Okay, it's 6 o'clock, so I will start this regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of
Ethics.
A quorum appears to be here, so we'll just jump right in to Item A, BOE 22-008, Member
Introductions and Commentary.
So a lot of new faces here.
I know I haven't been to a meeting in a while between the 3 PM meetings and everything kind
of back to normal at work and the COVID surge, we haven't seen each other in a while.
But my name is Laura Tomlin, for the people that don't know me.
I've been on this since 2018 when it started.
I think I'm on like my last possible time I can be on it.
I think after Jesse ran for one, his seat, I was elected chair and I've been chair since
then.
And I just try to make the meetings efficient and try to make sure everybody can be heard
and not keep everybody too long so we all start hating each other.
And I guess that's enough for me and then I guess maybe we'll just start here and go
around so everybody can introduce themselves.
Sure, I can start, I'm an alternate that was just brought on to the board in the fall.
My name is David Schuck and it's S-H-U-C-K.
I previously served on the Parks and Rec Board from I guess 2018 or somewhere around that
time.
I moved over to Denton from Northeast Denton County in 2016 and over there I was involved
in municipal government both as city councilman and I served as mayor of Providence Village
before I moved.
So when I came over here I think they wanted to keep me out of trouble and put me on to
some boards instead of letting me run for council or anything crazy like that.
But I will be running from office from now on but I'm definitely happy to serve on this
board.
This is a great place to be.
My name is Dustin Pavlik, I joined the board about a year ago and I just submitted my application
looking for somewhere to serve the city.
I was born in Denton and grew up here, lived in Houston and some other places but I've been
back in Denton for about eight years or so.
I'm Hannah Fogh-Closson, I started on the board in the fall of last year and I moved
to Denton for graduate school and I just never left.
My husband and I own a house in Idiots Hill and I own a counseling practice here in town
and I just wanted to get involved and see what's going on with local politics so I thought
I'd serve on the board.
My name is Annetta Ramsey and I am a Ph.D. trained counselor and I run a eating disorders
treatment program.
We live in the historic district and I do write a column on history which is ironic
because when I was in school I hated history.
So I've gotten over it.
And I guess I said my things about the board which is me personally, I will live here in
Denton, grew up in the colony, I'm an assistant district attorney at the D.A.'s office and
I live in Annetta's neighborhood so that's the personal stuff on top of the board of ethics.
Next.
My name is Andrea Ebelhard, I've lived with my husband here in Denton for about 21 years
and we raised two children here, two Denton high school graduates in the I.B. program.
I'm a special education teacher at Calhoun Middle School.
I work with students that have emotional disturbance so I have a very specialized special education
field and my background is in my education is in psychology.
I also want to include that I love to ski and hike so I'm always the kind of person
that does this.
Rob Rainer.
I came on a couple months before Jesse Davis left and ran for office.
Moved here in 1983 and am with Tom Paz Realtors, commercial broker here in town and I also
live affectionately called Idiot's Hill and all along on the lower slope than probably
you but that's where we are and that's how that works.
Thank you.
Scott Bradbury.
Alright and we know Tammy and Madison or yeah you probably do because you have to deal with
them.
That's such a warm introduction.
I do want to mention Don Cartwright and Patricia Rinckey are the two regular members who are
not here tonight and Deborah Crossmo is the third alternate member so there are names
out there.
Madison is great whether you want me to be chair or if somebody else wants to take it
on like working with Madison is great.
You just got to kind of tell her what you want to do and she makes it better than you
could think of making it so it has been a pleasure.
So moving right into item for consideration B, receive nominations and hold an election
of chair and vice chair.
So I'm going to the agenda information sheet.
Let's see.
Right now, well it's supposed to be elected annually in January or February but because
of COVID and the 3 p.m. meetings we didn't have January or February meetings so this
is our first one.
I was elected in 2019, I was elected in 2021 and Hannah was elected, well I think the last
meeting I was at in September of 2021.
So I'll open the floor if anybody like really wants these positions, jump at it or make
nominations.
Yeah I believe we have to, you have to make a nomination and then we vote on the nominations
in order.
Is that correct?
Yes.
So I assume you want to start with chair.
So nominations for chair.
Yes.
I'd like to nominate you because you like punishment.
I do like punishment.
You've done an excellent job and as we started this and developed this plan you have kept
us on a true course and I've enjoyed that.
Thank you.
Alright any seconds?
Second.
Second from David.
Alright I mean is it okay if I use everybody's first name?
Sure.
Don't offend anyone though.
Okay so we don't get more nominations we vote on.
I think you have a choice to accept or not.
Oh me?
Yeah.
I mean I will accept I'll say the only like the three p.m. meetings were not working out.
