Oct 26, 2020 Board of Ethics on 2020-10-26 5:00 PM (SPECIAL CALLED PANEL MEETING)

And we're here for a special call panel meeting of the Board of Ethics. Today is Monday, October 26, 2020. It is 5 o'clock or 5.01 p.m. This meeting, the panel is going to consist of myself, Ronnie Mohair, and Rob Brainer. Also present is Ian Stoosloff. He is present at the meeting as well. We are going to consider ethics complaint number 20-001, which was filed on October 15th of 2020, concerning alleged violations of ethics ordinance section 2-273. And with that, I think we'll start the meeting. Yes, I think we need to select a presiding officer for the meeting. Madison or Madame Chair or Charla, I move that you be the chair of the hearing panel. I second the motion. All right, do we have a vote? All in favor, aye. Aye. No nays. So I'll lead the meeting. So Charla, would it be helpful if I give kind of some background on this? Absolutely. Okay. So like you just said, we received an ethics complaint admitted by Mr. Scott Campbell against Council Member Deb Armenter on October 15th. So in accordance with the ordinance, this panel is called to evaluate the complaint on its face to determine if it is actionable or baseless. And actionable means that the allegations and evidence contained in the complaint, if true, would constitute an actual violation of the ordinance, whereas a baseless complaint is that the allegations, if true, would not actually be, even if they were true, they would not be a violation of the ethics ordinance. So that's what's up to the panel today. So it's not even really to consider if there's evidence, just if on the face of the complaint, or it would be a violation. So would you like me to like pull up the complaint or what would be helpful? I do have it in front of me, which the complaint basically is complaining about at the dinner and city council afternoon work session beginning at 1130 on October 5th, 2020. Council person Deb Armenter actively campaigned for re-election. Do I need to read the whole, I can read the whole thing if you'd like. I think you can, I don't know if you need to. Okay, I mean, that's basically what we're here for. He talks about the unethical behavior, that's the words in the complaint, begins at about 39.50 in the video and continues until Mayor Watts says stop. So that's basically what we're doing. And I mean, I'm happy to start if that's okay with you, Ronnie and Rob. Okay, so in 2-273, you know, okay, the only thing that I saw with regard to this complaint that would even remotely to me be for any for discussion would be the 2-273G. And I'm just saying that as part of the 2-273, that's the only section I saw that really to even look at with regard to this complaint, if that makes sense. So I don't know if y'all had any thoughts or none of it applies. So I'm going to open it up to y'all. If I may ask, are you referring to what I think what I have is abuse of resources? Yes, that's the only thing in 2-273 that I saw it just in my opinion would even remotely be applicable. So but I want to know if y'all see something else that since we're supposed to look at actionable or baseless, I read it several times, I did not see anything that that complaint could even fall under as being actionable or baseless. Well, after looking at the video, and I read the complaint and looked at the video and I had a problem putting it together based on the time factor. When she held up the card, the card that had her name on it, when she held that card up and the time from that point to the time she actually put it down, she actually never once she never really mentioned the card per se, but she, I think she started to allude to it and what was on it but was now correct me if I'm wrong, she was about to allude to what was on the on the card or what it was for, but she was stopped. The mayor stopped her. So I just have a problem with that timing to say that that was a conflict because of the timing wasn't enough to justify anything because I just I just it was so sure I mean it was a matter of 30-45 seconds before she put the card down, I could be wrong on that, but I agree that that time factor I think Madison I just want to point out I believe in Ian please if you have a different opinion correct me, but the purpose of the preliminary assessment is not really to evaluate the evidence and I know that I included the link to the video but I just want to point that out it's it's more to evaluate if the complaint on its face would be if it was true regardless of the evidence I believe in please correct me if I'm wrong, would actually be a violation of the ordinance or not. Madison you're correct that is the issue before you today it's whether the allegations and the evidence that are complained in the complaint if they were true would that constitute a violation and so I think the that specific provision in 2-273 subsection G abusive resources that that provision would be at issue when there's an allegation as there is here that a an officer of the city used resources belonging to the city for personal purposes or what the what the code says is that that includes political purposes. Yes Rob so if I may ask Ian the way you had phrased that in the complaint it did spell out the video in the specific time so would it would it have been improper for us to go and review to view that video then and since it was part of the complaint or do we just take it as face value that it was at 39 and 50 seconds of the video. I think it is certainly relevant to your review you're looking at at the at the video that was included now I I should point out that under that in your determination you can't you're not allowed to look at information that is outside the complaint itself and making a determination of whether the allegations are actionable or baseless the video is even though it's not included in the complaint itself I think you read that broadly it's included it's incorporated just by reference and that's information that's available but that is certainly something that you can you can look at but it's it's not so much a an evaluation of a complaint on the merits but just whether it kind of crawled it's sort of a threshold question of whether assuming all of the allegations are true would that constitute a violation. Thank you. And if I can ask a question in in the complaint he states in armatures behavior is unethical for several reasons including conflict of interest comma ie and then he says using an official posted meeting of the Denton City Council to campaign for re-election during an active campaign is does that matter I mean I couldn't find anything in two dash two seven three like I said earlier except for that