WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:12.460 Hello, I'm Madison Borschaw, City Auditor, and currently neither the Chair or Vice Chair 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 00:00:17.760 --> 00:00:26.760 Denton Board of Ethics to order on January 28, 2021 at 3.09 p.m. 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 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 00:00:36.560 --> 00:00:38.200 the board. 00:00:38.200 --> 00:00:43.800 I nominate Don Cartwright. 00:00:43.800 --> 00:00:49.600 Okay, is there a second for Don? 00:00:49.600 --> 00:00:51.040 Second. 00:00:51.040 --> 00:00:58.440 All right, and then we take a vote, is that correct, Ray? 00:00:58.440 --> 00:01:00.760 Any other nominations? 00:01:00.760 --> 00:01:06.760 May I withdraw? 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 00:01:10.920 --> 00:01:18.400 to some of the other people in the committee. 00:01:18.400 --> 00:01:19.640 Are there any other nominations? 00:01:19.640 --> 00:01:21.720 Yeah, would anybody like to do it? 00:01:21.720 --> 00:01:22.720 I mean, it's-- 00:01:22.720 --> 00:01:32.800 Yes, sir, yes, you do not have to accept the nomination. 00:01:32.800 --> 00:01:34.800 I don't accept it then. 00:01:34.800 --> 00:01:35.800 Okay. 00:01:35.800 --> 00:01:40.260 Then you have to return your check. 00:01:40.260 --> 00:01:46.920 Doesn't the, does the temporary Chair have to be an attorney? 00:01:46.920 --> 00:01:47.920 It does not, no ma'am. 00:01:47.920 --> 00:01:48.920 No. 00:01:48.920 --> 00:01:49.920 No. 00:01:49.920 --> 00:01:50.920 No. 00:01:50.920 --> 00:01:51.920 Yeah. 00:01:51.920 --> 00:01:58.120 Then I'd like to nominate Ron Johnson. 00:01:58.120 --> 00:02:14.680 Ron was nominated and Rob seconded Ron Johnson for temporary Chair, so are there any other 00:02:14.680 --> 00:02:24.520 nominations? 00:02:24.520 --> 00:02:30.140 So hearing none, I'll close the nominations and we'll take a vote on Ron. 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, 00:02:37.400 --> 00:02:38.400 how do you vote? 00:02:38.400 --> 00:02:40.560 I vote for him. 00:02:40.560 --> 00:02:41.560 Yes. 00:02:41.560 --> 00:02:42.560 Debra? 00:02:42.560 --> 00:02:43.560 Yes. 00:02:43.560 --> 00:02:44.620 Patricia? 00:02:44.620 --> 00:02:45.620 Yes. 00:02:45.620 --> 00:02:46.620 Ron? 00:02:46.620 --> 00:02:54.640 Oh, you have to, can you unmute yourself, please? 00:02:54.640 --> 00:02:56.640 I'll abstain. 00:02:56.640 --> 00:02:57.640 Okay. 00:02:57.640 --> 00:02:58.640 Annetta? 00:02:58.640 --> 00:02:59.640 Yes. 00:02:59.640 --> 00:03:00.640 And Rob? 00:03:00.640 --> 00:03:01.640 Yes. 00:03:01.640 --> 00:03:02.640 All right. 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. 00:03:09.320 --> 00:03:20.560 Okay, I believe that items for consideration, consider approval of the minutes for August 00:03:20.560 --> 00:03:25.760 27th, 2020. 00:03:25.760 --> 00:03:28.640 I move approval. 00:03:28.640 --> 00:03:30.880 I think we can do them all at once. 00:03:30.880 --> 00:03:32.200 Oh, okay. 00:03:32.200 --> 00:03:44.080 Okay, so all items for consideration are under consideration for lack of a better term? 00:03:44.080 --> 00:03:46.440 I think we can do all the minutes at once. 00:03:46.440 --> 00:03:47.440 Right. 00:03:47.440 --> 00:03:48.440 The three minutes. 00:03:48.440 --> 00:03:49.440 Right. 00:03:49.440 --> 00:03:50.440 Okay. 00:03:50.440 --> 00:03:54.960 The three minutes under items for individual consideration A, the three minutes are before 00:03:54.960 --> 00:03:59.640 the board and if anybody has any changes, now would be the time to discuss those. 00:03:59.640 --> 00:04:03.280 If not, you can move to approval three of those at the same time. 00:04:03.280 --> 00:04:04.280 Okay. 00:04:04.280 --> 00:04:05.280 I have a question. 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? 00:04:11.000 --> 00:04:13.200 Yes, ma'am, you do. 00:04:13.200 --> 00:04:14.200 Okay. 00:04:14.200 --> 00:04:15.200 Thank you. 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 00:04:21.680 --> 00:04:25.840 a change to the August 27th minutes. 00:04:25.840 --> 00:04:33.560 Her name was spelled incorrectly at the very bottom where her signature would be, so that 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 00:04:41.840 --> 00:04:44.840 minutes. 00:04:44.840 --> 00:04:48.400 And I move approval for all three minutes. 00:04:48.400 --> 00:04:49.400 Second. 00:04:49.400 --> 00:04:53.600 Just for clarity, as amended, Ms. Ramsey? 00:04:53.600 --> 00:04:56.000 Yes, as amended. 00:04:56.000 --> 00:04:58.280 Thank you. 00:04:58.280 --> 00:04:59.920 Okay. 00:04:59.920 --> 00:05:06.960 The motion has been accepted and seconded. 00:05:06.960 --> 00:05:15.480 Can I have a vote for your acceptance or non-acceptance? 00:05:15.480 --> 00:05:16.760 Not everybody at once now. 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. 00:05:21.480 --> 00:05:26.440 You've got to go each person individually. 00:05:26.440 --> 00:05:27.440 Okay. 00:05:27.440 --> 00:05:28.440 Don? 00:05:28.440 --> 00:05:29.440 Aye. 00:05:29.440 --> 00:05:30.440 Yes. 00:05:30.440 --> 00:05:31.440 Patricia? 00:05:31.440 --> 00:05:32.440 Yes. 00:05:32.440 --> 00:05:33.440 Rob? 00:05:33.440 --> 00:05:34.440 Yes. 00:05:34.440 --> 00:05:35.440 Ms. Ramsey? 00:05:35.440 --> 00:05:36.440 Yes. 00:05:36.440 --> 00:05:37.440 Deborah? 00:05:37.440 --> 00:05:38.440 Yes. 00:05:38.440 --> 00:05:39.440 Okay. 00:05:39.440 --> 00:05:49.480 The yeses have it. 00:05:49.480 --> 00:06:06.560 So the next item of business is -- am I looking at this correctly? 00:06:06.560 --> 00:06:11.720 The approval of the draft minutes of July 30th, 2020? 00:06:11.720 --> 00:06:14.520 That is not correct. 00:06:14.520 --> 00:06:18.040 Oh, that's August 27th minutes. 00:06:18.040 --> 00:06:25.400 I'm sorry. 00:06:25.400 --> 00:06:35.760 Okay. 00:06:35.760 --> 00:06:43.880 The January 28th agenda information sheet, receive a report, hold a discussion, and give 00:06:43.880 --> 00:06:49.000 a staff direction regarding the proposed ethnic complaint process improvements. 00:06:49.000 --> 00:06:53.200 That is what is on the floor at this point. 00:06:53.200 --> 00:06:57.680 And I have a presentation if you would like me to share that. 00:06:57.680 --> 00:06:58.680 Please. 00:06:58.680 --> 00:06:59.680 All right. 00:06:59.680 --> 00:07:00.680 One second. 00:07:00.680 --> 00:07:14.560 Let me pull it up so you all can see it. 00:07:14.560 --> 00:07:15.560 You see the presentation? 00:07:15.560 --> 00:07:16.560 Yes. 00:07:16.560 --> 00:07:17.560 Yes. 00:07:17.560 --> 00:07:18.560 All right. 00:07:18.560 --> 00:07:31.880 So today I'm going to discuss three proposed improvements to the ethics complaint process 00:07:31.880 --> 00:07:38.100 that I put together, including a visualization of the process, revisions to the ethics complaint 00:07:38.100 --> 00:07:39.440 form. 00:07:39.440 --> 00:07:45.400 And I'm also requesting some clarification on the preliminary assessment process. 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, 00:07:55.560 --> 00:07:57.480 by me. 00:07:57.480 --> 00:08:02.440 But if a board member would like to submit additional improvements, they can send their 00:08:02.440 --> 00:08:08.320 proposal to me and the board chair, and they will be included on the next agenda. 00:08:08.320 --> 00:08:10.200 So I'm sorry. 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 00:08:14.240 --> 00:08:18.200 the Zoom is working. 00:08:18.200 --> 00:08:19.200 I apologize. 00:08:19.200 --> 00:08:20.200 One moment. 00:08:20.200 --> 00:08:28.320 Let me re-share my screen. 