Good evening. It is Thursday April 27th, 2026. This is a
Board of Ethics panel discussion.
I have determined that we have a quorum of the panel
present. We have the full panel here actually.
And we are convened to discuss the Board of Ethics BOE 26-0
17 ethics complaint, number 26-003, filed on August 12, 2026
, concerning alleged violations of the ordinance section 2-
273.
So we will begin by looking at the agenda information sheet
.
So tonight our task will be to determine if the complaint
is baseless, is actionable or baseless.
And if we can go on to the received complaint, which is 24
pages long.
I spent a couple of hours going over this line by line, and
I do want to make sure with both of the panelists that they
did spend some time going over it.
I read the documents.
Andrea did too. So we are doing our best to be diligent. So
exhibit three is the ordinance.
I guess we'll come back to that in a minute.
So basically the complaint is that this was brought by a
complainant and he is alleging that the city attorney
violated section 2-273 of the ordinance.
And I guess if you'll pull that up, I think it would be
best to go item by item and just make sure of that.
So improper influence is the allegation.
And so item C, one would be secure special privileges or
benefits for such person or others.
I could not find any evidence of that in the complaint.
Did either of you?
That was unfair to me. There was an account of my special
privilege or benefit.
Did you see it written in the report, what the benefit
would have been?
That was my concern is I could not see what the special
privilege or benefit would have been that was gained.
The document was difficult to follow.
I did find the response from the deputy city attorney
pretty clear that it laid out what was expected and I could
follow it very easily.
But in the complaint, comments were made that weren't even
related and there was no justification.
So it was difficult to follow the logic.
So I did not see any evidence of that.
I guess we'll go down each one of these and I guess we'll
go on each item to make sure that.
Does that sound like it could?
You would like to take a motion on each?
Okay, so you can.
So do you want to, does someone want to make a motion about
the item one secure special privileges or benefits for such
person or others?
Did either of you see any evidence that the city attorney
secured any privileges as a result of the response?
I would like to make a motion that we could not find any
privileges, special privileges or benefits in the paperwork
provided.
Okay, so I'm going to be the second.
I'll second.
Okay.
That's good since there's two of you.
Is there any more discussion we need to have on this first
item?
Okay.
So are you ready to vote?
All in favor of the motion that there were no, there was no
evidence of special privileges.
Where's your hand?
I'm fine.
So it's unanimous.
So we're going to move on to two.
So put any special consideration, treatment or advantage to
any citizen, individual, business organization or group
beyond that which is normally available to every other
citizen, individual, business organization or group.
Did you see any evidence of that?
Well, let's see.
If that information was missing, did that benefit the
police department or police officer?
Well, the complaint is, I mean the allegation is against
the legal department.
The city attorney.
Oh, okay.
The main city attorney, so there was never a mention of the
police department.
Can I ask a clarifying question?
Yes.
The city attorney is, represents the city of Denton as well
, and since the department, the police department is part of
the city of Denton, it would fall under the preview of the
city attorney, correct?
According to the city charter, the city attorney is charged
with representing.
So he is the legal representation for the police department
, correct?
For the whole city.
And that is where, because this is where we advantage to
any citizen, right?
Like, I was looking at this not normally available to every
other citizen.
Well, he wouldn't be available to me because I'm not an
entity of the city of Denton, I'm not an employee of the
city of Denton, so I don't think that that really applies
in this case, because that is what his job is.
He was doing his job.
And that's where I would like, because that was the only
point where I was kind of like, okay, if some, yes, I would
not get the representation of the city attorney, but that
is because I'm not an employee of the city.
So.
Right.
So I would like to make a motion that.
Right.
Let me just mention, I did copy this because his complaint
really didn't come out and say something very clear.
But what I assume is that he's complaining that this report
should have been released to him.
And the law for this kind of report, you cannot go to the
city with the Public Information Act request and ask for,
you're required to go to the Department of Family and Prot
ective Services.
So.
And I will say, as a therapist who has made these reports
before, you get a number after sitting on the phone or the
computer for sometimes hours, and that's the only knowledge
you ever have of what happened.
You can't even ask what happened.
Right.
So in your motion, I think there's no evidence that the
city attorney was.
Able was required by law to release the, what did he call
it, the report.
The complaint.
The mandatory cross report to the EFPS.
There's no evidence that the city attorney is required by
law to release the mandatory cross report to the EFPS
because state law provides that the.
Cross report to the EFPS.
Is only released by the Department of.
Right.
Family and protective services.
So I think that's kind of the evidence for me.
So there is no evidence that the city attorney was required
to release this information.
Nor would he have had, or she involved to.
Well, he might be violating the law by reducing it.
True.
Privacy is pretty sacred.
Yes.
And it's a protection not only of that 13 year old minor,
but also of their family.
And that was my next question.
As a special education teacher, confidentiality and then
who has the privilege of getting certain information is
very much.
Yeah.
And that's exactly how it went to me is like what basis did
he have to obtain information that.
He did see a turn he had no no he was not authorized by law
to release that report.
Right.
There's no evidence that he was required to.
So check me on the statement of this motion.
There is no evidence that section two was violated and then
the city attorney was not required to release this
information.
By law.
And it would have been a break in the law.
Yeah.
Or I would say maybe a violation of confidentiality if he
has released that cross report.
So do I hear a second on that?
I'll second.
All right.
Any more discussion we need to have on item two?
Okay.
Ready to vote.
So all in favor of this motion as I just previously stated
raise your hand.
Aye.
Okay.
Item three.
Assert the privilege of the officials or employees city
position for the purpose.
But when you look back to his complaint isn't he only alleg
ing a violation of 273(e)(2) he's not saying one three four
five.
Yes.
So I don't think you have to make a motion for the rest of
them.
That confused me because when I was looking at I was
wondering did he know that they're all two.
So yeah I would assume that he meant just section two of E.
Well I will say that I looked through the rest of the code
to see if there was anything else that might have been
violated and I did not find any evidence of that.
And he titles it violation of its ordinance 273(e)(2).
So he has to address one per year.
Okay.
Four or five.
Okay.
So we can vote it on two.
Is there any other discussion that we need to have before
we move on to deciding if this complaint is actionable or
baseless?
No I don't think so.
So I would entertain a motion that this is not actionable.
That is baseless.
Sorry.
That is baseless.
Okay.
A second.
Okay.
Any more discussion that we need to have about it?
Okay.
Ready to vote?
All in favor?
Aye.
Okay.
Do we need to talk about revolting?
You just listed it as baseless.
At this point we vote it as baseless.
Okay.
But for the record I think the person sincerely believed
there was a violation so I don't think it was frivolous.
I would agree.
I think he was a concerned citizen.
Right.
That really tried to make sure that everything was done.
The thing that concerned me is that this is the second
complaint of the same person against the same person and we
've already covered this one out.
My concern is that these, while it's really, this is
important, it's really important that we do our due
diligence, but it costs the city money each time we have a
complaint.
And it costs the taxpayers.
So, yeah.
But you can't take that into consideration.
People have a right to file a complaint under the ordinance
and have the panel consider and have the taxpayers pay for
it.
I just would hope that there's not another complaint on the
same thing.
Yeah.
Well maybe we need to do these follow those three strikes
you're out.
Yeah.
That would have to be approved in the ordinance.
Yeah.
There's things I would like to look at in the ordinance.
We are working with what we have.
So, it is now 546.
And this meeting is adjourned.
Thank you.