1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:12,460 Hello, I'm Madison Borschaw, City Auditor, and currently neither the Chair or Vice Chair 2 00:00:12,460 --> 00:00:17,760 is present at this meeting, but we do have a quorum, so I'll call the meeting of the 3 00:00:17,760 --> 00:00:26,760 Denton Board of Ethics to order on January 28, 2021 at 3.09 p.m. 4 00:00:26,760 --> 00:00:31,560 And since there's currently no Chair or Vice Chair, the first item of business is to elect 5 00:00:31,560 --> 00:00:36,560 a temporary Chair for the purpose of the meeting, so I will open it up for nominations from 6 00:00:36,560 --> 00:00:38,200 the board. 7 00:00:38,200 --> 00:00:43,800 I nominate Don Cartwright. 8 00:00:43,800 --> 00:00:49,600 Okay, is there a second for Don? 9 00:00:49,600 --> 00:00:51,040 Second. 10 00:00:51,040 --> 00:00:58,440 All right, and then we take a vote, is that correct, Ray? 11 00:00:58,440 --> 00:01:00,760 Any other nominations? 12 00:01:00,760 --> 00:01:06,760 May I withdraw? 13 00:01:06,760 --> 00:01:10,920 I've been, I've served as Chairman so many times, I would like to kind of spread it around 14 00:01:10,920 --> 00:01:18,400 to some of the other people in the committee. 15 00:01:18,400 --> 00:01:19,640 Are there any other nominations? 16 00:01:19,640 --> 00:01:21,720 Yeah, would anybody like to do it? 17 00:01:21,720 --> 00:01:22,720 I mean, it's-- 18 00:01:22,720 --> 00:01:32,800 Yes, sir, yes, you do not have to accept the nomination. 19 00:01:32,800 --> 00:01:34,800 I don't accept it then. 20 00:01:34,800 --> 00:01:35,800 Okay. 21 00:01:35,800 --> 00:01:40,260 Then you have to return your check. 22 00:01:40,260 --> 00:01:46,920 Doesn't the, does the temporary Chair have to be an attorney? 23 00:01:46,920 --> 00:01:47,920 It does not, no ma'am. 24 00:01:47,920 --> 00:01:48,920 No. 25 00:01:48,920 --> 00:01:49,920 No. 26 00:01:49,920 --> 00:01:50,920 No. 27 00:01:50,920 --> 00:01:51,920 Yeah. 28 00:01:51,920 --> 00:01:58,120 Then I'd like to nominate Ron Johnson. 29 00:01:58,120 --> 00:02:14,680 Ron was nominated and Rob seconded Ron Johnson for temporary Chair, so are there any other 30 00:02:14,680 --> 00:02:24,520 nominations? 31 00:02:24,520 --> 00:02:30,140 So hearing none, I'll close the nominations and we'll take a vote on Ron. 32 00:02:30,140 --> 00:02:37,400 So we'll, I'll go down the list since we're on video, we'll do a roll call vote, so Don, 33 00:02:37,400 --> 00:02:38,400 how do you vote? 34 00:02:38,400 --> 00:02:40,560 I vote for him. 35 00:02:40,560 --> 00:02:41,560 Yes. 36 00:02:41,560 --> 00:02:42,560 Debra? 37 00:02:42,560 --> 00:02:43,560 Yes. 38 00:02:43,560 --> 00:02:44,620 Patricia? 39 00:02:44,620 --> 00:02:45,620 Yes. 40 00:02:45,620 --> 00:02:46,620 Ron? 41 00:02:46,620 --> 00:02:54,640 Oh, you have to, can you unmute yourself, please? 42 00:02:54,640 --> 00:02:56,640 I'll abstain. 43 00:02:56,640 --> 00:02:57,640 Okay. 44 00:02:57,640 --> 00:02:58,640 Annetta? 45 00:02:58,640 --> 00:02:59,640 Yes. 46 00:02:59,640 --> 00:03:00,640 And Rob? 47 00:03:00,640 --> 00:03:01,640 Yes. 48 00:03:01,640 --> 00:03:02,640 All right. 49 00:03:02,640 --> 00:03:09,320 Thank you so much, so Ron, I'll give the floor to you to run through the agenda. 50 00:03:09,320 --> 00:03:20,560 Okay, I believe that items for consideration, consider approval of the minutes for August 51 00:03:20,560 --> 00:03:25,760 27th, 2020. 52 00:03:25,760 --> 00:03:28,640 I move approval. 53 00:03:28,640 --> 00:03:30,880 I think we can do them all at once. 54 00:03:30,880 --> 00:03:32,200 Oh, okay. 55 00:03:32,200 --> 00:03:44,080 Okay, so all items for consideration are under consideration for lack of a better term? 56 00:03:44,080 --> 00:03:46,440 I think we can do all the minutes at once. 57 00:03:46,440 --> 00:03:47,440 Right. 58 00:03:47,440 --> 00:03:48,440 The three minutes. 59 00:03:48,440 --> 00:03:49,440 Right. 60 00:03:49,440 --> 00:03:50,440 Okay. 61 00:03:50,440 --> 00:03:54,960 The three minutes under items for individual consideration A, the three minutes are before 62 00:03:54,960 --> 00:03:59,640 the board and if anybody has any changes, now would be the time to discuss those. 63 00:03:59,640 --> 00:04:03,280 If not, you can move to approval three of those at the same time. 64 00:04:03,280 --> 00:04:04,280 Okay. 65 00:04:04,280 --> 00:04:05,280 I have a question. 66 00:04:05,280 --> 00:04:11,000 If we were not present at one or all of those meetings, do we still vote on approval? 67 00:04:11,000 --> 00:04:13,200 Yes, ma'am, you do. 68 00:04:13,200 --> 00:04:14,200 Okay. 69 00:04:14,200 --> 00:04:15,200 Thank you. 70 00:04:15,200 --> 00:04:21,680 And just as a point of order, Laura emailed me before this meeting and asked me to make 71 00:04:21,680 --> 00:04:25,840 a change to the August 27th minutes. 72 00:04:25,840 --> 00:04:33,560 Her name was spelled incorrectly at the very bottom where her signature would be, so that 73 00:04:33,560 --> 00:04:41,840 has been corrected or that should be corrected, I suppose, as part of the approval of the 74 00:04:41,840 --> 00:04:44,840 minutes. 75 00:04:44,840 --> 00:04:48,400 And I move approval for all three minutes. 76 00:04:48,400 --> 00:04:49,400 Second. 77 00:04:49,400 --> 00:04:53,600 Just for clarity, as amended, Ms. Ramsey? 78 00:04:53,600 --> 00:04:56,000 Yes, as amended. 79 00:04:56,000 --> 00:04:58,280 Thank you. 80 00:04:58,280 --> 00:04:59,920 Okay. 81 00:04:59,920 --> 00:05:06,960 The motion has been accepted and seconded. 82 00:05:06,960 --> 00:05:15,480 Can I have a vote for your acceptance or non-acceptance? 83 00:05:15,480 --> 00:05:16,760 Not everybody at once now. 84 00:05:16,760 --> 00:05:21,480 Mr. Johnson, you'll need to go down the list because we're doing it via Zoom. 85 00:05:21,480 --> 00:05:26,440 You've got to go each person individually. 86 00:05:26,440 --> 00:05:27,440 Okay. 87 00:05:27,440 --> 00:05:28,440 Don? 88 00:05:28,440 --> 00:05:29,440 Aye. 89 00:05:29,440 --> 00:05:30,440 Yes. 90 00:05:30,440 --> 00:05:31,440 Patricia? 91 00:05:31,440 --> 00:05:32,440 Yes. 92 00:05:32,440 --> 00:05:33,440 Rob? 93 00:05:33,440 --> 00:05:34,440 Yes. 94 00:05:34,440 --> 00:05:35,440 Ms. Ramsey? 95 00:05:35,440 --> 00:05:36,440 Yes. 96 00:05:36,440 --> 00:05:37,440 Deborah? 97 00:05:37,440 --> 00:05:38,440 Yes. 98 00:05:38,440 --> 00:05:39,440 Okay. 99 00:05:39,440 --> 00:05:49,480 The yeses have it. 100 00:05:49,480 --> 00:06:06,560 So the next item of business is -- am I looking at this correctly? 101 00:06:06,560 --> 00:06:11,720 The approval of the draft minutes of July 30th, 2020? 102 00:06:11,720 --> 00:06:14,520 That is not correct. 103 00:06:14,520 --> 00:06:18,040 Oh, that's August 27th minutes. 104 00:06:18,040 --> 00:06:25,400 I'm sorry. 105 00:06:25,400 --> 00:06:35,760 Okay. 106 00:06:35,760 --> 00:06:43,880 The January 28th agenda information sheet, receive a report, hold a discussion, and give 107 00:06:43,880 --> 00:06:49,000 a staff direction regarding the proposed ethnic complaint process improvements. 108 00:06:49,000 --> 00:06:53,200 That is what is on the floor at this point. 109 00:06:53,200 --> 00:06:57,680 And I have a presentation if you would like me to share that. 110 00:06:57,680 --> 00:06:58,680 Please. 111 00:06:58,680 --> 00:06:59,680 All right. 112 00:06:59,680 --> 00:07:00,680 One second. 113 00:07:00,680 --> 00:07:14,560 Let me pull it up so you all can see it. 114 00:07:14,560 --> 00:07:15,560 You see the presentation? 115 00:07:15,560 --> 00:07:16,560 Yes. 116 00:07:16,560 --> 00:07:17,560 Yes. 117 00:07:17,560 --> 00:07:18,560 All right. 118 00:07:18,560 --> 00:07:31,880 So today I'm going to discuss three proposed improvements to the ethics complaint process 119 00:07:31,880 --> 00:07:38,100 that I put together, including a visualization of the process, revisions to the ethics complaint 120 00:07:38,100 --> 00:07:39,440 form. 121 00:07:39,440 --> 00:07:45,400 And I'm also requesting some clarification on the preliminary assessment process. 122 00:07:45,400 --> 00:07:55,560 Just before we begin, I just wanted to note that these changes were all initiated by staff, 123 00:07:55,560 --> 00:07:57,480 by me. 124 00:07:57,480 --> 00:08:02,440 But if a board member would like to submit additional improvements, they can send their 125 00:08:02,440 --> 00:08:08,320 proposal to me and the board chair, and they will be included on the next agenda. 126 00:08:08,320 --> 00:08:10,200 So I'm sorry. 127 00:08:10,200 --> 00:08:14,240 I'm going to pull out of this real quick because I can't see some stuff because of the way 128 00:08:14,240 --> 00:08:18,200 the Zoom is working. 129 00:08:18,200 --> 00:08:19,200 I apologize. 130 00:08:19,200 --> 00:08:20,200 One moment. 131 00:08:20,200 --> 00:08:28,320 Let me re-share my screen. 132 00:08:28,320 --> 00:08:33,360 Okay. 133 00:08:33,360 --> 00:08:34,360 We'll start over. 134 00:08:34,360 --> 00:08:35,360 There we go. 135 00:08:35,360 --> 00:08:36,360 All right. 136 00:08:36,360 --> 00:08:42,400 So first, I thought that creating a visualization of the ethics complaint process would be beneficial 137 00:08:42,400 --> 00:08:46,560 for board members as well as members of the public who are interested in how the process 138 00:08:46,560 --> 00:08:47,560 works. 139 00:08:47,560 --> 00:08:52,760 So I put together some flow charts, which were included in your backup, and these were 140 00:08:52,760 --> 00:08:58,120 based on the most recent version of the ordinance, and they were also reviewed by the Borges 141 00:08:58,120 --> 00:09:02,800 Law Firm, which is the board's special counsel, as well as just the city's legal department 142 00:09:02,800 --> 00:09:05,760 to ensure that they're accurate. 143 00:09:05,760 --> 00:09:11,740 And so basically, my ask today is if you have any questions about the flow chart or suggestions 144 00:09:11,740 --> 00:09:17,520 to make it more understandable, and then I'd also like direction from the board on how 145 00:09:17,520 --> 00:09:19,720 they'll be implemented. 146 00:09:19,720 --> 00:09:24,800 As kind of stated on the slide, my recommendation is to use them in two ways. 147 00:09:24,800 --> 00:09:30,600 One, to publish the flow charts on the board's webpage so that anybody can view them, and 148 00:09:30,600 --> 00:09:35,720 then two, to include whichever flow chart is appropriate as part of the agenda packet 149 00:09:35,720 --> 00:09:38,160 for any future ethics complaint meetings. 150 00:09:38,160 --> 00:09:44,380 So for example, if a preliminary assessment needed to be held, the flow chart for that 151 00:09:44,380 --> 00:09:48,320 meeting would be included in the backup for the panel's reference. 152 00:09:48,320 --> 00:09:53,800 So I'm just going to open the floor for discussion, so I'll pull down the presentation so that 153 00:09:53,800 --> 00:10:03,440 we can see you guys in who's asking questions. 154 00:10:03,440 --> 00:10:10,920 I think it's a big improvement over what you had, so I think it's a lot more clear for 155 00:10:10,920 --> 00:10:16,280 someone, you know, wanting to make a complaint. 156 00:10:16,280 --> 00:10:19,520 Sorry. 157 00:10:19,520 --> 00:10:26,480 Even as a training for new and prospective board members, and I like the idea of including 158 00:10:26,480 --> 00:10:41,760 it as well in a packet for any assessments, I do have some suggested changes, and if you 159 00:10:41,760 --> 00:10:49,260 prefer, I can send them directly to you, or do you want to discuss them? 160 00:10:49,260 --> 00:10:53,880 I think I'm looking for the board to kind of approve them today. 161 00:10:53,880 --> 00:10:58,600 Do we need to vote on that, Trey? 162 00:10:58,600 --> 00:11:01,720 I can't hear you. 163 00:11:01,720 --> 00:11:03,400 I wasn't unmuted. 164 00:11:03,400 --> 00:11:10,880 I posted it as an IC item, so the board can vote to approve them at today's session, yes. 165 00:11:10,880 --> 00:11:14,000 Now if there are specific changes that the board wants to add, they can take those up 166 00:11:14,000 --> 00:11:19,360 and then approve it as amended, kind of like we did with the minutes. 167 00:11:19,360 --> 00:11:27,640 So, do you want me to run through my proposed changes, then? 168 00:11:27,640 --> 00:11:33,040 Yeah, I think that's what I would prefer, if possible. 169 00:11:33,040 --> 00:11:34,040 Okay. 170 00:11:34,040 --> 00:11:40,240 So, for the preliminary assessment, I just want to say first off that as a program evaluator, 171 00:11:40,240 --> 00:11:44,200 these are wonderful and lovely, you know. 172 00:11:44,200 --> 00:11:49,320 I really appreciate the work that went into it and the thought that goes into it, because 173 00:11:49,320 --> 00:11:51,680 these can be so complicated. 174 00:11:51,680 --> 00:11:59,760 So under the preliminary assessment, in the top left-hand corner, you have submit the 175 00:11:59,760 --> 00:12:06,400 notarized ethics complaint form, and then it goes to the city auditor where it's reviewed, 176 00:12:06,400 --> 00:12:13,280 and then if there is a written notification of a complaint deficiency, then that's sent 177 00:12:13,280 --> 00:12:15,280 back to the complainant. 178 00:12:15,280 --> 00:12:20,920 And the way that this is illustrated here, it looks like a continuous loop, and that's 179 00:12:20,920 --> 00:12:23,400 not the process at all. 180 00:12:23,400 --> 00:12:31,840 So I would recommend adding that the complaint deficiency is an additional step, but pull 181 00:12:31,840 --> 00:12:36,360 it out of that loop. 182 00:12:36,360 --> 00:12:42,120 Then on the, do you want me to just keep on going? 183 00:12:42,120 --> 00:12:45,320 Can I just ask a question about that? 184 00:12:45,320 --> 00:12:52,000 When you say the complaint deficiency, I think I, is your point, I'm sorry, is your concern 185 00:12:52,000 --> 00:12:57,680 that it's not, you can't have deficiencies multiple times, basically? 186 00:12:57,680 --> 00:12:58,680 Right. 187 00:12:58,680 --> 00:13:03,780 And the way it looks on this, it looks like you can go through the process over and over 188 00:13:03,780 --> 00:13:05,480 and over again. 189 00:13:05,480 --> 00:13:09,280 I see, okay. 190 00:13:09,280 --> 00:13:14,080 And so that was the only comment I had on that one. 191 00:13:14,080 --> 00:13:22,360 Then on the ethics complaint process, the process for evidence and witnesses is not 192 00:13:22,360 --> 00:13:24,120 clear. 193 00:13:24,120 --> 00:13:30,600 The arrow goes from the hearing is scheduled to respondent and complainant, and actually 194 00:13:30,600 --> 00:13:38,520 the hearing is a separate step, and then there's the time between the hearing, the scheduling 195 00:13:38,520 --> 00:13:50,120 of the hearing and the hearing when the respondent and the complainant submit arguments and witnesses, 196 00:13:50,120 --> 00:13:53,720 evidence to the auditor. 