00:08:28.320 --> 00:08:33.360 Okay. 00:08:33.360 --> 00:08:34.360 We'll start over. 00:08:34.360 --> 00:08:35.360 There we go. 00:08:35.360 --> 00:08:36.360 All right. 00:08:36.360 --> 00:08:42.400 So first, I thought that creating a visualization of the ethics complaint process would be beneficial 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 00:08:46.560 --> 00:08:47.560 works. 00:08:47.560 --> 00:08:52.760 So I put together some flow charts, which were included in your backup, and these were 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 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 00:09:02.800 --> 00:09:05.760 to ensure that they're accurate. 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 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 00:09:17.520 --> 00:09:19.720 they'll be implemented. 00:09:19.720 --> 00:09:24.800 As kind of stated on the slide, my recommendation is to use them in two ways. 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 00:09:30.600 --> 00:09:35.720 then two, to include whichever flow chart is appropriate as part of the agenda packet 00:09:35.720 --> 00:09:38.160 for any future ethics complaint meetings. 00:09:38.160 --> 00:09:44.380 So for example, if a preliminary assessment needed to be held, the flow chart for that 00:09:44.380 --> 00:09:48.320 meeting would be included in the backup for the panel's reference. 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 00:09:53.800 --> 00:10:03.440 we can see you guys in who's asking questions. 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 00:10:10.920 --> 00:10:16.280 someone, you know, wanting to make a complaint. 00:10:16.280 --> 00:10:19.520 Sorry. 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 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 00:10:41.760 --> 00:10:49.260 prefer, I can send them directly to you, or do you want to discuss them? 00:10:49.260 --> 00:10:53.880 I think I'm looking for the board to kind of approve them today. 00:10:53.880 --> 00:10:58.600 Do we need to vote on that, Trey? 00:10:58.600 --> 00:11:01.720 I can't hear you. 00:11:01.720 --> 00:11:03.400 I wasn't unmuted. 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. 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 00:11:14.000 --> 00:11:19.360 and then approve it as amended, kind of like we did with the minutes. 00:11:19.360 --> 00:11:27.640 So, do you want me to run through my proposed changes, then? 00:11:27.640 --> 00:11:33.040 Yeah, I think that's what I would prefer, if possible. 00:11:33.040 --> 00:11:34.040 Okay. 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, 00:11:40.240 --> 00:11:44.200 these are wonderful and lovely, you know. 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 00:11:49.320 --> 00:11:51.680 these can be so complicated. 00:11:51.680 --> 00:11:59.760 So under the preliminary assessment, in the top left-hand corner, you have submit the 00:11:59.760 --> 00:12:06.400 notarized ethics complaint form, and then it goes to the city auditor where it's reviewed, 00:12:06.400 --> 00:12:13.280 and then if there is a written notification of a complaint deficiency, then that's sent 00:12:13.280 --> 00:12:15.280 back to the complainant. 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 00:12:20.920 --> 00:12:23.400 not the process at all. 00:12:23.400 --> 00:12:31.840 So I would recommend adding that the complaint deficiency is an additional step, but pull 00:12:31.840 --> 00:12:36.360 it out of that loop. 00:12:36.360 --> 00:12:42.120 Then on the, do you want me to just keep on going? 00:12:42.120 --> 00:12:45.320 Can I just ask a question about that? 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 00:12:52.000 --> 00:12:57.680 that it's not, you can't have deficiencies multiple times, basically? 00:12:57.680 --> 00:12:58.680 Right. 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 00:13:03.780 --> 00:13:05.480 and over again. 00:13:05.480 --> 00:13:09.280 I see, okay. 00:13:09.280 --> 00:13:14.080 And so that was the only comment I had on that one. 00:13:14.080 --> 00:13:22.360 Then on the ethics complaint process, the process for evidence and witnesses is not 00:13:22.360 --> 00:13:24.120 clear. 00:13:24.120 --> 00:13:30.600 The arrow goes from the hearing is scheduled to respondent and complainant, and actually 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 00:13:38.520 --> 00:13:50.120 of the hearing and the hearing when the respondent and the complainant submit arguments and witnesses, 00:13:50.120 --> 00:13:53.720 evidence to the auditor. 00:13:53.720 --> 00:13:54.720 And so- 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? 00:14:03.000 --> 00:14:04.800 I'm on the complaint hearing page. 00:14:04.800 --> 00:14:07.320 Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, okay. 00:14:07.320 --> 00:14:09.480 So all right. 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 00:14:14.360 --> 00:14:15.360 is scheduled. 00:14:15.360 --> 00:14:16.960 Oh, yes. 00:14:16.960 --> 00:14:20.440 And then arrows go to both sides. 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 00:14:26.920 --> 00:14:35.160 and witness lists are submitted to the city auditor, and then they're presented at the 00:14:35.160 --> 00:14:36.960 hearing. 00:14:36.960 --> 00:14:42.320 So there's another step in there, and that's not really clear. 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 00:14:48.200 --> 00:14:53.880 auditor requests from the complainant and their respondent evidence and documentation 00:14:53.880 --> 00:14:55.880 requested by the board? 00:14:55.880 --> 00:14:56.880 Yes. 00:14:56.880 --> 00:15:15.760 And the input arrow is to the hearing rather than the hearing is scheduled. 00:15:15.760 --> 00:15:23.560 And then I don't know how issuing subpoenas would work in this timeline, but subpoenas 00:15:23.560 --> 00:15:29.400 are not mentioned on here. 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 00:15:34.920 --> 00:15:41.200 place if a subpoena is required. 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 00:15:45.720 --> 00:15:57.880 means that the complaint is dismissed. 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 00:16:05.040 --> 00:16:13.540 for not including the timelines on this, but perhaps that might be even a different flow 00:16:13.540 --> 00:16:21.040 chart or just a regular timeline that shows how the process moves along. 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 00:16:28.760 --> 00:16:31.000 changes that you think should occur. 00:16:31.000 --> 00:16:34.400 I want to get to talk to everybody about if they have any others. 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 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. 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 00:16:53.720 --> 00:16:56.840 in place that have been requested and approved by the board. 00:16:56.840 --> 00:16:58.120 Does that make sense? 00:16:58.120 --> 00:16:59.120 Yes. 00:16:59.120 --> 00:17:07.480 That way, because the things that you said, I can't do that on the fly. 00:17:07.480 --> 00:17:11.780 So did you have any more, Debra? 00:17:11.780 --> 00:17:13.520 Not on the flow charts, no. 00:17:13.520 --> 00:17:14.520 Okay. 00:17:14.520 --> 00:17:23.680 Does anybody else have any potential changes to the flow charts or questions about them? 00:17:23.680 --> 00:17:24.680 Question. 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. 00:17:32.640 --> 00:17:33.640 Is that right? 00:17:33.640 --> 00:17:34.640 Correct. 00:17:34.640 --> 00:17:35.640 Okay. 00:17:35.640 --> 00:17:36.640 Thank you. 00:17:36.640 --> 00:17:37.640 Is there anybody else's suggestions? 00:17:37.640 --> 00:17:38.640 Of course. 