So good evening and welcome to this new Denton Board of Ethics meetings. Today is
November the 7th, Monday, November the 7th, 2022, and it is 6 p.m. A forum is present and we can get started.
So we're ready to move on to the minutes. I'd like to get those approved.
A motion that we approve the minutes? Shall we? Yes. And do you need a second? I believe so, yeah.
All right. So all of those in favor of approving the minutes? I. I. All opposed? I abstain? All in favor?
Any minutes from last time have been approved.
So we'll move on to BOE 22-033. Receive a report for discussion and take necessary action regarding a potential ethics ordinance and then the proposal at dashboard.
Absolutely. So I was pointing to Mr. Zoltner the other day and realized that there's no way to track right now what amendments you'll have directed us to start working on.
So I put together that table that I sent to everyone and then I thought I could just make like a dashboard that was the same information and put it on the website.
I have not done that because I wanted to get y'all's direction on that first, but essentially I'm recommending that we do that, which I think will help y'all as well as the public and the city council as well.
I know what you're talking about, when you last talked about it and kind of what sections of the ordinance it would influence and what's what the status is.
So this is kind of the statuses that I'm proposing to have and then I can show you kind of like a draft version of it if you would like.
That would be great.
So I'm proposing that it would go on the Board of Ethics website, which I hope you've all seen, and it would just be down here and I'm in like edit mode right now so I can't click on it and scroll over, but this is what it actually looks like.
I think that's wonderful.
It has just a random number.
And it's transparent, which I love.
Right, a title which is supposed to try to at least sort of say what the intention is, what sections it would probably impact, the most recent meeting that it was discussed, and then that status as well as any notes.
So like here, this meeting, unfortunately, was not recorded so that's why it says that.
And this was the proposal that was sent back to the board and so, and it's referencing here, where you really, we discussed that.
That's the idea.
I don't want to necessarily do this unless you wanted me to, but I put all this together so.
Yeah, it looks great.
I don't know why anybody wouldn't want to see that. Just more work for you, right?
Right, that's part of the proposal is that we would, I say we, I would update it after each board meeting, and it currently includes every proposal that you've created or given direction on since the last packet that was adopted.
Before that, you adopted something in June of 2022, it includes everything that was in that packet, it does not include the original packet.
So once it goes into the ordinance, then that goes out the dashboard and you start with.
Well I guess that's the direction, I mean, right now it is there.
So, let's see.
No, I think that makes sense because people could just look at that ordinance.
Right, so, right now they're in here, they cannot be.
But these six are the ones that you originally sent in that packet.
And then it says which ones were adopted and what happened with them basically.
I like the idea of keeping adopted, the adopted ones on there because it's like tracks what has been important to us over time because one of the, when this was first established,
we were learning as we go and we're still learning as we go and testing out the ordinance almost with every single complaint that we receive.
So, personally I vote for keeping the adopted in there.
Yeah, I like the adopted staying up as well.
And then there's also this potential rejected status, right, you were sent it to the council and they said no, we don't want to do that.
So we could keep that in there or we could just say if it does that, then it's going to come off, whatever you vote for.
I like the idea of leaving it off.
Leaving it off or in?
Leaving it all in.
Members only have to choose this name?
Yeah, this looks wonderful.
I'm very much in favor of this so I don't know if you need a motion to move forward with this.
I would make that motion with one question.
Just from a transparency standpoint, I'm very much in favor of this obviously.
Should I second it first?
Well, yeah.
You can either do it to where you make the motion and then you second it and then you can still have discussion on the motion specifically, but if it's something outside of the motion, I would recommend you wait to have that discussion prior.
I'm trying to be the rules guy today too.
Is it outside?
So are you second it or what?
I'm seconding it.
Okay, that's fine.
No, just a question, that's all.
Okay.
I'm very much in favor of this just from a transparency standpoint alone.
I've been away for quite a while and I'm just curious, just from a public standpoint,
there are still seats available in this room.
I assume the public is still, when this meeting is notified, it's still okay for the public to attend or not?
It's a still public meeting so anybody could come in and watch.
And it's also being streamed currently.
Right.
I know at home, but has there been any discussion about citizens commenting in this room on any agenda item that we liked?
We don't currently have a public comment period.
That's not part of the way that the board has established.
Okay.
If that's something the board would like to do, I think we'd have to discuss that on a future agenda.
Right.
To add that basically.
I'm just asking, I'm kind of neutral on that.
There has not really been, I don't believe there's been discussion about if that should be added.
We haven't had that as an agenda item for the last year at least.
Let's just hope a question answered on file.
That's good.
All right.
So we had someone second, so we took a vote.
And just so I'm clear, the motion is to publish it basically online as is for the proposal.
Great.
So call the question to vote?
Yes.
Yeah.
So all those in favor?
Aye.
All those opposed?
None abstained?
That looks wonderful.
If that's published, it might not be tomorrow because I have to actually wait for the community, the different department to actually publish it.
