Public Integrity Commission Opinion on Mills

STATE OF DELAWARE

DELAWARE STATE PUBLIC INTEGRITY COMMISSION

MARGARET O’NEILL BUILDING

410 FEDERAL STREET, SUITE 3

DOVER, DELAWARE 19901                                      TELEPHONE: (302) 739-2399

FAX: (302) 739-2398

January 25, 2011

Vincent G. Robertson, Esq. Griffin & Hackett, P.A.

19264 Miller Rd., Unit A Rehoboth, DE 19971

10-34 Personal or Private Interest
Hearing and Decision By: Barbara Green, Chair, William Dailey, Vice Chair and
Commissioners: Mark Dunkle and Patrick Vanderslice 

Dear Mr. Robertson:

The Public Integrity Commission reviewed the question of whether City of Rehoboth Beach Commissioner Stanley Mills should have recused from matters related to the enforcement of, and subsequent discussions related to such things as possible amendments to the restaurant patio ordinance which “evolved into review and possible amendment to the City’s Noise Ordinance, based on how best to deal with possible concerns and effects of outdoor restaurant patios occupied at night.” Mills’ Request, Atch. 1, p. 2 1. Based on the following, he should have recused. We also were asked to provide advice for his future conduct. In summary, he should recuse from matters: (1) pertaining to issues arising from the above referenced activities; (2) directly related to the Blue Moon Restaurant; and (3) directly pertaining to the Aqua Grill and its owners for a reasonable period of time. We can only address the particular facts of each case. 29 Del. C. § 5807(a). Thus, we cannot address every related matter from which he may need to recuse. However, he may return to the Commission for additional advice as needed.

I. Procedural Posture:

Joseph Maggio, co-owner of Aqua Grill, contacted the Commission about Mr. Mills’ participation in matters relating to the City’s restaurant patio ordinance, the recent enforcement action, and subsequent discussions. M aggio e-mail,

Atch. 2. Mr. Maggio agreed not to file a complaint if Mr. Mills would seek an advisory opinion on whether he should participate in such matters, and Mr. Mills did so. Atch. 1, p. 1. 

II. Facts:

Mr. Maggio and his partner, Bill Shields, operate a local restaurant, Aqua Grill. Atch. 2. On September 11, 2010, police came to the restaurant, fingerprinted and arrested Mr. Shields, alleging a violation of the restaurant patio ordinance by having people on the patio. Id. Such enforcement also occurred at 8 other restaurants. Id. Mr. Shields says 6 of the 8 were gay owned and operated. Id.

Under the patio law, among other things, “Patrons must leave the patio by 11:00 p.m.” § 270-19(a). However, “a patio existing as of June 14, 1991, shall be considered a legal nonconforming use but shall be subject to all of the provisions of this chapter if expanded pursuant to a permit of compliance.” Id. at (a)(4). For example, if a restaurant had a patio that was open later than 11:00 p.m. before that date, they can keep the same hours on the patio that existed before the ordinance. In other words, those restaurants are grandfathered. Violations of Chapter 270, including violations of the patio law, “shall constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than $25, not to exceed $250 per offense, plus court costs.” Id. at. § 270-69.

The Aqua Grill is grandfathered. Atch. 2. According to Mr. Maggio, on the night of the arrest, the police would not accept the information that they were grandfathered. Id. He believes Mr. Mills spearheaded the enforcement activity. Id.

At this Commission’s meeting, Mr. Mills said he “went around town two nights on Labor Day weekend,”t¹¹–September 4-6, 2010. He said: “I went by every restaurant that had a patio and said this one is good and this one is not.” He said he did not have any information with him on which restaurants were grandfathered. After his weekend activity, he called Mayor Sam Cooper on Tuesday, September 7, and asked to meet with him and City Manager Gregory Ferrese, He said at that time he did not know anyone else had complained to Mr. Ferrese. They met at 3 p.m. that day. He gave them a verbal report on his “observations.” When this Commission asked for an example of what he reported, he said: “I walked around well after the 11:00 hour and observed that, ah,–my recollection was that–I went through my walking tour; that Adriatico was fine; that Eden had people on the patio after 11:00;” that “Atlantic Sands” had no one on the patio.¹²¹ At another point, he said the Blue Moon was complying.

^[11 Unless otherwise cited, statements from Mr. Mills are from his statements to the Commission. The transcript is not yet been finalized.