00:17:38.640 --> 00:17:39.640 Yes. 00:17:39.640 --> 00:17:40.640 Yours is just on the floor right now. 00:17:40.640 --> 00:17:41.640 Thank you. 00:17:41.640 --> 00:17:42.640 Okay. 00:17:42.640 --> 00:17:51.320 Anybody else have any questions or proposed changes? 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 00:17:59.760 --> 00:18:06.440 would reserve the right to postpone it until the election's over? 00:18:06.440 --> 00:18:13.040 I'd have to check the ordinance to see if the board has that right. 00:18:13.040 --> 00:18:20.680 But I can certainly look into that. 00:18:20.680 --> 00:18:24.460 What is the timeframe? 00:18:24.460 --> 00:18:28.440 So I was actually looking at this recently. 00:18:28.440 --> 00:18:33.640 Once a hearing, we have a specific timeframe laid out with the preliminary assessment. 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 00:18:39.360 --> 00:18:44.920 or rules of procedure, technically, that lay out a timeline. 00:18:44.920 --> 00:18:50.040 That's actually in the training video that everybody is required, that you and the city 00:18:50.040 --> 00:18:54.600 officials are required to watch, and it's 30 days based on that. 00:18:54.600 --> 00:18:55.600 Okay. 00:18:55.600 --> 00:19:01.640 Well, 30 days would be enough to catch that. 00:19:01.640 --> 00:19:02.640 Yeah. 00:19:02.640 --> 00:19:07.520 So we try to schedule them within 30 days. 00:19:07.520 --> 00:19:09.120 Okay. 00:19:09.120 --> 00:19:10.600 Okay. 00:19:10.600 --> 00:19:16.040 Anybody else? 00:19:16.040 --> 00:19:38.680 I have a concern on the complaint process 00:19:38.680 --> 00:19:52.240 where should the complaint be sanctioned? 00:19:52.240 --> 00:19:58.520 And then if it's yes, receive notification of sanction. 00:19:58.520 --> 00:20:05.680 And then the arrow below that is reconsideration filed. 00:20:05.680 --> 00:20:10.360 Did everybody see that? 00:20:10.360 --> 00:20:11.720 Yes. 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 00:20:21.680 --> 00:20:40.240 right to file reconsideration. 00:20:40.240 --> 00:20:49.240 If the reconsideration is not accepted, then the ethics complaint is closed. 00:20:49.240 --> 00:21:02.880 Or if it is accepted, then the arrow goes back to conduct the hearing. 00:21:02.880 --> 00:21:12.360 It's probably the same kind of principle that is embodied in Deborah's concern. 00:21:12.360 --> 00:21:15.240 It looks like a continuous loop. 00:21:15.240 --> 00:21:25.040 There is five days that they have to file a motion for reconsideration. 00:21:25.040 --> 00:21:37.720 However, the ordinance itself gives the right for a motion for reconsideration for new evidence 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 00:21:49.720 --> 00:21:53.960 decision reconsideration. 00:21:53.960 --> 00:22:03.680 I think it could be problematic to the extent that new evidence falls into two categories. 00:22:03.680 --> 00:22:11.840 Evidence that was available before the complaint, evidence that became available after the complaint. 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. 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 00:22:24.760 --> 00:22:25.760 evidence? 00:22:25.760 --> 00:22:33.760 Because technically somebody could dig and dig and dig and file three or four reconsiderations 00:22:33.760 --> 00:22:40.960 based upon new evidence being discovered that was available before the complaint was filed. 00:22:40.960 --> 00:22:51.240 But without some kind of constraints attached to the process, that could be abused potentially. 00:22:51.240 --> 00:22:57.560 Yeah, and I'll say I think that the ordinance addresses that issue. 00:22:57.560 --> 00:23:03.640 It gives sole authority to the chair to accept a reconsideration complaint based on what 00:23:03.640 --> 00:23:05.360 new evidence they present. 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 00:23:10.400 --> 00:23:15.920 it to one time, essentially. 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 00:23:22.280 --> 00:23:25.540 a hearing if it was accepted by the chair one time. 00:23:25.540 --> 00:23:30.080 I don't remember saying the one time, but of course I might be wrong. 00:23:30.080 --> 00:23:33.080 I could also be wrong. 00:23:33.080 --> 00:23:35.480 So I'll double, I can certainly double check that. 00:23:35.480 --> 00:23:36.680 Oh, there's Laura. 00:23:36.680 --> 00:23:38.440 Hi, I'm just jumping in. 00:23:38.440 --> 00:23:42.920 I had a work meeting that I found out about today and it lasted long. 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 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 00:23:52.080 --> 00:23:58.120 far as recommendations for the ordinance because it's something that I know you've brought 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 00:24:05.600 --> 00:24:08.360 what the flowchart says. 00:24:08.360 --> 00:24:13.760 And I will pass the mantle of chairperson for this proceeding to you. 00:24:13.760 --> 00:24:15.160 Oh, thank you. 00:24:15.160 --> 00:24:22.440 Laura, just so you know, I've just been soliciting potential changes from the board currently 00:24:22.440 --> 00:24:24.520 on the flowcharts. 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 00:24:28.200 --> 00:24:31.720 direction on if that's a change the board wanted to see. 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 00:24:36.440 --> 00:24:37.440 that. 00:24:37.440 --> 00:24:40.480 That sounds like a good idea. 00:24:40.480 --> 00:24:41.480 Okay. 00:24:41.480 --> 00:24:43.080 Rob? 00:24:43.080 --> 00:24:44.080 Thank you. 00:24:44.080 --> 00:24:46.680 I like the flowcharts, both of them. 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, 00:24:52.200 --> 00:24:59.880 which what I gently call what we've just had discussion, such as the reconsideration, because 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 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 00:25:10.160 --> 00:25:11.560 that we need to go. 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 00:25:17.680 --> 00:25:20.340 addressed under the guidelines. 00:25:20.340 --> 00:25:25.400 This just gives us the ability to see what path we're going to take. 00:25:25.400 --> 00:25:28.040 That's my only concern concerning this. 00:25:28.040 --> 00:25:37.780 Other than that, I think the flowcharts look good. 00:25:37.780 --> 00:25:38.780 All right. 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 00:25:42.720 --> 00:25:48.280 comments about the flowcharts? 00:25:48.280 --> 00:25:51.600 I'm not seeing any hands. 00:25:51.600 --> 00:25:58.320 Okay, so I guess we've looked at the flowcharts. 00:25:58.320 --> 00:26:00.520 Are you going to go over the complaint form next, Madison? 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 00:26:07.720 --> 00:26:12.880 then discuss, try to get some direction on if the board thought that those were changes 00:26:12.880 --> 00:26:13.880 that need to be made. 00:26:13.880 --> 00:26:14.880 The whole board thought that. 00:26:14.880 --> 00:26:15.880 Does that make sense? 00:26:15.880 --> 00:26:16.880 Yes. 00:26:16.880 --> 00:26:20.560 Yeah, let's do that. 00:26:20.560 --> 00:26:29.320 So just to start with the preliminary assessment, Debra mentioned that if there's a deficiency 00:26:29.320 --> 00:26:37.320 in the complaint, it cannot be resubmitted more than one time, essentially, because of 00:26:37.320 --> 00:26:42.040 the flowchart makes it look like a continuous loop. 00:26:42.040 --> 00:26:49.920 I think we could address that in just having a note on the flowchart. 00:26:49.920 --> 00:26:58.000 I think that would probably be the best idea to actually changing it. 00:26:58.000 --> 00:27:06.000 Or I guess, does everybody feel like that should be a change made to the flowchart? 