1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:07,660
 >> Okay. Are we ready to start? All right. So it's 3 p.m. We're starting the regularly

2
00:00:07,660 --> 00:00:16,440
 scheduled Board of Ethics meeting. I, the Chair, Laura Tomlin, am doing it via Zoom.

3
00:00:16,440 --> 00:00:25,580
 I had an exposure in my household and didn't want to be out. So I think first we need to

4
00:00:25,580 --> 00:00:31,840
 determine who's there. And everybody's really small to me. And I don't want to, like, misidentify

5
00:00:31,840 --> 00:00:38,680
 anybody. So I guess, like, Madison, do you want to, like, say who's here?

6
00:00:38,680 --> 00:00:48,720
 >> Sure. Patricia Rinkie is here. Rob Rayner is here. Amanda Brown is the City Attorney's

7
00:00:48,720 --> 00:00:57,440
 Office representative. Dustin is here. Ron is here. Annette is here. And I believe you're

8
00:00:57,440 --> 00:01:02,720
 Hannah. Yes. Our newest member. One of our newer members.

9
00:01:02,720 --> 00:01:08,600
 >> Okay. All right. Well, welcome, Hannah. And those are Hannah and the person from the

10
00:01:08,600 --> 00:01:15,960
 City Attorney's Office who I couldn't really make out. Okay. All right. So we have a quorum,

11
00:01:15,960 --> 00:01:22,000
 right? Do we need to discuss anybody that's absent, Madison?

12
00:01:22,000 --> 00:01:30,320
 >> Andrea is absent. And Deborah is absent. And we also have our alternative member, Dustin,

13
00:01:30,320 --> 00:01:34,320
 or sorry, David, Chuck is here. But he's not participating.

14
00:01:34,320 --> 00:01:41,200
 >> Okay. Thank you for putting that kind of on the record for the minutes for next week.

15
00:01:41,200 --> 00:01:53,680
 I'm going to go ahead and share the agenda. First up, BOE 21-021, consider approval of

16
00:01:53,680 --> 00:02:01,600
 the minutes for June 24th, 2021. I did not see any issues with those minutes. Just going

17
00:02:01,600 --> 00:02:09,120
 through the recent trainings did, like, be reappointed to the board. I think it said you're

18
00:02:09,120 --> 00:02:18,280
 supposed to say when people are absent and it's excused. Is that right, Madison?

19
00:02:18,280 --> 00:02:25,960
 >> I believe so, yes. >> Okay. So absent members were Deborah Cosmo,

20
00:02:25,960 --> 00:02:34,240
 Rob Rainer, Robert Swanbeck, but I guess I'm not exactly sure what we're supposed to do

21
00:02:34,240 --> 00:02:38,000
 because I don't know if they're excused or not. I think that's the City Attorney that

22
00:02:38,000 --> 00:02:45,480
 determined that. Am I wrong? >> Chair Tomlin, I believe we need to come

23
00:02:45,480 --> 00:02:50,280
 back with these minutes, actually, because the absences are incorrect because those alternate

24
00:02:50,280 --> 00:02:55,200
 members were not called for that meeting. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. That's right. All right.

25
00:02:55,200 --> 00:03:01,280
 So do you just want to, like, discuss what's wrong or do you want to just wait for the

26
00:03:01,280 --> 00:03:05,360
 next meeting? >> I think we should just postpone this item

27
00:03:05,360 --> 00:03:10,400
 and we'll approve it next meeting. >> Okay. Let's just, yeah, postpone that item,

28
00:03:10,400 --> 00:03:16,960
 like Madison says, and we can -- >> Or we could just approve it as amended

29
00:03:16,960 --> 00:03:21,720
 and exclude those people from the absence line. >> Okay. All right. So I guess there

30
00:03:21,720 --> 00:03:23,920
 was nobody absent? >> Correct.

31
00:03:23,920 --> 00:03:32,720
 >> Okay. All right. So I guess I would ask for a motion to amend the minutes to take

32
00:03:32,720 --> 00:03:38,280
 out the line about absences because it's incorrect. >> I so move.

33
00:03:38,280 --> 00:03:43,520
 >> And I second. >> All right. So I think that was Dawn and

34
00:03:43,520 --> 00:03:53,600
 Annetta. Dawn's motion, Annetta, seconded. And so for minutes as amended, I guess I'll

35
00:03:53,600 --> 00:04:01,400
 call a vote to see who -- let's see everybody better. I call a vote to amend the minutes.

36
00:04:01,400 --> 00:04:03,720
 All in favor say aye. >> Aye.

37
00:04:03,720 --> 00:04:11,840
 >> All opposed? None opposed? So motion passes and the minutes are approved as amended without

38
00:04:11,840 --> 00:04:27,600
 the line about absences. Okay. And going to agenda item 1B, BOE 21-022,

39
00:04:27,600 --> 00:04:32,880
 give a report, hold a discussion and take necessary action regarding potential recommendations

40
00:04:32,880 --> 00:04:44,560
 to the ordinance, the ethics ordinance. I'm going to bring up that agenda sheet. All right.

41
00:04:44,560 --> 00:04:52,520
 So we talked the last meeting about minor adjustments to the ethics ordinance and the

42
00:04:52,520 --> 00:05:00,720
 rules of procedure. What I have was on page 16 of the ordinance, there was a flash or

43
00:05:00,720 --> 00:05:08,760
 at it, whenever possible was deleted on page 16. And then 19, there was a revision about

44
00:05:08,760 --> 00:05:15,520
 filing a complaint and a hearing within 30 days. Do we need -- does the board feel we

45
00:05:15,520 --> 00:05:24,680
 need to like go over those more or did everybody review that and think it was -- it conformed

46
00:05:24,680 --> 00:05:34,320
 it with what we had discussed the last meeting? All right. I'm not hearing anybody and I don't

47
00:05:34,320 --> 00:05:38,880
 think there's a L.A. So I think we'll just -- we won't need to discuss those again. And

48
00:05:38,880 --> 00:05:45,280
 then on the rules of procedure, I have that on page 7, the language about not serving

49
00:05:45,280 --> 00:05:53,720
 on a preliminary panel if a complaint is filed against a person that you've previously filed

50
00:05:53,720 --> 00:06:00,240
 -- a board member previously filed a complaint against was added. And then we talked -- as

51
00:06:00,240 --> 00:06:06,760
 we talked about complaints, also on page 7, when there's hyperlinks and attachment complaints,

52
00:06:06,760 --> 00:06:15,000
 the preliminary panel can consider that. And then we had added that a panel can consider

53
00:06:15,000 --> 00:06:21,560
 any ethics provision if the panel determines that what is in the complaint actually falls

54
00:06:21,560 --> 00:06:29,840
 under different sections of ethics provision. And I think that was -- that was everything

55
00:06:29,840 --> 00:06:35,440
 I think we talked about. As far as that, are there any discussion or comments about those

