Dec 19, 2017 City Council on 2017-12-19 1:00 PM

All right, welcome everyone to this meeting of the Denton City Council on Tuesday, December the 19th, 2017. It is 1.02 p.m. We do have a quorum and call this meeting to order. Our first item on the agenda is citizen comments on ethics related work session report items. And these comments are limited to three minutes. And you had to fill out a blue card prior to the agenda item being called. And we do have a blue card here. Deb, oh, I'm sorry. Yes, I'm sorry. We had the discussion of whether or not to move this to after the presentation so that the comments that are made were more relative to the presentation and our discussion during that time period so that it's -- and the person who filled out the blue card may wish to do it now, but just to give them the option of waiting until after the discussion. I think there's a couple things we need to address on that because there's no limitation. There's no -- I mean, no parameters. I mean, not saying we need to have limitations. There's some things we probably need to discuss at the end of the presentation. But since it's posted on the agenda item -- on the agenda today, unless the speaker would rather wait until the end. Okay. Let's just go ahead and have it now. And we've only got one card anyway, so. All right. Deb Armitage, just come down, state your name and address, and your time will begin. I think it's -- is it three minutes, I believe is what it is? Yes. Okay. Deb Armitage, 2003, Mistywood Lane, from Denton, Texas. Thank you, first of all. I'm thrilled that we're finally making an ethics ordinance. A number of recommendations. One, I think it's important that there be a citizens committee evaluating cases of ethics, much like a jury system, I think, as a government of the people, by the people, for the people. We should have citizens as the committee instead of self- policing. Number two, maximum accountability that's not within the -- what we can do as a municipality. Number three, I would recommend zero dollars conflict of interest should be the acceptable amount. I don't think $500 of conflict or $100 is -- or $1,000 is okay. I can't imagine trying to explain that to a child, why $500 worth of conflict of interest is okay, but $500 and one is too much. That's kind of my test for what is sensible or not, as far as ethics goes. Number four, whistleblower protections, something really important. We do have, of course, statewide whistleblower protections, but we need to not only raise the bar on that, but just make it easier. We've had some cases in the city that some of you know about where in the past whistleblowers weren't protected. I think that they would be now under the new administration and council, but staff and council change, and I think it's good to have that run into the ordinance. And finally, I think it's important that the ethics ordinance cover boards and commissions as well as staff and council. And that's all. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. We'll go ahead now and go on to agenda item two, which are work session reports, work session two -- oh, yes, I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> I have a question, because there's not any concluding items on this agenda. Was that intentional or -- >> I'm not aware -- no. I don't think it was intentional. >> Does that mean that we cannot have concluding items since it wasn't posted? >> At least on this one. We'll make sure that in the ones moving forward that there are. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Sorry. Okay. Agenda item two, work session reports, receive report, hold discussion, give staff direction regarding the development of an ethics ordinance, including but not limited to, discussion of applicability, policy statement, et cetera. We'll go ahead. And I think we talked about this or there's been some discussion about probably could get through at least this portion in a couple hours or so. I mean, obviously that's not a hard, fast rule. I mean, I'm not saying we got two hours and that's it. But let's just make sure that, you know, we stay on track and efficient at that. So we'll turn it over to Alan. >> Mayor, council, Alan Borquez. And we're here for our second meeting. If you recall, the first meeting was training. That was your orientation to the topic of ethics, what constitutes ethics, what do we look at in terms of values, principles, prohibitions. You also went through training on the basics of state law and what Texas statutes there are that govern the conduct of city officials. And then we discussed the highlights, the most common attributes of most municipal codes of ethics. And so we went through that last time. It was primarily me lecturing to you. This time and from this part forward is going to be very different. It's more interactive. It's me guiding you through the process of drafting your code from scratch and you giving me feedback, some consensus points, some marching orders on what you would like me to do in preparing for the next meeting. So in your agenda packets was a worksheet designed for you following the exact same flow of our last presentation where we will provide each meeting a handful of items for you to consider and focus on. And then at our next meeting, it'll be five or six new items plus a report on what we did this time. And hopefully that flow, that process will get you through this endeavor. So the PowerPoint that we have follows the worksheet. I know some of you put a great deal of effort into answering questions prior to this afternoon's meeting. Some of you are probably looking forward to just having that discussion here today and making your thoughts known. So we can go ahead and get started with the very first issue. There's the six items we're going to try to cover. I told the mayor that I'm prepared to get through it in a two hour time period that I was allotted, but we can take longer than that if the council needs to. So the first one is what is this code going to apply to? It would be easy for the council to say it's going to apply to the city council. I have seen those sorts of rules where you are adopting requirements and restrictions that apply to yourselves or you may choose to go beyond that. And in your worksheet, I've included some samples. These are just examples. These are not recommendations. You did not want me to present to you a form code that you could respond to. So instead, I just took samplings from different cities showing you some different perspectives. And I'm giving you a list of possibilities and you can choose from among these. And as we mentioned last time, you may make a decision at some point in this process that you want to go with a certain size of code with a certain scope with the option of coming back later and expanding that scope as you get some experience with it. So at some point, you're going to feel some tension between comprehensive omnibus code that covers everything for everyone and the countervailing pressures to get something done in a reasonable amount of time that you think is appropriate for your citizenry. But the first question is who is this going to apply to? And if there's consensus on that, then we can move forward. If there's debate, then let's have it. >> Okay. >> Mayor? >> All right. Floor is open. Councilmember Briggs. >> I'm in favor of mayor and council, staff, and boards and commissions. >> Okay. All right. Anybody else? And I want to give the city manager an opportunity at some point on this topic to talk about just the perspective of employees and staff and just because I don't think you've had an opportunity to share what your thoughts are on that. But any -- yes, Councilmember Ryan? >> I've got a question on volunteers, how that varies. Are we looking at the ad hoc committees that are not a standing committee? Is that what that area is talking about? Like the City Hall West committee, is that considered a volunteer or is that considered -- >> Board or commission? >> Board or commission. >> I'm going to leap it up to the expert here at the podium . >> And I will as skillfully as possible deflect and redirect right back onto you. >> You know, what I've seen some cities do in drawing that line is if the city council appoints a board or commission and it's a standing group, then they're covered by the ethics ordinance. If it's ad hoc, it meets for a few months and goes away, it 's not covered. If it's just volunteers who are the city's volunteers for the 4th of July parade, but after that event they disband and go away, they're not subject to the ethics code. That makes sense to me. You need to draw the line somewhere. The question up front is where do you want to draw that line? >> Good question. Do you have a comment on that? >> Yeah. And based on that, I think I'm in favor of the code covering the mayor, the council, candidates and anyone who the council appoints to whether it's one of the council hires, the four hires that we have or a board commission or ad hoc committee that any of those should be covered by it. And as far as other city employees, I think that's something that our city manager needs to look at how these same things are incorporated into the HR manual. >> Okay. So let me make sure I understand that. You're saying mayor and council, council appointees. >> Yes. >> Council appointees. >> Appointees and volunteers. >> I'm sorry. Appointees. It's the ones that we hire. >> Right. >> And then boards and commissions and candidates. But then somehow we got to figure out how to draw a line between the -- you're saying if you're appointed by the council for a committee or you 're paid by the council, is that what you said? >> Well, what I'm saying is the council, the city manager, city attorney, city auditor. >> Right. >> All of those and any committee that we appoint someone to, whether that's a standing committee or an ad hoc committee, it all should fall into that same thing. If you put somebody on an ad hoc committee who has a financial interest in whatever they are investigating or looking at, then -- >> Okay. >> All right. Okay. >> I saw some hands over here. We're going to just sort of -- yeah. >> Yeah. You know, I think you said exactly where I was going. And as far as employees, I think that we need to leave that to the city manager. I don't see us getting involved with this, with the people that he is controlling. Of course, the department heads, that may be another story. >> Okay. Mayor Pro Tem? >> So I guess I'll have a couple of questions. For instance, if -- let's say that we go to a zero-dollar conflict of interest. >> Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. >> And that applies to the mayor, council, and our committees, for example. >> Oh, you need your mic on. >> Oh, right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Billy. >> Sorry about that. I have questions. Let's say that we go to a zero-dollar financial bar for conflict of interest that applies to mayor and council and boards and committees, but it doesn't apply to any of the employees and it doesn't apply, for instance, to vendors. Does that mean that a department head could potentially have a financial or pecuniary interest in, for instance, a contract that they're presenting to the council and that doesn't represent a conflict of interest? >> I think that's got potential. One thing I would suggest in my role of identifying alternatives is it may be the case that the city council adopts a rule of ethics and it covers a certain scope of people like we just listed and employees and department heads that are not appointed by the council are excluded from that ethics ordinance. It may be that the next part of the process is for personnel policies to be adopted that have a similar set of rules with a similar set of standards that apply to those non-council appointees, but instead of the ultimate arbitrary of whether someone complied or not being an ethics board, an outside group, it's the city manager's department. That's an alternative you may want to think of. >> Question for you then. So let's say that we have a really broadly applicable ethics ordinance, but the enforcement of it is bifurcated so that for a city council and mayor, that's through the citizen board or however we do it and then for employees, that's strictly the purview of the manager, whoever is the person that's in charge of those employees. Is that something that's feasible? >> It is. If you chose to have one comprehensive ordinance that covered everyone, that would be my recommendation is to leave any ultimate findings or any disciplinary action regarding employees, specifically leave that up to the city manager. >> I mean, I feel like we have to because of the charter. >> Because the form of government you have being a city manager for the government, that would be my recommendation. There are cities that don't do that, but I think that that action does put the ethics board in conflict with the charter. >> So I guess my main concern when I kind of set out on this voyage for the ethics ordinance, I really saw it as kind of a mayor council situation, but as I've been here, what I've seen is that unfortunately, you know, sometimes there's improper contact between vendors and employees. I understand that there's a real sense of urgency with respect to addressing that, but because we have an absence of any type of jurisprudence that would have meaning as far as avoiding a contract or saying, look, this isn't how we do business at City Hall in the Texas Purchasing Act, I view this as a way to rein in that contact between employees and vendors where the Texas Purchasing Act falls short. So that's where I'm at is that it would apply to employees and vendors, but that it would go towards the enforcement part of it would be outside of the same, you know, it would be managerial enforcement or in-house enforcement as opposed to the people who enforce our rules. So that's where I'm at. >> So let me -- if I could ask you a question. So are you saying that -- because I think what Alan presented was sometimes people will have the ethics ordinance that covers people outside of -- I mean, other than the managers and departments having employees, and that there may be a mirror image of that ordinance within the personnel handbook that is then, you know, under the purview and jurisdiction of the city manager. You're saying that's not what you want. You would rather it be in a single ordinance with a bifur cation of the adjudication process, the complaint process -- >> The whole enforcement mechanism . >> Here it is. >> So you're saying if there's any complaint, if there's anything that arises, it doesn't fall under the enforcement mechanism for a mayor and council. It would fall under the enforcement -- the city manager would be the one that's in total charge of that or whoever. >> Yeah, and the reason -- yes, that's a correct characterization, and the reason for it is because, for instance, if the ethics ordinance or the personnel -- let's say we went to a personnel policy, that would apply to employees, but would the personnel policy really apply to vendors? You know, I don't see how we could bring vendors or contractors into this -- into our kind of framework of doing business with just the personnel policy. >> And that's my question because I think I'm going to struggle with including people outside of the city that's under any kind of city jurisdiction, whether it be personnel. I don't know how a vendor -- help me understand -- because a vendor, if they're coming, they have a self-interest. >> Right. >> They're here because of the self-interest. So I don't know how pragmatically that gets processed because they're going to have to make presentations, they're going to be involved in discussions. They're discussions that are within the law. I mean, if it's just