Jul 07, 2020 Board of Ethics on 2020-07-07 3:00 PM (SPECIAL CALLED PANEL MEETING)

Welcome, everybody, to this specially called panel meeting of the Board of Ethics. President of this meeting is myself, Laura Tomlin, chair of the Board of Ethics. We have Madison from the auditor's office. The rest of the panel consists of Annetta Ramsey and Bob Swanbeck, and we also have Ian Duthloff from the Allen Berkowitz firm as special counsel, because since this involves a city council member, we have determined in the past that the city attorney has a conflict of interest since he represents the council person, and as far as representing the council person and giving advice to the Board of Ethics, so he's here for any support that we need. We'll jump right into it. Everyone is present, and I'll share my screen. Today, the item for your consideration is the Board of Ethics 20-011, and it's a request for an advisory opinion, number 20-001, received June 22, 2020, from council member Paul Meltzer, concerning potential pending matters, conflict of interest applicability, and recusal recommendations. Under 2-278 of the Board of Ethics, a three-person panel shall meet, which we are, and give an opinion within 30 days for advisory opinion. We'll go to the request. Council member Meltzer had stated that he owns the property, and there's a development being proposed at the corner of Bonnie Brann and West Oak Street, which is within 200 feet of his property, the development at that Bonnie Brann Oak Street requires a zoning change, and he wants an advisory opinion of whether there's a conflict of interest, according to the ordinance, that should compel him to recuse on matters pertaining to the development, and he also sent a second email adding that he has no family or other relationship to the development, just the proximity to the property. So I'll just head right over to, hurry, my toddler just busted in the door, a little distracted. Theodore, Theodore, go with Dada. Okay, sorry. Okay, so going over to the ethics ordinance, section 2-273 has prohibitions, section, or subsection A is conflict of interest, and subsection 3 defines conflict of interest, and conflict of interest includes a stake share, actual interest, or involvement in an undertaking in the form of any one of the following, and it lists six ways, including ownership of 5% of voting shares or in a business entity received of more than $600 from a business entity, ownership of more than $600 of the spare market of a business entity, ownership and real property of $600 or more, serving on the board of directors of the business entity, and serving on the board of directors of a nonprofit. And the board of ethics has looked at something similar, the first three complaints, we had 18-001, 18-002, and 18-003, and there were three panels comprised of myself, councilmember Jesse Davis, Dr. David Zoltner, and Kerry McDaniels, and there was a little bit of a different complaint, but it was about voting on developments when a council member owns nearby property, and those three complaints were all found baseless. So my reading of 2-273A is that Paul Meltzer would not have to recuse, and there's not a conflict of interest because he has said he does not own the development and only owns the land near it, so he's kind of in the place of like any other council member or constituent that owns property somewhere in the city, he doesn't own that specific property or part of that specific corporation. So I find there's no reason to recuse, and so if Bob and Annetta, I guess, I don't know if you're muting yourself. I find there's no reason either, yeah. I do have a question to clarify. Under number D, it says ownership in real property with a fair market value of more than $600, would that have to be the property that is being developed or is that his property? My reading is that it would be the property that's being developed because that's what they're voting on. They're voting on that specific property that's being developed at that corner, not on his property. And I think that's how we've interpreted it in the past, like I said, in those first three complaints. They were a little bit different than this, but kind of touched on some of the same things. Any other comments? I had started, let's see if I can bring it up, I had started an opinion. Let me share my screen. I had started an opinion to council member Paul Meltzer, advisory opinion 20-001, a three-member panel convened on July 7th, 2020, to deliberate on your requested advisory opinion. Oh, it should be, I don't know how, I actually copied this from a previous one I had written last year, I guess. 20-001, the panel determined you do not have a conflict of interest under 2-273(a)(3), since you do not have a stake share, equitable interest or involvement in the development near your property under 2-273(a)(3), a through F, which is the conflict of interest definitions I just read, we just looked at, and thus you are not required to recuse yourself on matters pertaining to the development, and then I would just sign it with my name. I don't know what y'all think of that, if I need to bring it back up or if that sounds good. I totally agree with it, except there's a typo on the last time you say recuse. Let me, I'll bring that back up, yeah, sorry, okay, oh, recuse, you're not required to recuse yourself, yeah, thank you. Any other thoughts, or if y'all are okay with sending that? I buy it. Okay, and then, and any thoughts from Mr. Seusslopp? Well, I would, yeah, yeah, no, Seusslopp is good. The rule, section 2-273, it uses the term conflicting interest, and so just for consistency and the use of terms, I would use that term conflicting interest. Okay, yeah, determining you don't have a conflicting interest, okay, let's see, okay, I just mentioned it once in that letter, okay, well, I think, let me, I think that covers it as far as our agenda item, and we'll send that letter, I'll get that to Madison, and is there anything else, Madison? I just wanted to see logistically how, I guess you'll send me the letter and I'll send it to Councilmember Meltzer, is that how we've done it in the past? That's how we've done in the past, and you can stick the City of Denton, you know, header on their logo, and yeah, that's how we've done it in the past. We can talk offline if we want to change that in any way, I think. Okay, yeah, that sounds good to me. All right, well, I guess I will, we'll adjourn the meeting, short and sweet, thanks for everybody looking at the information beforehand, and showing up today, and speaking about the issue. That was painless. Yeah, some of them are, some of them not so much, all right, thank you, everyone, have a good day. Thank you. Thank you. Stay safe.