00:27:06.000 --> 00:27:08.720 I mean, it sounds like a note would fix that. 00:27:08.720 --> 00:27:12.320 I'm okay with that, but I'm open to whatever everybody else thinks. 00:27:12.320 --> 00:27:13.320 Rob? 00:27:13.320 --> 00:27:18.160 I'm not an attorney, so I ask these questions. 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 00:27:22.620 --> 00:27:28.160 explanation or teeth as to why we just let this go the loop only once? 00:27:28.160 --> 00:27:32.960 Well, I would think the note would clarify that. 00:27:32.960 --> 00:27:38.800 And I would think the background information is, you know, you could go read the ordinance. 00:27:38.800 --> 00:27:42.080 That's why I ask it. 00:27:42.080 --> 00:27:43.080 Yeah. 00:27:43.080 --> 00:27:44.080 Thank you. 00:27:44.080 --> 00:27:48.880 Did you put the ordinance reference on the step? 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 00:27:53.840 --> 00:27:55.720 loop, it says you only get to do it one time. 00:27:55.720 --> 00:27:57.120 Well, who says so? 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, 00:28:01.800 --> 00:28:02.800 it may not. 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 00:28:07.560 --> 00:28:12.560 that footnote that I agree with on just having to go around once? 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. 00:28:17.640 --> 00:28:21.600 It'd be part of the flow of the chart. 00:28:21.600 --> 00:28:22.600 And that's what I asked. 00:28:22.600 --> 00:28:25.400 Just I'm looking at the legality, which I don't understand. 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 00:28:30.480 --> 00:28:38.680 to make kind of a simple visual explanation of how this works for laypeople. 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 00:28:42.760 --> 00:28:43.760 not simple. 00:28:43.760 --> 00:28:46.920 That would be my opinion of the situation. 00:28:46.920 --> 00:28:56.600 I think a note would be a very simple way to fix it. 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. 00:29:01.720 --> 00:29:05.640 So I'll make that. 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 00:29:11.120 --> 00:29:12.120 the line. 00:29:12.120 --> 00:29:18.440 That would just be my suggestion when you need a footnote. 00:29:18.440 --> 00:29:19.440 Okay. 00:29:19.440 --> 00:29:27.280 The next we're now we're on to the complaint hearing process. 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 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 00:29:47.400 --> 00:29:53.760 they would like to see and potential subpoenas and things like that and sending that information 00:29:53.760 --> 00:29:57.120 to the city auditor to distribute to the respondent and complainant. 00:29:57.120 --> 00:29:58.120 Is that correct? 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 00:30:04.600 --> 00:30:13.160 additional evidence and their list of witnesses to the city auditor, which then gives it to 00:30:13.160 --> 00:30:19.800 the board before the hearing so that it is part of the hearing. 00:30:19.800 --> 00:30:20.800 Okay. 00:30:20.800 --> 00:30:21.800 Okay. 00:30:21.800 --> 00:30:22.800 Okay. 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 00:30:29.640 --> 00:30:36.720 the provide evidence, argument, testimony, additional boxes on the complainant and respondent. 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 00:30:41.160 --> 00:30:42.160 board. 00:30:42.160 --> 00:30:43.160 Right. 00:30:43.160 --> 00:30:50.680 Those two arrows going to the must provide argument, et cetera, don't really belong to 00:30:50.680 --> 00:30:57.840 this it goes out from the the hearing is scheduled. 00:30:57.840 --> 00:31:03.880 And that's really not how that makes any sense at all. 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 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 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 00:31:26.080 --> 00:31:28.200 information beforehand. 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 00:31:33.840 --> 00:31:37.280 before they, you know, when they first look at this online. 00:31:37.280 --> 00:31:39.960 So I think that would be a good box to add. 00:31:39.960 --> 00:31:44.760 I think that I see Rob's hand again, I think I was just saying. 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 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 00:31:53.480 --> 00:31:56.920 then underneath that, it would drop down to the conducting the hearing. 00:31:56.920 --> 00:31:58.520 Would that be what you were thinking, Deborah? 00:31:58.520 --> 00:31:59.520 Yeah. 00:31:59.520 --> 00:32:00.520 Yeah, I think so, too. 00:32:00.520 --> 00:32:01.520 That's a great idea. 00:32:01.520 --> 00:32:06.480 And I between the scheduling and conducting a hearing, they can be preliminary hearings. 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 00:32:11.440 --> 00:32:16.320 even had that with the hearings we've had, but it's a possibility. 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 00:32:22.680 --> 00:32:24.320 possible pretrial hearings. 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. 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 00:32:31.880 --> 00:32:34.400 up with and we can decide next month. 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 00:32:39.680 --> 00:32:44.520 hearing is scheduled, they have an opportunity to provide additional information. 00:32:44.520 --> 00:32:50.840 The board may may also request information potentially through subpoena, but in other 00:32:50.840 --> 00:32:52.200 ways as well. 00:32:52.200 --> 00:32:55.920 And we want to reflect that that happens before the hearing is actually conducted. 00:32:55.920 --> 00:32:58.400 Is that kind of what I'm hearing? 00:32:58.400 --> 00:32:59.400 I think so. 00:32:59.400 --> 00:33:00.640 And I see some nodding heads. 00:33:00.640 --> 00:33:01.640 Yes. 00:33:01.640 --> 00:33:03.800 Okay, then I will. 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 00:33:11.000 --> 00:33:16.800 on the direction I received. 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 00:33:23.160 --> 00:33:31.920 hearing and then and how if they did, it would just be automatically dismissed. 00:33:31.920 --> 00:33:32.920 So that was the next change. 00:33:32.920 --> 00:33:40.000 So we could include basically a decision box in the complaints lane that says actually 00:33:40.000 --> 00:33:41.520 appear at the hearing. 00:33:41.520 --> 00:33:47.360 Yes, you know, go to the hearing process or no, just go to the dismissal. 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 00:33:54.280 --> 00:33:55.280 the ordinance. 00:33:55.280 --> 00:34:00.080 And then the other one is something like fail to appear. 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 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. 00:34:14.880 --> 00:34:15.880 That sound good to everybody. 00:34:15.880 --> 00:34:18.800 Any more comments on that one? 00:34:18.800 --> 00:34:21.840 Not seeing any any hands or anything, Madison. 00:34:21.840 --> 00:34:29.400 All right, then yeah, that I will work on including that in this as well. 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 00:34:35.960 --> 00:34:39.560 as though it was a loop as well and potentially having multiple times. 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 00:34:44.840 --> 00:34:47.480 limited to one reconsideration? 00:34:47.480 --> 00:34:50.440 I did. 00:34:50.440 --> 00:34:59.240 And technically under Section 2, 283, it does not actually say the word once. 00:34:59.240 --> 00:35:03.000 Now the circumstances of that section say that there must be new evidence otherwise 00:35:03.000 --> 00:35:07.640 it's unilaterally dismissed and it's got to be within five days. 