You know I'm an attorney and you know they weren't but I think we're moving back to six
meetings which I you know I'll be able to do and you know I can keep leading if you all
want me to.
I don't want it to be like you know ruler of the kingdom or anything so if anybody you
know I don't want to you know as long as everybody I guess we'll see with the vote but I will
accept.
And I guess I will call for vote.
Other nominations.
Do we do other or do we do that one first?
Okay so ask for discussion first.
Any other nominations?
Other nominations first.
Okay sorry not I'm not an expert on Robert Rose but luckily we have an attorney who is
sitting here.
I'm working.
So any other nominations?
I won't be offended if anybody.
So no other nominations so discussion and Rob you know said would he have to anyone else?
I would like to just mention say that considering with all the changing of times missed meetings
and all of that I think it would be it would be prudent to have somebody that has actually
served on this board for a while continue so that we can we can because there's lots
of new members so in my opinion it's a prudent way to go forward with somebody that has been
in position and knows where this needs to be needs to be done.
Any other discussion?
So now we hold a vote right?
Okay and I know on Zoom we have to go person by person so is it do do we need to still
do that or is it just I mean I think we can just do voice votes again now that we're all
in person.
Okay all right all in favor say aye.
Aye.
All opposed say nay.
Any abstentions?
I guess I mean I don't know all abstained because I'm not going to vote for myself but
I did say aye.
And I think ayes carry so I will serve as your chair again hopefully you know if anybody
wants to impeach me and go for it you know I'm just trying my best and hopefully we'll
all get along.
It's quite a victory speech.
I guess this is you know the third time in you know.
All right so moving on to vice chair.
Do we have any and I think Hannah I read the meeting minutes you know it seemed like Hannah
did a good job at the last meeting.
So do I have any nominations for vice chair?
I'd like to nominate Hannah.
Is that correct?
All right Annetta has nominated Hannah.
I'll second that.
And a second from sorry Andrea is that right okay I know my boss is Andrea so I want to
make sure I say it correctly.
All right so any other nominations for vice chair?
I'm not seeing any.
Discussion?
I thought she did a really good job at that one meeting and I know she just stepped in
I guess but I thought she did a good job.
That's hard for him to do.
Yeah and I agree it looked like things went well at the last meeting and it got through
the agenda quickly.
All right if there's no more discussion I will ask for a vote.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
All opposed say nay.
Okay any abstentions?
I'll abstain and I'll help myself.
Kind of abstains.
And so the motion carries and so Hannah will continue as our vice chair.
All right congratulations.
Moving on to agenda item C consider approval of minutes for October 28, 2021.
I was not there I read them over does anybody who was there that read them over have any
corrections?
Is there a motion to approve those minutes?
So moved.
Okay.
David moves.
And a second.
And a second from Annetta.
Any discussion?
All right all in favor to approve the minutes for October 28, 2021 say aye.
Aye.
All opposed say nay.
Any abstentions?
Okay so that is approved.
Moving on to agenda item D BOE 22-011 receive report, hold discussion and take necessary
action regarding a recommendation to amend code of ordinance chapter 2 article 11 ethics
definition of panel.
I'm not sure if we need you to discuss this too much it seems pretty simple.
So the council changed the eligibility of having to have attorneys on the board and
our rules of procedure or I guess it's in the ethics ordinance is that our committees
have to have an attorney but if the board doesn't have to have an attorney we definitely
shouldn't have the panels have to have an attorney because then if you know there's
just one attorney on the board they would have to be on every panel or if there's no
attorneys on the board we can't have panels.
So it seems pretty simple do you want to do you have anything to add?
I think you summarized it very well.
So I think we just need to take out the requirement for an attorney to be on the panel is it the
ethics ordinance or the rule of procedure or both?
I believe it's just in the ordinance but I can double check after this meeting as long
as there's direction from the board to remove that piece.
It's in the definition section.
So this is the proposed language from the staff recommendation just to remove this last
piece basically.
All right so do we I guess so this would just be recommendations we need to send to
council correct?
Yes.
So because you basically give direction to include that in the packet of recommendation
recommended amendments that we're sending to council at some point?
Yeah we might have to talk I'm not sure if it's on this agenda but I kind of think we
just need to like send what we have before because it's been so long between COVID and
all the other issues that we haven't had meetings but that's probably another discussion on
another agenda item.
So I guess let's see a motion.
Yeah a motion to I move approval of that as stated in the code.
All right so Anna has moved to change it as staff has recommended in the red line
version.
Is there a second?
Second.
Second from Hannah and is there any discussion?
Just small I mean I noticed that we're not redlining the comma before but I mean those
kind of things I imagine you guys were like I didn't want to get too into the weeds.
Any other discussion?
All right that was pretty easy.
All in favor of the motion to take staff recommendation including getting rid of that
comma making a period say aye.