197 00:13:53,720 --> 00:13:54,720 And so- 198 00:13:54,720 --> 00:14:03,000 Hey Deborah, I'm sorry, you lost me and I've, are we on the preliminary assessment page? 199 00:14:03,000 --> 00:14:04,800 I'm on the complaint hearing page. 200 00:14:04,800 --> 00:14:07,320 Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, okay. 201 00:14:07,320 --> 00:14:09,480 So all right. 202 00:14:09,480 --> 00:14:14,360 Yeah, and you'll see in the center of that, the first is the ethics complaint hearing 203 00:14:14,360 --> 00:14:15,360 is scheduled. 204 00:14:15,360 --> 00:14:16,960 Oh, yes. 205 00:14:16,960 --> 00:14:20,440 And then arrows go to both sides. 206 00:14:20,440 --> 00:14:26,920 But the process is really that it's scheduled, then there's a time period where evidence 207 00:14:26,920 --> 00:14:35,160 and witness lists are submitted to the city auditor, and then they're presented at the 208 00:14:35,160 --> 00:14:36,960 hearing. 209 00:14:36,960 --> 00:14:42,320 So there's another step in there, and that's not really clear. 210 00:14:42,320 --> 00:14:48,200 So you're asking that a step be like basically a box go to the city auditor where the city 211 00:14:48,200 --> 00:14:53,880 auditor requests from the complainant and their respondent evidence and documentation 212 00:14:53,880 --> 00:14:55,880 requested by the board? 213 00:14:55,880 --> 00:14:56,880 Yes. 214 00:14:56,880 --> 00:15:15,760 And the input arrow is to the hearing rather than the hearing is scheduled. 215 00:15:15,760 --> 00:15:23,560 And then I don't know how issuing subpoenas would work in this timeline, but subpoenas 216 00:15:23,560 --> 00:15:29,400 are not mentioned on here. 217 00:15:29,400 --> 00:15:34,920 And to be honest, when I looked at it, it wasn't clear to me when that process takes 218 00:15:34,920 --> 00:15:41,200 place if a subpoena is required. 219 00:15:41,200 --> 00:15:45,720 And then the last thing is there is nothing on here that talks about a failure to appear 220 00:15:45,720 --> 00:15:57,880 means that the complaint is dismissed. 221 00:15:57,880 --> 00:16:05,040 And the last thing on these is I didn't know, and I'm sure that you probably had a rationale 222 00:16:05,040 --> 00:16:13,540 for not including the timelines on this, but perhaps that might be even a different flow 223 00:16:13,540 --> 00:16:21,040 chart or just a regular timeline that shows how the process moves along. 224 00:16:21,040 --> 00:16:28,760 And just so that I kind of to outline how this is going to go, you had a number, several 225 00:16:28,760 --> 00:16:31,000 changes that you think should occur. 226 00:16:31,000 --> 00:16:34,400 I want to get to talk to everybody about if they have any others. 227 00:16:34,400 --> 00:16:40,920 And then basically then we'll go through each one, I'm writing them down and just double 228 00:16:40,920 --> 00:16:46,040 check to make sure that everybody on the board thinks that's a good change to make. 229 00:16:46,040 --> 00:16:53,720 And then probably based on the note, we'll come back on this next meeting with the changes 230 00:16:53,720 --> 00:16:56,840 in place that have been requested and approved by the board. 231 00:16:56,840 --> 00:16:58,120 Does that make sense? 232 00:16:58,120 --> 00:16:59,120 Yes. 233 00:16:59,120 --> 00:17:07,480 That way, because the things that you said, I can't do that on the fly. 234 00:17:07,480 --> 00:17:11,780 So did you have any more, Debra? 235 00:17:11,780 --> 00:17:13,520 Not on the flow charts, no. 236 00:17:13,520 --> 00:17:14,520 Okay. 237 00:17:14,520 --> 00:17:23,680 Does anybody else have any potential changes to the flow charts or questions about them? 238 00:17:23,680 --> 00:17:24,680 Question. 239 00:17:24,680 --> 00:17:32,640 So after we've all had a shot at this, then we will come back and talk about Debra's suggestions. 240 00:17:32,640 --> 00:17:33,640 Is that right? 241 00:17:33,640 --> 00:17:34,640 Correct. 242 00:17:34,640 --> 00:17:35,640 Okay. 243 00:17:35,640 --> 00:17:36,640 Thank you. 244 00:17:36,640 --> 00:17:37,640 Is there anybody else's suggestions? 245 00:17:37,640 --> 00:17:38,640 Of course. 246 00:17:38,640 --> 00:17:39,640 Yes. 247 00:17:39,640 --> 00:17:40,640 Yours is just on the floor right now. 248 00:17:40,640 --> 00:17:41,640 Thank you. 249 00:17:41,640 --> 00:17:42,640 Okay. 250 00:17:42,640 --> 00:17:51,320 Anybody else have any questions or proposed changes? 251 00:17:51,320 --> 00:17:59,760 Is there a way to say that if this is filed during the election season, that the board 252 00:17:59,760 --> 00:18:06,440 would reserve the right to postpone it until the election's over? 253 00:18:06,440 --> 00:18:13,040 I'd have to check the ordinance to see if the board has that right. 254 00:18:13,040 --> 00:18:20,680 But I can certainly look into that. 255 00:18:20,680 --> 00:18:24,460 What is the timeframe? 256 00:18:24,460 --> 00:18:28,440 So I was actually looking at this recently. 257 00:18:28,440 --> 00:18:33,640 Once a hearing, we have a specific timeframe laid out with the preliminary assessment. 258 00:18:33,640 --> 00:18:39,360 Once the panel determines that a hearing needs to be held, there's nothing in the ordinance 259 00:18:39,360 --> 00:18:44,920 or rules of procedure, technically, that lay out a timeline. 260 00:18:44,920 --> 00:18:50,040 That's actually in the training video that everybody is required, that you and the city 261 00:18:50,040 --> 00:18:54,600 officials are required to watch, and it's 30 days based on that. 262 00:18:54,600 --> 00:18:55,600 Okay. 263 00:18:55,600 --> 00:19:01,640 Well, 30 days would be enough to catch that. 264 00:19:01,640 --> 00:19:02,640 Yeah. 265 00:19:02,640 --> 00:19:07,520 So we try to schedule them within 30 days. 266 00:19:07,520 --> 00:19:09,120 Okay. 267 00:19:09,120 --> 00:19:10,600 Okay. 268 00:19:10,600 --> 00:19:16,040 Anybody else? 269 00:19:16,040 --> 00:19:38,680 I have a concern on the complaint process 270 00:19:38,680 --> 00:19:52,240 where should the complaint be sanctioned? 271 00:19:52,240 --> 00:19:58,520 And then if it's yes, receive notification of sanction. 272 00:19:58,520 --> 00:20:05,680 And then the arrow below that is reconsideration filed. 273 00:20:05,680 --> 00:20:10,360 Did everybody see that? 274 00:20:10,360 --> 00:20:11,720 Yes. 275 00:20:11,720 --> 00:20:21,680 And that's the case on both sides for the complainant as well as the respondent, the 276 00:20:21,680 --> 00:20:40,240 right to file reconsideration. 277 00:20:40,240 --> 00:20:49,240 If the reconsideration is not accepted, then the ethics complaint is closed. 278 00:20:49,240 --> 00:21:02,880 Or if it is accepted, then the arrow goes back to conduct the hearing. 279 00:21:02,880 --> 00:21:12,360 It's probably the same kind of principle that is embodied in Deborah's concern. 280 00:21:12,360 --> 00:21:15,240 It looks like a continuous loop. 281 00:21:15,240 --> 00:21:25,040 There is five days that they have to file a motion for reconsideration. 282 00:21:25,040 --> 00:21:37,720 However, the ordinance itself gives the right for a motion for reconsideration for new evidence 283 00:21:37,720 --> 00:21:49,720 and not for errors in the process or the decision, which is a typical criteria for an administrative 284 00:21:49,720 --> 00:21:53,960 decision reconsideration. 285 00:21:53,960 --> 00:22:03,680 I think it could be problematic to the extent that new evidence falls into two categories. 286 00:22:03,680 --> 00:22:11,840 Evidence that was available before the complaint, evidence that became available after the complaint. 287 00:22:11,840 --> 00:22:18,880 If that kind of test is built in, then I don't think that we will potentially have a problem. 288 00:22:18,880 --> 00:22:24,760 But if it's not built in and you accept new evidence, how many times do you accept new 289 00:22:24,760 --> 00:22:25,760 evidence? 290 00:22:25,760 --> 00:22:33,760 Because technically somebody could dig and dig and dig and file three or four reconsiderations 291 00:22:33,760 --> 00:22:40,960 based upon new evidence being discovered that was available before the complaint was filed. 292 00:22:40,960 --> 00:22:51,240 But without some kind of constraints attached to the process, that could be abused potentially. 293 00:22:51,240 --> 00:22:57,560 Yeah, and I'll say I think that the ordinance addresses that issue. 294 00:22:57,560 --> 00:23:03,640 It gives sole authority to the chair to accept a reconsideration complaint based on what 295 00:23:03,640 --> 00:23:05,360 new evidence they present. 296 00:23:05,360 --> 00:23:10,400 And I believe, Trey, please correct me if I'm wrong to your knowledge, that it limits 297 00:23:10,400 --> 00:23:15,920 it to one time, essentially. 298 00:23:15,920 --> 00:23:22,280 So the continuous loop would not be an issue in that regard, but you would go back to having 299 00:23:22,280 --> 00:23:25,540 a hearing if it was accepted by the chair one time. 300 00:23:25,540 --> 00:23:30,080 I don't remember saying the one time, but of course I might be wrong. 301 00:23:30,080 --> 00:23:33,080 I could also be wrong. 302 00:23:33,080 --> 00:23:35,480 So I'll double, I can certainly double check that. 303 00:23:35,480 --> 00:23:36,680 Oh, there's Laura. 304 00:23:36,680 --> 00:23:38,440 Hi, I'm just jumping in. 305 00:23:38,440 --> 00:23:42,920 I had a work meeting that I found out about today and it lasted long. 306 00:23:42,920 --> 00:23:47,800 But Ron, I was going to say the reconsideration is something that we've kind of talked about 307 00:23:47,800 --> 00:23:52,080 and I think it's something we should put on the agenda to talk about in the future as 308 00:23:52,080 --> 00:23:58,120 far as recommendations for the ordinance because it's something that I know you've brought 309 00:23:58,120 --> 00:24:05,600 up some few times and it's something I think we should look at in the future, even besides 310 00:24:05,600 --> 00:24:08,360 what the flowchart says. 311 00:24:08,360 --> 00:24:13,760 And I will pass the mantle of chairperson for this proceeding to you. 312 00:24:13,760 --> 00:24:15,160 Oh, thank you. 313 00:24:15,160 --> 00:24:22,440 Laura, just so you know, I've just been soliciting potential changes from the board currently 314 00:24:22,440 --> 00:24:24,520 on the flowcharts. 315 00:24:24,520 --> 00:24:28,200 And then I've been writing them down and we are going to go through so that I could get 316 00:24:28,200 --> 00:24:31,720 direction on if that's a change the board wanted to see. 317 00:24:31,720 --> 00:24:36,440 And we were going to come back next meeting to see the new version, basically, based on 318 00:24:36,440 --> 00:24:37,440 that. 319 00:24:37,440 --> 00:24:40,480 That sounds like a good idea. 320 00:24:40,480 --> 00:24:41,480 Okay. 321 00:24:41,480 --> 00:24:43,080 Rob? 322 00:24:43,080 --> 00:24:44,080 Thank you. 323 00:24:44,080 --> 00:24:46,680 I like the flowcharts, both of them. 324 00:24:46,680 --> 00:24:52,200 I like that they give us direction, but yet they don't bog us down in the bureaucracy, 325 00:24:52,200 --> 00:24:59,880 which what I gently call what we've just had discussion, such as the reconsideration, because 326 00:24:59,880 --> 00:25:04,880 I look at those as we're going to discuss them further to be sort of like a policy and 327 00:25:04,880 --> 00:25:10,160 procedure on how we handle this with the flowchart just more or less giving us the direction 328 00:25:10,160 --> 00:25:11,560 that we need to go. 329 00:25:11,560 --> 00:25:17,680 I wouldn't want to see these boxes bog down with a lot of verbiage when that could be 330 00:25:17,680 --> 00:25:20,340 addressed under the guidelines. 331 00:25:20,340 --> 00:25:25,400 This just gives us the ability to see what path we're going to take. 332 00:25:25,400 --> 00:25:28,040 That's my only concern concerning this. 333 00:25:28,040 --> 00:25:37,780 Other than that, I think the flowcharts look good. 334 00:25:37,780 --> 00:25:38,780 All right. 335 00:25:38,780 --> 00:25:42,720 And let me know if I'm missing anything, but is there anybody else that wanted to make 336 00:25:42,720 --> 00:25:48,280 comments about the flowcharts? 337 00:25:48,280 --> 00:25:51,600 I'm not seeing any hands. 338 00:25:51,600 --> 00:25:58,320 Okay, so I guess we've looked at the flowcharts. 339 00:25:58,320 --> 00:26:00,520 Are you going to go over the complaint form next, Madison? 340 00:26:00,520 --> 00:26:07,720 I was going to quickly just go over the changes that I heard the board members express and 341 00:26:07,720 --> 00:26:12,880 then discuss, try to get some direction on if the board thought that those were changes 342 00:26:12,880 --> 00:26:13,880 that need to be made. 343 00:26:13,880 --> 00:26:14,880 The whole board thought that. 344 00:26:14,880 --> 00:26:15,880 Does that make sense? 345 00:26:15,880 --> 00:26:16,880 Yes. 346 00:26:16,880 --> 00:26:20,560 Yeah, let's do that. 347 00:26:20,560 --> 00:26:29,320 So just to start with the preliminary assessment, Debra mentioned that if there's a deficiency 348 00:26:29,320 --> 00:26:37,320 in the complaint, it cannot be resubmitted more than one time, essentially, because of 349 00:26:37,320 --> 00:26:42,040 the flowchart makes it look like a continuous loop. 350 00:26:42,040 --> 00:26:49,920 I think we could address that in just having a note on the flowchart. 351 00:26:49,920 --> 00:26:58,000 I think that would probably be the best idea to actually changing it. 352 00:26:58,000 --> 00:27:06,000 Or I guess, does everybody feel like that should be a change made to the flowchart? 353 00:27:06,000 --> 00:27:08,720 I mean, it sounds like a note would fix that. 354 00:27:08,720 --> 00:27:12,320 I'm okay with that, but I'm open to whatever everybody else thinks. 355 00:27:12,320 --> 00:27:13,320 Rob? 356 00:27:13,320 --> 00:27:18,160 I'm not an attorney, so I ask these questions. 357 00:27:18,160 --> 00:27:22,620 I have no problem with that either, but should we then have backup information to give further 358 00:27:22,620 --> 00:27:28,160 explanation or teeth as to why we just let this go the loop only once? 359 00:27:28,160 --> 00:27:32,960 Well, I would think the note would clarify that. 360 00:27:32,960 --> 00:27:38,800 And I would think the background information is, you know, you could go read the ordinance. 