WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:10.250
Good evening. It is Thursday April 27th, 2026. This is a

00:00:10.250 --> 00:00:12.560
Board of Ethics panel discussion.

00:00:12.560 --> 00:00:16.210
I have determined that we have a quorum of the panel

00:00:16.210 --> 00:00:19.239
present. We have the full panel here actually.

00:00:19.239 --> 00:00:27.079
And we are convened to discuss the Board of Ethics BOE 26-0

00:00:27.079 --> 00:00:35.600
17 ethics complaint, number 26-003, filed on August 12, 2026

00:00:35.600 --> 00:00:41.119
, concerning alleged violations of the ordinance section 2-

00:00:41.119 --> 00:00:43.240
273.

00:00:43.240 --> 00:00:53.539
So we will begin by looking at the agenda information sheet

00:00:53.539 --> 00:00:54.240
.

00:00:54.240 --> 00:01:02.020
So tonight our task will be to determine if the complaint

00:01:02.020 --> 00:01:08.239
is baseless, is actionable or baseless.

00:01:08.239 --> 00:01:14.670
And if we can go on to the received complaint, which is 24

00:01:14.670 --> 00:01:16.239
pages long.

00:01:16.239 --> 00:01:21.450
I spent a couple of hours going over this line by line, and

00:01:21.450 --> 00:01:24.859
I do want to make sure with both of the panelists that they

00:01:24.859 --> 00:01:27.239
did spend some time going over it.

00:01:27.239 --> 00:01:28.239
I read the documents.

00:01:28.239 --> 00:01:38.430
Andrea did too. So we are doing our best to be diligent. So

00:01:38.430 --> 00:01:41.239
exhibit three is the ordinance.

00:01:41.239 --> 00:01:47.239
I guess we'll come back to that in a minute.

00:01:47.239 --> 00:01:56.519
So basically the complaint is that this was brought by a

00:01:56.519 --> 00:02:03.730
complainant and he is alleging that the city attorney

00:02:03.730 --> 00:02:08.240
violated section 2-273 of the ordinance.

00:02:08.240 --> 00:02:13.289
And I guess if you'll pull that up, I think it would be

00:02:13.289 --> 00:02:18.240
best to go item by item and just make sure of that.

00:02:18.240 --> 00:02:24.240
So improper influence is the allegation.

00:02:24.240 --> 00:02:31.930
And so item C, one would be secure special privileges or

00:02:31.930 --> 00:02:37.240
benefits for such person or others.

00:02:37.240 --> 00:02:45.240
I could not find any evidence of that in the complaint.

00:02:45.240 --> 00:02:48.240
Did either of you?

00:02:48.240 --> 00:02:53.060
That was unfair to me. There was an account of my special

00:02:53.060 --> 00:02:55.240
privilege or benefit.

00:02:55.240 --> 00:02:58.870
Did you see it written in the report, what the benefit

00:02:58.870 --> 00:03:00.240
would have been?

00:03:00.240 --> 00:03:03.569
That was my concern is I could not see what the special

00:03:03.569 --> 00:03:07.240
privilege or benefit would have been that was gained.

00:03:07.240 --> 00:03:12.240
The document was difficult to follow.

00:03:12.240 --> 00:03:16.840
I did find the response from the deputy city attorney

00:03:16.840 --> 00:03:21.870
pretty clear that it laid out what was expected and I could

00:03:21.870 --> 00:03:24.240
follow it very easily.

00:03:24.240 --> 00:03:29.000
But in the complaint, comments were made that weren't even

00:03:29.000 --> 00:03:32.240
related and there was no justification.

00:03:32.240 --> 00:03:37.240
So it was difficult to follow the logic.

00:03:37.240 --> 00:03:40.240
So I did not see any evidence of that.

00:03:40.240 --> 00:03:44.590
I guess we'll go down each one of these and I guess we'll

00:03:44.590 --> 00:03:47.240
go on each item to make sure that.

00:03:47.240 --> 00:03:49.240
Does that sound like it could?

00:03:49.240 --> 00:03:51.240
You would like to take a motion on each?

