WEBVTT 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 00:00:07.660 --> 00:00:16.440 scheduled Board of Ethics meeting. I, the Chair, Laura Tomlin, am doing it via Zoom. 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 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 00:00:31.840 --> 00:00:38.680 anybody. So I guess, like, Madison, do you want to, like, say who's here? 00:00:38.680 --> 00:00:48.720 >> Sure. Patricia Rinkie is here. Rob Rayner is here. Amanda Brown is the City Attorney's 00:00:48.720 --> 00:00:57.440 Office representative. Dustin is here. Ron is here. Annette is here. And I believe you're 00:00:57.440 --> 00:01:02.720 Hannah. Yes. Our newest member. One of our newer members. 00:01:02.720 --> 00:01:08.600 >> Okay. All right. Well, welcome, Hannah. And those are Hannah and the person from the 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, 00:01:15.960 --> 00:01:22.000 right? Do we need to discuss anybody that's absent, Madison? 00:01:22.000 --> 00:01:30.320 >> Andrea is absent. And Deborah is absent. And we also have our alternative member, Dustin, 00:01:30.320 --> 00:01:34.320 or sorry, David, Chuck is here. But he's not participating. 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. 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 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 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 00:02:09.120 --> 00:02:18.280 supposed to say when people are absent and it's excused. Is that right, Madison? 00:02:18.280 --> 00:02:25.960 >> I believe so, yes. >> Okay. So absent members were Deborah Cosmo, 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 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 00:02:38.000 --> 00:02:45.480 determined that. Am I wrong? >> Chair Tomlin, I believe we need to come 00:02:45.480 --> 00:02:50.280 back with these minutes, actually, because the absences are incorrect because those alternate 00:02:50.280 --> 00:02:55.200 members were not called for that meeting. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. That's right. All right. 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 00:03:01.280 --> 00:03:05.360 next meeting? >> I think we should just postpone this item 00:03:05.360 --> 00:03:10.400 and we'll approve it next meeting. >> Okay. Let's just, yeah, postpone that item, 00:03:10.400 --> 00:03:16.960 like Madison says, and we can -- >> Or we could just approve it as amended 00:03:16.960 --> 00:03:21.720 and exclude those people from the absence line. >> Okay. All right. So I guess there 00:03:21.720 --> 00:03:23.920 was nobody absent? >> Correct. 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 00:03:32.720 --> 00:03:38.280 out the line about absences because it's incorrect. >> I so move. 00:03:38.280 --> 00:03:43.520 >> And I second. >> All right. So I think that was Dawn and 00:03:43.520 --> 00:03:53.600 Annetta. Dawn's motion, Annetta, seconded. And so for minutes as amended, I guess I'll 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. 00:04:01.400 --> 00:04:03.720 All in favor say aye. >> Aye. 00:04:03.720 --> 00:04:11.840 >> All opposed? None opposed? So motion passes and the minutes are approved as amended without 00:04:11.840 --> 00:04:27.600 the line about absences. Okay. And going to agenda item 1B, BOE 21-022, 00:04:27.600 --> 00:04:32.880 give a report, hold a discussion and take necessary action regarding potential recommendations 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. 00:04:44.560 --> 00:04:52.520 So we talked the last meeting about minor adjustments to the ethics ordinance and the 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:05:53.720 --> 00:06:00.240 -- a board member previously filed a complaint against was added. And then we talked -- as 00:06:00.240 --> 00:06:06.760 we talked about complaints, also on page 7, when there's hyperlinks and attachment complaints, 00:06:06.760 --> 00:06:15.000 the preliminary panel can consider that. And then we had added that a panel can consider 00:06:15.000 --> 00:06:21.560 any ethics provision if the panel determines that what is in the complaint actually falls 00:06:21.560 --> 00:06:29.840 under different sections of ethics provision. And I think that was -- that was everything 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 00:06:35.440 --> 00:06:49.220 changes on the rules of procedure? All right. I think everybody agrees then. Nobody is saying 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 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 00:07:13.400 --> 00:07:17.920 of an employment relationship from a business entity results in a conflict of interest no 00:07:17.920 --> 00:07:26.000 longer being considered current under section 2-273A of the ethics ordinance? And I think 00:07:26.000 --> 00:07:34.200 Madison has included in our packet that an advisory board has previously found that when 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 00:07:39.640 --> 00:07:44.120 anything else to add about that, Madison? As far as research, it was just the advisory 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 00:07:50.360 --> 00:07:56.840 wanted to formalize that somehow in the ordinance. Okay. All right. So -- stop the screen so 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:08:30.360 --> 00:08:35.560 any opinions about whether it should be -- whether the ordinance should be amended to include 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 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. 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, 00:09:12.720 --> 00:09:17.800 the receipt of more than $600 in gross annual income from a business entity, since that 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 00:09:25.840 --> 00:09:33.400 interest no longer exists because they're no longer under the employment. Everything 00:09:33.400 --> 00:09:41.120 else would be current tense. So current ownership of fair market value of a business entity. 