WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:09.900 Okay, it's 6 o'clock, so I will start this regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of 00:00:09.900 --> 00:00:10.900 Ethics. 00:00:10.900 --> 00:00:22.240 A quorum appears to be here, so we'll just jump right in to Item A, BOE 22-008, Member 00:00:22.240 --> 00:00:26.260 Introductions and Commentary. 00:00:26.260 --> 00:00:28.260 So a lot of new faces here. 00:00:28.260 --> 00:00:33.800 I know I haven't been to a meeting in a while between the 3 PM meetings and everything kind 00:00:33.800 --> 00:00:39.840 of back to normal at work and the COVID surge, we haven't seen each other in a while. 00:00:39.840 --> 00:00:43.440 But my name is Laura Tomlin, for the people that don't know me. 00:00:43.440 --> 00:00:47.080 I've been on this since 2018 when it started. 00:00:47.080 --> 00:00:53.000 I think I'm on like my last possible time I can be on it. 00:00:53.000 --> 00:01:02.580 I think after Jesse ran for one, his seat, I was elected chair and I've been chair since 00:01:02.580 --> 00:01:03.580 then. 00:01:03.580 --> 00:01:09.280 And I just try to make the meetings efficient and try to make sure everybody can be heard 00:01:09.280 --> 00:01:13.840 and not keep everybody too long so we all start hating each other. 00:01:13.840 --> 00:01:18.540 And I guess that's enough for me and then I guess maybe we'll just start here and go 00:01:18.540 --> 00:01:20.560 around so everybody can introduce themselves. 00:01:20.560 --> 00:01:25.920 Sure, I can start, I'm an alternate that was just brought on to the board in the fall. 00:01:25.920 --> 00:01:29.920 My name is David Schuck and it's S-H-U-C-K. 00:01:29.920 --> 00:01:36.200 I previously served on the Parks and Rec Board from I guess 2018 or somewhere around that 00:01:36.200 --> 00:01:37.200 time. 00:01:37.200 --> 00:01:42.600 I moved over to Denton from Northeast Denton County in 2016 and over there I was involved 00:01:42.600 --> 00:01:48.320 in municipal government both as city councilman and I served as mayor of Providence Village 00:01:48.320 --> 00:01:51.000 before I moved. 00:01:51.000 --> 00:01:55.320 So when I came over here I think they wanted to keep me out of trouble and put me on to 00:01:55.320 --> 00:01:59.920 some boards instead of letting me run for council or anything crazy like that. 00:01:59.920 --> 00:02:03.960 But I will be running from office from now on but I'm definitely happy to serve on this 00:02:03.960 --> 00:02:04.960 board. 00:02:04.960 --> 00:02:07.360 This is a great place to be. 00:02:07.360 --> 00:02:16.120 My name is Dustin Pavlik, I joined the board about a year ago and I just submitted my application 00:02:16.120 --> 00:02:18.720 looking for somewhere to serve the city. 00:02:18.720 --> 00:02:24.360 I was born in Denton and grew up here, lived in Houston and some other places but I've been 00:02:24.360 --> 00:02:28.760 back in Denton for about eight years or so. 00:02:28.760 --> 00:02:35.240 I'm Hannah Fogh-Closson, I started on the board in the fall of last year and I moved 00:02:35.240 --> 00:02:39.120 to Denton for graduate school and I just never left. 00:02:39.120 --> 00:02:44.120 My husband and I own a house in Idiots Hill and I own a counseling practice here in town 00:02:44.120 --> 00:02:49.120 and I just wanted to get involved and see what's going on with local politics so I thought 00:02:49.120 --> 00:02:52.800 I'd serve on the board. 00:02:52.800 --> 00:02:59.560 My name is Annetta Ramsey and I am a Ph.D. trained counselor and I run a eating disorders 00:02:59.560 --> 00:03:02.560 treatment program. 00:03:02.560 --> 00:03:07.120 We live in the historic district and I do write a column on history which is ironic 00:03:07.120 --> 00:03:10.720 because when I was in school I hated history. 00:03:10.720 --> 00:03:14.320 So I've gotten over it. 00:03:14.320 --> 00:03:18.680 And I guess I said my things about the board which is me personally, I will live here in 00:03:18.680 --> 00:03:23.720 Denton, grew up in the colony, I'm an assistant district attorney at the D.A.'s office and 00:03:23.720 --> 00:03:29.160 I live in Annetta's neighborhood so that's the personal stuff on top of the board of ethics. 00:03:29.160 --> 00:03:30.160 Next. 00:03:30.160 --> 00:03:36.080 My name is Andrea Ebelhard, I've lived with my husband here in Denton for about 21 years 00:03:36.080 --> 00:03:42.360 and we raised two children here, two Denton high school graduates in the I.B. program. 00:03:42.360 --> 00:03:44.800 I'm a special education teacher at Calhoun Middle School. 00:03:44.800 --> 00:03:50.280 I work with students that have emotional disturbance so I have a very specialized special education 00:03:50.280 --> 00:03:57.680 field and my background is in my education is in psychology. 00:03:57.680 --> 00:04:06.680 I also want to include that I love to ski and hike so I'm always the kind of person 00:04:06.680 --> 00:04:07.680 that does this. 00:04:07.680 --> 00:04:08.680 Rob Rainer. 00:04:08.680 --> 00:04:13.920 I came on a couple months before Jesse Davis left and ran for office. 00:04:13.920 --> 00:04:25.120 Moved here in 1983 and am with Tom Paz Realtors, commercial broker here in town and I also 00:04:25.120 --> 00:04:31.120 live affectionately called Idiot's Hill and all along on the lower slope than probably 00:04:31.120 --> 00:04:34.120 you but that's where we are and that's how that works. 00:04:34.120 --> 00:04:35.120 Thank you. 00:04:35.120 --> 00:04:36.120 Scott Bradbury. 00:04:36.120 --> 00:04:47.120 Alright and we know Tammy and Madison or yeah you probably do because you have to deal with 00:04:47.120 --> 00:04:48.120 them. 00:04:48.120 --> 00:04:56.120 That's such a warm introduction. 00:04:56.120 --> 00:05:07.120 I do want to mention Don Cartwright and Patricia Rinckey are the two regular members who are 00:05:07.120 --> 00:05:13.120 not here tonight and Deborah Crossmo is the third alternate member so there are names 00:05:13.120 --> 00:05:14.120 out there. 00:05:14.120 --> 00:05:20.120 Madison is great whether you want me to be chair or if somebody else wants to take it 00:05:20.120 --> 00:05:23.120 on like working with Madison is great. 00:05:23.120 --> 00:05:28.120 You just got to kind of tell her what you want to do and she makes it better than you 00:05:28.120 --> 00:05:33.120 could think of making it so it has been a pleasure. 00:05:33.120 --> 00:05:39.120 So moving right into item for consideration B, receive nominations and hold an election 00:05:39.120 --> 00:05:41.120 of chair and vice chair. 00:05:41.120 --> 00:05:45.120 So I'm going to the agenda information sheet. 00:05:45.120 --> 00:05:47.120 Let's see. 00:05:47.120 --> 00:05:53.120 Right now, well it's supposed to be elected annually in January or February but because 00:05:53.120 --> 00:05:57.120 of COVID and the 3 p.m. meetings we didn't have January or February meetings so this 00:05:57.120 --> 00:05:59.120 is our first one. 00:05:59.120 --> 00:06:06.120 I was elected in 2019, I was elected in 2021 and Hannah was elected, well I think the last 00:06:06.120 --> 00:06:09.120 meeting I was at in September of 2021. 00:06:09.120 --> 00:06:14.120 So I'll open the floor if anybody like really wants these positions, jump at it or make 00:06:14.120 --> 00:06:15.120 nominations. 00:06:15.120 --> 00:06:21.120 Yeah I believe we have to, you have to make a nomination and then we vote on the nominations 00:06:21.120 --> 00:06:22.120 in order. 00:06:22.120 --> 00:06:23.120 Is that correct? 00:06:23.120 --> 00:06:24.120 Yes. 00:06:24.120 --> 00:06:25.120 Yes. 00:06:25.120 --> 00:06:28.120 So I assume you want to start with chair. 00:06:28.120 --> 00:06:30.120 So nominations for chair. 00:06:30.120 --> 00:06:31.120 Yes. 00:06:31.120 --> 00:06:39.120 I'd like to nominate you because you like punishment. 00:06:39.120 --> 00:06:42.120 I do like punishment. 00:06:42.120 --> 00:06:50.120 You've done an excellent job and as we started this and developed this plan you have kept 00:06:50.120 --> 00:06:53.120 us on a true course and I've enjoyed that. 00:06:53.120 --> 00:06:55.120 Thank you. 00:06:55.120 --> 00:06:57.120 Alright any seconds? 00:06:57.120 --> 00:06:58.120 Second. 00:06:58.120 --> 00:07:00.120 Second from David. 00:07:00.120 --> 00:07:05.120 Alright I mean is it okay if I use everybody's first name? 00:07:05.120 --> 00:07:06.120 Sure. 00:07:06.120 --> 00:07:08.120 Don't offend anyone though. 00:07:08.120 --> 00:07:13.120 Okay so we don't get more nominations we vote on. 00:07:13.120 --> 00:07:15.120 I think you have a choice to accept or not. 00:07:15.120 --> 00:07:16.120 Oh me? 00:07:16.120 --> 00:07:17.120 Yeah. 00:07:17.120 --> 00:07:22.120 I mean I will accept I'll say the only like the three p.m. meetings were not working out. 00:07:22.120 --> 00:07:27.120 You know I'm an attorney and you know they weren't but I think we're moving back to six 00:07:27.120 --> 00:07:33.120 meetings which I you know I'll be able to do and you know I can keep leading if you all 00:07:33.120 --> 00:07:34.120 want me to. 00:07:34.120 --> 00:07:40.120 I don't want it to be like you know ruler of the kingdom or anything so if anybody you 00:07:40.120 --> 00:07:44.120 know I don't want to you know as long as everybody I guess we'll see with the vote but I will 00:07:44.120 --> 00:07:45.120 accept. 