submit an RFP -- so I'm not sure how we -- help me understand that. I'm not saying I'm totally against it, but I'm not sure how that really plays out in -- >> Well, for instance, if our vendors decide that they want to give gifts to our employees, that's not going to be -- the vendor is not going to be punished under the personnel policy. Their contract is not going to be voided under any Texas P urchasing Act if it's in the right time period. But we could potentially have an ordinance that captures that activity and says, no, that's not how we do business here. But I don't think it can happen without -- you know, in a personnel policy. The only way I could see it happening is through an ethics ordinance. But I could be wrong. >> So you're saying, let's say somebody wants to give a gift. And I think as far as elected officials, some of that's covered under state law. You can't give gifts under -- so if somebody tries to give a gift, let's say, obviously, if the employee takes it, then you're under the ethics policy, presumably, if we go the route that you're describing. >> The employee. >> The employee is. >> Yeah. >> The employee is. So I guess I'm okay to hearing more about that. But I'm going to be very curious to see what -- because I don't think that vendors will be -- I mean, if there's specific languages like what you said, a gift or something, that's pretty easy to put in. But to make them -- I don't know how that could be subject to the entire ordinance because they're already having a -- so it's going to have to be a very finite, limited set of rules, like you said. I mean, because you're talking about bribery. I mean, in essence, I mean, to some degree, that's what you 're saying. If you're saying you're giving something to get something. So I'm okay with that. I thought you meant, hey, everybody's subject to all of it. >> No, I see the vendors as a narrow scope of what's appropriate behavior for vendors dealing with the city that I don't think can be covered under personnel. But I'm open to that discussion as well. >> Okay. All right. >> And I think, Mayor and Council, what you're seeing is the very beginning of the complexity of drafting something like this. >> Of course. >> If you told me you wanted to cover vendors, and that's a selection you make, then what you're going to get are some options regarding, well, is it going to be in the ethics ordinance or is it going to be in your purchasing policy? What are you going to cover? Well, the gift things that the mayor brought up, that is an example of one thing to cover. Vendors are, I've seen cities with ethics ordinances that say if you are a vendor of the city and you are hired to represent somebody else in front of any board or commission of the city, you have to disclose that in a separate piece of paper. The classic example, an engineering firm. Because the thought is that if you're already the city's engineer for all these projects and now you're representing private parties in front of the city, there may be opportunities for trading on your relationships or your inside knowledge. There would be communications. If you are submitting an RFP to the city to get a contract to provide services, then maybe the rule says you're not allowed to contact any elected official or senior department head about that contract. What happens if they do? Are they disqualified for that contract? Are they disqualified for consideration for future contracts? Is that blacklisting going to be in effect for a year or two years? I mean, there are cities that have those kinds of rules. And so if you tell me you want to apply some sort of ethics code to vendors, then I've got some options I have to come back to you with, including is it going to be in your ethics code or is it going to be in some other purchasing rule or policy that you have administratively? So let me try to narrow this discussion down. So let's see if we can't come to a consensus of who we can -- who we agree to that this applies to with some of the other questions. So mayor and council. I'm not for that. I'm just kidding. Mayor and council. Boards and -- we'll just go with these labels for now. Members of boards and committees. Go ahead. >> I don't know yet. >> Okay. >> My initial reaction to that would be yes to the members of boards and committees that are quasi-judicial in nature, such as zoning board of adjustment and planning and zoning. I don't know for sure that it's going to be necessary for the parks and rec advisory committee or beautification committee. That may depend -- I certainly would consider changing my point of view based on what all the rules are. >> Right. That's the tough part. >> What concerns me is I want to be on the keep it beautiful board or parks board and now maybe I'm going to have to fill out the same financial disclosure statement of all of my financial dealings that -- and that's fine with me because mine is pretty short. But for folks for whom they don't make any of those decisions, they just give advice, it would seem to be possibly onerous on them and not do anything to substantially protect the interest of the city in the process. I'm not for -- I mean, I'm for any kind of rule that's going to clearly protect the interest of the city, but not just a rule just so we can have a really strict set of rules. So the same would go for volunteers. I would be all right with candidates. I would think that consultants and vendors, they can't give gifts if the staff doesn't receive them. So things like that and we can have some type of enforcement over staff and over the other folks but not necessarily the same kind of enforcement over vendors. So that's sort of where I am. >> And I think you make a good point and that is we're trying to decide who this applies to without even knowing what the rules are. And my hunch is as we go through this, we may begin to parse some of this out or the rules might be somebody might change their mind and say with all of this is going to apply, then I want to -- so I just want to keep that in mind and maybe -- I mean, maybe this is something -- I mean, I guess we can decide who it applies to and if there's contingencies or narrow scope, then we'll just have to cross that bridge as we come to it. But I get what you're saying about the judicial -- quasi- judicial. In other words, they have -- their decisions are legislative in nature and they carry the weight and there's appeals processes that are afforded through state law in that regard. And let's just put this -- I'm just going to put this out here. We certainly want to have an ethics ordinance that's strong . But we also need to be careful. Do we make it to where somebody goes, you know what, I'm just volunteering for the Traffic Safety Commission and I've got to fill out this financial disclosure form and I've got to be subject to this and I've got to remember all this and all that. We just have to understand that that may impact because I don't think we -- do we appoint the traffic safety? I guess we do, yeah. But it's not -- is it a judicial -- is that a quasi-jud icial -- no. It's not. It's just advisory only. So, I mean, as candidates and as sitting council members and mayors and I think quasi-judicial board members, we understand that this is what we signed up for. So I just say that -- not to say that we need to be careful , but let's make sure that we just keep that in. And I don't have a problem with the distinction that you stated, Dalton, because I would like to think there may be a different set of rules for me if it 's a quasi-judicial and if it's simply a volunteer board that is advisory in nature that the quasi-judicial boards or the legislative bodies such as the council have the final say in what happens. So yeah, you're right. I think you're hearing that there's probably a desire to -- depending on who it is, to have varying degrees depending on the position. So if we go back to the list, the ones that are certain, really, that we can all say we agree to without any reservation is mayor and council. The second one is board and commissions. Dalton has expressed sort of a -- he's made an observation about the distinction between the quasi-judicial committees and those that aren't. How do you all feel about his comments and what are your thoughts on that distinction, if any, or do you think it should just apply all the way across the board depending on the rules? I'm just trying to knock these out one at a time because we 're going to be -- we'll spend an hour on this. So boards and committees, do you think there should be a different set of rules for the quasi-judicial boarding committees that we have in our city that are afforded by state law and therefore the ones that aren't, we sort of parse out a narrow set of rules? I'm trying to look for feedback. Yes, councilmember? Yes, councilmember Hussbett. So I think your point is -- I think the point is well made and I think your point is well made as well, that we should -- I would be in favor of including them now but understanding as we go along they may drop out. I think that's -- but I think it's best to be more inclusive on the front end and then as we set the structure because, yes, I think that would be onerous on someone that doesn't have whatever influence they -- let's say they're trying to maximize their influence, it still stops short of permanent -- permanency or that sort of thing. So I think that's kind of -- because council would always get a shot at it. They need to drop out and you can narrow the rules for different subgroups. Exactly, yes. So initially in but understanding as we get into the structure the point is valid. All right. Yes, councilmember? Kayleigh, did you have something? Oh, well -- Yeah, because I think she -- yeah, sort of. Yeah, couldn't tell. I'm in agreement we should go ahead and include them now and then later on I think there's if we want to discuss separating out like different rules for different things later on as far as financial statements or not for each board or committee. We can do that on down the road but right now I think they should be included in the overall ordinance for sure. Councilmember? Yeah, I mean in agreement with that and as far as the financial statement that's something that council right now is required by state law so that might be something we add to one or two boards but not as a whole. All right. So -- oh, I'm sorry, Don. Yeah. Well, you know, I guess my concern is some of these boards, I mean, I don't think we need to put all this paperwork on those people, you know, and, you know, the ones that, you know, we need to have, you know, like the PUB, all of those , we need to have them included in there but in some of the others I don't think we need to do that. And so what I'm hearing is -- Mayor Pro Tem, I'm sorry, did you have -- So what I'm hearing is to make this inclusive on the front end and as we move forward either some may drop out totally or the rules may be -- there may be a subset of rules that don't apply or apply to these specific groups. So volunteers, have we -- volunteers, yes, Councilmember H ussbacher. I'm not to volunteers but when we get to candidates I have a comment. Okay, sure. Have we decided what a volunteer is? I think since volunteers are basically the ad hoc committees, they're still a committee -- That council appoints. That council appoints. As long as it's a council appointment, something we vote on , then they should be covered. And so is the inverse true that if it's a volunteer that is not appointed by the council, it should not apply? I'm seeing head shaking. Our first little line of distinction. Volunteers means people who are appointed by the council to serve in some -- at some capacity whether quasi-judicial or not. Okay. Consultants, vendors, I think we've talked about that, include them but they may drop out or they may be highly narrowed as far as the scope as you move forward. Candidates. Councilmember Hussbacher. Thank you. I've heard people say they include candidates but I don't know that I can get there. I think if you're talking about an existing council member that's running for reelection, they would be covered. I think when you're talking about someone that is truly a candidate, I don't know -- I just -- I'm hard pressed to understand a scenario where they do harm to the citizens. Okay. Go ahead and finish. Yeah. Yeah, no, that's it. I mean, I just don't -- I don't think you -- they're not under the -- their petition to be under the thumb of the citizens but they've not successfully done so. And so I think that then becomes a voter issue that, hey, if you don't think they're doing right things, then don't vote for them. Okay. But I'll listen and see where I'm missing it. Sure. Mayor Pro Tem. I was going to give you a scenario that might fit in the candidate category. So candidates have to fill out their personal financial statements and they make certain attestations that they swear to. Currently because those are state rules, there's not really a mechanism for us as a council to enforce that, as I understand it. However, if we had rules that mimic the state rules but they were ours, I think we would have the ability to say, actually, you're disqualified as a candidate because you lied on your forms or you did whatever and that would give us or whoever the governing body is some ability to disqualify people. The reason I think that's important is because the way Texas laws right now, getting a candidate disqualified for lying on their forms or lying on a personal financial statement is incredibly expensive, onerous, and it's almost impossible -- I mean, it involves lawsuits. There's not really a mechanism outside of that and I think most people wouldn't go through the effort and would probably just leave it up to voters. I think what we're trying to do is set a different message or set a higher bar than the way Texas does things. So that's a scenario I can think of as lying on forms, for instance, and there's not really any recourse in Texas for it, but there could be a recourse here for it. I'm sorry. No, go ahead. I'll say thank you for sticking with me so far because we 're still on the first slide, but there's a reason that this goes first. It shows the complexity of what you're going to have in front of you. In Texas, the qualifications to run for office are established by the legislature. They're listed in the election code. The courts have only acknowledged additional qualifications to run for office if those appear in a home rule city's charter. So what do you see in the ethics front? Well, if you have ethics codes that apply to candidates, then you can have ethics complaints that are actually filed and adjudicated against candidates for failure to disclose or sign violations or whatever extra things go on. Those don't prevent the candidate from being elected or taking their seat, but it creates more political drama, which some folks find beneficial to the process. Then there's the opposite side of the spectrum where you have a city that says, "Here's our ethics rules," and they apply pretty broadly, but there's a blackout period on filing or adjudicating ethics complaints during early voting and campaign cycles because we do not want our ethics process used as a political weapon. And so we're just going to say, if anything happens in this time period, you may file later, we may adjudicate later, but we're not going to do it within this time period because it's unfair or it creates too much drama during a campaign. So you have these kind of extremes that you're allowed to choose from. The only thing you can't choose is to disqualify someone for office because of your ethics ordinance unless that qualification appears in your charter . All right. I'm sure your city attorney will throw something at my head if I stray too far from his