WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:11.360 Welcome, everybody, to this specially called panel meeting of the Board of Ethics. 00:00:11.360 --> 00:00:16.140 President of this meeting is myself, Laura Tomlin, chair of the Board of Ethics. 00:00:16.140 --> 00:00:20.500 We have Madison from the auditor's office. 00:00:20.500 --> 00:00:25.820 The rest of the panel consists of Annetta Ramsey and Bob Swanbeck, and we also have 00:00:25.820 --> 00:00:35.640 Ian Duthloff from the Allen Berkowitz firm as special counsel, because since this involves 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 00:00:42.880 --> 00:00:48.660 of interest since he represents the council person, and as far as representing the council 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. 00:00:54.320 --> 00:00:57.120 We'll jump right into it. 00:00:57.120 --> 00:01:02.760 Everyone is present, and I'll share my screen. 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 00:01:12.160 --> 00:01:20.240 for an advisory opinion, number 20-001, received June 22, 2020, from council member Paul Meltzer, 00:01:20.240 --> 00:01:28.440 concerning potential pending matters, conflict of interest applicability, and recusal recommendations. 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 00:01:34.800 --> 00:01:39.480 opinion within 30 days for advisory opinion. 00:01:39.480 --> 00:01:56.360 We'll go to the request. 00:01:56.360 --> 00:02:01.720 Council member Meltzer had stated that he owns the property, and there's a development 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 00:02:07.640 --> 00:02:15.080 of his property, the development at that Bonnie Brann Oak Street requires a zoning change, 00:02:15.080 --> 00:02:19.240 and he wants an advisory opinion of whether there's a conflict of interest, according 00:02:19.240 --> 00:02:23.720 to the ordinance, that should compel him to recuse on matters pertaining to the development, 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 00:02:28.800 --> 00:02:33.400 the development, just the proximity to the property. 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 00:02:42.000 --> 00:02:43.000 distracted. 00:02:43.000 --> 00:02:45.480 Theodore, Theodore, go with Dada. 00:02:45.480 --> 00:02:47.440 Okay, sorry. 00:02:47.440 --> 00:02:59.940 Okay, so going over to the ethics ordinance, section 2-273 has prohibitions, section, or 00:02:59.940 --> 00:03:05.840 subsection A is conflict of interest, and subsection 3 defines conflict of interest, 00:03:05.840 --> 00:03:10.800 and conflict of interest includes a stake share, actual interest, or involvement in 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 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 00:03:24.440 --> 00:03:29.240 entity, ownership of more than $600 of the spare market of a business entity, ownership 00:03:29.240 --> 00:03:35.440 and real property of $600 or more, serving on the board of directors of the business 00:03:35.440 --> 00:03:43.280 entity, and serving on the board of directors of a nonprofit. 00:03:43.280 --> 00:03:49.840 And the board of ethics has looked at something similar, the first three complaints, we had 00:03:49.840 --> 00:03:58.960 18-001, 18-002, and 18-003, and there were three panels comprised of myself, councilmember 00:03:58.960 --> 00:04:03.640 Jesse Davis, Dr. David Zoltner, and Kerry McDaniels, and there was a little bit of a 00:04:03.640 --> 00:04:09.440 different complaint, but it was about voting on developments when a council member owns 00:04:09.440 --> 00:04:15.280 nearby property, and those three complaints were all found baseless. 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 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 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 00:04:35.660 --> 00:04:40.460 that owns property somewhere in the city, he doesn't own that specific property or part 00:04:40.460 --> 00:04:42.240 of that specific corporation. 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 00:04:51.400 --> 00:04:52.400 if you're muting yourself. 00:04:52.400 --> 00:04:56.640 I find there's no reason either, yeah. 00:04:56.640 --> 00:05:01.280 I do have a question to clarify. 00:05:01.280 --> 00:05:09.600 Under number D, it says ownership in real property with a fair market value of more 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? 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 00:05:21.880 --> 00:05:23.240 they're voting on. 00:05:23.240 --> 00:05:28.440 They're voting on that specific property that's being developed at that corner, not 00:05:28.440 --> 00:05:31.680 on his property. 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 00:05:35.600 --> 00:05:36.600 complaints. 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. 00:05:45.040 --> 00:05:47.640 Any other comments? 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. 00:05:53.360 --> 00:06:00.240 Let me share my screen. 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 00:06:13.760 --> 00:06:19.160 panel convened on July 7th, 2020, to deliberate on your requested advisory opinion. 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 00:06:24.760 --> 00:06:26.560 last year, I guess. 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), 00:06:31.400 --> 00:06:36.320 since you do not have a stake share, equitable interest or involvement in the development 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 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 00:06:48.480 --> 00:06:55.760 pertaining to the development, and then I would just sign it with my name. 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 00:06:59.360 --> 00:07:00.360 good. 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. 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 00:07:13.160 --> 00:07:18.160 recuse yourself, yeah, thank you. 00:07:18.160 --> 00:07:21.880 Any other thoughts, or if y'all are okay with sending that? 00:07:21.880 --> 00:07:24.680 I buy it. 00:07:24.680 --> 00:07:32.360 Okay, and then, and any thoughts from Mr. Seusslopp? 00:07:32.360 --> 00:07:39.000 Well, I would, yeah, yeah, no, Seusslopp is good. 00:07:39.000 --> 00:07:46.520 The rule, section 2-273, it uses the term conflicting interest, and so just for consistency 00:07:46.520 --> 00:07:52.960 and the use of terms, I would use that term conflicting interest. 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 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 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 00:08:20.560 --> 00:08:22.480 else, Madison? 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 00:08:27.240 --> 00:08:30.280 to Councilmember Meltzer, is that how we've done it in the past? 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 00:08:37.080 --> 00:08:40.960 on their logo, and yeah, that's how we've done it in the past. 00:08:40.960 --> 00:08:44.600 We can talk offline if we want to change that in any way, I think. 00:08:44.600 --> 00:08:46.680 Okay, yeah, that sounds good to me. 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 00:08:52.960 --> 00:09:01.240 looking at the information beforehand, and showing up today, and speaking about the issue. 00:09:01.240 --> 00:09:02.240 That was painless. 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 00:09:09.320 --> 00:09:10.320 a good day. 00:09:10.320 --> 00:09:11.320 Thank you. 00:09:11.320 --> 00:09:12.320 Thank you. 00:09:12.320 --> 00:09:12.320 Stay safe.