WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.900 Good evening and welcome to the Board of Ethics meeting in the city of Denton. 00:00:07.900 --> 00:00:15.700 It's 6 p.m. on October the 3rd and I always forget what the next thing I was supposed to say. 00:00:15.700 --> 00:00:17.700 Just read this, got it? 00:00:17.700 --> 00:00:19.700 And a quorum is present. 00:00:19.700 --> 00:00:21.700 And a quorum is present, yep. 00:00:21.700 --> 00:00:28.700 And then, yeah, so I just, I think you're good. You read the, you read all the stuff, so. 00:00:28.700 --> 00:00:36.700 And then I just, before we got really into it, I wanted to welcome our two new members, Tom Pryor and David Zoltner. 00:00:36.700 --> 00:00:44.700 Mr. Patricia has rolled off the committee and so that's kind of been the membership changes, so. 00:00:44.700 --> 00:00:54.700 So then, I think, you want to let them introduce themselves or? 00:00:54.700 --> 00:00:58.700 Yeah, if you'd like to introduce yourselves. We'll start with David. 00:00:58.700 --> 00:01:06.700 My name is David Zoltner. I have been a Denton resident since 1983. 00:01:06.700 --> 00:01:14.700 I have been a prior member of this board when it originally formed in 2018. 00:01:14.700 --> 00:01:18.700 I served one year left for various reasons. 00:01:18.700 --> 00:01:24.700 I have been off for three years now but I have followed the activities of this board very carefully 00:01:24.700 --> 00:01:31.700 and written several columns in the record chronicle about the Denton ethics code, for better or worse. 00:01:31.700 --> 00:01:35.700 So I'm very interested in what this committee does. 00:01:35.700 --> 00:01:37.700 So, glad to be here. 00:01:37.700 --> 00:01:39.700 Thanks, Sam. 00:01:39.700 --> 00:01:42.700 Tom, you want to introduce yourself? 00:01:42.700 --> 00:01:49.700 Yes, Tom Pryor moved to Robeson Ranch in Denton in 2013. 00:01:49.700 --> 00:01:54.700 Lived most of my life in Arlington, Texas. 00:01:54.700 --> 00:02:02.700 Worked in corporate finance for about 19 years and then started my own software and consulting business for 30 years 00:02:02.700 --> 00:02:07.700 and logged three million air miles on American Airlines in the process. 00:02:07.700 --> 00:02:20.700 So, welcoming. Now I primarily mentor veterans who are wanting to start their own business after retirement 00:02:20.700 --> 00:02:25.700 or helping family-owned business leaders transition to leadership. 00:02:25.700 --> 00:02:28.700 Cool, alright. Thanks, Tom. 00:02:28.700 --> 00:02:35.700 Alright, we want to move on to approving the minutes from last week. 00:02:35.700 --> 00:02:48.700 So, did everybody get a chance to review the minutes? 00:02:48.700 --> 00:02:50.700 I think it was here. 00:02:50.700 --> 00:02:53.700 Okay, any comments on them? 00:02:53.700 --> 00:02:54.700 Nope. 00:02:54.700 --> 00:02:58.700 Okay, I'll move to approve the minutes. 00:02:58.700 --> 00:03:00.700 I'll second. 00:03:00.700 --> 00:03:06.700 All those in favor? 00:03:06.700 --> 00:03:08.700 Do we vote on 10? 00:03:08.700 --> 00:03:09.700 Yes, you can. 00:03:09.700 --> 00:03:11.700 Okay, so all those in favor? 00:03:11.700 --> 00:03:12.700 Aye. 00:03:12.700 --> 00:03:14.700 All those opposed? 00:03:14.700 --> 00:03:16.700 Any abstentions? 00:03:16.700 --> 00:03:17.700 Nope. 00:03:17.700 --> 00:03:21.700 Okay, we have voted to approve the minutes. 00:03:21.700 --> 00:03:23.700 7-0. 00:03:23.700 --> 00:03:25.700 7-0, yes. 00:03:25.700 --> 00:03:27.700 Alright, great. 00:03:27.700 --> 00:03:30.700 You can call the next item. 00:03:30.700 --> 00:03:31.700 What was that? 00:03:31.700 --> 00:03:32.700 You can call the next item. 00:03:32.700 --> 00:03:42.700 Yes, okay, so item... 00:03:42.700 --> 00:03:47.700 Okay, so agenda item, what's this, C? 00:03:47.700 --> 00:03:51.700 Is that correct? No, D, sorry, moving too quickly. 00:03:51.700 --> 00:03:55.700 Receive a report, hold a discussion, and take necessary action regarding potential recommendations 00:03:55.700 --> 00:04:08.700 to amend the Code of Coordinances, Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics, Section 2-273, Prohibitions. 00:04:08.700 --> 00:04:10.700 Do you want me to keep reading? 00:04:10.700 --> 00:04:12.700 I think you're good unless you want me to go. 00:04:12.700 --> 00:04:24.700 Okay, so this is part of, for our new members, back in March we decided to kind of have a comprehensive look at the Conflicts of Interest section. 00:04:24.700 --> 00:04:31.700 And as part of that, we broke that up into basically five discussions, and this is our third discussion. 00:04:31.700 --> 00:04:39.700 And it's looking specifically at kind of like personal considerations and prohibitions, 00:04:39.700 --> 00:04:46.700 looking at what we currently have and comparing it to other benchmark cities, as well as Westler's Model Code. 00:04:46.700 --> 00:04:57.700 And so basically I did that, and this is what I found. So there are eight kind of considerations that are clearly financial-related, 00:04:57.700 --> 00:05:06.700 that are in various codes that I just talked about, and this is just kind of an illustration of those. 00:05:06.700 --> 00:05:13.700 And then your backup is a little more detailed about what each city considers when they're talking about those. 00:05:13.700 --> 00:05:20.700 And so basically this is for your consideration. If you want to make any changes to what's currently in our code, 00:05:20.700 --> 00:05:29.700 we can take that direction today, or we can just say, "Great work," or I don't know, whatever you want to do. 00:05:29.700 --> 00:05:34.700 I have a question about the language. 00:05:34.700 --> 00:05:43.700 Because when I read, let's take offices, board members, or other policy-making positions of a business entity, 00:05:43.700 --> 00:05:49.700 the last sentence there, actually not the second one, the second to the last sentence says, 00:05:49.700 --> 00:05:59.700 "Based on our research, the cities of Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Richardson, San Antonio, and San Marcos include this prohibition." 00:05:59.700 --> 00:06:12.700 And when I read that originally, I thought that there was an actual, so what that means is that those cities require a recusal? 00:06:12.700 --> 00:06:13.700 Yes. 00:06:13.700 --> 00:06:15.700 Or is it stronger language than that? 00:06:15.700 --> 00:06:24.700 Requires, so it requires that if there's, a city official is going to take official action in their position 00:06:24.700 --> 00:06:30.700 on a matter that involves a business entity that they're on the board of or in a similar policy-making, 00:06:30.700 --> 00:06:36.700 some cities use policy-making position, that they would have to recuse from that official action. 00:06:36.700 --> 00:06:43.700 Okay, but that's what the word, I just was wondering, that prohibition was not a stronger word than just a recusal. 00:06:43.700 --> 00:06:44.700 Correct. 00:06:44.700 --> 00:06:45.700 Okay. 00:06:45.700 --> 00:06:47.700 Yes. 00:06:47.700 --> 00:06:51.700 So just to be clear, they're one and the same. 00:06:51.700 --> 00:06:53.700 What do you mean by one and the same? 00:06:53.700 --> 00:06:58.700 That if there's a prohibition, then there must be a recuse. 00:06:58.700 --> 00:07:03.700 Yes. 00:07:03.700 --> 00:07:04.700 I had the same. 00:07:04.700 --> 00:07:05.700 In general. 00:07:05.700 --> 00:07:11.700 Yeah, so when it says recuse, you're prohibited from voting on taking an official action in that matter. 00:07:11.700 --> 00:07:17.700 If it says disclose on this chart, you just have to disclose that you have that relationship, 00:07:17.700 --> 00:07:20.700 and it doesn't prohibit you from taking action. 00:07:20.700 --> 00:07:21.700 Okay. 00:07:21.700 --> 00:07:23.700 Thank you. 00:07:23.700 --> 00:07:28.700 Any other questions about the material that's being presented? 00:07:28.700 --> 00:07:43.700 It appears San Antonio is the most, I guess I'll use the adjective, aggressive in the number of situations where recusal is requested. 00:07:43.700 --> 00:07:48.700 Are you aware, is that a positive or negative in that city or not? 00:07:48.700 --> 00:07:52.700 I don't think I can speak to that. 00:07:52.700 --> 00:07:55.700 I have no way of knowing. 00:07:55.700 --> 00:08:07.700 My experience would be that it's easier to know, well just about everything requires a recusal as opposed to picking through the, 00:08:07.700 --> 00:08:11.700 if there's only three kind of situations within Denton, 00:08:11.700 --> 00:08:21.700 I think that sometimes makes it more complicated than San Antonio where it's pretty obvious that recusal is required. 00:08:21.700 --> 00:08:27.700 But this is the observation from life. 00:08:27.700 --> 00:08:31.700 Any other discussion about this? Any thoughts that anybody's had? 00:08:31.700 --> 00:08:32.700 Question. 00:08:32.700 --> 00:08:33.700 Yes. 00:08:33.700 --> 00:08:42.700 Senator, are we going to be, are you looking for us to make actual action motions on this, or are we going to discuss each line? 00:08:42.700 --> 00:08:44.700 What is, how would you like to? 00:08:44.700 --> 00:08:53.700 So I believe that the way that we're going about this is Madison's written down here some comments, right, of what we want to talk about. 00:08:53.700 --> 00:09:00.700 Do we want to make any changes to the column that Denton has right now, and if so, do we want to give direction for Madison to work on that for us? 00:09:00.700 --> 00:09:02.700 Does that answer your question? 00:09:02.700 --> 00:09:05.700 Yeah, so what's been happening is we've gone through each of these sections. 00:09:05.700 --> 00:09:11.700 You've given me direction to essentially draft language per what you've told me to do, 00:09:11.700 --> 00:09:19.700 and then I've not brought that back yet, but I will as a packet of here's what we're proposing to change to the conflict of interest section. 00:09:19.700 --> 00:09:31.700 And then once that draft, we'll be able to review that draft language, modify it, tweak it, however you want it before it ultimately would go to the city council for review and potential adoption. 00:09:31.700 --> 00:09:44.700 If I could ask, because I'm looking at weighing some of this, recusing versus the word disclosure. 00:09:44.700 --> 00:09:49.700 So I've told everyone I have a match, but I haven't lived. Is that pretty much what we're talking about? 00:09:49.700 --> 00:09:56.700 I mean, what is, what would be the next step after I make a disclosure? 00:09:56.700 --> 00:10:06.700 So the way that disclosure works, at least in Denton, is that you basically sign a written affidavit that says, hey, I have this relationship, 00:10:06.700 --> 00:10:14.700 and it matters because I'm about to take official action under this type of relationship, does that make sense? 00:10:14.700 --> 00:10:21.700 And so that written affidavit is given to me, and then I keep it. 00:10:21.700 --> 00:10:23.700 And that's the end of it? 00:10:23.700 --> 00:10:27.700 That's currently the way it works. 00:10:27.700 --> 00:10:32.700 Thank you. 00:10:32.700 --> 00:10:35.700 Members? 00:10:35.700 --> 00:10:38.700 Question and a comment. 00:10:38.700 --> 00:10:41.700 El Paso has one of the stronger ordinances. 