WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.480 >> Good afternoon and welcome to the meeting of the board of ethics today's Thursday, October 00:00:07.480 --> 00:00:10.720 28th 2021 and it is 3.01 p.m. 00:00:10.720 --> 00:00:15.160 Go ahead and get started now, Madison. 00:00:15.160 --> 00:00:17.360 Oh, we have a quorum. 00:00:17.360 --> 00:00:18.360 So yes. 00:00:18.360 --> 00:00:19.360 Cool. 00:00:19.360 --> 00:00:22.160 >> Yeah, we just want to go through the first item, just a minute. 00:00:22.160 --> 00:00:23.160 >> Perfect. 00:00:23.160 --> 00:00:28.240 So we're going to consider approval of the minutes for September 30th, 2021. 00:00:28.240 --> 00:00:32.080 >> Is it okay to make a motion? 00:00:32.080 --> 00:00:33.080 >> Yes. 00:00:33.080 --> 00:00:35.920 >> I move approval of the minutes. 00:00:35.920 --> 00:00:37.160 >> Second. 00:00:37.160 --> 00:00:47.200 >> And then you just have to say I'm just going to jump in real quick, especially because 00:00:47.200 --> 00:00:52.040 we're all wearing masks, I know it's hard for Billy to focus on whoever it is. 00:00:52.040 --> 00:00:56.640 So Madam Chair, if you would just recognize speakers as they talk, even for motions and 00:00:56.640 --> 00:01:00.160 seconds it will make it easier for Billy and for the record since we can't see any of our 00:01:00.160 --> 00:01:01.160 faces. 00:01:01.160 --> 00:01:02.160 >> Okay. 00:01:02.160 --> 00:01:03.160 Perfect. 00:01:03.160 --> 00:01:04.160 >> Thank you, ma'am. 00:01:04.160 --> 00:01:05.160 >> I can do that. 00:01:05.160 --> 00:01:06.160 Okay. 00:01:06.160 --> 00:01:10.040 So the second item, sorry, go ahead. 00:01:10.040 --> 00:01:17.920 >> So board member Ramsey made the motion, board member Schuch seconded and then we have 00:01:17.920 --> 00:01:18.920 to take a vote. 00:01:18.920 --> 00:01:27.760 So you want to recognize people individually to take the vote? 00:01:27.760 --> 00:01:28.760 >> There we go. 00:01:28.760 --> 00:01:30.560 No, in person meetings we typically haven't. 00:01:30.560 --> 00:01:31.560 >> Okay. 00:01:31.560 --> 00:01:32.560 I just wasn't sure. 00:01:32.560 --> 00:01:37.600 >> No, like as a full vote, just if it's not unanimous, we can take it up then. 00:01:37.600 --> 00:01:38.600 >> Okay. 00:01:38.600 --> 00:01:40.360 So we'll take a vote then. 00:01:40.360 --> 00:01:41.360 Everyone in favor? 00:01:41.360 --> 00:01:42.360 >> Aye. 00:01:42.360 --> 00:01:43.360 >> Aye. 00:01:43.360 --> 00:01:44.360 >> All right. 00:01:44.360 --> 00:01:45.360 Motion passes. 00:01:45.360 --> 00:01:46.960 >> Well, go ahead and call for nos and just -- 00:01:46.960 --> 00:01:47.960 >> Oh, sorry. 00:01:47.960 --> 00:01:48.960 Okay. 00:01:48.960 --> 00:01:49.960 >> We'll go ahead and call for nos. 00:01:49.960 --> 00:01:50.960 >> Okay. 00:01:50.960 --> 00:01:51.960 >> Sorry. 00:01:51.960 --> 00:01:52.960 First time. 00:01:52.960 --> 00:01:53.960 All right. 00:01:53.960 --> 00:01:54.960 Then no nos. 00:01:54.960 --> 00:01:55.960 So motion passes. 00:01:55.960 --> 00:01:56.960 All right. 00:01:56.960 --> 00:01:59.960 Now we move on to the second one. 00:01:59.960 --> 00:02:00.960 Got it. 00:02:00.960 --> 00:02:01.960 Okay. 00:02:01.960 --> 00:02:05.000 Receive a report, hold a discussion, take necessary action regarding potential recommendations 00:02:05.000 --> 00:02:10.240 to amend the code of ordinances, chapter two, article 11, ethics. 00:02:10.240 --> 00:02:11.760 >> All right. 00:02:11.760 --> 00:02:16.920 And then I can walk us through all the changes that are included on the backup so that we 00:02:16.920 --> 00:02:19.920 can discuss them individually. 00:02:19.920 --> 00:02:23.960 So you can all see the screen. 00:02:23.960 --> 00:02:29.760 So the first kind of section is to make adjustments to the code of ordinances and the rules of 00:02:29.760 --> 00:02:34.040 procedure as directed last meeting. 00:02:34.040 --> 00:02:38.560 So there's basically four language changes for you all to consider, so I'll go through 00:02:38.560 --> 00:02:39.840 them one at a time. 00:02:39.840 --> 00:02:50.480 So first one is on the screen here, and basically this change is to include that a panel -- when 00:02:50.480 --> 00:02:54.600 there's a submitted ethics complaint, a panel may make a recommendation to determine if 00:02:54.600 --> 00:03:00.480 the complaint is frivolous before -- and then it would then go to a hearing that the full 00:03:00.480 --> 00:03:02.400 board would discuss. 00:03:02.400 --> 00:03:08.840 I guess kind of some key points here is that when they make this recommendation, they haven't 00:03:08.840 --> 00:03:15.200 really determined if it's actionable or baseless, because that's before -- that would be before 00:03:15.200 --> 00:03:20.520 the -- that's why it's the recommendation to determine that before. 