1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:04,000 [ Background noise ] 2 00:00:04,500 --> 00:00:05,299 >> Get ready for that. 3 00:00:06,000 --> 00:00:08,000 [ Background noise ] 4 00:00:08,500 --> 00:00:08,699 >> Thank you. 5 00:00:09,000 --> 00:00:14,000 [ Background noise ] 6 00:00:14,500 --> 00:00:17,000 >> I don't have the agenda item on which. 7 00:00:18,000 --> 00:00:26,000 [ Background noise ] 8 00:00:26,500 --> 00:00:27,000 >> All right. 9 00:00:28,000 --> 00:00:32,000 [ Background noise ] 10 00:00:32,500 --> 00:00:33,000 >> Here we go. 11 00:00:33,500 --> 00:00:37,000 Good evening and welcome to this special call meeting 12 00:00:37,000 --> 00:00:39,500 of the Board of -- City of Denver Board of Ethics. 13 00:00:40,000 --> 00:00:47,000 Time is 5.30 p.m. on August 30, 2026. 14 00:00:47,500 --> 00:00:51,000 The first item for consideration is request 15 00:00:51,000 --> 00:00:54,000 for advisory opinion number 26-001. 16 00:00:54,500 --> 00:00:58,500 Received July 21, 2026 with Mayor Chris Watts, 17 00:00:59,000 --> 00:01:02,000 considering potential conflicts of interest. 18 00:01:02,500 --> 00:01:05,000 The first thing we'll do is select a presiding officer 19 00:01:05,000 --> 00:01:07,000 from the three panel members here. 20 00:01:07,500 --> 00:01:09,000 >> I would move for Dustin to be the presiding officer. 21 00:01:09,500 --> 00:01:13,000 [ Background noise ] 22 00:01:13,500 --> 00:01:14,000 >> All right. 23 00:01:14,000 --> 00:01:16,000 [ Laughter ] 24 00:01:16,000 --> 00:01:17,000 All in favor. 25 00:01:17,500 --> 00:01:19,000 [ Laughter ] 26 00:01:19,500 --> 00:01:22,000 Hand the meeting over to the presiding officer, 27 00:01:22,000 --> 00:01:23,000 Dustin Pappel. 28 00:01:23,500 --> 00:01:24,000 >> Okay. 29 00:01:25,000 --> 00:01:28,000 So as Madison said, we have one item for consideration 30 00:01:28,000 --> 00:01:31,000 and this request was from Mayor Watts. 31 00:01:31,500 --> 00:01:36,000 There is an email or there is an agenda information sheet 32 00:01:36,000 --> 00:01:41,000 that gives some background to that on the request, 33 00:01:41,000 --> 00:01:46,500 the discussion, the decision we are making today 34 00:01:46,500 --> 00:01:51,500 or the advisory decision is to determine 35 00:01:51,500 --> 00:01:55,500 if Mayor Watts' status as a client of the McAdams Group 36 00:01:56,000 --> 00:01:59,500 would require him to recuse or abstain from the following. 37 00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:04,000 Any deliberation or vote of the city council on matters 38 00:02:04,000 --> 00:02:04,500 brought 39 00:02:04,500 --> 00:02:07,500 before the council by the McAdams Group 40 00:02:07,500 --> 00:02:10,500 where he holds no interest in the pending matter. 41 00:02:12,000 --> 00:02:16,000 So the email, there's actually two emails here. 42 00:02:16,000 --> 00:02:17,500 There's the original request 43 00:02:18,000 --> 00:02:23,500 and then additional information that Mayor Watts provided. 44 00:02:26,500 --> 00:02:30,500 And I think, I don't, do I need to read this or? 45 00:02:30,500 --> 00:02:31,000 >> No. 46 00:02:31,000 --> 00:02:31,500 >> Okay. 47 00:02:31,500 --> 00:02:32,500 >> It's posted. 48 00:02:32,500 --> 00:02:33,000 >> Okay. 49 00:02:33,000 --> 00:02:35,500 >> I did provide on the slide just kind of summary 50 00:02:35,500 --> 00:02:37,500 of the question that you presented here. 51 00:02:37,500 --> 00:02:38,000 >> Mm-hmm. 52 00:02:38,000 --> 00:02:40,500 >> What the current conflict of interest requirements kind 53 00:02:40,500 --> 00:02:43,500 of are, including what a deliberation is 54 00:02:43,500 --> 00:02:47,000 and then what the relationships that are included are. 55 00:02:47,000 --> 00:02:49,000 But I can pull up the exact coordinates 56 00:02:49,000 --> 00:02:50,500 like this as well if you would like. 57 00:02:50,500 --> 00:02:59,000 >> I have it here and in his email he did say that he 58 00:02:59,000 --> 00:03:00,000 acknowledges 59 00:03:00,000 --> 00:03:03,000 and understands he must recuse himself for many votes 60 00:03:03,000 --> 00:03:06,180 or deliberations regarding any pending matter McAdams may 61 00:03:06,180 --> 00:03:06,500 bring 62 00:03:06,500 --> 00:03:11,699 on behalf, on his behalf before council that meets the 63 00:03:11,699 --> 00:03:12,500 criteria 64 00:03:12,500 --> 00:03:17,500 of conflicts of interest described in section 2-273 65 00:03:17,500 --> 00:03:18,000 paragraph A 66 00:03:18,000 --> 00:03:21,500 through H of the code of ethics. 67 00:03:21,500 --> 00:03:24,500 So that is what Madison put up there. 68 00:03:24,500 --> 00:03:31,979 From his description he has no ownership, well let me back 69 00:03:31,979 --> 00:03:32,500 up. 70 00:03:32,500 --> 00:03:34,500 McAdams company is a firm 71 00:03:34,500 --> 00:03:37,500 that will have matters before city council 72 00:03:37,500 --> 00:03:39,500 for deliberation and action. 73 00:03:39,500 --> 00:03:45,500 And those matters primarily involve land use requests. 74 00:03:45,500 --> 00:03:49,000 He is a current client of the McAdams group. 75 00:03:49,000 --> 00:03:52,500 They represent his company together with two other owners 76 00:03:52,500 --> 00:03:55,500 in a land use request before the city. 77 00:03:55,500 --> 00:03:59,500 We originally engaged nine seven land company over a year 78 00:03:59,500 --> 00:04:00,500 and a half ago. 79 00:04:00,500 --> 00:04:03,500 The company was merged with McAdams recently. 80 00:04:03,500 --> 00:04:10,500 So my understanding is that Mayor Watts had some business 81 00:04:10,500 --> 00:04:14,500 with nine seven land company, nine seven land company then 82 00:04:14,500 --> 00:04:14,500 merged 83 00:04:14,500 --> 00:04:22,500 with McAdams and will have some business before council. 84 00:04:22,500 --> 00:04:26,819 My understanding is also that he has no ownership in McAd 85 00:04:26,819 --> 00:04:27,500 ams 86 00:04:27,500 --> 00:04:31,500 and is only a client of theirs. 87 00:04:31,500 --> 00:04:36,500 In his second email he did say that himself 88 00:04:36,500 --> 00:04:41,180 and two other independent land owners submitted a combined 89 00:04:41,180 --> 00:04:41,500 land 90 00:04:41,500 --> 00:04:44,439 use request instead of submitting three separate 91 00:04:44,439 --> 00:04:45,500 applications. 92 00:04:45,500 --> 00:04:48,500 They are all independent and have no common interest, 93 00:04:48,500 --> 00:04:53,860 financial, business or otherwise with one another except 94 00:04:53,860 --> 00:04:54,500 for a common 95 00:04:54,500 --> 00:04:58,160 interest in the applications submitted to the city by McAd 96 00:04:58,160 --> 00:04:58,500 ams 97 00:04:58,500 --> 00:05:00,500 on their behalf. 