00:10:41.700 --> 00:10:48.700 Is there any reason that El Paso was not part of your, you've done a tremendous amount of background work here, and I salute you here. 00:10:48.700 --> 00:10:52.700 I was just curious why El Paso was not included in. 00:10:52.700 --> 00:11:01.700 So the way that I originally got the benchmark cities is I took it from, honestly, my audit side, where we look at similar cities, similar sized cities. 00:11:01.700 --> 00:11:06.700 El Paso is much larger, and I also took some of the biggest cities in Texas. 00:11:06.700 --> 00:11:12.700 I didn't think about El Paso when I did that, and nobody had brought it up until now. We can certainly include that in the benchmark. 00:11:12.700 --> 00:11:14.700 So there was no special reason why? 00:11:14.700 --> 00:11:18.700 No, I just didn't. I already have like ten or so. 00:11:18.700 --> 00:11:28.700 Then the comment. Just from my memory, most of these cities here where you see the larger number of recusals or disclosures, 00:11:28.700 --> 00:11:35.700 those are the cities that had historically had greater problems with ethical violations in the past. 00:11:35.700 --> 00:11:43.700 So San Antonio is the classic example of things went off the rails for several years in San Antonio. 00:11:43.700 --> 00:11:50.700 So that's why their ordnance and even El Paso's might seem and come off some of the more restrictive codes in Texas. 00:11:50.700 --> 00:12:02.700 So the number of recusals is kind of stands as evidence of where they're coming from in terms of their reaction and their involvement with the cities, with the citizens of those towns. 00:12:02.700 --> 00:12:15.700 So that being as it may, so that's it. 00:12:15.700 --> 00:12:19.700 Any thoughts on where to go with this? 00:12:19.700 --> 00:12:25.700 I mean, I think the point of this is to prevent an issue rather than to address things that have already happened. 00:12:25.700 --> 00:12:35.700 So if San Antonio or Dallas were more restrictive here based on things that have happened in their past, 00:12:35.700 --> 00:12:42.700 just because it's San Antonio or Dallas doesn't really mean that can happen here. 00:12:42.700 --> 00:12:57.700 So I mean, I don't want to make this a burden on people that are voting or considering some items for a vote in council or some other board. 00:12:57.700 --> 00:13:10.700 But I don't think that I think we're trying to avoid issues rather than punish people for what they've already done. 00:13:10.700 --> 00:13:22.700 I tend to lean on the side of transparency and keeping things as ethical as possible. 00:13:22.700 --> 00:13:35.700 If acusal is one simple way to avoid a conflict of interest and the appearance of a conflict of interest, then I think it should be stated. 00:13:35.700 --> 00:13:45.700 So if we were looking at this as a package, then I would say what Denton does not do, Denton should recuse. 00:13:45.700 --> 00:13:51.700 You know, and I think that that is really important to remember too, is it's the appearance of an ethical conflict. 00:13:51.700 --> 00:13:55.700 It does not mean that there's any actual wrongdoing. 00:13:55.700 --> 00:14:07.700 So if we err on the side of caution with recusal, I think then that's prudent to do just to avoid that potential for the appearance of the conflict. 00:14:07.700 --> 00:14:10.700 Thank you. Member Reiner. 00:14:10.700 --> 00:14:14.700 I would kind of dovetail with that transparency. 00:14:14.700 --> 00:14:22.700 I'm a little reluctant on the word recuse if we're going to use these definitions for the purpose of the recuse. 00:14:22.700 --> 00:14:26.700 I think these are a little bit too restrictive. 00:14:26.700 --> 00:14:36.700 For the simple reason we've had council members that have recused themselves and some of them have asked our opinion or have asked for city attorney opinion 00:14:36.700 --> 00:14:42.700 and saw a need to just recuse themselves as just the simple word that it is, I will not vote. 00:14:42.700 --> 00:14:54.700 But I think some of these are a little bit, in my opinion, a little bit too stringent for some of the public servants as to their nature of their business. 00:14:54.700 --> 00:15:04.700 If they recognize it, which is what we have now in our ethics on the recusing, I'm thinking that that could be enough. 00:15:04.700 --> 00:15:13.700 I like the word disclosure. That's sort of like a yellow line, hey, this may be something you need to look at versus the solid recuse if we, 00:15:13.700 --> 00:15:19.700 unless we want to lighten up the, in my opinion, a little bit on the reasons for the recuse. 00:15:19.700 --> 00:15:21.700 That's just my opinion. Thank you, Madam Chair. 00:15:21.700 --> 00:15:27.700 Thank you. 00:15:27.700 --> 00:15:37.700 Yeah, so in reading through this, I think that I found it interesting that we don't hit two of the subjects that the model code covers, 00:15:37.700 --> 00:15:41.700 but we hit two that it also doesn't. 00:15:41.700 --> 00:15:53.700 I thought it was interesting too that you brought up, member, I think it was Soltner brought up that a lot of these from San Antonio and Dallas are responses to issues that they have had in the past. 00:15:53.700 --> 00:15:57.700 So as member Pavlik, is that how you say your name, Justin? 00:15:57.700 --> 00:15:58.700 Pavlik. 00:15:58.700 --> 00:16:07.700 Thank you, Pavlik said we don't really want to be in response to something, but I'm curious what people's thoughts are on using the word recuse versus disclosure. 00:16:07.700 --> 00:16:18.700 Member Rayner brought that up. Does anybody want to comment on that, on which direction to go there? 00:16:18.700 --> 00:16:34.700 Yes. I would say that if we're taking action, then I would support a recuse rather than a disclosure, because disclosure is basically, as soon as I'm just disclosing it, 00:16:34.700 --> 00:16:44.700 and that's the end of the question, then there's the same potential for the appearance of an ethical conflict. 00:16:44.700 --> 00:17:00.700 I mean, obviously it could be cleared up, but I mean, I think it is much more, it shows much more of that proactive direction that we're thinking about going, I'm assuming from the comments, 00:17:00.700 --> 00:17:14.700 where disclosure is not public, whereas a recusal would be a public display of I'm recusing myself, I'm not loathing because of potential conflict of interest. 00:17:14.700 --> 00:17:18.700 So it would technically be a public document, but you would have to go know it exists in Google. 00:17:18.700 --> 00:17:20.700 Right, I mean, nobody. 00:17:20.700 --> 00:17:21.700 I just want to make that clear. 00:17:21.700 --> 00:17:34.700 So in order to figure this out, I'm wondering if we should structure it, sort of like go line by line, should this be included? 00:17:34.700 --> 00:17:41.700 And then once we get the included items, decide the language recuse or disclose. Does that sound appropriate to everybody? 00:17:41.700 --> 00:17:52.700 Okay, so I'll just call the item or the line by line, and then we can do a vote. Should I record that? 00:17:52.700 --> 00:17:58.700 I can record whatever, what the direction is and the vote, or you could, or we can both do it. 00:17:58.700 --> 00:18:00.700 Okay, great. 00:18:00.700 --> 00:18:11.700 Okay, all right, so Board of Business Entity, all those in favor, to make this something that we're going to include in either recusal or disclosure. 00:18:11.700 --> 00:18:14.700 So all of those in favor, aye. 00:18:14.700 --> 00:18:15.700 Go ahead. 00:18:15.700 --> 00:18:17.700 Of which, would you clarify? 00:18:17.700 --> 00:18:21.700 We already have recuse, so that would be a given. 00:18:21.700 --> 00:18:23.700 Yeah, in favor of keeping it. 00:18:23.700 --> 00:18:24.700 I apologize. 00:18:24.700 --> 00:18:26.700 Yeah, sorry, I didn't make that clear. 00:18:26.700 --> 00:18:37.700 We already have this language, do we want to continue with it, even if we have recuse or disclose out there, do we want to keep it, or do we want, that would be aye, if you don't want to keep it, no. 00:18:37.700 --> 00:18:41.700 Or if you want to add it, aye, and if you don't, no. Does that make sense? 00:18:41.700 --> 00:18:49.700 Well, may I make the motion, Madam Chair, that on Board of Entity, I move that we keep the recuse as present. 00:18:49.700 --> 00:18:56.700 Okay, yeah, and we'll go through and we'll talk about the language we're going to use in the second vote after we make the list, okay. 00:18:56.700 --> 00:18:58.700 All right, so running it again. 00:18:58.700 --> 00:19:03.700 Board of Business Entity, all of those in favor of keeping this item. 00:19:03.700 --> 00:19:04.700 Aye. 00:19:04.700 --> 00:19:06.700 All those opposed? 00:19:06.700 --> 00:19:09.700 No abstentions, so that's all in favor. 00:19:09.700 --> 00:19:11.700 It's just a point of order, Scott. 00:19:11.700 --> 00:19:13.700 They're just doing, these aren't-- 00:19:13.700 --> 00:19:14.700 This is just direction. 00:19:14.700 --> 00:19:15.700 Right. 00:19:15.700 --> 00:19:17.700 So they're not really motions, they're not actual-- 00:19:17.700 --> 00:19:18.700 Unless somebody makes a motion. 00:19:18.700 --> 00:19:27.700 They're sort of voting as part of discussion, so even like make it a little more informal so that it doesn't sound like a motion. 00:19:27.700 --> 00:19:35.700 Right, Scott, it's fine for you to do this this way, I think, as long as we're not making a motion, making it a little less formal, not calling it a motion. 00:19:35.700 --> 00:19:44.700 I think the cleanest way to do it, for Robert's purposes, would be if we have a discussion about which ones we want to include, 00:19:44.700 --> 00:19:57.700 and then someone makes a motion saying, I move that, you know, we add the requirement that an official recuse themselves in the cases of A, B, C, and D. 00:19:57.700 --> 00:19:59.700 And then we see who agrees with that. 00:19:59.700 --> 00:20:00.700 We have a discussion. 00:20:00.700 --> 00:20:02.700 Maybe someone can amend that motion. 00:20:02.700 --> 00:20:06.700 That would be a more proper toolsy way to do it. 00:20:06.700 --> 00:20:20.700 In an important order, if I may ask the attorney, once we do that, then, if we're going to label it, then can we come back and give the definition of that label, or are we going to discuss it all at once? 00:20:20.700 --> 00:20:22.700 The definition of recuse? 00:20:22.700 --> 00:20:26.700 Recuse versus anything else. 00:20:26.700 --> 00:20:28.700 I think we can discuss that way. 00:20:28.700 --> 00:20:40.700 I mean, again, this is still just sort of a, we're making recommendations, y'all are making recommendations to the Honor's Office to bring back, I think, right, official language that y'all are going to approve. 00:20:40.700 --> 00:20:49.700 So at the end of the day, this isn't really listed as an official action of the board, but... 00:20:49.700 --> 00:20:51.700 It does seem like it. 00:20:51.700 --> 00:20:53.700 It does? Okay. 00:20:53.700 --> 00:21:00.700 So, you could, but I think this isn't anything that we're going to work on, we're going to work on language. 00:21:00.700 --> 00:21:08.700 Right, I think what I'm really looking for today is, essentially, do you want to keep what we have, and do you want to add anything? 