WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.480 [SIDE CONVERSATION] 00:00:30.000 --> 00:00:33.479 [SIDE CONVERSATION] 00:01:00.000 --> 00:01:03.479 [SIDE CONVERSATION] 00:01:30.000 --> 00:01:33.480 [SIDE CONVERSATION] 00:01:33.480 --> 00:01:36.959 [SIDE CONVERSATION] 00:01:36.959 --> 00:01:37.760 [SIDE CONVERSATION] 00:01:37.760 --> 00:01:40.319 Hey, Joe, before we start, I'd like 00:01:40.319 --> 00:01:45.079 to make a special commendation to Dr. Ramsey 00:01:45.079 --> 00:01:47.799 on a especially thoughtful article that she did. 00:01:47.799 --> 00:01:48.719 Hear, hear. 00:01:48.719 --> 00:01:51.439 We can go Sunday in the paper on Quaker Town. 00:01:51.439 --> 00:01:54.079 It's really very, very well done. 00:01:54.079 --> 00:01:54.579 Yeah. 00:01:54.579 --> 00:01:57.120 [SIDE CONVERSATION] 00:01:57.120 --> 00:01:58.280 She's right here. 00:01:58.280 --> 00:02:01.480 And that is you're probably going to be in our top five 00:02:01.480 --> 00:02:02.959 most read, I guess. 00:02:02.959 --> 00:02:03.459 Oh, wow. 00:02:03.459 --> 00:02:04.439 Thank you. 00:02:04.439 --> 00:02:05.920 I'm going to lose my job. 00:02:05.920 --> 00:02:08.960 [LAUGHTER] 00:02:08.960 --> 00:02:12.000 Well, see, you've got to find those really sad, sad stories 00:02:12.000 --> 00:02:12.919 . 00:02:12.919 --> 00:02:13.919 That was a sad one. 00:02:13.919 --> 00:02:14.419 Thank you. 00:02:14.419 --> 00:02:14.919 You're welcome. 00:02:14.919 --> 00:02:15.419 It was. 00:02:15.419 --> 00:02:15.919 Thank you. 00:02:15.919 --> 00:02:16.419 You're welcome. 00:02:16.419 --> 00:02:16.919 Thank you. 00:02:16.919 --> 00:02:18.419 I've saved you, Joe. 00:02:18.419 --> 00:02:19.919 Hey, what's your name? 00:02:19.919 --> 00:02:21.919 Peggy, your job's saying. 00:02:21.919 --> 00:02:22.919 My God, my cookies. 00:02:22.919 --> 00:02:24.419 Is he saying what he's saying? 00:02:24.419 --> 00:02:25.919 [SIDE CONVERSATION] 00:02:25.919 --> 00:02:26.419 OK. 00:02:28.400 --> 00:02:31.900 [SIDE CONVERSATION] 00:02:35.400 --> 00:02:36.400 Good evening. 00:02:36.400 --> 00:02:37.400 Thank you all for coming. 00:02:37.400 --> 00:02:43.400 This is the March 1st Charter Review Committee meeting. 00:02:43.400 --> 00:02:47.400 And we're going to be recording tonight. 00:02:47.400 --> 00:02:49.900 So for all times, please don't cross talk, 00:02:49.900 --> 00:02:52.400 because they're not going to be able to catch you. 00:02:52.400 --> 00:02:56.900 If you get into a presentation in the Q&A, 00:02:56.900 --> 00:02:58.400 be patient. 00:02:58.400 --> 00:03:02.900 We'll have time for everyone to have questions. 00:03:02.900 --> 00:03:03.400 OK. 00:03:03.400 --> 00:03:07.400 Our first item on the agenda is public comment. 00:03:07.400 --> 00:03:12.900 Anybody who's in the public here that wishes to speak? 00:03:12.900 --> 00:03:13.400 No one? 00:03:13.400 --> 00:03:14.400 Not even Peggy. 00:03:14.400 --> 00:03:14.900 No. 00:03:14.900 --> 00:03:16.900 OK. 00:03:16.900 --> 00:03:20.400 So our next item is housekeeping. 00:03:20.400 --> 00:03:25.900 We need a motion to approve the minutes from February 15. 00:03:25.900 --> 00:03:29.400 [SIDE CONVERSATION] 00:03:29.400 --> 00:03:30.400 Second. 00:03:30.400 --> 00:03:30.900 Second. 00:03:30.900 --> 00:03:31.900 All in favor? 00:03:31.900 --> 00:03:34.400 All right. 00:03:34.400 --> 00:03:35.400 OK. 00:03:35.400 --> 00:03:36.900 Number three. 00:03:36.900 --> 00:03:38.900 We have a distinguished guest. 00:03:38.900 --> 00:03:42.400 We're going to spend whatever time it takes 00:03:42.400 --> 00:03:45.900 for an outside resource to cover ethics. 00:03:45.900 --> 00:03:49.580 I'm going to let Dr. Alexander make the introduction, 00:03:49.580 --> 00:03:50.400 please. 00:03:50.400 --> 00:03:52.900 [SIDE CONVERSATION] 00:03:52.900 --> 00:03:54.400 Well, the first thing I want to say 00:03:54.400 --> 00:03:56.900 is I was a little skeptical two weeks ago 00:03:56.900 --> 00:04:01.150 that we'd be able to pull this off and get an expert in to 00:04:01.150 --> 00:04:01.400 be 00:04:01.400 --> 00:04:02.900 with us tonight. 00:04:02.900 --> 00:04:05.400 Joe was insistent that we could do it. 00:04:05.400 --> 00:04:08.400 And with a lot of help from staff, 00:04:08.400 --> 00:04:12.400 we've been able to do that as a committee. 00:04:12.400 --> 00:04:18.899 We met within about five days or so after the last meeting. 00:04:18.899 --> 00:04:22.899 We reviewed materials submitted by some applicants 00:04:22.899 --> 00:04:24.399 for the position. 00:04:24.399 --> 00:04:28.939 We reached a unanimous agreement that we had an excellent 00:04:28.939 --> 00:04:29.399 choice 00:04:29.399 --> 00:04:32.899 and the gentleman who will be speaking in a moment, 00:04:32.899 --> 00:04:36.399 he represents some really significant experience 00:04:36.399 --> 00:04:40.850 in the field of municipal law, especially as it relates to 00:04:40.850 --> 00:04:42.899 ethics. 00:04:42.899 --> 00:04:46.899 I particularly like the fact that his academic background 00:04:46.899 --> 00:04:50.899 is not only a law degree, but it also included, 00:04:50.899 --> 00:04:54.129 along with that law degree, a master's in public 00:04:54.129 --> 00:04:55.399 administration. 00:04:55.399 --> 00:04:58.399 And I really think that part of what he's helping us with 00:04:58.399 --> 00:05:01.899 is a combination of those two things. 00:05:01.899 --> 00:05:05.399 That's, by the way, a law degree and a master's degree 00:05:05.399 --> 00:05:08.399 in public administration from Texas Tech. 00:05:08.399 --> 00:05:12.399 So it's with great pleasure that I present to you 00:05:12.399 --> 00:05:14.899 Mr. Alan Bokhorson. 00:05:14.899 --> 00:05:17.399 Come on up to the microphone, Alan. 00:05:17.399 --> 00:05:20.899 Again, a special thanks to you and for the record, 00:05:20.899 --> 00:05:23.899 the other two fellows on your panel, 00:05:23.899 --> 00:05:25.899 David Zoltman and Billy Cheek. 00:05:25.899 --> 00:05:28.399 Thank you for the quick action in getting this done. 00:05:28.399 --> 00:05:31.399 Thanks for the staff that made that possible. 00:05:31.399 --> 00:05:33.399 It worked out well. 00:05:33.399 --> 00:05:35.399 Appreciate that. Thank you. 00:05:35.399 --> 00:05:38.899 I'm Alan Borquez and I've got some prepared materials 00:05:38.899 --> 00:05:41.399 that we'll go through and then we'll open it up 00:05:41.399 --> 00:05:43.399 to some question and answer period. 00:05:43.399 --> 00:05:46.899 The prepared materials are designed to provide you 00:05:46.899 --> 00:05:52.399 with the basics, an overview of state law ethics. 00:05:52.399 --> 00:05:54.899 To the extent you can legislate ethics 00:05:54.899 --> 00:05:57.399 and put those rules in a statute, 00:05:57.399 --> 00:06:00.399 I've gathered those that the state of Texas has compiled 00:06:00.399 --> 00:06:04.399 that are most commonly brought up in the municipal context. 00:06:04.399 --> 00:06:06.399 And we'll run through those to try to give you 00:06:06.399 --> 00:06:08.899 a working understanding of those laws, 00:06:08.899 --> 00:06:11.899 but also to try to dispel some of the misrepresentations 00:06:11.899 --> 00:06:15.399 or misunderstandings about what they may or may not do. 00:06:15.399 --> 00:06:18.899 And then we'll transition in the topic of ethics, 00:06:18.899 --> 00:06:21.399 ethics ordinances, your charter, 00:06:21.399 --> 00:06:23.399 and what this committee would like to recommend 00:06:23.399 --> 00:06:26.399 to the council in terms of what to do with the charter. 00:06:26.399 --> 00:06:27.899 So I'll go through the prepared materials. 00:06:27.899 --> 00:06:30.899 You have your handouts if you want to take notes. 00:06:30.899 --> 00:06:32.899 We also have the basic slides 00:06:32.899 --> 00:06:35.899 to provide us with some structure and some organization. 00:06:35.899 --> 00:06:38.399 But certainly if you've got a question regarding a slide, 00:06:38.399 --> 00:06:41.399 feel free to stop and we can discuss that a little bit. 00:06:41.399 --> 00:06:42.899 Does that sound all right? 00:06:42.899 --> 00:06:44.899 Okay, we'll proceed. 00:06:45.899 --> 00:06:48.399 We start with the charge, 00:06:48.399 --> 00:06:50.899 what the city council actually instructed 00:06:50.899 --> 00:06:53.899 this charter review committee to do. 00:06:53.899 --> 00:06:57.300 You were not charged specifically by the Denton city 00:06:57.300 --> 00:06:57.899 council 00:06:57.899 --> 00:06:59.899 to write an ethics ordinance 00:06:59.899 --> 00:07:03.899 or to write an ethics provision for the charter, 00:07:03.899 --> 00:07:07.899 but to evaluate what you think needs to be done 00:07:07.899 --> 00:07:11.899 with the ethics provisions in your charter. 00:07:11.899 --> 00:07:15.959 And I know that that charge has led to a lot of 00:07:15.959 --> 00:07:16.899 possibilities, 00:07:16.899 --> 00:07:19.399 and we'll actually discuss what some of the possibilities 00:07:19.399 --> 00:07:19.899 are 00:07:19.899 --> 00:07:21.399 when we get toward the end. 00:07:21.399 --> 00:07:23.899 But looking at what the council has asked us to do 00:07:23.899 --> 00:07:25.899 will begin from there. 00:07:26.899 --> 00:07:30.899 Looking at the charter, the first provisions, 14.05, 00:07:30.899 --> 00:07:33.899 is basically a nepotism provision. 00:07:33.899 --> 00:07:38.540 And it looks very similar to 572, the provision in state 00:07:38.540 --> 00:07:38.899 law, 00:07:38.899 --> 00:07:42.899 in terms of a prohibition on the hiring of relatives 00:07:42.899 --> 00:07:45.399 within certain degrees, 00:07:45.399 --> 00:07:49.899 certain degrees by blood or by marriage or adoption. 00:07:49.899 --> 00:07:55.899 One aspect that the charter provision in Denton provides 00:07:55.899 --> 00:07:59.399 is that it actually applies it to department heads, 00:07:59.399 --> 00:08:01.899 as well as to the city council. 00:08:01.899 --> 00:08:04.899 Because under state law, if a city's home rule charter 00:08:04.899 --> 00:08:08.899 delegates hiring and firing authority to the city manager, 00:08:08.899 --> 00:08:12.899 then the state law nepotism rule does not apply. 00:08:12.899 --> 00:08:16.139 Your charter goes a little bit beyond state law in that 00:08:16.139 --> 00:08:16.399 regard 00:08:16.399 --> 00:08:18.399 and applies it to department heads 00:08:18.399 --> 00:08:21.899 regarding employees being hired for that department. 00:08:21.899 --> 00:08:25.899 Much like state law, it also has an exemption 00:08:25.899 --> 00:08:29.899 for pre-existing personnel, those employees that were there 00:08:29.899 --> 00:08:31.899 before someone got elected to council 00:08:31.899 --> 00:08:34.899 or before that department head was named. 00:08:35.899 --> 00:08:38.899 The second provision in your charter that's at issue 00:08:38.899 --> 00:08:40.899 that you've been asked to evaluate is one entitled 00:08:40.899 --> 00:08:42.899 personal interest. 00:08:42.899 --> 00:08:46.899 It may otherwise be named a conflict of interest, 00:08:46.899 --> 00:08:49.899 which is the title that we give the state law. 00:08:49.899 --> 00:08:51.899 And it applies to a member of a board or a commission, 00:08:51.899 --> 00:08:53.899 which is clearly going to include the city council, 00:08:53.899 --> 00:08:56.899 it's going to include P&Z, 00:08:56.899 --> 00:08:58.899 and other such boards and commissions. 00:08:58.899 --> 00:09:01.899 It defines a substantial interest in the way it's defined 00:09:01.899 --> 00:09:03.899 in state statute. 00:09:03.899 --> 00:09:07.899 And that definition is tied to money. 00:09:07.899 --> 00:09:08.899 Do you get income? 00:09:08.899 --> 00:09:09.899 Do you own stock? 00:09:09.899 --> 00:09:11.899 Do you own real estate? 00:09:11.899 --> 00:09:16.899 And then it goes on to say you must comply with 171. 00:09:16.899 --> 00:09:17.899 What does that mean? 00:09:17.899 --> 00:09:22.899 It means you must abstain from voting under your charter 00:09:22.899 --> 00:09:24.899 and file an affidavit. 00:09:24.899 --> 00:09:27.899 So the affidavit is a public declaration of this interest. 00:09:27.899 --> 00:09:29.899 It's a document that's filed with the city secretary's 00:09:29.899 --> 00:09:30.899 office 00:09:30.899 --> 00:09:32.899 and thus is available to anybody who requests it 00:09:32.899 --> 00:09:34.899 under the Open Records Act. 00:09:34.899 --> 00:09:37.899 But an interesting twist, yours actually says voting. 00:09:37.899 --> 00:09:40.899 If you read state statute, which we'll get to it later on, 00:09:40.899 --> 00:09:44.899 it talks about participation. 00:09:44.899 --> 00:09:47.899 And participation is broader than voting. 00:09:47.899 --> 00:09:51.899 It includes discussions, deliberations. 00:09:51.899 --> 00:09:54.899 And so if we were to enforce that, 00:09:54.899 --> 00:09:56.899 because of the references to 171, 00:09:56.899 --> 00:09:59.899 I would take the broader interpretation of 171. 00:09:59.899 --> 00:10:02.370 But that's just a couple of nuance points about your 00:10:02.370 --> 00:10:02.899 charter. 00:10:02.899 --> 00:10:05.899 So those are things you've been asked to look at. 00:10:05.899 --> 00:10:06.899 Are they enough? 00:10:06.899 --> 00:10:08.899 Are they too much? 00:10:08.899 --> 00:10:09.899 Do we need them? 00:10:09.899 --> 00:10:10.899 Do we need something else? 00:10:10.899 --> 00:10:12.899 That's the point of today's meeting and the meetings 00:10:12.899 --> 00:10:14.899 you all have had to discuss it previously. 00:10:14.899 --> 00:10:18.899 Before we get into that, let's take a look at state law. 00:10:18.899 --> 00:10:21.899 The first one that, you know, again, you may decide 00:10:21.899 --> 00:10:23.899 whether you think this fits under the umbrella of ethics, 00:10:23.899 --> 00:10:26.899 but it often is mentioned in these types of training 00:10:26.899 --> 00:10:26.899 sessions 00:10:26.899 --> 00:10:27.899 and in regulations. 00:10:27.899 --> 00:10:29.899 One is resigned to run. 00:10:29.899 --> 00:10:32.899 The notion that's reflected in the Constitution of the 00:10:32.899 --> 00:10:32.899 state 00:10:32.899 --> 00:10:36.899 that says by accepting a second position, 00:10:36.899 --> 00:10:40.899 you automatically forfeit your first position. 00:10:40.899 --> 00:10:41.899 Now what does that mean? 00:10:41.899 --> 00:10:46.899 Well, it looks only at public offices of emolument. 00:10:46.899 --> 00:10:47.899 What does that mean? 00:10:47.899 --> 00:10:49.899 Well, to be a public office, you have to exercise 00:10:49.899 --> 00:10:51.899 a sovereign function of government. 00:10:51.899 --> 00:10:56.899 You're not just stamping, filing, processing. 00:10:56.899 --> 00:10:59.899 You're exercising some discretion in your position. 00:10:59.899 --> 00:11:02.899 And the second part is you get paid. 00:11:02.899 --> 00:11:05.549 So even if it's a public office, clearly a city council 00:11:05.549 --> 00:11:05.899 member 00:11:05.899 --> 00:11:06.899 would be a public office. 00:11:06.899 --> 00:11:10.830 But if they're not getting paid, this whole rule does not 00:11:10.830 --> 00:11:11.899 apply. 00:11:11.899 --> 00:11:16.899 And there's lots of exceptions, like so many provisions 00:11:16.899 --> 00:11:17.899 in our state constitution. 00:11:17.899 --> 00:11:20.899 There's the rule, and then there's page after page 00:11:20.899 --> 00:11:22.899 after page after page of exceptions to the exceptions 00:11:22.899 --> 00:11:26.899 to the exceptions of the rule. 00:11:26.899 --> 00:11:28.899 Next is incompatibility. 00:11:28.899 --> 00:11:30.899 And this one is not actually statutory. 00:11:30.899 --> 00:11:32.899 It's common law. 00:11:32.899 --> 00:11:35.899 So this is something where a judge will decide it on a case 00:11:35.899 --> 00:11:37.899 by case basis. 00:11:37.899 --> 00:11:39.899 It depends on the facts. 00:11:39.899 --> 00:11:44.899 There are many, many attorney general opinions on this. 00:11:44.899 --> 00:11:48.899 And what incompatibility is, it essentially is saying 00:11:48.899 --> 00:11:48.899 either 00:11:48.899 --> 00:11:50.899 you can't be your own boss. 00:11:50.899 --> 00:11:53.899 That would be incompatible. 00:11:53.899 --> 00:11:56.899 So if you were to have a city manager opening in city of 00:11:56.899 --> 00:11:59.899 Denton, which you don't now, but if you were, you couldn't 00:11:59.899 --> 00:12:03.899 appoint a city council member to be the city manager. 00:12:03.899 --> 00:12:06.899 They couldn't both be city manager and be on the city 00:12:06.899 --> 00:12:06.899 council 00:12:06.899 --> 00:12:08.899 because they'd be their own boss. 00:12:08.899 --> 00:12:09.899 You get that? 00:12:09.899 --> 00:12:11.899 So that's incompatibility. 00:12:11.899 --> 00:12:14.899 And yes, because I do represent so many smaller cities 00:12:14.899 --> 00:12:17.899 as city attorney, that comes up a lot. 00:12:17.899 --> 00:12:19.899 They want to get paid, but they don't want to give up their 00:12:19.899 --> 00:12:20.899 city council position. 00:12:20.899 --> 00:12:21.899 They want both. 00:12:21.899 --> 00:12:23.899 That's an example of a case when you can't do it. 00:12:23.899 --> 00:12:27.350 The more complicated versions of incompatibility is the 00:12:27.350 --> 00:12:27.899 notion 00:12:27.899 --> 00:12:31.899 that no one can serve two masters at the same time. 00:12:31.899 --> 00:12:36.899 So can you be superintendent of Denton Independent School 00:12:36.899 --> 00:12:39.899 District and be on the city council? 00:12:39.899 --> 00:12:40.899 No. 00:12:40.899 --> 00:12:43.899 It's not because city councils and school board trustees 00:12:43.899 --> 00:12:43.899 are 00:12:43.899 --> 00:12:45.899 always fighting. 00:12:45.899 --> 00:12:46.899 Sometimes they do. 00:12:46.899 --> 00:12:49.899 Sometimes they get along really well, and they're always 00:12:49.899 --> 00:12:52.899 contracting with each other, co-sponsoring programs. 00:12:52.899 --> 00:12:55.409 We'll own the swimming pool, but you operate the swimming 00:12:55.409 --> 00:12:55.899 pool. 00:12:55.899 --> 00:12:58.899 They're very, very intertwined oftentimes, so you could not 00:12:58.899 --> 00:12:58.899 be 00:12:58.899 --> 00:13:02.899 a superintendent at the school and be on the city council. 00:13:02.899 --> 00:13:05.899 But you can be a school teacher with the school district 00:13:05.899 --> 00:13:05.899 and 00:13:05.899 --> 00:13:07.899 be on the city council. 00:13:07.899 --> 00:13:10.899 You couldn't be chief of a volunteer fire department and 00:13:10.899 --> 00:13:12.899 sit on the city council. 00:13:12.899 --> 00:13:15.899 But you can be assistant chief or treasurer. 00:13:15.899 --> 00:13:17.899 How do I know? 00:13:17.899 --> 00:13:20.899 Because some attorney general has written that opinion, and 00:13:20.899 --> 00:13:23.899 they give lots of advisory opinions in that regard. 00:13:23.899 --> 00:13:28.899 So a conflict of duties, a conflict of loyalties, you know 00:13:28.899 --> 00:13:30.899 it when you see it, you know it when you smell it. 00:13:30.899 --> 00:13:34.899 That's what this entire body of incompatibility is about. 00:13:34.899 --> 00:13:37.899 It gets really, really intricate with some positions. 00:13:37.899 --> 00:13:40.899 I'm using common examples. 00:13:40.899 --> 00:13:43.899 But can you be emergency services director for a county 00:13:43.899 --> 00:13:47.419 when some of the money that you spend, your salary 00:13:47.419 --> 00:13:47.899 supported 00:13:47.899 --> 00:13:52.899 by city contracts and also by city taxpayers, and then also 00:13:52.899 --> 00:13:54.899 be named to the city council? 00:13:54.899 --> 00:13:59.899 So emergency services district manager for that county, but 00:13:59.899 --> 00:14:01.899 also on a city in that county. 00:14:01.899 --> 00:14:03.899 Well, there's no AG opinion on that one. 00:14:03.899 --> 00:14:05.899 And so it's a case-by-case analysis. 00:14:05.899 --> 00:14:09.529 And of course, the risk is if you go to trial and you're 00:14:09.529 --> 00:14:09.899 found 00:14:09.899 --> 00:14:12.899 to have an incompatibility, it's kind of like resigned to 00:14:12.899 --> 00:14:12.899 run 00:14:12.899 --> 00:14:15.899 by accepting that second position, you're booted out of 00:14:15.899 --> 00:14:16.899 the first one. 00:14:16.899 --> 00:14:20.899 And if the one you're booted out of is your paying position 00:14:20.899 --> 00:14:20.899 , 00:14:20.899 --> 00:14:22.899 then that can be a little bit hard. 00:14:22.899 --> 00:14:25.899 So I'm always having to counsel folks, get your own lawyer, 00:14:25.899 --> 00:14:27.899 and have your own lawyer on letterhead give you their 00:14:27.899 --> 00:14:30.899 opinion on whether or not you can serve in these two 00:14:30.899 --> 00:14:30.899 different 00:14:30.899 --> 00:14:34.899 positions at the same time for risk of violating the 00:14:34.899 --> 00:14:39.899 incompatibility rule. 00:14:39.899 --> 00:14:42.899 Public disclosures, this is one we see with increasing 00:14:42.899 --> 00:14:44.899 amount 00:14:44.899 --> 00:14:46.899 in Austin at the legislature. 00:14:46.899 --> 00:14:50.899 The last couple of sessions, the legislature has shown an 00:14:50.899 --> 00:14:54.899 increasing interest in causing cities, city officials, 00:14:54.899 --> 00:14:54.899 other 00:14:54.899 --> 00:14:58.899 local governments to disclose more information, more 00:14:58.899 --> 00:14:59.899 paperwork 00:14:59.899 --> 00:15:01.899 regarding your own dealings. 00:15:01.899 --> 00:15:04.899 If a vendor comes in and wants a contract, they have to 00:15:04.899 --> 00:15:07.899 disclose along with their proposal whether or not that 00:15:07.899 --> 00:15:11.899 they have any business relationships with the city 00:15:11.899 --> 00:15:15.899 council or family relationships with the city council. 00:15:15.899 --> 00:15:18.899 If you have contracts over certain sizes, now the city and 00:15:18.899 --> 00:15:21.899 the vendors have to submit information. 00:15:21.899 --> 00:15:23.899 More and more of those disclosure forms are being 00:15:23.899 --> 00:15:28.899 required, and this is just a few of them. 00:15:28.899 --> 00:15:31.899 There's bills filed this current session pending, and 00:15:31.899 --> 00:15:33.899 whether they go anywhere or not, it's too early to say. 00:15:33.899 --> 00:15:37.899 They require even more disclosures of more -- I guess the 00:15:37.899 --> 00:15:41.899 notion is if we disclose all this information, it gets put 00:15:41.899 --> 00:15:41.899 up 00:15:41.899 --> 00:15:44.899 on the websites either at a state agency like the Texas 00:15:44.899 --> 00:15:47.899 Ethics Commission or the city secretary posted here at city 00:15:47.899 --> 00:15:51.899 hall on our website, voters will have access to it, then 00:15:51.899 --> 00:15:55.899 they can judge us more thoroughly based on our 00:15:55.899 --> 00:15:59.899 relationships, our money, and those sorts of things. 00:15:59.899 --> 00:16:01.899 There's really no penalty if you fail to turn in these 00:16:01.899 --> 00:16:02.899 things. 00:16:02.899 --> 00:16:04.899 They have to give you a warning and give you a chance to go 00:16:04.899 --> 00:16:08.899 and fill it in after the fact and get them submitted. 00:16:08.899 --> 00:16:13.320 So this again, more ethics being viewed as more 00:16:13.320 --> 00:16:16.899 transparency. 00:16:16.899 --> 00:16:19.899 Then you kind of transition to the penal code, which is not 00:16:19.899 --> 00:16:23.899 the only set of criminal statutes we have in Texas. 00:16:23.899 --> 00:16:25.899 The law is spread all over the place, but for sure the 00:16:25.899 --> 00:16:25.899 penal 00:16:25.899 --> 00:16:29.899 code is an obvious place to go look, and whether you view 00:16:29.899 --> 00:16:29.899 this 00:16:29.899 --> 00:16:33.899 as ethics or not, it gets swept under that ethics umbrella. 00:16:33.899 --> 00:16:36.899 The first one is good old fashioned bribery. 00:16:36.899 --> 00:16:40.899 I like a quote from a former unnamed San Antonio city 00:16:40.899 --> 00:16:45.899 official where he said in the San Antonio newspaper, if we 00:16:45.899 --> 00:16:45.899 're 00:16:45.899 --> 00:16:52.899 getting elected just to look good, I don't want to be here. 00:16:52.899 --> 00:16:53.899 And you don't have to worry about him because he's not 00:16:53.899 --> 00:16:54.899 there 00:16:54.899 --> 00:16:57.899 because he went to jail for bribery. 00:16:57.899 --> 00:17:00.899 A lot of city council members in San Antonio went to jail 00:17:00.899 --> 00:17:00.899 for 00:17:00.899 --> 00:17:04.900 bribery, and they were bribed by, who else? 00:17:04.900 --> 00:17:07.900 A law firm that wanted a city contract. 00:17:07.900 --> 00:17:10.900 So it was a pretty nasty bit of business there for a while. 00:17:10.900 --> 00:17:12.900 It's not just cities and it's not just law firms. 00:17:12.900 --> 00:17:15.900 You could be from my hometown of El Paso where you got 00:17:15.900 --> 00:17:15.900 school 00:17:15.900 --> 00:17:20.029 board members taking bribes from insurance companies and on 00:17:20.029 --> 00:17:20.900 and on and on. 00:17:20.900 --> 00:17:27.200 Bribery is criminal, accepting, soliciting any offer of 00:17:27.200 --> 00:17:27.900 money or thing of value 00:17:27.900 --> 00:17:32.599 that's enticing you to do something or enticing you not to 00:17:32.599 --> 00:17:33.900 do something. 00:17:33.900 --> 00:17:38.150 To thwart the execution of an ordinance or a city policy or 00:17:38.150 --> 00:17:38.900 to push a policy 00:17:38.900 --> 00:17:41.900 or contract or an ordinance someone's way. 00:17:41.900 --> 00:17:45.900 Good old fashioned bribery alive and well in Texas. 00:17:45.900 --> 00:17:51.900 Coercion, a threat to harm, expose, ridicule someone. 00:17:51.900 --> 00:17:55.900 Coercion of a public official trying to convince them to do 00:17:55.900 --> 00:17:56.900 something. 00:17:56.900 --> 00:18:03.150 Coercion of a voter, the three different aspects of coerc 00:18:03.150 --> 00:18:04.900 ion in Texas. 00:18:04.900 --> 00:18:08.230 Honorariums, we're not allowed to accept honorariums if the 00:18:08.230 --> 00:18:08.900 honorarium 00:18:08.900 --> 00:18:12.900 is given to you because of your public position. 00:18:12.900 --> 00:18:16.410 Which is why I love it when you read about members of the 00:18:16.410 --> 00:18:16.900 legislature 00:18:16.900 --> 00:18:20.900 getting big nice honorariums for speaking at conferences. 00:18:20.900 --> 00:18:23.900 But don't worry, it's an insurance conference and I'm an 00:18:23.900 --> 00:18:24.900 insurance agent. 00:18:24.900 --> 00:18:27.900 I was paid to come here to speak as an insurance agent, 00:18:27.900 --> 00:18:30.900 not because I'm a state senator or a state representative, 00:18:30.900 --> 00:18:31.900 I promise. 00:18:31.900 --> 00:18:34.849 And so you actually follow those lines, you can see it 00:18:34.849 --> 00:18:35.900 sometimes. 00:18:35.900 --> 00:18:39.109 Transportation and lodging is okay if you're speaking at 00:18:39.109 --> 00:18:39.900 the event. 00:18:39.900 --> 00:18:43.460 There's an exception for gifts and awards and mementos if 00:18:43.460 --> 00:18:44.900 they are of de minimis value. 00:18:44.900 --> 00:18:48.579 It's such a small thing, it's a token, it's not really 00:18:48.579 --> 00:18:49.900 worth counting. 00:18:49.900 --> 00:18:52.410 If you're unsure whether it really is de minimis, figure 00:18:52.410 --> 00:18:53.900 out what it costs. 00:18:53.900 --> 00:18:56.900 If it's more than 50 bucks, you probably shouldn't take it. 00:18:56.900 --> 00:18:59.900 So is it a plaque? Of course that's fine. 00:18:59.900 --> 00:19:03.900 Is it a vase of flowers, a gift basket, fruit? You bet. 00:19:03.900 --> 00:19:06.900 If it's over 50 bucks, you may have an issue. 00:19:06.900 --> 00:19:12.900 And I'll give credit to one of my mentors, Art Pertile, 00:19:12.900 --> 00:19:14.900 former city attorney of Waco. 00:19:14.900 --> 00:19:17.900 Now he's with a law firm in Houston. 00:19:17.900 --> 00:19:19.900 He just had his own rule. 00:19:19.900 --> 00:19:22.349 Even when my firm would send him candy, they weren't even a 00:19:22.349 --> 00:19:22.900 client. 00:19:22.900 --> 00:19:26.329 I like art, we send out candy at Christmas, here's a box of 00:19:26.329 --> 00:19:26.900 candy. 00:19:26.900 --> 00:19:29.019 Get the note back, dear Alan, thank you for the candy, it 00:19:29.019 --> 00:19:29.900 looked great. 00:19:29.900 --> 00:19:32.960 We didn't open it, my policy is we give it to the boys and 00:19:32.960 --> 00:19:33.900 girls club. 00:19:33.900 --> 00:19:36.990 Okay, and that wasn't even required by a city of Waco 00:19:36.990 --> 00:19:37.900 ordinance. 00:19:37.900 --> 00:19:39.900 That was his own rule. 00:19:39.900 --> 00:19:41.900 I don't care, I'm a businessman myself. 00:19:41.900 --> 00:19:45.029 I gave someone I like a gift, he gave it to whomever he 00:19:45.029 --> 00:19:45.900 wanted to. 00:19:45.900 --> 00:19:50.900 But if it's less than $50, you don't have to disclose it. 00:19:50.900 --> 00:19:53.759 One thing that I think is interesting here, I'll make a 00:19:53.759 --> 00:19:54.900 little side point. 00:19:54.900 --> 00:19:58.500 The transportation and lodging, if you want to call 00:19:58.500 --> 00:20:01.900 something a loophole, you could drive a limousine through. 00:20:01.900 --> 00:20:04.900 This is a loophole you can drive a limousine through. 00:20:04.900 --> 00:20:09.900 As public officials, we can accept gifts of transportation, 00:20:09.900 --> 00:20:15.220 lodging, dinner, events, if the person who's paying for it 00:20:15.220 --> 00:20:16.900 is along for the ride. 00:20:18.900 --> 00:20:22.250 So imagine a city in South Texas getting an invitation to 00:20:22.250 --> 00:20:26.990 hop into a limo, mayor, council, senior staff, drive up to 00:20:26.990 --> 00:20:27.900 Arlington. 00:20:27.900 --> 00:20:33.130 So they can go see the cowboys play in a luxury suite owned 00:20:33.130 --> 00:20:36.599 by an investor and a vendor that does business at City Hall 00:20:36.599 --> 00:20:36.900 . 00:20:36.900 --> 00:20:40.470 Not only is it legal for that to happen because the person 00:20:40.470 --> 00:20:44.559 paying for it was along for the ride, there's no disclosure 00:20:44.559 --> 00:20:45.900 requirements. 00:20:45.900 --> 00:20:47.900 There's no form you fill out. 00:20:47.900 --> 00:20:51.690 There's no keeping a record of who was in the limo and what 00:20:51.690 --> 00:20:53.900 the relationship was at all. 00:20:53.900 --> 00:20:55.900 Perfectly legal. 00:20:55.900 --> 00:20:56.900 Is it ethical? 00:20:56.900 --> 00:20:59.900 Well, it didn't violate any written standard at City Hall. 00:20:59.900 --> 00:21:01.900 They have an ethics ordinance. 00:21:01.900 --> 00:21:03.900 That sort of thing doesn't cover it. 00:21:03.900 --> 00:21:06.059 Well, next time this contract comes around for review, is 00:21:06.059 --> 00:21:09.450 the fact that they got a trip to Arlington going to 00:21:09.450 --> 00:21:10.900 influence them? 00:21:10.900 --> 00:21:12.900 I don't think so. 00:21:12.900 --> 00:21:14.900 I don't think it'll influence them. 00:21:14.900 --> 00:21:17.430 They're still going to pick the right contract that has the 00:21:17.430 --> 00:21:19.900 right customer service and the right dollar value. 00:21:19.900 --> 00:21:22.950 Are voters going to have a cow where they'll learn about 00:21:22.950 --> 00:21:24.900 this little trip to Arlington? 00:21:24.900 --> 00:21:26.900 Absolutely. 00:21:26.900 --> 00:21:28.900 Would the media love to have that story? 00:21:28.900 --> 00:21:29.900 You bet. 00:21:29.900 --> 00:21:30.900 You bet. 00:21:30.900 --> 00:21:33.900 But I have to say it's legal because I'm a lawyer. 00:21:33.900 --> 00:21:37.069 I have to say ethical, well, it didn't violate their ethics 00:21:37.069 --> 00:21:37.900 ordinance. 00:21:37.900 --> 00:21:39.900 Was it the right thing to do? 00:21:39.900 --> 00:21:40.900 I don't know. 00:21:40.900 --> 00:21:42.990 The question was put to the mayor, the couple of council 00:21:42.990 --> 00:21:44.900 members who went, the city manager who went. 00:21:44.900 --> 00:21:47.099 Are you ready to own this when it's on the front page of 00:21:47.099 --> 00:21:48.900 the newspaper or on the blogosphere? 00:21:48.900 --> 00:21:50.900 You bet I'll own it. 00:21:50.900 --> 00:21:53.900 Okay, have a nice trip is the way the story goes. 00:21:53.900 --> 00:21:55.900 And why is this exception this way? 00:21:55.900 --> 00:21:58.900 I mean, it's not even really an exception. 00:21:58.900 --> 00:22:01.900 And of course, I've been doing this for many, many years. 