98 00:05:00,500 --> 00:05:04,500 So I acknowledge two land owners do not have a financial 99 00:05:04,500 --> 00:05:05,500 business 100 00:05:05,500 --> 00:05:09,500 or other client relationship with the McAdams group. 101 00:05:09,500 --> 00:05:17,500 So in reading through this and the definitions of conflict 102 00:05:17,500 --> 00:05:24,500 of interest that we have currently in our ethics ordinance, 103 00:05:24,500 --> 00:05:30,500 none of these would apply to Mayor Watts with the McAdams 104 00:05:30,500 --> 00:05:32,500 group. 105 00:05:32,500 --> 00:05:36,500 For general, anything that they bring before the council 106 00:05:36,500 --> 00:05:39,500 unless it's something that he has ownership in. 107 00:05:39,500 --> 00:05:45,500 So the specific instance he described where they will have 108 00:05:45,500 --> 00:05:47,500 a pending matter 109 00:05:47,500 --> 00:05:54,500 before council that involves their request for land use 110 00:05:54,500 --> 00:05:57,500 that the McAdams group will bring to council, 111 00:05:57,500 --> 00:06:07,500 I believe that he would have to recuse himself for that. 112 00:06:07,500 --> 00:06:12,500 But I don't think any general business before council by 113 00:06:12,500 --> 00:06:13,500 the McAdams group, 114 00:06:13,500 --> 00:06:17,500 I don't think he would have to disclose or recuse himself 115 00:06:17,500 --> 00:06:19,500 in those matters 116 00:06:19,500 --> 00:06:27,500 as long as he is there not for his properties, 117 00:06:27,500 --> 00:06:30,649 they're not his business just because he is a client of 118 00:06:30,649 --> 00:06:31,500 that group. 119 00:06:31,500 --> 00:06:36,149 So to me this kind of goes back to when we spent a bunch of 120 00:06:36,149 --> 00:06:36,500 time talking 121 00:06:36,500 --> 00:06:38,500 through the conflict of interest section, 122 00:06:38,500 --> 00:06:41,500 trying to clean up some things there, 123 00:06:41,500 --> 00:06:48,860 we had questions about what if it's something like some 124 00:06:48,860 --> 00:06:50,500 grocery store buys some land 125 00:06:50,500 --> 00:06:52,500 and they want to get permits for that, 126 00:06:52,500 --> 00:06:55,860 and that comes before council when you shop at the grocery 127 00:06:55,860 --> 00:06:56,500 store. 128 00:06:56,500 --> 00:07:01,680 It is a client relationship but you have no stake in 129 00:07:01,680 --> 00:07:03,500 ownership of the grocery stores. 130 00:07:03,500 --> 00:07:08,500 To me it's that sort of thing that he's describing here 131 00:07:08,500 --> 00:07:13,959 with the exception of the specific land use request that 132 00:07:13,959 --> 00:07:16,500 involves his property. 133 00:07:16,500 --> 00:07:20,550 I do have a quick question that kind of came out at me, a 134 00:07:20,550 --> 00:07:21,500 very simple question. 135 00:07:21,500 --> 00:07:24,500 I want to know what constitutes being a client. 136 00:07:24,500 --> 00:07:29,000 I know that people that have been clients for my company or 137 00:07:29,000 --> 00:07:29,500 me, 138 00:07:29,500 --> 00:07:35,990 they are able to get discount prices and benefits because 139 00:07:35,990 --> 00:07:37,500 they are one of my clients. 140 00:07:37,500 --> 00:07:44,370 So what does him being a client of this company exactly 141 00:07:44,370 --> 00:07:45,500 mean? 142 00:07:45,500 --> 00:07:47,500 Did somebody answer that for me? 143 00:07:47,500 --> 00:07:52,699 I can only answer from what I read in his email in my 144 00:07:52,699 --> 00:07:53,500 understanding. 145 00:07:53,500 --> 00:07:58,500 I don't know what the McAdams company does specifically, 146 00:07:58,500 --> 00:08:01,500 but they are involved with bringing them... 147 00:08:01,500 --> 00:08:03,500 Do they buy land? 148 00:08:03,500 --> 00:08:08,500 They are submitting the request on behalf of Mayor Watts 149 00:08:08,500 --> 00:08:13,500 and two other individuals for land use. 150 00:08:13,500 --> 00:08:19,500 So I don't know if they're a developer, if they're... 151 00:08:19,500 --> 00:08:24,649 I don't know what they do, but they're I guess involved in 152 00:08:24,649 --> 00:08:25,500 this project 153 00:08:25,500 --> 00:08:29,939 that Mayor Watts is involved with and they have submitted 154 00:08:29,939 --> 00:08:31,500 an application. 155 00:08:31,500 --> 00:08:35,500 Yeah, it seems...my understanding on the email is similar, 156 00:08:35,500 --> 00:08:41,500 that the McAdams group is involved in land use permitting 157 00:08:41,500 --> 00:08:43,500 before city council 158 00:08:43,500 --> 00:08:47,299 and planning a zoning board of adjustments or planning a 159 00:08:47,299 --> 00:08:48,500 zoning commission. 160 00:08:48,500 --> 00:08:54,500 And then he, Mayor Watts, has hired them, has hired McAdams 161 00:08:54,500 --> 00:08:54,500 , 162 00:08:54,500 --> 00:08:57,700 but really it was a different company and then they got 163 00:08:57,700 --> 00:08:58,500 bought out 164 00:08:58,500 --> 00:09:02,070 to perform certain services for him for an unknown value 165 00:09:02,070 --> 00:09:03,500 that's not available. 166 00:09:03,500 --> 00:09:06,399 But that is what he is a client of them, they're not a 167 00:09:06,399 --> 00:09:08,500 client of him, if that makes sense. 168 00:09:08,500 --> 00:09:13,500 I'm just being on the housing authority for so long 169 00:09:13,500 --> 00:09:17,940 and having what I call land people and housing people come 170 00:09:17,940 --> 00:09:19,500 to our committee 171 00:09:19,500 --> 00:09:26,500 and want to get close in and their goal was to make money, 172 00:09:26,500 --> 00:09:27,500 per se. 173 00:09:27,500 --> 00:09:32,549 And we were always battling to keep people out of that 174 00:09:32,549 --> 00:09:33,500 business. 175 00:09:33,500 --> 00:09:38,169 And for his benefit, I want to make sure that he doesn't 176 00:09:38,169 --> 00:09:39,500 get put in the middle 177 00:09:39,500 --> 00:09:43,500 of something that he can't say no to. 178 00:09:43,500 --> 00:09:45,500 That would be my concern. 179 00:09:45,500 --> 00:09:49,340 I don't think Mayor Watts goes out of his way, he's the one 180 00:09:49,340 --> 00:09:50,500 who presented this, 181 00:09:50,500 --> 00:09:52,500 that goes out of his way to do something wrong. 182 00:09:52,500 --> 00:09:57,779 And I just know how the other side can work to the 183 00:09:57,779 --> 00:09:58,500 disadvantage 184 00:09:58,500 --> 00:10:01,500 of being the mayor of this town. 185 00:10:01,500 --> 00:10:05,019 And so that's why I kind of just want us to think about 186 00:10:05,019 --> 00:10:06,500 this a little bit. 187 00:10:06,500 --> 00:10:10,360 I think you are correct that McAdams Group is one of the 188 00:10:10,360 --> 00:10:11,500 housing people, 189 00:10:11,500 --> 00:10:14,500 or as you described them. 190 00:10:14,500 --> 00:10:18,500 But I'm not sure exactly what they provide or what they do. 191 00:10:18,500 --> 00:10:24,629 When I read through the individual paragraphs under the 192 00:10:24,629 --> 00:10:26,500 definition of conflict of interest, 193 00:10:26,500 --> 00:10:31,409 none of those apply to General McAdams' business before 194 00:10:31,409 --> 00:10:32,500 council. 