>> Okay. Are we ready to start? All right. So it's 3 p.m. We're starting the regularly
scheduled Board of Ethics meeting. I, the Chair, Laura Tomlin, am doing it via Zoom.
I had an exposure in my household and didn't want to be out. So I think first we need to
determine who's there. And everybody's really small to me. And I don't want to, like, misidentify
anybody. So I guess, like, Madison, do you want to, like, say who's here?
>> Sure. Patricia Rinkie is here. Rob Rayner is here. Amanda Brown is the City Attorney's
Office representative. Dustin is here. Ron is here. Annette is here. And I believe you're
Hannah. Yes. Our newest member. One of our newer members.
>> Okay. All right. Well, welcome, Hannah. And those are Hannah and the person from the
City Attorney's Office who I couldn't really make out. Okay. All right. So we have a quorum,
right? Do we need to discuss anybody that's absent, Madison?
>> Andrea is absent. And Deborah is absent. And we also have our alternative member, Dustin,
or sorry, David, Chuck is here. But he's not participating.
>> Okay. Thank you for putting that kind of on the record for the minutes for next week.
I'm going to go ahead and share the agenda. First up, BOE 21-021, consider approval of
the minutes for June 24th, 2021. I did not see any issues with those minutes. Just going
through the recent trainings did, like, be reappointed to the board. I think it said you're
supposed to say when people are absent and it's excused. Is that right, Madison?
>> I believe so, yes. >> Okay. So absent members were Deborah Cosmo,
Rob Rainer, Robert Swanbeck, but I guess I'm not exactly sure what we're supposed to do
because I don't know if they're excused or not. I think that's the City Attorney that
determined that. Am I wrong? >> Chair Tomlin, I believe we need to come
back with these minutes, actually, because the absences are incorrect because those alternate
members were not called for that meeting. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. That's right. All right.
So do you just want to, like, discuss what's wrong or do you want to just wait for the
next meeting? >> I think we should just postpone this item
and we'll approve it next meeting. >> Okay. Let's just, yeah, postpone that item,
like Madison says, and we can -- >> Or we could just approve it as amended
and exclude those people from the absence line. >> Okay. All right. So I guess there
was nobody absent? >> Correct.
>> Okay. All right. So I guess I would ask for a motion to amend the minutes to take
out the line about absences because it's incorrect. >> I so move.
>> And I second. >> All right. So I think that was Dawn and
Annetta. Dawn's motion, Annetta, seconded. And so for minutes as amended, I guess I'll
call a vote to see who -- let's see everybody better. I call a vote to amend the minutes.
All in favor say aye. >> Aye.
>> All opposed? None opposed? So motion passes and the minutes are approved as amended without
the line about absences. Okay. And going to agenda item 1B, BOE 21-022,
give a report, hold a discussion and take necessary action regarding potential recommendations
to the ordinance, the ethics ordinance. I'm going to bring up that agenda sheet. All right.