56
00:06:35,440 --> 00:06:49,220
 changes on the rules of procedure? All right. I think everybody agrees then. Nobody is saying

57
00:06:49,220 --> 00:07:01,520
 that they don't. So we'll move on from there, too. Okay. And so -- sorry about that. Number

58
00:07:01,520 --> 00:07:13,400
 2 is going to -- number 2 on the agenda information sheet. Should it be clarified that the termination

59
00:07:13,400 --> 00:07:17,920
 of an employment relationship from a business entity results in a conflict of interest no

60
00:07:17,920 --> 00:07:26,000
 longer being considered current under section 2-273A of the ethics ordinance? And I think

61
00:07:26,000 --> 00:07:34,200
 Madison has included in our packet that an advisory board has previously found that when

62
00:07:34,200 --> 00:07:39,640
 the employment isn't current, there's not a conflict of interest. I guess do you have

63
00:07:39,640 --> 00:07:44,120
 anything else to add about that, Madison? As far as research, it was just the advisory

64
00:07:44,120 --> 00:07:50,360
 opinion, right? Yeah. We just had the advisory opinion. And this was just to see if the board

65
00:07:50,360 --> 00:07:56,840
 wanted to formalize that somehow in the ordinance. Okay. All right. So -- stop the screen so

66
00:07:56,840 --> 00:08:01,560
 I can see everybody a little bigger. I guess my opinion is that we kind of already put

67
00:08:01,560 --> 00:08:08,120
 an advisory opinion out. And I think, you know, from the ordinance, it's a logical conclusion

68
00:08:08,120 --> 00:08:13,680
 that when the employment is over, there's not a conflict. But I think we're still covered

69
00:08:13,680 --> 00:08:19,680
 if you're talking about, say, a corporate employee that's still on the board for a business

70
00:08:19,680 --> 00:08:24,720
 or still owns stock, a certain amount of stock in the business, they still be covered under

71
00:08:24,720 --> 00:08:30,360
 the conflict of interest. So I guess I'll open that up for discussion if anybody has

72
00:08:30,360 --> 00:08:35,560
 any opinions about whether it should be -- whether the ordinance should be amended to include

73
00:08:35,560 --> 00:08:51,000
 that or if we just keep it as is. All right. Do you think everybody kind of agree to just

74
00:08:51,000 --> 00:09:03,320
 keep it as is, then? Yeah. I think all the items in the ordinance are current tense.

75
00:09:03,320 --> 00:09:12,720
 So I think the only reason that -- the only thing that might need to be changed is 3B,

76
00:09:12,720 --> 00:09:17,800
 the receipt of more than $600 in gross annual income from a business entity, since that

77
00:09:17,800 --> 00:09:25,840
 might be in a calendar year. So if that changes during the calendar year, that conflict of

78
00:09:25,840 --> 00:09:33,400
 interest no longer exists because they're no longer under the employment. Everything

79
00:09:33,400 --> 00:09:41,120
 else would be current tense. So current ownership of fair market value of a business entity.

80
00:09:41,120 --> 00:09:52,440
 I don't think any of the other ones would apply. Wouldn't that conflict with the pending

81
00:09:52,440 --> 00:10:02,040
 definition, which makes it so confusing, the pending matter thing? I mean, I agree with

82
00:10:02,040 --> 00:10:12,680
 what Dustin's saying, but that pending matter part really confuses it. As far as the pending

83
00:10:12,680 --> 00:10:31,040
 -- okay. So up in A1. Well, I think the pending matter is referring to whatever the City Council

84
00:10:31,040 --> 00:10:41,240
 is discussing. And then it's if you have one of A3 while there's a pending matter with

85
00:10:41,240 --> 00:10:52,280
 the City Council. But I guess how -- You have to look at the glossary to understand

86
00:10:52,280 --> 00:10:58,000
 what pending matter means because every time I look back at it, it's not what I think it's

87
00:10:58,000 --> 00:11:03,120
 supposed to be. And I don't have the glossary with me.

88
00:11:03,120 --> 00:11:13,560
 Okay. Yeah. Page 7 defines pending matter as an application seeking approval of a permit

89
00:11:13,560 --> 00:11:19,600
 or other form of unauthorized required -- authorization required by the City, State, or Federal law

90
00:11:19,600 --> 00:11:24,720
 a proposal to enter into a contract arrangement with the City for the provision of goods,

91
00:11:24,720 --> 00:11:29,960
 services, real property, or other things of value, a case involving the City that is or

92
00:11:29,960 --> 00:11:51,120
 anticipated to be before a civil, criminal, or administrative tribunal. But I guess we

93
00:11:51,120 --> 00:11:59,920
 need to, you know, discuss whether in 3B there's a way -- whether we want to do this and how

94
00:11:59,920 --> 00:12:06,840
 -- if there would be a way to word it as far as like would we want to put like receipt

95
00:12:06,840 --> 00:12:13,760
 of more than $600 in growth annual income from business entity as evidenced by W2-1099K1

96
00:12:13,760 --> 00:12:21,200
 or similar tax forms and current employment? Or do you -- I mean, because it might be that

97
00:12:21,200 --> 00:12:28,240
 they envision that, you know, in a calendar year, you're going to be -- you know, you're

98
00:12:28,240 --> 00:12:35,440
 going to be, I guess, conflicted for the whole year which may conflict with what we had -- what

99
00:12:35,440 --> 00:12:42,240
 had -- we had decided in the advisory opinion. Yeah, that might be covered under Item 2,

100
00:12:42,240 --> 00:12:48,840
 the last sentence of Item 2. Disclosures under the subsection shall be for the time period

101
00:12:48,840 --> 00:12:53,360
 including the previous calendar year and up to the date where the conflicting interest

102
00:12:53,360 --> 00:13:10,680
 arises before the city official. So I guess is that meaning that if you had

103
00:13:10,680 --> 00:13:18,440
 -- if you made money in the previous year, the previous calendar year, are you still

104
00:13:18,440 --> 00:13:26,560
 conflicted the next year? But that's kind of the problem with this whole

105
00:13:26,560 --> 00:13:31,440
 conflict of interest definition is it's so narrow and then when you look back at the

106
00:13:31,440 --> 00:13:41,560
 glossary, it gets even more confusing. I definitely agree with what he's talking about but it's

107
00:13:41,560 --> 00:13:49,880
 hard to -- to nail it down when it starts out so narrow.

108
00:13:49,880 --> 00:13:56,360
 Madam Chair, is it the calendar year that is creating the angst that we have in that

109
00:13:56,360 --> 00:14:05,400
 somebody -- let's say a conflict occurs in March versus November, the calendar year I

110
00:14:05,400 --> 00:14:11,660
 look at is January, December of that year. So I mean, is that what we're -- is that the

111
00:14:11,660 --> 00:14:16,980
 issue that we're looking at or? Well, I think the advisory opinion was based

112
00:14:16,980 --> 00:14:26,080
 on a council member that had a -- had a spouse that was employed by UNT and at the termination

113
00:14:26,080 --> 00:14:30,980
 of their employment, they asked the board if they currently had a conflict of interest

114
00:14:30,980 --> 00:14:36,240
 because their spouse was no longer employed. Is that right, Madison?

