1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:03,120 >> All right. 2 00:00:03,120 --> 00:00:06,480 Good afternoon, everybody. 3 00:00:06,480 --> 00:00:08,800 Can you all hear me on Zoom? 4 00:00:08,800 --> 00:00:09,800 Okay. 5 00:00:09,800 --> 00:00:11,440 I'm hearing heads nodding. 6 00:00:11,440 --> 00:00:15,440 So I guess things changed from what we thought at the last meeting. 7 00:00:15,440 --> 00:00:19,520 The person that is chairing the meeting has to be in person. 8 00:00:19,520 --> 00:00:25,080 So I'm here and all of you are on Zoom. 9 00:00:25,080 --> 00:00:29,480 And so it's going to be a little bit more difficult to share what we're -- like share 10 00:00:29,480 --> 00:00:34,600 screen of exactly -- well, we're not able to share screen kind of because of the setup 11 00:00:34,600 --> 00:00:35,680 right now. 12 00:00:35,680 --> 00:00:36,680 But anyway. 13 00:00:36,680 --> 00:00:37,680 All right. 14 00:00:37,680 --> 00:00:40,160 And so we have everyone here. 15 00:00:40,160 --> 00:00:42,000 We have seven people here. 16 00:00:42,000 --> 00:00:46,920 So Debra, I don't think we're going to need you because we're going to have seven people. 17 00:00:46,920 --> 00:00:51,440 So I guess you can jump off or you can stay on if you're interested. 18 00:00:51,440 --> 00:00:54,200 But you won't be able to participate in the meeting. 19 00:00:54,200 --> 00:00:55,200 All right. 20 00:00:55,200 --> 00:00:56,200 Yeah. 21 00:00:56,200 --> 00:00:59,040 We -- I don't think we can hear them. 22 00:00:59,040 --> 00:01:02,300 So that might be -- so I think you all can hear me. 23 00:01:02,300 --> 00:01:04,880 But I can't -- I don't think we can hear you all. 24 00:01:04,880 --> 00:01:08,640 So we're going to work on that. 25 00:01:08,640 --> 00:01:10,680 Sorry. 26 00:01:10,680 --> 00:01:13,000 Okay. 27 00:01:13,000 --> 00:01:20,400 And so actually I didn't -- I don't -- so I don't have my computer in front of me. 28 00:01:20,400 --> 00:01:23,080 So I don't have the first sheet. 29 00:01:23,080 --> 00:01:24,720 Yeah. 30 00:01:24,720 --> 00:01:25,720 Sorry about that. 31 00:01:25,720 --> 00:01:32,080 That's the one I'm missing. 32 00:01:32,080 --> 00:01:35,440 I'm much better prepared when my computer's in front of me. 33 00:01:35,440 --> 00:01:37,600 But all right. 34 00:01:37,600 --> 00:01:43,320 Would you speak and let her know that you can talk? 35 00:01:43,320 --> 00:01:45,320 Did you all hear that? 36 00:01:45,320 --> 00:01:46,320 Yes. 37 00:01:46,320 --> 00:01:47,320 Rough. 38 00:01:47,320 --> 00:01:48,320 Okay. 39 00:01:48,320 --> 00:01:49,320 Okay. 40 00:01:49,320 --> 00:01:50,320 Now we're cooking. 41 00:01:50,320 --> 00:01:52,320 Now I can hear you all. 42 00:01:52,320 --> 00:01:54,040 Okay. 43 00:01:54,040 --> 00:02:02,040 So let's just move to item A, 1A, consider approval of the minutes for May 20th, 2021. 44 00:02:02,040 --> 00:02:08,120 Did anybody have any corrections or anything they saw wrong with those minutes? 45 00:02:08,120 --> 00:02:09,880 No. 46 00:02:09,880 --> 00:02:10,880 I did not. 47 00:02:10,880 --> 00:02:11,880 All right. 48 00:02:11,880 --> 00:02:15,800 So does it -- do I have a motion to approve those minutes? 49 00:02:15,800 --> 00:02:20,800 I move to approve the minutes of May 20th. 50 00:02:20,800 --> 00:02:21,800 Sorry. 51 00:02:21,800 --> 00:02:24,080 May 20th. 52 00:02:24,080 --> 00:02:26,400 May 20th, 2021. 53 00:02:26,400 --> 00:02:27,400 All right. 54 00:02:27,400 --> 00:02:28,400 Do I have a second? 55 00:02:28,400 --> 00:02:29,400 Yeah. 56 00:02:29,400 --> 00:02:30,400 All right. 57 00:02:30,400 --> 00:02:31,400 So Sharla made the motion. 58 00:02:31,400 --> 00:02:32,400 Annetta seconded it. 59 00:02:32,400 --> 00:02:34,680 And I'll go through and do a vote. 60 00:02:34,680 --> 00:02:35,680 So Dawn? 61 00:02:35,680 --> 00:02:36,680 Aye. 62 00:02:36,680 --> 00:02:37,680 Yes. 63 00:02:37,680 --> 00:02:39,520 Me, I say aye. 64 00:02:39,520 --> 00:02:40,520 Dustin? 65 00:02:40,520 --> 00:02:41,520 Aye. 66 00:02:41,520 --> 00:02:42,520 Annetta? 67 00:02:42,520 --> 00:02:43,520 Aye. 68 00:02:43,520 --> 00:02:44,520 Patricia? 69 00:02:44,520 --> 00:02:45,520 Aye. 70 00:02:45,520 --> 00:02:46,520 Sharla? 71 00:02:46,520 --> 00:02:47,520 Aye. 72 00:02:47,520 --> 00:02:48,520 And Andrea? 73 00:02:48,520 --> 00:02:49,520 Aye. 74 00:02:49,520 --> 00:02:53,400 I abstain since I was not part of the meeting. 75 00:02:53,400 --> 00:02:54,400 Okay. 76 00:02:54,400 --> 00:02:55,400 Thank you. 77 00:02:55,400 --> 00:02:56,400 All right. 78 00:02:56,400 --> 00:02:57,400 So motion. 79 00:02:57,400 --> 00:02:58,400 Sorry. 80 00:02:58,400 --> 00:02:59,400 Yes. 81 00:02:59,400 --> 00:03:00,400 I'm going to have to break in. 82 00:03:00,400 --> 00:03:03,760 Sorry, our rules of procedure don't allow you to abstain for -- unless there's an actual 83 00:03:03,760 --> 00:03:04,760 conflict of interest. 84 00:03:04,760 --> 00:03:05,760 Just not being there at the last one. 85 00:03:05,760 --> 00:03:08,360 And this came up the last time we had a changeover too. 86 00:03:08,360 --> 00:03:12,240 But if there's no changes, you can -- you can vote along with them. 87 00:03:12,240 --> 00:03:13,240 Sorry. 88 00:03:13,240 --> 00:03:14,240 All right. 89 00:03:14,240 --> 00:03:15,240 Thanks, Trey. 90 00:03:15,240 --> 00:03:16,240 Okay. 91 00:03:16,240 --> 00:03:22,680 Oh, and welcome -- I guess welcome to the meeting, Andrea. 92 00:03:22,680 --> 00:03:24,600 And welcome to the board. 93 00:03:24,600 --> 00:03:30,360 So item B, receive a report, hold a discussion, and take necessary action regarding potential 94 00:03:30,360 --> 00:03:38,000 recommendations to amend the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics. 95 00:03:38,000 --> 00:03:39,000 Okay. 96 00:03:39,000 --> 00:03:48,040 So going to the agenda information sheet that was sent out as part of our board packet, 97 00:03:48,040 --> 00:03:51,080 I guess do you want -- do you want to talk about it, Madison, or do you want me to just 98 00:03:51,080 --> 00:03:57,920 go over the minor adjustments under one? 99 00:03:57,920 --> 00:04:04,720 I can walk us through it, or, I mean, in the backup, there's the red lines, and I tried 100 00:04:04,720 --> 00:04:09,120 to explain the minor adjustments in the agenda packet so that you could understand what I 101 00:04:09,120 --> 00:04:10,120 was trying to do. 102 00:04:10,120 --> 00:04:13,600 So I can answer questions, or I could walk through them. 103 00:04:13,600 --> 00:04:17,880 I don't know what's -- if you want to take them one at a time. 104 00:04:17,880 --> 00:04:21,920 Yeah, I guess -- I guess you can walk through since you're the ones who made the actual 105 00:04:21,920 --> 00:04:22,920 adjustments. 106 00:04:22,920 --> 00:04:23,920 Okay. 107 00:04:23,920 --> 00:04:25,680 And then we can -- if we have questions, maybe we can take them as we go. 108 00:04:25,680 --> 00:04:26,680 Sure. 109 00:04:26,680 --> 00:04:33,000 So, yeah, starting with the -- kind of the first one under number 1A, this was just a 110 00:04:33,000 --> 00:04:40,520 very minor adjustment that we noted when we were looking at the ethics complaint form. 111 00:04:40,520 --> 00:04:50,280 It said -- originally, it said under -- in Section 2-279 complaints, Section A, it said 112 00:04:50,280 --> 00:04:56,000 any person who had firsthand knowledge that there has been a violation of Sections 2-272 113 00:04:56,000 --> 00:04:57,560 and 2-273. 114 00:04:57,560 --> 00:05:03,800 So this is just a correction to change that to "and/or," because that's the way it works 115 00:05:03,800 --> 00:05:04,800 in the ordinance. 116 00:05:04,800 --> 00:05:06,320 So it's just a minor cleanup item. 117 00:05:06,320 --> 00:05:08,920 So any questions about that one? 118 00:05:08,920 --> 00:05:09,920 Great. 