Denton Board of Ethics backs 1-year ban for people who file frivolous complaints, declines board power to impose attorney fees

The Denton Board of Ethics on Monday directed staff to draft an ordinance change that would bar people found to have filed frivolous ethics complaints from filing another complaint for one year, and to take that draft to outside counsel for review.

The change arose from a review of past cases and a concern that frivolous complaints — particularly those filed during election seasons — impose reputational harm on respondents and incur city costs. The board discussed two sanction options: a one-year bar on filing new complaints and a mechanism for recovering attorney fees paid by a respondent. Board members agreed to pursue the one-year bar and not to equip the board itself with authority to impose attorney-fee recovery.

Why it matters: board members said frivolous complaints have been used as a campaign tactic and can exhaust staff time and city resources. Staff described a path by which a respondent could pursue attorney fees in civil court, but said the board does not currently have authority to collect money directly.

Staff member (Ethics staff) summarized the legal constraint: "Our understanding at this time is that we'd have to create, essentially, a civil cause of action, so that the respondent could go to court and sue the complainant based on your determination for those fees." The staffer said any language that would enable fee recovery would require additional legal steps beyond the ethics ordinance.

Board members recounted a recent election-cycle case they said had been ruled frivolous and then publicized. One board member said the change is intended to discourage bad actors who file meritless complaints to harm opponents' campaigns. Another member urged a broader matrix of sanctions: "If we're gonna have power, then we have to be able to hold them accountable," the member said, adding that the board should develop a clear set of minimum and maximum sanctions so application is more objective.

Several members said they were uncomfortable with the board itself imposing and collecting monetary fees on complainants. The board coalesced around a two-step approach discussed by members: (1) adopt the one-year ban as an administrative sanction and (2) allow respondents to pursue attorney-fee recovery through civil processes or have the city consider whether to invoice complainants for city-incurred costs. The board asked staff to consult outside counsel about drafting the ordinance language and to present the language and legal options at a future meeting.

The board also directed staff to return with an item for council consideration about whether the city — not the Board of Ethics — should be empowered to seek reimbursement for attorney or administrative costs incurred when complaints are found frivolous.

Next steps: staff will draft proposed ordinance language reflecting the one-year filing ban, consult outside counsel on legality and drafting, and place the drafts on a future agenda for Board and then City Council consideration.