WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.000 [ Background noise ] 00:00:04.500 --> 00:00:05.299 >> Get ready for that. 00:00:06.000 --> 00:00:08.000 [ Background noise ] 00:00:08.500 --> 00:00:08.699 >> Thank you. 00:00:09.000 --> 00:00:14.000 [ Background noise ] 00:00:14.500 --> 00:00:17.000 >> I don't have the agenda item on which. 00:00:18.000 --> 00:00:26.000 [ Background noise ] 00:00:26.500 --> 00:00:27.000 >> All right. 00:00:28.000 --> 00:00:32.000 [ Background noise ] 00:00:32.500 --> 00:00:33.000 >> Here we go. 00:00:33.500 --> 00:00:37.000 Good evening and welcome to this special call meeting 00:00:37.000 --> 00:00:39.500 of the Board of -- City of Denver Board of Ethics. 00:00:40.000 --> 00:00:47.000 Time is 5.30 p.m. on August 30, 2026. 00:00:47.500 --> 00:00:51.000 The first item for consideration is request 00:00:51.000 --> 00:00:54.000 for advisory opinion number 26-001. 00:00:54.500 --> 00:00:58.500 Received July 21, 2026 with Mayor Chris Watts, 00:00:59.000 --> 00:01:02.000 considering potential conflicts of interest. 00:01:02.500 --> 00:01:05.000 The first thing we'll do is select a presiding officer 00:01:05.000 --> 00:01:07.000 from the three panel members here. 00:01:07.500 --> 00:01:09.000 >> I would move for Dustin to be the presiding officer. 00:01:09.500 --> 00:01:13.000 [ Background noise ] 00:01:13.500 --> 00:01:14.000 >> All right. 00:01:14.000 --> 00:01:16.000 [ Laughter ] 00:01:16.000 --> 00:01:17.000 All in favor. 00:01:17.500 --> 00:01:19.000 [ Laughter ] 00:01:19.500 --> 00:01:22.000 Hand the meeting over to the presiding officer, 00:01:22.000 --> 00:01:23.000 Dustin Pappel. 00:01:23.500 --> 00:01:24.000 >> Okay. 00:01:25.000 --> 00:01:28.000 So as Madison said, we have one item for consideration 00:01:28.000 --> 00:01:31.000 and this request was from Mayor Watts. 00:01:31.500 --> 00:01:36.000 There is an email or there is an agenda information sheet 00:01:36.000 --> 00:01:41.000 that gives some background to that on the request, 00:01:41.000 --> 00:01:46.500 the discussion, the decision we are making today 00:01:46.500 --> 00:01:51.500 or the advisory decision is to determine 00:01:51.500 --> 00:01:55.500 if Mayor Watts' status as a client of the McAdams Group 00:01:56.000 --> 00:01:59.500 would require him to recuse or abstain from the following. 00:02:00.000 --> 00:02:04.000 Any deliberation or vote of the city council on matters 00:02:04.000 --> 00:02:04.500 brought 00:02:04.500 --> 00:02:07.500 before the council by the McAdams Group 00:02:07.500 --> 00:02:10.500 where he holds no interest in the pending matter. 00:02:12.000 --> 00:02:16.000 So the email, there's actually two emails here. 00:02:16.000 --> 00:02:17.500 There's the original request 00:02:18.000 --> 00:02:23.500 and then additional information that Mayor Watts provided. 00:02:26.500 --> 00:02:30.500 And I think, I don't, do I need to read this or? 00:02:30.500 --> 00:02:31.000 >> No. 00:02:31.000 --> 00:02:31.500 >> Okay. 00:02:31.500 --> 00:02:32.500 >> It's posted. 00:02:32.500 --> 00:02:33.000 >> Okay. 00:02:33.000 --> 00:02:35.500 >> I did provide on the slide just kind of summary 00:02:35.500 --> 00:02:37.500 of the question that you presented here. 00:02:37.500 --> 00:02:38.000 >> Mm-hmm. 00:02:38.000 --> 00:02:40.500 >> What the current conflict of interest requirements kind 00:02:40.500 --> 00:02:43.500 of are, including what a deliberation is 00:02:43.500 --> 00:02:47.000 and then what the relationships that are included are. 00:02:47.000 --> 00:02:49.000 But I can pull up the exact coordinates 00:02:49.000 --> 00:02:50.500 like this as well if you would like. 00:02:50.500 --> 00:02:59.000 >> I have it here and in his email he did say that he 00:02:59.000 --> 00:03:00.000 acknowledges 00:03:00.000 --> 00:03:03.000 and understands he must recuse himself for many votes 00:03:03.000 --> 00:03:06.180 or deliberations regarding any pending matter McAdams may 00:03:06.180 --> 00:03:06.500 bring 00:03:06.500 --> 00:03:11.699 on behalf, on his behalf before council that meets the 00:03:11.699 --> 00:03:12.500 criteria 00:03:12.500 --> 00:03:17.500 of conflicts of interest described in section 2-273 00:03:17.500 --> 00:03:18.000 paragraph A 00:03:18.000 --> 00:03:21.500 through H of the code of ethics. 00:03:21.500 --> 00:03:24.500 So that is what Madison put up there. 00:03:24.500 --> 00:03:31.979 From his description he has no ownership, well let me back 00:03:31.979 --> 00:03:32.500 up. 00:03:32.500 --> 00:03:34.500 McAdams company is a firm 00:03:34.500 --> 00:03:37.500 that will have matters before city council 00:03:37.500 --> 00:03:39.500 for deliberation and action. 00:03:39.500 --> 00:03:45.500 And those matters primarily involve land use requests. 00:03:45.500 --> 00:03:49.000 He is a current client of the McAdams group. 00:03:49.000 --> 00:03:52.500 They represent his company together with two other owners 00:03:52.500 --> 00:03:55.500 in a land use request before the city. 00:03:55.500 --> 00:03:59.500 We originally engaged nine seven land company over a year 00:03:59.500 --> 00:04:00.500 and a half ago. 00:04:00.500 --> 00:04:03.500 The company was merged with McAdams recently. 00:04:03.500 --> 00:04:10.500 So my understanding is that Mayor Watts had some business 00:04:10.500 --> 00:04:14.500 with nine seven land company, nine seven land company then 00:04:14.500 --> 00:04:14.500 merged 00:04:14.500 --> 00:04:22.500 with McAdams and will have some business before council. 00:04:22.500 --> 00:04:26.819 My understanding is also that he has no ownership in McAd 00:04:26.819 --> 00:04:27.500 ams 00:04:27.500 --> 00:04:31.500 and is only a client of theirs. 00:04:31.500 --> 00:04:36.500 In his second email he did say that himself 00:04:36.500 --> 00:04:41.180 and two other independent land owners submitted a combined 00:04:41.180 --> 00:04:41.500 land 00:04:41.500 --> 00:04:44.439 use request instead of submitting three separate 00:04:44.439 --> 00:04:45.500 applications. 00:04:45.500 --> 00:04:48.500 They are all independent and have no common interest, 00:04:48.500 --> 00:04:53.860 financial, business or otherwise with one another except 00:04:53.860 --> 00:04:54.500 for a common 00:04:54.500 --> 00:04:58.160 interest in the applications submitted to the city by McAd 00:04:58.160 --> 00:04:58.500 ams 00:04:58.500 --> 00:05:00.500 on their behalf. 