Aye.
All opposed?
All right anybody abstaining?
All right.
Okay.
Okay so I think that's approved.
Moving right along to agenda item E. Receive a report, hold a discussion and take necessary
action regarding potential recommendations to amend the Board of Ethics Rules of Procedure.
All right so is this the one this is about the timeliness of requests for a panel that
advise your opinions?
Okay do you want to discuss that since it kind of falls on you?
Yes so essentially this is coming from something that occurred where a board member or a commissioner
I believe requested advice on an application of the ordinance on the day of the vote that
they were going to have and so I asked them if they wanted to have a panel to give an
advisory opinion after the vote but they didn't think that was useful.
So this is basically to try to formalize a process for how I should respond and report
if those things happen to the board and so the current recommendation is to include in
the rules of procedure which I can pull up what the language looks like.
Basically just something that says that if more than that if I receive a request as for
an advisory opinion more than 10 business days before the deliberation of the pending
matter then that will be assigned to a panel and we'll make sure that that happens.
If it's more than five business days then it may be assigned to a panel or special counsel
so more than five less than 10 could go to special counsel because I discussed with special
counsel how long they thought it would take to get an advisory opinion turned around and
they said five days and then if it was less than five days we'll basically tell them that
it's not possible to get a panel opinion before the deliberation and they can choose to either
withdraw their request and if they do then I'll report that to you all at the next board
meeting or if they don't choose to withdraw it then they just are acknowledging basically
that they'll get it after the deliberation occurs.
So that is the recommendation from staff and I'll go find the...
What kind of notice do they get about things that they're voting on?
Here it would depend on the board just whenever they get their agenda for the next meeting.
I don't know what the standard...
If they're having monthly meetings I would assume it's at least a week before.
Oh, I guess the city council.
City council is at least...
72.
Yeah, at least people get 72 hours notice.
Okay.
I have a question, I don't think it should be routine that people should think they go
to the board to decide if they should recuse themselves.
I believe that if there is any possibility that anybody could think you should have, you
should.
Too bad, so sad if you're not happy about it.
I just kind of hate for the board to be a sticking point.
I think also, I didn't cut you off, but it kind of comes down to the board's role.
Is the board's role as an advisory position or is it a deliberative...
Are we supposed to deliberate things that have occurred?
It's sort of a before or after kind of thing and I don't know that the board's intent was
to service an advisory, but maybe I don't.
The ordinance does say that any person subject to the ordinance can request an advisory opinion.
It just doesn't speak to the timeline of when that happens, but it does have a timeline of
when the opinion must be issued by requesting.
So if you request one, it has to be issued within 30 days, but it doesn't consider that
they could request one before or after or how it is around the deliberation period.
So honestly, it's really for me so that I have direction on if I get a request on the
day of, I can tell them, "Hey, you're not going to get an opinion today."
And so do you want an opinion still or not?
It allows you tools to not have to be putting things out of order.
Exactly, and then to have a mechanism for being transparent about the way that happens.
And so in the ordinance right now, we can't give advisory opinions.
It doesn't seem like there's been many.
I mean, it seems like there's only been a few times that we've actually had a panel.
There's probably just as many or more times they've asked you, but it's like, "Well, the
time, we couldn't even get a panel together before your vote, say, in a few days."
I think there's been less than 10 advisory opinions issued, and I think it has happened
maybe two or three times that I've been asked and been like, "I don't think that there's
enough time to get to a panel," or I said, "Hey, you have to deliberate this tomorrow,"
or you know what I mean.
I mean, I think that sounds pretty good because I think you do need direction on what to say,
what to tell somebody.
And I think five to 10 days, it's just really hard to get three of us together and get something
written, and then get an open meetings act timeline together, and then less than five
days, I don't see special counsel or a panel being able to do anything.
I think I agree with what you've come up with.
I have a little bit of a concern about, I mean, I think that the more than 10 days guidelines
and the less than five day guidelines are a pretty clear cut, in my opinion.
I'm questioning the in-between time.
I think that it would be, I just don't know if, because special counsel is special counsel,
and special counsel is a different role than the ethics committee.
So I'm not sure if that in-between time is necessarily best served by...
The ordinance does say that it doesn't give any guidance, actually.
So it says that I could basically get assignment, I don't know if it's me or if it's the chair,
but that it could be, the request could be assigned to special counsel or to a panel.
And there's no guidance in the ordinance about timeline or what it should be.
So it does, the ordinance does conceive of special counsel filling that role.
I think they have done it once in the past.
I think, I mean, my understanding of what's happened so far since this began
was that we try to get a panel, and if we can't get a panel, it goes to special counsel.
Right, yeah, I mean, I would try to get, if I had, I got a five day, request five days out,
I would try to get a panel.
