Aug 03, 2026 Board of Ethics on 2026-08-03 5:30 PM (SPECIAL CALLED)

[ Background noise ] >> Get ready for that. [ Background noise ] >> Thank you. [ Background noise ] >> I don't have the agenda item on which. [ Background noise ] >> All right. [ Background noise ] >> Here we go. Good evening and welcome to this special call meeting of the Board of -- City of Denver Board of Ethics. Time is 5.30 p.m. on August 30, 2026. The first item for consideration is request for advisory opinion number 26-001. Received July 21, 2026 with Mayor Chris Watts, considering potential conflicts of interest. The first thing we'll do is select a presiding officer from the three panel members here. >> I would move for Dustin to be the presiding officer. [ Background noise ] >> All right. [ Laughter ] All in favor. [ Laughter ] Hand the meeting over to the presiding officer, Dustin Pappel. >> Okay. So as Madison said, we have one item for consideration and this request was from Mayor Watts. There is an email or there is an agenda information sheet that gives some background to that on the request, the discussion, the decision we are making today or the advisory decision is to determine if Mayor Watts' status as a client of the McAdams Group would require him to recuse or abstain from the following. Any deliberation or vote of the city council on matters brought before the council by the McAdams Group where he holds no interest in the pending matter. So the email, there's actually two emails here. There's the original request and then additional information that Mayor Watts provided. And I think, I don't, do I need to read this or? >> No. >> Okay. >> It's posted. >> Okay. >> I did provide on the slide just kind of summary of the question that you presented here. >> Mm-hmm. >> What the current conflict of interest requirements kind of are, including what a deliberation is and then what the relationships that are included are. But I can pull up the exact coordinates like this as well if you would like. >> I have it here and in his email he did say that he acknowledges and understands he must recuse himself for many votes or deliberations regarding any pending matter McAdams may bring on behalf, on his behalf before council that meets the criteria of conflicts of interest described in section 2-273 paragraph A through H of the code of ethics. So that is what Madison put up there. From his description he has no ownership, well let me back up. McAdams company is a firm that will have matters before city council for deliberation and action. And those matters primarily involve land use requests. He is a current client of the McAdams group. They represent his company together with two other owners in a land use request before the city. We originally engaged nine seven land company over a year and a half ago. The company was merged with McAdams recently. So my understanding is that Mayor Watts had some business with nine seven land company, nine seven land company then merged with McAdams and will have some business before council. My understanding is also that he has no ownership in McAd ams and is only a client of theirs. In his second email he did say that himself and two other independent land owners submitted a combined land use request instead of submitting three separate applications. They are all independent and have no common interest, financial, business or otherwise with one another except for a common interest in the applications submitted to the city by McAd ams on their behalf. So I acknowledge two land owners do not have a financial business or other client relationship with the McAdams group. So in reading through this and the definitions of conflict of interest that we have currently in our ethics ordinance, none of these would apply to Mayor Watts with the McAdams group. For general, anything that they bring before the council unless it's something that he has ownership in. So the specific instance he described where they will have a pending matter before council that involves their request for land use that the McAdams group will bring to council, I believe that he would have to recuse himself for that. But I don't think any general business before council by the McAdams group, I don't think he would have to disclose or recuse himself in those matters as long as he is there not for his properties, they're not his business just because he is a client of that group. So to me this kind of goes back to when we spent a bunch of time talking through the conflict of interest section, trying to clean up some things there, we had questions about what if it's something like some grocery store buys some land and they want to get permits for that, and that comes before council when you shop at the grocery store. It is a client relationship but you have no stake in ownership of the grocery stores. To me it's that sort of thing that he's describing here with the exception of the specific land use request that involves his property. I do have a quick question that kind of came out at me, a very simple question. I want to know what constitutes being a client. I know that people that have been clients for my company or me, they are able to get discount prices and benefits because they are one of my clients. So what does him being a client of this company exactly mean? Did somebody answer that for me? I can only answer from what I read in his email in my understanding. I don't know what the McAdams company does specifically, but they are involved with bringing them... Do they buy land? They are submitting the request on behalf of Mayor Watts and two other individuals for land use. So I don't know if they're a developer, if they're... I don't know what they do, but they're I guess involved in this project that Mayor Watts is involved with and they have submitted an application. Yeah, it seems...my understanding on the email