195 00:10:32,500 --> 00:10:36,799 The only thing that I think could apply is paragraph D for 196 00:10:36,799 --> 00:10:38,500 the specific permit 197 00:10:38,500 --> 00:10:46,500 or land use request that involves Mayor Watts' property. 198 00:10:46,500 --> 00:10:53,830 And I think that would be straightforward that assuming he 199 00:10:53,830 --> 00:10:56,500 owns more than $600 200 00:10:56,500 --> 00:11:00,120 from the fair market value of that property that is subject 201 00:11:00,120 --> 00:11:02,500 to the land use request. 202 00:11:02,500 --> 00:11:10,580 But that would not apply to any other McAdams business 203 00:11:10,580 --> 00:11:13,500 before council. 204 00:11:13,500 --> 00:11:18,500 Well, I don't see a conflict of interest per se, 205 00:11:18,500 --> 00:11:25,500 but I don't think I'm for not him excusing himself with 206 00:11:25,500 --> 00:11:30,500 business coming up on that group. 207 00:11:30,500 --> 00:11:34,500 But he's saying that he will not be involved. 208 00:11:34,500 --> 00:11:39,500 He's indicated that he will recuse himself from anything 209 00:11:39,500 --> 00:11:41,500 that directly involves his property. 210 00:11:41,500 --> 00:11:47,019 But if it involves a property that McAdams Group is also 211 00:11:47,019 --> 00:11:49,500 helping move through the process, 212 00:11:49,500 --> 00:11:53,500 he's asking if he should recuse himself or not. 213 00:11:53,500 --> 00:11:57,500 I don't think we could read that into the law. 214 00:11:57,500 --> 00:12:00,860 If we would have said that, that would mean McAdams would 215 00:12:00,860 --> 00:12:01,500 be done. 216 00:12:01,500 --> 00:12:05,500 They could not bring anything before the city council 217 00:12:05,500 --> 00:12:08,500 because one of their clients sits on the city council. 218 00:12:08,500 --> 00:12:10,190 Well, they could bring it. He would just have to recuse 219 00:12:10,190 --> 00:12:10,500 himself. 220 00:12:10,500 --> 00:12:13,500 So hopefully they don't bring a lot. 221 00:12:13,500 --> 00:12:16,500 I think Dustin's right. 222 00:12:16,500 --> 00:12:20,909 I think he's good to vote on general matters as long as it 223 00:12:20,909 --> 00:12:23,500 does not affect his personal property, 224 00:12:23,500 --> 00:12:27,500 his real property that he owns. 225 00:12:27,500 --> 00:12:31,500 I mean, the specific question is, 226 00:12:31,500 --> 00:12:36,769 any deliberation or vote of the city council on matters 227 00:12:36,769 --> 00:12:39,500 brought before the council by the McAdams Group 228 00:12:39,500 --> 00:12:44,779 where he, Mayor Watts, holds no interest in the pending 229 00:12:44,779 --> 00:12:45,500 matter. 230 00:12:45,500 --> 00:12:48,500 To me, that's pretty straightforward. 231 00:12:48,500 --> 00:12:55,809 I don't see a way to even read the conflict of interest 232 00:12:55,809 --> 00:12:56,500 section 233 00:12:56,500 --> 00:13:02,500 to say that he would be in some gray area here. 234 00:13:02,500 --> 00:13:07,500 He is a client for them. 235 00:13:07,500 --> 00:13:11,500 You could say if he was receiving some sort of benefit 236 00:13:11,500 --> 00:13:16,730 in his client service provider relationship with him based 237 00:13:16,730 --> 00:13:17,500 on some other thing, 238 00:13:17,500 --> 00:13:21,500 but our code does not specifically say that. 239 00:13:21,500 --> 00:13:26,500 That was not the question that was asked. 240 00:13:26,500 --> 00:13:31,470 I think that would be something different than the question 241 00:13:31,470 --> 00:13:32,500 he asked. 242 00:13:32,500 --> 00:13:35,919 I think it might be helpful, Dustin, if you brought it up a 243 00:13:35,919 --> 00:13:36,500 little bit, 244 00:13:36,500 --> 00:13:43,490 or did consider adding client to this list of relationships 245 00:13:43,490 --> 00:13:43,500 . 246 00:13:43,500 --> 00:13:48,600 I believe proposed something, but the city council rejected 247 00:13:48,600 --> 00:13:49,500 that. 248 00:13:49,500 --> 00:13:52,500 This is probably why. 249 00:13:52,500 --> 00:13:55,500 He wasn't on the council during that time. 250 00:13:55,500 --> 00:13:59,059 I think we shot it down because some of the other council 251 00:13:59,059 --> 00:14:03,500 members are attorneys. 252 00:14:03,500 --> 00:14:07,500 We know we're going to lose a lot of city council members. 253 00:14:07,500 --> 00:14:09,500 That was the discussion. 254 00:14:09,500 --> 00:14:13,500 That specific instance was the discussion in the council 255 00:14:13,500 --> 00:14:14,500 work session 256 00:14:14,500 --> 00:14:19,269 where they reviewed that part of our recommendation, and it 257 00:14:19,269 --> 00:14:20,500 was shot down. 258 00:14:20,500 --> 00:14:24,500 It was an attorney-client discussion. 259 00:14:24,500 --> 00:14:34,330 That discussion was centered around regardless of the 260 00:14:34,330 --> 00:14:36,500 individual, 261 00:14:36,500 --> 00:14:41,629 if they're firm, representing someone, which again to me is 262 00:14:41,629 --> 00:14:43,500 like a gray area thing. 263 00:14:43,500 --> 00:14:46,450 There could be some discussion about it, but that is not 264 00:14:46,450 --> 00:14:47,500 what this is. 265 00:14:47,500 --> 00:14:51,230 This seems straightforward with the way things are written 266 00:14:51,230 --> 00:14:52,500 now. 267 00:14:52,500 --> 00:15:03,500 As long as based on his email, I think he said, 268 00:15:03,500 --> 00:15:07,500 "I acknowledge and understand I misrecuse myself from any 269 00:15:07,500 --> 00:15:09,500 votes or deliberations 270 00:15:09,500 --> 00:15:13,500 regarding any pending matter McAdams may bring on my behalf 271 00:15:13,500 --> 00:15:15,500 before council 272 00:15:15,500 --> 00:15:18,659 that meets the criteria conflicts of interest described in 273 00:15:18,659 --> 00:15:20,500 that section we talked about." 274 00:15:20,500 --> 00:15:24,750 It's clear understanding of if it's something of his clear- 275 00:15:24,750 --> 00:15:25,500 braining, 276 00:15:25,500 --> 00:15:29,500 he will recuse himself, and if it's something that McAdams 277 00:15:29,500 --> 00:15:35,500 is bringing totally independent of his relationship, 278 00:15:35,500 --> 00:15:41,480 he has no interest in that matter, then to me that's not a 279 00:15:41,480 --> 00:15:43,500 conflict of interest, 280 00:15:43,500 --> 00:15:46,500 and he is not required to recuse himself. 