There are, but I think there is some even timelines around how long you have to issue,
you have at least two days to actually have the opinion issued after the panel occurs.
And do you have to issue notice for panel meeting as well, or is that?
Yeah, so if I was going to hold a panel, I'd have to have, I have to post it 72 hours before it would occur,
then it would occur, and the panel would have, I believe, two business days to actually issue the opinion.
So that's only a factor in two of those timelines.
Right.
Go ahead.
Just for clarification purposes, obviously once a panel is convened and issues an opinion,
that will then further be discussed at the following ethics meeting?
Will it be reported out? No?
Not necessarily, no. I mean, that's something we could do, and we, if we'd like.
In the past, they've kind of issued opinions, and then I don't think we've, I think some of what we've--
I think they go to the chair, for the chair to be aware of.
Okay.
Because the chair would be aware that there was a panel, because I think the chair assigns the members.
I want to say in the past, we have discussed that before, when it's kind of an issue that we need to discuss,
like, or we need to change something in the ordinance.
But it's not like, I don't think, it's not in the ordinance or the rules of procedure that we would.
I think, I think it's probably conceived of that way so that the board doesn't then immediately say,
"Well, they were wrong."
But that's something to discuss further, potentially.
And I think it would be something, you know, if there is a concern,
I mean, it could be something that someone, you know, emails Madison or both of us and says,
"We should talk about this at the next meeting," but it's not like, I guess that's not the rule.
Right, and I can definitely make sure that if an opinion is issued, it goes to all of you,
so you're all aware that it happened.
I don't think that's a bad idea.
Yeah.
But I don't know that we need to necessarily change the rules of procedure for that to be reflected,
because I have my own standard operating procedures for how we run the board as staff.
So were you looking for a motion to adopt what you presented?
Or if you would prefer, like, there to be amended.
Yes.
So direction on whether or not this should be included in the packet that eventually goes to Council.
Is there more discussion or is there a motion on this?
I move approval.
What statement?
Okay, Annette moves to approve as stated by Madison.
Is there a second?
I second that.
Second by Andrea.
Any more discussion?
I think it's appropriate that we at least start off with this guideline and then we can tweak it as we go along,
because 10 days, there are events going on that we know about way out and people can kind of get the sense
that it may be a conflict.
And we had one in particular with a Council member asking about a vote and we had a panel and gave our opinion.
And I thought that was very forthright of that Council member to ask that question.
It was well in advance of the time.
And I think we're going to see more of that than all of a sudden a pop-up, oh, my goodness, situation.
But I think it's a good beginning for you, which we can then, as it progresses,
we can see how we need to fine-tune it.
But I think, do you feel comfortable with this?
Yes, I think so.
Because I think we can almost certainly get a panel if we have 10 business days.
Thank you.
Any more thoughts on this one?
All right.
All in favor of the motion as stated by Annette, say aye.
Aye.
All opposed, say nay.
Any abstentions?
All right.
Motion carries.
And so we will -- another one of our recommendations.
Okay.
Moving to item F, BOE 22-013, receive report, hold discussion,
and take necessary action regarding the format of the discussion regarding Code of Ordinance, Chapter 2,
Article 11, Ethics, Section 2-273, Conflicts of Interest.
And I guess -- let me get to the agenda sheet.
All right.
So I guess Madison, do you want to --
Yes.
Do you want to hop out this way?
Go ahead.
So at previous board meetings, it was requested that we discuss the definition of conflict of interest.
Because that's such a broad topic, when I went to look at it,
I thought it might be best to get direction on how to have that discussion
within the agenda information sheet under discussion here.
I kind of created five potential topics.
We can either not discuss them, but discuss additional ones.
But that way we can do kind of one at a time each meeting with the thought process.
But this is just what I came up with.
We don't have different options or different ways you want to go through the definition that's obviously up to you.
What I would really like to see happen is just a look at that conflict of interest section on the Code.
There are some definitions in there that are very narrow.
There's wording like pending matter, which I haven't found in any other city,
that makes it so narrow it's almost unenforceable.
And then there's a statement at the bottom that says this excludes all future buy-ins.
I forget the rest of it.
But basically, if I were on city council and I voted for a property, I guess,
and then I wanted to buy into it the very next day, I would not be breaking our code of ethics.
And to me that is just so wrong.
I think the definition is flawed, and we need to recommend to council that it be rewritten.
And it's entirety.
I know that's strong, but it's been weak from day one.
The only thing it might cover would be possible people would need to be political with each other right before an election.
I'm just speaking hypothetically, of course.
It's a weak code.
And further I would say council should not rewrite it.
We should not rewrite it.
I think we need to find a group of people that do this, and we need to ask for a code,
and we need to not change it once it gets in the hands of the city.