00:03:20.520 --> 00:03:28.400 It follows pretty similar timeline process to any other kind of -- like if the panel 00:03:28.400 --> 00:03:31.960 determined it was actionable, there would be the same timeline, right, of communication 00:03:31.960 --> 00:03:38.520 to the complainant and the respondent, and the hearing timeline is the same as well. 00:03:38.520 --> 00:03:42.000 So it would take 30 days to have that hearing. 00:03:42.000 --> 00:03:43.520 That would be the cutoff deadline. 00:03:43.520 --> 00:03:52.120 So any questions about this piece here, like in terms of the language? 00:03:52.120 --> 00:03:54.760 No? 00:03:54.760 --> 00:03:56.200 Okay. 00:03:56.200 --> 00:04:01.600 Then that seems like there's consensus to move forward with that language item. 00:04:01.600 --> 00:04:08.720 I'm sorry, are we just dealing with each red line item at a time? 00:04:08.720 --> 00:04:09.720 Yes. 00:04:09.720 --> 00:04:10.720 Okay. 00:04:10.720 --> 00:04:13.960 And I'm sorry, this is my first meeting to sit, but I noticed that there were some prior 00:04:13.960 --> 00:04:14.960 to this one. 00:04:14.960 --> 00:04:15.960 Yes. 00:04:15.960 --> 00:04:16.960 And I'm just curious. 00:04:16.960 --> 00:04:19.000 The board previously included direction on those. 00:04:19.000 --> 00:04:20.000 Okay. 00:04:20.000 --> 00:04:21.000 Thank you. 00:04:21.000 --> 00:04:22.000 Yeah. 00:04:22.000 --> 00:04:23.000 Thank you. 00:04:23.000 --> 00:04:24.000 We're just talking about the ones that are -- 00:04:24.000 --> 00:04:25.000 You're starting at D on that -- 00:04:25.000 --> 00:04:26.000 Yes. 00:04:26.000 --> 00:04:27.000 Yeah. 00:04:27.000 --> 00:04:28.000 Okay. 00:04:28.000 --> 00:04:29.000 Thank you. 00:04:29.000 --> 00:04:30.000 Correct. 00:04:30.000 --> 00:04:32.240 Thank you. 00:04:32.240 --> 00:04:38.480 Is within the hearing section, basically just to clarify that if a panel recommends that 00:04:38.480 --> 00:04:43.120 a hearing be held to determine if an accepted complaint is frivolous, that is a reason to 00:04:43.120 --> 00:04:44.120 schedule a hearing. 00:04:44.120 --> 00:04:49.040 So that's just kind of a technicality there. 00:04:49.040 --> 00:04:53.680 And just because they're both on the same page, I'll talk about C at the same time. 00:04:53.680 --> 00:04:55.800 And this just clarifies that. 00:04:55.800 --> 00:05:01.040 If there is a hearing held to determine if a complaint is frivolous, the complainant 00:05:01.040 --> 00:05:06.160 doesn't have to appear for that to go forward, right? 00:05:06.160 --> 00:05:11.760 Because typically the complainant has to appear at a hearing for it to not be immediately 00:05:11.760 --> 00:05:12.760 dismissed. 00:05:12.760 --> 00:05:14.760 So does that all make sense? 00:05:14.760 --> 00:05:15.760 Okay. 00:05:15.760 --> 00:05:19.600 Any questions or concerns about the language there? 00:05:19.600 --> 00:05:24.480 I did make one note on the language that I thought it was slightly unclear, not held 00:05:24.480 --> 00:05:30.640 to determine frivolity, the way that sentence is written, but I didn't know if anybody else 00:05:30.640 --> 00:05:32.200 felt that that was unclear. 00:05:32.200 --> 00:05:38.120 So you're saying that second, the second sentence here. 00:05:38.120 --> 00:05:39.120 Yeah. 00:05:39.120 --> 00:05:43.040 The second red line item. 00:05:43.040 --> 00:05:44.560 That it was just unclear. 00:05:44.560 --> 00:05:45.800 Slightly unclear. 00:05:45.800 --> 00:05:51.120 I had another option, but I just didn't know if anybody else experienced it that way or 00:05:51.120 --> 00:05:55.460 if that was just my experience. 00:05:55.460 --> 00:05:56.460 I'm sorry. 00:05:56.460 --> 00:05:58.160 I didn't hear you very well on what you were saying. 00:05:58.160 --> 00:05:59.160 Which one? 00:05:59.160 --> 00:06:00.160 Yeah. 00:06:00.160 --> 00:06:01.160 Sorry. 00:06:01.160 --> 00:06:06.880 The second item on four, not held to determine frivolity, that that seems slightly unclear. 00:06:06.880 --> 00:06:11.440 I had written something as like another option, but I didn't know if I was the only one who's 00:06:11.440 --> 00:06:12.440 reading it unclear. 00:06:12.440 --> 00:06:17.400 If everyone else feels like there's clarity there, I'm not going to break it up. 00:06:17.400 --> 00:06:19.560 No, I wouldn't. 00:06:19.560 --> 00:06:20.560 You agree? 00:06:20.560 --> 00:06:33.520 When I read over it, I read several times what is this actually supposed to mean. 00:06:33.520 --> 00:06:36.560 My concern is really, I guess, related. 00:06:36.560 --> 00:06:42.800 I don't think that we should be putting all the burden on the complainant. 