00:03:51.240 --> 00:03:52.240
Okay, so you can.

00:03:52.240 --> 00:03:55.930
So do you want to, does someone want to make a motion about

00:03:55.930 --> 00:04:01.270
the item one secure special privileges or benefits for such

00:04:01.270 --> 00:04:03.240
person or others?

00:04:03.240 --> 00:04:10.240
Did either of you see any evidence that the city attorney

00:04:10.240 --> 00:04:19.240
secured any privileges as a result of the response?

00:04:19.240 --> 00:04:22.860
I would like to make a motion that we could not find any

00:04:22.860 --> 00:04:27.220
privileges, special privileges or benefits in the paperwork

00:04:27.220 --> 00:04:28.240
provided.

00:04:28.240 --> 00:04:31.240
Okay, so I'm going to be the second.

00:04:31.240 --> 00:04:32.240
I'll second.

00:04:32.240 --> 00:04:33.240
Okay.

00:04:33.240 --> 00:04:36.240
That's good since there's two of you.

00:04:36.240 --> 00:04:41.410
Is there any more discussion we need to have on this first

00:04:41.410 --> 00:04:42.240
item?

00:04:42.240 --> 00:04:44.240
Okay.

00:04:44.240 --> 00:04:46.240
So are you ready to vote?

00:04:46.240 --> 00:04:51.730
All in favor of the motion that there were no, there was no

00:04:51.730 --> 00:04:55.240
evidence of special privileges.

00:04:55.240 --> 00:04:57.240
Where's your hand?

00:04:57.240 --> 00:04:58.240
I'm fine.

00:04:58.240 --> 00:05:04.240
So it's unanimous.

00:05:04.240 --> 00:05:11.240
So we're going to move on to two.

00:05:11.240 --> 00:05:14.629
So put any special consideration, treatment or advantage to

00:05:14.629 --> 00:05:19.250
any citizen, individual, business organization or group

00:05:19.250 --> 00:05:22.589
beyond that which is normally available to every other

00:05:22.589 --> 00:05:27.240
citizen, individual, business organization or group.

00:05:27.240 --> 00:05:38.240
Did you see any evidence of that?

00:05:38.240 --> 00:05:44.240
Well, let's see.

00:05:44.240 --> 00:05:49.360
If that information was missing, did that benefit the

00:05:49.360 --> 00:05:53.240
police department or police officer?

00:05:53.240 --> 00:05:57.529
Well, the complaint is, I mean the allegation is against

00:05:57.529 --> 00:05:59.240
the legal department.

00:05:59.240 --> 00:06:00.240
The city attorney.

00:06:00.240 --> 00:06:01.240
The city attorney.

00:06:01.240 --> 00:06:02.240
Oh, okay.

00:06:02.240 --> 00:06:08.649
The main city attorney, so there was never a mention of the

00:06:08.649 --> 00:06:11.240
police department.

00:06:11.240 --> 00:06:13.240
Can I ask a clarifying question?

00:06:13.240 --> 00:06:14.240
Yes.

00:06:14.240 --> 00:06:19.610
The city attorney is, represents the city of Denton as well

00:06:19.610 --> 00:06:25.209
, and since the department, the police department is part of

00:06:25.209 --> 00:06:30.389
the city of Denton, it would fall under the preview of the

00:06:30.389 --> 00:06:33.240
city attorney, correct?

00:06:33.240 --> 00:06:37.620
According to the city charter, the city attorney is charged

00:06:37.620 --> 00:06:39.240
with representing.

00:06:39.240 --> 00:06:43.240
So he is the legal representation for the police department

00:06:43.240 --> 00:06:44.240
, correct?

00:06:44.240 --> 00:06:45.240
For the whole city.

00:06:45.240 --> 00:06:46.240
For the whole city.

00:06:46.240 --> 00:06:51.069
And that is where, because this is where we advantage to

00:06:51.069 --> 00:06:53.240
any citizen, right?

00:06:53.240 --> 00:06:57.029
Like, I was looking at this not normally available to every

00:06:57.029 --> 00:06:58.240
other citizen.