119 00:05:09,920 --> 00:05:10,920 Okay. 120 00:05:10,920 --> 00:05:14,580 So it seems like we're good. 121 00:05:14,580 --> 00:05:19,080 Nobody has any concerns about making that adjustment. 122 00:05:19,080 --> 00:05:23,800 In a potential -- I guess the idea here is we'll go through these adjustments at the 123 00:05:23,800 --> 00:05:24,800 end. 124 00:05:24,800 --> 00:05:31,000 There's a packet of -- these are changes that we propose or that the board is recommending, 125 00:05:31,000 --> 00:05:33,280 and then we'll take that kind of packet to city council. 126 00:05:33,280 --> 00:05:38,680 So as long as everybody's fine with this change, then we won't have to revisit it, but it will 127 00:05:38,680 --> 00:05:43,720 be in that packet that we take to city council. 128 00:05:43,720 --> 00:05:45,480 So okay. 129 00:05:45,480 --> 00:05:48,920 This one's good. 130 00:05:48,920 --> 00:06:00,640 So moving on to item B in that same section in the ethics ordinance, 2-279 complaints. 131 00:06:00,640 --> 00:06:05,200 This is to -- we had had a discussion where we were going to require complainants to specify 132 00:06:05,200 --> 00:06:11,080 which section in the ethics ordinance, which prohibition they believe was violated as part 133 00:06:11,080 --> 00:06:15,960 of the checklist that we added to the complaint form. 134 00:06:15,960 --> 00:06:27,200 So this change is in section 2-279 under C, contents number five, it says -- it originally 135 00:06:27,200 --> 00:06:33,220 said the nature of the alleged violation, including whenever possible the specific provision 136 00:06:33,220 --> 00:06:37,320 of this article alleged to have been violated, so taking out that whenever possible basically 137 00:06:37,320 --> 00:06:46,040 to make clear that the ethics form as it now is written requires them to check a box. 138 00:06:46,040 --> 00:06:47,480 And I guess I'll jump in. 139 00:06:47,480 --> 00:06:52,180 I think everybody probably remembers, but in case they don't, and for our new member. 140 00:06:52,180 --> 00:06:58,240 So I think we've had times before where somebody files a complaint and we don't really know 141 00:06:58,240 --> 00:06:59,560 what they're trying to say. 142 00:06:59,560 --> 00:07:04,520 So this was so that they put down a provision that they want, but then the next thing that 143 00:07:04,520 --> 00:07:09,720 Madison is going to go over allows us as a board to look at the facts and we kind of, 144 00:07:09,720 --> 00:07:15,880 you know, know the ethics ordinance better, and we can -- if we see that it fits a different 145 00:07:15,880 --> 00:07:21,160 section, we have the ability to still move forward with the complaint if we see that 146 00:07:21,160 --> 00:07:26,200 it falls under a specific section that maybe is not what they put down, if that makes sense. 147 00:07:26,200 --> 00:07:29,080 So go ahead with C, Madison. 148 00:07:29,080 --> 00:07:35,560 Do you want me to go ahead with C or get feedback on B? 149 00:07:35,560 --> 00:07:36,560 Oh, yeah. 150 00:07:36,560 --> 00:07:40,160 Feedback on B sounds good, if there is any. 151 00:07:40,160 --> 00:07:45,200 Does anybody have any comments or questions about B? 152 00:07:45,200 --> 00:07:50,520 No, but we're just deleting whenever possible. 153 00:07:50,520 --> 00:07:51,520 Is that correct? 154 00:07:51,520 --> 00:07:52,520 That's correct. 155 00:07:52,520 --> 00:07:53,520 All right. 156 00:07:53,520 --> 00:07:54,520 Okay. 157 00:07:54,520 --> 00:08:07,680 Then moving on to C, we're now in the rules of procedure under D, preliminary assessments. 158 00:08:07,680 --> 00:08:14,920 So this change, if you're in your backup, it's like the -- I guess it's in the first 159 00:08:14,920 --> 00:08:23,840 sentence, but after the semicolon, it basically added however the panel may consider whether 160 00:08:23,840 --> 00:08:28,880 the actions alleged within the contents of the complaint are a violation of any provision 161 00:08:28,880 --> 00:08:35,680 of the ethics ordinance, regardless of a provision specified by the complainant. 162 00:08:35,680 --> 00:08:40,900 So that kind of goes along with what Laura was just saying about -- we added that section 163 00:08:40,900 --> 00:08:45,960 into the ethics complaint form that requires them to specify what provision they believe 164 00:08:45,960 --> 00:08:51,720 was violated, but this allows -- is supposed to allow the ethics board to, if they think 165 00:08:51,720 --> 00:08:57,440 that the complainant said, you know, check the wrong box to continue on with the ethics 166 00:08:57,440 --> 00:09:03,360 complaint under that provision that they believe is applicable. 167 00:09:03,360 --> 00:09:11,800 So any questions, feedback on that, or on the language or anything like that? 168 00:09:11,800 --> 00:09:21,160 My question is, when they state an allegation, all we're saying here is if it doesn't match 169 00:09:21,160 --> 00:09:28,000 one of the places that we are, we can put it in any way. 170 00:09:28,000 --> 00:09:31,560 I don't understand this, why it's coming up. 171 00:09:31,560 --> 00:09:36,720 Well, I think it was the last -- maybe it was the last preliminary hearing we had. 172 00:09:36,720 --> 00:09:42,880 It might have been the one before where they -- I think they specified one section, but 173 00:09:42,880 --> 00:09:46,920 we thought it might fall under another section, and in that case, we didn't really think it 174 00:09:46,920 --> 00:09:49,200 fell under either section. 175 00:09:49,200 --> 00:09:55,440 But from my -- what I remember from our discussions on that is just if, say, somebody files an 176 00:09:55,440 --> 00:10:00,840 ethics complaint and says it violates, you know, section A, but us knowing the ethics 177 00:10:00,840 --> 00:10:09,360 ordinance much better say, oh, this clearly violates section B, we're not, you know -- we're 178 00:10:09,360 --> 00:10:15,600 not restricted to just A. We can look at the facts and know it's B. We kind of -- I guess 179 00:10:15,600 --> 00:10:19,840 the Ethics Board has that ability, so we don't have to say, oh, well, it doesn't fall under 180 00:10:19,840 --> 00:10:25,720 A, so not an ethics violation when we know it falls under B. If -- I don't know if that 181 00:10:25,720 --> 00:10:34,600 explained it -- Enough that I'm going to vote no on that. 182 00:10:34,600 --> 00:10:36,200 Okay. 183 00:10:36,200 --> 00:10:45,320 I guess -- I think on the -- let's see, on the first two, I think we were all in agreement. 184 00:10:45,320 --> 00:10:52,040 I guess what are -- what is everybody else's thoughts on allowing us to -- allowing us 185 00:10:52,040 --> 00:10:58,960 to take a complaint and if it violates a different provision than what's in the actual complaint 186 00:10:58,960 --> 00:11:02,820 going forward? 187 00:11:02,820 --> 00:11:10,520 I would say -- I would say that an ethics complaint that clearly falls under a certain 188 00:11:10,520 --> 00:11:14,600 section should not be dead in the water just because the complaintant did not know the 189 00:11:14,600 --> 00:11:20,640 ethics code well enough to reference the right -- the correct section. 190 00:11:20,640 --> 00:11:25,680 Yeah, and I tend to agree. I mean, there might be times where they give us facts and we can't 191 00:11:25,680 --> 00:11:31,360 tell what it's under, but I think this might be a situation where we can obviously tell 192 00:11:31,360 --> 00:11:38,080 it's under another section. You know, it just gives -- I think it just gives the board flexibility 193 00:11:38,080 --> 00:11:40,680 given -- like given a fact pattern. 194 00:11:40,680 --> 00:11:41,680 Yes. 195 00:11:41,680 --> 00:11:49,080 And I -- so I think me and Annette and Andrea are on board and so far Dawn is against. What 196 00:11:49,080 --> 00:11:53,800 are -- what are the other thoughts from the rest of the board? 