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