281 00:15:46,500 --> 00:15:48,500 Do you need a motion on that one? 282 00:15:48,500 --> 00:15:49,500 Yes. 283 00:15:49,500 --> 00:15:56,500 Okay, I would move that the board issue an advisory opinion 284 00:15:56,500 --> 00:15:59,500 providing to Mayor McAdams, 285 00:15:59,500 --> 00:16:06,500 to Mayor Watts that he is not required to recuse himself 286 00:16:06,500 --> 00:16:10,500 from deliberating and/or voting on matters 287 00:16:10,500 --> 00:16:16,840 that are brought before the council by the McAdams group 288 00:16:16,840 --> 00:16:22,500 where he has no interest in the pending matter. 289 00:16:22,500 --> 00:16:25,500 I'll second. 290 00:16:25,500 --> 00:16:27,500 I think we have to vote. 291 00:16:27,500 --> 00:16:28,500 All in favor? 292 00:16:28,500 --> 00:16:30,500 Aye. 293 00:16:30,500 --> 00:16:33,500 So it's unanimous, and we'll... 294 00:16:33,500 --> 00:16:35,500 I'm sorry. 295 00:16:35,500 --> 00:16:37,500 Yes. 296 00:16:37,500 --> 00:16:39,500 Do you draft the advisory opinion? 297 00:16:39,500 --> 00:16:43,129 But do you want to go on with the motion on his second 298 00:16:43,129 --> 00:16:44,500 email request? 299 00:16:44,500 --> 00:16:46,500 I'm sorry. 300 00:16:46,500 --> 00:16:49,500 Just in addition... 301 00:16:49,500 --> 00:16:56,500 Yeah, just incorporate the following additional facts. 302 00:16:56,500 --> 00:16:59,759 It sounds like he's just trying to clarify that second 303 00:16:59,759 --> 00:17:00,500 paragraph, 304 00:17:00,500 --> 00:17:03,500 "They represent my company together with two other owners 305 00:17:03,500 --> 00:17:04,500 in a land use request before the city," 306 00:17:04,500 --> 00:17:07,799 in the sense that he's just trying to clarify, "Hey, here's 307 00:17:07,799 --> 00:17:09,500 what that sentence meant." 308 00:17:09,500 --> 00:17:11,500 Yeah. 309 00:17:11,500 --> 00:17:23,500 My understanding is that in this case, because he... 310 00:17:23,500 --> 00:17:30,750 I don't completely understand how the other two independent 311 00:17:30,750 --> 00:17:33,500 lanovers have any bearing on this, 312 00:17:33,500 --> 00:17:45,190 but the fact that he has...they are submitting this land 313 00:17:45,190 --> 00:17:49,500 use request on his behalf 314 00:17:49,500 --> 00:17:53,029 in addition to the other two independent owners, he would 315 00:17:53,029 --> 00:17:55,500 have to recuse himself in that case. 316 00:17:55,500 --> 00:18:00,039 I think it's just a clarification that...that way we don't 317 00:18:00,039 --> 00:18:02,500 end up with a complaint here in two weeks 318 00:18:02,500 --> 00:18:08,500 that say, "Oh, well, yeah, the mayor couldn't vote," or 319 00:18:08,500 --> 00:18:08,500 whatever. 320 00:18:08,500 --> 00:18:11,009 The mayor didn't have an interest, but the two people that 321 00:18:11,009 --> 00:18:12,500 he submitted with, they had an interest. 322 00:18:12,500 --> 00:18:14,500 I think that's just a clarification. 323 00:18:14,500 --> 00:18:16,660 He's saying, "Hey, I don't think they have an interest. To 324 00:18:16,660 --> 00:18:18,500 my knowledge, they don't. 325 00:18:18,500 --> 00:18:23,039 And I have no reason to think the mayor would have a right 326 00:18:23,039 --> 00:18:23,500 ." 327 00:18:23,500 --> 00:18:26,619 Yeah, but I mean, if they're saying they submitted it on 328 00:18:26,619 --> 00:18:27,500 his behalf. 329 00:18:27,500 --> 00:18:29,500 Yes, this is... 330 00:18:29,500 --> 00:18:32,500 But he does have to recuse himself in that case. 331 00:18:32,500 --> 00:18:34,500 In that one, yes. 332 00:18:34,500 --> 00:18:36,500 So do you say... 333 00:18:36,500 --> 00:18:40,109 And he does say in here, "To my knowledge," he talked about 334 00:18:40,109 --> 00:18:44,500 the two other lanovers, "To my knowledge." 335 00:18:44,500 --> 00:18:47,500 Well, to me, that's kind of a loose language. 336 00:18:47,500 --> 00:18:50,500 So do you know or do you not know? 337 00:18:50,500 --> 00:18:56,579 No. I agree with you that we need to maybe protect 338 00:18:56,579 --> 00:18:59,500 ourselves just a little bit. 339 00:18:59,500 --> 00:19:04,500 I'm for protecting the mayor because I think he's not doing 340 00:19:04,500 --> 00:19:09,500 anything out of order and of conflict interest. 341 00:19:09,500 --> 00:19:13,559 But I'm not sure I'm comfortable speaking for two other l 342 00:19:13,559 --> 00:19:14,500 anovers. 343 00:19:14,500 --> 00:19:18,900 If it's a combined land use request, there would be one 344 00:19:18,900 --> 00:19:20,500 vote by council. 345 00:19:20,500 --> 00:19:23,500 And the mayor is still part of that. 346 00:19:23,500 --> 00:19:27,500 So he still has to recuse himself from that particular one. 347 00:19:27,500 --> 00:19:34,170 But the general request that McAdams brings in, he does not 348 00:19:34,170 --> 00:19:36,500 have to recuse himself from that. 349 00:19:36,500 --> 00:19:42,160 And so this last sentence on the second email, yeah, it 350 00:19:42,160 --> 00:19:46,500 gives you that little red flag feeling. 351 00:19:46,500 --> 00:19:49,740 Well, to my knowledge, the other two lanovers, well, we don 352 00:19:49,740 --> 00:19:50,500 't care about the other two lanovers. 353 00:19:50,500 --> 00:19:52,500 They don't sit on the city council. 354 00:19:52,500 --> 00:19:54,500 We care about the mayor. 355 00:19:54,500 --> 00:20:01,210 And the one instance right now where it is a personal 356 00:20:01,210 --> 00:20:04,109 matter, right, it is your property, your request, and McAd 357 00:20:04,109 --> 00:20:05,500 ams' brown, obviously. 358 00:20:05,500 --> 00:20:08,059 He states that obviously he's got to recuse himself from 359 00:20:08,059 --> 00:20:08,500 that. 360 00:20:08,500 --> 00:20:10,500 But the general ones, no. 361 00:20:10,500 --> 00:20:16,690 So I think he doesn't ask this question, but the section 362 00:20:16,690 --> 00:20:22,640 above this, the mandate section, this would kind of fall 363 00:20:22,640 --> 00:20:27,500 under paragraph C, business disclosures. 364 00:20:27,500 --> 00:20:32,849 So in that particular case, that would be appending matter 365 00:20:32,849 --> 00:20:35,500 before the city official. 366 00:20:35,500 --> 00:20:37,500 He would have official knowledge. 367 00:20:37,500 --> 00:20:41,470 It doesn't really matter if he's in partner with the other 368 00:20:41,470 --> 00:20:43,500 two applicants for that. 369 00:20:43,500 --> 00:20:46,500 He is party to that request. 370 00:20:46,500 --> 00:20:53,500 So he would have to submit a disclosure within 30 days of 371 00:20:53,500 --> 00:20:54,500 that. 372 00:20:54,500 --> 00:20:57,500 And that is not a conflict of interest. 373 00:20:57,500 --> 00:21:00,650 He has to disclose that he has appending matter that he has 374 00:21:00,650 --> 00:21:04,500 interest in, and then he would have to recuse himself. 