WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.280 So good evening and welcome to this new Denton Board of Ethics meetings. Today is 00:00:07.280 --> 00:00:16.360 November the 7th, Monday, November the 7th, 2022, and it is 6 p.m. A forum is present and we can get started. 00:00:16.360 --> 00:00:22.360 So we're ready to move on to the minutes. I'd like to get those approved. 00:00:22.360 --> 00:00:38.200 A motion that we approve the minutes? Shall we? Yes. And do you need a second? I believe so, yeah. 00:00:38.200 --> 00:01:04.000 All right. So all of those in favor of approving the minutes? I. I. All opposed? I abstain? All in favor? 00:01:04.000 --> 00:01:11.000 Any minutes from last time have been approved. 00:01:11.000 --> 00:01:24.000 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. 00:01:24.000 --> 00:01:43.000 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. 00:01:43.000 --> 00:01:53.000 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. 00:01:53.000 --> 00:02:05.000 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. 00:02:05.000 --> 00:02:13.000 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. 00:02:13.000 --> 00:02:23.000 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. 00:02:23.000 --> 00:02:25.000 That would be great. 00:02:25.000 --> 00:02:42.000 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. 00:02:42.000 --> 00:02:46.000 I think that's wonderful. 00:02:46.000 --> 00:02:51.000 It has just a random number. 00:02:51.000 --> 00:02:53.000 And it's transparent, which I love. 00:02:53.000 --> 00:03:07.000 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. 00:03:07.000 --> 00:03:12.000 So like here, this meeting, unfortunately, was not recorded so that's why it says that. 00:03:12.000 --> 00:03:22.000 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. 00:03:22.000 --> 00:03:25.000 That's the idea. 00:03:25.000 --> 00:03:31.000 I don't want to necessarily do this unless you wanted me to, but I put all this together so. 00:03:31.000 --> 00:03:33.000 Yeah, it looks great. 00:03:33.000 --> 00:03:38.000 I don't know why anybody wouldn't want to see that. Just more work for you, right? 00:03:38.000 --> 00:03:56.000 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. 00:03:56.000 --> 00:04:03.000 Before that, you adopted something in June of 2022, it includes everything that was in that packet, it does not include the original packet. 00:04:03.000 --> 00:04:07.000 So once it goes into the ordinance, then that goes out the dashboard and you start with. 00:04:07.000 --> 00:04:11.000 Well I guess that's the direction, I mean, right now it is there. 00:04:11.000 --> 00:04:14.000 So, let's see. 00:04:14.000 --> 00:04:18.000 No, I think that makes sense because people could just look at that ordinance. 00:04:18.000 --> 00:04:22.000 Right, so, right now they're in here, they cannot be. 00:04:22.000 --> 00:04:29.000 But these six are the ones that you originally sent in that packet. 00:04:29.000 --> 00:04:34.000 And then it says which ones were adopted and what happened with them basically. 00:04:34.000 --> 00:04:46.000 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, 00:04:46.000 --> 00:04:56.000 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. 00:04:56.000 --> 00:05:03.000 So, personally I vote for keeping the adopted in there. 00:05:03.000 --> 00:05:07.000 Yeah, I like the adopted staying up as well. 00:05:07.000 --> 00:05:17.000 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. 00:05:17.000 --> 00:05:24.000 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. 00:05:24.000 --> 00:05:28.000 I like the idea of leaving it off. 00:05:28.000 --> 00:05:30.000 Leaving it off or in? 00:05:30.000 --> 00:05:32.000 Leaving it all in. 00:05:32.000 --> 00:05:34.000 Members only have to choose this name? 00:05:34.000 --> 00:05:37.000 Yeah, this looks wonderful. 00:05:37.000 --> 00:05:42.000 I'm very much in favor of this so I don't know if you need a motion to move forward with this. 00:05:42.000 --> 00:05:47.000 I would make that motion with one question. 