>> Good afternoon and welcome to the meeting of the board of ethics today's Thursday, October
28th 2021 and it is 3.01 p.m.
Go ahead and get started now, Madison.
Oh, we have a quorum.
So yes.
Cool.
>> Yeah, we just want to go through the first item, just a minute.
>> Perfect.
So we're going to consider approval of the minutes for September 30th, 2021.
>> Is it okay to make a motion?
>> Yes.
>> I move approval of the minutes.
>> Second.
>> And then you just have to say I'm just going to jump in real quick, especially because
we're all wearing masks, I know it's hard for Billy to focus on whoever it is.
So Madam Chair, if you would just recognize speakers as they talk, even for motions and
seconds it will make it easier for Billy and for the record since we can't see any of our
faces.
>> Okay.
Perfect.
>> Thank you, ma'am.
>> I can do that.
Okay.
So the second item, sorry, go ahead.
>> So board member Ramsey made the motion, board member Schuch seconded and then we have
to take a vote.
So you want to recognize people individually to take the vote?
>> There we go.
No, in person meetings we typically haven't.
>> Okay.
I just wasn't sure.
>> No, like as a full vote, just if it's not unanimous, we can take it up then.
>> Okay.
So we'll take a vote then.
Everyone in favor?
>> Aye.
>> All right.
Motion passes.
>> Well, go ahead and call for nos and just --
>> Oh, sorry.
Okay.
>> We'll go ahead and call for nos.
>> Okay.
>> Sorry.
First time.
All right.
Then no nos.
So motion passes.
All right.
Now we move on to the second one.
Got it.
Okay.
Receive a report, hold a discussion, take necessary action regarding potential recommendations
to amend the code of ordinances, chapter two, article 11, ethics.
>> All right.
And then I can walk us through all the changes that are included on the backup so that we
can discuss them individually.
So you can all see the screen.
So the first kind of section is to make adjustments to the code of ordinances and the rules of
procedure as directed last meeting.
So there's basically four language changes for you all to consider, so I'll go through
them one at a time.
So first one is on the screen here, and basically this change is to include that a panel -- when
there's a submitted ethics complaint, a panel may make a recommendation to determine if
the complaint is frivolous before -- and then it would then go to a hearing that the full
board would discuss.
I guess kind of some key points here is that when they make this recommendation, they haven't
really determined if it's actionable or baseless, because that's before -- that would be before
the -- that's why it's the recommendation to determine that before.
It follows pretty similar timeline process to any other kind of -- like if the panel
determined it was actionable, there would be the same timeline, right, of communication
to the complainant and the respondent, and the hearing timeline is the same as well.
So it would take 30 days to have that hearing.
That would be the cutoff deadline.
So any questions about this piece here, like in terms of the language?
No?
Okay.
Then that seems like there's consensus to move forward with that language item.
I'm sorry, are we just dealing with each red line item at a time?
Yes.
Okay.
And I'm sorry, this is my first meeting to sit, but I noticed that there were some prior
to this one.
Yes.
And I'm just curious.
The board previously included direction on those.
Okay.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Thank you.
We're just talking about the ones that are --
You're starting at D on that --
Yes.
Yeah.
Okay.
Thank you.
Correct.
Thank you.
Is within the hearing section, basically just to clarify that if a panel recommends that
a hearing be held to determine if an accepted complaint is frivolous, that is a reason to
schedule a hearing.
So that's just kind of a technicality there.
And just because they're both on the same page, I'll talk about C at the same time.
And this just clarifies that.
If there is a hearing held to determine if a complaint is frivolous, the complainant
doesn't have to appear for that to go forward, right?
Because typically the complainant has to appear at a hearing for it to not be immediately
dismissed.
So does that all make sense?
Okay.
Any questions or concerns about the language there?
I did make one note on the language that I thought it was slightly unclear, not held
to determine frivolity, the way that sentence is written, but I didn't know if anybody else
felt that that was unclear.
