WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.120 >> All right. 00:00:03.120 --> 00:00:06.480 Good afternoon, everybody. 00:00:06.480 --> 00:00:08.800 Can you all hear me on Zoom? 00:00:08.800 --> 00:00:09.800 Okay. 00:00:09.800 --> 00:00:11.440 I'm hearing heads nodding. 00:00:11.440 --> 00:00:15.440 So I guess things changed from what we thought at the last meeting. 00:00:15.440 --> 00:00:19.520 The person that is chairing the meeting has to be in person. 00:00:19.520 --> 00:00:25.080 So I'm here and all of you are on Zoom. 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 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 00:00:34.600 --> 00:00:35.680 right now. 00:00:35.680 --> 00:00:36.680 But anyway. 00:00:36.680 --> 00:00:37.680 All right. 00:00:37.680 --> 00:00:40.160 And so we have everyone here. 00:00:40.160 --> 00:00:42.000 We have seven people here. 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. 00:00:46.920 --> 00:00:51.440 So I guess you can jump off or you can stay on if you're interested. 00:00:51.440 --> 00:00:54.200 But you won't be able to participate in the meeting. 00:00:54.200 --> 00:00:55.200 All right. 00:00:55.200 --> 00:00:56.200 Yeah. 00:00:56.200 --> 00:00:59.040 We -- I don't think we can hear them. 00:00:59.040 --> 00:01:02.300 So that might be -- so I think you all can hear me. 00:01:02.300 --> 00:01:04.880 But I can't -- I don't think we can hear you all. 00:01:04.880 --> 00:01:08.640 So we're going to work on that. 00:01:08.640 --> 00:01:10.680 Sorry. 00:01:10.680 --> 00:01:13.000 Okay. 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. 00:01:20.400 --> 00:01:23.080 So I don't have the first sheet. 00:01:23.080 --> 00:01:24.720 Yeah. 00:01:24.720 --> 00:01:25.720 Sorry about that. 00:01:25.720 --> 00:01:32.080 That's the one I'm missing. 00:01:32.080 --> 00:01:35.440 I'm much better prepared when my computer's in front of me. 00:01:35.440 --> 00:01:37.600 But all right. 00:01:37.600 --> 00:01:43.320 Would you speak and let her know that you can talk? 00:01:43.320 --> 00:01:45.320 Did you all hear that? 00:01:45.320 --> 00:01:46.320 Yes. 00:01:46.320 --> 00:01:47.320 Rough. 00:01:47.320 --> 00:01:48.320 Okay. 00:01:48.320 --> 00:01:49.320 Okay. 00:01:49.320 --> 00:01:50.320 Now we're cooking. 00:01:50.320 --> 00:01:52.320 Now I can hear you all. 00:01:52.320 --> 00:01:54.040 Okay. 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. 00:02:02.040 --> 00:02:08.120 Did anybody have any corrections or anything they saw wrong with those minutes? 00:02:08.120 --> 00:02:09.880 No. 00:02:09.880 --> 00:02:10.880 I did not. 00:02:10.880 --> 00:02:11.880 All right. 00:02:11.880 --> 00:02:15.800 So does it -- do I have a motion to approve those minutes? 00:02:15.800 --> 00:02:20.800 I move to approve the minutes of May 20th. 00:02:20.800 --> 00:02:21.800 Sorry. 00:02:21.800 --> 00:02:24.080 May 20th. 00:02:24.080 --> 00:02:26.400 May 20th, 2021. 00:02:26.400 --> 00:02:27.400 All right. 00:02:27.400 --> 00:02:28.400 Do I have a second? 00:02:28.400 --> 00:02:29.400 Yeah. 00:02:29.400 --> 00:02:30.400 All right. 00:02:30.400 --> 00:02:31.400 So Sharla made the motion. 00:02:31.400 --> 00:02:32.400 Annetta seconded it. 00:02:32.400 --> 00:02:34.680 And I'll go through and do a vote. 00:02:34.680 --> 00:02:35.680 So Dawn? 00:02:35.680 --> 00:02:36.680 Aye. 00:02:36.680 --> 00:02:37.680 Yes. 00:02:37.680 --> 00:02:39.520 Me, I say aye. 00:02:39.520 --> 00:02:40.520 Dustin? 00:02:40.520 --> 00:02:41.520 Aye. 00:02:41.520 --> 00:02:42.520 Annetta? 00:02:42.520 --> 00:02:43.520 Aye. 00:02:43.520 --> 00:02:44.520 Patricia? 00:02:44.520 --> 00:02:45.520 Aye. 00:02:45.520 --> 00:02:46.520 Sharla? 00:02:46.520 --> 00:02:47.520 Aye. 00:02:47.520 --> 00:02:48.520 And Andrea? 00:02:48.520 --> 00:02:49.520 Aye. 00:02:49.520 --> 00:02:53.400 I abstain since I was not part of the meeting. 00:02:53.400 --> 00:02:54.400 Okay. 00:02:54.400 --> 00:02:55.400 Thank you. 00:02:55.400 --> 00:02:56.400 All right. 00:02:56.400 --> 00:02:57.400 So motion. 00:02:57.400 --> 00:02:58.400 Sorry. 00:02:58.400 --> 00:02:59.400 Yes. 00:02:59.400 --> 00:03:00.400 I'm going to have to break in. 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 00:03:03.760 --> 00:03:04.760 conflict of interest. 00:03:04.760 --> 00:03:05.760 Just not being there at the last one. 00:03:05.760 --> 00:03:08.360 And this came up the last time we had a changeover too. 00:03:08.360 --> 00:03:12.240 But if there's no changes, you can -- you can vote along with them. 00:03:12.240 --> 00:03:13.240 Sorry. 00:03:13.240 --> 00:03:14.240 All right. 00:03:14.240 --> 00:03:15.240 Thanks, Trey. 00:03:15.240 --> 00:03:16.240 Okay. 00:03:16.240 --> 00:03:22.680 Oh, and welcome -- I guess welcome to the meeting, Andrea. 00:03:22.680 --> 00:03:24.600 And welcome to the board. 00:03:24.600 --> 00:03:30.360 So item B, receive a report, hold a discussion, and take necessary action regarding potential 00:03:30.360 --> 00:03:38.000 recommendations to amend the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics. 00:03:38.000 --> 00:03:39.000 Okay. 