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 00:09:52.440 --> 00:10:02.040 definition, which makes it so confusing, the pending matter thing? I mean, I agree with 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 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 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 00:10:41.240 --> 00:10:52.280 the City Council. But I guess how -- You have to look at the glossary to understand 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 00:10:58.000 --> 00:11:03.120 supposed to be. And I don't have the glossary with me. 00:11:03.120 --> 00:11:13.560 Okay. Yeah. Page 7 defines pending matter as an application seeking approval of a permit 00:11:13.560 --> 00:11:19.600 or other form of unauthorized required -- authorization required by the City, State, or Federal law 00:11:19.600 --> 00:11:24.720 a proposal to enter into a contract arrangement with the City for the provision of goods, 00:11:24.720 --> 00:11:29.960 services, real property, or other things of value, a case involving the City that is or 00:11:29.960 --> 00:11:51.120 anticipated to be before a civil, criminal, or administrative tribunal. But I guess we 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 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 00:12:06.840 --> 00:12:13.760 of more than $600 in growth annual income from business entity as evidenced by W2-1099K1 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 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 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 00:12:35.440 --> 00:12:42.240 had -- we had decided in the advisory opinion. Yeah, that might be covered under Item 2, 00:12:42.240 --> 00:12:48.840 the last sentence of Item 2. Disclosures under the subsection shall be for the time period 00:12:48.840 --> 00:12:53.360 including the previous calendar year and up to the date where the conflicting interest 00:12:53.360 --> 00:13:10.680 arises before the city official. So I guess is that meaning that if you had 00:13:10.680 --> 00:13:18.440 -- if you made money in the previous year, the previous calendar year, are you still 00:13:18.440 --> 00:13:26.560 conflicted the next year? But that's kind of the problem with this whole 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 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 00:13:41.560 --> 00:13:49.880 hard to -- to nail it down when it starts out so narrow. 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 00:13:56.360 --> 00:14:05.400 somebody -- let's say a conflict occurs in March versus November, the calendar year I 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 00:14:11.660 --> 00:14:16.980 issue that we're looking at or? Well, I think the advisory opinion was based 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 00:14:26.080 --> 00:14:30.980 of their employment, they asked the board if they currently had a conflict of interest 00:14:30.980 --> 00:14:36.240 because their spouse was no longer employed. Is that right, Madison? 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 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 00:14:49.640 --> 00:14:54.080 $600. So would they be conflicted for the rest of that calendar year basically based 00:14:54.080 --> 00:15:01.460 on their W2? Does that make sense? Yeah. Okay. Great. So and then the advisory opinion 00:15:01.460 --> 00:15:07.520 said no, basically, that you would not be conflicted because it's no longer a current 00:15:07.520 --> 00:15:12.240 conflict of interest because your employment relationship has been terminated. 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 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 00:15:29.880 --> 00:15:45.240 next year. Am I right? That's how I would read it, but. Yeah. I agree. 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 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 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. 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, 00:16:36.220 --> 00:16:42.560 not with what we were thinking about, which brings up something I wanted to ask about 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 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 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 00:17:11.200 --> 00:17:19.200 of interest, you know, I don't think, you know, Madison hasn't prepared like other, 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, 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 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 00:17:38.880 --> 00:17:48.840 kind of package that current part with discussing conflict of interest at a later meeting. Or 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 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 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 00:18:11.000 --> 00:18:17.000 maybe -- maybe you could make note that this is something we should discuss when we have 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 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 00:18:28.900 --> 00:18:37.520 -- if a councilperson relies on the advisory opinion. So right now, I think somebody could 00:18:37.520 --> 00:18:42.000 rely on the advisory opinion or go with the ethics ordinance, and I think either way, 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 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 00:18:55.440 --> 00:19:01.960 like, unless anybody has an idea of what we can do without having that larger discussion. 00:19:01.960 --> 00:19:10.560 No, I think we'll have to post separately for the larger conflict of interest discussion. 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 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 00:19:26.800 --> 00:19:31.800 an ethics complaint against the city official unless a majority of board members have submitted 00:19:31.800 --> 00:19:38.120 a complaint as well. And that is approved? Is that correct? 