^[21 Mr. Mills said he could not remember the restaurant name, then referred to it as "Atlantic Sands." There is no Atlantic Sands, but there is an "Atlantic Seafood Grill" and "Atlantic Jazz

According to the Mayor, Mr. Mills spoke from his notes. Mills' Exhibit C, Statement of the Mayor, November 8, 2010, p. 2. He said Mr. Mills identified many establishments he felt were in compliance as well as those he felt were not. Id, The City Manager said there were 12 restaurants violating the Ordinance. Mills' Exhibit B, Minutes, City's Workshop, October 4, 2010. He said the meeting was in regard to that issue. Id. According to the Mayor, the City Manager said he would call a meeting with the Chief of Police, the Building Inspector and the City Solicitor the next morning. Id. The Mayor and Mr. Mills were asked to come, and did. Id.

The next day, September 8, according to the Mayor, the City Manager asked for "input of those assembled" [Mayor, Mr. Mills, Mr. Ferrese, the Police Chief, Building Inspector, and City Solicitor]. The Mayor said it was decided a “more comprehensive enforcement of the patio rules was needed.” Id. “Those establishments that Commissioner Mills had observed people on the patio after hours were to be notified that they may have violated the patio rules, and that in the future this was going to be more closely monitored.” Id. at p. 2,¹113. Mr. Mills said in a public statement that a list was compiled of complaints from all the restaurants which had been discussed at the meeting. Mayor and Commissioners’ Workshop Meeting, October 4, 2010, p. 4 2. At the Commission meeting, Mr. Mills’ said the list was the result of complaints made by the Mayor, Commissioner Lorraine Zellers, and others.¹³¹

That same day, a letter was prepared to go to 12 patio restaurants saying they may be violating the law and that enforcement of the patio ordinance would occur. Atch. 3. Mr. Mills’ said the majority of the letters were hand-delivered by the police and Building and Licensing that day or the next, with enforcement planned for the weekend. Mr. Shields and others were arrested that weekend.

Yard.” Both have patios; neither received a “warning” letter. Adriatico and Blue Moon did not receive a “warning.” Eden received a “warning.” Mills’ Exhibit D. Eden is grandfathered. Id. ¹³I The City Manager said that in a matter of three weeks in late August and early September

2010, three Commissioners came to him about patio ordinance violations. Id. at IT 3. He did not mention complaints from others. At a public meeting, the Mayor said on August 14 he was out after 11:00 p.m. on an errand and heard loud noises from a couple of unnamed establishments. Mills’ Exhibit C, Statement of the Mayor, November 8, 2010, p.1     He came back later with an
inexpensive noise meter, and although he said he was not trained, he thought the noise was about 100 decibels. Id. He also said he saw persons on a patio after 12:30 a.m. at another unnamed establishment. Id. On August 28, he was out to have dinner with his wife and friends, and said as he made his way onto the premises of an unnamed restaurant on Wilmington Avenue, he was confronted with music coming from an amplifier and speakers located on the patio areas. He said he could not describe the equipment further as he was “so offended by what I saw that I left immediately.” Id. at p. 2, 112. According to Mr. Mills, Commissioner Lorraine Zellers also had complained, but no details were given. We do know she was not invited to the meetings, and according to Mr. Mills, does not have any business interest in the City. We render no decision on the conduct of the Mayor or Ms. Zellers as we must base our opinions on the particular facts of each case. 29 Del. C. § 5807(c).

The charges against Mr. Shields and other restaurant operators were later dropped. Apparently, the records have not been expunged.

It was not until September 29 that a list of patio restaurants who were grandfathered, and who were not, was prepared by the City. Mills’ Exhibit D. There are 36 patio restaurants; 12 were given notice; 2 of those are grandfathered: Eden and Aqua Grill. Mr. Mills said that list was generated because of a request for that information from a restaurateur.

On October 15, the City held a public meeting on proposed changes to Chapter 270-19(a) relating to the regulation of restaurant patios. Atch. 1, p. 4. Mr. Mills said the enforcement and/or amendment of the patio ordinance “evolved to include review and possible amendment to the City’s noise ordinance in Chapter 189 based on a discussion of how best to deal with possible concerns and effects of outdoor restaurant patios occupied at night.” Id. at p. 2, If 1. The noise ordinance makes specific reference to the patio law in the Zoning code, City Code §189-9(G). Both, among other things, restrict music and use of speakers on patios. Id., and City Code § 270-19(A)(1)(d). At that meeting, some Commissioners suggested Mr. Mills recuse because he “was previously involved in the enforcement of one of them (the patio ordinance).” Atch. 1, p. 1 2. After a discussion involving the Mayor and City Solicitor, he did not recuse. Id.