361 00:27:38,800 --> 00:27:42,080 That's why I ask it. 362 00:27:42,080 --> 00:27:43,080 Yeah. 363 00:27:43,080 --> 00:27:44,080 Thank you. 364 00:27:44,080 --> 00:27:48,880 Did you put the ordinance reference on the step? 365 00:27:48,880 --> 00:27:53,840 No, no, I just, if somebody gets this and they look at it, and on this, instead of a 366 00:27:53,840 --> 00:27:55,720 loop, it says you only get to do it one time. 367 00:27:55,720 --> 00:27:57,120 Well, who says so? 368 00:27:57,120 --> 00:28:01,800 Well, is it in the ordinance, because we've already had possibility it might be in there, 369 00:28:01,800 --> 00:28:02,800 it may not. 370 00:28:02,800 --> 00:28:07,560 If it's not, why can't we at the next meeting make sure that we had that put in so we understand 371 00:28:07,560 --> 00:28:12,560 that footnote that I agree with on just having to go around once? 372 00:28:12,560 --> 00:28:17,640 I think if you put like one time on the line, you wouldn't even have to make a note of it. 373 00:28:17,640 --> 00:28:21,600 It'd be part of the flow of the chart. 374 00:28:21,600 --> 00:28:22,600 And that's what I asked. 375 00:28:22,600 --> 00:28:25,400 Just I'm looking at the legality, which I don't understand. 376 00:28:25,400 --> 00:28:30,480 I would say, you know, we want this from my understanding of this flow chart is to try 377 00:28:30,480 --> 00:28:38,680 to make kind of a simple visual explanation of how this works for laypeople. 378 00:28:38,680 --> 00:28:42,760 And I think if you start putting in references to the ordinance in every line, it makes it 379 00:28:42,760 --> 00:28:43,760 not simple. 380 00:28:43,760 --> 00:28:46,920 That would be my opinion of the situation. 381 00:28:46,920 --> 00:28:56,600 I think a note would be a very simple way to fix it. 382 00:28:56,600 --> 00:29:01,720 Well, it seems like the direction is to go ahead and include that note on the next round. 383 00:29:01,720 --> 00:29:05,640 So I'll make that. 384 00:29:05,640 --> 00:29:11,120 And in the interest of simplicity and keeping it in the flowchart, I would I would put on 385 00:29:11,120 --> 00:29:12,120 the line. 386 00:29:12,120 --> 00:29:18,440 That would just be my suggestion when you need a footnote. 387 00:29:18,440 --> 00:29:19,440 Okay. 388 00:29:19,440 --> 00:29:27,280 The next we're now we're on to the complaint hearing process. 389 00:29:27,280 --> 00:29:40,520 And so I think Deborah, your change that you suggested was basically that there is I think 390 00:29:40,520 --> 00:29:47,400 you're talking about like a pre hearing process where the board meets to discuss what evidence 391 00:29:47,400 --> 00:29:53,760 they would like to see and potential subpoenas and things like that and sending that information 392 00:29:53,760 --> 00:29:57,120 to the city auditor to distribute to the respondent and complainant. 393 00:29:57,120 --> 00:29:58,120 Is that correct? 394 00:29:58,120 --> 00:30:04,600 No, I'm talking about the once it's scheduled, the complainant and the respondent can send 395 00:30:04,600 --> 00:30:13,160 additional evidence and their list of witnesses to the city auditor, which then gives it to 396 00:30:13,160 --> 00:30:19,800 the board before the hearing so that it is part of the hearing. 397 00:30:19,800 --> 00:30:20,800 Okay. 398 00:30:20,800 --> 00:30:21,800 Okay. 399 00:30:21,800 --> 00:30:22,800 Okay. 400 00:30:22,800 --> 00:30:29,640 So you're you're looking for there's the basically the hearing is scheduled box and it goes to 401 00:30:29,640 --> 00:30:36,720 the provide evidence, argument, testimony, additional boxes on the complainant and respondent. 402 00:30:36,720 --> 00:30:41,160 So you're looking for a box that says the auditor receives this and forwards it to the 403 00:30:41,160 --> 00:30:42,160 board. 404 00:30:42,160 --> 00:30:43,160 Right. 405 00:30:43,160 --> 00:30:50,680 Those two arrows going to the must provide argument, et cetera, don't really belong to 406 00:30:50,680 --> 00:30:57,840 this it goes out from the the hearing is scheduled. 407 00:30:57,840 --> 00:31:03,880 And that's really not how that makes any sense at all. 408 00:31:03,880 --> 00:31:10,400 The scheduling is just the step in itself that kicks off the next step, which is you 409 00:31:10,400 --> 00:31:17,320 know, I think I might agree with that because if you have something in there, it also informs 410 00:31:17,320 --> 00:31:26,080 someone who wants to to file a complaint that that they have that they can provide that 411 00:31:26,080 --> 00:31:28,200 information beforehand. 412 00:31:28,200 --> 00:31:33,840 And I think it might be helpful to both them and the board if that's known and that's known 413 00:31:33,840 --> 00:31:37,280 before they, you know, when they first look at this online. 414 00:31:37,280 --> 00:31:39,960 So I think that would be a good box to add. 415 00:31:39,960 --> 00:31:44,760 I think that I see Rob's hand again, I think I was just saying. 416 00:31:44,760 --> 00:31:48,920 So we put that and I agree, I think that's a great idea and have that instead of where 417 00:31:48,920 --> 00:31:53,480 it's going into the conduct hearing, that box would be more or less to the auditor and 418 00:31:53,480 --> 00:31:56,920 then underneath that, it would drop down to the conducting the hearing. 419 00:31:56,920 --> 00:31:58,520 Would that be what you were thinking, Deborah? 420 00:31:58,520 --> 00:31:59,520 Yeah. 421 00:31:59,520 --> 00:32:00,520 Yeah, I think so, too. 422 00:32:00,520 --> 00:32:01,520 That's a great idea. 423 00:32:01,520 --> 00:32:06,480 And I between the scheduling and conducting a hearing, they can be preliminary hearings. 424 00:32:06,480 --> 00:32:11,440 I don't know if we want to bog down the flowchart with that, because, like, I don't think we 425 00:32:11,440 --> 00:32:16,320 even had that with the hearings we've had, but it's a possibility. 426 00:32:16,320 --> 00:32:22,680 But and I don't know in that box, it could say something about provide information and 427 00:32:22,680 --> 00:32:24,320 possible pretrial hearings. 428 00:32:24,320 --> 00:32:28,200 But I don't know if you get into that, if it just makes it more confusing. 429 00:32:28,200 --> 00:32:31,880 I don't know what the board thinks or maybe Madison can kind of see what she can come 430 00:32:31,880 --> 00:32:34,400 up with and we can decide next month. 431 00:32:34,400 --> 00:32:39,680 I think I think what I'm hearing is basically for the complainant and respondent after the 432 00:32:39,680 --> 00:32:44,520 hearing is scheduled, they have an opportunity to provide additional information. 433 00:32:44,520 --> 00:32:50,840 The board may may also request information potentially through subpoena, but in other 434 00:32:50,840 --> 00:32:52,200 ways as well. 435 00:32:52,200 --> 00:32:55,920 And we want to reflect that that happens before the hearing is actually conducted. 436 00:32:55,920 --> 00:32:58,400 Is that kind of what I'm hearing? 437 00:32:58,400 --> 00:32:59,400 I think so. 438 00:32:59,400 --> 00:33:00,640 And I see some nodding heads. 439 00:33:00,640 --> 00:33:01,640 Yes. 440 00:33:01,640 --> 00:33:03,800 Okay, then I will. 441 00:33:03,800 --> 00:33:11,000 I'll rework this to try to include that that kind of that those that step in there based 442 00:33:11,000 --> 00:33:16,800 on the direction I received. 443 00:33:16,800 --> 00:33:23,160 Deborah also mentioned that there's no discussion of if the complaint fails to appear at the 444 00:33:23,160 --> 00:33:31,920 hearing and then and how if they did, it would just be automatically dismissed. 445 00:33:31,920 --> 00:33:32,920 So that was the next change. 446 00:33:32,920 --> 00:33:40,000 So we could include basically a decision box in the complaints lane that says actually 447 00:33:40,000 --> 00:33:41,520 appear at the hearing. 448 00:33:41,520 --> 00:33:47,360 Yes, you know, go to the hearing process or no, just go to the dismissal. 449 00:33:47,360 --> 00:33:54,280 Yeah, maybe you could put appear and present case because that's what they have to do under 450 00:33:54,280 --> 00:33:55,280 the ordinance. 451 00:33:55,280 --> 00:34:00,080 And then the other one is something like fail to appear. 452 00:34:00,080 --> 00:34:05,800 And I think that's a good addition to Deborah because then someone knows from the beginning 453 00:34:05,800 --> 00:34:14,880 that they're going to need to show up or this or it can all go away. 454 00:34:14,880 --> 00:34:15,880 That sound good to everybody. 455 00:34:15,880 --> 00:34:18,800 Any more comments on that one? 456 00:34:18,800 --> 00:34:21,840 Not seeing any any hands or anything, Madison. 457 00:34:21,840 --> 00:34:29,400 All right, then yeah, that I will work on including that in this as well. 458 00:34:29,400 --> 00:34:35,960 And I think the last one that I saw was from Ron about the reconsideration being seeming 459 00:34:35,960 --> 00:34:39,560 as though it was a loop as well and potentially having multiple times. 460 00:34:39,560 --> 00:34:44,840 Trey, did you look up the reference to that section to see if it was once or if it was 461 00:34:44,840 --> 00:34:47,480 limited to one reconsideration? 462 00:34:47,480 --> 00:34:50,440 I did. 463 00:34:50,440 --> 00:34:59,240 And technically under Section 2, 283, it does not actually say the word once. 464 00:34:59,240 --> 00:35:03,000 Now the circumstances of that section say that there must be new evidence otherwise 465 00:35:03,000 --> 00:35:07,640 it's unilaterally dismissed and it's got to be within five days. 466 00:35:07,640 --> 00:35:13,240 So if they don't have new evidence, the first, you know, with that first request for reconsideration, 467 00:35:13,240 --> 00:35:17,760 it's going to be unilaterally dismissed under the under the ordinance. 468 00:35:17,760 --> 00:35:25,760 If somehow they did and it went back around again, there's there's nothing in 2, 283 that 469 00:35:25,760 --> 00:35:33,200 would on on by itself say that they couldn't ask for a second reconsideration if there 470 00:35:33,200 --> 00:35:35,480 was further new evidence. 471 00:35:35,480 --> 00:35:42,720 So it kind of sounds like to me I don't I don't know if there's a better way to do this 472 00:35:42,720 --> 00:35:47,280 flowchart until we maybe come up with whatever recommendations we might want to come up with 473 00:35:47,280 --> 00:35:50,680 to amend the ordinance. 474 00:35:50,680 --> 00:35:55,280 I would agree because I was going to propose potentially a note like with the original 475 00:35:55,280 --> 00:36:00,480 like what we did with the complaint deficiency, but it sounds like that would not actually 476 00:36:00,480 --> 00:36:05,960 be accurate based on the current ordinance. 477 00:36:05,960 --> 00:36:12,800 So I'm saying we keep that as is and make a note because me Madison had actually talked 478 00:36:12,800 --> 00:36:19,280 about several things to talk about as far as recommendations for the ordinance, but 479 00:36:19,280 --> 00:36:24,200 push that off until after we get new people on the board and we deal with some administrative 480 00:36:24,200 --> 00:36:25,200 things. 481 00:36:25,200 --> 00:36:34,240 So I would say we put it on that list for you know February or March. 482 00:36:34,240 --> 00:36:38,160 Okay any more recommendations on the flowchart medicine. 483 00:36:38,160 --> 00:36:42,480 I did not receive any in our first that I think that's that's the end of my list unless 484 00:36:42,480 --> 00:36:44,840 I anybody thinks I missed one. 485 00:36:44,840 --> 00:36:49,520 I think Deborah said something about the subpoenas did we address that. 486 00:36:49,520 --> 00:36:54,280 I think that would be for the pre before the hearing after the hearing scheduled before 487 00:36:54,280 --> 00:36:55,280 the hearing. 488 00:36:55,280 --> 00:37:01,160 I think it would go into the kind of collecting evidence sending evidence to us possible pretrial 489 00:37:01,160 --> 00:37:02,160 hearings. 490 00:37:02,160 --> 00:37:03,160 Okay thank you. 491 00:37:03,160 --> 00:37:05,240 That's what I understood from our discussion. 492 00:37:05,240 --> 00:37:12,440 I also asked about timelines or if that needed to be another chart. 493 00:37:12,440 --> 00:37:16,880 I think that might be you know like I said there's also there's already a lot going on 494 00:37:16,880 --> 00:37:18,160 on this chart. 495 00:37:18,160 --> 00:37:23,680 I wonder if we should do maybe just a separate list or chart of the timeline. 496 00:37:23,680 --> 00:37:31,040 I could I could sort I have one I could bring back one that kind of matches this nice format 497 00:37:31,040 --> 00:37:34,320 and bring that back with the next time so that y'all y'all can see that laid out and 498 00:37:34,320 --> 00:37:40,880 we could include that in this information as well on the website so that the public 499 00:37:40,880 --> 00:37:44,760 has has access to something that easily shows the timelines. 500 00:37:44,760 --> 00:37:47,520 I'd be great. 501 00:37:47,520 --> 00:38:00,340 So let's just go forward with with that all right Madam Chair do you need a motion for 502 00:38:00,340 --> 00:38:07,120 this or well I think she's going to come back with the revised chart and I guess the timeline 503 00:38:07,120 --> 00:38:08,120 chart. 504 00:38:08,120 --> 00:38:11,960 So I think we're just going to give her direction to come back with that and the next meeting 505 00:38:11,960 --> 00:38:17,320 we can vote on whether we want to put it up on the website or we have more corrections 506 00:38:17,320 --> 00:38:19,760 or whatever. 507 00:38:19,760 --> 00:38:20,760 Thank you. 508 00:38:20,760 --> 00:38:30,560 All right well then Madam Chair are you good for me to move on to the next item? 509 00:38:30,560 --> 00:38:33,560 Yes I am. 510 00:38:33,560 --> 00:38:50,840 And I'm going to share my screen again and for the presentation so you guys see the slide 511 00:38:50,840 --> 00:39:05,520 all right so I've also had some discussions about the ethics complaint form with the city 512 00:39:05,520 --> 00:39:10,800 secretary's office and legal and a few board members really since I became the board liaison 513 00:39:10,800 --> 00:39:16,440 which I guess was back in May or so and so based on these conversations I thought it 514 00:39:16,440 --> 00:39:21,480 might be a good idea to revise the form just to clean up some minor language issues and 515 00:39:21,480 --> 00:39:27,520 I included the current and revised version of the form in your backup most of the changes 516 00:39:27,520 --> 00:39:33,720 are not really substantive but I can go through them if you would like. 517 00:39:33,720 --> 00:39:39,080 However the kind of the biggest change is adding this checklist of the ethics ordinances 518 00:39:39,080 --> 00:39:45,240 prohibitions to the form so it basically it just lists out the ordinance sections that 519 00:39:45,240 --> 00:39:51,820 describe what is prohibited and it's my intention with it was to facilitate the board's review 520 00:39:51,820 --> 00:39:58,200 and to assist complainants in identifying what the ordinance actually prohibits. 