Did the Mayor of Camp Verde, Arizona have a Conflict of Interest during her statement before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals concerning allowing a Motocross track on her son’s property?
Let’s take a look at that.
The Arizona League of Cities has guidelines on the legal responsibilities for a mayor or member of a city or town council.
Read it here: AZ League of Cities guidelines
The Town of Camp Verde is a member of the Arizona League of Cities.
In the introduction to the document it reads:
“Holding public office is an honor but it comes with certain legal responsibilities that can be a challenge. As an elected official, you need to know and understand the various Arizona laws that apply to your conduct in office and how to comply with them.”
Much of those guidelines deal with Conflicts of Interest, including the definition(s) of Conflicts of Interest.
(page 9)
It is our understanding that elected officials of the Town of Camp Verde are expected to read these guidelines, prior to being sworn into office.
In the matter of Conflict of Interests, the guidelines state:
“CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
One of the most misunderstood phrases in the media today is: conflict of interests. The phrase carries such negative connotations, and yet it is only natural, in our system of part-time citizen legislators, for elected and appointed officials to face potential conflict of interests situations.
It is not “bad” to have a conflict of interests, but it is illegal to fail to declare a conflict of interest under Arizona law or to participate or otherwise be involved in discussions on issues or contracts where such a conflict exists.”
(emphasis Camp Verde News)
That’s a good statement. We get it that elected officials are “part-time citizen legislators”.
The law defines 2 kinds of interests:
– Remote Interest
– Substantial Interest
Remote Interests are “… so minor that they do not constitute illegal conflicts of interests, …”
Substantial Interests are a different matter.
The actual law about Conflict of Interest is here:
A.R.S (§) 38.503 Conflict of Interest; exemptions; employment prohibition
Part B. explains fairly clearly what is a Conflict of Interest:
“B. Any public officer or employee who has, or whose relative has, a substantial interest in any decision of a public agency shall make known such interest in the official records of such public agency and shall refrain from participating in any manner as an officer or employee in such decision.” (emphasis Camp Verde News)
“… relative … a substantial interest in any decision of a public agency …”
Question:
When a Mayor speaks on behalf of their son at a Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting in regards to a decision about the son’s property, does that constitute a Conflict of Interest?
The law is also clear that Substantial Interests must be disclosed:
If the Mayor disclosed her conflict of interest, then all is well. No harm, no Foul.
If she didn’t, then Houston, we have a problem.
Here is the law on disclosure/declaration:
“Declaration of a Conflict
When a public officer or employee (or their relative) has a substantial interest in any decision of, or contract, sale, purchase, or service, to their city or town, the public officer or employee must:
1. Refrain from participating in any manner (voting, discussing, or in any way attempting to influence) in their capacity as an officer or employee a decision of the governing body or agency of the city or town; and
2. Make the substantial interest known in the official records of the city or town. For a member of the council, this can be done by either declaring at a council meeting that a conflict of interests exists and having this declaration officially entered in the minutes or filing a written declaration with the city or town clerk.
For an employee who faces a conflict of interests situation, the employee should file a letter with the manager or clerk declaring in writing that a conflict exists. Both officers and employees with a substantial interest must refrain from participating in any manner as an officer or employee in the decision or issue. As a best practice, you should file notice with the clerk as soon as you become aware of the conflict.” (emphasis, Camp Verde News)
Refrain from Participating
Make the Substantial Interest Known, in writing.
This is what the law states.
So, it would seem the Mayor’s choices were:
Refrain from Participating,
or Disclose the Conflict of Interest with the Town Manger or Town Clerk.
We will be requesting that document, if it exists.
Here is the entire transcript of her speaking before the Board of Adjustments.
Listen yourself, and You decide.
(Camp Verde News comments on the transcript are in blue text, brackets (), and/or italics or bold text)
(Just so you know, this is not an official transcript, but we attempted to be as accurate as possible.
Please let us know if we missed anything)
Board of Adjustment Meeting
August 22, 2023
3PM
On the Zoom recording of the meeting,
the Mayor’s comments begin at approximately at 2:13:31.
Mayor’s Comment
Mayor Jenkins: Dee Jenkins. I live at 557 W Pheasant Run Circle. Chairman, Vice Chair and members of the Board thank you for your service. I’m going to talk really really fast when I start because I time myself.
Chairman Davis: So good for you. OK.
Mayor Jenkins: Tell me when to go. Thank you. Why are we here today? Because Community
Development did not notify Jenkins of the complaint and provide an opportunity to resolve and because
Community Development did not follow procedure by gathering the parties together to discuss a solution. I purchased the property in the 1990s. It was me that built the original track.
Jason Jenkins purchased the property mid 2000s and enlarged the track and annually reconfigured the track. At no time during my time or Mr. Jenkin’s time were any nuisance complaints received by CVMO.
Mrs. Fambrough, the complainant, lives two lots to the South of Jenkins. She resided on Rustler Trail for many many years while Jenkins used the track, making no complaints at any time. Approximately two years ago, the Martinez moved next door to Jenkins placing them in the middle of Jenkins and Fambrough.
(Martinez is a professional Motocross rider)
Martinez and Jenkins became friends over their shared interest in motocross.
Unfortunately Martinez and Fambrough relationship did not evolve into a friendly one and ultimately Martinez obtained a restraining order against Fambrough which I believe precipitated all the actions that followed.
On February 6th Fambrough submitted an e-mail to Mr. Knight asking about the legality of the track.
Mr. Knight did not share that information with Mr. Jenkins.
Director Knight was aware Jenkins was working with staff on a grading permit. Bottom line, Jenkins is working on a grading permit while Director Knight has made a decision that makes the grading permit unnecessary.