00:05:00.500 --> 00:05:04.500 So I acknowledge two land owners do not have a financial 00:05:04.500 --> 00:05:05.500 business 00:05:05.500 --> 00:05:09.500 or other client relationship with the McAdams group. 00:05:09.500 --> 00:05:17.500 So in reading through this and the definitions of conflict 00:05:17.500 --> 00:05:24.500 of interest that we have currently in our ethics ordinance, 00:05:24.500 --> 00:05:30.500 none of these would apply to Mayor Watts with the McAdams 00:05:30.500 --> 00:05:32.500 group. 00:05:32.500 --> 00:05:36.500 For general, anything that they bring before the council 00:05:36.500 --> 00:05:39.500 unless it's something that he has ownership in. 00:05:39.500 --> 00:05:45.500 So the specific instance he described where they will have 00:05:45.500 --> 00:05:47.500 a pending matter 00:05:47.500 --> 00:05:54.500 before council that involves their request for land use 00:05:54.500 --> 00:05:57.500 that the McAdams group will bring to council, 00:05:57.500 --> 00:06:07.500 I believe that he would have to recuse himself for that. 00:06:07.500 --> 00:06:12.500 But I don't think any general business before council by 00:06:12.500 --> 00:06:13.500 the McAdams group, 00:06:13.500 --> 00:06:17.500 I don't think he would have to disclose or recuse himself 00:06:17.500 --> 00:06:19.500 in those matters 00:06:19.500 --> 00:06:27.500 as long as he is there not for his properties, 00:06:27.500 --> 00:06:30.649 they're not his business just because he is a client of 00:06:30.649 --> 00:06:31.500 that group. 00:06:31.500 --> 00:06:36.149 So to me this kind of goes back to when we spent a bunch of 00:06:36.149 --> 00:06:36.500 time talking 00:06:36.500 --> 00:06:38.500 through the conflict of interest section, 00:06:38.500 --> 00:06:41.500 trying to clean up some things there, 00:06:41.500 --> 00:06:48.860 we had questions about what if it's something like some 00:06:48.860 --> 00:06:50.500 grocery store buys some land 00:06:50.500 --> 00:06:52.500 and they want to get permits for that, 00:06:52.500 --> 00:06:55.860 and that comes before council when you shop at the grocery 00:06:55.860 --> 00:06:56.500 store. 00:06:56.500 --> 00:07:01.680 It is a client relationship but you have no stake in 00:07:01.680 --> 00:07:03.500 ownership of the grocery stores. 00:07:03.500 --> 00:07:08.500 To me it's that sort of thing that he's describing here 00:07:08.500 --> 00:07:13.959 with the exception of the specific land use request that 00:07:13.959 --> 00:07:16.500 involves his property. 00:07:16.500 --> 00:07:20.550 I do have a quick question that kind of came out at me, a 00:07:20.550 --> 00:07:21.500 very simple question. 00:07:21.500 --> 00:07:24.500 I want to know what constitutes being a client. 00:07:24.500 --> 00:07:29.000 I know that people that have been clients for my company or 00:07:29.000 --> 00:07:29.500 me, 00:07:29.500 --> 00:07:35.990 they are able to get discount prices and benefits because 00:07:35.990 --> 00:07:37.500 they are one of my clients. 00:07:37.500 --> 00:07:44.370 So what does him being a client of this company exactly 00:07:44.370 --> 00:07:45.500 mean? 00:07:45.500 --> 00:07:47.500 Did somebody answer that for me? 00:07:47.500 --> 00:07:52.699 I can only answer from what I read in his email in my 00:07:52.699 --> 00:07:53.500 understanding. 00:07:53.500 --> 00:07:58.500 I don't know what the McAdams company does specifically, 00:07:58.500 --> 00:08:01.500 but they are involved with bringing them... 00:08:01.500 --> 00:08:03.500 Do they buy land? 00:08:03.500 --> 00:08:08.500 They are submitting the request on behalf of Mayor Watts 00:08:08.500 --> 00:08:13.500 and two other individuals for land use. 00:08:13.500 --> 00:08:19.500 So I don't know if they're a developer, if they're... 00:08:19.500 --> 00:08:24.649 I don't know what they do, but they're I guess involved in 00:08:24.649 --> 00:08:25.500 this project 00:08:25.500 --> 00:08:29.939 that Mayor Watts is involved with and they have submitted 00:08:29.939 --> 00:08:31.500 an application. 00:08:31.500 --> 00:08:35.500 Yeah, it seems...my understanding on the email is similar, 00:08:35.500 --> 00:08:41.500 that the McAdams group is involved in land use permitting 00:08:41.500 --> 00:08:43.500 before city council 00:08:43.500 --> 00:08:47.299 and planning a zoning board of adjustments or planning a 00:08:47.299 --> 00:08:48.500 zoning commission. 00:08:48.500 --> 00:08:54.500 And then he, Mayor Watts, has hired them, has hired McAdams 00:08:54.500 --> 00:08:54.500 , 00:08:54.500 --> 00:08:57.700 but really it was a different company and then they got 00:08:57.700 --> 00:08:58.500 bought out 00:08:58.500 --> 00:09:02.070 to perform certain services for him for an unknown value 00:09:02.070 --> 00:09:03.500 that's not available. 00:09:03.500 --> 00:09:06.399 But that is what he is a client of them, they're not a 00:09:06.399 --> 00:09:08.500 client of him, if that makes sense. 00:09:08.500 --> 00:09:13.500 I'm just being on the housing authority for so long 00:09:13.500 --> 00:09:17.940 and having what I call land people and housing people come 00:09:17.940 --> 00:09:19.500 to our committee 00:09:19.500 --> 00:09:26.500 and want to get close in and their goal was to make money, 00:09:26.500 --> 00:09:27.500 per se. 00:09:27.500 --> 00:09:32.549 And we were always battling to keep people out of that 00:09:32.549 --> 00:09:33.500 business. 00:09:33.500 --> 00:09:38.169 And for his benefit, I want to make sure that he doesn't 00:09:38.169 --> 00:09:39.500 get put in the middle 00:09:39.500 --> 00:09:43.500 of something that he can't say no to. 00:09:43.500 --> 00:09:45.500 That would be my concern. 00:09:45.500 --> 00:09:49.340 I don't think Mayor Watts goes out of his way, he's the one 00:09:49.340 --> 00:09:50.500 who presented this, 00:09:50.500 --> 00:09:52.500 that goes out of his way to do something wrong. 00:09:52.500 --> 00:09:57.779 And I just know how the other side can work to the 00:09:57.779 --> 00:09:58.500 disadvantage 00:09:58.500 --> 00:10:01.500 of being the mayor of this town. 00:10:01.500 --> 00:10:05.019 And so that's why I kind of just want us to think about 00:10:05.019 --> 00:10:06.500 this a little bit. 00:10:06.500 --> 00:10:10.360 I think you are correct that McAdams Group is one of the 00:10:10.360 --> 00:10:11.500 housing people, 00:10:11.500 --> 00:10:14.500 or as you described them. 00:10:14.500 --> 00:10:18.500 But I'm not sure exactly what they provide or what they do. 00:10:18.500 --> 00:10:24.629 When I read through the individual paragraphs under the 00:10:24.629 --> 00:10:26.500 definition of conflict of interest, 00:10:26.500 --> 00:10:31.409 none of those apply to General McAdams' business before 00:10:31.409 --> 00:10:32.500 council. 