00:07:45.120 --> 00:07:49.120 And I guess I will call for vote. 00:07:49.120 --> 00:07:50.120 Other nominations. 00:07:50.120 --> 00:07:54.120 Do we do other or do we do that one first? 00:07:54.120 --> 00:08:00.120 Okay so ask for discussion first. 00:08:00.120 --> 00:08:02.120 Any other nominations? 00:08:02.120 --> 00:08:03.120 Other nominations first. 00:08:03.120 --> 00:08:08.120 Okay sorry not I'm not an expert on Robert Rose but luckily we have an attorney who is 00:08:08.120 --> 00:08:09.120 sitting here. 00:08:09.120 --> 00:08:10.120 I'm working. 00:08:10.120 --> 00:08:11.120 So any other nominations? 00:08:11.120 --> 00:08:17.120 I won't be offended if anybody. 00:08:17.120 --> 00:08:23.120 So no other nominations so discussion and Rob you know said would he have to anyone else? 00:08:23.120 --> 00:08:31.120 I would like to just mention say that considering with all the changing of times missed meetings 00:08:31.120 --> 00:08:36.120 and all of that I think it would be it would be prudent to have somebody that has actually 00:08:36.120 --> 00:08:40.120 served on this board for a while continue so that we can we can because there's lots 00:08:40.120 --> 00:08:45.120 of new members so in my opinion it's a prudent way to go forward with somebody that has been 00:08:45.120 --> 00:08:52.120 in position and knows where this needs to be needs to be done. 00:08:52.120 --> 00:08:55.120 Any other discussion? 00:08:55.120 --> 00:08:58.120 So now we hold a vote right? 00:08:58.120 --> 00:09:03.120 Okay and I know on Zoom we have to go person by person so is it do do we need to still 00:09:03.120 --> 00:09:07.120 do that or is it just I mean I think we can just do voice votes again now that we're all 00:09:07.120 --> 00:09:08.120 in person. 00:09:08.120 --> 00:09:10.120 Okay all right all in favor say aye. 00:09:10.120 --> 00:09:11.120 Aye. 00:09:11.120 --> 00:09:14.120 All opposed say nay. 00:09:14.120 --> 00:09:16.120 Any abstentions? 00:09:16.120 --> 00:09:20.120 I guess I mean I don't know all abstained because I'm not going to vote for myself but 00:09:20.120 --> 00:09:22.120 I did say aye. 00:09:22.120 --> 00:09:26.120 And I think ayes carry so I will serve as your chair again hopefully you know if anybody 00:09:26.120 --> 00:09:30.120 wants to impeach me and go for it you know I'm just trying my best and hopefully we'll 00:09:30.120 --> 00:09:31.120 all get along. 00:09:31.120 --> 00:09:33.120 It's quite a victory speech. 00:09:33.120 --> 00:09:40.120 I guess this is you know the third time in you know. 00:09:40.120 --> 00:09:45.120 All right so moving on to vice chair. 00:09:45.120 --> 00:09:51.120 Do we have any and I think Hannah I read the meeting minutes you know it seemed like Hannah 00:09:51.120 --> 00:09:53.120 did a good job at the last meeting. 00:09:53.120 --> 00:09:57.120 So do I have any nominations for vice chair? 00:09:57.120 --> 00:09:59.120 I'd like to nominate Hannah. 00:09:59.120 --> 00:10:01.120 Is that correct? 00:10:01.120 --> 00:10:04.120 All right Annetta has nominated Hannah. 00:10:04.120 --> 00:10:05.120 I'll second that. 00:10:05.120 --> 00:10:13.120 And a second from sorry Andrea is that right okay I know my boss is Andrea so I want to 00:10:13.120 --> 00:10:15.120 make sure I say it correctly. 00:10:15.120 --> 00:10:22.120 All right so any other nominations for vice chair? 00:10:22.120 --> 00:10:24.120 I'm not seeing any. 00:10:24.120 --> 00:10:28.120 Discussion? 00:10:28.120 --> 00:10:34.120 I thought she did a really good job at that one meeting and I know she just stepped in 00:10:34.120 --> 00:10:39.120 I guess but I thought she did a good job. 00:10:39.120 --> 00:10:42.120 That's hard for him to do. 00:10:42.120 --> 00:10:46.120 Yeah and I agree it looked like things went well at the last meeting and it got through 00:10:46.120 --> 00:10:48.120 the agenda quickly. 00:10:48.120 --> 00:10:51.120 All right if there's no more discussion I will ask for a vote. 00:10:51.120 --> 00:10:53.120 All in favor say aye. 00:10:53.120 --> 00:10:54.120 Aye. 00:10:54.120 --> 00:10:56.120 All opposed say nay. 00:10:56.120 --> 00:10:58.120 Okay any abstentions? 00:10:58.120 --> 00:11:01.120 I'll abstain and I'll help myself. 00:11:01.120 --> 00:11:02.120 Kind of abstains. 00:11:02.120 --> 00:11:10.120 And so the motion carries and so Hannah will continue as our vice chair. 00:11:10.120 --> 00:11:14.120 All right congratulations. 00:11:14.120 --> 00:11:22.120 Moving on to agenda item C consider approval of minutes for October 28, 2021. 00:11:22.120 --> 00:11:27.120 I was not there I read them over does anybody who was there that read them over have any 00:11:27.120 --> 00:11:30.120 corrections? 00:11:30.120 --> 00:11:33.120 Is there a motion to approve those minutes? 00:11:33.120 --> 00:11:34.120 So moved. 00:11:34.120 --> 00:11:35.120 Okay. 00:11:35.120 --> 00:11:36.120 David moves. 00:11:36.120 --> 00:11:37.120 And a second. 00:11:37.120 --> 00:11:39.120 And a second from Annetta. 00:11:39.120 --> 00:11:41.120 Any discussion? 00:11:41.120 --> 00:11:45.120 All right all in favor to approve the minutes for October 28, 2021 say aye. 00:11:45.120 --> 00:11:46.120 Aye. 00:11:46.120 --> 00:11:49.120 All opposed say nay. 00:11:49.120 --> 00:11:50.120 Any abstentions? 00:11:50.120 --> 00:11:53.120 Okay so that is approved. 00:11:53.120 --> 00:12:00.120 Moving on to agenda item D BOE 22-011 receive report, hold discussion and take necessary 00:12:00.120 --> 00:12:07.120 action regarding a recommendation to amend code of ordinance chapter 2 article 11 ethics 00:12:07.120 --> 00:12:09.120 definition of panel. 00:12:09.120 --> 00:12:17.120 I'm not sure if we need you to discuss this too much it seems pretty simple. 00:12:17.120 --> 00:12:25.120 So the council changed the eligibility of having to have attorneys on the board and 00:12:25.120 --> 00:12:33.120 our rules of procedure or I guess it's in the ethics ordinance is that our committees 00:12:33.120 --> 00:12:37.120 have to have an attorney but if the board doesn't have to have an attorney we definitely 00:12:37.120 --> 00:12:40.120 shouldn't have the panels have to have an attorney because then if you know there's 00:12:40.120 --> 00:12:43.120 just one attorney on the board they would have to be on every panel or if there's no 00:12:43.120 --> 00:12:46.120 attorneys on the board we can't have panels. 00:12:46.120 --> 00:12:49.120 So it seems pretty simple do you want to do you have anything to add? 00:12:49.120 --> 00:12:52.120 I think you summarized it very well. 00:12:52.120 --> 00:13:05.120 So I think we just need to take out the requirement for an attorney to be on the panel is it the 00:13:05.120 --> 00:13:09.120 ethics ordinance or the rule of procedure or both? 00:13:09.120 --> 00:13:13.120 I believe it's just in the ordinance but I can double check after this meeting as long 00:13:13.120 --> 00:13:17.120 as there's direction from the board to remove that piece. 00:13:17.120 --> 00:13:23.120 It's in the definition section. 00:13:23.120 --> 00:13:28.120 So this is the proposed language from the staff recommendation just to remove this last 00:13:28.120 --> 00:13:32.120 piece basically. 00:13:32.120 --> 00:13:38.120 All right so do we I guess so this would just be recommendations we need to send to 00:13:38.120 --> 00:13:39.120 council correct? 00:13:39.120 --> 00:13:40.120 Yes. 00:13:40.120 --> 00:13:44.120 So because you basically give direction to include that in the packet of recommendation 00:13:44.120 --> 00:13:48.120 recommended amendments that we're sending to council at some point? 00:13:48.120 --> 00:13:53.120 Yeah we might have to talk I'm not sure if it's on this agenda but I kind of think we 00:13:53.120 --> 00:13:59.120 just need to like send what we have before because it's been so long between COVID and 00:13:59.120 --> 00:14:05.120 all the other issues that we haven't had meetings but that's probably another discussion on 00:14:05.120 --> 00:14:07.120 another agenda item. 00:14:07.120 --> 00:14:15.120 So I guess let's see a motion. 00:14:15.120 --> 00:14:23.120 Yeah a motion to I move approval of that as stated in the code. 00:14:23.120 --> 00:14:29.120 All right so Anna has moved to change it as staff has recommended in the red line 00:14:29.120 --> 00:14:30.120 version. 00:14:30.120 --> 00:14:31.120 Is there a second? 00:14:31.120 --> 00:14:32.120 Second. 00:14:32.120 --> 00:14:35.120 Second from Hannah and is there any discussion? 00:14:35.120 --> 00:14:39.120 Just small I mean I noticed that we're not redlining the comma before but I mean those 00:14:39.120 --> 00:14:47.120 kind of things I imagine you guys were like I didn't want to get too into the weeds. 00:14:47.120 --> 00:14:50.120 Any other discussion? 