115
00:14:36,240 --> 00:14:42,640
 That's correct. And I think part of the question was in -- in what you mentioned, 3B, it says

116
00:14:42,640 --> 00:14:49,640
 as evidenced by a W2. So their W2 for that year would have had more gross -- more than

117
00:14:49,640 --> 00:14:54,080
 $600. So would they be conflicted for the rest of that calendar year basically based

118
00:14:54,080 --> 00:15:01,460
 on their W2? Does that make sense? Yeah. Okay. Great. So and then the advisory opinion

119
00:15:01,460 --> 00:15:07,520
 said no, basically, that you would not be conflicted because it's no longer a current

120
00:15:07,520 --> 00:15:12,240
 conflict of interest because your employment relationship has been terminated.

121
00:15:12,240 --> 00:15:24,600
 So I guess that kind of conflicts if you read, you know, 3B with -- with 2. I mean, that's

122
00:15:24,600 --> 00:15:29,880
 saying that if you have a W2 from the previous calendar year, you're still conflicted that

123
00:15:29,880 --> 00:15:45,240
 next year. Am I right? That's how I would read it, but. Yeah. I agree.

124
00:15:45,240 --> 00:15:56,520
 So I guess we need to talk about whether we would, you know, do we want to continue with

125
00:15:56,520 --> 00:16:06,280
 the ordinance as is and -- or go with what we decided during the advisory -- in the advisory

126
00:16:06,280 --> 00:16:29,140
 opinion because it appears they can flick now that we're like kind of discussing it here in depth.

127
00:16:29,140 --> 00:16:36,220
 I think the way it was written is fine. The problem is with the conflict of interest definition,

128
00:16:36,220 --> 00:16:42,560
 not with what we were thinking about, which brings up something I wanted to ask about

129
00:16:42,560 --> 00:16:49,240
 later on, but it's not for this agenda item. Yeah, and I guess I would say this agenda

130
00:16:49,240 --> 00:17:04,480
 item -- trying to find it. So this is about, you know, the current part of 2-273. I don't

131
00:17:04,480 --> 00:17:11,200
 know. I think it's -- if we're going to get into a discussion of changing the conflict

132
00:17:11,200 --> 00:17:19,200
 of interest, you know, I don't think, you know, Madison hasn't prepared like other,

133
00:17:19,200 --> 00:17:24,280
 you know, other ordinances for us, and, you know, I don't know. In my preparation of this,

134
00:17:24,280 --> 00:17:30,160
 I didn't really prepare for changing the conflict of interest. So I don't know if that's a discussion

135
00:17:30,160 --> 00:17:38,880
 we need to have like today during this meeting. So I mean, we could move on to frivolous and

136
00:17:38,880 --> 00:17:48,840
 kind of package that current part with discussing conflict of interest at a later meeting. Or

137
00:17:48,840 --> 00:17:56,820
 if -- what's that? That sounds like a good plan. Yeah. Can I just make sure I'm clear

138
00:17:56,820 --> 00:18:03,780
 on what we -- Yes, Madison. Okay. So on the agenda information sheet, item 2, we've decided

139
00:18:03,780 --> 00:18:11,000
 just to leave the ordinance as it is, correct? Yeah, I think we'll leave it as is, but we'll

140
00:18:11,000 --> 00:18:17,000
 maybe -- maybe you could make note that this is something we should discuss when we have

141
00:18:17,000 --> 00:18:23,860
 a bigger discussion about conflict of interest. I think as of right now, though, we have that

142
00:18:23,860 --> 00:18:28,900
 advisory opinion out there, and I think that there is a defense in the ordinance if somebody

143
00:18:28,900 --> 00:18:37,520
 -- if a councilperson relies on the advisory opinion. So right now, I think somebody could

144
00:18:37,520 --> 00:18:42,000
 rely on the advisory opinion or go with the ethics ordinance, and I think either way,

145
00:18:42,000 --> 00:18:49,960
 you're not going to have a violation because it's kind of both out there. But I think it

146
00:18:49,960 --> 00:18:55,440
 may be something we can clear up when we talk about conflict of interest more, it sounds

147
00:18:55,440 --> 00:19:01,960
 like, unless anybody has an idea of what we can do without having that larger discussion.

148
00:19:01,960 --> 00:19:10,560
 No, I think we'll have to post separately for the larger conflict of interest discussion.

149
00:19:10,560 --> 00:19:19,080
 Okay. All right. I do have one more question. On the item number 1, that was to add that

150
00:19:19,080 --> 00:19:26,800
 language that a board member won't be assigned to a preliminary assessment if they've submitted

151
00:19:26,800 --> 00:19:31,800
 an ethics complaint against the city official unless a majority of board members have submitted

152
00:19:31,800 --> 00:19:38,120
 a complaint as well. And that is approved? Is that correct?

153
00:19:38,120 --> 00:19:45,760
 I believe so. Nobody spoke up against it. So I would say, yeah, that's -- I think that

154
00:19:45,760 --> 00:19:50,920
 is approved. Great. Okay. Thank you.

155
00:19:50,920 --> 00:20:00,160
 All right. Okay. We'll move -- I guess we'll go ahead and move forward to the third item

156
00:20:00,160 --> 00:20:11,680
 on the agenda information sheet, going back to our discussion of whether -- I guess how

157
00:20:11,680 --> 00:20:21,320
 an ethics complaint can be submitted for like a frivolous hearing. Last meeting, we discussed

158
00:20:21,320 --> 00:20:29,480
 -- I remember -- well, we discussed this. And Madison had prepared San Antonio and Dallas

159
00:20:29,480 --> 00:20:35,160
 and Richardson. I believe we got copies of those. And Madison, I think -- did you look

160
00:20:35,160 --> 00:20:40,440
 at the model code since the last meeting? I don't think we talked about -- I think that

161
00:20:40,440 --> 00:20:45,040
 that's maybe something that we asked of you. Yes, the model code information is new since

162
00:20:45,040 --> 00:20:50,160
 the previous meeting. Okay. Did you want to kind of talk about that

163
00:20:50,160 --> 00:20:57,080
 a little? Basically, I looked at the model code, and

164
00:20:57,080 --> 00:21:02,520
 it said -- basically said that the ethics commission is required to determine if a received

165
00:21:02,520 --> 00:21:08,760
 ethics complaint alleges an action or an inaction that if the allegations are true might constitute

166
00:21:08,760 --> 00:21:15,360
 a violation of the code, which is similar kind of to our preliminary assessment process.