00:10:32.500 --> 00:10:36.799 The only thing that I think could apply is paragraph D for 00:10:36.799 --> 00:10:38.500 the specific permit 00:10:38.500 --> 00:10:46.500 or land use request that involves Mayor Watts' property. 00:10:46.500 --> 00:10:53.830 And I think that would be straightforward that assuming he 00:10:53.830 --> 00:10:56.500 owns more than $600 00:10:56.500 --> 00:11:00.120 from the fair market value of that property that is subject 00:11:00.120 --> 00:11:02.500 to the land use request. 00:11:02.500 --> 00:11:10.580 But that would not apply to any other McAdams business 00:11:10.580 --> 00:11:13.500 before council. 00:11:13.500 --> 00:11:18.500 Well, I don't see a conflict of interest per se, 00:11:18.500 --> 00:11:25.500 but I don't think I'm for not him excusing himself with 00:11:25.500 --> 00:11:30.500 business coming up on that group. 00:11:30.500 --> 00:11:34.500 But he's saying that he will not be involved. 00:11:34.500 --> 00:11:39.500 He's indicated that he will recuse himself from anything 00:11:39.500 --> 00:11:41.500 that directly involves his property. 00:11:41.500 --> 00:11:47.019 But if it involves a property that McAdams Group is also 00:11:47.019 --> 00:11:49.500 helping move through the process, 00:11:49.500 --> 00:11:53.500 he's asking if he should recuse himself or not. 00:11:53.500 --> 00:11:57.500 I don't think we could read that into the law. 00:11:57.500 --> 00:12:00.860 If we would have said that, that would mean McAdams would 00:12:00.860 --> 00:12:01.500 be done. 00:12:01.500 --> 00:12:05.500 They could not bring anything before the city council 00:12:05.500 --> 00:12:08.500 because one of their clients sits on the city council. 00:12:08.500 --> 00:12:10.190 Well, they could bring it. He would just have to recuse 00:12:10.190 --> 00:12:10.500 himself. 00:12:10.500 --> 00:12:13.500 So hopefully they don't bring a lot. 00:12:13.500 --> 00:12:16.500 I think Dustin's right. 00:12:16.500 --> 00:12:20.909 I think he's good to vote on general matters as long as it 00:12:20.909 --> 00:12:23.500 does not affect his personal property, 00:12:23.500 --> 00:12:27.500 his real property that he owns. 00:12:27.500 --> 00:12:31.500 I mean, the specific question is, 00:12:31.500 --> 00:12:36.769 any deliberation or vote of the city council on matters 00:12:36.769 --> 00:12:39.500 brought before the council by the McAdams Group 00:12:39.500 --> 00:12:44.779 where he, Mayor Watts, holds no interest in the pending 00:12:44.779 --> 00:12:45.500 matter. 00:12:45.500 --> 00:12:48.500 To me, that's pretty straightforward. 00:12:48.500 --> 00:12:55.809 I don't see a way to even read the conflict of interest 00:12:55.809 --> 00:12:56.500 section 00:12:56.500 --> 00:13:02.500 to say that he would be in some gray area here. 00:13:02.500 --> 00:13:07.500 He is a client for them. 00:13:07.500 --> 00:13:11.500 You could say if he was receiving some sort of benefit 00:13:11.500 --> 00:13:16.730 in his client service provider relationship with him based 00:13:16.730 --> 00:13:17.500 on some other thing, 00:13:17.500 --> 00:13:21.500 but our code does not specifically say that. 00:13:21.500 --> 00:13:26.500 That was not the question that was asked. 00:13:26.500 --> 00:13:31.470 I think that would be something different than the question 00:13:31.470 --> 00:13:32.500 he asked. 00:13:32.500 --> 00:13:35.919 I think it might be helpful, Dustin, if you brought it up a 00:13:35.919 --> 00:13:36.500 little bit, 00:13:36.500 --> 00:13:43.490 or did consider adding client to this list of relationships 00:13:43.490 --> 00:13:43.500 . 00:13:43.500 --> 00:13:48.600 I believe proposed something, but the city council rejected 00:13:48.600 --> 00:13:49.500 that. 00:13:49.500 --> 00:13:52.500 This is probably why. 00:13:52.500 --> 00:13:55.500 He wasn't on the council during that time. 00:13:55.500 --> 00:13:59.059 I think we shot it down because some of the other council 00:13:59.059 --> 00:14:03.500 members are attorneys. 00:14:03.500 --> 00:14:07.500 We know we're going to lose a lot of city council members. 00:14:07.500 --> 00:14:09.500 That was the discussion. 00:14:09.500 --> 00:14:13.500 That specific instance was the discussion in the council 00:14:13.500 --> 00:14:14.500 work session 00:14:14.500 --> 00:14:19.269 where they reviewed that part of our recommendation, and it 00:14:19.269 --> 00:14:20.500 was shot down. 00:14:20.500 --> 00:14:24.500 It was an attorney-client discussion. 00:14:24.500 --> 00:14:34.330 That discussion was centered around regardless of the 00:14:34.330 --> 00:14:36.500 individual, 00:14:36.500 --> 00:14:41.629 if they're firm, representing someone, which again to me is 00:14:41.629 --> 00:14:43.500 like a gray area thing. 00:14:43.500 --> 00:14:46.450 There could be some discussion about it, but that is not 00:14:46.450 --> 00:14:47.500 what this is. 00:14:47.500 --> 00:14:51.230 This seems straightforward with the way things are written 00:14:51.230 --> 00:14:52.500 now. 00:14:52.500 --> 00:15:03.500 As long as based on his email, I think he said, 00:15:03.500 --> 00:15:07.500 "I acknowledge and understand I misrecuse myself from any 00:15:07.500 --> 00:15:09.500 votes or deliberations 00:15:09.500 --> 00:15:13.500 regarding any pending matter McAdams may bring on my behalf 00:15:13.500 --> 00:15:15.500 before council 00:15:15.500 --> 00:15:18.659 that meets the criteria conflicts of interest described in 00:15:18.659 --> 00:15:20.500 that section we talked about." 00:15:20.500 --> 00:15:24.750 It's clear understanding of if it's something of his clear- 00:15:24.750 --> 00:15:25.500 braining, 00:15:25.500 --> 00:15:29.500 he will recuse himself, and if it's something that McAdams 00:15:29.500 --> 00:15:35.500 is bringing totally independent of his relationship, 00:15:35.500 --> 00:15:41.480 he has no interest in that matter, then to me that's not a 00:15:41.480 --> 00:15:43.500 conflict of interest, 00:15:43.500 --> 00:15:46.500 and he is not required to recuse himself. 