Hello, I'm Madison Borschaw, City Auditor, and currently neither the Chair or Vice Chair
is present at this meeting, but we do have a quorum, so I'll call the meeting of the
Denton Board of Ethics to order on January 28, 2021 at 3.09 p.m.
And since there's currently no Chair or Vice Chair, the first item of business is to elect
a temporary Chair for the purpose of the meeting, so I will open it up for nominations from
the board.
I nominate Don Cartwright.
Okay, is there a second for Don?
Second.
All right, and then we take a vote, is that correct, Ray?
Any other nominations?
May I withdraw?
I've been, I've served as Chairman so many times, I would like to kind of spread it around
to some of the other people in the committee.
Are there any other nominations?
Yeah, would anybody like to do it?
I mean, it's--
Yes, sir, yes, you do not have to accept the nomination.
I don't accept it then.
Okay.
Then you have to return your check.
Doesn't the, does the temporary Chair have to be an attorney?
It does not, no ma'am.
No.
Yeah.
Then I'd like to nominate Ron Johnson.
Ron was nominated and Rob seconded Ron Johnson for temporary Chair, so are there any other
nominations?
So hearing none, I'll close the nominations and we'll take a vote on Ron.
So we'll, I'll go down the list since we're on video, we'll do a roll call vote, so Don,
how do you vote?
I vote for him.
Yes.
Debra?
Yes.
Patricia?
Yes.
Ron?
Oh, you have to, can you unmute yourself, please?
I'll abstain.
Okay.
Annetta?
Yes.
And Rob?
Yes.
All right.
Thank you so much, so Ron, I'll give the floor to you to run through the agenda.
Okay, I believe that items for consideration, consider approval of the minutes for August
27th, 2020.
I move approval.
I think we can do them all at once.
Oh, okay.
Okay, so all items for consideration are under consideration for lack of a better term?
I think we can do all the minutes at once.
Right.
The three minutes.
Right.
Okay.
The three minutes under items for individual consideration A, the three minutes are before
the board and if anybody has any changes, now would be the time to discuss those.
If not, you can move to approval three of those at the same time.
Okay.
I have a question.
If we were not present at one or all of those meetings, do we still vote on approval?
Yes, ma'am, you do.
Okay.
Thank you.
And just as a point of order, Laura emailed me before this meeting and asked me to make
a change to the August 27th minutes.
Her name was spelled incorrectly at the very bottom where her signature would be, so that
has been corrected or that should be corrected, I suppose, as part of the approval of the
minutes.
And I move approval for all three minutes.
Second.
Just for clarity, as amended, Ms. Ramsey?
Yes, as amended.
Thank you.
Okay.
The motion has been accepted and seconded.
Can I have a vote for your acceptance or non-acceptance?
Not everybody at once now.
Mr. Johnson, you'll need to go down the list because we're doing it via Zoom.
You've got to go each person individually.
Okay.
Don?
Aye.
Yes.
Patricia?
Yes.
Rob?
Yes.
Ms. Ramsey?
Yes.
Deborah?
Yes.
Okay.
The yeses have it.
So the next item of business is -- am I looking at this correctly?
The approval of the draft minutes of July 30th, 2020?
That is not correct.
Oh, that's August 27th minutes.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
The January 28th agenda information sheet, receive a report, hold a discussion, and give
a staff direction regarding the proposed ethnic complaint process improvements.
That is what is on the floor at this point.
And I have a presentation if you would like me to share that.
Please.
All right.
One second.
Let me pull it up so you all can see it.
You see the presentation?
Yes.
All right.
So today I'm going to discuss three proposed improvements to the ethics complaint process
that I put together, including a visualization of the process, revisions to the ethics complaint
form.
And I'm also requesting some clarification on the preliminary assessment process.
Just before we begin, I just wanted to note that these changes were all initiated by staff,
by me.
But if a board member would like to submit additional improvements, they can send their
proposal to me and the board chair, and they will be included on the next agenda.
So I'm sorry.
I'm going to pull out of this real quick because I can't see some stuff because of the way
the Zoom is working.
I apologize.
One moment.
Let me re-share my screen.
Okay.
We'll start over.
There we go.
All right.
So first, I thought that creating a visualization of the ethics complaint process would be beneficial
for board members as well as members of the public who are interested in how the process
works.
So I put together some flow charts, which were included in your backup, and these were
based on the most recent version of the ordinance, and they were also reviewed by the Borges
Law Firm, which is the board's special counsel, as well as just the city's legal department
to ensure that they're accurate.
And so basically, my ask today is if you have any questions about the flow chart or suggestions
to make it more understandable, and then I'd also like direction from the board on how
they'll be implemented.
As kind of stated on the slide, my recommendation is to use them in two ways.
One, to publish the flow charts on the board's webpage so that anybody can view them, and
then two, to include whichever flow chart is appropriate as part of the agenda packet
for any future ethics complaint meetings.
So for example, if a preliminary assessment needed to be held, the flow chart for that
meeting would be included in the backup for the panel's reference.
So I'm just going to open the floor for discussion, so I'll pull down the presentation so that
we can see you guys in who's asking questions.
I think it's a big improvement over what you had, so I think it's a lot more clear for
someone, you know, wanting to make a complaint.
Sorry.
Even as a training for new and prospective board members, and I like the idea of including
it as well in a packet for any assessments, I do have some suggested changes, and if you
prefer, I can send them directly to you, or do you want to discuss them?
I think I'm looking for the board to kind of approve them today.
Do we need to vote on that, Trey?
I can't hear you.
I wasn't unmuted.
I posted it as an IC item, so the board can vote to approve them at today's session, yes.
Now if there are specific changes that the board wants to add, they can take those up
and then approve it as amended, kind of like we did with the minutes.
So, do you want me to run through my proposed changes, then?
Yeah, I think that's what I would prefer, if possible.
Okay.
So, for the preliminary assessment, I just want to say first off that as a program evaluator,
these are wonderful and lovely, you know.
I really appreciate the work that went into it and the thought that goes into it, because
these can be so complicated.
So under the preliminary assessment, in the top left-hand corner, you have submit the
notarized ethics complaint form, and then it goes to the city auditor where it's reviewed,
and then if there is a written notification of a complaint deficiency, then that's sent
back to the complainant.
And the way that this is illustrated here, it looks like a continuous loop, and that's
not the process at all.
So I would recommend adding that the complaint deficiency is an additional step, but pull
it out of that loop.
Then on the, do you want me to just keep on going?
Can I just ask a question about that?
When you say the complaint deficiency, I think I, is your point, I'm sorry, is your concern
that it's not, you can't have deficiencies multiple times, basically?
Right.
And the way it looks on this, it looks like you can go through the process over and over
and over again.
I see, okay.
And so that was the only comment I had on that one.
Then on the ethics complaint process, the process for evidence and witnesses is not
clear.
The arrow goes from the hearing is scheduled to respondent and complainant, and actually
the hearing is a separate step, and then there's the time between the hearing, the scheduling
of the hearing and the hearing when the respondent and the complainant submit arguments and witnesses,
evidence to the auditor.
And so-
Hey Deborah, I'm sorry, you lost me and I've, are we on the preliminary assessment page?
I'm on the complaint hearing page.
Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, okay.
So all right.
Yeah, and you'll see in the center of that, the first is the ethics complaint hearing
is scheduled.
