All right. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Thursday, May 20th, 2021, regular meeting
of the Board of Ethics. We will jump right into it. Let's see. Okay. Share that. Okay.
The first item on the agenda is consider approval of minutes for April 29th, 2021. Deborah actually
caught a couple things that were in the minutes that were distributed. Dustin was listed as
an alternate member, and he's a full member, and she was at the meeting and stood on standby
because I had to leave, but we finished before I had to leave, so she actually wasn't technically
present. So those two changes were made by Madison, I believe, and I would ask for a
motion to approve those minutes unless there are any other corrections. Okay. I heard
Deborah move. I saw Charlotte's lips move, but was on mute. Is there a second? I second.
Charlotte seconds the motion, and we'll go person by person because that's what the city
is asked to do. To get votes, Bob? Approve. Patricia? Yes. Dustin? Yes. Annetta? Yes.
Deborah? Yes. And Charlotte? Yes. Okay. So motion passes. Minutes are approved. Sorry,
Chair, you need to vote as well. Oh, yeah, me too. Sorry. I also approve. Aye. Thank you,
Chair. All right. Moving to the second item, receive a report, hold a discussion, and take
necessary action regarding recommendations to amend the Denton Code of Ordinances, and
I will go to that agenda item, and we're going by what we had discussed previously of what
the members thought was important, and the first thing we'll discuss is should the Board
of Ethics members who have submitted complaints against the city official be able to participate
in preliminary assessments or hearings for different future ethics complaints submitted
against the city official? So I'm going to stop, Chair, and I guess I'll have Madison
talk about what preparation you did, and then we could open up a discussion about it. Right.
So for this item, I just looked historically at if this had occurred, and historically
we have had a Board of Ethics member submit a complaint against city officials, and they
later participated on a hearing, although that hearing was not for an ethics complaint,
necessarily. It was for an appeal for an ethics complaint that had been dismissed as baseless.
And then I just also looked through the code, and the rules of procedure require, currently
require that any board members recuse themselves if the city council member who nominated them
is party to a complaint. And other than that, there's not really any kind of discussion
of recusal of a board member. There's no discussion of this in the actual code, basically. So
I hope that made sense. Okay. So I think, I mean, I think the reason
for it is if you're filing against somebody you've filed against them before, it might
not be great to be in a hearing later. But I would hope that people that are on this
board are vindictive of city officials or council members. I kind of have an opinion
of the preliminary hearings where you just have three people. Maybe we should just do
that, make that a rule. But when it gets to the full hearing and it's all of us, I'm kind
of less inclined to do that just because it's just one vote out of seven. But I'm open to
whatever. So I want to hear what everybody else thinks. You elected me, so I get to say
it first, I guess. But all right. Who wants to speak about this?
I would totally agree with what Laura's saying. I definitely think that you need to be mindful
that that could be a conflict of interest. But I think later on that's not such an issue.
So because hopefully... I think it's good to have a rule about it
so you don't have a conflict of interest and a conflict of interest. And a complaint of
someone participating or not. But I think the panel of three for sure, it just doesn't
pass the smell test, I guess. And the person who would make a complaint, I would think
they maybe wouldn't want to be one of the three either and might get stuck in that situation.
So I agree with that. I'm open to hearing everyone's thoughts on participating in the
entire process. I think what I read in Madison's little write-up
was that as a member, you can recuse yourself. So there can be some kind of honor code. If
you can't put behind what you've done previously for a full hearing, then you can take yourself
out of it. But yeah, like Sharla, like Annetta said, I'm open if anybody has real strong
opinions about the full hearing. Anyone else? Go ahead, Deborah.
I'm also in agreement with the preliminary hearing not being on that panel. But I think
the full hearing, as others have said, I believe that everyone on this board needs to have
ethical standards and have a sense, a good sense of when it is appropriate to recuse.