00:06:58.240 --> 00:07:02.129
Well, he wouldn't be available to me because I'm not an

00:07:02.129 --> 00:07:06.019
entity of the city of Denton, I'm not an employee of the

00:07:06.019 --> 00:07:10.079
city of Denton, so I don't think that that really applies

00:07:10.079 --> 00:07:14.240
in this case, because that is what his job is.

00:07:14.240 --> 00:07:16.240
He was doing his job.

00:07:16.240 --> 00:07:19.759
And that's where I would like, because that was the only

00:07:19.759 --> 00:07:23.579
point where I was kind of like, okay, if some, yes, I would

00:07:23.579 --> 00:07:27.240
not get the representation of the city attorney, but that

00:07:27.240 --> 00:07:30.240
is because I'm not an employee of the city.

00:07:30.240 --> 00:07:31.240
So.

00:07:31.240 --> 00:07:33.240
Right.

00:07:33.240 --> 00:07:35.240
So I would like to make a motion that.

00:07:35.240 --> 00:07:36.240
Right.

00:07:36.240 --> 00:07:41.350
Let me just mention, I did copy this because his complaint

00:07:41.350 --> 00:07:46.240
really didn't come out and say something very clear.

00:07:46.240 --> 00:07:51.370
But what I assume is that he's complaining that this report

00:07:51.370 --> 00:07:54.240
should have been released to him.

00:07:54.240 --> 00:07:57.930
And the law for this kind of report, you cannot go to the

00:07:57.930 --> 00:08:01.850
city with the Public Information Act request and ask for,

00:08:01.850 --> 00:08:05.720
you're required to go to the Department of Family and Prot

00:08:05.720 --> 00:08:07.240
ective Services.

00:08:07.240 --> 00:08:08.240
So.

00:08:08.240 --> 00:08:13.000
And I will say, as a therapist who has made these reports

00:08:13.000 --> 00:08:17.860
before, you get a number after sitting on the phone or the

00:08:17.860 --> 00:08:23.139
computer for sometimes hours, and that's the only knowledge

00:08:23.139 --> 00:08:26.240
you ever have of what happened.

00:08:26.240 --> 00:08:28.240
You can't even ask what happened.

00:08:28.240 --> 00:08:29.240
Right.

00:08:29.240 --> 00:08:35.960
So in your motion, I think there's no evidence that the

00:08:35.960 --> 00:08:38.240
city attorney was.

00:08:38.240 --> 00:08:44.039
Able was required by law to release the, what did he call

00:08:44.039 --> 00:08:46.240
it, the report.

00:08:46.240 --> 00:08:49.240
The complaint.

00:08:49.240 --> 00:08:53.240
The mandatory cross report to the EFPS.

00:08:53.240 --> 00:08:58.519
There's no evidence that the city attorney is required by

00:08:58.519 --> 00:09:03.360
law to release the mandatory cross report to the EFPS

00:09:03.360 --> 00:09:10.240
because state law provides that the.

00:09:10.240 --> 00:09:14.240
Cross report to the EFPS.

00:09:14.240 --> 00:09:17.240
Is only released by the Department of.

00:09:17.240 --> 00:09:18.240
Right.

00:09:18.240 --> 00:09:20.240
Family and protective services.

00:09:20.240 --> 00:09:25.240
So I think that's kind of the evidence for me.

00:09:25.240 --> 00:09:30.980
So there is no evidence that the city attorney was required

00:09:30.980 --> 00:09:34.240
to release this information.

00:09:34.240 --> 00:09:39.240
Nor would he have had, or she involved to.

00:09:39.240 --> 00:09:43.240
Well, he might be violating the law by reducing it.

00:09:43.240 --> 00:09:44.240
True.

00:09:44.240 --> 00:09:45.240
True.

00:09:45.240 --> 00:09:47.240
Privacy is pretty sacred.

00:09:47.240 --> 00:09:48.240
Yes.

00:09:48.240 --> 00:09:54.370
And it's a protection not only of that 13 year old minor,

00:09:54.370 --> 00:09:57.240
but also of their family.