G that that would be applicable so I just didn't know if that was referring to some other number I mean I didn't see that it did but I just don't want to miss anything. You mean the weather another another subsection and two dash two seven three or even two dash two. Yeah I don't think there's another subsection that would be relevant two dash two seven three it includes the definition of conflicting interest and the complaint does specifically alleged there is a I think it uses that term conflict of interest so that so it's certainly two dash two seven three a is relevant but just reviewing some of the other provisions in two dash two seven three I think of section G abuse of resources is the only one that that would reasonably pertain to the allegations and I agree with that I just wanted to be sure just in looking at this complaint that it was all considered so based on the face of the complaint if that was true would it violate two dash two seven three G and Ronnie and Rob y'all jump in here at any time I just if y'all see something else in that two dash two seven three please let us know the question I have is I don't see anything somebody could point something else out to me I don't it the complaint then is under the two two point two seven three but nothing else as to any sub sections of that so it is it so it's with the information that we have it is our responsibility then to look at all of that section to see if anything may have been violated is that correct ma'am chair yes and I was saying I did that and I could only find G that would even be remotely applicable here yes and I didn't even have an if you know maybe this one or maybe that one that's the only one that I saw so it could possibly be applicable I mean on the complaint it if true would it be a violation I mean he says that she actively campaigned for reelection so she actively campaigned for reelection then I think that sends us to two dash two seven three G to look at it I'm with Ronnie I saw I mean I saw the video too it was sent and I wanted to make sure I reviewed everything but I understand what Mr. Stoosloff Stoosloff is saying that we're supposed to just look at the complaint and no evidence or anything outside of that so so at this point what are your wishes ma'am chair what are y'all thoughts about looking at that complaint just on its face just there and then looking at article G if that would even apply to the complaint to me if it doesn't then me it would be baseless because it wouldn't be a violation of G so I think looking at G closely with what Mr. Campbell put in his complaint is I think what we're being asked to do yes I'd have to say that it looks like that Mr. Campbell because of the first paragraph felt it was important for the video to be seen to give support to his next paragraph because on the face of it my opinion what he has given us yes it sounds bad but I would tend to agree with both of you I don't see where it fits into this particular G which is maybe the closest one we have I think that's that's why I wanted to ask about the video the importance of it because it must have been important Mr. Campbell but overall and looking at what we have available to justify any action I would agree that that's pardon the pun the bridge too far I agree with everything you just said and if you look at G it talks about facilities personnel equipment software supplies or staff time for private purposes including political purposes except to the extent that citizens have those same resources and you know there is that section two dash two seven one that talks about expectations of any of us that are city officials and you know there's a couple of those to me that would be applicable but those cannot be the basis for a complaint yeah I would hope it was more so that but that's not the basis of a complaint and I'm just saying that for discussion I would yes I would agree I would like to think that the expectations of nothing else could be used as just a reminder to all officials that though it cannot serve as a basis for a complaint nevertheless it's very important as how the public views us as officials and how we should conduct ourselves it's more of a conducting to me procedure on the expectations versus an actual violation somewhere that I truly can't find either yeah it looks like on the expectations that might be see and or d this is just my opinion but I just Ronnie you want to jump in I'm still I'm still at the point of I just don't see where it matches up I I agree unless it's in the expectations which are inapplicable for a complaint I I agree you know I go back to what Rob was saying here about in the complaint he used that that time factor as a way of leading into that second paragraph mm-hmm which would lead us into having to see the video to match that second paragraph up to his time factor because as he puts that in there but attorney here says that we're not supposed to use that correct mr. Ian is that is that what you're saying that you cannot use the video yeah for us for the three of us are you saying that that we can't use that for a well what what I was saying is that and and this is just under application well under the the board's rules this is rule d7 that rule says that a panel's review is limited to the contents of the complaint no extraneous information may be considered and then it goes on and says unless the panel wants to review information to consider whether you were going to make a recommendation that you hold a hearing to determine if it may be frivolous which is a different different question so so it really comes down to what under under the board's rules what are the contents of the complaint are the contents of the complaint the video or or not now the the complaint refers to the video but it you know it's it's filed as a you know as a document I think in this case I don't know if it was filed electronically but it refers to the video and it specifies where it can be found and so it's ultimately going to depend on how broadly you're going to read that part of your rules is that part of the contents of the complaint or not and I you know I think I mean ultimately that would be your interpretation of of your rules but that that is a question is is that something that you can be considered that can be considered here because it wasn't included as an actual attachment it was included sort of by reference was it referred to something that exists outside of the document itself but which is nevertheless publicly available well yeah and I think what's odd here is I agree with Ronnie it if we look look at the video and look at what's written there it's you know different for lack of a better word I mean