00:22:01.900 --> 00:22:03.900 This is all I've ever done for a living. 00:22:03.900 --> 00:22:05.900 So I am cynical and skeptical. 00:22:05.900 --> 00:22:08.400 And I think the rule is the way it is because the 00:22:08.400 --> 00:22:11.559 legislature avails themselves of these sorts of perks of 00:22:11.559 --> 00:22:12.900 office all the time. 00:22:12.900 --> 00:22:15.900 And so I think it's very unlikely they're going to prohibit 00:22:15.900 --> 00:22:18.480 this sort of thing when a lot of them view this as one of 00:22:18.480 --> 00:22:19.900 the reasons they got it in. 00:22:19.900 --> 00:22:20.900 They work hard. 00:22:20.900 --> 00:22:21.900 It's a part-time job. 00:22:21.900 --> 00:22:25.230 Hey, if we can't enjoy the occasional perk, what's the 00:22:25.230 --> 00:22:25.900 point? 00:22:25.900 --> 00:22:29.900 Just one jaded lawyer's opinion. 00:22:29.900 --> 00:22:33.549 Misuse of information is actually a crime under the penal 00:22:33.549 --> 00:22:36.410 code to use information for your benefit, the benefit of 00:22:36.410 --> 00:22:38.900 your friends or benefit of your family, 00:22:38.900 --> 00:22:42.089 if you came across that information only because of your 00:22:42.089 --> 00:22:43.900 relationship to City Hall. 00:22:43.900 --> 00:22:47.640 You're an employee, you're an elected official, you're an 00:22:47.640 --> 00:22:49.900 appointed volunteer on a board or commission. 00:22:49.900 --> 00:22:52.759 Now, if it's public information and everybody knows the rez 00:22:52.759 --> 00:22:55.349 oning is going to happen, and so you're out there doing land 00:22:55.349 --> 00:22:58.900 speculation just like everybody else could, then it's fine. 00:22:58.900 --> 00:22:59.900 And believe me, I think about it. 00:22:59.900 --> 00:23:03.170 I think about some of the communities that I represent that 00:23:03.170 --> 00:23:06.579 were nothing when I started being city attorney 15 years 00:23:06.579 --> 00:23:06.900 ago. 00:23:06.900 --> 00:23:10.269 And because of demographics and highways and I-35 realign 00:23:10.269 --> 00:23:12.900 ments and everything else, wow, I could have made a fortune 00:23:12.900 --> 00:23:14.900 because I knew where the roads were going. 00:23:14.900 --> 00:23:16.900 I knew where the rezoning was going. 00:23:16.900 --> 00:23:19.390 I knew where the infrastructure was going for water and 00:23:19.390 --> 00:23:19.900 sewer. 00:23:19.900 --> 00:23:22.410 Oh boy, oh boy, my parents could have done better with 00:23:22.410 --> 00:23:23.900 their retirement account. 00:23:23.900 --> 00:23:25.900 But that would be unethical, right? 00:23:25.900 --> 00:23:27.900 Oh, and it's illegal also. 00:23:27.900 --> 00:23:32.690 So I didn't take advantage of any of that, and neither or 00:23:32.690 --> 00:23:33.900 any of you. 00:23:33.900 --> 00:23:36.900 Abuse of office comes up more often than I would like. 00:23:36.900 --> 00:23:46.339 3902, the penal code, you intend to obtain a benefit that's 00:23:46.339 --> 00:23:50.900 not available to the general public or to harm or to fraud 00:23:50.900 --> 00:23:53.900 somebody otherwise than the general public. 00:23:53.900 --> 00:23:56.900 That comes down to abuse of office. 00:23:56.900 --> 00:24:00.420 This is one of the more common ones that I've seen that 00:24:00.420 --> 00:24:02.900 gets the Texas Rangers involved. 00:24:02.900 --> 00:24:05.539 And when a Texas Ranger comes knocking on your door to 00:24:05.539 --> 00:24:08.690 interview you because someone you work with, or in my case 00:24:08.690 --> 00:24:12.430 somebody I advise, is being investigated for abuse of 00:24:12.430 --> 00:24:14.900 office, it's a very, very serious offense. 00:24:14.900 --> 00:24:17.900 They're using government property, government money, 00:24:17.900 --> 00:24:23.130 government services, personnel in ways the general public 00:24:23.130 --> 00:24:26.089 would not allow and is not pursuant to a city policy 00:24:26.089 --> 00:24:27.900 practice or procedure. 00:24:27.900 --> 00:24:31.960 Or they're using the weight of their office to try to harm 00:24:31.960 --> 00:24:32.900 someone. 00:24:32.900 --> 00:24:36.859 And it's not just the usual code enforcement or action that 00:24:36.859 --> 00:24:39.900 's pursuant to a city code of ordinances. 00:24:39.900 --> 00:24:43.900 This is the one that'll get you investigated. 00:24:43.900 --> 00:24:47.710 So that was a very quick run through of most of the laws 00:24:47.710 --> 00:24:48.900 that come up. 00:24:48.900 --> 00:24:52.880 If you've read the AG's handbook has been around for 00:24:52.880 --> 00:24:55.900 probably, I don't know, 18, 19 years. 00:24:55.900 --> 00:24:58.660 Three or four different AG's have touched it that gives 00:24:58.660 --> 00:25:01.500 kind of the pitfalls for the unwary or some of the more 00:25:01.500 --> 00:25:02.900 common ethics rules. 00:25:02.900 --> 00:25:04.900 That's the highlights that I just covered. 00:25:04.900 --> 00:25:08.200 The next ones we're transitioning into the ones that affect 00:25:08.200 --> 00:25:10.900 you, the city of Denton, and your charter. 00:25:10.900 --> 00:25:14.900 So if you're looking at 171, which your charter references, 00:25:14.900 --> 00:25:19.180 171 of the Texas Local Government Code, you're talking 00:25:19.180 --> 00:25:23.900 about finances and you're talking about real estate. 00:25:23.900 --> 00:25:26.910 So often is the case where after a council meeting or 00:25:26.910 --> 00:25:30.900 during a city council meeting, up comes the reporter. 00:25:30.900 --> 00:25:33.430 You know, iPhone shoved in my face, wanting to question me 00:25:33.430 --> 00:25:34.900 about conflicts of interest. 00:25:34.900 --> 00:25:38.329 Well, first of all, I'm a lawyer, so I'm not going to talk 00:25:38.329 --> 00:25:41.630 about what my clients may or may not be doing to a reporter 00:25:41.630 --> 00:25:42.900 in open session. 00:25:42.900 --> 00:25:46.740 But, by the way, what they're usually asking about is it 00:25:46.740 --> 00:25:48.900 doesn't smell right to them. 00:25:48.900 --> 00:25:52.630 The relationship the city councilman has doesn't feel right 00:25:52.630 --> 00:25:52.900 . 00:25:52.900 --> 00:25:56.480 The relationship this department has to this contract just 00:25:56.480 --> 00:25:57.900 doesn't look right. 00:25:57.900 --> 00:26:00.150 Isn't that a conflict of interest? Isn't that a conflict of 00:26:00.150 --> 00:26:00.900 interest? 00:26:00.900 --> 00:26:03.490 Just last week I was helping a city out west where the city 00:26:03.490 --> 00:26:05.900 attorney is accused of a conflict of interest. 00:26:05.900 --> 00:26:08.559 Well, your boss is the city council. You should not be 00:26:08.559 --> 00:26:11.900 advising the council on this. It's a conflict. 00:26:11.900 --> 00:26:13.900 You got to look and see what the rule is. 00:26:13.900 --> 00:26:17.640 In Texas, we no longer have common law conflict of interest 00:26:17.640 --> 00:26:17.900 . 00:26:17.900 --> 00:26:19.900 We used to. 00:26:19.900 --> 00:26:23.589 We used to have it where a judge and jury would decide on a 00:26:23.589 --> 00:26:28.230 case by case basis, is this a conflict of interest or is it 00:26:28.230 --> 00:26:28.900 not? 00:26:28.900 --> 00:26:34.900 When the legislature adopted 171, they expressly repealed 00:26:34.900 --> 00:26:38.900 and preempted all of that previous body of law. 00:26:38.900 --> 00:26:42.140 That's no longer precedent in Texas for defining a conflict 00:26:42.140 --> 00:26:43.900 of interest under state law. 00:26:43.900 --> 00:26:48.900 It's this. And as you'll see, it's tied to money. 00:26:48.900 --> 00:26:52.839 How much of your income? How much stock? What's the fair 00:26:52.839 --> 00:26:55.900 market value? Is it real estate? 00:26:55.900 --> 00:27:00.660 And if you have these thresholds, they will trigger 171 of 00:27:00.660 --> 00:27:02.900 the local government code. 00:27:02.900 --> 00:27:06.900 Does this law prevent conflicts of interest? 00:27:06.900 --> 00:27:08.900 Usually not. 00:27:08.900 --> 00:27:12.410 What it does is it takes the deal, it takes the transaction 00:27:12.410 --> 00:27:15.779 out of the shadows of some back hallway at city hall or the 00:27:15.779 --> 00:27:18.900 county courthouse and brings it out into the open. 00:27:18.900 --> 00:27:21.400 By first of all requiring the member of the city council 00:27:21.400 --> 00:27:24.440 that has a conflict of interest or the P&Z member that has 00:27:24.440 --> 00:27:28.900 a conflict of interest to declare that interest in writing 00:27:28.900 --> 00:27:33.359 in an affidavit that's filed with the city secretary and 00:27:33.359 --> 00:27:36.900 has made a public record. 00:27:36.900 --> 00:27:41.789 And then the second part is requires that official to abst 00:27:41.789 --> 00:27:46.579 ain from participation, which has been defined elsewhere as 00:27:46.579 --> 00:27:48.900 being voting and discussing. 00:27:48.900 --> 00:27:52.630 So deliberating at the dais and participating in the voting 00:27:52.630 --> 00:27:52.900 . 00:27:52.900 --> 00:27:56.250 The question I get most often on 171 is not whether someone 00:27:56.250 --> 00:27:57.900 has a conflict of interest. 00:27:57.900 --> 00:28:00.900 I think the rules are pretty straightforward. 00:28:00.900 --> 00:28:05.589 The question that I get as a practitioner is, well, okay, I 00:28:05.589 --> 00:28:09.660 'll step down from the dais, but I can come speak at the 00:28:09.660 --> 00:28:11.900 podium as a citizen, right? 00:28:11.900 --> 00:28:14.900 I can speak as a property owner, right? 00:28:14.900 --> 00:28:17.609 Well, you know, I have to do my little lawyer dance because 00:28:17.609 --> 00:28:19.900 I said, well, you know, I don't advise you. 00:28:19.900 --> 00:28:21.900 I advise the city as an entity. 00:28:21.900 --> 00:28:25.599 And so if you're going to risk violating this rule that you 00:28:25.599 --> 00:28:29.289 need to own that yourself, so you may want to have your own 00:28:29.289 --> 00:28:31.900 personal lawyer advise you on that. 00:28:31.900 --> 00:28:34.289 But since we're here and I got nothing better to do, I'll 00:28:34.289 --> 00:28:35.900 give you some general opinions. 00:28:35.900 --> 00:28:41.589 I think by accepting a position as a P&Z member or maybe it 00:28:41.589 --> 00:28:44.769 's parks and rec or maybe it's, you know, another border 00:28:44.769 --> 00:28:47.900 commission, utilities commission. 00:28:47.900 --> 00:28:51.319 Or by accepting a seat on the city council, you are giving 00:28:51.319 --> 00:28:54.900 up some of your rights that a normal citizen would have. 00:28:54.900 --> 00:28:58.339 For sure, the Open Meetings Act says so and the Open 00:28:58.339 --> 00:28:59.900 Records Act says so. 00:28:59.900 --> 00:29:02.579 By trading in your work at City Hall, you're agreeing you 00:29:02.579 --> 00:29:04.900 have to show all your emails most of the time. 00:29:04.900 --> 00:29:07.250 You're agreeing you can only talk about public business 00:29:07.250 --> 00:29:08.900 with a quorum in certain settings. 00:29:08.900 --> 00:29:11.160 So you don't have the exact same rights that a citizen 00:29:11.160 --> 00:29:12.900 walking down the street would have. 00:29:12.900 --> 00:29:14.900 And this is one of them. 00:29:14.900 --> 00:29:17.549 I would say no, I think it's probably a good idea not to go 00:29:17.549 --> 00:29:20.230 speak from the podium as a citizen, a voter, a property 00:29:20.230 --> 00:29:20.900 owner. 00:29:20.900 --> 00:29:24.240 If someone needs to advocate your position, ask your spouse 00:29:24.240 --> 00:29:24.900 to do so. 00:29:24.900 --> 00:29:27.519 Ask your best friend to do so. Ask the lawyer friend you 00:29:27.519 --> 00:29:28.900 have to come do so. 00:29:28.900 --> 00:29:30.900 You go out in the lobby and get a cup of coffee. 00:29:30.900 --> 00:29:33.900 That's the smartest thing that you can do. 00:29:33.900 --> 00:29:36.690 I'll never forget when I was, I once upon a time, I was a 00:29:36.690 --> 00:29:38.900 lawyer for the Texas Municipal League. 00:29:38.900 --> 00:29:39.900 I was a staff lawyer there. 00:29:39.900 --> 00:29:42.869 And it's during my time at TML that there was another city 00:29:42.869 --> 00:29:45.529 in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex where the chair of 00:29:45.529 --> 00:29:48.900 planning and zoning did just an amazing job. 00:29:48.900 --> 00:29:52.599 He said, well, everyone, my son owns this property coming 00:29:52.599 --> 00:29:53.900 up on the agenda next. 00:29:53.900 --> 00:29:56.529 Therefore, I've got a conflict of interest because the 00:29:56.529 --> 00:29:59.230 conflicts of my relatives are also my conflicts under the 00:29:59.230 --> 00:29:59.900 statute. 00:29:59.900 --> 00:30:03.049 So I'm going to abstain from voting on this, but it's a 00:30:03.049 --> 00:30:03.900 great project. 00:30:03.900 --> 00:30:05.900 And it's really great for the community. 00:30:05.900 --> 00:30:06.900 And he's worked really hard on it. 00:30:06.900 --> 00:30:08.900 And he's barely going to break even on this project. 00:30:08.900 --> 00:30:10.900 So I really hope you'll support it. 00:30:10.900 --> 00:30:13.069 And then he goes on the front row and stares at his 00:30:13.069 --> 00:30:15.900 colleagues while they deliberate and vote on the matter. 00:30:15.900 --> 00:30:17.900 Well, I don't represent that city. 00:30:17.900 --> 00:30:18.900 How do I know about it? 00:30:18.900 --> 00:30:22.130 Because the whole scenario was played out in the Dallas 00:30:22.130 --> 00:30:23.900 Morning News with photos. 00:30:23.900 --> 00:30:25.670 I'm sitting there watching that going, gosh, it doesn't 00:30:25.670 --> 00:30:26.900 really matter what state law says. 00:30:26.900 --> 00:30:29.049 That doesn't really matter what that city's ethics 00:30:29.049 --> 00:30:29.900 ordinance says. 00:30:29.900 --> 00:30:32.900 I never want that to happen to me. 00:30:32.900 --> 00:30:37.480 I never want that my mug on that newspaper making this kind 00:30:37.480 --> 00:30:41.690 of poor judgment when it's so easy to just put down the ga 00:30:41.690 --> 00:30:44.519 vel and walk outside and get some fresh air and let the 00:30:44.519 --> 00:30:45.900 process run its course. 00:30:45.900 --> 00:30:48.900 But here you have our conflict of interest statute, 00:30:48.900 --> 00:30:51.589 probably the biggest, most commonly looked at ethics 00:30:51.589 --> 00:30:52.900 statute in the state. 00:30:52.900 --> 00:30:56.900 And it's only tied to money. 00:30:56.900 --> 00:30:59.900 Is that how you define conflict of interest? 00:30:59.900 --> 00:31:02.400 I'll give you another example from my TML day isn't still 00:31:02.400 --> 00:31:04.900 in the best examples I've ever heard of real stuff. 00:31:04.900 --> 00:31:05.900 I'm not clever. 00:31:05.900 --> 00:31:07.900 I can't make this up. 00:31:07.900 --> 00:31:11.900 What do you do when the entire mayor and city council 00:31:11.900 --> 00:31:15.900 belong to the same church? 00:31:15.900 --> 00:31:20.319 And what do you do when the city council enters into a 00:31:20.319 --> 00:31:22.900 lease of land with the church? 00:31:22.900 --> 00:31:29.130 Church, we're going to give you a lease for 100 years at a 00:31:29.130 --> 00:31:30.900 dollar a year. 00:31:30.900 --> 00:31:33.900 God be with you. 00:31:33.900 --> 00:31:35.900 Conflict of interest. 00:31:35.900 --> 00:31:40.339 Does it matter that some of the city council members are de 00:31:40.339 --> 00:31:41.900 acons at the church? 00:31:41.900 --> 00:31:45.619 Well, unless the deacons have stock, unless they're getting 00:31:45.619 --> 00:31:48.019 a cut from the wicker basket that's passed, I don't see how 00:31:48.019 --> 00:31:51.900 what they're doing is a conflict of interest. 00:31:51.900 --> 00:31:55.900 Not under state law. 00:31:55.900 --> 00:31:58.490 I'll mention to you later one of my favorite, favorite and 00:31:58.490 --> 00:32:01.130 earliest experiences helping a community draft an ethics 00:32:01.130 --> 00:32:01.900 ordinance. 00:32:01.900 --> 00:32:04.900 It was the beautiful village of Wimberly, Texas. 00:32:04.900 --> 00:32:06.900 Anyone know where Wimberly, Texas is? 00:32:06.900 --> 00:32:08.900 It's an amazing place. 00:32:08.900 --> 00:32:09.900 Again, I'm from out west. 00:32:09.900 --> 00:32:11.900 I've been working my way west all my life. 00:32:11.900 --> 00:32:15.329 New Mexico and El Paso and then Lubbock and then okay, here 00:32:15.329 --> 00:32:15.900 we are. 00:32:15.900 --> 00:32:18.900 I didn't know places like Wimberly, Texas existed. 00:32:18.900 --> 00:32:22.180 Just outside of San Marcos, Texas, about an hour from 00:32:22.180 --> 00:32:22.900 Austin. 00:32:22.900 --> 00:32:25.900 The Cypress Creek and Blanco River collide. 00:32:25.900 --> 00:32:29.900 Cypress trees, hills, a beautiful enchanting place. 00:32:29.900 --> 00:32:32.900 It's been around for 2,000 years as a settlement. 00:32:32.900 --> 00:32:36.900 It didn't become a city until the year 2000. 00:32:36.900 --> 00:32:39.759 Why do they finally decide we got to be a municipality and 00:32:39.759 --> 00:32:40.900 govern ourselves? 00:32:40.900 --> 00:32:42.900 The same reason most communities do. 00:32:42.900 --> 00:32:44.900 They don't want to be annexed by San Marcos. 00:32:44.900 --> 00:32:47.369 They just see those city limits sign moving down the road, 00:32:47.369 --> 00:32:48.900 so we're going to become a city. 00:32:48.900 --> 00:32:52.099 And what was amazing to me about this, with that little 00:32:52.099 --> 00:32:53.900 community, they got incorporated. 00:32:53.900 --> 00:32:57.680 They elected their first city council, female mayor, five 00:32:57.680 --> 00:32:59.900 male city councilmen. 00:32:59.900 --> 00:33:00.900 Why is that relevant? 00:33:00.900 --> 00:33:03.900 Because all five are members of the Lions Club. 00:33:03.900 --> 00:33:08.170 You couldn't do anything as a male in Wimberly, Texas if 00:33:08.170 --> 00:33:09.900 you were not a lion. 00:33:09.900 --> 00:33:11.900 That was their group. 00:33:11.900 --> 00:33:14.690 Saturday Trade Days, the number one economic engine they 00:33:14.690 --> 00:33:14.900 had, 00:33:14.900 --> 00:33:17.069 which pulled in people that helped the antique shops and 00:33:17.069 --> 00:33:18.900 the restaurants and other places in town. 00:33:18.900 --> 00:33:22.900 Very big tourist area, lots of B&Bs, lodges and all that. 00:33:22.900 --> 00:33:23.900 It was a big deal. 00:33:23.900 --> 00:33:25.650 And what happens when the mayor says, "Well, I've been 00:33:25.650 --> 00:33:27.900 invited to go speak at the Lions Club on Saturday." 00:33:27.900 --> 00:33:28.900 Fantastic. 00:33:28.900 --> 00:33:30.900 Is the council going to be there? Yep. 00:33:30.900 --> 00:33:31.900 What are you talking about? 00:33:31.900 --> 00:33:34.900 Oh, our new zoning ordinance, our new sign ordinance. 00:33:34.900 --> 00:33:37.900 So let me see, I've got my entire city council or lions, 00:33:37.900 --> 00:33:40.900 the mayor, and she's talking about public business. 00:33:40.900 --> 00:33:43.900 Any Open Meetings Act issues popping up in your head? 00:33:43.900 --> 00:33:45.900 Well, of course, it's open to the public, right? 00:33:45.900 --> 00:33:49.910 Well, no. Saturday breakfast at Lions Club is not open to 00:33:49.910 --> 00:33:50.900 the public. 00:33:50.900 --> 00:33:54.900 How do you reconcile that? 00:33:54.900 --> 00:33:55.900 I don't know. 00:33:55.900 --> 00:33:59.240 Did I mention I'm no longer city attorney of Wimberly? Did 00:33:59.240 --> 00:34:00.900 that come out? 00:34:00.900 --> 00:34:04.329 Mere membership in an organization is not enough to create 00:34:04.329 --> 00:34:05.900 a conflict of interest. 00:34:05.900 --> 00:34:10.010 And yes, of course, there are cities that do contracts with 00:34:10.010 --> 00:34:13.280 Lions Clubs or other groups for use of parking lots or for 00:34:13.280 --> 00:34:15.900 services or for those sorts of things. 00:34:15.900 --> 00:34:17.900 Chambers of commerce, on and on and on. 00:34:17.900 --> 00:34:20.760 It's very common for cities to have contractual 00:34:20.760 --> 00:34:21.900 relationships. 00:34:21.900 --> 00:34:24.760 Mere membership in an organization does not trigger a 00:34:24.760 --> 00:34:26.900 conflict of interest under state law. 00:34:26.900 --> 00:34:30.900 It's only dollars that are going to do that. 00:34:30.900 --> 00:34:35.190 I'll mention that the rest of 171 says if anyone on the 00:34:35.190 --> 00:34:39.230 board has a conflict and they file their affidavit, they 00:34:39.230 --> 00:34:42.429 can't abstain or they can't participate in the matter any 00:34:42.429 --> 00:34:47.900 further unless a majority of that board has a conflict. 00:34:47.900 --> 00:34:52.309 So if it's a zoning decision or something else and it 00:34:52.309 --> 00:34:54.659 affects most of the city council members, all the city 00:34:54.659 --> 00:34:56.900 council members, then they declare their conflict. 00:34:56.900 --> 00:34:58.900 Okay, here's our affidavit. 00:34:58.900 --> 00:35:01.809 Now we get to go on and have our discussion and we get to 00:35:01.809 --> 00:35:04.949 vote, even though we all have a conflict or most of us have 00:35:04.949 --> 00:35:05.900 a conflict. 00:35:05.900 --> 00:35:08.059 I think that rule is there to keep from paralyzing the 00:35:08.059 --> 00:35:08.900 governing body. 00:35:08.900 --> 00:35:10.900 At some point, they got to take action. 00:35:10.900 --> 00:35:13.760 And if they take action when they had other alternatives 00:35:13.760 --> 00:35:16.900 that were not conflicts, well now the politics kicks in. 00:35:16.900 --> 00:35:19.280 There may not be accountability under state law, but there 00:35:19.280 --> 00:35:22.250 's accountability at the ballot box, which is something we 00:35:22.250 --> 00:35:25.900 should never forget when we're thinking about ethics. 00:35:25.900 --> 00:35:28.760 The other thing is this law doesn't prevent the transaction 00:35:28.760 --> 00:35:29.900 from going through. 00:35:29.900 --> 00:35:31.900 An example I've seen, I've seen all these. 00:35:31.900 --> 00:35:34.900 The mayor owns the only electrician shop in town. 00:35:34.900 --> 00:35:37.900 The mayor owns the only auto shop in town. 00:35:37.900 --> 00:35:39.900 That's really fun for small town Texas. 00:35:39.900 --> 00:35:43.320 Is the police department, public works department, are they 00:35:43.320 --> 00:35:46.079 going to haul their broken vehicles for maintenance or 00:35:46.079 --> 00:35:47.900 repairs 30 miles down the road? 00:35:47.900 --> 00:35:50.210 Or are they going to contract with the mayor's garage to 00:35:50.210 --> 00:35:50.900 fix things? 00:35:50.900 --> 00:35:53.699 Well, as long as the mayor declares that interest or an aff 00:35:53.699 --> 00:35:56.880 idavit and abstains from participation, they can vote to 00:35:56.880 --> 00:36:00.900 give the mayor whatever contract he wants for that service. 00:36:00.900 --> 00:36:03.550 And sometimes, and I've seen it with my own two eyes, it 00:36:03.550 --> 00:36:05.980 really is in the public's interest to do that sort of 00:36:05.980 --> 00:36:06.900 arrangement. 00:36:06.900 --> 00:36:09.440 They just kind of go over and above in the name of 00:36:09.440 --> 00:36:12.719 transparency to make sure the citizens and voters know why 00:36:12.719 --> 00:36:15.900 they're doing this, why it's a good idea. 00:36:15.900 --> 00:36:18.900 This is not really shady self-dealing. 00:36:18.900 --> 00:36:21.300 But there are quite a few cities that would have ethics 00:36:21.300 --> 00:36:24.269 ordinances that would step in where state law does not and 00:36:24.269 --> 00:36:26.900 prevent that transaction from going through. 00:36:26.900 --> 00:36:28.900 And we'll discuss a few more of those in a minute. 00:36:28.900 --> 00:36:29.900 Yes sir, you had a question? 00:36:29.900 --> 00:36:33.900 >> Is the income, is that self-reported? 00:36:33.900 --> 00:36:36.900 >> Your tax returned. 00:36:36.900 --> 00:36:40.900 It's a percentage of your reportable income. 00:36:40.900 --> 00:36:45.900 And there's no auditing requirements that I know of. 00:36:45.900 --> 00:36:49.530 You know, one of my, do with this as you will, my favorite 00:36:49.530 --> 00:36:52.289 example under this is I had a city councilman in a town 00:36:52.289 --> 00:36:56.639 near Austin where there were lots of emails coming to city 00:36:56.639 --> 00:36:57.900 hall before council meeting. 00:36:57.900 --> 00:37:00.900 Because the vote was going to be on a variance request. 00:37:00.900 --> 00:37:04.429 This particular town is so small, the city council can 00:37:04.429 --> 00:37:06.900 double as the board of adjustment. 00:37:06.900 --> 00:37:09.010 Y'all aren't allowed to do that, but smaller towns were 00:37:09.010 --> 00:37:09.900 allowed to do that. 00:37:09.900 --> 00:37:13.400 And so a variance request was coming, emails were flooding 00:37:13.400 --> 00:37:16.900 in, demanding the city councilman abstain as a conflict of 00:37:16.900 --> 00:37:18.900 interest because he was a realtor. 00:37:18.900 --> 00:37:22.219 And the real estate company he worked for was managing this 00:37:22.219 --> 00:37:24.900 project and pushing the variance through. 00:37:24.900 --> 00:37:28.510 And so, you know, questions came up about once anyone, his 00:37:28.510 --> 00:37:29.900 income, what not. 00:37:29.900 --> 00:37:31.869 When it came to it, he asked for a point of personal 00:37:31.869 --> 00:37:32.900 privilege, Mayor. 00:37:32.900 --> 00:37:34.869 He said, I'm going to read a statement to the public, read 00:37:34.869 --> 00:37:36.900 the statement saying, yeah, I work for this company. 00:37:36.900 --> 00:37:40.840 I'm an independent contractor as our most realtors, real 00:37:40.840 --> 00:37:42.900 estate agents and brokers. 00:37:42.900 --> 00:37:44.900 I don't represent this project. 00:37:44.900 --> 00:37:47.150 I will get none of the commission that comes through on 00:37:47.150 --> 00:37:47.900 this project. 00:37:47.900 --> 00:37:48.900 I don't get bonuses. 00:37:48.900 --> 00:37:51.019 Our company doesn't give bonuses based on how well the 00:37:51.019 --> 00:37:51.900 company is doing. 00:37:51.900 --> 00:37:55.210 All the folks who voted for me knew I was a real estate 00:37:55.210 --> 00:37:55.900 agent. 00:37:55.900 --> 00:37:58.099 They wanted to have somebody who understood real estate on 00:37:58.099 --> 00:37:58.900 the city council. 00:37:58.900 --> 00:37:59.900 That's me. 00:37:59.900 --> 00:38:01.900 So I'm not abstaining. 00:38:01.900 --> 00:38:03.900 And I follow an affidavit just to do that. 00:38:03.900 --> 00:38:05.900 But I am not abstaining from this. 00:38:05.900 --> 00:38:07.900 I'm voting on this variance. 00:38:07.900 --> 00:38:11.900 And I sat back and quietly on the inside applauded the guy 00:38:11.900 --> 00:38:13.900 because he read the rules. 00:38:13.900 --> 00:38:14.900 He thought it through. 00:38:14.900 --> 00:38:17.199 And then he took a position and it wasn't a cowardly 00:38:17.199 --> 00:38:17.900 position. 00:38:17.900 --> 00:38:19.900 It was a very bold position. 00:38:19.900 --> 00:38:22.949 And he's going to be accountable for that when the election 00:38:22.949 --> 00:38:23.900 comes around. 00:38:23.900 --> 00:38:25.900 And I heard no complaints. 00:38:25.900 --> 00:38:27.900 I think he answered it pretty well. 00:38:27.900 --> 00:38:29.920 But as a city attorney, that's the kind of thing you would 00:38:29.920 --> 00:38:30.900 hope someone would do. 00:38:30.900 --> 00:38:31.900 Know the rules. 00:38:31.900 --> 00:38:32.900 Apply it to the facts. 00:38:32.900 --> 00:38:38.900 Take a position and don't look back. 00:38:38.900 --> 00:38:41.690 There's a second conflict of interest provision in Texas 00:38:41.690 --> 00:38:44.900 law that's just for Platts. 00:38:44.900 --> 00:38:46.900 It's also going to apply to PNZ. 00:38:46.900 --> 00:38:48.900 It's also going to apply to the city council. 00:38:48.900 --> 00:38:51.210 If you look at the thresholds, they look pretty similar, 00:38:51.210 --> 00:38:51.900 don't they? 00:38:51.900 --> 00:38:55.199 But it's in the Platting statute and specific to the 00:38:55.199 --> 00:38:59.900 approval of Platts, amending Platts, modifying Platts. 00:38:59.900 --> 00:39:01.900 File an affidavit and abstain. 00:39:01.900 --> 00:39:05.619 So those are the two Texas statutes on conflict of interest 00:39:05.619 --> 00:39:05.900 . 00:39:05.900 --> 00:39:10.900 And then you come back and you see yours again, 14.04, 00:39:10.900 --> 00:39:14.900 which basically requires that everyone comply with 171 00:39:14.900 --> 00:39:20.900 mentions voting versus participation and file an affidavit. 00:39:20.900 --> 00:39:27.900 Back up to the prior slide. 00:39:27.900 --> 00:39:28.900 This one or the one before that? 00:39:28.900 --> 00:39:29.900 No, this one. 00:39:29.900 --> 00:39:33.539 The question before that was how do you determine the 10% 00:39:33.539 --> 00:39:35.900 amount and it's off the tax return. 00:39:35.900 --> 00:39:37.900 That's fairly finite. 00:39:37.900 --> 00:39:41.900 Here you've got some fair market value. 00:39:41.900 --> 00:39:48.139 So what is the elasticity of that term, fair market value 00:39:48.139 --> 00:39:49.900 of business? 00:39:49.900 --> 00:39:55.969 Or is there a tangible milestone or benchmark we can tag 00:39:55.969 --> 00:39:57.900 onto for that? 00:39:57.900 --> 00:40:00.900 I think the answer to your question is that's very elastic. 00:40:00.900 --> 00:40:03.900 And no, I don't know of a benchmark to use with that. 00:40:03.900 --> 00:40:07.980 I think it goes to Mr. Eaton's point about being self-re 00:40:07.980 --> 00:40:08.900 porting. 00:40:08.900 --> 00:40:12.900 And, you know, I'm always cautioning city officials. 00:40:12.900 --> 00:40:14.369 Again, I have to tell them I'm not your lawyer in 00:40:14.369 --> 00:40:16.630 particular, but as the entity's lawyer, I'm going to 00:40:16.630 --> 00:40:19.900 caution you to tread lightly on this and err on the side of 00:40:19.900 --> 00:40:24.900 caution because of the criminal penalties that come with it 00:40:24.900 --> 00:40:24.900 . 00:40:24.900 --> 00:40:26.900 And those are unique to the person. 00:40:26.900 --> 00:40:27.900 It's not the entity. 00:40:27.900 --> 00:40:31.900 Is this vote worth you being investigated? 00:40:31.900 --> 00:40:35.380 Is this vote worth you, you know, having a grand jury 00:40:35.380 --> 00:40:38.900 compile on your behalf and those sorts of things? 00:40:38.900 --> 00:40:42.900 And so I've never even seen the financials on these. 00:40:42.900 --> 00:40:47.039 Folks just sort of eyeball it, guess it, and usually opt on 00:40:47.039 --> 00:40:48.900 the side of being safe. 00:40:48.900 --> 00:40:49.900 Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. 00:40:49.900 --> 00:40:51.900 No, that's a great question. 00:40:51.900 --> 00:40:52.900 I'll get back to you in a moment. 00:40:52.900 --> 00:40:53.900 Mr. Sullivan? 00:40:53.900 --> 00:40:57.630 You mentioned 10% of fair market value business and also $5 00:40:57.630 --> 00:40:59.900 ,000 of fair market value. 00:40:59.900 --> 00:41:01.900 Isn't that in conflict? 00:41:01.900 --> 00:41:02.900 It's whichever is lower. 00:41:02.900 --> 00:41:03.900 The lower of the two. 00:41:03.900 --> 00:41:04.900 Yeah. 00:41:04.900 --> 00:41:05.900 Whichever is the lower threshold. 00:41:05.900 --> 00:41:06.900 Mr. Eaton? 00:41:06.900 --> 00:41:09.900 You mentioned something about filing the affidavit. 00:41:09.900 --> 00:41:12.900 Once you file the affidavit, is it done? 00:41:12.900 --> 00:41:14.900 You're done with the issue? 00:41:14.900 --> 00:41:15.900 I didn't quite follow up that one. 00:41:15.900 --> 00:41:20.820 You file the affidavit, which is in effect putting the 00:41:20.820 --> 00:41:24.900 world on notice that you own this or you've invested in 00:41:24.900 --> 00:41:28.900 this, and the issue is pending before the city. 00:41:28.900 --> 00:41:31.909 Once you've done that, there's no more action that you're 00:41:31.909 --> 00:41:32.900 required to do. 00:41:32.900 --> 00:41:35.900 Instead, it's a prohibition on action. 00:41:35.900 --> 00:41:37.900 You're not allowed to deliberate among the group. 00:41:37.900 --> 00:41:39.900 You're not allowed to vote. 00:41:39.900 --> 00:41:42.900 Will you pull that affidavit at a later time? 00:41:42.900 --> 00:41:48.900 No, it's a public record forever. 