00:14:50.120 --> 00:14:52.120 All right that was pretty easy. 00:14:52.120 --> 00:15:00.120 All in favor of the motion to take staff recommendation including getting rid of that 00:15:00.120 --> 00:15:05.120 comma making a period say aye. 00:15:05.120 --> 00:15:06.120 Aye. 00:15:06.120 --> 00:15:07.120 All opposed? 00:15:07.120 --> 00:15:08.120 All right anybody abstaining? 00:15:08.120 --> 00:15:09.120 All right. 00:15:09.120 --> 00:15:10.120 Okay. 00:15:10.120 --> 00:15:17.120 Okay so I think that's approved. 00:15:17.120 --> 00:15:24.120 Moving right along to agenda item E. Receive a report, hold a discussion and take necessary 00:15:24.120 --> 00:15:35.120 action regarding potential recommendations to amend the Board of Ethics Rules of Procedure. 00:15:35.120 --> 00:15:45.120 All right so is this the one this is about the timeliness of requests for a panel that 00:15:45.120 --> 00:15:46.120 advise your opinions? 00:15:46.120 --> 00:15:50.120 Okay do you want to discuss that since it kind of falls on you? 00:15:50.120 --> 00:16:01.120 Yes so essentially this is coming from something that occurred where a board member or a commissioner 00:16:01.120 --> 00:16:09.120 I believe requested advice on an application of the ordinance on the day of the vote that 00:16:09.120 --> 00:16:17.120 they were going to have and so I asked them if they wanted to have a panel to give an 00:16:17.120 --> 00:16:24.120 advisory opinion after the vote but they didn't think that was useful. 00:16:24.120 --> 00:16:31.120 So this is basically to try to formalize a process for how I should respond and report 00:16:31.120 --> 00:16:39.120 if those things happen to the board and so the current recommendation is to include in 00:16:39.120 --> 00:16:47.120 the rules of procedure which I can pull up what the language looks like. 00:16:47.120 --> 00:16:54.120 Basically just something that says that if more than that if I receive a request as for 00:16:54.120 --> 00:16:59.120 an advisory opinion more than 10 business days before the deliberation of the pending 00:16:59.120 --> 00:17:03.120 matter then that will be assigned to a panel and we'll make sure that that happens. 00:17:03.120 --> 00:17:08.120 If it's more than five business days then it may be assigned to a panel or special counsel 00:17:08.120 --> 00:17:13.120 so more than five less than 10 could go to special counsel because I discussed with special 00:17:13.120 --> 00:17:16.120 counsel how long they thought it would take to get an advisory opinion turned around and 00:17:16.120 --> 00:17:23.120 they said five days and then if it was less than five days we'll basically tell them that 00:17:23.120 --> 00:17:30.120 it's not possible to get a panel opinion before the deliberation and they can choose to either 00:17:30.120 --> 00:17:36.120 withdraw their request and if they do then I'll report that to you all at the next board 00:17:36.120 --> 00:17:41.120 meeting or if they don't choose to withdraw it then they just are acknowledging basically 00:17:41.120 --> 00:17:47.120 that they'll get it after the deliberation occurs. 00:17:47.120 --> 00:17:52.120 So that is the recommendation from staff and I'll go find the... 00:17:52.120 --> 00:18:00.120 What kind of notice do they get about things that they're voting on? 00:18:00.120 --> 00:18:07.120 Here it would depend on the board just whenever they get their agenda for the next meeting. 00:18:07.120 --> 00:18:08.120 I don't know what the standard... 00:18:08.120 --> 00:18:11.120 If they're having monthly meetings I would assume it's at least a week before. 00:18:11.120 --> 00:18:15.120 Oh, I guess the city council. 00:18:15.120 --> 00:18:19.120 City council is at least... 00:18:19.120 --> 00:18:20.120 72. 00:18:20.120 --> 00:18:24.120 Yeah, at least people get 72 hours notice. 00:18:24.120 --> 00:18:25.120 Okay. 00:18:25.120 --> 00:18:31.120 I have a question, I don't think it should be routine that people should think they go 00:18:31.120 --> 00:18:34.120 to the board to decide if they should recuse themselves. 00:18:34.120 --> 00:18:40.120 I believe that if there is any possibility that anybody could think you should have, you 00:18:40.120 --> 00:18:41.120 should. 00:18:41.120 --> 00:18:46.120 Too bad, so sad if you're not happy about it. 00:18:46.120 --> 00:18:51.120 I just kind of hate for the board to be a sticking point. 00:18:51.120 --> 00:18:57.120 I think also, I didn't cut you off, but it kind of comes down to the board's role. 00:18:57.120 --> 00:19:04.120 Is the board's role as an advisory position or is it a deliberative... 00:19:04.120 --> 00:19:07.120 Are we supposed to deliberate things that have occurred? 00:19:07.120 --> 00:19:13.120 It's sort of a before or after kind of thing and I don't know that the board's intent was 00:19:13.120 --> 00:19:16.120 to service an advisory, but maybe I don't. 00:19:16.120 --> 00:19:22.120 The ordinance does say that any person subject to the ordinance can request an advisory opinion. 00:19:22.120 --> 00:19:28.120 It just doesn't speak to the timeline of when that happens, but it does have a timeline of 00:19:28.120 --> 00:19:32.120 when the opinion must be issued by requesting. 00:19:32.120 --> 00:19:37.120 So if you request one, it has to be issued within 30 days, but it doesn't consider that 00:19:37.120 --> 00:19:42.120 they could request one before or after or how it is around the deliberation period. 00:19:42.120 --> 00:19:48.120 So honestly, it's really for me so that I have direction on if I get a request on the 00:19:48.120 --> 00:19:54.120 day of, I can tell them, "Hey, you're not going to get an opinion today." 00:19:54.120 --> 00:19:57.120 And so do you want an opinion still or not? 00:19:57.120 --> 00:20:01.120 It allows you tools to not have to be putting things out of order. 00:20:01.120 --> 00:20:08.120 Exactly, and then to have a mechanism for being transparent about the way that happens. 00:20:08.120 --> 00:20:13.120 And so in the ordinance right now, we can't give advisory opinions. 00:20:13.120 --> 00:20:15.120 It doesn't seem like there's been many. 00:20:15.120 --> 00:20:19.120 I mean, it seems like there's only been a few times that we've actually had a panel. 00:20:19.120 --> 00:20:22.120 There's probably just as many or more times they've asked you, but it's like, "Well, the 00:20:22.120 --> 00:20:26.120 time, we couldn't even get a panel together before your vote, say, in a few days." 00:20:26.120 --> 00:20:32.120 I think there's been less than 10 advisory opinions issued, and I think it has happened 00:20:32.120 --> 00:20:36.120 maybe two or three times that I've been asked and been like, "I don't think that there's 00:20:36.120 --> 00:20:43.120 enough time to get to a panel," or I said, "Hey, you have to deliberate this tomorrow," 00:20:43.120 --> 00:20:47.120 or you know what I mean. 00:20:47.120 --> 00:20:53.120 I mean, I think that sounds pretty good because I think you do need direction on what to say, 00:20:53.120 --> 00:20:54.120 what to tell somebody. 00:20:54.120 --> 00:21:02.120 And I think five to 10 days, it's just really hard to get three of us together and get something 00:21:02.120 --> 00:21:10.120 written, and then get an open meetings act timeline together, and then less than five 00:21:10.120 --> 00:21:14.120 days, I don't see special counsel or a panel being able to do anything. 00:21:14.120 --> 00:21:19.120 I think I agree with what you've come up with. 00:21:19.120 --> 00:21:24.120 I have a little bit of a concern about, I mean, I think that the more than 10 days guidelines 00:21:24.120 --> 00:21:29.120 and the less than five day guidelines are a pretty clear cut, in my opinion. 00:21:29.120 --> 00:21:36.120 I'm questioning the in-between time. 00:21:36.120 --> 00:21:43.120 I think that it would be, I just don't know if, because special counsel is special counsel, 00:21:43.120 --> 00:21:47.120 and special counsel is a different role than the ethics committee. 00:21:47.120 --> 00:21:55.120 So I'm not sure if that in-between time is necessarily best served by... 00:21:55.120 --> 00:21:59.120 The ordinance does say that it doesn't give any guidance, actually. 00:21:59.120 --> 00:22:04.120 So it says that I could basically get assignment, I don't know if it's me or if it's the chair, 00:22:04.120 --> 00:22:09.120 but that it could be, the request could be assigned to special counsel or to a panel. 00:22:09.120 --> 00:22:16.120 And there's no guidance in the ordinance about timeline or what it should be. 00:22:16.120 --> 00:22:19.120 So it does, the ordinance does conceive of special counsel filling that role. 00:22:19.120 --> 00:22:23.120 I think they have done it once in the past. 00:22:23.120 --> 00:22:28.120 I think, I mean, my understanding of what's happened so far since this began 00:22:28.120 --> 00:22:34.120 was that we try to get a panel, and if we can't get a panel, it goes to special counsel. 00:22:34.120 --> 00:22:38.120 Right, yeah, I mean, I would try to get, if I had, I got a five day, request five days out, 00:22:38.120 --> 00:22:41.120 I would try to get a panel. 00:22:41.120 --> 00:22:45.120 There are, but I think there is some even timelines around how long you have to issue, 00:22:45.120 --> 00:22:51.120 you have at least two days to actually have the opinion issued after the panel occurs. 