00:21:08.700 --> 00:21:13.700 And if you do, do you want it to be a recusal or a disclosure? 00:21:13.700 --> 00:21:18.700 And then I'll bring back the language and we can discuss exactly what that means in the future. 00:21:18.700 --> 00:21:20.700 Does that make sense, Rob? 00:21:20.700 --> 00:21:21.700 Yes, ma'am. 00:21:21.700 --> 00:21:22.700 Thank you. 00:21:22.700 --> 00:21:23.700 Okay. 00:21:23.700 --> 00:21:28.700 So, Board of Nonprofit, does anybody want to change that? 00:21:28.700 --> 00:21:29.700 They're switching. 00:21:29.700 --> 00:21:30.700 No. 00:21:30.700 --> 00:21:31.700 Okay. 00:21:31.700 --> 00:21:38.700 Anybody want to add offer of employment, and if so, who want to tell us why? 00:21:38.700 --> 00:21:39.700 Yes. 00:21:39.700 --> 00:21:40.700 Yes. 00:21:40.700 --> 00:21:42.700 I think that should be a recusal. 00:21:42.700 --> 00:21:57.700 I think that based on reports in the Chronicle that's happened before where a council member has voted on an item and then going to work for someone that was involved in some benefit based on their vote. 00:21:57.700 --> 00:22:02.700 And I think that's a pretty clear ethical violation. 00:22:02.700 --> 00:22:16.700 So if there is currently, if they are, the way it's written here is if they are directly or indirectly engaged in negotiations pertaining to business opportunities with a person, then it's business in your entity or nonprofit organization. 00:22:16.700 --> 00:22:27.700 To me, this is exactly what we're trying to prevent by having an ethics ordinance, and I think that this should be required to keep themselves. 00:22:27.700 --> 00:22:31.700 Does anybody have anything to add to what Dustin said? 00:22:31.700 --> 00:22:35.700 Is anybody opposed to adding this? 00:22:35.700 --> 00:22:37.700 We're pretty consensus-y on this one. 00:22:37.700 --> 00:22:38.700 Okay. 00:22:38.700 --> 00:22:43.700 Just direction to include offer of employment as required to recuse. 00:22:43.700 --> 00:22:46.700 Yes. 00:22:46.700 --> 00:22:51.700 Business opportunity negotiations. 00:22:51.700 --> 00:22:54.700 Do we want to add this? 00:22:54.700 --> 00:22:56.700 Thoughts? 00:22:56.700 --> 00:23:01.700 Trying to keep it a little more informal thoughts on whether or not we want to add this. 00:23:01.700 --> 00:23:21.700 I would recommend recuse because it's a negotiation, so the relationship could influence the negotiation, and that's the wrong signal to send to the public. 00:23:21.700 --> 00:23:22.700 Yes. 00:23:22.700 --> 00:23:29.700 I'd like for us just, would you give us a definition of a city official? 00:23:29.700 --> 00:23:53.700 So city official for the city of Denham ordinance includes the city council, certain boards, certain boards and commissions, including the Board of Ethics, Public Utilities Board, Zoning Board of Adjustments, Historic Landmark Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission. 00:23:53.700 --> 00:23:55.700 There might be one or two other ones. 00:23:55.700 --> 00:23:58.700 Public utility, the definition is in the- 00:23:58.700 --> 00:24:00.700 I'm just trying to recall it. 00:24:00.700 --> 00:24:09.700 And then it also includes the four appointed officials, so the city auditor, the city manager, the city attorney, and the municipal judge. 00:24:09.700 --> 00:24:14.700 It stops there. 00:24:14.700 --> 00:24:16.700 Is anybody against adding this one? 00:24:16.700 --> 00:24:20.700 Business opportunity negotiations. 00:24:20.700 --> 00:24:22.700 Okay, so we're pretty consensus-y on adding that one. 00:24:22.700 --> 00:24:24.700 Recuse or disclose? 00:24:24.700 --> 00:24:29.700 Is there any recusal on that one? 00:24:29.700 --> 00:24:32.700 Yeah, as though I have direction to add that as a recuse. 00:24:32.700 --> 00:24:36.700 Yes. 00:24:36.700 --> 00:24:39.700 Okay, affiliated business entity/partner. 00:24:39.700 --> 00:24:41.700 Do we want to keep the systems closed? 00:24:41.700 --> 00:24:42.700 Do we want to get rid of it? 00:24:42.700 --> 00:24:44.700 Or add it as recuse? 00:24:44.700 --> 00:24:49.700 Thoughts, commentary, discussion? 00:24:49.700 --> 00:24:52.700 I have a problem with it staying like this. 00:24:52.700 --> 00:24:55.700 I would like that to become a recusal. 00:24:55.700 --> 00:25:08.700 Because I think as this is outlined here, I think that is a very close business relationship. 00:25:08.700 --> 00:25:10.700 Okay, two recuse, one for disclose. 00:25:10.700 --> 00:25:15.700 Anybody else have any other discussion on this topic? 00:25:15.700 --> 00:25:25.700 I would just like to say that in all of these business opportunities, I would think that any public official that is concerned about ethics 00:25:25.700 --> 00:25:32.700 and the appearance of conflict and disincompetence would recuse themselves without being told that they need to. 00:25:32.700 --> 00:25:36.700 But unfortunately, I don't think that happens. 00:25:36.700 --> 00:25:45.700 Don't think it's wrong, sir? 00:25:45.700 --> 00:25:50.700 Okay, so we've got three people who have spoken. 00:25:50.700 --> 00:25:53.700 Right now, we're on the majority of recuse. 00:25:53.700 --> 00:25:56.700 Does anybody want to stick with disclosed? 00:25:56.700 --> 00:26:04.700 Other than member Reiner? 00:26:04.700 --> 00:26:06.700 I have not heard a majority indicated. 00:26:06.700 --> 00:26:07.700 Yeah, I haven't either. 00:26:07.700 --> 00:26:14.700 So I think I'm in the recuse camp myself. 00:26:14.700 --> 00:26:15.700 So we've got five. 00:26:15.700 --> 00:26:21.700 That's direction to change that to recuse. 00:26:21.700 --> 00:26:26.700 All right, moving to outside clients. 00:26:26.700 --> 00:26:30.700 Thoughts, discussion on this one? 00:26:30.700 --> 00:26:44.700 I'm a little confused how that one snuck in because it looks like it would fall into at least the awful employment business opportunity and affiliate business. 00:26:44.700 --> 00:26:46.700 I'm just curious, what is the outside client? 00:26:46.700 --> 00:26:49.700 Why is that such a separate entity? 00:26:49.700 --> 00:26:50.700 Yeah, I'm not sure. 00:26:50.700 --> 00:26:55.700 What I read through this one, I felt a little bit confused about it as well. 00:26:55.700 --> 00:27:00.700 Because I don't remember that anywhere in our code now. 00:27:00.700 --> 00:27:01.700 Do we have that? 00:27:01.700 --> 00:27:02.700 No. 00:27:02.700 --> 00:27:11.700 I would be inclined to remove it completely because I think it's already addressed in these others, Madam Chair. 00:27:11.700 --> 00:27:12.700 Thank you. 00:27:12.700 --> 00:27:14.700 If I could just speak a little bit on it. 00:27:14.700 --> 00:27:19.700 So I think business opportunity negotiations is prior to a business relationship. 00:27:19.700 --> 00:27:22.700 My understanding of what it's trying to cover. 00:27:22.700 --> 00:27:28.700 Employment negotiation offer of employment is also prior to that to actually establish a business relationship. 00:27:28.700 --> 00:27:33.700 And they're a little different because you're going into a joint venture versus becoming an employee. 00:27:33.700 --> 00:27:39.700 I think outside client is trying to say you've already established a relationship. 00:27:39.700 --> 00:27:46.700 Not necessarily as a partner in a business together, but you have done some transactions in a formal business setting. 00:27:46.700 --> 00:27:48.700 Does that make sense? 00:27:48.700 --> 00:27:55.700 Sure, but I think that still falls into the -- because even in here in the definition, you've got 24 months. 00:27:55.700 --> 00:27:57.700 Of the outside client or? 00:27:57.700 --> 00:27:58.700 Yes, of the outside client. 00:27:58.700 --> 00:27:59.700 Falls into which? 00:27:59.700 --> 00:28:11.700 I think it falls -- I think it would fall under your affiliated business. 00:28:11.700 --> 00:28:16.700 Oh, under affiliated business. 00:28:16.700 --> 00:28:21.700 Well, affiliated business requires that there be a formal business partnership. 00:28:21.700 --> 00:28:26.700 So you are like a partner in a business. 00:28:26.700 --> 00:28:28.700 It's the most confusing one. 00:28:28.700 --> 00:28:37.700 You're a partner in a business and then you're voting on a matter of your partners in a partner with a different business. 00:28:37.700 --> 00:28:38.700 Does that make sense? 00:28:38.700 --> 00:28:40.700 A client and a partner. 00:28:40.700 --> 00:28:45.700 Yeah, it's just -- it's narrowly defined in a different way than this is narrowly defined. 00:28:45.700 --> 00:28:46.700 I don't know. 00:28:46.700 --> 00:28:47.700 Yes. 00:28:47.700 --> 00:28:54.700 Where this appears like with an outside client, it looks more like a 1099 that you hired or something like that, right? 00:28:54.700 --> 00:28:57.700 Essentially where you're not necessarily in a formal business relationship with them. 00:28:57.700 --> 00:29:01.700 In terms of like a corporation. 00:29:01.700 --> 00:29:07.700 So it wouldn't necessarily be umbrellaed under affiliated business and to see partner be a separate issue? 00:29:07.700 --> 00:29:10.700 I don't -- I mean, you can certainly make that determination as a board. 00:29:10.700 --> 00:29:11.700 Okay. 00:29:11.700 --> 00:29:17.700 I think there are reasons that other cities have done it separately, but I don't know them exactly. 00:29:17.700 --> 00:29:21.700 Fair enough. 00:29:21.700 --> 00:29:30.700 It might be helpful to have an example of what that outside client relationship looks like. 00:29:30.700 --> 00:29:34.700 When I read this, I'm not getting a really clear -- 00:29:34.700 --> 00:29:35.700 I don't have to grade that. 00:29:35.700 --> 00:29:37.700 It's a little -- 00:29:37.700 --> 00:29:39.700 I even highlighted phrases. 00:29:39.700 --> 00:29:45.700 It almost made me look back up to the next one, which was the affiliate business, but it did. 00:29:45.700 --> 00:29:52.700 I thought it was almost a sub-chapter, too. 00:29:52.700 --> 00:29:53.700 Okay. 00:29:53.700 --> 00:29:59.700 So what I'm hearing is that we don't feel clear about what that means, and so it's hard for us to get direction. 00:29:59.700 --> 00:30:00.700 I could try to give an example. 00:30:00.700 --> 00:30:01.700 Okay. 00:30:01.700 --> 00:30:10.700 Like, if you were a salesman and you had an established client that in the last 24 months you had sold more than $1,000, 00:30:10.700 --> 00:30:13.700 that would be under this definition. 00:30:13.700 --> 00:30:20.700 So if they came for whatever apartment or something, then you would be required to recuse -- 00:30:20.700 --> 00:30:25.700 it could potentially fall under this category. 00:30:25.700 --> 00:30:34.700 Whereas just having a client, that's not an established business relationship in terms of the law of, like, we have a corporation together. 00:30:34.700 --> 00:30:39.700 So I think that helps at all. 00:30:39.700 --> 00:30:40.700 Yes? 00:30:40.700 --> 00:30:46.700 I'd just like to do what I can to clarify. 00:30:46.700 --> 00:30:55.700 The model ethics code of Wexler's makes a distinction between an outside client and one of your best customers, 00:30:55.700 --> 00:31:01.700 or this is a very, very intimate relationship as far as Wexler's concerned. 00:31:01.700 --> 00:31:10.700 And so the idea in the model code, which, by the way, is the recusal, which I also would support and second. 