On October 22, 2010, Mr. Maggio contacted this Commission about filing a complaint. Atch. 2. He believed Mr. Mills should have recused because: (1) he was involved in enforcing the ordinance; (2) his involvement targeted gay restaurants; and (3) his home and rental units are next to a restaurant with a patio. Id. Mr. Mills said he has an “obligation to enforce the laws” and “has participated in such enforcement.” Atch. 1, p. 5. At this Commission’s meeting, he said he was not involved in “enforcing” the ordinance because he was just passing along his “observations.” He denies targeting any restaurant. He acknowledged that he owns property, including a rental unit, next to the Blue Moon. He said his participation in the proceedings on the possible amendment of the City of Rehoboth Beach’s Patio and Noise Ordinances did not violate the Code. Id.

Ill. Jurisdiction:

(a) Personal Jurisdiction: This Commission has jurisdiction over local officials if the local government has not adopted a Code of Conduct approved by this Commission to be at least as stringent as State law. 29 Del. C. § 5802(4), Rehoboth Beach adopted an ordinance saying it has adopted the State Code of Conduct. City of Rehoboth Code § 27-1. However, it never submitted the ordinance to this Commission. Even if the ordinance were submitted, it is just an adoption of the State law, and Rehoboth has no independent Ethics Commission 

which would be required in any approved ordinance. Thus, this Commission has personal jurisdiction over Mr. Mills.

(b) Subject Matter Jurisdiction:

This Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to issuing advice on “this chapter”-29 Del. C, chapter 58. 29 Del. C. § 5809(2) and § 5807(c). To the extent Mr. Maggio is alleging the conduct discriminated against a protected group; and/or improper or false arrest, those acts are not found within “this chapter,” but in other laws. We have held that we have no jurisdiction over such claims. Commission Op. No. 98-25 (Commission has no jurisdiction over Constitutional issues, federal law, claims of improper arrest, etc.).

IV. Application of Law to Facts

Within “this chapter” there are provisions that apply:

(a)      Officials may not review or dispose of matters in which they have a personal or private interest which may tend to impair judgment in performing official duties. 29 Del. C. § 5805(a)(1) and (2).

(b)      Officials may not use public office to secure unwarranted privileges, private advantage or personal gain. 29 Del. C. § 5806(e).

(c)      Officials may not engage in conduct that may raise suspicion among the public that they are engaging in acts which are in violation of the public trust and which will not reflect unfavorably upon the government. 29 Del. C. § 5806(a). This is, in essence, an appearance of impropriety test. Commission Op. No. 92-11. The standard is if the conduct would create in reasonable minds, with knowledge of all relevant facts that a reasonable inquiry would disclose, a perception that the official’s ability to carry out official duties with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired. In re Williams, 701 A.2d 825 (Del. Super., 1997).¹⁴¹

Here, two personal or private interests exist. First, Mr. Mills has a personal and financial interest in his property and rental units which abut the Blue Moon. He told the Commission that in the past he had had complaints from his tenants about the Blue Moon patio noise. He also said restaurants that are complying with the patio law have complained to him about those that are not. However, those past events were not given as the basis for triggering his patrol of “every restaurant with a patio.”

¹⁴¹  In re Williams interpreted the Judicial Code of Conduct. Interpretations of one law can be used in interpreting another if language of one is incorporated in another or both statutes are such closely related subjects that consideration of one brings to mind the other. Sutherland Stat. Constr. § 45.15, Vol. 21A (5^th ed. 1992). Both judges and local elected officials are public officers subject to Codes of Conduct with similar purposes and obligations, including avoiding the appearance of impropriety. 

Mr. Mills admits his property abuts the Blue Moon, but states “the location of his property is no different than hundreds of other properties that are directly adjacent to commercial districts, commercial uses, or restaurants.” Atch. 1, p. 4 ¶ 4. However, as it relates to the Blue Moon, there is a distinct difference. He shares the same property line. He has an on-going direct personal and financial interest in owning and renting his property. Aside from his unique location, he is not like hundreds of others because this was not about a broad concern about being directly adjacent to commercial districts, commercial uses, or restaurants. It was about patio restaurants like the one with which he shares a property line. Moreover, he is not like other hundreds of others because he is in a position to take that personal or private interest and create laws or take other actions impacting on his next door neighbor which might also benefit his property.