I would be concerned about making that a requirement of recusal, because that could, I think, in
some cases, because a board of ethics member is required to report, it could have a dampening
effect on reporting if, first off, you can't participate in panels or that by the person,
about the person that nominated you. So that's already one person. But if it's a second city
council person, then that's two people that you can't participate in a discussion or an
interview. And if you get three, I mean, you're totally ineffective.
Yeah. Along those lines, it almost makes it to where, as a board member, you'll be hesitant
to file things that you see, and not necessarily that in the future you would hold it against
the person. But yeah, I can see that. And then Dustin, I saw you unmute it. Did you
have a, did you want to share something? Yeah, I just, I agree with what you're saying
about recusing from the preliminary assessment, but not from the, from an evidentiary hearing.
I don't know if that, I think, in the, in the notes here, that's not required from the
ethics ordinance. But I, I mean, I think if we decide that that's the right approach,
that probably needs to be written into the ordinance. So there's no question about what's
required of the members whenever a complaint is entered.
And that was actually something I was going to bring up is, is this something we want
to get to say should be amended to the ordinance or something we just want to make part of
our procedure rules or just kind of policy we keep in mind. I would think we probably
want to either put it in the ethics codes or procedure or possibly both. But I guess
I want to hear what everybody else thinks. Don't rule the procedure have to be approved
by the city council anyway. Yes. So it doesn't really either way or both. City council still
has to approve it. Yeah. So I guess it would be we just need to draft up and maybe me and
Madison should have talked about that now that I'm thinking about it, talked about it
prior to the meeting. Draft up some language that just says, I think everybody's kind of
in agreement that you aren't to serve on a preliminary hearing for someone that you have
filed a complaint against in the past. And then we can just not write anything about
the full hearing either way, because it'll just be up to us. There won't be a rule on
it. It'll be up to individual members. So I guess since we don't have that ready today,
I'm wondering if we should, me and Madison should get together and, you know, I don't
think it'd be very complicated language and draft it and maybe just have a short agenda
item next week, next month of approval for this is what we want and possibly even have
an agenda item of whether we want to bring things piecemeal to the city council or whether
we want to bring in maybe like in a few months, bring in like five or six things we want to
change. So I think I just put a lot on everybody. But my question is, y'all want to draft language
during this meeting or have it as an agenda item next meeting is the first thing we need
to address next meeting. Okay, so I guess Madison, let's maybe put it on your to do
list. I really don't think this will be very hard language. And I think it'll be pretty
easy for us to go through the code and just find out. Yes, Madison, I guess I my only
I can certainly draft some language and share it with you and then we can bring it back
to the full board. My only question is, I'm not clear on if we want it in the rules of
procedure or in the ordinance or both. Okay, I guess we had just said we need council approval
for both. I guess I need to look at the code again, and the procedures. And I think it
might make sense to put it in both. And you know, maybe we can just present that to council
as our as our recommendation and then you know, it's up to them. And I think everybody's
probably on board with that. I'm not nobody's jumping up and shaking their head. No. I also
want to say that we are looking at several things. So I like the idea of waiting to go
to council until until you have several things to take. I can't see anybody objecting to
what we're talking about right here. In fact, I think it would be reassuring. Yes, Madison,
I just wanted to add I think once we get through basically this list of things that we had,
I think taking to council at that time, your recommendations, I think all at once would
probably be the best plan just because we might they might want to have a work session
and then you then they have to have a vote. So I just think it would be easiest to go
through all of those in one one sitting basically. Yeah, I think I agree with that and it would
be less Tuesday that I have to go up to the city council and wait and probably be I think
it'd be easier on me personally and maybe all of us to do it that way. So I think I
think we've kind of resolved one and I think it might be a good plan that we come back
next meeting short agenda item approving what we've talked about and then move on to you
know, the other things which I think our third agenda item today is like when we're going
to decide what we talk about it next meeting. Is there anything else on recusal for hearing?