So we talked the last meeting about minor adjustments to the ethics ordinance and the
rules of procedure. What I have was on page 16 of the ordinance, there was a flash or
at it, whenever possible was deleted on page 16. And then 19, there was a revision about
filing a complaint and a hearing within 30 days. Do we need -- does the board feel we
need to like go over those more or did everybody review that and think it was -- it conformed
it with what we had discussed the last meeting? All right. I'm not hearing anybody and I don't
think there's a L.A. So I think we'll just -- we won't need to discuss those again. And
then on the rules of procedure, I have that on page 7, the language about not serving
on a preliminary panel if a complaint is filed against a person that you've previously filed
-- a board member previously filed a complaint against was added. And then we talked -- as
we talked about complaints, also on page 7, when there's hyperlinks and attachment complaints,
the preliminary panel can consider that. And then we had added that a panel can consider
any ethics provision if the panel determines that what is in the complaint actually falls
under different sections of ethics provision. And I think that was -- that was everything
I think we talked about. As far as that, are there any discussion or comments about those
changes on the rules of procedure? All right. I think everybody agrees then. Nobody is saying
that they don't. So we'll move on from there, too. Okay. And so -- sorry about that. Number
2 is going to -- number 2 on the agenda information sheet. Should it be clarified that the termination
of an employment relationship from a business entity results in a conflict of interest no
longer being considered current under section 2-273A of the ethics ordinance? And I think
Madison has included in our packet that an advisory board has previously found that when
the employment isn't current, there's not a conflict of interest. I guess do you have
anything else to add about that, Madison? As far as research, it was just the advisory
opinion, right? Yeah. We just had the advisory opinion. And this was just to see if the board
wanted to formalize that somehow in the ordinance. Okay. All right. So -- stop the screen so
I can see everybody a little bigger. I guess my opinion is that we kind of already put
an advisory opinion out. And I think, you know, from the ordinance, it's a logical conclusion
that when the employment is over, there's not a conflict. But I think we're still covered
if you're talking about, say, a corporate employee that's still on the board for a business
or still owns stock, a certain amount of stock in the business, they still be covered under
the conflict of interest. So I guess I'll open that up for discussion if anybody has
any opinions about whether it should be -- whether the ordinance should be amended to include
that or if we just keep it as is. All right. Do you think everybody kind of agree to just
keep it as is, then? Yeah. I think all the items in the ordinance are current tense.
So I think the only reason that -- the only thing that might need to be changed is 3B,
the receipt of more than $600 in gross annual income from a business entity, since that
might be in a calendar year. So if that changes during the calendar year, that conflict of
interest no longer exists because they're no longer under the employment. Everything
else would be current tense. So current ownership of fair market value of a business entity.
I don't think any of the other ones would apply. Wouldn't that conflict with the pending
definition, which makes it so confusing, the pending matter thing? I mean, I agree with
what Dustin's saying, but that pending matter part really confuses it. As far as the pending
-- okay. So up in A1. Well, I think the pending matter is referring to whatever the City Council
is discussing. And then it's if you have one of A3 while there's a pending matter with
the City Council. But I guess how -- You have to look at the glossary to understand
what pending matter means because every time I look back at it, it's not what I think it's
supposed to be. And I don't have the glossary with me.
Okay. Yeah. Page 7 defines pending matter as an application seeking approval of a permit
or other form of unauthorized required -- authorization required by the City, State, or Federal law
a proposal to enter into a contract arrangement with the City for the provision of goods,
services, real property, or other things of value, a case involving the City that is or
anticipated to be before a civil, criminal, or administrative tribunal. But I guess we
need to, you know, discuss whether in 3B there's a way -- whether we want to do this and how
-- if there would be a way to word it as far as like would we want to put like receipt
of more than $600 in growth annual income from business entity as evidenced by W2-1099K1
or similar tax forms and current employment? Or do you -- I mean, because it might be that
they envision that, you know, in a calendar year, you're going to be -- you know, you're
going to be, I guess, conflicted for the whole year which may conflict with what we had -- what
had -- we had decided in the advisory opinion. Yeah, that might be covered under Item 2,
the last sentence of Item 2. Disclosures under the subsection shall be for the time period
including the previous calendar year and up to the date where the conflicting interest
arises before the city official. So I guess is that meaning that if you had
-- if you made money in the previous year, the previous calendar year, are you still
conflicted the next year? But that's kind of the problem with this whole
conflict of interest definition is it's so narrow and then when you look back at the
glossary, it gets even more confusing. I definitely agree with what he's talking about but it's
hard to -- to nail it down when it starts out so narrow.
Madam Chair, is it the calendar year that is creating the angst that we have in that
somebody -- let's say a conflict occurs in March versus November, the calendar year I
look at is January, December of that year. So I mean, is that what we're -- is that the
issue that we're looking at or? Well, I think the advisory opinion was based
on a council member that had a -- had a spouse that was employed by UNT and at the termination
of their employment, they asked the board if they currently had a conflict of interest
because their spouse was no longer employed. Is that right, Madison?