So you're saying that second, the second sentence here.
Yeah.
The second red line item.
That it was just unclear.
Slightly unclear.
I had another option, but I just didn't know if anybody else experienced it that way or
if that was just my experience.
I'm sorry.
I didn't hear you very well on what you were saying.
Which one?
Yeah.
Sorry.
The second item on four, not held to determine frivolity, that that seems slightly unclear.
I had written something as like another option, but I didn't know if I was the only one who's
reading it unclear.
If everyone else feels like there's clarity there, I'm not going to break it up.
No, I wouldn't.
You agree?
When I read over it, I read several times what is this actually supposed to mean.
My concern is really, I guess, related.
I don't think that we should be putting all the burden on the complainant.
No other city does it like that, but there's nothing about our policy that is ... There's
very little about our policy that is like other cities, so I guess that's just ... That
was one of the things I would like to bring up and discuss next year.
Why are we putting all the complainant ... In other cities, the board, the complainant makes
a complaint and then the board takes it from there.
They decide, they do the investigation and I think that's a much better way to do it,
so I agree.
I think it's confusing and I think it has a chilling effect on anybody who might want
to make a complaint.
Maybe that was ... I'll stop right there.
My question is, isn't it already stated that the complainant is required?
It is.
So we're stating it twice in the ... Yeah, the intent with this section here was
to basically say that if a hearing is held to determine if an accepted complaint is frivolous,
the complainant does not have to appear, which would be in opposition to what's normally
required.
But that is clear in the sentence, the complainant is required to testify at a hearing unless
it is held to determine if any accepted complaint is frivolous.
Right.
Therefore, the language is already clear there that the complainant has to appear for a hearing
but is not expected to appear for a hearing that is only to determine frivolity.
Right.
I think that second sentence, at least in the original wording, is meant to say that
if they don't show up, what's the consequence if they do not meet that requirement, which
is that then the complaint will be dismissed.
So I agree that we should ... I mean, if you have language you want to propose
to change it, I'm totally welcome to hear that.
Is that okay?
Yeah.
So what I came up with, and there's another section that has this same sentence in it,
in the third, but we'll get to that, rather than saying a complainant's failure to testify
at a hearing not held to determine frivolity shall be grounds for dismissal of a complaint,
maybe writing a complainant's failure to testify at a hearing, other than a hearing to determine
frivolity, shall be grounds for dismissal of a complaint.
I move that we amend it to that.
Okay.
I second that.
Okay.
So let's have a vote.
Yes.
Do you need to say it again, or?
You want me to repeat it?
No.
Did you need that?
I was just going to ask you to send it to me afterwards, but you can go ahead with the
vote.
Yeah.
So all in favor.
Aye.
All opposed?
Okay.
Motion is passed.
Okay, and just to clarify, you made that motion, and then you seconded it.
Oh, were you?
Yeah, I guess it was a motion to bring it out, so mine was actually second.
Yeah, sure.
Correct.
I think yours was the motion, and Andrea seconded it.
Oh, okay.
Sorry, I didn't.
I figured yours was just the presentation of the language.
I think she just presented it, and I made the motion.
Yes.
Got it.
Correct.
Nice one.
Just need that for the record.
Yes.
Sorry.
I'm getting names down, so.
Okay.
So the next piece is here, this is really just kind of reiterating some of the things
that have already been, we already went over, clarifying that a hearing can be held to determine
that it's, if an accepted complaint is frivolous, clarifying that they're not required to testify
at that hearing, the complainant, and then down here, clarifying that if the complaint
is found to be frivolous, it is also dismissed.
Yep.
Anyone have anything they want to say?
Does anyone have anything they want to say about that?
Okay.
Yeah.
So let me make sure there's, basically similar changes were made to the procedure's document.
Yeah, this one here clarifies, we already kind of approved that one, unless y'all have
any concerns about it also being in the rules of procedure.