So I know that's a broad sweep.
Yeah, I mean, I know, we've been on this together long enough, I kind of know your thoughts,
but you're saying we need just, are you saying just the whole thing?
The whole conflict of interest part needs to be rewritten.
Like including everything that Madison says.
It needs to be lined up with model codes.
I can fill up that section of the ordinance if you would like to.
Sure, that would be great.
I don't know if I can get it all on the screen. There's this part here, and there's a little bit more down here.
Could you blow it back up just a little more among the pages?
Yes.
Thank you.
Is that good?
Right.
I know I have a thought about the conflict of interest, a much like smaller issue,
is that I think there should be something in there about having a conflict
when there's a matter in front of City Council, the pending matter,
that the people involved contribute it to the campaign of the City Councilperson or Mayor.
I'm not sure what amount, like, you know.
Chair, I believe that was approved.
Oh, never mind.
That's included in the current packet.
Thank you for talking to me.
Okay, that sounds good.
All right, that's what I get for missing a meeting.
All right, next, anybody else?
One thing, if you look at that section one, if you look at the items that are capitalized,
those are items that are defined in the glossary, and they're not hyperlinked.
You have to do a page turn, and when you look at the definition, I'm not a lawyer,
the definition doesn't match what I think that word means.
And I, you know, for one thing, I think the thing needs to be written not in legalese,
not so that you have to go back to the glossary to figure out what is being said.
So all those places, like pending matter is one of the things that you're supposed to look up.
Conflict of interest is something you're supposed to look up.
Anyway, there's like five or six things that you have to look up.
And I think it should be in plain English, it should be all in one place,
you shouldn't have to go back to the glossary.
The people who are going to have to follow it are not lawyers always,
and they shouldn't have to get legal counsel to help them figure out how to follow it.
It should be really, really plain and simple.
So I don't like the way those definitions, and I hate pending matter with a capital H.
It's just, it's so narrow.
Would you like me to pull up the definition of that?
Sure.
Conflicting interest is not defined in the ordinance.
Where's the what?
Conflicting interest is not defined.
Oh, okay.
I believe conflicting interest is then just defined out there.
It's not the definition section, but yes, it considers conflict interest.
So it's just a very narrow definition.
And the city of Austin has matter in their things.
There is no other city, I've probably looked at Penn Cities,
no other city has either pending or pending matter in it.
So is it your thought that we need to remove pending matter?
Is that what you're asking?
Yeah.
And replace with just matter or?
Just take it out.
Okay.
Yeah.
Conflict interest.
Period.
Like delete.
And to my way of thinking, the more simple you make things, the better.
Because then there's no confusion.
I mean, actually in the city of San Marcos, it says at one point,
if you have a conflicting interest, you just shouldn't run.
And that was the other place I found one that was that direct.
But that's pretty direct.
And in fact, the whole code, if you go back to the aspirational part,
which is a couple pages up,
that's supposed to be, it should be something that might control,
let's say, inappropriate behavior at council meetings.
And again, I'm just talking alphabetically.
But it's so vague there.
Like when Borquist gives his speech,
and I didn't notice this until the second time I watched the film,
but he actually looks up, he said the expectations,
this is the aspirational part of the document.
He said, this is where you should say that you shouldn't slander each other.
And I was like, oh good, it's in the code.
And then I looked it up.
Does that say don't slander each other?
I mean, it doesn't define very clearly what bad behavior is.
So when he said it, he looked up at the camera,
and it's kind of a behavioral thing when people look straight ahead at a camera,
they're kind of telling the truth that they're not going to say the words.
So if you go back and look at that,
it's really interesting how he looks up at that point.
And yeah, it doesn't say that you can't slander each other.
That's against the law, technically, I guess, but it's not in there.
And I'm sure, could we look at that definition in the medicals?
Yes.
I'll say as far as having things in the conflict of interest
and then having them defined in the beginning,
when there's a code, people have to have notice of what is and isn't a conflict of interest.
And so kind of like in any statute or ordinance that's written,
they use pending matters, so they have to then define it to tell you what is a pending matter.
Otherwise, that would be up to us at every time that we would have a hearing
or have a panel on a possible conflict of interest.
If you look at this definition, it's contracts, goods, services, property,
and that's part of ethics, but it's not all of ethics.
Ethics would be if I have an interest in something and I vote
in a way that maybe benefits a family member.
And it may not exactly, if I curry favors, that should be an ethical violation.
And there's no way to cover that here.
I'm curious if that's what the number three on what Madison has listed here
of personal considerations and prohibitions is intended to address.
We could cobble something together that would probably be better.
I really would like to get pending matter out.
Because, obviously, a contract or, I mean, those should be unethical things
if you're voting in a way that's going to benefit you or someone related to you.
