15 Feb 13th-Feb 19th, 2025 phoenixnewtimes.com PHOENIX NEW TIMES | NEWS | FEATURE | FOOD & DRINK | ARTS & CULTURE | MUSIC | CONCERTS | CANNABIS | that he would file a lawsuit against them rather than wait for Mayes’ decision. Thacker’s chances might not be great. Gregg Leslie, the executive director of the First Amendment Clinic at ASU’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, doesn’t see an issue. Executive sessions are allowed under Arizona law for particular circum- stances like discussing hiring, contracts, security plans — and discipline. “If the ethics complaint is part of a disci- plinary proceeding, it looks like it would be covered,” Leslie wrote in an email. Yet from an ethics perspective — not what’s legally required but what makes for good governance — the frequent use of executive sessions is counterproductive, experts say. Phoenix’s commission often opts to weigh ethics complaints in private rather than in a public forum. During its September, December and January meet- ings, it spent the majority of meeting time in executive session, barring members of the public from hearing its discussions. Letters announcing the commission’s deci- sions — all dismissals — are viewable online but do not explain the commission’s reasoning in each case. Painter, the former White House lawyer, said blanket secrecy is a concerning habit for an ethics commission. “There needs to be a lot more informa- tion available to the public,” he said. “There’s a strong presumption in favor of hearings involving ethics allegations against senior city officials (being) public. At a minimum, the transcript should be available. There should be a court reporter and a transcript.” John Pelissero, Director of Government Ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics of Santa Clara University, echoed the sentiment. While he noted that some privacy measures should be taken, “If you’re an ethics commission, among other things, the public should expect they would demonstrate that they believe in being as transparent as possible.” When asked about the commission’s liberal use of executive sessions, Leyvas told New Times that “like most ethics commissions across the country, there are confidentiality provisions in place to protect the integrity of investigations and the rights of those involved.” A FRUSTRATING PROCESS To get answers out of the Ethics Commission — or at least to attempt it — you might have to seek them in person. Thacker has made it his mission to do just that. At the Jan. 16 meeting, the commission considered Thacker’s complaint about Jones. Thacker alleged that Jones failed to disclose a conflict of interest in 2021 while serving on the Alhambra Village Planning Committee, which makes zoning decisions before referring them to the city council. That January, the committee heard a development proposal for a new apartment complex near some properties that belonged to Jones. According to meeting records, Jones voted for the proposal, which had the potential to increase the value of his holdings. Months later, Jones announced the sale of a property on Central Avenue for $2.43 million. Aaron Duell, an attorney who repre- sented Jones before the Ethics Commission, argued that Jones did not have a “substantial interest” in the development proposal because he had already been paid $80,000 a few days before the vote took place and that sale price of the property was already fixed. Jones did not respond to an email inquiry from New Times. A similar ethics complaint against Jones was made by former Phoenix resident Diane Mihalsky. Her complaint noted that the city’s own ethics handbook for board and commission members spells out that it would be a violation for a board member to vote on “a zoning or license application that may affect the value of the board member’s property.” When weighing Thacker’s complaint, the commission did not seem to have considered that passage. All four members voted to dismiss the case, saying there was no violation of the city’s ethics law. Thacker responded with outrage. “Are we just disregarding the entire ethics handbook?” Thacker asked the commissioners. “Are we just going to go by the one-paragraph statute as our go-to and the examples given in the handbook are meaningless? Because if so, stop the charade of putting this up and stop holding these meetings.” Pietkiewicz was puzzled as to why Thacker cared. “Thank you for expressing your passion. It is very clear in your vocalizations and clearly in your writing, you have a clear desire for a particular outcome,” she said, with some condescension. “So my question is, why is this such an interest to you?” “I don’t care about Charley Jones,” Thacker responded. “I care about ethics at the city — the bigger picture.” He noted that there has not been a single sustained ethics violation in Phoenix in a decade. “This is a symptom of what’s going on,” he said. After that meeting, New Times asked Leyvas whether the body considers the ethics handbook beyond just the city code when making decisions. Three times, Leyvas declined to give a yes-or-no answer, saying it was best to wait for the final report of the decision to be issued. Notably, there are no final reports for any decisions available online. “I gave you an answer. It’s an answer,” Leyvas said. “Call it a non-responsive answer if you want, but it’s an answer.” After the meeting, Leyvas followed up in an email. “I felt bad about our interaction,” he wrote. “So wanted to offer a more thoughtful response to your original ques- tion: I think my obligation as a member of the Ethics Commission is to thoughtfully consider all relevant policies, laws and regulations when a question is on the table.” True to the commission’s form, it wasn’t a direct answer. See No Evil from p 12