521 00:39:58,200 --> 00:40:02,960 So if the board chooses to implement this section this checklist section I also need 522 00:40:02,960 --> 00:40:08,360 direction on if it has to be completed to be considered the minute if the that part 523 00:40:08,360 --> 00:40:14,920 has to be completed for the form to be considered administratively complete. 524 00:40:14,920 --> 00:40:20,680 And so now I'll take this down so that y'all can discuss. 525 00:40:20,680 --> 00:40:28,360 So there we go from from what I saw on the complaint form it was just kind of cleaning 526 00:40:28,360 --> 00:40:34,200 some stuff up and like you said the only substantive thing would be adding the checklist I'm trying 527 00:40:34,200 --> 00:40:38,820 to look at it right now right and I apologize for not having a red line we don't have the 528 00:40:38,820 --> 00:40:42,920 old form we don't have like a editable version of it for some reason. 529 00:40:42,920 --> 00:40:50,640 So I have like I could walk through them if you would like all right I think I just shared 530 00:40:50,640 --> 00:40:57,040 screen for like what you said was the most substantive part yeah this part in the middle. 531 00:40:57,040 --> 00:41:04,520 So I talked to Madison about that so I think the pros of having this is we know what we're 532 00:41:04,520 --> 00:41:08,300 looking for because I think that was an issue with the last complaint is like okay what 533 00:41:08,300 --> 00:41:12,880 are they filing this under and I think another pro would be if somebody is filling out this 534 00:41:12,880 --> 00:41:21,320 complaint it kind of tells them exactly where they can go to find to kind of fit what they've 535 00:41:21,320 --> 00:41:28,560 seen through the ordinance the con would be if somebody sees this and they don't understand 536 00:41:28,560 --> 00:41:35,000 it or don't understand all of these subsections and you know don't file a form. 537 00:41:35,000 --> 00:41:40,240 So when I talked to Madison about this I like it and I want to keep it but I would say if 538 00:41:40,240 --> 00:41:46,920 somebody doesn't fill it out we still accept the complaint and that would be something 539 00:41:46,920 --> 00:41:52,840 where we kind of have to figure it out like we did on this last one but I'm open to discussion 540 00:41:52,840 --> 00:41:58,640 about what we should do on that. 541 00:41:58,640 --> 00:42:09,200 I really like the check boxes my suggestion would be rather than having mandates that 542 00:42:09,200 --> 00:42:16,280 also spill out what those mandates are for consistency purposes due to report financial 543 00:42:16,280 --> 00:42:19,320 disclosure and business disclosure. 544 00:42:19,320 --> 00:42:22,360 And is that the only three ones on there I don't have it in front of me because that 545 00:42:22,360 --> 00:42:26,280 wouldn't make it I think that's a good idea if it's only especially if it's only those 546 00:42:26,280 --> 00:42:27,280 three. 547 00:42:27,280 --> 00:42:37,720 Yeah just those three that and I if it's if this part is voluntary then that shouldn't 548 00:42:37,720 --> 00:42:39,560 be specified. 549 00:42:39,560 --> 00:42:45,560 We can certainly include a note just right in that same section that says this is optional 550 00:42:45,560 --> 00:42:47,520 or something like that. 551 00:42:47,520 --> 00:42:56,720 And my next comment and question also applies to this the form and also the form instructions. 552 00:42:56,720 --> 00:43:07,200 The edit is that sections 2-272 and or 2-273 of the ethics ordinance. 553 00:43:07,200 --> 00:43:14,280 And the ethics ordinance says and instead of and or is legally is it a problem to change 554 00:43:14,280 --> 00:43:18,400 it on the form but have and in the ordinance. 555 00:43:18,400 --> 00:43:24,880 Okay I think that's a question for you. 556 00:43:24,880 --> 00:43:32,400 No I mean I think and the where it is on the form is that it does not have to be all of 557 00:43:32,400 --> 00:43:34,160 them. 558 00:43:34,160 --> 00:43:43,120 But if it doesn't have to be all of them it sounds then it sounds like in the ordinance 559 00:43:43,120 --> 00:43:50,320 because it says and instead of and or that it has to be all of them. 560 00:43:50,320 --> 00:43:55,480 So I think that's we're talking about right here correct. 561 00:43:55,480 --> 00:44:00,440 I think maybe the issue that you're pointing out Debra is that is the ordinance is the 562 00:44:00,440 --> 00:44:11,920 ordinance right I'm going to pull that up real quick but also if it's not consistent 563 00:44:11,920 --> 00:44:17,040 with the ordinance that's a problem. 564 00:44:17,040 --> 00:44:29,600 The old form used and Rob I also Madam Chair as you highlighted that that and or is also 565 00:44:29,600 --> 00:44:34,840 on the ethics complaint form itself down there at before you start doing all your writing. 566 00:44:34,840 --> 00:44:38,240 But I'd also like to include because you may have some people thinking I only get to pick 567 00:44:38,240 --> 00:44:43,480 one of these it may be section or sections there may be multiple offenses that we want 568 00:44:43,480 --> 00:44:49,120 them and they may automatically do it but if we're going to do this and I like the volunteer 569 00:44:49,120 --> 00:44:54,000 statement because they want to fill it out fine but I think we might let them know that 570 00:44:54,000 --> 00:44:58,120 it could be you may want to check more than these. 571 00:44:58,120 --> 00:45:07,740 I mean more than one pardon me it's only one complaint per are you saying so if if someone 572 00:45:07,740 --> 00:45:14,880 is filing a complaint that violates several of these then one or two of these one complaint 573 00:45:14,880 --> 00:45:18,880 or do they have to file one for each one. 574 00:45:18,880 --> 00:45:24,120 I believe you can file one complaint with multiple violations but you have to separate 575 00:45:24,120 --> 00:45:30,640 out by person sorry correct me if I'm incorrect. 576 00:45:30,640 --> 00:45:36,640 You've lost me on that one it's it's one complaint per person but if it's the same underlying 577 00:45:36,640 --> 00:45:42,240 facts and circumstances you can point out that you know it's your belief that it violates 578 00:45:42,240 --> 00:45:45,480 multiple provisions of the ethics ordinance. 579 00:45:45,480 --> 00:45:54,400 I think you can solve that by just putting a parents an S in parents behind section yes 580 00:45:54,400 --> 00:45:57,160 I agree. 581 00:45:57,160 --> 00:46:05,960 I disagree with the voluntariness of this particular section I think I think that the 582 00:46:05,960 --> 00:46:14,420 next section requires information about the complaint that where any logical person could 583 00:46:14,420 --> 00:46:20,180 probably be able to discern what the nature of the complaint is plus there's an affidavit 584 00:46:20,180 --> 00:46:28,320 that has to be filed that further defines what the issue is by putting this section 585 00:46:28,320 --> 00:46:39,760 in where someone should check the applicable sections violated it pretty much ensures that 586 00:46:39,760 --> 00:46:43,640 they have to at least read the ethics code before they file the complaint. 587 00:46:43,640 --> 00:46:54,680 So I don't see this as being burdensome I get your point there and that's that's why 588 00:46:54,680 --> 00:47:00,080 you like this is that there's been a couple of complaints I think we've had including 589 00:47:00,080 --> 00:47:05,440 the most recent one where it's just like we don't we don't really know where they're coming 590 00:47:05,440 --> 00:47:09,760 from and maybe if they have this they can go back and kind of match up what they're 591 00:47:09,760 --> 00:47:17,560 thinking versus what's in the ordinance Madison just to help kind of streamline the discussion 592 00:47:17,560 --> 00:47:22,920 I appreciate all the comments and discussion I could we take one potential change to what's 593 00:47:22,920 --> 00:47:30,160 presented at a time okay I think that I think we're all in agreement that after section 594 00:47:30,160 --> 00:47:39,720 put S in parentheses so that people can check multiple boxes and then the others I think 595 00:47:39,720 --> 00:47:49,960 I guess let's first decide as a group whether we want this section to be voluntary so I 596 00:47:49,960 --> 00:47:57,480 think you know the probe making it voluntary is that if somebody doesn't understand this 597 00:47:57,480 --> 00:48:06,360 they can't they have you know they they they have to check a box for it to be accepted 598 00:48:06,360 --> 00:48:14,800 or I guess I'm sorry let me let me start again so if if we make it you have to do it mandatory 599 00:48:14,800 --> 00:48:20,300 they have to check it so they have to know which box to check if it's volunteer and that 600 00:48:20,300 --> 00:48:25,600 makes I think it easier to to take care of their complaint because we know what to look 601 00:48:25,600 --> 00:48:33,840 at but if we make it if we but if it's mandatory and they can't figure out which one it is 602 00:48:33,840 --> 00:48:38,560 then they don't get to make a complaint and if it's voluntary we might have situations 603 00:48:38,560 --> 00:48:43,580 like we've had in the past where we don't know what they're trying to say but the complaint 604 00:48:43,580 --> 00:48:54,000 gets filed anyway so I guess we just we need to decide that as a group well you know where 605 00:48:54,000 --> 00:49:00,560 I stand I know where you stand could there be a notation on on that section that said 606 00:49:00,560 --> 00:49:08,520 if you have problems deciding which category your complaint fits under you may contact 607 00:49:08,520 --> 00:49:16,600 somebody for further explanation or something like that well I'm not so I guess I mean the 608 00:49:16,600 --> 00:49:21,720 person that would that they could contact would be the auditor but I'm not sure Madison 609 00:49:21,720 --> 00:49:27,000 how you deal with that and at what point your you know how much advice you can give on a 610 00:49:27,000 --> 00:49:37,920 situation like this I I don't know that I would feel comfortable telling a potential 611 00:49:37,920 --> 00:49:50,160 complainant what category their complaint would fall under as my role is administrative 612 00:49:50,160 --> 00:49:54,520 but they could contact their their own attorney I suppose I mean I guess if somebody asked 613 00:49:54,520 --> 00:50:00,920 me that that's what I would say yeah I guess I would almost fear into like is it giving 614 00:50:00,920 --> 00:50:08,880 legal advice because you're interpreting an ordinance so I so I guess Trisha I think 615 00:50:08,880 --> 00:50:15,520 I don't know if that's really an option unfortunately I don't know if there's anywhere if it's required 616 00:50:15,520 --> 00:50:20,840 to check the box and they're confused then they should just context somebody they think 617 00:50:20,840 --> 00:50:26,300 could give give them some sort of advice I think if they had questions about the form 618 00:50:26,300 --> 00:50:30,920 they could ask me and I could say that you know that part is mandatory you have to fill 619 00:50:30,920 --> 00:50:37,520 it out I just couldn't tell them like well what you're describing sounds like gifts or 620 00:50:37,520 --> 00:50:50,480 whatever or maybe refer them just to read the ordinance online yes it seems like a contradiction 621 00:50:50,480 --> 00:50:58,480 to me though to make it voluntary but also said that if they don't show up it gets dismissed 622 00:50:58,480 --> 00:51:04,320 because that puts all of the pressure on the person to prove everything I mean if you're 623 00:51:04,320 --> 00:51:08,840 gonna dismiss something because they don't show up then I don't think that should be 624 00:51:08,840 --> 00:51:18,560 voluntary you don't think that section should be voluntary right I guess should be mandatory 625 00:51:18,560 --> 00:51:25,560 I'm I mean I'll go back to the other thing I don't know I don't know any other city that 626 00:51:25,560 --> 00:51:31,920 puts the all of the pressure on the complainant to do the whole case because in a way we're 627 00:51:31,920 --> 00:51:43,360 asking them to be like a lawyer and it's just one of the many fun quirks of our of our code 628 00:51:43,360 --> 00:51:56,200 that I don't like no other city does it that way Rob I agree with the removing the voluntary 629 00:51:56,200 --> 00:52:01,440 if they're if they think there's a problem they'll find out they'll read it and they'll 630 00:52:01,440 --> 00:52:06,820 check it and I don't want to put Madison in a position where she's considered a clearinghouse 631 00:52:06,820 --> 00:52:12,720 for all of this oh she skillfully can handle it and she'll tell them to go read it but 632 00:52:12,720 --> 00:52:19,120 I don't even want to put her in that position I think it's you're gonna file a complaint 633 00:52:19,120 --> 00:52:24,600 here it is it's going to be one section or multiple sections and then if there's let 634 00:52:24,600 --> 00:52:29,360 the auditor then look at all of that and then maybe there's in one of our boxes when we 635 00:52:29,360 --> 00:52:34,880 bring it all back then the auditor can do some clearing up but at the beginning I think 636 00:52:34,880 --> 00:52:40,040 it should be the complaint because they're the ones that are going to show us what direction 637 00:52:40,040 --> 00:52:48,680 they want us to go or at least look at all right so it sounds like Rob and Ron and Annetta 638 00:52:48,680 --> 00:52:53,000 are saying this should be mandatory I think Deborah you said you wanted to be voluntary 639 00:52:53,000 --> 00:53:00,440 it could be but I can see the wrapping up for making it mandatory and Patricia and Don 640 00:53:00,440 --> 00:53:06,160 do y'all do y'all go either way on this I think it should be mandatory okay I think 641 00:53:06,160 --> 00:53:10,840 at this point I think it doesn't matter what me and Don say I think we majority thinks 642 00:53:10,840 --> 00:53:18,840 it should be mandatory so so I guess we'll we'll have it as mandatory what other thoughts 643 00:53:18,840 --> 00:53:24,880 about where did you have anything else that we discussed already Madison or I wanted to 644 00:53:24,880 --> 00:53:34,040 address Debra's concern about the 2-272 and or issue I pulled up the ordinance the section 645 00:53:34,040 --> 00:53:40,840 that if you want I can pull up what I'm looking at it says any person who