That's correct. And I think part of the question was in -- in what you mentioned, 3B, it says
as evidenced by a W2. So their W2 for that year would have had more gross -- more than
$600. So would they be conflicted for the rest of that calendar year basically based
on their W2? Does that make sense? Yeah. Okay. Great. So and then the advisory opinion
said no, basically, that you would not be conflicted because it's no longer a current
conflict of interest because your employment relationship has been terminated.
So I guess that kind of conflicts if you read, you know, 3B with -- with 2. I mean, that's
saying that if you have a W2 from the previous calendar year, you're still conflicted that
next year. Am I right? That's how I would read it, but. Yeah. I agree.
So I guess we need to talk about whether we would, you know, do we want to continue with
the ordinance as is and -- or go with what we decided during the advisory -- in the advisory
opinion because it appears they can flick now that we're like kind of discussing it here in depth.
I think the way it was written is fine. The problem is with the conflict of interest definition,
not with what we were thinking about, which brings up something I wanted to ask about
later on, but it's not for this agenda item. Yeah, and I guess I would say this agenda
item -- trying to find it. So this is about, you know, the current part of 2-273. I don't
know. I think it's -- if we're going to get into a discussion of changing the conflict
of interest, you know, I don't think, you know, Madison hasn't prepared like other,
you know, other ordinances for us, and, you know, I don't know. In my preparation of this,
I didn't really prepare for changing the conflict of interest. So I don't know if that's a discussion
we need to have like today during this meeting. So I mean, we could move on to frivolous and
kind of package that current part with discussing conflict of interest at a later meeting. Or
if -- what's that? That sounds like a good plan. Yeah. Can I just make sure I'm clear
on what we -- Yes, Madison. Okay. So on the agenda information sheet, item 2, we've decided
just to leave the ordinance as it is, correct? Yeah, I think we'll leave it as is, but we'll
maybe -- maybe you could make note that this is something we should discuss when we have
a bigger discussion about conflict of interest. I think as of right now, though, we have that
advisory opinion out there, and I think that there is a defense in the ordinance if somebody
-- if a councilperson relies on the advisory opinion. So right now, I think somebody could
rely on the advisory opinion or go with the ethics ordinance, and I think either way,
you're not going to have a violation because it's kind of both out there. But I think it
may be something we can clear up when we talk about conflict of interest more, it sounds
like, unless anybody has an idea of what we can do without having that larger discussion.
No, I think we'll have to post separately for the larger conflict of interest discussion.
Okay. All right. I do have one more question. On the item number 1, that was to add that
language that a board member won't be assigned to a preliminary assessment if they've submitted
an ethics complaint against the city official unless a majority of board members have submitted
a complaint as well. And that is approved? Is that correct?
I believe so. Nobody spoke up against it. So I would say, yeah, that's -- I think that
is approved. Great. Okay. Thank you.
All right. Okay. We'll move -- I guess we'll go ahead and move forward to the third item
on the agenda information sheet, going back to our discussion of whether -- I guess how
an ethics complaint can be submitted for like a frivolous hearing. Last meeting, we discussed
-- I remember -- well, we discussed this. And Madison had prepared San Antonio and Dallas
and Richardson. I believe we got copies of those. And Madison, I think -- did you look
at the model code since the last meeting? I don't think we talked about -- I think that
that's maybe something that we asked of you. Yes, the model code information is new since
the previous meeting. Okay. Did you want to kind of talk about that
a little? Basically, I looked at the model code, and
it said -- basically said that the ethics commission is required to determine if a received
ethics complaint alleges an action or an inaction that if the allegations are true might constitute
a violation of the code, which is similar kind of to our preliminary assessment process.