Oh, yes.
And then arrows go to both sides.
But the process is really that it's scheduled, then there's a time period where evidence
and witness lists are submitted to the city auditor, and then they're presented at the
hearing.
So there's another step in there, and that's not really clear.
So you're asking that a step be like basically a box go to the city auditor where the city
auditor requests from the complainant and their respondent evidence and documentation
requested by the board?
Yes.
And the input arrow is to the hearing rather than the hearing is scheduled.
And then I don't know how issuing subpoenas would work in this timeline, but subpoenas
are not mentioned on here.
And to be honest, when I looked at it, it wasn't clear to me when that process takes
place if a subpoena is required.
And then the last thing is there is nothing on here that talks about a failure to appear
means that the complaint is dismissed.
And the last thing on these is I didn't know, and I'm sure that you probably had a rationale
for not including the timelines on this, but perhaps that might be even a different flow
chart or just a regular timeline that shows how the process moves along.
And just so that I kind of to outline how this is going to go, you had a number, several
changes that you think should occur.
I want to get to talk to everybody about if they have any others.
And then basically then we'll go through each one, I'm writing them down and just double
check to make sure that everybody on the board thinks that's a good change to make.
And then probably based on the note, we'll come back on this next meeting with the changes
in place that have been requested and approved by the board.
Does that make sense?
Yes.
That way, because the things that you said, I can't do that on the fly.
So did you have any more, Debra?
Not on the flow charts, no.
Okay.
Does anybody else have any potential changes to the flow charts or questions about them?
Question.
So after we've all had a shot at this, then we will come back and talk about Debra's suggestions.
Is that right?
Correct.
Okay.
Thank you.
Is there anybody else's suggestions?
Of course.
Yes.
Yours is just on the floor right now.
Thank you.
Okay.
Anybody else have any questions or proposed changes?
Is there a way to say that if this is filed during the election season, that the board
would reserve the right to postpone it until the election's over?
I'd have to check the ordinance to see if the board has that right.
But I can certainly look into that.
What is the timeframe?
So I was actually looking at this recently.
Once a hearing, we have a specific timeframe laid out with the preliminary assessment.
Once the panel determines that a hearing needs to be held, there's nothing in the ordinance
or rules of procedure, technically, that lay out a timeline.
That's actually in the training video that everybody is required, that you and the city
officials are required to watch, and it's 30 days based on that.
Okay.
Well, 30 days would be enough to catch that.
Yeah.
So we try to schedule them within 30 days.
Okay.
Anybody else?
I have a concern on the complaint process
where should the complaint be sanctioned?
And then if it's yes, receive notification of sanction.
And then the arrow below that is reconsideration filed.
Did everybody see that?
Yes.
And that's the case on both sides for the complainant as well as the respondent, the
right to file reconsideration.
If the reconsideration is not accepted, then the ethics complaint is closed.
Or if it is accepted, then the arrow goes back to conduct the hearing.
It's probably the same kind of principle that is embodied in Deborah's concern.
It looks like a continuous loop.
There is five days that they have to file a motion for reconsideration.
However, the ordinance itself gives the right for a motion for reconsideration for new evidence
and not for errors in the process or the decision, which is a typical criteria for an administrative
decision reconsideration.
I think it could be problematic to the extent that new evidence falls into two categories.
Evidence that was available before the complaint, evidence that became available after the complaint.
If that kind of test is built in, then I don't think that we will potentially have a problem.
But if it's not built in and you accept new evidence, how many times do you accept new
evidence?
Because technically somebody could dig and dig and dig and file three or four reconsiderations
based upon new evidence being discovered that was available before the complaint was filed.
But without some kind of constraints attached to the process, that could be abused potentially.
Yeah, and I'll say I think that the ordinance addresses that issue.
It gives sole authority to the chair to accept a reconsideration complaint based on what
new evidence they present.
And I believe, Trey, please correct me if I'm wrong to your knowledge, that it limits
it to one time, essentially.
So the continuous loop would not be an issue in that regard, but you would go back to having
a hearing if it was accepted by the chair one time.
I don't remember saying the one time, but of course I might be wrong.
I could also be wrong.
So I'll double, I can certainly double check that.
Oh, there's Laura.
Hi, I'm just jumping in.
I had a work meeting that I found out about today and it lasted long.
But Ron, I was going to say the reconsideration is something that we've kind of talked about
and I think it's something we should put on the agenda to talk about in the future as
far as recommendations for the ordinance because it's something that I know you've brought
up some few times and it's something I think we should look at in the future, even besides
what the flowchart says.
And I will pass the mantle of chairperson for this proceeding to you.
Oh, thank you.
Laura, just so you know, I've just been soliciting potential changes from the board currently
on the flowcharts.
And then I've been writing them down and we are going to go through so that I could get
direction on if that's a change the board wanted to see.
And we were going to come back next meeting to see the new version, basically, based on
that.
That sounds like a good idea.
Okay.
Rob?
Thank you.
I like the flowcharts, both of them.
I like that they give us direction, but yet they don't bog us down in the bureaucracy,
which what I gently call what we've just had discussion, such as the reconsideration, because
I look at those as we're going to discuss them further to be sort of like a policy and
procedure on how we handle this with the flowchart just more or less giving us the direction
that we need to go.
I wouldn't want to see these boxes bog down with a lot of verbiage when that could be
addressed under the guidelines.
This just gives us the ability to see what path we're going to take.
That's my only concern concerning this.
Other than that, I think the flowcharts look good.
All right.
And let me know if I'm missing anything, but is there anybody else that wanted to make
comments about the flowcharts?
I'm not seeing any hands.
Okay, so I guess we've looked at the flowcharts.
Are you going to go over the complaint form next, Madison?
I was going to quickly just go over the changes that I heard the board members express and
then discuss, try to get some direction on if the board thought that those were changes
that need to be made.
The whole board thought that.
Does that make sense?
Yes.
Yeah, let's do that.
So just to start with the preliminary assessment, Debra mentioned that if there's a deficiency
in the complaint, it cannot be resubmitted more than one time, essentially, because of
the flowchart makes it look like a continuous loop.
I think we could address that in just having a note on the flowchart.
I think that would probably be the best idea to actually changing it.
Or I guess, does everybody feel like that should be a change made to the flowchart?
I mean, it sounds like a note would fix that.
I'm okay with that, but I'm open to whatever everybody else thinks.
Rob?
I'm not an attorney, so I ask these questions.
I have no problem with that either, but should we then have backup information to give further
explanation or teeth as to why we just let this go the loop only once?
Well, I would think the note would clarify that.
And I would think the background information is, you know, you could go read the ordinance.
That's why I ask it.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Did you put the ordinance reference on the step?
No, no, I just, if somebody gets this and they look at it, and on this, instead of a
loop, it says you only get to do it one time.
Well, who says so?
Well, is it in the ordinance, because we've already had possibility it might be in there,
it may not.
If it's not, why can't we at the next meeting make sure that we had that put in so we understand
that footnote that I agree with on just having to go around once?
I think if you put like one time on the line, you wouldn't even have to make a note of it.
It'd be part of the flow of the chart.
And that's what I asked.
Just I'm looking at the legality, which I don't understand.
I would say, you know, we want this from my understanding of this flow chart is to try
to make kind of a simple visual explanation of how this works for laypeople.