00:41:48.900 --> 00:41:51.110 And I've never seen, there's no AG opinion or court case 00:41:51.110 --> 00:41:53.369 that I've found that talks about having to refile an affid 00:41:53.369 --> 00:41:53.900 avit. 00:41:53.900 --> 00:41:57.900 Same issue comes up the next year or the next year. 00:41:57.900 --> 00:42:00.789 I don't know that there's an obligation to refile once you 00:42:00.789 --> 00:42:02.900 've done it, if nothing has changed. 00:42:02.900 --> 00:42:04.630 I certainly have city officials that just go through the 00:42:04.630 --> 00:42:07.260 step, usually because the city secretary is right behind 00:42:07.260 --> 00:42:09.400 them poking them saying, here's your form, it's on the 00:42:09.400 --> 00:42:10.900 agenda, sign your form. 00:42:10.900 --> 00:42:14.900 Just to avoid the fight. 00:42:14.900 --> 00:42:15.900 Yes, sir? 00:42:15.900 --> 00:42:18.760 >> The $2,500 of land is up to the final group's cost value 00:42:18.760 --> 00:42:21.019 of the land or is that the total value of the land within 00:42:21.019 --> 00:42:21.900 three months? 00:42:21.900 --> 00:42:22.900 >> It's either. 00:42:22.900 --> 00:42:23.900 >> I don't know. 00:42:23.900 --> 00:42:25.900 >> I mean, it can be. 00:42:25.900 --> 00:42:29.679 If your stake in it is at least $2,500, then you need to 00:42:29.679 --> 00:42:35.900 file the affidavit and abstain from voting on the plan. 00:42:35.900 --> 00:42:37.900 For pretty low thresholds. 00:42:37.900 --> 00:42:40.760 >> Is that the subject property or is it the land next door 00:42:40.760 --> 00:42:41.900 to the development? 00:42:41.900 --> 00:42:42.900 >> It's a subject property. 00:42:42.900 --> 00:42:46.170 >> Okay, so if you own the land next door, and that's going 00:42:46.170 --> 00:42:47.900 to increase in value because- 00:42:47.900 --> 00:42:49.900 >> Then you go back to this one. 00:42:49.900 --> 00:42:52.900 And this one's still there. 00:42:52.900 --> 00:42:56.840 And there's no indication that the legislature meant to do 00:42:56.840 --> 00:42:58.900 vetail these two together. 00:42:58.900 --> 00:43:01.989 They were written and enacted at separate times, but it's 00:43:01.989 --> 00:43:02.900 still there. 00:43:02.900 --> 00:43:06.610 And for many years, I referenced earlier, I know some of 00:43:06.610 --> 00:43:10.079 you have seen it, because I've seen it in the newspaper 00:43:10.079 --> 00:43:10.900 articles. 00:43:10.900 --> 00:43:14.320 The Texas Attorney General's office will periodically 00:43:14.320 --> 00:43:15.900 publish a little book. 00:43:15.900 --> 00:43:19.900 The name keeps changing, but it's basically this material. 00:43:19.900 --> 00:43:24.309 And for a decade or more, there was material in the AG's 00:43:24.309 --> 00:43:26.900 handbook on ethics that said, 00:43:26.900 --> 00:43:32.050 if you own property within 200 feet of a piece of property 00:43:32.050 --> 00:43:34.900 where the city is taking action, 00:43:34.900 --> 00:43:39.280 platting, zoning, whatever, then you have a conflict of 00:43:39.280 --> 00:43:40.900 interest under 171. 00:43:40.900 --> 00:43:43.900 You need to file an affidavit and you do abstain. 00:43:43.900 --> 00:43:47.900 And for years, those of us in the business were asking, 00:43:47.900 --> 00:43:51.900 where's the 200 foot rule come from? 00:43:51.900 --> 00:43:52.900 And no one could ever tell us. 00:43:52.900 --> 00:43:55.929 So again, we're sitting around TML wondering where-- OK, 00:43:55.929 --> 00:43:57.900 well, the AG says 200 feet. 00:43:57.900 --> 00:43:59.900 So 200 feet. 00:43:59.900 --> 00:44:03.900 If I'm 201 feet, do I no longer have a conflict? 00:44:03.900 --> 00:44:05.900 No. 00:44:05.900 --> 00:44:08.900 The AG's handbook, without a citation, says 200 feet. 00:44:08.900 --> 00:44:10.900 Well, if you look at this version, go ahead and look at it. 00:44:10.900 --> 00:44:12.900 It ain't in there. 00:44:12.900 --> 00:44:14.900 Because eventually, they stopped putting it in there 00:44:14.900 --> 00:44:18.159 because the agency itself realized that was sort of a rule 00:44:18.159 --> 00:44:18.900 of thumb. 00:44:18.900 --> 00:44:19.900 There is no source for that rule. 00:44:19.900 --> 00:44:22.900 No court case, no statute. 00:44:22.900 --> 00:44:24.900 No one really even knows where that came from. 00:44:24.900 --> 00:44:26.900 But it was around so long. 00:44:26.900 --> 00:44:31.900 I think maybe it comes from, if you know the zoning world, 00:44:31.900 --> 00:44:34.570 you have to give notice of zoning changes to all property 00:44:34.570 --> 00:44:37.260 owners within 200 feet of the boundary of the subject 00:44:37.260 --> 00:44:37.900 property. 00:44:37.900 --> 00:44:39.900 So maybe that's where someone came up with that. 00:44:39.900 --> 00:44:41.900 But it's not in there anymore. 00:44:41.900 --> 00:44:43.900 So it's a case by case basis. 00:44:43.900 --> 00:44:46.860 If you think that rezoning property is going to have an 00:44:46.860 --> 00:44:50.079 effect on your house or business just down the road, you 00:44:50.079 --> 00:44:51.900 should abstain under 171. 00:44:51.900 --> 00:44:54.510 If you think it will have no different effect on you than 00:44:54.510 --> 00:44:57.690 it has the rest of the city, all your properties will go up 00:44:57.690 --> 00:45:00.900 or go down or not be affected at all, then you don't have 00:45:00.900 --> 00:45:01.900 to do anything. 00:45:01.900 --> 00:45:05.900 But it requires you to be aware of this and think about it. 00:45:05.900 --> 00:45:08.980 And oddly enough, the more it's going to affect your 00:45:08.980 --> 00:45:12.199 property value, the less you should be involved in the 00:45:12.199 --> 00:45:13.900 discussion or the voting. 00:45:19.900 --> 00:45:20.900 Excuse me. 00:45:20.900 --> 00:45:21.900 A little housekeeping. 00:45:21.900 --> 00:45:25.480 When you do have questions, try to identify the mic closest 00:45:25.480 --> 00:45:27.900 to you to lean into the little table. 00:45:27.900 --> 00:45:31.900 We're having some difficulty capturing everybody. 00:45:31.900 --> 00:45:33.900 There's different microphones around on the table. 00:45:33.900 --> 00:45:34.900 Thank you. 00:45:34.900 --> 00:45:35.900 You betcha. 00:45:41.900 --> 00:45:43.900 Nepotism here is the state law. 00:45:43.900 --> 00:45:44.900 I think I said 572 earlier. 00:45:44.900 --> 00:45:48.159 It's 573 of the government code gives us our nepotism 00:45:48.159 --> 00:45:48.900 statute. 00:45:48.900 --> 00:45:52.550 The notion being that we should not be bestowing patronage 00:45:52.550 --> 00:45:53.900 on our relatives. 00:45:53.900 --> 00:45:56.909 At one point in time, I think that's the only reason people 00:45:56.909 --> 00:45:57.900 ran for office. 00:45:57.900 --> 00:45:58.900 You want to uplift your family? 00:45:58.900 --> 00:45:59.900 Fine. 00:45:59.900 --> 00:46:00.900 Get elected. 00:46:00.900 --> 00:46:03.900 But you know, it's not Chicago and it's not the 20s. 00:46:03.900 --> 00:46:04.900 So here we are. 00:46:04.900 --> 00:46:08.599 This rule applies to the mayor and the council and their 00:46:08.599 --> 00:46:10.900 family within two degrees. 00:46:10.900 --> 00:46:14.639 If it's by affinity, which is going to be by marriage or 00:46:14.639 --> 00:46:17.340 three degrees by consanguinity, which means blood or 00:46:17.340 --> 00:46:17.900 adoption. 00:46:17.900 --> 00:46:20.900 And the way you calculate that is to count the steps. 00:46:20.900 --> 00:46:25.900 I am related to my sister by two degrees. 00:46:25.900 --> 00:46:28.900 For me and my parents is one step. 00:46:28.900 --> 00:46:32.900 For my parents to my sister is a second step. 00:46:32.900 --> 00:46:34.900 So that's how you count your steps. 00:46:34.900 --> 00:46:39.900 This applies again to dollars. 00:46:39.900 --> 00:46:44.219 If someone is a part time employee or full time employee, 00:46:44.219 --> 00:46:45.900 it doesn't matter. 00:46:45.900 --> 00:46:47.900 This rule applies. 00:46:47.900 --> 00:46:51.070 If they're an independent contractor, that's not an 00:46:51.070 --> 00:46:51.900 employee. 00:46:51.900 --> 00:46:53.900 That's an independent contractor. 00:46:53.900 --> 00:46:58.309 If they are a volunteer, this rule does not apply, which 00:46:58.309 --> 00:47:01.900 makes it fun when you go into a community where everyone 00:47:01.900 --> 00:47:01.900 hates everyone. 00:47:01.900 --> 00:47:03.900 Everyone hates everybody. 00:47:03.900 --> 00:47:04.900 And I find out why. 00:47:04.900 --> 00:47:07.579 It's because the mayor's brother is chair of the Economic 00:47:07.579 --> 00:47:10.780 Development Corporation and the mayor's spouse is chair of 00:47:10.780 --> 00:47:12.900 Planning and Zoning Commission. 00:47:12.900 --> 00:47:14.900 Okay, now I understand. 00:47:14.900 --> 00:47:16.900 Now I understand why that's the case. 00:47:16.900 --> 00:47:18.900 I once was city attorney of Bee Cave, Texas. 00:47:18.900 --> 00:47:21.760 If you know Bee Cave, just west of Austin, where it was so 00:47:21.760 --> 00:47:25.079 fun because this mayor and council member were just boom, 00:47:25.079 --> 00:47:25.900 boom, boom, boom, boom. 00:47:25.900 --> 00:47:28.900 She was a no good Democrat and he was a lousy Republican. 00:47:28.900 --> 00:47:30.900 And boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. 00:47:30.900 --> 00:47:31.900 The meeting is over. 00:47:31.900 --> 00:47:32.900 Or would you like to go to dinner? 00:47:32.900 --> 00:47:33.900 I don't know. 00:47:33.900 --> 00:47:34.900 Let's go to Serranos. 00:47:34.900 --> 00:47:37.900 They were husband and wife. 00:47:37.900 --> 00:47:40.690 I represented cities where there was fathers and daughters, 00:47:40.690 --> 00:47:41.900 mothers and daughters. 00:47:41.900 --> 00:47:43.900 I represented cities where there were brothers. 00:47:43.900 --> 00:47:46.900 Because none of this applies to that. 00:47:46.900 --> 00:47:51.900 If the voters choose to elect relatives, they can do so. 00:47:51.900 --> 00:47:53.900 Is it smart? 00:47:53.900 --> 00:47:57.989 I know this rule is talking about giving people paid jobs 00:47:57.989 --> 00:47:59.900 because of the office. 00:47:59.900 --> 00:48:02.280 And again, if the charter gives the city manager hiring 00:48:02.280 --> 00:48:06.280 authority, then this does not apply to employees of the 00:48:06.280 --> 00:48:11.900 city that trace their employment back to the city manager. 00:48:11.900 --> 00:48:15.900 Giving you another look at your charter provision nepotism. 00:48:15.900 --> 00:48:16.900 It looks very similar. 00:48:16.900 --> 00:48:20.349 Except for it goes a little bit beyond state law and it 00:48:20.349 --> 00:48:24.900 adds that department heads language in there. 00:48:24.900 --> 00:48:30.900 Which is not mentioned. 00:48:30.900 --> 00:48:32.900 Do we need to take a break of any sort? 00:48:32.900 --> 00:48:35.650 Because we're about to transition away from the state law 00:48:35.650 --> 00:48:37.900 part of the discussion into the next phase. 00:48:37.900 --> 00:48:38.900 Do you want to keep going? 00:48:38.900 --> 00:48:39.900 Let's continue. 00:48:39.900 --> 00:48:40.900 Do you have a question? 00:48:40.900 --> 00:48:41.900 Okay. 00:48:41.900 --> 00:48:42.900 Yes, ma'am. 00:48:42.900 --> 00:48:43.900 Ms. English. 00:48:43.900 --> 00:48:48.769 In regards to nepotism, if that does happen, even though it 00:48:48.769 --> 00:48:53.900 's not a charter, what resources are in place for that rule 00:48:53.900 --> 00:48:53.900 not to be implemented? 00:48:53.900 --> 00:48:57.900 That rule not being followed. 00:48:57.900 --> 00:49:00.900 Or what's typically the recourse? 00:49:00.900 --> 00:49:06.880 Well, the typical recourse is if someone is hired, they're 00:49:06.880 --> 00:49:07.900 fired. 00:49:07.900 --> 00:49:12.130 If they weren't here for the pre-existing period, they're 00:49:12.130 --> 00:49:12.900 fired. 00:49:12.900 --> 00:49:15.760 And this plays out, my gosh, I just saw it near Austin 00:49:15.760 --> 00:49:18.900 recently in Maynard School District with the school board 00:49:18.900 --> 00:49:21.900 and top level employees with the school district. 00:49:21.900 --> 00:49:30.900 This comes up routinely. 00:49:30.900 --> 00:49:34.179 Does the family member have to be directly hired by the 00:49:34.179 --> 00:49:37.880 city or the governing body or if they're in receipt of 00:49:37.880 --> 00:49:42.900 public money paid through a third party contract? 00:49:42.900 --> 00:49:44.900 Is that? 00:49:44.900 --> 00:49:48.760 If they're a city employee but the funding comes from a non 00:49:48.760 --> 00:49:49.900 -tax source? 00:49:49.900 --> 00:49:53.829 They're not a city employee but they were paid through a 00:49:53.829 --> 00:49:57.900 contract with city funds paid through a third party. 00:49:57.900 --> 00:50:00.789 If they're not an employee of the city, I don't think this 00:50:00.789 --> 00:50:03.900 rule applies, whether it's your charter rule or state. 00:50:03.900 --> 00:50:06.900 Okay. 00:50:06.900 --> 00:50:10.900 I'll go back to 171. 00:50:10.900 --> 00:50:12.900 Voting on it would. 00:50:12.900 --> 00:50:14.900 I think voting on it would. 00:50:14.900 --> 00:50:18.269 And with this one, even if they are a pre-existing employee 00:50:18.269 --> 00:50:21.730 , that council member is still prohibited on voting on their 00:50:21.730 --> 00:50:25.329 future raises, any personnel actions or those sorts of 00:50:25.329 --> 00:50:25.900 things. 00:50:25.900 --> 00:50:33.619 Even if they predate their relative getting elected to the 00:50:33.619 --> 00:50:35.900 city council. 00:50:35.900 --> 00:50:44.900 Okay. So that's to keep the state law at about an hour and 00:50:44.900 --> 00:50:44.900 we're at an hour. So we'll move into this next part. 00:50:44.900 --> 00:50:46.900 State law is state law is state law. 00:50:46.900 --> 00:50:49.590 I don't think the interpretations I've given you are going 00:50:49.590 --> 00:50:52.360 to vary from what you've read in the A.G.'s handbook or on 00:50:52.360 --> 00:50:53.900 your own or anywhere else. 00:50:53.900 --> 00:50:57.309 What's left of our discussion is going to be a lot of my 00:50:57.309 --> 00:51:00.829 opinions about the law and what I'm going to suggest to you 00:51:00.829 --> 00:51:03.900 as best practices, having done this for many years, either 00:51:03.900 --> 00:51:04.900 guiding my own clients through ethics issues. 00:51:04.900 --> 00:51:08.269 Or occasionally I'm hired a special council to help the 00:51:08.269 --> 00:51:09.900 city on ethics issues. 00:51:09.900 --> 00:51:14.769 If you want to foster integrity in City Hall, if that's how 00:51:14.769 --> 00:51:18.480 you interpret the city council's mandate to the charter 00:51:18.480 --> 00:51:22.340 review committee, then these are the five ways I think it's 00:51:22.340 --> 00:51:22.900 done. 00:51:22.900 --> 00:51:25.900 And maybe you can give me three or four or five more ways. 00:51:25.900 --> 00:51:27.900 Or maybe you don't like these ways. 00:51:27.900 --> 00:51:30.789 But as we approach the topic of what to put in the charter, 00:51:30.789 --> 00:51:33.389 if anything, or what to recommend goes into future 00:51:33.389 --> 00:51:36.900 ordinance, if anything, think about these things. 00:51:36.900 --> 00:51:39.760 These are my opinions, but also there's quite a bit of 00:51:39.760 --> 00:51:42.900 literature out there on the topic of government ethics. 00:51:42.900 --> 00:51:46.900 And these are things that I think that work. 00:51:46.900 --> 00:51:50.610 I think the number one you have to start with is leadership 00:51:50.610 --> 00:51:50.900 . 00:51:50.900 --> 00:51:55.159 You need if this group thinks that the community outside 00:51:55.159 --> 00:51:59.579 these walls wants to see increased integrity, ethical 00:51:59.579 --> 00:52:02.900 behavior, good conduct at City Hall. 00:52:02.900 --> 00:52:04.900 You got to start with leadership. 00:52:04.900 --> 00:52:08.590 So city council mayor, city management, department heads 00:52:08.590 --> 00:52:11.900 are going to have to walk the walk and talk the talk. 00:52:11.900 --> 00:52:15.789 It is a very powerful indicator of whether or not you have 00:52:15.789 --> 00:52:17.900 an ethical organization. 00:52:17.900 --> 00:52:20.900 Do they behave the way you want them to behave? 00:52:20.900 --> 00:52:23.909 Do they expect those that work for them to behave in a 00:52:23.909 --> 00:52:24.900 certain way? 00:52:24.900 --> 00:52:26.900 Are they role modeling? 00:52:26.900 --> 00:52:30.320 Are they having a conversation on a regular basis about 00:52:30.320 --> 00:52:33.900 ethical issues that arise and they arise all the time? 00:52:33.900 --> 00:52:39.900 If you can't get leadership buy in to model these rules, 00:52:39.900 --> 00:52:43.329 no amount of ethics ordinances that you adopt are going to 00:52:43.329 --> 00:52:46.900 result in an organization change or a cultural change. 00:52:46.900 --> 00:52:48.900 So you can't skip that step. 00:52:48.900 --> 00:52:51.860 I trust you're going to whatever you recommend and whatever 00:52:51.860 --> 00:52:54.900 ultimately is adopted is going to have leadership buy in. 00:52:54.900 --> 00:52:57.900 So then you move to the next stage, training. 00:52:57.900 --> 00:52:59.900 And I don't mean once a year. 00:52:59.900 --> 00:53:04.090 I don't mean just once you're hired or once you're elected 00:53:04.090 --> 00:53:05.900 on an ongoing basis. 00:53:05.900 --> 00:53:08.489 What most of the literature is going to say is that to get 00:53:08.489 --> 00:53:12.610 an ethical organization, you must have ethical conversation 00:53:12.610 --> 00:53:12.900 . 00:53:12.900 --> 00:53:15.900 It becomes an ongoing part of your dialogue. 00:53:15.900 --> 00:53:19.900 It's something that routinely colleagues and peers discuss 00:53:19.900 --> 00:53:22.969 and then their supervisors get involved and it crosses over 00:53:22.969 --> 00:53:23.900 departments. 00:53:23.900 --> 00:53:25.900 What is the right thing to do? 00:53:25.900 --> 00:53:26.900 What should we do? 00:53:26.900 --> 00:53:28.900 What's required of us to do? 00:53:28.900 --> 00:53:32.179 Sometimes your staff is part of professional associations 00:53:32.179 --> 00:53:33.900 that go off and do training. 00:53:33.900 --> 00:53:38.719 For some folks like lawyers, city planners that are AICP 00:53:38.719 --> 00:53:39.900 certified, 00:53:39.900 --> 00:53:42.760 you're required to go through so much ethics training a 00:53:42.760 --> 00:53:45.900 year to keep your license, to keep your certification. 00:53:45.900 --> 00:53:47.900 And that's certainly part of it. 00:53:47.900 --> 00:53:51.519 The third step I think you have to have, this is the least 00:53:51.519 --> 00:53:52.900 sexy of them all. 00:53:52.900 --> 00:53:57.900 Administration, process, procedures. 00:53:57.900 --> 00:54:01.900 We yield ethical results by having ethical processes. 00:54:01.900 --> 00:54:04.980 It doesn't matter who you are when you apply for a plat 00:54:04.980 --> 00:54:05.900 amendment. 00:54:05.900 --> 00:54:08.900 It matters, did you fill out the application? 00:54:08.900 --> 00:54:11.900 Did you give us the data that the ordinance requires? 00:54:11.900 --> 00:54:13.900 Did you pay your fee? 00:54:13.900 --> 00:54:15.900 Did you meet the timelines? 00:54:15.900 --> 00:54:18.690 If you need a variance or a rezone, have you met the 00:54:18.690 --> 00:54:20.900 standards to get a variance or a rezone? 00:54:20.900 --> 00:54:23.900 It doesn't matter who you're related to. 00:54:23.900 --> 00:54:26.900 It doesn't matter how wonderful, fantastic the project is. 00:54:26.900 --> 00:54:29.900 It matters did you follow our process. 00:54:29.900 --> 00:54:32.170 And it's through the boring process and procedures, the 00:54:32.170 --> 00:54:36.150 forms and the checklists, that we achieve justice in a 00:54:36.150 --> 00:54:37.900 procedural manner. 00:54:37.900 --> 00:54:43.099 Then there's the regulation part, which is really what I 00:54:43.099 --> 00:54:44.900 was asked to come talk about. 00:54:44.900 --> 00:54:46.900 Adopting rules. 00:54:46.900 --> 00:54:49.409 And then you're measuring people's compliance with the 00:54:49.409 --> 00:54:49.900 rules. 00:54:49.900 --> 00:54:50.900 What's the rule? 00:54:50.900 --> 00:54:51.900 What's the action? 00:54:51.900 --> 00:54:52.900 Is there compliance? 00:54:52.900 --> 00:54:53.900 Is there not? 00:54:53.900 --> 00:54:54.900 If there's not, is there punishment? 00:54:54.900 --> 00:54:55.900 What's the punishment? 00:54:55.900 --> 00:54:59.929 And so having that sort of regulatory process is something 00:54:59.929 --> 00:55:01.900 that you can think about. 00:55:01.900 --> 00:55:05.900 Some rules are more aspirational than others at City Hall. 00:55:05.900 --> 00:55:07.900 Things we should aspire to. 00:55:07.900 --> 00:55:09.900 They're somewhat lofty. 00:55:09.900 --> 00:55:12.900 Some are very, very mechanical, very, very basic. 00:55:12.900 --> 00:55:17.000 I've seen some of the shortest, smallest ethics ordinances 00:55:17.000 --> 00:55:19.900 have some of the strongest provisions. 00:55:19.900 --> 00:55:23.170 When I ask other professionals, other practitioners, other 00:55:23.170 --> 00:55:25.900 Texas ethics experts that I know that deal with City Halls, 00:55:25.900 --> 00:55:26.900 what's your favorite ordinance? 00:55:26.900 --> 00:55:27.900 What's the best one? 00:55:27.900 --> 00:55:28.900 None of them. 00:55:28.900 --> 00:55:29.900 Why? 00:55:29.900 --> 00:55:33.849 Because every single ordinance was tailored to deal with 00:55:33.849 --> 00:55:36.900 the demons that City was wrestling with. 00:55:36.900 --> 00:55:40.769 You know, I know that Aaron and your City Attorney's Office 00:55:40.769 --> 00:55:43.369 will tell you, you know, whenever you're drafting an 00:55:43.369 --> 00:55:45.900 ordinance, usually there's an impetus for that. 00:55:45.900 --> 00:55:49.210 And you're reacting or responding to that, whether it's a 00:55:49.210 --> 00:55:51.900 dog incident or it's an ethical incident. 00:55:51.900 --> 00:55:55.619 And so ordinances get drafted, and they should be drafted 00:55:55.619 --> 00:55:57.900 to more fit, to fit a community. 00:55:57.900 --> 00:56:00.849 But, you know, I love the one in tiny little Dripping 00:56:00.849 --> 00:56:02.900 Springs, very short ordinance. 00:56:02.900 --> 00:56:04.900 It's got a provision that's kind of rare to find. 00:56:04.900 --> 00:56:07.900 But again, it's small town. 00:56:07.900 --> 00:56:12.409 If you are a vendor of the City of Dripping Springs, and 00:56:12.409 --> 00:56:16.900 you have a client that is doing business before the City of 00:56:16.900 --> 00:56:19.900 Dripping Springs, you have to disclose that to the City. 00:56:19.900 --> 00:56:23.579 And the City decides whether or not you get to represent 00:56:23.579 --> 00:56:26.900 that other client and keep your City contract. 00:56:26.900 --> 00:56:31.199 Now, I've never known the City to deny a waiver from that 00:56:31.199 --> 00:56:31.900 rule. 00:56:31.900 --> 00:56:32.900 But what's the issue? 00:56:32.900 --> 00:56:36.550 Oh, and you're a small town and you've got an engineering 00:56:36.550 --> 00:56:40.230 firm or an architecture firm or a law firm that's 00:56:40.230 --> 00:56:44.900 representing City Hall and developers and builders and 00:56:44.900 --> 00:56:44.900 others. 00:56:44.900 --> 00:56:47.900 Everything seems a little bit cozy. 00:56:47.900 --> 00:56:49.909 And the public starts thinking, hmm, there's lots of back 00:56:49.909 --> 00:56:50.900 room chit chat going on. 00:56:50.900 --> 00:56:53.900 There's lots of dinners and lunches going on. 00:56:53.900 --> 00:56:56.469 And information's flowing freely between City Hall and the 00:56:56.469 --> 00:56:57.900 developer and the builders. 00:56:57.900 --> 00:57:01.500 But we, the taxpaying voters, we're not privy to those 00:57:01.500 --> 00:57:02.900 conversations. 00:57:02.900 --> 00:57:04.900 So they adopted a rule that takes care of that. 00:57:04.900 --> 00:57:07.309 So as long as engineering firm A says, yep, we're the City 00:57:07.309 --> 00:57:09.449 's engineer on this street project, but we're also 00:57:09.449 --> 00:57:11.900 representing this builder over here building these homes. 00:57:11.900 --> 00:57:13.250 So he goes, okay, does everyone know that? It's on City 00:57:13.250 --> 00:57:14.900 Council meeting. It's on the agenda. 00:57:14.900 --> 00:57:17.900 Okay, waiver approved. Go ahead. 00:57:17.900 --> 00:57:19.969 Folks always have the chance to say, no, we want the 00:57:19.969 --> 00:57:21.900 developer money. We don't need that City Hall money. 00:57:21.900 --> 00:57:24.889 They have the choice of doing that. But every city is going 00:57:24.889 --> 00:57:26.900 to adopt something unique to their rules. 00:57:26.900 --> 00:57:29.769 Well, who really enforces it? Is there an ethics commission 00:57:29.769 --> 00:57:32.900 ? Is there an oversight view? Is there an outside party? 00:57:32.900 --> 00:57:36.949 Having regulations is a common step along this path of 00:57:36.949 --> 00:57:39.900 achieving a more ethical City Hall. 00:57:39.900 --> 00:57:43.360 If you read some of the data that I've read and just look 00:57:43.360 --> 00:57:45.900 at some of the polls, you can go online. 00:57:45.900 --> 00:57:48.760 Anyone can do it. Use Google. You don't have to be a lawyer 00:57:48.760 --> 00:57:48.900 . 00:57:48.900 --> 00:57:53.900 And Google ethics rules, public trust, and government. 00:57:53.900 --> 00:57:57.960 And you will see a steady decline in the public's trust of 00:57:57.960 --> 00:58:01.900 government, starting from the 70s and going on until today. 00:58:01.900 --> 00:58:04.360 But then you look the other reverse, you see a spike of 00:58:04.360 --> 00:58:05.900 ethics rules being adopted. 00:58:05.900 --> 00:58:09.309 And so there's no study that I've seen that has any 00:58:09.309 --> 00:58:13.539 correlation that more ethics rules yields more public trust 00:58:13.539 --> 00:58:13.900 . 00:58:13.900 --> 00:58:16.849 I don't know. The same studies that I look at will say that 00:58:16.849 --> 00:58:20.900 number one, it's nice that they trust local government more 00:58:20.900 --> 00:58:22.900 than state and federal government. 00:58:22.900 --> 00:58:26.340 And it's even better that they trust staff more than 00:58:26.340 --> 00:58:27.900 elected officials. 00:58:27.900 --> 00:58:29.960 Not only understand that one, they get to choose the 00:58:29.960 --> 00:58:32.900 elected officials. They don't get to choose staff. 00:58:32.900 --> 00:58:36.090 But study after study after study shows employees at City 00:58:36.090 --> 00:58:39.239 Hall instill more confidence in the electorate than the 00:58:39.239 --> 00:58:41.900 voters, the elected officials do. 00:58:41.900 --> 00:58:44.820 And still, I understand if Denton chooses to go down the 00:58:44.820 --> 00:58:47.900 path of adopting a more comprehensive ethics ordinance, 00:58:47.900 --> 00:58:49.730 and you all need to figure out if that's going to happen 00:58:49.730 --> 00:58:51.900 because of something you recommend in the charter or not. 00:58:51.900 --> 00:58:54.690 But for sure, adopting regulations and then trying to 00:58:54.690 --> 00:58:57.900 achieve a compliance with those regulations is part of it. 00:58:57.900 --> 00:59:01.900 What's the fifth part? The ballot box. 00:59:01.900 --> 00:59:04.659 You have city after city where there is a perception of a 00:59:04.659 --> 00:59:07.789 lack of transparency, the voters tend to have their say 00:59:07.789 --> 00:59:09.900 when election time comes along. 00:59:09.900 --> 00:59:12.800 If there's a bunch of self-dealing or backroom sweetheart, 00:59:12.800 --> 00:59:17.039 good old boy deals, the voters tend to find about that and 00:59:17.039 --> 00:59:18.900 hold people accountable at the ballot box. 00:59:18.900 --> 00:59:22.280 Maybe not all the time. And that's why sometimes you do 00:59:22.280 --> 00:59:25.150 have strong ethics ordinances and ethics commissions to 00:59:25.150 --> 00:59:26.900 police that behavior. 00:59:26.900 --> 00:59:29.190 It's because the voters who voted to throw the bums out 00:59:29.190 --> 00:59:31.900 didn't win. The bums are still there. 00:59:31.900 --> 00:59:34.389 Okay, we got to get out of some other way. We'll get at 00:59:34.389 --> 00:59:35.900 them through the ethics channel. 00:59:35.900 --> 00:59:40.300 And we want to debate right or wrong. We got to go 00:59:40.300 --> 00:59:41.900 somewhere after the meeting to do that. 00:59:41.900 --> 00:59:45.190 I think it's all part of the package. And how much the city 00:59:45.190 --> 00:59:48.460 of Denton chooses to adopt something like this is going to 00:59:48.460 --> 00:59:52.900 depend on more on you folks and what you recommend. 00:59:52.900 --> 00:59:55.900 Some simple rules to achieve integrity on a daily basis. 00:59:55.900 --> 00:59:57.900 Know the law. 00:59:57.900 --> 01:00:00.210 You all just got briefed on it. You've got your notes. It's 01:00:00.210 --> 01:00:02.900 there. There's really no excuse. 01:00:02.900 --> 01:00:06.179 Know your city's policies and how Denton has adopted its 01:00:06.179 --> 01:00:09.460 own rules, whether it's by resolution or through an 01:00:09.460 --> 01:00:11.900 ordinance or the little bits you have in your charter. 01:00:11.900 --> 01:00:15.980 I'm a big believer in professional norms. And I did get my 01:00:15.980 --> 01:00:18.900 degree in public administration. 01:00:18.900 --> 01:00:22.610 And when you read about the theories and those of us who 01:00:22.610 --> 01:00:27.050 got MPAs know that a lot of discretion is entrusted to 01:00:27.050 --> 01:00:29.949 employees, to department heads, to police officers, to 01:00:29.949 --> 01:00:30.900 school teachers. 01:00:30.900 --> 01:00:33.780 They get to make a lot of choices every single day with 01:00:33.780 --> 01:00:36.900 very little oversight and no direction on the scene. 01:00:36.900 --> 01:00:39.900 Well, how do you make sure that they make good decisions? 01:00:39.900 --> 01:00:40.900 You get them lots of training. 01:00:40.900 --> 01:00:43.820 You drill them on your expectations and you have 01:00:43.820 --> 01:00:47.250 professional norms that help fill in those gaps when you 01:00:47.250 --> 01:00:50.900 don't have a rule that applies to that exact situation. 01:00:50.900 --> 01:00:53.929 And I know Denton has a history of being very involved in T 01:00:53.929 --> 01:00:56.900 ML and other professional groups, trade groups. 01:00:56.900 --> 01:01:00.780 So I'm sure your staff's getting trained and then saw an 01:01:00.780 --> 01:01:04.860 article by a professional Peter Sandman, which broke it 01:01:04.860 --> 01:01:07.900 down pretty easily into the acronym LEADS. 01:01:07.900 --> 01:01:10.579 And don't you ask yourselves these questions every time you 01:01:10.579 --> 01:01:14.900 're faced with a dilemma. Is it legal? Is it ethical? 01:01:14.900 --> 01:01:18.250 Because they're not the same thing. Is it acceptable? Does 01:01:18.250 --> 01:01:19.900 it just make sense? 01:01:19.900 --> 01:01:24.050 Is it defensible when it's written about on the newspaper 01:01:24.050 --> 01:01:26.900 front page or worse, the blogosphere? 01:01:26.900 --> 01:01:30.989 When the bloggers get a hold of this, can you defend what 01:01:30.989 --> 01:01:33.900 you did? Is it just sensible? 01:01:33.900 --> 01:01:37.659 And it's so often the case that I can tell you, yes, that 01:01:37.659 --> 01:01:41.900 the limousine trip to AT&T Stadium in Arlington was legal. 01:01:41.900 --> 01:01:44.440 And yes, it was ethical because it didn't violate an ethics 01:01:44.440 --> 01:01:46.739 rule. Is it acceptable? Is it defensible? Or is it sensible 01:01:46.739 --> 01:01:46.900 ? 01:01:46.900 --> 01:01:50.090 A lot of your face is wrinkled up when I told you. That's 01:01:50.090 --> 01:01:51.900 what you're getting at. You're getting at the end of that. 01:01:51.900 --> 01:01:54.179 And that's part of the conversation that really if you did 01:01:54.179 --> 01:01:56.900 nothing else but have your employees, elected officials, 01:01:56.900 --> 01:02:00.320 and volunteers run through this LEADS example, I bet you 01:02:00.320 --> 01:02:02.900 would see improved results in your community. 01:02:02.900 --> 01:02:07.130 I suspect that's not going to be enough for those who want 01:02:07.130 --> 01:02:11.539 a more stringent ethics code, but I think it's a good start 01:02:11.539 --> 01:02:11.900 . 01:02:11.900 --> 01:02:15.239 So I mentioned the professional networking. These are just 01:02:15.239 --> 01:02:17.900 some of the ones that are very common in Texas. 