is similar, that the McAdams group is involved in land use permitting before city council and planning a zoning board of adjustments or planning a zoning commission. And then he, Mayor Watts, has hired them, has hired McAdams , but really it was a different company and then they got bought out to perform certain services for him for an unknown value that's not available. But that is what he is a client of them, they're not a client of him, if that makes sense. I'm just being on the housing authority for so long and having what I call land people and housing people come to our committee and want to get close in and their goal was to make money, per se. And we were always battling to keep people out of that business. And for his benefit, I want to make sure that he doesn't get put in the middle of something that he can't say no to. That would be my concern. I don't think Mayor Watts goes out of his way, he's the one who presented this, that goes out of his way to do something wrong. And I just know how the other side can work to the disadvantage of being the mayor of this town. And so that's why I kind of just want us to think about this a little bit. I think you are correct that McAdams Group is one of the housing people, or as you described them. But I'm not sure exactly what they provide or what they do. When I read through the individual paragraphs under the definition of conflict of interest, none of those apply to General McAdams' business before council. The only thing that I think could apply is paragraph D for the specific permit or land use request that involves Mayor Watts' property. And I think that would be straightforward that assuming he owns more than $600 from the fair market value of that property that is subject to the land use request. But that would not apply to any other McAdams business before council. Well, I don't see a conflict of interest per se, but I don't think I'm for not him excusing himself with business coming up on that group. But he's saying that he will not be involved. He's indicated that he will recuse himself from anything that directly involves his property. But if it involves a property that McAdams Group is also helping move through the process, he's asking if he should recuse himself or not. I don't think we could read that into the law. If we would have said that, that would mean McAdams would be done. They could not bring anything before the city council because one of their clients sits on the city council. Well, they could bring it. He would just have to recuse himself. So hopefully they don't bring a lot. I think Dustin's right. I think he's good to vote on general matters as long as it does not affect his personal property, his real property that he owns. I mean, the specific question is, any deliberation or vote of the city council on matters brought before the council by the McAdams Group where he, Mayor Watts, holds no interest in the pending matter. To me, that's pretty straightforward. I don't see a way to even read the conflict of interest section to say that he would be in some gray area here. He is a client for them. You could say if he was receiving some sort of benefit in his client service provider relationship with him based on some other thing, but our code does not specifically say that. That was not the question that was asked. I think that would be something different than the question he asked. I think it might be helpful, Dustin, if you brought it up a little bit, or did consider adding client to this list of relationships . I believe proposed something, but the city council rejected that. This is probably why. He wasn't on the council during that time. I think we shot it down because some of the other council members are attorneys. We know we're going to lose a lot of city council members. That was the discussion. That specific instance was the discussion in the council work session where they reviewed that part of our recommendation, and it was shot down. It was an attorney-client discussion. That discussion was centered around regardless of the individual, if they're firm, representing someone, which again to me is like a gray area thing. There could be some discussion about it, but that is not what this is. This seems straightforward with the way things are written now. As long as based on his email, I think he said, "I acknowledge and understand I misrecuse myself from any votes or deliberations regarding any pending matter McAdams may bring on my behalf before council that meets the criteria conflicts of interest described in that section we talked about." It's clear understanding of if it's something of his clear- braining, he will recuse himself, and if it's something that McAdams is bringing totally independent of his relationship, he has no interest in that matter, then to me that's not a conflict of interest, and he is not required to recuse himself. Do you need a motion on that one? Yes. Okay, I would move that the board issue an advisory opinion providing to Mayor McAdams, to Mayor Watts that he is not required to recuse himself from deliberating and/or voting on matters that are brought before the council by the McAdams group where he has no interest in the pending matter. I'll second. I think we have to vote. All in favor? Aye. So it's unanimous, and we'll... I'm sorry. Yes. Do you draft the advisory opinion? But do you want to go on with the motion on his second email request? I'm sorry. Just in addition... Yeah, just incorporate the following additional facts. It sounds like he's just trying to clarify that second paragraph, "They represent my company together with two other owners in a land use request before the city," in the sense that he's just trying to clarify, "Hey, here's what that sentence meant." Yeah. My understanding is that in this case, because he... I don't completely understand how the other two