I you know I mean it was there and I mean I looked at it I am having a very hard time matching that up because I agree with Ronnie it never got there it looked like that's where it was going and Mayor Watts you know conducted to me properly in the meeting not to let that occur and so it didn't but I mean he didn't attach it yes Rob oh no go finish up please no I was just gonna say and it wasn't attached I was just saying that I don't know if he if he let me ask you this and if if he had attached it um well I guess if someone if he had attached the video is that really different than he referred to the video does that make sense it makes sense that there's I think there is a distinction to extending it as part of an attachment or just making a reference to it here on your your the board's rule is that your review is limited to the contents of the complaint so what is the what is the complaint actually contain and it doesn't contain the video itself it includes a reference to it and it's a suggestion of where you can find it so it's not um you know I I think that's that's ultimately a question that you'd have to decide is is that even a does is that part of the contents of the complaint itself when it's just sort of it's just referring to that video and specifying that it can specifying where it can be found it can be found on the CDBenton website and you have to take you have to take some additional steps to find it you know if I look at the if it is part of it if I look at the complaint that first sentence I believe and I scrolled down to the statute but the the ordinance I'm sorry is that it makes a statement but then when you look at the video he referred to I'm not seeing that that occurred so if we're referring I mean that's this is my opinion so it looked like it was cut off to me so trying doesn't mean doing it in my opinion oh yes Rob and I appreciate that and the dovetail with Ronnie I think and I appreciate Ian's input on this because for us for future hearings but more importantly for the public if you're going to file a complaint it's going to be have to be very thorough for us to be able to look at it according to what I think Ian is saying in that if there is a video or if there are pictures necessary they should be part of the complaint as well and correct me if I'm wrong Ian but that way we're looking at all this without doing any outside investigation to see if this had merit is that a fair statement Ian that's that's fair and it's really going to come down to how how you want how you understand the contents of the complaint and for the for documents that exist online is it enough just to include a link to it or does it actually have to be submitted as an attachment you know as a standalone file and this this would this is you could also make the same raise the same question with respect to the postcards because the postcards were not included although they were displayed briefly during the video and should those postcards be included as well if that's going to be part of the allegations that's what I thought we really were discussing with those flyers because that's what was being brandished about so quickly that answers my question thank you madam chair the other thing I was going to say is in two dash two seven three g it makes a list there that's an inclusive list of facilities personnel equipment software supplies or staff time for political purposes private purposes including political purposes so I mean it's a city council meeting I I'm not matching up facility personnel equipment so forgetting all the other I unless it's city facilities the rest of it doesn't apply so I would like to suggest though since if we look at Robert's rules on this if she chairman if councilmember armature was recognized for a specific thing and then pivots to as we are being told a political thing I don't think that's proper because that wasn't the purpose for the recognition to begin with but but that's just a that's just an air of of that particular person but once you see the video when she she pivots it's to the question of what she was talking about maybe no I got you maybe I didn't catch that but once again I think we may be chasing something because I think we're all in agreement madam chair yeah and so if y'all have any more discussion we can have it otherwise I'm ready to call for our move for a vote yes round chair I move for dismissal of case is this correct Madison of case 20-001 as presented to us on this date October 26th that's the correct number and Rob just to confirm we're the motion we're supposed to decide baseless or actionable I think you're saying baseless pardon me yes the whatever correct terminology baseless yes ma'am okay all right all in favor of that motion to vote that it is we have a second yeah I'm sorry yeah I'm a second she Charles the second right he's a chair you're the second oh okay I'm the second I thought she said I was a second she said it's a delay on video sorry second did it y'all not hear that now there we go there's a video delay Ronnie whenever you're talking so that's why we're not responding right away okay yeah there's kind of a freezing going on so all right all in favor of the complaint being baseless say aye aye aye aye or raise your hand since it's video aye aye and there's no one else for nays Ian is there anything else that we need to decide I know that that is the issue and that's that's the only issue before you this evening okay and do I have a motion to adjourn the meeting one moment oh sorry um we do as I guess as a presiding officer of this meeting I believe you're supposed to file a written notification that the complaint has been dismissed with me I can send you some draft versions of that if you would like okay sure no yeah that would be great and we will have Ian review those just to make sure they look good okay and is that something that um Ian that I would just sign and send in or do I need to send it to uh Rob and Ronnie as well is it just me that sends it yeah it should just be you who sends it and it can be um yeah and and I can I'm happy to review it and um you know just to to address how much detail is included okay all right yeah a draft would be good but I would I want to get it right and um this is our first one of doing this my my me so me too get it right all right yeah I'll definitely send um you a few versions of that okay but that's that's all we need I'll take care of the rest thank you so is there a motion to adjourn I'll make a motion that we adjourn this panel meeting Rob seconded it all in favor of adjourning say aye aye raise our hands there we go all right so call this meeting as adjourned well enjoyed it y'all take care you too