Is your concern, I'm trying to understand, make sure I understand your concern,
do you believe that it's, because this is where other things of value,
is it your concern that it may be about matters that aren't things of real intrinsic value,
but maybe of political motivation or whatnot?
Yeah, political motivation, yeah.
Because I agree with you, I don't see that covered.
I just wondered if that was what you were...
There was a case in, I can't remember what city, I want to say Irving,
but I might be wrong, where the mayor was sleeping with a developer.
And while she was sleeping with the developer, she voted a number of times to give money to him.
And there was nothing, the city didn't even have an ethical code,
so finally the FBI stepped in and I believe both he and she, I know they were tried,
I was kind of following it for a while, but I'm pretty sure they went to jail for it.
But I think that would be covered under the spending matter, right?
Yeah, well no, because if you voted and in the following day,
if you could scroll back to the, there's a loophole,
there's a really good loophole, I guess, down...
Is it here?
I think it's at the very bottom of the section, keep scrolling.
Here?
It might be at the very very bottom.
Very very bottom.
Sorry, I'm not sure where you are.
I know it just says this excludes potential future buyouts and...
I don't know if this would actually work.
Type in future buyouts maybe.
I'm not sure how good it's actually picking up words.
That's the thing that citizens have pointed out to me.
That's the thing that it's a great loophole.
A future buyout, I think, would mean our future...
In other words, if you vote on something and the next day
you approach that developer and say,
"Hey, I'd like to buy into your property."
There is a loophole that would like you to do that.
Go down a little bit more.
Isn't the last paragraph in that definition of conflicting interest
where it talks about the term conflicting interest
does not include ownership of an interest in the future?
Yes.
Go back up a little bit.
Oh, I thought it was this paragraph here.
Is that correct?
No, I'm sorry.
I think that's like if you have a mutual fund
that happens to have an interest.
Correct.
It's on bullet two under section A for the time period
including the previous calendar year and up to the date
where the conflicting interest arises before the city official.
So after that date, it's no longer considered.
That means you don't have a conflicting interest
at the time of the vote.
So your concern is that after the vote,
immediately after, you're not subject to this portion of the vote?
Yes.
There's another thing about DOOR.
It's later in the document where it says that when you leave office,
that it's okay to do any of these things
if that was your business before you went to council.
So in other words, if you potentially do some kind of business with the city,
then the minute you leave office, you can continue to do that.
I believe that's the section that you're heading to.
But I might be wrong.
Yeah, so that's a back door.
So there's some interesting things that have slipped in there at some point.
And do you believe there should just be a wait period in that?
In most cities, there's a wait period, I think, of as long as two years.
I served, I still kind of have some connections with the city.
I shouldn't do business with them.
And if that's a problem, then don't run.
So yeah, and that's a back door, and other cities don't have that.
So we have something really weird.
I mean, university got slipped in as a business partner.
A government entity cannot be a business partner with another government entity.
So there's a lot of weird things that just kind of--
Well, I think in this code, university is included just because
there's two big universities here that you don't want to have undue influence on city council.
Yeah, but they're not business partners.
I would bet they're different.
But if I may revert back to the definitions, we're not going to be here forever.
Laura's already told us that, you know, he's one of the entities we're going to assume.
But the mindset that we have, I think if the definitions are important,
then to bring back into what Annette's talking about, but it's timeless.
And I think that's what's important about the definitions and that pending manner.
Now, it can be adjusted with each particular article that we're looking at,
but the major theme of pending matter, that's it, in my opinion.
I mean, that would be something that I could hook on to and know that that's it.
It's in concrete.
You're absolutely right.
Anything else just to have it removed, and I would agree with you, morally and ethically,
if you see that, you should remove yourself.
But there are sometimes that people, our morays are changing.
And so we may not find that to be so offensive as we did a few years ago.
But I think the pending matter is that time capsule that keeps us grounded.
And with all the definitions, in my humble opinion.
I might argue along that, that if you remove it, it has less teeth, I mean, rather than...
Well, it has more teeth for a contract,
but it kind of narrows the conflict of interest to kind of a business arrangement.
I think there's a lot more to ethics than that.
And really the only things that have gone before the board that have had teeth
didn't have to do with business contracts.
So getting back to the agenda item,
because I don't want to get too far into the weeds of discussing things
that Madison wants us to tell her that we need to discuss later, you know.
I mean, I think Annette has expressed concern with the entire conflict of interest,
but I mean more narrowly is like the definition of pending matter.
And then also I picked up on like political motivations,
maybe not whether they fit under any of the conflict of interest
and whether we would want them to.
Is there anybody else that has kind of more, you know,
specific thing that they want us to make sure we discuss as far as conflict of interest?
So Annette did say that she wanted to hire somebody to come in and rewrite it.