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, 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 00:03:51.080 --> 00:03:57.920 go over the minor adjustments under one? 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 00:04:04.720 --> 00:04:09.120 to explain the minor adjustments in the agenda packet so that you could understand what I 00:04:09.120 --> 00:04:10.120 was trying to do. 00:04:10.120 --> 00:04:13.600 So I can answer questions, or I could walk through them. 00:04:13.600 --> 00:04:17.880 I don't know what's -- if you want to take them one at a time. 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 00:04:21.920 --> 00:04:22.920 adjustments. 00:04:22.920 --> 00:04:23.920 Okay. 00:04:23.920 --> 00:04:25.680 And then we can -- if we have questions, maybe we can take them as we go. 00:04:25.680 --> 00:04:26.680 Sure. 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 00:04:33.000 --> 00:04:40.520 very minor adjustment that we noted when we were looking at the ethics complaint form. 00:04:40.520 --> 00:04:50.280 It said -- originally, it said under -- in Section 2-279 complaints, Section A, it said 00:04:50.280 --> 00:04:56.000 any person who had firsthand knowledge that there has been a violation of Sections 2-272 00:04:56.000 --> 00:04:57.560 and 2-273. 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 00:05:03.800 --> 00:05:04.800 in the ordinance. 00:05:04.800 --> 00:05:06.320 So it's just a minor cleanup item. 00:05:06.320 --> 00:05:08.920 So any questions about that one? 00:05:08.920 --> 00:05:09.920 Great. 00:05:09.920 --> 00:05:10.920 Okay. 00:05:10.920 --> 00:05:14.580 So it seems like we're good. 00:05:14.580 --> 00:05:19.080 Nobody has any concerns about making that adjustment. 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 00:05:23.800 --> 00:05:24.800 end. 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, 00:05:31.000 --> 00:05:33.280 and then we'll take that kind of packet to city council. 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 00:05:38.680 --> 00:05:43.720 be in that packet that we take to city council. 00:05:43.720 --> 00:05:45.480 So okay. 00:05:45.480 --> 00:05:48.920 This one's good. 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. 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 00:06:05.200 --> 00:06:11.080 which section in the ethics ordinance, which prohibition they believe was violated as part 00:06:11.080 --> 00:06:15.960 of the checklist that we added to the complaint form. 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 00:06:27.200 --> 00:06:33.220 said the nature of the alleged violation, including whenever possible the specific provision 00:06:33.220 --> 00:06:37.320 of this article alleged to have been violated, so taking out that whenever possible basically 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. 00:06:46.040 --> 00:06:47.480 And I guess I'll jump in. 00:06:47.480 --> 00:06:52.180 I think everybody probably remembers, but in case they don't, and for our new member. 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 00:06:58.240 --> 00:06:59.560 what they're trying to say. 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 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, 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 00:07:15.880 --> 00:07:21.160 section, we have the ability to still move forward with the complaint if we see that 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. 00:07:26.200 --> 00:07:29.080 So go ahead with C, Madison. 00:07:29.080 --> 00:07:35.560 Do you want me to go ahead with C or get feedback on B? 00:07:35.560 --> 00:07:36.560 Oh, yeah. 00:07:36.560 --> 00:07:40.160 Feedback on B sounds good, if there is any. 00:07:40.160 --> 00:07:45.200 Does anybody have any comments or questions about B? 00:07:45.200 --> 00:07:50.520 No, but we're just deleting whenever possible. 00:07:50.520 --> 00:07:51.520 Is that correct? 00:07:51.520 --> 00:07:52.520 That's correct. 00:07:52.520 --> 00:07:53.520 All right. 00:07:53.520 --> 00:07:54.520 Okay. 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. 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 00:08:14.920 --> 00:08:23.840 sentence, but after the semicolon, it basically added however the panel may consider whether 00:08:23.840 --> 00:08:28.880 the actions alleged within the contents of the complaint are a violation of any provision 00:08:28.880 --> 00:08:35.680 of the ethics ordinance, regardless of a provision specified by the complainant. 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 00:08:40.900 --> 00:08:45.960 into the ethics complaint form that requires them to specify what provision they believe 00:08:45.960 --> 00:08:51.720 was violated, but this allows -- is supposed to allow the ethics board to, if they think 00:08:51.720 --> 00:08:57.440 that the complainant said, you know, check the wrong box to continue on with the ethics 00:08:57.440 --> 00:09:03.360 complaint under that provision that they believe is applicable. 00:09:03.360 --> 00:09:11.800 So any questions, feedback on that, or on the language or anything like that? 