167
00:21:15,360 --> 00:21:19,720
 And then under the model code, the respondent is only notified if the ethics complaint has

168
00:21:19,720 --> 00:21:24,680
 been accepted or is considered to be actionable by the ethics commission. So they wouldn't

169
00:21:24,680 --> 00:21:30,760
 have a -- they wouldn't have an ability to respond to a complaint prior to that. But

170
00:21:30,760 --> 00:21:36,520
 they do have a response to file -- they do have a -- in the model code, they have the

171
00:21:36,520 --> 00:21:41,080
 opportunity to respond after the complaint has been accepted.

172
00:21:41,080 --> 00:21:51,960
 Okay. So I guess it's -- so in our ordinance, on page 3, frivolous complaint is defined

173
00:21:51,960 --> 00:21:55,800
 as a foreign complaint that is groundless and brought in bad faith or groundless and

174
00:21:55,800 --> 00:22:04,760
 brought for the purpose of harassment. And then it's on page 18, one of the purposes

175
00:22:04,760 --> 00:22:13,960
 for a hearing is a frivolous complaint. And then the only time it's frivolous is in the

176
00:22:13,960 --> 00:22:42,520
 ethics ordinance other than that is on, I think, page 20. Yeah. Let's see, 18. I might

177
00:22:42,520 --> 00:22:48,440
 have the numbers off. I think I was looking at -- I wasn't looking at the one online.

178
00:22:48,440 --> 00:22:54,040
 I think I was looking at a previous version. Well, anyway, I feel like last meeting we

179
00:22:54,040 --> 00:23:03,000
 kind of were like just going in circles. I have an idea that I wanted to present for

180
00:23:03,000 --> 00:23:17,960
 how to -- how to deal with this issue. And my idea would be to -- if you go to section

181
00:23:17,960 --> 00:23:47,400
 2-280(c)(2) of the code, okay. All right. So 2-280(c)(2), so the panel makes the

182
00:23:47,400 --> 00:23:53,880
 determination of something being actual baseless. So my idea would be the -- under (c)(2) baseless,

183
00:23:53,880 --> 00:23:56,840
 the allegation and evidence contained in the complaint, if true, would not constitute a

184
00:23:56,840 --> 00:24:03,240
 violation of this article. I would suggest we add to the end of that, if a complaint

185
00:24:03,240 --> 00:24:08,280
 is found baseless, the panel either shall or may consider if the complaint should be

186
00:24:08,280 --> 00:24:18,920
 submitted for a frivolity hearing. And then I think we could -- we could have kind of

187
00:24:18,920 --> 00:24:28,440
 three options there of either if the preliminary panel thinks it's frivolous, take it straight

188
00:24:28,440 --> 00:24:35,560
 to a hearing, or the preliminary panel could take it to the chair. And not that I, like,

189
00:24:35,560 --> 00:24:41,000
 want extra power, but there are other places in the code where a chair makes a unilateral

190
00:24:41,000 --> 00:24:46,440
 decision about something. Or the third option would be to just bring it to the next regular

191
00:24:46,440 --> 00:24:52,920
 board meeting and take a vote of whether it should be frivolous. And I think that language

192
00:24:52,920 --> 00:25:05,800
 could be added. And then another place in 2-282(c) under disposition of the complaint.

193
00:25:05,800 --> 00:25:11,480
 That's where you're seeing, like, where it currently talks about frivolous in the order.

194
00:25:11,480 --> 00:25:21,080
 And I would say under -- where is it? Yeah, under (c). Between 1 and 2, where it says

195
00:25:21,080 --> 00:25:26,360
 it's a violation of the article -- of this article, a person submit a frivolous complaint.

196
00:25:26,360 --> 00:25:31,160
 And then before the supermajority section that talks about when you have the actual hearing,

197
00:25:31,160 --> 00:25:36,680
 but add a new number 2 that says hearing, a hearing shall be scheduled on frivolity if

198
00:25:36,680 --> 00:25:42,120
 either the preliminary panel, the chair, or the majority of the board determine the complaint

199
00:25:42,120 --> 00:25:50,280
 shall be considered for frivolity. So, anyway, that was my idea as -- after we had talked

200
00:25:50,280 --> 00:25:59,720
 about this last meeting is we could just -- because I think the other ideas were the respondent

201
00:25:59,720 --> 00:26:06,280
 could ask for us to look into whether it's frivolous. But I kind of think if we did that,

202
00:26:06,280 --> 00:26:12,280
 like, they're going to ask for it every time. So it might be better just to -- after a preliminary

203
00:26:12,280 --> 00:26:18,680
 panel says this is baseless to, you know, have a quick vote or discussion if it's more

204
00:26:18,680 --> 00:26:23,320
 of a challenge of whether it should go to a frivolous hearing. And then we'd either just

205
00:26:23,320 --> 00:26:27,880
 automatically go to a frivolous hearing or maybe go to the chair to decide if there should

206
00:26:27,880 --> 00:26:34,520
 be one or go to the board at large. So, anyway, that's my idea after our last discussion,

207
00:26:34,520 --> 00:26:41,960
 but I'm open to criticism of that or saying no or whatever you guys -- whatever we think.

208
00:26:44,760 --> 00:26:50,200
 Annette? I'd like to know how that's different from the model code because I really did like

209
00:26:50,200 --> 00:26:57,080
 the model code because it sounds like the frivolity is figured out right away and it

210
00:26:57,080 --> 00:27:04,920
 just never goes anywhere. Is that -- did I mishear that? For what I just said or for the

211
00:27:04,920 --> 00:27:12,600
 model code? For the model code. Well, I think in the model code it's never even -- the model code

212
00:27:12,600 --> 00:27:19,640
 doesn't discuss frivolous. Is that right, Madison? Yeah, that's correct. The model code, as far as I

213
00:27:19,640 --> 00:27:24,520
 could tell, doesn't really have the concept of frivolous the way that we do. And part of that

214
00:27:24,520 --> 00:27:28,760
 is because the respondent isn't notified of a complaint until it's been determined that

215
00:27:28,760 --> 00:27:33,720
 it's actionable. So they're not even aware of it when it's at the preliminary assessment stage.

216
00:27:33,720 --> 00:27:40,920
 And I would say, you know, it's the model code and so they keep it quiet, but in the real world,

217
00:27:41,800 --> 00:27:47,240
 you know, when we first -- when I was first on this board, it's like the DRC got copies of every

218
00:27:47,240 --> 00:27:52,840
 complaint and that's, I think, what prompted us to want to send the respondent a copy of the

219
00:27:52,840 --> 00:27:58,600
 complaint as soon as it happens because, I mean, it'd be great if it never got out that there was

220
00:27:58,600 --> 00:28:02,520
 a complaint against somebody like in the model code, but I feel like in the real world, like,

221
00:28:02,520 --> 00:28:09,400
 it does get out because it's happened before. So unfortunately, I think that's where we are on that.

222
00:28:11,800 --> 00:28:15,080
 >> Madam Chair? >> Yes.

