have the backing and they believe in it.

01:04:02.639 --> 01:04:10.590
I think that you see it through a lawyer's eyes. I'm just

01:04:10.590 --> 01:04:15.639
going to be layman here. I see it from a civil side.

01:04:15.639 --> 01:04:20.800
Individual fighting for what he believes in. Not right. If

01:04:20.800 --> 01:04:24.639
it was in a law court I would say I'm sorry, not guilty.

01:04:24.639 --> 01:04:27.639
But that's not what I'm looking at right now.

01:04:27.639 --> 01:04:32.139
I don't believe that he purposely set out to harm the city

01:04:32.139 --> 01:04:36.090
of debt nor the city of camp. He doesn't like them. Let's

01:04:36.090 --> 01:04:38.639
put it on the road. He doesn't like the policeman here.

01:04:38.639 --> 01:04:42.139
He doesn't like the city attorney here. Let's put it where

01:04:42.139 --> 01:04:44.730
it is. He's always fighting them, always battling them. It

01:04:44.730 --> 01:04:48.039
's public knowledge. He's always in the city council with

01:04:48.039 --> 01:04:48.639
them.

01:04:48.639 --> 01:04:53.730
But he has a right. He has a right to do that. So we're not

01:04:53.730 --> 01:05:00.349
debating that. We're debating if this was...he put this out

01:05:00.349 --> 01:05:03.639
there to go out of his way.

01:05:03.639 --> 01:05:08.679
700 pages. Surely Adam has something else in his life to do

01:05:08.679 --> 01:05:13.639
than write 700 pages of this. He has to have some belief.

01:05:13.639 --> 01:05:17.659
So I'm just going to put it that way. With due respect, I

01:05:17.659 --> 01:05:21.789
respect you more than any one of the few people I know. But

01:05:21.789 --> 01:05:25.960
I disagree with you on some things because this is not all

01:05:25.960 --> 01:05:29.639
about being law, being a lawyer.

01:05:29.639 --> 01:05:34.639
This is about being a civil person and about their rights.

01:05:34.639 --> 01:05:38.809
Yeah. I'm glad. I am happy that people disagree on the

01:05:38.809 --> 01:05:39.639
board. We should.

01:05:39.639 --> 01:05:46.639
That's what's so good about this place is we all disagree.

01:05:46.639 --> 01:05:51.639
So I wonder if there's any more discussion.

01:05:51.639 --> 01:05:55.570
So when we decide, are we deciding if it's frivolous or bas

01:05:55.570 --> 01:05:58.639
eless or just frivolous or not frivolous? I guess I'm not

01:05:58.639 --> 01:05:58.639
sure.

01:05:58.639 --> 01:06:02.400
I'm just wondering if there's a...I think there are two

01:06:02.400 --> 01:06:06.289
motions. One, is it groundless, brought bad faith, or if it

01:06:06.289 --> 01:06:10.369
's groundless and for the purpose of harassment. So I think

01:06:10.369 --> 01:06:13.639
we need to make a finding on one of those.

01:06:13.639 --> 01:06:19.989
It's hard to know because we're not in his head what his

01:06:19.989 --> 01:06:26.760
intentions are. So if we err on the side of saying ground

01:06:26.760 --> 01:06:29.639
less but not frivolous.

01:06:29.639 --> 01:06:35.699
I'll add something to this. So there's a previous complaint

01:06:35.699 --> 01:06:41.349
and a lot of the frivolous discussion is based on previous

01:06:41.349 --> 01:06:45.639
complaints that were found to be frivolous and all this

01:06:45.639 --> 01:06:45.639
stuff.

01:06:45.639 --> 01:06:50.889
And a lot of it centers around election time. Political.

01:06:50.889 --> 01:06:55.840
And there's political agenda. Like there's a previous

01:06:55.840 --> 01:07:00.639
complaint that happened right before an election.

01:07:00.639 --> 01:07:04.909
The complaint was advertised to the papers for the purpose

01:07:04.909 --> 01:07:09.639
of advertising there is a complaint against this candidate.

01:07:09.639 --> 01:07:12.719
And before the board even heard this. Before the board ever

01:07:12.719 --> 01:07:15.320
, I think before the board even did the three person

01:07:15.320 --> 01:07:16.639
preliminary panel.

