City Councilor Stacey Brown did not have a conflict of interest and did not violate the code of ethics when she voted in May to approve closing Main Street for an event, the city’s Board of Ethics determined in a unanimous decision Monday.

“Of course I’m relieved that they’d find me innocent,” Brown said after the hearing. “But I did appreciate the process, and I think it’s important that, when there are disagreements or someone feels that there is a conflict, that it is raised and discussed.”

The city’s code of ethics defines a conflict of interest as existing where an official takes an action that would economically benefit them, their family, or an organization that employs someone in their family. It also states, without mention of financial benefit, that officials have a conflict of interest when an issue “involves” the city department employing them or their family.

Since Brown’s husband is a city police officer, a constituent complaint argued that Brown should’ve not participated in the vote because it supported a police detail. Mayor Byron Champlin and other councilors felt the same way at the time.

However, the ethics board found that Brown and her spouse would not financially gain from the closure being approved and that the involvement of the police department in the closure was not “material, substantial or direct” enough to matter.

In its findings, the board found the term “involves” as problematically vague.

“I also don’t think that there was intent to violate that rule here, nor do I think there’s evidence to support that potential intent,” said James Rosenberg, a member of the board. “But the concern exists...if we look at the word ‘involve.’ ”

The group ruled that Concord Police’s involvement in the event was “at most… tangential.” In the future, the board stated it will only consider there to be a conflict of interest when the city department in question has a “material, substantial and direct” involvement in whatever officials are considering.

Tyler Savage, the resident who lodged the complaint, did not attend the hearing Monday or submit any testimony in his absence.

“Elected officials need to be held accountable and the ethics committee, according to them, made the right decision,” Savage said, declining further comment.

Wade Brown, Brown’s husband, wrote a letter to the board outlining that he does not choose to take on event details, voluntary additions to regular police shifts, and that his wife was correct in her understanding that he would not work the event closing Main Street.

Councilor Brown also noted to the board that her reason for requesting a council discussion on the closing — rather than approving it en masse with its consent agenda — was because she wanted to know whether Main Street businesses not involved with the event had given it the thumbs up. She was the only councilor indicating any skepticism with the closing, though the vote to sign off on it was unanimous.

While this was Brown’s first hearing before the ethics board, it’s not the first time she’s been challenged on whether she has a conflict of interest, both due to her husband’s job and otherwise.

During her first term, City Council passed an update to its ethics ordinance that adjusted the definition of conflict of interest to add the explicit definition of how a conflict applied to an elected official with a family member working for a city department — a clarification with clear relevance to Brown. The changes were workshopped for more than a year, but were born from a dispute about whether Brown could speak and vote on the acceptance of donations to the city library by the Concord Public Library Foundation, where she worked.

In 2015, City Council changed the ethics rules to only require recusal when there’s an actual, provable conflict of interest, rather than just the appearance of one. Nevertheless, a concern for apparent conflicts is still noted by members of the council who recuse themselves and was referenced by members of the ethics board Monday. In its findings, the board recommended to councilors that, when there is a question of whether or not they should recuse themselves, to state why they feel they are clear to participate.

Brown, who is serving her second term on the council, had previously seen the complaint against her, as well as past concerns, as rooted in a narrative by her political opponents to paint her as being a limited representative of her constituents, a belief she reiterated during her hearing.

Some city officials have questioned Brown’s ability to perform her duties. During last fall’s elections, Brown faced challenger Noemi Wierwille, who was endorsed by then-Mayor Jim Bouley.

“[Wierwille] brings a fresh perspective and a demonstrated commitment to ethics, transparency and the ability to unite different voices,” Bouley wrote in a letter to the editor just before the election. “She is dedicated to making unbiased decisions, fostering cooperation and ensuring a more effective local government.”

Brown saw the board’s decision Monday as both a vindication and a helpful tool, giving her a clear standard of “material, substantial or direct” to reference when voting.

“I think it should make my constituents feel good that I am recusing myself from things that would financially impact us,” she said. “But this shows that I am not limited and, I feel like, validates my position on this vote.”

Catherine McLaughlin can be reached at cmclaughlin@cmonitor.com