00:06:42.800 --> 00:06:48.680 No other city does it like that, but there's nothing about our policy that is ... There's 00:06:48.680 --> 00:06:53.600 very little about our policy that is like other cities, so I guess that's just ... That 00:06:53.600 --> 00:06:59.720 was one of the things I would like to bring up and discuss next year. 00:06:59.720 --> 00:07:07.560 Why are we putting all the complainant ... In other cities, the board, the complainant makes 00:07:07.560 --> 00:07:11.760 a complaint and then the board takes it from there. 00:07:11.760 --> 00:07:22.160 They decide, they do the investigation and I think that's a much better way to do it, 00:07:22.160 --> 00:07:23.160 so I agree. 00:07:23.160 --> 00:07:30.280 I think it's confusing and I think it has a chilling effect on anybody who might want 00:07:30.280 --> 00:07:34.520 to make a complaint. 00:07:34.520 --> 00:07:42.500 Maybe that was ... I'll stop right there. 00:07:42.500 --> 00:07:49.240 My question is, isn't it already stated that the complainant is required? 00:07:49.240 --> 00:07:50.240 It is. 00:07:50.240 --> 00:08:04.400 So we're stating it twice in the ... Yeah, the intent with this section here was 00:08:04.400 --> 00:08:10.540 to basically say that if a hearing is held to determine if an accepted complaint is frivolous, 00:08:10.540 --> 00:08:14.920 the complainant does not have to appear, which would be in opposition to what's normally 00:08:14.920 --> 00:08:15.920 required. 00:08:15.920 --> 00:08:23.200 But that is clear in the sentence, the complainant is required to testify at a hearing unless 00:08:23.200 --> 00:08:26.400 it is held to determine if any accepted complaint is frivolous. 00:08:26.400 --> 00:08:27.400 Right. 00:08:27.400 --> 00:08:34.360 Therefore, the language is already clear there that the complainant has to appear for a hearing 00:08:34.360 --> 00:08:42.360 but is not expected to appear for a hearing that is only to determine frivolity. 00:08:42.360 --> 00:08:43.360 Right. 00:08:43.360 --> 00:08:47.640 I think that second sentence, at least in the original wording, is meant to say that 00:08:47.640 --> 00:08:53.160 if they don't show up, what's the consequence if they do not meet that requirement, which 00:08:53.160 --> 00:09:06.120 is that then the complaint will be dismissed. 00:09:06.120 --> 00:09:09.560 So I agree that we should ... I mean, if you have language you want to propose 00:09:09.560 --> 00:09:12.160 to change it, I'm totally welcome to hear that. 00:09:12.160 --> 00:09:13.160 Is that okay? 00:09:13.160 --> 00:09:14.160 Yeah. 00:09:14.160 --> 00:09:20.080 So what I came up with, and there's another section that has this same sentence in it, 00:09:20.080 --> 00:09:26.200 in the third, but we'll get to that, rather than saying a complainant's failure to testify 00:09:26.200 --> 00:09:32.520 at a hearing not held to determine frivolity shall be grounds for dismissal of a complaint, 00:09:32.520 --> 00:09:39.200 maybe writing a complainant's failure to testify at a hearing, other than a hearing to determine 00:09:39.200 --> 00:09:43.920 frivolity, shall be grounds for dismissal of a complaint. 00:09:43.920 --> 00:09:46.080 I move that we amend it to that. 00:09:46.080 --> 00:09:47.080 Okay. 00:09:47.080 --> 00:09:48.080 I second that. 00:09:48.080 --> 00:09:49.080 Okay. 00:09:49.080 --> 00:09:50.080 So let's have a vote. 00:09:50.080 --> 00:09:51.080 Yes. 00:09:51.080 --> 00:09:52.080 Do you need to say it again, or? 00:09:52.080 --> 00:09:53.080 You want me to repeat it? 00:09:53.080 --> 00:09:54.080 No. 00:09:54.080 --> 00:09:55.080 Did you need that? 00:09:55.080 --> 00:10:00.920 I was just going to ask you to send it to me afterwards, but you can go ahead with the 00:10:00.920 --> 00:10:01.920 vote. 00:10:01.920 --> 00:10:02.920 Yeah. 00:10:02.920 --> 00:10:03.920 So all in favor. 00:10:03.920 --> 00:10:04.920 Aye. 00:10:04.920 --> 00:10:05.920 Aye. 00:10:05.920 --> 00:10:06.920 Aye. 00:10:06.920 --> 00:10:07.920 Aye. 00:10:07.920 --> 00:10:08.920 Aye. 00:10:08.920 --> 00:10:09.920 Aye. 00:10:09.920 --> 00:10:10.920 All opposed? 00:10:10.920 --> 00:10:11.920 Okay. 00:10:11.920 --> 00:10:14.920 Motion is passed. 00:10:14.920 --> 00:10:19.200 Okay, and just to clarify, you made that motion, and then you seconded it. 00:10:19.200 --> 00:10:20.200 Oh, were you? 00:10:20.200 --> 00:10:22.680 Yeah, I guess it was a motion to bring it out, so mine was actually second. 00:10:22.680 --> 00:10:23.680 Yeah, sure. 00:10:23.680 --> 00:10:24.680 Correct. 00:10:24.680 --> 00:10:25.680 I think yours was the motion, and Andrea seconded it. 00:10:25.680 --> 00:10:26.680 Oh, okay. 00:10:26.680 --> 00:10:27.680 Sorry, I didn't. 00:10:27.680 --> 00:10:31.640 I figured yours was just the presentation of the language. 00:10:31.640 --> 00:10:33.680 I think she just presented it, and I made the motion. 00:10:33.680 --> 00:10:34.680 Yes. 00:10:34.680 --> 00:10:35.680 Got it. 00:10:35.680 --> 00:10:36.680 Correct. 00:10:36.680 --> 00:10:37.680 Nice one. 00:10:37.680 --> 00:10:38.680 Just need that for the record. 