Yes.
It will be up soon.
All righty.
BLE 22-032, receive a report, hold a discussion, and take necessary action regarding potential procedures to identify and process accepted ethics complaints that may be frivolous.
So yeah, we've got all kinds of good graphics here if you want to dig into that.
Yeah, so I have the -- we can walk through it either through the -- we can walk through it a number of ways, but I have the presentation to try to walk through each section in the draft, the red lines.
This is based on a direction we got from last meeting to create an order to show cause process that would kind of replace the recommendation to consider frivolity that the preliminary panel was previously doing.
So there's drafted language in here that -- the first text in here kind of creates that order to show cause.
It provides for who would be notified and in what timeline they would be notified if an order to show cause was issued, prohibits the complainant from withdrawing their complaint if there was an order to show cause issued,
and prohibits new complaints from that complainant being processed while they were -- while the order to show cause was in motion.
So that's kind of the first bit. There's the actual language right there for you all to review.
Do you want to just go through it, or do you want to take it one second?
Yeah, let's just keep going and then if we need to go back again.
The second piece of it is creating that -- the response, what they would do if an order to show cause was issued.
So the order would be sent to the respondent and the complainant.
They would each have 10 calendar days to provide a written, sworn response to that order.
And then -- and it kind of provides for those timelines, and then any responses we would receive would have to go to the board within 10 days of them being received.
There are also, in that next section four, adds to what was previously there about frivolity hearings.
I'll close that door.
[inaudible]
Adds to what was previously the hearing on frivolity, kind of tries to distinguish it as a frivolity hearing.
Adds a timeline for that within 30 calendar days of the order being issued, either by the preliminary panel or the board.
And then clarifies that the complainant has a right to defend themselves, but the respondent is prohibited from defending themselves, as was directed last time.
That's this section. That's kind of the main chunk of what's in there on the process right now.
And then just some other two kind of cleanup bits was to add to the preliminary assessment section of the ordinance, just a reference to what we just discussed, that the preliminary panel could do that, basically.
And then to create a definition of order to show cause so that it was clear what we were discussing, if you needed to go back to the definition.
So, that's kind of the big quick overview of what's in there.
And then I have some questions, but we also have flow charts, if you want to look at those, that I've updated to try to show what has changed.
Madison, can you go back two slides? Yep.
I think that on item number three, that last sentence, I think maybe you got some extra words in there.
I think in this second to last line, it should be distributed to all parties and then removed from the complaint.
Yep. So, just take out to the complainant, basically, right? I think so, yeah.
Oh, I think it's intended to, I actually think it's intended to mean to all parties to the complaint. So, it would mean the respondent and the complainant.
Oh, okay. I'm sorry, I read that. No, it's okay.
So, maybe that should be it. And complaint, should be complaint.
Oh, I'm sorry, I'll just do complaint. It's a little confusing. That's the problem.
I understand what you're trying to get. I'm sorry about that. No, that's okay.
Okay, can we move back to the question that you had pulled up? Yes.
So, you want me to walk through these questions? Please, yeah.
The first one, so when I was putting, kind of updating the flow charts to be able to show you kind of what the new process would look like,
it made me realize there's certainly an instance where you could believe a complaint was actionable.
It would go to an evidentiary hearing and you could get through the whole hearing and be like, we think this is frivolous now.
So, then the question would be, do you want to have to then issue an order to show cause or just be able to say,
we are going to determine this is frivolous at this same meeting, which would kind of bypass the order to show cause process,
but you would have already had it here. So, that's the question. Does that make sense?
In order to determine a complaint is frivolous, do you have to issue an order to show cause or can you also do it through at the evidentiary hearing?
Does that make sense? Yeah, and I would like to see it be done all at once because it's going to extend the whole thing for 31 days.
If it is a frivolous complaint, then that person that got complained against is kind of sitting in the vote for a bit longer.
Especially when it happens, this is my pet peeve, I know I've said this before, but I hate it when these complaints are filed just days before an election,
because you've got to wonder what is the motivation. So, could we ask that they, what if that just became part of the thing,
that they assume that there might be a frivolous complaint and they have to say that before the hearing happens?
I guess I'm confused with what you mean.
Well, I just don't want to see them think it extended. I think that can be decided right at the hearing.
I do like the idea of letting them defend themselves, but I guess that that...
Right, so I guess, so in theory the order for cause can also be issued by the preliminary panel, right?
So it's giving, saying the preliminary panel thinks, why did this get filed basically?
They issue the order to a cause, the respondent and the complainant would both get to say, in a sworn statement, this is why, it's not frivolous or it is frivolous.
And then it would go to a frivolous hearing, frivolity hearing, where only the complainant would be able to present evidence.
The respondent could attend because it's a public meeting, but they would not be able to present their case.
The other option is basically the preliminary panel could say it's actionable, it would go to an evidentiary hearing,
they'd both be able to present their cases orally as well as submit evidence previous to the hearing.