00:31:10.700 --> 00:31:16.700 But the whole idea of the outside client is that the outside client, the partner, the associate, and the employer 00:31:16.700 --> 00:31:25.700 are all four categories that I would vote for, not only disclosure but recusal in all those categories, especially an outside client. 00:31:25.700 --> 00:31:32.700 Because that's a huge opportunity for city governments to play games from the base. 00:31:32.700 --> 00:31:42.700 So I'm going to recommend that we agree with the model code and support a recusal there. 00:31:42.700 --> 00:31:45.700 A disclosure and a recusal are not exactly the same. 00:31:45.700 --> 00:31:50.700 You can disclose but not recuse, but you can't do the reverse. 00:31:50.700 --> 00:31:55.700 So when you recuse yourself, you've already disclosed. 00:31:55.700 --> 00:32:08.700 So again, from top to bottom, I just would recommend that we support the model code unless there's some specific reason not to. 00:32:08.700 --> 00:32:19.700 In that particular case, the outside client is almost the very first thing that Wexler gets around to in his long version of the ethics, 00:32:19.700 --> 00:32:24.700 or local ethics in a nutshell, if you've read that, if you've read his paper. 00:32:24.700 --> 00:32:39.700 So anyway, I strongly recommend that we keep the recusal in the debt income for outside clients, partners, associates, and employers. 00:32:39.700 --> 00:32:44.700 Thank you. 00:32:44.700 --> 00:32:54.700 So from y'all who we have one for sure, who else do we have for recuse on outside client? 00:32:54.700 --> 00:32:58.700 I would support that as well. 00:32:58.700 --> 00:33:01.700 I heard a direction to add that. 00:33:01.700 --> 00:33:15.700 Okay, personal bank and financial institute. Looks like Fort Worth is the only one. I think you mentioned that in your report here. 00:33:15.700 --> 00:33:25.700 Honestly, I don't know what happened to them. There's a huge, huge list of potential similar things that they require disclosure only on. 00:33:25.700 --> 00:33:34.700 Like if the city council was voting on who the city's banking institute was going to be, you'd have to disclose that, oh yeah, I also bank there. 00:33:34.700 --> 00:33:40.700 It's one of the instances. So things like that of that nature. 00:33:40.700 --> 00:33:47.700 I was trying to come up with some scenario in my head of why that would be required, and I can't think of one. 00:33:47.700 --> 00:34:03.700 I don't know if anyone else has run across this before of some instance where this was a problem, but I don't really see how this could be an issue that would require recusal or disclosure. 00:34:03.700 --> 00:34:07.700 Certainly one in the model code. 00:34:07.700 --> 00:34:17.700 My question is, is there potential for small business loans where that could play a role? 00:34:17.700 --> 00:34:45.700 I mean, obviously we all bank somewhere, right? So that seems to be a pretty straightforward relationship where you don't really have any interest, but if you have a small business and you need a small business loan, and then something comes before the city council for that institution, 00:34:45.700 --> 00:34:55.700 is there room, there's probably room there? 00:34:55.700 --> 00:35:01.700 I don't, I think this is separate from that. I think what you're describing would be the last item. 00:35:01.700 --> 00:35:05.700 The last item? 00:35:05.700 --> 00:35:20.700 Debtor, creditor. 00:35:20.700 --> 00:35:35.700 So that's what I went to initially, and I thought the one we're considering now, the personal bank financial institution, that would be separate from something like a small business loan. 00:35:35.700 --> 00:35:57.700 Maybe you could lump a personal loan or a mortgage or something in there, but I don't, to me the personal bank financial institution and debtor, creditor are separate things, and I can't come up with a scenario for the first one where that would be an issue, but I could for the last one. 00:35:57.700 --> 00:36:14.700 Which, I can argue either way. My opinion is the second to last for the personal bank financial institute, there should be no requirement to disclose or refuse. 00:36:14.700 --> 00:36:18.700 Does anybody have a differing opinion to what Dustin said? 00:36:18.700 --> 00:36:21.700 No. 00:36:21.700 --> 00:36:24.700 No consensus to change. 00:36:24.700 --> 00:36:39.700 Okay, and the last debtor, creditor. We started to talk about that, and it sounds like that one we have more of a concern about for recusal. Does anybody have a differing opinion from what we've already talked about? 00:36:39.700 --> 00:36:58.700 I would just add that I do support recusal, and I like the fact that the cities of Austin and Fort Worth have defined what that, what substantial means, and so I think if we run that route, we need to refine it. 00:36:58.700 --> 00:37:03.700 Okay, thank you. 00:37:03.700 --> 00:37:13.700 I have a question. Up here it says that the model code does require recusal, but in the text in the document it says it does not. 00:37:13.700 --> 00:37:26.700 It says it does, it just, in the city of Austin it says debit your creditor or guarantor, and the model code does not include guarantor. 00:37:26.700 --> 00:37:34.700 So who is in favor of adding this to our code? 00:37:34.700 --> 00:37:37.700 And we want that as recusal rather than disclosure? 00:37:37.700 --> 00:37:38.700 Yes. 00:37:38.700 --> 00:37:39.700 Okay. 00:37:39.700 --> 00:37:40.700 I'm sorry, which one are we talking about here? 00:37:40.700 --> 00:37:43.700 Debit or creditor. 00:37:43.700 --> 00:37:53.700 Okay, I'm hearing a direction to include debit or creditor for recusal. Is there any direction on guarantor? 00:37:53.700 --> 00:38:09.700 Does anybody have any specific thoughts on that one? 00:38:09.700 --> 00:38:32.700 I could see living with the model code with this. I think what you have there, once again, is David talked about, evidently Austin and Fort Worth ran into some problems with that, but if the model code didn't see it, I mean, I don't, because when you get to the grantor, you're talking about a totally different entity, are you not? 00:38:32.700 --> 00:38:35.700 I mean, you're talking about financial institutions, aren't you? 00:38:35.700 --> 00:38:37.700 Yes, pretty much. 00:38:37.700 --> 00:38:45.700 And then you roll into DIC and a few other things that I think would be more scary. 00:38:45.700 --> 00:38:51.700 The model code talks about some financial parameters there. 00:38:51.700 --> 00:39:07.700 For example, if there's an issue before a council and one of the council members is in for a half million dollars to a local bank, that needs to be known. So there's some limits there. 00:39:07.700 --> 00:39:25.700 If I own or if I owe a bank $50 on credit, I don't think that's relevant, but I do think that I would agree with the model code that disclosure and then recusal are probably appropriate at some level of debt or credit. 00:39:25.700 --> 00:39:43.700 So I don't know what those limits are. I would just probably leave it out there and just leave it as a recusal in general terms, and if that ever becomes a problem where, in other words, I don't want my council buddies to know that I owe that bank $3 million, but I still want to vote on this issue. 00:39:43.700 --> 00:39:53.700 So I think that can be kind of a problem there, too. So I support that recusal, again, from the model code. 00:39:53.700 --> 00:40:00.700 Shouldn't there be some definition of the substantial amount? 00:40:00.700 --> 00:40:10.700 I think that we can deal with that when I come back with specific language, unless you really want to get direction on that right now. 00:40:10.700 --> 00:40:18.700 That's what I'm looking at, the definition planter. There's a lot of this may be altered once we get our definition. 00:40:18.700 --> 00:40:23.700 So Madison, I'm not hearing direction to add guarantor. 00:40:23.700 --> 00:40:30.700 Yes, no direction to add guarantor. And then just to recap, because I think we're, unless there's other... 00:40:30.700 --> 00:40:52.700 Okay, so recapping for each item, keep the first one, keep the second one, and then add for recusal, offer of employment, business opportunity negotiations, affiliated business entity or partner, outside client, and debtor or creditor as requirements to recuse in certain situations that we'll discuss that later. 00:40:52.700 --> 00:41:09.700 And you'll give us an example for the outside client as well. I think that's what we asked for originally. 00:41:09.700 --> 00:41:33.700 Ready to move on? Yes. Great. Okay, now item C, I was rushing earlier. Receive a reportful discussion and take necessary action regarding potential procedures to identify and process accepted ethics complaints that may be frivolous. 00:41:33.700 --> 00:41:43.700 Do you want me to read the background on this? I'll do a quick version. So basically this comes out of the ethics complaint we processed in May of 2022. 00:41:43.700 --> 00:41:59.700 We had first discussed last meeting about sanctions we would want to add. We've had that discussion. This discussion is to potentially create a new process, maybe not new, but to modify the process that we currently have and make it a little more clear for future boards. 00:41:59.700 --> 00:42:12.700 And so based on, I did similar research looking at benchmark cities and the model code, looking at that only Dallas and San Antonio have ethics ordinance that consider frivolous complaints and how to process those. 00:42:12.700 --> 00:42:33.700 And they both use what they call an order to show cause process. They have little tweaks for each, but that's what you can see on the bottom. The general order to show cause is kind of in general how that process works whereby a body of an ethics body would dismiss a complaint and issue an order to show cause to the complainant. 00:42:33.700 --> 00:42:46.700 The complainant would then provide a response either in writing and/or at the hearing. And then the ethics body would hold the hearing, determine frivolity, and then potentially issue sanctions. 00:42:46.700 --> 00:42:58.700 I have our kind of current process up there just to kind of show how it differs and kind of the process issues that we identified with that process in the past. 00:42:58.700 --> 00:43:09.700 So any questions on this slide? I have a bunch of points for direction that we can go through. But I guess the real question I have for direction is it seems as though we did want to change the process. 00:43:09.700 --> 00:43:18.700 So as long as there's no direction to not do that, then I'll keep going. 00:43:18.700 --> 00:43:31.700 I'm not seeing anyone raise their hands. All right. So there's four points of direction here kind of on how we would begin a frivolous determination. 00:43:31.700 --> 00:43:43.700 The first one is basically who should be able to issue an order to show cause or if we decide to call it something else we can, but that's essentially what we're talking about here. 00:43:43.700 --> 00:43:52.700 In Dallas, it's basically a preliminary panel or the board. In San Antonio, they don't have preliminary panels, so it's just the board in here. 00:43:52.700 --> 00:44:03.700 We can recommend to have another hearing to determine frivolity. Either the panel or a board can do that. So that's the first kind of point, the direction. 