00:05:47.000 --> 00:05:51.000 Just from a transparency standpoint, I'm very much in favor of this obviously. 00:05:51.000 --> 00:05:52.000 Should I second it first? 00:05:52.000 --> 00:05:54.000 Well, yeah. 00:05:54.000 --> 00:06:05.000 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. 00:06:05.000 --> 00:06:07.000 I'm trying to be the rules guy today too. 00:06:07.000 --> 00:06:08.000 Is it outside? 00:06:08.000 --> 00:06:10.000 So are you second it or what? 00:06:10.000 --> 00:06:11.000 I'm seconding it. 00:06:11.000 --> 00:06:12.000 Okay, that's fine. 00:06:12.000 --> 00:06:13.000 No, just a question, that's all. 00:06:13.000 --> 00:06:14.000 Okay. 00:06:14.000 --> 00:06:18.000 I'm very much in favor of this just from a transparency standpoint alone. 00:06:18.000 --> 00:06:22.000 I've been away for quite a while and I'm just curious, just from a public standpoint, 00:06:22.000 --> 00:06:25.000 there are still seats available in this room. 00:06:25.000 --> 00:06:33.000 I assume the public is still, when this meeting is notified, it's still okay for the public to attend or not? 00:06:33.000 --> 00:06:37.000 It's a still public meeting so anybody could come in and watch. 00:06:37.000 --> 00:06:39.000 And it's also being streamed currently. 00:06:39.000 --> 00:06:40.000 Right. 00:06:40.000 --> 00:06:50.000 I know at home, but has there been any discussion about citizens commenting in this room on any agenda item that we liked? 00:06:50.000 --> 00:06:52.000 We don't currently have a public comment period. 00:06:52.000 --> 00:06:56.000 That's not part of the way that the board has established. 00:06:56.000 --> 00:06:57.000 Okay. 00:06:57.000 --> 00:07:02.000 If that's something the board would like to do, I think we'd have to discuss that on a future agenda. 00:07:02.000 --> 00:07:03.000 Right. 00:07:03.000 --> 00:07:04.000 To add that basically. 00:07:04.000 --> 00:07:07.000 I'm just asking, I'm kind of neutral on that. 00:07:07.000 --> 00:07:15.000 There has not really been, I don't believe there's been discussion about if that should be added. 00:07:15.000 --> 00:07:19.000 We haven't had that as an agenda item for the last year at least. 00:07:19.000 --> 00:07:21.000 Let's just hope a question answered on file. 00:07:21.000 --> 00:07:23.000 That's good. 00:07:23.000 --> 00:07:24.000 All right. 00:07:24.000 --> 00:07:26.000 So we had someone second, so we took a vote. 00:07:26.000 --> 00:07:32.000 And just so I'm clear, the motion is to publish it basically online as is for the proposal. 00:07:32.000 --> 00:07:34.000 Great. 00:07:34.000 --> 00:07:37.000 So call the question to vote? 00:07:37.000 --> 00:07:38.000 Yes. 00:07:38.000 --> 00:07:39.000 Yeah. 00:07:39.000 --> 00:07:40.000 So all those in favor? 00:07:40.000 --> 00:07:41.000 Aye. 00:07:41.000 --> 00:07:42.000 All those opposed? 00:07:42.000 --> 00:07:44.000 None abstained? 00:07:44.000 --> 00:07:49.000 That looks wonderful. 00:07:49.000 --> 00:07:57.000 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. 00:07:57.000 --> 00:07:58.000 Yes. 00:07:58.000 --> 00:07:59.000 It will be up soon. 00:07:59.000 --> 00:08:02.000 All righty. 00:08:02.000 --> 00:08:17.000 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. 00:08:17.000 --> 00:08:23.000 So yeah, we've got all kinds of good graphics here if you want to dig into that. 00:08:23.000 --> 00:08:33.000 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. 00:08:33.000 --> 00:08:47.000 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. 00:08:47.000 --> 00:08:56.000 So there's drafted language in here that -- the first text in here kind of creates that order to show cause. 00:08:56.000 --> 00:09:10.000 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, 00:09:10.000 --> 00:09:20.000 and prohibits new complaints from that complainant being processed while they were -- while the order to show cause was in motion. 00:09:20.000 --> 00:09:27.000 So that's kind of the first bit. There's the actual language right there for you all to review. 