And then the board could either determine, right, the respondent is at fault, there is a violation,
there is no violation, but we don't think it's frivolous or we think it might be frivolous.
And the question then is, having done all that, shouldn't the board then be able to say,
we're going to say it's frivolous now and determine sanctions or do they have to go through an order to show cause?
I think you could still do that, it's just likely you would get the same information.
But I need direction because we didn't discuss this previously.
Yeah, so something that I'm hearing is that that would make the most sense to do that.
However, it says this would bypass the order to show cause process.
I wonder if when the language is put together, it's more likely that it could, not that it must.
Like, we have to decide right now that in that moment we might be able to say,
okay, we're going to issue an order to show cause or we can decide in the moment,
not that it's in, it must be this way or it must be that way, but that there's options there.
I think, yeah, we could write it to where you could do either, right?
At the end of an entry here you say, we're going to decide now or we want to issue the order to show cause to get more information.
Right, yes.
It just seems, though, if you have the process that it gives the complainant an extra opportunity
and you're removing that, if you say the full board can determine that it's finalist, is that correct?
They would have an opportunity to present their case during the original hearing, the evidentiary hearing.
It would, if you determined to not issue the order to show cause and just go straight to the frivolity hearing,
they wouldn't have that second option, second time.
Right, but the evidence for the complaint is related to the complaint.
Correct.
But their opportunity to submit a response is related to the complaint being called frivolous complaint.
Yes.
And so we're talking about apples and oranges essentially here.
It is two different processes.
Yes.
And it's two different intentions of the hearing.
Yes, yes. And so that gives me pause about the full board being able to determine that it's frivolous because they don't have the same information.
They don't have the information from the complaint.
And why it's not frivolous or what?
Yes.
Emerson.
Yes, that's, I'm a little bit confused about the process here because right now on your flowcharts, which you may not,
right now you're showing that there is an opportunity during the evidentiary hearing.
So right now there's two possibilities or two opportunities here to declare the frivolity,
both of the preliminary and the evidentiary as you have it here, is that right?
Currently the way that I have not tried, I have not taken that out, yes, because I have not received direction to do that.
So this is a decision to be made right here?
Yes, this is a decision point for this discussion right now on basically what you're referencing.
If this number 17 should be in here, essentially.
Or if it should say, could the complaint be frivolous, issue an order to show cause, and then you would switch down here.
So the first one you had up there, you're asking a yes or no, is that determination, is that what you're looking for there?
Right, the first question is essentially this right here, should it say, if we don't go to yes, it would say,
not is the complaint frivolous, but could it be frivolous?
Yes, it would have it reference the next process, and we'd go into order to show cause.
Or we could say as is, and you could just decide to do that.
Or we could add, do you want to issue an order to show cause, decision point, and then that would, does that make sense?
So here's what I'm confused by, yes, Deborah, yes, thank you, is what you're saying is,
if it becomes evident in the hearing that the complaint is frivolous,
you'd like the opportunity for them to have a second chance for us together again, and then determine that it's frivolous.
You don't necessarily have the, because in the hearing, it's about the complaint.
It's not about the frivolity of the complaint.
Okay.
So that's my, we're talking about two different things here.
One is a complaint about the respondent, and the other is a frivolous complaint by the complaint.
So I see them as two distinct processes, and if the, if there's an opportunity to declare it frivolous within the hearing,
why even bother to have the order to show cause at all, if the panel can go ahead and declare that it's frivolous.
I think it depends on how frivolous it is, because I know of two cases of trying to be neutral.
Well, I didn't want to clarify, because the panel can't decide it's frivolous.
They can basically dismiss the complaint and say we're going to issue an order to cause, which is up, which is like here,
which would then take us not into this process, but into this process, which I know they look very similar.
There are differences.
Sure, sure. I get that.
Yeah. Or you could also, the panel could determine it's actionable.
We go to an evidentiary hearing, and then basically, if they dismiss the complaint, would they then be able to say,
well, they have to dismiss the complaint to say now we're going to issue an order to show cause,
or do we just want to be able to say we're not, we don't have to do that in order to say this is a frivolous complaint
after we've gone through an evidentiary hearing.
Okay. I still see a problem there, and maybe I'm just missing it.
At one point, we say it's important enough for the complaint to be able to say something in their defense
about this frivolous complaint, or possibly frivolous complaint that they have filed.
And then on the other hand, we're saying we don't need them to respond at all.
When they have a chance, because I think it should be a part of, like, you look at the complaint,
and then you may decide, look, this doesn't rise to the level of what they said it was, not at all.
So let's look at this being frivolous, and then there's still going to be a frivolity hearing, right?
Well, the question is would we then have a frivolity hearing, or would we just decide it was frivolous?
Right, within the same hearing.
Are you talking at the panel level or the hearing level?
Hearing, yeah.
It is a complicated question, that's why I'm asking you.
I don't think, it just seems like it made it so much more complicated and painful to drag it out like that.