00:10:38.680 --> 00:10:39.680 Yes. 00:10:39.680 --> 00:10:40.680 Sorry. 00:10:40.680 --> 00:10:41.680 I'm getting names down, so. 00:10:41.680 --> 00:10:42.680 Okay. 00:10:42.680 --> 00:10:48.880 So the next piece is here, this is really just kind of reiterating some of the things 00:10:48.880 --> 00:10:55.940 that have already been, we already went over, clarifying that a hearing can be held to determine 00:10:55.940 --> 00:11:01.760 that it's, if an accepted complaint is frivolous, clarifying that they're not required to testify 00:11:01.760 --> 00:11:09.280 at that hearing, the complainant, and then down here, clarifying that if the complaint 00:11:09.280 --> 00:11:13.520 is found to be frivolous, it is also dismissed. 00:11:13.520 --> 00:11:15.080 Yep. 00:11:15.080 --> 00:11:18.920 Anyone have anything they want to say? 00:11:18.920 --> 00:11:23.480 Does anyone have anything they want to say about that? 00:11:23.480 --> 00:11:25.280 Okay. 00:11:25.280 --> 00:11:27.160 Yeah. 00:11:27.160 --> 00:11:35.040 So let me make sure there's, basically similar changes were made to the procedure's document. 00:11:35.040 --> 00:11:43.160 Yeah, this one here clarifies, we already kind of approved that one, unless y'all have 00:11:43.160 --> 00:11:49.720 any concerns about it also being in the rules of procedure. 00:11:49.720 --> 00:11:53.720 Just clarifying that a hearing can be scheduled if there is a recommendation from a panel 00:11:53.720 --> 00:12:00.680 to determine if an accepted complaint is frivolous. 00:12:00.680 --> 00:12:01.680 Any commentary? 00:12:01.680 --> 00:12:02.680 No. 00:12:02.680 --> 00:12:03.680 We're good. 00:12:03.680 --> 00:12:05.960 Okay. 00:12:05.960 --> 00:12:13.360 And then here again, clarifying that the complainant is not required to attend a hearing to determine 00:12:13.360 --> 00:12:18.960 if their complaint is frivolous. 00:12:18.960 --> 00:12:25.840 And then I think this is probably where you had that, we'll replace this language with 00:12:25.840 --> 00:12:30.200 a similar language that there was a motion on earlier. 00:12:30.200 --> 00:12:36.940 Do we need to formalize that or ... Yes, this is that section. 00:12:36.940 --> 00:12:43.560 Should we have a motion just to approve all the changes as amended? 00:12:43.560 --> 00:12:44.560 You can, it doesn't hurt. 00:12:44.560 --> 00:12:48.280 I think you're also giving direction and we're going to bring it back for a final approval 00:12:48.280 --> 00:12:49.280 later. 00:12:49.280 --> 00:12:50.280 Okay. 00:12:50.280 --> 00:12:51.280 I think it'll be fine. 00:12:51.280 --> 00:12:52.280 Okay. 00:12:52.280 --> 00:12:56.120 Yeah, unless you want this language in the rules of procedure to be different than the 00:12:56.120 --> 00:13:01.400 ones in the ordinance, then I think we're fine with the motion that was already made. 00:13:01.400 --> 00:13:02.400 Cool. 00:13:02.400 --> 00:13:03.600 All right. 00:13:03.600 --> 00:13:09.000 And those are all the changes, well, those are the first item. 00:13:09.000 --> 00:13:17.480 So the second item was the conflict of interest section. 00:13:17.480 --> 00:13:26.080 And this was proposed by the board of ethics chair, Laura Tomlin, to include in the conflict 00:13:26.080 --> 00:13:31.820 of interest definition that receipt of more than $500 and of campaign contributions from 00:13:31.820 --> 00:13:38.080 an individual business entity or other organization is a conflict of interest. 00:13:38.080 --> 00:13:44.280 So does that make sense? 00:13:44.280 --> 00:13:53.820 Which would then require, if there's a pending matter, the city official to recuse himself. 00:13:53.820 --> 00:14:00.360 That's what I've got on that. 00:14:00.360 --> 00:14:01.880 And are we voting on this today? 00:14:01.880 --> 00:14:02.880 Yeah. 00:14:02.880 --> 00:14:04.640 So we'll do similarly, right? 00:14:04.640 --> 00:14:10.560 You'll either give me direction to include it as written, to include it amended with 00:14:10.560 --> 00:14:16.080 different language or to not include it, if that's the way that you would like to go. 00:14:16.080 --> 00:14:26.360 So you mean specifically as item E this, yeah, this specific item E right here. 00:14:26.360 --> 00:14:29.400 Anyone have any comments on that? 00:14:29.400 --> 00:14:35.160 I'm having a hard time finding item E nine of the PDF. 00:14:35.160 --> 00:14:44.840 That's six of 20 of the actual document. 00:14:44.840 --> 00:14:48.240 It's in the ordinance document. 00:14:48.240 --> 00:14:49.240 Okay. 00:14:49.240 --> 00:14:50.240 Exhibit two. 00:14:50.240 --> 00:14:51.240 Okay. 00:14:51.240 --> 00:15:05.400 So do you want to take it to second, if I'm not? 00:15:05.400 --> 00:15:09.920 Yeah, I move that we include it as written. 00:15:09.920 --> 00:15:10.920 Okay. 00:15:10.920 --> 00:15:11.920 Second? 