Is there consensus on the board for that?
Well, I mean, I would say we hired the board with sperm who,
I mean, he is a specialist in municipal law and has helped many cities write this.
And the city council at that time had, I believe, 11 public meetings to write this.
So I mean, but there were three proposals that were recommended.
They were from worst to best.
Council took the worst one and then there were a lot of amendments made on it
over a lengthy five-hour phone call.
And then suddenly the code comes up in a very different form.
And when the council sat in this room and decided to approve it,
several members objected and said it was too narrow
and that it was actually, and they were lawyers, more narrow than state law.
And they basically got batted down for lack of a better word.
So does anyone else agree that we should recommend the city hire a firm
to rewrite the conflict of interest?
Okay, I don't think we have consensus on that.
And I think you were going somewhere after that?
Well, I wanted to get direction on that, and then I've heard things about
pending matter, political motivations.
I guess I just need clear direction on what you would like me to come back with
next meeting to discuss here.
Can we make it conflict of interest?
Can we compare it to other cities?
Yeah, so I can bring -- which part of that would you like me to bring back?
The idea with the five items up here was I would do that kind of peer review analysis
kind of one chunk at a time just because it would be so many cities to look at.
And so I was hoping for, with my proposal here was to get direction on
what you would like to start kind of working through it that way.
But we can also do other things, whatever the board would like.
Madam Peer?
Yes.
Looking at these five steps or five proposals, I'd like to know if Madison,
if you look at this, how many of these are already pretty well addressed
with what we have or are these new ideas that you were thinking about?
I think that the current ordinance contemplates all of these sections in some way.
So the idea was just to take what we have for each topic and compare it to
other cities, other peer cities that we've looked at before.
Do you feel or is there some direction here that there may be some discrepancies
or shortages with these five particular topics within our present code?
I was just trying to cover all of the potential topics within the code.
I don't have any -- I do not have an opinion on --
Concerns are --
As staff we have.
Thank you.
I feel like we don't have like a total consensus of what we want to do here,
just like kind of spitballing.
You know, we had that other time, Madison,
where you emailed everybody like here's a list of things we should talk about.
Can everybody rank them?
And then we, you know, went from there for, you know, for changing.
Go ahead.
I was going to say I heard definition of pending matter,
which I would say I would include if I was bringing this back under
disclosure and recusal procedures because that's what it's most talked about.
So we could look at that next time with comparison to the benchmark cities,
political motivations would be personal considerations and prohibitions.
We could compare those.
Yeah, I think that -- I think you've kind of figured that out.
So, yeah, so it's just a matter of I don't want to do all five at once
because that is a lot of work that takes me away from auditing.
So I just would like the direction of how to prioritize them, essentially.
Any other thoughts from everybody about, you know, maybe starting with those or --
I can't.
Go ahead.
I would recommend just the way you've got it listed for lack of anything
because I don't see that there's any of those really stands out
as a higher priority or a higher pressing issue.
The disclosure and recusal procedures kind of cover some of the things
that were your concerns, right?
So that would put that one right up at the top.
And I don't see a reason not to go with the order that you've got,
including the things that we discussed.
Sure.
And I know kind of the prior two years we've talked about a lot of things,
recommendations and changes we want to make to the ethics code.
And so I don't know if there's really a whole lot other than conflict of interest
that we haven't kind of already decided on.
I kind of think as far as future meetings, like maybe we should come up
with a pack of everything we have so far.
I think that's all the easy stuff that we could -- that we mostly can agree on.
I think council agree on.
I think this stuff will probably be longer discussions
and kind of more conflict in our ideas.
So I'm wondering if maybe we should --
Yeah.
So we could, next meeting, come back with at least one of these items if not two
and then also have the packet and then you could forward it to the city council.
Basically we'd review all of the changes that are in it currently
and have any discussion we need to and then send it to city council
and that would go before them.
I think that's a good idea.
Maybe next meeting kind of do the things at the beginning we always do,
approve the packet and maybe just start with --
I mean maybe have an agenda item where we start with one of them
and hope to get through one and maybe have a backup just in case we all agree quickly.
And I think that would be a good way to go forward.
Anybody else have ideas?
I think it would be suicidal if you went more than two.
Yeah, I almost think more than one.
That was my concern.
Yeah, I mean I don't -- it doesn't appear the city is giving us dinners anymore.
The beverage cart is very slim back there.
Yeah, so I don't want to keep everybody too late.
So go with that order.
Okay, so yeah, so the direction I'm hearing is to next meeting
begin with disclosure and recusal procedures
and potentially have financial considerations and prohibitions
on the back burner for that meeting if we get to it.
I think so.
I think everybody agrees with that.
If there's nothing else on that agenda item, I will go to G, BOE 22-014.