understanding of the law. So then that covers that issue. And I wouldn't be comfortable de-queuing someone. One, the window's not long enough because I don't know because it came up this last May. I mean, it was when you file, I mean, there was three weeks . I mean, it was no time where you had to have that on file, the objection to whatever was in that application. And again, I just, who researches that to a degree of certainty that we're denying someone their ability to run for public office and the blowback on that if you're wrong? I don't think that's, that water is too deep for us to stray into and it's too cumbersome to enforce. I mean, just think about it. It's all interpretation. So again, it's no secret in this past May, so you have someone that may or may not have a felony. Is it because they took a plea bargain and then they were on probation, probation violated? Does that trigger back to the original? I mean, it just, in a matter of weeks to figure all that out and to be responsible for it is daunting. I mean, I just don't, I don't think that's what it's, this is intended to do. Question. Let's say, for instance, let's say we did not include for discussion purposes, candidates and they get elected and there was a violation or somebody brought up a violation on the state because it seems like the example was a financial disclosure. That seems like that's pretty much the window. I mean, as far as making candidates subject to anything, it 's more of the financial disclosure part because if they have a vested interest, I mean, they 're not a council person yet. So are you able to go back and say, hey, as a candidate, you didn't violate it because you weren't subject to it. As a council member now, the filings that you made as a candidate are false. Is that, are you able to go back retroactively and look at that if they're not subject to it at the time? As you know, in your professional life, our country, our judicial system frowns on ex post facto laws. And so I would be advising you against having an ethics ordinance that reach backs to that regard. But you're right that the most common thing that's going to come up is going to be financial disclosures. There are others that are quasi financial, but one that I 've seen in practice is an ethics code that requires candidates to disclose any legal disputes in which they were a party adverse to the city within the last X number of years. Why? Well, okay, if someone is upset about being annexed and they get annexed and they run for city council, well, their opponents want everyone to know they're running for council to come back and do this. Well, you have the decision to make, is that an ethics thing or is that a campaign thing, a political thing to play out in that system? I think that a city's ethics ordinance requiring that type of disclosure is perfectly legit. The question is, is that the kind of thing you want to solicit and deal with? And you all have to answer those sorts of questions. Councilmember Bray's in the agenda. I think candidates should be covered for the financial disc losures because we can't really go back and look at it once they're elected, and that means that if somebody were looking at their disclosures and there were false statements on there, they were elected under false pretense, and then there's no recourse for that. And so for me -- When you say there's no recourse, help me understand, because we've heard that we can't disqualify them. So and we've got to decide, do we want to have it happen during -- or do we have this blackout period? What I don't want to do -- I mean, that's -- to me, that's also about campaigning. If somebody makes a false disclosure and somebody finds out about it, I can tell you right now the first thing that probably an opponent's going to do is point that out. So where does the campaign line end and their ethics -- and our ethics ordinance applying to them, where does that begin? I really struggle with that, quite honestly. Yeah. So I'm sorry. I just -- I'm trying to understand what you mean by rec ourse. There's no recourse. Well, just in general, for right now, anyway, for councils or anyone that falsifies financial documents, so I guess I'm just kind of going beyond a candidate when we're talking about personal financial statements at the moment. When you say going beyond a candidate, you mean now you're talking about sitting council members and -- Right. Okay. All right. Because I think there's recourse. I think what Mayor Pro Tem was saying is the recourse is only at the state level, and that's really insufficient from her perspective. Yes. And, yeah. But then I hear we can't remove them -- we can't disqualify them because it's a state thing. So this is our last one. I mean, it sounds like we've got some direction on all of them except this one. So Council Member Ryan. Oh, I'm sorry. Were you finished? I didn't know, did we come to an agreement upon -- on staff ? Oh, no. We've got to go back there. I missed that. I'm sorry. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. I'm sorry. Yeah. I'm sorry. Obviously, on candidates, not everything in the ethics ordinance is going to apply, but there are a couple of items, and one is part of our charter . We just recently changed talking about domicile, and that language was strengthened up, and how do you -- how do you enforce that right now? It's -- you'd have to wait until they're elected if they happen to get elected and they're -- it's not their domicile, then do you have something you can -- a mechanism to handle at that point, or do you even have a mechanism when they file if they falsify? They swear, "I live at such-and-such address," and that's not where they are. And also at the state level on felonies, if you -- if there 's obviously a record pulled up that you can pull up that shows a felony, and they swear that they haven't, I don't know that we currently have a mechanism to kick them -- to stop them from running at that point. That's not in our charter, is it? That's part of state law on the felony. So it's -- you would have to take it to the DA and have to be somebody else, and that goes back to what Councilmember McGarry was talking about, is to add those -- add them in the ethics ordinance to cover those types of items that we can, you know, handle them quicker, I guess, is the concern. Okay. Yes, Councilmember Duff. Well, you know, if a candidate, you know, makes false statements, okay, then how are you going to adjudicate that? You know, how are you going to prove that, okay, this is false, who's going to do that? And you know, I think that gets too complicated, and it's a very short period of time. We got a candidates -- sounds like -- what? I'm not even going to try to read the room. I know where Councilmember McGarry sits, for Mayor Pro Tem, to include candidates with maybe some really limited applicabilities, what I thought I heard. I think I'm in favor of including just about everybody and then filtering, just funneling as we go. Right. That's my preference. Okay. All right. Which I don't mind doing that now because I'm not going to try to figure out what's in it, but I will tell you, there's some on there that I have some pretty strong feelings about and it's just a matter of how does it get filtered down through the charcoal, so to speak, because -- anyway. So I want to give the city manager an opportunity to talk about -- you've heard the discussion and just share your thoughts about what you've heard regarding employees, managers, and department heads. And Council appointees. As far as the Council appointees, I completely agree with that. I actually agree with all the employees as well. I think it's just kind of a matter of -- and we're currently addressing that administratively through our procurement contract compliance mechanisms that we have in place and lessons learned over the last couple of years. But I think the main purpose with the employees is just people want to know what the rules are. What is a conflict of interest? What is an ethics violation? Because ethics on its own, it's hard to adjudicate. So I really like the idea of providing that template for them. And I think it's important for the trust of the public. I'm sort of indifferent in terms of being included and the employees being included in the same ordinance as everyone else, because what I have always done in every other city I've been the manager at is just had the City Council adopt a personnel manual provision with the identical language in it. So to me, it's really -- it would be the same -- we'd bring forth the same ordinance anyway. I do think the adjudication issue is the big deal in terms of making sure that the manager's office or designee are the ones responsible for investigating those ethics complaints, primarily for those context issues. I've seen employees get subjected to political vendettas. There's just a lot of reasons that I would prefer to have the enforcement mechanism, that of the manager's office or designee. But beyond that, I have complete support that the employees should be subject to the same ethics ordinance as the council and the mayor. >> Yeah. All right. Okay. Sounds good. All right. >> Covered that. We get to the next one. I know it's a little bit touchy-feely, but I do want us to cover it in this notion of having a policy statement up front and purpose statement. And it's maybe one of those things that while I'm challenging you to think of it at the front end, you may not actually give me specific direction or have consensus until toward the end. But being able to verbalize the goals and objectives of this policy, I think, is important. In part, because I think that's the part of the ordinance that should be discussed the most after it's adopted. The big picture things. The overarching policy that you're setting for the entire organization, particularly considering the consensus we just had in the previous section that it'll apply to everyone. And so you have some samples in your worksheet of some of the ways other cities have tried to verbalize their goals, their values, the purpose behind this. But if you had any specific thoughts up front, things that were more important to you than others, you certainly could share those with me. And I would take that and start rolling it into the ordinance, whether it's the big verbiage or getting specific about purposes. And is there going to be five? Is there going to be 15? Are you each going to submit them to me and I compile them and give them back to you for vetting? How do you want to go about the task of explaining to your people inside City Hall and outside City Hall why we're going through this exercise and what you hope to achieve? Okay. Yes, can I pretend? I like the examples that you gave us on our worksheets. Any of them would be good. Perhaps in some more specific direction, I could start crafting something to fit in light of what you tell me the rest of today using some of those examples as a starting point. Yeah, I like the example. Go ahead. Yeah. I like the sample language too and example two B for sure, public service is a public trust. I think that's public trust is really important to be put in there. Anybody else? Council Member Hussbett? I emailed my thoughts in. I'm assuming you have them. I have that. Thank you. Yeah, so those are my thoughts. Okay. Yeah, I mean as I read through some of these, I think you 've got the City of San Marcos has, I think, probably embodies the spirit of that is something I could agree with. I get a little when I see, but also to avoid the appearance of impropriety at all times, I get a little skittish of that because that is very subjective and to give an example, we had an issue coming up before the council that involved the major institution in this city that council member and myself were able to graduate from that fine institution and people thought that we should recuse ourselves because we had graduated and the issue was regarding that particular institution. So somebody could say that's an, so appearance, to avoid the appearance of, as Herbert said, appearance of impropriety at all times, I sure would like some kind of defining language around that because what is not an impropriety to me will be to somebody else and vice versa and it's very subjective and I don't want to be adjud icating a bunch of ethics complaints because of the subjectivity of an appearance of impropriety . I mean, if you're disclosing and all those kinds, if what I think is going to be in this ordinance which is what I think is going to be in it, there 's going to be enough that you're going to be subject to that if you follow those rules, you're probably not going to have an appearance. If you break those rules, it's probably going to be pretty clear. So I don't mind if that language is in there but I sure want to understand what that means, what those ramifications are because somebody could have said back then that there was, somebody could have filed an ethics complaint on me because I graduated from an institution that had an issue before the city. I totally disagree with that. So and there was not any state law to support that either. There's quite a bit of literature that's contrary to that sort of principle. The notion that appearance ethics is actually harmful to integrity because if that's what you're legislating is appearance, then you're taking your eye off the ball which is actual conduct and people will pat themselves on the back if they can outwardly look like they're following the rules and being good public servants when in reality, they're on the take. And so what I would recommend is that if city of Denton uses appearance of impropriety as a rule at all, that's a rule that we use in conversations or in teaching and orientation, trying to avoid the appearance of impropriety because sometimes it will result in negative public or PR feedback. I would recommend you avoid any attempt to adjudicate rules premised on the appearance of impropriety. Gotcha. Because I believe it is arbitrary. I believe it is too subjective and I would hate to be def aming someone or punishing someone based on a rule that couldn't be quantified in some regard. So I agree with you on that point. So yeah, I think you had a comment. Okay. Okay, yeah. All right. Gosh, we're moving right along. Until we hit this. I use the term oversight because I know that we got some feedback from the Charter Review Commission committee and I know there's been talk about having a board of some sort independent from the city council do some level of implementation of a code of ethics, but we kind of started at the high level question of getting the council to commit . Yes, you want someone to do that or no, you don't. There certainly are other cities that have ethical rules that are more aspirational in nature, principles that are encouraged, but there is no process and procedures for complaints, investigations, adjudication, punishment of some sort. So do we have consensus around the first question? Do we need oversight? Is that the question? Do we need oversight? Well, I think that's a resounding yes. So everyone hollers duh, move on to the next slide. So having answered that one, you have some choices. Do you want it to be a person at City Hall? Do you want it to be a person who's outside of City Hall? Do you want it to be a board, a commission, a committee of some sort? Or is there another option that you've contemplated that you want to explore? Because different cities do it different ways. Well, like what Mayor Pro Tem said earlier, for the staff through the employees allow the city manager to address those issues. But as far as for the rest of us, a board of ethics commission should be established. And I don't have an issue with that with a caveat. If it's to do some preliminary investigation and studying, but