And I think if you start putting in references to the ordinance in every line, it makes it
not simple.
That would be my opinion of the situation.
I think a note would be a very simple way to fix it.
Well, it seems like the direction is to go ahead and include that note on the next round.
So I'll make that.
And in the interest of simplicity and keeping it in the flowchart, I would I would put on
the line.
That would just be my suggestion when you need a footnote.
Okay.
The next we're now we're on to the complaint hearing process.
And so I think Deborah, your change that you suggested was basically that there is I think
you're talking about like a pre hearing process where the board meets to discuss what evidence
they would like to see and potential subpoenas and things like that and sending that information
to the city auditor to distribute to the respondent and complainant.
Is that correct?
No, I'm talking about the once it's scheduled, the complainant and the respondent can send
additional evidence and their list of witnesses to the city auditor, which then gives it to
the board before the hearing so that it is part of the hearing.
Okay.
So you're you're looking for there's the basically the hearing is scheduled box and it goes to
the provide evidence, argument, testimony, additional boxes on the complainant and respondent.
So you're looking for a box that says the auditor receives this and forwards it to the
board.
Right.
Those two arrows going to the must provide argument, et cetera, don't really belong to
this it goes out from the the hearing is scheduled.
And that's really not how that makes any sense at all.
The scheduling is just the step in itself that kicks off the next step, which is you
know, I think I might agree with that because if you have something in there, it also informs
someone who wants to to file a complaint that that they have that they can provide that
information beforehand.
And I think it might be helpful to both them and the board if that's known and that's known
before they, you know, when they first look at this online.
So I think that would be a good box to add.
I think that I see Rob's hand again, I think I was just saying.
So we put that and I agree, I think that's a great idea and have that instead of where
it's going into the conduct hearing, that box would be more or less to the auditor and
then underneath that, it would drop down to the conducting the hearing.
Would that be what you were thinking, Deborah?
Yeah.
Yeah, I think so, too.
That's a great idea.
And I between the scheduling and conducting a hearing, they can be preliminary hearings.
I don't know if we want to bog down the flowchart with that, because, like, I don't think we
even had that with the hearings we've had, but it's a possibility.
But and I don't know in that box, it could say something about provide information and
possible pretrial hearings.
But I don't know if you get into that, if it just makes it more confusing.
I don't know what the board thinks or maybe Madison can kind of see what she can come
up with and we can decide next month.
I think I think what I'm hearing is basically for the complainant and respondent after the
hearing is scheduled, they have an opportunity to provide additional information.
The board may may also request information potentially through subpoena, but in other
ways as well.
And we want to reflect that that happens before the hearing is actually conducted.
Is that kind of what I'm hearing?
I think so.
And I see some nodding heads.
Yes.
Okay, then I will.
I'll rework this to try to include that that kind of that those that step in there based
on the direction I received.
Deborah also mentioned that there's no discussion of if the complaint fails to appear at the
hearing and then and how if they did, it would just be automatically dismissed.
So that was the next change.
So we could include basically a decision box in the complaints lane that says actually
appear at the hearing.
Yes, you know, go to the hearing process or no, just go to the dismissal.
Yeah, maybe you could put appear and present case because that's what they have to do under
the ordinance.
And then the other one is something like fail to appear.
And I think that's a good addition to Deborah because then someone knows from the beginning
that they're going to need to show up or this or it can all go away.
That sound good to everybody.
Any more comments on that one?
Not seeing any any hands or anything, Madison.
All right, then yeah, that I will work on including that in this as well.
And I think the last one that I saw was from Ron about the reconsideration being seeming
as though it was a loop as well and potentially having multiple times.
Trey, did you look up the reference to that section to see if it was once or if it was
limited to one reconsideration?
I did.
And technically under Section 2, 283, it does not actually say the word once.
Now the circumstances of that section say that there must be new evidence otherwise
it's unilaterally dismissed and it's got to be within five days.
So if they don't have new evidence, the first, you know, with that first request for reconsideration,
it's going to be unilaterally dismissed under the under the ordinance.
If somehow they did and it went back around again, there's there's nothing in 2, 283 that
would on on by itself say that they couldn't ask for a second reconsideration if there
was further new evidence.
So it kind of sounds like to me I don't I don't know if there's a better way to do this
flowchart until we maybe come up with whatever recommendations we might want to come up with
to amend the ordinance.
I would agree because I was going to propose potentially a note like with the original
like what we did with the complaint deficiency, but it sounds like that would not actually
be accurate based on the current ordinance.
So I'm saying we keep that as is and make a note because me Madison had actually talked
about several things to talk about as far as recommendations for the ordinance, but
push that off until after we get new people on the board and we deal with some administrative
things.
So I would say we put it on that list for you know February or March.
Okay any more recommendations on the flowchart medicine.
I did not receive any in our first that I think that's that's the end of my list unless
I anybody thinks I missed one.
I think Deborah said something about the subpoenas did we address that.
I think that would be for the pre before the hearing after the hearing scheduled before
the hearing.
I think it would go into the kind of collecting evidence sending evidence to us possible pretrial
hearings.
Okay thank you.
That's what I understood from our discussion.
I also asked about timelines or if that needed to be another chart.
I think that might be you know like I said there's also there's already a lot going on
on this chart.
I wonder if we should do maybe just a separate list or chart of the timeline.
I could I could sort I have one I could bring back one that kind of matches this nice format
and bring that back with the next time so that y'all y'all can see that laid out and
we could include that in this information as well on the website so that the public
has has access to something that easily shows the timelines.
I'd be great.
So let's just go forward with with that all right Madam Chair do you need a motion for
this or well I think she's going to come back with the revised chart and I guess the timeline
chart.
So I think we're just going to give her direction to come back with that and the next meeting
we can vote on whether we want to put it up on the website or we have more corrections
or whatever.
Thank you.
All right well then Madam Chair are you good for me to move on to the next item?
Yes I am.
And I'm going to share my screen again and for the presentation so you guys see the slide
all right so I've also had some discussions about the ethics complaint form with the city
secretary's office and legal and a few board members really since I became the board liaison
which I guess was back in May or so and so based on these conversations I thought it
might be a good idea to revise the form just to clean up some minor language issues and
I included the current and revised version of the form in your backup most of the changes
are not really substantive but I can go through them if you would like.
However the kind of the biggest change is adding this checklist of the ethics ordinances
prohibitions to the form so it basically it just lists out the ordinance sections that
describe what is prohibited and it's my intention with it was to facilitate the board's review
and to assist complainants in identifying what the ordinance actually prohibits.
So if the board chooses to implement this section this checklist section I also need
direction on if it has to be completed to be considered the minute if the that part
has to be completed for the form to be considered administratively complete.
And so now I'll take this down so that y'all can discuss.
So there we go from from what I saw on the complaint form it was just kind of cleaning
some stuff up and like you said the only substantive thing would be adding the checklist I'm trying
to look at it right now right and I apologize for not having a red line we don't have the
old form we don't have like a editable version of it for some reason.
So I have like I could walk through them if you would like all right I think I just shared
screen for like what you said was the most substantive part yeah this part in the middle.