00:15:11.920 --> 00:15:12.920 All right. 00:15:12.920 --> 00:15:13.920 All in favor? 00:15:13.920 --> 00:15:14.920 Aye. 00:15:14.920 --> 00:15:15.920 Aye. 00:15:15.920 --> 00:15:16.920 All opposed? 00:15:16.920 --> 00:15:17.920 Okay. 00:15:17.920 --> 00:15:18.920 Motion passed. 00:15:18.920 --> 00:15:42.880 Okay, so we're ready to move on to item two. 00:15:42.880 --> 00:15:43.880 All right. 00:15:43.880 --> 00:15:48.640 So we will receive a report, hold a discussion and take necessary action regarding the potential 00:15:48.640 --> 00:15:53.600 creation and formalization of procedures for board of ethics members for interacting with 00:15:53.600 --> 00:15:55.400 members of the press. 00:15:55.400 --> 00:16:01.080 So just a brief history, this item was included on that original prioritization list that 00:16:01.080 --> 00:16:07.560 we kind of completed back in April of 2021. 00:16:07.560 --> 00:16:09.000 I think this is more for discussion. 00:16:09.000 --> 00:16:14.240 I don't necessarily have any recommendation just to see if you would like to formalize 00:16:14.240 --> 00:16:20.000 any procedures or make any, have any guidelines about if members of the board are contacted 00:16:20.000 --> 00:16:25.960 by the press, what to do in that situation. 00:16:25.960 --> 00:16:32.680 Is there already any kind of blanketed procedure that covers all boards? 00:16:32.680 --> 00:16:34.720 I thought there was. 00:16:34.720 --> 00:16:40.680 There's the boards and commissions handbook, but it doesn't really address this issue to 00:16:40.680 --> 00:16:41.680 my knowledge. 00:16:41.680 --> 00:16:52.680 I think I looked at it a little bit before you have that Trey. 00:16:52.680 --> 00:16:58.960 I think I did mention in here that the ordinance does prohibit some communication with the, 00:16:58.960 --> 00:17:03.880 for about some of the ethics complaints when there's confidentiality, but it doesn't really 00:17:03.880 --> 00:17:11.120 expand to cover this entire, everything that could be a part of potentially a member of 00:17:11.120 --> 00:17:19.160 the press contacting a board member. 00:17:19.160 --> 00:17:26.480 No, I would say other than what's determined to be confidential, that there would obviously 00:17:26.480 --> 00:17:32.440 be a problem if you were to divulge confidential information that's not been made public yet. 00:17:32.440 --> 00:17:38.040 But other than that, I mean, you're also going to be bound by TOMA rules, stuff like that, 00:17:38.040 --> 00:17:42.440 so you couldn't do it as a quorum, but if an individual member was speaking to the paper, 00:17:42.440 --> 00:17:47.740 I don't think the rules, the handbook would cover that. 00:17:47.740 --> 00:17:53.240 I mean, there are similar rules that you can't go and speak about things that are in an executive 00:17:53.240 --> 00:17:54.240 session. 00:17:54.240 --> 00:17:55.240 Right. 00:17:55.240 --> 00:18:04.000 So it seems like the confidentiality stuff would probably fall in with that, but I guess. 00:18:04.000 --> 00:18:09.040 So I'm trying to understand, we're trying to clarify if you were to talk to the press 00:18:09.040 --> 00:18:13.200 about something not confidential, like what that process would look like. 00:18:13.200 --> 00:18:14.200 Right. 00:18:14.200 --> 00:18:18.000 If the board would like there to be any procedures around that or guidelines put into place, 00:18:18.000 --> 00:18:24.640 and if so, what those would look like. 00:18:24.640 --> 00:18:29.760 Did anyone come up with anything? 00:18:29.760 --> 00:18:35.680 Does this come up with any of the other boards, or is this the first time this has come up? 00:18:35.680 --> 00:18:45.920 Not to my knowledge, but I'll admit I'm not aware of what goes on with all the other boards. 00:18:45.920 --> 00:18:51.780 Was this prompted by something that had occurred, or was it just, is it addressing a particular 00:18:51.780 --> 00:18:56.920 situation that maybe we should be aware of? 00:18:56.920 --> 00:19:02.200 I don't think so, like I said, it was somebody, one of the board members who is not currently 00:19:02.200 --> 00:19:05.000 here, submitted it as an item. 00:19:05.000 --> 00:19:06.000 Okay. 00:19:06.000 --> 00:19:17.120 Should know if there's any context that might be important. 00:19:17.120 --> 00:19:23.360 So I mean, can we like motion to postpone this item? 00:19:23.360 --> 00:19:25.120 You can postpone it. 00:19:25.120 --> 00:19:29.680 If we don't really want to set any procedures or guidelines up, that can also be a determination, 00:19:29.680 --> 00:19:30.680 right? 00:19:30.680 --> 00:19:34.400 Can I ask another clarifying question? 00:19:34.400 --> 00:19:40.040 The board member that put the point forward, is that person still a member of the board? 00:19:40.040 --> 00:19:45.160 Can we postpone it until that member is able to participate and give some context? 