And then under the model code, the respondent is only notified if the ethics complaint has
been accepted or is considered to be actionable by the ethics commission. So they wouldn't
have a -- they wouldn't have an ability to respond to a complaint prior to that. But
they do have a response to file -- they do have a -- in the model code, they have the
opportunity to respond after the complaint has been accepted.
Okay. So I guess it's -- so in our ordinance, on page 3, frivolous complaint is defined
as a foreign complaint that is groundless and brought in bad faith or groundless and
brought for the purpose of harassment. And then it's on page 18, one of the purposes
for a hearing is a frivolous complaint. And then the only time it's frivolous is in the
ethics ordinance other than that is on, I think, page 20. Yeah. Let's see, 18. I might
have the numbers off. I think I was looking at -- I wasn't looking at the one online.
I think I was looking at a previous version. Well, anyway, I feel like last meeting we
kind of were like just going in circles. I have an idea that I wanted to present for
how to -- how to deal with this issue. And my idea would be to -- if you go to section
2-280(c)(2) of the code, okay. All right. So 2-280(c)(2), so the panel makes the
determination of something being actual baseless. So my idea would be the -- under (c)(2) baseless,
the allegation and evidence contained in the complaint, if true, would not constitute a
violation of this article. I would suggest we add to the end of that, if a complaint
is found baseless, the panel either shall or may consider if the complaint should be
submitted for a frivolity hearing. And then I think we could -- we could have kind of
three options there of either if the preliminary panel thinks it's frivolous, take it straight
to a hearing, or the preliminary panel could take it to the chair. And not that I, like,
want extra power, but there are other places in the code where a chair makes a unilateral
decision about something. Or the third option would be to just bring it to the next regular
board meeting and take a vote of whether it should be frivolous. And I think that language
could be added. And then another place in 2-282(c) under disposition of the complaint.
That's where you're seeing, like, where it currently talks about frivolous in the order.
And I would say under -- where is it? Yeah, under (c). Between 1 and 2, where it says
it's a violation of the article -- of this article, a person submit a frivolous complaint.
And then before the supermajority section that talks about when you have the actual hearing,
but add a new number 2 that says hearing, a hearing shall be scheduled on frivolity if
either the preliminary panel, the chair, or the majority of the board determine the complaint
shall be considered for frivolity. So, anyway, that was my idea as -- after we had talked
about this last meeting is we could just -- because I think the other ideas were the respondent
could ask for us to look into whether it's frivolous. But I kind of think if we did that,
like, they're going to ask for it every time. So it might be better just to -- after a preliminary
panel says this is baseless to, you know, have a quick vote or discussion if it's more
of a challenge of whether it should go to a frivolous hearing. And then we'd either just
automatically go to a frivolous hearing or maybe go to the chair to decide if there should
be one or go to the board at large. So, anyway, that's my idea after our last discussion,
but I'm open to criticism of that or saying no or whatever you guys -- whatever we think.
Annette? I'd like to know how that's different from the model code because I really did like
the model code because it sounds like the frivolity is figured out right away and it
just never goes anywhere. Is that -- did I mishear that? For what I just said or for the
model code? For the model code. Well, I think in the model code it's never even -- the model code
doesn't discuss frivolous. Is that right, Madison? Yeah, that's correct. The model code, as far as I
could tell, doesn't really have the concept of frivolous the way that we do. And part of that
is because the respondent isn't notified of a complaint until it's been determined that
it's actionable. So they're not even aware of it when it's at the preliminary assessment stage.
And I would say, you know, it's the model code and so they keep it quiet, but in the real world,
you know, when we first -- when I was first on this board, it's like the DRC got copies of every
complaint and that's, I think, what prompted us to want to send the respondent a copy of the
complaint as soon as it happens because, I mean, it'd be great if it never got out that there was
a complaint against somebody like in the model code, but I feel like in the real world, like,
it does get out because it's happened before. So unfortunately, I think that's where we are on that.
>> Madam Chair? >> Yes.
>> A question on the three options as to vote by the committee or the chair or two-thirds of the
majority. Are any of those weighted? Is there one that has precedence over the others?