00:22:51.120 --> 00:22:55.120 And do you have to issue notice for panel meeting as well, or is that? 00:22:55.120 --> 00:23:00.120 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, 00:23:00.120 --> 00:23:05.120 then it would occur, and the panel would have, I believe, two business days to actually issue the opinion. 00:23:05.120 --> 00:23:08.120 So that's only a factor in two of those timelines. 00:23:08.120 --> 00:23:10.120 Right. 00:23:10.120 --> 00:23:11.120 Go ahead. 00:23:11.120 --> 00:23:15.120 Just for clarification purposes, obviously once a panel is convened and issues an opinion, 00:23:15.120 --> 00:23:21.120 that will then further be discussed at the following ethics meeting? 00:23:21.120 --> 00:23:23.120 Will it be reported out? No? 00:23:23.120 --> 00:23:29.120 Not necessarily, no. I mean, that's something we could do, and we, if we'd like. 00:23:29.120 --> 00:23:34.120 In the past, they've kind of issued opinions, and then I don't think we've, I think some of what we've-- 00:23:34.120 --> 00:23:38.120 I think they go to the chair, for the chair to be aware of. 00:23:38.120 --> 00:23:39.120 Okay. 00:23:39.120 --> 00:23:44.120 Because the chair would be aware that there was a panel, because I think the chair assigns the members. 00:23:44.120 --> 00:23:50.120 I want to say in the past, we have discussed that before, when it's kind of an issue that we need to discuss, 00:23:50.120 --> 00:23:53.120 like, or we need to change something in the ordinance. 00:23:53.120 --> 00:23:58.120 But it's not like, I don't think, it's not in the ordinance or the rules of procedure that we would. 00:23:58.120 --> 00:24:03.120 I think, I think it's probably conceived of that way so that the board doesn't then immediately say, 00:24:03.120 --> 00:24:05.120 "Well, they were wrong." 00:24:05.120 --> 00:24:08.120 But that's something to discuss further, potentially. 00:24:08.120 --> 00:24:12.120 And I think it would be something, you know, if there is a concern, 00:24:12.120 --> 00:24:17.120 I mean, it could be something that someone, you know, emails Madison or both of us and says, 00:24:17.120 --> 00:24:22.120 "We should talk about this at the next meeting," but it's not like, I guess that's not the rule. 00:24:22.120 --> 00:24:27.120 Right, and I can definitely make sure that if an opinion is issued, it goes to all of you, 00:24:27.120 --> 00:24:29.120 so you're all aware that it happened. 00:24:29.120 --> 00:24:30.120 I don't think that's a bad idea. 00:24:30.120 --> 00:24:31.120 Yeah. 00:24:31.120 --> 00:24:35.120 But I don't know that we need to necessarily change the rules of procedure for that to be reflected, 00:24:35.120 --> 00:24:44.120 because I have my own standard operating procedures for how we run the board as staff. 00:24:44.120 --> 00:24:48.120 So were you looking for a motion to adopt what you presented? 00:24:48.120 --> 00:24:51.120 Or if you would prefer, like, there to be amended. 00:24:51.120 --> 00:24:52.120 Yes. 00:24:52.120 --> 00:24:58.120 So direction on whether or not this should be included in the packet that eventually goes to Council. 00:24:58.120 --> 00:25:01.120 Is there more discussion or is there a motion on this? 00:25:01.120 --> 00:25:03.120 I move approval. 00:25:03.120 --> 00:25:05.120 What statement? 00:25:05.120 --> 00:25:09.120 Okay, Annette moves to approve as stated by Madison. 00:25:09.120 --> 00:25:10.120 Is there a second? 00:25:10.120 --> 00:25:11.120 I second that. 00:25:11.120 --> 00:25:13.120 Second by Andrea. 00:25:13.120 --> 00:25:16.120 Any more discussion? 00:25:16.120 --> 00:25:24.120 I think it's appropriate that we at least start off with this guideline and then we can tweak it as we go along, 00:25:24.120 --> 00:25:32.120 because 10 days, there are events going on that we know about way out and people can kind of get the sense 00:25:32.120 --> 00:25:34.120 that it may be a conflict. 00:25:34.120 --> 00:25:41.120 And we had one in particular with a Council member asking about a vote and we had a panel and gave our opinion. 00:25:41.120 --> 00:25:47.120 And I thought that was very forthright of that Council member to ask that question. 00:25:47.120 --> 00:25:49.120 It was well in advance of the time. 00:25:49.120 --> 00:25:56.120 And I think we're going to see more of that than all of a sudden a pop-up, oh, my goodness, situation. 00:25:56.120 --> 00:26:00.120 But I think it's a good beginning for you, which we can then, as it progresses, 00:26:00.120 --> 00:26:02.120 we can see how we need to fine-tune it. 00:26:02.120 --> 00:26:04.120 But I think, do you feel comfortable with this? 00:26:04.120 --> 00:26:06.120 Yes, I think so. 00:26:06.120 --> 00:26:12.120 Because I think we can almost certainly get a panel if we have 10 business days. 00:26:12.120 --> 00:26:15.120 Thank you. 00:26:15.120 --> 00:26:18.120 Any more thoughts on this one? 00:26:18.120 --> 00:26:19.120 All right. 00:26:19.120 --> 00:26:24.120 All in favor of the motion as stated by Annette, say aye. 00:26:24.120 --> 00:26:25.120 Aye. 00:26:25.120 --> 00:26:28.120 All opposed, say nay. 00:26:28.120 --> 00:26:29.120 Any abstentions? 00:26:29.120 --> 00:26:30.120 All right. 00:26:30.120 --> 00:26:31.120 Motion carries. 00:26:31.120 --> 00:26:35.120 And so we will -- another one of our recommendations. 00:26:35.120 --> 00:26:36.120 Okay. 00:26:36.120 --> 00:26:42.120 Moving to item F, BOE 22-013, receive report, hold discussion, 00:26:42.120 --> 00:26:48.120 and take necessary action regarding the format of the discussion regarding Code of Ordinance, Chapter 2, 00:26:48.120 --> 00:26:54.120 Article 11, Ethics, Section 2-273, Conflicts of Interest. 00:26:54.120 --> 00:27:01.120 And I guess -- let me get to the agenda sheet. 00:27:01.120 --> 00:27:02.120 All right. 00:27:02.120 --> 00:27:06.120 So I guess Madison, do you want to -- 00:27:06.120 --> 00:27:07.120 Yes. 00:27:07.120 --> 00:27:08.120 Do you want to hop out this way? 00:27:08.120 --> 00:27:09.120 Go ahead. 00:27:09.120 --> 00:27:15.120 So at previous board meetings, it was requested that we discuss the definition of conflict of interest. 00:27:15.120 --> 00:27:19.120 Because that's such a broad topic, when I went to look at it, 00:27:19.120 --> 00:27:24.120 I thought it might be best to get direction on how to have that discussion 00:27:24.120 --> 00:27:28.120 within the agenda information sheet under discussion here. 00:27:28.120 --> 00:27:31.120 I kind of created five potential topics. 00:27:31.120 --> 00:27:35.120 We can either not discuss them, but discuss additional ones. 00:27:35.120 --> 00:27:40.120 But that way we can do kind of one at a time each meeting with the thought process. 00:27:40.120 --> 00:27:43.120 But this is just what I came up with. 00:27:43.120 --> 00:27:53.120 We don't have different options or different ways you want to go through the definition that's obviously up to you. 00:27:53.120 --> 00:28:03.120 What I would really like to see happen is just a look at that conflict of interest section on the Code. 00:28:03.120 --> 00:28:06.120 There are some definitions in there that are very narrow. 00:28:06.120 --> 00:28:11.120 There's wording like pending matter, which I haven't found in any other city, 00:28:11.120 --> 00:28:15.120 that makes it so narrow it's almost unenforceable. 00:28:15.120 --> 00:28:21.120 And then there's a statement at the bottom that says this excludes all future buy-ins. 00:28:21.120 --> 00:28:23.120 I forget the rest of it. 00:28:23.120 --> 00:28:31.120 But basically, if I were on city council and I voted for a property, I guess, 00:28:31.120 --> 00:28:37.120 and then I wanted to buy into it the very next day, I would not be breaking our code of ethics. 00:28:37.120 --> 00:28:41.120 And to me that is just so wrong. 00:28:41.120 --> 00:28:48.120 I think the definition is flawed, and we need to recommend to council that it be rewritten. 00:28:48.120 --> 00:28:51.120 And it's entirety. 00:28:51.120 --> 00:28:56.120 I know that's strong, but it's been weak from day one. 00:28:56.120 --> 00:29:06.120 The only thing it might cover would be possible people would need to be political with each other right before an election. 00:29:06.120 --> 00:29:12.120 I'm just speaking hypothetically, of course. 00:29:12.120 --> 00:29:14.120 It's a weak code. 00:29:14.120 --> 00:29:18.120 And further I would say council should not rewrite it. 00:29:18.120 --> 00:29:20.120 We should not rewrite it. 00:29:20.120 --> 00:29:26.120 I think we need to find a group of people that do this, and we need to ask for a code, 00:29:26.120 --> 00:29:34.120 and we need to not change it once it gets in the hands of the city. 00:29:34.120 --> 00:29:37.120 So I know that's a broad sweep. 00:29:37.120 --> 00:29:42.120 Yeah, I mean, I know, we've been on this together long enough, I kind of know your thoughts, 00:29:42.120 --> 00:29:46.120 but you're saying we need just, are you saying just the whole thing? 00:29:46.120 --> 00:29:49.120 The whole conflict of interest part needs to be rewritten. 