00:15:46.500 --> 00:15:48.500 Do you need a motion on that one? 00:15:48.500 --> 00:15:49.500 Yes. 00:15:49.500 --> 00:15:56.500 Okay, I would move that the board issue an advisory opinion 00:15:56.500 --> 00:15:59.500 providing to Mayor McAdams, 00:15:59.500 --> 00:16:06.500 to Mayor Watts that he is not required to recuse himself 00:16:06.500 --> 00:16:10.500 from deliberating and/or voting on matters 00:16:10.500 --> 00:16:16.840 that are brought before the council by the McAdams group 00:16:16.840 --> 00:16:22.500 where he has no interest in the pending matter. 00:16:22.500 --> 00:16:25.500 I'll second. 00:16:25.500 --> 00:16:27.500 I think we have to vote. 00:16:27.500 --> 00:16:28.500 All in favor? 00:16:28.500 --> 00:16:30.500 Aye. 00:16:30.500 --> 00:16:33.500 So it's unanimous, and we'll... 00:16:33.500 --> 00:16:35.500 I'm sorry. 00:16:35.500 --> 00:16:37.500 Yes. 00:16:37.500 --> 00:16:39.500 Do you draft the advisory opinion? 00:16:39.500 --> 00:16:43.129 But do you want to go on with the motion on his second 00:16:43.129 --> 00:16:44.500 email request? 00:16:44.500 --> 00:16:46.500 I'm sorry. 00:16:46.500 --> 00:16:49.500 Just in addition... 00:16:49.500 --> 00:16:56.500 Yeah, just incorporate the following additional facts. 00:16:56.500 --> 00:16:59.759 It sounds like he's just trying to clarify that second 00:16:59.759 --> 00:17:00.500 paragraph, 00:17:00.500 --> 00:17:03.500 "They represent my company together with two other owners 00:17:03.500 --> 00:17:04.500 in a land use request before the city," 00:17:04.500 --> 00:17:07.799 in the sense that he's just trying to clarify, "Hey, here's 00:17:07.799 --> 00:17:09.500 what that sentence meant." 00:17:09.500 --> 00:17:11.500 Yeah. 00:17:11.500 --> 00:17:23.500 My understanding is that in this case, because he... 00:17:23.500 --> 00:17:30.750 I don't completely understand how the other two independent 00:17:30.750 --> 00:17:33.500 lanovers have any bearing on this, 00:17:33.500 --> 00:17:45.190 but the fact that he has...they are submitting this land 00:17:45.190 --> 00:17:49.500 use request on his behalf 00:17:49.500 --> 00:17:53.029 in addition to the other two independent owners, he would 00:17:53.029 --> 00:17:55.500 have to recuse himself in that case. 00:17:55.500 --> 00:18:00.039 I think it's just a clarification that...that way we don't 00:18:00.039 --> 00:18:02.500 end up with a complaint here in two weeks 00:18:02.500 --> 00:18:08.500 that say, "Oh, well, yeah, the mayor couldn't vote," or 00:18:08.500 --> 00:18:08.500 whatever. 00:18:08.500 --> 00:18:11.009 The mayor didn't have an interest, but the two people that 00:18:11.009 --> 00:18:12.500 he submitted with, they had an interest. 00:18:12.500 --> 00:18:14.500 I think that's just a clarification. 00:18:14.500 --> 00:18:16.660 He's saying, "Hey, I don't think they have an interest. To 00:18:16.660 --> 00:18:18.500 my knowledge, they don't. 00:18:18.500 --> 00:18:23.039 And I have no reason to think the mayor would have a right 00:18:23.039 --> 00:18:23.500 ." 00:18:23.500 --> 00:18:26.619 Yeah, but I mean, if they're saying they submitted it on 00:18:26.619 --> 00:18:27.500 his behalf. 00:18:27.500 --> 00:18:29.500 Yes, this is... 00:18:29.500 --> 00:18:32.500 But he does have to recuse himself in that case. 00:18:32.500 --> 00:18:34.500 In that one, yes. 00:18:34.500 --> 00:18:36.500 So do you say... 00:18:36.500 --> 00:18:40.109 And he does say in here, "To my knowledge," he talked about 00:18:40.109 --> 00:18:44.500 the two other lanovers, "To my knowledge." 00:18:44.500 --> 00:18:47.500 Well, to me, that's kind of a loose language. 00:18:47.500 --> 00:18:50.500 So do you know or do you not know? 00:18:50.500 --> 00:18:56.579 No. I agree with you that we need to maybe protect 00:18:56.579 --> 00:18:59.500 ourselves just a little bit. 00:18:59.500 --> 00:19:04.500 I'm for protecting the mayor because I think he's not doing 00:19:04.500 --> 00:19:09.500 anything out of order and of conflict interest. 00:19:09.500 --> 00:19:13.559 But I'm not sure I'm comfortable speaking for two other l 00:19:13.559 --> 00:19:14.500 anovers. 00:19:14.500 --> 00:19:18.900 If it's a combined land use request, there would be one 00:19:18.900 --> 00:19:20.500 vote by council. 00:19:20.500 --> 00:19:23.500 And the mayor is still part of that. 00:19:23.500 --> 00:19:27.500 So he still has to recuse himself from that particular one. 00:19:27.500 --> 00:19:34.170 But the general request that McAdams brings in, he does not 00:19:34.170 --> 00:19:36.500 have to recuse himself from that. 00:19:36.500 --> 00:19:42.160 And so this last sentence on the second email, yeah, it 00:19:42.160 --> 00:19:46.500 gives you that little red flag feeling. 00:19:46.500 --> 00:19:49.740 Well, to my knowledge, the other two lanovers, well, we don 00:19:49.740 --> 00:19:50.500 't care about the other two lanovers. 00:19:50.500 --> 00:19:52.500 They don't sit on the city council. 00:19:52.500 --> 00:19:54.500 We care about the mayor. 00:19:54.500 --> 00:20:01.210 And the one instance right now where it is a personal 00:20:01.210 --> 00:20:04.109 matter, right, it is your property, your request, and McAd 00:20:04.109 --> 00:20:05.500 ams' brown, obviously. 00:20:05.500 --> 00:20:08.059 He states that obviously he's got to recuse himself from 00:20:08.059 --> 00:20:08.500 that. 00:20:08.500 --> 00:20:10.500 But the general ones, no. 00:20:10.500 --> 00:20:16.690 So I think he doesn't ask this question, but the section 00:20:16.690 --> 00:20:22.640 above this, the mandate section, this would kind of fall 00:20:22.640 --> 00:20:27.500 under paragraph C, business disclosures. 00:20:27.500 --> 00:20:32.849 So in that particular case, that would be appending matter 00:20:32.849 --> 00:20:35.500 before the city official. 00:20:35.500 --> 00:20:37.500 He would have official knowledge. 00:20:37.500 --> 00:20:41.470 It doesn't really matter if he's in partner with the other 00:20:41.470 --> 00:20:43.500 two applicants for that. 00:20:43.500 --> 00:20:46.500 He is party to that request. 00:20:46.500 --> 00:20:53.500 So he would have to submit a disclosure within 30 days of 00:20:53.500 --> 00:20:54.500 that. 00:20:54.500 --> 00:20:57.500 And that is not a conflict of interest. 00:20:57.500 --> 00:21:00.650 He has to disclose that he has appending matter that he has 00:21:00.650 --> 00:21:04.500 interest in, and then he would have to recuse himself. 