>> Oh, well, okay. So when I just proposed that, I was thinking we decide on one and I don't know
which one's better. I would kind of, you know, for -- I mean, if it went automatically through a
frivolous hearing, you know, maybe if it goes through the chair or through a board vote first,
then you'll have less hearings that maybe are unnecessary, but I don't know. If the panel
thinks it's frivolous, it might be worth it to just, you know, have the hearing at that point.
So, yeah, I don't know. It was just the three ideas I came up with, which I think I --
this is just the language that I came up with. And like I said, I don't know. I was just trying to
think of some way -- because like I said, I feel like at the last meeting, we were just kind of
spinning our wheels, so I was trying to think of some way where we could have the panel -- a
preliminary panel, you know, decide if it's frivolous. Because right now, I think we talked
about it at the last meeting, if I remember correctly. It's been a few months. Just like
right now, there's really no procedure for it to go to frivolous. But anyway, I tangent off your
question, but no, I don't think there's one that's better. Just kind of whatever -- whatever we all
decide. If we wanted to go through it with it -- if we wanted to use this language, we don't have to.
>> Madam Chair, if I could just kind of speak a little bit to Rob's question.
>> Go for it. >> The rules of procedure are kind of the only place that have a mention of
how to determine something's frivolous as far as the actual procedure that's written.
And they say that the panel -- the preliminary assessment panel can recommend that it be
considered frivolous first. It doesn't really -- it doesn't really specify, once they recommend that,
how that gets handled. So I think to Rob's question, that might set a precedent for the panel
deciding or the panel making that recommendation and it going to the chair or the board. So I don't
know if that -- I don't know if that was helpful. >> Madam Chair. >> Yes, Rob, I believe. >> Thank
you. That dovetailed well. I think the preliminary panel, I mean, they're right there. They've got it
all -- they would, I think, be able to make the decision. But also, isn't there an appeals process,
too, if necessary, for that person? So we've got preliminary panel making the decision. Somebody
doesn't like it. They could still appeal it. >> That's correct. >> So I think that would cut
down on the time frames and the resources that we have if we -- I personally like the preliminary
panel knowing that we haven't left them on an island. They can appeal it if they wish. Thank you.
>> That's a good point. So we could reward it that if the complaint is found faceless to the panel,
and I put shall or may, but, you know, we might -- I don't know. We can make it where they have to
every time or it's up to that panel. Consider if the complaint should be submitted to, you know,
submitted to a hearing. >> I like the idea of more choices and more flexibility in the language so
that we can use our own judgment for each case as it comes up. >> As in leaving the may? >>
Like the shall or may, and then you said there are three options. You don't have to prioritize
one option over the other just to keep it more flexible. >> Well, I guess -- okay. So I guess
you're saying, like, have the preliminary panel, like, they could decide to send it to the chair
or the board to decide if there's a hearing or they could decide themselves that it should go
to a hearing? Is that what you're saying? >> Well, I'm not sure if I'm understanding
it correctly, but I was just thinking the more flexible language would be better for the board
to be able to, you know, look at what the actual situation is and then, you know, decide which of
the choices are the best choices to proceed. But I thought you were saying there were going to be
three choices included in the language. >> Oh, no. I was just thinking, like,
if we wanted to add that the preliminary panel decides whether there's a frivolous hearing,
we could either make it to where that panel says, yes, it needs to go to a hearing or we could make
it to where the panel says, like, brings it to the chair, hey, we think this should go to a hearing
and the chair makes the final decision or they bring it to the board, like, at the next regular
scheduled meeting and, like, one of the agenda items is should we have a frivolity hearing on this?
But I think Rob had a lot of good points that those three people on the panel are going to be
the people best situated to decide if there should be a frivolous hearing. So, yeah, I guess I wasn't
saying -- my idea was, like, we picked one of those. >> I see. Okay. >> Yeah.
>> So, I like your ideas, Rob. That was good.