00:29:49.120 --> 00:29:53.120 Like including everything that Madison says. 00:29:53.120 --> 00:29:57.120 It needs to be lined up with model codes. 00:29:57.120 --> 00:30:00.120 I can fill up that section of the ordinance if you would like to. 00:30:00.120 --> 00:30:25.120 Sure, that would be great. 00:30:25.120 --> 00:30:30.120 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. 00:30:30.120 --> 00:30:33.120 Could you blow it back up just a little more among the pages? 00:30:33.120 --> 00:30:35.120 Yes. 00:30:35.120 --> 00:30:37.120 Thank you. 00:30:37.120 --> 00:30:38.120 Is that good? 00:30:38.120 --> 00:30:40.120 Right. 00:30:40.120 --> 00:30:45.120 I know I have a thought about the conflict of interest, a much like smaller issue, 00:30:45.120 --> 00:30:51.120 is that I think there should be something in there about having a conflict 00:30:51.120 --> 00:30:56.120 when there's a matter in front of City Council, the pending matter, 00:30:56.120 --> 00:31:04.120 that the people involved contribute it to the campaign of the City Councilperson or Mayor. 00:31:04.120 --> 00:31:07.120 I'm not sure what amount, like, you know. 00:31:07.120 --> 00:31:09.120 Chair, I believe that was approved. 00:31:09.120 --> 00:31:12.120 Oh, never mind. 00:31:12.120 --> 00:31:15.120 That's included in the current packet. 00:31:15.120 --> 00:31:17.120 Thank you for talking to me. 00:31:17.120 --> 00:31:21.120 Okay, that sounds good. 00:31:21.120 --> 00:31:24.120 All right, that's what I get for missing a meeting. 00:31:24.120 --> 00:31:26.120 All right, next, anybody else? 00:31:26.120 --> 00:31:32.120 One thing, if you look at that section one, if you look at the items that are capitalized, 00:31:32.120 --> 00:31:37.120 those are items that are defined in the glossary, and they're not hyperlinked. 00:31:37.120 --> 00:31:43.120 You have to do a page turn, and when you look at the definition, I'm not a lawyer, 00:31:43.120 --> 00:31:47.120 the definition doesn't match what I think that word means. 00:31:47.120 --> 00:31:52.120 And I, you know, for one thing, I think the thing needs to be written not in legalese, 00:31:52.120 --> 00:31:57.120 not so that you have to go back to the glossary to figure out what is being said. 00:31:57.120 --> 00:32:02.120 So all those places, like pending matter is one of the things that you're supposed to look up. 00:32:02.120 --> 00:32:08.120 Conflict of interest is something you're supposed to look up. 00:32:08.120 --> 00:32:12.120 Anyway, there's like five or six things that you have to look up. 00:32:12.120 --> 00:32:16.120 And I think it should be in plain English, it should be all in one place, 00:32:16.120 --> 00:32:19.120 you shouldn't have to go back to the glossary. 00:32:19.120 --> 00:32:23.120 The people who are going to have to follow it are not lawyers always, 00:32:23.120 --> 00:32:28.120 and they shouldn't have to get legal counsel to help them figure out how to follow it. 00:32:28.120 --> 00:32:31.120 It should be really, really plain and simple. 00:32:31.120 --> 00:32:39.120 So I don't like the way those definitions, and I hate pending matter with a capital H. 00:32:39.120 --> 00:32:42.120 It's just, it's so narrow. 00:32:42.120 --> 00:32:44.120 Would you like me to pull up the definition of that? 00:32:44.120 --> 00:32:45.120 Sure. 00:32:45.120 --> 00:32:49.120 Conflicting interest is not defined in the ordinance. 00:32:49.120 --> 00:32:50.120 Where's the what? 00:32:50.120 --> 00:32:52.120 Conflicting interest is not defined. 00:32:52.120 --> 00:33:00.120 Oh, okay. 00:33:00.120 --> 00:33:05.120 I believe conflicting interest is then just defined out there. 00:33:05.120 --> 00:33:16.120 It's not the definition section, but yes, it considers conflict interest. 00:33:16.120 --> 00:33:20.120 So it's just a very narrow definition. 00:33:20.120 --> 00:33:25.120 And the city of Austin has matter in their things. 00:33:25.120 --> 00:33:28.120 There is no other city, I've probably looked at Penn Cities, 00:33:28.120 --> 00:33:34.120 no other city has either pending or pending matter in it. 00:33:34.120 --> 00:33:38.120 So is it your thought that we need to remove pending matter? 00:33:38.120 --> 00:33:39.120 Is that what you're asking? 00:33:39.120 --> 00:33:40.120 Yeah. 00:33:40.120 --> 00:33:42.120 And replace with just matter or? 00:33:42.120 --> 00:33:43.120 Just take it out. 00:33:43.120 --> 00:33:44.120 Okay. 00:33:44.120 --> 00:33:45.120 Yeah. 00:33:45.120 --> 00:33:48.120 Conflict interest. 00:33:48.120 --> 00:33:49.120 Period. 00:33:49.120 --> 00:33:51.120 Like delete. 00:33:51.120 --> 00:33:57.120 And to my way of thinking, the more simple you make things, the better. 00:33:57.120 --> 00:33:59.120 Because then there's no confusion. 00:33:59.120 --> 00:34:04.120 I mean, actually in the city of San Marcos, it says at one point, 00:34:04.120 --> 00:34:07.120 if you have a conflicting interest, you just shouldn't run. 00:34:07.120 --> 00:34:11.120 And that was the other place I found one that was that direct. 00:34:11.120 --> 00:34:17.120 But that's pretty direct. 00:34:17.120 --> 00:34:22.120 And in fact, the whole code, if you go back to the aspirational part, 00:34:22.120 --> 00:34:26.120 which is a couple pages up, 00:34:26.120 --> 00:34:31.120 that's supposed to be, it should be something that might control, 00:34:31.120 --> 00:34:35.120 let's say, inappropriate behavior at council meetings. 00:34:35.120 --> 00:34:39.120 And again, I'm just talking alphabetically. 00:34:39.120 --> 00:34:41.120 But it's so vague there. 00:34:41.120 --> 00:34:46.120 Like when Borquist gives his speech, 00:34:46.120 --> 00:34:50.120 and I didn't notice this until the second time I watched the film, 00:34:50.120 --> 00:34:54.120 but he actually looks up, he said the expectations, 00:34:54.120 --> 00:34:57.120 this is the aspirational part of the document. 00:34:57.120 --> 00:35:02.120 He said, this is where you should say that you shouldn't slander each other. 00:35:02.120 --> 00:35:04.120 And I was like, oh good, it's in the code. 00:35:04.120 --> 00:35:05.120 And then I looked it up. 00:35:05.120 --> 00:35:08.120 Does that say don't slander each other? 00:35:08.120 --> 00:35:14.120 I mean, it doesn't define very clearly what bad behavior is. 00:35:14.120 --> 00:35:21.120 So when he said it, he looked up at the camera, 00:35:21.120 --> 00:35:26.120 and it's kind of a behavioral thing when people look straight ahead at a camera, 00:35:26.120 --> 00:35:30.120 they're kind of telling the truth that they're not going to say the words. 00:35:30.120 --> 00:35:32.120 So if you go back and look at that, 00:35:32.120 --> 00:35:35.120 it's really interesting how he looks up at that point. 00:35:35.120 --> 00:35:39.120 And yeah, it doesn't say that you can't slander each other. 00:35:39.120 --> 00:35:45.120 That's against the law, technically, I guess, but it's not in there. 00:35:45.120 --> 00:35:51.120 And I'm sure, could we look at that definition in the medicals? 00:35:51.120 --> 00:36:02.120 Yes. 00:36:02.120 --> 00:36:06.120 I'll say as far as having things in the conflict of interest 00:36:06.120 --> 00:36:11.120 and then having them defined in the beginning, 00:36:11.120 --> 00:36:20.120 when there's a code, people have to have notice of what is and isn't a conflict of interest. 00:36:20.120 --> 00:36:25.120 And so kind of like in any statute or ordinance that's written, 00:36:25.120 --> 00:36:30.120 they use pending matters, so they have to then define it to tell you what is a pending matter. 00:36:30.120 --> 00:36:36.120 Otherwise, that would be up to us at every time that we would have a hearing 00:36:36.120 --> 00:36:40.120 or have a panel on a possible conflict of interest. 00:36:40.120 --> 00:36:45.120 If you look at this definition, it's contracts, goods, services, property, 00:36:45.120 --> 00:36:48.120 and that's part of ethics, but it's not all of ethics. 00:36:48.120 --> 00:36:53.120 Ethics would be if I have an interest in something and I vote 00:36:53.120 --> 00:36:57.120 in a way that maybe benefits a family member. 00:36:57.120 --> 00:37:04.120 And it may not exactly, if I curry favors, that should be an ethical violation. 00:37:04.120 --> 00:37:10.120 And there's no way to cover that here. 00:37:10.120 --> 00:37:15.120 I'm curious if that's what the number three on what Madison has listed here 00:37:15.120 --> 00:37:20.120 of personal considerations and prohibitions is intended to address. 00:37:20.120 --> 00:37:24.120 We could cobble something together that would probably be better. 00:37:24.120 --> 00:37:27.120 I really would like to get pending matter out. 00:37:27.120 --> 00:37:35.120 Because, obviously, a contract or, I mean, those should be unethical things 00:37:35.120 --> 00:37:41.120 if you're voting in a way that's going to benefit you or someone related to you. 00:37:41.120 --> 00:37:46.120 Is your concern, I'm trying to understand, make sure I understand your concern, 00:37:46.120 --> 00:37:50.120 do you believe that it's, because this is where other things of value, 00:37:50.120 --> 00:37:57.120 is it your concern that it may be about matters that aren't things of real intrinsic value, 00:37:57.120 --> 00:38:00.120 but maybe of political motivation or whatnot? 