There was no way, I mean, I just, either it is or it isn't, or if you have questions,
then that's when I think you would order the cause.
I think if it was not very apparent that you would not bypass the order of show cause,
there was a question, that's when you would issue the order of show cause,
but if someone, I don't know, tells on themselves in the hearing,
and then we have to have a whole other hearing to kind of talk about what we already know,
or they're saying something happened that absolutely did it,
and in the hearing they haven't presented anything that looks like that,
I think that would be very appropriate to say, not only is it baseless, but it's frivolous.
So in that hearing would they be able to talk about why it's not frivolous?
Because I don't see that in the full hearing.
I think, so the way that the rules of procedure work, I believe there's like set time of,
you give your first statement, you present your evidence,
and the other side gives their first statement, right, and presents their evidence,
it might be a little rough, but then there's closing, and you can,
while they're presenting evidence, I believe you can ask them questions,
but then after there's closing remarks go, you would then make a decision,
and I don't believe the rules of procedure currently have like a second round of like,
oh, now I think it's frivolous, let's ask them to tell us why it's not part, basically.
Yeah, so we're correcting, like in this one particular case, there wasn't anything,
and I thought Laura did an amazing job of handling that meeting,
because there was nothing in the code to tell us where to go next,
but so we kind of made it up, so we're filling in blanks that are really important to fill in on.
It was hard on everybody, it was hard.
And I wouldn't say, if we created rules of procedure that would then be like,
this is how a frivolous frivolity hearing would work,
I don't know that we would be able, without having, like separately posting for it,
to go into that set of rules, basically.
Because, just because of the way like Open Meetings Acts work,
because we would be posting for an ethics complaint hearing, an evidentiary hearing,
and then it would be very assumptive to then also have on there, in case this happens,
we'll also post for a frivolity hearing in the same agenda. Does that make sense?
So, with the Open Meetings Act, we would not be able to go into a frivolity hearing in the middle of, at the end of...
An evidentiary hearing.
Because I was thinking they would have different numbers.
I think that's our intention, because like you said, we're trying to create two separate processes.
So that it makes it more clear, the intention is to make it more clear for the respondent,
this is dismissed, this complaint is done, now we're going to discuss this frivolity,
this complaint that we think might be frivolous, through this other process. Does that make sense?
I'm sorry, I'm just missing something here.
Because if you're posting it as a hearing for the ethics complaint, the full hearing for it,
then would you also post a clause that if it's determined to be frivolous, there would be another...
I don't believe that we would do that.
Okay, so in other words, then the question of going directly to a frivolity hearing is not...
No, that's right.
...feasible.
You just bring up the, we want to look at that, and then that goes into the next procedure.
So you're not bypassing, you would not be bypassing the frivolity hearing process?
You'd be bypassing the order to show cause, so you would not have that period of time to then come back and give the evidence.
Why present their own evidence as to why it's not frivolous.
And I think in good faith, an ethics board would not go straight to a decision about frivolity
if there was not ample evidence presented in the hearing, that we would all...
Or lack of evidence.
Right. We would all, in good faith, ask for more information if more information was needed.
But if information was presented that definitively said that it was frivolous,
having an additional hearing to, again, determine what we've already been presented seems extra.
Thank you. Yes, sir.
What also confuses a little bit in my mind is when you allow both the complainant and respondent to add, submit additional evidence.
So that may get you off into the weeds to where the frivolity, that may hit you right in the face even before you consider the ethical aspects here.
Because you're still allowing complainant and respondent to add evidence to throw logs on the fire, even when you get to an evidence hearing.
And that makes it way more awful.
I know, I know.
Yes.
Am I correct that not all cities have a frivolous aspect of their process?
Yes.
Not all do, correct.
Okay. So I'm still struggling as to why do we need it.
Because if we're telling the complainant, your complaint is dismissed, it seems to me that saying, and it's frivolous, and now we're going to go after you.
Is that really the purpose of a Board of Ethics?
I think the answer to that is because it's happened. And it's happened days before elections.
And you have to wonder what the motivation is when someone files a complaint the week of an election or the week before.
You just have to wonder.
But try to get in somebody's mind as to their intent.
But it's happened, and I think that's my pet peeve, is that when you do that, you really throw somebody who's in the middle of a campaign into a difficult place.
Because then they're like, oh my god, they're being accused of an ethics ordinance violation.
And then they can go to the paper and they can say things were a violation of our code, which in fact may not be.
And the problem with that is people believe that stuff.
If you look at our code, I think there's a lot of people who believe it says things that it does not say.
Our code is very vague, it's very nonspecific.
So then turning around and saying that is fact and filing a complaint, that's really where I have a problem.
But isn't the word frivolous and open-ended as well?
Well, there are sanctions that would come.
We've had the opportunity to decide whether or not complaints would even be accepted during election period.
And that was voted down or passed over.
And so now we're authorized to consider complaints filed in the last two weeks before elections.