01:02:17.900 --> 01:02:20.820 American Planning Association, the Society for Public 01:02:20.820 --> 01:02:21.900 Administration. 01:02:21.900 --> 01:02:25.840 I was amazed that Boat, the building officials association 01:02:25.840 --> 01:02:28.900 of Texas, has a very strict code of ethics. 01:02:28.900 --> 01:02:33.340 How did I know that? It's my brilliant legal mind. I was at 01:02:33.340 --> 01:02:35.900 a TML conference and they have a booth. 01:02:35.900 --> 01:02:38.760 So in the exhibit hall at TML, I walked up to the Boat 01:02:38.760 --> 01:02:42.059 booth and said, "What do you all do about ethics?" "Dung, d 01:02:42.059 --> 01:02:42.900 ung, let us show you our code of ethics." 01:02:42.900 --> 01:02:46.449 The city secretaries have one. The finance officers have 01:02:46.449 --> 01:02:49.900 one. The municipal clerks have one. Your city secretaries. 01:02:49.900 --> 01:02:52.840 And of course, the Texas City Management Association has 01:02:52.840 --> 01:02:55.900 the International City Management Association's code. 01:02:55.900 --> 01:02:59.360 And talk about tough. I'm not sure if there are any ICMA 01:02:59.360 --> 01:03:02.659 members, TCMA members here. They'll boot you out of the 01:03:02.659 --> 01:03:03.900 organization. 01:03:03.900 --> 01:03:08.269 They self-police it. They are so strict, they won't let me 01:03:08.269 --> 01:03:09.900 teach ethics for TCMA. 01:03:09.900 --> 01:03:11.900 Because you've got to be a city manager to teach ethics. 01:03:11.900 --> 01:03:14.309 And you've got to be a dues paying member of TCMA to teach 01:03:14.309 --> 01:03:14.900 ethics. 01:03:14.900 --> 01:03:17.920 And they don't want my curriculum. They want their ethics 01:03:17.920 --> 01:03:19.900 rules, their tenets to be taught. 01:03:19.900 --> 01:03:22.969 They take it seriously. So much so that I've known of, I 01:03:22.969 --> 01:03:26.329 didn't represent them, I've known of city managers who have 01:03:26.329 --> 01:03:27.900 this great side deal. 01:03:27.900 --> 01:03:30.820 And the city really would benefit from contracting with 01:03:30.820 --> 01:03:33.900 this side deal. But TCMA would never let this happen. 01:03:33.900 --> 01:03:38.139 So city manager resigns from TCMA. City does contract with 01:03:38.139 --> 01:03:39.900 city manager's side business. 01:03:39.900 --> 01:03:45.050 Once it's all inked, city manager rejoins TCMA. Nice trick, 01:03:45.050 --> 01:03:48.900 right? Very ethical being. 01:03:48.900 --> 01:03:51.369 But these are tough rules. So while some of it could be 01:03:51.369 --> 01:03:55.090 fluff, most of these associations I am active in in one way 01:03:55.090 --> 01:03:55.900 or the other. 01:03:55.900 --> 01:03:58.340 And they take their ethics training very seriously. I think 01:03:58.340 --> 01:04:01.900 money you spend on sending your people to stuff like this 01:04:01.900 --> 01:04:02.900 is money well spent. 01:04:02.900 --> 01:04:07.900 So all of that funnels down to what's in front of you. 01:04:07.900 --> 01:04:11.190 And the question that has come up, I've seen some of your 01:04:11.190 --> 01:04:13.900 minutes, I've spoken to some of your members. 01:04:13.900 --> 01:04:18.670 Is this motion of your charter, is it enough? Is it lacking 01:04:18.670 --> 01:04:21.900 ? Is it too much? Is it holding you back? 01:04:21.900 --> 01:04:25.170 Do you need a stronger, more comprehensive ethics ordinance 01:04:25.170 --> 01:04:27.900 than whatever ordinances you have on the books? 01:04:27.900 --> 01:04:31.920 Do you need to repeal and replace the ethics policy that 01:04:31.920 --> 01:04:32.900 you have? 01:04:32.900 --> 01:04:36.199 When you look at the world of ethics ordinances, these are 01:04:36.199 --> 01:04:38.900 the kinds of things they normally address. 01:04:38.900 --> 01:04:42.610 Will there be a border commission? You know, it's amazing 01:04:42.610 --> 01:04:42.900 to me. 01:04:42.900 --> 01:04:45.559 One of the standards that's held out there as being one of 01:04:45.559 --> 01:04:49.590 the more comprehensive, thorough, well managed is the city 01:04:49.590 --> 01:04:50.900 of San Antonio. 01:04:50.900 --> 01:04:54.340 But the city of San Antonio, not only do they have an 01:04:54.340 --> 01:04:57.900 ethics review commission that processes this stuff, 01:04:57.900 --> 01:05:01.469 not only do they have ethics advisors who are lawyers who 01:05:01.469 --> 01:05:03.900 don't work under the city attorney, 01:05:03.900 --> 01:05:07.090 they work under the auditor, the internal auditor's office 01:05:07.090 --> 01:05:07.900 of the city. 01:05:07.900 --> 01:05:10.639 And even then, there are some in the community that are not 01:05:10.639 --> 01:05:12.900 pleased with the process and they want a completely 01:05:12.900 --> 01:05:16.900 independent body not appointed by city council. 01:05:16.900 --> 01:05:19.900 The auditor is appointed by city council. 01:05:19.900 --> 01:05:22.070 The ethics review commission in San Antonio is appointed by 01:05:22.070 --> 01:05:22.900 the city council. 01:05:22.900 --> 01:05:25.900 We need one from somewhere else. Where would it come from? 01:05:25.900 --> 01:05:25.900 I don't know. 01:05:25.900 --> 01:05:29.179 Are they elected? Are we going to elect an ethics 01:05:29.179 --> 01:05:29.900 commission? 01:05:29.900 --> 01:05:33.760 I was in El Paso last week advising them on this exact same 01:05:33.760 --> 01:05:34.900 issue in El Paso. 01:05:34.900 --> 01:05:37.900 And what are some people clamoring for in El Paso? 01:05:37.900 --> 01:05:42.670 Oh, we'll let our municipal court judges select our ethics 01:05:42.670 --> 01:05:44.900 review commission members. 01:05:44.900 --> 01:05:48.250 Because you know how objective and non-political municipal 01:05:48.250 --> 01:05:49.900 court judges are, right? 01:05:49.900 --> 01:05:52.900 I mean, El Paso, they've got like 20 judges. 01:05:52.900 --> 01:05:55.570 It's a very large court. They have night, day court, night 01:05:55.570 --> 01:05:56.900 court, the whole thing. 01:05:56.900 --> 01:06:00.429 Wow, as a city attorney, I get a little knot in my stomach 01:06:00.429 --> 01:06:02.900 the thought of judges picking them. 01:06:02.900 --> 01:06:03.900 But you get to decide. 01:06:03.900 --> 01:06:06.449 The city of Denton gets to decide if you're going to have a 01:06:06.449 --> 01:06:09.900 thorough ethics ordinance, who's going to administer that? 01:06:09.900 --> 01:06:13.500 Is it volunteers? Is it staff? Is the city of Plano where 01:06:13.500 --> 01:06:16.900 complaints are sent to the city council for action? 01:06:16.900 --> 01:06:18.900 Okay, so there's no commission that goes to city council. 01:06:18.900 --> 01:06:21.900 Is there going to be some sort of preview? 01:06:21.900 --> 01:06:25.980 Is someone going to do an initial assessment, a preliminary 01:06:25.980 --> 01:06:30.030 evaluation to make sure a complaint has merit before it 01:06:30.030 --> 01:06:33.389 goes prime time on the big screen broadcast on the news 01:06:33.389 --> 01:06:34.900 channel, whatever? 01:06:34.900 --> 01:06:37.059 Who's going to do that? Is the city attorney's office? Is 01:06:37.059 --> 01:06:38.900 it the auditor's office? 01:06:38.900 --> 01:06:42.639 Is it a subcommittee? What are you going to do to make sure 01:06:42.639 --> 01:06:46.150 that neighbor on neighbor violence isn't showing up in the 01:06:46.150 --> 01:06:47.900 form of an ethics complaint? 01:06:47.900 --> 01:06:52.260 Or warring candidates in a contended election is going to 01:06:52.260 --> 01:06:54.900 come up as an ethics complaint. 01:06:54.900 --> 01:06:57.900 Well, cities vary on which version they're going to do. 01:06:57.900 --> 01:07:00.900 What is your process and criteria? One town brought me in, 01:07:00.900 --> 01:07:03.969 they had the requirement to review their code of ethics, I 01:07:03.969 --> 01:07:05.900 think it was every five years. 01:07:05.900 --> 01:07:08.150 So they got a new ethics review commission, they're going 01:07:08.150 --> 01:07:10.309 to review their ethics ordinance and look at it, say, I 01:07:10.309 --> 01:07:11.900 want to take a look at the ordinance. 01:07:11.900 --> 01:07:13.900 Wow, two interesting parts of this. 01:07:13.900 --> 01:07:18.000 Your ordinance says that deliberations regarding ethics 01:07:18.000 --> 01:07:22.269 complaints in the preliminary stage by the commission are 01:07:22.269 --> 01:07:25.900 confidential and closed door. 01:07:25.900 --> 01:07:29.070 When you look at what the powers of that group is, the 01:07:29.070 --> 01:07:31.739 ethics review commission in that town looks a whole lot 01:07:31.739 --> 01:07:32.900 like a governing body. 01:07:32.900 --> 01:07:35.480 Just like a city council or PNZ or a board of trustees or 01:07:35.480 --> 01:07:36.900 county commissioners. 01:07:36.900 --> 01:07:38.900 So the open meetings act is triggered. 01:07:38.900 --> 01:07:42.099 So what provision allows you to, is it a personnel matter 01:07:42.099 --> 01:07:44.900 that allows you to go into executive session? 01:07:44.900 --> 01:07:47.800 Or you look further down, all documentation regarding 01:07:47.800 --> 01:07:50.900 complaints that are unsubstantiated or confidential. 01:07:50.900 --> 01:07:53.269 I think the open records act, the public information act, 01:07:53.269 --> 01:07:54.900 has got a lot to say about that issue. 01:07:54.900 --> 01:07:57.909 So you're looking at the rules and process and procedures 01:07:57.909 --> 01:08:00.789 and the practicalities of state law and the mandates of 01:08:00.789 --> 01:08:02.900 state law are going to get involved. 01:08:02.900 --> 01:08:04.900 Your ordinance will need to reconcile that at some point. 01:08:04.900 --> 01:08:09.090 What is the punishment? Is it a letter of admonishment? Is 01:08:09.090 --> 01:08:10.900 it a public mocking? 01:08:10.900 --> 01:08:13.900 Do this again and we shall taunt you in public. Okay. 01:08:13.900 --> 01:08:16.899 Maybe it's a censure, a public reprimand. 01:08:16.899 --> 01:08:18.899 Well, employees can get fired. 01:08:18.899 --> 01:08:24.899 Volunteers can get booted off the board. 01:08:24.899 --> 01:08:26.899 I like this one representation of others. 01:08:26.899 --> 01:08:30.000 It's a common attribute of many ethics ordinances to say, 01:08:30.000 --> 01:08:32.899 if you are a member of a board or commission, you cannot, 01:08:32.899 --> 01:08:36.789 for money, represent anyone else before that board or 01:08:36.789 --> 01:08:37.899 commission. 01:08:37.899 --> 01:08:40.090 But you can play with it. Is it that board or commission 01:08:40.090 --> 01:08:41.899 only or is it all boards and commissions? 01:08:41.899 --> 01:08:45.180 Or if you do it for volunteer, on a volunteer basis, are 01:08:45.180 --> 01:08:45.899 you okay? 01:08:45.899 --> 01:08:49.449 I can represent my mother before PNZ, but I can't resent my 01:08:49.449 --> 01:08:50.899 neighbor for money. 01:08:50.899 --> 01:08:52.899 The ordinances change. 01:08:52.899 --> 01:08:54.979 But in the city of San Marcos, they had an ordinance that 01:08:54.979 --> 01:08:55.899 just says, period. 01:08:55.899 --> 01:08:58.859 If you serve on a city board or commission, you cannot 01:08:58.859 --> 01:09:03.760 represent somebody at City Hall if on any other board or 01:09:03.760 --> 01:09:04.899 commission. 01:09:04.899 --> 01:09:08.060 And the chair of planning and zoning broke that rule and 01:09:08.060 --> 01:09:10.689 was automatically under the ordinance kicked off his chair 01:09:10.689 --> 01:09:11.899 of planning and zoning. 01:09:11.899 --> 01:09:15.899 Yeah, the bad news, he was a lawyer. 01:09:15.899 --> 01:09:17.899 Lawyers are just the worst. 01:09:17.899 --> 01:09:21.579 And so he sued the city of San Marcos, wanting to get his 01:09:21.579 --> 01:09:22.899 seat back on PNZ. 01:09:22.899 --> 01:09:25.899 Most PNZ commissioners I know would go, woohoo, thank you. 01:09:25.899 --> 01:09:28.899 I've done my public duty, I can go home. 01:09:28.899 --> 01:09:31.439 No, he sued and he lost and went all the way up to the San 01:09:31.439 --> 01:09:34.880 Antonio Court of Appeals, which found that the volunteer 01:09:34.880 --> 01:09:36.899 had no property interest, 01:09:36.899 --> 01:09:40.399 no justiciable right in being on planning and zoning, that 01:09:40.399 --> 01:09:44.479 when he agreed to serve in that capacity, he agreed knowing 01:09:44.479 --> 01:09:45.899 the city's rules. 01:09:45.899 --> 01:09:48.899 And when he broke the rules, he was out. 01:09:48.899 --> 01:09:51.090 And that's one of the few actual reported appellate 01:09:51.090 --> 01:09:53.899 opinions we have on a municipal ethics ordinance in Texas. 01:09:53.899 --> 01:09:57.750 Conflicts and gifts, maybe you think that the $50 rule is 01:09:57.750 --> 01:09:58.899 too generous. 01:09:58.899 --> 01:10:03.899 Knock it down to $25 or $10 or $0. 01:10:03.899 --> 01:10:06.390 Another town I represented, they're going through their 01:10:06.390 --> 01:10:08.899 ethics ordinance and boy oh boy, they set their targets. 01:10:08.899 --> 01:10:11.899 No comped meals. 01:10:11.899 --> 01:10:15.899 The definition of a gift means a comped meal. 01:10:15.899 --> 01:10:17.899 I said, okay, can we table out to next meeting? 01:10:17.899 --> 01:10:18.899 Sure. 01:10:18.899 --> 01:10:21.359 In between there, I called the chief, chief of police, come 01:10:21.359 --> 01:10:22.899 join us at the ethics commission. 01:10:22.899 --> 01:10:24.899 And he's there, what have we done wrong? 01:10:24.899 --> 01:10:25.899 What have our officers done wrong? 01:10:25.899 --> 01:10:26.899 I said, what do you mean? 01:10:26.899 --> 01:10:29.899 Well, I don't know about Denton, but a lot of other places, 01:10:29.899 --> 01:10:31.899 when you show up in a police or fire uniform, 01:10:31.899 --> 01:10:35.069 you often don't pay for your tab or you don't pay for the 01:10:35.069 --> 01:10:35.899 full tab. 01:10:35.899 --> 01:10:37.899 I know because I've been there. 01:10:37.899 --> 01:10:38.899 I pay. 01:10:38.899 --> 01:10:39.899 I get my bill. 01:10:39.899 --> 01:10:42.449 But the police officer sitting next to me that I'm having 01:10:42.449 --> 01:10:43.899 lunch with gets his copped. 01:10:43.899 --> 01:10:45.899 It happens a lot. 01:10:45.899 --> 01:10:46.899 Well, why would you guess? 01:10:46.899 --> 01:10:48.899 I don't know. 01:10:48.899 --> 01:10:50.899 If cops are there and police cars are parked out front, 01:10:50.899 --> 01:10:52.899 maybe the place won't get robbed. 01:10:52.899 --> 01:10:54.899 Maybe they're really appreciative. 01:10:54.899 --> 01:10:56.899 Maybe they hope the cops will respond to calls faster. 01:10:56.899 --> 01:10:58.899 I don't know. 01:10:58.899 --> 01:11:00.949 I don't know if the cops don't change who they respond to 01:11:00.949 --> 01:11:01.899 based on free meals. 01:11:01.899 --> 01:11:04.149 I know that when I travel, whenever I see a restaurant 01:11:04.149 --> 01:11:06.899 looks like a dump, but there's a fire truck and two police 01:11:06.899 --> 01:11:07.899 cars parked there, 01:11:07.899 --> 01:11:10.270 that's where I'm eating because the food's guaranteed to be 01:11:10.270 --> 01:11:10.899 top notch. 01:11:10.899 --> 01:11:12.899 So I don't know why restaurateurs do that. 01:11:12.899 --> 01:11:16.670 But in this town, they said, sorry, chief, we pay your 01:11:16.670 --> 01:11:20.109 officers enough so they can buy their own breakfast, lunch 01:11:20.109 --> 01:11:20.899 and dinner. 01:11:20.899 --> 01:11:22.899 If you've got an issue with how much they're getting paid, 01:11:22.899 --> 01:11:26.050 bring it to the council during budget time, but no comped 01:11:26.050 --> 01:11:26.899 meals. 01:11:26.899 --> 01:11:29.899 Chief's like, okay, tell me the rule. 01:11:29.899 --> 01:11:31.899 We'll follow the rule. 01:11:31.899 --> 01:11:35.529 So some go well beyond the gift rule when it comes to those 01:11:35.529 --> 01:11:36.899 sorts of things. 01:11:36.899 --> 01:11:37.899 Moonlighting is a big one. 01:11:37.899 --> 01:11:40.760 And again, I pick on police officers because that's where I 01:11:40.760 --> 01:11:41.899 get the HR problems. 01:11:41.899 --> 01:11:46.020 Usually it's because the department will set a policy, not 01:11:46.020 --> 01:11:46.899 the city. 01:11:46.899 --> 01:11:48.899 So okay, police officers can moonlight as security. 01:11:48.899 --> 01:11:49.899 Fine. 01:11:49.899 --> 01:11:51.899 Can they wear the city uniform? 01:11:51.899 --> 01:11:52.899 Can they have a city car? 01:11:52.899 --> 01:11:56.899 Is the city getting paid for use of the city car? 01:11:56.899 --> 01:12:00.340 Can they be security anywhere or anywhere except those 01:12:00.340 --> 01:12:03.899 places that have a TABC liquor license, beer permit? 01:12:03.899 --> 01:12:06.029 Okay, they can be anywhere that has a liquor permit, but 01:12:06.029 --> 01:12:07.899 nowhere that's a sexually oriented business. 01:12:07.899 --> 01:12:10.899 I mean, on and on and on and on. 01:12:10.899 --> 01:12:13.489 Is the same thing true for your planning department, your 01:12:13.489 --> 01:12:14.899 engineering department? 01:12:14.899 --> 01:12:17.899 Do you care if employees have outside jobs? 01:12:17.899 --> 01:12:19.899 If so, what are the rules on doing that? 01:12:19.899 --> 01:12:21.899 Otherwise, it's usually legal for them to do so. 01:12:21.899 --> 01:12:25.899 As long as they're not using city equipment to do that. 01:12:25.899 --> 01:12:29.449 And I even have a guy recently, a city planner who was ind 01:12:29.449 --> 01:12:31.489 icted because even though the council knew he had a sideline 01:12:31.489 --> 01:12:33.899 business, he told everyone he had a sideline business, 01:12:33.899 --> 01:12:38.170 he mistakenly responded to a personal business issue with 01:12:38.170 --> 01:12:39.899 his city email address. 01:12:39.899 --> 01:12:43.130 And the DA said that use of a city email address was 01:12:43.130 --> 01:12:47.010 abusive office and abusive city equipment and resources and 01:12:47.010 --> 01:12:47.899 had him indicted for that. 01:12:47.899 --> 01:12:49.899 That's still pending. 01:12:49.899 --> 01:12:52.520 That's more strict than I've ever heard of from the 01:12:52.520 --> 01:12:53.899 criminal standpoint. 01:12:53.899 --> 01:12:55.899 Revolving door is big. 01:12:55.899 --> 01:12:58.760 City of Dallas did not have a revolving door provision in 01:12:58.760 --> 01:13:01.970 its code of ordinances until they created a new sports 01:13:01.970 --> 01:13:03.899 authority, got the taxes approved, 01:13:03.899 --> 01:13:07.010 got the bonds issued, and city manager goes and resigns 01:13:07.010 --> 01:13:10.180 from the city of Dallas to emerge as executive director of 01:13:10.180 --> 01:13:11.899 the new sports authority. 01:13:11.899 --> 01:13:14.899 Now the city of Dallas has a revolving door. 01:13:14.899 --> 01:13:17.979 Again, a lot of these ethics ordinances, no matter how hard 01:13:17.979 --> 01:13:21.319 you try to draft the perfect beast, they are in response to 01:13:21.319 --> 01:13:23.899 things that come up in your community. 01:13:23.899 --> 01:13:24.899 Do you have rules? 01:13:24.899 --> 01:13:26.899 I think the city of Plano has rules. 01:13:26.899 --> 01:13:30.050 If you're a city council member, you can't represent 01:13:30.050 --> 01:13:33.689 someone before the city for six months or 90 days after you 01:13:33.689 --> 01:13:34.899 've left office. 01:13:34.899 --> 01:13:37.510 If you're an employee, you have to wait a year before you 01:13:37.510 --> 01:13:38.899 can come back and do that. 01:13:38.899 --> 01:13:41.609 If you're a volunteer on boards and commissions, it's a 01:13:41.609 --> 01:13:42.899 certain time period. 01:13:42.899 --> 01:13:46.710 If you don't have a revolving door, state law does not 01:13:46.710 --> 01:13:47.899 restrict it. 01:13:47.899 --> 01:13:51.899 There is a state statute for state employees. 01:13:51.899 --> 01:13:54.979 So if you work at TCEQ or the Water Development Board and 01:13:54.979 --> 01:13:57.899 there's a time period of time, usually it's two years 01:13:57.899 --> 01:14:01.430 before you can take a payment at an outside employer 01:14:01.430 --> 01:14:04.899 working on the exact same issue that you worked on. 01:14:04.899 --> 01:14:07.539 But if you're working on unrelated issues, unrelated to 01:14:07.539 --> 01:14:10.239 your time at state employment, then you can jump ship from 01:14:10.239 --> 01:14:12.899 the state agency and go to work in private practice. 01:14:12.899 --> 01:14:16.890 But unless you adopt a local rule on the revolving door, 01:14:16.890 --> 01:14:20.659 there is no such limitation on staff, electeds, or 01:14:20.659 --> 01:14:21.899 volunteers. 01:14:21.899 --> 01:14:23.899 Purchasing rules is a whole other topic. 01:14:23.899 --> 01:14:26.840 Your procurement department is going to have those that go 01:14:26.840 --> 01:14:30.039 beyond just the bidding requirements, competitive proposal 01:14:30.039 --> 01:14:33.029 requirements, and the historically underutilized business 01:14:33.029 --> 01:14:33.899 requirements. 01:14:33.899 --> 01:14:37.420 But those types of limitations on spending money and 01:14:37.420 --> 01:14:40.899 contracting also achieve some ethical results. 01:14:40.899 --> 01:14:43.899 Disclosures, you know the state law disclosures. 01:14:43.899 --> 01:14:46.899 Some cities have additional disclosure requirements. 01:14:46.899 --> 01:14:51.130 Lobbying is one that I would like to see more of, but they 01:14:51.130 --> 01:14:52.899 're very unpopular. 01:14:52.899 --> 01:14:56.189 In part because lobbying restrictions are restricting 01:14:56.189 --> 01:14:57.899 people talking to people. 01:14:57.899 --> 01:14:59.899 Grown ups talking to grown ups. 01:14:59.899 --> 01:15:03.289 And also the lobbyists are pretty good at lobbying on 01:15:03.289 --> 01:15:04.899 behalf of lobbyists. 01:15:04.899 --> 01:15:08.039 Yeah, I met the guy who created the Lobbying Association in 01:15:08.039 --> 01:15:11.050 Austin that lobbies on behalf of all of their lobbyists in 01:15:11.050 --> 01:15:11.899 the state. 01:15:11.899 --> 01:15:13.899 It's a great thing to do. 01:15:13.899 --> 01:15:17.739 And I know that even in Austin, for example, where I live 01:15:17.739 --> 01:15:20.859 or my office is, I've helped communities that have 01:15:20.859 --> 01:15:22.899 incorporated before as cities. 01:15:22.899 --> 01:15:25.899 And one of them was in partially in Austin's ETJ. 01:15:25.899 --> 01:15:27.899 They wanted Austin to release it. 01:15:27.899 --> 01:15:31.050 They wanted to knock on doors and try to convince people to 01:15:31.050 --> 01:15:31.899 release it. 01:15:31.899 --> 01:15:34.329 Well, Austin's ethics ordinance has a lobbying component 01:15:34.329 --> 01:15:36.899 that says if you're going to lobby, you got to register. 01:15:36.899 --> 01:15:37.899 What's your name? 01:15:37.899 --> 01:15:38.899 Who's your client? 01:15:38.899 --> 01:15:39.899 What's your issue? 01:15:39.899 --> 01:15:42.899 And pay a fee, which back then it was like $500 a year. 01:15:42.899 --> 01:15:45.899 It's a substantial registration fee. 01:15:45.899 --> 01:15:48.899 I think it's fair game. 01:15:48.899 --> 01:15:52.000 And even right now, currently pending, both Travis County 01:15:52.000 --> 01:15:55.119 and city of Austin are reviewing and revising their lobby 01:15:55.119 --> 01:15:55.899 ist rules. 01:15:55.899 --> 01:15:59.399 And another part that's sort of ethics related, you see 01:15:59.399 --> 01:16:03.060 cities starting to do a little bit of, and that's campaign 01:16:03.060 --> 01:16:03.899 finance. 01:16:03.899 --> 01:16:06.899 Some cities, San Antonio is one of the examples. 01:16:06.899 --> 01:16:11.899 I think it's if you give more than $1,000 to a candidate, 01:16:11.899 --> 01:16:15.600 you are banned, prohibited from entering to certain kinds 01:16:15.600 --> 01:16:18.899 of contracts with the city for a period of time. 01:16:18.899 --> 01:16:22.449 And it's not all contracts, but it's categories of the 01:16:22.449 --> 01:16:23.899 major contracts. 01:16:23.899 --> 01:16:27.529 And I've heard anecdotally from some of the staffers over 01:16:27.529 --> 01:16:31.239 at city of San Antonio that the elected officials hate that 01:16:31.239 --> 01:16:31.899 rule. 01:16:31.899 --> 01:16:36.039 It really makes raising money for a campaign, a modern 01:16:36.039 --> 01:16:37.899 campaign difficult. 01:16:37.899 --> 01:16:39.899 The vendors love that rule. 01:16:39.899 --> 01:16:40.899 Oh, thank God. 01:16:40.899 --> 01:16:43.770 I can now have lunch and breakfast or dinner or go home, 01:16:43.770 --> 01:16:46.760 whatever, or see them at the Lions meeting and they don't 01:16:46.760 --> 01:16:47.899 have their hand out. 01:16:47.899 --> 01:16:51.029 Constantly asking for donations, receptions, hosting events 01:16:51.029 --> 01:16:51.899 and whatever. 01:16:51.899 --> 01:16:55.420 So if a city were to adopt campaign finance laws, they can 01:16:55.420 --> 01:16:58.710 have that separate or they can have it as part of their 01:16:58.710 --> 01:16:59.899 code of ethics. 01:16:59.899 --> 01:17:00.899 This is not exhaustive. 01:17:00.899 --> 01:17:04.250 There's plenty of other things that are in ethics ordin 01:17:04.250 --> 01:17:04.899 ances. 01:17:04.899 --> 01:17:07.899 Whoever designs one for Denton, if you go down that road, 01:17:07.899 --> 01:17:10.949 is going to have to kind of go through a list, I think, 01:17:10.949 --> 01:17:12.899 first of what's the problems? 01:17:12.899 --> 01:17:15.899 What are the boogeyman that keep you awake at night? 01:17:15.899 --> 01:17:19.420 What are the issues that the community is upset about or 01:17:19.420 --> 01:17:22.720 concerned about that we need to address that are not 01:17:22.720 --> 01:17:25.899 already sufficiently addressed elsewhere? 01:17:25.899 --> 01:17:27.899 As a lawyer, it's a general rule. 01:17:27.899 --> 01:17:31.659 I don't know how Anita Burgess or how Erin Leal is going to 01:17:31.659 --> 01:17:32.899 approach this. 01:17:32.899 --> 01:17:36.949 I tend to try to counsel clients against duplicating what 01:17:36.949 --> 01:17:38.899 is already in state law. 01:17:38.899 --> 01:17:41.600 Whether it's regulating dogs or regulating ethics or 01:17:41.600 --> 01:17:42.899 regulating whatever. 01:17:42.899 --> 01:17:45.899 Go above and beyond if you need to. 01:17:45.899 --> 01:17:47.899 Fill in the gaps if you need to. 01:17:47.899 --> 01:17:52.899 I don't see a lot of benefit in that level of overlap. 01:17:52.899 --> 01:17:55.250 By way of example, and this is all in the media, so I'm not 01:17:55.250 --> 01:17:56.899 conveying anything confidential. 01:17:56.899 --> 01:17:57.899 That would be unethical. 01:17:57.899 --> 01:18:02.899 Last week, the dilemma before the El Paso Ethics Commission 01:18:02.899 --> 01:18:06.430 was that mayor and council members have been publicly 01:18:06.430 --> 01:18:08.899 accused of violating the Open Meetings Act 01:18:08.899 --> 01:18:13.899 by having a series of discussions less than a quorum 01:18:13.899 --> 01:18:16.899 without public notice or public participation. 01:18:16.899 --> 01:18:22.479 Some call that a rolling quorum, a walking quorum, whatever 01:18:22.479 --> 01:18:22.899 . 01:18:22.899 --> 01:18:26.390 Ethics complaints were filed against the mayor and those 01:18:26.390 --> 01:18:29.899 council members for violating the Open Meetings Act. 01:18:29.899 --> 01:18:33.119 And the question that I had to wrestle with was does the 01:18:33.119 --> 01:18:36.180 Ethics Review Commission of the City of El Paso have 01:18:36.180 --> 01:18:39.899 jurisdiction and authority over the Open Meetings Act? 01:18:39.899 --> 01:18:41.899 Well, some can look at language. 01:18:41.899 --> 01:18:44.010 There should be lawyers themselves who are good at finding 01:18:44.010 --> 01:18:47.289 some obscure language and trying to bootstrap the Open Meet 01:18:47.289 --> 01:18:48.899 ings Act into the ethics ordinance. 01:18:48.899 --> 01:18:50.899 And I declined to do that. 01:18:50.899 --> 01:18:54.899 I did not support that interpretation. 01:18:54.899 --> 01:18:57.250 And was I influenced by the fact that I know the Texas 01:18:57.250 --> 01:18:59.899 Rangers have been in City Hall interviewing people? 01:18:59.899 --> 01:19:02.859 Was I influenced by the fact that little birdies have told 01:19:02.859 --> 01:19:04.899 me grand juries have been convened? 01:19:04.899 --> 01:19:07.899 I don't know. Grand juries, those are secret deliberations. 01:19:07.899 --> 01:19:10.899 I have no idea. 01:19:10.899 --> 01:19:13.899 But the state is handling that. 01:19:13.899 --> 01:19:15.899 But that's just one guy's opinion. 01:19:15.899 --> 01:19:18.869 Several on the Ethics Review Commission said this is 01:19:18.869 --> 01:19:21.899 exactly the kind of stuff we should be reviewing. 01:19:21.899 --> 01:19:24.020 If it's not on our ethics ordinance, it should be in our 01:19:24.020 --> 01:19:24.899 ethics ordinance. 01:19:24.899 --> 01:19:26.899 What if the state does nothing? 01:19:26.899 --> 01:19:28.880 What if there are no bills? What if they go to trial and 01:19:28.880 --> 01:19:29.899 the jury finds nothing? 01:19:29.899 --> 01:19:34.130 We still think that if they did this, it was unethical for 01:19:34.130 --> 01:19:37.439 them to do so and we should hold them accountable as an 01:19:37.439 --> 01:19:38.899 ethics commission. 01:19:38.899 --> 01:19:40.899 Okay. That's what you think. 01:19:40.899 --> 01:19:43.460 And if you want the council to amend the ordinance to do 01:19:43.460 --> 01:19:45.979 that, that's a political policy conversation for the city 01:19:45.979 --> 01:19:46.899 council to do that. 01:19:46.899 --> 01:19:49.899 Some ethics ordinances are incredibly broad. 01:19:49.899 --> 01:19:51.899 Some are very narrow. 01:19:51.899 --> 01:19:55.890 If you're San Antonio, my gosh, you will have to have a 01:19:55.890 --> 01:19:59.899 very, very substantial ethics infrastructure. 01:19:59.899 --> 01:20:00.899 I don't know what else to call it. 01:20:00.899 --> 01:20:05.609 The personnel, the funding to go through all the things 01:20:05.609 --> 01:20:07.899 that San Antonio monitors. 01:20:07.899 --> 01:20:09.899 And they do it for about ten complaints a year. 01:20:09.899 --> 01:20:13.020 Somewhere between ten and eight complaints a year filed in 01:20:13.020 --> 01:20:13.899 San Antonio. 01:20:13.899 --> 01:20:16.560 In El Paso, I think probably seven have been filed since I 01:20:16.560 --> 01:20:17.899 've been standing here. 01:20:17.899 --> 01:20:23.760 It's a little bit, it's way out west and it's obvious that 01:20:23.760 --> 01:20:27.899 the ethics ordinance is a political tool, a weapon of sorts 01:20:27.899 --> 01:20:27.899 . 01:20:27.899 --> 01:20:30.380 And by the way, some of the complainants that have filed 01:20:30.380 --> 01:20:33.000 the most recent complaints are also candidates for office 01:20:33.000 --> 01:20:34.899 and they filed against incumbents. 01:20:34.899 --> 01:20:37.899 Doesn't mean there was no ethical issues there. 01:20:37.899 --> 01:20:41.390 My review was limited to what does the ordinance have to 01:20:41.390 --> 01:20:41.899 say. 01:20:41.899 --> 01:20:44.960 And I know that's a question some of you all want to get to 01:20:44.960 --> 01:20:48.319 is if you're going to pursue a more ethical culture at City 01:20:48.319 --> 01:20:48.899 of Denton, 01:20:48.899 --> 01:20:52.529 does that mean every bit of behavior has to be tied to a 01:20:52.529 --> 01:20:53.899 written standard? 01:20:53.899 --> 01:20:56.840 Or can you have broader or general standards that folks can 01:20:56.840 --> 01:21:00.619 be held accountable to even if you can't find a very 01:21:00.619 --> 01:21:03.899 specific breach or specific violation? 01:21:03.899 --> 01:21:06.899 And that's certainly something that we can talk about. 01:21:06.899 --> 01:21:09.899 Because where we are is this slide. 01:21:09.899 --> 01:21:12.210 And some of you may have been there when you walked in the 01:21:12.210 --> 01:21:12.899 front door. 01:21:12.899 --> 01:21:15.800 You were already here and you didn't need the rest of the 01:21:15.800 --> 01:21:17.899 material I was asked to present on. 01:21:17.899 --> 01:21:18.899 But what are you going to do? 01:21:18.899 --> 01:21:21.899 You are a charter review committee. 01:21:21.899 --> 01:21:24.899 You looked at several aspects of the Home Rule Charter. 