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 00:09:21.160 --> 00:09:28.000 one of the places that we are, we can put it in any way. 00:09:28.000 --> 00:09:31.560 I don't understand this, why it's coming up. 00:09:31.560 --> 00:09:36.720 Well, I think it was the last -- maybe it was the last preliminary hearing we had. 00:09:36.720 --> 00:09:42.880 It might have been the one before where they -- I think they specified one section, but 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 00:09:46.920 --> 00:09:49.200 fell under either section. 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 00:09:55.440 --> 00:10:00.840 ethics complaint and says it violates, you know, section A, but us knowing the ethics 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 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 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 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 00:10:25.720 --> 00:10:34.600 explained it -- Enough that I'm going to vote no on that. 00:10:34.600 --> 00:10:36.200 Okay. 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. 00:10:45.320 --> 00:10:52.040 I guess what are -- what is everybody else's thoughts on allowing us to -- allowing us 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 00:10:58.960 --> 00:11:02.820 going forward? 00:11:02.820 --> 00:11:10.520 I would say -- I would say that an ethics complaint that clearly falls under a certain 00:11:10.520 --> 00:11:14.600 section should not be dead in the water just because the complaintant did not know the 00:11:14.600 --> 00:11:20.640 ethics code well enough to reference the right -- the correct section. 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 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 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 00:11:38.080 --> 00:11:40.680 given -- like given a fact pattern. 00:11:40.680 --> 00:11:41.680 Yes. 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 00:11:49.080 --> 00:11:53.800 are -- what are the other thoughts from the rest of the board? 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 00:11:58.160 --> 00:12:05.360 our job to try to serve the citizens. 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 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 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 00:12:26.280 --> 00:12:30.600 we should have the latitude just to plug in whatever we want to plug in. 00:12:30.600 --> 00:12:38.240 Well, I think it would be considered at least administratively complete if they had checked 00:12:38.240 --> 00:12:44.520 a box that indicated which provision of the ordinance -- like many people just check conflict 00:12:44.520 --> 00:12:48.060 of interest even though there are several prohibitions in there including like gifts 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 00:12:57.160 --> 00:13:05.400 perspective it would be administratively complete. It's not within my authority to say, well, 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 00:13:10.000 --> 00:13:15.960 not supposed to be interpreting the ethics code in that manner. 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 00:13:19.960 --> 00:13:25.600 tell them -- I mean, from there -- from me, it goes to the preliminary assessment with 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 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 00:13:36.320 --> 00:13:45.180 we would move forward with it. But I mean, I think -- and then whatever the preliminary 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 00:13:48.800 --> 00:13:56.280 a hearing. Yes, Annetta? 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 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 00:14:08.080 --> 00:14:21.000 to interpret. So I do think having that flexibility would be in everyone's best interest. 00:14:21.000 --> 00:14:26.120 Other thoughts on that? Dustin and Sharla, do either of you have thoughts on this section? 00:14:26.120 --> 00:14:31.120 I don't have any problem with adding this in. This is in the preliminary assessment 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 00:14:38.920 --> 00:14:44.880 and rigorous for submission of complaints that those are going to get tossed out because 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 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 00:15:04.300 --> 00:15:11.080 to use this for the purpose that it was written. Yeah, I agree. 00:15:11.080 --> 00:15:17.480 I do too. Okay. So I guess if we come to a vote, maybe 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. 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 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 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 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 00:15:44.720 --> 00:15:48.740 with that. We can certainly note that the direction 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 00:15:58.600 --> 00:16:03.420 something like that. Okay. Well, I guess I think the majority does 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 00:16:08.560 --> 00:16:13.040 D and see if there's more discussion on more of these items. 