00:44:03.700 --> 00:44:10.700 And the idea would be I'll take the direction and come back with potential language just like we talked about with the last one. 00:44:10.700 --> 00:44:21.700 So my immediate reaction to this when I read it was that the preliminary panel should be able to issue an order to show cause by two-thirds vote. 00:44:21.700 --> 00:44:46.700 And if we put that into writing, should the preliminary change in size at any point in time, that two-thirds would at least be in the writing. But I'm open to other comments. 00:44:46.700 --> 00:44:57.700 I think Madison wrote in here that that would mean two out of the three people present at the panel. I just want to confirm that that feels good for everybody. 00:44:57.700 --> 00:45:18.700 I would like to ask a question. So the biggest change that we're looking at is that the preliminary board can already, that's your first point of direction there, to be able to begin a frivolous determination process. 00:45:18.700 --> 00:45:33.700 Is that the biggest difference that we're discussing? So currently, I guess the first point is do you want to continue with the panel's ability to begin that process? Right now they can. Right now also the board can. Do we want to continue with that? 00:45:33.700 --> 00:45:52.700 The other question that Hannah kind of threw in there was by what majority? And as you can see the other, that you can vote by two-thirds of the people present in both cases. Ours is a simple majority, which is due to the size of our panel is the same number. 00:45:52.700 --> 00:46:14.700 I think another kind of, they're all listed as different points here, but one caveat to throw in there is under our current ordinance, you don't have a disposition, the panel doesn't make a judgment on the complaint at any point before they recommend frivolity. 00:46:14.700 --> 00:46:33.700 Under San Antonio's, they don't have a panel, so that's hard to compare with. But in Dallas, they have to already have unanimously dismissed the complaint and then vote to whether to have an order to show cause, why it's not frivolous. 00:46:33.700 --> 00:46:54.700 They all kind of work together, perhaps I could have compared this a little bit better, but does that help answer your question? It does. I would like to follow up on something though, because you just said that it was... 00:46:54.700 --> 00:47:14.700 So when there is no cause, so when the complaint is not determined to be actionable by the panel, then you said in Dallas they were able to immediately... 00:47:14.700 --> 00:47:31.700 So under Dallas' process, it would go to the panel, the panel would determine, it could be actionable or baseless, they would have to unanimously determine it was baseless, and then vote whether to have, to determine if it was frivolous. 00:47:31.700 --> 00:47:45.700 And is that second vote of determining whether it is frivolous or not frivolous immediately part of the... It's part of the panel. It's part of the panel's actions when they're making those determinations. Correct. 00:47:45.700 --> 00:47:58.700 And for us at the moment... For us at the moment, the way it's worded in the ordinance is that you don't, the panel does not determine whether the complaint is actionable or baseless, they just say we need to have a hearing to determine if it's frivolous. 00:47:58.700 --> 00:48:12.700 And so that's part of one of the issues is that it's very unclear to the complainant, or the respondent at that point, kind of, well what do I do now? Right, right. Okay. 00:48:12.700 --> 00:48:22.700 Madam Chair. Yes. So question, as it stands now, either the preliminary panel or the ethics board can move forward with this. Correct. 00:48:22.700 --> 00:48:34.700 And that has been approved by the city council. So yeah, so currently, yes sir, currently, if we have a complaint, it could go to a preliminary panel and they could say, hey, we need to have a frivolity hearing. 00:48:34.700 --> 00:48:48.700 It could also be determined to be actionable by a panel, go to a regular hearing, and the board of ethics at that point could say, no, we think this might be frivolous, and we need to, and then we either would have another hearing or we could try to talk about it. 00:48:48.700 --> 00:49:01.700 It's not super clear, honestly, what we would do at that point, but they could, after it had been determined actionable, during the hearing, to determine if the complaint was a violation, determine no, it's frivolous. 00:49:01.700 --> 00:49:14.700 I got that. So my next question to follow up then, the potential change, we need city council approval. Because it would not go in hand with the ordinance as it stands. 00:49:14.700 --> 00:49:20.700 Okay, everything that we're talking about will ultimately, if you give direction, will require city council approval. 00:49:20.700 --> 00:49:24.700 Thank you. 00:49:24.700 --> 00:49:43.700 Okay, so for the first question, are we comfortable with the preliminary panel being able to begin a frivolous determination process, or do we want the whole board involved to be able to do that? 00:49:43.700 --> 00:49:51.700 I'm personally comfortable with the panel making that determination. 00:49:51.700 --> 00:50:02.700 Denton has kind of been to hell and back on all these frivolous hearings, and the last one or two we've had, in my opinion, should have never reached the level of the board. 00:50:02.700 --> 00:50:18.700 And so whether or not the panel actually sends it to a frivolous hearing, I think the panel, if they've gone through training, they ought to be able to recognize a frivolous complaint on the basis of what's been submitted. 00:50:18.700 --> 00:50:32.700 I would like to see the time spared that we've spent in some of these hearings on frivolous complaints. 00:50:32.700 --> 00:50:38.700 It's not been a good experience. It's just kind of a learning curve that we go through. 00:50:38.700 --> 00:50:48.700 This order to show cause medicine, is that a separate issue from here? 00:50:48.700 --> 00:51:02.700 Essentially, the two cities that have really considered frivolous complaints at all use the order to show cause process, which is the formal name that they give it to, once they determine, hey, this seems to be frivolous, 00:51:02.700 --> 00:51:09.700 they usually give the complainant an opportunity to say, no, it's not, and this is why. 00:51:09.700 --> 00:51:20.700 And they do that by having a written response as well as then having a hearing, is how it works in their two processes. 00:51:20.700 --> 00:51:31.700 Well, correct me if I'm wrong here, but this order to show cause, especially in these two cities, we have just allowed frivolous complainants to just walk free. 00:51:31.700 --> 00:51:39.700 I mean, when it's over, but in these cities, a frivolous complaint is actually subject or can be subject to some pretty heavy fines. 00:51:39.700 --> 00:51:46.700 And so I think this order to show cause in these two cities is actually a separate matter. 00:51:46.700 --> 00:51:54.700 In other words, where a city or an ethics board would contact that complainant who has filed a frivolous complaint, 00:51:54.700 --> 00:52:06.700 and that order to show cause says, now you need to show me why this complaint you filed should not be penalized in actual dollars. 00:52:06.700 --> 00:52:11.700 In Dallas, they put a prohibition. We discussed this last meeting. 00:52:11.700 --> 00:52:17.700 They put a prohibition on being able to submit complaints for people who have submitted frivolous complaints. 00:52:17.700 --> 00:52:27.700 In San Antonio, it is associated with some fees. And it is associated with like a $500 fee and some other thing. 00:52:27.700 --> 00:52:31.700 There are other money as well. There are penalties. 00:52:31.700 --> 00:52:41.700 So until we imposed some actual penalty for filing a frivolous complaint, I don't see where this order to show cause really has much relevance. 00:52:41.700 --> 00:52:51.700 Last meeting, I was given direction to add sanctions that would, similar to Dallas, would prohibit someone who would file a frivolous complaint 00:52:51.700 --> 00:52:59.700 from resubmitting a complaint for a certain number of years. We haven't determined exactly what that looks like because we haven't reviewed staff language yet. 00:52:59.700 --> 00:53:05.700 The board has given direction to add sanctions relevant specifically to frivolous complaints. 00:53:05.700 --> 00:53:09.700 We're here based on what you're talking about is how we got here. 00:53:09.700 --> 00:53:14.700 They just, we prioritized it that way at some point and that's why this is what's second. 00:53:14.700 --> 00:53:18.700 Okay. 00:53:18.700 --> 00:53:23.700 So coming back to it, you will not be forgotten. 00:53:23.700 --> 00:53:25.700 So coming back to what now? 00:53:25.700 --> 00:53:30.700 What you were just talking about, the fees in place and making sure the frivolous complaints don't become frequent. 00:53:30.700 --> 00:53:35.700 That's our goal to set something in place to address that. Yes, sir. 00:53:35.700 --> 00:53:46.700 If that is the case, then I don't think that we should look at this in a position of let the preliminary panel handle it because our time is so valuable. 00:53:46.700 --> 00:53:55.700 If you're going to be punished for time and money, then I think we should keep the present position of the preliminary panel and the ethics board. 00:53:55.700 --> 00:54:01.700 And if we have to go, because I've been at two of the frivolous complaints, one where they had their own attorney, why? 00:54:01.700 --> 00:54:08.700 Because that is their day in court and that's the transparency that this ethics board shows. 00:54:08.700 --> 00:54:14.700 And if it means we've got to spend another hour or two hours, well, that's why we signed up for this. 00:54:14.700 --> 00:54:34.700 And I don't believe that if you're going to put that kind of justice or penalty on someone, just because we don't have the time, I think we should keep what we have in procedure present. 00:54:34.700 --> 00:54:41.700 And if it is frivolous, we'll let them have their day in court. Then if they're found guilty or whatever, then they understand. 00:54:41.700 --> 00:54:51.700 They may not want to go through that. So if we're going to go with punishment, then most definitely I want to keep it the way we've got it. 00:54:51.700 --> 00:54:59.700 So I want to come back to the first item because I think what we're starting to talk about is getting lower in what Madison has prepared for us today. 00:54:59.700 --> 00:55:01.700 I think it addresses your first topic. 00:55:01.700 --> 00:55:03.700 No, I think it does. This does. 00:55:03.700 --> 00:55:17.700 Go ahead, Madison. I'm sorry. What I've heard from at least two people is that we want the panel to be able to discuss a complaint, which they can currently do, 00:55:17.700 --> 00:55:29.700 and then vote to have a frivolity hearing or basically order the complainant to say why is this not frivolous before we impose section. 