Just clarifying that a hearing can be scheduled if there is a recommendation from a panel
to determine if an accepted complaint is frivolous.
Any commentary?
No.
We're good.
Okay.
And then here again, clarifying that the complainant is not required to attend a hearing to determine
if their complaint is frivolous.
And then I think this is probably where you had that, we'll replace this language with
a similar language that there was a motion on earlier.
Do we need to formalize that or ... Yes, this is that section.
Should we have a motion just to approve all the changes as amended?
You can, it doesn't hurt.
I think you're also giving direction and we're going to bring it back for a final approval
later.
Okay.
I think it'll be fine.
Okay.
Yeah, unless you want this language in the rules of procedure to be different than the
ones in the ordinance, then I think we're fine with the motion that was already made.
Cool.
All right.
And those are all the changes, well, those are the first item.
So the second item was the conflict of interest section.
And this was proposed by the board of ethics chair, Laura Tomlin, to include in the conflict
of interest definition that receipt of more than $500 and of campaign contributions from
an individual business entity or other organization is a conflict of interest.
So does that make sense?
Which would then require, if there's a pending matter, the city official to recuse himself.
That's what I've got on that.
And are we voting on this today?
Yeah.
So we'll do similarly, right?
You'll either give me direction to include it as written, to include it amended with
different language or to not include it, if that's the way that you would like to go.
So you mean specifically as item E this, yeah, this specific item E right here.
Anyone have any comments on that?
I'm having a hard time finding item E nine of the PDF.
That's six of 20 of the actual document.
It's in the ordinance document.
Okay.
Exhibit two.
Okay.
So do you want to take it to second, if I'm not?
Yeah, I move that we include it as written.
Okay.
Second?
All right.
All in favor?
Aye.
All opposed?
Okay.
Motion passed.
Okay, so we're ready to move on to item two.
All right.
So we will receive a report, hold a discussion and take necessary action regarding the potential
creation and formalization of procedures for board of ethics members for interacting with
members of the press.
So just a brief history, this item was included on that original prioritization list that
we kind of completed back in April of 2021.
I think this is more for discussion.
I don't necessarily have any recommendation just to see if you would like to formalize
any procedures or make any, have any guidelines about if members of the board are contacted
by the press, what to do in that situation.
Is there already any kind of blanketed procedure that covers all boards?
I thought there was.
There's the boards and commissions handbook, but it doesn't really address this issue to
my knowledge.
I think I looked at it a little bit before you have that Trey.
I think I did mention in here that the ordinance does prohibit some communication with the,
for about some of the ethics complaints when there's confidentiality, but it doesn't really
expand to cover this entire, everything that could be a part of potentially a member of
the press contacting a board member.
No, I would say other than what's determined to be confidential, that there would obviously
be a problem if you were to divulge confidential information that's not been made public yet.
But other than that, I mean, you're also going to be bound by TOMA rules, stuff like that,
so you couldn't do it as a quorum, but if an individual member was speaking to the paper,
I don't think the rules, the handbook would cover that.
I mean, there are similar rules that you can't go and speak about things that are in an executive
session.
Right.
So it seems like the confidentiality stuff would probably fall in with that, but I guess.
So I'm trying to understand, we're trying to clarify if you were to talk to the press
about something not confidential, like what that process would look like.
Right.
If the board would like there to be any procedures around that or guidelines put into place,
and if so, what those would look like.
Did anyone come up with anything?
Does this come up with any of the other boards, or is this the first time this has come up?
Not to my knowledge, but I'll admit I'm not aware of what goes on with all the other boards.
Was this prompted by something that had occurred, or was it just, is it addressing a particular
situation that maybe we should be aware of?
I don't think so, like I said, it was somebody, one of the board members who is not currently
here, submitted it as an item.
Okay.
Should know if there's any context that might be important.
So I mean, can we like motion to postpone this item?