00:19:45.160 --> 00:19:46.160 Yes. 00:19:46.160 --> 00:19:49.120 So we could table it until? 00:19:49.120 --> 00:19:50.120 Yes. 00:19:50.120 --> 00:19:51.120 I think that'd be smart. 00:19:51.120 --> 00:19:54.760 I think that would be appropriate, yeah. 00:19:54.760 --> 00:19:57.000 So I move that we table this. 00:19:57.000 --> 00:20:03.240 Sorry, just procedurally real quick, it'll be a motion to postpone to the next meeting 00:20:03.240 --> 00:20:04.240 that you have. 00:20:04.240 --> 00:20:05.240 Okay. 00:20:05.240 --> 00:20:06.240 I didn't know that was. 00:20:06.240 --> 00:20:08.840 Yeah, technically under the rules, if it's tabled, it's just put to the side for the 00:20:08.840 --> 00:20:12.480 rest of this meeting, but if you don't bring it back up, it dies automatically, and I don't 00:20:12.480 --> 00:20:14.400 think that's what you're intending to do here. 00:20:14.400 --> 00:20:15.400 Absolutely not. 00:20:15.400 --> 00:20:16.400 So the motion has to- 00:20:16.400 --> 00:20:17.960 So it will be a motion to postpone to the next meeting. 00:20:17.960 --> 00:20:18.960 Okay. 00:20:18.960 --> 00:20:19.960 So moved. 00:20:19.960 --> 00:20:26.160 Okay, motion to postpone by member Shuck and seconded by Andrea. 00:20:26.160 --> 00:20:27.160 Yeah. 00:20:27.160 --> 00:20:28.160 Okay. 00:20:28.160 --> 00:20:30.800 So if we want to take a vote, all in favor? 00:20:30.800 --> 00:20:31.800 Aye. 00:20:31.800 --> 00:20:32.800 Aye. 00:20:32.800 --> 00:20:33.800 All opposed? 00:20:33.800 --> 00:20:34.800 Okay. 00:20:34.800 --> 00:20:37.800 Motion passed. 00:20:37.800 --> 00:20:48.680 We're ready to move on to number three. 00:20:48.680 --> 00:20:49.680 Yes. 00:20:49.680 --> 00:20:50.680 All right. 00:20:50.680 --> 00:20:54.520 So we'll receive a report and hold a discussion and take necessary ... Sorry, let me start 00:20:54.520 --> 00:20:55.520 again. 00:20:55.520 --> 00:20:58.520 Receive a report, hold a discussion, and take necessary action regarding the creation of 00:20:58.520 --> 00:21:03.000 a Board of Ethics new member orientation process. 00:21:03.000 --> 00:21:09.720 So this is a similar item where it was included on the original prioritization list back in 00:21:09.720 --> 00:21:17.760 April of 2021, and currently there isn't really a formal orientation process. 00:21:17.760 --> 00:21:24.840 All board members, as well as other city officials, are required to go through the ethics training 00:21:24.840 --> 00:21:30.320 annually, which I believe you've all done, and there's also the local government ethics 00:21:30.320 --> 00:21:32.440 in a nutshell, which is required to be read. 00:21:32.440 --> 00:21:37.000 That's all required by the ethics ordinance currently. 00:21:37.000 --> 00:21:43.560 Other than that, I tried to send out the ethics complaint process packet to new members. 00:21:43.560 --> 00:21:49.560 Some of y'all probably got that ... It really just got put into place in January, or sorry, 00:21:49.560 --> 00:21:52.440 March, I believe, yeah, March. 00:21:52.440 --> 00:21:57.200 It's not necessarily an orientation, but it does kind of lay out the ethics process ... Ethics 00:21:57.200 --> 00:22:00.180 complaint process. 00:22:00.180 --> 00:22:04.680 So I guess this is really a question of is there other items that y'all would like to 00:22:04.680 --> 00:22:13.000 see included in that process, more formal training, or anything like that? 00:22:13.000 --> 00:22:19.680 What I was wanting as part of this was, first meeting I came to, the only person I knew 00:22:19.680 --> 00:22:26.240 was Zanetta, and I didn't know the other people on the board, and I don't know y'all down 00:22:26.240 --> 00:22:27.600 that way. 00:22:27.600 --> 00:22:32.640 So I just thought it'd be nice to have some way for us to introduce ourselves to each 00:22:32.640 --> 00:22:42.080 other and some of our background, and just to know who the heck I'm on the board with. 00:22:42.080 --> 00:22:47.000 That was one goal that I thought would be nice for some kind of get together. 00:22:47.000 --> 00:22:50.600 And I didn't know if that has to be an open meetings thing, or it can be informal, or 00:22:50.600 --> 00:22:54.880 we just get in a room and introduce ourselves to each other, or what that would look like. 00:22:54.880 --> 00:22:58.680 - Yeah, I think certainly at a first meeting, you could do that. 00:22:58.680 --> 00:23:04.600 I think one of the potential problems with having an event or something that's come meet 00:23:04.600 --> 00:23:08.960 the Board of Ethics is we'd have to post for it, because there used to be a potential issue 00:23:08.960 --> 00:23:10.480 with quorum. 00:23:10.480 --> 00:23:18.480 We could also just have board members say, "Hello, I'm Zanetta, and this is what I do," 00:23:18.480 --> 00:23:21.520 and give that information to new board members, right? 