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 00:19:45.760 --> 00:19:50.920 is approved. Great. Okay. Thank you. 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 00:20:00.160 --> 00:20:11.680 on the agenda information sheet, going back to our discussion of whether -- I guess how 00:20:11.680 --> 00:20:21.320 an ethics complaint can be submitted for like a frivolous hearing. Last meeting, we discussed 00:20:21.320 --> 00:20:29.480 -- I remember -- well, we discussed this. And Madison had prepared San Antonio and Dallas 00:20:29.480 --> 00:20:35.160 and Richardson. I believe we got copies of those. And Madison, I think -- did you look 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 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 00:20:45.040 --> 00:20:50.160 the previous meeting. Okay. Did you want to kind of talk about that 00:20:50.160 --> 00:20:57.080 a little? Basically, I looked at the model code, and 00:20:57.080 --> 00:21:02.520 it said -- basically said that the ethics commission is required to determine if a received 00:21:02.520 --> 00:21:08.760 ethics complaint alleges an action or an inaction that if the allegations are true might constitute 00:21:08.760 --> 00:21:15.360 a violation of the code, which is similar kind of to our preliminary assessment process. 00:21:15.360 --> 00:21:19.720 And then under the model code, the respondent is only notified if the ethics complaint has 00:21:19.720 --> 00:21:24.680 been accepted or is considered to be actionable by the ethics commission. So they wouldn't 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 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 00:21:36.520 --> 00:21:41.080 opportunity to respond after the complaint has been accepted. 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 00:21:51.960 --> 00:21:55.800 as a foreign complaint that is groundless and brought in bad faith or groundless and 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 00:23:47.400 --> 00:23:53.880 determination of something being actual baseless. So my idea would be the -- under (c)(2) baseless, 00:23:53.880 --> 00:23:56.840 the allegation and evidence contained in the complaint, if true, would not constitute a 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 00:24:03.240 --> 00:24:08.280 is found baseless, the panel either shall or may consider if the complaint should be 00:24:08.280 --> 00:24:18.920 submitted for a frivolity hearing. And then I think we could -- we could have kind of 00:24:18.920 --> 00:24:28.440 three options there of either if the preliminary panel thinks it's frivolous, take it straight 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, 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 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 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 00:24:52.920 --> 00:25:05.800 could be added. And then another place in 2-282(c) under disposition of the complaint. 00:25:05.800 --> 00:25:11.480 That's where you're seeing, like, where it currently talks about frivolous in the order. 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 00:25:21.080 --> 00:25:26.360 it's a violation of the article -- of this article, a person submit a frivolous complaint. 00:25:26.360 --> 00:25:31.160 And then before the supermajority section that talks about when you have the actual hearing, 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 00:25:36.680 --> 00:25:42.120 either the preliminary panel, the chair, or the majority of the board determine the complaint 00:25:42.120 --> 00:25:50.280 shall be considered for frivolity. So, anyway, that was my idea as -- after we had talked 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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, 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. 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 00:26:50.200 --> 00:26:57.080 the model code because it sounds like the frivolity is figured out right away and it 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 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 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 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 00:27:24.520 --> 00:27:28.760 is because the respondent isn't notified of a complaint until it's been determined that 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. 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, 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 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 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 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, 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. 00:28:11.800 --> 00:28:15.080 >> Madam Chair? >> Yes. 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 00:28:22.440 --> 00:28:28.680 majority. Are any of those weighted? Is there one that has precedence over the others? 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 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 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, 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 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. 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 -- 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 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 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 00:29:34.040 --> 00:29:38.600 preliminary panel, you know, decide if it's frivolous. Because right now, I think we talked 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 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 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 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. 00:30:05.080 --> 00:30:10.200 >> Madam Chair, if I could just kind of speak a little bit to Rob's question. 