00:55:29.700 --> 00:55:34.700 Am I misdating what you two seem to have said? 00:55:34.700 --> 00:55:44.700 I think they should have their appeal processed, and that would be that second frivolous with it being brought before. 00:55:44.700 --> 00:55:45.700 The hearing with the board. 00:55:45.700 --> 00:55:47.700 Before the board. Yes, I do. 00:55:47.700 --> 00:55:50.700 Okay. And you seem to agree with what he was saying. 00:55:50.700 --> 00:56:00.700 I think I misunderstood that he was saying preliminary panel could not call for frivolity if you go to the full board. So, yes. 00:56:00.700 --> 00:56:13.700 My understanding is that the panel can say that we're moving this forward as a frivolous, but then the frivolity itself would have to be determined by the full board. 00:56:13.700 --> 00:56:14.700 Yes. 00:56:14.700 --> 00:56:16.700 That is what I heard. 00:56:16.700 --> 00:56:21.700 If the complaint wants to go before the ethics board, though, you're going to eliminate that. 00:56:21.700 --> 00:56:23.700 Say that again, please. 00:56:23.700 --> 00:56:34.700 If you're just saying at that point, preliminary panels can have that ability, but then you're taking the right of the person to file the complaint from being able to have it go before the ethics board. 00:56:34.700 --> 00:56:38.700 No, no. See, this is where I'm misunderstanding what I think you're saying. 00:56:38.700 --> 00:56:56.700 So, the preliminary panel, I think from what we're trying to communicate, can say this is a frivolous complaint and then the ethics board meets with the respondent to decide that. 00:56:56.700 --> 00:57:00.700 Well, that's the group and the Army Trend and Revenue. Give us the procedure how this works again. 00:57:00.700 --> 00:57:18.700 So, the way that this general order to show cause process works is the ethics body, which would be the preliminary panel in this case, we're looking at the bottom figure, dismisses the complaint and issues an order to show cause to the complaint, the person who filed the complaint. 00:57:18.700 --> 00:57:40.700 The complainant is then able to provide a written response and then they go to a hearing with the full board, the full ethics body and participate in that hearing like we would have a normal hearing and the whole body would then determine if it was frivolous and if so, if there should be sanctions associated with that. 00:57:40.700 --> 00:57:42.700 That's the general procedure. 00:57:42.700 --> 00:57:43.700 Yeah, we have curfew. 00:57:43.700 --> 00:57:46.700 No. Well, sort of. 00:57:46.700 --> 00:57:48.700 That's what I want to know. What do we have current? 00:57:48.700 --> 00:57:58.700 Current is the top one. So, the preliminary panel just recommends to have a hearing, does not determine if the complaint is baseless or actionable. 00:57:58.700 --> 00:58:06.700 Then the complainant and the respondent, they don't provide, they can provide evidence that has been presented at the hearing. 00:58:06.700 --> 00:58:15.700 They both are able to do that and then it's happening similarly. They hold the frivolity hearing, they determine if it's frivolous and then they potentially issue sanctions. 00:58:15.700 --> 00:58:26.700 So, I guess one of the big differences is the preliminary panel is currently not saying anything about the current complaint. 00:58:26.700 --> 00:58:43.700 They're not saying it's actionable or baseless, whereas under a normal order to show cause process they would say it's baseless, which then kind of says to the respondent, the person who was named in the complaint, hey, I'm off the hook, kind of. 00:58:43.700 --> 00:58:48.700 Right. They've already said what the person said I did, I didn't do. 00:58:48.700 --> 00:58:54.700 Well, it's the grand jury of the legal process before it goes to court. Is that correct? 00:58:54.700 --> 00:58:56.700 I don't know. 00:58:56.700 --> 00:58:58.700 Mr. Taffer? 00:58:58.700 --> 00:59:16.700 That's an analogy. I mean, that's what it sounds like. How I'm hearing it is this panel of a few of y'all gets to, yeah, they get to say whether or not it goes forward. 00:59:16.700 --> 00:59:23.700 The complaint goes forward. But that doesn't eliminate the question of whether or not the complaint was frivolous. That's a separate question. 00:59:23.700 --> 00:59:43.700 Correct. The panel can say, ultimately the three choices they would have under this order to show cause process is, A, it's actionable, yes. Go to the hearing, determine what the violation, you know, determine what the violations and sanctions for the respondent, the person named in the complaint is violating it should be. 00:59:43.700 --> 00:59:56.700 Hey, no, it's baseless. What they're saying isn't actually a violation of the ordinance at all. And so we're not going to go to the full board. Or they can say, hey, this complaint is frivolous. We think it's frivolous. 00:59:56.700 --> 01:00:13.700 We're going to dismiss it because it's not a violation of the ordinance on the respondent's part. It is in fact a violation of the ordinance on the complainant's part. And then we're going to have a hearing to address that issue with the full board. 01:00:13.700 --> 01:00:27.700 That's very similar to how the National Association Realtors form their grievances. That's why I recognized it like I did. Thank you. 01:00:27.700 --> 01:00:36.700 Okay, so I think we're clear on that now. What it is. And then moving forward, what we want to do about it. 01:00:36.700 --> 01:00:58.700 The question is, do we want that process that's clear? Yeah. And because of the confusion right now of what the panel is able to do. So I think yes, we need that clarity in what the panel is able to do moving into the 01:00:58.700 --> 01:01:14.700 I kind of lost the word that you just said, but issue order to show cause. To be able to issue order to show cause. Yes. So is this still informal or do we need to do a button on this? 01:01:14.700 --> 01:01:32.700 I have a clear direction I think that they should be able to issue in order to show cause. The question is, under what circumstances? Do they need to, similar to Dallas, unanimously dismiss the complaint and prior to being able to issue that, should it be only the majority that dismisses it? 01:01:32.700 --> 01:01:48.700 Do, and then our current, under our current ordinance, they don't have to determine that at all. They don't have to dismiss it at all. They can just say let's go forward. I think we found issues with that because it's not very clear to the respondent what's happening. 01:01:48.700 --> 01:01:59.700 Yeah. I believe unanimous dismissal makes sense. I believe that that would be a good direction for us to go. I'm wondering if anybody else has any thoughts about that? 01:01:59.700 --> 01:02:09.700 Would you please remind me we have three members on the panel? Yes. 01:02:09.700 --> 01:02:35.700 So it would be unanimous dismissal and then questionably right now, if it's majority, technically it would shake out to two thirds vote to move to frivolity. In this direction that I'm speaking about. Does that make sense? So it must be dismissed and then voted to decide if it's frivolous by two of the three people. 01:02:35.700 --> 01:02:45.700 Okay. So the dismissal is unanimous, but the vote to move it forward as frivolous would be two thirds. 01:02:45.700 --> 01:03:06.700 Correct. Yes. I think in some ways it's addressing your concerns of time, right, because they've all decided if this isn't a violation by the respondent, but do we think the submitted complaint is grievously frivolous enough that we need to have a hearing to have sanctions? 01:03:06.700 --> 01:03:17.700 And so just two thirds, majority or two thirds of the people need to agree yes, we think it's a violation, it's a grievous enough frivolous complaint to go to have that. 01:03:17.700 --> 01:03:34.700 But if there's not a unanimous, then the last, the bottom two aren't moved. Correct. So if only two people think it should be just dismissed, then you can't go to a frivolous, you can't issue an order to show cause to determine if it's frivolous. 01:03:34.700 --> 01:03:50.700 So there's another term that's being introduced here and I'm getting confused, I'm sorry. There's actionable. Yes. That action needs to be taken and it will go to the hearing. 01:03:50.700 --> 01:04:08.700 That it's baseless and no action. It's baseless because it really isn't an ethical violation. And then there's frivolous and then we've introduced the term dismissal. 01:04:08.700 --> 01:04:24.700 So yeah, so if it's determined to be baseless, it is considered to be dismissed. It's considered to be dismissed. So they're using it interchangeably and I apologize. You would really have to determine that it was baseless. 01:04:24.700 --> 01:04:40.700 It would have to unanimously be a baseless, determined to be baseless by the preliminary panel. Then you could determine, then you could issue the order to show cause that it's not frivolous. I apologize. The Dallas ordinance uses a little bit different language. 01:04:40.700 --> 01:04:58.700 Okay, thank you. Okay, so direction. Do we like the unanimous dismissal? I think the first question, Madam Chair, is do we want to move there or keep with what we have existing? 01:04:58.700 --> 01:05:07.700 That's true, but I thought I heard direction to move forward with the order to show cause. I thought so too. 01:05:07.700 --> 01:05:13.700 Then I think we ought to show hands, Madam Chair, so we can get some direction for you to help Madison. 01:05:13.700 --> 01:05:17.700 Okay. So what you're saying is you want to just leave it exactly as it is right now? 01:05:17.700 --> 01:05:23.700 Go to that, if you don't mind, go to that there. The current versus the general order, which would be the new one. 01:05:23.700 --> 01:05:35.700 Okay. So where the preliminary panel cannot determine whether or not it's actionable or baseless, correct? 01:05:35.700 --> 01:05:41.700 The preliminary panel can determine that. They can. That's why they're meeting. That's the purpose of the preliminary panel. 01:05:41.700 --> 01:05:47.700 Okay, what did you say earlier that they can't do? Issue the order to show cause. They can issue an order to show cause. 01:05:47.700 --> 01:05:53.700 Instead, what they do is don't make any sort of determination and recommend that the ethics board deal with it. 01:05:53.700 --> 01:06:07.700 Got it. Thank you. Okay. So leave it as it is or move to the next is what we're trying to decide. So who wants it to stay as is? Okay. And who wants it to move to the new procedure? 01:06:07.700 --> 01:06:12.700 Can you guys explain what the concern is? I guess I'm not following. 01:06:12.700 --> 01:06:33.700 Cause from what I understand, the point of this is so that there's clear feedback to the respondent that is already been determined as baseless and that there will then be a frivolity hearing. 01:06:33.700 --> 01:06:49.700 The current process, if the panel, the three-person panel determines the complaint is baseless and that there should be a frivolity hearing, the respondent does not give that information. Is that correct? 01:06:49.700 --> 01:07:01.700 They would receive notification that the complaint has been determined to be baseless. And I have a whole other slide to talk about how the respondent is involved if they determine to go to issue an order to show cause. 