Hold the discussion and consider adoption of the 2022 meeting schedule.
I know, you know, during my lockdowns and stuff,
like 3 p.m. on Zoom was totally good for me.
But now that, you know, everybody's back in the office,
3 p.m. at my office, you know, sometimes I can make it, sometimes I can't.
And usually I might not know until like the day before,
which isn't very helpful to, you know, the staff here.
So, I mean, I like the 6 p.m. meetings.
You know, Zoom was awesome for meetings
because it was just easier to get to with two young kids than a full-time job.
But, you know, in person, I would prefer 6.
I have a problem with Thursday nights.
I can reschedule any other night.
I work every night until 9.
But I can reschedule.
I have a group that I run on Thursday nights.
I have some of them that I'm paying to cover me tonight.
But I can't do Thursday nights.
I can do any other night.
So, the only night that is not off the table is Tuesdays.
Yeah.
Yeah, I can't do Tuesday because that's my son's golf.
Any other thoughts on civic nights for anyone?
Go ahead.
Thursday, I also run a group typically.
So, I was going to say just the Monday.
I think Monday at 6 was pretty last year.
Any thoughts about Monday for anyone?
Monday is good for anyone.
I like the 6 o'clock because I think it helps us stay focused on getting things done.
Yeah, and getting out.
To be selfish.
But I think it helps us keep that thought.
6 o'clock, let's get an hour, an hour and a half to move on.
So, I'm hearing 6 o'clock on Mondays.
Yeah.
I would say let's try that and then we'll see.
If we end up not getting a quorum, then we'll maybe talk about another night.
Would you be open to doing it the first week of every month instead of the last week?
I have another committee on Monday nights at 5.30.
On the last week of every month.
I guess, let's see.
So, we're into April, so then we do first week of May.
We'll skip April since it's like first week of April next week.
I mean, I don't have it.
Does anybody have, I don't know, first, the last week, it doesn't really matter to me.
Here is a calendar, if you can see that.
So, that would be the fourth.
Yeah, so that would be the fourth.
But if we go by the chair suggested, we would skip and then go.
Yeah, we don't need to meet three days.
We could potentially do May 2nd.
Yeah, that sounds pretty good.
Oh, and you know, actually, a comment I had on, I think on the agenda sheet,
for instance, I'll be out of town July 2nd, which, you know,
you had mentioned the November and December is hard.
Yes.
I don't know, sometimes summer months I think would be hard,
but maybe we can just work through and have a core meet if we don't.
Did you say June 2nd could we go?
Oh, July.
Yeah, sorry.
And that's very close to 4th of July, so that's going to go over.
We would not be open on the 4th of July.
So, I think, so maybe we just, you know, switch to Monday at 6,
first week of the month, and we'll not have,
well then actually November probably we could have,
but then not have December or January.
And I kind of think skip July because of July 4th.
And that's also a vacation month, I mean a lot of people will be out of town,
a lot of people will be.
So, as far as this calendar year, we would only skip April,
because it's next week, July and December.
I'm thinking so.
Yeah, I think it works.
I mean, you know, if we don't have a core in one month, you know,
we'll just see how important things are and if we want to switch anything,
but maybe try this and see how it works.
And we'll discuss it in another meeting if it doesn't.
So, we can adopt a calendar.
Yes.
Let me, one second real quick, pull up these dates for skipping July.
And then the direction was to skip December 5th as well?
Yeah, I mean, I don't know, I'm so, I don't know about the rest of you,
but December is so busy between Thanksgiving and Christmas.
I would say give us all a break.
Would you like a break in medicine because I have a book for you today?
I'm happy to do whatever the board would like.
Well, I mean, we won't, all of us will probably be working,
but a break from our volunteer.
And then January, well, I guess you don't need January.
I don't need January, but that would be January 2nd.
Which probably you all want to be open anyway because that's probably correct.
Okay, so then I don't know how to put it up here,
but the adoption calendar would then be May 2nd would be our next meeting, June 6th.
There would be no meeting in July, August 1st, September 3rd, and November 7th.
And those would be our regular meetings for the rest of this calendar year.
Do you need a motion for that or is that?
Yes.
Okay, well if I could have a motion for that.
David motions, second from Rob.
Any more discussion?
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
All opposed?
Any abstentions?
No.
Okay, so motion carries.
That will be our schedule.
We'll send that out.
Okay, and Madison will send that to everyone, I think.
I think that's everything.
So I guess, wait, it's been a few months.
Do I need a motion to adjourn or do I just adjourn?
I think I can just adjourn.
I'll just get up and walk out.
So, all right, right in an hour, 7 p.m., I will adjourn Board of Ethics and see everybody back in May.
All right, thank you so much.
All right, thanks.