Second, beyond his on-going personal interest in his next door neighbor’s activities, that Labor Day weekend he expanded his personal interest from just his next door neighbor to those like it—”every restaurant that had a patio,” to make note of, and report, “establishments he felt were in compliance as well as those he felt were not.” That was a personal interest; not an official duty. ^[51

His “evidence” admittedly did not differentiate between restaurants with patios who were grandfathered and those who were not. Mr. Mills said told this Commission he has owned that property for 12 years, and during that time had complaints about the Blue Moon from tenants. For three years, he has been an elected official, and said restaurant owners who were complying with the law had complained to him about those who were not. It is difficult to believe he had no inkling that some restaurants, including the one next door, were grandfathered. Yet, he never weighed that factor. He acted on his personal interest, then personally called the Mayor and asked to meet with him and the City Manager. They met at 3 p.m. that same day. Based on Mr. Mills’ “evidence,” the City Manager arranged for them to meet the next day with the Police Chief, Building Inspector and the City Solicitor, with the Mayor and Mr. Mills. The meeting resulted in a declaration that the patio ordinance would be enforced and letters sent to those restaurants Mr. Mills’ identified, according to the Mayor.¹⁶¹ The

¹⁵¹ The City’s Charter and Code identify whose duty it is to deal with such matters: if it is nonconformity with the Zoning Code, the “existence and extent… is a question of fact to be determined by the Building Inspector.” City Code § 270-52. If it is a violation of the noise law, which includes a direct citation to the Zoning ordinance on patios, it is the duty of the City Manager to “respond to complaints.” City Code § 189-11. Additionally, under the Charter the Police Force “shall compel obedience within the limits of the City to the ordinances….” City Charter § 21.

¹⁶¹ As previously noted, Mr. Mills’ version is that it was based on not only his complaints but the Mayor’s and Commissioner Zellers and others. The Mayor and City Manager do not give the exact same account. However, even assuming Mr. Mills is correct, the meeting was initiated by him without knowing of those complaints; the letter had to have been, in good part, based on his notes because nothing suggests the Mayor or Commissioner Zellers was going to “every restaurant with a patio;” the letter was only for patio restaurants; and the results in the notice clearly reflect his judgment about compliance (discussed supra) regarding Eden, Blue Moon,

letter, dated the same day as the meeting, and hand-delivered, said they may be violating the patio law and enforcement would occur. Atch. 3. The Commission was told that enforcement was planned for the weekend.

Mr. Mills points out that he did not act alone. Atch. 1, p. 4           Delaware

Courts have held that where a State Board member had a personal or private interest, he should have recused “from the outset” and even “neutral” and “unbiased” statements should not have occurred. Beebe Medical Center, Inc. v.  Certificate of Need Appeals Board, Del. Super., C.A. No. 94A-01-004, J. Terry (June 30, 1995) aff’d, Del. Supr., No, 304 (January 29, 1996). In Beebe, it was Board so that official did not act alone in discussing the matter. After he made “neutral” and “unbiased” comments, he recused from the vote. It did not matter— the Court said he should have recused from the outset. It is the duty of the official with the conflict is to recuse. See also, Prison Health v. State, Del. Ch., C.A. No. 13,010, V.C. Hartnett, Ill (June 29, 1993)(state employee was not even on the Committee that made contract decision, but he discussed it with them before the decision when he had a personal or private interest).

Mr. Mills took his personal interest to a level beyond which a private citizen could go. The ordinary citizen, as admitted by Mr. Mills, would likely contact the City Manager, the police, or someone like him. In fact, Mr. Mills said that in the past, when he was told of suspected violations, he went to the City Manager. Nothing suggests in those instances he decided who was violating the law or that he called the Mayor to set up a meeting with him and the City Manager.