01:21:24.899 --> 01:21:26.899 This is just one of them. 01:21:26.899 --> 01:21:29.899 And you have a specific charge regarding this. 01:21:29.899 --> 01:21:32.899 What are you going to do? 01:21:32.899 --> 01:21:35.989 Some people out in the community might think number one is 01:21:35.989 --> 01:21:36.899 non-option. 01:21:36.899 --> 01:21:37.899 Nonsense. 01:21:37.899 --> 01:21:40.409 I'm a lawyer, I'm here to tell you doing nothing is always 01:21:40.409 --> 01:21:41.899 an option worth evaluating. 01:21:41.899 --> 01:21:45.029 It's possible that you've learned all you need to learn and 01:21:45.029 --> 01:21:46.899 you either think that state laws got this covered, 01:21:46.899 --> 01:21:49.909 your charter's already got this covered, or fixing this is 01:21:49.909 --> 01:21:53.039 beyond the scope of what you're going to do with your 01:21:53.039 --> 01:21:53.899 charter. 01:21:53.899 --> 01:21:57.890 So I would certainly say consider doing nothing and decide 01:21:57.890 --> 01:22:00.899 if that's appropriate for Denton or not. 01:22:00.899 --> 01:22:02.899 If you choose to do something, what is that? 01:22:02.899 --> 01:22:05.899 You could recommend the city council do something else. 01:22:05.899 --> 01:22:09.210 They could establish a broader policy or a more specific 01:22:09.210 --> 01:22:09.899 policy. 01:22:09.899 --> 01:22:13.439 It can be done by resolution, which is really a statement 01:22:13.439 --> 01:22:14.899 of the council's will. 01:22:14.899 --> 01:22:18.470 The one policy you have right now, I mentioned before in my 01:22:18.470 --> 01:22:20.899 opinion, is fairly aspirational. 01:22:20.899 --> 01:22:24.199 I know it's been likened to the Boy Scout oath and Boy 01:22:24.199 --> 01:22:24.899 Scout law. 01:22:24.899 --> 01:22:26.899 And it makes me laugh because when I do ethics training, 01:22:26.899 --> 01:22:29.899 this is not my usual ethics training course. 01:22:29.899 --> 01:22:33.189 I get into the Girl Scout law and the Boy Scout law because 01:22:33.189 --> 01:22:36.899 I think there are lots of good things in there for people 01:22:36.899 --> 01:22:38.899 who are trying to be good actors. 01:22:38.899 --> 01:22:42.470 They're trying to behave themselves, conduct themselves in 01:22:42.470 --> 01:22:45.899 a way that instills trust and confidence in the voters. 01:22:45.899 --> 01:22:48.689 A lot of us learn those rules young in life and a lot of us 01:22:48.689 --> 01:22:51.239 , big overgrown Eagle Scouts standing in front of you, we've 01:22:51.239 --> 01:22:53.899 never stopped thinking about those rules. 01:22:53.899 --> 01:22:56.760 We're a 10 year old Girl Scout and we go over those things 01:22:56.760 --> 01:22:59.630 on a regular basis because if she forgets everything else, 01:22:59.630 --> 01:23:01.899 she'll eventually remember those laws. 01:23:01.899 --> 01:23:03.899 Well, yours has a lot in common with that. 01:23:03.899 --> 01:23:05.899 Don't know how it was drafted. 01:23:05.899 --> 01:23:10.369 I know the mayor who was there when it was adopted and 01:23:10.369 --> 01:23:13.899 signed and the former city attorney. 01:23:13.899 --> 01:23:14.899 Is that enough? 01:23:14.899 --> 01:23:16.899 Do you need another resolution? 01:23:16.899 --> 01:23:18.899 Do you need another policy? 01:23:18.899 --> 01:23:19.899 Or is that not going far enough? 01:23:19.899 --> 01:23:22.210 Is your recommendation going to be there needs to be an 01:23:22.210 --> 01:23:22.899 ordinance. 01:23:22.899 --> 01:23:25.899 An ordinance is actually law. 01:23:25.899 --> 01:23:28.840 An ordinance can trigger all sorts of things, including, 01:23:28.840 --> 01:23:33.390 you know, expending resources, fines, penalties, hiring of 01:23:33.390 --> 01:23:36.899 people, firing of people. 01:23:36.899 --> 01:23:40.899 It seems to me, and you all can argue with me in a moment, 01:23:40.899 --> 01:23:44.470 beyond the scope of your charge for this group to write an 01:23:44.470 --> 01:23:45.899 ethics ordinance. 01:23:45.899 --> 01:23:48.449 But certainly you've had enough discussions and a lot of 01:23:48.449 --> 01:23:51.050 you have done your own research to where you've gathered 01:23:51.050 --> 01:23:53.899 enough information that's be good to go into an ordinance. 01:23:53.899 --> 01:23:55.899 And maybe that's the next step. 01:23:55.899 --> 01:23:58.850 But if you want an ethics ordinance like Plano or Fort 01:23:58.850 --> 01:24:02.069 Worth or San Antonio or San Marcos or the other cities that 01:24:02.069 --> 01:24:05.079 have them, that could be something that is done and a 01:24:05.079 --> 01:24:06.899 process and procedures are set up for that. 01:24:06.899 --> 01:24:09.899 That might be your recommendation. 01:24:09.899 --> 01:24:14.489 Or the fourth one, which is what we're really charged with, 01:24:14.489 --> 01:24:18.899 is the charter. What do we do about the charter? 01:24:18.899 --> 01:24:22.899 What you have right now is basically state law. 01:24:22.899 --> 01:24:25.899 The nepotism provision adds a little bit. 01:24:25.899 --> 01:24:27.899 You can leave it there. 01:24:27.899 --> 01:24:31.899 You can recommend it be repealed. 01:24:31.899 --> 01:24:34.899 I hate saying repeal and replace, but that's where we are. 01:24:34.899 --> 01:24:36.899 That's where we are. 01:24:36.899 --> 01:24:39.760 Do you want to recommend that your charter language be repe 01:24:39.760 --> 01:24:41.899 aled and replaced with something else? 01:24:41.899 --> 01:24:44.899 Is it replaced with an ethics ordinance? 01:24:44.899 --> 01:24:49.180 Is it replaced with a charter provision that requires an 01:24:49.180 --> 01:24:50.899 ethics ordinance? 01:24:50.899 --> 01:24:55.649 Because as a municipal lawyer, I tend to view a charter as 01:24:55.649 --> 01:24:56.899 two things. 01:24:56.899 --> 01:25:00.899 It establishes the basic framework for your government, 01:25:00.899 --> 01:25:03.949 which is different than Dallas or Fort Worth or Plano or 01:25:03.949 --> 01:25:04.899 Richardson. 01:25:04.899 --> 01:25:06.899 It's your government, your charter. 01:25:06.899 --> 01:25:09.659 The voters have given you these powers and they've held 01:25:09.659 --> 01:25:11.899 back these other powers for themselves. 01:25:11.899 --> 01:25:15.949 That framework for your government is the key part of a 01:25:15.949 --> 01:25:16.899 charter. 01:25:16.899 --> 01:25:20.899 Another part of a charter is limitations. 01:25:20.899 --> 01:25:24.250 There may be things that state law allows the city of Dent 01:25:24.250 --> 01:25:27.350 on to do, but the charter prevents the city of Denton from 01:25:27.350 --> 01:25:27.899 doing. 01:25:27.899 --> 01:25:31.600 The third part, which is probably most more common, is it's 01:25:31.600 --> 01:25:35.039 an enabling piece of legislation that was voted on by the 01:25:35.039 --> 01:25:35.899 voters. 01:25:35.899 --> 01:25:38.899 It specifically empowers the city to go and do this. 01:25:38.899 --> 01:25:41.869 And as long as state law doesn't prohibit it, the city can 01:25:41.869 --> 01:25:43.899 do what its charter allows it to do. 01:25:43.899 --> 01:25:50.619 And 1,200 cities in Texas, 450 or so, or Home Rule, 450 01:25:50.619 --> 01:25:52.899 different ways to do it. 01:25:52.899 --> 01:25:54.890 I don't know what other charters you all have looked at in 01:25:54.890 --> 01:25:55.899 other charter language, 01:25:55.899 --> 01:25:58.939 but if you looked, you've probably seen a lot of different 01:25:58.939 --> 01:26:00.899 approaches to the same problems. 01:26:00.899 --> 01:26:05.119 One thought is if you feel like the mandate from the 01:26:05.119 --> 01:26:07.899 council and what you're hearing from your fellow citizens 01:26:07.899 --> 01:26:11.899 is such that you need to have more ethics rules in Denton 01:26:11.899 --> 01:26:13.899 than you can consider. 01:26:13.899 --> 01:26:18.069 Adding a line that says the city council may adopt an 01:26:18.069 --> 01:26:19.899 ethics ordinance. 01:26:19.899 --> 01:26:22.899 That's easy. It's one sentence. 01:26:22.899 --> 01:26:27.270 You could do a similar sentence. The city council shall 01:26:27.270 --> 01:26:28.899 adopt an ethics ordinance. 01:26:28.899 --> 01:26:33.899 And what goes after that? 01:26:33.899 --> 01:26:37.819 You can stop there. You can say, and appoint a charter 01:26:37.819 --> 01:26:41.899 commission or just leave it to the ordinance to decide. 01:26:41.899 --> 01:26:45.390 How much guidance do you think the voters of Denton want to 01:26:45.390 --> 01:26:47.899 give the city council on what's next? 01:26:47.899 --> 01:26:52.899 Now again, speaking as a lawyer, I like things to be clean. 01:26:52.899 --> 01:26:54.899 So well, gosh, can we do a double? 01:26:54.899 --> 01:26:58.229 A proposition to adopt language in the charter that 01:26:58.229 --> 01:27:02.069 requires the city council to adopt an ethics ordinance and 01:27:02.069 --> 01:27:04.899 repeal the two provisions you already have in the charter. 01:27:04.899 --> 01:27:08.899 So that everything is in an ethics ordinance. That's clean. 01:27:08.899 --> 01:27:10.899 It's neat. It's tidy. 01:27:10.899 --> 01:27:13.460 Your ethics ordinance should put in what the penalties are, 01:27:13.460 --> 01:27:15.899 the enforcement provisions. That's nice. 01:27:15.899 --> 01:27:18.859 Now, will the voters do that? You can have a joint 01:27:18.859 --> 01:27:20.899 proposition now. You used to not do that. 01:27:20.899 --> 01:27:23.289 But now we can have joint propositions. Maybe that's 01:27:23.289 --> 01:27:23.899 something to do. 01:27:23.899 --> 01:27:27.000 Or maybe you leave the charter as is and the council just 01:27:27.000 --> 01:27:28.899 adopts an ethics ordinance. 01:27:28.899 --> 01:27:32.449 Because it's my opinion that nothing about your current 01:27:32.449 --> 01:27:35.899 charter prohibits the council from adopting an ethics 01:27:35.899 --> 01:27:36.899 ordinance. 01:27:36.899 --> 01:27:38.899 I think legally they can still do so. 01:27:38.899 --> 01:27:42.640 It's better, it's preferable, if you have language in the 01:27:42.640 --> 01:27:45.880 charter that gives them the power to adopt an ethics 01:27:45.880 --> 01:27:46.899 ordinance. 01:27:46.899 --> 01:27:49.840 It kind of bolsters that power. But I don't necessarily 01:27:49.840 --> 01:27:54.899 think it's necessary. It's just more ideal. 01:27:54.899 --> 01:27:57.899 Joe? 01:27:57.899 --> 01:28:04.899 Allow or empower or they shall. Must. 01:28:04.899 --> 01:28:08.529 That's one of the questions because they could adopt an 01:28:08.529 --> 01:28:10.899 ordinance now if they so choose. 01:28:10.899 --> 01:28:13.899 There's just been no movement. 01:28:13.899 --> 01:28:20.899 And I, you know, the council's position on the charter 01:28:20.899 --> 01:28:24.010 ethics provisions or the notion of having an ordinance, 01:28:24.010 --> 01:28:25.899 that is not information that I'm privy to. 01:28:25.899 --> 01:28:30.130 And I purposefully stayed away from that because I don't 01:28:30.130 --> 01:28:34.539 really, I don't know their political desires, ideals or 01:28:34.539 --> 01:28:35.899 limitations. 01:28:35.899 --> 01:28:39.390 I'm hired by the city, but I'm here to help you guys right 01:28:39.390 --> 01:28:39.899 now. 01:28:39.899 --> 01:28:43.159 Oh no, you're hired. I want to make that clear. You work 01:28:43.159 --> 01:28:43.899 for this committee. 01:28:43.899 --> 01:28:44.899 Yes, sir. 01:28:44.899 --> 01:28:48.670 You're being paid to the city apparatus, which you're 01:28:48.670 --> 01:28:51.899 really working for the committee in total. 01:28:51.899 --> 01:29:01.899 So and I want to rephrase my comment. 01:29:01.899 --> 01:29:04.760 So I want to rephrase in the comments and say, Alan, is 01:29:04.760 --> 01:29:08.239 there anything in our charter right now, presently, that 01:29:08.239 --> 01:29:12.579 prohibits the city council from writing an ethics ordinance 01:29:12.579 --> 01:29:12.899 ? 01:29:12.899 --> 01:29:14.899 I don't think so. 01:29:14.899 --> 01:29:19.329 And again, I have not talked to Ms. Burgess or anybody else 01:29:19.329 --> 01:29:21.899 about prior interpretations. 01:29:21.899 --> 01:29:26.899 So I'm just kind of going on my own here. 01:29:26.899 --> 01:29:30.289 I think if I were someone that was opposed to that, I would 01:29:30.289 --> 01:29:32.899 say, well, we need enabling legislation. 01:29:32.899 --> 01:29:36.579 We need the voters through the charter to tell us that we 01:29:36.579 --> 01:29:38.899 can adopt an ethics ordinance. 01:29:38.899 --> 01:29:42.170 Or, again, lawyers doing what lawyers do, I could look at 01:29:42.170 --> 01:29:45.010 it and say, the voters have already given you the two 01:29:45.010 --> 01:29:46.899 ethics provisions they want. 01:29:46.899 --> 01:29:50.430 And so don't do anything else. State law covers everything 01:29:50.430 --> 01:29:50.899 else. 01:29:50.899 --> 01:29:53.130 If the voters wanted you to have more ethics power, they 01:29:53.130 --> 01:29:54.899 would have given you more ethics power. 01:29:54.899 --> 01:29:58.010 To do anything else is to go beyond the charter, go beyond 01:29:58.010 --> 01:30:00.899 the voters, possibly conflict with the charter. 01:30:00.899 --> 01:30:07.039 And so that's why I say, my ideal as a municipal lawyer 01:30:07.039 --> 01:30:11.420 would be to have at least a little line in there saying, 01:30:11.420 --> 01:30:13.899 shall or must adopt an ordinance. 01:30:13.899 --> 01:30:17.899 That gives the council, first of all, some political cover, 01:30:17.899 --> 01:30:22.039 because you can't ignore the politics of these kinds of 01:30:22.039 --> 01:30:22.899 issues. 01:30:22.899 --> 01:30:26.899 My gosh. 01:30:26.899 --> 01:30:30.199 So yeah, you can't ignore the politics of these kinds of 01:30:30.199 --> 01:30:30.899 issues. 01:30:30.899 --> 01:30:34.899 And also, you know, the council may want that push. 01:30:34.899 --> 01:30:36.899 They may need that push. 01:30:36.899 --> 01:30:40.899 Or maybe because I don't do politics, y'all can do that. 01:30:40.899 --> 01:30:44.939 The voters need to have something on some future ballot 01:30:44.939 --> 01:30:48.899 that they can click yes to that communicates the city hall 01:30:48.899 --> 01:30:51.899 how the voters feel about ethics in city hall. 01:30:51.899 --> 01:30:53.899 And so you want to give them that avenue. 01:30:53.899 --> 01:30:58.310 Well, what I'm always going to recommend is that the 01:30:58.310 --> 01:31:01.899 charter be as lean and mean as possible. 01:31:01.899 --> 01:31:05.090 You know, whether I'm doing my adjunct professor work or I 01:31:05.090 --> 01:31:08.109 'm being a lawyer or whatever, you look at the US 01:31:08.109 --> 01:31:11.399 Constitution over here with the Bill of Rights and you look 01:31:11.399 --> 01:31:14.899 at the Texas Constitution over here and you get nauseous. 01:31:14.899 --> 01:31:16.899 Because there's something in it for everyone. 01:31:16.899 --> 01:31:19.899 Every special interest group for a zillion years has shoved 01:31:19.899 --> 01:31:22.600 something in there and the legislature is constantly 01:31:22.600 --> 01:31:25.479 putting before the voters who may or may not be informed to 01:31:25.479 --> 01:31:26.899 amend our Constitution. 01:31:26.899 --> 01:31:29.899 Well, your charter is kind of your Constitution. 01:31:29.899 --> 01:31:31.899 So I'm always got a bias. 01:31:31.899 --> 01:31:33.899 Less is better in the charter. 01:31:33.899 --> 01:31:37.109 If the question were posed to me, should this group write 01:31:37.109 --> 01:31:39.899 an ethics ordinance and then turn it into a proposition 01:31:39.899 --> 01:31:43.939 that gets voted on, on a ballot to go into the charter, I 01:31:43.939 --> 01:31:45.899 would urge you to be very cautious of doing that. 01:31:45.899 --> 01:31:47.899 I think it's a hard thing to do. 01:31:47.899 --> 01:31:49.899 It's a hard thing to draft. 01:31:49.899 --> 01:31:52.899 It's a hard thing to communicate to the voters. 01:31:52.899 --> 01:31:55.850 And it's a hard thing to administer because no matter how 01:31:55.850 --> 01:31:58.670 well you write an ordinance, there's going to be some 01:31:58.670 --> 01:31:59.899 problems with it. 01:31:59.899 --> 01:32:02.409 And charters can only be amended, as you know, every two 01:32:02.409 --> 01:32:02.899 years. 01:32:02.899 --> 01:32:05.899 And they're difficult to do that. 01:32:05.899 --> 01:32:09.880 And so, you know, what you choose to do is going to be to 01:32:09.880 --> 01:32:10.899 be on you. 01:32:10.899 --> 01:32:14.859 And I'm also always going to caution folks to start off 01:32:14.859 --> 01:32:18.899 fairly simple and get more complex as time goes on. 01:32:18.899 --> 01:32:20.899 I mentioned Wimberley to you. 01:32:20.899 --> 01:32:24.130 One of my final stories before we get into more question 01:32:24.130 --> 01:32:27.560 and answers is when the newly created village of Wimberley 01:32:27.560 --> 01:32:30.109 was incorporated in 2000, one of the first things they did 01:32:30.109 --> 01:32:31.899 was one, an ethics ordinance. 01:32:31.899 --> 01:32:34.510 I thought that was ambitious for a town that still hadn't 01:32:34.510 --> 01:32:37.270 gotten zoning or subdivisions or signs or the other things 01:32:37.270 --> 01:32:38.899 that cities need to regulate. 01:32:38.899 --> 01:32:40.899 I said, well, I've done a lot of work. 01:32:40.899 --> 01:32:43.899 I've written papers for the City Attorney Association. 01:32:43.899 --> 01:32:45.899 I've sampled ordinances across the state. 01:32:45.899 --> 01:32:48.899 I've got kind of a package of samples. 01:32:48.899 --> 01:32:51.020 Why don't I come up with a draft that I think fits a town 01:32:51.020 --> 01:32:53.899 of 2000 people and then y'all can tweak it and modify it. 01:32:53.899 --> 01:32:55.899 No, that's okay, lawyer boy. 01:32:55.899 --> 01:32:56.899 We got this covered. 01:32:56.899 --> 01:32:57.899 We got this covered. 01:32:57.899 --> 01:33:00.899 We got the mayor's blue ribbon panel on ethics. 01:33:00.899 --> 01:33:01.899 That's pretty impressive. 01:33:01.899 --> 01:33:02.899 Sounds good. 01:33:02.899 --> 01:33:06.630 Someone from the school district, a local reverend, a local 01:33:06.630 --> 01:33:09.899 realtor, retired teacher, big property owner. 01:33:09.899 --> 01:33:13.119 You have some very influential citizens sitting at the blue 01:33:13.119 --> 01:33:16.340 ribbon panel and they wrote their own ethics ordinance with 01:33:16.340 --> 01:33:17.899 no legal guidance at all. 01:33:17.899 --> 01:33:20.899 Professor from Texas State University in southwest Texas. 01:33:20.899 --> 01:33:22.899 Very smart people. 01:33:22.899 --> 01:33:25.939 Then a week before it goes to council, they call a meeting 01:33:25.939 --> 01:33:26.899 to approve it. 01:33:26.899 --> 01:33:29.409 And the week before that, they give it to me to review just 01:33:29.409 --> 01:33:30.899 for the lawyer's blessing. 01:33:30.899 --> 01:33:33.300 And I know staff loves when that lawyer blessing thing 01:33:33.300 --> 01:33:34.899 comes along at the last minute. 01:33:34.899 --> 01:33:38.470 I look at this ordinance and I appear before their ethics 01:33:38.470 --> 01:33:42.609 blue ribbon panel and as an illustration of what they've 01:33:42.609 --> 01:33:42.899 done, 01:33:42.899 --> 01:33:46.899 I pointed out how incredibly strict this ordinance was. 01:33:46.899 --> 01:33:49.409 But under their proposed ethics ordinance, if they had a 01:33:49.409 --> 01:33:53.279 janitor, a custodian at night who swept up and they were 01:33:53.279 --> 01:33:53.899 from a vendor, 01:33:53.899 --> 01:33:56.260 there's a contract custodial firm, I don't doubt any cities 01:33:56.260 --> 01:33:57.899 have employees who sweep up anymore. 01:33:57.899 --> 01:33:59.899 It's usually a vendor. 01:33:59.899 --> 01:34:05.199 If that janitor at City Hall had a spouse and that spouse 01:34:05.199 --> 01:34:09.439 had a mutual fund and in that mutual fund was some Dell 01:34:09.439 --> 01:34:09.899 stock, 01:34:09.899 --> 01:34:13.569 that ethics ordinance would prevent the village of Wimber 01:34:13.569 --> 01:34:15.899 ley from ever buying a Dell computer. 01:34:15.899 --> 01:34:19.250 No matter what the bid was, no matter what the technical 01:34:19.250 --> 01:34:21.899 specs were, it would completely take that off. 01:34:21.899 --> 01:34:25.310 And I can't see how a janitor's spouse's mutual fund has 01:34:25.310 --> 01:34:28.899 any effect on transparency or integrity at City Hall. 01:34:28.899 --> 01:34:32.039 And so I was cautioning them that they may want to ratchet 01:34:32.039 --> 01:34:35.020 it back a little bit because I thought it was a little un 01:34:35.020 --> 01:34:35.899 workable. 01:34:35.899 --> 01:34:37.899 So the heading, it's a weekly newspaper out in Wimberley, 01:34:37.899 --> 01:34:40.390 the heading front page of the Wimberley newspaper, the next 01:34:40.390 --> 01:34:40.899 issue, 01:34:40.899 --> 01:34:46.899 city attorney opposes ethics ordinance. 01:34:46.899 --> 01:34:49.409 Did I mention I'm the former city attorney of Wimberley, 01:34:49.409 --> 01:34:49.899 Texas? 01:34:49.899 --> 01:34:52.840 It was a good run while it lasted, but it's hard to come 01:34:52.840 --> 01:34:53.899 back from that. 01:34:53.899 --> 01:34:58.899 And I think some of you are going to be in that position. I 01:34:58.899 --> 01:34:58.899 think the city council is going to be in that position. 01:34:58.899 --> 01:35:03.340 Politically, it's a very hard thing to do to oppose an 01:35:03.340 --> 01:35:06.970 ethics ordinance, even if you're opposing it because of 01:35:06.970 --> 01:35:08.899 some of the specificities, some of the nuances. 01:35:08.899 --> 01:35:11.399 Because in my experience, I'm sure you've got a university 01:35:11.399 --> 01:35:14.899 here, you've got a very engaged, educated electorate. 01:35:14.899 --> 01:35:17.319 But often there are voters who don't do nuance and they don 01:35:17.319 --> 01:35:18.899 't understand the finer points. 01:35:18.899 --> 01:35:21.449 And so if you're going to draft an ethics ordinance, I 01:35:21.449 --> 01:35:23.899 recommend that something separate and apart. 01:35:23.899 --> 01:35:26.420 But you decide what to do about your charter. And I've 01:35:26.420 --> 01:35:28.899 given you a couple of options there. 01:35:28.899 --> 01:35:32.569 So that's all the prepared materials. I'm yours for 01:35:32.569 --> 01:35:33.899 question and answers. 01:35:33.899 --> 01:35:36.899 >> Let's open up for some hard questions. 01:35:36.899 --> 01:35:40.899 >> No, that could be hard. Softballs are okay, too. 01:35:40.899 --> 01:35:50.899 >> To the extent that you're aware, is the North Dakota 01:35:50.899 --> 01:35:57.899 legislature unethical budget people? 01:35:57.899 --> 01:36:03.289 Or was there something about the voters' ethical law voted 01:36:03.289 --> 01:36:07.899 in that was untenable in terms of legislative? 01:36:07.899 --> 01:36:11.140 >> Sorry, I have to plead ignorance on that one. I'm just 01:36:11.140 --> 01:36:11.899 not familiar with it. 01:36:11.899 --> 01:36:13.899 >> You're aware of what happened, right? 01:36:13.899 --> 01:36:15.899 >> No, sir, I missed that. 01:36:15.899 --> 01:36:22.630 >> Okay. The people of North Dakota voted the ethics law 01:36:22.630 --> 01:36:23.899 into effect. 01:36:23.899 --> 01:36:31.289 And the legislature is apparently calling it an emergency 01:36:31.289 --> 01:36:35.899 to discount it or to toss it aside. 01:36:35.899 --> 01:36:38.220 >> Well, we know all about initiative and referendum here 01:36:38.220 --> 01:36:40.899 in the Hittin, so we know how that goes. 01:36:40.899 --> 01:36:44.899 When we have voters give us laws. 01:36:44.899 --> 01:36:46.899 Sure, David, did you have something? 01:36:46.899 --> 01:36:50.670 >> Oh, yes. Two questions. They're actually kind of related 01:36:50.670 --> 01:36:50.899 . 01:36:50.899 --> 01:36:53.409 You made the comment that I was kind of intrigued by your 01:36:53.409 --> 01:36:57.399 comment that as there's a decline in public trust, there's 01:36:57.399 --> 01:36:58.899 a rise in ethics ordinances. 01:36:58.899 --> 01:37:03.899 Now, those two metrics are either related or they're not. 01:37:03.899 --> 01:37:07.369 If they are related, then that would kind of suggest that 01:37:07.369 --> 01:37:10.899 ethics ordinances in general are kind of irrelevant. 01:37:10.899 --> 01:37:13.989 So the second part of that is we all know it's kind of a 01:37:13.989 --> 01:37:17.899 cliche that ethics ordinances do not create ethical people, 01:37:17.899 --> 01:37:20.899 but they may influence an ethical culture. 01:37:20.899 --> 01:37:23.920 In your experience, does at least -- do ethics ordinances 01:37:23.920 --> 01:37:26.550 at least kind of up the ante a little bit ethically in 01:37:26.550 --> 01:37:27.899 those communities? 01:37:27.899 --> 01:37:31.899 Even if they don't, they're not perfect. I get that. 01:37:31.899 --> 01:37:35.180 But does it improve the ethical climate or the culture in 01:37:35.180 --> 01:37:38.479 some way in these communities that have already enacted 01:37:38.479 --> 01:37:40.899 some of these, more comprehensive? 01:37:40.899 --> 01:37:44.899 >> I think so. And I'm not anti-ethics ordinance. 01:37:44.899 --> 01:37:48.079 I just don't know that the public's distrust is going to be 01:37:48.079 --> 01:37:49.899 remedied by adopting rules. 01:37:49.899 --> 01:37:53.529 It's possible that adopting rules will in fact increase 01:37:53.529 --> 01:37:56.850 ethical behavior, but you don't see that reflected in 01:37:56.850 --> 01:37:57.899 public trust. 01:37:57.899 --> 01:38:01.899 A lot of folks theorize -- I mentioned the federal thing. 01:38:01.899 --> 01:38:05.930 A lot of folks theorize that so many citizens are so upset 01:38:05.930 --> 01:38:09.899 at the federal government that we feel that at City Hall 01:38:09.899 --> 01:38:12.640 because they can't effectuate the federal government very 01:38:12.640 --> 01:38:12.899 much. 01:38:12.899 --> 01:38:14.550 But they know who their mayor is, their council member, and 01:38:14.550 --> 01:38:15.899 they actually know who the city manager is. 01:38:15.899 --> 01:38:18.899 And so they take it out on those of us local. 01:38:18.899 --> 01:38:21.689 I know in my own experience, anecdotally, I've had to sit 01:38:21.689 --> 01:38:24.409 through council meetings where during a citizen comment 01:38:24.409 --> 01:38:26.899 period, we're getting griped at by citizens. 01:38:26.899 --> 01:38:29.409 And what they're really griping at is not a municipal issue 01:38:29.409 --> 01:38:29.899 at all. 01:38:29.899 --> 01:38:31.899 It's a state or a federal issue. 01:38:31.899 --> 01:38:34.890 But they can't find someone in Austin to gripe at, but they 01:38:34.890 --> 01:38:37.909 know city council meets Wednesday nights at 7 or Tuesday 01:38:37.909 --> 01:38:38.899 nights at 6. 01:38:38.899 --> 01:38:41.609 And so even though I don't think there's any study that 01:38:41.609 --> 01:38:44.899 shows that correlation between more rules means more trust, 01:38:44.899 --> 01:38:46.899 maybe we get more behavior. 01:38:46.899 --> 01:38:48.899 I mean, the whole thing goes back. 01:38:48.899 --> 01:38:53.640 People trace the increase nationally in ethics rules to 01:38:53.640 --> 01:38:54.899 Watergate. 01:38:54.899 --> 01:38:58.409 And in Texas, they trace ethics rules on open government 01:38:58.409 --> 01:39:01.899 rules to the Sharpstown Bank scandal, which again was state 01:39:01.899 --> 01:39:05.899 legislators, not city officials, not school board trustees. 01:39:05.899 --> 01:39:08.289 And so more and more rules get adopted, but yet public 01:39:08.289 --> 01:39:09.899 opinion polls keep going down. 01:39:09.899 --> 01:39:12.899 I think having a few standards is a good idea. 01:39:12.899 --> 01:39:16.239 I'm very much in favor of professional ethics standards for 01:39:16.239 --> 01:39:18.899 lawyers, planners, and everybody else. 01:39:18.899 --> 01:39:23.060 And then of course, that five-pronged approach to trying to 01:39:23.060 --> 01:39:27.329 get City Hall to be a place where folks trust at some point 01:39:27.329 --> 01:39:29.899 that I may not know what's going on at City Hall, 01:39:29.899 --> 01:39:32.560 but I trust that they're doing their best and they're not 01:39:32.560 --> 01:39:35.149 trying to enrich themselves so I can worry about my kids 01:39:35.149 --> 01:39:36.899 soccer game or something else. 01:39:36.899 --> 01:39:40.630 To me, that's the goal we should be working for if we 01:39:40.630 --> 01:39:42.899 accept a public position. 01:39:42.899 --> 01:39:47.189 If I could ask one more real quick, unless there's 01:39:47.189 --> 01:39:50.399 something else. Of all of the state penal and conflict stat 01:39:50.399 --> 01:39:53.409 utes that you mentioned that are still there and may still 01:39:53.409 --> 01:39:54.899 be enough to protect us, 01:39:54.899 --> 01:39:58.109 we all know that local district attorneys are never 01:39:58.109 --> 01:39:59.899 politically motivated. 01:39:59.899 --> 01:40:02.109 But you mentioned the Texas Rangers a couple of times. How 01:40:02.109 --> 01:40:05.539 does that work in terms of investigation or prosecution of 01:40:05.539 --> 01:40:07.899 any of these flakers, something flakers? 01:40:07.899 --> 01:40:11.399 Well, usually when it's a public official, which could be 01:40:11.399 --> 01:40:13.899 an elected, it could be a city planner. 01:40:13.899 --> 01:40:18.090 It's usually going to be someone goes to complain to the DA 01:40:18.090 --> 01:40:21.800 's office and the DA's office will have the Texas Rangers 01:40:21.800 --> 01:40:22.899 investigate. 01:40:22.899 --> 01:40:27.289 Some district attorneys have their own staff investigators 01:40:27.289 --> 01:40:28.899 that do it for them. 01:40:28.899 --> 01:40:31.689 Usually they're police officers that are working as the DA 01:40:31.689 --> 01:40:34.899 's investigator, but some counties don't have that resource. 01:40:34.899 --> 01:40:37.899 For elected officials, it's quite often the Texas Rangers. 01:40:37.899 --> 01:40:41.590 There's been times where I have been ordered by a majority 01:40:41.590 --> 01:40:45.850 of the city council to take my file and go and drop it on 01:40:45.850 --> 01:40:48.899 the desk of a district attorney's office because a former 01:40:48.899 --> 01:40:54.409 city council member stole money, theft of service and 01:40:54.409 --> 01:40:56.899 utilities, something like that. 01:40:56.899 --> 01:41:04.039 Most DA's, most, I've actually had Texas Rangers tell me to 01:41:04.039 --> 01:41:07.909 my face that when it comes to politically charged high 01:41:07.909 --> 01:41:09.899 profile elected officials, 01:41:09.899 --> 01:41:13.560 they will not do a full investigation unless they first get 01:41:13.560 --> 01:41:17.270 from the district attorney a letter that says, if you bring 01:41:17.270 --> 01:41:19.899 me back evidence, I will prosecute. 01:41:19.899 --> 01:41:22.640 Because the Texas Rangers have gotten tired of getting 01:41:22.640 --> 01:41:25.609 caught in political fights between local officials and DA's 01:41:25.609 --> 01:41:25.899 . 01:41:25.899 --> 01:41:28.789 And so you're right. I mean, that's an ongoing issue in 01:41:28.789 --> 01:41:32.289 Texas right now. We used to have the public integrity unit 01:41:32.289 --> 01:41:34.899 in Austin, based in Travis County, Texas. 01:41:34.899 --> 01:41:38.010 It was accused of being too partisan in its politics. So 01:41:38.010 --> 01:41:40.560 now the legislature has fractured that out back to the 01:41:40.560 --> 01:41:43.600 various district attorneys across the state, unless it's 01:41:43.600 --> 01:41:44.899 Austin officials. 01:41:44.899 --> 01:41:47.899 So it's pretty much discretionary then with the DA, I guess 01:41:47.899 --> 01:41:47.899 . 01:41:47.899 --> 01:41:50.439 A lot of discretion rests with the district attorney's 01:41:50.439 --> 01:41:53.899 office for these offenses. Yes, sir. 01:41:53.899 --> 01:41:57.409 Open meetings, open records, it sometimes is the county 01:41:57.409 --> 01:42:00.939 attorney if that particular county attorney has criminal 01:42:00.939 --> 01:42:01.899 authority. 01:42:01.899 --> 01:42:03.899 We'll get Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Eaton. 01:42:03.899 --> 01:42:07.960 It seems to me the idea of the level of trust and the 01:42:07.960 --> 01:42:12.270 number of ethics rules and so forth, to me, can be 01:42:12.270 --> 01:42:15.899 explained very simply, whatever you see on the one hand. 01:42:15.899 --> 01:42:20.170 Gifts, awards, and Mentos, okay, if under $50. And then you 01:42:20.170 --> 01:42:23.659 give the example of taking a limo to AT&T Stadium where the 01:42:23.659 --> 01:42:25.899 tickets are more than $50. 