So I talked to Madison about that so I think the pros of having this is we know what we're
looking for because I think that was an issue with the last complaint is like okay what
are they filing this under and I think another pro would be if somebody is filling out this
complaint it kind of tells them exactly where they can go to find to kind of fit what they've
seen through the ordinance the con would be if somebody sees this and they don't understand
it or don't understand all of these subsections and you know don't file a form.
So when I talked to Madison about this I like it and I want to keep it but I would say if
somebody doesn't fill it out we still accept the complaint and that would be something
where we kind of have to figure it out like we did on this last one but I'm open to discussion
about what we should do on that.
I really like the check boxes my suggestion would be rather than having mandates that
also spill out what those mandates are for consistency purposes due to report financial
disclosure and business disclosure.
And is that the only three ones on there I don't have it in front of me because that
wouldn't make it I think that's a good idea if it's only especially if it's only those
three.
Yeah just those three that and I if it's if this part is voluntary then that shouldn't
be specified.
We can certainly include a note just right in that same section that says this is optional
or something like that.
And my next comment and question also applies to this the form and also the form instructions.
The edit is that sections 2-272 and or 2-273 of the ethics ordinance.
And the ethics ordinance says and instead of and or is legally is it a problem to change
it on the form but have and in the ordinance.
Okay I think that's a question for you.
No I mean I think and the where it is on the form is that it does not have to be all of
them.
But if it doesn't have to be all of them it sounds then it sounds like in the ordinance
because it says and instead of and or that it has to be all of them.
So I think that's we're talking about right here correct.
I think maybe the issue that you're pointing out Debra is that is the ordinance is the
ordinance right I'm going to pull that up real quick but also if it's not consistent
with the ordinance that's a problem.
The old form used and Rob I also Madam Chair as you highlighted that that and or is also
on the ethics complaint form itself down there at before you start doing all your writing.
But I'd also like to include because you may have some people thinking I only get to pick
one of these it may be section or sections there may be multiple offenses that we want
them and they may automatically do it but if we're going to do this and I like the volunteer
statement because they want to fill it out fine but I think we might let them know that
it could be you may want to check more than these.
I mean more than one pardon me it's only one complaint per are you saying so if if someone
is filing a complaint that violates several of these then one or two of these one complaint
or do they have to file one for each one.
I believe you can file one complaint with multiple violations but you have to separate
out by person sorry correct me if I'm incorrect.
You've lost me on that one it's it's one complaint per person but if it's the same underlying
facts and circumstances you can point out that you know it's your belief that it violates
multiple provisions of the ethics ordinance.
I think you can solve that by just putting a parents an S in parents behind section yes
I agree.
I disagree with the voluntariness of this particular section I think I think that the
next section requires information about the complaint that where any logical person could
probably be able to discern what the nature of the complaint is plus there's an affidavit
that has to be filed that further defines what the issue is by putting this section
in where someone should check the applicable sections violated it pretty much ensures that
they have to at least read the ethics code before they file the complaint.
So I don't see this as being burdensome I get your point there and that's that's why
you like this is that there's been a couple of complaints I think we've had including
the most recent one where it's just like we don't we don't really know where they're coming
from and maybe if they have this they can go back and kind of match up what they're
thinking versus what's in the ordinance Madison just to help kind of streamline the discussion
I appreciate all the comments and discussion I could we take one potential change to what's
presented at a time okay I think that I think we're all in agreement that after section
put S in parentheses so that people can check multiple boxes and then the others I think
I guess let's first decide as a group whether we want this section to be voluntary so I
think you know the probe making it voluntary is that if somebody doesn't understand this
they can't they have you know they they they have to check a box for it to be accepted
or I guess I'm sorry let me let me start again so if if we make it you have to do it mandatory
they have to check it so they have to know which box to check if it's volunteer and that
makes I think it easier to to take care of their complaint because we know what to look
at but if we make it if we but if it's mandatory and they can't figure out which one it is
then they don't get to make a complaint and if it's voluntary we might have situations
like we've had in the past where we don't know what they're trying to say but the complaint
gets filed anyway so I guess we just we need to decide that as a group well you know where
I stand I know where you stand could there be a notation on on that section that said
if you have problems deciding which category your complaint fits under you may contact
somebody for further explanation or something like that well I'm not so I guess I mean the
person that would that they could contact would be the auditor but I'm not sure Madison
how you deal with that and at what point your you know how much advice you can give on a
situation like this I I don't know that I would feel comfortable telling a potential
complainant what category their complaint would fall under as my role is administrative
but they could contact their their own attorney I suppose I mean I guess if somebody asked
me that that's what I would say yeah I guess I would almost fear into like is it giving
legal advice because you're interpreting an ordinance so I so I guess Trisha I think
I don't know if that's really an option unfortunately I don't know if there's anywhere if it's required
to check the box and they're confused then they should just context somebody they think
could give give them some sort of advice I think if they had questions about the form
they could ask me and I could say that you know that part is mandatory you have to fill
it out I just couldn't tell them like well what you're describing sounds like gifts or
whatever or maybe refer them just to read the ordinance online yes it seems like a contradiction
to me though to make it voluntary but also said that if they don't show up it gets dismissed
because that puts all of the pressure on the person to prove everything I mean if you're
gonna dismiss something because they don't show up then I don't think that should be
voluntary you don't think that section should be voluntary right I guess should be mandatory
I'm I mean I'll go back to the other thing I don't know I don't know any other city that
puts the all of the pressure on the complainant to do the whole case because in a way we're
asking them to be like a lawyer and it's just one of the many fun quirks of our of our code
that I don't like no other city does it that way Rob I agree with the removing the voluntary
if they're if they think there's a problem they'll find out they'll read it and they'll
check it and I don't want to put Madison in a position where she's considered a clearinghouse
for all of this oh she skillfully can handle it and she'll tell them to go read it but
I don't even want to put her in that position I think it's you're gonna file a complaint
here it is it's going to be one section or multiple sections and then if there's let
the auditor then look at all of that and then maybe there's in one of our boxes when we
bring it all back then the auditor can do some clearing up but at the beginning I think
it should be the complaint because they're the ones that are going to show us what direction
they want us to go or at least look at all right so it sounds like Rob and Ron and Annetta
are saying this should be mandatory I think Deborah you said you wanted to be voluntary
it could be but I can see the wrapping up for making it mandatory and Patricia and Don
do y'all do y'all go either way on this I think it should be mandatory okay I think
at this point I think it doesn't matter what me and Don say I think we majority thinks
it should be mandatory so so I guess we'll we'll have it as mandatory what other thoughts
about where did you have anything else that we discussed already Madison or I wanted to
address Debra's concern about the 2-272 and or issue I pulled up the ordinance the section
that if you want I can pull up what I'm looking at it says any person who has firsthand knowledge
that there has been a violation of sections 2-272 and 2-273 of this article may allege
such violations by submitting a complaint I would think my interpretation of that is that
it doesn't have to be both it's that if you have knowledge of either of the sections so
that the and or would be applicable in that regard does that does that answer your question
Deborah I think that it's fine legally if we include and or but I would trade if you
have a different opinion please step in no I agree with your opinion I think in in the
in the section from the ordinance which is 2-279 is that it's just a cumulative if anyone
you know anyone out there has knowledge of these things you can file a complaint so then
when you actually get to the complaint form where it's individualized and it's supposed
to be a little more user-friendly probably it's a clarification of you can allege a violation
of this section and or this other section I again I'm not an attorney but I would suggest
that the next time the ordinance is revised it reflect that just coming from a federal
background where those those slashes and and ors and must and shalls make all the difference
well and I I don't I don't have the ordinance in front of me based on what they're saying
I mean it would be you can just have like something ever under 2-273 and you can just
have something under that 2-272 I'm right about that right Trey and Madison so I think