223
00:28:15,080 --> 00:28:22,440
 >> A question on the three options as to vote by the committee or the chair or two-thirds of the

224
00:28:22,440 --> 00:28:28,680
 majority. Are any of those weighted? Is there one that has precedence over the others?

225
00:28:28,680 --> 00:28:37,480
 >> Oh, well, okay. So when I just proposed that, I was thinking we decide on one and I don't know

226
00:28:37,480 --> 00:28:46,760
 which one's better. I would kind of, you know, for -- I mean, if it went automatically through a

227
00:28:46,760 --> 00:28:53,720
 frivolous hearing, you know, maybe if it goes through the chair or through a board vote first,

228
00:28:53,720 --> 00:28:58,280
 then you'll have less hearings that maybe are unnecessary, but I don't know. If the panel

229
00:28:58,280 --> 00:29:02,120
 thinks it's frivolous, it might be worth it to just, you know, have the hearing at that point.

230
00:29:03,880 --> 00:29:08,520
 So, yeah, I don't know. It was just the three ideas I came up with, which I think I --

231
00:29:08,520 --> 00:29:21,400
 this is just the language that I came up with. And like I said, I don't know. I was just trying to

232
00:29:21,400 --> 00:29:27,800
 think of some way -- because like I said, I feel like at the last meeting, we were just kind of

233
00:29:27,800 --> 00:29:34,040
 spinning our wheels, so I was trying to think of some way where we could have the panel -- a

234
00:29:34,040 --> 00:29:38,600
 preliminary panel, you know, decide if it's frivolous. Because right now, I think we talked

235
00:29:38,600 --> 00:29:44,760
 about it at the last meeting, if I remember correctly. It's been a few months. Just like

236
00:29:44,760 --> 00:29:53,000
 right now, there's really no procedure for it to go to frivolous. But anyway, I tangent off your

237
00:29:53,000 --> 00:29:58,760
 question, but no, I don't think there's one that's better. Just kind of whatever -- whatever we all

238
00:29:58,760 --> 00:30:05,080
 decide. If we wanted to go through it with it -- if we wanted to use this language, we don't have to.

239
00:30:05,080 --> 00:30:10,200
 >> Madam Chair, if I could just kind of speak a little bit to Rob's question.

240
00:30:10,200 --> 00:30:16,280
 >> Go for it. >> The rules of procedure are kind of the only place that have a mention of

241
00:30:16,280 --> 00:30:20,920
 how to determine something's frivolous as far as the actual procedure that's written.

242
00:30:22,040 --> 00:30:27,880
 And they say that the panel -- the preliminary assessment panel can recommend that it be

243
00:30:27,880 --> 00:30:33,320
 considered frivolous first. It doesn't really -- it doesn't really specify, once they recommend that,

244
00:30:33,320 --> 00:30:41,160
 how that gets handled. So I think to Rob's question, that might set a precedent for the panel

245
00:30:41,160 --> 00:30:47,080
 deciding or the panel making that recommendation and it going to the chair or the board. So I don't

246
00:30:47,080 --> 00:30:54,280
 know if that -- I don't know if that was helpful. >> Madam Chair. >> Yes, Rob, I believe. >> Thank

247
00:30:54,280 --> 00:30:59,640
 you. That dovetailed well. I think the preliminary panel, I mean, they're right there. They've got it

248
00:30:59,640 --> 00:31:08,920
 all -- they would, I think, be able to make the decision. But also, isn't there an appeals process,

249
00:31:08,920 --> 00:31:14,840
 too, if necessary, for that person? So we've got preliminary panel making the decision. Somebody

250
00:31:14,840 --> 00:31:19,480
 doesn't like it. They could still appeal it. >> That's correct. >> So I think that would cut

251
00:31:19,480 --> 00:31:27,480
 down on the time frames and the resources that we have if we -- I personally like the preliminary

252
00:31:27,480 --> 00:31:33,960
 panel knowing that we haven't left them on an island. They can appeal it if they wish. Thank you.

253
00:31:33,960 --> 00:31:43,480
 >> That's a good point. So we could reward it that if the complaint is found faceless to the panel,

254
00:31:43,480 --> 00:31:50,040
 and I put shall or may, but, you know, we might -- I don't know. We can make it where they have to

255
00:31:50,040 --> 00:31:57,240
 every time or it's up to that panel. Consider if the complaint should be submitted to, you know,

256
00:31:57,240 --> 00:32:08,680
 submitted to a hearing. >> I like the idea of more choices and more flexibility in the language so

257
00:32:08,680 --> 00:32:16,280
 that we can use our own judgment for each case as it comes up. >> As in leaving the may? >>

258
00:32:16,280 --> 00:32:21,720
 Like the shall or may, and then you said there are three options. You don't have to prioritize

259
00:32:21,720 --> 00:32:29,560
 one option over the other just to keep it more flexible. >> Well, I guess -- okay. So I guess

260
00:32:29,560 --> 00:32:39,320
 you're saying, like, have the preliminary panel, like, they could decide to send it to the chair

261
00:32:39,320 --> 00:32:44,360
 or the board to decide if there's a hearing or they could decide themselves that it should go

262
00:32:44,360 --> 00:32:48,920
 to a hearing? Is that what you're saying? >> Well, I'm not sure if I'm understanding

263
00:32:48,920 --> 00:32:53,160
 it correctly, but I was just thinking the more flexible language would be better for the board

264
00:32:53,160 --> 00:33:03,080
 to be able to, you know, look at what the actual situation is and then, you know, decide which of

265
00:33:03,080 --> 00:33:07,240
 the choices are the best choices to proceed. But I thought you were saying there were going to be

266
00:33:07,240 --> 00:33:13,000
 three choices included in the language. >> Oh, no. I was just thinking, like,

267
00:33:13,000 --> 00:33:20,120
 if we wanted to add that the preliminary panel decides whether there's a frivolous hearing,

268
00:33:20,120 --> 00:33:25,960
 we could either make it to where that panel says, yes, it needs to go to a hearing or we could make

269
00:33:25,960 --> 00:33:31,320
 it to where the panel says, like, brings it to the chair, hey, we think this should go to a hearing

270
00:33:31,320 --> 00:33:37,080
 and the chair makes the final decision or they bring it to the board, like, at the next regular

271
00:33:37,080 --> 00:33:41,880
 scheduled meeting and, like, one of the agenda items is should we have a frivolity hearing on this?

272
00:33:41,880 --> 00:33:48,600
 But I think Rob had a lot of good points that those three people on the panel are going to be

273
00:33:48,600 --> 00:33:55,880
 the people best situated to decide if there should be a frivolous hearing. So, yeah, I guess I wasn't

274
00:33:55,880 --> 00:34:01,480
 saying -- my idea was, like, we picked one of those. >> I see. Okay. >> Yeah.

275
00:34:01,480 --> 00:34:06,040
 >> So, I like your ideas, Rob. That was good.

