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.
Stay safe.