375 00:21:04,500 --> 00:21:08,500 I think he's not a partner. 376 00:21:08,500 --> 00:21:10,500 Yeah, he's not a partner. 377 00:21:10,500 --> 00:21:12,539 A partner is talking to a general partner, a limited 378 00:21:12,539 --> 00:21:16,130 liability partner, he's talking to actual partnership 379 00:21:16,130 --> 00:21:17,500 entity status. 380 00:21:17,500 --> 00:21:23,500 And he asks a question where it's couched, you know, these 381 00:21:23,500 --> 00:21:27,500 other two people, and we have this common application, 382 00:21:27,500 --> 00:21:30,849 but he doesn't really say what his interest is, whether he 383 00:21:30,849 --> 00:21:35,039 owns real property or whether it meets any of the 384 00:21:35,039 --> 00:21:39,500 requirements of A through H. 385 00:21:39,500 --> 00:21:43,059 It's just the applications are combined and you don't 386 00:21:43,059 --> 00:21:45,500 really know what his application is, 387 00:21:45,500 --> 00:21:48,500 whether it has any one of those interests. 388 00:21:48,500 --> 00:21:53,450 So you could make a motion that if the appending matter 389 00:21:53,450 --> 00:21:58,720 involves a conflict of interest, you know, that occurs A 390 00:21:58,720 --> 00:22:00,500 through H, 391 00:22:00,500 --> 00:22:04,500 then he should recuse himself. 392 00:22:04,500 --> 00:22:07,500 Okay. 393 00:22:07,500 --> 00:22:11,940 I guess maybe I don't understand how the combined request 394 00:22:11,940 --> 00:22:13,500 plays into that. 395 00:22:13,500 --> 00:22:15,500 To me, that doesn't have anything to do with -- 396 00:22:15,500 --> 00:22:18,240 The combined request, he doesn't really tell you what his 397 00:22:18,240 --> 00:22:19,500 business interest is. 398 00:22:19,500 --> 00:22:20,500 Okay. 399 00:22:20,500 --> 00:22:22,500 So you could actually make a determination. 400 00:22:22,500 --> 00:22:27,690 But he does want to have it part of the advisory opinion, 401 00:22:27,690 --> 00:22:32,650 because he's saying incorporate the following additional 402 00:22:32,650 --> 00:22:33,500 facts. 403 00:22:33,500 --> 00:22:38,559 But on these additional facts, you don't really know what 404 00:22:38,559 --> 00:22:43,740 his application says about whether it's real property that 405 00:22:43,740 --> 00:22:44,500 he owns 406 00:22:44,500 --> 00:22:50,089 or whether he just represents the property owner as an 407 00:22:50,089 --> 00:22:51,500 attorney. 408 00:22:51,500 --> 00:22:56,460 So he doesn't really disclose exactly what the pending 409 00:22:56,460 --> 00:23:00,750 application is about, so you could actually apply the 410 00:23:00,750 --> 00:23:02,500 conflict of interest. 411 00:23:02,500 --> 00:23:07,619 So you could just say something general with the 412 00:23:07,619 --> 00:23:09,500 application. 413 00:23:09,500 --> 00:23:14,500 I move that we include in our advisory opinion that for the 414 00:23:14,500 --> 00:23:18,500 specific combined land use request, 415 00:23:18,500 --> 00:23:25,710 it would be inquired about if his involvement meets any of 416 00:23:25,710 --> 00:23:33,500 paragraphs A through H in Section 2-273(a)(1), 417 00:23:33,500 --> 00:23:37,500 then he would need to recuse himself. 418 00:23:37,500 --> 00:23:42,500 Yeah, because he hasn't really said exactly what it was. 419 00:23:42,500 --> 00:23:43,500 Yeah. 420 00:23:43,500 --> 00:23:47,420 It appears to be a land interest, but she's correct that it 421 00:23:47,420 --> 00:23:48,500 's not clear. 422 00:23:48,500 --> 00:23:49,500 It's not clear. 423 00:23:49,500 --> 00:23:50,500 He could be -- 424 00:23:50,500 --> 00:23:53,500 He could be -- 425 00:23:53,500 --> 00:23:57,319 He could be drafting a purchase and sale agreement for that 426 00:23:57,319 --> 00:23:58,500 application. 427 00:23:58,500 --> 00:24:03,500 So it's not really giving us a whole lot. 428 00:24:03,500 --> 00:24:04,500 Okay. 429 00:24:04,500 --> 00:24:06,500 I'll second that. 430 00:24:06,500 --> 00:24:08,500 All right. 431 00:24:08,500 --> 00:24:12,500 But before we vote, do you want a little discussion? 432 00:24:12,500 --> 00:24:16,500 Just because I have a question. 433 00:24:16,500 --> 00:24:23,190 Do we not have a way to essentially not issue an opinion on 434 00:24:23,190 --> 00:24:26,700 a specific thing because there aren't enough facts for us 435 00:24:26,700 --> 00:24:27,500 to issue an opinion? 436 00:24:27,500 --> 00:24:29,799 I don't want to issue an opinion and say, "Hey, well, if 437 00:24:29,799 --> 00:24:31,059 you meet the ethics ordinance, make sure you recuse 438 00:24:31,059 --> 00:24:31,500 yourself." 439 00:24:31,500 --> 00:24:32,500 Yeah. 440 00:24:32,500 --> 00:24:33,500 You know, that's not really an opinion. 441 00:24:33,500 --> 00:24:36,900 I'd rather someone says, "Hey, on this, you've got to take 442 00:24:36,900 --> 00:24:39,500 yourself out on this particular matter. 443 00:24:39,500 --> 00:24:42,839 On your second thing, we really don't know what you're 444 00:24:42,839 --> 00:24:45,920 asking, so we can't give you an opinion if you want to res 445 00:24:45,920 --> 00:24:46,500 ubmit something." 446 00:24:46,500 --> 00:24:50,579 We have done that before, at least once where we said, " 447 00:24:50,579 --> 00:24:55,490 Here's the clear determination for this part of your request 448 00:24:55,490 --> 00:24:59,940 for an advisory opinion, and then on this part, we did not 449 00:24:59,940 --> 00:25:05,940 issue any specific opinion on that, but we didn't refer to 450 00:25:05,940 --> 00:25:07,500 it in the advisory." 451 00:25:07,500 --> 00:25:12,500 So, I... 452 00:25:12,500 --> 00:25:14,500 Was it C2, maybe? 453 00:25:14,500 --> 00:25:17,609 Is it the request where it did not fairly and accurately 454 00:25:17,609 --> 00:25:20,779 disclose the relevant facts, and so we just like, "Sorry, 455 00:25:20,779 --> 00:25:22,500 we can't issue an opinion on that particular issue." 456 00:25:22,500 --> 00:25:24,500 I can't remember what we used. 457 00:25:24,500 --> 00:25:29,039 I don't know what y'all used. I think an advisory opinion 458 00:25:29,039 --> 00:25:32,930 is really only good for a respondent if you've said 459 00:25:32,930 --> 00:25:37,500 whatever they think they're doing is not a violation. 460 00:25:37,500 --> 00:25:44,970 So, you know, you could issue an opinion that says, "Hey, 461 00:25:44,970 --> 00:25:49,250 if you're, like you're saying, you're violating the ethics 462 00:25:49,250 --> 00:25:52,500 ordinance, you should recuse yourself." 463 00:25:52,500 --> 00:25:57,109 Well, you don't really know on that application. It might 464 00:25:57,109 --> 00:26:01,500 be something that he owns some voting shares or stock on. 465 00:26:01,500 --> 00:26:02,500 No. 466 00:26:02,500 --> 00:26:07,710 Business part of it, or he might receive money for 467 00:26:07,710 --> 00:26:12,740 representing them as an attorney, or he might have, it 468 00:26:12,740 --> 00:26:18,500 might be his property or some interest in his property. 