00:09:57.240 --> 00:09:58.240
And that was my next question.

00:09:58.240 --> 00:10:01.429
As a special education teacher, confidentiality and then

00:10:01.429 --> 00:10:04.450
who has the privilege of getting certain information is

00:10:04.450 --> 00:10:05.240
very much.

00:10:05.240 --> 00:10:06.240
Yeah.

00:10:06.240 --> 00:10:10.320
And that's exactly how it went to me is like what basis did

00:10:10.320 --> 00:10:13.240
he have to obtain information that.

00:10:13.240 --> 00:10:17.850
He did see a turn he had no no he was not authorized by law

00:10:17.850 --> 00:10:20.240
to release that report.

00:10:20.240 --> 00:10:23.240
Right.

00:10:23.240 --> 00:10:27.240
There's no evidence that he was required to.

00:10:27.240 --> 00:10:31.240
So check me on the statement of this motion.

00:10:31.240 --> 00:10:35.870
There is no evidence that section two was violated and then

00:10:35.870 --> 00:10:39.840
the city attorney was not required to release this

00:10:39.840 --> 00:10:41.240
information.

00:10:41.240 --> 00:10:43.240
By law.

00:10:43.240 --> 00:10:46.240
And it would have been a break in the law.

00:10:46.240 --> 00:10:47.240
Yeah.

00:10:47.240 --> 00:10:52.730
Or I would say maybe a violation of confidentiality if he

00:10:52.730 --> 00:10:56.240
has released that cross report.

00:10:56.240 --> 00:10:59.240
So do I hear a second on that?

00:10:59.240 --> 00:11:01.240
I'll second.

00:11:01.240 --> 00:11:02.240
All right.

00:11:02.240 --> 00:11:07.240
Any more discussion we need to have on item two?

00:11:07.240 --> 00:11:08.240
Okay.

00:11:08.240 --> 00:11:09.240
Ready to vote.

00:11:09.240 --> 00:11:13.690
So all in favor of this motion as I just previously stated

00:11:13.690 --> 00:11:15.240
raise your hand.

00:11:15.240 --> 00:11:16.240
Aye.

00:11:16.240 --> 00:11:20.240
Okay.

00:11:20.240 --> 00:11:21.240
Item three.

00:11:21.240 --> 00:11:25.169
Assert the privilege of the officials or employees city

00:11:25.169 --> 00:11:27.240
position for the purpose.

00:11:27.240 --> 00:11:30.789
But when you look back to his complaint isn't he only alleg

00:11:30.789 --> 00:11:36.330
ing a violation of 273(e)(2) he's not saying one three four

00:11:36.330 --> 00:11:37.240
five.

00:11:37.240 --> 00:11:38.240
Yes.

00:11:38.240 --> 00:11:42.490
So I don't think you have to make a motion for the rest of

00:11:42.490 --> 00:11:43.240
them.

00:11:43.240 --> 00:11:46.350
That confused me because when I was looking at I was

00:11:46.350 --> 00:11:49.240
wondering did he know that they're all two.

00:11:49.240 --> 00:11:55.240
So yeah I would assume that he meant just section two of E.

00:11:55.240 --> 00:11:58.000
Well I will say that I looked through the rest of the code

00:11:58.000 --> 00:12:00.639
to see if there was anything else that might have been

00:12:00.639 --> 00:12:05.240
violated and I did not find any evidence of that.

00:12:05.240 --> 00:12:10.240
And he titles it violation of its ordinance 273(e)(2).

00:12:10.240 --> 00:12:13.240
So he has to address one per year.

00:12:13.240 --> 00:12:14.240
Okay.

00:12:14.240 --> 00:12:16.240
Four or five.

00:12:16.240 --> 00:12:17.240
Okay.

00:12:17.240 --> 00:12:22.240
So we can vote it on two.

00:12:22.240 --> 00:12:28.450
Is there any other discussion that we need to have before

00:12:28.450 --> 00:12:34.649
we move on to deciding if this complaint is actionable or

00:12:34.649 --> 00:12:36.240
baseless?