in that since that's the situation and or be right okay was there any anything else
on the complaint form that we need to talk about yes I just wanted to get clarification
on Debra had proposed that the the section 2-272 mandates in the checklist be split out
into the three different mandates and I wanted to get clarification on if the the full board
agreed with that I think I agree does anybody think we shouldn't do that sounds like let's
go ahead and do that I have one other thing on that now that we've decided to make that
section mandatory and this might be something that we need to take up and like at one of
the next meetings I'm not sure if it's going to fit into today's agenda but if it's mandatory
and say they they check like conflict of interest and then we get it and it's obvious to us
at a board that say this falls under a different section so it's is that going to still be
allowed I would think that that's a procedural issue that the board needs to decide okay
and I don't know maybe that's something we should wait until like it actually is a problem
but it's just something I thought about if this is mandatory and it gets accepted you
know what what we'll do from there once the house is on fire we don't want to have to
try to find the hoses I think we ought to go ahead and and address it now I think it's
a good point I would agree madam chair just so that when there is you know there in theory
there'll be a new board soon so that I can if that comes up I can say well this is what
the old board said about that issue I don't think it makes that much difference whether
or not they check something or don't check something that turned out to be applicable
I think the ultimate decision as to what the the hearing issue is is not the complainants
is the boards I guess my opinion is you know we make it mandatory so they have to tell
us what they think it is but then if and we would obviously look at that section but I
think if it's obvious to us we can still go forward on a different section because I mean
I just think that's the most equitable thing I would agree with that because I want to
be very careful about not putting I mean I want the complainant to be as clear as possible
but I don't want to put all the pressure on them to to be a lawyer basically so I agree
with Laura well Laura you know that's you and I are in agreement right I think so but
you know look at it look at look at it conversely if they check something and we don't think
that it's applicable we as a board will not accept it so if they didn't check something
that we think is applicable the converse should be true that we we should consider it so I
mean that's just adding emphasis to to our points I guess are so I guess and this might
be a question for Madison or Trey is that just something we kind of can agree on or
is that something we need to like make a procedural rule about in our rules of procedure I might
say I'm of the opinion that unless you would like it to be I don't think it has to be noted
on this form I think you've given me you know informal direction and we could move forward
in that way or you could decide to amend the rules of procedure or recommend an amendment
to the rules of procedure to the council well knowing how long that takes we could just
go forward I didn't that sounds maybe I was sorry wait I think we could move forward informally
I think the board has that discretion under the current formal guidelines yeah I think
I think so I think what we've decided could fall under our what we our current ordinance
and our current rules of procedure so yeah and I would agree with that chair if you don't
mind me just adding did under the ethics ordinance you know the violation alleged just under
the ordinance itself says that must must state on its face an allegation that if true constitutes
a violation so the complaint for purposes of getting it all the way through hearing
is just that it has to be a violent you know the the board will decide if there is a violation
under the under the ethics ordinance I don't think it's limited to if they only marked
a and it's actually a violation of B that that would talk on as the ordinance is currently
written and I feel like we've had this conversation before this is what everybody's agreed with
before because it just I mean it makes most sense I think when they file something and
we just can't tell what it is you know that's one thing but you know I think I I like that
we would have that discretion so we can you know go forward with something if there is
something there all right anything else what else about this complaint Madison or anyone
else Deborah oh I have a question on the cover sheet where it gives the instructions on the
form and then it says important ethics ordinance provisions and the first one is prohibition
but it's actually talking about frivolous complaints and I just I wondered if that should
perhaps reflect that it's actually frivolous complaints if you look at the ordinance it's
section two dash two eight two C on page 18 and I and just to note that that was something
that was on the previous complaint form too we could just change it to and I think what
was meant by that I don't know because I assume this is probably written by you measure or
somebody else it's probably just you're prohibited from filing a frivolous claim we could just
change that to prohibit and prohibition against frivolous claims I think if you just put frivolous
claims that might not make it sense to somebody you know that's just reading this that doesn't
know what they're reading but I think it probably says prohibition just to let people know you
can't do this so maybe putting prohibition maybe against frivolous claims what does anybody
else have thoughts about that we just go go with that I guess I think that would make
it more clear I think it's important to have that in there yeah and then my final comment
on this is in confidentiality one two three four the fifth line down on the right hand
side where it says chapter two article there's a typo there yep thank you I can certainly
be correct about that um I was just gonna say I think these are all honestly relatively
minor amendments to this so are you all comfortable if I just run through these are the exact
changes that will be made approving it as amended today oh yeah okay so just starting
from the beginning under important ethics ordinance provisions changing prohibition
to say prohibition against frivolous complaints moving to the actual ethics complaint form
oh correcting the typo um from chapter two article ci to say chapter two article xi moving
to the ethics complaint form under the checklist section to say please indicate which section
sections with the apostrophe s of the ethics ordinance you believe was violated and then
spelling basically including three taking out section two dash two seven two mandates
and replacing it with section two dash seven to a sorry I'm trying to pull up what that
actually says real quick uh yeah so it's changing that to say section two dash two seven two
a duty to report and including section two dash two seven two b financial disclosures
and two dash two seven two c business disclosures as separate items on the checklist believe
you said apostrophe s as opposed to s in parents I apologize I'm in in parentheses okay I'll
forgive you for that all right uh anything else and I I guess uh not to like open up
a can of worms again but on that section are we just going to consider it mandatory or
did we want to put um you know you must select a section for the form to be complete or anything
like that I guess what was everybody envisioning by making it mandatory I don't think it needs
anything if it's on there then then then the prima facie presumption is that it has to
be filled out yeah I tend to agree um unless there's a majority that thinks we should put
something else on there we'll leave it like that the the the first um I guess instruction
on the in the instructions is all sections of this complaint form uh must be complete
essentially so yeah and it's yeah and it follows this thing incomplete forms will not be processed
so I I think that I think that should be enough um okay is anything else on your list madison
that is all of the um amendments to this form as prevented that I have unless there are
some that I missed all right so um I would ask someone to make a motion to change the
form as we've just discussed amended so moved second Debra moved and rob seconded um all
in chair yes great madam chair oh and if I'm mistaken then excuse me for talking out of
turn I think you're looking for an emotion to a motion to approve as amended um yes because
well she changed it and then she added the amendments that we just went over verbally
because that's am I making the right motion okay right yes ma'am yes so as amended um
all right and I'll do the roll call voting because that's what we're supposed to be doing
so um don uh yes uh Debra yes annetta aye rob yes patricia yes and ron yes all right
so motion passes and we have a chair sorry chair don't forget yourself we need your eye
for me too thank you I for you know I don't think I've been doing that I think we but
I'll do from now on so I vote in favor and then Madison I guess you can move on to the
next uh next portion of your presentation I will do that and I'm going to share my screen
real quick you can hear me right yes all right go through this real quick and here we are
so um this is the final item I have for you guys today um so as you may know during the
most recent preliminary assessment uh the panel discussed with legal counsel what could
be reviewed as part of the actual assessment so in particular it was not clear if a video
uh referenced in the submitted ethics complaint form should have been reviewed by the panel
as part of the assessment um so on the slide I've tried to pull uh together um pull the
relevant sections of the ordinance and rules of procedure uh can you guys see the slide
preliminary assessment review clarification um no you're on the first slide you might
want to switch to that one try this again there how's that yes can see it now okay so
on this slide I tried to pull together the most what I felt were the most relevant sections
of the ordinance and the rules of procedure to try to help y'all with this discussion
um in particular uh the ethics ordinance defines a complaint as written documentation submitted
to the city accusing a city official of violating the ethics ordinance uh another section of
the ordinance includes a discussion of the contents of a complaint and states that the
complaint must state all documents or other material available to the complainant that
are relevant to the allegation and a further section of the ordinance says that the panel