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 00:16:17.520 --> 00:16:24.360 out of that same preliminary hearing I mentioned earlier where in the complaint the complainant 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 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 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? 00:16:40.520 --> 00:16:45.560 So that's where D came from, and I'll let you discuss it. 00:16:45.560 --> 00:16:51.440 Yeah. So like Laura said, it came kind of from that situation, and the board discussed 00:16:51.440 --> 00:16:57.440 it at a previous meeting, and the direction, as I understood it, was anything that was 00:16:57.440 --> 00:17:02.320 submitted with the complaint, including linked videos or things, should be able to be reviewed 00:17:02.320 --> 00:17:09.240 by the preliminary assessment panel as part of their preliminary assessment to determine 00:17:09.240 --> 00:17:14.680 if the complaint was actually a violation on its face, right, before we look at any 00:17:14.680 --> 00:17:19.760 -- before we necessarily look at the facts and determine if they're true, if we assume 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 00:17:25.240 --> 00:17:30.520 it is a violation. So basically it added to that kind of same 00:17:30.520 --> 00:17:37.480 section in the rules of procedure under basis in preliminary assessments that panel's review 00:17:37.480 --> 00:17:43.040 is limited to the contents of the complaint, whereas the contents of the complaint include 00:17:43.040 --> 00:17:47.920 all additional documents, hyperlinks, video, and audio submitted along with the original 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 00:17:56.200 --> 00:18:00.240 trying to capture that direction that I received from the board at that time. 00:18:00.240 --> 00:18:07.840 >> All right. Is there any discussion on adding that clause that we can use hyperlinks, video, 00:18:07.840 --> 00:18:14.760 and audio submitted along with the complaint? Okay. I'm not seeing anybody jumping up. So 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 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 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 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 00:18:43.680 --> 00:18:48.240 for when a complaint hearing must be held was never actually -- was not actually in 00:18:48.240 --> 00:18:53.120 the ordinance. It wasn't specified there. It was only really specified in the ethics 00:18:53.120 --> 00:19:01.960 training that all city officials are required to take. So this is just to correct that. 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 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 00:19:16.240 --> 00:19:22.000 at -- that's why I proposed it as part of this section, basically. 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 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 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 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. 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 00:19:53.120 --> 00:19:58.240 and whether a respondent can request it be submitted for frivolity. I'm going to skip 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 00:20:01.880 --> 00:20:06.520 a lot more discussion. So let's skip to three on the agenda information 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. 00:20:12.160 --> 00:20:16.960 I think that's another -- yeah, I think that's another thing that you added, Madison. 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 00:20:23.360 --> 00:20:30.040 the discussions we had to basically prohibit any board member who had submitted an ethics 00:20:30.040 --> 00:20:36.480 complaint against a city official from participating on a preliminary assessment for that same 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 00:20:43.280 --> 00:20:50.400 to the ordinance and to the rules of procedure trying to reflect that prohibition. 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, 00:21:02.480 --> 00:21:07.680 and the new language just notes board members who have previously submitted an ethics complaint 00:21:07.680 --> 00:21:12.080 against the respondent in a preliminary assessment shall not be assigned to the panel. 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 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 00:21:23.000 --> 00:21:30.160 you had a majority of board of ethics members who have complained about a city councilperson 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 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 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 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, 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 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 00:21:58.120 --> 00:22:07.160 a problem ever. Does anybody have any thoughts about that? 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 00:22:12.720 --> 00:22:21.200 it never happens. Maybe -- unless anybody objects to it, maybe 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 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 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 00:22:36.920 --> 00:22:40.640 like a plan. If anybody objects to that or has other ideas? 