01:42:25.899 --> 01:42:29.649 The limo ride is more than $50. The meals are more than $50 01:42:29.649 --> 01:42:33.029 . Everything about the whole trip individually is worth more 01:42:33.029 --> 01:42:35.899 than $50, yet they could do it. 01:42:35.899 --> 01:42:38.340 And I think when the public sees those kinds of things, 01:42:38.340 --> 01:42:40.920 they're saying, so what's the point of having these rules 01:42:40.920 --> 01:42:43.359 if you can break them, if you can drive the limo through 01:42:43.359 --> 01:42:43.899 them? 01:42:43.899 --> 01:42:48.460 And I think that's really, I think what the general public 01:42:48.460 --> 01:42:53.199 sees is, I mean, locally we've seen that firsthand, and we 01:42:53.199 --> 01:42:55.899 're thinking, well, why wasn't anything done? 01:42:55.899 --> 01:43:00.050 And, you know, like from the real estate aspect and other 01:43:00.050 --> 01:43:03.960 things. So it's just how do you get those two together 01:43:03.960 --> 01:43:06.899 where you don't drive the limo through it, 01:43:06.899 --> 01:43:10.840 and I guess you get to, like you said, where the janitor's 01:43:10.840 --> 01:43:13.899 wife's mutual fund thing, I don't know. 01:43:13.899 --> 01:43:18.029 There's gotta be a happy medium somewhere where those can 01:43:18.029 --> 01:43:19.899 work in the same world. 01:43:19.899 --> 01:43:23.399 Well, you know, I can tell you that I have served cities 01:43:23.399 --> 01:43:29.039 where city councils, granted these are smaller cities, they 01:43:29.039 --> 01:43:29.899 're not as large as Denton, 01:43:29.899 --> 01:43:33.989 where city councils have put it on an agenda, convened a 01:43:33.989 --> 01:43:39.369 meeting, and publicly out in the open reprimanded a mayor 01:43:39.369 --> 01:43:44.510 or city council member for public conduct that the city 01:43:44.510 --> 01:43:47.899 council deemed to be improper and inappropriate. 01:43:47.899 --> 01:43:51.600 And there was no ethics ordinance. There was no written 01:43:51.600 --> 01:43:56.000 local rule that said, thou shalt not be a jerk to city 01:43:56.000 --> 01:43:56.899 staff. 01:43:56.899 --> 01:44:00.710 But after this mayor had come in and yelled and hollered 01:44:00.710 --> 01:44:04.899 and threatened and been a bully to so many city officials, 01:44:04.899 --> 01:44:08.069 the city council decided we can't operate our business with 01:44:08.069 --> 01:44:08.899 this thing going on. 01:44:08.899 --> 01:44:12.460 We don't need a written rule. We're going to give you the 01:44:12.460 --> 01:44:15.689 public shame on you in the form of a written resolution 01:44:15.689 --> 01:44:16.899 that's passed. 01:44:16.899 --> 01:44:19.170 And I've seen that in multiple cities with no ethics 01:44:19.170 --> 01:44:19.899 ordinance. 01:44:19.899 --> 01:44:20.899 They just knew it. 01:44:20.899 --> 01:44:22.899 It doesn't even have to be a charter provision. 01:44:22.899 --> 01:44:25.899 No, these are towns too small to have a city charter. 01:44:25.899 --> 01:44:28.899 I think that it is fully within their authority to do so. 01:44:28.899 --> 01:44:32.899 And I think the city of Denton can do that. 01:44:32.899 --> 01:44:34.899 In part, it's politics. 01:44:34.899 --> 01:44:40.899 In part, it's a public statement of values and priorities 01:44:40.899 --> 01:44:45.899 and characteristics we want to see in our public servants. 01:44:45.899 --> 01:44:48.760 But then I have some folks who said, well, gosh, if I can't 01:44:48.760 --> 01:44:51.899 find it in writing, then I can do it. 01:44:51.899 --> 01:44:53.899 And who are you to accuse me of it? 01:44:53.899 --> 01:44:56.899 So, okay, well, then they get lawyers to write rules. 01:44:56.899 --> 01:45:00.289 And now, okay, well, they got off on a technicality because 01:45:00.289 --> 01:45:02.899 some lawyer found an exception to the rule. 01:45:02.899 --> 01:45:05.899 Well, you know, what are they accused of having done? 01:45:05.899 --> 01:45:09.189 Oh, they're accused of having disclosed something to a 01:45:09.189 --> 01:45:09.899 citizen. 01:45:09.899 --> 01:45:10.899 Well, was it confidential? 01:45:10.899 --> 01:45:11.899 No, but it was private. 01:45:11.899 --> 01:45:12.899 Okay, I don't know what private means. 01:45:12.899 --> 01:45:16.899 I don't know what confidential means. 01:45:16.899 --> 01:45:19.199 I'm perfectly fine with -- in fact, I think if you want to 01:45:19.199 --> 01:45:21.659 have a more ethical organization, you've got to have more 01:45:21.659 --> 01:45:22.899 public conversations about it. 01:45:22.899 --> 01:45:25.899 Must they all be accusatory or judgmental? 01:45:25.899 --> 01:45:27.899 No. 01:45:27.899 --> 01:45:29.899 But you need to have more conversations about it. 01:45:29.899 --> 01:45:33.939 You know, back when I interned for the City of Lubbock, I 01:45:33.939 --> 01:45:35.899 remember I interned in the trash department. 01:45:35.899 --> 01:45:38.489 It was the best job I've ever had in my life, solid waste 01:45:38.489 --> 01:45:39.899 management for Lubbock. 01:45:39.899 --> 01:45:42.899 And they've got their quarterly safety meetings. 01:45:42.899 --> 01:45:44.199 Well, they talk about safety because back then they had 01:45:44.199 --> 01:45:46.399 their own trash trucks, people hanging off the back of 01:45:46.399 --> 01:45:47.899 trucks, ran a landfill. 01:45:47.899 --> 01:45:48.899 That was a big deal. 01:45:48.899 --> 01:45:51.060 That was an excuse to bring in everybody, park the trucks 01:45:51.060 --> 01:45:51.899 for a little while, coffee, 01:45:51.899 --> 01:45:53.899 donuts and orange juice. 01:45:53.899 --> 01:45:56.960 And what they really did was talk about their values as a 01:45:56.960 --> 01:45:57.899 department. 01:45:57.899 --> 01:46:01.199 And back then, they hired an outside company to come into a 01:46:01.199 --> 01:46:01.899 survey. 01:46:01.899 --> 01:46:05.329 The highest job satisfaction of any department in the City 01:46:05.329 --> 01:46:07.899 of Lubbock was a solid waste department. 01:46:07.899 --> 01:46:11.189 The folks not only were the most ethnically diverse, lowest 01:46:11.189 --> 01:46:15.149 educated, lowest paid, and probably most at risk other than 01:46:15.149 --> 01:46:15.899 utilities. 01:46:15.899 --> 01:46:16.899 But they had a lot of satisfaction. 01:46:16.899 --> 01:46:18.899 You talk about values. 01:46:18.899 --> 01:46:21.899 Well, that stuck with me to where I'm coaching cities. 01:46:21.899 --> 01:46:23.899 Where's your quarterly ethics meeting? 01:46:23.899 --> 01:46:26.930 Where's your twice a year meeting to get coffee and donuts 01:46:26.930 --> 01:46:30.899 and orange juice and talk about your values as a department 01:46:30.899 --> 01:46:33.899 and what instills the public's trust in you? 01:46:33.899 --> 01:46:36.149 So they don't have to see everything that's on your desk or 01:46:36.149 --> 01:46:36.899 in your email. 01:46:36.899 --> 01:46:39.899 They believe you're out there working for them. 01:46:39.899 --> 01:46:42.899 Well, very few of my clients ever had those conversations. 01:46:42.899 --> 01:46:46.100 We've talked about the City of San Antonio, which again, it 01:46:46.100 --> 01:46:47.899 's got a huge infrastructure. 01:46:47.899 --> 01:46:50.899 I don't know what they spend on their ethics ordinance. 01:46:50.899 --> 01:46:52.899 But they have routine training. 01:46:52.899 --> 01:46:54.899 Every new employee has ethics training. 01:46:54.899 --> 01:46:56.899 Every new council member has ethics training. 01:46:56.899 --> 01:46:58.899 Periodically, they have to go through ethics training. 01:46:58.899 --> 01:47:02.100 Is it going to be the online DVD or is it going to be in 01:47:02.100 --> 01:47:02.899 person? 01:47:02.899 --> 01:47:06.479 Each lawyer that covers each department head is trained in 01:47:06.479 --> 01:47:09.449 the ethics ordinance and is that department's ethics 01:47:09.449 --> 01:47:14.329 advisor and answers, you know, behind the scenes ethics 01:47:14.329 --> 01:47:14.899 questions. 01:47:14.899 --> 01:47:15.899 Can we do that? 01:47:15.899 --> 01:47:16.899 Should we do that? 01:47:16.899 --> 01:47:19.399 So I think a lot of ethics complaints don't rise to the 01:47:19.399 --> 01:47:22.600 level of a complaint anymore because they've put together 01:47:22.600 --> 01:47:25.899 this infrastructure to deal with this issue in San Antonio. 01:47:25.899 --> 01:47:26.899 But it's broad. 01:47:26.899 --> 01:47:27.899 It's comprehensive. 01:47:27.899 --> 01:47:30.899 It's undergone lots of changes and it's very expensive. 01:47:30.899 --> 01:47:35.250 And some citizens are still not pleased with it and want to 01:47:35.250 --> 01:47:37.899 amend the charter to change it. 01:47:37.899 --> 01:47:39.899 Mr. Eaton. Yes, sir. 01:47:39.899 --> 01:47:43.180 We have in place a policy right now and I guess the 01:47:43.180 --> 01:47:47.050 question I have is who gets the policy applied to because 01:47:47.050 --> 01:47:51.710 it says elected officials and appointed officials, boards 01:47:51.710 --> 01:47:53.899 and commissioners. 01:47:53.899 --> 01:47:56.659 And then it says they must adhere to the following Texas 01:47:56.659 --> 01:47:58.899 statutes and they give all the statutes. 01:47:58.899 --> 01:48:05.550 So my first question is, in your opinion, who are elected 01:48:05.550 --> 01:48:08.899 and appointed officials? 01:48:08.899 --> 01:48:12.090 So the aspirational part talks about cities, boards and 01:48:12.090 --> 01:48:15.420 commissions are asked to subscribe to Texas statutes, the 01:48:15.420 --> 01:48:16.899 charter, the rules. 01:48:16.899 --> 01:48:22.899 I'm looking at the most recent version. 01:48:22.899 --> 01:48:25.250 So what I'm looking at, I'm sorry, it says elected city 01:48:25.250 --> 01:48:27.649 council members as well as appointed members of cities, 01:48:27.649 --> 01:48:28.899 boards and commissions. 01:48:28.899 --> 01:48:31.779 See, and then on page two, it has something different at 01:48:31.779 --> 01:48:32.899 the bottom of page two. 01:48:32.899 --> 01:48:35.159 Elected officials, appointed officials, boards and 01:48:35.159 --> 01:48:35.899 commissions. 01:48:35.899 --> 01:48:39.399 It seems that there's two separate possibly three separate 01:48:39.399 --> 01:48:47.899 classes there. 01:48:47.899 --> 01:48:49.899 Yeah. 01:48:49.899 --> 01:48:53.420 I know. Normally I think of appointed officials as city 01:48:53.420 --> 01:48:56.430 council members who are appointed to fill a vacancy if you 01:48:56.430 --> 01:48:57.899 're allowed to do that. 01:48:57.899 --> 01:49:01.899 And people that are appointed to boards and commissions. 01:49:01.899 --> 01:49:04.970 Yes, people are pointed to staff department head levels, 01:49:04.970 --> 01:49:07.789 but I normally don't interpret that to mean that I don't 01:49:07.789 --> 01:49:09.899 know how this has been interpreted. 01:49:09.899 --> 01:49:12.899 I don't know if we have any guidance on that. 01:49:12.899 --> 01:49:16.710 My question is, because this is policy, how does that go 01:49:16.710 --> 01:49:23.899 back to the charter, which says 171 does 171 apply to 01:49:23.899 --> 01:49:26.899 people that are on boards and commissions? 01:49:26.899 --> 01:49:31.170 What applies to the city council and it applies to boards 01:49:31.170 --> 01:49:35.090 and commissions that I think, you know, exercise sovereign 01:49:35.090 --> 01:49:35.899 functions. 01:49:35.899 --> 01:49:39.899 So the best example is planning and zoning commission. 01:49:39.899 --> 01:49:42.899 Whether or not other commissions are subject to it. 01:49:42.899 --> 01:49:46.029 I'd have to look at the commission's membership and what 01:49:46.029 --> 01:49:47.899 they do to make that decision. 01:49:47.899 --> 01:49:51.899 171 does not apply to employees under state law. 01:49:51.899 --> 01:49:54.899 It does not apply to independent contractors. 01:49:54.899 --> 01:49:59.390 So that I guess the final piece is the enforcement aspect 01:49:59.390 --> 01:50:03.899 of this is actually created by ordinance. 01:50:03.899 --> 01:50:10.859 Does it make sense to have an ordinance to carry out a 01:50:10.859 --> 01:50:11.899 policy? 01:50:11.899 --> 01:50:15.899 The question of having an ordinance to carry out a policy, 01:50:15.899 --> 01:50:18.449 you know, you're kind of, you're kind of getting at the 01:50:18.449 --> 01:50:19.899 heart of of municipal law. 01:50:19.899 --> 01:50:23.770 And I think all of us wrestle with in reality, city 01:50:23.770 --> 01:50:26.899 councils are allowed to take action. 01:50:26.899 --> 01:50:32.399 One of two ways they can adopt a resolution, which is 01:50:32.399 --> 01:50:35.729 really a statement of their collective will is how it's 01:50:35.729 --> 01:50:41.960 best described, or they can adopt an ordinance, which is 01:50:41.960 --> 01:50:42.899 law. 01:50:42.899 --> 01:50:45.489 If you look at state statutes, some of them are 01:50:45.489 --> 01:50:48.369 inconsistent about whether an action can be done by 01:50:48.369 --> 01:50:51.739 ordinance resolution, or sometimes it says in the state law 01:50:51.739 --> 01:50:54.039 , you can do it by ordinance or resolution as though they're 01:50:54.039 --> 01:50:54.899 interchangeable. 01:50:54.899 --> 01:50:57.899 And I don't think they're interchangeable. 01:50:57.899 --> 01:50:59.899 I think you could adopt policies by either one. 01:50:59.899 --> 01:51:03.590 I think a policy can be adopted by resolution or by 01:51:03.590 --> 01:51:06.899 ordinance and a policy can be aspirational. 01:51:06.899 --> 01:51:10.390 Things you hope people will be like and they hope they will 01:51:10.390 --> 01:51:14.039 do things, but there's no real punishment because there's 01:51:14.039 --> 01:51:16.899 no bright line test no no clear standard. 01:51:16.899 --> 01:51:20.899 Or you can adopt a policy by ordinance. 01:51:20.899 --> 01:51:23.510 And what I would always going to recommend to a client is 01:51:23.510 --> 01:51:26.430 if you're adopting something that you're putting some teeth 01:51:26.430 --> 01:51:30.369 into, it's going to cost somebody a position or cost them 01:51:30.369 --> 01:51:34.250 money or cost them a reprimand, then I think it should be 01:51:34.250 --> 01:51:35.899 done by ordinance. 01:51:35.899 --> 01:51:38.899 That's just my preference as a municipal lawyer. 01:51:38.899 --> 01:51:41.899 A policy can be adopted either way. 01:51:41.899 --> 01:51:45.899 Is it common to have a policy by ordinance? 01:51:45.899 --> 01:51:49.899 Oh, I don't know what's common in that regard. 01:51:49.899 --> 01:51:53.899 I would I would recommend you roll them into one thing. 01:51:53.899 --> 01:51:57.000 And you know some ordinances, I mean, the barking dog 01:51:57.000 --> 01:51:59.930 ordinance could have some policy statements at the 01:51:59.930 --> 01:52:03.270 beginning as to why controlling barking dogs is important 01:52:03.270 --> 01:52:06.600 and why quiet neighborhoods and peace and tranquility and 01:52:06.600 --> 01:52:08.899 neighbors being good neighbors. 01:52:08.899 --> 01:52:10.899 And then you get to the meat of it. 01:52:10.899 --> 01:52:13.199 If your dog's barking after these hours, here's how you do 01:52:13.199 --> 01:52:13.899 a complaint. 01:52:13.899 --> 01:52:15.899 Here's how you do code enforcement. 01:52:15.899 --> 01:52:17.899 Here's how you do punishment. 01:52:17.899 --> 01:52:20.899 You go to something more important like ethical behavior. 01:52:20.899 --> 01:52:23.989 You could have an ordinance that takes care of all the 01:52:23.989 --> 01:52:27.350 policy stuff up front and then gives you some actual rules 01:52:27.350 --> 01:52:28.899 cannot accept a gift. 01:52:28.899 --> 01:52:33.869 If it's more than $25 cannot accept, you know, sporting 01:52:33.869 --> 01:52:34.899 tickets. 01:52:34.899 --> 01:52:37.130 If the value is over whatever and then here's the 01:52:37.130 --> 01:52:37.899 punishment. 01:52:37.899 --> 01:52:42.060 If you do so, part of the difficulty is, especially with 01:52:42.060 --> 01:52:45.850 big complex organizations is you or your ethics review 01:52:45.850 --> 01:52:49.899 commission might think something is an ethical issue. 01:52:49.899 --> 01:52:52.760 But your city manager might think it's a human human 01:52:52.760 --> 01:52:53.899 resources issue. 01:52:53.899 --> 01:52:57.260 And they want to deal with it because they're the ultimate 01:52:57.260 --> 01:52:58.899 boss of these employees. 01:52:58.899 --> 01:53:00.899 And I want to deal with it as an employment matter. 01:53:00.899 --> 01:53:03.859 But somebody over here has jurisdiction because you created 01:53:03.859 --> 01:53:06.899 an ethics ordinance that gives that person jurisdiction. 01:53:06.899 --> 01:53:09.760 And that's why sometimes you got to be be careful what 01:53:09.760 --> 01:53:12.880 activities are dealt by whom I've seen ethics ordinances 01:53:12.880 --> 01:53:16.079 where if there's a violation of this ethics ordinance by an 01:53:16.079 --> 01:53:18.899 employee, it's referred to HR. 01:53:18.899 --> 01:53:20.899 And now it's in the city manager's world. 01:53:20.899 --> 01:53:23.989 If it's a violation by a board commission member or council 01:53:23.989 --> 01:53:26.899 member, it goes to the ethics review commission. 01:53:26.899 --> 01:53:31.810 That's one way they dealt with that that tension between 01:53:31.810 --> 01:53:34.899 internal and external matters. 01:53:34.899 --> 01:53:36.899 I think ethics policies are fine. 01:53:36.899 --> 01:53:40.140 I think what they've you've adopted here, the council's 01:53:40.140 --> 01:53:41.899 adopted here is just fine. 01:53:41.899 --> 01:53:45.289 The question is, is it achieving the results your community 01:53:45.289 --> 01:53:45.899 wants? 01:53:45.899 --> 01:53:49.010 And if the answer is no, well then something more is 01:53:49.010 --> 01:53:49.899 required. 01:53:49.899 --> 01:53:53.420 And you may not need to go as far as San Antonio has gone 01:53:53.420 --> 01:53:55.899 and incur the cost that they have. 01:53:55.899 --> 01:53:59.899 But you may want to do more than this. 01:53:59.899 --> 01:54:01.899 Yes sir. Mr. Holm. 01:54:01.899 --> 01:54:03.899 It's been answered in bits and pieces. 01:54:03.899 --> 01:54:08.590 But in those communities who chose to go beyond the state 01:54:08.590 --> 01:54:09.899 statutes in order, 01:54:09.899 --> 01:54:15.899 what in the general way, what are the either blind spots 01:54:15.899 --> 01:54:19.899 they thought they were covering that the state law doesn't? 01:54:19.899 --> 01:54:21.899 Or what was it in response to? 01:54:21.899 --> 01:54:25.899 What was the reason for? 01:54:25.899 --> 01:54:28.760 What was the substance and the reason for going beyond what 01:54:28.760 --> 01:54:29.899 's already in place? 01:54:29.899 --> 01:54:32.569 And then the second question is, in those communities that 01:54:32.569 --> 01:54:33.899 have a structure, 01:54:33.899 --> 01:54:37.409 a mechanism outside of city council to review these things, 01:54:37.409 --> 01:54:40.899 are those primarily cities that have their own ordinances? 01:54:40.899 --> 01:54:43.899 In addition to 171. 01:54:43.899 --> 01:54:45.899 Can you restate the second part of that? 01:54:45.899 --> 01:54:48.989 In those cases where cities actually have an ethics 01:54:48.989 --> 01:54:51.899 commission, some kind of body, 01:54:51.899 --> 01:54:54.390 are those cities typically that are operating just under 01:54:54.390 --> 01:54:57.640 the 171 and the state rules or do they usually have their 01:54:57.640 --> 01:54:58.899 own city ordinances? 01:54:58.899 --> 01:55:01.779 So I'll say the second one first. They have a city that 01:55:01.779 --> 01:55:04.899 would have an ethics review commission or ethics commission 01:55:04.899 --> 01:55:06.899 or board of ethics or whatever. 01:55:06.899 --> 01:55:11.229 That's because they adopted an ordinance setting for some 01:55:11.229 --> 01:55:14.899 rules and they wanted a body to administer it. 01:55:14.899 --> 01:55:18.250 And again, I've seen all sorts. I've seen, just last week 01:55:18.250 --> 01:55:18.899 in El Paso, 01:55:18.899 --> 01:55:24.760 the mayor and each council member gets to appoint their 01:55:24.760 --> 01:55:27.899 member to the board of ethics. 01:55:27.899 --> 01:55:30.899 And there are some say, no, that's too political. 01:55:30.899 --> 01:55:33.899 So that's why they want to go on their route. 01:55:33.899 --> 01:55:37.229 In the city of Bastrop, Texas, that I'm also helping, they 01:55:37.229 --> 01:55:41.430 only have a three member ethics review commission and it's 01:55:41.430 --> 01:55:43.899 appointed by the entire city council. 01:55:43.899 --> 01:55:46.899 So you can have those different extremes. 01:55:46.899 --> 01:55:48.899 The first one was the impetus that led them. 01:55:48.899 --> 01:55:51.890 I mean, I'm not going to be any help there because it's 01:55:51.890 --> 01:55:53.899 just, it's all over the board. 01:55:53.899 --> 01:55:58.100 You know, the Wimberley example, little tiny Wimberley, 01:55:58.100 --> 01:56:01.899 there was no city there in the past to behave badly. 01:56:01.899 --> 01:56:05.539 So it was just at the outset, they wanted to have this 01:56:05.539 --> 01:56:09.659 openness and transparency in these rules to avoid problems 01:56:09.659 --> 01:56:10.899 in the future. 01:56:10.899 --> 01:56:14.060 In other cases, it's just what I've seen more often is they 01:56:14.060 --> 01:56:17.409 case by case, they adopted ordinance restricting this or 01:56:17.409 --> 01:56:20.899 restricting that or personnel policy dealing with this. 01:56:20.899 --> 01:56:23.590 And all of a sudden they realize they've got them all over 01:56:23.590 --> 01:56:26.539 the place, we consolidate them now into an ethics ordinance 01:56:26.539 --> 01:56:26.899 . 01:56:26.899 --> 01:56:29.859 I have seen communities that have said we understand state 01:56:29.859 --> 01:56:32.899 law and we get it and we know the DA is out there watching. 01:56:32.899 --> 01:56:34.899 That's not good enough for us. 01:56:34.899 --> 01:56:38.899 We're better than the state law minimums. 01:56:38.899 --> 01:56:40.899 We want something tight. 01:56:40.899 --> 01:56:45.470 You know, I dealt with a board of ethics where the chairman 01:56:45.470 --> 01:56:49.409 of the board of ethics who is now being charged with 01:56:49.409 --> 01:56:55.899 reviewing their ordinance, he was a retired rear admiral. 01:56:55.899 --> 01:56:57.899 And he had gone to Annapolis. 01:56:57.899 --> 01:57:00.899 And he's like, Alan, you know, what's the code? 01:57:00.899 --> 01:57:04.199 Oh, a cadet shall not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those 01:57:04.199 --> 01:57:04.899 that do. 01:57:04.899 --> 01:57:06.899 That's exactly right. 01:57:06.899 --> 01:57:09.899 Why do we need a 40 page ordinance when that was good 01:57:09.899 --> 01:57:11.899 enough for us back in Annapolis? 01:57:11.899 --> 01:57:13.899 I was like, well, that's a very fair question. 01:57:13.899 --> 01:57:15.899 Let's spend some time talking about that. 01:57:15.899 --> 01:57:19.470 And once you got in through the details, he understood why 01:57:19.470 --> 01:57:22.899 more specific rules were helpful and they amended their 01:57:22.899 --> 01:57:23.899 ordinance. 01:57:23.899 --> 01:57:28.050 The council voted on it without changing a thing and there 01:57:28.050 --> 01:57:28.899 it went. 01:57:28.899 --> 01:57:29.899 Lied, cheat or steal. 01:57:29.899 --> 01:57:34.170 As a police officer stealing when they accept a free meal 01:57:34.170 --> 01:57:35.899 from a restaurant. 01:57:35.899 --> 01:57:37.899 To me, that's not clear. 01:57:37.899 --> 01:57:41.899 And I'll bet you absolutely no police officers chime in. 01:57:41.899 --> 01:57:45.899 I bet that's happening at cities all across the state. 01:57:45.899 --> 01:57:49.630 Police officers and firefighters getting comped meals a lot 01:57:49.630 --> 01:57:49.899 . 01:57:49.899 --> 01:57:51.899 Does that make them unethical people? 01:57:51.899 --> 01:57:54.189 Are they likely to perform their services different than 01:57:54.189 --> 01:57:55.899 they would if they paid for their meal? 01:57:55.899 --> 01:57:57.899 I've seen no indication it would. 01:57:57.899 --> 01:58:00.760 But boy, that one at this commission I was at was not 01:58:00.760 --> 01:58:01.899 having any of it. 01:58:01.899 --> 01:58:03.899 I don't like the way it looks. 01:58:03.899 --> 01:58:06.899 I don't want restaurateurs to feel pressured to do that. 01:58:06.899 --> 01:58:10.899 We pay our cops enough to buy their own meals. 01:58:10.899 --> 01:58:14.260 So the whole cadet shall not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate 01:58:14.260 --> 01:58:16.899 those that do doesn't fit that scenario. 01:58:16.899 --> 01:58:18.840 And while I don't think you can ever craft an ordinance 01:58:18.840 --> 01:58:21.899 that fits every scenario, you can hit on the big themes and 01:58:21.899 --> 01:58:24.510 then fill in those holes with training and professional 01:58:24.510 --> 01:58:24.899 standards. 01:58:24.899 --> 01:58:27.800 To let folks know that, yeah, maybe I could do it, but I 01:58:27.800 --> 01:58:28.899 shouldn't do it. 01:58:28.899 --> 01:58:29.899 It ain't going to look right. 01:58:29.899 --> 01:58:33.899 It doesn't feel right. 01:58:33.899 --> 01:58:36.899 Did I answer either one of the two questions? 01:58:36.899 --> 01:58:37.899 Pretty much. 01:58:37.899 --> 01:58:40.899 I mean, I realize there wasn't an easy answer to it. 01:58:40.899 --> 01:58:43.539 But I just, you know, trying to balance between so often 01:58:43.539 --> 01:58:46.300 organizations that have governing documents, you know, 01:58:46.300 --> 01:58:48.439 changes are reactive rather than a response to something 01:58:48.439 --> 01:58:48.899 larger. 01:58:48.899 --> 01:58:51.409 The next thing you know, we'll make sure this never happens 01:58:51.409 --> 01:58:51.899 again. 01:58:51.899 --> 01:58:54.899 Next thing you know, you've painted yourself into a corner. 01:58:54.899 --> 01:58:57.529 And so I'm just trying to get my head around what it is 01:58:57.529 --> 01:58:59.899 that we don't have yet that we need to add. 01:58:59.899 --> 01:59:00.899 That's my question. 01:59:00.899 --> 01:59:05.000 The janitor's wife's mutual fund scenario is why I'm always 01:59:05.000 --> 01:59:08.770 going to recommend if you all do this and maybe you're on 01:59:08.770 --> 01:59:12.510 the committee that eventually drafts it, you know, make 01:59:12.510 --> 01:59:13.899 sure you've got a waiver clause. 01:59:13.899 --> 01:59:16.760 Make sure there's a way to get out of the ethics rule, a 01:59:16.760 --> 01:59:19.859 procedure for doing that, because sometimes the rule will 01:59:19.859 --> 01:59:20.899 make no sense. 01:59:20.899 --> 01:59:24.029 It'll make no sense at all and you want to have that bypass 01:59:24.029 --> 01:59:24.899 mechanism. 01:59:24.899 --> 01:59:26.899 It's not a loophole. 01:59:26.899 --> 01:59:29.689 It's a process because no ordinance that we can draft is 01:59:29.689 --> 01:59:30.899 going to make sense. 01:59:30.899 --> 01:59:34.229 And if an ordinance is achieving a ridiculous result, there 01:59:34.229 --> 01:59:36.899 should be some sort of safety valve built in. 01:59:36.899 --> 01:59:39.930 And you can ask the city attorneys if you want their cell 01:59:39.930 --> 01:59:42.680 phone numbers, I'll give them to you, of Plano and San 01:59:42.680 --> 01:59:43.899 Antonio and San Marcos. 01:59:43.899 --> 01:59:46.149 And they'll tell you, yeah, no matter how proud we are of 01:59:46.149 --> 01:59:49.109 our ordinance, there's always a scenario that comes up that 01:59:49.109 --> 01:59:49.899 puts us in a corner. 01:59:49.899 --> 01:59:53.239 And we wish we had a way out, which that's why San Antonio 01:59:53.239 --> 01:59:55.899 does have a waiver provision in theirs. 01:59:55.899 --> 01:59:57.899 I'm sorry. Yes, David. 01:59:57.899 --> 02:00:02.159 For Denton or any other city that was trying to decide 02:00:02.159 --> 02:00:06.100 whether or not local state law will be enough or they need 02:00:06.100 --> 02:00:06.899 to go beyond. 02:00:06.899 --> 02:00:10.289 You mentioned, you know, DA out there watching, is the 02:00:10.289 --> 02:00:13.710 actual history of a prosecutor's office relevant to make 02:00:13.710 --> 02:00:14.899 that decision? 02:00:14.899 --> 02:00:18.460 I mean, if you see what I'm, if it's never happened, I mean 02:00:18.460 --> 02:00:20.899 , suddenly what's going to change? 02:00:20.899 --> 02:00:25.140 What's the game changer there if City X has decided, well, 02:00:25.140 --> 02:00:28.899 we're going to go with state law if you'll help us. 02:00:28.899 --> 02:00:36.180 So is the local DA's history of enforcement a factor to be 02:00:36.180 --> 02:00:39.489 considered in deciding on whether or not your city should 02:00:39.489 --> 02:00:42.899 just rely on state law or go and adopt your own rules? 02:00:42.899 --> 02:00:45.899 You know, I've seen DA's change too many times. 02:00:45.899 --> 02:00:50.789 I mean, it used to be that my sense was DA's do not want to 02:00:50.789 --> 02:00:53.899 be caught up in local politics. 02:00:53.899 --> 02:00:56.869 The voters put this person there on city council or on 02:00:56.869 --> 02:00:57.899 school board. 02:00:57.899 --> 02:01:00.899 I shouldn't be getting cross with the voters. 02:01:00.899 --> 02:01:02.899 I haven't seen that for years. 02:01:02.899 --> 02:01:05.979 What I've seen lately is I've seen DA's across the state 02:01:05.979 --> 02:01:09.010 are actually looking into these matters and the Texas 02:01:09.010 --> 02:01:10.899 Rangers are investigating. 02:01:10.899 --> 02:01:14.180 It's been tough when, you know, the local Texas Ranger is 02:01:14.180 --> 02:01:16.899 really in charge of doing that sort of thing. 02:01:16.899 --> 02:01:19.970 The public integrity aspect of the business is reassigned 02:01:19.970 --> 02:01:20.899 to the border. 02:01:20.899 --> 02:01:22.899 I've had to deal with those sorts of things. 02:01:22.899 --> 02:01:29.729 It's an asset allocation challenge where the Texas Rangers 02:01:29.729 --> 02:01:34.439 are going to spend their time dealing with the local ethics 02:01:34.439 --> 02:01:35.899 issue when they've got bigger problems, 02:01:35.899 --> 02:01:39.970 mandates coming from above to deal with, and the DA is the 02:01:39.970 --> 02:01:40.899 same way. 02:01:40.899 --> 02:01:42.899 But no, I mean, I don't know. 02:01:42.899 --> 02:01:47.539 It's an old mantra from my municipal court prosecution days 02:01:47.539 --> 02:01:47.899 . 02:01:47.899 --> 02:01:50.899 The process is the punishment. 02:01:50.899 --> 02:01:52.899 Sometimes that is the case. 02:01:52.899 --> 02:01:54.899 Even if you get off, you go to trial on that speeding 02:01:54.899 --> 02:01:57.630 ticket and you get off, usually your prosecutor is going to 02:01:57.630 --> 02:01:58.899 go, oh, well, I don't care. 02:01:58.899 --> 02:02:00.899 I still made them show up. 02:02:00.899 --> 02:02:03.510 They had to take two days or three days off of work to show 02:02:03.510 --> 02:02:03.899 up. 02:02:03.899 --> 02:02:05.899 They had to put their case on before a jury. 02:02:05.899 --> 02:02:07.899 The jury didn't buy my officer. 02:02:07.899 --> 02:02:09.899 Oh, well, I bet they're not going to speed here again. 02:02:09.899 --> 02:02:12.899 And most of the times they don't. 02:02:12.899 --> 02:02:17.829 I think being investigated by Texas Rangers or taken before 02:02:17.829 --> 02:02:23.899 a grand jury is enough to make most folks not do it again. 02:02:23.899 --> 02:02:25.979 But again, there's, you know, righteous people are not 02:02:25.979 --> 02:02:27.899 going to let themselves get caught in that trap. 02:02:27.899 --> 02:02:29.899 Sloppy people are. 02:02:29.899 --> 02:02:33.000 I think a sloppy person is caught in the trap is unlikely 02:02:33.000 --> 02:02:33.899 to do again. 02:02:33.899 --> 02:02:36.649 The hardcore bad actors who just think they're above it all 02:02:36.649 --> 02:02:37.899 and immune from it all. 02:02:37.899 --> 02:02:40.760 Nothing is going to teach them and no ethics ordinance is 02:02:40.760 --> 02:02:41.899 going to deter them. 02:02:41.899 --> 02:02:44.880 I have council members right now that I represent whose 02:02:44.880 --> 02:02:46.899 families own big chunks of property. 