when it comes to adjudication, I think the Charter Review Committee had talked about a panel of either retired jurists or mediators or arbiters that do this all the time. And I'm really going to struggle with the whole issue of subpoena power for a board of ethics commission if there's not as a lawyer. And so maybe I'm biased in this regard. We have a whole system of jurisprudence to protect the rights of individuals. And there's a whole set of rules that surround the gathering of evidence, what's admissible and what's not. I'm not for giving a board of six people who don't have training in this regard, because when you talk about ruining people's reputation or defaming them, to say that you have the power to subpoena records and things such as that, I'm all for that given the right context. But when it comes to investigating it to that level and putting it into the hands of someone who's going to decide and make a ruling, I think we need to think really long and hard about that. So I'm okay with an ethics commission to take a little point, look at it on its face, do some preliminary investigation. You can probably do a lot without having to subpoena, without having to necessarily, I mean, you can call people to talk to them. But when you start talking about calling people in and cross-examining them or examining them, I just, I mean, again, I want to make sure that you talked about what's one of the overarching policies of this ethics ordinance. I want to make sure that it protects the integrity of the alleged accused with the same due process that has afforded anybody that moves into our court systems . I mean, we're obviously not going to do that because we're not going to reconstruct that. But to make sure that we're very aware of the power that is within that type of process. So I don't care if you want to have a board of ethics and what is their authority level, but depending on who is made up of, I'm going to really struggle with how do you adjudicate it? How do you gather evidence? At what level do you gather evidence? Because if you've never been subject to that, it's a gruel ing thing and it can be a very damaging thing and it could be false. Yes? Well, I feel like we could discuss that, all those details later on. But right now, I just want to go on record in saying that we have a council ethics committee and I don't think that works and that should not be where we go with this. Oh, of course not. Okay. Of course not. That's why we're here. Yes. No, no, no, no. I said I don't have a problem with a board of ethics given some parameters. I mean, obviously you want it to have a group of people who from different walks and different perspectives that can look at something on its face and go, okay, well, let's talk about this and let's, you know, if we need to call people in. But when you -- and maybe it's the subpoena stuff. When you start issuing a subpoena, which is I'm assuming -- some of you guys tell me, I'm not that involved, but if you issue a subpoena and it's not followed, there is a consequence for that legally. Is that correct? It is. I mean, it's the subpoena power, the ability to compel someone to show up somewhere they may not want to be, the power to compel someone to hand over documents they may not want to provide. And in the court system, you're right. Of course there's penalties, judicial penalties for those who don't cooperate. How much of that are we wanting this group to do? And it might depend on the next question, which is what are some of the roles you want these folks to play? And what roles you want them to play might decide what size group this is and how that group is comprised. But you know, certainly we can start with if it's the Board of Ethics or Ethics Commission or Ethics Review Commission or whatever title you all come up with, are they monitoring the implementation of an ordinance? Are they monitoring the conduct that's inside City Hall and all of your other city facilities? I mean, I'm not sure if this is a police force. Is it an educational body? Is it a judicial body? Or is it some combination of those? I've identified a few choices for you. Yes, Councilmember Hudson. Thank you. I think one of your last points resonates with me. I think it depends on who the body is made up of, right? So I think it starts there for me because I would share the same concerns, but for I kind of envision a body of only people that have practice in that area. Again, when we were talking about this earlier, I talked about mediators being the pool. I don't want to get further than three. I think three is a good number and I think some diversity criteria is more important to me. One, I think it's important that they have that experience, but two, I think diversity of experience or some level to kind of fold that in because there's just different ways that arise in arriving at a conclusion. But then also, I think those two go together. I think those two can go together, but I have a slightly diminished view of the effect of subpoenas because I deliver them all day, every day. You can ignore them and it becomes a question of someone wants to spend the money to bring you back to court enough times to enforce it, but it is not an immediate trigger like, "Hey, you didn't show up for this deposition, for this hearing, this, that, and you were going to lock you away forever." It's not that. It's absolutely not that. I think that overstates the subpoena issue, but it is still an issue. I just don't think it's this monstrous one trigger, boom, next thing you know. I think it's important for those that don't operate in the legal world, it takes forever, and especially in Texas. I'll use this example and I'll be done, but someone can owe you money in Texas and the kicker is getting it is daunting. It's one of those things where, "Hey, legally you're owed this money, but you'll never see it and you'll never make that person pay you." That's one of those things where it sounds like, "Oh, I have a judgment," and that sounds big bearish, but in reality in Texas, if you don't have it, if you don't have anything to lose, then it's not worth the papers written on. I think it's important for those that don't function in the legal world to understand there's dead beats and there's people that just aren't going to do it, and to force them to do it is very cost prohibitive most times. You're right in the reality of the judicial system that you 're operating in. If you're talking about you have a whatever, three, five, seven member body that issues these things, and that's all they're doing, and they have probably a budget. They have some level of resources that they can use to enforce that. I think you're going to see that there's going to be more of an inclination to move that forward because there's not going to be all these other distractions. When you're talking about debt, it's one thing to try to subpoena somebody that doesn't have anything. If you're saying, "Hey, we can investigate this. We've got to get your bank records for the last five years ," well, let's say you don't give them to them. Do you think that the ethics committee is just going to sit there and go, "Now, it depends what kind of enforcement mechanism we put in there. Depends what kind of teeth there are in there, and are they related to the complaint that has been ...?" There's just a lot of things. I just don't want it to be opened up to where now we can ... You know what I'm saying. It's all a measure of the level that it's at. As far as on here, you'd mentioned three people. We'll probably be coming to the number here. Is it on the later slide? Yes. Okay. Here's what, no matter whether it's three, or seven, or 10, or 12, here's some of the activities that he's asked. For me, the question becomes ... There's more of a general overarching question that we've had to do with our code enforcement, or community improvement services. Is it proactive, or is it complaint driven? We've vacillated on that. That's to me one of these questions here. Personally, I like to try to do things at an interval level , especially if they're brand new. Let's see how it works out of the bag. Let's start somewhere where the need really is. I don't know so much if we need to be so proactive as far as monitoring things, because I think there's a lot of people monitoring the situations out there . You hear about it all the time. I would like to either start out with it, "Hey, let's let them deal with complaints." We give them some conduct to monitor, and really define that, looking at financial statements, financial disclosures. We can hone that down, but obviously complaint driven, that 's the whole purpose, I think, at least. You want to make sure that if there's a complaint, somehow you adjudicate it. Then the question becomes, "Training, obviously, conducting training, evaluating disclosure forms," I think that's part of what you're saying. "Provide enforcement," I think we can talk about that. "Issue advisory opinions," I think that's going to really depend on who's on the board. I think that's because my understanding is if you issue an advisory opinion, if someone relies upon that, it's basically a get out of, not jail free card, but get out of an ethics complaint free card, because if they rely upon it, and it's been issued, it's done. It can be exactly that, and that's the last substantive segment for today, is covering advisory opinions. Okay, we'll move on to that. Who should issue those, and how much weight should you give them? Is everyone basically fine with this laundry list? We'll narrow it down as we go. Then we get to these other issues about how you comprise this board. One thing I'll throw out to you, if we're going to have this board, this commission on ethics, and it's going to function, as we get into the details in future sessions about the details of those functions, think about things like confidentiality, think about whether or not there's going to be some sort of pre-screen ing before complaints are acted upon, and we'll get to that much more detail on the complaint section, but it affects the size, because for example, if you've got an ethics review board, and you want them to be able to pre-screen complaints to decide, do you get to first base or not? If you take everything that's alleged, and you assume that it's true, and you assume there's facts supporting the allegations, does it add up to a violation under your code? Is it actionable? If not, well then, can it be dismissed at an early stage, rather than going through a full-blown public hearing? Okay, well if it can be kicked out at an earlier stage, who does that? Well, in some communities, it's a panel of the board of ethics. Maybe your board of ethics is seven member, and therefore a quorum is four members. Therefore, a rotating panel of three evaluate every complaint that comes in the door, and decides, should this move forward, or should this be kicked back to the complainant for revision, or should it be dismissed? Well, in other cities, that role is played by the city attorney's office. The city attorney decides whether that complaint has not just the proper form and contents, but whether or not, if all the allegations taken is true, warrant going forward to a full-blown notice and hearing. And so, if your ethics board is three people, and they're going to do pre-screening of complaints, does that mean one person? Because two would be a quorum, unless you make all three the quorum? And so, you have those kind of practical details that are going to come into play, particularly because depending on what your ultimate enforcement authority is that you grant to this group, they're probably going to be subject to the Open Meetings Act. And even if by law, they're not required to be subject to the Open Meetings Act, you might still want to make the policy decision to make the board's hearings and meetings subject to the Open Meetings Act. And so, throughout this entire process, you're going to be challenged to do that delicate balance the mayor alluded to earlier. You want to do something that fosters integrity at City Hall. You want to protect the rights of the accused who might be completely innocent and don't want their name smeared. You want to avoid any retaliation against neighbors or employees that cooperate with an investigation. You have to do all of that. And to do that in court, while there's big volumes of rules of procedures and rules of evidence that guide lawyers through that, we're not going to bog down your process with that level of detail. But we do need to anticipate some of these problems. And so, you might want a board bigger than three people if you're going to have them meeting as a subcommittee to do certain functions. Some cities have a subcommittee of the Ethics Board write advisory opinions versus the entire board try to write an advisory opinion. So, what roles they serve is going to shed some light on how big they are and who's on them. And I gave you some samples in your worksheet, just kind of random examples. Some are five-member boards, some are seven. Some say you must be a resident. Some are silent. I can think, well, you might want to have lawyers or medi ators. But you'll notice at least one city I mentioned said, oh, we're going to draw from people that are members of the Interfaith Alliance in our town. So, religious ministry groups are going to be the source of where they draw. Well, we want the Ethics Board to have a representative function. So, we're going to look to all the major civic groups in town. Is it going to be racial and ethnic diversity? Is it going to be income diversity? Is it going to be the Lions Club, the Kiwanis, the Rotary Club? And cities have tackled this task in different ways. But you can give me some guidance at the front end about how you think you would like it done. And then we can get into the details. Does every single city council member get to appoint their member to the Ethics Board? Well, that matters because when that council member gets accused of an ethics violation, we probably need to provide for their appointee to the Eth ics Board to recuse themselves from that. Or is it going to be consensus among the entire city council how people get on the Ethics Board? Well, if you don't care about individual council members and the mayor having their person on the board, you could have a smaller group. If you do want your appointee, you need to have a larger group. And we need to address those sorts of things as well. And then, of course, there's exclusions. We get to that part where we do not want relatives. We do not want employees. We do not want, fill in the blank, of who's ineligible to serve. Council? Any questions? I'd like to see five members, personally. I don't think we all need our own appointments. I'm worried about three because of the quorum issue. I'd like to see at least two of those members be attorneys. As far as the appointments, I think it would be consensus- based. Quorums, I imagine, would be staggered in two years. And I think we talked about qualifications being, at least two of them, are attorneys. And obviously, no family members of employees or family members of council. I would extend that to family members of contractors as well, just because we have a lot of contractors with the city. So that's my input. Thank you. So how would the -- my thought was seven, just because not that each council member had one, but consensus. So how would five -- how would that work? Are you saying we all would submit some names and we'd just all start going down the list and saying, what's the consensus of the council for five, at least five? Is that -- Alan, is that -- have you seen it done if it's less -- if the membership of that committee is less than the number that are actually serving on council? Yes, that either maybe staff