Okay. All right. I guess I will share screen again real quick. So everybody's on the same
page. Okay, the second thing we're going to talk about today is should processing and
submission of ethics complaints be prohibited during election season and Madison did work
on that. So I'll have her share that and then we'll get into a discussion. Yes. So I basically
tried to collect any ethics ordinances and policies for cities that were what the audit
department considers pure cities when we do work and that's based on population and growth
and a couple of other things. And so that made up about 10 of the cities that I select
that we that I looked through and looked for ordinances. Some of them did not actually
have ethics ordinances. And then I also pulled the top five largest cities their ethics ordinances
and look through those. And then I had known about San Marcos that they actually had prohibition
on elections, which is how that's why they're in this group as well. So that's how I got
to kind of the the what am I calling it the benchmarking group. And then I went through
all their ordinances. I have all those I didn't want to include them in the backup because
it would have been hundreds of pages. But if you would like to see any of them, I have
them and can send them to you all. But basically, the only one of the what ended up being 12
benchmark municipalities actually had an ethics policy or ordinance for count for city officials.
Only one of them had a prohibition on submitting complaints during election season. So that's
how any questions about the process about how I got to the benchmarking group or look
through the ordinances or anything work. Yeah, very helpful. Thank you. And I just did want
to add if there's a city that you all would like to see in the group that for future because
a lot of the future items, I'm basically going to do the same thing, look through these ordinances
and see what they say. Just please let me know. And I can add them to the group and
pull their ordinance and include them. So now go ahead and share screen to make sure
everybody saw it. The Sam Marcus ordinance and Madison highlighted it there, that they
said that their ordinance has no complaints shall be filed within a period beginning on
the 60th day prior to the first day of the early voting for any city election and ending
on the later of the regular election day or runoff election day. I guess I'll start by
saying, you know, I see how this could be used as a political tool and why it could
be a good addition. But on the other side, I can see how if someone is committing ethics
violations, then you can't do anything about it. And my other concern with having this
is until the runoff for election day, this past year, we would have had over a year where
we couldn't have filed an ethics complaint. So I don't, I'm not sure how we would address
that in our section if we did want to do this. But those are my concerns. And I'll say, and
I'm trying to think of the timeline of the two hearings we've had that have gone fully
through about the UNT voting places. And, you know, we did find there was technically
a violation based on our ethics code. But, you know, I don't think it was, you know,
if somebody tried to use that as a political tool, I don't, both of those council members
have been reelected and we also changed the rules to let everyone vote on polling places.
So, you know, I don't, while it may have been used as a political tool in the past, it really
didn't, I don't think it was a huge problem. But, yeah, so I'm kind of on the fence about
whether I would want to do this. So I'll open it up.
Annetta?
My reaction was that 60 days is a pretty long time period. I would react to something that
is filed days before the election, which did happen this last fall. That's more of a concern
to me. So I think a shorter time period. I mean, I definitely think this last election
was beyond weird because of the pandemic. But normally, you know, I would be more in
favor of 30 days before election, because I would hate for someone to come back and
say that because the ethics complaint was filed, that's why they lost the election by
a narrow margin. And then you could certainly deal with it afterwards and, you know, just
as soon as the election's over. But I don't want it to be a political tool.
I would say if we do add that 30 days, I'm currently forgetting what kind of the statute
of limitations for filing one is. If we do add this, I think we should kind of put in
our addition that it adds 30 days to whatever the timeline is for filing as well, whatever
our timeline is, add it to the end. But other thoughts? Madison?
I just wanted to add, I believe it's two years. So you have to file a complaint before it's
been two years has passed.
And I saw Deborah's hand.
Yes. I'm sorry, I have a bandage on it. So I would have concerns about having any time
limit on this. I recognize it could be used as a political tool, but an issue can be out
in the press, out in the media, and there's no process to address it. And we moved through
the complaints fairly quickly the last time. Also, looking at the number of days for San
Marcos in this last election, 60 days from early voting, early voting was 13 days. So
we're looking at 73 days. And then if there's a runoff, which there were in some municipalities
in Denton County, that would be another 35 days based on this current election. So we're
looking at over 100 days, you know, over three months that a complaint can be filed. Yet
we were able to deal with complaints relatively quickly. So I'm opposed to any kind of time
limit where there can be no complaints filed.