01:07:01.700 --> 01:07:15.700 So it's an education process for the respondent. What you're saying that is there a miscommunication to the respondent in from the slide that you have for them? 01:07:15.700 --> 01:07:24.700 I'm confused by your question. You said that the respondent's were, lack of communication were confused. Is that right? 01:07:24.700 --> 01:07:31.700 Yes, in previous, about what they needed to prepare for if it was going to be determined it was frivolous. 01:07:31.700 --> 01:07:35.700 And you have a slide for them that helps them do that? 01:07:35.700 --> 01:07:42.700 I have a slide for us to discuss how the respondent would be involved if they issued an order to show cause, basically. 01:07:42.700 --> 01:08:08.700 I think we're losing track of the fact that if we're changing to the general order to show cause process, the biggest difference is that currently the panel cannot make a determination whether something is frivolous or not when they're dismissing or finding a complaint to be baseless. 01:08:08.700 --> 01:08:26.700 What we're looking to add is if indeed the panel says this is a baseless complaint and we're dismissing it, at the same time they can trigger now this issue order to show cause, which then starts the frivolity hearing. 01:08:26.700 --> 01:08:50.700 We're creating a whole new process that the complainant would go through if the panel believed they submitted a frivolous complaint, instead of basically having the same ethics complaint process to where we're still, even though we ultimately ended up with a frivolous determination, that's still considered ethics complaint 22001. 01:08:50.700 --> 01:09:04.700 Whereas if the panel had been able to say, no, this is baseless and dismiss it, under this new process we would say, okay, that's done, now we're in this new process, so it would be separate, totally separate. 01:09:04.700 --> 01:09:06.700 It would just take it onto a different track, right? 01:09:06.700 --> 01:09:07.700 Correct. 01:09:07.700 --> 01:09:14.700 Instead of moving it forward as an ethics complaint, it has now moved forward as a further complaint to show cause. 01:09:14.700 --> 01:09:15.700 It cleans it up. 01:09:15.700 --> 01:09:17.700 It cleans it up, yeah. 01:09:17.700 --> 01:09:27.700 I'll just add, from the last one that we reviewed, part of my concern was the timing of the complaint. 01:09:27.700 --> 01:09:50.700 It was right before an election, and we dragged out a process, because it takes time, based on our, based on the process, how many days people have to respond, when we get a hearing schedule, all those things, we drag out a process longer, and now we have articles in the paper that are potentially affecting votes in an election. 01:09:50.700 --> 01:10:01.700 What I think the general order to show cause allows us to do is the panel, the three-person panel, would dismiss the complaint. 01:10:01.700 --> 01:10:09.700 It would essentially take out several days in the process of there being an open ethics complaint against a candidate. 01:10:09.700 --> 01:10:29.700 I mean, that's one example of where this was a huge concern, and I guess there's already been discussion about what to do after frivolity is determined, but part of all of that discussion around that hearing was we can't really do anything. 01:10:29.700 --> 01:10:45.700 I mean, I think it was a unanimous vote that that complaint was frivolous, and afterwards, everyone kind of threw their hands up and said, well, we can write a letter and say this, but all the damage had already been done. 01:10:45.700 --> 01:10:56.700 And if we move to this newer process, we can try and limit some of that by shrinking the timeline for there to be an open ethics complaint against a candidate. 01:10:56.700 --> 01:11:05.700 That's where I would see that the new process would be much better than what we have tried to do before. 01:11:05.700 --> 01:11:12.700 If I'm missing something, I know David and Robbie both were against it. 01:11:12.700 --> 01:11:24.700 I guess I don't see how the newer process is a better approach. 01:11:24.700 --> 01:11:28.700 Members, did you want to say something? 01:11:28.700 --> 01:11:40.700 I'm missing a lot of stuff here, so I'm not that unhappy with the process as it is now. 01:11:40.700 --> 01:12:01.700 I think what makes a difference to me was having the explanation that it moves it out of the initial complaint onto a different number, different tracking system, and it shortens the -- as long as we're dealing with everything else, that complaint is still open. 01:12:01.700 --> 01:12:10.700 It's not completely resolved. And so this resolves the complaint, finishes it, and moves onto the determination of whether or not it was fair work. 01:12:10.700 --> 01:12:16.700 And I support that. 01:12:16.700 --> 01:12:30.700 Well, just from a history standpoint, if we just remember what happened just a few months ago, there was a hearing that went all the way through the formal hearing, and then at the very end, 01:12:30.700 --> 01:12:39.700 it was almost dismissed until one board member said -- it was backed up all the way through a frivolous hearing from that point. 01:12:39.700 --> 01:12:56.700 So there was a lot of time invested there that I think probably could have been avoided if someone could have recognized that frivolous nature early on from the panel standpoint. 01:12:56.700 --> 01:13:06.700 The panel -- in that instance, the panel recommended that it was to go -- to have a hearing to determine if it was frivolous. 01:13:06.700 --> 01:13:13.700 They just didn't -- they just couldn't say that the complaint was baseless, because it's not laid out that way in our ordinance. 01:13:13.700 --> 01:13:28.700 Ultimately, what this would do would just allow them to say -- if we had went through the whole situation, they'd be able to say, yes, this is a baseless complaint. We're going to dismiss this, and we're going to open a new issue on the complainant. 01:13:28.700 --> 01:13:34.700 And we would have still gone through that exact same process with them to have that frivolous hearing. 01:13:34.700 --> 01:13:43.700 The usual determinant between baseless or frivolous is whether or not it was filed in bad faith or if it's harassment. 01:13:43.700 --> 01:14:04.700 And if you have to get through the initial complaint to actually arrive at that bad faith or harassment standpoint, then I don't know when that reveals itself in the process. I'm not sure. 01:14:04.700 --> 01:14:33.700 I would actually -- I think what -- with you making that point, I think it is actually very clear. I think that this new process could actually save exactly the time that you -- and investment that you said, because it just puts the complaint -- it finishes the complaint and then opens up another track of now we're determining whether it's frivolous or not frivolous, rather first determining that it is actually baseless and then moving forward. 01:14:33.700 --> 01:14:47.700 And that's what happened last time, because they got to the end of the hearing, and it was determined that not only is this baseless, but it was filed in bad faith and harassment, which backed it up into the frivolous hearing. 01:14:47.700 --> 01:15:12.700 The complaint is about the actions of the city official. And by moving to the general -- to the order to show cause, that moves it to the actions of the complaint. And I really like that clear line, moving from the actions of one person to the actions of the other. 01:15:12.700 --> 01:15:17.700 And that's done at the preliminary hearing. 01:15:17.700 --> 01:15:43.700 Okay. So. 01:15:43.700 --> 01:15:53.700 The first step there that I can see could be an issue, but essentially that the complaint that was submitted is then dismissed. 01:15:53.700 --> 01:16:01.700 There's like a step in there where they have to say it's baseless or whatever, but it's dismissed, it's closed, and then they open the new process. 01:16:01.700 --> 01:16:11.700 That vote to close it, you want that to have to be unanimous in order to open the new process. 01:16:11.700 --> 01:16:16.700 That's the majority. 01:16:16.700 --> 01:16:20.700 Majority. 01:16:20.700 --> 01:16:23.700 Any other thoughts? 01:16:23.700 --> 01:16:29.700 I think unanimous is a very quiet order. 01:16:29.700 --> 01:16:38.700 I think I would support a majority. 01:16:38.700 --> 01:16:48.700 I would think that if it was frivolous, the likelihood that all three people would unanimously find it baseless would probably be pretty good. 01:16:48.700 --> 01:16:59.700 But if that's the consensus to go with majority, we can make that motion or that suggestion. 01:16:59.700 --> 01:17:06.700 Majority. 01:17:06.700 --> 01:17:10.700 So that would be the first vote that they would take to close the complaint. 01:17:10.700 --> 01:17:11.700 To decide that it's baseless. 01:17:11.700 --> 01:17:15.700 And then they would have to have a second vote to issue the order to show cause. 01:17:15.700 --> 01:17:16.700 Yes. 01:17:16.700 --> 01:17:19.700 And then would you want that to be a majority? 01:17:19.700 --> 01:17:21.700 That's what everybody else basically is. 01:17:21.700 --> 01:17:25.700 Technically, actually, Dallas and San Antonio are saying two thirds, which is higher than the majority. 01:17:25.700 --> 01:17:28.700 But there's only three people at the moment. 01:17:28.700 --> 01:17:30.700 So it's the same thing. 01:17:30.700 --> 01:17:35.700 They might have a larger panel, so I don't know. 01:17:35.700 --> 01:17:41.700 So, yeah, if we were to change the language, it would virtually remain the same. 01:17:41.700 --> 01:17:44.700 So do we want to stick with simple majority? 01:17:44.700 --> 01:17:45.700 Yeah. 01:17:45.700 --> 01:17:46.700 Yes? 01:17:46.700 --> 01:17:47.700 Yes. 01:17:47.700 --> 01:17:53.700 Okay. 01:17:53.700 --> 01:17:54.700 Okay. 01:17:54.700 --> 01:17:56.700 Let's not worry about that last vote. 01:17:56.700 --> 01:17:57.700 Okay. 01:17:57.700 --> 01:18:04.700 At this point, you've issued the order to show cause, and you've told the respondent that everybody does that. 01:18:04.700 --> 01:18:07.700 They're not just going to say it's dismissed, and then also this other process. 01:18:07.700 --> 01:18:10.700 They say the complaint is closed. 01:18:10.700 --> 01:18:14.700 Also, we've issued an order to show cause to the complainant, basically. 01:18:14.700 --> 01:18:16.700 That's how the process works. 01:18:16.700 --> 01:18:24.700 The question is then, the Dallas ordinance allows the respondent to say, hey, don't worry about it. 01:18:24.700 --> 01:18:26.700 Don't do that. 01:18:26.700 --> 01:18:30.700 Stop the process there. 01:18:30.700 --> 01:18:32.700 So that's one point for direction. 01:18:32.700 --> 01:18:39.700 Do you want the respondent to be able to say, hey, don't waste your time? 01:18:39.700 --> 01:18:43.700 I don't like that idea. 01:18:43.700 --> 01:18:47.700 But I'm not sure what everybody else is thinking. 01:18:47.700 --> 01:18:55.700 I think if the respondent filed a frivolous complaint, that it should be pursued further than just, oh, my bad. 01:18:55.700 --> 01:18:56.700 Never mind. 01:18:56.700 --> 01:18:58.700 This is the respondent. 