Any -- what does everybody else think about, you know, whether we should add wording about
the preliminary panel determining whether a complaint is frivolous as part of their
preliminary assessment? >> I agree. I think that's a good solution.
>> Do we need to vote on it? >> Yeah. Well, I guess I was just -- it's hard to -- let me get this.
I'm going to stop sharing so I can see everybody better. I mean, if you all like the language,
I could -- I mean, I guess -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Madison, right now we kind of have
several corrections that we want to eventually bring to City Council. And so we could -- if we're
in agreement, we could just kind of add it to that. And then I think once we have them all,
we could take a vote that we're going to take all those corrections to City Council. Is that
what we decided last time, or do I have that wrong, Madison? >> Yeah, that's correct. So whenever
you're ready, we'll take all the changes that you've directed me to include in that kind of
packet. You'll take a vote on that, and we'll take it to City Council. >> So I guess what I would be
proposing is -- let me see the -- all right. I hope you all aren't hearing my three and four-year-old
screaming right now. Sorry if you are. Okay. So what I propose is that under 2-280C2, after the --
after -- once a preliminary panel has found that a complaint is baseless, we would ask -- add a
second sentence that if a complaint is found baseless, the panel may consider if the complaint
should be submitted to a hearing. And I would say, like, based on what we were talking about, maybe
just keep it may instead of shall. So it's just up to that preliminary panel to decide whether they
need to discuss it. And they can if they choose. Because I think this all came about with that --
the last complaint we had, and the preliminary panel was unsure whether they could look at the
video and unsure whether they could talk about frivolous, if I'm remembering things correctly.
So that would just give clear guidance that a preliminary panel can discuss it at the
preliminary hearing. And then they can submit it to a hearing. And like Rob said, if the person
filing the complaint can then appeal what the preliminary panel has said, so there's a way for
them to appeal that decision. But then also if they don't, I guess it could go to a hearing for
frivolous if the panel chooses. And then the second thing I would add is -- I put page 20 of
the ethics ordinance, but what section is that? Hold on. Section 2-282c. Between subsections one
and two, add hearing. A hearing shall be scheduled on frivolity if the, I guess, preliminary panel
[PAUSE]
determines the complaint should be considered frivolity. So anyway, that's my idea. So please
speak up if there's things you think need to be changed or if you don't agree or if we're all in
agreement, you know, we can just add these to the other revisions -- list of revisions we have for
the ordinance. >> Madam Chair.
>> Yes, go ahead. >> On your page 17-18, you want to just keep it as panel or do you want to change
it or do you want to add a preliminary panel so we know that that's what we're talking about?
>> That's a good idea. I'll add preliminary. >> I can take what you have here and kind of
put it into the ordinance so we can review what we'll officially put into that packet next time.
>> Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. You can, like, I'm not hearing a whole lot of
dissent from this. And I think it kind of -- did I hear somebody? Okay. Sorry. I'm not hearing a
whole lot of dissent and I think it kind of clears things up that we kind of got trapped in last
meeting. So yeah, we can just have you do that and it will just be like the first agenda item,
like the first agenda item today. Okay. So is everyone in agreement with this or does anybody
have more corrections or want to have more discussion about it? >> So just so that I'm clear
on kind of the discussion points that we had with this, we want to have that the preliminary panel
may consider and that the preliminary panel is the one who makes that determination so it won't go
to the board at a future meeting or to the chair. They'll make that decision basically and that'll
schedule a hearing to discuss if it's frivolous. >> I think so. I think that's kind of what I was
hearing. >> I'm seeing some head nods here, yes. >> Okay. It's kind of hard to see faces from here.
Sorry about that. But not hearing a lot of dissent. I assume it's going forward. And we could
discuss it again. I know I just brought this because I just came up with this morning when
I was preparing. So, you know, when Madison puts it in next meeting, if anybody -- you know, it's not
set in stone yet so we could discuss it again if anybody thinks up a reason why we should not do
this, which I'm open to it. I'm not trying to, you know, be a dictator here or anything. Just I
thought I'd have a good idea to clear this up. Okay. So and I'm going to stop sharing so I can
see everybody better. And Madison, I'll send you this Word document that I made and was typing in.