00:23:21.520 --> 00:23:25.840 So kind of have like a welcome packet that's like, "Here are the other board members currently." 00:23:25.840 --> 00:23:30.040 That would require you all to submit things like that, but that's certainly something 00:23:30.040 --> 00:23:36.240 we could do, because that wouldn't be an issue as far as quorum or anything, just having 00:23:36.240 --> 00:23:41.040 here's some information about the other board members. 00:23:41.040 --> 00:23:44.840 - Yeah, I think that would be helpful, honestly. 00:23:44.840 --> 00:23:47.680 Calling people's names out right now in my second meeting, that's been a little difficult. 00:23:47.680 --> 00:23:52.400 So if I had a face sheet right here with what people's names were, kind of some things about 00:23:52.400 --> 00:23:55.520 them, I think that would be helpful with that. 00:23:55.520 --> 00:23:58.360 - There's no problem with that, right? 00:23:58.360 --> 00:24:03.120 - No, just like a list of who's on the board and what they are right now. 00:24:03.120 --> 00:24:05.640 No, there's not a violation with that. 00:24:05.640 --> 00:24:10.760 There would be a violation if we met and didn't have it properly posted, but just handing 00:24:10.760 --> 00:24:12.040 out a packet like that would be fine. 00:24:12.040 --> 00:24:13.040 - Right. 00:24:13.040 --> 00:24:14.040 Okay. 00:24:14.040 --> 00:24:15.040 Yeah, that's certainly something we can do. 00:24:15.040 --> 00:24:20.480 I can reach out to everybody and get that information going so that we have that information 00:24:20.480 --> 00:24:23.320 for our new board members, and we can give it to you all as well. 00:24:23.320 --> 00:24:26.360 - So you want it in a written form, not in a meeting format. 00:24:26.360 --> 00:24:27.360 Is that what you're recommending? 00:24:27.360 --> 00:24:28.360 - Correct. 00:24:28.360 --> 00:24:29.360 In a written form. 00:24:29.360 --> 00:24:30.360 - Yeah. 00:24:30.360 --> 00:24:31.360 - Okay. 00:24:31.360 --> 00:24:36.120 - I do think it would be helpful, though, just to have a few minutes when people come 00:24:36.120 --> 00:24:41.840 in to say who they are, because, yeah, you can read a sheet, but it's not the same thing 00:24:41.840 --> 00:24:48.920 as hearing someone talk and putting a face with, I don't know, I just think it makes 00:24:48.920 --> 00:24:56.520 it easier to talk when you feel like you know the people on the board a little bit. 00:24:56.520 --> 00:25:01.080 - I do want to add that as you're compiling this, keep it to biographical information. 00:25:01.080 --> 00:25:07.360 Don't discuss the, in that kind of setting, don't discuss the ethics ordinance or thoughts 00:25:07.360 --> 00:25:11.200 on issues that may become before the board, because then it could have the potential to 00:25:11.200 --> 00:25:15.160 lead to a walking quorum kind of situation, and we don't want that. 00:25:15.160 --> 00:25:17.440 So just, as you're compiling it, just keep it biographical. 00:25:17.440 --> 00:25:18.440 - Cool. 00:25:18.440 --> 00:25:21.040 I'll make sure to look for that. 00:25:21.040 --> 00:25:26.320 I wonder if we could also, like when we have new members on the next agenda, include like 00:25:26.320 --> 00:25:33.200 welcome, like a welcome to whoever, as like an agenda item, or could we just do that? 00:25:33.200 --> 00:25:37.360 - We could do it as an agenda item, just welcome of new members. 00:25:37.360 --> 00:25:39.920 We've done that with new staff members and stuff like that before, so we could do it 00:25:39.920 --> 00:25:40.920 for a new member of the board. 00:25:40.920 --> 00:25:45.980 - So we could add that as a kind of a normal procedure, right, if there's a new board member 00:25:45.980 --> 00:25:48.440 or more, we can include that as an item, right? 00:25:48.440 --> 00:25:51.480 - Give them a chance to introduce themselves to the board, then? 00:25:51.480 --> 00:25:52.480 - Yeah. 00:25:52.480 --> 00:25:56.520 I think several people have come on and haven't even been introduced. 00:25:56.520 --> 00:26:00.000 - Yeah, it's been kind of weird. 