Why Director Knight withheld that information is very concerning. According to code enforcement the first course of action regarding a neighbor dispute is to gather the parties together to discuss a solution and send a courtesy notice.
Neither occurred. There was no attempt by staff to resolve this complaint in a supportive proactive manner.
(how does she know all of this, unless maybe she was, um, the Mayor?)
Mr. Knight’s decisions as in the recommended changes to Arena Del Loma agreement, Mansker and Jenkins interpretations have thrown our town into turmoil.
(the turmoil might be because of the way code enforcement is/or isn’t handled, and the way the town code is interpreted to benefit a certain group)
The community elects Town Council as the legislative body with the authority to make decisions and approve codes.
Council is knowledgeable of the intent of approved codes and ordinances. Mr. Knight’s lack of understanding of codes has sadly been confirmed with Council’s rejection of the changes to Arena Del Loma, the Council’s rejection of his interpretation of the Agritourism code Interpretation and this Body that upheld the Animal Count
Appeal.
(What does Arena del Loma have to do with this case? She’s just trying to throw shade on Director John Knight)
(Councils’ rejection of the changes to Arena del Loma could just as easily mean they lack understanding of the code. It might also mean the owner of Arena del Loma has friends in high places)
She continues:
Our tax dollars, not Mr. Knight’s because he doesn’t live here, are wastefully spent defending his actions.
Wouldn’t our tax dollars be better spent on something that actually benefits our town. This case is even more flawed than Mansker and affects not just Jenkins but possibly hundreds of property owners.
During the meeting with Jenkins, Knight, Vice Mayor Moore and staff Mr. Knight did
acknowledge that this decision is applicable to all tracks, personal golf courses, zip lines, tennis, pickleball and basketball courts, dog obstacle courses, arenas and so on, meaning these activities are not allowed uses.
(oh wait, the director does know the code?)
A staff member at that meeting spoke up and stated another code enforcement officer will be needed. I find that attitude offensive and completely out of touch with the community. I respectfully urge the board on behalf of Mr. Jenkins and the citizens of this town to uphold the appeal.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Davis: laughter Yes (unintelligible).
Mayor Jenkins: I practiced.
Chairman Davis: It was.. thank you. We appreciate your comments and I know you were speaking as an individual not as mayor, right? (a little help from the chairman)
Mayor Jenkins: I meant to say that.
(really, she needed help remembering that she was “an individual” and not the Mayor?)
Chairman Davis: You wouldn’t have time.
Mayor Jenkins (returns to podium to state): I’m speaking as private citizen Dee Jenkins. I apologize that really was the first thing I wanted to say so thank you.
Chairman Davis: I was watching you.
Mayor Jenkins: So thank you for reminding me.
Chairman Davis laughs.
End of Transcript.
The Board of Adjustments Chairman addresses her as Mayor.
Maybe that is just an honorarium since she is the Mayor,
But, wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to call her Dee Jenkins?
Maybe, maybe not.
So, you might say: “She was there as an individual”.
That’s really the question: Was she?
Was she there as an individual, or as the Mayor?
We did some research on the “Private Citizen” or “Individual” concept for elected officials;
You can read that post here:
The takeaway:
Mayor Jenkins was speaking at an official meeting that was conducting town business.
As we previously wrote, there was a letter from Representative Selina Bliss
to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals addressing their decision to allow MotoCross tracks.
The town’s attorney responded with a letter.
The board was voting on that letter and the Mayor recused herself from that vote.
See that section of the post here:
Read the transcript yourself and you decide.
Then leave a comment below about what you think.
(if you want to hide your real identity, we understand. Town politics and all)
Now, let’s get back to the law.
This is where it might get interesting.
Remember above in the guidelines?
“It is not “bad” to have a conflict of interests, but it is illegal to fail to declare a conflict of interests under Arizona law or to participate or otherwise be involved in discussions on issues or contracts where such a conflict exists.”
IF she was there as Mayor, and IF she indeed did not disclose a Conflict of Interest, that could be a problem.
There are penalties for failing to disclose a Substantial Interest.
13 Penalties 38-510. Penalties
A. A person who:
1. Intentionally or knowingly violates any provision of sections 38-503 through 38-505 is guilty of a class 6 felony.
2. Recklessly or negligently violates any provision of sections 38-503 through 38-505 is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.
B. A person found guilty of an offense described in subsection A of this section shall forfeit his public office or employment if any.
C. It is no defense to a prosecution for a violation of sections 38-503 through 38-505 that the public officer or employee to whom a benefit is offered, conferred or agreed to be conferred was not qualified or authorized to act in the desired way.
D. It is a defense to a prosecution for a violation of sections 38-503 through 38-505 that the interest charged to be substantial was a remote interest.
The guidelines state:
“WHEN IN DOUBT ABOUT POTENTIAL CONFLICTS, ASK YOUR ATTORNEY! “
Here are the guidelines for legal opinions and which attorney to ask.
38-507. Opinions of the attorney general, county attorneys, city or town attorneys and house and senate ethics committee
Requests for opinions from either the attorney general, a county attorney, a city or town attorney, the senate ethics committee or the house of representatives ethics committee concerning violations of this article shall be confidential, but the final opinions shall be a matter of public record. (emphasis Camp Verde News)
The county attorneys shall file opinions with the county recorder, the city or town attorneys shall file opinions with the city or town clerk, the senate ethics committee shall file opinions with the senate secretary and the house of representatives ethics committee shall file opinions with the chief clerk of the house of representatives.
In the case of the Town of Camp Verde, the town clerk would have a copy of any such opinion.
These questions remain:
- Did the Mayor have a conflict of interest?
- If so, Did she disclose/declare this conflict of interest?
- Did she ask for an opinion from the town attorney?
If she did disclose it, then there should be a record of it.
We will be making a records request from the town clerk.