00:12:36.240 --> 00:12:39.240
No I don't think so.

00:12:39.240 --> 00:12:46.240
So I would entertain a motion that this is not actionable.

00:12:46.240 --> 00:12:47.240
That is baseless.

00:12:47.240 --> 00:12:48.240
That is baseless.

00:12:48.240 --> 00:12:50.240
Sorry.

00:12:50.240 --> 00:12:52.240
That is baseless.

00:12:52.240 --> 00:12:53.240
Okay.

00:12:53.240 --> 00:12:54.240
A second.

00:12:54.240 --> 00:12:58.240
A second.

00:12:58.240 --> 00:12:59.240
Okay.

00:12:59.240 --> 00:13:06.240
Any more discussion that we need to have about it?

00:13:06.240 --> 00:13:07.240
Okay.

00:13:07.240 --> 00:13:09.240
Ready to vote?

00:13:09.240 --> 00:13:11.240
All in favor?

00:13:11.240 --> 00:13:12.240
Aye.

00:13:12.240 --> 00:13:13.240
Aye.

00:13:13.240 --> 00:13:17.240
Okay.

00:13:17.240 --> 00:13:22.240
Do we need to talk about revolting?

00:13:22.240 --> 00:13:24.240
You just listed it as baseless.

00:13:24.240 --> 00:13:26.240
At this point we vote it as baseless.

00:13:26.240 --> 00:13:27.240
Okay.

00:13:27.240 --> 00:13:28.240
Okay.

00:13:28.240 --> 00:13:31.409
But for the record I think the person sincerely believed

00:13:31.409 --> 00:13:34.240
there was a violation so I don't think it was frivolous.

00:13:34.240 --> 00:13:35.240
I would agree.

00:13:35.240 --> 00:13:38.240
I think he was a concerned citizen.

00:13:38.240 --> 00:13:39.240
Right.

00:13:39.240 --> 00:13:42.240
That really tried to make sure that everything was done.

00:13:42.240 --> 00:13:46.070
The thing that concerned me is that this is the second

00:13:46.070 --> 00:13:52.490
complaint of the same person against the same person and we

00:13:52.490 --> 00:13:56.240
've already covered this one out.

00:13:56.240 --> 00:14:00.990
My concern is that these, while it's really, this is

00:14:00.990 --> 00:14:06.899
important, it's really important that we do our due

00:14:06.899 --> 00:14:10.669
diligence, but it costs the city money each time we have a

00:14:10.669 --> 00:14:11.240
complaint.

00:14:11.240 --> 00:14:13.240
And it costs the taxpayers.

00:14:13.240 --> 00:14:15.240
So, yeah.

00:14:15.240 --> 00:14:18.240
But you can't take that into consideration.

00:14:18.240 --> 00:14:21.539
People have a right to file a complaint under the ordinance

00:14:21.539 --> 00:14:24.769
and have the panel consider and have the taxpayers pay for

00:14:24.769 --> 00:14:25.240
it.

00:14:25.240 --> 00:14:28.389
I just would hope that there's not another complaint on the

00:14:28.389 --> 00:14:29.240
same thing.

00:14:29.240 --> 00:14:31.240
Yeah.

00:14:31.240 --> 00:14:33.590
Well maybe we need to do these follow those three strikes

00:14:33.590 --> 00:14:34.240
you're out.

00:14:34.240 --> 00:14:35.240
Yeah.

00:14:35.240 --> 00:14:39.240
That would have to be approved in the ordinance.

00:14:39.240 --> 00:14:41.240
Yeah.

00:14:41.240 --> 00:14:44.240
There's things I would like to look at in the ordinance.

00:14:44.240 --> 00:14:47.240
We are working with what we have.

00:14:47.240 --> 00:14:53.240
So, it is now 546.

00:14:53.240 --> 00:14:58.240
And this meeting is adjourned.

00:14:58.240 --> 00:14:59.240
Thank you.

00:14:59.240 --> 00:15:01.240
Thank you.