Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Complaint topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Denton City ethics panel finds complaint not actionable, urges full board to hold frivolity hearing
Summary
A three-member Denton City Board of Ethics panel unanimously found complaint BOE-26-001 not actionable at preliminary assessment and recommended the full Board hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the filing is frivolous; the panel also voted to attach charter section 6.02 to its opinion and asked that the hearing be scheduled within 30 days.
A three-member Denton City Board of Ethics panel on May 27 unanimously found a citizen’s complaint (BOE-26-001) not actionable at the preliminary-assessment stage but recommended the full Board of Ethics hold an evidentiary hearing to decide whether the complaint is frivolous.
Annette O'Rams, the panel's presiding officer, opened the special call and the panel reviewed an amended complaint filed May 6 alleging violations of ethics ordinance 2-27. Dustin Pavlik, a panel member, summarized the session’s narrow purpose: "this is just the preliminary assessment," meaning the panel must decide whether the complaint should advance to a hearing or be dismissed as baseless.
A committee member cited the city charter’s duty for the city attorney and argued that the charter requires the city attorney to "represent the city in all litigation," saying that representation of city defendants does not automatically amount to improper influence. Another panel member noted the complainant’s string of prior suits in local courts and the Eastern District of Texas and said the pattern suggested the filings might be aimed at obtaining payouts rather than addressing bona fide ethics violations. "It is mind blowing how much money this person has cost the city in defending against these litigations," the member said.
After discussion, the panel moved to find the complaint not actionable at the preliminary stage and voted unanimously to approve that finding. The presiding officer then moved to recommend to the full Board of Ethics that an evidentiary (frivolity) hearing be scheduled so that the full board can determine whether the complaint is frivolous and whether sanctions are appropriate. The panel voted unanimously to forward that recommendation.
Panel members also voted unanimously to attach section 6.02 of the city charter — the provision describing the city attorney’s duty to represent the city — to their panel opinion and recommendation letter so the full board would see the cited charter language.
The panel set a 30-calendar-day window for scheduling the full-board evidentiary hearing. The presiding officer adjourned the special call at 5:58 p.m.
The panel’s actions were limited to a preliminary assessment and a recommendation to the full Board of Ethics; any formal sanctions or final determinations about frivolity will be made by the full board at the evidentiary hearing.