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 00:22:47.520 --> 00:22:54.880 violate the advisory opinion we gave. That's where we would have at least three people 00:22:54.880 --> 00:23:02.200 that were against the particular individual that violated the advisory opinion. Would 00:23:02.200 --> 00:23:08.400 that affect this? I think -- so I think what we discussed is 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 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 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 00:23:30.560 --> 00:23:36.760 panel if they violate that advisory panel. Because I don't know, unless anybody disagrees, 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 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 00:23:44.400 --> 00:23:49.000 you in direct conflict with that person. You gave an advisory opinion. Maybe they didn't 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 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 00:24:00.660 --> 00:24:07.440 everybody else thinks. Yeah, I don't know. I just put it out, you 00:24:07.440 --> 00:24:13.440 know, what do we do then? Yeah, it sounds like if we did that, we would 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 00:24:17.960 --> 00:24:27.640 on the panel if a second complaint was entered. Yeah, that's a good point. 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 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 00:24:36.880 --> 00:24:41.720 submitted ethics complaints against a city official and not -- and it wouldn't really 00:24:41.720 --> 00:24:47.520 matter what had happened with advisory opinions would be -- but obviously at that point the 00:24:47.520 --> 00:24:54.200 chair really has discretion to do what they would like unless there's a prohibition against 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 00:26:07.880 --> 00:26:12.440 So should the respondent be able to -- two is should the respondent be able to request 00:26:12.440 --> 00:26:19.840 the board consider if a submitted ethics complaint is frivolous? And Madison did some work at 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 00:26:24.920 --> 00:26:27.800 she did for us and then we can come back to a discussion. 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 00:26:34.320 --> 00:26:40.800 remove those municipalities that didn't have any ordinances and kind of there were two 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 00:26:46.640 --> 00:26:52.040 cities who even had a process to consider if a submitted complaint was frivolous, obviously 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 00:26:57.400 --> 00:27:03.600 and they both used what they called an order to show cause process which essentially the 00:27:03.600 --> 00:27:09.560 board has done an assessment and thinks that the complaint might be frivolous and orders 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 00:27:16.120 --> 00:27:22.680 response. They both have slightly different processes for that -- processes for that which 00:27:22.680 --> 00:27:30.000 is why I included their ordinances. And then Dallas' process allows the respondent 00:27:30.000 --> 00:27:37.080 to submit basically a sworn response as part of that process that I guess would basically 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 00:27:44.120 --> 00:27:50.360 the other ordinances and then the other was at what point in the ethics complaint process 00:27:50.360 --> 00:27:56.720 of other cities is the respondent allowed to basically present their case. 00:27:56.720 --> 00:28:04.080 So there were three cities, San Antonio, Dallas and Richardson that allowed the respondent 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 00:28:09.680 --> 00:28:15.560 the complainant comes, they submit their ethics complaint. It's determined that it's administratively 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 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 00:28:27.560 --> 00:28:37.280 of a process. Four cities allowed the respondent to present a response basically at the hearing. 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 00:28:41.820 --> 00:28:49.000 their case and they can have evidence that they present as part of that process. And 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, 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 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 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 00:29:11.520 --> 00:29:15.400 about as well as I can about the other cities ordinances. 00:29:15.400 --> 00:29:25.520 Okay. So and she provided Dallas and San Antonio. Hopefully everybody kind of looked over those. 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 00:29:32.080 --> 00:29:37.160 first thought is, is every respondent just going to tell us this is frivolous because 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. 