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, 00:35:13.240 --> 00:35:17.760 it's going to be unilaterally dismissed under the under the ordinance. 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 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 00:35:33.200 --> 00:35:35.480 was further new evidence. 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 00:35:42.720 --> 00:35:47.280 flowchart until we maybe come up with whatever recommendations we might want to come up with 00:35:47.280 --> 00:35:50.680 to amend the ordinance. 00:35:50.680 --> 00:35:55.280 I would agree because I was going to propose potentially a note like with the original 00:35:55.280 --> 00:36:00.480 like what we did with the complaint deficiency, but it sounds like that would not actually 00:36:00.480 --> 00:36:05.960 be accurate based on the current ordinance. 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 00:36:12.800 --> 00:36:19.280 about several things to talk about as far as recommendations for the ordinance, but 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 00:36:24.200 --> 00:36:25.200 things. 00:36:25.200 --> 00:36:34.240 So I would say we put it on that list for you know February or March. 00:36:34.240 --> 00:36:38.160 Okay any more recommendations on the flowchart medicine. 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 00:36:42.480 --> 00:36:44.840 I anybody thinks I missed one. 00:36:44.840 --> 00:36:49.520 I think Deborah said something about the subpoenas did we address that. 00:36:49.520 --> 00:36:54.280 I think that would be for the pre before the hearing after the hearing scheduled before 00:36:54.280 --> 00:36:55.280 the hearing. 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 00:37:01.160 --> 00:37:02.160 hearings. 00:37:02.160 --> 00:37:03.160 Okay thank you. 00:37:03.160 --> 00:37:05.240 That's what I understood from our discussion. 00:37:05.240 --> 00:37:12.440 I also asked about timelines or if that needed to be another chart. 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 00:37:16.880 --> 00:37:18.160 on this chart. 00:37:18.160 --> 00:37:23.680 I wonder if we should do maybe just a separate list or chart of the timeline. 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 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 00:37:34.320 --> 00:37:40.880 we could include that in this information as well on the website so that the public 00:37:40.880 --> 00:37:44.760 has has access to something that easily shows the timelines. 00:37:44.760 --> 00:37:47.520 I'd be great. 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 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 00:38:07.120 --> 00:38:08.120 chart. 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 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 00:38:17.320 --> 00:38:19.760 or whatever. 00:38:19.760 --> 00:38:20.760 Thank you. 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? 00:38:30.560 --> 00:38:33.560 Yes I am. 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:39:27.520 --> 00:39:33.720 are not really substantive but I can go through them if you would like. 00:39:33.720 --> 00:39:39.080 However the kind of the biggest change is adding this checklist of the ethics ordinances 00:39:39.080 --> 00:39:45.240 prohibitions to the form so it basically it just lists out the ordinance sections that 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 00:39:51.820 --> 00:39:58.200 and to assist complainants in identifying what the ordinance actually prohibits. 00:39:58.200 --> 00:40:02.960 So if the board chooses to implement this section this checklist section I also need 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 00:40:08.360 --> 00:40:14.920 has to be completed for the form to be considered administratively complete. 00:40:14.920 --> 00:40:20.680 And so now I'll take this down so that y'all can discuss. 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 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 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 00:40:38.820 --> 00:40:42.920 old form we don't have like a editable version of it for some reason. 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 00:41:40.240 --> 00:41:46.920 somebody doesn't fill it out we still accept the complaint and that would be something 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 00:41:52.840 --> 00:41:58.640 about what we should do on that. 00:41:58.640 --> 00:42:09.200 I really like the check boxes my suggestion would be rather than having mandates that 00:42:09.200 --> 00:42:16.280 also spill out what those mandates are for consistency purposes due to report financial 00:42:16.280 --> 00:42:19.320 disclosure and business disclosure. 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 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 00:42:26.280 --> 00:42:27.280 three. 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 00:42:37.720 --> 00:42:39.560 be specified. 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 00:42:45.560 --> 00:42:47.520 or something like that. 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. 00:42:56.720 --> 00:43:07.200 The edit is that sections 2-272 and or 2-273 of the ethics ordinance. 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 00:43:14.280 --> 00:43:18.400 it on the form but have and in the ordinance. 00:43:18.400 --> 00:43:24.880 Okay I think that's a question for you. 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 00:43:32.400 --> 00:43:34.160 them. 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 00:43:43.120 --> 00:43:50.320 because it says and instead of and or that it has to be all of them. 00:43:50.320 --> 00:43:55.480 So I think that's we're talking about right here correct. 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 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 00:44:11.920 --> 00:44:17.040 with the ordinance that's a problem. 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 00:44:29.600 --> 00:44:34.840 on the ethics complaint form itself down there at before you start doing all your writing. 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 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 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 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 00:44:54.000 --> 00:44:58.120 it could be you may want to check more than these. 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 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 00:45:14.880 --> 00:45:18.880 or do they have to file one for each one. 00:45:18.880 --> 00:45:24.120 I believe you can file one complaint with multiple violations but you have to separate 00:45:24.120 --> 00:45:30.640 out by person sorry correct me if I'm incorrect. 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 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 00:45:42.240 --> 00:45:45.480 multiple provisions of the ethics ordinance. 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 00:45:54.400 --> 00:45:57.160 I agree. 00:45:57.160 --> 00:46:05.960 I disagree with the voluntariness of this particular section I think I think that the 00:46:05.960 --> 00:46:14.420 next section requires information about the complaint that where any logical person could 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 00:46:20.180 --> 00:46:28.320 that has to be filed that further defines what the issue is by putting this section 00:46:28.320 --> 00:46:39.760 in where someone should check the applicable sections violated it pretty much ensures that 00:46:39.760 --> 00:46:43.640 they have to at least read the ethics code before they file the complaint. 