469 00:26:18,500 --> 00:26:23,849 You know, because you just don't know. So, we could just 470 00:26:23,849 --> 00:26:28,259 write it as for the additional facts that he wants included 471 00:26:28,259 --> 00:26:38,500 in this opinion that he hasn't provided any facts to show 472 00:26:38,500 --> 00:26:46,500 where 273A1H-H could apply. 473 00:26:46,500 --> 00:26:52,440 So, you know, he could, if he wants to disclose what he's 474 00:26:52,440 --> 00:26:53,500 doing. 475 00:26:53,500 --> 00:26:55,500 Right, yeah, I think. 476 00:26:55,500 --> 00:26:56,500 Resubmit. 477 00:26:56,500 --> 00:27:00,500 Yeah, I think we could, obviously there's a first piece of 478 00:27:00,500 --> 00:27:04,339 the opinion which is anything that he has no interest in, 479 00:27:04,339 --> 00:27:08,500 as he described in the request, he does not have to recuse. 480 00:27:08,500 --> 00:27:11,200 Well, and he's trying to come through the back door by 481 00:27:11,200 --> 00:27:14,259 saying, "Hey, I'm on this application, these guys have no 482 00:27:14,259 --> 00:27:17,500 interest, so make a finding that I don't have an interest." 483 00:27:17,500 --> 00:27:22,500 But that's kind of a back door way of trying to get in. 484 00:27:22,500 --> 00:27:26,319 Yeah, I don't, it wasn't clear, I guess I would say it wasn 485 00:27:26,319 --> 00:27:29,619 't clear to me that he was asking for an opinion on the 486 00:27:29,619 --> 00:27:33,240 specific case that he's talking about with the two of our 487 00:27:33,240 --> 00:27:34,500 landowners. 488 00:27:34,500 --> 00:27:35,500 Yes. 489 00:27:35,500 --> 00:27:38,500 He's saying, "I'm just going to recuse anyway." 490 00:27:38,500 --> 00:27:40,930 I do, I think that maybe you're correct that there's a 491 00:27:40,930 --> 00:27:43,500 piece of, well, what about if the other two landowners, 492 00:27:43,500 --> 00:27:47,009 which he doesn't know if they're going to submit something 493 00:27:47,009 --> 00:27:50,500 else, but if they do, does he need to recuse from those? 494 00:27:50,500 --> 00:27:51,500 He's the ones that are on that case. 495 00:27:51,500 --> 00:27:53,500 He's not asking for the opinion. 496 00:27:53,500 --> 00:27:54,500 He's not. 497 00:27:54,500 --> 00:27:57,500 He's just saying, "Include this in your facts." 498 00:27:57,500 --> 00:27:58,500 Okay. 499 00:27:58,500 --> 00:28:00,500 When you look at it, yeah. 500 00:28:00,500 --> 00:28:05,339 I hadn't thought about that Madison, but maybe that is the 501 00:28:05,339 --> 00:28:14,130 question he's trying to get to is that because he is, they 502 00:28:14,130 --> 00:28:19,250 have a common interest in that one application, would in 503 00:28:19,250 --> 00:28:25,269 the future he have to recuse himself if those other two 504 00:28:25,269 --> 00:28:28,500 landowners have a matter of 505 00:28:28,500 --> 00:28:31,500 a matter before counsel. 506 00:28:31,500 --> 00:28:36,009 I don't think that that common application would create 507 00:28:36,009 --> 00:28:40,329 some relationship that would violate the conflict of 508 00:28:40,329 --> 00:28:41,500 interest. 509 00:28:41,500 --> 00:28:44,559 I don't know that that's really what he's asking, but maybe 510 00:28:44,559 --> 00:28:46,500 that is what he's trying to get to. 511 00:28:46,500 --> 00:28:52,839 So I'm kind of back to the motion that provided, he would 512 00:28:52,839 --> 00:28:59,460 have to recuse himself for that particular matter because 513 00:28:59,460 --> 00:29:04,500 he says he has an interest in that matter. 514 00:29:04,500 --> 00:29:09,420 He says those three independent landowners, including 515 00:29:09,420 --> 00:29:13,930 himself, have a common interest in the application 516 00:29:13,930 --> 00:29:18,500 submitted to the city by McAdams on their behalf. 517 00:29:18,500 --> 00:29:23,500 So to me, he's saying there that he has an interest. 518 00:29:23,500 --> 00:29:28,500 I don't know what that is, but if he does, then he should 519 00:29:28,500 --> 00:29:28,500 recuse himself. 520 00:29:28,500 --> 00:29:30,059 He at least believes it meets the conflict of interest 521 00:29:30,059 --> 00:29:30,500 standards. 522 00:29:30,500 --> 00:29:32,500 Yes. 523 00:29:32,500 --> 00:29:37,160 I see that there are two different things, two different 524 00:29:37,160 --> 00:29:38,500 issues here. 525 00:29:38,500 --> 00:29:44,220 One issue where there is no conflict of interest, and then 526 00:29:44,220 --> 00:29:48,630 one interest where we have three different people trying to 527 00:29:48,630 --> 00:29:52,500 make decisions about a company that he might be involved in 528 00:29:52,500 --> 00:29:52,500 , 529 00:29:52,500 --> 00:29:56,549 or they're in company with him. I go back to the fact that 530 00:29:56,549 --> 00:30:00,250 we can speak for him because he put it in, but now he's 531 00:30:00,250 --> 00:30:02,500 speaking for two other people, 532 00:30:02,500 --> 00:30:08,339 and he's not sure exactly that they have any knowledge or 533 00:30:08,339 --> 00:30:11,500 whatever in the situation. 534 00:30:11,500 --> 00:30:17,500 I don't feel comfortable with that. 535 00:30:17,500 --> 00:30:21,150 Unless somebody can put it away in the language where they 536 00:30:21,150 --> 00:30:24,500 can, I'm like you, I don't want to get in a situation where 537 00:30:24,500 --> 00:30:25,500 , you know, 538 00:30:25,500 --> 00:30:28,329 oh, the mayor, he didn't do anything, but he's got his 539 00:30:28,329 --> 00:30:32,500 colonies over here, and they're working under sight for him 540 00:30:32,500 --> 00:30:32,500 . 541 00:30:32,500 --> 00:30:36,779 Because now, that's just wrong. But you know what I'm 542 00:30:36,779 --> 00:30:37,500 saying. 543 00:30:37,500 --> 00:30:42,599 Yeah, I think we are talking about, I think there's maybe 544 00:30:42,599 --> 00:30:47,500 three hypotheticals that we're kind of discussing. Well, 545 00:30:47,500 --> 00:30:47,500 one is not hypothetical. 546 00:30:47,500 --> 00:30:53,500 We know he has a zoning request, or some sort of land use 547 00:30:53,500 --> 00:30:57,460 request before the city, along with these two other 548 00:30:57,460 --> 00:30:58,500 independent landowners, 549 00:30:58,500 --> 00:31:04,619 and they are being represented by the McAdams Group. And he 550 00:31:04,619 --> 00:31:09,500 has stated that he will recuse from that case. 551 00:31:09,500 --> 00:31:15,460 His question, his first hypothetical is that if there's a 552 00:31:15,460 --> 00:31:21,500 land case or what some sort of pending matter that McAdams 553 00:31:21,500 --> 00:31:23,500 Group brings before the city council, 554 00:31:23,500 --> 00:31:26,069 that is not that case. Does he have to recuse from that? 555 00:31:26,069 --> 00:31:28,579 And you all have moved to that no, he does not, if there's 556 00:31:28,579 --> 00:31:29,500 no interest. 