02:02:46.899 --> 02:02:49.439 And while they'll do the proper thing and abstain from 02:02:49.439 --> 02:02:53.279 deliberations at the dais, when a vote comes up, they are 02:02:53.279 --> 02:02:54.899 really still behind the scenes at City Hall, 02:02:54.899 --> 02:02:58.210 gathering as much data and influencing the process as much 02:02:58.210 --> 02:02:58.899 as they can. 02:02:58.899 --> 02:03:01.640 So their family can maximize their return on this 02:03:01.640 --> 02:03:02.899 development deal. 02:03:02.899 --> 02:03:05.899 And there's no amount of ethics rules, ethics policies, 02:03:05.899 --> 02:03:08.899 ethics commissions that's going to change that person. 02:03:08.899 --> 02:03:11.899 And the voters put them there not once, but twice. 02:03:11.899 --> 02:03:15.899 So we just kind of sit back as city staff and go. 02:03:15.899 --> 02:03:17.899 What can you do? 02:03:17.899 --> 02:03:18.899 Sure. 02:03:18.899 --> 02:03:20.899 Mr. Alexander first. 02:03:20.899 --> 02:03:27.579 And the issue too is that the D.A. and the Texas Rangers 02:03:27.579 --> 02:03:33.300 are likely only to become involved in a case where there is 02:03:33.300 --> 02:03:35.899 a criminal statute in question. 02:03:35.899 --> 02:03:40.819 They're not going to be investigating very much if it's 02:03:40.819 --> 02:03:43.899 simply a violation of a policy. 02:03:43.899 --> 02:03:45.899 I think you're right about that. 02:03:45.899 --> 02:03:47.899 They don't really care about your local rules much. 02:03:47.899 --> 02:03:53.989 Although I have actually seen a D.A. take a local rule, a 02:03:53.989 --> 02:03:58.760 city's ethics ordinance, and try to bootstrap that into a 02:03:58.760 --> 02:04:00.899 state law violation. 02:04:00.899 --> 02:04:04.899 And I thought it was a very tortured interpretation. 02:04:04.899 --> 02:04:07.640 What does our personnel policy have to do with your 02:04:07.640 --> 02:04:09.899 investigation of a state law offense? 02:04:09.899 --> 02:04:12.689 But I've seen them do it against someone in city management 02:04:12.689 --> 02:04:12.899 . 02:04:12.899 --> 02:04:15.800 And it was uncomfortable for me because I disagreed on 02:04:15.800 --> 02:04:16.899 their approach. 02:04:16.899 --> 02:04:17.899 They don't care. 02:04:17.899 --> 02:04:22.439 One thing they do care about is, you know, there's been 02:04:22.439 --> 02:04:24.899 times when, I mean, I'll tell you folks, there's been times 02:04:24.899 --> 02:04:31.899 when a citizen so hates that this deal is being done, 02:04:31.899 --> 02:04:32.899 whatever it is. 02:04:32.899 --> 02:04:35.289 Permits have been approved, contracts have been signed, 02:04:35.289 --> 02:04:35.899 whatever. 02:04:35.899 --> 02:04:38.899 They hate the outcome that they're getting from City Hall. 02:04:38.899 --> 02:04:42.310 So they file an ethics complaint at City Hall triggering 02:04:42.310 --> 02:04:43.899 the ethics ordinance. 02:04:43.899 --> 02:04:47.050 They go and file a complaint with the district attorney's 02:04:47.050 --> 02:04:50.229 office and they go to the media, which is kind of the uno 02:04:50.229 --> 02:04:52.899 fficial third enforcement arm over here. 02:04:52.899 --> 02:04:55.930 People will do a lot to try to avoid being accused or 02:04:55.930 --> 02:04:59.560 questioned about something in the front page of a newspaper 02:04:59.560 --> 02:04:59.899 . 02:04:59.899 --> 02:05:04.069 And I've tried to guide the city through that kind of 02:05:04.069 --> 02:05:07.470 scenario and I get phone calls from the district attorney's 02:05:07.470 --> 02:05:09.899 office saying, I know you're looking at all these 02:05:09.899 --> 02:05:10.899 complaints. 02:05:10.899 --> 02:05:13.899 You go ahead and police your ethics ordinance. 02:05:13.899 --> 02:05:17.350 We're asking you not to touch the state law stuff because 02:05:17.350 --> 02:05:21.109 we don't want you questioning witnesses about things that 02:05:21.109 --> 02:05:23.899 we're going to be questioning about in a criminal context. 02:05:23.899 --> 02:05:25.899 We don't want cross contamination. 02:05:25.899 --> 02:05:27.899 We don't want you polluting the witnesses. 02:05:27.899 --> 02:05:32.899 We don't want this in the media to affect future jurors. 02:05:32.899 --> 02:05:36.250 And so we actually are being told by the DA to not look at 02:05:36.250 --> 02:05:39.319 the earlier slides I showed you that are state law 02:05:39.319 --> 02:05:42.899 violations that are all included in the complaint. 02:05:42.899 --> 02:05:44.899 The citizen included those things. 02:05:44.899 --> 02:05:47.899 Dear Mayor and Council, your person did this. 02:05:47.899 --> 02:05:48.899 Investigate them. 02:05:48.899 --> 02:05:52.270 And so my response from the council is we do what the DA 02:05:52.270 --> 02:05:52.899 says. 02:05:52.899 --> 02:05:56.899 We're not going to bite off a fight with the DA's office. 02:05:56.899 --> 02:05:58.899 So we're going to decline. 02:05:58.899 --> 02:06:01.260 And that's why I think there's another good idea to have a 02:06:01.260 --> 02:06:04.359 process if you have an ethics code, have something in there 02:06:04.359 --> 02:06:09.640 to abate or temporarily suspend any sort of ethics review 02:06:09.640 --> 02:06:12.899 if you know a criminal action is being investigated 02:06:12.899 --> 02:06:13.899 elsewhere. 02:06:13.899 --> 02:06:17.979 And I'll go back to the notion of an ethics review board 02:06:17.979 --> 02:06:22.520 reviewing what is in essence an open meetings act violation 02:06:22.520 --> 02:06:22.899 . 02:06:22.899 --> 02:06:25.899 The legislature gave us a process for that. 02:06:25.899 --> 02:06:26.899 Let that run its course. 02:06:26.899 --> 02:06:28.899 It is what it is. 02:06:28.899 --> 02:06:32.899 You focus on the stuff that the legislature did not do. 02:06:32.899 --> 02:06:35.899 And that's my recommendation. 02:06:35.899 --> 02:06:36.899 Yes, sir. 02:06:36.899 --> 02:06:37.899 Mr. Eaton. 02:06:37.899 --> 02:06:40.210 So along those lines, I know in our policy we have all 02:06:40.210 --> 02:06:41.899 those civil statutes listed out. 02:06:41.899 --> 02:06:43.899 Yes. 02:06:43.899 --> 02:06:45.899 And then of course we have 171. 02:06:45.899 --> 02:06:51.670 So I guess my question is, where does section 145 fit in 02:06:51.670 --> 02:06:57.310 all that with the reporting of the physical statements, the 02:06:57.310 --> 02:06:58.899 financials? 02:06:58.899 --> 02:07:02.899 Because the city is taking in all the financial statements. 02:07:02.899 --> 02:07:07.300 Who, I guess, if we're listing all those things in our 02:07:07.300 --> 02:07:11.899 ethics policy, should that not fall in there as well? 02:07:11.899 --> 02:07:13.899 I think you could. 02:07:13.899 --> 02:07:15.899 I think that's an option for you. 02:07:15.899 --> 02:07:17.899 I don't think it's required. 02:07:17.899 --> 02:07:20.779 Just because the state has put you in the business of 02:07:20.779 --> 02:07:23.899 collecting and storing these forms and sometimes submitting 02:07:23.899 --> 02:07:27.329 them, rendering them back to the state, I don't think you 02:07:27.329 --> 02:07:28.899 have to do that. 02:07:28.899 --> 02:07:31.760 I see where it would make sense to do so because you lifted 02:07:31.760 --> 02:07:32.899 these other things. 02:07:32.899 --> 02:07:39.729 But then, you know, this is kind of like me telling my 02:07:39.729 --> 02:07:42.899 client, you must follow the law. 02:07:42.899 --> 02:07:44.899 They already had that requirement to do so. 02:07:44.899 --> 02:07:48.180 Me telling them didn't really add anything other than maybe 02:07:48.180 --> 02:07:49.899 an educational component. 02:07:49.899 --> 02:07:53.119 I still don't know that this gives anybody at the City of 02:07:53.119 --> 02:07:55.899 Denton the ability to police these things. 02:07:55.899 --> 02:07:59.539 And so, you know, I'm always going to recommend you just 02:07:59.539 --> 02:08:00.899 look at state law. 02:08:00.899 --> 02:08:03.899 Does it achieve the results you want? 02:08:03.899 --> 02:08:04.899 What's lacking? 02:08:04.899 --> 02:08:05.899 Is it education? 02:08:05.899 --> 02:08:07.899 Is it enforcement? 02:08:07.899 --> 02:08:09.899 Or does the state law not go far enough? 02:08:09.899 --> 02:08:12.489 And for those who are convinced state law doesn't go far 02:08:12.489 --> 02:08:15.460 enough or they think no one's enforcing state law, whether 02:08:15.460 --> 02:08:19.060 you can create your own provisions that are as tight or 02:08:19.060 --> 02:08:20.899 tighter than state law. 02:08:20.899 --> 02:08:24.420 If you're going to do that, then, you know, there's a 02:08:24.420 --> 02:08:28.300 resource allocation challenge for you, but y'all can meet 02:08:28.300 --> 02:08:28.899 it. 02:08:28.899 --> 02:08:40.899 145, I think it's an option. It's not required. 02:08:40.899 --> 02:08:48.140 What do other cities do in initiating newly elected council 02:08:48.140 --> 02:08:55.539 members and boards and commissions appointees in regards to 02:08:55.539 --> 02:09:01.899 ethics training or indoctrination or tutorial? 02:09:01.899 --> 02:09:05.899 Some cities will have an actual in-person training video. 02:09:05.899 --> 02:09:07.899 I'm sorry, a training session. 02:09:07.899 --> 02:09:10.760 Some of them will videotape it for those who can't attend 02:09:10.760 --> 02:09:12.899 and make it available to them otherwise. 02:09:12.899 --> 02:09:17.979 A lot of cities view the orientation of new members as 02:09:17.979 --> 02:09:22.899 being a task for TML or, you know, North Central Texas COG 02:09:22.899 --> 02:09:25.680 or someone else to do and spend the money for them to go 02:09:25.680 --> 02:09:26.899 off and get their training that way. 02:09:26.899 --> 02:09:29.380 Certainly there's lots of people who offer newly elected 02:09:29.380 --> 02:09:30.899 officials training seminars. 02:09:30.899 --> 02:09:34.899 Others take it on in-house and that's an in-house function. 02:09:34.899 --> 02:09:37.560 For sure, it usually covers open meetings, open records, 02:09:37.560 --> 02:09:40.350 how does the city function, what are the policies of the 02:09:40.350 --> 02:09:43.539 cities, and if you have an ethics component, that's 02:09:43.539 --> 02:09:44.899 included in there. 02:09:44.899 --> 02:09:48.899 I think that's a good first step. 02:09:48.899 --> 02:09:51.659 It's amazing how many times you can just Google certain 02:09:51.659 --> 02:09:54.720 ethics complaints about newly elected officials not taking 02:09:54.720 --> 02:09:57.760 their ethics training and what people are really referring 02:09:57.760 --> 02:10:00.899 to is the required open meetings, open records training, 02:10:00.899 --> 02:10:03.899 which is another state law requirement. 02:10:03.899 --> 02:10:06.899 Let me ask Aaron and Brian. 02:10:06.899 --> 02:10:10.760 What do we do as the city of Denton as far as the 02:10:10.760 --> 02:10:17.100 introductory tutorial to city council members or board and 02:10:17.100 --> 02:10:23.529 commissions appointees as far as the ethics and the law 02:10:23.529 --> 02:10:27.899 requirements, legal requirements? 02:10:27.899 --> 02:10:30.689 I know with respect to all the appointed boards and 02:10:30.689 --> 02:10:33.760 officials, especially like the PNZ and ZBA that do have 02:10:33.760 --> 02:10:37.260 final decision making authority, we conduct a separate 02:10:37.260 --> 02:10:41.220 orientation with them, which among one of the topics 02:10:41.220 --> 02:10:45.899 discussed is ethics and we talked with them about that. 02:10:45.899 --> 02:10:49.130 As far as the council, new member orientation for council 02:10:49.130 --> 02:10:52.489 members, the city attorney's office has our own in addition 02:10:52.489 --> 02:10:55.640 to the city management's orientation and that's another 02:10:55.640 --> 02:10:58.899 topic that is covered within the orientation itself. 02:10:58.899 --> 02:11:02.460 It's more we're trying to get to the laws that most 02:11:02.460 --> 02:11:07.020 commonly get implicated while they're serving, which is the 02:11:07.020 --> 02:11:10.949 conflict of interest and the nepotism and we give that 02:11:10.949 --> 02:11:15.079 tutorial and then we also offer them documents that they 02:11:15.079 --> 02:11:19.899 could read to be able to determine or to more fully know 02:11:19.899 --> 02:11:24.100 about ethics, specifically the conflicts of interest and 02:11:24.100 --> 02:11:24.899 the nepotism. 02:11:24.899 --> 02:11:29.899 Thank you. 02:11:29.899 --> 02:11:32.609 Thanks to that we always have an orientation as Aaron 02:11:32.609 --> 02:11:35.869 mentioned with the city manager's office, the attorneys, we 02:11:35.869 --> 02:11:38.899 go through lots of different things with new members. 02:11:38.899 --> 02:11:41.420 And most of our new members go to the TML, the Texas 02:11:41.420 --> 02:11:44.670 Municipal League newly elected member orientation, and they 02:11:44.670 --> 02:11:47.460 have a series of sessions that they go through and learn 02:11:47.460 --> 02:11:50.479 about all kinds of different things so that's typically the 02:11:50.479 --> 02:11:51.899 process we've used. 02:11:51.899 --> 02:11:58.899 Thank you. 02:11:58.899 --> 02:12:01.899 Yes, Miss Ramsey. 02:12:01.899 --> 02:12:05.489 It's on trust really interesting and this may be a little 02:12:05.489 --> 02:12:08.930 bit of a side issue but what have you seen cities do in an 02:12:08.930 --> 02:12:11.899 effort to increase the trust of citizens. 02:12:11.899 --> 02:12:14.899 Is it ethics or is it something else. 02:12:14.899 --> 02:12:18.960 The thing I've seen most recently for cities trying to 02:12:18.960 --> 02:12:23.659 increase trust is moving toward more transparency, which is 02:12:23.659 --> 02:12:27.899 really more of an open records open meetings thing. 02:12:27.899 --> 02:12:32.020 But it's, it's a response to that notion that decisions are 02:12:32.020 --> 02:12:35.979 being made at City Hall, and we the electorate don't know 02:12:35.979 --> 02:12:37.899 why we don't know what. 02:12:37.899 --> 02:12:40.600 So even though they could be an executive session more 02:12:40.600 --> 02:12:43.479 often, they're not even though they could withhold some 02:12:43.479 --> 02:12:44.899 records they try not to. 02:12:44.899 --> 02:12:49.170 I see cities big and small spending more and more money on 02:12:49.170 --> 02:12:53.539 technology for you know laser fish and all these these new 02:12:53.539 --> 02:12:57.899 things to get more data uploaded to the web, where people 02:12:57.899 --> 02:13:01.899 don't even have to file open records requests. 02:13:01.899 --> 02:13:05.449 They can search a lot of it themselves and the city never 02:13:05.449 --> 02:13:09.239 even tracks that they were there. That that's a little bit 02:13:09.239 --> 02:13:12.439 more expensive, but I see a lot of that and in part because 02:13:12.439 --> 02:13:15.899 I see new elected officials coming in on a transparency 02:13:15.899 --> 02:13:16.899 platform. 02:13:16.899 --> 02:13:20.199 And then they have to realize what that really means. Often 02:13:20.199 --> 02:13:23.020 the city in my experience is fine with most of the records 02:13:23.020 --> 02:13:25.899 being sought. It's the process of doing it. 02:13:25.899 --> 02:13:30.170 And so, particularly large cities are, you know, creating 02:13:30.170 --> 02:13:34.189 whole new sites or new aspects to their sites, just to push 02:13:34.189 --> 02:13:35.899 more data out there. 02:13:35.899 --> 02:13:40.260 I don't know if it's going to have the intended result or 02:13:40.260 --> 02:13:40.899 not. 02:13:40.899 --> 02:13:49.899 Ethics reform, I don't see a lot of as an effort to do that 02:13:49.899 --> 02:13:49.899 . 02:13:49.899 --> 02:13:55.899 Sure. 02:13:55.899 --> 02:14:10.899 Yes, sir. 02:14:10.899 --> 02:14:32.899 So, I guess my question is, does the person have to receive 02:14:32.899 --> 02:14:32.899 10% prior to your from that business entity, and then the 02:14:32.899 --> 02:14:32.899 conflict mattress comes into question, or are they looking 02:14:32.899 --> 02:14:32.899 at the current time, and we say okay that has to exceed 10% 02:14:32.899 --> 02:14:32.899 of whatever was made last year. 02:14:32.899 --> 02:14:36.659 My understanding is that with what you reported as your 02:14:36.659 --> 02:14:40.819 gross income the previous year, if more than 10% of that 02:14:40.819 --> 02:14:44.840 came from this entity, then when that entity comes before 02:14:44.840 --> 02:14:48.899 you the following year, 171 is triggered and you're 02:14:48.899 --> 02:14:51.899 prohibited. 02:14:51.899 --> 02:14:58.899 That's right. 02:14:58.899 --> 02:15:05.000 Well, I'm just thinking about how that works in practice. I 02:15:05.000 --> 02:15:09.899 think several of us have had some concern about that. 02:15:09.899 --> 02:15:14.319 But what about a project that you might be voting on, from 02:15:14.319 --> 02:15:19.329 which you got no income, because the project didn't even 02:15:19.329 --> 02:15:21.899 exist in the last tax year. 02:15:21.899 --> 02:15:26.130 Now you've got a project that you're working on, and you 02:15:26.130 --> 02:15:28.899 still haven't had any income yet. 02:15:28.899 --> 02:15:34.550 So you can still cast your vote on that project without 02:15:34.550 --> 02:15:36.899 violating 171. 02:15:36.899 --> 02:15:42.020 If you still have yet to receive income, is that not the 02:15:42.020 --> 02:15:42.899 case. 02:15:42.899 --> 02:15:47.130 That's the case I think if it involves real estate, then 02:15:47.130 --> 02:15:52.420 you've got the $2,500 threshold that triggers in, because 02:15:52.420 --> 02:15:55.899 it's an either or with that list, it's not all the above. 02:15:55.899 --> 02:15:58.899 Because you do have that separately dealing with plans. 02:15:58.899 --> 02:16:10.899 Yes. 02:16:10.899 --> 02:16:16.600 $2,500 with plats, $2,500 under 171 also. So whether it's a 02:16:16.600 --> 02:16:21.500 plat issue or anything else, if you own $2,500 worth of 02:16:21.500 --> 02:16:25.699 that real estate, you've got a 171 conflict, even if it 02:16:25.699 --> 02:16:29.899 didn't generate any income the previous year. 02:16:29.899 --> 02:16:33.909 So I kind of asked this earlier, what if your property is 02:16:33.909 --> 02:16:38.100 next door, and the project you're voting on increases the 02:16:38.100 --> 02:16:41.870 value of the property that you own, or your broker or 02:16:41.870 --> 02:16:46.069 whatever, and there's no transaction happening today or in 02:16:46.069 --> 02:16:47.899 the next year. 02:16:47.899 --> 02:16:50.450 This project is going to make this land more valuable, and 02:16:50.450 --> 02:16:51.899 I'll sell it in 10 years. 02:16:51.899 --> 02:16:56.809 That income isn't realized, but the value goes up and it 02:16:56.809 --> 02:17:00.760 wasn't income that's realized. And I think some of those 02:17:00.760 --> 02:17:02.899 types of things are what's come up around here recently, 02:17:02.899 --> 02:17:07.450 and probably doesn't violate anything in here, but it just 02:17:07.450 --> 02:17:09.899 doesn't look good to the community. 02:17:09.899 --> 02:17:13.670 And that's where I think some of our, how do we have some 02:17:13.670 --> 02:17:14.899 teeth in this. 02:17:14.899 --> 02:17:17.569 It doesn't look good, it smells bad, we have some questions 02:17:17.569 --> 02:17:20.219 about what's really happening here, maybe I'm not getting 02:17:20.219 --> 02:17:22.690 money today, but it's going to help me over here down the 02:17:22.690 --> 02:17:25.250 road, and that's where we're getting into, if I can put 02:17:25.250 --> 02:17:27.899 words in everybody's mouth. 02:17:27.899 --> 02:17:28.899 Thank you. 02:17:28.899 --> 02:17:31.899 It doesn't violate any laws, but... 02:17:31.899 --> 02:17:35.370 If it affects your property different than it affects 02:17:35.370 --> 02:17:39.379 property at large, your neighbor's property, then there's 02:17:39.379 --> 02:17:43.690 an argument that 171 does kick in, because you own property 02:17:43.690 --> 02:17:47.530 that's valued at more than $2,500, and you're voting on 02:17:47.530 --> 02:17:50.899 something next door, it's going to affect your property 02:17:50.899 --> 02:17:54.030 more than another, and therefore you should follow the aff 02:17:54.030 --> 02:17:54.899 idavit and abstain. 02:17:54.899 --> 02:17:58.149 It's to cover that sort of thing that the AG's office, 02:17:58.149 --> 02:18:02.239 attorney general's office used to use the 200 foot rule, in 02:18:02.239 --> 02:18:04.899 which case yours would be triggered. 02:18:04.899 --> 02:18:07.510 You're not voting on your property, you're voting on the 02:18:07.510 --> 02:18:10.020 property next door, but yours is going to be effective 02:18:10.020 --> 02:18:12.899 different than the public at large, therefore abstain. 02:18:12.899 --> 02:18:15.940 When they get away with the 200 foot rule, now it's a case 02:18:15.940 --> 02:18:16.899 by case basis. 02:18:16.899 --> 02:18:20.690 The smart play is for you to abstain, so you don't have 02:18:20.690 --> 02:18:22.899 these ethics allegations. 02:18:22.899 --> 02:18:26.950 Or, you go ahead and vote and take the risk under the 02:18:26.950 --> 02:18:28.899 ethics allegations. 02:18:28.899 --> 02:18:32.840 But certainly, that's the kind of scenario where people 02:18:32.840 --> 02:18:36.690 might feel motivated to adopt ethics ordinances that go 02:18:36.690 --> 02:18:37.899 beyond this. 02:18:37.899 --> 02:18:39.899 Exactly. 02:18:39.899 --> 02:18:44.520 And abstaining in general is, and abstaining from 02:18:44.520 --> 02:18:49.899 conversation, and read right to the didn't, it's voting. 02:18:49.899 --> 02:18:54.250 I think what it really means is discussion at the dais, 02:18:54.250 --> 02:18:57.479 voting at the dais, and I would say don't go grab the 02:18:57.479 --> 02:18:59.899 podium and try and influence it from there. 02:18:59.899 --> 02:19:02.440 What I wish people would do is just stop talking about it 02:19:02.440 --> 02:19:03.899 all together at City Hall. 02:19:03.899 --> 02:19:06.559 Don't go back to the city manager's office and talk about 02:19:06.559 --> 02:19:06.899 it. 02:19:06.899 --> 02:19:09.899 Don't go to the city planning department and talk about it. 02:19:09.899 --> 02:19:13.299 It says abstain from participation, but there really are no 02:19:13.299 --> 02:19:14.899 opinions going that far. 02:19:14.899 --> 02:19:19.180 Participation could be in the city manager's office or 02:19:19.180 --> 02:19:22.790 council person at the coffee shop or an attorney up in 02:19:22.790 --> 02:19:23.899 front of the public. 02:19:23.899 --> 02:19:24.899 Yeah. 02:19:24.899 --> 02:19:27.590 If you're truly going to be an ethical person, you're not 02:19:27.590 --> 02:19:30.479 going to try to influence that action either way because 02:19:30.479 --> 02:19:33.899 you know it's going to affect your bottom line. 02:19:33.899 --> 02:19:38.239 But there's no case or AG opinion I know that takes it that 02:19:38.239 --> 02:19:38.899 far. 02:19:38.899 --> 02:19:48.899 What if we indent added language in an ethics ordinance 02:19:48.899 --> 02:19:55.290 that clarified that point, that participation means more 02:19:55.290 --> 02:19:56.899 than voting. 02:19:56.899 --> 02:20:04.129 Participation means being actively involved in discussions 02:20:04.129 --> 02:20:10.899 or considerations or lobbying for approval of X, Y, or Z. 02:20:10.899 --> 02:20:16.370 As a city staffer and other communities, I would appreciate 02:20:16.370 --> 02:20:16.899 that. 02:20:16.899 --> 02:20:19.760 Just because I see the pain on the city planners face and 02:20:19.760 --> 02:20:22.680 the deputy city managers face when they're having to deal 02:20:22.680 --> 02:20:25.649 with questions from a city council member about property 02:20:25.649 --> 02:20:27.899 that's clearly covered under 171. 02:20:27.899 --> 02:20:30.010 And that council member does all the right things during 02:20:30.010 --> 02:20:30.899 council meetings. 02:20:30.899 --> 02:20:31.899 Oops, it's my issue. 02:20:31.899 --> 02:20:32.899 I got to go y'all. 02:20:32.899 --> 02:20:33.899 I'm going to get some coffee. 02:20:33.899 --> 02:20:36.620 But behind the scenes, they're bugging staff nonstop over 02:20:36.620 --> 02:20:41.899 it, trying to either get information or they're trying to 02:20:41.899 --> 02:20:43.899 put their thumb on the scale. 02:20:43.899 --> 02:20:46.899 And I don't think state law gives us an answer on that. 02:20:46.899 --> 02:20:49.809 So I caution folks go above and beyond so people don't 02:20:49.809 --> 02:20:51.899 think we're doing self-dealing. 02:20:51.899 --> 02:20:54.010 That's the exact kind of thing that an ethics ordinance 02:20:54.010 --> 02:20:54.899 could take care of. 02:20:54.899 --> 02:20:58.889 And your staff would probably appreciate because that gives 02:20:58.889 --> 02:20:59.899 them an out. 02:20:59.899 --> 02:21:00.899 Absolutely. 02:21:00.899 --> 02:21:04.700 When they're feeling pressured by their bosses to cooperate 02:21:04.700 --> 02:21:08.899 , when really they don't feel right about doing so. 02:21:08.899 --> 02:21:26.899 [INAUDIBLE] 02:21:26.899 --> 02:21:30.700 I think you can sign one affidavit declaring one interest, 02:21:30.700 --> 02:21:34.040 file it with the city secretary, and it'll cover you 02:21:34.040 --> 02:21:37.680 regardless of whether you're on one or more city boards or 02:21:37.680 --> 02:21:38.899 commissions. 02:21:38.899 --> 02:21:44.049 And you have to identify what the interest is and what it's 02:21:44.049 --> 02:21:45.899 a conflict with. 02:21:45.899 --> 02:21:48.899 But once you've done that, I think you've done your duty. 02:21:48.899 --> 02:21:53.899 If it changes, then you'd want to file a new one. 02:21:53.899 --> 02:21:55.899 Yes. 02:21:55.899 --> 02:21:59.409 I think we are having a lot of good discussion about what 02:21:59.409 --> 02:22:01.899 we could see and what could happen. 02:22:01.899 --> 02:22:05.680 But I think we should go back to our initial charge and 02:22:05.680 --> 02:22:09.899 decide as a committee what exactly we should be doing here. 02:22:09.899 --> 02:22:13.180 If we should be adding this language to the charter or if 02:22:13.180 --> 02:22:16.159 we should just be adjusting the language to do the 02:22:16.159 --> 02:22:19.000 ordinance or whatnot instead of getting into the weeds of 02:22:19.000 --> 02:22:20.899 exactly what it should say at this point. 02:22:20.899 --> 02:22:36.899 That's just my opinion. 02:22:36.899 --> 02:22:41.680 At some crossroads, we'll have to decide if we want to 02:22:41.680 --> 02:22:47.110 amend the charter or change the language, we've got several 02:22:47.110 --> 02:22:51.930 ways to keep it lean and mean and then recommend that an 02:22:51.930 --> 02:22:54.899 ordinance be written or not. 02:22:54.899 --> 02:23:02.149 And then with that recommendation, we can be proscriptive 02:23:02.149 --> 02:23:07.170 of what we think should be included. Item X, Y, and Z. And 02:23:07.170 --> 02:23:07.899 here's some specifics that need to be addressed. 02:23:07.899 --> 02:23:13.299 So we will have an opportunity in a narrative form to 02:23:13.299 --> 02:23:17.760 forward to city council what we perceive as the rough 02:23:17.760 --> 02:23:21.079 playing field and how it could be smoothed out in the 02:23:21.079 --> 02:23:22.899 ordinance. 02:23:22.899 --> 02:23:27.579 But still make that would be beyond our original charge of 02:23:27.579 --> 02:23:30.899 what do we want to do with the charter. 02:23:30.899 --> 02:23:37.049 So we would take care of the charter, but we have the 02:23:37.049 --> 02:23:41.840 latitude to make a recommendation on the ordinance and what 02:23:41.840 --> 02:23:46.530 it could contain and what problems it could solve that have 02:23:46.530 --> 02:23:47.899 been brought up. 02:23:47.899 --> 02:23:52.690 I want you to bring up the slide that you had right before 02:23:52.690 --> 02:23:56.899 this one, what the charter or our charge is. 02:23:56.899 --> 02:24:03.790 Because to me it says to revise the current provisions to 02:24:03.790 --> 02:24:08.899 replace with alternative ethics provisions. 02:24:08.899 --> 02:24:13.299 It seems to me like that's it to revise any other charter 02:24:13.299 --> 02:24:17.899 provisions. So is that not asking us to get in the weeds? 02:24:17.899 --> 02:24:22.899 It's asking us whether to decide to hear what matter. 02:24:22.899 --> 02:24:24.899 Whether it means whether we should or shouldn't. 02:24:24.899 --> 02:24:28.899 We decide we should, but do we want to do it? 02:24:28.899 --> 02:24:32.770 So the first thing is decide do we want to have ethics 02:24:32.770 --> 02:24:37.010 ordinance if we say yes we do so what's the matter and then 02:24:37.010 --> 02:24:43.280 revise the provisions to replace conflict nepotism with 02:24:43.280 --> 02:24:47.030 alternative ethics provisions and revise any other 02:24:47.030 --> 02:24:47.899 provisions. 02:24:47.899 --> 02:24:52.090 So isn't that telling us to add this language or not? I 02:24:52.090 --> 02:24:55.899 mean it's a question. 02:24:55.899 --> 02:25:06.899 Joe what do you see? 02:25:06.899 --> 02:25:15.899 Well, I'm looking at it as the weather. 02:25:15.899 --> 02:25:21.540 It doesn't say go out and change it. Weather and in what 02:25:21.540 --> 02:25:26.899 manner. So it is to consider and advise weather. 02:25:26.899 --> 02:25:34.489 So that's why we're trying to be deliberative about it and 02:25:34.489 --> 02:25:41.930 really the charter language as we've been advised is you 02:25:41.930 --> 02:25:47.510 want to be careful with it. You're not going to write 02:25:47.510 --> 02:25:50.959 something that's overly burdensome that you have to come 02:25:50.959 --> 02:25:52.899 back and revisit every two years. 02:25:52.899 --> 02:26:01.120 We just need a platform and you know Allen's has suggested 02:26:01.120 --> 02:26:03.899 that we keep the charter minimal. 02:26:03.899 --> 02:26:10.049 But we can open the door for counsel. We can say you shall 02:26:10.049 --> 02:26:13.899 write an ordinance and then we can. 02:26:13.899 --> 02:26:19.920 Then beyond that we can make a recommendation of what an 02:26:19.920 --> 02:26:24.270 ordinance can include. But the charter language from what I 02:26:24.270 --> 02:26:26.450 'm hearing and what I'm reading we would keep that lean and 02:26:26.450 --> 02:26:26.899 mean. 02:26:26.899 --> 02:26:41.510 How I'm reading this charge from the council is to the 02:26:41.510 --> 02:26:46.129 weather. We could say well we think you have everything you 02:26:46.129 --> 02:26:47.510 need right now as written to operate on an ethical basis 02:26:47.510 --> 02:26:48.899 and reprimand anybody that doesn't comply with that. 02:26:48.899 --> 02:26:54.280 And if it's a criminal deal go to the DA. You could make 02:26:54.280 --> 02:27:04.360 the case of do nothing. So that's where we are is the 02:27:04.360 --> 02:27:11.100 reason for empaneling a group of diverse citizens is to 02:27:11.100 --> 02:27:11.899 really hash it out. 02:27:11.899 --> 02:27:17.860 Is it too little too much? Where's Goldilocks? What do we 02:27:17.860 --> 02:27:20.899 think the community needs? 02:27:20.899 --> 02:27:25.510 And remember whatever we recommend council has to vote in 02:27:25.510 --> 02:27:29.899 the affirmative to put it on the ballot in November. 02:27:29.899 --> 02:27:35.979 So it has to be something that's not on either extreme. It 02:27:35.979 --> 02:27:41.670 has to be meaningful, practical, and acceptable and 02:27:41.670 --> 02:27:46.899 sustainable politically with the community. 02:27:46.899 --> 02:27:53.340 And so I'll digress a little bit from the ifs and ours and 02:27:53.340 --> 02:27:59.940 weathers to the overview is somehow and you all have your 02:27:59.940 --> 02:28:05.860 different experiences but the sense of trust in your public 02:28:05.860 --> 02:28:09.899 officials has been forfeited and squandered. 02:28:09.899 --> 02:28:14.170 And what we need is to develop the tool and believe me it 02:28:14.170 --> 02:28:18.829 will not be instant oatmeal but this exercise to build that 02:28:18.829 --> 02:28:25.040 bridge back, find a way that opens the door again to 02:28:25.040 --> 02:28:30.260 transparency and expectations of behavior from your elected 02:28:30.260 --> 02:28:34.209 and appointed officials and communication about it and 02:28:34.209 --> 02:28:35.899 rebuild that trust. 