00:09:27.000 --> 00:09:34.000 Do you want to just go through it, or do you want to take it one second? 00:09:34.000 --> 00:09:38.000 Yeah, let's just keep going and then if we need to go back again. 00:09:38.000 --> 00:09:45.000 The second piece of it is creating that -- the response, what they would do if an order to show cause was issued. 00:09:45.000 --> 00:09:49.000 So the order would be sent to the respondent and the complainant. 00:09:49.000 --> 00:09:56.000 They would each have 10 calendar days to provide a written, sworn response to that order. 00:09:56.000 --> 00:10:07.000 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. 00:10:07.000 --> 00:10:14.000 There are also, in that next section four, adds to what was previously there about frivolity hearings. 00:10:14.000 --> 00:10:16.000 I'll close that door. 00:10:16.000 --> 00:10:28.000 [inaudible] 00:10:28.000 --> 00:10:36.000 Adds to what was previously the hearing on frivolity, kind of tries to distinguish it as a frivolity hearing. 00:10:36.000 --> 00:10:45.000 Adds a timeline for that within 30 calendar days of the order being issued, either by the preliminary panel or the board. 00:10:45.000 --> 00:10:56.000 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. 00:10:56.000 --> 00:11:03.000 That's this section. That's kind of the main chunk of what's in there on the process right now. 00:11:03.000 --> 00:11:18.000 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. 00:11:18.000 --> 00:11:26.000 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. 00:11:26.000 --> 00:11:34.000 So, that's kind of the big quick overview of what's in there. 00:11:34.000 --> 00:11:44.000 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. 00:11:44.000 --> 00:11:56.000 Madison, can you go back two slides? Yep. 00:11:56.000 --> 00:12:07.000 I think that on item number three, that last sentence, I think maybe you got some extra words in there. 00:12:07.000 --> 00:12:15.000 I think in this second to last line, it should be distributed to all parties and then removed from the complaint. 00:12:15.000 --> 00:12:24.000 Yep. So, just take out to the complainant, basically, right? I think so, yeah. 00:12:24.000 --> 00:12:31.000 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. 00:12:31.000 --> 00:12:39.000 Oh, okay. I'm sorry, I read that. No, it's okay. 00:12:39.000 --> 00:12:48.000 So, maybe that should be it. And complaint, should be complaint. 00:12:48.000 --> 00:12:56.000 Oh, I'm sorry, I'll just do complaint. It's a little confusing. That's the problem. 00:12:56.000 --> 00:13:03.000 I understand what you're trying to get. I'm sorry about that. No, that's okay. 00:13:03.000 --> 00:13:15.000 Okay, can we move back to the question that you had pulled up? Yes. 00:13:15.000 --> 00:13:19.000 So, you want me to walk through these questions? Please, yeah. 00:13:19.000 --> 00:13:29.000 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, 00:13:29.000 --> 00:13:37.000 it made me realize there's certainly an instance where you could believe a complaint was actionable. 00:13:37.000 --> 00:13:43.000 It would go to an evidentiary hearing and you could get through the whole hearing and be like, we think this is frivolous now. 00:13:43.000 --> 00:13:50.000 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, 00:13:50.000 --> 00:13:58.000 we are going to determine this is frivolous at this same meeting, which would kind of bypass the order to show cause process, 00:13:58.000 --> 00:14:03.000 but you would have already had it here. So, that's the question. Does that make sense? 00:14:03.000 --> 00:14:13.000 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? 00:14:13.000 --> 00:14:23.000 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. 00:14:23.000 --> 00:14:33.000 If it is a frivolous complaint, then that person that got complained against is kind of sitting in the vote for a bit longer. 00:14:33.000 --> 00:14:44.000 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, 00:14:44.000 --> 00:14:55.000 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, 00:14:55.000 --> 00:15:01.000 that they assume that there might be a frivolous complaint and they have to say that before the hearing happens? 