00:38:00.120 --> 00:38:03.120 Yeah, political motivation, yeah. 00:38:03.120 --> 00:38:05.120 Because I agree with you, I don't see that covered. 00:38:05.120 --> 00:38:08.120 I just wondered if that was what you were... 00:38:08.120 --> 00:38:13.120 There was a case in, I can't remember what city, I want to say Irving, 00:38:13.120 --> 00:38:18.120 but I might be wrong, where the mayor was sleeping with a developer. 00:38:18.120 --> 00:38:26.120 And while she was sleeping with the developer, she voted a number of times to give money to him. 00:38:26.120 --> 00:38:30.120 And there was nothing, the city didn't even have an ethical code, 00:38:30.120 --> 00:38:36.120 so finally the FBI stepped in and I believe both he and she, I know they were tried, 00:38:36.120 --> 00:38:41.120 I was kind of following it for a while, but I'm pretty sure they went to jail for it. 00:38:41.120 --> 00:38:44.120 But I think that would be covered under the spending matter, right? 00:38:44.120 --> 00:38:52.120 Yeah, well no, because if you voted and in the following day, 00:38:52.120 --> 00:38:57.120 if you could scroll back to the, there's a loophole, 00:38:57.120 --> 00:39:02.120 there's a really good loophole, I guess, down... 00:39:02.120 --> 00:39:04.120 Is it here? 00:39:04.120 --> 00:39:09.120 I think it's at the very bottom of the section, keep scrolling. 00:39:09.120 --> 00:39:13.120 Here? 00:39:13.120 --> 00:39:15.120 It might be at the very very bottom. 00:39:15.120 --> 00:39:17.120 Very very bottom. 00:39:17.120 --> 00:39:31.120 Sorry, I'm not sure where you are. 00:39:31.120 --> 00:39:38.120 I know it just says this excludes potential future buyouts and... 00:39:38.120 --> 00:39:40.120 I don't know if this would actually work. 00:39:40.120 --> 00:39:43.120 Type in future buyouts maybe. 00:39:43.120 --> 00:39:54.120 I'm not sure how good it's actually picking up words. 00:39:54.120 --> 00:39:58.120 That's the thing that citizens have pointed out to me. 00:39:58.120 --> 00:40:00.120 That's the thing that it's a great loophole. 00:40:00.120 --> 00:40:10.120 A future buyout, I think, would mean our future... 00:40:10.120 --> 00:40:13.120 In other words, if you vote on something and the next day 00:40:13.120 --> 00:40:15.120 you approach that developer and say, 00:40:15.120 --> 00:40:18.120 "Hey, I'd like to buy into your property." 00:40:18.120 --> 00:40:21.120 There is a loophole that would like you to do that. 00:40:21.120 --> 00:40:28.120 Go down a little bit more. 00:40:30.120 --> 00:40:40.120 Isn't the last paragraph in that definition of conflicting interest 00:40:40.120 --> 00:40:43.120 where it talks about the term conflicting interest 00:40:43.120 --> 00:40:46.120 does not include ownership of an interest in the future? 00:40:46.120 --> 00:40:48.120 Yes. 00:40:48.120 --> 00:40:50.120 Go back up a little bit. 00:40:50.120 --> 00:40:52.120 Oh, I thought it was this paragraph here. 00:40:52.120 --> 00:40:55.120 Is that correct? 00:40:55.120 --> 00:40:58.120 No, I'm sorry. 00:40:58.120 --> 00:41:01.120 I think that's like if you have a mutual fund 00:41:01.120 --> 00:41:04.120 that happens to have an interest. 00:41:04.120 --> 00:41:06.120 Correct. 00:41:06.120 --> 00:41:19.120 It's on bullet two under section A for the time period 00:41:19.120 --> 00:41:22.120 including the previous calendar year and up to the date 00:41:22.120 --> 00:41:26.120 where the conflicting interest arises before the city official. 00:41:26.120 --> 00:41:30.120 So after that date, it's no longer considered. 00:41:30.120 --> 00:41:36.120 That means you don't have a conflicting interest 00:41:36.120 --> 00:41:40.120 at the time of the vote. 00:41:40.120 --> 00:41:42.120 So your concern is that after the vote, 00:41:42.120 --> 00:41:47.120 immediately after, you're not subject to this portion of the vote? 00:41:47.120 --> 00:41:48.120 Yes. 00:41:48.120 --> 00:41:51.120 There's another thing about DOOR. 00:41:51.120 --> 00:41:55.120 It's later in the document where it says that when you leave office, 00:41:55.120 --> 00:41:59.120 that it's okay to do any of these things 00:41:59.120 --> 00:42:03.120 if that was your business before you went to council. 00:42:03.120 --> 00:42:10.120 So in other words, if you potentially do some kind of business with the city, 00:42:10.120 --> 00:42:15.120 then the minute you leave office, you can continue to do that. 00:42:15.120 --> 00:42:20.120 I believe that's the section that you're heading to. 00:42:20.120 --> 00:42:23.120 But I might be wrong. 00:42:23.120 --> 00:42:25.120 Yeah, so that's a back door. 00:42:25.120 --> 00:42:30.120 So there's some interesting things that have slipped in there at some point. 00:42:30.120 --> 00:42:33.120 And do you believe there should just be a wait period in that? 00:42:33.120 --> 00:42:37.120 In most cities, there's a wait period, I think, of as long as two years. 00:42:37.120 --> 00:42:43.120 I served, I still kind of have some connections with the city. 00:42:43.120 --> 00:42:46.120 I shouldn't do business with them. 00:42:46.120 --> 00:42:51.120 And if that's a problem, then don't run. 00:42:51.120 --> 00:42:56.120 So yeah, and that's a back door, and other cities don't have that. 00:42:56.120 --> 00:42:58.120 So we have something really weird. 00:42:58.120 --> 00:43:02.120 I mean, university got slipped in as a business partner. 00:43:02.120 --> 00:43:08.120 A government entity cannot be a business partner with another government entity. 00:43:08.120 --> 00:43:10.120 So there's a lot of weird things that just kind of-- 00:43:10.120 --> 00:43:13.120 Well, I think in this code, university is included just because 00:43:13.120 --> 00:43:23.120 there's two big universities here that you don't want to have undue influence on city council. 00:43:23.120 --> 00:43:27.120 Yeah, but they're not business partners. 00:43:27.120 --> 00:43:30.120 I would bet they're different. 00:43:30.120 --> 00:43:39.120 But if I may revert back to the definitions, we're not going to be here forever. 00:43:39.120 --> 00:43:44.120 Laura's already told us that, you know, he's one of the entities we're going to assume. 00:43:44.120 --> 00:43:49.120 But the mindset that we have, I think if the definitions are important, 00:43:49.120 --> 00:43:56.120 then to bring back into what Annette's talking about, but it's timeless. 00:43:56.120 --> 00:44:00.120 And I think that's what's important about the definitions and that pending manner. 00:44:00.120 --> 00:44:08.120 Now, it can be adjusted with each particular article that we're looking at, 00:44:08.120 --> 00:44:12.120 but the major theme of pending matter, that's it, in my opinion. 00:44:12.120 --> 00:44:18.120 I mean, that would be something that I could hook on to and know that that's it. 00:44:18.120 --> 00:44:19.120 It's in concrete. 00:44:19.120 --> 00:44:20.120 You're absolutely right. 00:44:20.120 --> 00:44:28.120 Anything else just to have it removed, and I would agree with you, morally and ethically, 00:44:28.120 --> 00:44:30.120 if you see that, you should remove yourself. 00:44:30.120 --> 00:44:34.120 But there are sometimes that people, our morays are changing. 00:44:34.120 --> 00:44:41.120 And so we may not find that to be so offensive as we did a few years ago. 00:44:41.120 --> 00:44:45.120 But I think the pending matter is that time capsule that keeps us grounded. 00:44:45.120 --> 00:44:48.120 And with all the definitions, in my humble opinion. 00:44:48.120 --> 00:44:54.120 I might argue along that, that if you remove it, it has less teeth, I mean, rather than... 00:44:54.120 --> 00:44:57.120 Well, it has more teeth for a contract, 00:44:57.120 --> 00:45:02.120 but it kind of narrows the conflict of interest to kind of a business arrangement. 00:45:02.120 --> 00:45:06.120 I think there's a lot more to ethics than that. 00:45:06.120 --> 00:45:10.120 And really the only things that have gone before the board that have had teeth 00:45:10.120 --> 00:45:13.120 didn't have to do with business contracts. 00:45:13.120 --> 00:45:16.120 So getting back to the agenda item, 00:45:16.120 --> 00:45:19.120 because I don't want to get too far into the weeds of discussing things 00:45:19.120 --> 00:45:23.120 that Madison wants us to tell her that we need to discuss later, you know. 00:45:23.120 --> 00:45:30.120 I mean, I think Annette has expressed concern with the entire conflict of interest, 00:45:30.120 --> 00:45:35.120 but I mean more narrowly is like the definition of pending matter. 00:45:35.120 --> 00:45:39.120 And then also I picked up on like political motivations, 00:45:39.120 --> 00:45:44.120 maybe not whether they fit under any of the conflict of interest 00:45:44.120 --> 00:45:47.120 and whether we would want them to. 00:45:47.120 --> 00:45:52.120 Is there anybody else that has kind of more, you know, 00:45:52.120 --> 00:45:57.120 specific thing that they want us to make sure we discuss as far as conflict of interest? 