You can postpone it.
If we don't really want to set any procedures or guidelines up, that can also be a determination,
right?
Can I ask another clarifying question?
The board member that put the point forward, is that person still a member of the board?
Can we postpone it until that member is able to participate and give some context?
Yes.
So we could table it until?
Yes.
I think that'd be smart.
I think that would be appropriate, yeah.
So I move that we table this.
Sorry, just procedurally real quick, it'll be a motion to postpone to the next meeting
that you have.
Okay.
I didn't know that was.
Yeah, technically under the rules, if it's tabled, it's just put to the side for the
rest of this meeting, but if you don't bring it back up, it dies automatically, and I don't
think that's what you're intending to do here.
Absolutely not.
So the motion has to-
So it will be a motion to postpone to the next meeting.
Okay.
So moved.
Okay, motion to postpone by member Shuck and seconded by Andrea.
Yeah.
Okay.
So if we want to take a vote, all in favor?
Aye.
All opposed?
Okay.
Motion passed.
We're ready to move on to number three.
Yes.
All right.
So we'll receive a report and hold a discussion and take necessary ... Sorry, let me start
again.
Receive a report, hold a discussion, and take necessary action regarding the creation of
a Board of Ethics new member orientation process.
So this is a similar item where it was included on the original prioritization list back in
April of 2021, and currently there isn't really a formal orientation process.
All board members, as well as other city officials, are required to go through the ethics training
annually, which I believe you've all done, and there's also the local government ethics
in a nutshell, which is required to be read.
That's all required by the ethics ordinance currently.
Other than that, I tried to send out the ethics complaint process packet to new members.
Some of y'all probably got that ... It really just got put into place in January, or sorry,
March, I believe, yeah, March.
It's not necessarily an orientation, but it does kind of lay out the ethics process ... Ethics
complaint process.
So I guess this is really a question of is there other items that y'all would like to
see included in that process, more formal training, or anything like that?
What I was wanting as part of this was, first meeting I came to, the only person I knew
was Zanetta, and I didn't know the other people on the board, and I don't know y'all down
that way.
So I just thought it'd be nice to have some way for us to introduce ourselves to each
other and some of our background, and just to know who the heck I'm on the board with.
That was one goal that I thought would be nice for some kind of get together.
And I didn't know if that has to be an open meetings thing, or it can be informal, or
we just get in a room and introduce ourselves to each other, or what that would look like.
- Yeah, I think certainly at a first meeting, you could do that.
I think one of the potential problems with having an event or something that's come meet
the Board of Ethics is we'd have to post for it, because there used to be a potential issue
with quorum.
We could also just have board members say, "Hello, I'm Zanetta, and this is what I do,"
and give that information to new board members, right?
So kind of have like a welcome packet that's like, "Here are the other board members currently."
That would require you all to submit things like that, but that's certainly something
we could do, because that wouldn't be an issue as far as quorum or anything, just having
here's some information about the other board members.
- Yeah, I think that would be helpful, honestly.
Calling people's names out right now in my second meeting, that's been a little difficult.
So if I had a face sheet right here with what people's names were, kind of some things about
them, I think that would be helpful with that.
- There's no problem with that, right?
- No, just like a list of who's on the board and what they are right now.
No, there's not a violation with that.
There would be a violation if we met and didn't have it properly posted, but just handing
out a packet like that would be fine.
- Right.
Okay.
Yeah, that's certainly something we can do.
I can reach out to everybody and get that information going so that we have that information
for our new board members, and we can give it to you all as well.
- So you want it in a written form, not in a meeting format.
Is that what you're recommending?
- Correct.
In a written form.
- Yeah.
- Okay.
- I do think it would be helpful, though, just to have a few minutes when people come
in to say who they are, because, yeah, you can read a sheet, but it's not the same thing
as hearing someone talk and putting a face with, I don't know, I just think it makes
it easier to talk when you feel like you know the people on the board a little bit.