00:15:01.000 --> 00:15:07.000 I guess I'm confused with what you mean. 00:15:07.000 --> 00:15:14.000 Well, I just don't want to see them think it extended. I think that can be decided right at the hearing. 00:15:14.000 --> 00:15:24.000 I do like the idea of letting them defend themselves, but I guess that that... 00:15:24.000 --> 00:15:31.000 Right, so I guess, so in theory the order for cause can also be issued by the preliminary panel, right? 00:15:31.000 --> 00:15:37.000 So it's giving, saying the preliminary panel thinks, why did this get filed basically? 00:15:37.000 --> 00:15:47.000 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. 00:15:47.000 --> 00:15:55.000 And then it would go to a frivolous hearing, frivolity hearing, where only the complainant would be able to present evidence. 00:15:55.000 --> 00:16:01.000 The respondent could attend because it's a public meeting, but they would not be able to present their case. 00:16:01.000 --> 00:16:08.000 The other option is basically the preliminary panel could say it's actionable, it would go to an evidentiary hearing, 00:16:08.000 --> 00:16:14.000 they'd both be able to present their cases orally as well as submit evidence previous to the hearing. 00:16:14.000 --> 00:16:21.000 And then the board could either determine, right, the respondent is at fault, there is a violation, 00:16:21.000 --> 00:16:26.000 there is no violation, but we don't think it's frivolous or we think it might be frivolous. 00:16:26.000 --> 00:16:32.000 And the question then is, having done all that, shouldn't the board then be able to say, 00:16:32.000 --> 00:16:38.000 we're going to say it's frivolous now and determine sanctions or do they have to go through an order to show cause? 00:16:38.000 --> 00:16:44.000 I think you could still do that, it's just likely you would get the same information. 00:16:44.000 --> 00:16:47.000 But I need direction because we didn't discuss this previously. 00:16:47.000 --> 00:16:54.000 Yeah, so something that I'm hearing is that that would make the most sense to do that. 00:16:54.000 --> 00:17:00.000 However, it says this would bypass the order to show cause process. 00:17:00.000 --> 00:17:06.000 I wonder if when the language is put together, it's more likely that it could, not that it must. 00:17:06.000 --> 00:17:11.000 Like, we have to decide right now that in that moment we might be able to say, 00:17:11.000 --> 00:17:15.000 okay, we're going to issue an order to show cause or we can decide in the moment, 00:17:15.000 --> 00:17:20.000 not that it's in, it must be this way or it must be that way, but that there's options there. 00:17:20.000 --> 00:17:24.000 I think, yeah, we could write it to where you could do either, right? 00:17:24.000 --> 00:17:31.000 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. 00:17:31.000 --> 00:17:33.000 Right, yes. 00:17:33.000 --> 00:17:41.000 It just seems, though, if you have the process that it gives the complainant an extra opportunity 00:17:41.000 --> 00:17:50.000 and you're removing that, if you say the full board can determine that it's finalist, is that correct? 00:17:50.000 --> 00:17:58.000 They would have an opportunity to present their case during the original hearing, the evidentiary hearing. 00:17:58.000 --> 00:18:03.000 It would, if you determined to not issue the order to show cause and just go straight to the frivolity hearing, 00:18:03.000 --> 00:18:06.000 they wouldn't have that second option, second time. 00:18:06.000 --> 00:18:10.000 Right, but the evidence for the complaint is related to the complaint. 00:18:10.000 --> 00:18:11.000 Correct. 00:18:11.000 --> 00:18:20.000 But their opportunity to submit a response is related to the complaint being called frivolous complaint. 00:18:20.000 --> 00:18:21.000 Yes. 00:18:21.000 --> 00:18:25.000 And so we're talking about apples and oranges essentially here. 00:18:25.000 --> 00:18:27.000 It is two different processes. 