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 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 00:29:54.080 --> 00:29:58.700 having the hearing at the preliminary hearing if you're letting the respondent send a bunch 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 00:30:04.200 --> 00:30:08.000 board together and have a hearing right away. That's why we have the preliminary hearing 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 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 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. 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 00:30:29.320 --> 00:30:38.700 has to say. 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 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 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 00:31:04.120 --> 00:31:12.640 everybody would be doing that. So I think that's an interesting thing to explore. 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 00:31:19.920 --> 00:31:25.480 compare it to our processes. At the preliminary assessment, if the panel was like, this appears 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 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 00:31:34.960 --> 00:31:42.680 telling us why this isn't frivolous basically. So just to clarify, that's, yeah. 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, 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 00:31:56.040 --> 00:32:02.760 unanimously dismiss the complaint, which I think is a good thing to have. That way that 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 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 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 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 00:32:24.620 --> 00:32:30.320 in Denton, the panel can recommend that the preliminary assessment panel can recommend 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, 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. 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 00:32:53.000 --> 00:32:59.960 show cause because we had talked about whether the respondent should be able to request for 00:32:59.960 --> 00:33:03.280 the preliminary hearing. I guess if there is an actual hearing, the respondent will 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 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 00:33:13.840 --> 00:33:18.200 should consider this frivolous? I mean, I was thinking like they could do like a sworn 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. 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 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 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 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 00:33:43.720 --> 00:33:48.860 writing because it gives more information and anything that gives more information I 00:33:48.860 --> 00:34:08.320 think helps the panel. What do others think about that? I like the respondent being able 00:34:08.320 --> 00:34:15.520 to say that. I also really liked the idea of the preliminary thing being unanimous and 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 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, 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 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 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, 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, 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 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 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, 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. 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 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 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 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 00:35:37.480 --> 00:35:43.480 on there for the preliminary assessment panel to consider whether or not the complainants 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 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 00:35:54.520 --> 00:36:00.440 up to the preliminary assessment panel to determine if the complaint is frivolous. They 00:36:00.440 --> 00:36:07.600 would recommend an evidentiary hearing to determine that. So it's not really, I mean, 00:36:07.600 --> 00:36:14.280 I understand the idea of changing that so that it has to be a unanimous recommendation 00:36:14.280 --> 00:36:21.800 from the preliminary assessment panel to have a hearing to determine if it is frivolous. 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 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 00:36:38.880 --> 00:36:46.000 would be doing would be creating another step in the process that would be the respondent 00:36:46.000 --> 00:36:57.480 either turning in some affidavit or whatever, however we would write that process. They 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 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 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 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 00:37:23.920 --> 00:37:31.200 the way the process is drawn up now, we already consider that in the preliminary assessment 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. 