has firsthand knowledge 646 00:53:40,840 --> 00:53:47,480 that there has been a violation of sections 2-272 and 2-273 of this article may allege 647 00:53:47,480 --> 00:53:53,640 such violations by submitting a complaint I would think my interpretation of that is that 648 00:53:53,640 --> 00:54:01,560 it doesn't have to be both it's that if you have knowledge of either of the sections so 649 00:54:01,560 --> 00:54:06,680 that the and or would be applicable in that regard does that does that answer your question 650 00:54:06,680 --> 00:54:15,960 Deborah I think that it's fine legally if we include and or but I would trade if you 651 00:54:15,960 --> 00:54:21,640 have a different opinion please step in no I agree with your opinion I think in in the 652 00:54:21,640 --> 00:54:28,440 in the section from the ordinance which is 2-279 is that it's just a cumulative if anyone 653 00:54:28,440 --> 00:54:33,600 you know anyone out there has knowledge of these things you can file a complaint so then 654 00:54:33,600 --> 00:54:40,200 when you actually get to the complaint form where it's individualized and it's supposed 655 00:54:40,200 --> 00:54:45,640 to be a little more user-friendly probably it's a clarification of you can allege a violation 656 00:54:45,640 --> 00:54:53,860 of this section and or this other section I again I'm not an attorney but I would suggest 657 00:54:53,860 --> 00:55:02,360 that the next time the ordinance is revised it reflect that just coming from a federal 658 00:55:02,360 --> 00:55:07,920 background where those those slashes and and ors and must and shalls make all the difference 659 00:55:07,920 --> 00:55:15,560 well and I I don't I don't have the ordinance in front of me based on what they're saying 660 00:55:15,560 --> 00:55:22,600 I mean it would be you can just have like something ever under 2-273 and you can just 661 00:55:22,600 --> 00:55:28,360 have something under that 2-272 I'm right about that right Trey and Madison so I think 662 00:55:28,360 --> 00:55:38,000 in that since that's the situation and or be right okay was there any anything else 663 00:55:38,000 --> 00:55:46,840 on the complaint form that we need to talk about yes I just wanted to get clarification 664 00:55:46,840 --> 00:55:54,880 on Debra had proposed that the the section 2-272 mandates in the checklist be split out 665 00:55:54,880 --> 00:55:58,840 into the three different mandates and I wanted to get clarification on if the the full board 666 00:55:58,840 --> 00:56:09,040 agreed with that I think I agree does anybody think we shouldn't do that sounds like let's 667 00:56:09,040 --> 00:56:16,320 go ahead and do that I have one other thing on that now that we've decided to make that 668 00:56:16,320 --> 00:56:21,480 section mandatory and this might be something that we need to take up and like at one of 669 00:56:21,480 --> 00:56:27,680 the next meetings I'm not sure if it's going to fit into today's agenda but if it's mandatory 670 00:56:27,680 --> 00:56:34,160 and say they they check like conflict of interest and then we get it and it's obvious to us 671 00:56:34,160 --> 00:56:40,160 at a board that say this falls under a different section so it's is that going to still be 672 00:56:40,160 --> 00:56:48,120 allowed I would think that that's a procedural issue that the board needs to decide okay 673 00:56:48,120 --> 00:56:52,440 and I don't know maybe that's something we should wait until like it actually is a problem 674 00:56:52,440 --> 00:56:57,400 but it's just something I thought about if this is mandatory and it gets accepted you 675 00:56:57,400 --> 00:57:03,440 know what what we'll do from there once the house is on fire we don't want to have to 676 00:57:03,440 --> 00:57:08,200 try to find the hoses I think we ought to go ahead and and address it now I think it's 677 00:57:08,200 --> 00:57:15,600 a good point I would agree madam chair just so that when there is you know there in theory 678 00:57:15,600 --> 00:57:20,720 there'll be a new board soon so that I can if that comes up I can say well this is what 679 00:57:20,720 --> 00:57:26,760 the old board said about that issue I don't think it makes that much difference whether 680 00:57:26,760 --> 00:57:33,280 or not they check something or don't check something that turned out to be applicable 681 00:57:33,280 --> 00:57:40,560 I think the ultimate decision as to what the the hearing issue is is not the complainants 682 00:57:40,560 --> 00:57:49,400 is the boards I guess my opinion is you know we make it mandatory so they have to tell 683 00:57:49,400 --> 00:57:55,280 us what they think it is but then if and we would obviously look at that section but I 684 00:57:55,280 --> 00:58:00,880 think if it's obvious to us we can still go forward on a different section because I mean 685 00:58:00,880 --> 00:58:06,880 I just think that's the most equitable thing I would agree with that because I want to 686 00:58:06,880 --> 00:58:13,400 be very careful about not putting I mean I want the complainant to be as clear as possible 687 00:58:13,400 --> 00:58:23,040 but I don't want to put all the pressure on them to to be a lawyer basically so I agree 688 00:58:23,040 --> 00:58:36,520 with Laura well Laura you know that's you and I are in agreement right I think so but 689 00:58:36,520 --> 00:58:42,480 you know look at it look at look at it conversely if they check something and we don't think 690 00:58:42,480 --> 00:58:48,960 that it's applicable we as a board will not accept it so if they didn't check something 691 00:58:48,960 --> 00:58:53,920 that we think is applicable the converse should be true that we we should consider it so I 692 00:58:53,920 --> 00:59:09,000 mean that's just adding emphasis to to our points I guess are so I guess and this might 693 00:59:09,000 --> 00:59:13,360 be a question for Madison or Trey is that just something we kind of can agree on or 694 00:59:13,360 --> 00:59:23,840 is that something we need to like make a procedural rule about in our rules of procedure I might 695 00:59:23,840 --> 00:59:29,760 say I'm of the opinion that unless you would like it to be I don't think it has to be noted 696 00:59:29,760 --> 00:59:35,800 on this form I think you've given me you know informal direction and we could move forward 697 00:59:35,800 --> 00:59:40,360 in that way or you could decide to amend the rules of procedure or recommend an amendment 698 00:59:40,360 --> 00:59:46,920 to the rules of procedure to the council well knowing how long that takes we could just 699 00:59:46,920 --> 00:59:55,080 go forward I didn't that sounds maybe I was sorry wait I think we could move forward informally 700 00:59:55,080 --> 01:00:02,480 I think the board has that discretion under the current formal guidelines yeah I think 701 01:00:02,480 --> 01:00:09,840 I think so I think what we've decided could fall under our what we our current ordinance 702 01:00:09,840 --> 01:00:20,480 and our current rules of procedure so yeah and I would agree with that chair if you don't 703 01:00:20,480 --> 01:00:27,560 mind me just adding did under the ethics ordinance you know the violation alleged just under 704 01:00:27,560 --> 01:00:33,000 the ordinance itself says that must must state on its face an allegation that if true constitutes 705 01:00:33,000 --> 01:00:38,120 a violation so the complaint for purposes of getting it all the way through hearing 706 01:00:38,120 --> 01:00:43,920 is just that it has to be a violent you know the the board will decide if there is a violation 707 01:00:43,920 --> 01:00:51,400 under the under the ethics ordinance I don't think it's limited to if they only marked 708 01:00:51,400 --> 01:00:57,400 a and it's actually a violation of B that that would talk on as the ordinance is currently 709 01:00:57,400 --> 01:01:03,440 written and I feel like we've had this conversation before this is what everybody's agreed with 710 01:01:03,440 --> 01:01:07,400 before because it just I mean it makes most sense I think when they file something and 711 01:01:07,400 --> 01:01:14,440 we just can't tell what it is you know that's one thing but you know I think I I like that 712 01:01:14,440 --> 01:01:20,280 we would have that discretion so we can you know go forward with something if there is 713 01:01:20,280 --> 01:01:28,520 something there all right anything else what else about this complaint Madison or anyone 714 01:01:28,520 --> 01:01:40,880 else Deborah oh I have a question on the cover sheet where it gives the instructions on the 715 01:01:40,880 --> 01:01:48,280 form and then it says important ethics ordinance provisions and the first one is prohibition 716 01:01:48,280 --> 01:01:57,340 but it's actually talking about frivolous complaints and I just I wondered if that should 717 01:01:57,340 --> 01:02:05,400 perhaps reflect that it's actually frivolous complaints if you look at the ordinance it's 718 01:02:05,400 --> 01:02:18,160 section two dash two eight two C on page 18 and I and just to note that that was something 719 01:02:18,160 --> 01:02:26,900 that was on the previous complaint form too we could just change it to and I think what 720 01:02:26,900 --> 01:02:30,440 was meant by that I don't know because I assume this is probably written by you measure or 721 01:02:30,440 --> 01:02:36,740 somebody else it's probably just you're prohibited from filing a frivolous claim we could just 722 01:02:36,740 --> 01:02:42,720 change that to prohibit and prohibition against frivolous claims I think if you just put frivolous 723 01:02:42,720 --> 01:02:47,320 claims that might not make it sense to somebody you know that's just reading this that doesn't 724 01:02:47,320 --> 01:02:51,480 know what they're reading but I think it probably says prohibition just to let people know you 725 01:02:51,480 --> 01:02:59,960 can't do this so maybe putting prohibition maybe against frivolous claims what does anybody 726 01:02:59,960 --> 01:03:08,400 else have thoughts about that we just go go with that I guess I think that would make 727 01:03:08,400 --> 01:03:25,960 it more clear I think it's important to have that in there yeah and then my final comment 728 01:03:25,960 --> 01:03:32,000 on this is in confidentiality one two three four the fifth line down on the right hand 729 01:03:32,000 --> 01:03:43,120 side where it says chapter two article there's a typo there yep thank you I can certainly 730 01:03:43,120 --> 01:03:59,520 be correct about that um I was just gonna say I think these are all honestly relatively 731 01:03:59,520 --> 01:04:06,240 minor amendments to this so are you all comfortable if I just run through these are the exact 732 01:04:06,240 --> 01:04:15,760 changes that will be made approving it as amended today oh yeah okay so just starting 733 01:04:15,760 --> 01:04:21,880 from the beginning under important ethics ordinance provisions changing prohibition 734 01:04:21,880 --> 01:04:29,640 to say prohibition against frivolous complaints moving to the actual ethics complaint form 735 01:04:29,640 --> 01:04:46,000 oh correcting the typo um from chapter two article ci to say chapter two article xi moving 736 01:04:46,000 --> 01:04:51,840 to the ethics complaint form under the checklist section to say please indicate which section 737 01:04:51,840 --> 01:04:58,880 sections with the apostrophe s of the ethics ordinance you believe was violated and then 738 01:04:58,880 --> 01:05:06,280 spelling basically including three taking out section two dash two seven two mandates 739 01:05:06,280 --> 01:05:17,800 and replacing it with section two dash seven to a sorry I'm trying to pull up what that 740 01:05:17,800 --> 01:05:23,620 actually says real quick uh yeah so it's changing that to say section two dash two seven two 741 01:05:23,620 --> 01:05:29,880 a duty to report and including section two dash two seven two b financial disclosures 742 01:05:29,880 --> 01:05:36,360 and two dash two seven two c business disclosures as separate items on the checklist believe 743 01:05:36,360 --> 01:05:49,300 you said apostrophe s as opposed to s in parents I apologize I'm in in parentheses okay I'll 744 01:05:49,300 --> 01:06:02,400 forgive you for that all right uh anything else and I I guess uh not to like open up 745 01:06:02,400 --> 01:06:08,240 a can of worms again but on that section are we just going to consider it mandatory or 746 01:06:08,240 --> 01:06:15,960 did we want to put um you know you must select a section for the form to be complete or anything 747 01:06:15,960 --> 01:06:23,120 like that I guess what was everybody envisioning by making it mandatory I don't think it needs 748 01:06:23,120 --> 01:06:29,680 anything if it's on there then then then the prima facie presumption is that it has to 749 01:06:29,680 --> 01:06:36,880 be filled out yeah I tend to agree um unless there's a majority that thinks we should put 750 01:06:36,880 --> 01:06:43,800 something else on there we'll leave it like that the the the first um I guess instruction 751 01:06:43,800 --> 01:06:49,480 on the in the instructions is all sections of this complaint form uh must be complete 752 01:06:49,480 --> 01:06:54,440 essentially so yeah and it's yeah and it follows this thing incomplete forms will not be processed 753 01:06:54,440 --> 01:07:01,760 so I I think that I think that should be enough um okay is anything else on your list madison 754 01:07:01,760 --> 01:07:07,140 that is all of the um amendments to this form as prevented that I have unless there are 755 01:07:07,140 --> 01:07:14,400 some that I missed all right so um I would ask someone to make a motion to change the 756 01:07:14,400 --> 01:07:23,400 form as we've just discussed amended so moved second Debra moved and rob seconded um all 757 01:07:23,400 --> 01:07:29,080 in chair yes great madam chair oh and if I'm mistaken then excuse me for talking out of 758 01:07:29,080 --> 01:07:35,200 turn I think you're looking for an emotion to a motion to approve as amended um yes because 759 01:07:35,200 --> 01:07:39,960 well she changed it and then she added the amendments that we just went over verbally 760 01:07:39,960 --> 01:07:46,120 because that's am I making the right motion okay right yes ma'am yes so as amended um 761 01:07:46,120 --> 01:07:49,740 all right and I'll do the roll call voting because that's what we're supposed to be doing 762 01:07:49,740 --> 01:08:05,280 so um don uh yes uh Debra yes annetta aye rob yes patricia yes and ron yes all right 763 01:08:05,280 --> 01:08:11,600 so motion passes and we have a chair sorry chair don't forget yourself we need your eye 764 01:08:11,600 --> 01:08:16,160 for me too thank you