197 00:11:53,800 --> 00:11:58,160 I think it serves the citizens better to do it the way you're describing and I think that's 198 00:11:58,160 --> 00:12:05,360 our job to try to serve the citizens. 199 00:12:05,360 --> 00:12:10,240 I think it should be corrected even before it comes to the board because when they turn 200 00:12:10,240 --> 00:12:20,960 in the complaint, the complaint is examined and if it -- if it isn't complete, it's referred 201 00:12:20,960 --> 00:12:26,280 back to them and telling them how they can complete it if possible. But I don't think 202 00:12:26,280 --> 00:12:30,600 we should have the latitude just to plug in whatever we want to plug in. 203 00:12:30,600 --> 00:12:38,240 Well, I think it would be considered at least administratively complete if they had checked 204 00:12:38,240 --> 00:12:44,520 a box that indicated which provision of the ordinance -- like many people just check conflict 205 00:12:44,520 --> 00:12:48,060 of interest even though there are several prohibitions in there including like gifts 206 00:12:48,060 --> 00:12:57,160 or abusive position or things like that. So I think if they had checked a box, from my 207 00:12:57,160 --> 00:13:05,400 perspective it would be administratively complete. It's not within my authority to say, well, 208 00:13:05,400 --> 00:13:10,000 you're wrong. You've checked the wrong box and then send it back to them because I'm 209 00:13:10,000 --> 00:13:15,960 not supposed to be interpreting the ethics code in that manner. 210 00:13:15,960 --> 00:13:19,960 So I mean, I think we could -- you could then take it to a preliminary assessment. You could 211 00:13:19,960 --> 00:13:25,600 tell them -- I mean, from there -- from me, it goes to the preliminary assessment with 212 00:13:25,600 --> 00:13:31,720 the panel and then usually at that point, I think that's when somebody says, well, they 213 00:13:31,720 --> 00:13:36,320 checked this box, but it really kind of seems like it falls under this box and that's how 214 00:13:36,320 --> 00:13:45,180 we would move forward with it. But I mean, I think -- and then whatever the preliminary 215 00:13:45,180 --> 00:13:48,800 assessment panel said would be communicated to the rest of the board if we made it to 216 00:13:48,800 --> 00:13:56,280 a hearing. Yes, Annetta? 217 00:13:56,280 --> 00:14:02,720 An ethics code is supposed to be aspirational, which is different from the rule of law. And 218 00:14:02,720 --> 00:14:08,080 so when a code is written like the rule of law, it's going to be difficult for citizens 219 00:14:08,080 --> 00:14:21,000 to interpret. So I do think having that flexibility would be in everyone's best interest. 220 00:14:21,000 --> 00:14:26,120 Other thoughts on that? Dustin and Sharla, do either of you have thoughts on this section? 221 00:14:26,120 --> 00:14:31,120 I don't have any problem with adding this in. This is in the preliminary assessment 222 00:14:31,120 --> 00:14:38,920 portion of the process, so it's not -- I don't think our goal here is to make this so complicated 223 00:14:38,920 --> 00:14:44,880 and rigorous for submission of complaints that those are going to get tossed out because 224 00:14:44,880 --> 00:14:53,320 the wrong box was checked on the form or the wrong section was identified. I mean, I think 225 00:14:53,320 --> 00:15:04,300 that's going to degrade the confidence of the entire process for the citizens that are trying 226 00:15:04,300 --> 00:15:11,080 to use this for the purpose that it was written. Yeah, I agree. 227 00:15:11,080 --> 00:15:17,480 I do too. Okay. So I guess if we come to a vote, maybe 228 00:15:17,480 --> 00:15:24,760 we can just keep that one apart if we vote whether to keep these in the packet. 229 00:15:24,760 --> 00:15:30,960 I think we're not necessarily -- it seems like in general I think we could just take 230 00:15:30,960 --> 00:15:34,200 direction on these to include them in a packet. I don't know that we have to have a clear 231 00:15:34,200 --> 00:15:39,840 vote unless you would like that for the record. Well, I mean, I think it's shown -- I think 232 00:15:39,840 --> 00:15:44,720 Dawn's against it, but I think everybody else is for it. So I think we'll just go forward 233 00:15:44,720 --> 00:15:48,740 with that. We can certainly note that the direction 234 00:15:48,740 --> 00:15:58,600 was for AB, whatever, seven, zero, gave direction for it, and for C, six, one, or basically 235 00:15:58,600 --> 00:16:03,420 something like that. Okay. Well, I guess I think the majority does 236 00:16:03,420 --> 00:16:08,560 want to include C. So I mean, in the end it will, and we can just maybe go forward with 237 00:16:08,560 --> 00:16:13,040 D and see if there's more discussion on more of these items. 238 00:16:13,040 --> 00:16:17,520 And I guess -- well, and actually since we have a new member on the board, so D came 239 00:16:17,520 --> 00:16:24,360 out of that same preliminary hearing I mentioned earlier where in the complaint the complainant 240 00:16:24,360 --> 00:16:31,820 had put a link to a video, and the current ethics code kind of says you're supposed to 241 00:16:31,820 --> 00:16:36,600 just look at what's on the complaint. So we kind of struggled with, well, there's 242 00:16:36,600 --> 00:16:40,520 a link to a video on the complaint. Can we look at that link to a video? 243 00:16:40,520 --> 00:16:45,560 So that's where D came from, and I'll let you discuss it. 244 00:16:45,560 --> 00:16:51,440 Yeah. So like Laura said, it came kind of from that situation, and the board discussed 245 00:16:51,440 --> 00:16:57,440 it at a previous meeting, and the direction, as I understood it, was anything that was 246 00:16:57,440 --> 00:17:02,320 submitted with the complaint, including linked videos or things, should be able to be reviewed 247 00:17:02,320 --> 00:17:09,240 by the preliminary assessment panel as part of their preliminary assessment to determine 248 00:17:09,240 --> 00:17:14,680 if the complaint was actually a violation on its face, right, before we look at any 249 00:17:14,680 --> 00:17:19,760 -- before we necessarily look at the facts and determine if they're true, if we assume 250 00:17:19,760 --> 00:17:25,240 they're all facts, then the complaint on its face can move forward to a hearing because 251 00:17:25,240 --> 00:17:30,520 it is a violation. So basically it added to that kind of same 252 00:17:30,520 --> 00:17:37,480 section in the rules of procedure under basis in preliminary assessments that panel's review 253 00:17:37,480 --> 00:17:43,040 is limited to the contents of the complaint, whereas the contents of the complaint include 254 00:17:43,040 --> 00:17:47,920 all additional documents, hyperlinks, video, and audio submitted along with the original 255 00:17:47,920 --> 00:17:56,200 ethics complaint form. So that's the language kind of as of the whereas that was -- I added 256 00:17:56,200 --> 00:18:00,240 trying to capture that direction that I received from the board at that time. 257 00:18:00,240 --> 00:18:07,840 >> All right. Is there any discussion on adding that clause that we can use hyperlinks, video, 258 00:18:07,840 --> 00:18:14,760 and audio submitted along with the complaint? Okay. I'm not seeing anybody jumping up. So 259 00:18:14,760 --> 00:18:20,000 I think we're -- I think that's what we all agreed on last time, or at least the majority 260 00:18:20,000 --> 00:18:32,080 agreed on. So we'll go on to 1E. Okay. And then so E, this came out of -- when 261 00:18:32,080 --> 00:18:35,680 I was going back to rewatch all the meetings to try to figure out, well, where are all 262 00:18:35,680 --> 00:18:43,680 the minor adjustments that need to be made, I noted at a meeting previously that the timeline 263 00:18:43,680 --> 00:18:48,240 for when a complaint hearing must be held was never actually -- was not actually in 264 00:18:48,240 --> 00:18:53,120 the ordinance. It wasn't specified there. It was only really specified in the ethics 265 00:18:53,120 --> 00:19:01,960 training that all city officials are required to take. So this is just to correct that. 266 00:19:01,960 --> 00:19:07,560 This is really staff motivated just so that it's clear in the ordinance how long the timeline 267 00:19:07,560 --> 00:19:16,240 is. So if you don't want to include it there, we don't have to. But that is why it was 268 00:19:16,240 --> 00:19:22,000 at -- that's why I proposed it as part of this section, basically. 