$38 Million Follow Up
Since I promised a follow up to my last post if Brian Livingston responded, here it is.
Elected officials are held to a higher standard, it is all of our responsibilities to carefully watch for facts and fiction. I post to bring things to the light for the benefit of our citizens, with a hope to help inform of the happenings in Frisco.
Public trust requires more than meeting just the letter of the law; it requires honoring the spirit of the law to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and to remain consistent with a prior action.
With that in mind, here is the interaction Mr. Livingston and I had in the comment section of the previous post.
Mr. Livingston responded to another resident in the post with the following:
“I did in fact recuse myself previously unnecessarily based on my misunderstanding of what required recusal of a council member. Upon consultation and review, I realized that I had no reason to recuse myself legally or even to avoid appearing to have a potential conflict. In hindsight I could have communicated this publicly prior to the last vote. I welcome this being looked in to and have no doubt of the result. Hopefully, a retraction of this claim will follow shortly after proven incorrect.”
To which I asked….
“Brian Livingston Thank you for the response. I will post a follow up, but before I do could you please explain one more thing for me.
If you knew prior to the vote that you had no conflict, then why did you affirm to me on the 25th, after the vote, that it still existed?
The timeline in your explanation, and the facts at hand seem incongruent.
His response…
“The relationship I have with Hall Office Park does not create a conflict of interest. Your email asked if the same relationship existed. I should have assumed the worst from your email and stated that no conflict existed.”
So I reviewed my email again. Sure enough I did in fact ask if the “relationship” existed. Here’s the thing though, the email very clearly references the recusal, ergo a conflict, so its curious to me that someone would not understand the reference, but lets continue, hence my response.
“Quite right, the opening reference in the email was about a recusal, so wouldn’t it make sense the relationship I was inquiring was about the conflict?
Rhetorical question there, no need to answer.”
And lastly from Mr. Livingston…
“I’ll admit my answer was very short and done quickly. I should have waited to reply when I could have taken more time to respond. If you’d like to meet to discuss in detail let me know, but I am not going to argue on Facebook.”
Aside from his misunderstanding of my question, I do wonder about the following.
1) Had Mr. Livingston consulted the City Attorney about this change?
If he misunderstood the conflict rules, does that mean he had never consulted the City Attorney prior to January? It’s not just the recusal in December; he’s been recusing himself from HOP votes for some time now. Must not have, and not required, but always a good idea on any possible recusal to run it by the City Attorney….always. It’s one of the reasons we have one.
2) What about the Code of Conduct?
Many have asked why Mr. Livingston’s vote was not considered a conflict now when it was just one month prior. On that point, I cannot speculate. What I can say, based on experience and a careful review of the relevant provisions, is that they are specific and not ambiguous. We are therefore left to take Mr. Livingston at his word that he did not previously understand them.
With respect to the recusal form, it requires only a checkbox and does not call for a detailed explanation. Could additional detail have been provided on the form? Yes. Could a fuller explanation have been offered prior to the vote? Also yes. Yet neither occurred.
3) What about the law?
Under Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 171, an elected official must abstain from voting if they have a substantial interest in a business or real property. The City’s Code of Conduct further prohibits action involving a customer or client when a substantial economic interest exists. While both frameworks define thresholds and criteria, they are not identical.
Whether a conflict exists under either standard depends on the nature and extent of the individual’s economic interest, specifically, the level of compensation or financial benefit involved.
4) What about the spirit of the law?
Absent Mr. Livingston providing a clear explanation of why he initially recused himself and what specifically changed to justify a different conclusion months later, the public is asked to rely solely on his word. While I can accept that, and will, the repeated claims of “misunderstanding” are difficult to reconcile with the level of diligence expected of an elected official.
I’ll say it again: Public trust requires more than meeting the letter of the law; it requires honoring the spirit of the law to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and to remain consistent with prior action. That is the ethical course of action and best practice, and that is what we should expect from our elected officials. Even if no financial conflict exists, the ethical course was clear: maintain the recusal to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and to remain consistent with prior action.
Alternatively, transparency required a full explanation, before the vote of the reasoning, research, and then the facts that changed the decision after.
The public should not be left to speculate on what happened. As always, I am committed to ensuring transparency and accountability of our local officials.