00:21:04.500 --> 00:21:08.500 I think he's not a partner. 00:21:08.500 --> 00:21:10.500 Yeah, he's not a partner. 00:21:10.500 --> 00:21:12.539 A partner is talking to a general partner, a limited 00:21:12.539 --> 00:21:16.130 liability partner, he's talking to actual partnership 00:21:16.130 --> 00:21:17.500 entity status. 00:21:17.500 --> 00:21:23.500 And he asks a question where it's couched, you know, these 00:21:23.500 --> 00:21:27.500 other two people, and we have this common application, 00:21:27.500 --> 00:21:30.849 but he doesn't really say what his interest is, whether he 00:21:30.849 --> 00:21:35.039 owns real property or whether it meets any of the 00:21:35.039 --> 00:21:39.500 requirements of A through H. 00:21:39.500 --> 00:21:43.059 It's just the applications are combined and you don't 00:21:43.059 --> 00:21:45.500 really know what his application is, 00:21:45.500 --> 00:21:48.500 whether it has any one of those interests. 00:21:48.500 --> 00:21:53.450 So you could make a motion that if the appending matter 00:21:53.450 --> 00:21:58.720 involves a conflict of interest, you know, that occurs A 00:21:58.720 --> 00:22:00.500 through H, 00:22:00.500 --> 00:22:04.500 then he should recuse himself. 00:22:04.500 --> 00:22:07.500 Okay. 00:22:07.500 --> 00:22:11.940 I guess maybe I don't understand how the combined request 00:22:11.940 --> 00:22:13.500 plays into that. 00:22:13.500 --> 00:22:15.500 To me, that doesn't have anything to do with -- 00:22:15.500 --> 00:22:18.240 The combined request, he doesn't really tell you what his 00:22:18.240 --> 00:22:19.500 business interest is. 00:22:19.500 --> 00:22:20.500 Okay. 00:22:20.500 --> 00:22:22.500 So you could actually make a determination. 00:22:22.500 --> 00:22:27.690 But he does want to have it part of the advisory opinion, 00:22:27.690 --> 00:22:32.650 because he's saying incorporate the following additional 00:22:32.650 --> 00:22:33.500 facts. 00:22:33.500 --> 00:22:38.559 But on these additional facts, you don't really know what 00:22:38.559 --> 00:22:43.740 his application says about whether it's real property that 00:22:43.740 --> 00:22:44.500 he owns 00:22:44.500 --> 00:22:50.089 or whether he just represents the property owner as an 00:22:50.089 --> 00:22:51.500 attorney. 00:22:51.500 --> 00:22:56.460 So he doesn't really disclose exactly what the pending 00:22:56.460 --> 00:23:00.750 application is about, so you could actually apply the 00:23:00.750 --> 00:23:02.500 conflict of interest. 00:23:02.500 --> 00:23:07.619 So you could just say something general with the 00:23:07.619 --> 00:23:09.500 application. 00:23:09.500 --> 00:23:14.500 I move that we include in our advisory opinion that for the 00:23:14.500 --> 00:23:18.500 specific combined land use request, 00:23:18.500 --> 00:23:25.710 it would be inquired about if his involvement meets any of 00:23:25.710 --> 00:23:33.500 paragraphs A through H in Section 2-273(a)(1), 00:23:33.500 --> 00:23:37.500 then he would need to recuse himself. 00:23:37.500 --> 00:23:42.500 Yeah, because he hasn't really said exactly what it was. 00:23:42.500 --> 00:23:43.500 Yeah. 00:23:43.500 --> 00:23:47.420 It appears to be a land interest, but she's correct that it 00:23:47.420 --> 00:23:48.500 's not clear. 00:23:48.500 --> 00:23:49.500 It's not clear. 00:23:49.500 --> 00:23:50.500 He could be -- 00:23:50.500 --> 00:23:53.500 He could be -- 00:23:53.500 --> 00:23:57.319 He could be drafting a purchase and sale agreement for that 00:23:57.319 --> 00:23:58.500 application. 00:23:58.500 --> 00:24:03.500 So it's not really giving us a whole lot. 00:24:03.500 --> 00:24:04.500 Okay. 00:24:04.500 --> 00:24:06.500 I'll second that. 00:24:06.500 --> 00:24:08.500 All right. 00:24:08.500 --> 00:24:12.500 But before we vote, do you want a little discussion? 00:24:12.500 --> 00:24:16.500 Just because I have a question. 00:24:16.500 --> 00:24:23.190 Do we not have a way to essentially not issue an opinion on 00:24:23.190 --> 00:24:26.700 a specific thing because there aren't enough facts for us 00:24:26.700 --> 00:24:27.500 to issue an opinion? 00:24:27.500 --> 00:24:29.799 I don't want to issue an opinion and say, "Hey, well, if 00:24:29.799 --> 00:24:31.059 you meet the ethics ordinance, make sure you recuse 00:24:31.059 --> 00:24:31.500 yourself." 00:24:31.500 --> 00:24:32.500 Yeah. 00:24:32.500 --> 00:24:33.500 You know, that's not really an opinion. 00:24:33.500 --> 00:24:36.900 I'd rather someone says, "Hey, on this, you've got to take 00:24:36.900 --> 00:24:39.500 yourself out on this particular matter. 00:24:39.500 --> 00:24:42.839 On your second thing, we really don't know what you're 00:24:42.839 --> 00:24:45.920 asking, so we can't give you an opinion if you want to res 00:24:45.920 --> 00:24:46.500 ubmit something." 00:24:46.500 --> 00:24:50.579 We have done that before, at least once where we said, " 00:24:50.579 --> 00:24:55.490 Here's the clear determination for this part of your request 00:24:55.490 --> 00:24:59.940 for an advisory opinion, and then on this part, we did not 00:24:59.940 --> 00:25:05.940 issue any specific opinion on that, but we didn't refer to 00:25:05.940 --> 00:25:07.500 it in the advisory." 00:25:07.500 --> 00:25:12.500 So, I... 00:25:12.500 --> 00:25:14.500 Was it C2, maybe? 00:25:14.500 --> 00:25:17.609 Is it the request where it did not fairly and accurately 00:25:17.609 --> 00:25:20.779 disclose the relevant facts, and so we just like, "Sorry, 00:25:20.779 --> 00:25:22.500 we can't issue an opinion on that particular issue." 00:25:22.500 --> 00:25:24.500 I can't remember what we used. 00:25:24.500 --> 00:25:29.039 I don't know what y'all used. I think an advisory opinion 00:25:29.039 --> 00:25:32.930 is really only good for a respondent if you've said 00:25:32.930 --> 00:25:37.500 whatever they think they're doing is not a violation. 00:25:37.500 --> 00:25:44.970 So, you know, you could issue an opinion that says, "Hey, 00:25:44.970 --> 00:25:49.250 if you're, like you're saying, you're violating the ethics 00:25:49.250 --> 00:25:52.500 ordinance, you should recuse yourself." 00:25:52.500 --> 00:25:57.109 Well, you don't really know on that application. It might 00:25:57.109 --> 00:26:01.500 be something that he owns some voting shares or stock on. 00:26:01.500 --> 00:26:02.500 No. 00:26:02.500 --> 00:26:07.710 Business part of it, or he might receive money for 00:26:07.710 --> 00:26:12.740 representing them as an attorney, or he might have, it 00:26:12.740 --> 00:26:18.500 might be his property or some interest in his property. 