00:37:38.720 --> 00:37:45.760 So Annetta? I think maybe the time for the respondent to request that it be considered 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 00:37:54.280 --> 00:38:00.520 was there for people who want to file things, maybe for political reasons, they would have 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 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 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... 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 00:38:31.600 --> 00:38:39.160 clarifying my understanding as a new member here and still learning. So if I understand 00:38:39.160 --> 00:38:48.000 Dustin correctly, there would be a three member panel that will decide whether a complaint 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 00:38:53.200 --> 00:38:59.680 should be explored, if this is a frivolous complaint, then it goes to an actual hearing 00:38:59.680 --> 00:39:05.240 where there is actually evidence provided and the full board will consider whether it 00:39:05.240 --> 00:39:11.480 is frivolous or not. So at the preliminary hearing, you decide whether it's actionable 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 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. 00:39:23.760 --> 00:39:32.120 Is that correct? Yes. So at the preliminary assessment, the panel can recommend that there 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, 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 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 00:39:47.760 --> 00:39:53.160 frivolous, even though the panel... Yeah. At the hearing, if a complaint moved forward 00:39:53.160 --> 00:40:01.560 to a hearing, because it was actionable, after hearing both sides' argument during the hearing, 00:40:01.560 --> 00:40:08.320 the board could then vote that it was frivolous is my understanding, if they believe that 00:40:08.320 --> 00:40:17.400 to be true. So circling... Oh, go ahead. So because I was looking, just going through 00:40:17.400 --> 00:40:24.880 the training, the online training. So at that point, if something is... If at that point, 00:40:24.880 --> 00:40:30.500 a complaint is considered frivolous, then there is a question if it's slanderous or 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 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 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 00:40:51.680 --> 00:40:58.640 anything from this board. Right. So the board could rule it was frivolous. I believe there 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 00:41:04.520 --> 00:41:10.960 perhaps to the complainant who submitted what had then been decided to be frivolous. There 00:41:10.960 --> 00:41:17.080 are potential civil or actual legal penalties, but that's not something that the board would 00:41:17.080 --> 00:41:23.880 pursue. Those outside of the board. Yes. Okay. However, the determination, if a complaint 00:41:23.880 --> 00:41:31.880 is frivolous, there is already a process in place to have a hearing where a respondent 00:41:31.880 --> 00:41:39.560 would have an opportunity to provide evidence, correct? Yes, that's correct. On that basis, 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 00:41:47.160 --> 00:41:54.960 from a respondent during the three-member panel. There's no testimony from either the 00:41:54.960 --> 00:42:00.080 respondent or the complainant during that panel. It's only the written word that we're 00:42:00.080 --> 00:42:08.000 reviewing. Right. Okay. So the written statement. But again, there is a duplication of the process, 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 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. 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 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, 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 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. 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 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 00:43:04.640 --> 00:43:11.360 a full panel, too, and an appeal. But anyway, it was obviously not an actionable complaint, 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 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 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 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 00:43:33.640 --> 00:43:38.080 strong opinion where we should be able to have the respondent somehow communicate with 00:43:38.080 --> 00:43:43.400 the board that they think that it's frivolous before the preliminary hearing? Because after 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 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. 00:43:55.920 --> 00:44:07.240 I think the respondent should absolutely have that opportunity. 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, 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 00:44:25.120 --> 00:44:30.760 written statement that would be taken into consideration. I don't think there's any harm 00:44:30.760 --> 00:44:35.080 in allowing that. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:45:28.360 --> 00:45:34.140 necessarily need an extra affidavit or information to the preliminary board. I think Anneta and 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 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 00:45:44.960 --> 00:45:45.960 today, Dustin? 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 00:45:53.280 --> 00:45:59.840 panel is going to consider whether or not a complaint is frivolous, they can consider 00:45:59.840 --> 00:46:06.200 information not concurrently submitted as part of the complaint. So I think that provision 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 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 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 00:46:21.200 --> 00:46:22.200 consider. 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. 00:46:29.880 --> 00:46:33.800 No extraneous information may be considered unless the panel wishes to review the information 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 00:46:38.400 --> 00:46:43.880 with the making of a recommendation that a hearing be first held on accepted complaint 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 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. 00:46:52.760 --> 00:47:02.600 I'll just add the ordinance prohibits ex parte communication. So the respondent currently 00:47:02.600 --> 00:47:09.760 is not allowed to send any additional extraneous information to the board or otherwise, I mean, 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 00:47:17.000 --> 00:47:22.820 not really allowed currently. 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 00:47:29.080 --> 00:47:33.120 keep discussing and have me hand it off to Sharla? 00:47:33.120 --> 00:47:38.760 Could we kind of see where everybody sits on it? 00:47:38.760 --> 00:47:46.560 Yeah, okay. Don, do you have an opinion of whether we let the respondent request that 00:47:46.560 --> 00:47:52.920 the preliminary panel decide if a complaint is frivolous? 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 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, 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 00:48:16.800 --> 00:48:19.200 our first mistake on this. 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 00:48:24.680 --> 00:48:29.640 we should do that. I think Annetta does think the respondent should be able to respond. 00:48:29.640 --> 00:48:30.640 Patricia? 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 00:48:37.840 --> 00:48:40.960 they think the complaint is. 00:48:40.960 --> 00:48:42.800 Right now, no, there's not. 00:48:42.800 --> 00:48:44.560 Do you want them to say anything? 00:48:44.560 --> 00:48:47.080 Well, at the hearing. 00:48:47.080 --> 00:48:48.080 The complainant. 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 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 00:48:56.560 --> 00:49:03.520 or do y'all want to just come back to this next meeting? 00:49:03.520 --> 00:49:08.200 Again as a new member, I would like additional time to actually look at those provisions 00:49:08.200 --> 00:49:10.440 and familiarize myself with it. 00:49:10.440 --> 00:49:13.680 As in end the meeting and look at it more? 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:49:51.160 --> 00:49:54.960 about it in there, Madison. And if people have other thoughts of what they want her 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 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 00:50:08.400 --> 00:50:15.320 a session and give staff direction regarding future meeting topics. We'll revisit number 00:50:15.320 --> 00:50:20.880 three, the language like we talked about. We'll revisit the considering things frivolous 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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? 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 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 00:51:16.680 --> 00:51:23.000 the, there are other boards that, that have meetings on the last Thursday of the month. 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 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 00:51:35.280 --> 00:51:39.720 just wanted to say, yes, if you have anything else you would like, any other additional 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 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 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 00:51:55.840 --> 00:52:01.000 we can, next meeting everyone can be on zoom. And then after September, I think everybody 00:52:01.000 --> 00:52:07.320 might have to be in person again. The rules have been changing, changing, I think, or 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 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 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 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. 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, 00:52:33.500 --> 00:52:37.840 we came to some conclusions and we realized frivolous will be a lot more discussions and 00:52:37.840 --> 00:52:45.200 thank you for coming today. Meetings adjourned, I guess. Thanks. 354, it's adjourned, I guess.