557 00:31:29,500 --> 00:31:33,819 I think the third thing we've been discussing, thinking 558 00:31:33,819 --> 00:31:37,500 about is, is if there's another case that the two 559 00:31:37,500 --> 00:31:41,500 independent landowners that are involved in this one case 560 00:31:41,500 --> 00:31:44,859 bring a separate case, is there a conflict of interest 561 00:31:44,859 --> 00:31:48,319 there? I think I heard Dustin say no, that there's no 562 00:31:48,319 --> 00:31:51,500 conflict of interest if they just bring a separate... 563 00:31:51,500 --> 00:31:57,700 If it doesn't involve some property where he has a land. I 564 00:31:57,700 --> 00:32:05,500 guess maybe to put it in simpler terms, if... 565 00:32:05,500 --> 00:32:09,480 I don't think that the combined land use request on that 566 00:32:09,480 --> 00:32:13,650 property creates a conflict of interest on some other 567 00:32:13,650 --> 00:32:16,500 property that doesn't involve... 568 00:32:16,500 --> 00:32:21,680 That he's not involved with based on our definitions in our 569 00:32:21,680 --> 00:32:22,500 code. 570 00:32:22,500 --> 00:32:26,230 But when they're all partnerships, the three of them become 571 00:32:26,230 --> 00:32:29,500 partnerships, how can you not be involved in it? 572 00:32:29,500 --> 00:32:32,500 Yeah, there's no partnership though, is what he's saying. 573 00:32:32,500 --> 00:32:35,500 He said they are all independent, have no common interest, 574 00:32:35,500 --> 00:32:37,500 financial, business or otherwise, 575 00:32:37,500 --> 00:32:43,519 with one another, except for their common interest in that 576 00:32:43,519 --> 00:32:48,839 particular application. So there is one application for 577 00:32:48,839 --> 00:32:53,500 land use, that it sounds like McAdams Group is, 578 00:32:53,500 --> 00:32:58,599 rather than Mayor Watts, Landowner 1 and Landowner 2, 579 00:32:58,599 --> 00:33:03,740 submitting separate requests, they have submitted one and 580 00:33:03,740 --> 00:33:07,500 it sounds like maybe it's the same property, 581 00:33:07,500 --> 00:33:11,650 I don't really know where the same area that would fall 582 00:33:11,650 --> 00:33:14,500 under that same land use request. 583 00:33:14,500 --> 00:33:19,309 He's saying that those three owners, the two other land 584 00:33:19,309 --> 00:33:23,920 owners and Mayor Watts don't have any sort of business 585 00:33:23,920 --> 00:33:30,940 relationship, the only commonality is that one land use 586 00:33:30,940 --> 00:33:32,500 request. 587 00:33:32,500 --> 00:33:38,650 So again, we're trying to gather some details from a two 588 00:33:38,650 --> 00:33:45,069 paragraph email that doesn't have a lot of detail. To me it 589 00:33:45,069 --> 00:33:50,500 's very clear that on that particular matter, 590 00:33:50,500 --> 00:33:55,099 he should recuse himself, since he says he has a common 591 00:33:55,099 --> 00:34:00,500 interest in that application with the other two landowners. 592 00:34:00,500 --> 00:34:02,500 I like it, let's vote. 593 00:34:02,500 --> 00:34:05,420 Well you could also just say without having more 594 00:34:05,420 --> 00:34:10,880 information about what the common interest is, that you can 595 00:34:10,880 --> 00:34:15,500 't apply the conflict of interest rules to it, 596 00:34:15,500 --> 00:34:21,500 because you don't know, going back to what you mentioned. 597 00:34:21,500 --> 00:34:25,639 Can we not pass the first part of it, make a motion on the 598 00:34:25,639 --> 00:34:29,679 first part, and again go back to the fact that we don't 599 00:34:29,679 --> 00:34:33,550 have enough knowledge in the second part to make a 600 00:34:33,550 --> 00:34:34,500 conclusion on that? 601 00:34:34,500 --> 00:34:36,320 Yeah, we've already done the first part, we're really 602 00:34:36,320 --> 00:34:37,500 talking about the second part. 603 00:34:37,500 --> 00:34:41,820 We don't have the right to divide it up, we don't have to 604 00:34:41,820 --> 00:34:43,500 make it one piece. 605 00:34:43,500 --> 00:34:47,150 Right, you can say, you've already determined, hey if he 606 00:34:47,150 --> 00:34:50,760 has no interest, it's just that McAdams is presenting it, 607 00:34:50,760 --> 00:34:53,500 it's fine, he doesn't need to recuse. 608 00:34:53,500 --> 00:34:56,210 Yeah, now we're talking about this other kind of more 609 00:34:56,210 --> 00:34:57,500 specific situation. 610 00:34:57,500 --> 00:34:59,500 That he says to be included in the... 611 00:34:59,500 --> 00:35:03,190 Right, and you could say, hey you gotta recuse, because we 612 00:35:03,190 --> 00:35:06,659 don't know enough, you could say, we don't know enough, so 613 00:35:06,659 --> 00:35:08,500 we're not going to issue an opinion. 614 00:35:08,500 --> 00:35:11,699 Or you could say, you don't need to recuse based on what we 615 00:35:11,699 --> 00:35:13,500 understand, even though. 616 00:35:13,500 --> 00:35:15,500 So those are kind of the three options. 617 00:35:15,500 --> 00:35:18,300 It sounds like we're leaning towards, we don't have enough 618 00:35:18,300 --> 00:35:21,650 information to issue this, because we don't know exactly 619 00:35:21,650 --> 00:35:23,500 what your interest is. 620 00:35:23,500 --> 00:35:31,260 I would move to amend the motion to read that the board 621 00:35:31,260 --> 00:35:40,440 issue an opinion, providing that the board has insufficient 622 00:35:40,440 --> 00:35:46,500 information to issue an opinion, 623 00:35:46,500 --> 00:35:53,809 as to whether or not Mayor Watts would have to recuse 624 00:35:53,809 --> 00:36:02,150 himself regarding the two land owners on the combined land 625 00:36:02,150 --> 00:36:04,500 use request. 626 00:36:04,500 --> 00:36:10,500 Pretty cool. 627 00:36:10,500 --> 00:36:14,340 So I think that was a motion to friendly amendment, so do 628 00:36:14,340 --> 00:36:17,750 you accept that amendment? Because you made the motion 629 00:36:17,750 --> 00:36:18,500 originally. 630 00:36:18,500 --> 00:36:19,500 I'll second. 631 00:36:19,500 --> 00:36:21,500 Well he's got to accept it first. 632 00:36:21,500 --> 00:36:23,500 Who's got to second? 633 00:36:23,500 --> 00:36:26,500 Yeah. 634 00:36:26,500 --> 00:36:30,050 I mean he says in his email they have a common interest in 635 00:36:30,050 --> 00:36:31,500 the application. 636 00:36:31,500 --> 00:36:35,500 That's why they have a common interest in the application. 637 00:36:35,500 --> 00:36:45,500 But I mean in his email he's saying, I guess I don't. 638 00:36:45,500 --> 00:36:47,980 I don't see the distinction between the first and second 639 00:36:47,980 --> 00:36:48,500 emails. 