00:18:27.000 --> 00:18:28.000 Yes. 00:18:28.000 --> 00:18:30.000 And it's two different intentions of the hearing. 00:18:30.000 --> 00:18:41.000 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. 00:18:41.000 --> 00:18:45.000 They don't have the information from the complaint. 00:18:45.000 --> 00:18:47.000 And why it's not frivolous or what? 00:18:47.000 --> 00:18:48.000 Yes. 00:18:48.000 --> 00:18:50.000 Emerson. 00:18:50.000 --> 00:18:56.000 Yes, that's, I'm a little bit confused about the process here because right now on your flowcharts, which you may not, 00:18:56.000 --> 00:19:01.000 right now you're showing that there is an opportunity during the evidentiary hearing. 00:19:01.000 --> 00:19:07.000 So right now there's two possibilities or two opportunities here to declare the frivolity, 00:19:07.000 --> 00:19:11.000 both of the preliminary and the evidentiary as you have it here, is that right? 00:19:11.000 --> 00:19:18.000 Currently the way that I have not tried, I have not taken that out, yes, because I have not received direction to do that. 00:19:18.000 --> 00:19:20.000 So this is a decision to be made right here? 00:19:20.000 --> 00:19:25.000 Yes, this is a decision point for this discussion right now on basically what you're referencing. 00:19:25.000 --> 00:19:33.000 If this number 17 should be in here, essentially. 00:19:33.000 --> 00:19:40.000 Or if it should say, could the complaint be frivolous, issue an order to show cause, and then you would switch down here. 00:19:40.000 --> 00:19:45.000 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? 00:19:45.000 --> 00:19:56.000 Right, the first question is essentially this right here, should it say, if we don't go to yes, it would say, 00:19:56.000 --> 00:20:00.000 not is the complaint frivolous, but could it be frivolous? 00:20:00.000 --> 00:20:05.000 Yes, it would have it reference the next process, and we'd go into order to show cause. 00:20:05.000 --> 00:20:09.000 Or we could say as is, and you could just decide to do that. 00:20:09.000 --> 00:20:19.000 Or we could add, do you want to issue an order to show cause, decision point, and then that would, does that make sense? 00:20:19.000 --> 00:20:30.000 So here's what I'm confused by, yes, Deborah, yes, thank you, is what you're saying is, 00:20:30.000 --> 00:20:35.000 if it becomes evident in the hearing that the complaint is frivolous, 00:20:35.000 --> 00:20:42.000 you'd like the opportunity for them to have a second chance for us together again, and then determine that it's frivolous. 00:20:42.000 --> 00:20:50.000 You don't necessarily have the, because in the hearing, it's about the complaint. 00:20:50.000 --> 00:20:53.000 It's not about the frivolity of the complaint. 00:20:53.000 --> 00:20:54.000 Okay. 00:20:54.000 --> 00:20:58.000 So that's my, we're talking about two different things here. 00:20:58.000 --> 00:21:08.000 One is a complaint about the respondent, and the other is a frivolous complaint by the complaint. 00:21:08.000 --> 00:21:20.000 So I see them as two distinct processes, and if the, if there's an opportunity to declare it frivolous within the hearing, 00:21:20.000 --> 00:21:30.000 why even bother to have the order to show cause at all, if the panel can go ahead and declare that it's frivolous. 00:21:30.000 --> 00:21:40.000 I think it depends on how frivolous it is, because I know of two cases of trying to be neutral. 00:21:40.000 --> 00:21:44.000 Well, I didn't want to clarify, because the panel can't decide it's frivolous. 00:21:44.000 --> 00:21:51.000 They can basically dismiss the complaint and say we're going to issue an order to cause, which is up, which is like here, 00:21:51.000 --> 00:21:57.000 which would then take us not into this process, but into this process, which I know they look very similar. 00:21:57.000 --> 00:21:59.000 There are differences. 00:21:59.000 --> 00:22:01.000 Sure, sure. I get that. 00:22:01.000 --> 00:22:07.000 Yeah. Or you could also, the panel could determine it's actionable. 