00:46:00.120 --> 00:46:08.120 So Annette did say that she wanted to hire somebody to come in and rewrite it. 00:46:08.120 --> 00:46:10.120 Is there consensus on the board for that? 00:46:10.120 --> 00:46:15.120 Well, I mean, I would say we hired the board with sperm who, 00:46:15.120 --> 00:46:22.120 I mean, he is a specialist in municipal law and has helped many cities write this. 00:46:22.120 --> 00:46:28.120 And the city council at that time had, I believe, 11 public meetings to write this. 00:46:28.120 --> 00:46:35.120 So I mean, but there were three proposals that were recommended. 00:46:35.120 --> 00:46:38.120 They were from worst to best. 00:46:38.120 --> 00:46:43.120 Council took the worst one and then there were a lot of amendments made on it 00:46:43.120 --> 00:46:46.120 over a lengthy five-hour phone call. 00:46:46.120 --> 00:46:50.120 And then suddenly the code comes up in a very different form. 00:46:50.120 --> 00:46:56.120 And when the council sat in this room and decided to approve it, 00:46:56.120 --> 00:46:59.120 several members objected and said it was too narrow 00:46:59.120 --> 00:47:07.120 and that it was actually, and they were lawyers, more narrow than state law. 00:47:07.120 --> 00:47:18.120 And they basically got batted down for lack of a better word. 00:47:18.120 --> 00:47:28.120 So does anyone else agree that we should recommend the city hire a firm 00:47:28.120 --> 00:47:36.120 to rewrite the conflict of interest? 00:47:36.120 --> 00:47:40.120 Okay, I don't think we have consensus on that. 00:47:40.120 --> 00:47:43.120 And I think you were going somewhere after that? 00:47:43.120 --> 00:47:49.120 Well, I wanted to get direction on that, and then I've heard things about 00:47:49.120 --> 00:47:53.120 pending matter, political motivations. 00:47:53.120 --> 00:47:56.120 I guess I just need clear direction on what you would like me to come back with 00:47:56.120 --> 00:48:00.120 next meeting to discuss here. 00:48:00.120 --> 00:48:05.120 Can we make it conflict of interest? 00:48:05.120 --> 00:48:07.120 Can we compare it to other cities? 00:48:07.120 --> 00:48:14.120 Yeah, so I can bring -- which part of that would you like me to bring back? 00:48:14.120 --> 00:48:21.120 The idea with the five items up here was I would do that kind of peer review analysis 00:48:21.120 --> 00:48:27.120 kind of one chunk at a time just because it would be so many cities to look at. 00:48:27.120 --> 00:48:33.120 And so I was hoping for, with my proposal here was to get direction on 00:48:33.120 --> 00:48:38.120 what you would like to start kind of working through it that way. 00:48:38.120 --> 00:48:44.120 But we can also do other things, whatever the board would like. 00:48:44.120 --> 00:48:45.120 Madam Peer? 00:48:45.120 --> 00:48:46.120 Yes. 00:48:46.120 --> 00:48:52.120 Looking at these five steps or five proposals, I'd like to know if Madison, 00:48:52.120 --> 00:48:57.120 if you look at this, how many of these are already pretty well addressed 00:48:57.120 --> 00:49:02.120 with what we have or are these new ideas that you were thinking about? 00:49:02.120 --> 00:49:08.120 I think that the current ordinance contemplates all of these sections in some way. 00:49:08.120 --> 00:49:15.120 So the idea was just to take what we have for each topic and compare it to 00:49:15.120 --> 00:49:19.120 other cities, other peer cities that we've looked at before. 00:49:19.120 --> 00:49:28.120 Do you feel or is there some direction here that there may be some discrepancies 00:49:28.120 --> 00:49:33.120 or shortages with these five particular topics within our present code? 00:49:33.120 --> 00:49:37.120 I was just trying to cover all of the potential topics within the code. 00:49:37.120 --> 00:49:42.120 I don't have any -- I do not have an opinion on -- 00:49:42.120 --> 00:49:43.120 Concerns are -- 00:49:43.120 --> 00:49:45.120 As staff we have. 00:49:45.120 --> 00:49:47.120 Thank you. 00:49:47.120 --> 00:49:53.120 I feel like we don't have like a total consensus of what we want to do here, 00:49:53.120 --> 00:49:55.120 just like kind of spitballing. 00:49:55.120 --> 00:49:57.120 You know, we had that other time, Madison, 00:49:57.120 --> 00:50:01.120 where you emailed everybody like here's a list of things we should talk about. 00:50:01.120 --> 00:50:03.120 Can everybody rank them? 00:50:03.120 --> 00:50:08.120 And then we, you know, went from there for, you know, for changing. 00:50:08.120 --> 00:50:09.120 Go ahead. 00:50:09.120 --> 00:50:12.120 I was going to say I heard definition of pending matter, 00:50:12.120 --> 00:50:17.120 which I would say I would include if I was bringing this back under 00:50:17.120 --> 00:50:21.120 disclosure and recusal procedures because that's what it's most talked about. 00:50:21.120 --> 00:50:26.120 So we could look at that next time with comparison to the benchmark cities, 00:50:26.120 --> 00:50:30.120 political motivations would be personal considerations and prohibitions. 00:50:30.120 --> 00:50:32.120 We could compare those. 00:50:32.120 --> 00:50:36.120 Yeah, I think that -- I think you've kind of figured that out. 00:50:36.120 --> 00:50:41.120 So, yeah, so it's just a matter of I don't want to do all five at once 00:50:41.120 --> 00:50:47.120 because that is a lot of work that takes me away from auditing. 00:50:47.120 --> 00:50:53.120 So I just would like the direction of how to prioritize them, essentially. 00:50:53.120 --> 00:50:59.120 Any other thoughts from everybody about, you know, maybe starting with those or -- 00:50:59.120 --> 00:51:00.120 I can't. 00:51:00.120 --> 00:51:01.120 Go ahead. 00:51:01.120 --> 00:51:04.120 I would recommend just the way you've got it listed for lack of anything 00:51:04.120 --> 00:51:07.120 because I don't see that there's any of those really stands out 00:51:07.120 --> 00:51:10.120 as a higher priority or a higher pressing issue. 00:51:10.120 --> 00:51:15.120 The disclosure and recusal procedures kind of cover some of the things 00:51:15.120 --> 00:51:17.120 that were your concerns, right? 00:51:17.120 --> 00:51:20.120 So that would put that one right up at the top. 00:51:20.120 --> 00:51:23.120 And I don't see a reason not to go with the order that you've got, 00:51:23.120 --> 00:51:25.120 including the things that we discussed. 00:51:25.120 --> 00:51:27.120 Sure. 00:51:27.120 --> 00:51:32.120 And I know kind of the prior two years we've talked about a lot of things, 00:51:32.120 --> 00:51:36.120 recommendations and changes we want to make to the ethics code. 00:51:36.120 --> 00:51:39.120 And so I don't know if there's really a whole lot other than conflict of interest 00:51:39.120 --> 00:51:42.120 that we haven't kind of already decided on. 00:51:42.120 --> 00:51:46.120 I kind of think as far as future meetings, like maybe we should come up 00:51:46.120 --> 00:51:48.120 with a pack of everything we have so far. 00:51:48.120 --> 00:51:54.120 I think that's all the easy stuff that we could -- that we mostly can agree on. 00:51:54.120 --> 00:51:56.120 I think council agree on. 00:51:56.120 --> 00:51:59.120 I think this stuff will probably be longer discussions 00:51:59.120 --> 00:52:03.120 and kind of more conflict in our ideas. 00:52:03.120 --> 00:52:05.120 So I'm wondering if maybe we should -- 00:52:05.120 --> 00:52:06.120 Yeah. 00:52:06.120 --> 00:52:11.120 So we could, next meeting, come back with at least one of these items if not two 00:52:11.120 --> 00:52:15.120 and then also have the packet and then you could forward it to the city council. 00:52:15.120 --> 00:52:18.120 Basically we'd review all of the changes that are in it currently 00:52:18.120 --> 00:52:21.120 and have any discussion we need to and then send it to city council 00:52:21.120 --> 00:52:24.120 and that would go before them. 00:52:24.120 --> 00:52:26.120 I think that's a good idea. 00:52:26.120 --> 00:52:31.120 Maybe next meeting kind of do the things at the beginning we always do, 00:52:31.120 --> 00:52:34.120 approve the packet and maybe just start with -- 00:52:34.120 --> 00:52:39.120 I mean maybe have an agenda item where we start with one of them 00:52:39.120 --> 00:52:44.120 and hope to get through one and maybe have a backup just in case we all agree quickly. 00:52:44.120 --> 00:52:51.120 And I think that would be a good way to go forward. 00:52:51.120 --> 00:52:53.120 Anybody else have ideas? 00:52:53.120 --> 00:52:55.120 I think it would be suicidal if you went more than two. 00:52:55.120 --> 00:52:57.120 Yeah, I almost think more than one. 00:52:57.120 --> 00:52:59.120 That was my concern. 00:52:59.120 --> 00:53:04.120 Yeah, I mean I don't -- it doesn't appear the city is giving us dinners anymore. 00:53:04.120 --> 00:53:08.120 The beverage cart is very slim back there. 00:53:08.120 --> 00:53:10.120 Yeah, so I don't want to keep everybody too late. 00:53:10.120 --> 00:53:12.120 So go with that order. 