shall review the complaint on its face and the rules of procedure limit the panel's review
to the contents of the complaint um so based on kind of this guidance I'm just requesting
direction from the board on if a panel uh can review non-written evidence as part of
the preliminary preliminary assessment and if so um how can this non-written evidence
be submitted uh so those are kind of my questions obviously if you have any more direction I'll
I'm happy to hear it so I will stop sharing all right so I'll start by saying I'm not
I don't remember off the top my head if everybody here was on the in the last hearing so um
I think the last complaint was pretty obviously um uh just just not a not a valid complaint
not something that that should have gone to a hearing or would have been valid at a hearing
and in that complaint they um they cited the video of where they thought there was a complaint
and if you went and watched the video it was even more obvious that it wasn't a valid complaint
so um that that panel discussed you know do we look at this or not from what I remember
in our hearing that kind of came up but it didn't even really matter in that situation
but I think there is very you know it's very possible that somebody could refer to something
like that and our decision would be based on having to go look at that so what we need
to decide is can we go look at that and I actually got a question um from bob who's not who's
not on the panel today uh something came up about the four corners and I you know probably
me or ron or don or somebody said something about that and the four corners of a document
like in the legal world means that you just have to look at that document you can't look
at anything outside of it so if somebody referred to a website on that document you can't go
look at that website you have to look at the four corners of the document um so you know
based on what the um on what madison just showed us it seems like the ordinance and
our rules of procedure are saying we just need to look at the actual complaint and nothing
outside of it but then again those that same those same rules say that you need to say
everything you have uh so they're they're telling you you have to tell us what you have
yet we can't go look at it so so I can see how there's a problem here and I guess if
trey has um you know strong opinions on what we should do here I'd like to hear that maybe
we can then open it up to discussion
I will leave that to the board discussion I was hoping you'd have a strong opinion legally
what we should do and then our job would be done but okay rob so have if somebody has
a video of a of an instant incident uh can they include that thumb drive in with their
document and is that something we would look at since it's part of the package that was
presented uh in a simplistic mind is that permissible so I think that's what we need
to decide uh something else to consider is when we look at this complaint um I believe
and you can correct me if I'm wrong the statute or the uh the ordinance says and the or the
rules of procedure I'm not sure which one says that you um if if everything they say
is true would it be a violation and if everything they said is true it would be a violation
it goes to a hearing so you're really not um judging it that's why I'm not sure if
it even matters if you go look at whatever they provide it because that's more of something
for the hearing because you would just assume everything they say is true is there a violation
or not does that make sense and and what does everybody think as far as looking at things
outside the complaint form for the preliminary hearing of course in the hearing uh you know
we would look at more but for the preliminary hearing to decide if it goes through a hearing
and if there would be a complaint and everything's true what does everybody think about looking
outside the document what would be the downside of allowing uh uh the board to look outside
the document uh I guess the downside I mean that it's I think if you read the ordinance
and the rules you could say that you shouldn't look outside the document based on what it's
saying but it's a little unclear so one would be you know maybe it's against the ordinance
and the rules of procedure another thing would be kind of it could bog down the preliminary
hearing when you're not supposed to decide the facts for instance say they they link
a video and um you know it would I guess it would put us in a situation of say they violated
section x and you look at the the four corners of the document and if if what they say is
true they would have violated section x but they include a link to a video you go look
at that video and they're like oh well you actually they actually didn't violate section
x then you somebody might dismiss in the preliminary hearing when it should have gone to a hearing
does that that sounds you know I think that highlights how uh it's unclear but um that
would be the situation I could think of as a downside um because the preliminary hearing
is just about if everything they say is true you go to a hearing and then you look at the
evidence so it might be bringing an evidence to the preliminary hearing that is more a
matter to decide on in the actual hearing I don't know if that if that answers your
question Madison and I think um perhaps another downside is the respondent really doesn't
have an opportunity to provide any evidence or testimony or anything to the preliminary
assessment panel um they would at at the hearing um but that that's really not allowed and
as it was part of the ordinance so I I don't know what kind of um situation that would
really be terrible for the respondent but um that's just another thing to consider I
suppose written and there's photographs included as part of the document and the photographs
are okay but it has to be something in writing only well I would think um anything they attach
that's not on the complaint form is what we're discussing right now whether it's written
video pictures just anything that is not on the piece you know on the actual complaint
I say piece of paper but we all get them on pdf so just in the actual pdf in in the written
documentation so yeah I would think the photograph that's included with the written documentation
doesn't fit this criteria uh well I mean my thought would be I forgot I think it's what
two or three pages comp the complaint form it's we're deciding are we just deciding what
is on that complaint form or the complaint form plus whatever it references that they
may or may not that they may provide it and in the situation of the last hearing preliminary
hearing hearing it was a link to a previous city council meeting that everybody could
have access to easily and um and whether you look at that or not so if they had written
out a description of what they observed on the during the city council meeting that would
have been yeah and that's and that's what they that's what they did in this last hearing
they they said that a certain council member did a certain thing of course when you went
and looked at the video that's not what happened but um but even if they wrote it out and said
she did this and that was true we we still didn't have a complaint under our under our
ordinance so I mean my I'm kind of leaning towards we just look what at the document
because we're supposed to take everything they say is true and then decide if it could
be a complaint and then you go to the hearing and look at the evidence whether it's true
or not madison I just want to say I think I think you you're spot on laura I just wanted
to clarify I guess um my uh my direction request should have more been not non-written as much
as not their written testimony um that's included with the complaint so I suppose they could
have sent um you know like documents that are publicly available um that are written
um but I don't I guess part of the request is would that document be something that the
preliminary panel could could include in their assessment as evidence does that make sense
yeah uh rob uh on the written portion then are they narrative are they restricted to
just the two spaces available on the current form they gotta get everything do they do
they have to get everything on both of these and that's it no other pages they're allowed
to attach additional sheets yeah in the past we've had people that write more than that
and uh okay but I guess it's a difference between you know attaching pages kind of their
narrative versus attaching documents pictures videos that aren't just kind of their narrative
of what happened does that make sense we'll make that decision uh once we get it but just
I want to make sure if if it was quite explosive we had enough paper for them to put their
narrative down we can look at it I think we'd understand what the narrative is versus what
the other part is I agree with you that anetta I don't understand is this a legal proceeding
or is this an ethical procedure designed to engender public trust because to me this person
was alleging um something that happened in a in a in a meeting and there was video of
that meeting and and they pointed us to it and I don't have a problem with looking at
that I understand that that might not be something a lawyer would want to do but that's not specifically
covered in our code and I think the public trust is that they want us looking at that
stuff video council meetings archive things in a very accurate form and and you know what
they said did not happen they may have believed it did or was about to I don't know what the
thinking was but um I just don't want to get into I mean a normal you know an untrained
lawyer person wouldn't understand the four corners thing and I don't know how it applies
I mean we had video so I think in that situation like I said it was obvious and you didn't
even need to look at the video but another thing to think of would be if there was a
video and they looked at at the preliminary proceedings and it wasn't so obvious one way
or another so if it's not as obvious you not might want to allow that person to be able
to present that at a hearing in front of the whole board because if the preliminary hearing
is allowed to look at that video and make a bigger decision about whether it's an ethical
complaint then you're depriving that person of having their hearing so I guess think of
it flip wise and think that in that video it actually did happen and the preliminary
panel was able to look at it and that preliminary panel three people might have thought that
wasn't what happened then you have a problem of it didn't go to the hearing so I guess
that's where I'm unsure that we should be looking at all the evidence when it's just
the three people deciding whether it should go to a full hearing.