Nothing suggests a private citizen could call the Mayor and arrange a meeting with him and the City Manager, much less get it that same day. Even if the Mayor and Commissioner Zellers complaints were considered as part of the 12, no facts suggest they called a hurried meeting and got enforcement within days. Nothing suggests a private citizen would have the kind of “entrée” to get their notes of “restaurants with a patio” who were “violating the law” result in another immediate meeting for them—this time with the Police Chief, Building Inspector, and City Solicitor added. Nothing suggests a private citizen could have their notes and decisions of who was violating the law become a basis to decide “more comprehensive enforcement was needed,” with a warning issued the same day; hand-delivered; and enforcement by the police within days. ^[71

This is not to say Mr. Mills could not file a complaint like any other citizen. Apparently, he has done so in the past. He may certainly do so, but when he decides to go on “patio patrol” and become the complainant/witness, he needs

Adriatico, and the Atlantic restaurant of which he was not sure of the name. Eden was the only one of those four that received a warning.

¹⁷¹ Mr. Mills’ pointed out that the Building Inspector is not on duty in the evenings to see who is violating the law. That is a personnel issue for the City, not a reason for Mr. Mills to become the “Inspector.” Moreover, it appears irrelevant since the arrests were achieved by the police.

to stay in that private role. When he moves on to call the Mayor to get the City Manager who oversees the Police and Building Inspector to meet with him; identifies who was violating the law; has a immediately written and hand- delivered to those he identified as violators; followed by immediate enforcement action; he is not being treated like any other citizen. He is using public office to secure unwarranted privileges, private advantage or gain, 29 Del. C. § 5806(e), or at a minimum, creating the appearance of such conduct. 29 Del. C. § 5806(a).

Mr. Mills allowed his personal or private interests to drive his decision to become an officer patrolling the “patio front,” gathering “evidence” and judging for himself that they were in violation. Nothing suggested an outcry from his constituents complaining about the patio activities. It was a personal tour of just patio restaurants. He points to the fact that the Mayor and another Commissioner had complained. However, he admitted he did not know about those other complaints when he went on patrol, made his list of those complying and those violating the law, and then called the Mayor. The Mayor was there, apparently not because of his observations in August, but because Mr. Mills called him. In fact, the Mayor said the warning letters were based on Mr. Mills’ list. He does not say they were based on his observations the previous month.

Mr. Mills was elected as a City Commissioner to perform such duties as preparing legislation—not enforcing it or judging compliance. There is a reason for separating such powers and duties. The Delaware Supreme Court addressed why it is incompatible for a person to take on the dual roles of law enforcement officer and legislator and/or legislator and judge. In Re: Request of the Governor for An Advisory Opinion, No. 466, 1998, (Del., October 28, 1998).

One expressed concern was that the member of the legislative branch could sit in that position and carry out their own law enforcement agenda, and that agenda might not necessarily be that of the constituents of the legislator’s district. Id. at p. 5. It went on to say that if the executive and legislative powers are mixed together, the judge can enact the laws, then execute them in the manner and with the power he thinks proper, which he has given himself, as a legislator. Id. at 7.

In that situation, the Court advised that if elected the police officer who was seeking office as a legislator could not hold the dual roles.

Mr. Mills did not officially seek to hold dual roles. Rather, he decided to undertake them in his personal capacity. He was not on “patio patrol” at the request of his constituents, but on a personal mission. He was “the witness”— giving his “observations.” However, he went beyond merely reporting an observation, e.g., “people on the patio after 11 p.m.” He decided who was complying and who was not, then used that as the basis for calling for a meeting.

His personal and private interest lead him to not only inject himself into Executive Branch decisions on law enforcement, but also to then, in an official capacity as a legislator, participate in reviewing, with the potential to dispose of, matters that arose directly from that personal or private interest—e.g., whether the criminal penalty should be changed to civil, etc. The law bars officials from reviewing or disposing of matters if they have a personal or private interest that may tend to impair judgment in performing official duties, or “raise suspicion” by the public of such concern. 29 Del. C. § 5805(a)(1) and (2) and § 5805(a). Actual violations are not required; only the appearance thereof. Commission Op. No. 92-11; 29 Del. C. § 5811(2)(public officers and employees should avoid even the appearance of impropriety where they have a financial interest); 63C Am. Jur. 2d Public Officers and Employees § 252 (actual conflict is not the decisive factor; nor is whether the public servant succumbs to the temptation; rather it is whether there is a potential for conflict).

He should have recused as suggested by his colleagues. As directed below, he should recuse on these matters as they continue before the City Commissioners.