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 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 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 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 00:47:09.760 --> 00:47:17.560 thinking versus what's in the ordinance Madison just to help kind of streamline the discussion 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 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 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 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 00:47:49.960 --> 00:47:57.480 think you know the probe making it voluntary is that if somebody doesn't understand this 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:49:00.560 --> 00:49:08.520 if you have problems deciding which category your complaint fits under you may contact 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 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 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 00:49:27.000 --> 00:49:37.920 situation like this I I don't know that I would feel comfortable telling a potential 00:49:37.920 --> 00:49:50.160 complainant what category their complaint would fall under as my role is administrative 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 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 00:50:00.920 --> 00:50:08.880 legal advice because you're interpreting an ordinance so I so I guess Trisha I think 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 00:50:15.520 --> 00:50:20.840 to check the box and they're confused then they should just context somebody they think 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:51:08.840 --> 00:51:18.560 voluntary you don't think that section should be voluntary right I guess should be mandatory 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:52:48.680 --> 00:52:53.000 are saying this should be mandatory I think Deborah you said you wanted to be voluntary 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 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 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 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 00:53:18.840 --> 00:53:24.880 about where did you have anything else that we discussed already Madison or I wanted to 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 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 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 00:53:47.480 --> 00:53:53.640 such violations by submitting a complaint I would think my interpretation of that is that 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:54:33.600 --> 00:54:40.200 when you actually get to the complaint form where it's individualized and it's supposed 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 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 00:54:53.860 --> 00:55:02.360 that the next time the ordinance is revised it reflect that just coming from a federal 00:55:02.360 --> 00:55:07.920 background where those those slashes and and ors and must and shalls make all the difference 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:57:26.760 --> 00:57:33.280 or not they check something or don't check something that turned out to be applicable 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:59:55.080 --> 01:00:02.480 I think the board has that discretion under the current formal guidelines yeah I think 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 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 01:00:20.480 --> 01:00:27.560 mind me just adding did under the ethics ordinance you know the violation alleged just under 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 01:00:33.000 --> 01:00:38.120 a violation so the complaint for purposes of getting it all the way through hearing 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:01:20.280 --> 01:01:28.520 something there all right anything else what else about this complaint Madison or anyone 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 01:01:40.880 --> 01:01:48.280 form and then it says important ethics ordinance provisions and the first one is prohibition 01:01:48.280 --> 01:01:57.340 but it's actually talking about frivolous complaints and I just I wondered if that should 01:01:57.340 --> 01:02:05.400 perhaps reflect that it's actually frivolous complaints if you look at the ordinance it's 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 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 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 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 01:02:36.740 --> 01:02:42.720 change that to prohibit and prohibition against frivolous claims I think if you just put frivolous 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 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 01:02:51.480 --> 01:02:59.960 can't do this so maybe putting prohibition maybe against frivolous claims what does anybody 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:04:06.240 --> 01:04:15.760 changes that will be made approving it as amended today oh yeah okay so just starting 01:04:15.760 --> 01:04:21.880 from the beginning under important ethics ordinance provisions changing prohibition 01:04:21.880 --> 01:04:29.640 to say prohibition against frivolous complaints moving to the actual ethics complaint form 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 01:04:46.000 --> 01:04:51.840 to the ethics complaint form under the checklist section to say please indicate which section 01:04:51.840 --> 01:04:58.880 sections with the apostrophe s of the ethics ordinance you believe was violated and then 01:04:58.880 --> 01:05:06.280 spelling basically including three taking out section two dash two seven two mandates 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 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 01:05:23.620 --> 01:05:29.880 a duty to report and including section two dash two seven two b financial disclosures 01:05:29.880 --> 01:05:36.360 and two dash two seven two c business disclosures as separate items on the checklist believe 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:06:43.800 --> 01:06:49.480 on the in the instructions is all sections of this complaint form uh must be complete 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:07:35.200 --> 01:07:39.960 well she changed it and then she added the amendments that we just went over verbally 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:08:54.440 --> 01:09:01.640 most recent preliminary assessment uh the panel discussed with legal counsel what could 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 01:09:09.400 --> 01:09:13.080 uh referenced in the submitted ethics complaint form should have been reviewed by the panel 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 01:09:21.520 --> 01:09:29.640 relevant sections of the ordinance and rules of procedure uh can you guys see the slide 01:09:29.640 --> 01:09:34.980 preliminary assessment review clarification um no you're on the first slide you might 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 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 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 01:10:00.240 --> 01:10:07.920 um in particular uh the ethics ordinance defines a complaint as written documentation submitted 01:10:07.920 --> 01:10:14.120 to the city accusing a city official of violating the ethics