Yeah. And I think that's a good point because runoff elections seem common in Denton, just
the way, you know, it seems like it's like I've had to do them a few times the past few
years. Bob, I saw your hand.
I agree that there's more downside to having it. Anything can be used as a political tool,
but the individual filing still has to give some kind of information that helps ground
it. So I don't, I don't think we ought to put one in.
What if it was, I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud. What if there was, if there was
something in there that it was maybe on an, you know, expedited docket, so to speak, Laura
knows what I'm talking, you know, like an, like an X, you know, we have in law, we have certain items that are by statute have to be expedited and have to be completed within a certain period of time.
Just, you know, there's a multitude of those things in the law. So, I mean, I'm just tossing that out there as just, just, I guess I would ask Madison, I don't, we, we go pretty quickly.
I'm wondering if it would, you know, because I think you only have like five days.
Yeah, I'm going to pull up the timeline document that we put together. Just give me one moment. We can look at it. Perfect. Thank you.
And I guess, also thinking out loud, you know, we do have the frivolous provision. So, if somebody just did it to hurt a political enemy, there is the frivolous, you can go after them afterwards, but then like Annetta said, if someone were to lose an election, you know, it probably doesn't matter there's a frivolous because they wouldn't even be, you know, an elected city council person anymore.
I just think it's very stressful for a candidate who is already in a stressful time, and I certainly don't want them being unethical.
I think they know they're not supposed to do that, and I do not want this code used as a, as a tool, you know, to, I think the damage is probably more emotional than, you know, than real. But that's, that's pretty hard. So, I mean, I understand that we might move quickly, but.
I mean, if someone files a frivolous complaint, that candidate is still facing a frivolous complaint. They still have to deal with it and then, you know, come back and say, hopefully the board comes back and says that was frivolous.
And that's, that's vindicating, but it kind of takes that person's energy and time away from a campaign that they need to be running to stop and focus on that.
Madison?
So I pulled up the document. I can show it to you if you would like, but essentially, I, once I receive an ethics complaint, I have five days to accept it.
So assuming we're going down the critical paths, the long, so it's accepted, right? So five days.
Then I send that to the chair who has five days to assign it to a preliminary panel. So now we're at 10 days.
Once it's assigned, then we have 10 days to basically hold the preliminary panel assessment.
So now we're at 20 days. And then from then there's basically 30, I'm sorry, and that's 20 business days.
So I'm not sure how many actual days that is. But then from then we have 30 calendar days to actually hold the hearing.
And that's assuming that there's no motion to delay it for some reason.
So at that, you know, that now we're at 50 days, potentially at the longest time, assuming that everything went correctly to go forward.
And then, of course, there can be reconsideration, things like that. We could have to have a preliminary hearing to issue a subpoena or something like that.
Sometimes we've done that, I believe, maybe in the past. So I wonder if that's where I want to go in San Marcos gets their 60 days from because,
you know, if 50, say 50 is the longest it could take for us, I wonder if they took that and they're like, well, if you file one at this time,
it couldn't even, you know, there's a chance it couldn't even be heard before the election.
Patricia, I call you unmuted. Did you have something to add?
Oh, I'm on the fence also about it. There's pros and cons either way.
My concern is that sometimes in elections, whether it's local or state or federal, just the accusation is as damaging as the even more damaging sometimes than what the decision is made.
So somebody could make a horrible accusation and people believe the accusation, even if it turns out not to be true.
And so I guess that's my concern about some and we are in a more political climate these days. And, you know, the fact that these things do come up of people making accusations,
that's my concern about not having I mean, makes me tend to want to do something rather than nothing.