independent lanovers have any bearing on this, but the fact that he has...they are submitting this land use request on his behalf in addition to the other two independent owners, he would have to recuse himself in that case. I think it's just a clarification that...that way we don't end up with a complaint here in two weeks that say, "Oh, well, yeah, the mayor couldn't vote," or whatever. The mayor didn't have an interest, but the two people that he submitted with, they had an interest. I think that's just a clarification. He's saying, "Hey, I don't think they have an interest. To my knowledge, they don't. And I have no reason to think the mayor would have a right ." Yeah, but I mean, if they're saying they submitted it on his behalf. Yes, this is... But he does have to recuse himself in that case. In that one, yes. So do you say... And he does say in here, "To my knowledge," he talked about the two other lanovers, "To my knowledge." Well, to me, that's kind of a loose language. So do you know or do you not know? No. I agree with you that we need to maybe protect ourselves just a little bit. I'm for protecting the mayor because I think he's not doing anything out of order and of conflict interest. But I'm not sure I'm comfortable speaking for two other l anovers. If it's a combined land use request, there would be one vote by council. And the mayor is still part of that. So he still has to recuse himself from that particular one. But the general request that McAdams brings in, he does not have to recuse himself from that. And so this last sentence on the second email, yeah, it gives you that little red flag feeling. Well, to my knowledge, the other two lanovers, well, we don 't care about the other two lanovers. They don't sit on the city council. We care about the mayor. And the one instance right now where it is a personal matter, right, it is your property, your request, and McAd ams' brown, obviously. He states that obviously he's got to recuse himself from that. But the general ones, no. So I think he doesn't ask this question, but the section above this, the mandate section, this would kind of fall under paragraph C, business disclosures. So in that particular case, that would be appending matter before the city official. He would have official knowledge. It doesn't really matter if he's in partner with the other two applicants for that. He is party to that request. So he would have to submit a disclosure within 30 days of that. And that is not a conflict of interest. He has to disclose that he has appending matter that he has interest in, and then he would have to recuse himself. I think he's not a partner. Yeah, he's not a partner. A partner is talking to a general partner, a limited liability partner, he's talking to actual partnership entity status. And he asks a question where it's couched, you know, these other two people, and we have this common application, but he doesn't really say what his interest is, whether he owns real property or whether it meets any of the requirements of A through H. It's just the applications are combined and you don't really know what his application is, whether it has any one of those interests. So you could make a motion that if the appending matter involves a conflict of interest, you know, that occurs A through H, then he should recuse himself. Okay. I guess maybe I don't understand how the combined request plays into that. To me, that doesn't have anything to do with -- The combined request, he doesn't really tell you what his business interest is. Okay. So you could actually make a determination. But he does want to have it part of the advisory opinion, because he's saying incorporate the following additional facts. But on these additional facts, you don't really know what his application says about whether it's real property that he owns or whether he just represents the property owner as an attorney. So he doesn't really disclose exactly what the pending application is about, so you could actually apply the conflict of interest. So you could just say something general with the application. I move that we include in our advisory opinion that for the specific combined land use request, it would be inquired about if his involvement meets any of paragraphs A through H in Section 2-273(a)(1), then he would need to recuse himself. Yeah, because he hasn't really said exactly what it was. Yeah. It appears to be a land interest, but she's correct that it 's not clear. It's not clear. He could be -- He could be -- He could be drafting a purchase and sale agreement for that application. So it's not really giving us a whole lot. Okay. I'll second that. All right. But before we vote, do you want a little discussion? Just because I have a question. Do we not have a way to essentially not issue an opinion on a specific thing because there aren't enough facts for us to issue an opinion? I don't want to issue an opinion and say, "Hey, well, if you meet the ethics ordinance, make sure you recuse yourself." Yeah. You know, that's not really an opinion. I'd rather someone says, "Hey, on this, you've got to take yourself out on this particular matter. On your second thing, we really don't know what you're asking, so we can't give you an opinion if you want to res ubmit something." We have done that before, at least once where we said, " Here's the clear determination for this part of your request for an advisory opinion, and then on this part, we did not issue any specific opinion on that, but we didn't refer to it in the advisory." So, I... Was it C2, maybe? Is it the request where it did not fairly and accurately disclose the relevant facts, and so we just like, "Sorry, we can't issue an opinion on that particular issue." I can't remember what we used. I don't know what y'all used. I think an advisory opinion is really only good for a respondent if you've said