1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:11,360
 Welcome, everybody, to this specially called panel meeting of the Board of Ethics.

2
00:00:11,360 --> 00:00:16,140
 President of this meeting is myself, Laura Tomlin, chair of the Board of Ethics.

3
00:00:16,140 --> 00:00:20,500
 We have Madison from the auditor's office.

4
00:00:20,500 --> 00:00:25,820
 The rest of the panel consists of Annetta Ramsey and Bob Swanbeck, and we also have

5
00:00:25,820 --> 00:00:35,640
 Ian Duthloff from the Allen Berkowitz firm as special counsel, because since this involves

6
00:00:35,640 --> 00:00:42,880
 a city council member, we have determined in the past that the city attorney has a conflict

7
00:00:42,880 --> 00:00:48,660
 of interest since he represents the council person, and as far as representing the council

8
00:00:48,660 --> 00:00:54,320
 person and giving advice to the Board of Ethics, so he's here for any support that we need.

9
00:00:54,320 --> 00:00:57,120
 We'll jump right into it.

10
00:00:57,120 --> 00:01:02,760
 Everyone is present, and I'll share my screen.

11
00:01:02,760 --> 00:01:12,160
 Today, the item for your consideration is the Board of Ethics 20-011, and it's a request

12
00:01:12,160 --> 00:01:20,240
 for an advisory opinion, number 20-001, received June 22, 2020, from council member Paul Meltzer,

13
00:01:20,240 --> 00:01:28,440
 concerning potential pending matters, conflict of interest applicability, and recusal recommendations.

14
00:01:28,440 --> 00:01:34,800
 Under 2-278 of the Board of Ethics, a three-person panel shall meet, which we are, and give an

15
00:01:34,800 --> 00:01:39,480
 opinion within 30 days for advisory opinion.

16
00:01:39,480 --> 00:01:56,360
 We'll go to the request.

17
00:01:56,360 --> 00:02:01,720
 Council member Meltzer had stated that he owns the property, and there's a development

18
00:02:01,720 --> 00:02:07,640
 being proposed at the corner of Bonnie Brann and West Oak Street, which is within 200 feet

19
00:02:07,640 --> 00:02:15,080
 of his property, the development at that Bonnie Brann Oak Street requires a zoning change,

20
00:02:15,080 --> 00:02:19,240
 and he wants an advisory opinion of whether there's a conflict of interest, according

21
00:02:19,240 --> 00:02:23,720
 to the ordinance, that should compel him to recuse on matters pertaining to the development,

22
00:02:23,720 --> 00:02:28,800
 and he also sent a second email adding that he has no family or other relationship to

23
00:02:28,800 --> 00:02:33,400
 the development, just the proximity to the property.

24
00:02:33,400 --> 00:02:42,000
 So I'll just head right over to, hurry, my toddler just busted in the door, a little

25
00:02:42,000 --> 00:02:43,000
 distracted.

26
00:02:43,000 --> 00:02:45,480
 Theodore, Theodore, go with Dada.

27
00:02:45,480 --> 00:02:47,440
 Okay, sorry.

28
00:02:47,440 --> 00:02:59,940
 Okay, so going over to the ethics ordinance, section 2-273 has prohibitions, section, or

29
00:02:59,940 --> 00:03:05,840
 subsection A is conflict of interest, and subsection 3 defines conflict of interest,

30
00:03:05,840 --> 00:03:10,800
 and conflict of interest includes a stake share, actual interest, or involvement in

31
00:03:10,800 --> 00:03:18,080
 an undertaking in the form of any one of the following, and it lists six ways, including

32
00:03:18,080 --> 00:03:24,440
 ownership of 5% of voting shares or in a business entity received of more than $600 from a business

33
00:03:24,440 --> 00:03:29,240
 entity, ownership of more than $600 of the spare market of a business entity, ownership

34
00:03:29,240 --> 00:03:35,440
 and real property of $600 or more, serving on the board of directors of the business

35
00:03:35,440 --> 00:03:43,280
 entity, and serving on the board of directors of a nonprofit.

36
00:03:43,280 --> 00:03:49,840
 And the board of ethics has looked at something similar, the first three complaints, we had

37
00:03:49,840 --> 00:03:58,960
 18-001, 18-002, and 18-003, and there were three panels comprised of myself, councilmember

38
00:03:58,960 --> 00:04:03,640
 Jesse Davis, Dr. David Zoltner, and Kerry McDaniels, and there was a little bit of a

39
00:04:03,640 --> 00:04:09,440
 different complaint, but it was about voting on developments when a council member owns

40
00:04:09,440 --> 00:04:15,280
 nearby property, and those three complaints were all found baseless.

41
00:04:15,280 --> 00:04:24,400
 So my reading of 2-273A is that Paul Meltzer would not have to recuse, and there's not

42
00:04:24,400 --> 00:04:29,520
 a conflict of interest because he has said he does not own the development and only owns

43
00:04:29,520 --> 00:04:35,660
 the land near it, so he's kind of in the place of like any other council member or constituent

44
00:04:35,660 --> 00:04:40,460
 that owns property somewhere in the city, he doesn't own that specific property or part

45
00:04:40,460 --> 00:04:42,240
 of that specific corporation.

46
00:04:42,240 --> 00:04:51,400
 So I find there's no reason to recuse, and so if Bob and Annetta, I guess, I don't know

47
00:04:51,400 --> 00:04:52,400
 if you're muting yourself.

48
00:04:52,400 --> 00:04:56,640
 I find there's no reason either, yeah.