Many codes of ethics don't allow complaints.
There's like a period where you can't file complaints.
Or if you do file a complaint, it just has to wait.
We've been down that road where frivolous complaints have been abused already.
And so we're kind of patching them.
This is what lawyers call scar tissue, I think, am I correct?
Where you make something up because there's a scar that you're trying to heal.
I'm just thinking, if I were to file a complaint and this board decides that it's without merit,
and then you come back to me and say it's frivolous, it's like poking a stick in my eye.
Now I'm really upset and I'm really going to go to the newspaper.
So the idea about this is to stop people from filing frivolous complaints in the first place.
To really think hard before they file a complaint with other intentions.
What's the consequence of being called frivolous?
It could be no action. That's one of the options.
I think that's part of the reason we're having this discussion is so that there are consequences.
Yes.
Well at the very least it would be a letter of notification.
But other cities actually have dollar fines for some of these frivolous complaints.
So anywhere from a letter of notification to actual, you owe us $500 for filing.
And the most common one I've read is that you can't file a complaint for a certain period of time.
Most often two years.
And I think if we stay tuned we're going to get to that.
Yeah.
I've been given direction to draft new sanctions for frivolous complaints
that would prohibit that person from filing complaints for a specific period of time.
At least on the Dallas board.
Thank you.
We just haven't had this kind of discussion about it yet.
So what is our recommendation going to be on that first question?
Yes.
I'm hearing some concern about not offering an entire frivolity hearing always.
But I'm also hearing a lot of people in favor of moving towards wrapping it up
if we have sufficient evidence in the evidence hearing.
Mr. Pryor, I think to speak to what you said about frivolous being vague,
there is currently a section in the ordinance that says this is what should be considered.
I saw that.
Yeah, okay.
Yeah, it's fine.
So, keep it the same? Is that what we're recommending?
I mean, I think based on the scheduling of the hearings,
we don't really have the option to do that frivolity hearing in the evidence hearing, right?
Right, that's correct.
So the question is really, does the board issue an order to show cause at that meeting?
Is that correct?
I think there's three options.
Sorry.
No, they're in there, so don't hear them.
There's the option where the complaint has to be,
well, there's the option that you get to an evidence hearing and in order to determine it's frivolous,
you have to issue an order to show cause and have a separate hearing.
There's another option of as part of that hearing, you would not have a whole other hearing,
but you could, the board could also still determine that it's frivolous. Does that make sense?
Without collection of additional evidence?
Yes, there's only two options, I'm sorry.
Well, and then there's those two options, and then the third, I guess, is you could do both.
You could do either, right? The board, so, yes.
So I mean, at that point, the board is determining, if it gets to the point where they,
we're recommending a frivolity hearing or review or making that determination,
we've already decided that the complaint is baseless, right?
Yes.
So for the respondent, there's, at that point, it's over for them.
If we go to it, if we issue an order to show cause, they can submit some additional information that they make.
That would be like, we think it's frivolous, but we need more information.
I would just go to the order to show cause process, so like lengthening that doesn't,
isn't necessarily detrimental to the respondent.
I mean, it's going to be, I think, for the board, but I don't want to say it.
I think it would be difficult for us to get to a point where we make it all the way to an evidentiary hearing
without coming to a conclusion that there is potentially a frivolous complaint.
I mean, maybe I'm wrong.
I don't think anything like that has happened before.
I think it was very clear when the complaint was received and reviewed by the initial panel that,
you know, this claim is baseless and potentially frivolous, and it goes into that process.
So I don't, I think scheduling meetings prevents us from doing this all in one.
We could, to make sure that we get all of the right information in front of the board
and get everyone an opportunity to present their evidence,
issuing an order to show cause is probably the cleanest way to do that.
I think it would be pretty rare for us to get into a situation where we have to do that.
But at least at that point, the respondent is no longer,
they no longer have an open ethics complaint against them that, you know,
I'm thinking in election time.
Like what we've seen before, when there is an open complaint,
that's sort of what gets headlines and clicks on websites.
So we would, by doing this, if we're holding the hearing,
making that determination that this is baseless and then recommending that we issue an order to show cause,
that takes the respondent out of the process at that point,
other than being able to supply information for the frivolity hearing.
So I don't, it's not ideal because now we're extending the whole timeline for all of this,
but at least we're getting the respondent cleared of a potential ethics violation.
So, I mean, I think that makes sense.
So I guess to summarize, I think the cleanest way to do this is if we get to an evidence hearing,
there is a, the claim is deemed baseless and then in that hearing,
there is a recommendation that is potentially frivolous.
At that point, that or the board would issue an order to show cause,
and then we would just jump into the other part of the process.
I see what you're saying, Dustin, and I can agree with that.
I will say there's another side issue here and one that probably,
if somebody, in our ethical code, the complainant has to be the one who comes together with all the information
and presents the prosecution, if you will, that's not done like that in other cities.