01:07:16.639 --> 01:07:27.650
The person that complained in that case, I believe they

01:07:27.650 --> 01:07:32.460
missed a deadline for something or they did not, they said

01:07:32.460 --> 01:07:36.639
at their hearing they did not watch the preliminary panel.

01:07:36.639 --> 01:07:41.639
And they submitted the complaint right before the election

01:07:41.639 --> 01:07:46.340
because they thought it was such a big deal that everyone

01:07:46.340 --> 01:07:48.639
needed to know about it.

01:07:48.639 --> 01:07:53.119
And those two things were total polar opposites. This is so

01:07:53.119 --> 01:07:56.070
important I have to submit this complaint right before the

01:07:56.070 --> 01:07:57.639
election and I have to tell the paper.

01:07:57.639 --> 01:08:01.409
It's like five days before. Yeah. But I don't care enough

01:08:01.409 --> 01:08:03.639
to even watch to see what the board says.

01:08:03.639 --> 01:08:09.199
To me that is like. That's an example of frivolous. You are

01:08:09.199 --> 01:08:13.760
intentionally like trying to make this person look bad and

01:08:13.760 --> 01:08:14.639
you're taking extra steps.

01:08:14.639 --> 01:08:18.170
You're violating what the ethics ordinance says if you were

01:08:18.170 --> 01:08:20.640
subject to it and this person wasn't.

01:08:20.640 --> 01:08:26.170
That is a frivolous complaint like exactly that. And I don

01:08:26.170 --> 01:08:29.989
't think that that person even thought even believed their

01:08:29.989 --> 01:08:32.640
case. They didn't even show up.

01:08:32.640 --> 01:08:41.909
This is different to me. If this were put in the paper and

01:08:41.909 --> 01:08:47.340
I suppose that it is possible that this could be used for

01:08:47.340 --> 01:08:51.640
some other purpose but it has not been as far as I know.

01:08:51.640 --> 01:08:55.659
Right. It hasn't been put in the paper. I don't know. I

01:08:55.659 --> 01:08:59.289
didn't see anything about that in any of the complaint

01:08:59.289 --> 01:09:02.640
packets being added to an existing lawsuit.

01:09:02.640 --> 01:09:09.750
So that's what separates this from previous frivolous. Is

01:09:09.750 --> 01:09:12.640
there anything else you need to say? Sorry to interrupt.

01:09:12.640 --> 01:09:18.789
Oh, that's okay. I just think that even if there's a

01:09:18.789 --> 01:09:24.970
pattern there wasn't anyone to defend to state that as

01:09:24.970 --> 01:09:29.760
evidence. We don't know that. I mean I don't know that. I

01:09:29.760 --> 01:09:32.640
don't know that pattern.

01:09:32.640 --> 01:09:38.300
So let me clarify. The board has already decided that there

01:09:38.300 --> 01:09:43.000
was no ethics complaint and I stand by that. Violation.

01:09:43.000 --> 01:09:43.640
Yeah, no violation.

01:09:43.640 --> 01:09:51.439
But the question is, was this frivolous? And I think that

01:09:51.439 --> 01:09:59.109
should be the only thing that we make our decision on. So I

01:09:59.109 --> 01:10:05.640
hear division. That's okay. This is still a democracy.

01:10:05.640 --> 01:10:11.050
And that's a good thing. So I don't know if you're ready to

01:10:11.050 --> 01:10:15.640
make a motion and then we vote for or against it.

01:10:15.640 --> 01:10:20.279
So voting to say if it's frivolous or not frivolous. But

01:10:20.279 --> 01:10:23.949
not frivolous means what? It has to be stated one way or

01:10:23.949 --> 01:10:24.640
the other.

01:10:24.640 --> 01:10:30.560
So you will either vote to dismiss the complaint because it

01:10:30.560 --> 01:10:35.640
is baseless which was determined by the panel. Baseless.

01:10:35.640 --> 01:10:35.640
Which was determined by the preliminary panel.

01:10:35.640 --> 01:10:39.229
Or you could find that a violation has occurred because the

01:10:39.229 --> 01:10:43.029
complainant submitted a frivolous complaint that requires a

01:10:43.029 --> 01:10:44.640
super majority vote.