269 00:19:22,000 --> 00:19:25,760 And I mean, if that falls along with, like, the timelines that we've gone over at previous 270 00:19:25,760 --> 00:19:30,520 meetings, like, I don't have a problem with that. Does anybody else have any ideas or 271 00:19:30,520 --> 00:19:35,560 thoughts on that? I think it's just kind of clerical. Like, that already is the timeline 272 00:19:35,560 --> 00:19:42,000 it just -- that we were working on. It's just now going to be added to the ordinance. Okay. 273 00:19:42,000 --> 00:19:53,120 And then so I think section -- so number two on this agenda item is about the frivolity 274 00:19:53,120 --> 00:19:58,240 and whether a respondent can request it be submitted for frivolity. I'm going to skip 275 00:19:58,240 --> 00:20:01,880 that because I think three is going to be a lot easier and I think two is going to be 276 00:20:01,880 --> 00:20:06,520 a lot more discussion. So let's skip to three on the agenda information 277 00:20:06,520 --> 00:20:12,160 sheet for this agenda item and go -- and I guess -- I guess I'll let you go over it again. 278 00:20:12,160 --> 00:20:16,960 I think that's another -- yeah, I think that's another thing that you added, Madison. 279 00:20:16,960 --> 00:20:23,360 Yes. Yeah. So this is -- we received direction at the previous meeting in May from one of 280 00:20:23,360 --> 00:20:30,040 the discussions we had to basically prohibit any board member who had submitted an ethics 281 00:20:30,040 --> 00:20:36,480 complaint against a city official from participating on a preliminary assessment for that same 282 00:20:36,480 --> 00:20:43,280 board member in the future. So I added language to the ordinance per the board's direction 283 00:20:43,280 --> 00:20:50,400 to the ordinance and to the rules of procedure trying to reflect that prohibition. 284 00:20:50,400 --> 00:21:02,480 So let me see what -- in the ordinance, it's under section 2-279(b), assignment of panels, 285 00:21:02,480 --> 00:21:07,680 and the new language just notes board members who have previously submitted an ethics complaint 286 00:21:07,680 --> 00:21:12,080 against the respondent in a preliminary assessment shall not be assigned to the panel. 287 00:21:12,080 --> 00:21:16,880 Okay. And I think we all agreed to that, but I kind of had a thought when I was preparing 288 00:21:16,880 --> 00:21:23,000 for the meeting today. And I mean, I would hope that this wouldn't happen, but what if 289 00:21:23,000 --> 00:21:30,160 you had a majority of board of ethics members who have complained about a city councilperson 290 00:21:30,160 --> 00:21:33,400 or department head. And that's -- I don't know if that's like kind of too far-fetched 291 00:21:33,400 --> 00:21:37,560 because we're probably in a bad place as a city if the majority of us have complained 292 00:21:37,560 --> 00:21:43,640 about someone, but I'm wondering if we should put in language -- you know, there's language 293 00:21:43,640 --> 00:21:48,640 in the conflict of interest that if the majority of council kind of has the same conflict, 294 00:21:48,640 --> 00:21:53,240 everybody can vote. And I forget the exact wording, but I'm wondering if we should put 295 00:21:53,240 --> 00:21:58,120 some kind of wording there or if we think that's just kind of too far-fetched to be 296 00:21:58,120 --> 00:22:07,160 a problem ever. Does anybody have any thoughts about that? 297 00:22:07,160 --> 00:22:12,720 I think that's a good thing to add. It would just make it more clear. I mean, and I hope 298 00:22:12,720 --> 00:22:21,200 it never happens. Maybe -- unless anybody objects to it, maybe 299 00:22:21,200 --> 00:22:25,840 you could take the same language that's in the conflict of interest and kind of add it 300 00:22:25,840 --> 00:22:31,160 into that section just so we're covered in case that were to happen. And when we come 301 00:22:31,160 --> 00:22:36,920 back at the next meeting, that can be something we discuss if we like it or not, if that sounds 302 00:22:36,920 --> 00:22:40,640 like a plan. If anybody objects to that or has other ideas? 303 00:22:40,640 --> 00:22:47,520 I do have a quick question. On our advisory opinion, in the past we've had a council member 304 00:22:47,520 --> 00:22:54,880 violate the advisory opinion we gave. That's where we would have at least three people 305 00:22:54,880 --> 00:23:02,200 that were against the particular individual that violated the advisory opinion. Would 306 00:23:02,200 --> 00:23:08,400 that affect this? I think -- so I think what we discussed is 307 00:23:08,400 --> 00:23:16,160 just if you filed the complaint, I don't think that if you're on the advisory -- if you're 308 00:23:16,160 --> 00:23:25,080 on the advisory hearing, the three people that do the advisory panel, I guess, I don't 309 00:23:25,080 --> 00:23:30,560 think that you should necessarily be -- I don't think you can't be on the preliminary 310 00:23:30,560 --> 00:23:36,760 panel if they violate that advisory panel. Because I don't know, unless anybody disagrees, 311 00:23:36,760 --> 00:23:40,480 I don't think it would fall under this and I don't think we should necessarily have that 312 00:23:40,480 --> 00:23:44,400 in the ordinance. I think it's kind of separate because you're not really -- it's not like 313 00:23:44,400 --> 00:23:49,000 you in direct conflict with that person. You gave an advisory opinion. Maybe they didn't 314 00:23:49,000 --> 00:23:54,460 follow it. But it doesn't seem as kind of adversary as you complained against them should 315 00:23:54,460 --> 00:24:00,660 you really be deciding whether another complaint against them is valid. But I'm open to what 316 00:24:00,660 --> 00:24:07,440 everybody else thinks. Yeah, I don't know. I just put it out, you 317 00:24:07,440 --> 00:24:13,440 know, what do we do then? Yeah, it sounds like if we did that, we would 318 00:24:13,440 --> 00:24:17,960 be more likely to run into a situation where there would be no board members left to sit 319 00:24:17,960 --> 00:24:27,640 on the panel if a second complaint was entered. Yeah, that's a good point. 320 00:24:27,640 --> 00:24:32,040 I would just add, I think the way it's currently written, it would only -- the advice I would 321 00:24:32,040 --> 00:24:36,880 give to any chair who was assigning a preliminary assessment would be it's only about who has 322 00:24:36,880 --> 00:24:41,720 submitted ethics complaints against a city official and not -- and it wouldn't really 323 00:24:41,720 --> 00:24:47,520 matter what had happened with advisory opinions would be -- but obviously at that point the 324 00:24:47,520 --> 00:24:54,200 chair really has discretion to do what they would like unless there's a prohibition against 325 00:24:54,200 --> 00:25:03,520 it in the ordinance or the rules of procedure. I don't know if anybody feels strongly about 326 00:25:03,520 --> 00:25:09,720 adding something like that. If now I would say speak now, otherwise we can kind of keep 327 00:25:09,720 --> 00:25:18,080 it as is which would be you can sit on a panel of someone that violates the advisory opinion 328 00:25:18,080 --> 00:25:27,280 that you are on the panel for. All right. Okay. So I think -- so what I'm hearing is 329 00:25:27,280 --> 00:25:35,120 we're going to maybe rework the language on three. One -- or let's see, one, A, B, D and 330 00:25:35,120 --> 00:25:41,440 E, it sounds like we're unanimous. And then on C, there's one person that disagrees but 331 00:25:41,440 --> 00:25:49,640 the other six appear to agree. So I would think that one -- all of one we would give 332 00:25:49,640 --> 00:25:55,320 direction that we would want that to be in a board packet to send to city council. And 333 00:25:55,320 --> 00:26:02,040 three we'll rework and then we can get to two which I think will be more of a discussion 334 00:26:02,040 --> 00:26:07,880 here and less of us just talking about what we've already discussed in the past at meetings. 