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 00:30:16.280 --> 00:30:20.920 how to determine something's frivolous as far as the actual procedure that's written. 00:30:22.040 --> 00:30:27.880 And they say that the panel -- the preliminary assessment panel can recommend that it be 00:30:27.880 --> 00:30:33.320 considered frivolous first. It doesn't really -- it doesn't really specify, once they recommend that, 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 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 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 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 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, 00:31:08.920 --> 00:31:14.840 too, if necessary, for that person? So we've got preliminary panel making the decision. Somebody 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 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 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. 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, 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 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, 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 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? >> 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:33:07.240 --> 00:33:13.000 three choices included in the language. >> Oh, no. I was just thinking, like, 00:33:13.000 --> 00:33:20.120 if we wanted to add that the preliminary panel decides whether there's a frivolous hearing, 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 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 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 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? 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 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 00:33:55.880 --> 00:34:01.480 saying -- my idea was, like, we picked one of those. >> I see. Okay. >> Yeah. 00:34:01.480 --> 00:34:06.040 >> So, I like your ideas, Rob. That was good. 00:34:14.520 --> 00:34:21.880 Any -- what does everybody else think about, you know, whether we should add wording about 00:34:21.880 --> 00:34:26.760 the preliminary panel determining whether a complaint is frivolous as part of their 00:34:26.760 --> 00:34:37.720 preliminary assessment? >> I agree. I think that's a good solution. 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. 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, 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 -- 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 00:36:09.240 --> 00:36:13.880 second sentence that if a complaint is found baseless, the panel may consider if the complaint 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 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 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 -- 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 00:36:36.360 --> 00:36:40.600 video and unsure whether they could talk about frivolous, if I'm remembering things correctly. 00:36:40.600 --> 00:36:44.840 So that would just give clear guidance that a preliminary panel can discuss it at the 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 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 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 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 00:37:16.040 --> 00:37:38.200 the ethics ordinance, but what section is that? Hold on. Section 2-282c. Between subsections one 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 00:37:46.040 --> 00:37:56.040 [PAUSE] 00:37:56.040 --> 00:38:04.440 determines the complaint should be considered frivolity. So anyway, that's my idea. So please 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 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 00:38:20.600 --> 00:38:22.280 the ordinance. >> Madam Chair. 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 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? 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 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. 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 00:40:43.960 --> 00:40:49.720 All right. Is there any more discussion on that? 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. 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 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. 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, 00:41:27.320 --> 00:41:32.680 Charlotte was not reappointed, is my understanding. So now we have an opening for vice chair. 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? 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 00:41:48.680 --> 00:41:58.040 for vice chair position. Nobody jump all at once. 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 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. 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? 00:42:34.600 --> 00:42:39.640 People are going to be afraid to put their hand up. 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. 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? 00:43:02.120 --> 00:43:08.840 So moved. Okay. Moved by Rob. Are there -- is there a second? 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 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 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 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 00:43:41.000 --> 00:43:47.000 topic. So it's not -- it's not too painful. I guess -- is there any discussion? 00:43:47.000 --> 00:44:00.120 Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? All right. So you are now 00:44:00.120 --> 00:44:04.600 the vice chair. And I'll probably meet you in person maybe next meeting. So congrats. 00:44:05.640 --> 00:44:13.960 Or condolences. I don't know which. Okay. All right. So moving on from that, 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. 