49
00:04:56,640 --> 00:05:01,280
 I do have a question to clarify.

50
00:05:01,280 --> 00:05:09,600
 Under number D, it says ownership in real property with a fair market value of more

51
00:05:09,600 --> 00:05:17,960
 than $600, would that have to be the property that is being developed or is that his property?

52
00:05:17,960 --> 00:05:21,880
 My reading is that it would be the property that's being developed because that's what

53
00:05:21,880 --> 00:05:23,240
 they're voting on.

54
00:05:23,240 --> 00:05:28,440
 They're voting on that specific property that's being developed at that corner, not

55
00:05:28,440 --> 00:05:31,680
 on his property.

56
00:05:31,680 --> 00:05:35,600
 And I think that's how we've interpreted it in the past, like I said, in those first three

57
00:05:35,600 --> 00:05:36,600
 complaints.

58
00:05:36,600 --> 00:05:45,040
 They were a little bit different than this, but kind of touched on some of the same things.

59
00:05:45,040 --> 00:05:47,640
 Any other comments?

60
00:05:47,640 --> 00:05:53,360
 I had started, let's see if I can bring it up, I had started an opinion.

61
00:05:53,360 --> 00:06:00,240
 Let me share my screen.

62
00:06:00,240 --> 00:06:13,760
 I had started an opinion to council member Paul Meltzer, advisory opinion 20-001, a three-member

63
00:06:13,760 --> 00:06:19,160
 panel convened on July 7th, 2020, to deliberate on your requested advisory opinion.

64
00:06:19,160 --> 00:06:24,760
 Oh, it should be, I don't know how, I actually copied this from a previous one I had written

65
00:06:24,760 --> 00:06:26,560
 last year, I guess.

66
00:06:26,560 --> 00:06:31,400
 20-001, the panel determined you do not have a conflict of interest under 2-273(a)(3),

67
00:06:31,400 --> 00:06:36,320
 since you do not have a stake share, equitable interest or involvement in the development

68
00:06:36,320 --> 00:06:43,240
 near your property under 2-273(a)(3), a through F, which is the conflict of interest definitions

69
00:06:43,240 --> 00:06:48,480
 I just read, we just looked at, and thus you are not required to recuse yourself on matters

70
00:06:48,480 --> 00:06:55,760
 pertaining to the development, and then I would just sign it with my name.

71
00:06:55,760 --> 00:06:59,360
 I don't know what y'all think of that, if I need to bring it back up or if that sounds

72
00:06:59,360 --> 00:07:00,360
 good.

73
00:07:00,360 --> 00:07:04,760
 I totally agree with it, except there's a typo on the last time you say recuse.

74
00:07:04,760 --> 00:07:13,160
 Let me, I'll bring that back up, yeah, sorry, okay, oh, recuse, you're not required to

75
00:07:13,160 --> 00:07:18,160
 recuse yourself, yeah, thank you.

76
00:07:18,160 --> 00:07:21,880
 Any other thoughts, or if y'all are okay with sending that?

77
00:07:21,880 --> 00:07:24,680
 I buy it.

78
00:07:24,680 --> 00:07:32,360
 Okay, and then, and any thoughts from Mr. Seusslopp?

79
00:07:32,360 --> 00:07:39,000
 Well, I would, yeah, yeah, no, Seusslopp is good.

80
00:07:39,000 --> 00:07:46,520
 The rule, section 2-273, it uses the term conflicting interest, and so just for consistency

81
00:07:46,520 --> 00:07:52,960
 and the use of terms, I would use that term conflicting interest.

82
00:07:52,960 --> 00:08:05,040
 Okay, yeah, determining you don't have a conflicting interest, okay, let's see, okay, I just mentioned

83
00:08:05,040 --> 00:08:14,680
 it once in that letter, okay, well, I think, let me, I think that covers it as far as our

84
00:08:14,680 --> 00:08:20,560
 agenda item, and we'll send that letter, I'll get that to Madison, and is there anything

85
00:08:20,560 --> 00:08:22,480
 else, Madison?

86
00:08:22,480 --> 00:08:27,240
 I just wanted to see logistically how, I guess you'll send me the letter and I'll send it

87
00:08:27,240 --> 00:08:30,280
 to Councilmember Meltzer, is that how we've done it in the past?

88
00:08:30,280 --> 00:08:37,080
 That's how we've done in the past, and you can stick the City of Denton, you know, header

89
00:08:37,080 --> 00:08:40,960
 on their logo, and yeah, that's how we've done it in the past.

90
00:08:40,960 --> 00:08:44,600
 We can talk offline if we want to change that in any way, I think.

91
00:08:44,600 --> 00:08:46,680
 Okay, yeah, that sounds good to me.

92
00:08:46,680 --> 00:08:52,960
 All right, well, I guess I will, we'll adjourn the meeting, short and sweet, thanks for everybody

93
00:08:52,960 --> 00:09:01,240
 looking at the information beforehand, and showing up today, and speaking about the issue.

94
00:09:01,240 --> 00:09:02,240
 That was painless.

95
00:09:02,240 --> 00:09:09,320
 Yeah, some of them are, some of them not so much, all right, thank you, everyone, have

96
00:09:09,320 --> 00:09:10,320
 a good day.

97
00:09:10,320 --> 00:09:11,320
 Thank you.

98
00:09:11,320 --> 00:09:12,320
 Thank you.

99
00:09:12,320 --> 00:09:12,320
 Stay safe.