00:22:07.000 --> 00:22:16.000 We go to an evidentiary hearing, and then basically, if they dismiss the complaint, would they then be able to say, 00:22:16.000 --> 00:22:20.000 well, they have to dismiss the complaint to say now we're going to issue an order to show cause, 00:22:20.000 --> 00:22:26.000 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 00:22:26.000 --> 00:22:31.000 after we've gone through an evidentiary hearing. 00:22:31.000 --> 00:22:37.000 Okay. I still see a problem there, and maybe I'm just missing it. 00:22:37.000 --> 00:22:44.000 At one point, we say it's important enough for the complaint to be able to say something in their defense 00:22:44.000 --> 00:22:50.000 about this frivolous complaint, or possibly frivolous complaint that they have filed. 00:22:50.000 --> 00:22:55.000 And then on the other hand, we're saying we don't need them to respond at all. 00:22:55.000 --> 00:23:05.000 When they have a chance, because I think it should be a part of, like, you look at the complaint, 00:23:05.000 --> 00:23:14.000 and then you may decide, look, this doesn't rise to the level of what they said it was, not at all. 00:23:14.000 --> 00:23:20.000 So let's look at this being frivolous, and then there's still going to be a frivolity hearing, right? 00:23:20.000 --> 00:23:27.000 Well, the question is would we then have a frivolity hearing, or would we just decide it was frivolous? 00:23:27.000 --> 00:23:29.000 Right, within the same hearing. 00:23:29.000 --> 00:23:33.000 Are you talking at the panel level or the hearing level? 00:23:33.000 --> 00:23:37.000 Hearing, yeah. 00:23:37.000 --> 00:23:40.000 It is a complicated question, that's why I'm asking you. 00:23:40.000 --> 00:23:53.000 I don't think, it just seems like it made it so much more complicated and painful to drag it out like that. 00:23:53.000 --> 00:24:03.000 There was no way, I mean, I just, either it is or it isn't, or if you have questions, 00:24:03.000 --> 00:24:07.000 then that's when I think you would order the cause. 00:24:07.000 --> 00:24:18.000 I think if it was not very apparent that you would not bypass the order of show cause, 00:24:18.000 --> 00:24:24.000 there was a question, that's when you would issue the order of show cause, 00:24:24.000 --> 00:24:30.000 but if someone, I don't know, tells on themselves in the hearing, 00:24:30.000 --> 00:24:36.000 and then we have to have a whole other hearing to kind of talk about what we already know, 00:24:36.000 --> 00:24:40.000 or they're saying something happened that absolutely did it, 00:24:40.000 --> 00:24:45.000 and in the hearing they haven't presented anything that looks like that, 00:24:45.000 --> 00:24:53.000 I think that would be very appropriate to say, not only is it baseless, but it's frivolous. 00:24:53.000 --> 00:25:00.000 So in that hearing would they be able to talk about why it's not frivolous? 00:25:00.000 --> 00:25:04.000 Because I don't see that in the full hearing. 00:25:04.000 --> 00:25:10.000 I think, so the way that the rules of procedure work, I believe there's like set time of, 00:25:10.000 --> 00:25:14.000 you give your first statement, you present your evidence, 00:25:14.000 --> 00:25:17.000 and the other side gives their first statement, right, and presents their evidence, 00:25:17.000 --> 00:25:21.000 it might be a little rough, but then there's closing, and you can, 00:25:21.000 --> 00:25:27.000 while they're presenting evidence, I believe you can ask them questions, 00:25:27.000 --> 00:25:32.000 but then after there's closing remarks go, you would then make a decision, 00:25:32.000 --> 00:25:38.000 and I don't believe the rules of procedure currently have like a second round of like, 00:25:38.000 --> 00:25:43.000 oh, now I think it's frivolous, let's ask them to tell us why it's not part, basically. 