335 00:26:07,880 --> 00:26:12,440 So should the respondent be able to -- two is should the respondent be able to request 336 00:26:12,440 --> 00:26:19,840 the board consider if a submitted ethics complaint is frivolous? And Madison did some work at 337 00:26:19,840 --> 00:26:24,920 looking at other cities so I guess I'll turn it over to her again to talk about the research 338 00:26:24,920 --> 00:26:27,800 she did for us and then we can come back to a discussion. 339 00:26:27,800 --> 00:26:34,320 Okay. So I used kind of that same group that we had talked about last time although I did 340 00:26:34,320 --> 00:26:40,800 remove those municipalities that didn't have any ordinances and kind of there were two 341 00:26:40,800 --> 00:26:46,640 different ways that I kind of found that came at it. The first being that there were two 342 00:26:46,640 --> 00:26:52,040 cities who even had a process to consider if a submitted complaint was frivolous, obviously 343 00:26:52,040 --> 00:26:57,400 apart from Denton because we have one as well. And those cities were San Antonio and Dallas 344 00:26:57,400 --> 00:27:03,600 and they both used what they called an order to show cause process which essentially the 345 00:27:03,600 --> 00:27:09,560 board has done an assessment and thinks that the complaint might be frivolous and orders 346 00:27:09,560 --> 00:27:16,120 the complainant to say why is this not frivolous and then they are required to submit a written 347 00:27:16,120 --> 00:27:22,680 response. They both have slightly different processes for that -- processes for that which 348 00:27:22,680 --> 00:27:30,000 is why I included their ordinances. And then Dallas' process allows the respondent 349 00:27:30,000 --> 00:27:37,080 to submit basically a sworn response as part of that process that I guess would basically 350 00:27:37,080 --> 00:27:44,120 be like this is why it is frivolous. So that's one way that I looked at it, looking at all 351 00:27:44,120 --> 00:27:50,360 the other ordinances and then the other was at what point in the ethics complaint process 352 00:27:50,360 --> 00:27:56,720 of other cities is the respondent allowed to basically present their case. 353 00:27:56,720 --> 00:28:04,080 So there were three cities, San Antonio, Dallas and Richardson that allowed the respondent 354 00:28:04,080 --> 00:28:09,680 to submit a written response as soon as the ethics complaint was given back to them. So 355 00:28:09,680 --> 00:28:15,560 the complainant comes, they submit their ethics complaint. It's determined that it's administratively 356 00:28:15,560 --> 00:28:20,200 complete. It would be then sent to the respondent who would then have a certain period of time 357 00:28:20,200 --> 00:28:27,560 to send back a response to the complaint. So there were three cities that had that kind 358 00:28:27,560 --> 00:28:37,280 of a process. Four cities allowed the respondent to present a response basically at the hearing. 359 00:28:37,280 --> 00:28:41,820 So that's kind of like what we do in Denton. The respondent can come and they can present 360 00:28:41,820 --> 00:28:49,000 their case and they can have evidence that they present as part of that process. And 361 00:28:49,000 --> 00:28:56,280 then the remaining three didn't have a process at all basically for the respondent or sorry, 362 00:28:56,280 --> 00:29:00,200 the remaining two didn't have a clear process for the respondent to even respond to the 363 00:29:00,200 --> 00:29:05,440 ethics complaint. So I hope that was a lot of information. It is all in your kind of 364 00:29:05,440 --> 00:29:11,520 under that number two in the AIS, but that was a quick rundown and I can answer any questions 365 00:29:11,520 --> 00:29:15,400 about as well as I can about the other cities ordinances. 366 00:29:15,400 --> 00:29:25,520 Okay. So and she provided Dallas and San Antonio. Hopefully everybody kind of looked over those. 367 00:29:25,520 --> 00:29:32,080 I have a couple thoughts about the respondent being able to ask for if it's frivolous. My 368 00:29:32,080 --> 00:29:37,160 first thought is, is every respondent just going to tell us this is frivolous because 369 00:29:37,160 --> 00:29:41,920 they don't think they violate it, so they think it's frivolous. So that's my first thought. 370 00:29:41,920 --> 00:29:46,540 And then my second thought is how we go about this. It's like how much do we want to let 371 00:29:46,540 --> 00:29:54,080 the respondent be able to bring forth to show it's frivolous and when does it become you're 372 00:29:54,080 --> 00:29:58,700 having the hearing at the preliminary hearing if you're letting the respondent send a bunch 373 00:29:58,700 --> 00:30:04,200 of evidence. And I think kind of the way this is set up is for not to have to get the whole 374 00:30:04,200 --> 00:30:08,000 board together and have a hearing right away. That's why we have the preliminary hearing 375 00:30:08,000 --> 00:30:14,240 to kind of decide should this be a full-blown hearing. And if both sides can submit evidence 376 00:30:14,240 --> 00:30:20,280 at the preliminary hearing, it's kind of like, well, you know, is there really at that point 377 00:30:20,280 --> 00:30:25,840 are we just like having the preliminary hearing for no reason because it's also a hearing. 378 00:30:25,840 --> 00:30:29,320 But I'm not sure. I'm not sure how we should go about this. So I want to hear what everybody 379 00:30:29,320 --> 00:30:38,700 has to say. 380 00:30:38,700 --> 00:30:43,900 I would really be interested in hearing a little bit more about San Antonio and Dallas's 381 00:30:43,900 --> 00:30:51,880 order to show cause. I would think that's fairly complicated, but I know San Antonio's 382 00:30:51,880 --> 00:31:04,120 ethical code is very admired and it came out of some very awful things, but I don't think 383 00:31:04,120 --> 00:31:12,640 everybody would be doing that. So I think that's an interesting thing to explore. 384 00:31:12,640 --> 00:31:19,920 So the order to show cause, the way that that's initiated, I would think it was kind of to 385 00:31:19,920 --> 00:31:25,480 compare it to our processes. At the preliminary assessment, if the panel was like, this appears 386 00:31:25,480 --> 00:31:30,000 to be frivolous, they would then have an order to show cause and they would say that would 387 00:31:30,000 --> 00:31:34,960 be their determination from the panel to say to the complainant, you have to write us back 388 00:31:34,960 --> 00:31:42,680 telling us why this isn't frivolous basically. So just to clarify, that's, yeah. 389 00:31:42,680 --> 00:31:49,680 And I printed them both off, but I don't remember. Is that Dallas or San Antonio's? So in Dallas's, 390 00:31:49,680 --> 00:31:56,040 they have an order to show cause and they premise it on the preliminary panel has to 391 00:31:56,040 --> 00:32:02,760 unanimously dismiss the complaint, which I think is a good thing to have. That way that 392 00:32:02,760 --> 00:32:07,240 it has to be all three people on that panel that think that this should go forward to 393 00:32:07,240 --> 00:32:12,800 be frivolous if you make them show cause. Actually, now that I think about it, is it 394 00:32:12,800 --> 00:32:17,280 two thirds to be frivolous in our ordinance? Let me go back. I have it right in front of 395 00:32:17,280 --> 00:32:24,620 me. It's two thirds of the hearing. Okay. So I think if we, the way it currently works 396 00:32:24,620 --> 00:32:30,320 in Denton, the panel can recommend that the preliminary assessment panel can recommend 397 00:32:30,320 --> 00:32:37,960 that a hearing be held to determine if the complaint is frivolous. And then at that hearing, 398 00:32:37,960 --> 00:32:47,860 if two thirds vote that the complaint is frivolous, there can be sanctions I believe per our ordinance. 