Denton Board of Ethics votes down proposal to allow closed preliminary-assessment panels

The Denton Board of Ethics debated whether preliminary-assessment panels for ethics complaints should be allowed to meet in closed session but voted down a motion to launch a code change to permit it.

The board’s discussion on April 14 focused on whether members should be able to hold a short closed-session meeting to review complaints before opening a public hearing. Diane (last name not specified), a board member, made the motion “that we have closed meetings prior to our open public meeting on complaints” for preliminary assessments; Kenneth Adams seconded. Chair (name not specified) restated the motion as a direction to staff to draft ordinance language to allow preliminary assessments to occur in closed session “to the extent possible.”

Supporters, including Diane, said a short closed session would give panelists time to review evidence, organize questions and present a unified message when the public hearing began. Diane said the closed session would help the committee “have our ducks in a row” and avoid early public commentary spreading incomplete information. Opponents said transparency of the decision-making process is paramount and that public observation of deliberations — even if messy — builds trust. One member argued the public needs to “see a messy conversation that is respectful” so the record explains how the board reached its decision.

Legal staff (Scott, city attorney) and staff (Madison) explained the limits set by the Texas Open Meetings Act and noted two constraints: 1) not everyone who falls under the ethics ordinance is a public officer or employee eligible for a closed-session employment discussion; and 2) complaints would still be subject to open-records requests even if discussed in closed session. Madison explained that a closed-session discussion could be held for some city officials (she listed the municipal judge, the city manager and the city attorney as examples of positions that are often treated as public officers), but the board would still have to take any formal action in open session.

After deliberation, the board voted. Diane and Kenneth Adams voted in favor; four members voted against. Chair (name not specified) announced, “It fails.” The motion therefore did not pass and no ordinance change was initiated based on that vote.

The board did, however, direct staff informally during the meeting to draft proposed language for other matters related to complaints (see separate article on ex parte communications). Any formal change to the code of ordinances would need review by the city attorney’s office and final approval by city council before taking effect.

Votes at a glance: - Motion: direct staff to draft ordinance/procedure allowing preliminary-assessment panels to meet in closed session “to the extent possible.” - Mover: Diane (first name only) - Seconder: Kenneth Adams - Tally: Yes 2 (Diane; Kenneth Adams) — No 4 (names not specified in the record) - Outcome: failed

Context: A preliminary assessment panel is the board step that decides whether a submitted complaint should proceed to a full hearing. If a complaint is found actionable at a preliminary stage, the matter would proceed to a subsequent public hearing with full notice, opportunity for the complainant and respondent to present evidence, and a full-board decision.

Next steps: Staff will not implement the closed-session change without board direction and council action; the transcript shows staff would, if directed in the future, draft redlines and present them to the board for review and then send them to council for adoption.