provides a slate and the council votes it up or down or you vote on each individual member. Okay. All right. And then we'll come back over here. Yes, Council Member Greg. In your recommendations or the recommendations that came from the charter review committee, there was discussion about seven people with some type of training or background and that there would be some rotations so that they wouldn't always be the same group. So what I'm confused about are we talking about two different boards or one board? I think we're talking about one board and the possibility of having panels or subcommittees of that board consider complaints as they come in. Okay. And so it may be that in a particular case, if you had a seven-member board, a couple of people would not be eligible because of the nature of the complaint. They would be eligible to serve on the board, but maybe not to hear a particular case. And they might not be eligible because of a particular connection with a vendor or what? Help me understand that. Well, yeah, I think as you said, it depends on the nature of the complaint. If it's about an unauthorized gift or a conflict of interest and they have that connection, the code itself might cause them to recuse themselves or they may have a relationship with the person that comes before them, business or personal. To make the complaint. Yes. Okay. Well, I'm inclined to the idea of seven with some type of a rotation of -- and I thought that in the recommendation, it was almost a random rotation of pulling the group that would be hearing a particular case to determine whether it would go forward or not. Was that my imagination or was that part of the recommendation? I'm sorry, I don't recall. I think part of it was part of the recommendation, which wasn't voted on, but that the hearing panel would actually be a set of either retired jurists or arbitrators and you would pick from a list of seven or eight to actually hear the complaint. Maybe not necessarily do the investigation and all that, but the actual hearing and that you rotate through this list. But what we're talking about here is different than that. It's just one board that does it all. Yeah. Oh, okay. Yeah. Councilman Rehers. So I'll just run down what I put together. So size three, I'm amenable to five. Eligibility, city of Denton resident. Appointment. Again, I go to a pool of qualified persons, but my distinction is a little different. When I say qualified, again, mediation or attorneys, that sort of experience. I go to a pool, let's say it's 20 people, and those five are picked out of there at random, and there's no limit to that. I don't really go term limit. I go service limit. So you can't serve twice within 12 months. So not a year, 12 months. So if you serve in February, you're not eligible to serve again until that next February. So the year cycles in theory are breaks. And it's almost mirroring the grand jury process where they have a pool of people and they have a chair. And so some subset of that 20 within here, initial reviews, not the full thing, but initial, "Hey, does this need to go any further? Yes or no?" type thing. And then we go into qualifications. Again, touched on that. And then exclusions. Must be 24 months, so two years removed from service on council or something similar, working for the city, something like that. I'd like to add that buffer. So if you've just served, now you're over here, "Hey, I empathize with you. I'm going to be empathetic to your side of the thing," or this, that, the other. Just want to insulate that. And then the other exclusion, we've already touched on. Just no relations. And I'm fine. I'm sure we'll come down to more specific degrees of relationship, but that's kind of my view on those. I'm going to go with Ryan and then you, Councilman. I think I'm good with five, with two alternates, that if one of the five, two of the five could not serve, those two alternates could step in if there was an issue. One question we haven't addressed is, is the Ethics Commission also subject to the Ethics Code and/or additional code? And that's very important from confidentiality standpoint. That's why I really feel like mediators, jurists, et cetera , is what the board should be made up of because they understand that. And I do think that they should be subject to the Ethics Code as well. So I have here between five and seven, I think three is too small because of conflicts and recusals and I also, I'm in favor of a rotating board review. And the complaint's not going to the city attorney's office first. They have enough on their plate. They're doing enough. So I would think that the rotating board review would look at those to see if they should go any further than that. I'm okay with two to three attorneys being on, but I don't think that all of the spots should be attorneys or mediators. - Okay. Yes, Council Member Duff. - I guess I kind of struggle with, you know, how do we prevent trivia stuff coming before, you know, that's going to happen. And I think we need to have a way to make sure, it's almost like a grand jury kind of thing, but you got to have a gatekeeper to, okay, this is something that needs to be looked at and no, let's throw it out. And I don't know whether that's the city attorney or whether we have somebody on this panel do that, but I'm just not sure how the best way to do that. But I think this thing is very important, but I think it's very important that we don't clog things up with trivial complaints. - The reason why I think that I'm okay, I could be okay with five. The reason I'm less okay with five is because I think the screening mechanism, I like the idea of it being a subset of the committee. And you know, you can do those, so if you have five, that means you have two people. Whereas if you have seven, you've got one other person. And to me, the pre-screening is almost as important as the rest of the committee's role, because there's where you're really going to try to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. How do we make sure that these things are? And so I just like the idea that there's one more person who's able to look at that and provide their opinion. So that's the reason why I lean more towards seven. Actually, I do like the idea of having a pool of people that my only thought about that is you'd have to train them all at the same level. So I like that idea. The logistics of it, I think, would have to be worked out. But you know, I like the -- so seven, I would have a preference. I could do five, but I think we're really squeezing it down when we do the pre-screening. Appointment, sounds like everybody's okay with the council consensus on those appointments, it sounds like. Terms, I'm okay with a two-year term. If it's open-ended, I just want to have more discussion about that. Qualifications, I don't know if they all need to be. Either media or attorneys, I'd like most of them to be, because that would help me get over my concern with the idea of -- and confidentiality, we 've just sort of touched on it briefly. That's just -- that is really the bedrock of this whole process. I mean, if we can't assure that, if we can't ensure people of that up to the point of the hearing, because obviously the hearing is probably going to be a public hearing. We are really setting ourselves up for some really, really big problems as we have really sort of experienced in other areas. Exclusions, residents, yeah, obviously city-didn't-resident . Exclusions, I mean, there's all kinds of exclusions, but you know, you all have talked about it. So you have to look at -- okay, when you look at exclusions , if people have committed crimes of moral turpitude, and if so, how long back? And if so, has it all been served? I mean, there are those kind of qualifications as well, not just, you know, do you have to be a certain age or resident of the city or -- you know, I like the idea of not -- you know, you can't be on there if you've been on counsel. Or if you've been a vendor, I mean, something that gives it a little bit more clarity. So we'll let our expert here come up with all that language . So I think you've heard some idea of we got anywhere from five to seven, a pool, no pool, but I think we've got a pretty good little consensus, yes. And again, the number, I mean, I can see seven. I mean, five to seven, I mean, that started at three, so what the heck. But I think one of the things I do want to stress, though, and I'm with you, and I prefer it all be legal people or mediators. But if not that, they need to be licensed professionals. And this is why. Because we're not going to be able to -- I don't envision this as a body that -- I only see them being called up when we -- when needed. I don't see a body that just kind of lays around reviews. I don't think that's it. I'm a big -- I'm very strong in prohibited versus, you know , I think that's the key is catching it early. You know, you can go to the post office, by example, and see all the people they're looking for. It's just defining them. That's the tricky part. So I'd rather just prevent it from happening versus, you know, kind of rifle enthusing. But I think the licensed professional thing for me is it helps us vet people and adds another layer of that individual -- so, for example, your bar card's online. You're not going to risk your bar card for some favor for someone in this ethics. You know what I mean? It just adds a level of accountability versus a citizen that is active in the community that someone catches their ear and says, you know, this happened once. You know, not to say that that -- it's just a very different skill set to be able to adjudicate something. That is just -- I mean, it's because to -- it's one thing to say, yeah, I'm going to set my biases aside, but that is very, very difficult to do. And so it takes some training, some practice, and if they have a professional license that's at stake, if they do certain things that would then cross the line, it just then gives me an extra layer of they're going to take this that much more serious because their livelihood depends on it as well as their willingness to serve. Okay. Just for clarification, I'm not sure what kind of professional licenses you're talking about. I suspect it's not a barbers license. So what areas are you talking about? Yeah, so there's -- so like psychologists, that sort of thing. So you have to be licensed through the state. Heck, I could even go master plumbers because their license , it takes them 40 years or 30 years to get a master plumbers license. I mean, so I think there's just individuals that are accountable to the state that have to renew that then would have extra stuff, extra consideration and be another level of accountability. That's just -- that's how I reconcile it. But I can't see you by your -- real estate agents are sh ifty, so no. So I'm just going to say I don't know that that's the answer. I see where you're going, but I don't know that that is the way that I feel the board should be. But I do want to talk about if there is a complaint because we're talking about the rotating board reviewing it, how does someone file that complaint? Where does that complaint go to? That's a question that I have right now. Is this an upcoming slide? Well, not for today. There will be another segment at a future meeting where we talk in depth about complaints, how they're processed, what they have to contain, but that 's a choice you're going to have. I think the most common one I've seen is it gets filed with the city secretary's office. It doesn't mean you have to. That's just the choice I've seen lots of cities make. And then they make the contact with the ethics? They contact the ethics board. They contact the accused. They send a copy to the city attorney's office if the city attorney has a role in this. Y'all could visit somebody else, but that's where I normally see it filed. I'm sorry, but I think the key is having gone through it, right? Because I was in a ... If you've received a motion for disclosure, I think it changes everything. And so I would even ask, Alan, if you were to put together a mock request for disclosure based on your experience, and you send it to each individual council member, I'd love for them to ... If you take it serious, I mean, it is daunting. You're talking about cell phone text messages, and you don 't get to parse out which ones you get. Hey, send over your phone from this date to this date in the pictures, and then we'll go through them and figure out. Your attorney would go through them and figure out. I mean, it's an absolute monster process. And not to mention, if you get an attorney on the other side that is just doggish, and they just ... I got one ... There's like 130 or so requests for disclosure, and I worked there for eight months. I mean, it is just ... If you get an attorney on the other side that is just tenacious and wanting to scare you, I think it's just a different animal. And so I say that to say, I don't know that the lay person is equipped to go through, one, all that data, two, understand what they're asking for . It's just different. So I don't know. I don't know how to replicate that process, but I'm trying to tell you, it is nightmarish. And so when I hear Mayor Watts talk about his concerns in this area, I don't know that I'm at the same level, but I'm absolutely high alert because you don't get the ... It's, "Hey, give me your email. Give me your husband's email. Give me your kid's email." I mean, it is inclusive, and then they tailor it down. It's not, "Hey, here's the four things I think you need." You turn it all over, and they'll figure it out. And that's scary. Go ahead, Kim. Well, and the training will cover that, right, mostly. I mean, if the board is covered by the ethics code, and then they have where everybody is going to be trained on the rules and what to do and what not to do. I mean, I'm completely okay with having three, four members like that, mediators, I mean, whoever, but I do think that we shouldn't leave, I think, what did you say? The lay person out of this process. Yes. What we may consider doing is when we talk about qualifications and eligibility, we include in the ordinance that the selections will be made considering such things as education level, any licenses to perform a profession, any particular certifications they have. And of course, your application form is going to solicit that kind of information, and counsel will then have the data to make a good choice. I think the reason you would do that is because to be a successful member of the Board of Ethics and handle complex miniature trials, public hearings on these allegations, you would need the ability to handle complex information in a quick time frame. But you may not want to limit yourself to just that. And so it's the counsel's choice. Here's the criteria we're looking at, but in the end, the counsel has discretion on what to do. And that's probably where I'm going to steer you. But as we go through this, also think more about that last one. You may not have any good ideas right now beyond, well, relatives and business partners, but think about the fact that some cities, I think in some of the examples even, will exclude elected officials. It's a big deal when you've got a countywide, for example, elected official sitting on your city's Board of Ethics judging allegations against other elected officials. And I think part of our process that I'm going to recommend is we try to make the ethics process as apolitical as possible. How can you do that when the chairman of your Ethics Commission is him or herself a statewide elected person? But yet, I think it's the minority of cities that I've reviewed exclude other elected officials. So we may want to do that, but you can think about that too . And there may be some unique aspects