399 00:32:47,860 --> 00:32:53,000 But I think what we discussed talking about is a little bit different than the order to 400 00:32:53,000 --> 00:32:59,960 show cause because we had talked about whether the respondent should be able to request for 401 00:32:59,960 --> 00:33:03,280 the preliminary hearing. I guess if there is an actual hearing, the respondent will 402 00:33:03,280 --> 00:33:08,000 be there and they could say that this is frivolous, but the preliminary hearing, no one can be 403 00:33:08,000 --> 00:33:13,840 there. It's just three board members. Could the respondent send something in to say y'all 404 00:33:13,840 --> 00:33:18,200 should consider this frivolous? I mean, I was thinking like they could do like a sworn 405 00:33:18,200 --> 00:33:22,400 affidavit or something like that. So that way it's not just, they can type up an email. 406 00:33:22,400 --> 00:33:27,400 They actually actually do some work like to get it sworn by somebody. Like I, we, I truly 407 00:33:27,400 --> 00:33:32,840 believe it's frivolous for whatever reason. But again, that's, I don't know if that's 408 00:33:32,840 --> 00:33:38,000 the way we want to set this up or if it's just, we should just leave it up to the panel 409 00:33:38,000 --> 00:33:43,720 to determine. I like the idea of the, of the respondent being able to send something in 410 00:33:43,720 --> 00:33:48,860 writing because it gives more information and anything that gives more information I 411 00:33:48,860 --> 00:34:08,320 think helps the panel. What do others think about that? I like the respondent being able 412 00:34:08,320 --> 00:34:15,520 to say that. I also really liked the idea of the preliminary thing being unanimous and 413 00:34:15,520 --> 00:34:22,480 saying that it's frivolous. I think those are both good things. I guess I can't figure 414 00:34:22,480 --> 00:34:31,280 out whether or not it's important for the respondent to identify that. Yeah, I, I can, 415 00:34:31,280 --> 00:34:35,540 I'm kind of torn on that too. Cause like I said, every respondent every time is going 416 00:34:35,540 --> 00:34:40,520 to think it's frivolous, right? They're, they're going to say it's frivolous. So do we need 417 00:34:40,520 --> 00:34:44,960 them to come tell us it's frivolous? Because if, if we do ask them to tell it's frivolous, 418 00:34:44,960 --> 00:34:51,440 it's almost better for them to tell us how, but then are we, are you know, the right now, 419 00:34:51,440 --> 00:34:58,120 the way it's set up is you just have the complaint and you're not, the panel sort of isn't like 420 00:34:58,120 --> 00:35:03,680 it's just based on what the complainant is sending. And there, and I can see how that 421 00:35:03,680 --> 00:35:09,640 would be a good thing because you're not kind of swayed by say a city council member that, 422 00:35:09,640 --> 00:35:14,480 you know, appointed one of us that's sending you a letter saying that this isn't true. 423 00:35:14,480 --> 00:35:20,480 But then again, I mean, if somebody is somebody on city council is being like slandered with 424 00:35:20,480 --> 00:35:23,680 a complaint that isn't true, it's good for them to be able to tell their story. So I'm 425 00:35:23,680 --> 00:35:27,980 not really, I don't know what to do on that. So I'm hopefully somebody has a really good 426 00:35:27,980 --> 00:35:37,480 idea. If I look through the flow chart that we spent some time reviewing, there is a block 427 00:35:37,480 --> 00:35:43,480 on there for the preliminary assessment panel to consider whether or not the complainants 428 00:35:43,480 --> 00:35:48,680 is frivolous. So it's sort of already built into the process without there being a request 429 00:35:48,680 --> 00:35:54,520 for that by the respondent. And it's, it would not be the way it's written now, it's not 430 00:35:54,520 --> 00:36:00,440 up to the preliminary assessment panel to determine if the complaint is frivolous. They 431 00:36:00,440 --> 00:36:07,600 would recommend an evidentiary hearing to determine that. So it's not really, I mean, 432 00:36:07,600 --> 00:36:14,280 I understand the idea of changing that so that it has to be a unanimous recommendation 433 00:36:14,280 --> 00:36:21,800 from the preliminary assessment panel to have a hearing to determine if it is frivolous. 434 00:36:21,800 --> 00:36:28,120 But the way it's written now, it's not the preliminary assessment panel that makes that 435 00:36:28,120 --> 00:36:38,880 determination. Does that make sense? I mean, I think the way it's written now, all this 436 00:36:38,880 --> 00:36:46,000 would be doing would be creating another step in the process that would be the respondent 437 00:36:46,000 --> 00:36:57,480 either turning in some affidavit or whatever, however we would write that process. They 438 00:36:57,480 --> 00:37:02,640 would be turning in an affidavit to ask us to do something we're already doing as part 439 00:37:02,640 --> 00:37:11,000 of the existing process. Yeah, I think that's a good point. It is kind of adding, we'd have 440 00:37:11,000 --> 00:37:18,020 to redo all the work that Madison did on those flow charts. Yeah. I mean, if it makes sense 441 00:37:18,020 --> 00:37:23,920 to do that, then I think that we do it. But I guess what I'm trying to describe is that 442 00:37:23,920 --> 00:37:31,200 the way the process is drawn up now, we already consider that in the preliminary assessment 443 00:37:31,200 --> 00:37:38,720 without a request to do that by the respondent. Yeah. Okay. I think I saw Annetta and Andrea. 444 00:37:38,720 --> 00:37:45,760 So Annetta? I think maybe the time for the respondent to request that it be considered 445 00:37:45,760 --> 00:37:54,280 frivolous would be after the hearing has been held. Because I would think that if that consequence 446 00:37:54,280 --> 00:38:00,520 was there for people who want to file things, maybe for political reasons, they would have 447 00:38:00,520 --> 00:38:08,320 to know they're taking a risk that they could be called frivolous. But I think that's a 448 00:38:08,320 --> 00:38:13,920 separate issue from whatever the board needs to look at with a complaint and then the time 449 00:38:13,920 --> 00:38:25,400 to call it that would be after the fact. Right. I don't know if that's possible, but... 450 00:38:25,400 --> 00:38:31,600 And then Andrea, did you have, I think I saw your hand. Yes. I would just like to, just 451 00:38:31,600 --> 00:38:39,160 clarifying my understanding as a new member here and still learning. So if I understand 452 00:38:39,160 --> 00:38:48,000 Dustin correctly, there would be a three member panel that will decide whether a complaint 453 00:38:48,000 --> 00:38:53,200 is frivolous or not. And if they say, yes, it needs to be considered frivolous or it 454 00:38:53,200 --> 00:38:59,680 should be explored, if this is a frivolous complaint, then it goes to an actual hearing 455 00:38:59,680 --> 00:39:05,240 where there is actually evidence provided and the full board will consider whether it 456 00:39:05,240 --> 00:39:11,480 is frivolous or not. So at the preliminary hearing, you decide whether it's actionable 457 00:39:11,480 --> 00:39:17,720 or baseless. If it's actionable, it goes forward to a hearing on the complaint. And then if 458 00:39:17,720 --> 00:39:23,760 it's dismissed at the hearing, I think they can also like determine if it's frivolous. 