whatever they think they're doing is not a violation. So, you know, you could issue an opinion that says, "Hey, if you're, like you're saying, you're violating the ethics ordinance, you should recuse yourself." Well, you don't really know on that application. It might be something that he owns some voting shares or stock on. No. Business part of it, or he might receive money for representing them as an attorney, or he might have, it might be his property or some interest in his property. You know, because you just don't know. So, we could just write it as for the additional facts that he wants included in this opinion that he hasn't provided any facts to show where 273A1H-H could apply. So, you know, he could, if he wants to disclose what he's doing. Right, yeah, I think. Resubmit. Yeah, I think we could, obviously there's a first piece of the opinion which is anything that he has no interest in, as he described in the request, he does not have to recuse. Well, and he's trying to come through the back door by saying, "Hey, I'm on this application, these guys have no interest, so make a finding that I don't have an interest." But that's kind of a back door way of trying to get in. Yeah, I don't, it wasn't clear, I guess I would say it wasn 't clear to me that he was asking for an opinion on the specific case that he's talking about with the two of our landowners. Yes. He's saying, "I'm just going to recuse anyway." I do, I think that maybe you're correct that there's a piece of, well, what about if the other two landowners, which he doesn't know if they're going to submit something else, but if they do, does he need to recuse from those? He's the ones that are on that case. He's not asking for the opinion. He's not. He's just saying, "Include this in your facts." Okay. When you look at it, yeah. I hadn't thought about that Madison, but maybe that is the question he's trying to get to is that because he is, they have a common interest in that one application, would in the future he have to recuse himself if those other two landowners have a matter of a matter before counsel. I don't think that that common application would create some relationship that would violate the conflict of interest. I don't know that that's really what he's asking, but maybe that is what he's trying to get to. So I'm kind of back to the motion that provided, he would have to recuse himself for that particular matter because he says he has an interest in that matter. He says those three independent landowners, including himself, have a common interest in the application submitted to the city by McAdams on their behalf. So to me, he's saying there that he has an interest. I don't know what that is, but if he does, then he should recuse himself. He at least believes it meets the conflict of interest standards. Yes. I see that there are two different things, two different issues here. One issue where there is no conflict of interest, and then one interest where we have three different people trying to make decisions about a company that he might be involved in , or they're in company with him. I go back to the fact that we can speak for him because he put it in, but now he's speaking for two other people, and he's not sure exactly that they have any knowledge or whatever in the situation. I don't feel comfortable with that. Unless somebody can put it away in the language where they can, I'm like you, I don't want to get in a situation where , you know, oh, the mayor, he didn't do anything, but he's got his colonies over here, and they're working under sight for him . Because now, that's just wrong. But you know what I'm saying. Yeah, I think we are talking about, I think there's maybe three hypotheticals that we're kind of discussing. Well, one is not hypothetical. We know he has a zoning request, or some sort of land use request before the city, along with these two other independent landowners, and they are being represented by the McAdams Group. And he has stated that he will recuse from that case. His question, his first hypothetical is that if there's a land case or what some sort of pending matter that McAdams Group brings before the city council, that is not that case. Does he have to recuse from that? And you all have moved to that no, he does not, if there's no interest. I think the third thing we've been discussing, thinking about is, is if there's another case that the two independent landowners that are involved in this one case bring a separate case, is there a conflict of interest there? I think I heard Dustin say no, that there's no conflict of interest if they just bring a separate... If it doesn't involve some property where he has a land. I guess maybe to put it in simpler terms, if... I don't think that the combined land use request on that property creates a conflict of interest on some other property that doesn't involve... That he's not involved with based on our definitions in our code. But when they're all partnerships, the three of them become partnerships, how can you not be involved in it? Yeah, there's no partnership though, is what he's saying. He said they are all independent, have no common interest, financial, business or otherwise, with one another, except for their common interest in that particular application. So there is one application for land use, that it sounds like McAdams Group is, rather than Mayor Watts, Landowner 1 and Landowner 2, submitting separate requests, they have submitted one and it sounds like maybe it's the same property, I don't really know where the same area that would fall under that same land use request. He's saying that those three owners, the two other land owners and Mayor Watts don't have any sort of business relationship, the only commonality is that one land use request. So again, we're trying to gather some details from a two paragraph email that doesn't have