00:25:43.000 --> 00:25:50.000 Yeah, so we're correcting, like in this one particular case, there wasn't anything, 00:25:50.000 --> 00:25:54.000 and I thought Laura did an amazing job of handling that meeting, 00:25:54.000 --> 00:25:59.000 because there was nothing in the code to tell us where to go next, 00:25:59.000 --> 00:26:06.000 but so we kind of made it up, so we're filling in blanks that are really important to fill in on. 00:26:06.000 --> 00:26:10.000 It was hard on everybody, it was hard. 00:26:10.000 --> 00:26:15.000 And I wouldn't say, if we created rules of procedure that would then be like, 00:26:15.000 --> 00:26:17.000 this is how a frivolous frivolity hearing would work, 00:26:17.000 --> 00:26:22.000 I don't know that we would be able, without having, like separately posting for it, 00:26:22.000 --> 00:26:27.000 to go into that set of rules, basically. 00:26:27.000 --> 00:26:31.000 Because, just because of the way like Open Meetings Acts work, 00:26:31.000 --> 00:26:35.000 because we would be posting for an ethics complaint hearing, an evidentiary hearing, 00:26:35.000 --> 00:26:41.000 and then it would be very assumptive to then also have on there, in case this happens, 00:26:41.000 --> 00:26:45.000 we'll also post for a frivolity hearing in the same agenda. Does that make sense? 00:26:45.000 --> 00:26:54.000 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... 00:26:54.000 --> 00:26:55.000 An evidentiary hearing. 00:26:55.000 --> 00:26:58.000 Because I was thinking they would have different numbers. 00:26:58.000 --> 00:27:03.000 I think that's our intention, because like you said, we're trying to create two separate processes. 00:27:03.000 --> 00:27:08.000 So that it makes it more clear, the intention is to make it more clear for the respondent, 00:27:08.000 --> 00:27:13.000 this is dismissed, this complaint is done, now we're going to discuss this frivolity, 00:27:13.000 --> 00:27:20.000 this complaint that we think might be frivolous, through this other process. Does that make sense? 00:27:20.000 --> 00:27:28.000 I'm sorry, I'm just missing something here. 00:27:28.000 --> 00:27:38.000 Because if you're posting it as a hearing for the ethics complaint, the full hearing for it, 00:27:38.000 --> 00:27:45.000 then would you also post a clause that if it's determined to be frivolous, there would be another... 00:27:45.000 --> 00:27:48.000 I don't believe that we would do that. 00:27:48.000 --> 00:27:55.000 Okay, so in other words, then the question of going directly to a frivolity hearing is not... 00:27:55.000 --> 00:27:56.000 No, that's right. 00:27:56.000 --> 00:27:57.000 ...feasible. 00:27:57.000 --> 00:28:05.000 You just bring up the, we want to look at that, and then that goes into the next procedure. 00:28:05.000 --> 00:28:13.000 So you're not bypassing, you would not be bypassing the frivolity hearing process? 00:28:13.000 --> 00:28:24.000 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. 00:28:24.000 --> 00:28:30.000 Why present their own evidence as to why it's not frivolous. 00:28:30.000 --> 00:28:37.000 And I think in good faith, an ethics board would not go straight to a decision about frivolity 00:28:37.000 --> 00:28:43.000 if there was not ample evidence presented in the hearing, that we would all... 00:28:43.000 --> 00:28:44.000 Or lack of evidence. 00:28:44.000 --> 00:28:50.000 Right. We would all, in good faith, ask for more information if more information was needed. 00:28:50.000 --> 00:28:54.000 But if information was presented that definitively said that it was frivolous, 00:28:54.000 --> 00:29:06.000 having an additional hearing to, again, determine what we've already been presented seems extra. 00:29:06.000 --> 00:29:10.000 Thank you. Yes, sir. 00:29:10.000 --> 00:29:19.000 What also confuses a little bit in my mind is when you allow both the complainant and respondent to add, submit additional evidence. 00:29:19.000 --> 00:29:31.000 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. 00:29:31.000 --> 00:29:39.000 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. 00:29:39.000 --> 00:29:43.000 And that makes it way more awful. 00:29:43.000 --> 00:29:47.000 I know, I know. 00:29:47.000 --> 00:29:48.000 Yes. 00:29:48.000 --> 00:29:55.000 Am I correct that not all cities have a frivolous aspect of their process? 00:29:55.000 --> 00:29:57.000 Yes. 00:29:57.000 --> 00:29:59.000 Not all do, correct. 