of the Denton community that I'm not privy to. I don't want to pick on any particular other local board or agency, but there might be some that you think, wow, if you serve in this capacity, you may not be objective and neutral. Or even if you as an individual are, the optics of it are not good. So we're going to go ahead and exclude some of this. Or you might say, Alan, forget about it. We'll just do that as we go about the task of picking individuals. We know who would fit and don't fit. But we may want to spend some time on that when we get to it. Go ahead, Dalton. Yeah, thank you, Mayor. My inclination would be for you to offer up a list of prohibitions that you've seen so that we could say yes or no to. OK. But I would think specifically like other elected officials would be out, I would imagine not only family members, but family members or those degrees of relationships that we normally exclude from first or second degrees for council members and for staff members. Because that could get a little tricky if we had the spouse of a staff member who was reviewing. I would think that but you could probably anticipate you've seen a lot of the lists so that you could and then we could go through and just check off our degree. Sure. I'll probably do as I put this section into the draft ordinance. I'm going to have the list of exclusions in there. If you choose to strike some out, you can do that when the time comes. Before we move on to the next section, I just want to emphasize what you said. You said basically what this panel is doing is conducting many trials. And you as a lawyer, you know what that means. And I'm just saying that is my paramount desire is that we understand clearly what that is saying, especially when you're talking about someone has made a complaint about someone on an ethical complaint. The first place it's going to be is on the paper. The second place it's going to be is on the Facebook pages. And so when you talk about holding many trials, you are holding these situations with people's lives can be tremendously affected. So that's why it's imperative for me to ensure that whoever gets on there, whatever skill they have, there is that very deep understanding and to understand the implications of that and the consequences of that should moving forward, whether you make a mistake or not. Because if you make a mistake, you've made a big mistake. So you're right. You have your municipal court in Denton. You have another volunteer board that technically is supposed to be conducting miniature trials. That's your zoning board of adjustment. All that level of formality, the appeals to state court and whatnot over what? A two foot height variance encroaching five feet into a set back. This is talking about someone's name and reputation. It could be their employment future. It could be their political future. And so trying to advocate for more integrity in city halls or the public trusts city hall, while at the same time protecting those individual rights, it's going to get very sticky when it comes to the section where we talk about the complaints and conducting hearings and the rights of the accused and the rights of the accuser. Yeah. What was occurring to me is, OK, somebody comes before the board and they're found guilty of whatever. Then they do have recourse after that, right? I mean, they can go to-- I think we build that. I think that's something we'll probably talk about. Yeah. And I mean, they can-- Yes, sir. Right. They can file it and go into court. Yeah. Yes. So I guess that's something we need to worry about. Oh, no. Yeah. Well, I share your concern about the reputation aspect, but I would just point out that right now, if there's an ethics complaint, all of those issues that you brought up as far as the newspaper and dragging your name through the mud and all that, that happens already with the system that we have. And there's less accountability and less of a process in place. So I think the more actual rules we have in place, the more protection there is from the exact same thing that you're concerned about. Oh, no. I don't think that. I mean, what we have now is we don't-- well, that's why we 're doing it. I mean, I'm just bringing that up because it's an issue now . Sure. No, I understand. But I think, though, it is an issue now, but we really have no way to adjudicate it. I mean, there's no way to even get-- I mean, let's face it. I mean, you understand that. I mean, so that was passed a long time. I'm not saying-- you are right. I'm just saying maybe-- probably what I'm saying is more from the perspective of we're just dealing with people's lives here. And if we're going to set up something to deal with people 's lives, we need to make sure-- I would rather err on the side of make sure you have due process. We can set the rules to really govern the ethical behavior of all these that we want to include. But we have to make sure those rules are set in place to provide that due process that is afforded everybody. So yes, Councilman Ryan. Well, we've kind of done a comparison to the grand jury. But what I haven't figured out is who's the DA in that scenario? Who's presenting this to-- We'll probably go over this when we come up with the complaints. Yeah, he said that's going to be our most daunting task of when we get to the complaint section, what is it from the moment somebody turns in a sheet of paper to somebody makes a ruling at the end? What is that process like in that vision? Yes. OK. And we'll go through that in detail. That's an excellent point. It's on the horizon. So another big point is going to be this transition you're going through where, yes, you don't have an ethics ordinance right now and you're still receiving ethics complaints. You don't really have the mechanism, the process in place to deal with those and decide what to do with them. You had a council subcommittee that dealt with some. But you're also going to have to deal with the notion that without any ethics rules, there's all sorts of behavior that's completely legal and allowable today. Yep. That's going to all of a sudden not be. And providing for that leads to the next question, which is really kind of the jurisdiction over this group. And this may seem like a pretty short question with some very short options, but this is also a real kicker because most of the samples that I have, most of the ones that I've seen, give their ethics review commission, their board of ethics jurisdiction over that code, that article, the code of ethics. It doesn't give them the authority to adjudicate, have hearings over allegations of state law violations that are not mirrored in the code. It is often the case where you've got a board of ethics where they look at a complaint and either the pre-screening panel or the city attorney's office is reporting back to the board, "Well, we've looked at this and even if all this is true, it doesn't add up to a violation under our code." "Oh yeah, well it still stinks. We should still have a public hearing on it." The complainant deserves, the public deserves that we have a public hearing over this. So let's provide notice and let's open up the facility and let's conduct a trial. And I, as in my role as outside counsel to these cities, and they're saying, "I'm sorry, but I know this rubs you the wrong way, but the wording in your code of ethics limits the jurisdiction to the code of ethics. So if you've got a problem with state law, go to the DA. If it's not a legal violation, go to the media, go to your priest, go to whomever. It's not this board." And boy, I'm almost run out of town sometimes. So this is a fundamental question and I'm getting a sense of how our mayor feels. But it's a threshold question. How could anybody see it differently? If we're going to create a code of ethics, how in the world are we going to tell the people who are in charge of enforcing it that if they don't violate it, we should still drag them through a public hearing and all that? That's insane. So if that's the way this goes, I will tell you right now, I'll vote against it. But you say insane, I say politics in 2017. Politics in 2017 is insane. And I agree with you. And I'm hoping that's where the council is. And I'm hoping you stick to that position two years from now when things are being thrown out by your board of ethics because what the person's being accused of, there's no rule that they violated and therefore the charges are dismissed and people are waving their hands going, "I thought you folks were trying to infuse some sense of integrity at City Hall." So I have a question about the state law. If someone is found or they find evidence that something is being broken, do they, the ethics board in any of your other cities, make that complaint as a board to say the DA or whomever? There are some examples that I'll show you of other cities, including some in the DFW Metroplex where it specifically says, "If the board of ethics is presented with evidence that they believe violates state law, the board of ethics is authorized to direct the city attorney to deliver that material to the district attorney's office." I would think they would- Now, I think that's a minority position, but I can't say I've looked at every code of ethics. It's kind of rare. You're probably going to get a recommendation from me that says, "If you're presented with a complaint and if true, it is a violation of state law and you know that another agency other than you is looking into this, you abate your proceedings here at the City of Denton and let that other jurisdiction run its course." But then there are some boards of ethics that I've dealt with that are absolutely not. We're an independent group with our own jurisdiction. We're going to take this where it leads us. The DA and Texas Rangers can do what they want to do. That's going to be a policy choice at some point. I'm going to be recommending that you have a procedure to hit the pause button and let those outside groups do what they want to do. But whether you want to go that extra step of taking what you've gathered here and hand it over to law enforcement is a separate issue. Some cities specifically say in their ethics ordinance, " This is not meant to be penal. Nothing about this is meant to lead to criminal investigations or prosecution and we will not take any active role in taking stuff presented to the Board of Ethics and providing it to law enforcement." Now, the person who filed the complaint has the right to do some forum shopping because I've seen it where they file it. The same complaint at the AG's office, the elections division of the Secretary of State's office, the Texas Ethics Commission, the District Attorney 's office, the County Attorney's office and the city's Board of Ethics. And all those groups are looking at the exact same fact pattern and the exact same conduct trying to decide who's going to go somewhere with this. Council Member Hesley. For this component, I put the city auditor and the reason I did, one, because it's the smallest department that we have direct, that we appoint directly, so we have direct access to that individual and then two, they're the furthest removed from the "politics" of the thing. It's just, I mean, they're day in and day out. It's one plus two. You know, so it's, in theory, I just looked at it as an appointee of the appointees that we are directly responsible for or have direct access to. That office, to me, is smallest, doesn't cross over different departments. It's kind of contained and so that's how I got there, I mean, right or wrong, as far as oversight. Okay, now you're talking about implementation or oversight? Oversight. Okay, so go back to that oversight question. Your slide on oversight. I have no idea what I did, but I'll get back there. So we were on this slide. Right. Yeah. And the answer seems to be, it's the code. Our Board of Ethics will be limited to the code. So let me move on to this one, if we choose a grant oversight, who is within their jurisdiction? And I think based on our earlier discussion, you all are going to say everyone to varying degrees except for employees go under the City Manager's Department, right? Right. So you were talking about... I read the question to be, who is the DA in the equation? And that's the body that I identify because there's only people that we have direct responsibility or accountability to, for, et cetera, that office is the most contained. So I think maybe as far as when we talk about the complaint process, but also I think you're saying which department is tasked with supporting the... In other words, what department, if there is a department in the city that would be best equipped or independent enough to be the city, is it liaison or the city support staff? Somebody's got to support this committee and implement the code. At the very least, someone's got to manage paper, notices, reserving rooms for hearings, training. If you're going to bring in outside legal counsel sometimes , well, who's going to make the phone calls on that? Perhaps I would think you would want some department at the City of Denton to be assigned to be support role to your Board of Ethics. Who do you think that is? Is that a department that exists right now? Is that a department you're going to create in the next budget cycle? Is that what you're talking about? Who do you see doing that? Sometimes the most common one I see is the City Attorney's Office. But that may not be the right one. The City Attorney's Office may not want that duty. And so that's where you're saying you thought that the internal auditor's office should be? Yes. It's contained enough. They're used to the -- they're sensitive to the leaks, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, it's kind of what they do day in, day out anyway. And it's the smallest department. It doesn't cross over, but yet we still have that first degree of touch to it. So that's just how I got there for what it's worth. And I really -- I mean, I think that within that office you could have staff that are specifically tasked with I think some of the job description that you just sort of listed. So I don't have a problem with -- I think to have it in the City Attorney's Office might create sometimes an appearance of -- not to say anything, but, you know, it just seems that that could get a little dicey. I'm okay with that. And have you heard it before going to the internal auditor 's office? Yes. That their office is the one that sort of handles the implementation and the supporting and all those kind of things? Not as often as the City Attorney's Office, but yes, I've heard of it going to the auditor's office. And that's why I put it up here. I didn't put it up here because I have any particular insight into your auditor's office. Any other feedback from Council? Council Member Ryan? Well, I mean, we've got a group that is a -- someone from the Attorney's Office, the auditor's office, and Human Resources right now that could be more the implementation of this as well. I think doing a cross-section of multiple departments would be a better way to go about it than to assign it to a single department. And what's the -- help me understand the rationale of the cross -- I'm not saying I disagree. I just want to understand the rationale on that. Well, with the complaint, the auditor's office can handle certain information, can provide certain information easily and can easily do the investigation, but some of that would have to go to the City Attorney's Office as well. They would have to provide certain information potentially. And the same from the City Manager's Office, there's potentially information from all three branches that may have to come before the Board. And so I think that that's a better way of handling it. So I'm just trying to understand how this would