ordinance uh another section of 01:10:14.120 --> 01:10:19.040 the ordinance includes a discussion of the contents of a complaint and states that the 01:10:19.040 --> 01:10:23.960 complaint must state all documents or other material available to the complainant that 01:10:23.960 --> 01:10:29.100 are relevant to the allegation and a further section of the ordinance says that the panel 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 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 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 01:10:47.440 --> 01:10:53.180 the preliminary preliminary assessment and if so um how can this non-written evidence 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:13:05.400 --> 01:13:11.480 we can then open it up to discussion 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:14:32.360 --> 01:14:39.960 outside the complaint form for the preliminary hearing of course in the hearing uh you know 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:15:18.960 --> 01:15:24.320 hearing when you're not supposed to decide the facts for instance say they they link 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:16:01.480 --> 01:16:07.240 would be the situation I could think of as a downside um because the preliminary hearing 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 01:16:12.520 --> 01:16:17.040 evidence so it might be bringing an evidence to the preliminary hearing that is more a 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 01:16:24.920 --> 01:16:34.680 question Madison and I think um perhaps another downside is the respondent really doesn't 01:16:34.680 --> 01:16:41.680 have an opportunity to provide any evidence or testimony or anything to the preliminary 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 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 01:16:57.920 --> 01:17:05.920 really be terrible for the respondent but um that's just another thing to consider I 01:17:05.920 --> 01:17:16.480 suppose written and there's photographs included as part of the document and the photographs 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 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 01:17:31.080 --> 01:17:37.980 video pictures just anything that is not on the piece you know on the actual complaint 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 01:17:46.040 --> 01:17:53.800 documentation so yeah I would think the photograph that's included with the written documentation 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 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 01:18:08.200 --> 01:18:14.040 is on that complaint form or the complaint form plus whatever it references that they 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 01:18:20.760 --> 01:18:25.680 hearing hearing it was a link to a previous city council meeting that everybody could 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 01:18:33.400 --> 01:18:37.640 out a description of what they observed on the during the city council meeting that would 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:19:34.960 --> 01:19:40.800 have sent um you know like documents that are publicly available um that are written 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 01:19:46.080 --> 01:19:51.840 preliminary panel could could include in their assessment as evidence does that make sense 01:19:51.840 --> 01:20:01.280 yeah uh rob uh on the written portion then are they narrative are they restricted to 01:20:01.280 --> 01:20:09.560 just the two spaces available on the current form they gotta get everything do they do 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 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 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 01:20:28.040 --> 01:20:35.640 narrative versus attaching documents pictures videos that aren't just kind of their narrative 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 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 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 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 01:20:59.600 --> 01:21:07.920 or is this an ethical procedure designed to engender public trust because to me this person 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 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 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 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 01:21:32.100 --> 01:21:40.160 stuff video council meetings archive things in a very accurate form and and you know what 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:22:41.240 --> 01:22:45.880 complaint then you're depriving that person of having their hearing so I guess think of 01:22:45.880 --> 01:22:51.520 it flip wise and think that in that video it actually did happen and the preliminary 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 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 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 01:23:05.680 --> 01:23:14.480 the three people deciding whether it should go to a full hearing. 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 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 01:23:37.120 --> 01:23:39.880 be in writing? 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 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 01:23:50.680 --> 01:23:51.680 ahead Trey. 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 01:23:59.280 --> 01:24:04.120 contents of the complaint specifically under the ordinance are supposed to include all 01:24:04.120 --> 01:24:08.240 documents and other material available to the complaint that are relevant to the allegation 01:24:08.240 --> 01:24:17.880 so I think under its definition if they were to attach photographs the photographs could 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 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 01:24:28.120 --> 01:24:29.120 assessment. 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 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 01:24:43.600 --> 01:24:45.040 if that's what we decide to do? 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 01:24:49.840 --> 01:24:57.280 for the board but I think definitionally if they were to attach specific things to their 01:24:57.280 --> 01:25:00.960 complaint form and staple it all together and that is their complaint form the ethics 01:25:00.960 --> 01:25:07.480 ordinance would would define that as being all inclusive as the complaint. 01:25:07.480 --> 01:25:08.480 And I'll be a lawyer. 01:25:08.480 --> 01:25:15.480 The idea was that and under the preliminary assessment there would not be the board would 01:25:15.480 --> 01:25:20.360 not seek out corroborating information or any information other than what was presented 01:25:20.360 --> 01:25:27.040 to them by the complaintant through the process and giving that to the auditor. 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 01:25:32.160 --> 01:25:33.160 be included. 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 01:25:39.320 --> 01:25:46.720 from for letting us look at everything would be the preliminary panel making like a decision 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 01:25:53.480 --> 01:26:00.920 to happen they can ask for the reconsideration like we had with this last hearing. 01:26:00.920 --> 01:26:07.520 So if somebody feels like the preliminary panel decided the whole action and not just 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 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 01:26:16.960 --> 01:26:17.960 to a hearing. 