I for you know I don't think I've been doing that I think we but 765 01:08:16,160 --> 01:08:24,480 I'll do from now on so I vote in favor and then Madison I guess you can move on to the 766 01:08:24,480 --> 01:08:31,040 next uh next portion of your presentation I will do that and I'm going to share my screen 767 01:08:31,040 --> 01:08:48,640 real quick you can hear me right yes all right go through this real quick and here we are 768 01:08:48,640 --> 01:08:54,440 so um this is the final item I have for you guys today um so as you may know during the 769 01:08:54,440 --> 01:09:01,640 most recent preliminary assessment uh the panel discussed with legal counsel what could 770 01:09:01,640 --> 01:09:09,400 be reviewed as part of the actual assessment so in particular it was not clear if a video 771 01:09:09,400 --> 01:09:13,080 uh referenced in the submitted ethics complaint form should have been reviewed by the panel 772 01:09:13,080 --> 01:09:21,520 as part of the assessment um so on the slide I've tried to pull uh together um pull the 773 01:09:21,520 --> 01:09:29,640 relevant sections of the ordinance and rules of procedure uh can you guys see the slide 774 01:09:29,640 --> 01:09:34,980 preliminary assessment review clarification um no you're on the first slide you might 775 01:09:34,980 --> 01:09:49,800 want to switch to that one try this again there how's that yes can see it now okay so 776 01:09:49,800 --> 01:09:56,040 on this slide I tried to pull together the most what I felt were the most relevant sections 777 01:09:56,040 --> 01:10:00,240 of the ordinance and the rules of procedure to try to help y'all with this discussion 778 01:10:00,240 --> 01:10:07,920 um in particular uh the ethics ordinance defines a complaint as written documentation submitted 779 01:10:07,920 --> 01:10:14,120 to the city accusing a city official of violating the ethics ordinance uh another section of 780 01:10:14,120 --> 01:10:19,040 the ordinance includes a discussion of the contents of a complaint and states that the 781 01:10:19,040 --> 01:10:23,960 complaint must state all documents or other material available to the complainant that 782 01:10:23,960 --> 01:10:29,100 are relevant to the allegation and a further section of the ordinance says that the panel 783 01:10:29,100 --> 01:10:34,520 shall review the complaint on its face and the rules of procedure limit the panel's review 784 01:10:34,520 --> 01:10:41,380 to the contents of the complaint um so based on kind of this guidance I'm just requesting 785 01:10:41,380 --> 01:10:47,440 direction from the board on if a panel uh can review non-written evidence as part of 786 01:10:47,440 --> 01:10:53,180 the preliminary preliminary assessment and if so um how can this non-written evidence 787 01:10:53,180 --> 01:10:59,400 be submitted uh so those are kind of my questions obviously if you have any more direction I'll 788 01:10:59,400 --> 01:11:06,160 I'm happy to hear it so I will stop sharing all right so I'll start by saying I'm not 789 01:11:06,160 --> 01:11:11,920 I don't remember off the top my head if everybody here was on the in the last hearing so um 790 01:11:11,920 --> 01:11:19,960 I think the last complaint was pretty obviously um uh just just not a not a valid complaint 791 01:11:19,960 --> 01:11:23,840 not something that that should have gone to a hearing or would have been valid at a hearing 792 01:11:23,840 --> 01:11:30,240 and in that complaint they um they cited the video of where they thought there was a complaint 793 01:11:30,240 --> 01:11:35,360 and if you went and watched the video it was even more obvious that it wasn't a valid complaint 794 01:11:35,360 --> 01:11:42,120 so um that that panel discussed you know do we look at this or not from what I remember 795 01:11:42,120 --> 01:11:46,560 in our hearing that kind of came up but it didn't even really matter in that situation 796 01:11:46,560 --> 01:11:52,600 but I think there is very you know it's very possible that somebody could refer to something 797 01:11:52,600 --> 01:11:57,620 like that and our decision would be based on having to go look at that so what we need 798 01:11:57,620 --> 01:12:05,400 to decide is can we go look at that and I actually got a question um from bob who's not who's 799 01:12:05,400 --> 01:12:10,040 not on the panel today uh something came up about the four corners and I you know probably 800 01:12:10,040 --> 01:12:14,440 me or ron or don or somebody said something about that and the four corners of a document 801 01:12:14,440 --> 01:12:18,740 like in the legal world means that you just have to look at that document you can't look 802 01:12:18,740 --> 01:12:22,560 at anything outside of it so if somebody referred to a website on that document you can't go 803 01:12:22,560 --> 01:12:29,200 look at that website you have to look at the four corners of the document um so you know 804 01:12:29,200 --> 01:12:37,400 based on what the um on what madison just showed us it seems like the ordinance and 805 01:12:37,400 --> 01:12:40,920 our rules of procedure are saying we just need to look at the actual complaint and nothing 806 01:12:40,920 --> 01:12:47,400 outside of it but then again those that same those same rules say that you need to say 807 01:12:47,400 --> 01:12:53,920 everything you have uh so they're they're telling you you have to tell us what you have 808 01:12:53,920 --> 01:12:59,640 yet we can't go look at it so so I can see how there's a problem here and I guess if 809 01:12:59,640 --> 01:13:05,400 trey has um you know strong opinions on what we should do here I'd like to hear that maybe 810 01:13:05,400 --> 01:13:11,480 we can then open it up to discussion 811 01:13:11,480 --> 01:13:17,240 I will leave that to the board discussion I was hoping you'd have a strong opinion legally 812 01:13:17,240 --> 01:13:23,880 what we should do and then our job would be done but okay rob so have if somebody has 813 01:13:23,880 --> 01:13:30,640 a video of a of an instant incident uh can they include that thumb drive in with their 814 01:13:30,640 --> 01:13:34,720 document and is that something we would look at since it's part of the package that was 815 01:13:34,720 --> 01:13:40,920 presented uh in a simplistic mind is that permissible so I think that's what we need 816 01:13:40,920 --> 01:13:48,920 to decide uh something else to consider is when we look at this complaint um I believe 817 01:13:48,920 --> 01:13:53,720 and you can correct me if I'm wrong the statute or the uh the ordinance says and the or the 818 01:13:53,720 --> 01:13:58,680 rules of procedure I'm not sure which one says that you um if if everything they say 819 01:13:58,680 --> 01:14:04,120 is true would it be a violation and if everything they said is true it would be a violation 820 01:14:04,120 --> 01:14:13,480 it goes to a hearing so you're really not um judging it that's why I'm not sure if 821 01:14:13,480 --> 01:14:18,880 it even matters if you go look at whatever they provide it because that's more of something 822 01:14:18,880 --> 01:14:24,040 for the hearing because you would just assume everything they say is true is there a violation 823 01:14:24,040 --> 01:14:32,360 or not does that make sense and and what does everybody think as far as looking at things 824 01:14:32,360 --> 01:14:39,960 outside the complaint form for the preliminary hearing of course in the hearing uh you know 825 01:14:39,960 --> 01:14:44,120 we would look at more but for the preliminary hearing to decide if it goes through a hearing 826 01:14:44,120 --> 01:14:48,160 and if there would be a complaint and everything's true what does everybody think about looking 827 01:14:48,160 --> 01:14:57,960 outside the document what would be the downside of allowing uh uh the board to look outside 828 01:14:57,960 --> 01:15:06,320 the document uh I guess the downside I mean that it's I think if you read the ordinance 829 01:15:06,320 --> 01:15:09,840 and the rules you could say that you shouldn't look outside the document based on what it's 830 01:15:09,840 --> 01:15:14,000 saying but it's a little unclear so one would be you know maybe it's against the ordinance 831 01:15:14,000 --> 01:15:18,960 and the rules of procedure another thing would be kind of it could bog down the preliminary 832 01:15:18,960 --> 01:15:24,320 hearing when you're not supposed to decide the facts for instance say they they link 833 01:15:24,320 --> 01:15:32,960 a video and um you know it would I guess it would put us in a situation of say they violated 834 01:15:32,960 --> 01:15:39,660 section x and you look at the the four corners of the document and if if what they say is 835 01:15:39,660 --> 01:15:44,080 true they would have violated section x but they include a link to a video you go look 836 01:15:44,080 --> 01:15:47,520 at that video and they're like oh well you actually they actually didn't violate section 837 01:15:47,520 --> 01:15:54,280 x then you somebody might dismiss in the preliminary hearing when it should have gone to a hearing 838 01:15:54,280 --> 01:16:01,480 does that that sounds you know I think that highlights how uh it's unclear but um that 839 01:16:01,480 --> 01:16:07,240 would be the situation I could think of as a downside um because the preliminary hearing 840 01:16:07,240 --> 01:16:12,520 is just about if everything they say is true you go to a hearing and then you look at the 841 01:16:12,520 --> 01:16:17,040 evidence so it might be bringing an evidence to the preliminary hearing that is more a 842 01:16:17,040 --> 01:16:24,920 matter to decide on in the actual hearing I don't know if that if that answers your 843 01:16:24,920 --> 01:16:34,680 question Madison and I think um perhaps another downside is the respondent really doesn't 844 01:16:34,680 --> 01:16:41,680 have an opportunity to provide any evidence or testimony or anything to the preliminary 845 01:16:41,680 --> 01:16:51,720 assessment panel um they would at at the hearing um but that that's really not allowed and 846 01:16:51,720 --> 01:16:57,920 as it was part of the ordinance so I I don't know what kind of um situation that would 847 01:16:57,920 --> 01:17:05,920 really be terrible for the respondent but um that's just another thing to consider I 848 01:17:05,920 --> 01:17:16,480 suppose written and there's photographs included as part of the document and the photographs 849 01:17:16,480 --> 01:17:24,760 are okay but it has to be something in writing only well I would think um anything they attach 850 01:17:24,760 --> 01:17:31,080 that's not on the complaint form is what we're discussing right now whether it's written 851 01:17:31,080 --> 01:17:37,980 video pictures just anything that is not on the piece you know on the actual complaint 852 01:17:37,980 --> 01:17:46,040 I say piece of paper but we all get them on pdf so just in the actual pdf in in the written 853 01:17:46,040 --> 01:17:53,800 documentation so yeah I would think the photograph that's included with the written documentation 854 01:17:53,800 --> 01:18:02,400 doesn't fit this criteria uh well I mean my thought would be I forgot I think it's what 855 01:18:02,400 --> 01:18:08,200 two or three pages comp the complaint form it's we're deciding are we just deciding what 856 01:18:08,200 --> 01:18:14,040 is on that complaint form or the complaint form plus whatever it references that they 857 01:18:14,040 --> 01:18:20,760 may or may not that they may provide it and in the situation of the last hearing preliminary 858 01:18:20,760 --> 01:18:25,680 hearing hearing it was a link to a previous city council meeting that everybody could 859 01:18:25,680 --> 01:18:33,400 have access to easily and um and whether you look at that or not so if they had written 860 01:18:33,400 --> 01:18:37,640 out a description of what they observed on the during the city council meeting that would 861 01:18:37,640 --> 01:18:44,080 have been yeah and that's and that's what they that's what they did in this last hearing 862 01:18:44,080 --> 01:18:48,120 they they said that a certain council member did a certain thing of course when you went 863 01:18:48,120 --> 01:18:53,720 and looked at the video that's not what happened but um but even if they wrote it out and said 864 01:18:53,720 --> 01:18:59,520 she did this and that was true we we still didn't have a complaint under our under our 865 01:18:59,520 --> 01:19:06,540 ordinance so I mean my I'm kind of leaning towards we just look what at the document 866 01:19:06,540 --> 01:19:10,560 because we're supposed to take everything they say is true and then decide if it could 867 01:19:10,560 --> 01:19:14,160 be a complaint and then you go to the hearing and look at the evidence whether it's true 868 01:19:14,160 --> 01:19:19,840 or not madison I just want to say I think I think you you're spot on laura I just wanted 869 01:19:19,840 --> 01:19:28,340 to clarify I guess um my uh my direction request should have more been not non-written as much 870 01:19:28,340 --> 01:19:34,960 as not their written testimony um that's included with the complaint so I suppose they could 871 01:19:34,960 --> 01:19:40,800 have sent um you know like documents that are publicly available um that are written 872 01:19:40,800 --> 01:19:46,080 um but I don't I guess part of the request is would that document be something that the 873 01:19:46,080 --> 01:19:51,840 preliminary panel could could include in their assessment as evidence does that make sense 874 01:19:51,840 --> 01:20:01,280 yeah uh rob uh on the written portion then are they narrative are they restricted to 875 01:20:01,280 --> 01:20:09,560 just the two spaces available on the current form they gotta get everything do they do 876 01:20:09,560 --> 01:20:14,640 they have to get everything on both of these and that's it no other pages they're allowed 877 01:20:14,640 --> 01:20:20,440 to attach additional sheets yeah in the past we've had people that write more than that 878 01:20:20,440 --> 01:20:28,040 and uh okay but I guess it's a difference between you know attaching pages kind of their 879 01:20:28,040 --> 01:20:35,640 narrative versus attaching documents pictures videos that aren't just kind of their narrative 880 01:20:35,640 --> 01:20:40,980 of what happened does that make sense we'll make that decision uh once we get it but just 881 01:20:40,980 --> 01:20:47,480 I want to make sure if if it was quite explosive we had enough paper for them to put their 882 01:20:47,480 --> 01:20:51,720 narrative down we can look at it I think we'd understand what the narrative is versus what 883 01:20:51,720 --> 01:20:59,600 the other part is I agree with you that anetta