Denton City Board of Ethics dismisses complaint as baseless after hearing; respondent absent

The Denton City Board of Ethics voted on June 22, 2026 to dismiss a sworn complaint (26-001) as baseless after a special-call hearing in which the complainant, Adam Horowitz, presented evidence and the respondent, identified in the record as City Attorney Matt Reinwald, did not appear.

Horowitz told the board it had “one job” to determine whether a complaint was actionable and said a preliminary panel had dismissed his earlier filing without reading it. “Instead of fulfilling this basic duty, the Board of Ethics moved to dismiss the complaint as baseless in a whopping 2 minutes,” Horowitz said during his opening remarks.

The complaint alleged that the city attorney used the prestige of his office to advance private interests and that the board’s panel process and related communications may have violated the Texas Open Meetings Act. Horowitz also described an incident he said occurred May 14, 2026 involving a 13-year-old who sought shelter and alleged health- and safety-related omissions by Denton Police Department; he told the board he had submitted records requests and other exhibits to the city and the attorney general.

Board members debated two separate legal questions: whether the complaint, if accepted as true, would state a violation of the ethics ordinance, and whether the complaint was frivolous (defined by the ordinance as both groundless and filed in bad faith or for harassment). Several members said the underlying facts raised difficult policy and factual issues, but after reviewing the packet and hearing argument they concluded the complaint did not establish an ordinance violation.

One member noted that the city charter directs the city attorney to represent the city in litigation and controversies, and argued that this charter provision limits the scope of the ethics ordinance in this context. Another member said the complainant’s extensive packet (the transcript records a 718‑page evidence packet) showed preparation and a belief that an ethics violation occurred, and so did not indicate bad faith even if the member disagreed with the legal interpretation.

The board first addressed a procedural request by Horowitz to extend his presentation to an hour; members moved to keep his allotted time at 30 minutes and the motion carried. After deliberation a member moved to dismiss the complaint as baseless (meaning not a violation of the ethics ordinance); the motion was seconded and members voted individually by voice. The transcript records that the motion passed and that, because the board found no violation, it declined to impose sanctions.

The board closed its hearing at 6:42 p.m. and the chair reminded members not to discuss the matter outside the record to avoid ex parte communications.

Because the board found the complaint baseless under the local ordinance, it made no recommendation for sanctions or referral to the city council. The respondent was not present to offer any defense or rebuttal at the hearing, and the board did not reserve time for rebuttal when the respondent was absent.