So would it be a matter on the on the complaint form to say in writing that and web links
and photographs are not part of the preliminary assessment to make it clear that it has to
be in writing?
Well and that's I mean I guess I think before we go to what's in the complaint form we have
to decide whether we're going to allow it or not but I saw Trey raise his hand so go
ahead Trey.
Thank you Chair just to add to the discussion under you know 2-229 under subsection C the
contents of the complaint specifically under the ordinance are supposed to include all
documents and other material available to the complaint that are relevant to the allegation
so I think under its definition if they were to attach photographs the photographs could
be part of what is considered at a preliminary assessment but you're not judging the weight
of the evidence you're just assuming all the evidence to be true for the of the preliminary
assessment.
So and then I guess then what are your thoughts about a link to a website or a USB like would
that like Trey do you think that would fall under like documents that we could look at
if that's what we decide to do?
Now how yeah how far you want to get into what is extraneous I think might be a call
for the board but I think definitionally if they were to attach specific things to their
complaint form and staple it all together and that is their complaint form the ethics
ordinance would would define that as being all inclusive as the complaint.
And I'll be a lawyer.
The idea was that and under the preliminary assessment there would not be the board would
not seek out corroborating information or any information other than what was presented
to them by the complaintant through the process and giving that to the auditor.
Okay and so all the board's not supposed to have to go look at anything it should all
be included.
So I'll argue against what I just said I think and like I said I think the biggest problem
from for letting us look at everything would be the preliminary panel making like a decision
that should be made at a hearing but the I mean the other side of it is if that were
to happen they can ask for the reconsideration like we had with this last hearing.
So if somebody feels like the preliminary panel decided the whole action and not just
whether it should go to a hearing they do have recourse to then bring it to the whole
panel for the whole or to the whole board to see if the whole board needs to take it
to a hearing.
So we do have that backup.
So I think and we'll you know we can open up discussion again but I think there's two
things one is you know are we going to look at the documents because like Trey said it
does say that they're attached and two does it are we going to include that to be things
like USB and links to say the website and I think Annetta had pointed out like if it's
a link to the city council like that's very easy to get and I mean I kind of can't think
of a link that they would put up that you can't just go to that link and watch what
they said and it would obviously probably be a city council meeting or a board meeting
like this.
So so any thoughts from others about this Rob?
I like I like the analogy Trey gave and in that if it's stapled together so in my mind
only things that are papyrus only no videos no thumb drives nothing it's just all paper
and if it's photos we can look at that because once if it does go to the hearing then we
can have the full dog and pony show pardon the pun and we can see it all I kind of like
where we don't have to look elsewhere it's all right there in front of us so I'm not
even that excited about pulling up a link from a previous city council meeting you give
me everything in writing right there and then I can work with it.
I wonder respectfully disagree with that you can have an electronic document that has a
link that could pull it up that's not a hard thing to do that would I mean I think we have
to think most of all about citizens and about transparency and about what is going to engender
public trust and not legal I mean I understand the laws a whole different group of things
and I certainly want to be legal and appropriate and fair but I think we can have that stuff
and you know because yeah I'm all in favor of stuff from city council because it archives
everything and that's what transparency is about and not an important basis of ethics
and I mean I don't think this discussion is like you know what I mean it's what's legal
under the ordinance is what we're going on and my thoughts would be you know anything
attached like that it that they give us we can look at but I'm a little more against
going out and looking at the website and watching the meeting because under the ordinance it's
whatever if whatever they said is true if they said this happens the city council meeting
then then it is a complaint then we should go to the hearing and that's when we decide
whether whether whatever that whatever they said happened happened at the city council
and and you know I'm trying to think it's like maybe you know there might be more evidence
than just that video that would show whether that that you know that violation occurred
or not so I mean it I kind of don't I'm kind of not for going out and finding more evidence
during the preliminary hearing like obviously all that would come in in the actual hearing
but the preliminary hearing is more of a faster quicker does if everything on here if everything
they say is true is it a violation yes or no let me ask you a question about something
you just said so I can understand your example better you indicated that if the preliminary
panel looked at it and looked at all of the evidence that was available at the preliminary
stage and decided that it wasn't actionable and they could deny it and the person then
would have a recourse for reconsideration where the whole panel the whole board would
look at it right is that what you said uh yeah yeah okay I mean go ahead what would
be the basis for the the board chair to grant the reconsideration because it wouldn't be
any new evidence it it's actually not a reconsideration it's a separate process uh called the appeal
process and I said the wrong word I apologize of the preliminary hearing so that's my right
so they the defendant does not have or sorry the complainant sorry the complainant does
not have to submit new evidence to have an appeal they can just submit they basically
just submit written notification that they are appealing the dismissal is baseless and
then a hearing is conducted with the full board but it is essentially just a preliminary
assessment because I think it would be unlikely that a board would want to determine sanctions
at a hearing without having information from the respondent presented so what are everybody
else's thoughts on what we should because I honestly don't want to get too bogged down
on this because I don't know if it's going to make that much of a difference for what
the preliminary panel has to decide like whether they look at the video or not I don't think
it's going to matter in most cases because they're just deciding whether it could possibly
be actionable you know in an actual hearing go ahead madison I do just want to this wasn't
in the slide that I presented but the rules of procedure do mention that um the panel
as part of the preliminary assessment can look at the other evidence it's not I don't
remember the exact words but it's not very clear what that means um similar to the other
things that we're discussing in order to determine if the complaint is frivolous and then recommend
that we go to basically a hearing to to discuss frivolity so that kind of tells me that once
you think there might be frivolous then it is open that seems kind of more clear and
trailer madison can correct me if I'm wrong but as far as deciding whether it's actionable
I think that's what we need to decide and then as far as frivolous I think we it sounds
like it is open where we can look at everything and the ordinance is telling us we should
look at everything for the for the preliminary for the panel in the preliminary assessment
to recommend a hearing because they can't determine that something is frivolous by themselves
that makes sense uh like whether uh whether it should go to a hearing right essentially
the panel the panel can recommend that a hearing happen in two ways one because the complaint
is actionable and two because they believe the complaint to be frivolous okay so it sounds
like the ordinance is saying you could look at you can look at everything for whether
it's frivolous frivolous so that's not something we need to decide here right we need to decide
what we can look at to decide it's actionable okay um other like what does everybody else
think so we can see you know what what we're going to find here debra it it sounds like
uh what what what does the panel need to determine that it is um should that it's actionable
i would think they need the ordinance you know um you know let's um trying to think
of like a simple one but they're not that simple but if there's a conflict of interest
um you just need the ordinance what a conflict of interest is and then the complaint saying
you know xyz and happen and that's and it's and it's a conflict of interest so what we
would do is go in and see and decide if if xyz if they said it happened it happened would