work. An individual files a complaint against a city -- sitting City Council Member. And now it becomes staff's responsibility to prosecute. No, I don't think that's what he's -- Well, that's what I mean. I thought I was hearing something like that because who's the DA going to be? Who's going to be collecting the information? That seems troublesome in a lot of different ways because, A, it could be, you know, a person without a whole lot of depth to the complaint that all of a sudden eats up hours and hours of staff time. And if it's a complaint against a City Council Member, if it's the City Manager's Office or the Attorney's Office or the Secretary's Office or the Auditor's Office, those people are either appointed or confirmed by the City Council. So help me understand how this works because it -- that seems odd. I think most common, there is not someone who would take the role of a prosecutor whose burden it is to present the case and convince the Board of Ethics something went wrong. I think the most common thing is the complainant. Whoever filed the complaint is responsible for showing up, making their arguments, presenting their evidence, presenting their witnesses, and they do it themselves. They can have a lawyer, if you want to provide them that opportunity, have a lawyer do it for them, and then the accused gets to come in and defend themselves or have a lawyer do it. What this question is meant to get at is just I wouldn't want Denton to create a Fourth of July Committee if you didn't also go through this exercise and say who's going to support us from a staff perspective? Who's going to handle the records? Who's going to handle the meetings? Who's going to coordinate people's schedules? There should be some human beings dedicated toward this and some dollar signs dedicated, but I don't know Denton enough to recommend whose department that should be. So that's really what I'm talking about. I'm really talking about staff support of this oversight board. >> To simply support the committee doing its job. >> Correct. >> Does the city manager have any opinions on this? >> I think to the point you're bringing it up, it wouldn't be difficult to set up to assign this to a couple of individuals. I don't think it really matters which department it's in because it's going to be utmost confidentiality. We make sure that any of the administrative functions that the group needs to have complied with are done. It's a pretty specific role and as long as you've got the right person that honors the confidentiality and has got the right customer service bent to service the committee, I don't think it really matters which department it's in quite frankly. >> Would these items be subject to the complaints and subject to open meetings law or Texas public information rules? I'm supposing so. >> Defer to Mr. Morquez? >> I think they are. I don't know of any exclusion that's going to allow us to keep all of this out of the public domain if it's requested. Instead what I'll be recommending is you have an internal process that doesn't unduly bring public attention to issues until you've pre-filtered them and screened them to try to protect the rights of the innocent. But no, most pieces of paper and most email messages, most everything regarding this whole process is going to be subject to the public information act. >> And I guess just to clarify, I might have confused you, but just to clarify, it's important that while it may be open to -- you're subject to the open meeting act, where these things can go awry with the person that's staffing it as if any leaks take place, it's always a point in time and context gets out of hand very easily. So you just need to be sure that you've got the processes in place and the appropriate employees that really safeguard that confidentiality and are basically reporting in as efficiently as possible. But beyond that, there's no preference. >> So internal auditor's office starting out? Because I know that the panel that you mentioned is still in the auditors. I mean, it's still under the auditor's office, that three- member panel. Yes, go ahead. >> I don't think the three panel is under the auditor's office. The auditor is one of the members of the three panels. But two of the people -- well, one used to be under the pur view of the manager and then one was under the purview of the attorney. >> I stand corrected. I'm okay with the internal auditor's office for now. We can always change that if we need to. >> I'll start with that. >> Can we take about a five-minute break? We've been going almost two hours. >> Absolutely. >> Because we've got what, two more slides? >> Yep. >> Okay. Yeah, let's just take a five-minute break. So Tuesday, December 19th, 2017, we're continuing our work session item 2A. >> So Mayor, Council, we're on the issue of training. And as I mentioned during your training at our last meeting , it is my opinion and that of many ethics experts that training is the most important part of your entire ethics work. A lot of communities adopt rules, they put together an enforcement mechanism, and then they kind of forget about it. And so how often you want training to occur, who is subject to training, what that looks like is, I think, fundamental to your chances of success in achieving what the voters have asked you to do. So don't just focus on regs and punishment, focus some on training. So question, yes, are we going to require training or make it optional? >> Go ahead, Councilmember Briggs. >> Yes, require. >> Consensus on that? >> I think so. >> Of everyone all the time every day? >> Yes. Yes. I'm sorry, Councilmember Hesbitt. >> Yes, but I sent in my notes, I said a third party, such that someone that does it professionally -- I mean, I just go back to our council retreat. I just had such a positive experience from that individual that that's all he does every day. And I've had someone like that that then kind of got up to speed on it and then presented it in a way that's light, fluffy, fun, easy to maintain. I think that's going to be the key component. Now, whatever that cost would be, I mean, I think it's worth it because the way I reconcile it is it will cost us -- every investigation we have cost us $250,000 and up, you know. So if we invest money up front on making sure everyone's educated and can avoid some of those, I think it's -- it will save some money. >> So you can decide on the ordinance if you want to specify who does the training. You can also specify if it's up to your Board of Ethics, your Ethics Commission to make those decisions. One question is going to be about the frequency. Every City Council member, every new employee, every new Board or Commission member, what must they undergo training within X number of days of taking office? And then what? Are they done? Are they done forever? Or must it be repeated on a rotating basis? Is it up to the City Manager how often his team gets trained? Those are some questions you may want to address in the ordinance. You know, some cities will create a video. They'll pay for the professional production of something. Okay, you're new to the city. Hey, welcome aboard. Go home and watch this. It's really kind of up to you. Do you have any thoughts at this point on what you think is appropriate for Denton? >> Yeah. So I wanted to direct a question to the City Manager. Because I know that HR does trainings. I know that we are implementing trainings now in our development area. So I'm just curious what's typical for those. Is it once a year or is it -- >> On the ethics side? Or just -- >> Well, yeah, just any type of training. I know that we're trying to do more of it. >> We are. We're in the process of creating a continuing education type curriculum for all supervisors, employees. And the ethics training will be required annually. And so we've got our compliance director right now is working with HR to set up the ethics training. And we've got into the portfolio classes. But, yeah, I mean, 30 minutes to an hour on an annual basis . It's not a lot to ask. People need to be reminded of things. You hope they get tired of hearing about ethics? >> I think annually. That's my answer. >> I'm okay with that. Everybody okay with annually? >> Yeah. >> All right. Yes, go ahead. >> I also want to make sure that it's within a certain amount of time of being sworn in. >> So what do you -- 30 days? Two weeks? >> I feel like 60 days or something like that. How much time do we have? I don't know how much. >> For open meetings, you're supposed to take your open meetings, open records training within 90 days of taking office under state law. >> So I would say that, yeah, within the same amount of time. >> 90 days. All right. Video, in person, paper. >> I don't like videos. >> Person. >> In person. >> Okay. All right. Okay. That's not in person. Everybody's all right? All right. >> Okay. The next thing is advisory opinions, and we mentioned this just briefly early on, but now we're going to focus on it. Do you want to have a process for the issuance of advisory opinions? Somebody proactively asking for guidance on whether or not certain conduct or behavior conforms with the ethics code? >> I just want to go back to the last thing. We may have said it, but will this board be required to do the open meetings training? >> As well? >> If they're going to be subject to the open meetings act, I would think that they would. >> They need to do that. And so that would also be in their initial training. >> I will include that. >> I just wanted to confirm that, that that's included in there. >> Do most other boards of commissions, ethics boards, have the open meetings training? >> I don't know. Probably not. I haven't seen it in any ordinances. >> Okay. >> But that's easy to insert, and I think it's a good idea. >> So on the issue of advisory opinions, do you want to have them? And if so, we'll talk about what the role they play and who does them. >> Could you talk about what role they play, and then we could decide? >> The concept that whether it's a council member or an employee, a department head, they think they may have a concern. They don't want to have an ethics complaint filed against them, so they go and they explain their situation to someone, and that someone gives them an answer, whether it's the city attorney's office or whether it's somebody else, it's the board of ethics. And then later, if someone comes and files an ethics complaint against them for that same behavior, do they get to wave around the advisory opinion and say, hey, but look? And if so, what does that mean? There are some cities who in their ethics code will say, if you're operating in reliance on an advisory opinion that you got in advance, then any allegations brought against you are going to be dismissed. We're not going to investigate those. And so it's not a get out of jail free card, but it almost is. I would liken it to an affirmative defense that you could raise if you want to in the hearing setting. But in part, I think the spirit behind advisory opinions is to have people proactively ask the question, can I do this? Should I abstain from doing this? Must I disclose this? Versus just operating within their own knowledge. Now, the alternative would be, I mean, anyone could go out and hire their own lawyer personally to read your code of ethics and give them a written answer, do you have to comply with this or not? I think most people are not going to spend money to do that or go through that time or effort. They may use some sort of internal consultation procedure if you provide for it. Well, let me give an example, a personal example. I had a question that came up because one of my children was interviewing for a job to work for an operation that was a vendor of the city. So the question occurred to me, is this is she even eligible? Is this just a conflict? What is it? And so I went to our city attorney's office and said, here are the facts. What is what is my standing in all of this? They the attorney's office looked at city code city charter , looked at state law and looked at attorney general opinions to give me an answer. The attorney, the city attorney's office is the attorney for the city council. So and it seemed to be an appropriate way to go to ask and get the question answered. But would would this take the place of asking the city attorney's office to do that? Or could the city attorney's office still do that? How does how does that all play in? I think the answers to all those questions are completely up to you as a city council. I think the city attorney and Mr. Leal and I haven't discussed this at all. But I think the city attorney represents the entity known as the city of Denton. So he doesn't represent any individual person in this room, nor does anyone in his office. As long as your individual interests are not contrary to the city, the city's legal interest. I think the city attorney and his staff can have those conversations with an individual city council member. I also know that there are some cities where the city attorney won't have those conversations because they define their role as representing the entity. If you have a question about your ethical obligations, your risk or opportunities from an ethical point of view, you need to go solve those for yourself. Go get your own lawyer. And so I have colleagues who do do that. This is asking the question, should you provide a specific role for the city attorney and giving advisory opinions and then assigning weight to what those things mean? Or do you want to give it to someone else? Do you want to give it to a board of ethics or a panel, a subcommittee of a board of ethics and then have them give that advice? And then of course, I've also seen structures where the city completely farms it outside the organization. They've got a list of local lawyers on retainer on a rotating basis and whoever's name is up, that's the person who answers that legal question and gives that advisory opinion. There's probably some other mechanisms that I don't know of , but that's assuming you want to provide for them at all. Mayor Pro Tem. I really liked the idea of advisory opinions. I use the Texas Bar Ethics hotline all the time. I mean, any question I have, I call them and get some clarification from them. It's a really helpful resource, although it's not free, pay for it. So I guess that's really the question. I wouldn't be comfortable having anybody that represents the city, like a city attorney issuing those opinions. I would rather it be either through the ethics committee or farming it out. But I do think advisory opinions are a really good idea because it gives people some type of recourse before you get to a point that you're in a full kind of hearing situation. Yeah, I think that if we have them, which I think they can be good, and if the committee -- that's why I think one of my desires to have some members of the committee be attorneys is that if you were looking for an advisory opinion, if it was going to come from the committee, I think it could be a subset of that committee. If there were two or three lawyers on there, a subset that could issue that, I would struggle with having one person be responsible for that because let 's just face it, you can look at things a lot of different ways and it would just give a little bit more deliberative process because they should be -- I don't know if I'm going to say harder to come by. If you're going to issue an advisory opinion that gives a green light, that's serious. Because then you've got to make sure that all the facts that were presented in order to obtain that advisory opinion are the exact same facts, that there's not any additional facts or circumstances or context that would come up in an ethics complaint. So I don't have an issue with advisory opinions. I don't think the city