In other cities, probably someone from the ethical board, from the board of ethics,
or somebody does the investigation and acts like a prosecutor.
Isn't that correct?
Well, that's correct, and you're kind of already getting into my request.
So I think the best thing to do is what Dustin is recommending,
and then this other issue is, to me, a very big issue.
This whole burden of proof issue is, in my mind, still to be resolved.
It's been four years, it's been an elephant in this room,
and it's time, in my opinion, to review this whole burden of proof and where the responsibility lies.
So that's a side issue.
We're not posing for that in this item.
So I go, Dustin, can you make a motion for that?
Okay, I'll make a motion that if a complaint is deemed baseless and potentially frivolous in an interim hearing,
then the board would issue in order to show cause, starting that process.
So number one would be no.
I second.
Yeah, okay, thank you.
Yeah, so no on number one.
Okay, no, it's a number one.
It's a number one.
All right, that's an odd way of saying that.
All those in favor of no to number one?
Aye.
All those opposed?
Oh, I didn't vote aye, sorry.
All those opposed? None.
Okay, number two is basically just should, if you get all the way to the end of a frivolity hearing,
should the respondent be told what happened with them, what the determination was?
It's public record, is it?
Yes, I would have to send an official notice to the complainant and the city attorney.
There's several people that I generally have to say, this is what happened at this meeting,
even though it might have even been there.
This is a new process, so that's why I'm asking about the respondent,
because we've had several decisions to try to not include them basically as much as possible.
So I move that we not notify the respondent.
All those in favor of not notifying the respondent?
Aye.
All those opposed?
Okay, and so then, finally, this is the last one for a direction for this.
I think you can kind of scratch respondent out of this at this point,
but should the complainant be able to file a reconsideration
once the board has made a determination on the frivolity hearing,
which reconsideration is a process that after a hearing,
basically they have ten days to file basically new evidence,
and the board chair reviews that and then kind of unilaterally can determine,
hey, is this actually new evidence or is it just the old evidence?
And if it's new evidence, they're supposed to hold another hearing basically to consider it.
I think it's really complicated because if there's new evidence then there might be support for an ethics violation.
Wouldn't that be another complaint?
I would think so.
Members only.
I remember a brief discussion from Alan Boracuis when he was asked something similar to this,
when they were graphing this code, and if I remember correctly,
he made the comment that at the end of a hearing and it has been determined frivolous,
that is the end of the road for that particular complaint.
You're certainly free to file a new complaint based on possibly problems that the actual board committed,
but that should be the end of the road, I think, for that particular complaint if it's been deemed frivolous.
It's not super clear in the code, so that's why I'm asking.
I just do want to point out that if the sanctions that you have discussed get approved,
they would not be able to submit a new complaint potentially.
So I'm just pointing that out.
I don't think they should be able to file for reconsideration.
We already have a timeline in there that's fairly generous on them supplying evidence for the frivolity hearing,
so I don't really see the point in allowing for that.
And that in order to show cause, show cause or don't, it's done.
So I move that we say no to that.
I'll second that.
All those in favor of saying we should not allow for them to file a reconsideration?
Aye.
All those opposed?
No abstentions.
Just to summarize, I got no, no, no on all three of those, so I'll bring, I'll clarify that within the language written,
and then at some point it will come back to kind of finalize and forward to the city council.
But I probably will have to bring back language and ordinance as well as rules in the rules of procedure, but we'll do that all kind of at once.
So are we moving on to D at this point or are we going to go through the flowchart and the other stuff?
If you have questions about the flowchart or anything, we can talk about it.
That'll probably be a separate item as well just to kind of finalize the update to that whenever we,
that won't be updated until it's been adopted, so that would really just help everybody visualize.
In the narratives piece, I think it was number eight.
There might have been a not that was left out.
I just wanted to point that out.
I have the same.
Did you?
Yes.
I think there was something crossed out that was just one word too many that got crossed out.
Number eight.
I think, let's just not worry about this right now.
Okay.
We're going to work on it.
Cool.
That works.
We'll come back.
Okay.
So BOE 22-030, receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding future
meeting topics.
So basically, we've talked about a lot of stuff in the last year.
We have, I believe, 11 current proposals since the last, since we did the last packet that
are kind of, I haven't drafted them yet, but they haven't been given direction to do so.
That's that final line here.
There's also several things.
This is just kind of a recap of, these are things we've discussed and we have had stuff
come out of basically.
There's still some pieces that we haven't discussed down here, these prioritize.
And then I have those three with the star next to them.
I think we could do kind of all together because every, a lot of the amendments are basically
going to change the whole conflict of interest section.
And so I think we can address those applicable relationships and period of relevance when
we go into those pieces.
So basically, I'm asking for direction on when do you want to do another packet to the
council and then is that what you want to focus on or do you want to try to come up
or do you want to do some more review and have more amendments to go into that before
it gets sent to them.
And then I guess there's also room for more discussion as well.
Do you remember when you went, what month that was?
It was June?