that be a conflict we're not deciding whether it it's kind of okay this is kind of hard
to complain to to to explain but i guess it's we're not deciding if it if it happened or
if it didn't happen we're deciding that if it happened would it have been a violation
so then what what the panel would need the assessment panel would need would be a description
yes what they believe is the violation of the ordinance not and so if it's something
that could be accessed access your web link um or through the city council or whatever
the panel doesn't need that they just need a description of the behavior right yeah that
i think i agree and i think that was that was what happened with the last one we didn't
even need to look at the video the description alone wouldn't have been a violation so yes
debra so and how to make that clear to your complaint what this is what this preliminary
assessment needs in order to determine whether or not your complaint should go forward when
i guess that goes back to the complaint form i forget exactly what it says as far as explaining
what the violation was uh provided a statement of facts a detailed provide detailed evidentiary
facts on the new form and uh provide a statement of facts
yes the complaint form states uh provide a statement of facts constituting the alleged
violation and the dates on which or period of time in which the alleged violation occurred
and then it goes on to say only violations listed under sections 2-272 and or 2-273 of
the ethics ordinance will be considered for review and then on the next page it says provide
detailed evidentiary facts supporting your allegations
and attach additional sheets if necessary pardon it's and then it says you can attach
additional sheets if necessary right right
and in the instructions the second number two says a complaint must state on its face
allegation that if true constitutes the violation of the sections of the specific sections of the
ordinance but then it goes on to say the complaint must include all documents or other material
available to the complaint complainant that are relevant to the allegations
it sounds like we're we're back to where we started yeah that was i mean i think um
you know for me for me operationally it's about what to include in basically in your backup for
for a preliminary assessment meeting i mean we could agree that um it we allow all of us to look
at that knowing that many times you don't even have to watch that video to decide whether it's
actual or not just because you know based on their narrative it might be obvious that this
should go to a hearing or it might be obvious that it shouldn't go to a hearing um i think
as a board though you've just got to think about how if you're on a preliminary panel
you're not supposed to be making like an evidentiary judgment only a judgment of whether this
could possibly be a violation under this section if if what the complaint is saying is true i would
trust the people on the preliminary panel to be able to to do that to like be able to look at
multiple things send pictures and whatever but still uh base it on is this actionable or not even
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
we live in a digital age and there's all kinds of media now it just seems so limiting to say it
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
to be limiting it's just that you know it's not even necessary you know not always necessary for
the preliminary hearing but from what i'm hearing i mean do we uh as the majority just saying let's
go ahead and allow this stuff to be looked at a preliminary hearing or do we have uh
um i think rob had said you know let's just go with what's written um written in the documents
uh is there anybody else who's against looking at uh links or say usb's or whatever videos
i'm don
basically they just need to prove what what they're going to present at the at the regular hearing
and there's no other evidence brought in the respondent doesn't get to reply there's no
testimony at all so what i believe and understand is that it only what they have written there
is what the preliminary panel considers and based on what they've written there what they're saying
that they're going to prove at the regular hearing will determine if it's going if that's enough
for it to go to the regular hearing so i think only what's written and prepared on their complaint
and bron do you have any thoughts i think you might be the only one who hasn't spoken on this issue
i think i might agree with uh patricia in that the preliminary panel
should be possessed with the capability of
working through this in terms of what should or shouldn't be counted in their decision
all right i think i think we're gonna have um i think that makes it a majority of let's go ahead
and be able to look at everything i guess my question now for madison and trey is is this
something that we can informally decide or is this something we need to um change one of the
procedure ordinance or whatever i would defer to you trey because i believe that the ordinance
and the rules of procedure are not clear obviously that's why we had this discussion so
it's how i mean it's how you want to proceed if you believe that your reading of
you know the ordinance is clear but i mean granted we've had a very long discussion on why it's not
but if you think that what we've come to is a clear interpretation of what's out there then
nothing needs to be changed if y'all would like us to you know go through the process of changing
the ordinance and or the rules of procedure to provide clarity based on what the board has
decided it means we can also do that but like you mentioned earlier that's gonna that process takes
a while uh all right so i think um i would say for the last preliminary hearing and the last
hearing um i remember most everybody saying they went ahead and looked at the video
and you know it didn't change anything so i guess um i'll just take the board's temperature here
do y'all just want to go forward with the understanding that we're going to do that or
do y'all think we should um i guess we could we could do two things we could like immediately have
trey try to write something up to change which you know that that'll take more discussion or
you know after i know there's more issues in the pipeline and we can kind of wait until the next
time we're going to bring something to council and we can then decide if we want to change the rule
so you know do we want to just informally decide it do we want to try to change some sort of rule
procedure or ordinance section now or just uh you know informally proceed and then maybe change the
procedure next time we send whatever we send to council right and it wouldn't be our office doing
it in a vacuum we would i mean since alan and his office is the one that drafted it we would get them
involved as well my opinion is we can just go forward with the understanding that a preliminary
hearings will look at everything they provide and you know if we if we find a problem with that if
you know it would kind of be us not doing what we just said we're going to do
then maybe look into procedural change what do you what does everybody else think
i agree with that seeing yeses and thumbs up so i go ahead and neta oh just a thumbs up okay
um all right so we'll go forward and um will oh madison yeah so just to so i you guys understand
the direction i'm hearing to make sure i understand it correctly yeah for any you know following um
ethics complaints the all submitted evidence that i receive will be presented to the board
to the preliminary assessment panel um and i'll keep that potential changes in the ordinance and
rules of procedure on my potential list of changes for the future to make it to clarify it yeah i
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
given staff the direction to send us all everything before we go into the hearing so we'll see it
before the hearing um i don't know if it's always going to matter because i think sometimes the
narrative is just going to answer it anyway but um you know we'll just have it all open and you
know all available for us to discuss at at all the hearings so um anything else madison
uh that that was all i had to present to y'all today um so just in summary of that item we i'll
bring back an updated flow chart uh next month in february and then the ethics complaint form was
approved as amended during our discussion so that will go you'll see that up on our on the web page
shortly um the new the new form and with the preliminary assessment all submitted evidence
will be given to preliminary assessment panels um if we receive an ethics complaint that's all i
have that's be uh february 25th at 3 p.m okay so um i think that we've um gone through everything
i know me and madison had already talked about some issues for the next meeting we might have
some new board members we might try to do some kind of we talked about trying to figure out
what kind of orientation or something we can do for for new members if if there are i'm not
sure what the situation is on that um and then we'll you know see what we have and probably
open it up for other suggestions for the meeting for next time so um i think that's it and um i
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
to mo during at the time all right uh 456 we'll adjourn thank you for everybody for taking time
out for the meeting thanks thank you bye