01:26:17.960 --> 01:26:21.560 So we do have that backup. 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:26:55.000 --> 01:26:59.840 they said and it would obviously probably be a city council meeting or a board meeting 01:26:59.840 --> 01:27:01.200 like this. 01:27:01.200 --> 01:27:09.360 So so any thoughts from others about this Rob? 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 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 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 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 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 01:27:39.200 --> 01:27:44.480 even that excited about pulling up a link from a previous city council meeting you give 01:27:44.480 --> 01:27:47.960 me everything in writing right there and then I can work with it. 01:27:47.960 --> 01:27:57.840 I wonder respectfully disagree with that you can have an electronic document that has a 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 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 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 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 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 01:28:36.960 --> 01:28:45.560 everything and that's what transparency is about and not an important basis of ethics 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 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 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 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 01:29:08.240 --> 01:29:13.480 whatever if whatever they said is true if they said this happens the city council meeting 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 01:29:19.000 --> 01:29:24.920 whether whether whatever that whatever they said happened happened at the city council 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 01:29:32.360 --> 01:29:41.520 than just that video that would show whether that that you know that violation occurred 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 01:29:48.600 --> 01:29:54.800 during the preliminary hearing like obviously all that would come in in the actual hearing 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 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 01:30:07.080 --> 01:30:14.640 you just said so I can understand your example better you indicated that if the preliminary 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 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 01:30:31.320 --> 01:30:36.840 would have a recourse for reconsideration where the whole panel the whole board would 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 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 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 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 01:31:03.880 --> 01:31:10.200 so they the defendant does not have or sorry the complainant sorry the complainant does 01:31:10.200 --> 01:31:15.500 not have to submit new evidence to have an appeal they can just submit they basically 01:31:15.500 --> 01:31:20.240 just submit written notification that they are appealing the dismissal is baseless and 01:31:20.240 --> 01:31:27.440 then a hearing is conducted with the full board but it is essentially just a preliminary 01:31:27.440 --> 01:31:34.440 assessment because I think it would be unlikely that a board would want to determine sanctions 01:31:34.440 --> 01:31:47.840 at a hearing without having information from the respondent presented so what are everybody 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:33:05.600 --> 01:33:13.360 look at everything for the for the preliminary for the panel in the preliminary assessment 01:33:13.360 --> 01:33:22.520 to recommend a hearing because they can't determine that something is frivolous by themselves 01:33:22.520 --> 01:33:28.520 that makes sense uh like whether uh whether it should go to a hearing right essentially 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 01:33:35.520 --> 01:33:42.240 is actionable and two because they believe the complaint to be frivolous okay so it sounds 01:33:42.240 --> 01:33:46.200 like the ordinance is saying you could look at you can look at everything for whether 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:35:29.680 --> 01:35:37.840 that could be accessed access your web link um or through the city council or whatever 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 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 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 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 01:36:06.240 --> 01:36:11.080 assessment needs in order to determine whether or not your complaint should go forward when 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 01:36:17.240 --> 01:36:28.760 what the violation was uh provided a statement of facts a detailed provide detailed evidentiary 01:36:28.760 --> 01:36:36.200 facts on the new form and uh provide a statement of facts 01:36:36.200 --> 01:36:45.000 yes the complaint form states uh provide a statement of facts constituting the alleged 01:36:45.000 --> 01:36:50.200 violation and the dates on which or period of time in which the alleged violation occurred 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 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 01:37:04.200 --> 01:37:07.400 detailed evidentiary facts supporting your allegations 01:37:10.120 --> 01:37:17.240 and attach additional sheets if necessary pardon it's and then it says you can attach 01:37:17.240 --> 01:37:19.480 additional sheets if necessary right right 01:37:19.480 --> 01:37:30.600 and in the instructions the second number two says a complaint must state on its face 01:37:30.600 --> 01:37:36.440 allegation that if true constitutes the violation of the sections of the specific sections of the 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 01:37:42.600 --> 01:37:45.960 available to the complaint complainant that are relevant to the allegations 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:40:02.280 --> 01:40:06.680 i'm don 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:41:15.160 --> 01:41:21.240 i think i might agree with uh patricia in that the preliminary panel 01:41:21.240 --> 01:41:27.400 should be possessed with the capability of 01:41:27.400 --> 01:41:33.880 working through this in terms of what should or shouldn't be counted in their decision 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 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 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 01:41:58.920 --> 01:42:10.520 procedure ordinance or whatever i would defer to you trey because i believe that the ordinance 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:43:10.360 --> 01:43:15.800 hearing um i remember most everybody saying they went ahead and looked at the video 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:44:34.040 --> 01:44:37.720 then maybe look into procedural change what do you what does everybody else think 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 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 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 01:45:02.680 --> 01:45:08.040 ethics complaints the all submitted evidence that i receive will be presented to the board 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:46:13.880 --> 01:46:20.760 shortly um the new the new form and with the preliminary assessment all submitted evidence 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:47:29.960 --> 01:47:43.960 out for the meeting thanks thank you bye