a lot of detail. To me it 's very clear that on that particular matter, he should recuse himself, since he says he has a common interest in that application with the other two landowners. I like it, let's vote. Well you could also just say without having more information about what the common interest is, that you can 't apply the conflict of interest rules to it, because you don't know, going back to what you mentioned. Can we not pass the first part of it, make a motion on the first part, and again go back to the fact that we don't have enough knowledge in the second part to make a conclusion on that? Yeah, we've already done the first part, we're really talking about the second part. We don't have the right to divide it up, we don't have to make it one piece. Right, you can say, you've already determined, hey if he has no interest, it's just that McAdams is presenting it, it's fine, he doesn't need to recuse. Yeah, now we're talking about this other kind of more specific situation. That he says to be included in the... Right, and you could say, hey you gotta recuse, because we don't know enough, you could say, we don't know enough, so we're not going to issue an opinion. Or you could say, you don't need to recuse based on what we understand, even though. So those are kind of the three options. It sounds like we're leaning towards, we don't have enough information to issue this, because we don't know exactly what your interest is. I would move to amend the motion to read that the board issue an opinion, providing that the board has insufficient information to issue an opinion, as to whether or not Mayor Watts would have to recuse himself regarding the two land owners on the combined land use request. Pretty cool. So I think that was a motion to friendly amendment, so do you accept that amendment? Because you made the motion originally. I'll second. Well he's got to accept it first. Who's got to second? Yeah. I mean he says in his email they have a common interest in the application. That's why they have a common interest in the application. But I mean in his email he's saying, I guess I don't. I don't see the distinction between the first and second emails. I don't either. That's what I'm saying. The first motion that carried covers both emails. It says, hey, you've got to recuse yourself. I've already said you're going to recuse yourself, but you don't have to recuse yourself in general information. General statements from McAdams where he has no interest, he would not have to recuse himself. This particular, he says himself and the other two land owners have a common interest in the application. Yeah, and that's just additional background facts. The only question is in the first email, I request an advisory opinion, right, that is a question of request from the Board of Ethics to determine if I should recuse myself from deliberating and voting on any matters before the City Council brought by the McAdams group where I have no interest in the pending matters. Clearly he has an interest if the other two are submitting with him on that application. Right. It is one and the same, like I said, I think the second email is just clarifying that second sentence or the third sentence at the top about it being two other land owners in a land use request before the city. I think that's all the second one is and over disclosure always tends to confuse everything. And so if we just don't issue an opinion on that second one since it doesn't ask for it. Well he does say they represent my company together with two other owners in a land use request for the city. So in that request, because it's his company, he should rec use himself to the original motion. To me it falls under the original motion and the opinion, there doesn't need to be a second part of this. Yeah, yeah, so the first can you read the first motion to carry? Advisory opinion providing to Mayor Watts that not required to recuse McAdams group where there's no interest in the pending matter. Yeah, of course. And then this one does have an interest in the pending matter, he should recuse himself. Okay, so can we restate that motion? Do we want to go ahead and say on the second email, I guess it's his company and it would combine application that he should recuse himself? Yes, I think so. For that specific application, that land use request, he should recuse himself because regardless of the other two land owners, he has an interest in it. Because it's his company? He doesn't state what that is, but if that falls under paragraphs A through H of the conflict of interest section, then he should recuse himself. Yeah, if it falls through then. We did not ask for that opinion, but we could give it to him. But he has indicated he plans to recuse and you could just say yes, you should do that essentially. Here's mine. I think you have an option of if you want to make a motion on that part of it. He understands, yeah, I guess we can just leave it out. If you want to. So if we need to do anything with the amendment and the motion is... You can just let it die. You can withdraw. I'll withdraw that motion. But I would like to thank the mayor for submitting. We'll put the whole tax in the actual tax. So we're just blowing this off and accepting this or in our heads, combining it together. Yeah, I think they're the same. I think what you issued was, you issued an opinion that not the case that he understands that the case that he has with them creates a conflict of interest. And he has indicated he will recuse from that case. He asked for an opinion basically if that conflict of interest creates a blanket conflict with the McAdams group. And the opinion that you all have moved to issue is no, it does not. Okay, I'll move to adjourn. You want to second that one? I don't think we need a motion for that. No, you do. You just have to state what time. It is six.