459 00:39:23,760 --> 00:39:32,120 Is that correct? Yes. So at the preliminary assessment, the panel can recommend that there 460 00:39:32,120 --> 00:39:37,660 be a hearing to determine if the complaint is frivolous. Well, I guess like if it's baseless, 461 00:39:37,660 --> 00:39:41,800 they can say there needs to be a hearing that it's frivolous. If it's actionable, it goes 462 00:39:41,800 --> 00:39:47,760 for an actual hearing. And there's a mechanism after that hearing that it can also be found 463 00:39:47,760 --> 00:39:53,160 frivolous, even though the panel... Yeah. At the hearing, if a complaint moved forward 464 00:39:53,160 --> 00:40:01,560 to a hearing, because it was actionable, after hearing both sides' argument during the hearing, 465 00:40:01,560 --> 00:40:08,320 the board could then vote that it was frivolous is my understanding, if they believe that 466 00:40:08,320 --> 00:40:17,400 to be true. So circling... Oh, go ahead. So because I was looking, just going through 467 00:40:17,400 --> 00:40:24,880 the training, the online training. So at that point, if something is... If at that point, 468 00:40:24,880 --> 00:40:30,500 a complaint is considered frivolous, then there is a question if it's slanderous or 469 00:40:30,500 --> 00:40:39,680 not as well, and then there's actionability on that claim, correct? There's no... We do 470 00:40:39,680 --> 00:40:46,120 as an ethics board, all we can do is tell them that it could be a civil action, but 471 00:40:46,120 --> 00:40:51,680 that's not doing it, or it could be a criminal action if it's perjury. But we don't know 472 00:40:51,680 --> 00:40:58,640 anything from this board. Right. So the board could rule it was frivolous. I believe there 473 00:40:58,640 --> 00:41:04,520 are some sanctions laid out in the ordinance, like the board can write a letter of reprimand 474 00:41:04,520 --> 00:41:10,960 perhaps to the complainant who submitted what had then been decided to be frivolous. There 475 00:41:10,960 --> 00:41:17,080 are potential civil or actual legal penalties, but that's not something that the board would 476 00:41:17,080 --> 00:41:23,880 pursue. Those outside of the board. Yes. Okay. However, the determination, if a complaint 477 00:41:23,880 --> 00:41:31,880 is frivolous, there is already a process in place to have a hearing where a respondent 478 00:41:31,880 --> 00:41:39,560 would have an opportunity to provide evidence, correct? Yes, that's correct. On that basis, 479 00:41:39,560 --> 00:41:47,160 I kind of agree with Dustin where I would say if we are accepting any kind of statement 480 00:41:47,160 --> 00:41:54,960 from a respondent during the three-member panel. There's no testimony from either the 481 00:41:54,960 --> 00:42:00,080 respondent or the complainant during that panel. It's only the written word that we're 482 00:42:00,080 --> 00:42:08,000 reviewing. Right. Okay. So the written statement. But again, there is a duplication of the process, 483 00:42:08,000 --> 00:42:14,520 isn't it? If there's a written statement about this is a frivolous, and then it moves forward 484 00:42:14,520 --> 00:42:23,360 to a hearing and then there would be additional or the same statement about why it is frivolous. 485 00:42:23,360 --> 00:42:30,200 I guess the only situation that would not be covered is if the three-member panel found 486 00:42:30,200 --> 00:42:36,280 that it's a baseless complaint, meaning it doesn't go to a full hearing. At that point, 487 00:42:36,280 --> 00:42:41,080 they can call it frivolous and go to a hearing, but if they don't call it frivolous, it just 488 00:42:41,080 --> 00:42:49,200 ends there. So right now, it's just up to the board to decide based on the complaint. 489 00:42:49,200 --> 00:42:59,440 And that's why this came up. We had a complaint that -- I wasn't on the panel. I don't remember 490 00:42:59,440 --> 00:43:04,640 everything about it, but it went forward and it was like obviously -- I guess it went to 491 00:43:04,640 --> 00:43:11,360 a full panel, too, and an appeal. But anyway, it was obviously not an actionable complaint, 492 00:43:11,360 --> 00:43:16,000 and everyone agreed on that. And I think it came up that should the respondent be able 493 00:43:16,000 --> 00:43:21,520 to -- when something's obviously not actionable, should they be able to say, y'all should look 494 00:43:21,520 --> 00:43:28,640 at this for being frivolous? And so that's the question we're at today, and that's what's 495 00:43:28,640 --> 00:43:33,640 on our agenda. And we've kind of talked about some other things, but does anybody have a 496 00:43:33,640 --> 00:43:38,080 strong opinion where we should be able to have the respondent somehow communicate with 497 00:43:38,080 --> 00:43:43,400 the board that they think that it's frivolous before the preliminary hearing? Because after 498 00:43:43,400 --> 00:43:48,800 the preliminary hearing, if it goes to a hearing, they'll have a chance. If it doesn't go to 499 00:43:48,800 --> 00:43:55,920 a hearing, they'll probably never have a chance. It'll just be up to the board to decide. 500 00:43:55,920 --> 00:44:07,240 I think the respondent should absolutely have that opportunity. 501 00:44:07,240 --> 00:44:19,520 I think I'm with Anneta here, because it is such a narrow, narrow decision, right? I mean, 502 00:44:19,520 --> 00:44:25,120 in most cases. But I guess the respondent should have an opportunity, if it's just a 503 00:44:25,120 --> 00:44:30,760 written statement that would be taken into consideration. I don't think there's any harm 504 00:44:30,760 --> 00:44:35,080 in allowing that. 505 00:44:35,080 --> 00:44:41,920 So it's currently 3.45, and I'll be honest, this was on my calendar for 10, because our 506 00:44:41,920 --> 00:44:47,560 first e-mail said 10 and then it was 3. So I actually have something to do at 4, and 507 00:44:47,560 --> 00:44:52,480 then because of the half Zoom, half not Zoom, the person chairing the meeting has to be 508 00:44:52,480 --> 00:45:06,960 here at City Council, and I'm the only one here. I'm wondering how long and if it would 509 00:45:06,960 --> 00:45:16,960 be worth deciding this today, or if we should maybe give more direction of how we would 510 00:45:16,960 --> 00:45:23,360 want to take that. Unless we have, I mean, I feel like I think Dustin's kind of on the 511 00:45:23,360 --> 00:45:28,360 side of this kind of, there's already a chance for the frivolity to be considered. We don't 512 00:45:28,360 --> 00:45:34,140 necessarily need an extra affidavit or information to the preliminary board. I think Anneta and 513 00:45:34,140 --> 00:45:40,800 Andrea are more on the side of let's have the respondent be able to respond. I'm not 514 00:45:40,800 --> 00:45:44,960 hearing like really strong opinions from anyone else. So I don't know if we have a consensus 515 00:45:44,960 --> 00:45:45,960 today, Dustin? 516 00:45:45,960 --> 00:45:53,280 Yeah, just I think one thing that's already written in here is that if the three-member 517 00:45:53,280 --> 00:45:59,840 panel is going to consider whether or not a complaint is frivolous, they can consider 518 00:45:59,840 --> 00:46:06,200 information not concurrently submitted as part of the complaint. So I think that provision 519 00:46:06,200 --> 00:46:11,360 is already there, that it's allowed. It's just a matter of is that evidence coming from 520 00:46:11,360 --> 00:46:16,920 the respondent or not, which if we're already going to allow that, and it seems like that 521 00:46:16,920 --> 00:46:21,200 would be the only place for that evidence to come from for the three-member panel to 522 00:46:21,200 --> 00:46:22,200 consider. 523 00:46:22,200 --> 00:46:29,880 Okay, so you're looking at, I think, page 6 of the Rules of Procedure, I think, D7. 