V. Advice for Future Conduct

(a) Mr. Mills’ Spouse and/or Tenants

Mr. Maggio also points to concerns about Mr. Mills’ spouse being involved in complaints. Atch. 2. Mr. Mills says her involvement in complaints was a number of years ago. Mills’ Supplement to His Initial Request, December 20, 2010, pp. 1-2. Atch. 4. He is entitled to a legal presumption of honesty and integrity. Beebe Medical Center, Inc. v. Certificate of Need Appeals Board, Del. Super., C.A. No. 94A-01-004, J. Terry (June 30, 1995) aff’d, Del. Supr., No. 304 (January 29, 1996). To give him that presumption, we will accept that statement. Moreover, we have already found that his conduct was contrary to the Code, or at a minimum, appeared to be. However, we remind Mr. Mills that he cannot officially participate in matters where he has a personal or private interest. If his spouse is involved, he has a personal or private interest. Prison Health v. State, Del. Ch., C.A. No. 13,010, V.C. Hartnett, III (June 29, 1993). In that case, the State employee was not on the contract committee that decided which company would be awarded a contract. However, before the committee’s decision, he discussed the contract with the Committee, when his wife was, according to the Court an “albeit, low-level employee” in the company which was awarded the contract. The Court found his conduct was “indirect” and “unsubstantial” but held that it was “undoubtedly improper” for him to have been involved even to that extent. Thus, on any matters arising in which his spouse is involved, he should recuse. Similarly, he should recuse if the complaint is from one of his tenants. He also should not use his public position, or appear to do

so, to have any complaint by her, or his tenants, treated different from a complaint from any other citizen.

(b)The Blue Moon

Regarding the Blue Moon, Mr. Mills said it was not violating the patio law the nights he patrolled. However, his foot patrol was for the very purpose of going to “every restaurant with a patio.” We have already noted that his property shares the property line with the Blue Moon. Beyond just owning the land, he leases. The restaurant may be a benefit or detriment to him as a property owner and landlord. Tenants may complain about the patio activity whether the restaurant is violating the law or not. As a businessman, he has a personal interest in keeping his tenants happy. Conversely, tenants may also want to rent because of his location, with its convenience to a long-established local restaurant and bar, making it a selling point for him. As noted, he is in a unique position regarding that particular restaurant. As a result, it creates a personal or private interest and he should recuse from matters pertaining to the Blue Moon.

(c)    The Aqua Grill and Its Owners

Regarding the Aqua Grill, Mr. Mills said he understood Mr. Maggio had an upcoming hearing on a matter, and he would recuse because of the filing with the Commission by Mr. Maggio. That was the correct call. However, he should not limit his recusal to just that particular matter.

We must base our advice on the particular facts of each case. This case demonstrates Mr. Mills’ personal and private interest in the patio law as it relates to its enforcement in this particular instance. As noted above, he should have recused from the discussions on enforcing or changing that law when they arose immediately. The tensions arising from those events and possible changes in the law are apparently still on the table. His personal interests arising from his conduct pertaining to those matters still exist. He should recuse from participating in matters that would be the direct derivative of his personal actions on the Labor Day weekend.

Whether he should recuse from other matters is something on which we cannot speculate. We must base our opinions on the particular facts of each case. 29 Del. C. § 5807(a). Accordingly, Mr. Mills, bearing these findings in mind, should freely seek advice on whether he should participate in a particular matter as an issue arises.

(d)    The Criminal Charges

This Commission is more than aware of the impact an arrest, even if the charges are later dropped—both the immediate lose of liberty, and the subsequent impact of having to disclose any arrest in such things as resumes,

applications for jobs or other career opportunities, etc. We understand his concern about the expunging records, and his remarks that Mr. Mills has not apologized.

However, even if this had been prosecuted under a complaint, the only action this Commission may take as far as administratively disciplining an elected official is that it can issue a reprimand or censure against that particular official. 29 Del. C. § 5810(h). It has no authority to require the official to apologize, even if that apology were undoubtedly sincere. Further, it has no authority to direct the City Commissioners, as a body, to take any action regarding expungement.

VI. Conclusion

Based on the above, we find that Mr. Mills acted in a manner contrary to the Code in pursuing a personal or private interest, which resulted in the use of public office for unwarranted privileges, or, at a minimum, appeared to do so. He should have recused from subsequently participating in official matters that directly arose from his personal conduct. For the future, he should recuse from participation in the matters identified in this opinion, and seek further advice as needed.

Sincerely,

Barbara Green, Chair

Public Integrity Commission