I agree. I agree with Patricia. And I think if there's any kind of, you know, delay in being able to file it, that maybe it tolls the statute of limitations
so that that time period doesn't count against someone who wants to file a complaint.
So that, you know, dead zone, if you will, doesn't count against the two years.
If we did something like that. That does seem like a good compromise.
So I guess the question would be, if we do it, what would be the number we would put on how many days before?
I'm trying to think of how many days it well, I know in the full hearings we've had those took longer because they're needed to be I forget why, but they're needed.
I think people weren't available and had to be extensions. Go ahead, Madison.
And I did just want to add, because it seems like the concern is potentially the reputational impact of coming out that there's a complaint that's been filed.
According to the ordinance, we until a complaint is placed on an agenda, which would the first time would be the preliminary assessment.
It's considered confidential, so it wouldn't be out there necessarily unless whoever the complaintant was reported that to the paper or something like that.
So that just to note that there is a time period where we are aware of the complaint and we're working towards getting it processed, that it's not necessarily public information at that point because it hasn't been placed on an agenda.
And that the candidate would know during that period, right?
That's correct. The respondent would know as soon as the complaint was accepted as a reputational complaint.
And I just think that it is very stressful to run a campaign.
And when you kind of have to stop everything and start thinking about how you're going to defend yourself, that's that's really more of my concern.
At the risk of sounding callous, that that comes with the territory when you're running for public office in the public eye.
So while I feel for candidates that may have to experience that and know that it can be stressful, it does come with holding public office.
I would say the other side of the coin is if they did do something unethical, you know, kind of like you want them to feel that stress.
Yeah, sure. But and that goes back to what Deborah originally said of, you know, if if we do this, like we're tying the hands of being able to hear actual complaints that should be heard possibly prior to an election.
So I don't know. I'm I'm kind of leaning towards not having it, but this one's a hard one.
And I don't there's definitely a lot of consensus. I don't think like we're not all in agreement like the last one.
Dustin, do you have any thoughts? Yeah, I think most of the discussion has been around complaints that are frivolous or baseless that are being entered as a political tool.
And I think the entire point of the ordinance is to address actual ethics complaints.
And during the campaign season, that seemed like a pretty critical time to be able to process those. Sorry for the noise or some construction.
OK. Can you can you put that ordinance up there real quick again? Yeah. Thank you.
Yeah, the highlighted portion is San Marcos. OK.
OK. All right. So early voting.
OK. Thank you.
I'm kind of thinking that there might be more people that don't want this because I think by my count, Bob and Dustin and Debra, and I'm leaning towards not wanting this.
And then I know that I apologize. Can you pull down the screen so that everybody can be seen? Yeah. Thank you.
It sounds like Dustin and Bob and Debra are definitely against something like this and that is definitely for it.
I'm leaning towards against and then I feel like Patricia and Sharla are also more in the middle like myself.
So I guess, you know, those of us in the middle, I guess we'll have to maybe take a stance or if anybody has any ideas of how we could explore this further, Madison.
Dustin mentioned that it seems like some of the concern or one of the is about if there is a frivolous complaint, essentially, and I believe we have an item on the list to discuss later about basically if a respond.
Yeah, a respondent should be able to request that the board consider that the complaint is frivolous, which is not something that they can currently do.
So perhaps that could address some of the concerns here and we could take we could move this item to discuss it later after we've had that discussion or just a suggestion.
I'm not sure that that would address some of y'all's concerns. And I'm trying to remember.
So that item was whether you can address if a complaint is frivolous at the preliminary hearing.
Is that what we were going to discuss? I believe so. Give me one second. I can pull up what the exact language.
Because if that were the case, you know, we would have the preliminary hearing much sooner than an actual hearing.
And if it were to be frivolous and again, it wouldn't take away all of the net of concerns about the stress that was put on a candidate, but it would kind of clear if we could possibly clear things up before any election.
And Bob, I saw your hand. Yeah, I I I do not support it.