00:26:18.500 --> 00:26:23.849 You know, because you just don't know. So, we could just 00:26:23.849 --> 00:26:28.259 write it as for the additional facts that he wants included 00:26:28.259 --> 00:26:38.500 in this opinion that he hasn't provided any facts to show 00:26:38.500 --> 00:26:46.500 where 273A1H-H could apply. 00:26:46.500 --> 00:26:52.440 So, you know, he could, if he wants to disclose what he's 00:26:52.440 --> 00:26:53.500 doing. 00:26:53.500 --> 00:26:55.500 Right, yeah, I think. 00:26:55.500 --> 00:26:56.500 Resubmit. 00:26:56.500 --> 00:27:00.500 Yeah, I think we could, obviously there's a first piece of 00:27:00.500 --> 00:27:04.339 the opinion which is anything that he has no interest in, 00:27:04.339 --> 00:27:08.500 as he described in the request, he does not have to recuse. 00:27:08.500 --> 00:27:11.200 Well, and he's trying to come through the back door by 00:27:11.200 --> 00:27:14.259 saying, "Hey, I'm on this application, these guys have no 00:27:14.259 --> 00:27:17.500 interest, so make a finding that I don't have an interest." 00:27:17.500 --> 00:27:22.500 But that's kind of a back door way of trying to get in. 00:27:22.500 --> 00:27:26.319 Yeah, I don't, it wasn't clear, I guess I would say it wasn 00:27:26.319 --> 00:27:29.619 't clear to me that he was asking for an opinion on the 00:27:29.619 --> 00:27:33.240 specific case that he's talking about with the two of our 00:27:33.240 --> 00:27:34.500 landowners. 00:27:34.500 --> 00:27:35.500 Yes. 00:27:35.500 --> 00:27:38.500 He's saying, "I'm just going to recuse anyway." 00:27:38.500 --> 00:27:40.930 I do, I think that maybe you're correct that there's a 00:27:40.930 --> 00:27:43.500 piece of, well, what about if the other two landowners, 00:27:43.500 --> 00:27:47.009 which he doesn't know if they're going to submit something 00:27:47.009 --> 00:27:50.500 else, but if they do, does he need to recuse from those? 00:27:50.500 --> 00:27:51.500 He's the ones that are on that case. 00:27:51.500 --> 00:27:53.500 He's not asking for the opinion. 00:27:53.500 --> 00:27:54.500 He's not. 00:27:54.500 --> 00:27:57.500 He's just saying, "Include this in your facts." 00:27:57.500 --> 00:27:58.500 Okay. 00:27:58.500 --> 00:28:00.500 When you look at it, yeah. 00:28:00.500 --> 00:28:05.339 I hadn't thought about that Madison, but maybe that is the 00:28:05.339 --> 00:28:14.130 question he's trying to get to is that because he is, they 00:28:14.130 --> 00:28:19.250 have a common interest in that one application, would in 00:28:19.250 --> 00:28:25.269 the future he have to recuse himself if those other two 00:28:25.269 --> 00:28:28.500 landowners have a matter of 00:28:28.500 --> 00:28:31.500 a matter before counsel. 00:28:31.500 --> 00:28:36.009 I don't think that that common application would create 00:28:36.009 --> 00:28:40.329 some relationship that would violate the conflict of 00:28:40.329 --> 00:28:41.500 interest. 00:28:41.500 --> 00:28:44.559 I don't know that that's really what he's asking, but maybe 00:28:44.559 --> 00:28:46.500 that is what he's trying to get to. 00:28:46.500 --> 00:28:52.839 So I'm kind of back to the motion that provided, he would 00:28:52.839 --> 00:28:59.460 have to recuse himself for that particular matter because 00:28:59.460 --> 00:29:04.500 he says he has an interest in that matter. 00:29:04.500 --> 00:29:09.420 He says those three independent landowners, including 00:29:09.420 --> 00:29:13.930 himself, have a common interest in the application 00:29:13.930 --> 00:29:18.500 submitted to the city by McAdams on their behalf. 00:29:18.500 --> 00:29:23.500 So to me, he's saying there that he has an interest. 00:29:23.500 --> 00:29:28.500 I don't know what that is, but if he does, then he should 00:29:28.500 --> 00:29:28.500 recuse himself. 00:29:28.500 --> 00:29:30.059 He at least believes it meets the conflict of interest 00:29:30.059 --> 00:29:30.500 standards. 00:29:30.500 --> 00:29:32.500 Yes. 00:29:32.500 --> 00:29:37.160 I see that there are two different things, two different 00:29:37.160 --> 00:29:38.500 issues here. 00:29:38.500 --> 00:29:44.220 One issue where there is no conflict of interest, and then 00:29:44.220 --> 00:29:48.630 one interest where we have three different people trying to 00:29:48.630 --> 00:29:52.500 make decisions about a company that he might be involved in 00:29:52.500 --> 00:29:52.500 , 00:29:52.500 --> 00:29:56.549 or they're in company with him. I go back to the fact that 00:29:56.549 --> 00:30:00.250 we can speak for him because he put it in, but now he's 00:30:00.250 --> 00:30:02.500 speaking for two other people, 00:30:02.500 --> 00:30:08.339 and he's not sure exactly that they have any knowledge or 00:30:08.339 --> 00:30:11.500 whatever in the situation. 00:30:11.500 --> 00:30:17.500 I don't feel comfortable with that. 00:30:17.500 --> 00:30:21.150 Unless somebody can put it away in the language where they 00:30:21.150 --> 00:30:24.500 can, I'm like you, I don't want to get in a situation where 00:30:24.500 --> 00:30:25.500 , you know, 00:30:25.500 --> 00:30:28.329 oh, the mayor, he didn't do anything, but he's got his 00:30:28.329 --> 00:30:32.500 colonies over here, and they're working under sight for him 00:30:32.500 --> 00:30:32.500 . 00:30:32.500 --> 00:30:36.779 Because now, that's just wrong. But you know what I'm 00:30:36.779 --> 00:30:37.500 saying. 00:30:37.500 --> 00:30:42.599 Yeah, I think we are talking about, I think there's maybe 00:30:42.599 --> 00:30:47.500 three hypotheticals that we're kind of discussing. Well, 00:30:47.500 --> 00:30:47.500 one is not hypothetical. 00:30:47.500 --> 00:30:53.500 We know he has a zoning request, or some sort of land use 00:30:53.500 --> 00:30:57.460 request before the city, along with these two other 00:30:57.460 --> 00:30:58.500 independent landowners, 00:30:58.500 --> 00:31:04.619 and they are being represented by the McAdams Group. And he 00:31:04.619 --> 00:31:09.500 has stated that he will recuse from that case. 00:31:09.500 --> 00:31:15.460 His question, his first hypothetical is that if there's a 00:31:15.460 --> 00:31:21.500 land case or what some sort of pending matter that McAdams 00:31:21.500 --> 00:31:23.500 Group brings before the city council, 00:31:23.500 --> 00:31:26.069 that is not that case. Does he have to recuse from that? 00:31:26.069 --> 00:31:28.579 And you all have moved to that no, he does not, if there's 00:31:28.579 --> 00:31:29.500 no interest. 