00:26:00.000 --> 00:26:04.280 - Yeah, because I would prefer that over a written thing, because then I think that as 00:26:04.280 --> 00:26:11.080 you're leaving, you can say, "Hi, I'm so-and-so, I'm glad you're here, and I don't, I mean..." 00:26:11.080 --> 00:26:18.800 - And I would like both, written and talking, because I need a cheat sheet to remember for 00:26:18.800 --> 00:26:19.800 the next time. 00:26:19.800 --> 00:26:25.560 - Yeah, I would say you can look on the city thing, and I admit I've looked on the city 00:26:25.560 --> 00:26:31.360 thing to see who's on and make sure I understood the names, but I just think an introduction 00:26:31.360 --> 00:26:37.240 with each new person, and that would be really important to you. 00:26:37.240 --> 00:26:43.560 - Yeah, we can include, we can do both, that's easy to do both, and then even next meeting, 00:26:43.560 --> 00:26:47.960 which I guess will be in January, we can kind of have a similar item, if y'all would like, 00:26:47.960 --> 00:26:54.080 that's like a reintroduction, here's everybody, 'cause we've had a lot of turnover recently, 00:26:54.080 --> 00:26:55.080 so... 00:26:55.080 --> 00:26:56.080 - Yeah. 00:26:56.080 --> 00:26:57.080 - Okay. 00:26:57.080 --> 00:27:15.440 - I thought the information you guys gave us whenever I joined the board was sufficient 00:27:15.440 --> 00:27:23.620 for me to get up to speed on what I needed to know before the first meeting, and we hadn't 00:27:23.620 --> 00:27:32.440 finished the packet, and I think that would be a whole lot more helpful than trying to 00:27:32.440 --> 00:27:37.720 dissect everything in the ordinance, so, I mean, as long as that's included for the new 00:27:37.720 --> 00:27:43.000 member packet, I think, I don't know what else I would've asked for. 00:27:43.000 --> 00:27:47.040 - I guess that I was confused when I first came on the board that the discussion that 00:27:47.040 --> 00:27:51.440 was happening at the first meeting, I didn't know the background of it, and I didn't wanna 00:27:51.440 --> 00:27:55.440 slow the whole meeting down with trying to find out what the background had been of previous 00:27:55.440 --> 00:28:00.920 discussions about it, and so, I thought it would've been nice if somebody had filled 00:28:00.920 --> 00:28:08.360 me in, although I guess you can watch the videos too, I guess I could've done that too, 00:28:08.360 --> 00:28:14.680 but I'm not sure if there's a way for somebody, just kinda give you a briefing on what topics 00:28:14.680 --> 00:28:23.800 have been discussed in the last few months, so you know where you're coming from. 00:28:23.800 --> 00:28:28.880 - Okay. 00:28:28.880 --> 00:28:32.480 And maybe also just include that if you wanna go watch previous meetings, they're available 00:28:32.480 --> 00:28:33.480 here. 00:28:33.480 --> 00:28:34.480 - Right. 00:28:34.480 --> 00:28:37.480 - Yeah, I think that'd be helpful, a place of reference. 00:28:37.480 --> 00:28:42.200 - 'Cause the meetings aren't real clear what's happening though. 00:28:42.200 --> 00:28:45.120 - Yeah. 00:28:45.120 --> 00:28:50.440 - I also think with the board turnover, it's important to realize that maybe we need to 00:28:50.440 --> 00:28:56.520 revisit topics that have been discussed previously because the board's new now. 00:28:56.520 --> 00:29:00.880 Because I know that when I first got on the board, you couldn't even bring anything up 00:29:00.880 --> 00:29:06.680 if the board had already talked about it, and so it just kinda makes you go, "Okay, 00:29:06.680 --> 00:29:17.000 I won't talk," so, anyone else? 00:29:17.000 --> 00:29:20.320 - No. 00:29:20.320 --> 00:29:23.640 - Okay. 00:29:23.640 --> 00:29:36.040 - That's the last thing on the agenda. 00:29:36.040 --> 00:29:40.080 - Do we need to vote on that? 00:29:40.080 --> 00:29:42.080 - I think, let me just summarize the direction. 00:29:42.080 --> 00:29:43.080 - Okay. 00:29:43.080 --> 00:29:47.920 - So, the things that I've heard were compiled kind of like a, "These are the board member 00:29:47.920 --> 00:29:52.720 biographical information packet to give to new board members," so I'll reach out to all 00:29:52.720 --> 00:29:56.560 of y'all to get that information. 00:29:56.560 --> 00:30:01.800 Whenever there are new board members, include an item on the agenda for introductions, and 00:30:01.800 --> 00:30:08.520 also do that in January, which will be the next board meeting, and then also, for new 00:30:08.520 --> 00:30:14.040 board members, include maybe a little brief information on what the last couple of meetings 00:30:14.040 --> 00:30:22.120 has been discussed, as well as a reference to where old meetings can be seen and re-reviewed. 00:30:22.120 --> 00:30:24.520 So, I think that's it. 00:30:24.520 --> 00:30:26.320 Did I miss anything? 00:30:26.320 --> 00:30:27.320 - No. 00:30:27.320 --> 00:30:30.320 - All right. 00:30:30.320 --> 00:30:36.880 I think that's the direction, so I don't think we need to take a vote on that or anything. 00:30:36.880 --> 00:30:37.880 - Okay. 00:30:37.880 --> 00:30:38.880 - So. 00:30:38.880 --> 00:30:39.880 - All righty. 00:30:39.880 --> 00:30:40.880 So, are we good? 00:30:40.880 --> 00:30:41.880 Anything else? 00:30:41.880 --> 00:30:42.880 - Yeah. 00:30:42.880 --> 00:30:47.640 I think now you just have to say, "We're adjourned." 00:30:47.640 --> 00:30:48.640 - Okay. 00:30:48.640 --> 00:30:49.640 All right. 00:30:49.640 --> 00:30:52.720 So, Board of Ethics meeting adjourned, 3 31 p.m. 00:30:52.720 --> 00:30:55.360 - Thank you.