attorney's office should do it. I think that would be an inherent conflict. Plus, it would be spending tax dollar time providing a legal opinion for people outside of the city or even within the city. But if it were to be the ethics board, that could be one of the duties of the trained legal professionals is to issue those. Yes? >> So that kind of touches on what I mentioned before, which is the question of how much does this cost? Because I can't imagine a lot of attorneys volunteering their time to provide advisory opinions. Maybe they would, but I wouldn't. >> So you're saying should we charge for it? And if we do charge for it, then I would say we don't need to be issuing them. Because I think that if we're going to charge somebody for it, are we entering into some kind of attorney client? Should we keep it clean, if you want an advisory opinion, then you would probably go get it somewhere else. But then that sort of defeats the purpose of it being a pre -screening. So I'm not sure how many attorneys would want to -- if they 're going to charge for it, if we're going to have somebody pay for it, of course, what they issue has legal effect. So however, you know, yeah. >> So I think a question I may have skipped, and that's causing some of this wrestling, is this notion of who can ask for an advisory opinion. And what I normally see, it's those who are subject to the code. So if your conduct is regulated by the code, you seek one. Outside parties don't do that. >> Right. No. Yes. Only the people who are subject to it. Yes. Any other -- because we don't have much -- so, Sarah, tell me. You said you're okay with advisory opinions, but who should be issuing those? In your thoughts. >> Well, I mean, I think either the board or outside counsel could do it. My concern would just be asking a board to do something like that. >> So let's go with outside counsel. So in other words, we may have a list of people, or -- because if an outside counsel issues one, does that mean that it still carries the same weight of that if you received an advisory opinion, that if there's an ethics complaint filed against you, then it would be dismissed if it's the same circumstances as what was presented to obtain that advisory opinion? >> I think that's what Alan was saying, that some cities have -- I mean, I don't know the answer. I'm struggling with this just as much as you are. >> No. You're saying you see some cities that outside counsel who draft those, the ethics board takes them? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. I'm okay with that. >> You know, once a year, every so often, the city will engage a group of a few outside local lawyers who are their special counsel on ethics, and that group on a rotating basis might be called upon to either issue an advisory opinion or occasionally be legal advisor to the board of ethics, which is a later question we haven't gotten to, but some cities do utilize it. It would require outside counsel if the complaint is against certain people, city counsel, city manager. >> Okay. >> But just focusing on the advisory opinions, you seem to want to have someone play that role. Maybe it's going to be the board of ethics. Maybe it's going to be outside counsel. >> Okay. Gerard. >> Thank you. I'm actually going to go 180 degrees the other way on this question. >> I love it. I love it. >> I think -- yeah, I mean, hey, I'm a free-range chicken. So I think you -- I think this instance, you go back to where Keely was on citizens, right? Because it's not punitive in nature. It's an advisory. And who better to say how it's going to be perceived? And I'm just coming from it from before I was elected and looking at council members hold up this not get out of jail free card, but this card saying, hey, I checked, and they said it's okay. And I didn't -- and outside looking in, it was nowhere near okay. It was just -- it was almost it's okay because no one's going to spend the money to sue you to enforce it. Or there's no law on the books. It's just a -- it's a -- because some of those governor opinions or attorney general opinions just kind of linger forever. That one issue was issued in -- I mean, it was like 1980. And it's just no one's challenged it. So they're like, oh, good to go. And so I think from a citizen's perspective, they're going to have to -- I think it would be great to -- so I guess it's a separate thing. And I don't know if there's any traction for that. But that's how I see it. Being on the opposite side of that, I have very distinct opinions about -- I think it's absolutely necessary. I think it absolutely brings people forward in advance. If there's some way to keep it private and have individual citizens vet that portion because it's not punitive, it's just -- it's giving advice. And I don't think it goes as far as to say you're not subject to ethics review. But I think it is important to say, hey, this body of citizens looked at this in advance. And I think that weighs heavy. But anyway, I think I go the opposite way on needing professionals. Better said, being on opposite end of those, I think it's important to have the citizens review those. >> Go ahead, John. Then I want to comment on that. Go ahead. >> Well, I guess my question is regarding timeliness. That one of the quickest -- which one's going to be the quickest to get a response from? Because if you're looking, should I recuse myself from an item that's on an agenda that's posted on Friday, and you need to know before you go into that meeting on Tuesday, is the Board of Ethics going to be able to even get together to advise you on that? I doubt that's going to happen. So that becomes an important issue on this. >> Let me -- so what I think I heard you say, so correct me if I'm wrong. Because it seemed like what you were -- where you were coming from was also from an appearance perspective. How does it look, how is it going to play out in the community? And I totally get that. I think, though, for the purposes of an advisory opinion, it's -- they're supposed to be making a determination of -- an appearance may be part of that in the code. We've still got to define that. But with what you're telling me, does it violate this code of ethics that we have created? And if not, we're going to give you an opinion. And if somebody files a complaint, you're out. Now, you're right. It could be that the advisory opinion based on our code is you're okay. That doesn't mean that everybody is going to agree with that. So that's where I'm concerned. But what I thought I heard you say was some ethics boards may have a panel of attorneys -- I don't want to say on retainer, but that they say if there's an advisory opinion that's needed, we have a group to select from. And I'm assuming that those attorneys charge for that. And who pays for that? >> The city. >> Okay. So even if it's somebody that's not -- if it's someone who 's subject to the -- subject to the ethics ordinance, but they're not either a staff member of the city or an elected official or anything that has to do with the city, so someone from the outside of the city could ask for an advisory opinion, and the city would pay for that if they requested it, if they were covered by the ethics ordinance. On some of the ones that you've seen? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Which I'm okay with an outside -- I mean, if we're going to have advisory opinions, I don't think we can say we're only going to pay for some and not for others. We've got to decide are we going to pay for any or are we going to pay for all. But I like the idea of that somebody is on retainer. And as far as your question, John, goes with you've got to act quickly, I think there's been times when probably all of us or some of us have rec used ourselves not even knowing for sure if quote unquote we violated the legal construct of at least state law at this point because we don't have an ethics ordinance. So if you've got to recuse yourself without an advisory -- you know, people just have to make those decisions. So did what I said about the whole appearance thing, did that -- I mean, I'm not saying did it change your mind, I was just trying to understand where you were coming from. >> Yes. No, I think you're spot on. But I think it goes to the average understanding of the legal system. But if we're financing it, that's different. Because I think that's the distinction for me. I think you're absolutely right, but I think the question becomes what if it's close? What if it's maybe -- >> By whose perception? When you say if it's close. >> So let's say by public perception versus the letter of the law and the ethics ordinance. Because you can't write a perfect ethics ordinance, so it's going to have gaps. So when it comes close. So I'm 100% with you on the stuff that's obvious. But when it's close, should he, should she, should they not , that's where I think I've seen legal entities err on the -- it would be technically the conservative side, but ends up being more liberal definition because there's a cost prohibitive factor that says you got to challenge it in court. So yes, go ahead, because I think you have a decent standing if someone were to pony up the money to sue you or take it to court. But that's a big if because no one's going to outlay that much of money on a hunch traditionally. That's where I wish the -- that's where I think if it's close, I can see it going more conservative yes, go ahead, where I can see a citizen body saying no, I don't think this is okay because they're going to have a more liberal understanding of it and probably a little less legalese in there. And so those close ones are my concern. And having someone err on the side of representing the citizens, at least for that initial phase, and then that person can make a decision no different than -- I'll use the experience because that's what I want to have for the budget process. The budget was brought to us at a level, and now we can go ahead and add to it if we want to, but that's our prerogative. So I think that versus it all being hey, they said it's okay. They said it's not okay. Now you make a decision. You know, and that's what I like about it because it forces that individual to have a little more buy-in versus saying hey, I don't know the law. This person knows the law. And they said it's okay. So I went ahead and did it. Okay. Mayor Pro Tem, did you have a comment? Okay. All right. What do you -- I mean, Alan, what do you think as far as -- I mean, what have you seen? I'm not saying tell us what we need to do, but you've heard the discussion here. What do you see as some of the positives, some of the things that might be a challenge from any perspective? What's your feedback on that? I think if you want to promote ethical behavior within your organization, it's helpful to have someone that the people covered by the organs can go to in advance for advice. Who is the most qualified and responsive and efficient with money? It's the city attorney's office, which is why I think cities that do this will often have the city attorney's office do that role. And I can say that I know many city attorneys who don't want that job. They don't want that function. They wish it was off their list. So for cities that don't do that, what do they typically do ? They typically have a panel or subcommittee of their ethics board issue advisory opinions. And if someone doesn't like the advisory opinion, well, then you appeal to the full ethics board and you deal with it that way. It'll never be timely. And there's no way to address Councilman Ryan's concern about getting an agenda on Friday and your meeting on Tuesday. But that's why advisory opinions are a resource that's available. They're not always going to be helpful. They're not always going to be available. I do think if someone relies on an advisory opinion and the facts of the situation are substantially similar to what was presented to whoever gave the opinion, then we probably should not be submitting them to a full blown public hearing on that point. There you go. I'm in favor of the latter and what he said. I don't really like the idea of say someone in the city going to the city attorney for an opinion. That's just me. Okay. Did I see another hand over here? Yes. No. I guess the thing I'm kind of thinking of is that if somebody comes in to get an opinion, that opinion that they get is going to be based on what they get, the information they gave them. And if that information is not correct, then you've got another -- I guess you have another problem. I'm just trying to wrap my head around that. And I think, Gerard, what may sort of combine the hybrid of what I was talking about, what you're talking about, is if on this committee, this board of -- whatever we call it, board of ethics, there's both a combination of -- I'm going to say laypeople, that's the term that's been -- and some professional, legal professionals or medi ators. If that subcommittee that looks at advisory opinions, instead of it being all citizens, you know, I'm going to say laypeople, that's the term, or legal professionals, if it's a combination, therefore you have -- you'll have the input from that perspective, and then you'll also have the, you know, analysis of the legal analysis of the ordinance. And on the real close calls, then that committee can decide , you know, however it's made up. Is that something that -- if we could work it out, something like that, is that something that might satisfy your concern in that regard? Yeah, no, I think that's very good. I think that works well. So maybe a subcommittee of the Ethics Commission, based upon, you know, how we determine who's on it, what qualifications have to be there, and then what don't. We'll give that a try. And the last question I have that's not on the slide, but the mayor just touched on it, for now, what's the working title of this group? Is it the Board of Ethics, Ethics Commission, Ethics Review Commission? Just for drafting purposes, do we have a preference at this point? Because if you don't, I'm going to go with Board of Ethics, and you can tell me to change it later. Anybody have a name that we can talk about? Okay. All right. Board of Ethics? Yeah. Okay. So we've reached the end of today's module. These are the topics that we're going to be discussing next time. Just like for this meeting, your agenda packet will include questions touching on each of these and some sample language from other ordinances for you to consider. Any questions or comments for me? Yes, Council President. Before we wrap up? Can I add to, well, let me ask you this, because this is a question I noted. Campaign donations, do they fall into gifts on our area? And that, I don't see it listed there, but is that where we 'd go? It's a separate portion that we're going to get to. Oh, so you have it just separate? It'll be considered in another module? Yeah. I have a different module where we're going to ask about campaign contributions, disclosures of those, and also lobbying and lobbyists. So those will come. They're on the list. Okay. Just not for the next meeting. Mayor Pro Tem? And so that's our Saturday morning meeting? Yes. Okay. This one's our Saturday morning meeting? It is the next one, right? Yes. Okay. I think we have the schedule in here somewhere. Okay. Any other questions for this? Yes. Great. January 27th, Saturday, 9 a.m. is when we take up the next portion. Thank you very much. All righty. Am I at the council? You're welcome. All right. We are going to- Merry Christmas. I think I might be back. Okay. We're going to convene in a closed session at- we are going in a closed session, yes. At 333, we will consider the following items. Consultation with attorneys under Texas Government Code Section 551.071. Deliberations regarding real property under Texas Government Code Section 551.072.