02:28:35.899 --> 02:28:40.190 Because you can write an ordinance 100 pages long with lots 02:28:40.190 --> 02:28:43.750 of fine print but if you have the wrong people elected to 02:28:43.750 --> 02:28:47.479 office they will find a way to circumvent whatever letter 02:28:47.479 --> 02:28:48.899 of the law you have. 02:28:48.899 --> 02:28:54.010 But we have to respond as a committee politically to the 02:28:54.010 --> 02:28:59.659 fact that the trust has been dissipated. The connection to 02:28:59.659 --> 02:29:05.000 the community that your elected officials should have is 02:29:05.000 --> 02:29:07.899 right now is down in a hole. 02:29:07.899 --> 02:29:12.389 And I think through this group if we come back and decide 02:29:12.389 --> 02:29:16.979 that the ordinance is an answer to rebuild that trust and 02:29:16.979 --> 02:29:21.899 to link that ordinance we would if we do adjust the charter 02:29:21.899 --> 02:29:25.030 to say that you shall have an ordinance and it should 02:29:25.030 --> 02:29:25.899 contain such and such. 02:29:25.899 --> 02:29:29.530 I don't know how much we do that in an actual charter 02:29:29.530 --> 02:29:33.889 language versus here's the charter language you recommend 02:29:33.889 --> 02:29:38.239 and here's our recommended elements of an ordinance that we 02:29:38.239 --> 02:29:41.899 think council you should very much consider. 02:29:41.899 --> 02:29:46.239 So we've developed the path and I just think the community 02:29:46.239 --> 02:29:50.399 is going to want more than just saying we're leaving the 02:29:50.399 --> 02:29:51.899 charter alone. 02:29:51.899 --> 02:29:57.760 And that's the predicament we're in. On another time, 02:29:57.760 --> 02:30:02.389 another set of circumstances it could be just fine. We've 02:30:02.389 --> 02:30:07.229 gone many years without forfeiting this trust or having to 02:30:07.229 --> 02:30:08.899 come to the head. 02:30:08.899 --> 02:30:12.850 You've had people that maybe didn't get reelected because 02:30:12.850 --> 02:30:16.879 of trust issues. But anyway we're at the juncture that as a 02:30:16.879 --> 02:30:20.829 committee we have to come back and deliver to the community 02:30:20.829 --> 02:30:24.899 something that they can feel like they've been heard. 02:30:24.899 --> 02:30:28.750 Okay, now we're going to try to be Goldilocks not too hot 02:30:28.750 --> 02:30:32.120 not too cold. And that's why we have, you know, the diverse 02:30:32.120 --> 02:30:35.899 group here. Where do we land? 02:30:35.899 --> 02:30:39.500 So what I hear you say is it's kind of like with the, the 02:30:39.500 --> 02:30:43.500 auditor, you know, we're just going to put the language is 02:30:43.500 --> 02:30:46.899 says you must hire an auditor and be done with it. 02:30:46.899 --> 02:30:50.920 This, we being asked to say, you must have an ethics 02:30:50.920 --> 02:30:55.209 ordinance and now go do it and expect the city council who 02:30:55.209 --> 02:30:59.329 doesn't want to think upon themselves to do it to begin 02:30:59.329 --> 02:31:03.829 with, trust that they're going to then follow through and 02:31:03.829 --> 02:31:06.899 actually come up with the ordinance that. 02:31:06.899 --> 02:31:11.479 This committee recommends that they write. Ultimately, you 02:31:11.479 --> 02:31:15.549 're just a charter that's emphatic about having to have an 02:31:15.549 --> 02:31:19.120 ethics ordinance that a city council will get that 02:31:19.120 --> 02:31:20.899 ordinance written. 02:31:20.899 --> 02:31:24.579 And that's this political public process that I'm talking 02:31:24.579 --> 02:31:27.899 about and that's, that's part of why we're here. 02:31:27.899 --> 02:31:31.860 And we open every meeting with comments from the public. It 02:31:31.860 --> 02:31:35.389 's on the website. We want to hear and we know there's a 02:31:35.389 --> 02:31:38.950 disappointment. We, you know, I say we, I'm talking about 02:31:38.950 --> 02:31:40.899 us collectively in this room. 02:31:40.899 --> 02:31:45.290 The purpose, the upheaval that caused this to be a 02:31:45.290 --> 02:31:48.899 committee to be formed into considerate. 02:31:48.899 --> 02:31:52.290 It's because of disappointment in the community of the lack 02:31:52.290 --> 02:31:55.620 of trust. So at the end, when we come out the other end, we 02:31:55.620 --> 02:32:00.139 have to have a vehicle that helps build that trust. We may 02:32:00.139 --> 02:32:00.899 not. 02:32:00.899 --> 02:32:03.829 It won't be instant oatmeal, but we're going to have to 02:32:03.829 --> 02:32:05.899 establish the roadmap in the path. 02:32:05.899 --> 02:32:09.239 And that's how I'm looking at it. I hope that makes if we 02:32:09.239 --> 02:32:13.899 all look at it that way. We're making use of our time. 02:32:13.899 --> 02:32:19.780 >> Joe, may I say one more thing? >> Yeah, sure. >> Because 02:32:19.780 --> 02:32:21.600 I'm still wrestling with, you know, are we really dealing 02:32:21.600 --> 02:32:23.309 with an issue of content or are we dealing with an issue of 02:32:23.309 --> 02:32:23.899 mechanics? 02:32:23.899 --> 02:32:28.409 Is the issue that the law has written doesn't do enough to 02:32:28.409 --> 02:32:31.930 address ethics or is it that there is a certain kind of 02:32:31.930 --> 02:32:35.299 corporate at times disregard for them and there's no 02:32:35.299 --> 02:32:37.899 mechanism to go to take that on? 02:32:37.899 --> 02:32:41.979 I eat an independent body of city council. And then the 02:32:41.979 --> 02:32:45.399 question is if there weren't a separate, if that were 02:32:45.399 --> 02:32:48.200 satisfied, what we have to be enough in that context or are 02:32:48.200 --> 02:32:50.899 there still other things we need to do in the law? 02:32:50.899 --> 02:32:54.299 Is it about mechanics and process or is it about the 02:32:54.299 --> 02:32:56.899 content of whatever we put in here? 02:32:56.899 --> 02:33:00.860 >> I would say that thoroughly as a player, I don't think 02:33:00.860 --> 02:33:04.899 it's very clear as to what these codes actually come. 02:33:04.899 --> 02:33:08.469 I mean, that was the reason for a lot of my questions on 17 02:33:08.469 --> 02:33:11.879 1. There's no sense to recreate something that's already 02:33:11.879 --> 02:33:13.899 there if it already has the scope. 02:33:13.899 --> 02:33:18.770 I just don't feel like people understand the scope and how 02:33:18.770 --> 02:33:21.899 much it covers a lot of confusion. 02:33:21.899 --> 02:33:25.899 You know, we need this, but in fact, it's covered already. 02:33:25.899 --> 02:33:27.899 >> And there was one word that you used to enable. 02:33:27.899 --> 02:33:32.440 I would just like to add to the extent that it's possible, 02:33:32.440 --> 02:33:35.379 it seems to me whatever we do, if there can be a context 02:33:35.379 --> 02:33:37.889 that actually makes it easier and more comfortable for 02:33:37.889 --> 02:33:41.500 people to perform public service because they now have a 02:33:41.500 --> 02:33:45.780 context in a way rather than us being this constant 02:33:45.780 --> 02:33:46.899 policing. 02:33:46.899 --> 02:33:51.110 You know, laws wouldn't be needed if everybody did what 02:33:51.110 --> 02:33:55.489 they're supposed to, but to the extent that you can infuse 02:33:55.489 --> 02:33:59.899 this whole process with that, I think it would just. 02:33:59.899 --> 02:34:04.379 You know, there's ways of thinking about a problem and the 02:34:04.379 --> 02:34:08.489 way you think about it leads you to the kind of solution 02:34:08.489 --> 02:34:12.899 you have and that would be my observation about that. 02:34:12.899 --> 02:34:23.940 >> Jim? >> Well, my personal preference would be to write 02:34:23.940 --> 02:34:30.360 the leanest and cleanest charter provision we could and 02:34:30.360 --> 02:34:36.530 still achieve our goal, which might be simply to propose 02:34:36.530 --> 02:34:41.899 that we remove those existing provisions in article 14 02:34:41.899 --> 02:34:46.569 because they're already there and they're going to be there 02:34:46.569 --> 02:34:51.049 regardless because we're simply saying we're following 02:34:51.049 --> 02:34:51.899 state law. 02:34:51.899 --> 02:34:58.209 And put a provision in the charter that says there shall be 02:34:58.209 --> 02:35:02.899 establishment of an ethics ordinance. 02:35:02.899 --> 02:35:06.899 We could even make it a little bit more explicit. 02:35:06.899 --> 02:35:16.020 Kind of like that solution, but I think under the present 02:35:16.020 --> 02:35:22.389 climate in Denton that we probably should be very careful 02:35:22.389 --> 02:35:27.420 about taking that approach because I'm not sure the voters 02:35:27.420 --> 02:35:31.989 in Denton would want us to take action that removes those 02:35:31.989 --> 02:35:32.899 provisions. 02:35:32.899 --> 02:35:37.079 I think people will look upon that rather skeptically and 02:35:37.079 --> 02:35:41.530 think that we're actually watering down our existing system 02:35:41.530 --> 02:35:44.899 and I think that might be a bit of a problem. 02:35:44.899 --> 02:35:52.209 So I'm leaning toward an idea that would be leaving those 02:35:52.209 --> 02:36:00.010 provisions intact and simply adding a provision that there 02:36:00.010 --> 02:36:03.899 shall be an ethics ordinance. 02:36:03.899 --> 02:36:08.870 That will be the responsibility of the council to establish 02:36:08.870 --> 02:36:13.899 ethics provisions or an ethics ordinance and let that be. 02:36:13.899 --> 02:36:18.590 I really don't think we need to do anything if we just 02:36:18.590 --> 02:36:23.829 simply said to the council that it's the consensus of this 02:36:23.829 --> 02:36:29.899 committee that there really needs to be an ethics ordinance 02:36:29.899 --> 02:36:29.899 . 02:36:29.899 --> 02:36:34.020 And we've studied and reviewed and we don't believe there's 02:36:34.020 --> 02:36:38.129 anything in the existing charter that prevents it, then we 02:36:38.129 --> 02:36:42.090 could say just do it and give them a little political cover 02:36:42.090 --> 02:36:45.899 for the purpose of moving forward on that agenda. 02:36:45.899 --> 02:36:48.899 That might actually be the simplest solution. 02:36:48.899 --> 02:36:52.440 But as much as I would like to clean it up and take that 02:36:52.440 --> 02:36:56.600 state law out of our city charter, I'm really nervous about 02:36:56.600 --> 02:37:00.319 doing that because I don't want the voters of Denton to 02:37:00.319 --> 02:37:04.290 think that we're trying to water it down further than it is 02:37:04.290 --> 02:37:04.899 . 02:37:04.899 --> 02:37:07.899 That's my concern. 02:37:07.899 --> 02:37:14.829 The political sensitivities, the community political sensit 02:37:14.829 --> 02:37:19.899 ivities, is such a high, highly elevated. 02:37:19.899 --> 02:37:24.219 And going along with that thought, just carrying that one 02:37:24.219 --> 02:37:27.899 step, it might make some sense politically. 02:37:27.899 --> 02:37:31.540 We've already heard that there's nothing prohibiting this 02:37:31.540 --> 02:37:34.829 council right now from dealing with this whole ethics 02:37:34.829 --> 02:37:37.899 matter in ordinance, what we have right now. 02:37:37.899 --> 02:37:43.500 Now might it be possible for this committee to tell this 02:37:43.500 --> 02:37:47.370 city council, the way has been cleared for you to get into 02:37:47.370 --> 02:37:47.899 this. 02:37:47.899 --> 02:37:50.620 We want to know right now what your vision is, what you see 02:37:50.620 --> 02:37:51.899 in terms of 171. 02:37:51.899 --> 02:37:54.159 Do you see internal enforcement by an ethics review 02:37:54.159 --> 02:37:54.899 commission? 02:37:54.899 --> 02:37:56.899 How do you feel about disclosure? 02:37:56.899 --> 02:38:00.319 How do you feel about, and at least get that out there, and 02:38:00.319 --> 02:38:07.270 it might be possible to back into this charter amendment at 02:38:07.270 --> 02:38:11.389 some subsequent date after the council has at least given 02:38:11.389 --> 02:38:14.899 some idea of where they want to go with this. 02:38:14.899 --> 02:38:20.379 Because it sounds like we mentioned whether or not we do 02:38:20.379 --> 02:38:25.489 this first or let the council at least express their 02:38:25.489 --> 02:38:26.899 feelings. We haven't had much direction from the council at 02:38:26.899 --> 02:38:26.899 this point. 02:38:26.899 --> 02:38:30.469 We really don't know what their feelings are other than 02:38:30.469 --> 02:38:34.180 there is some sense of public distrust or lack of trust and 02:38:34.180 --> 02:38:35.899 they want to do more. 02:38:35.899 --> 02:38:39.120 Well, we've heard that we really don't need to amend this 02:38:39.120 --> 02:38:41.899 charter for them to at least go to work on it. 02:38:41.899 --> 02:38:46.629 So that's just a thought. Rather than us box them in right 02:38:46.629 --> 02:38:51.899 now with a single sentence or something that... 02:38:51.899 --> 02:38:54.899 City council shall adopt an ethics... 02:38:54.899 --> 02:38:56.899 It could be redone within two years. 02:38:56.899 --> 02:39:00.399 There are ordinance they can change, but the charter would 02:39:00.399 --> 02:39:00.899 stay. 02:39:00.899 --> 02:39:05.200 The charter would, it's like the city auditor, the charter 02:39:05.200 --> 02:39:06.899 would say you shall. 02:39:06.899 --> 02:39:08.899 Right. 02:39:08.899 --> 02:39:11.870 And that was the question that you've been battling with 02:39:11.870 --> 02:39:14.899 some folks for several months is can you, can't you? 02:39:14.899 --> 02:39:21.899 And so we say you shall and that takes care of that. 02:39:21.899 --> 02:39:22.899 Yeah Marty. 02:39:22.899 --> 02:39:25.899 So here they can do it right now. If we leave it alone, 02:39:25.899 --> 02:39:28.700 they can still go out and do that and we can make some 02:39:28.700 --> 02:39:29.899 recommendations to do that. 02:39:29.899 --> 02:39:34.379 And what's in there, what you're maybe suggesting is that 02:39:34.379 --> 02:39:38.899 if we add you shall and they have to forever and ever amen, 02:39:38.899 --> 02:39:41.329 put an ordinance, which can change over time depending on 02:39:41.329 --> 02:39:41.899 who's in council. 02:39:41.899 --> 02:39:46.219 But the provision is there forever unless they change the 02:39:46.219 --> 02:39:46.899 charter. 02:39:46.899 --> 02:39:53.389 And I don't want to repeat myself, but you're, that's right 02:39:53.389 --> 02:39:55.899 . And you're right David that they could do it now. 02:39:55.899 --> 02:39:59.969 But the community is looking for us to be demonstrative 02:39:59.969 --> 02:40:02.899 that you shall write the ordinance. 02:40:02.899 --> 02:40:08.329 So also give the council the opportunity. See this last 02:40:08.329 --> 02:40:09.899 sentence here. 02:40:09.899 --> 02:40:14.280 City charter provisions only now as I read that the two 02:40:14.280 --> 02:40:19.149 resolutions right now, 06 and 09 are out of bounds for us 02:40:19.149 --> 02:40:19.899 right now. 02:40:19.899 --> 02:40:23.100 So we're only dealing with these charter provisions. So 02:40:23.100 --> 02:40:26.319 whether or not we think the current ethics policy makes any 02:40:26.319 --> 02:40:29.899 sense or whether or not we think the city council should 02:40:29.899 --> 02:40:33.389 have the ability to, you know, police their own ethical 02:40:33.389 --> 02:40:33.899 matters. 02:40:33.899 --> 02:40:37.149 That's out of our hands right now. But it would, it would 02:40:37.149 --> 02:40:40.219 put that right back into the hands of the city council to 02:40:40.219 --> 02:40:40.899 decide. 02:40:40.899 --> 02:40:43.979 And so it all kind of takes shape with the city council 02:40:43.979 --> 02:40:47.409 where we could not do that right now other than say, you've 02:40:47.409 --> 02:40:50.629 already got the authority you need right now to write an 02:40:50.629 --> 02:40:52.899 ethics ordinance, get after it. 02:40:52.899 --> 02:40:57.219 But we could say in addition, but after weeks of 02:40:57.219 --> 02:41:02.510 reflections and thought about this ethics question, the 02:41:02.510 --> 02:41:07.280 Charter Review Committee would recommend that that 02:41:07.280 --> 02:41:12.719 ordinance include at least these provisions, which would 02:41:12.719 --> 02:41:16.899 give the council a little bit of direction from us. 02:41:16.899 --> 02:41:22.899 And it wouldn't really be beyond our charge, I don't think. 02:41:22.899 --> 02:41:26.209 Our charge is to deal with the charter, but we're helping 02:41:26.209 --> 02:41:29.979 them deal with the charter and then giving them some 02:41:29.979 --> 02:41:34.370 clarification about we think these things really need to be 02:41:34.370 --> 02:41:35.899 in an ordinance. 02:41:35.899 --> 02:41:39.149 We can add one sentence to the charter language to go in 02:41:39.149 --> 02:41:42.850 front of the voters, you will have an ethics ordinance, and 02:41:42.850 --> 02:41:46.399 then we can in correspondence, part of our report here for 02:41:46.399 --> 02:41:49.590 we recommend that the minimum that is included in the 02:41:49.590 --> 02:41:54.899 ethics ordinance, including a board to review to take 02:41:54.899 --> 02:41:56.899 complaints because council. 02:41:56.899 --> 02:42:01.340 It's on its face to say council is going to receive 02:42:01.340 --> 02:42:05.899 complaints of account fellow council member. 02:42:05.899 --> 02:42:10.899 So we have to make those recommendations that have a board. 02:42:10.899 --> 02:42:24.620 Recommendations to make recommendations to change the 02:42:24.620 --> 02:42:27.899 ordinance to. 02:42:27.899 --> 02:42:44.899 By by a new ordinance it's gonna. 02:42:44.899 --> 02:42:49.090 Okay, and the community wants to know that this group 02:42:49.090 --> 02:42:53.879 representing the whole community you're not representing a 02:42:53.879 --> 02:42:58.899 council member any longer you're representing community. 02:42:58.899 --> 02:42:59.899 Okay. 02:42:59.899 --> 02:43:05.159 The community wants from what I understanding in 02:43:05.159 --> 02:43:11.450 conversation and is they want a demonstration that ethics 02:43:11.450 --> 02:43:17.899 is going to be put back in first place is being important. 02:43:17.899 --> 02:43:23.200 So, we can do that with adding the one sentence, and then 02:43:23.200 --> 02:43:28.190 making recommendations of what that ordinance at the 02:43:28.190 --> 02:43:30.899 minimum should contain. That's what the community is 02:43:30.899 --> 02:43:30.899 looking for us to make that statement. 02:43:30.899 --> 02:43:35.399 Now, will an ordinance be subject to change every few years 02:43:35.399 --> 02:43:39.709 is experience dictates or you find out this, this clause 02:43:39.709 --> 02:43:43.899 isn't working or we forgot about X and we got to add it. 02:43:43.899 --> 02:43:48.600 Yeah, that that'll be the dynamics, but the charter, we can 02:43:48.600 --> 02:43:52.899 add a sentence or keep it neat and tidy, it'll stand. 02:43:52.899 --> 02:43:55.899 So that that's we don't have to decide that tonight we're. 02:43:55.899 --> 02:43:59.899 We want to use Allen's experience of in across the state. 02:43:59.899 --> 02:44:01.899 This is what he deals with. 02:44:01.899 --> 02:44:13.989 And, and, but I just, we have to really be very honest. It 02:44:13.989 --> 02:44:16.180 's an environment that we need to address, and it has to be 02:44:16.180 --> 02:44:18.370 an environment that people, when they come to serve they 02:44:18.370 --> 02:44:21.899 want to be stewards for the public, and they want to enjoy 02:44:21.899 --> 02:44:22.899 the public trust. 02:44:22.899 --> 02:44:28.030 Now that is something that's been squandered, and to help 02:44:28.030 --> 02:44:31.899 rebuild it, this is part of our process. 02:44:31.899 --> 02:44:33.899 Yes, go ahead Bob. 02:44:33.899 --> 02:44:40.899 Thanks, this is enormously helpful, very insightful. 02:44:40.899 --> 02:44:43.989 I, in principle I would agree with you totally that 02:44:43.989 --> 02:44:47.790 fundamental law should be about the fundamentals, you know, 02:44:47.790 --> 02:44:51.540 that our constitution should be only about constitutional, 02:44:51.540 --> 02:44:55.090 about major big picture procedural institutional sort of 02:44:55.090 --> 02:44:55.899 thing. 02:44:55.899 --> 02:44:58.899 So that's absolutely true. 02:44:58.899 --> 02:45:02.899 But I'm thinking here all this conversation and I mean we, 02:45:02.899 --> 02:45:06.899 our problem is more grievous than that. 02:45:06.899 --> 02:45:11.329 And does it, how serious is our problem here? I mean how 02:45:11.329 --> 02:45:15.209 deeply seated is this division, it is the distrust within 02:45:15.209 --> 02:45:16.899 our community. 02:45:16.899 --> 02:45:22.290 And in part we've enjoyed many, many decades of trustworthy 02:45:22.290 --> 02:45:25.899 leadership, and I still think we do. 02:45:25.899 --> 02:45:28.879 I mean at heart I still think our political leaders are 02:45:28.879 --> 02:45:29.899 trustworthy. 02:45:29.899 --> 02:45:33.989 But there's a sense that, and Joe you said it very well, 02:45:33.989 --> 02:45:36.899 that trust has been breached here. 02:45:36.899 --> 02:45:40.760 And so we're grappling with how do we restore the good old 02:45:40.760 --> 02:45:43.899 days in that sense where we had that trust. 02:45:43.899 --> 02:45:47.379 And in past I think our political leaders, elected leaders, 02:45:47.379 --> 02:45:52.579 local, our city leaders were people, men and women of good 02:45:52.579 --> 02:45:52.899 faith. 02:45:52.899 --> 02:45:56.440 And we could entrust in them without much or probably 02:45:56.440 --> 02:46:00.219 hardly any ethics ordinance or ethics standard to guide 02:46:00.219 --> 02:46:00.899 them. 02:46:00.899 --> 02:46:05.899 Their good judgment led them to make good decisions. 02:46:05.899 --> 02:46:10.899 But now we've experienced, you know, breaches in that. 02:46:10.899 --> 02:46:20.149 And so how do we restore that goodness that we had when we 02:46:20.149 --> 02:46:21.899 're now just a little bit gun shy 02:46:21.899 --> 02:46:26.260 that people can't be trusted on their own initiative to do 02:46:26.260 --> 02:46:28.899 always what is the right thing. 02:46:28.899 --> 02:46:31.899 However, we as a community see that as the right thing. 02:46:31.899 --> 02:46:35.899 I've sort of come full circle on this. 02:46:35.899 --> 02:46:42.770 My sense is that I think this need, if we want to restore 02:46:42.770 --> 02:46:44.899 our community's trust, 02:46:44.899 --> 02:46:49.260 they have to see it as not just an ordinance level thing, 02:46:49.260 --> 02:46:54.899 but as a fundamental law thing, as a charter thing. 02:46:54.899 --> 02:46:58.979 And though I dislike having those sort of details in a 02:46:58.979 --> 02:47:04.889 charter, the gravity of the situation may warrant us doing 02:47:04.889 --> 02:47:04.899 that. 02:47:04.899 --> 02:47:09.729 Really creating in the charter the sort of general 02:47:09.729 --> 02:47:15.479 principles that we expect our elected officials and career 02:47:15.479 --> 02:47:17.899 officials to follow. 02:47:17.899 --> 02:47:27.889 >> I would say that I don't think it's appropriate for us 02:47:27.889 --> 02:47:38.899 to do something as important as a foundational document. As 02:47:38.899 --> 02:47:38.899 you know, fat facts make fat wall. 02:47:38.899 --> 02:47:44.540 And I think maybe some general policy recommendations, 02:47:44.540 --> 02:47:48.700 please consider these things. Maybe some findings that we 02:47:48.700 --> 02:47:50.899 found, research to go with it, but in a report. 02:47:50.899 --> 02:47:55.010 But I mean, to the degree that we can keep our regulatory 02:47:55.010 --> 02:47:57.899 framework as minimal as possible. 02:47:57.899 --> 02:48:00.200 I don't think there was an ever-incorporated day when 02:48:00.200 --> 02:48:02.899 people really trusted government, especially in Texas. 02:48:02.899 --> 02:48:08.290 But anyway, I'd just like to say I don't think we should 02:48:08.290 --> 02:48:14.020 cowl too much to the concerns of the rabble-rousing public 02:48:14.020 --> 02:48:15.899 at this point. 02:48:15.899 --> 02:48:19.629 You know, people are just like mad all the time. I'd rather 02:48:19.629 --> 02:48:23.020 just make a good, wise decision and then stick with it, try 02:48:23.020 --> 02:48:23.899 and educate the public. 02:48:23.899 --> 02:48:29.200 If they don't like it, you know, they can elect somebody 02:48:29.200 --> 02:48:33.899 else next time and they can be on the committee. 02:48:33.899 --> 02:48:39.799 >> From the standpoint of the state guidelines versus what 02:48:39.799 --> 02:48:43.899 we have currently, where is the strength? 02:48:43.899 --> 02:48:48.280 Is it stronger, more effective in the state than we have or 02:48:48.280 --> 02:48:52.049 are we just simply touching on the part of it or is it 02:48:52.049 --> 02:48:55.899 actually just as strong and comparable to what the state 02:48:55.899 --> 02:49:00.899 currently got on ethical standards and guidelines? 02:49:00.899 --> 02:49:05.659 >> Generally speaking, are we okay or should we bump up to 02:49:05.659 --> 02:49:10.299 the state and say to answer those two questions, didn't 02:49:10.299 --> 02:49:14.299 maybe we need to toughen up our guidelines and our 02:49:14.299 --> 02:49:19.010 standards for ethical considerations by implementing a 02:49:19.010 --> 02:49:23.899 stronger or more robust guidelines. 02:49:23.899 --> 02:49:29.190 And you shall create, counsel, you shall create an 02:49:29.190 --> 02:49:32.899 ordinance to give effect to that. 02:49:32.899 --> 02:49:35.879 And secondly, we also want somebody that's going to be 02:49:35.879 --> 02:49:39.049 overseeing this thing instead of just simply leaving it to 02:49:39.049 --> 02:49:41.899 implement the trust, to answer your question. 02:49:41.899 --> 02:49:46.709 So again, generally speaking, are we weaker or are we 02:49:46.709 --> 02:49:47.899 stronger? 02:49:47.899 --> 02:49:52.260 >> I think what you have on the books right now in Denton 02:49:52.260 --> 02:49:55.899 is weaker than what is on the state rules. 02:49:55.899 --> 02:49:59.940 I think the state rules for the most part addressed what 02:49:59.940 --> 02:50:03.899 most people are concerned about most of the time. 02:50:03.899 --> 02:50:06.760 I think the furor comes up because I think someone over 02:50:06.760 --> 02:50:09.899 here mentioned maybe the public is not really educated. 02:50:09.899 --> 02:50:13.110 Maybe even the counsel may not be educated on what the 02:50:13.110 --> 02:50:15.899 state rules really are and what they mean. 02:50:15.899 --> 02:50:19.110 I think you may have, I'm not sure there's an enforcement 02:50:19.110 --> 02:50:19.899 problem. 02:50:19.899 --> 02:50:24.520 Hypothetically, imagine whoever you think in your mind is 02:50:24.520 --> 02:50:28.899 the average ordinary reasonable citizen of Denton. 02:50:28.899 --> 02:50:32.540 Is that person more likely or less likely to walk into the 02:50:32.540 --> 02:50:36.139 DA's office and file a complaint or walk into the city 02:50:36.139 --> 02:50:39.899 secretary's office and file an ethics complaint? 02:50:39.899 --> 02:50:43.959 Sometimes it's a matter of enforcement, sometimes it's a 02:50:43.959 --> 02:50:45.899 matter of convenience. 02:50:45.899 --> 02:50:48.600 And I'm your outside legal counsel from Austin, so I 02:50:48.600 --> 02:50:50.899 certainly don't know the politics of it. 02:50:50.899 --> 02:50:52.899 >> I'd like to expand on that question. 02:50:52.899 --> 02:50:59.229 So if we phrase our response to the council saying you 02:50:59.229 --> 02:51:05.899 shall implement an ordinance and you shall create that 02:51:05.899 --> 02:51:08.899 overseeing ability somehow or another. 02:51:08.899 --> 02:51:10.899 You figure it out. 02:51:10.899 --> 02:51:14.850 We are basically telling the population of Denton that we 02:51:14.850 --> 02:51:18.889 want this to be placed in a stronger fashion than it is 02:51:18.889 --> 02:51:22.899 right now, even though it's basically somewhat the same. 02:51:22.899 --> 02:51:25.899 You said Jim, I mean, we can leave it there. 02:51:25.899 --> 02:51:27.899 We're just going to make it stronger. 02:51:27.899 --> 02:51:30.959 That's phrasing, that's language, and I think that'd be 02:51:30.959 --> 02:51:31.899 understood. 02:51:31.899 --> 02:51:34.899 But that's my opinion. 02:51:34.899 --> 02:51:35.899 >> Okay. 02:51:35.899 --> 02:51:37.899 Thank you, Horace. 02:51:37.899 --> 02:51:38.899 It's almost 9 o'clock. 02:51:38.899 --> 02:51:40.899 This is our target. 02:51:40.899 --> 02:51:42.899 Here's what I'm going to suggest. 02:51:42.899 --> 02:51:45.899 Now, Allen works for this committee. 02:51:45.899 --> 02:51:48.899 Brian gets to pay for it, so. 02:51:48.899 --> 02:51:50.899 Anyway. 02:51:50.899 --> 02:51:53.899 You're still good. 02:51:53.899 --> 02:51:55.899 You're still good. 02:51:55.899 --> 02:51:56.899 Anyway. 02:51:56.899 --> 02:52:00.899 No, this has been very helpful discussion. 02:52:00.899 --> 02:52:04.139 And I'm going to suggest that if we have any written 02:52:04.139 --> 02:52:07.899 questions following up the meeting, follow them in. 02:52:07.899 --> 02:52:09.899 We'll get them to Allen. 02:52:09.899 --> 02:52:12.860 If we find that we would like to have more conversation, I 02:52:12.860 --> 02:52:14.899 don't think it would be a three hour. 02:52:14.899 --> 02:52:18.329 We could possibly do a conference call if we prearrange 02:52:18.329 --> 02:52:21.680 with Allen, you know, a half hour or hour on the phone 02:52:21.680 --> 02:52:24.899 since we've got names and faces and a comfort level. 02:52:24.899 --> 02:52:30.239 If that becomes something that we desire to do, but so I'm 02:52:30.239 --> 02:52:35.729 saying that because I really do want to pinch this off at 9 02:52:35.729 --> 02:52:36.899 o'clock. 02:52:36.899 --> 02:52:40.049 But does it mean we won't have access to Allen one way or 02:52:40.049 --> 02:52:42.899 the other through emails or conference call? 02:52:42.899 --> 02:52:46.069 Or if we think we want him to come up for another full 02:52:46.069 --> 02:52:47.899 meeting, we can do that. 02:52:47.899 --> 02:52:50.899 That's up to us and Allen's schedule. 02:52:50.899 --> 02:52:54.899 So that I'm going to close this item out. 02:52:54.899 --> 02:52:58.549 And before we leave, we've got to talk about the dates for 02:52:58.549 --> 02:52:59.899 the next meeting. 02:52:59.899 --> 02:53:02.899 But Allen, I certainly appreciate your driving up. 02:53:02.899 --> 02:53:07.899 And it's been so helpful to us and great resource. 02:53:07.899 --> 02:53:11.899 Jim, Dave, Billy, good selection. 02:53:11.899 --> 02:53:13.899 So we thank you so much. 02:53:13.899 --> 02:53:14.899 Thank you. 02:53:14.899 --> 02:53:15.899 Thank you. 02:53:15.899 --> 02:53:20.899 Thank you. 02:53:20.899 --> 02:53:24.899 Our next meeting would normally be on the 15th. 02:53:24.899 --> 02:53:27.899 Now, spring breakers. 02:53:27.899 --> 02:53:30.899 Who's going to Fort Lauderdale? 02:53:30.899 --> 02:53:35.899 Bob Lamb. 02:53:35.899 --> 02:53:41.899 How many will not be available over the 15th? 02:53:41.899 --> 02:53:44.899 Fagin, will you be available over the 15th? 02:53:44.899 --> 02:53:49.899 During the staycation. 02:53:49.899 --> 02:53:51.899 Anyway, show me hands again. 02:53:51.899 --> 02:53:52.899 We got four. 02:53:52.899 --> 02:53:56.899 One, two, three. 02:53:56.899 --> 02:54:00.899 Four will not be available. 02:54:00.899 --> 02:54:10.770 So we can skip the 15th meeting and go to the beginning of 02:54:10.770 --> 02:54:11.899 the next month. 02:54:11.899 --> 02:54:16.899 The rest of us can make the 15th. 02:54:16.899 --> 02:54:20.899 Is 20 second work for everybody? 02:54:20.899 --> 02:54:21.899 No. 02:54:21.899 --> 02:54:24.899 No. 02:54:24.899 --> 02:54:26.899 I thought there was only four of them. 02:54:26.899 --> 02:54:28.899 There's still folks here. 02:54:28.899 --> 02:54:29.899 Right. 02:54:29.899 --> 02:54:31.899 So the minutes are well taken. 02:54:31.899 --> 02:54:34.899 I can feel like I can call that phone in. 02:54:34.899 --> 02:54:37.379 And if I have comments, I can email them back in with a 02:54:37.379 --> 02:54:37.899 group. 02:54:37.899 --> 02:54:41.120 So that's not enough people in my opinion to call out the 02:54:41.120 --> 02:54:41.899 meeting. 02:54:41.899 --> 02:54:42.899 I agree. 02:54:42.899 --> 02:54:44.899 We all ramp it up. 02:54:44.899 --> 02:54:45.899 I agree with you. 02:54:45.899 --> 02:54:54.899 So let's go ahead and we're meeting the 15th or 6 o'clock. 02:54:54.899 --> 02:54:55.899 All right. 02:54:55.899 --> 02:54:56.899 We're going to adjourn. 02:54:56.899 --> 02:54:57.899 Thank you very much, everybody. 02:55:07.899 --> 02:55:08.899 Thank you.