I don't understand is this a legal proceeding 884 01:20:59,600 --> 01:21:07,920 or is this an ethical procedure designed to engender public trust because to me this person 885 01:21:07,920 --> 01:21:15,080 was alleging um something that happened in a in a in a meeting and there was video of 886 01:21:15,080 --> 01:21:20,400 that meeting and and they pointed us to it and I don't have a problem with looking at 887 01:21:20,400 --> 01:21:27,400 that I understand that that might not be something a lawyer would want to do but that's not specifically 888 01:21:27,400 --> 01:21:32,100 covered in our code and I think the public trust is that they want us looking at that 889 01:21:32,100 --> 01:21:40,160 stuff video council meetings archive things in a very accurate form and and you know what 890 01:21:40,160 --> 01:21:48,160 they said did not happen they may have believed it did or was about to I don't know what the 891 01:21:48,160 --> 01:22:00,320 thinking was but um I just don't want to get into I mean a normal you know an untrained 892 01:22:00,320 --> 01:22:06,120 lawyer person wouldn't understand the four corners thing and I don't know how it applies 893 01:22:06,120 --> 01:22:12,920 I mean we had video so I think in that situation like I said it was obvious and you didn't 894 01:22:12,920 --> 01:22:19,080 even need to look at the video but another thing to think of would be if there was a 895 01:22:19,080 --> 01:22:25,480 video and they looked at at the preliminary proceedings and it wasn't so obvious one way 896 01:22:25,480 --> 01:22:31,000 or another so if it's not as obvious you not might want to allow that person to be able 897 01:22:31,000 --> 01:22:36,000 to present that at a hearing in front of the whole board because if the preliminary hearing 898 01:22:36,000 --> 01:22:41,240 is allowed to look at that video and make a bigger decision about whether it's an ethical 899 01:22:41,240 --> 01:22:45,880 complaint then you're depriving that person of having their hearing so I guess think of 900 01:22:45,880 --> 01:22:51,520 it flip wise and think that in that video it actually did happen and the preliminary 901 01:22:51,520 --> 01:22:56,000 panel was able to look at it and that preliminary panel three people might have thought that 902 01:22:56,000 --> 01:23:00,880 wasn't what happened then you have a problem of it didn't go to the hearing so I guess 903 01:23:00,880 --> 01:23:05,680 that's where I'm unsure that we should be looking at all the evidence when it's just 904 01:23:05,680 --> 01:23:14,480 the three people deciding whether it should go to a full hearing. 905 01:23:14,480 --> 01:23:25,440 So would it be a matter on the on the complaint form to say in writing that and web links 906 01:23:25,440 --> 01:23:37,120 and photographs are not part of the preliminary assessment to make it clear that it has to 907 01:23:37,120 --> 01:23:39,880 be in writing? 908 01:23:39,880 --> 01:23:45,080 Well and that's I mean I guess I think before we go to what's in the complaint form we have 909 01:23:45,080 --> 01:23:50,680 to decide whether we're going to allow it or not but I saw Trey raise his hand so go 910 01:23:50,680 --> 01:23:51,680 ahead Trey. 911 01:23:51,680 --> 01:23:59,280 Thank you Chair just to add to the discussion under you know 2-229 under subsection C the 912 01:23:59,280 --> 01:24:04,120 contents of the complaint specifically under the ordinance are supposed to include all 913 01:24:04,120 --> 01:24:08,240 documents and other material available to the complaint that are relevant to the allegation 914 01:24:08,240 --> 01:24:17,880 so I think under its definition if they were to attach photographs the photographs could 915 01:24:17,880 --> 01:24:23,400 be part of what is considered at a preliminary assessment but you're not judging the weight 916 01:24:23,400 --> 01:24:28,120 of the evidence you're just assuming all the evidence to be true for the of the preliminary 917 01:24:28,120 --> 01:24:29,120 assessment. 918 01:24:29,120 --> 01:24:37,040 So and then I guess then what are your thoughts about a link to a website or a USB like would 919 01:24:37,040 --> 01:24:43,600 that like Trey do you think that would fall under like documents that we could look at 920 01:24:43,600 --> 01:24:45,040 if that's what we decide to do? 921 01:24:45,040 --> 01:24:49,840 Now how yeah how far you want to get into what is extraneous I think might be a call 922 01:24:49,840 --> 01:24:57,280 for the board but I think definitionally if they were to attach specific things to their 923 01:24:57,280 --> 01:25:00,960 complaint form and staple it all together and that is their complaint form the ethics 924 01:25:00,960 --> 01:25:07,480 ordinance would would define that as being all inclusive as the complaint. 925 01:25:07,480 --> 01:25:08,480 And I'll be a lawyer. 926 01:25:08,480 --> 01:25:15,480 The idea was that and under the preliminary assessment there would not be the board would 927 01:25:15,480 --> 01:25:20,360 not seek out corroborating information or any information other than what was presented 928 01:25:20,360 --> 01:25:27,040 to them by the complaintant through the process and giving that to the auditor. 929 01:25:27,040 --> 01:25:32,160 Okay and so all the board's not supposed to have to go look at anything it should all 930 01:25:32,160 --> 01:25:33,160 be included. 931 01:25:33,160 --> 01:25:39,320 So I'll argue against what I just said I think and like I said I think the biggest problem 932 01:25:39,320 --> 01:25:46,720 from for letting us look at everything would be the preliminary panel making like a decision 933 01:25:46,720 --> 01:25:53,480 that should be made at a hearing but the I mean the other side of it is if that were 934 01:25:53,480 --> 01:26:00,920 to happen they can ask for the reconsideration like we had with this last hearing. 935 01:26:00,920 --> 01:26:07,520 So if somebody feels like the preliminary panel decided the whole action and not just 936 01:26:07,520 --> 01:26:11,680 whether it should go to a hearing they do have recourse to then bring it to the whole 937 01:26:11,680 --> 01:26:16,960 panel for the whole or to the whole board to see if the whole board needs to take it 938 01:26:16,960 --> 01:26:17,960 to a hearing. 939 01:26:17,960 --> 01:26:21,560 So we do have that backup. 940 01:26:21,560 --> 01:26:26,520 So I think and we'll you know we can open up discussion again but I think there's two 941 01:26:26,520 --> 01:26:33,000 things one is you know are we going to look at the documents because like Trey said it 942 01:26:33,000 --> 01:26:38,640 does say that they're attached and two does it are we going to include that to be things 943 01:26:38,640 --> 01:26:45,800 like USB and links to say the website and I think Annetta had pointed out like if it's 944 01:26:45,800 --> 01:26:51,320 a link to the city council like that's very easy to get and I mean I kind of can't think 945 01:26:51,320 --> 01:26:55,000 of a link that they would put up that you can't just go to that link and watch what 946 01:26:55,000 --> 01:26:59,840 they said and it would obviously probably be a city council meeting or a board meeting 947 01:26:59,840 --> 01:27:01,200 like this. 948 01:27:01,200 --> 01:27:09,360 So so any thoughts from others about this Rob? 949 01:27:09,360 --> 01:27:16,560 I like I like the analogy Trey gave and in that if it's stapled together so in my mind 950 01:27:16,560 --> 01:27:23,040 only things that are papyrus only no videos no thumb drives nothing it's just all paper 951 01:27:23,040 --> 01:27:28,360 and if it's photos we can look at that because once if it does go to the hearing then we 952 01:27:28,360 --> 01:27:34,360 can have the full dog and pony show pardon the pun and we can see it all I kind of like 953 01:27:34,360 --> 01:27:39,200 where we don't have to look elsewhere it's all right there in front of us so I'm not 954 01:27:39,200 --> 01:27:44,480 even that excited about pulling up a link from a previous city council meeting you give 955 01:27:44,480 --> 01:27:47,960 me everything in writing right there and then I can work with it. 956 01:27:47,960 --> 01:27:57,840 I wonder respectfully disagree with that you can have an electronic document that has a 957 01:27:57,840 --> 01:28:06,880 link that could pull it up that's not a hard thing to do that would I mean I think we have 958 01:28:06,880 --> 01:28:14,600 to think most of all about citizens and about transparency and about what is going to engender 959 01:28:14,600 --> 01:28:22,480 public trust and not legal I mean I understand the laws a whole different group of things 960 01:28:22,480 --> 01:28:29,840 and I certainly want to be legal and appropriate and fair but I think we can have that stuff 961 01:28:29,840 --> 01:28:36,960 and you know because yeah I'm all in favor of stuff from city council because it archives 962 01:28:36,960 --> 01:28:45,560 everything and that's what transparency is about and not an important basis of ethics 963 01:28:45,560 --> 01:28:50,600 and I mean I don't think this discussion is like you know what I mean it's what's legal 964 01:28:50,600 --> 01:28:56,840 under the ordinance is what we're going on and my thoughts would be you know anything 965 01:28:56,840 --> 01:29:03,120 attached like that it that they give us we can look at but I'm a little more against 966 01:29:03,120 --> 01:29:08,240 going out and looking at the website and watching the meeting because under the ordinance it's 967 01:29:08,240 --> 01:29:13,480 whatever if whatever they said is true if they said this happens the city council meeting 968 01:29:13,480 --> 01:29:19,000 then then it is a complaint then we should go to the hearing and that's when we decide 969 01:29:19,000 --> 01:29:24,920 whether whether whatever that whatever they said happened happened at the city council 970 01:29:24,920 --> 01:29:32,360 and and you know I'm trying to think it's like maybe you know there might be more evidence 971 01:29:32,360 --> 01:29:41,520 than just that video that would show whether that that you know that violation occurred 972 01:29:41,520 --> 01:29:48,600 or not so I mean it I kind of don't I'm kind of not for going out and finding more evidence 973 01:29:48,600 --> 01:29:54,800 during the preliminary hearing like obviously all that would come in in the actual hearing 974 01:29:54,800 --> 01:30:01,080 but the preliminary hearing is more of a faster quicker does if everything on here if everything 975 01:30:01,080 --> 01:30:07,080 they say is true is it a violation yes or no let me ask you a question about something 976 01:30:07,080 --> 01:30:14,640 you just said so I can understand your example better you indicated that if the preliminary 977 01:30:14,640 --> 01:30:24,680 panel looked at it and looked at all of the evidence that was available at the preliminary 978 01:30:24,680 --> 01:30:31,320 stage and decided that it wasn't actionable and they could deny it and the person then 979 01:30:31,320 --> 01:30:36,840 would have a recourse for reconsideration where the whole panel the whole board would 980 01:30:36,840 --> 01:30:43,760 look at it right is that what you said uh yeah yeah okay I mean go ahead what would 981 01:30:43,760 --> 01:30:50,080 be the basis for the the board chair to grant the reconsideration because it wouldn't be 982 01:30:50,080 --> 01:30:57,040 any new evidence it it's actually not a reconsideration it's a separate process uh called the appeal 983 01:30:57,040 --> 01:31:03,880 process and I said the wrong word I apologize of the preliminary hearing so that's my right 984 01:31:03,880 --> 01:31:10,200 so they the defendant does not have or sorry the complainant sorry the complainant does 985 01:31:10,200 --> 01:31:15,500 not have to submit new evidence to have an appeal they can just submit they basically 986 01:31:15,500 --> 01:31:20,240 just submit written notification that they are appealing the dismissal is baseless and 987 01:31:20,240 --> 01:31:27,440 then a hearing is conducted with the full board but it is essentially just a preliminary 988 01:31:27,440 --> 01:31:34,440 assessment because I think it would be unlikely that a board would want to determine sanctions 989 01:31:34,440 --> 01:31:47,840 at a hearing without having information from the respondent presented so what are everybody 990 01:31:47,840 --> 01:31:52,240 else's thoughts on what we should because I honestly don't want to get too bogged down 991 01:31:52,240 --> 01:31:57,520 on this because I don't know if it's going to make that much of a difference for what 992 01:31:57,520 --> 01:32:02,120 the preliminary panel has to decide like whether they look at the video or not I don't think 993 01:32:02,120 --> 01:32:06,240 it's going to matter in most cases because they're just deciding whether it could possibly 994 01:32:06,240 --> 01:32:13,440 be actionable you know in an actual hearing go ahead madison I do just want to this wasn't 995 01:32:13,440 --> 01:32:19,320 in the slide that I presented but the rules of procedure do mention that um the panel 996 01:32:19,320 --> 01:32:23,640 as part of the preliminary assessment can look at the other evidence it's not I don't 997 01:32:23,640 --> 01:32:28,200 remember the exact words but it's not very clear what that means um similar to the other 998 01:32:28,200 --> 01:32:33,400 things that we're discussing in order to determine if the complaint is frivolous and then recommend 999 01:32:33,400 --> 01:32:43,160 that we go to basically a hearing to to discuss frivolity so that kind of tells me that once 1000 01:32:43,160 --> 01:32:48,480 you think there might be frivolous then it is open that seems kind of more clear and 1001 01:32:48,480 --> 01:32:55,320 trailer madison can correct me if I'm wrong but as far as deciding whether it's actionable 1002 01:32:55,320 --> 01:33:01,600 I think that's what we need to decide and then as far as frivolous I think we it sounds 1003 01:33:01,600 --> 01:33:05,600 like it is open where we can look at everything and the ordinance is telling us we should 1004 01:33:05,600 --> 01:33:13,360 look at everything for the for the preliminary for the panel in the preliminary assessment 1005 01:33:13,360 --> 01:33:22,520 to recommend a hearing because they can't determine that something is frivolous by themselves 1006 01:33:22,520 --> 01:33:28,520 that makes sense uh like whether uh whether it should go to a hearing right essentially 1007 01:33:28,520 --> 01:33:35,520 the panel the panel can recommend that a hearing happen in two ways one because the complaint 1008 01:33:35,520 --> 01:33:42,240 is actionable and two because they believe the complaint to be