All right. Is there any more discussion on that?
I'm not seeing anybody move or raise their hand or talk. Okay. So we will move to agenda item.
Well, item 1C, BOE21-23, receive nominations and hold an election of a vice chair for the
board of ethics of the city of Denton. So I don't -- I don't watch all the city council meetings.
And so I guess I'm not completely up to date with what's going on. But for whatever reason,
Charlotte was not reappointed, is my understanding. So now we have an opening for vice chair.
Is there anything that needs to be added, Madison, before I open up for nominations for vice chair?
No. You have it correct. Okay. All right. So I guess I would open it up to motions or volunteers
for vice chair position. Nobody jump all at once.
There. I guess it would have to be a regular member. I would assume I could be corrected by
the attorney's office or Madison. Yes, it has to be a regular member. Okay. All right.
Madam Chair, can I see a show of hands of all here on the panel that are regular members?
People are going to be afraid to put their hand up.
Are there -- I don't want to force anybody that doesn't want to do it either.
Hannah? Yeah, I can do it. Okay. Is there a motion for Hannah to become vice chair?
So moved. Okay. Moved by Rob. Are there -- is there a second?
I'll second. Dustin seconds. And I'll say that so -- I mean, as being vice chair, you would just
conduct a meeting when I'm not there. But I'll say, like, Madison's great, and she
pretty much does everything you need to do. You just have to kind of read everything and be
prepared and be the person that talks more than everybody else and tries to keep everything on
topic. So it's not -- it's not too painful. I guess -- is there any discussion?
Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? All right. So you are now
the vice chair. And I'll probably meet you in person maybe next meeting. So congrats.
Or condolences. I don't know which. Okay. All right. So moving on from that,
is that all we need to do there, Madison? Does that one cover? Yes, that's good.
Okay. All right. So then we're going to 1D, receive a report, hold a discussion,
and give staff direction regarding future meeting topics. And I guess I'll just throw it to you,
Madison. I know we had a list of topics. I'm not sure where we are on that list. And I think
something -- more things have been thrown at you at the meetings, or I think I sent one to you.
So I'll just throw it over to you. Yes. I know that we have a topic on that list to
discuss that orientation for new board members. Another topic was to discuss -- try to set up some
procedures to talk to the press. And then you had suggested a topic, I believe it was to add
basically a section to the conflict of interest to prohibit people who donated to -- that that
was a conflict of interest. I don't remember exactly what it was off the top of my head.
Well, it was that the -- you know, maybe put a certain money amount if a person or organization
has donated, say, over $500 or whatever, it creates a conflict for the council member. That was
my idea. I wasn't -- I'm not totally sure. I wanted to see what other cities maybe have
regarding that. Okay. So -- And I haven't received any new -- sorry, I haven't received any new ones.
And then I guess, I mean, the conflict of interest is kind of, you know, we could go back to that.
We've discussed it before and never come, I guess, to a consensus.
So I'm thinking maybe, you know, and everybody chime in with what you think, maybe go over
the orientation and the talking to the press, things that we had previously voted about,
talking about, and then maybe put on the candidate thing, but it might be that the
candidate thing will have to go with conflict of interest and then maybe the next meeting have,
you know, maybe start with some discussions on conflict of interest and we can get into
current employment and maybe the candidate thing. But I kind of would like to see if that's
something that could just be added right now, like compare -- like see what other cities have,
kind of like what you've done before with other cities. And maybe they don't have anything. I
don't -- I honestly don't know. I'm interested, though. So that's my idea is that we go -- we do
those three things and then after that we might get back to discussing conflict of interest and
go over the other things like I just said. Any thoughts, everyone? >> That's good.