Yeah.
Been a very busy five months.
Yes, it has.
I think we've got a lot to present and so maybe doing something sooner rather than later
like January might be best.
There's no possible way for us to present to city council in January.
Oh, when is the?
Our next meeting is not until January at the earliest.
Our next meeting?
Yes.
Okay.
So we would need another meeting and then it would be.
If not more than one, just because like I said, there are 11 amendments that we have to
discuss specific language on.
So unless we wanted to be here, unless we wanted to have a really late night.
Okay.
My brain's starting to digest all of what you just said.
Anyone have any thoughts?
Well, as I mentioned earlier, I have thought long and hard about where we are with this
burden of proof.
And it's been several years and from the very start, we have weaponized this code against
complainants in debt.
And as you are aware, if you check these other benchmark cities, no one else does to
complainants what we do to complainants here in debt or try to do.
We don't need to, but we do.
Well, we don't, right.
And it's even, if anything, it's gone from maybe even bad to worse because now we have
orders to show cost.
We make life very, very hard for people that may have valid complaints.
Why would you bother to file a complaint in debt even if you know that there's been a
violation of this code?
I wouldn't do it looking at what's in this code right now.
So I, for the past three or four years, I would suggest that we have a responsibility
to go back and look at this entire burden of proof from the very start because I had
very little citizen input from the start when this thing was passed in May of 2018.
So whether or not it actually receives a priority number, your dance card is full here,
but I think this entire burden of proof that puts that complainant at the center stage
and you live or die on that complaint.
In almost every other jurisdiction, the benchmark is if you file a complaint, if it's accurate,
if it's timely, if it's notarized, you take an oath, you are offstage as the complainant.
You have a right to attend any of the hearings, you have a right to comment, but you have
no responsibility to show up and God help us if you start throwing out complaints if
a complainant doesn't even show up.
That is so wrong in my opinion, I can't even begin to express it.
So can you help me understand how that applies to what we're talking about?
Do you want to put it on the topics list?
Do you want to wait to take anything to city council until it's been discussed?
What are you proposing?
Where it appears, if it's prioritized as a future topic, that's up to this board.
So whether it's on this list or whether individual citizens, which had I not been sitting here,
I was going to take it directly to the council anyway.
Because I think that is the worst possible treatment that we could offer for a complainant
in the city of Denny.
And it says you can't retaliate, but there's no definition of what that means.
Yeah, it's just--
And retaliation has happened.
You will not find anything similar to this in any of these benchmarks codes.
We've visited these benchmark cities for other input and good luck trying to find anybody
that treats a complainant like we would here in Denny.
I have nothing good to say about it.
And I would like to see it either on that list or even prioritized because, again,
here in this--even in this draft, when you have issues right here to consider already,
evidentiary hearing lives or dies on the complainant's willingness to participate, investigate,
provide evidence, and quieten the world with anybody, even in Denton.
And there are even other issues here that, for example, the citizen complainant,
there's a separate pathway for staff complaints.
They go to the--
Yeah, they have a--
Well, they go out to the--what is the--
Yeah, but they have their own internal--
Yeah.
That I actually really like.
Yeah, right.
I am not proud at all of what we do to honest Denton citizens who have a valid complaint.
I wouldn't file it.
Yeah.
So, where it fits in on future prioritizations or whether or not--
I also think that if there was someone who investigated their complaint,
they could sit down and say, "I don't see evidence of this.
I don't even know if it rises to a level."
So, the amount of discussion I'm hearing, this is something that we want to put on the agenda for future meetings.
Absolutely.
I'm going to maybe advise us to wait for the discussion until it's been put on an agenda,
but I think what we need to decide is do we want to put it on an agenda.
Yes, I'm getting a yes.
Okay.
Definitely seems like there's been a motion and a second.
Okay.
Do we want to like--
I mean, I guess you could probably finally get that officially out.
Can you officially offer that?
Yeah.
Well, yes, I'm offering that as, you know, under number four,
just direction regarding future meeting topics.
I'm recommending that be a future meeting topic.
Okay.
So, when is up to this board and to this?
Okay.
So, that result has made a motion and it's been seconded.
It's been seconded.
Okay.
Yes.
Yeah, I needed to--we needed to lock that in.
Okay.
Wonderful.
Okay.
So, now we need to have a vote whether or not that's going to go on the agenda.
As a future agenda item.
Excuse me?
Yes, as a future agenda item.
Okay.
So, all of those in favor of adding this as a future agenda item.
All of those in favor.
What did I say?
Yes.
All of those in favor of adding this as a future agenda item.
Aye.
All those opposed.
No abstentions.
Okay.
So, I'm just going to like add it to this presentation.
Cool.
Thank you.
That's fine.
You can all see it.
Yes.
The stars are in the wrong place.
So, what we need to decide is what we're going to do next.
Or we need to decide an order of all of the things.
I mean, either.
If you only decide like the next one, I'll probably come back and be like, what do you want to do next at the meeting?