276
00:34:14,520 --> 00:34:21,880
 Any -- what does everybody else think about, you know, whether we should add wording about

277
00:34:21,880 --> 00:34:26,760
 the preliminary panel determining whether a complaint is frivolous as part of their

278
00:34:26,760 --> 00:34:37,720
 preliminary assessment? >> I agree. I think that's a good solution.

279
00:34:41,160 --> 00:34:49,000
 >> Do we need to vote on it? >> Yeah. Well, I guess I was just -- it's hard to -- let me get this.

280
00:34:49,000 --> 00:34:55,400
 I'm going to stop sharing so I can see everybody better. I mean, if you all like the language,

281
00:34:55,400 --> 00:35:02,760
 I could -- I mean, I guess -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Madison, right now we kind of have

282
00:35:03,560 --> 00:35:11,960
 several corrections that we want to eventually bring to City Council. And so we could -- if we're

283
00:35:11,960 --> 00:35:16,200
 in agreement, we could just kind of add it to that. And then I think once we have them all,

284
00:35:16,200 --> 00:35:20,520
 we could take a vote that we're going to take all those corrections to City Council. Is that

285
00:35:20,520 --> 00:35:25,160
 what we decided last time, or do I have that wrong, Madison? >> Yeah, that's correct. So whenever

286
00:35:25,160 --> 00:35:29,640
 you're ready, we'll take all the changes that you've directed me to include in that kind of

287
00:35:29,640 --> 00:35:37,480
 packet. You'll take a vote on that, and we'll take it to City Council. >> So I guess what I would be

288
00:35:37,480 --> 00:35:47,880
 proposing is -- let me see the -- all right. I hope you all aren't hearing my three and four-year-old

289
00:35:47,880 --> 00:36:02,200
 screaming right now. Sorry if you are. Okay. So what I propose is that under 2-280C2, after the --

290
00:36:02,200 --> 00:36:09,240
 after -- once a preliminary panel has found that a complaint is baseless, we would ask -- add a

291
00:36:09,240 --> 00:36:13,880
 second sentence that if a complaint is found baseless, the panel may consider if the complaint

292
00:36:13,880 --> 00:36:17,960
 should be submitted to a hearing. And I would say, like, based on what we were talking about, maybe

293
00:36:17,960 --> 00:36:24,680
 just keep it may instead of shall. So it's just up to that preliminary panel to decide whether they

294
00:36:24,680 --> 00:36:31,080
 need to discuss it. And they can if they choose. Because I think this all came about with that --

295
00:36:31,080 --> 00:36:36,360
 the last complaint we had, and the preliminary panel was unsure whether they could look at the

296
00:36:36,360 --> 00:36:40,600
 video and unsure whether they could talk about frivolous, if I'm remembering things correctly.

297
00:36:40,600 --> 00:36:44,840
 So that would just give clear guidance that a preliminary panel can discuss it at the

298
00:36:44,840 --> 00:36:53,800
 preliminary hearing. And then they can submit it to a hearing. And like Rob said, if the person

299
00:36:53,800 --> 00:36:59,160
 filing the complaint can then appeal what the preliminary panel has said, so there's a way for

300
00:36:59,160 --> 00:37:06,280
 them to appeal that decision. But then also if they don't, I guess it could go to a hearing for

301
00:37:06,280 --> 00:37:16,040
 frivolous if the panel chooses. And then the second thing I would add is -- I put page 20 of

302
00:37:16,040 --> 00:37:38,200
 the ethics ordinance, but what section is that? Hold on. Section 2-282c. Between subsections one

303
00:37:38,200 --> 00:37:45,800
 and two, add hearing. A hearing shall be scheduled on frivolity if the, I guess, preliminary panel

304
00:37:46,040 --> 00:37:56,040
 [PAUSE]

305
00:37:56,040 --> 00:38:04,440
 determines the complaint should be considered frivolity. So anyway, that's my idea. So please

306
00:38:04,440 --> 00:38:10,840
 speak up if there's things you think need to be changed or if you don't agree or if we're all in

307
00:38:10,840 --> 00:38:20,600
 agreement, you know, we can just add these to the other revisions -- list of revisions we have for

308
00:38:20,600 --> 00:38:22,280
 the ordinance. >> Madam Chair.

309
00:38:22,280 --> 00:38:29,240
 >> Yes, go ahead. >> On your page 17-18, you want to just keep it as panel or do you want to change

310
00:38:29,240 --> 00:38:33,240
 it or do you want to add a preliminary panel so we know that that's what we're talking about?

311
00:38:33,240 --> 00:38:43,080
 >> That's a good idea. I'll add preliminary. >> I can take what you have here and kind of

312
00:38:43,080 --> 00:38:48,760
 put it into the ordinance so we can review what we'll officially put into that packet next time.

313
00:38:48,760 --> 00:38:55,320
 >> Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. You can, like, I'm not hearing a whole lot of

314
00:38:55,320 --> 00:39:03,480
 dissent from this. And I think it kind of -- did I hear somebody? Okay. Sorry. I'm not hearing a

315
00:39:03,480 --> 00:39:08,360
 whole lot of dissent and I think it kind of clears things up that we kind of got trapped in last

316
00:39:08,360 --> 00:39:15,480
 meeting. So yeah, we can just have you do that and it will just be like the first agenda item,

317
00:39:15,480 --> 00:39:21,400
 like the first agenda item today. Okay. So is everyone in agreement with this or does anybody

318
00:39:21,400 --> 00:39:27,400
 have more corrections or want to have more discussion about it? >> So just so that I'm clear

319
00:39:27,400 --> 00:39:32,840
 on kind of the discussion points that we had with this, we want to have that the preliminary panel

320
00:39:32,840 --> 00:39:40,200
 may consider and that the preliminary panel is the one who makes that determination so it won't go

321
00:39:40,200 --> 00:39:45,160
 to the board at a future meeting or to the chair. They'll make that decision basically and that'll

322
00:39:45,160 --> 00:39:54,920
 schedule a hearing to discuss if it's frivolous. >> I think so. I think that's kind of what I was

323
00:39:54,920 --> 00:40:02,920
 hearing. >> I'm seeing some head nods here, yes. >> Okay. It's kind of hard to see faces from here.

324
00:40:02,920 --> 00:40:08,120
 Sorry about that. But not hearing a lot of dissent. I assume it's going forward. And we could

325
00:40:08,120 --> 00:40:13,160
 discuss it again. I know I just brought this because I just came up with this morning when

326
00:40:13,160 --> 00:40:20,120
 I was preparing. So, you know, when Madison puts it in next meeting, if anybody -- you know, it's not

327
00:40:20,120 --> 00:40:24,760
 set in stone yet so we could discuss it again if anybody thinks up a reason why we should not do

328
00:40:24,760 --> 00:40:30,680
 this, which I'm open to it. I'm not trying to, you know, be a dictator here or anything. Just I

329
00:40:30,680 --> 00:40:38,440
 thought I'd have a good idea to clear this up. Okay. So and I'm going to stop sharing so I can

330
00:40:38,440 --> 00:40:43,960
 see everybody better. And Madison, I'll send you this Word document that I made and was typing in.