00:31:29.500 --> 00:31:33.819 I think the third thing we've been discussing, thinking 00:31:33.819 --> 00:31:37.500 about is, is if there's another case that the two 00:31:37.500 --> 00:31:41.500 independent landowners that are involved in this one case 00:31:41.500 --> 00:31:44.859 bring a separate case, is there a conflict of interest 00:31:44.859 --> 00:31:48.319 there? I think I heard Dustin say no, that there's no 00:31:48.319 --> 00:31:51.500 conflict of interest if they just bring a separate... 00:31:51.500 --> 00:31:57.700 If it doesn't involve some property where he has a land. I 00:31:57.700 --> 00:32:05.500 guess maybe to put it in simpler terms, if... 00:32:05.500 --> 00:32:09.480 I don't think that the combined land use request on that 00:32:09.480 --> 00:32:13.650 property creates a conflict of interest on some other 00:32:13.650 --> 00:32:16.500 property that doesn't involve... 00:32:16.500 --> 00:32:21.680 That he's not involved with based on our definitions in our 00:32:21.680 --> 00:32:22.500 code. 00:32:22.500 --> 00:32:26.230 But when they're all partnerships, the three of them become 00:32:26.230 --> 00:32:29.500 partnerships, how can you not be involved in it? 00:32:29.500 --> 00:32:32.500 Yeah, there's no partnership though, is what he's saying. 00:32:32.500 --> 00:32:35.500 He said they are all independent, have no common interest, 00:32:35.500 --> 00:32:37.500 financial, business or otherwise, 00:32:37.500 --> 00:32:43.519 with one another, except for their common interest in that 00:32:43.519 --> 00:32:48.839 particular application. So there is one application for 00:32:48.839 --> 00:32:53.500 land use, that it sounds like McAdams Group is, 00:32:53.500 --> 00:32:58.599 rather than Mayor Watts, Landowner 1 and Landowner 2, 00:32:58.599 --> 00:33:03.740 submitting separate requests, they have submitted one and 00:33:03.740 --> 00:33:07.500 it sounds like maybe it's the same property, 00:33:07.500 --> 00:33:11.650 I don't really know where the same area that would fall 00:33:11.650 --> 00:33:14.500 under that same land use request. 00:33:14.500 --> 00:33:19.309 He's saying that those three owners, the two other land 00:33:19.309 --> 00:33:23.920 owners and Mayor Watts don't have any sort of business 00:33:23.920 --> 00:33:30.940 relationship, the only commonality is that one land use 00:33:30.940 --> 00:33:32.500 request. 00:33:32.500 --> 00:33:38.650 So again, we're trying to gather some details from a two 00:33:38.650 --> 00:33:45.069 paragraph email that doesn't have a lot of detail. To me it 00:33:45.069 --> 00:33:50.500 's very clear that on that particular matter, 00:33:50.500 --> 00:33:55.099 he should recuse himself, since he says he has a common 00:33:55.099 --> 00:34:00.500 interest in that application with the other two landowners. 00:34:00.500 --> 00:34:02.500 I like it, let's vote. 00:34:02.500 --> 00:34:05.420 Well you could also just say without having more 00:34:05.420 --> 00:34:10.880 information about what the common interest is, that you can 00:34:10.880 --> 00:34:15.500 't apply the conflict of interest rules to it, 00:34:15.500 --> 00:34:21.500 because you don't know, going back to what you mentioned. 00:34:21.500 --> 00:34:25.639 Can we not pass the first part of it, make a motion on the 00:34:25.639 --> 00:34:29.679 first part, and again go back to the fact that we don't 00:34:29.679 --> 00:34:33.550 have enough knowledge in the second part to make a 00:34:33.550 --> 00:34:34.500 conclusion on that? 00:34:34.500 --> 00:34:36.320 Yeah, we've already done the first part, we're really 00:34:36.320 --> 00:34:37.500 talking about the second part. 00:34:37.500 --> 00:34:41.820 We don't have the right to divide it up, we don't have to 00:34:41.820 --> 00:34:43.500 make it one piece. 00:34:43.500 --> 00:34:47.150 Right, you can say, you've already determined, hey if he 00:34:47.150 --> 00:34:50.760 has no interest, it's just that McAdams is presenting it, 00:34:50.760 --> 00:34:53.500 it's fine, he doesn't need to recuse. 00:34:53.500 --> 00:34:56.210 Yeah, now we're talking about this other kind of more 00:34:56.210 --> 00:34:57.500 specific situation. 00:34:57.500 --> 00:34:59.500 That he says to be included in the... 00:34:59.500 --> 00:35:03.190 Right, and you could say, hey you gotta recuse, because we 00:35:03.190 --> 00:35:06.659 don't know enough, you could say, we don't know enough, so 00:35:06.659 --> 00:35:08.500 we're not going to issue an opinion. 00:35:08.500 --> 00:35:11.699 Or you could say, you don't need to recuse based on what we 00:35:11.699 --> 00:35:13.500 understand, even though. 00:35:13.500 --> 00:35:15.500 So those are kind of the three options. 00:35:15.500 --> 00:35:18.300 It sounds like we're leaning towards, we don't have enough 00:35:18.300 --> 00:35:21.650 information to issue this, because we don't know exactly 00:35:21.650 --> 00:35:23.500 what your interest is. 00:35:23.500 --> 00:35:31.260 I would move to amend the motion to read that the board 00:35:31.260 --> 00:35:40.440 issue an opinion, providing that the board has insufficient 00:35:40.440 --> 00:35:46.500 information to issue an opinion, 00:35:46.500 --> 00:35:53.809 as to whether or not Mayor Watts would have to recuse 00:35:53.809 --> 00:36:02.150 himself regarding the two land owners on the combined land 00:36:02.150 --> 00:36:04.500 use request. 00:36:04.500 --> 00:36:10.500 Pretty cool. 00:36:10.500 --> 00:36:14.340 So I think that was a motion to friendly amendment, so do 00:36:14.340 --> 00:36:17.750 you accept that amendment? Because you made the motion 00:36:17.750 --> 00:36:18.500 originally. 00:36:18.500 --> 00:36:19.500 I'll second. 00:36:19.500 --> 00:36:21.500 Well he's got to accept it first. 00:36:21.500 --> 00:36:23.500 Who's got to second? 00:36:23.500 --> 00:36:26.500 Yeah. 00:36:26.500 --> 00:36:30.050 I mean he says in his email they have a common interest in 00:36:30.050 --> 00:36:31.500 the application. 00:36:31.500 --> 00:36:35.500 That's why they have a common interest in the application. 00:36:35.500 --> 00:36:45.500 But I mean in his email he's saying, I guess I don't. 00:36:45.500 --> 00:36:47.980 I don't see the distinction between the first and second 00:36:47.980 --> 00:36:48.500 emails. 