frivolous okay so it sounds 1009 01:33:42,240 --> 01:33:46,200 like the ordinance is saying you could look at you can look at everything for whether 1010 01:33:46,200 --> 01:33:51,360 it's frivolous frivolous so that's not something we need to decide here right we need to decide 1011 01:33:51,360 --> 01:34:01,640 what we can look at to decide it's actionable okay um other like what does everybody else 1012 01:34:01,640 --> 01:34:07,040 think so we can see you know what what we're going to find here debra it it sounds like 1013 01:34:07,040 --> 01:34:18,160 uh what what what does the panel need to determine that it is um should that it's actionable 1014 01:34:18,160 --> 01:34:25,080 i would think they need the ordinance you know um you know let's um trying to think 1015 01:34:25,080 --> 01:34:29,360 of like a simple one but they're not that simple but if there's a conflict of interest 1016 01:34:29,360 --> 01:34:36,720 um you just need the ordinance what a conflict of interest is and then the complaint saying 1017 01:34:36,720 --> 01:34:42,680 you know xyz and happen and that's and it's and it's a conflict of interest so what we 1018 01:34:42,680 --> 01:34:52,240 would do is go in and see and decide if if xyz if they said it happened it happened would 1019 01:34:52,240 --> 01:34:59,000 that be a conflict we're not deciding whether it it's kind of okay this is kind of hard 1020 01:34:59,000 --> 01:35:05,280 to complain to to to explain but i guess it's we're not deciding if it if it happened or 1021 01:35:05,280 --> 01:35:13,200 if it didn't happen we're deciding that if it happened would it have been a violation 1022 01:35:13,200 --> 01:35:21,080 so then what what the panel would need the assessment panel would need would be a description 1023 01:35:21,080 --> 01:35:29,680 yes what they believe is the violation of the ordinance not and so if it's something 1024 01:35:29,680 --> 01:35:37,840 that could be accessed access your web link um or through the city council or whatever 1025 01:35:37,840 --> 01:35:43,800 the panel doesn't need that they just need a description of the behavior right yeah that 1026 01:35:43,800 --> 01:35:49,280 i think i agree and i think that was that was what happened with the last one we didn't 1027 01:35:49,280 --> 01:35:56,280 even need to look at the video the description alone wouldn't have been a violation so yes 1028 01:35:56,280 --> 01:36:06,240 debra so and how to make that clear to your complaint what this is what this preliminary 1029 01:36:06,240 --> 01:36:11,080 assessment needs in order to determine whether or not your complaint should go forward when 1030 01:36:11,080 --> 01:36:17,240 i guess that goes back to the complaint form i forget exactly what it says as far as explaining 1031 01:36:17,240 --> 01:36:28,760 what the violation was uh provided a statement of facts a detailed provide detailed evidentiary 1032 01:36:28,760 --> 01:36:36,200 facts on the new form and uh provide a statement of facts 1033 01:36:36,200 --> 01:36:45,000 yes the complaint form states uh provide a statement of facts constituting the alleged 1034 01:36:45,000 --> 01:36:50,200 violation and the dates on which or period of time in which the alleged violation occurred 1035 01:36:50,200 --> 01:36:57,320 and then it goes on to say only violations listed under sections 2-272 and or 2-273 of 1036 01:36:57,320 --> 01:37:04,200 the ethics ordinance will be considered for review and then on the next page it says provide 1037 01:37:04,200 --> 01:37:07,400 detailed evidentiary facts supporting your allegations 1038 01:37:10,120 --> 01:37:17,240 and attach additional sheets if necessary pardon it's and then it says you can attach 1039 01:37:17,240 --> 01:37:19,480 additional sheets if necessary right right 1040 01:37:19,480 --> 01:37:30,600 and in the instructions the second number two says a complaint must state on its face 1041 01:37:30,600 --> 01:37:36,440 allegation that if true constitutes the violation of the sections of the specific sections of the 1042 01:37:36,440 --> 01:37:42,600 ordinance but then it goes on to say the complaint must include all documents or other material 1043 01:37:42,600 --> 01:37:45,960 available to the complaint complainant that are relevant to the allegations 1044 01:37:45,960 --> 01:37:58,440 it sounds like we're we're back to where we started yeah that was i mean i think um 1045 01:38:01,080 --> 01:38:07,960 you know for me for me operationally it's about what to include in basically in your backup for 1046 01:38:07,960 --> 01:38:17,960 for a preliminary assessment meeting i mean we could agree that um it we allow all of us to look 1047 01:38:17,960 --> 01:38:24,840 at that knowing that many times you don't even have to watch that video to decide whether it's 1048 01:38:24,840 --> 01:38:30,120 actual or not just because you know based on their narrative it might be obvious that this 1049 01:38:30,120 --> 01:38:34,600 should go to a hearing or it might be obvious that it shouldn't go to a hearing um i think 1050 01:38:34,600 --> 01:38:39,480 as a board though you've just got to think about how if you're on a preliminary panel 1051 01:38:39,480 --> 01:38:46,200 you're not supposed to be making like an evidentiary judgment only a judgment of whether this 1052 01:38:46,200 --> 01:38:53,720 could possibly be a violation under this section if if what the complaint is saying is true i would 1053 01:38:53,720 --> 01:38:59,160 trust the people on the preliminary panel to be able to to do that to like be able to look at 1054 01:38:59,160 --> 01:39:05,640 multiple things send pictures and whatever but still uh base it on is this actionable or not even 1055 01:39:05,640 --> 01:39:12,440 if they saw a video or didn't see a video if it was included or not i don't see why uh you know 1056 01:39:12,440 --> 01:39:18,680 we live in a digital age and there's all kinds of media now it just seems so limiting to say it 1057 01:39:18,680 --> 01:39:29,320 only can be a written word yeah i mean i don't i you know i don't think it's it's like meant meant 1058 01:39:29,320 --> 01:39:35,080 to be limiting it's just that you know it's not even necessary you know not always necessary for 1059 01:39:35,080 --> 01:39:41,400 the preliminary hearing but from what i'm hearing i mean do we uh as the majority just saying let's 1060 01:39:41,400 --> 01:39:46,600 go ahead and allow this stuff to be looked at a preliminary hearing or do we have uh 1061 01:39:48,280 --> 01:39:55,560 um i think rob had said you know let's just go with what's written um written in the documents 1062 01:39:55,560 --> 01:40:02,280 uh is there anybody else who's against looking at uh links or say usb's or whatever videos 1063 01:40:02,280 --> 01:40:06,680 i'm don 1064 01:40:06,680 --> 01:40:17,240 basically they just need to prove what what they're going to present at the at the regular hearing 1065 01:40:17,880 --> 01:40:23,960 and there's no other evidence brought in the respondent doesn't get to reply there's no 1066 01:40:23,960 --> 01:40:33,240 testimony at all so what i believe and understand is that it only what they have written there 1067 01:40:33,240 --> 01:40:40,680 is what the preliminary panel considers and based on what they've written there what they're saying 1068 01:40:40,680 --> 01:40:47,000 that they're going to prove at the regular hearing will determine if it's going if that's enough 1069 01:40:47,000 --> 01:40:55,480 for it to go to the regular hearing so i think only what's written and prepared on their complaint 1070 01:40:55,480 --> 01:41:05,320 and bron do you have any thoughts i think you might be the only one who hasn't spoken on this issue 1071 01:41:15,160 --> 01:41:21,240 i think i might agree with uh patricia in that the preliminary panel 1072 01:41:21,240 --> 01:41:27,400 should be possessed with the capability of 1073 01:41:27,400 --> 01:41:33,880 working through this in terms of what should or shouldn't be counted in their decision 1074 01:41:33,880 --> 01:41:44,120 all right i think i think we're gonna have um i think that makes it a majority of let's go ahead 1075 01:41:44,120 --> 01:41:50,120 and be able to look at everything i guess my question now for madison and trey is is this 1076 01:41:50,120 --> 01:41:58,920 something that we can informally decide or is this something we need to um change one of the 1077 01:41:58,920 --> 01:42:10,520 procedure ordinance or whatever i would defer to you trey because i believe that the ordinance 1078 01:42:10,520 --> 01:42:15,160 and the rules of procedure are not clear obviously that's why we had this discussion so 1079 01:42:15,160 --> 01:42:29,080 it's how i mean it's how you want to proceed if you believe that your reading of 1080 01:42:29,080 --> 01:42:35,160 you know the ordinance is clear but i mean granted we've had a very long discussion on why it's not 1081 01:42:35,160 --> 01:42:40,920 but if you think that what we've come to is a clear interpretation of what's out there then 1082 01:42:40,920 --> 01:42:48,680 nothing needs to be changed if y'all would like us to you know go through the process of changing 1083 01:42:48,680 --> 01:42:55,080 the ordinance and or the rules of procedure to provide clarity based on what the board has 1084 01:42:55,080 --> 01:43:02,120 decided it means we can also do that but like you mentioned earlier that's gonna that process takes 1085 01:43:02,120 --> 01:43:10,360 a while uh all right so i think um i would say for the last preliminary hearing and the last 1086 01:43:10,360 --> 01:43:15,800 hearing um i remember most everybody saying they went ahead and looked at the video 1087 01:43:15,800 --> 01:43:23,160 and you know it didn't change anything so i guess um i'll just take the board's temperature here 1088 01:43:23,160 --> 01:43:27,160 do y'all just want to go forward with the understanding that we're going to do that or 1089 01:43:27,160 --> 01:43:33,240 do y'all think we should um i guess we could we could do two things we could like immediately have 1090 01:43:33,240 --> 01:43:39,560 trey try to write something up to change which you know that that'll take more discussion or 1091 01:43:39,560 --> 01:43:45,160 you know after i know there's more issues in the pipeline and we can kind of wait until the next 1092 01:43:45,160 --> 01:43:51,880 time we're going to bring something to council and we can then decide if we want to change the rule 1093 01:43:51,880 --> 01:43:56,840 so you know do we want to just informally decide it do we want to try to change some sort of rule 1094 01:43:56,840 --> 01:44:03,400 procedure or ordinance section now or just uh you know informally proceed and then maybe change the 1095 01:44:03,400 --> 01:44:10,040 procedure next time we send whatever we send to council right and it wouldn't be our office doing 1096 01:44:10,040 --> 01:44:15,080 it in a vacuum we would i mean since alan and his office is the one that drafted it we would get them 1097 01:44:15,080 --> 01:44:23,480 involved as well my opinion is we can just go forward with the understanding that a preliminary 1098 01:44:23,480 --> 01:44:29,000 hearings will look at everything they provide and you know if we if we find a problem with that if 1099 01:44:29,000 --> 01:44:34,040 you know it would kind of be us not doing what we just said we're going to do 1100 01:44:34,040 --> 01:44:37,720 then maybe look into procedural change what do you what does everybody else think 1101 01:44:37,720 --> 01:44:47,000 i agree with that seeing yeses and thumbs up so i go ahead and neta oh just a thumbs up okay 1102 01:44:47,880 --> 01:44:55,640 um all right so we'll go forward and um will oh madison yeah so just to so i you guys understand 1103 01:44:55,640 --> 01:45:02,680 the direction i'm hearing to make sure i understand it correctly yeah for any you know following um 1104 01:45:02,680 --> 01:45:08,040 ethics complaints the all submitted evidence that i receive will be presented to the board 1105 01:45:08,040 --> 01:45:15,240 to the preliminary assessment panel um and i'll keep that potential changes in the ordinance and 1106 01:45:15,240 --> 01:45:21,800 rules of procedure on my potential list of changes for the future to make it to clarify it yeah i 1107 01:45:21,800 --> 01:45:25,880 think that's a good idea and i don't know if we'll end up having to do that because i think now we've 1108 01:45:25,880 --> 01:45:31,720 given staff the direction to send us all everything before we go into the hearing so we'll see it 1109 01:45:31,720 --> 01:45:35,800 before the hearing um i don't know if it's always going to matter because i think sometimes the 1110 01:45:35,800 --> 01:45:41,240 narrative is just going to answer it anyway but um you know we'll just have it all open and you 1111 01:45:41,240 --> 01:45:49,640 know all available for us to discuss at at all the hearings so um anything else madison 1112 01:45:49,640 --> 01:45:59,720 uh that that was all i had to present to y'all today um so just in summary of that item we i'll 1113 01:45:59,720 --> 01:46:09,000 bring back an updated flow chart uh next month in february and then the ethics complaint form was 1114 01:46:09,000 --> 01:46:13,880 approved as amended during our discussion so that will go you'll see that up on our on the web page 1115 01:46:13,880 --> 01:46:20,760 shortly um the new the new form and with the preliminary assessment all submitted evidence 1116 01:46:20,760 --> 01:46:28,120 will be given to preliminary assessment panels um if we receive an ethics complaint that's all i 1117 01:46:28,120 --> 01:46:46,920 have that's be uh february 25th at 3 p.m okay so um i think that we've um gone through everything 1118 01:46:46,920 --> 01:46:52,440 i know me and madison had already talked about some issues for the next meeting we might have 1119 01:46:52,440 --> 01:46:56,760 some new board members we might try to do some kind of we talked about trying to figure out 1120 01:46:56,760 --> 01:47:01,000 what kind of orientation or something we can do for for new members if if there are i'm not 1121 01:47:01,000 --> 01:47:09,080 sure what the situation is on that um and then we'll you know see what we have and probably 1122 01:47:09,080 --> 01:47:17,080 open it up for other suggestions for the meeting for next time so um i think that's it and um i 1123 01:47:17,080 --> 01:47:22,600 forget every time do i just adjourn i don't need to get a motion do i just no ma'am you don't need 1124 01:47:22,600 --> 01:47:29,960 to mo during at the time all right uh 456 we'll adjourn thank you for everybody for taking time 1125 01:47:29,960 --> 01:47:43,960 out for the meeting thanks thank you bye