331
00:40:43,960 --> 00:40:49,720
 All right. Is there any more discussion on that?

332
00:40:49,720 --> 00:41:00,600
 I'm not seeing anybody move or raise their hand or talk. Okay. So we will move to agenda item.

333
00:41:02,120 --> 00:41:11,400
 Well, item 1C, BOE21-23, receive nominations and hold an election of a vice chair for the

334
00:41:11,400 --> 00:41:20,040
 board of ethics of the city of Denton. So I don't -- I don't watch all the city council meetings.

335
00:41:20,040 --> 00:41:26,440
 And so I guess I'm not completely up to date with what's going on. But for whatever reason,

336
00:41:27,320 --> 00:41:32,680
 Charlotte was not reappointed, is my understanding. So now we have an opening for vice chair.

337
00:41:32,680 --> 00:41:38,280
 Is there anything that needs to be added, Madison, before I open up for nominations for vice chair?

338
00:41:38,280 --> 00:41:48,680
 No. You have it correct. Okay. All right. So I guess I would open it up to motions or volunteers

339
00:41:48,680 --> 00:41:58,040
 for vice chair position. Nobody jump all at once.

340
00:41:58,040 --> 00:42:10,600
 There. I guess it would have to be a regular member. I would assume I could be corrected by

341
00:42:11,480 --> 00:42:25,320
 the attorney's office or Madison. Yes, it has to be a regular member. Okay. All right.

342
00:42:25,320 --> 00:42:34,600
 Madam Chair, can I see a show of hands of all here on the panel that are regular members?

343
00:42:34,600 --> 00:42:39,640
 People are going to be afraid to put their hand up.

344
00:42:41,480 --> 00:42:51,720
 Are there -- I don't want to force anybody that doesn't want to do it either.

345
00:42:51,720 --> 00:43:02,120
 Hannah? Yeah, I can do it. Okay. Is there a motion for Hannah to become vice chair?

346
00:43:02,120 --> 00:43:08,840
 So moved. Okay. Moved by Rob. Are there -- is there a second?

347
00:43:11,480 --> 00:43:24,040
 I'll second. Dustin seconds. And I'll say that so -- I mean, as being vice chair, you would just

348
00:43:24,040 --> 00:43:31,160
 conduct a meeting when I'm not there. But I'll say, like, Madison's great, and she

349
00:43:31,160 --> 00:43:35,800
 pretty much does everything you need to do. You just have to kind of read everything and be

350
00:43:35,800 --> 00:43:41,000
 prepared and be the person that talks more than everybody else and tries to keep everything on

351
00:43:41,000 --> 00:43:47,000
 topic. So it's not -- it's not too painful. I guess -- is there any discussion?

352
00:43:47,000 --> 00:44:00,120
 Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? All right. So you are now

353
00:44:00,120 --> 00:44:04,600
 the vice chair. And I'll probably meet you in person maybe next meeting. So congrats.

354
00:44:05,640 --> 00:44:13,960
 Or condolences. I don't know which. Okay. All right. So moving on from that,

355
00:44:13,960 --> 00:44:17,560
 is that all we need to do there, Madison? Does that one cover? Yes, that's good.

356
00:44:17,560 --> 00:44:25,240
 Okay. All right. So then we're going to 1D, receive a report, hold a discussion,

357
00:44:25,240 --> 00:44:32,280
 and give staff direction regarding future meeting topics. And I guess I'll just throw it to you,

358
00:44:32,280 --> 00:44:37,880
 Madison. I know we had a list of topics. I'm not sure where we are on that list. And I think

359
00:44:37,880 --> 00:44:42,920
 something -- more things have been thrown at you at the meetings, or I think I sent one to you.

360
00:44:42,920 --> 00:44:51,240
 So I'll just throw it over to you. Yes. I know that we have a topic on that list to

361
00:44:51,240 --> 00:44:58,440
 discuss that orientation for new board members. Another topic was to discuss -- try to set up some

362
00:44:58,440 --> 00:45:07,400
 procedures to talk to the press. And then you had suggested a topic, I believe it was to add

363
00:45:07,400 --> 00:45:14,280
 basically a section to the conflict of interest to prohibit people who donated to -- that that

364
00:45:14,280 --> 00:45:19,640
 was a conflict of interest. I don't remember exactly what it was off the top of my head.

365
00:45:21,240 --> 00:45:30,280
 Well, it was that the -- you know, maybe put a certain money amount if a person or organization

366
00:45:30,280 --> 00:45:35,960
 has donated, say, over $500 or whatever, it creates a conflict for the council member. That was

367
00:45:35,960 --> 00:45:41,240
 my idea. I wasn't -- I'm not totally sure. I wanted to see what other cities maybe have

368
00:45:41,240 --> 00:45:49,160
 regarding that. Okay. So -- And I haven't received any new -- sorry, I haven't received any new ones.

369
00:45:49,960 --> 00:45:56,520
 And then I guess, I mean, the conflict of interest is kind of, you know, we could go back to that.

370
00:45:56,520 --> 00:46:02,600
 We've discussed it before and never come, I guess, to a consensus.

371
00:46:02,600 --> 00:46:12,200
 So I'm thinking maybe, you know, and everybody chime in with what you think, maybe go over

372
00:46:12,200 --> 00:46:16,920
 the orientation and the talking to the press, things that we had previously voted about,

373
00:46:16,920 --> 00:46:21,800
 talking about, and then maybe put on the candidate thing, but it might be that the

374
00:46:21,800 --> 00:46:28,520
 candidate thing will have to go with conflict of interest and then maybe the next meeting have,

375
00:46:28,520 --> 00:46:33,720
 you know, maybe start with some discussions on conflict of interest and we can get into

376
00:46:33,720 --> 00:46:40,120
 current employment and maybe the candidate thing. But I kind of would like to see if that's

377
00:46:40,120 --> 00:46:46,120
 something that could just be added right now, like compare -- like see what other cities have,

378
00:46:46,120 --> 00:46:50,360
 kind of like what you've done before with other cities. And maybe they don't have anything. I

379
00:46:50,360 --> 00:46:56,840
 don't -- I honestly don't know. I'm interested, though. So that's my idea is that we go -- we do

380
00:46:56,840 --> 00:47:03,400
 those three things and then after that we might get back to discussing conflict of interest and

381
00:47:03,400 --> 00:47:09,640
 go over the other things like I just said. Any thoughts, everyone? >> That's good.

382
00:47:11,480 --> 00:47:16,840
 >> I definitely want to make sure that we take a look at the major part of this conflict of

383
00:47:16,840 --> 00:47:25,320
 interest as soon as we can, just because I think it's still too narrow. >> Yeah, I understand that.