00:53:12.120 --> 00:53:17.120 Okay, so yeah, so the direction I'm hearing is to next meeting 00:53:17.120 --> 00:53:20.120 begin with disclosure and recusal procedures 00:53:20.120 --> 00:53:24.120 and potentially have financial considerations and prohibitions 00:53:24.120 --> 00:53:29.120 on the back burner for that meeting if we get to it. 00:53:29.120 --> 00:53:30.120 I think so. 00:53:30.120 --> 00:53:34.120 I think everybody agrees with that. 00:53:34.120 --> 00:53:41.120 If there's nothing else on that agenda item, I will go to G, BOE 22-014. 00:53:41.120 --> 00:53:48.120 Hold the discussion and consider adoption of the 2022 meeting schedule. 00:53:48.120 --> 00:53:51.120 I know, you know, during my lockdowns and stuff, 00:53:51.120 --> 00:53:54.120 like 3 p.m. on Zoom was totally good for me. 00:53:54.120 --> 00:53:59.120 But now that, you know, everybody's back in the office, 00:53:59.120 --> 00:54:03.120 3 p.m. at my office, you know, sometimes I can make it, sometimes I can't. 00:54:03.120 --> 00:54:06.120 And usually I might not know until like the day before, 00:54:06.120 --> 00:54:09.120 which isn't very helpful to, you know, the staff here. 00:54:09.120 --> 00:54:13.120 So, I mean, I like the 6 p.m. meetings. 00:54:13.120 --> 00:54:15.120 You know, Zoom was awesome for meetings 00:54:15.120 --> 00:54:19.120 because it was just easier to get to with two young kids than a full-time job. 00:54:19.120 --> 00:54:23.120 But, you know, in person, I would prefer 6. 00:54:23.120 --> 00:54:26.120 I have a problem with Thursday nights. 00:54:26.120 --> 00:54:28.120 I can reschedule any other night. 00:54:28.120 --> 00:54:31.120 I work every night until 9. 00:54:31.120 --> 00:54:32.120 But I can reschedule. 00:54:32.120 --> 00:54:35.120 I have a group that I run on Thursday nights. 00:54:35.120 --> 00:54:38.120 I have some of them that I'm paying to cover me tonight. 00:54:38.120 --> 00:54:40.120 But I can't do Thursday nights. 00:54:40.120 --> 00:54:42.120 I can do any other night. 00:54:42.120 --> 00:54:45.120 So, the only night that is not off the table is Tuesdays. 00:54:45.120 --> 00:54:46.120 Yeah. 00:54:46.120 --> 00:54:54.120 Yeah, I can't do Tuesday because that's my son's golf. 00:54:54.120 --> 00:54:58.120 Any other thoughts on civic nights for anyone? 00:54:58.120 --> 00:54:59.120 Go ahead. 00:54:59.120 --> 00:55:01.120 Thursday, I also run a group typically. 00:55:01.120 --> 00:55:04.120 So, I was going to say just the Monday. 00:55:04.120 --> 00:55:09.120 I think Monday at 6 was pretty last year. 00:55:09.120 --> 00:55:11.120 Any thoughts about Monday for anyone? 00:55:11.120 --> 00:55:13.120 Monday is good for anyone. 00:55:13.120 --> 00:55:18.120 I like the 6 o'clock because I think it helps us stay focused on getting things done. 00:55:18.120 --> 00:55:20.120 Yeah, and getting out. 00:55:20.120 --> 00:55:21.120 To be selfish. 00:55:21.120 --> 00:55:26.120 But I think it helps us keep that thought. 00:55:26.120 --> 00:55:29.120 6 o'clock, let's get an hour, an hour and a half to move on. 00:55:29.120 --> 00:55:31.120 So, I'm hearing 6 o'clock on Mondays. 00:55:31.120 --> 00:55:32.120 Yeah. 00:55:32.120 --> 00:55:35.120 I would say let's try that and then we'll see. 00:55:35.120 --> 00:55:39.120 If we end up not getting a quorum, then we'll maybe talk about another night. 00:55:39.120 --> 00:55:46.120 Would you be open to doing it the first week of every month instead of the last week? 00:55:46.120 --> 00:55:51.120 I have another committee on Monday nights at 5.30. 00:55:51.120 --> 00:55:53.120 On the last week of every month. 00:55:53.120 --> 00:55:55.120 I guess, let's see. 00:55:55.120 --> 00:55:58.120 So, we're into April, so then we do first week of May. 00:55:58.120 --> 00:56:02.120 We'll skip April since it's like first week of April next week. 00:56:02.120 --> 00:56:03.120 I mean, I don't have it. 00:56:03.120 --> 00:56:07.120 Does anybody have, I don't know, first, the last week, it doesn't really matter to me. 00:56:07.120 --> 00:56:10.120 Here is a calendar, if you can see that. 00:56:10.120 --> 00:56:13.120 So, that would be the fourth. 00:56:13.120 --> 00:56:15.120 Yeah, so that would be the fourth. 00:56:15.120 --> 00:56:19.120 But if we go by the chair suggested, we would skip and then go. 00:56:19.120 --> 00:56:22.120 Yeah, we don't need to meet three days. 00:56:22.120 --> 00:56:24.120 We could potentially do May 2nd. 00:56:24.120 --> 00:56:27.120 Yeah, that sounds pretty good. 00:56:27.120 --> 00:56:32.120 Oh, and you know, actually, a comment I had on, I think on the agenda sheet, 00:56:32.120 --> 00:56:38.120 for instance, I'll be out of town July 2nd, which, you know, 00:56:38.120 --> 00:56:42.120 you had mentioned the November and December is hard. 00:56:42.120 --> 00:56:43.120 Yes. 00:56:43.120 --> 00:56:46.120 I don't know, sometimes summer months I think would be hard, 00:56:46.120 --> 00:56:51.120 but maybe we can just work through and have a core meet if we don't. 00:56:51.120 --> 00:56:53.120 Did you say June 2nd could we go? 00:56:53.120 --> 00:56:54.120 Oh, July. 00:56:54.120 --> 00:56:57.120 Yeah, sorry. 00:56:57.120 --> 00:57:00.120 And that's very close to 4th of July, so that's going to go over. 00:57:00.120 --> 00:57:03.120 We would not be open on the 4th of July. 00:57:03.120 --> 00:57:09.120 So, I think, so maybe we just, you know, switch to Monday at 6, 00:57:09.120 --> 00:57:13.120 first week of the month, and we'll not have, 00:57:13.120 --> 00:57:15.120 well then actually November probably we could have, 00:57:15.120 --> 00:57:18.120 but then not have December or January. 00:57:18.120 --> 00:57:25.120 And I kind of think skip July because of July 4th. 00:57:25.120 --> 00:57:28.120 And that's also a vacation month, I mean a lot of people will be out of town, 00:57:28.120 --> 00:57:30.120 a lot of people will be. 00:57:30.120 --> 00:57:34.120 So, as far as this calendar year, we would only skip April, 00:57:34.120 --> 00:57:37.120 because it's next week, July and December. 00:57:37.120 --> 00:57:38.120 I'm thinking so. 00:57:38.120 --> 00:57:39.120 Yeah, I think it works. 00:57:39.120 --> 00:57:42.120 I mean, you know, if we don't have a core in one month, you know, 00:57:42.120 --> 00:57:45.120 we'll just see how important things are and if we want to switch anything, 00:57:45.120 --> 00:57:49.120 but maybe try this and see how it works. 00:57:49.120 --> 00:57:52.120 And we'll discuss it in another meeting if it doesn't. 00:57:52.120 --> 00:57:54.120 So, we can adopt a calendar. 00:57:54.120 --> 00:57:55.120 Yes. 00:57:55.120 --> 00:58:24.120 Let me, one second real quick, pull up these dates for skipping July. 00:58:24.120 --> 00:58:30.120 And then the direction was to skip December 5th as well? 00:58:30.120 --> 00:58:33.120 Yeah, I mean, I don't know, I'm so, I don't know about the rest of you, 00:58:33.120 --> 00:58:38.120 but December is so busy between Thanksgiving and Christmas. 00:58:38.120 --> 00:58:41.120 I would say give us all a break. 00:58:41.120 --> 00:58:45.120 Would you like a break in medicine because I have a book for you today? 00:58:45.120 --> 00:58:48.120 I'm happy to do whatever the board would like. 00:58:48.120 --> 00:58:50.120 Well, I mean, we won't, all of us will probably be working, 00:58:50.120 --> 00:58:53.120 but a break from our volunteer. 00:58:53.120 --> 00:58:56.120 And then January, well, I guess you don't need January. 00:58:56.120 --> 00:58:58.120 I don't need January, but that would be January 2nd. 00:58:58.120 --> 00:59:05.120 Which probably you all want to be open anyway because that's probably correct. 00:59:05.120 --> 00:59:08.120 Okay, so then I don't know how to put it up here, 00:59:08.120 --> 00:59:20.120 but the adoption calendar would then be May 2nd would be our next meeting, June 6th. 00:59:20.120 --> 00:59:32.120 There would be no meeting in July, August 1st, September 3rd, and November 7th. 00:59:32.120 --> 00:59:36.120 And those would be our regular meetings for the rest of this calendar year. 00:59:36.120 --> 00:59:38.120 Do you need a motion for that or is that? 00:59:38.120 --> 00:59:39.120 Yes. 00:59:39.120 --> 00:59:44.120 Okay, well if I could have a motion for that. 00:59:44.120 --> 00:59:49.120 David motions, second from Rob. 00:59:49.120 --> 00:59:51.120 Any more discussion? 00:59:51.120 --> 00:59:52.120 All in favor say aye. 00:59:52.120 --> 00:59:53.120 Aye. 00:59:53.120 --> 00:59:55.120 All opposed? 00:59:55.120 --> 00:59:56.120 Any abstentions? 00:59:56.120 --> 00:59:57.120 No. 00:59:57.120 --> 00:59:58.120 Okay, so motion carries. 00:59:58.120 --> 01:00:01.120 That will be our schedule. 01:00:01.120 --> 01:00:02.120 We'll send that out. 01:00:02.120 --> 01:00:06.120 Okay, and Madison will send that to everyone, I think. 01:00:06.120 --> 01:00:07.120 I think that's everything. 01:00:07.120 --> 01:00:11.120 So I guess, wait, it's been a few months. 01:00:11.120 --> 01:00:14.120 Do I need a motion to adjourn or do I just adjourn? 01:00:14.120 --> 01:00:16.120 I think I can just adjourn. 01:00:16.120 --> 01:00:19.120 I'll just get up and walk out. 01:00:19.120 --> 01:00:28.120 So, all right, right in an hour, 7 p.m., I will adjourn Board of Ethics and see everybody back in May. 01:00:28.120 --> 01:00:29.120 All right, thank you so much. 01:00:29.120 --> 01:00:30.120 All right, thanks.