That sounds good.
So.
But I need to know what you want to talk about next.
Right.
The start items, were you recommending that be the next thing?
The start items, I was just saying I think they can all be handled kind of.
Together.
As one piece that I don't think we need to have separate.
I don't think I need to be prioritized separately.
So, it seems like by looking at all of this, current sanctions would be.
So, that was recommended or put on the, wanted to be added as a future agenda item in August to review the current sanctions that are in the ordinance, not for frivolous complaints, but for actual violations.
I would say the new sanctions for the frivolous ethics complaints would probably logically be the next thing.
We've already discussed that.
Okay.
Yeah.
So.
So we're done.
That's one of the amendments.
So that's in this item.
So what I'm thinking by looking at this would be review the complaint reconsideration process and comprehensive review of current sanctions would be the two that seem most logically the next.
Would somebody say something else that makes more sense to them?
I think the burden of the proof should be next, but I want to hear what others think about that.
That has a huge impact on so many people.
Everything else, yeah.
Because I agree with what David said about, it's embarrassing.
I hate to do that to citizens who are just trying to help out.
I'm trying to think of what makes sense to try and get done before this goes to city council the next time for review.
The items that you had started would be pretty straightforward to finish before it goes before city council.
So our next meeting is in January?
Yeah, we can talk about the exact date.
It's not technically set yet.
The next one, our calendar goes through December.
There's no meeting set for December.
So it would be in January.
We don't have a date yet for it.
If we could not do that meeting, then let's go for the 72 if you think that's realistic.
Or we can do the three that match the start.
I think that's what I'm trying to figure out is those seem like the thing we want to do before we go to city council.
I think the question is, is there anything else that we want to get done before we go to that final place before we go to city council?
The question is, just like you said, this right here, which includes the other stars of these two, is like 11 amendments that mostly impact the prohibitions section of the code.
So is there other things that you would like to try to include in that packet before it goes?
Or do you want to delay it and look at burden of proof?
I don't have options. That's why I need direction.
So if we had the applicable relationships and now they kind of fall under the same section?
Right, I believe if we were going to finalize those amendments, we would deal with those two, or in vibe up there, as part of that.
Okay, gotcha.
So maybe that would make the most sense to just sort of finish out what we started this year and then all of these new items we've added throughout the year.
Bring those up once we've finished four, five, and finalization and forwarding of amendment proposals.
Does that seem reasonable?
Yes, and then the items that are prioritized at the bottom of the list, if you wanted the burden of proof discussion to the top of those, I think that makes sense.
So then we have agendas set for the next two meetings.
At least, like I said, this is 11 different items.
Okay, that will take some time.
Some of them are pretty simple, and we could begin having the burden of proof discussion while we're finalizing this, potentially.
If that's what you want to prioritize first of the new stuff.
I agree with that.
I'm sorry, that's what you said.
I agree, tackle the items that were prioritized this year, the four and five, and then raise the burden of proof discussion to a priority for 2023.
Okay.
So let me just restate and then see some nods maybe.
So we're going to prioritize beginning to finalize the packet of amendments, proposed amendments to send to council based on the direction I've received up to this date.
And then for new proposed amendments or new changes we might make, we're going to prioritize burden of proof being the first one.
Yes.
And that will certainly hold us up for two meetings if that's what.
Okay.
And we'll have on the next agenda, begin discussing those amendments as well as burden of proof, begin discussing the burden of proof stuff.
That's the direction right here.
We're working so hard to fix the broken code.
I guess that's my concern.
But we can do our best.
So if we were good with nods or we want a full vote.
We don't need a motion.
Yeah, this is just direction.
Cool.
All right.
So then we need to get the date on the calendar.
I think we can do that since we're still kind of talking about future updates.
So the options are, if we want to have one in January, the first Monday of January is the second.
I don't think we want to have a meeting that day.
I think that the city is closed for New Year's Day.
It's hard to know.
They haven't put the calendar out yet, but I think it will be.
So the next Monday would be the ninth.
And then we could also just skip January and go to February.
It would be our next meeting.
Those are two options.
If you have another, we can do that.
I move January 9th.
January will be fine.
We don't need to vote on that.
So there's no meeting in December?
Correct.
When we adopted a scheduled meeting, there was that one.
I got January 9th.
And then after that, it will be the first Monday of the month.
Right.
So in January 9th, we'll adopt the meeting for 2023.
And we'll assume that you want to continue meeting on the same days, but we'll finalize that at that meeting.
We could potentially do it in December because when we adopted the schedule, it was --
I believe the ordinance says that it only takes time for members to call a meeting.
Is that correct?
No, don't check that.
So in theory, you could call the December meeting if you want.
Okay, we'll go for January 9th.
All right.
So we're all in a good place to end the meeting.
I think that's all the items.
Yes.
Great.
So it is not 8.06.
It is 7.06 p.m.
And the meeting of the Board of Ethics is adjourned.