00:44:17.560 --> 00:44:25.240 Okay. All right. So then we're going to 1D, receive a report, hold a discussion, 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, 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 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. 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 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 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 00:45:07.400 --> 00:45:14.280 basically a section to the conflict of interest to prohibit people who donated to -- that that 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. 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 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 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 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. 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. 00:45:56.520 --> 00:46:02.600 We've discussed it before and never come, I guess, to a consensus. 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 00:46:12.200 --> 00:46:16.920 the orientation and the talking to the press, things that we had previously voted about, 00:46:16.920 --> 00:46:21.800 talking about, and then maybe put on the candidate thing, but it might be that the 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, 00:46:28.520 --> 00:46:33.720 you know, maybe start with some discussions on conflict of interest and we can get into 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 00:46:40.120 --> 00:46:46.120 something that could just be added right now, like compare -- like see what other cities have, 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 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 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 00:47:03.400 --> 00:47:09.640 go over the other things like I just said. Any thoughts, everyone? >> That's good. 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 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. 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 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 00:47:40.280 --> 00:47:45.640 discussing conflict of interest. So, you know, maybe low-hanging fruit, then go back to it, 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, 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 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, 00:48:04.600 --> 00:48:10.920 political donations and conflict of interest, and that might have to roll over into just talking 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 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 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. 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, 00:48:46.600 --> 00:48:52.120 Madison, anything I forgot or from the city attorney that I forgot to talk about? 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, 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? 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, 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 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, 00:49:26.920 --> 00:49:31.560 but, you know, I don't know. I work a full-time job and have kids, 00:49:31.560 --> 00:49:36.040 like, any time is really inconvenient, so I'm open to what everybody else thinks. 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. 00:49:50.520 --> 00:49:53.080 Rob, did you raise your hand? >> Oh, I was scratching my hand, 00:49:53.080 --> 00:49:55.560 and I do have a question. >> Oh, okay. 00:49:55.560 --> 00:50:00.760 >> We were looking at -- do we have conflict within our ability to be on 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, 00:50:07.400 --> 00:50:10.520 or when the communication would be available, or have I missed that? 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 00:50:17.000 --> 00:50:17.560 now. >> Right. 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 00:50:24.200 --> 00:50:29.960 with other prior commitments. Are we still falling into those particular -- 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 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, 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 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. 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 00:50:59.000 --> 00:51:03.320 an evening. It's easier for me for my work as well. 00:51:08.040 --> 00:51:17.880 >> I wonder if this is something -- because like Rob was saying, I remember pre-pandemic, 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 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 00:51:29.960 --> 00:51:35.880 maybe we can use email but not, you know, open records violations of everybody discussing on 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 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 00:51:49.160 --> 00:51:51.400 that. >> Yes. Yeah, we can handle that. 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 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. 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. 00:52:14.840 --> 00:52:22.120 Unless anybody has really other strong opinions. Justin, I see your hand up. 00:52:22.120 --> 00:52:25.080 >> That was also a head scratch. Sorry. 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 00:52:31.640 --> 00:52:38.440 now and watching everybody intently. But, okay. So we'll -- Madison will get with everybody via 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 00:52:43.560 --> 00:52:47.640 October would be the last meeting of the year. And is there anything else? 00:52:47.640 --> 00:52:55.960 All right. Well, I thank everybody for coming. You know, apologize for being virtual. 00:52:57.240 --> 00:53:03.480 And it's 3.53. And we will adjourn. Thank you. 00:53:03.480 --> 00:53:04.040 >> Thank you. 00:53:04.040 --> 00:53:04.600 >> Thank you. 00:53:04.600 --> 00:53:06.040 >> Thank you.