524 00:46:29,880 --> 00:46:33,800 No extraneous information may be considered unless the panel wishes to review the information 525 00:46:33,800 --> 00:46:38,400 as part of a consideration of the accuracy of the stand made in the complaint in conjunction 526 00:46:38,400 --> 00:46:43,880 with the making of a recommendation that a hearing be first held on accepted complaint 527 00:46:43,880 --> 00:46:47,920 to determine if it may be frivolous. So I mean, yeah, I think that kind of does open 528 00:46:47,920 --> 00:46:52,760 it up that you could consider more, and we hadn't really talked about that section yet. 529 00:46:52,760 --> 00:47:02,600 I'll just add the ordinance prohibits ex parte communication. So the respondent currently 530 00:47:02,600 --> 00:47:09,760 is not allowed to send any additional extraneous information to the board or otherwise, I mean, 531 00:47:09,760 --> 00:47:17,000 that's considered a violation of the ordinance, even if the panel wanted to consider it. That's 532 00:47:17,000 --> 00:47:22,820 not really allowed currently. 533 00:47:22,820 --> 00:47:29,080 So I guess as the board, do y'all want to revisit this next time or do y'all want to 534 00:47:29,080 --> 00:47:33,120 keep discussing and have me hand it off to Sharla? 535 00:47:33,120 --> 00:47:38,760 Could we kind of see where everybody sits on it? 536 00:47:38,760 --> 00:47:46,560 Yeah, okay. Don, do you have an opinion of whether we let the respondent request that 537 00:47:46,560 --> 00:47:52,920 the preliminary panel decide if a complaint is frivolous? 538 00:47:52,920 --> 00:48:00,840 No, I don't think I think where we probably erred is that he opened it up where it wasn't 539 00:48:00,840 --> 00:48:08,200 kept confidential to start off with. Where we've opened it up, where we informed a respondent, 540 00:48:08,200 --> 00:48:16,800 which, you know, that took the confidentiality out of it. And I think that's where we made 541 00:48:16,800 --> 00:48:19,200 our first mistake on this. 542 00:48:19,200 --> 00:48:24,680 Okay. And I think, so, and I think Dustin is, I think he's shared that he doesn't think 543 00:48:24,680 --> 00:48:29,640 we should do that. I think Annetta does think the respondent should be able to respond. 544 00:48:29,640 --> 00:48:30,640 Patricia? 545 00:48:30,640 --> 00:48:37,840 I have a question. So there is a chance for the respondent to give information about why 546 00:48:37,840 --> 00:48:40,960 they think the complaint is. 547 00:48:40,960 --> 00:48:42,800 Right now, no, there's not. 548 00:48:42,800 --> 00:48:44,560 Do you want them to say anything? 549 00:48:44,560 --> 00:48:47,080 Well, at the hearing. 550 00:48:47,080 --> 00:48:48,080 The complainant. 551 00:48:48,080 --> 00:48:51,640 All right, so I'm actually, I don't think there's going to be time to go through everybody 552 00:48:51,640 --> 00:48:56,560 because I need to go. So I guess we need to decide, do you want me to hand it off to Sharla 553 00:48:56,560 --> 00:49:03,520 or do y'all want to just come back to this next meeting? 554 00:49:03,520 --> 00:49:08,200 Again as a new member, I would like additional time to actually look at those provisions 555 00:49:08,200 --> 00:49:10,440 and familiarize myself with it. 556 00:49:10,440 --> 00:49:13,680 As in end the meeting and look at it more? 557 00:49:13,680 --> 00:49:20,400 Yes, let's, and I see Sharla shaking her head and that's who I'd have to send it off to. 558 00:49:20,400 --> 00:49:26,360 So why don't we, why don't we revisit this next meeting and next meeting we can all be 559 00:49:26,360 --> 00:49:30,920 on Zoom and I think it's going to, I'll have a little less, I'll be a little less frazzled 560 00:49:30,920 --> 00:49:36,720 because I'll have my computer in front of me and can share screen. And so, so we'll 561 00:49:36,720 --> 00:49:42,200 do that next meeting. We'll revisit this again. If people have thoughts, there's not a lot 562 00:49:42,200 --> 00:49:46,400 of, I don't have a lot of time left. So if you have thoughts of things to research, maybe 563 00:49:46,400 --> 00:49:51,160 like email Madison, there's also the model code that you can see if there's anything 564 00:49:51,160 --> 00:49:54,960 about it in there, Madison. And if people have other thoughts of what they want her 565 00:49:54,960 --> 00:50:01,240 to research, then send that to her. And so then, and then we'll also look at what's next 566 00:50:01,240 --> 00:50:08,400 in, well, and actually we'll move on to agenda item C. So as far as receiving a report, hold 567 00:50:08,400 --> 00:50:15,320 a session and give staff direction regarding future meeting topics. We'll revisit number 568 00:50:15,320 --> 00:50:20,880 three, the language like we talked about. We'll revisit the considering things frivolous 569 00:50:20,880 --> 00:50:26,440 and let her know. And then we can just, maybe me and Madison can look at what the agenda 570 00:50:26,440 --> 00:50:29,600 looks like. I think frivolous might take a while, but we can see if there's anything 571 00:50:29,600 --> 00:50:34,920 else on our previous list of topics that we could also fit in there. And I wanted to let 572 00:50:34,920 --> 00:50:42,640 everybody know that, so my term ends August 30th and it's my third consecutive term. So 573 00:50:42,640 --> 00:50:46,760 I'm going to have to leave everyone. You can't serve more than three terms in a row. So you 574 00:50:46,760 --> 00:50:50,960 all have to think about, I'll only be here for two more months. I just want to let everybody 575 00:50:50,960 --> 00:50:56,600 know that. Well, I guess I might be longer if they don't replace me, but I might only 576 00:50:56,600 --> 00:51:03,160 be here two more months. I wanted to let everybody know that before I left. Anything else, Madison? 577 00:51:03,160 --> 00:51:09,640 No, I was just going to say if you do have direct, Oh, go ahead, Don. Can we keep our 578 00:51:09,640 --> 00:51:16,680 meetings in the afternoon? We'll do our best. We're still trying to work around issues with 579 00:51:16,680 --> 00:51:23,000 the, there are other boards that, that have meetings on the last Thursday of the month. 580 00:51:23,000 --> 00:51:27,760 So we're, we have a schedule written out and we're trying to make sure that they're in 581 00:51:27,760 --> 00:51:35,280 the afternoons, but sometimes it doesn't work that way. It doesn't work out. And then I 582 00:51:35,280 --> 00:51:39,720 just wanted to say, yes, if you have anything else you would like, any other additional 583 00:51:39,720 --> 00:51:44,680 information, I can look at the model code you would like on this topic. Just let me 584 00:51:44,680 --> 00:51:52,120 know and I can try to include it. Okay. All right. Sorry that I'm ending things. Like 585 00:51:52,120 --> 00:51:55,840 I said, I had it in my calendar wrong and I think next meeting will be better because 586 00:51:55,840 --> 00:52:01,000 we can, next meeting everyone can be on zoom. And then after September, I think everybody 587 00:52:01,000 --> 00:52:07,320 might have to be in person again. The rules have been changing, changing, I think, or 588 00:52:07,320 --> 00:52:10,880 not always explained well. That's why I'm here in person and city council and everybody's 589 00:52:10,880 --> 00:52:15,480 at home and it's not, I don't know, not as easy to navigate. I don't think, cause I don't 590 00:52:15,480 --> 00:52:20,760 have as much control with my screen or anything, but all right. So we'll plan that and we'll 591 00:52:20,760 --> 00:52:27,640 get out an agenda and hopefully the afternoon last Thursday in July will be our next meeting. 592 00:52:27,640 --> 00:52:33,500 Anything else from anyone? All right. Thank you for your time. I think we didn't really, 593 00:52:33,500 --> 00:52:37,840 we came to some conclusions and we realized frivolous will be a lot more discussions and 594 00:52:37,840 --> 00:52:45,200 thank you for coming today. Meetings adjourned, I guess. Thanks. 354, it's adjourned, I guess.