- I do want to add that as you're compiling this, keep it to biographical information.
Don't discuss the, in that kind of setting, don't discuss the ethics ordinance or thoughts
on issues that may become before the board, because then it could have the potential to
lead to a walking quorum kind of situation, and we don't want that.
So just, as you're compiling it, just keep it biographical.
- Cool.
I'll make sure to look for that.
I wonder if we could also, like when we have new members on the next agenda, include like
welcome, like a welcome to whoever, as like an agenda item, or could we just do that?
- We could do it as an agenda item, just welcome of new members.
We've done that with new staff members and stuff like that before, so we could do it
for a new member of the board.
- So we could add that as a kind of a normal procedure, right, if there's a new board member
or more, we can include that as an item, right?
- Give them a chance to introduce themselves to the board, then?
- Yeah.
I think several people have come on and haven't even been introduced.
- Yeah, it's been kind of weird.
- Yeah, because I would prefer that over a written thing, because then I think that as
you're leaving, you can say, "Hi, I'm so-and-so, I'm glad you're here, and I don't, I mean..."
- And I would like both, written and talking, because I need a cheat sheet to remember for
the next time.
- Yeah, I would say you can look on the city thing, and I admit I've looked on the city
thing to see who's on and make sure I understood the names, but I just think an introduction
with each new person, and that would be really important to you.
- Yeah, we can include, we can do both, that's easy to do both, and then even next meeting,
which I guess will be in January, we can kind of have a similar item, if y'all would like,
that's like a reintroduction, here's everybody, 'cause we've had a lot of turnover recently,
so...
- Yeah.
- Okay.
- I thought the information you guys gave us whenever I joined the board was sufficient
for me to get up to speed on what I needed to know before the first meeting, and we hadn't
finished the packet, and I think that would be a whole lot more helpful than trying to
dissect everything in the ordinance, so, I mean, as long as that's included for the new
member packet, I think, I don't know what else I would've asked for.
- I guess that I was confused when I first came on the board that the discussion that
was happening at the first meeting, I didn't know the background of it, and I didn't wanna
slow the whole meeting down with trying to find out what the background had been of previous
discussions about it, and so, I thought it would've been nice if somebody had filled
me in, although I guess you can watch the videos too, I guess I could've done that too,
but I'm not sure if there's a way for somebody, just kinda give you a briefing on what topics
have been discussed in the last few months, so you know where you're coming from.
- Okay.
And maybe also just include that if you wanna go watch previous meetings, they're available
here.
- Right.
- Yeah, I think that'd be helpful, a place of reference.
- 'Cause the meetings aren't real clear what's happening though.
- Yeah.
- I also think with the board turnover, it's important to realize that maybe we need to
revisit topics that have been discussed previously because the board's new now.
Because I know that when I first got on the board, you couldn't even bring anything up
if the board had already talked about it, and so it just kinda makes you go, "Okay,
I won't talk," so, anyone else?
- No.
- Okay.
- That's the last thing on the agenda.
- Do we need to vote on that?
- I think, let me just summarize the direction.
- Okay.
- So, the things that I've heard were compiled kind of like a, "These are the board member
biographical information packet to give to new board members," so I'll reach out to all
of y'all to get that information.
Whenever there are new board members, include an item on the agenda for introductions, and
also do that in January, which will be the next board meeting, and then also, for new
board members, include maybe a little brief information on what the last couple of meetings
has been discussed, as well as a reference to where old meetings can be seen and re-reviewed.
So, I think that's it.
Did I miss anything?
- No.
- All right.
I think that's the direction, so I don't think we need to take a vote on that or anything.
- Okay.
- So.
- All righty.
So, are we good?
Anything else?
- Yeah.
I think now you just have to say, "We're adjourned."
- Okay.
All right.
So, Board of Ethics meeting adjourned, 3 31 p.m.
- Thank you.