640 00:36:48,500 --> 00:36:49,500 I don't either. 641 00:36:49,500 --> 00:36:50,500 That's what I'm saying. 642 00:36:50,500 --> 00:36:55,500 The first motion that carried covers both emails. 643 00:36:55,500 --> 00:36:59,500 It says, hey, you've got to recuse yourself. 644 00:36:59,500 --> 00:37:02,500 I've already said you're going to recuse yourself, but you 645 00:37:02,500 --> 00:37:05,500 don't have to recuse yourself in general information. 646 00:37:05,500 --> 00:37:09,090 General statements from McAdams where he has no interest, 647 00:37:09,090 --> 00:37:11,500 he would not have to recuse himself. 648 00:37:11,500 --> 00:37:15,579 This particular, he says himself and the other two land 649 00:37:15,579 --> 00:37:19,500 owners have a common interest in the application. 650 00:37:19,500 --> 00:37:23,500 Yeah, and that's just additional background facts. 651 00:37:23,500 --> 00:37:27,320 The only question is in the first email, I request an 652 00:37:27,320 --> 00:37:30,699 advisory opinion, right, that is a question of request from 653 00:37:30,699 --> 00:37:33,500 the Board of Ethics to determine if I should recuse myself 654 00:37:33,500 --> 00:37:36,789 from deliberating and voting on any matters before the City 655 00:37:36,789 --> 00:37:40,090 Council brought by the McAdams group where I have no 656 00:37:40,090 --> 00:37:41,500 interest in the pending matters. 657 00:37:41,500 --> 00:37:44,670 Clearly he has an interest if the other two are submitting 658 00:37:44,670 --> 00:37:46,500 with him on that application. 659 00:37:46,500 --> 00:37:47,500 Right. 660 00:37:47,500 --> 00:37:51,340 It is one and the same, like I said, I think the second 661 00:37:51,340 --> 00:37:55,530 email is just clarifying that second sentence or the third 662 00:37:55,530 --> 00:37:59,650 sentence at the top about it being two other land owners in 663 00:37:59,650 --> 00:38:02,500 a land use request before the city. 664 00:38:02,500 --> 00:38:05,920 I think that's all the second one is and over disclosure 665 00:38:05,920 --> 00:38:08,500 always tends to confuse everything. 666 00:38:08,500 --> 00:38:11,820 And so if we just don't issue an opinion on that second one 667 00:38:11,820 --> 00:38:13,500 since it doesn't ask for it. 668 00:38:13,500 --> 00:38:17,059 Well he does say they represent my company together with 669 00:38:17,059 --> 00:38:20,500 two other owners in a land use request for the city. 670 00:38:20,500 --> 00:38:25,349 So in that request, because it's his company, he should rec 671 00:38:25,349 --> 00:38:28,500 use himself to the original motion. 672 00:38:28,500 --> 00:38:33,889 To me it falls under the original motion and the opinion, 673 00:38:33,889 --> 00:38:38,500 there doesn't need to be a second part of this. 674 00:38:38,500 --> 00:38:43,829 Yeah, yeah, so the first can you read the first motion to 675 00:38:43,829 --> 00:38:46,500 carry? 676 00:38:46,500 --> 00:38:53,360 Advisory opinion providing to Mayor Watts that not required 677 00:38:53,360 --> 00:38:59,179 to recuse McAdams group where there's no interest in the 678 00:38:59,179 --> 00:39:00,500 pending matter. 679 00:39:00,500 --> 00:39:02,500 Yeah, of course. 680 00:39:02,500 --> 00:39:07,230 And then this one does have an interest in the pending 681 00:39:07,230 --> 00:39:10,500 matter, he should recuse himself. 682 00:39:10,500 --> 00:39:16,500 Okay, so can we restate that motion? 683 00:39:16,500 --> 00:39:24,210 Do we want to go ahead and say on the second email, I guess 684 00:39:24,210 --> 00:39:28,670 it's his company and it would combine application that he 685 00:39:28,670 --> 00:39:30,500 should recuse himself? 686 00:39:30,500 --> 00:39:38,500 Yes, I think so. 687 00:39:38,500 --> 00:39:44,690 For that specific application, that land use request, he 688 00:39:44,690 --> 00:39:48,610 should recuse himself because regardless of the other two 689 00:39:48,610 --> 00:39:51,500 land owners, he has an interest in it. 690 00:39:51,500 --> 00:39:53,500 Because it's his company? 691 00:39:53,500 --> 00:39:58,119 He doesn't state what that is, but if that falls under 692 00:39:58,119 --> 00:40:03,500 paragraphs A through H of the conflict of interest section, 693 00:40:03,500 --> 00:40:05,500 then he should recuse himself. 694 00:40:05,500 --> 00:40:07,500 Yeah, if it falls through then. 695 00:40:07,500 --> 00:40:23,289 We did not ask for that opinion, but we could give it to 696 00:40:23,289 --> 00:40:25,500 him. But he has indicated he plans to recuse and you could 697 00:40:25,500 --> 00:40:25,500 just say yes, you should do that essentially. 698 00:40:25,500 --> 00:40:28,500 Here's mine. 699 00:40:28,500 --> 00:40:32,099 I think you have an option of if you want to make a motion 700 00:40:32,099 --> 00:40:33,500 on that part of it. 701 00:40:33,500 --> 00:40:38,500 He understands, yeah, I guess we can just leave it out. 702 00:40:38,500 --> 00:40:40,500 If you want to. 703 00:40:40,500 --> 00:40:43,980 So if we need to do anything with the amendment and the 704 00:40:43,980 --> 00:40:44,500 motion is... 705 00:40:44,500 --> 00:40:46,500 You can just let it die. 706 00:40:46,500 --> 00:40:48,500 You can withdraw. 707 00:40:48,500 --> 00:40:52,500 I'll withdraw that motion. 708 00:40:52,500 --> 00:40:55,500 But I would like to thank the mayor for submitting. 709 00:40:55,500 --> 00:41:00,500 We'll put the whole tax in the actual tax. 710 00:41:00,500 --> 00:41:05,420 So we're just blowing this off and accepting this or in our 711 00:41:05,420 --> 00:41:08,500 heads, combining it together. 712 00:41:08,500 --> 00:41:10,500 Yeah, I think they're the same. 713 00:41:10,500 --> 00:41:14,920 I think what you issued was, you issued an opinion that not 714 00:41:14,920 --> 00:41:20,090 the case that he understands that the case that he has with 715 00:41:20,090 --> 00:41:21,500 them creates a conflict of interest. 716 00:41:21,500 --> 00:41:24,500 And he has indicated he will recuse from that case. 717 00:41:24,500 --> 00:41:29,139 He asked for an opinion basically if that conflict of 718 00:41:29,139 --> 00:41:34,500 interest creates a blanket conflict with the McAdams group. 719 00:41:34,500 --> 00:41:37,780 And the opinion that you all have moved to issue is no, it 720 00:41:37,780 --> 00:41:38,500 does not. 721 00:41:38,500 --> 00:41:42,500 Okay, I'll move to adjourn. 722 00:41:42,500 --> 00:41:44,500 You want to second that one? 723 00:41:44,500 --> 00:41:46,500 I don't think we need a motion for that. 724 00:41:46,500 --> 00:41:47,500 No, you do. 725 00:41:47,500 --> 00:41:48,500 You just have to state what time. 726 00:41:48,500 --> 00:41:51,780 It is six.