And in my view, what we're trying to do here is put lipstick on the political pig.
And work that goes along with Deborah's thoughts on being in politics isn't fun or pretty or non stressful.
Madison, yeah, so the exact language of that item, which we're we'll discuss next week based on the prioritization is.
Discuss revising the confidentiality section to clarify who can communicate what if an ethics complaint is submitted, particularly should the respondent be able to request the board consider frivolity.
I think we could go a lot of directions with that potentially, but that's what the item is currently.
All right. And so so Annette wants this. Patricia, are you still on the fence or are you wanting something like this in the ordinance?
Well, if there's some other safeguard, like what Madison was talking about rather than the time limit, because I wouldn't I also don't want the board to look like they are stifling free speech or the ability to make an important complaint or something like that.
So, you know, the idea of that quick hearing preliminary hearing to see if it's frivolous or not, I think might be enough of a safeguard.
And I believe that's what Charlotte was kind of talking about, too.
So I would say that we're not going to come to a consensus that we want this in here today.
We're going to discuss the frivolity issue next meeting, and then I would say we can at that time, we can decide whether we want to look back into this.
Does that sound like a plan for everyone? OK. All right.
So we will not be let me go back to the agenda will not be doing that, be doing any actions except kind of waiting until our next discussion of frivolity as far as complaints during election season.
So I think that's going to move us into agenda item C unless anybody else has anything else to add.
And agenda item C is receive a report, hold discussion and give staff direction regarding future meeting topics.
And we already have the list that we came up with.
I wanted to add I got someone from just a citizen had said something about this.
And then when I was preparing the city of our city of San Marcos also had this, I kind of wanted to add to the things that we'll talk about in the future.
And we could possibly just put it at the bottom of the current have currently have.
But San Marcos has in their conflict of interest that campaign contributions can also be part of conflict of interest.
And I'd like to discuss that topic.
And I think maybe since we've already have a plan of the other things we want to discuss, maybe just put that at the bottom.
And again, it's always open if anybody else has other ideas, maybe we can just start putting them at the bottom of our list to get to.
And I'm hoping I know next month there was a few things coming up that seemed kind of easy, just like changing some wording.
And maybe by like the fall, we can kind of have a package of any things we've agreed on that we want to bring to council.
So, Madison, what do you I don't know if everybody wants Madison to talk about what's next on the list.
We can just do maybe the next two or three items, depending on how long we think they're going to take on the list.
Yeah, let me share the prioritization screen real quick.
I have it pulled up.
So today we talked about these first two items per the priority.
The next one is the frivolity.
We also have a couple of minor revisions that we could pull together language and we can go over that.
And also the the language we discussed today about the preliminary hearing next meeting.
And then there's a couple of other items on here, including to discuss of termination of employment relationship with the business and to see results in a conflict of interest no longer being current.
That kind of came out of an advisory opinion that we had a couple of months ago, I think, at this point, this orientation process, I believe that was to discuss what we would like to see in an orientation of the and then.
Discuss outlining or potentially formalizing procedures if a board member is contacted by a news agency.
So I think the next the next meeting per the list, we would discuss frivolity.
We would probably discuss these minor revisions that are we'd already kind of gone over and then we'd also talk about the preliminary hearing language as well.
Yeah, and I think that the I would say that we saved the orientation stuff until we kind of get past all these things we want to bring to city council.
I think that those next I think we could probably do the language on the first thing we talked about, because I think there's a pretty good consensus.
I don't think that will take too long.
And then I think we could probably hit those next three.
I think the frivolity might take a little while, but I think the other the other item, the next two items, the just changing some wording and current employment.
I think we could get through all that.
And if there's any other thoughts or anybody, anything anybody wants to add anything?
I've got a question for Madison.
The frivolity thing has has your review of those other cities come up with anything on that particular subject?
I have not conducted that review yet.
Stay tuned for next month. OK, so I think we have a plan going forward and hopefully we're going to get start doing some substantive changes that we want to see here.