00:36:48.500 --> 00:36:49.500 I don't either. 00:36:49.500 --> 00:36:50.500 That's what I'm saying. 00:36:50.500 --> 00:36:55.500 The first motion that carried covers both emails. 00:36:55.500 --> 00:36:59.500 It says, hey, you've got to recuse yourself. 00:36:59.500 --> 00:37:02.500 I've already said you're going to recuse yourself, but you 00:37:02.500 --> 00:37:05.500 don't have to recuse yourself in general information. 00:37:05.500 --> 00:37:09.090 General statements from McAdams where he has no interest, 00:37:09.090 --> 00:37:11.500 he would not have to recuse himself. 00:37:11.500 --> 00:37:15.579 This particular, he says himself and the other two land 00:37:15.579 --> 00:37:19.500 owners have a common interest in the application. 00:37:19.500 --> 00:37:23.500 Yeah, and that's just additional background facts. 00:37:23.500 --> 00:37:27.320 The only question is in the first email, I request an 00:37:27.320 --> 00:37:30.699 advisory opinion, right, that is a question of request from 00:37:30.699 --> 00:37:33.500 the Board of Ethics to determine if I should recuse myself 00:37:33.500 --> 00:37:36.789 from deliberating and voting on any matters before the City 00:37:36.789 --> 00:37:40.090 Council brought by the McAdams group where I have no 00:37:40.090 --> 00:37:41.500 interest in the pending matters. 00:37:41.500 --> 00:37:44.670 Clearly he has an interest if the other two are submitting 00:37:44.670 --> 00:37:46.500 with him on that application. 00:37:46.500 --> 00:37:47.500 Right. 00:37:47.500 --> 00:37:51.340 It is one and the same, like I said, I think the second 00:37:51.340 --> 00:37:55.530 email is just clarifying that second sentence or the third 00:37:55.530 --> 00:37:59.650 sentence at the top about it being two other land owners in 00:37:59.650 --> 00:38:02.500 a land use request before the city. 00:38:02.500 --> 00:38:05.920 I think that's all the second one is and over disclosure 00:38:05.920 --> 00:38:08.500 always tends to confuse everything. 00:38:08.500 --> 00:38:11.820 And so if we just don't issue an opinion on that second one 00:38:11.820 --> 00:38:13.500 since it doesn't ask for it. 00:38:13.500 --> 00:38:17.059 Well he does say they represent my company together with 00:38:17.059 --> 00:38:20.500 two other owners in a land use request for the city. 00:38:20.500 --> 00:38:25.349 So in that request, because it's his company, he should rec 00:38:25.349 --> 00:38:28.500 use himself to the original motion. 00:38:28.500 --> 00:38:33.889 To me it falls under the original motion and the opinion, 00:38:33.889 --> 00:38:38.500 there doesn't need to be a second part of this. 00:38:38.500 --> 00:38:43.829 Yeah, yeah, so the first can you read the first motion to 00:38:43.829 --> 00:38:46.500 carry? 00:38:46.500 --> 00:38:53.360 Advisory opinion providing to Mayor Watts that not required 00:38:53.360 --> 00:38:59.179 to recuse McAdams group where there's no interest in the 00:38:59.179 --> 00:39:00.500 pending matter. 00:39:00.500 --> 00:39:02.500 Yeah, of course. 00:39:02.500 --> 00:39:07.230 And then this one does have an interest in the pending 00:39:07.230 --> 00:39:10.500 matter, he should recuse himself. 00:39:10.500 --> 00:39:16.500 Okay, so can we restate that motion? 00:39:16.500 --> 00:39:24.210 Do we want to go ahead and say on the second email, I guess 00:39:24.210 --> 00:39:28.670 it's his company and it would combine application that he 00:39:28.670 --> 00:39:30.500 should recuse himself? 00:39:30.500 --> 00:39:38.500 Yes, I think so. 00:39:38.500 --> 00:39:44.690 For that specific application, that land use request, he 00:39:44.690 --> 00:39:48.610 should recuse himself because regardless of the other two 00:39:48.610 --> 00:39:51.500 land owners, he has an interest in it. 00:39:51.500 --> 00:39:53.500 Because it's his company? 00:39:53.500 --> 00:39:58.119 He doesn't state what that is, but if that falls under 00:39:58.119 --> 00:40:03.500 paragraphs A through H of the conflict of interest section, 00:40:03.500 --> 00:40:05.500 then he should recuse himself. 00:40:05.500 --> 00:40:07.500 Yeah, if it falls through then. 00:40:07.500 --> 00:40:23.289 We did not ask for that opinion, but we could give it to 00:40:23.289 --> 00:40:25.500 him. But he has indicated he plans to recuse and you could 00:40:25.500 --> 00:40:25.500 just say yes, you should do that essentially. 00:40:25.500 --> 00:40:28.500 Here's mine. 00:40:28.500 --> 00:40:32.099 I think you have an option of if you want to make a motion 00:40:32.099 --> 00:40:33.500 on that part of it. 00:40:33.500 --> 00:40:38.500 He understands, yeah, I guess we can just leave it out. 00:40:38.500 --> 00:40:40.500 If you want to. 00:40:40.500 --> 00:40:43.980 So if we need to do anything with the amendment and the 00:40:43.980 --> 00:40:44.500 motion is... 00:40:44.500 --> 00:40:46.500 You can just let it die. 00:40:46.500 --> 00:40:48.500 You can withdraw. 00:40:48.500 --> 00:40:52.500 I'll withdraw that motion. 00:40:52.500 --> 00:40:55.500 But I would like to thank the mayor for submitting. 00:40:55.500 --> 00:41:00.500 We'll put the whole tax in the actual tax. 00:41:00.500 --> 00:41:05.420 So we're just blowing this off and accepting this or in our 00:41:05.420 --> 00:41:08.500 heads, combining it together. 00:41:08.500 --> 00:41:10.500 Yeah, I think they're the same. 00:41:10.500 --> 00:41:14.920 I think what you issued was, you issued an opinion that not 00:41:14.920 --> 00:41:20.090 the case that he understands that the case that he has with 00:41:20.090 --> 00:41:21.500 them creates a conflict of interest. 00:41:21.500 --> 00:41:24.500 And he has indicated he will recuse from that case. 00:41:24.500 --> 00:41:29.139 He asked for an opinion basically if that conflict of 00:41:29.139 --> 00:41:34.500 interest creates a blanket conflict with the McAdams group. 00:41:34.500 --> 00:41:37.780 And the opinion that you all have moved to issue is no, it 00:41:37.780 --> 00:41:38.500 does not. 00:41:38.500 --> 00:41:42.500 Okay, I'll move to adjourn. 00:41:42.500 --> 00:41:44.500 You want to second that one? 00:41:44.500 --> 00:41:46.500 I don't think we need a motion for that. 00:41:46.500 --> 00:41:47.500 No, you do. 00:41:47.500 --> 00:41:48.500 You just have to state what time. 00:41:48.500 --> 00:41:51.780 It is six.