>> I definitely want to make sure that we take a look at the major part of this conflict of
interest as soon as we can, just because I think it's still too narrow. >> Yeah, I understand that.
I think, I don't know, part of my thought is kind of get the low-hanging fruit, because we have
had -- I mean, we've had at least a few that I can remember where we spent whole meetings
discussing conflict of interest. So, you know, maybe low-hanging fruit, then go back to it,
I think might be a productive use of our time. >> Well, that's fine. Can we put it in the queue,
at least? >> Yeah, well, yeah, that's what I'm saying. Maybe wrap up the last of the things we
voted on, and I'd like to maybe see -- have Madison look into what I had talked about,
political donations and conflict of interest, and that might have to roll over into just talking
about all of conflict of interest and the main part of it, like you were discussing, and maybe
that will be next, because I don't think there's anything else we have talked about needing to
change at that point. Does that sound like a plan to everybody? Not hearing. Okay. Yeah. All right.
Okay. Let's see. I guess that -- is that it? Is there anything else anybody needs to add or,
Madison, anything I forgot or from the city attorney that I forgot to talk about?
>> I think we're -- I think we're good. I think my one question is, now that we're back in person,
are we still good with this time and place, or would we like to talk about changing that?
>> Well, I know personally working, like, an 8 to 5 job, which I'm not exactly working this week,
since my kid's daycare is closed, I don't know, during the day, and Zoom was the most convenient
for me, but if we're going back in person, I guess the end of the day or after work is better,
but, you know, I don't know. I work a full-time job and have kids,
like, any time is really inconvenient, so I'm open to what everybody else thinks.
>> I mean, I guess we can just keep this 3 p.m. on Thursdays, unless there's -- oh, I'm sorry.
Rob, did you raise your hand? >> Oh, I was scratching my hand,
and I do have a question. >> Oh, okay.
>> We were looking at -- do we have conflict within our ability to be on
TV when we have the evening, we were going to try to fit in pigeonholes when we would be available,
or when the communication would be available, or have I missed that?
>> Can you say your question again? I'm sorry. >> Like, we're on -- we're being recorded right
now. >> Right.
>> I know we had talked about there were certain dates we could not have because of your conflict
with other prior commitments. Are we still falling into those particular --
>> I think we still have that issue to some extent. I do want to also mention due to the way the
meetings fall, the last meeting of the year will be in October, so that's something to consider,
because we won't have one on Thanksgiving or generally the last one in December falls right
around Christmas as well. And then in January, we'll kind of have a new schedule set.
>> Okay. Well, Madam Chair, I'm kind of like you. I think I'm kind of like you. I would prefer
an evening. It's easier for me for my work as well.
>> I wonder if this is something -- because like Rob was saying, I remember pre-pandemic,
it would be -- sometimes it would be hard to find a night where you could have meetings because other
meetings were going on. So is this something that maybe Madison can see what nights are open and
maybe we can use email but not, you know, open records violations of everybody discussing on
email, but maybe kind of like what we did with the -- when we ranked all the different topics
we were going to discuss, maybe ranked times and dates for meetings, I don't know, something like
that. >> Yes. Yeah, we can handle that.
>> Okay. Maybe we can do that. Because, yeah, I was thinking that, like, you know, November and
December are kind of hard anyway. So we might need to change it up because, I mean, that's -- yeah.
I guess we'll just send out emails and decide on October meeting, the time and place.
Unless anybody has really other strong opinions. Justin, I see your hand up.
>> That was also a head scratch. Sorry.
I'm really trying, you know, trying to be the best virtual presiding chair that I can be right
now and watching everybody intently. But, okay. So we'll -- Madison will get with everybody via
email and we'll decide on meeting times and dates to see if we want to change it since
October would be the last meeting of the year. And is there anything else?
All right. Well, I thank everybody for coming. You know, apologize for being virtual.
And it's 3.53. And we will adjourn. Thank you.
>> Thank you.