01:18:58.700 --> 01:19:01.700 So this is not the person who we issued the order to. 01:19:01.700 --> 01:19:05.700 This is the person who they theoretically submitted a complaint against. 01:19:05.700 --> 01:19:06.700 I'm so sorry. 01:19:06.700 --> 01:19:07.700 No, it's all right. 01:19:07.700 --> 01:19:10.700 I got confused the first time I read it, too. 01:19:10.700 --> 01:19:23.700 So basically, the person who we closed their complaint, who was accused of a violation, can they be like, hey, don't worry about what that guy said about me? 01:19:23.700 --> 01:19:32.700 I'm inclined to say no, because they're out of the process now. 01:19:32.700 --> 01:19:34.700 I would agree. 01:19:34.700 --> 01:19:35.700 I would agree. 01:19:35.700 --> 01:19:39.700 I don't know why that would occur. 01:19:39.700 --> 01:19:46.700 I don't understand why you wouldn't want to allow that to happen. 01:19:46.700 --> 01:19:50.700 It must be a conflict of interest. 01:19:50.700 --> 01:19:56.700 I would say no. 01:19:56.700 --> 01:19:58.700 OK, so we're hearing direction. 01:19:58.700 --> 01:20:02.700 No, don't let the respondent be able to stop the order to show cause process. 01:20:02.700 --> 01:20:04.700 Keep it like we have it. 01:20:04.700 --> 01:20:05.700 Correct. 01:20:05.700 --> 01:20:21.700 And then so then the second two bullets are about, which I think I understand what Deb was saying, should the respondent be able to provide a written response to the order to show cause and/or participate in the frivolous hearing? 01:20:21.700 --> 01:20:30.700 So should they be able to provide evidence, just like physical evidence, say, hey, as you're going to have this hearing, look at this? 01:20:30.700 --> 01:20:35.700 And just that or nothing. 01:20:35.700 --> 01:20:36.700 There's nothing. 01:20:36.700 --> 01:20:49.700 Provide a written response that could include documents or whatever that the board could consider at the hearing or do that and participate in a hearing, like we had in our last hearing. 01:20:49.700 --> 01:20:58.700 So I'm curious, pardon me, but so would this be new evidence that we're looking at then? 01:20:58.700 --> 01:21:05.700 The respondent does not submit evidence in our current process prior to the preliminary hearing, preliminary panel. 01:21:05.700 --> 01:21:07.700 So it would be it would be new. 01:21:07.700 --> 01:21:14.700 It would be what they are presenting as, hey, I agree with you that it's frivolous and hearing wise, essentially. 01:21:14.700 --> 01:21:19.700 So my thought on this is that it would be appropriate to have written response. 01:21:19.700 --> 01:21:23.700 I'm unsure about whether or not they should be able to participate in the hearing. 01:21:23.700 --> 01:21:32.700 I can see cause for either side from the respondent, but I do feel like a written response should be added from the respondent, Andrea. 01:21:32.700 --> 01:21:33.700 I would agree. 01:21:33.700 --> 01:21:38.700 I think I think the respondent should absolutely have the right for written response. 01:21:38.700 --> 01:21:40.700 That would be then taken into evidence. 01:21:40.700 --> 01:21:44.700 It would become part of the frivolous hearings. 01:21:44.700 --> 01:21:53.700 But I also think that if if you have a complaint against yourself, I think that you should have the right to defend yourself and participate in the hearing. 01:21:53.700 --> 01:21:58.700 I disagree because at this point they're no longer a part of it. 01:21:58.700 --> 01:22:07.700 It's about it's about whether or not the complaint is frivolous and the panel has already decided that it's baseless. 01:22:07.700 --> 01:22:14.700 OK, so, you know, yes, we agree this is not an ethics violation. 01:22:14.700 --> 01:22:16.700 And this complaint is gone. 01:22:16.700 --> 01:22:17.700 Done. 01:22:17.700 --> 01:22:20.700 This is about what this other person has done. 01:22:20.700 --> 01:22:27.700 And so I think that having the respondent completely out of the process would be more appropriate. 01:22:27.700 --> 01:22:29.700 So completely no written response. 01:22:29.700 --> 01:22:30.700 No. 01:22:30.700 --> 01:22:31.700 Option either. 01:22:31.700 --> 01:22:32.700 It's done. 01:22:32.700 --> 01:22:34.700 The complaint was baseless. 01:22:34.700 --> 01:22:40.700 Let's move on to what this person has with this complaint. 01:22:40.700 --> 01:22:41.700 Yes. 01:22:41.700 --> 01:22:54.700 Do you think that the respondent may have maybe in a in a in a unique situation to kind of like provide information about the motivation that make it frivolous? 01:22:54.700 --> 01:22:55.700 No. 01:22:55.700 --> 01:22:57.700 No. 01:22:57.700 --> 01:23:00.700 Do you think it's that apparent at that point? 01:23:00.700 --> 01:23:04.700 I think that it's about the complaint and their actions. 01:23:04.700 --> 01:23:13.700 And if you're bringing the respondent in, might as well just go into the same process that continue the same process. 01:23:13.700 --> 01:23:16.700 We've already said the complaint is baseless. 01:23:16.700 --> 01:23:18.700 We're done with you. 01:23:18.700 --> 01:23:22.700 Now let's look at the frivolity of the complaint. 01:23:22.700 --> 01:23:33.700 No, I think I agree with Andrea that they may have a unique perspective on why the complaint would be frivolous, but having them present at the hearing, I don't know that would be necessary. 01:23:33.700 --> 01:23:43.700 But being able to provide some type of evidence in a written response or a statement of some kind could be helpful to the hearing without them necessarily being present. 01:23:43.700 --> 01:23:52.700 I don't have it at the preliminary hearing to determine whether or not it's baseless. 01:23:52.700 --> 01:23:53.700 You've eliminated your streamline. 01:23:53.700 --> 01:23:54.700 Exactly. 01:23:54.700 --> 01:23:56.700 We're back to the existing. 01:23:56.700 --> 01:23:58.700 Okay. 01:23:58.700 --> 01:24:05.700 Which I liked, by the way, but to understand that is true. 01:24:05.700 --> 01:24:09.700 Help me understand that. 01:24:09.700 --> 01:24:17.700 If I understand you correctly, that means that the respondent would have the opportunity to provide evidence to the panel. 01:24:17.700 --> 01:24:20.700 No, the respondent does not currently have an opportunity. 01:24:20.700 --> 01:24:21.700 They're valid. 01:24:21.700 --> 01:24:26.700 No, to the panel when the first determination made originally. 01:24:26.700 --> 01:24:27.700 There is not. 01:24:27.700 --> 01:24:28.700 There is not. 01:24:28.700 --> 01:24:32.700 Yes, the panel only considers the complaint, the submitted complaint. 01:24:32.700 --> 01:24:44.700 Which means if that is the case, then the respondent is, like if something is considered to be baseless, the respondent is completely left out of the process. 01:24:44.700 --> 01:24:46.700 Correct. 01:24:46.700 --> 01:24:54.700 I find that hard. 01:24:54.700 --> 01:25:04.700 I mean, in looking at the code, there's -- in making our determination for validity, we're supposed to consider certain factors. 01:25:04.700 --> 01:25:12.700 One of those is existence and nature of any relationship between the respondent and complainant before the complaint was filed. 01:25:12.700 --> 01:25:20.700 If we don't have that information for both the respondent and the complainant, then I'm not sure how we can consider that item. 01:25:20.700 --> 01:25:26.700 So at a minimum, they should be able to provide a written response. 01:25:26.700 --> 01:25:39.700 I mean, there would be no way for us as a board reviewing that to know about the existence of some prior relationship before the complaint was filed. 01:25:39.700 --> 01:25:51.700 So I mean, if we don't allow the respondent to provide that information, then we're relying only on the complainant, who we're already evaluating their complaint for validity. 01:25:51.700 --> 01:25:59.700 So I don't think that we can leave them out of that process. 01:25:59.700 --> 01:26:09.700 It's hard to imagine not having a respondent involved in any way in that process. 01:26:09.700 --> 01:26:22.700 So are you saying that they should be able to, in the process, do all of these or some of these, provide a written response, participate in the hearing? 01:26:22.700 --> 01:26:30.700 Currently, I have three or four provide a written response that would be presented at the hearing but not by the respondent. 01:26:30.700 --> 01:26:40.700 And then that's really all I've got. One against that, you against no involvement, correct? 01:26:40.700 --> 01:26:57.700 So to get to the issue of a relationship, would the written response be in the form of, could you please answer these questions and ask specific questions that are related to the language of the ordinance? 01:26:57.700 --> 01:27:05.700 We could certainly do something like that if that's the way the board wishes. 01:27:05.700 --> 01:27:14.700 I think right now we're just trying to decide whether or not they can have a written response. We can decide what that might look like later. 01:27:14.700 --> 01:27:28.700 But yeah, we have three and one and three unvoiced. So the rest of y'all who maybe haven't said anything, do you have a strong opinion in one way or another? 01:27:28.700 --> 01:27:38.700 I agree that written response should be allowed. I question the need for participation. 01:27:38.700 --> 01:27:59.700 Okay. Thank you. David. Say that again. I agree that written response options should be provided but not participation in the hearing. 01:27:59.700 --> 01:28:13.700 That is for yes, written response. Okay. Any other discussion on that? No? Okay. Yeah. We're providing direction on written response, right? 01:28:13.700 --> 01:28:32.700 Okay. And anybody strongly feel that we should participate in the hearing? I'm hearing a lot of no for that one. So I think we're wanting to change that to not allowed. Yeah. Dustin, you're not sure? 01:28:32.700 --> 01:28:49.700 I don't know. I think it's adequate to allow them to provide a written response and not allow them to participate through all of the hearing. I think written response is enough. 01:28:49.700 --> 01:29:11.700 I believe I have four for not allowing them to participate in the hearing. The next one is a whole different topic but I don't believe it needs to be discussed today if you do not want it to be. 01:29:11.700 --> 01:29:27.700 I don't know if you're saying 730 is ready to go home. Or we can do it if you would like to. No. You want to move forward with this? No. I would like to pause for tonight. Okay. 01:29:27.700 --> 01:29:38.700 So would that be exhibit two we'd be stopping at, I'm not sure? We would be stopping at, it's not the exhibits. I think the exhibits are to help with, excuse me? 01:29:38.700 --> 01:29:49.700 The item D I believe. So just D. We haven't gotten there yet. Right. So we've covered A, B, C, and then D is just the prioritization of future meeting items that I don't believe needs to be. 01:29:49.700 --> 01:30:08.700 No. No. I do think the thing that we need to just be sure about is that we are meeting in November 7th. Yes. Let me just skip to this page. Yeah. Yes. Next meeting is November 7th. Same time, 6 o'clock, 6 o'clock. 01:30:08.700 --> 01:30:20.700 And then. Yep. Yep. It's 730 p.m. and this meeting is adjourned. The meeting of board of ethics is adjourned.