384
00:47:25,320 --> 00:47:34,360
 I think, I don't know, part of my thought is kind of get the low-hanging fruit, because we have

385
00:47:34,360 --> 00:47:40,280
 had -- I mean, we've had at least a few that I can remember where we spent whole meetings

386
00:47:40,280 --> 00:47:45,640
 discussing conflict of interest. So, you know, maybe low-hanging fruit, then go back to it,

387
00:47:45,640 --> 00:47:51,800
 I think might be a productive use of our time. >> Well, that's fine. Can we put it in the queue,

388
00:47:51,800 --> 00:47:57,240
 at least? >> Yeah, well, yeah, that's what I'm saying. Maybe wrap up the last of the things we

389
00:47:57,240 --> 00:48:03,080
 voted on, and I'd like to maybe see -- have Madison look into what I had talked about,

390
00:48:04,600 --> 00:48:10,920
 political donations and conflict of interest, and that might have to roll over into just talking

391
00:48:10,920 --> 00:48:16,680
 about all of conflict of interest and the main part of it, like you were discussing, and maybe

392
00:48:16,680 --> 00:48:23,080
 that will be next, because I don't think there's anything else we have talked about needing to

393
00:48:23,080 --> 00:48:35,080
 change at that point. Does that sound like a plan to everybody? Not hearing. Okay. Yeah. All right.

394
00:48:35,080 --> 00:48:46,600
 Okay. Let's see. I guess that -- is that it? Is there anything else anybody needs to add or,

395
00:48:46,600 --> 00:48:52,120
 Madison, anything I forgot or from the city attorney that I forgot to talk about?

396
00:48:52,120 --> 00:48:57,720
 >> I think we're -- I think we're good. I think my one question is, now that we're back in person,

397
00:48:57,720 --> 00:49:04,200
 are we still good with this time and place, or would we like to talk about changing that?

398
00:49:04,200 --> 00:49:11,480
 >> Well, I know personally working, like, an 8 to 5 job, which I'm not exactly working this week,

399
00:49:11,480 --> 00:49:19,880
 since my kid's daycare is closed, I don't know, during the day, and Zoom was the most convenient

400
00:49:19,880 --> 00:49:26,920
 for me, but if we're going back in person, I guess the end of the day or after work is better,

401
00:49:26,920 --> 00:49:31,560
 but, you know, I don't know. I work a full-time job and have kids,

402
00:49:31,560 --> 00:49:36,040
 like, any time is really inconvenient, so I'm open to what everybody else thinks.

403
00:49:43,720 --> 00:49:50,520
 >> I mean, I guess we can just keep this 3 p.m. on Thursdays, unless there's -- oh, I'm sorry.

404
00:49:50,520 --> 00:49:53,080
 Rob, did you raise your hand? >> Oh, I was scratching my hand,

405
00:49:53,080 --> 00:49:55,560
 and I do have a question. >> Oh, okay.

406
00:49:55,560 --> 00:50:00,760
 >> We were looking at -- do we have conflict within our ability to be on

407
00:50:00,760 --> 00:50:07,400
 TV when we have the evening, we were going to try to fit in pigeonholes when we would be available,

408
00:50:07,400 --> 00:50:10,520
 or when the communication would be available, or have I missed that?

409
00:50:10,520 --> 00:50:17,000
 >> Can you say your question again? I'm sorry. >> Like, we're on -- we're being recorded right

410
00:50:17,000 --> 00:50:17,560
 now. >> Right.

411
00:50:17,560 --> 00:50:24,200
 >> I know we had talked about there were certain dates we could not have because of your conflict

412
00:50:24,200 --> 00:50:29,960
 with other prior commitments. Are we still falling into those particular --

413
00:50:29,960 --> 00:50:37,080
 >> I think we still have that issue to some extent. I do want to also mention due to the way the

414
00:50:37,080 --> 00:50:41,880
 meetings fall, the last meeting of the year will be in October, so that's something to consider,

415
00:50:41,880 --> 00:50:47,240
 because we won't have one on Thanksgiving or generally the last one in December falls right

416
00:50:47,240 --> 00:50:54,120
 around Christmas as well. And then in January, we'll kind of have a new schedule set.

417
00:50:54,120 --> 00:50:59,000
 >> Okay. Well, Madam Chair, I'm kind of like you. I think I'm kind of like you. I would prefer

418
00:50:59,000 --> 00:51:03,320
 an evening. It's easier for me for my work as well.

419
00:51:08,040 --> 00:51:17,880
 >> I wonder if this is something -- because like Rob was saying, I remember pre-pandemic,

420
00:51:17,880 --> 00:51:22,440
 it would be -- sometimes it would be hard to find a night where you could have meetings because other

421
00:51:22,440 --> 00:51:29,960
 meetings were going on. So is this something that maybe Madison can see what nights are open and

422
00:51:29,960 --> 00:51:35,880
 maybe we can use email but not, you know, open records violations of everybody discussing on

423
00:51:35,880 --> 00:51:44,200
 email, but maybe kind of like what we did with the -- when we ranked all the different topics

424
00:51:44,200 --> 00:51:49,160
 we were going to discuss, maybe ranked times and dates for meetings, I don't know, something like

425
00:51:49,160 --> 00:51:51,400
 that. >> Yes. Yeah, we can handle that.

426
00:51:51,400 --> 00:51:57,080
 >> Okay. Maybe we can do that. Because, yeah, I was thinking that, like, you know, November and

427
00:51:57,080 --> 00:52:06,200
 December are kind of hard anyway. So we might need to change it up because, I mean, that's -- yeah.

428
00:52:06,200 --> 00:52:14,840
 I guess we'll just send out emails and decide on October meeting, the time and place.

429
00:52:14,840 --> 00:52:22,120
 Unless anybody has really other strong opinions. Justin, I see your hand up.

430
00:52:22,120 --> 00:52:25,080
 >> That was also a head scratch. Sorry.

431
00:52:26,280 --> 00:52:31,640
 I'm really trying, you know, trying to be the best virtual presiding chair that I can be right

432
00:52:31,640 --> 00:52:38,440
 now and watching everybody intently. But, okay. So we'll -- Madison will get with everybody via

433
00:52:38,440 --> 00:52:43,560
 email and we'll decide on meeting times and dates to see if we want to change it since

434
00:52:43,560 --> 00:52:47,640
 October would be the last meeting of the year. And is there anything else?

435
00:52:47,640 --> 00:52:55,960
 All right. Well, I thank everybody for coming. You know, apologize for being virtual.

436
00:52:57,240 --> 00:53:03,480
 And it's 3.53. And we will adjourn. Thank you.

437
00:53:03,480 --> 00:53:04,040
 >> Thank you.

438
00:53:04,040 --> 00:53:04,600
 >> Thank you.

439
00:53:04,600 --> 00:53:06,040
 >> Thank you.