01:10:44.640 --> 01:10:49.659
Those are kind of the two options at this point. I tend to

01:10:49.659 --> 01:10:54.909
think it's baseless but not necessarily frivolous. Right.

01:10:54.909 --> 01:10:57.329
So the motion in that case and what you're saying would be

01:10:57.329 --> 01:10:59.359
you would move to dismiss the complaint because it is bas

01:10:59.359 --> 01:10:59.640
eless.

01:10:59.640 --> 01:11:04.840
That would be the motion. For example. And that would just

01:11:04.840 --> 01:11:10.149
require a super majority. Correct. I'll make a motion that

01:11:10.149 --> 01:11:14.920
we dismiss the complaint because it is baseless. Okay. Is

01:11:14.920 --> 01:11:15.640
there a second to that?

01:11:15.640 --> 01:11:22.800
I second the motion. Okay. So Dustin made the motion to

01:11:22.800 --> 01:11:30.640
dismiss the complaint because it is frivolous. Baseless. I

01:11:30.640 --> 01:11:30.640
'm sorry. And Pat seconded it.

01:11:30.640 --> 01:11:35.739
Okay. I think it would be best if we did a vote. I think it

01:11:35.739 --> 01:11:41.479
requires a vote by voice. Like individual. Okay. I think it

01:11:41.479 --> 01:11:46.439
would just be best if we do it individually. Okay. So can

01:11:46.439 --> 01:11:47.640
we start with Ken?

01:11:47.640 --> 01:12:05.199
I will vote A. Okay. And I will vote A. I will vote A. And

01:12:05.199 --> 01:12:05.640
yes. Yes. Voting.

01:12:05.640 --> 01:12:15.930
You're voting. You're voting. If you say no, then you

01:12:15.930 --> 01:12:21.949
believe that it was baseless. That's backwards. Is that

01:12:21.949 --> 01:12:22.640
right? No. No. Can you restate the motion?

01:12:22.640 --> 01:12:25.720
Yeah. Let's see if we can make sure that we're getting

01:12:25.720 --> 01:12:28.699
confused. The motion on the floor is to dismiss the

01:12:28.699 --> 01:12:32.189
complaint because it is baseless. Baseless being it's not a

01:12:32.189 --> 01:12:35.529
violation of the ordinance, but not that the complaint was

01:12:35.529 --> 01:12:36.640
frivolous.

01:12:36.640 --> 01:12:42.050
So I will vote yes if I think it right. Okay. Correct. Make

01:12:42.050 --> 01:12:44.640
sure you got the right vote.

01:12:44.640 --> 01:12:54.640
The vote is one nay and four. No, you said nay also. I said

01:12:54.640 --> 01:12:54.640
yes. She said yes. Oh, you said yes. Can we read? Yeah,

01:12:54.640 --> 01:12:54.640
that's right. That's why I'm going to just say it the other

01:12:54.640 --> 01:12:54.640
way.

01:12:54.640 --> 01:12:59.390
To recap, the motion on the table was to dismiss the

01:12:59.390 --> 01:13:04.810
complaint because it is baseless, meaning that board has

01:13:04.810 --> 01:13:10.220
determined it is not frivolous in this instance. And the

01:13:10.220 --> 01:13:14.880
motion was passed for one with one absence. And then I

01:13:14.880 --> 01:13:17.899
think we have the record. Is that all? That good? That's

01:13:17.899 --> 01:13:20.640
the summary.

01:13:20.640 --> 01:13:23.810
So because there's no violation, there's no need to discuss

01:13:23.810 --> 01:13:27.640
sanctions. Yep. So we just have the closing of the meeting.

01:13:27.640 --> 01:13:38.449
So it is now 6 42 p.m. And this meeting is adjourned.

01:13:38.449 --> 01:13:48.260
Before we adjourn, let me say please do not discuss this in

01:13:48.260 --> 01:13:54.020
the parking lot. Don't discuss this in the room before you

01:13:54.020 --> 01:13:54.640
leave. That will be the next part of the communication. I

01:13:54.640 --> 01:13:54.640
know you know we're not going to do that. So just a

01:13:54.640 --> 01:13:54.640
reminder. So we are now adjourned.