Anything else from anybody? Are we in concluding items now?
I think so. Yes. Do you have something to add? I have a discussion about the meeting schedule, but I can go last if anybody has anything else.
OK, I'll give it a few seconds in case there's like any delay in Zoom, but I don't see anybody jumping up.
So, Madison, let's discuss meeting time.
Yeah, so the some of you may be aware, the City Council gave staff direction at the most recent council meeting to start bringing boards and commissions back in person.
They also approved kind of a hybrid approach and the Board of Ethics falls under that category of boards that are allowed to do the hybrid approach.
And so what that basically means is that our meetings can look the same, except for if you would like to come in person, you are able to do that now.
So given that that is a possibility, my question is really, do we want to go back to our previous meeting time pre pandemic that was after work or would we like to continue with during the day?
Is my question. I like the hybrid approach. I don't want to force anybody here to go in person, so that's my thought on that.
And I would say. I don't know, having a full time job and two little kids like after work isn't necessarily a lot better for me, so I'm open to whatever everybody else thinks.
I would prefer the afternoon. 3 o'clock or whatever it was.
I definitely prefer the the zoom Madison. How has from it being in the afternoon to then go into the 10 o'clock?
I mean, I practice law like Laura does, and I know everybody else has stuff to has the attendance really been any different or is it about the same?
It's it's been about the same. I think a lot of people have expressed their preference for the afternoon, but we haven't really had issues with either time.
I don't know. I guess you know, and I will say when we had the meetings at night pre pandemic, I know sometimes they would go on for like two or three hours, and it's really hard to get your brain around things at that point, especially in the evenings, and I've kind of like our hour long meetings.
I feel like we all are prepared for everything on the agenda. We can talk about it and kind of move on and have, you know, not get burned out for the next one.
And I'm not trying to like make anything short for anybody, but I think an hour is probably a good good amount of time for a bunch of volunteers, you know.
I totally agree with the hour and I would prefer morning or afternoon.
I mean, I guess we can keep doing during the day. I mean, I have a full time job and I've been able to make most every meeting, and I think other people here work full time and sometimes we miss sometimes we don't.
I think it's excused if I'm not if I'm correct. So we could just continue during the day, and if there are problems, or if anybody has really big objections, you know, just let Madison or myself know and we'll, I don't think we have to, we can continue doing this, but we can change if we feel like it.
With Zoom, it's usually, you know, I'm just kind of this is going to be like my lunch break or whatever from work. So, you know, now that I'm back in the office during the day isn't that hard unless I have a hearing or trial set.
Okay, right. And because we're on, we're currently under the hybrid model, anybody who would like to continue participating via Zoom can do it can do so. And if you will talk to you later, send out emails about if you want to come in or not.
But just so you know that that's an option now.
And I think that's what Bob's already been doing. Correct. So absolutely have zero Zoom skills.
Yes. You know, I think it is nice even not even if somebody's worried about the pandemic or not, sometimes Zoom is just easier to jump onto and not have to drive to the city and park and everything. So we don't get free meals, but it's more convenient.
Okay, so it sounds like the direction is just to continue with what we've been doing. And then obviously we'll talk individually with you all if you would like to be in person or continue over Zoom, and we'll still try to shoot for the three o'clock and if not, we'll be at 10.
It just depends on what other meetings are scheduled. So, but we'll let you know of course beforehand.
Go ahead, Annetta. I just want to thank Madison for all the time she put into pulling this stuff together because I think it shortens our meetings and I want to thank Laura because I think you did a good job of getting everybody's opinion.
So, thanks. I second that, Annetta. Thank you.
I'll third it. Okay, well, everybody can praise me in emails afterwards. I guess I'll let everyone go.
All right. So, okay, I guess it's 1046 and we'll adjourn this meeting and we'll talk about the things that we said we talked about next month. So see you all next month.
Bye. Thank you. Bye. Bye. Thank you.