00:29:59.000 --> 00:30:04.000 Okay. So I'm still struggling as to why do we need it. 00:30:04.000 --> 00:30:15.000 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. 00:30:15.000 --> 00:30:20.000 Is that really the purpose of a Board of Ethics? 00:30:20.000 --> 00:30:29.000 I think the answer to that is because it's happened. And it's happened days before elections. 00:30:29.000 --> 00:30:39.000 And you have to wonder what the motivation is when someone files a complaint the week of an election or the week before. 00:30:39.000 --> 00:30:41.000 You just have to wonder. 00:30:41.000 --> 00:30:45.000 But try to get in somebody's mind as to their intent. 00:30:45.000 --> 00:31:00.000 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. 00:31:00.000 --> 00:31:05.000 Because then they're like, oh my god, they're being accused of an ethics ordinance violation. 00:31:05.000 --> 00:31:14.000 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. 00:31:14.000 --> 00:31:20.000 And the problem with that is people believe that stuff. 00:31:20.000 --> 00:31:26.000 If you look at our code, I think there's a lot of people who believe it says things that it does not say. 00:31:26.000 --> 00:31:32.000 Our code is very vague, it's very nonspecific. 00:31:32.000 --> 00:31:39.000 So then turning around and saying that is fact and filing a complaint, that's really where I have a problem. 00:31:39.000 --> 00:31:45.000 But isn't the word frivolous and open-ended as well? 00:31:45.000 --> 00:31:50.000 Well, there are sanctions that would come. 00:31:50.000 --> 00:31:58.000 We've had the opportunity to decide whether or not complaints would even be accepted during election period. 00:31:58.000 --> 00:32:01.000 And that was voted down or passed over. 00:32:01.000 --> 00:32:08.000 And so now we're authorized to consider complaints filed in the last two weeks before elections. 00:32:08.000 --> 00:32:11.000 Many codes of ethics don't allow complaints. 00:32:11.000 --> 00:32:14.000 There's like a period where you can't file complaints. 00:32:14.000 --> 00:32:18.000 Or if you do file a complaint, it just has to wait. 00:32:18.000 --> 00:32:22.000 We've been down that road where frivolous complaints have been abused already. 00:32:22.000 --> 00:32:25.000 And so we're kind of patching them. 00:32:25.000 --> 00:32:31.000 This is what lawyers call scar tissue, I think, am I correct? 00:32:31.000 --> 00:32:36.000 Where you make something up because there's a scar that you're trying to heal. 00:32:36.000 --> 00:32:44.000 I'm just thinking, if I were to file a complaint and this board decides that it's without merit, 00:32:44.000 --> 00:32:49.000 and then you come back to me and say it's frivolous, it's like poking a stick in my eye. 00:32:49.000 --> 00:32:52.000 Now I'm really upset and I'm really going to go to the newspaper. 00:32:52.000 --> 00:32:58.000 So the idea about this is to stop people from filing frivolous complaints in the first place. 00:32:58.000 --> 00:33:03.000 To really think hard before they file a complaint with other intentions. 00:33:03.000 --> 00:33:06.000 What's the consequence of being called frivolous? 00:33:06.000 --> 00:33:10.000 It could be no action. That's one of the options. 00:33:10.000 --> 00:33:15.000 I think that's part of the reason we're having this discussion is so that there are consequences. 00:33:15.000 --> 00:33:16.000 Yes. 00:33:16.000 --> 00:33:19.000 Well at the very least it would be a letter of notification. 00:33:19.000 --> 00:33:25.000 But other cities actually have dollar fines for some of these frivolous complaints. 00:33:25.000 --> 00:33:31.000 So anywhere from a letter of notification to actual, you owe us $500 for filing. 00:33:31.000 --> 00:33:35.000 And the most common one I've read is that you can't file a complaint for a certain period of time. 00:33:35.000 --> 00:33:37.000 Most often two years. 00:33:37.000 --> 00:33:40.000 And I think if we stay tuned we're going to get to that. 00:33:40.000 --> 00:33:41.000 Yeah. 00:33:41.000 --> 00:33:47.000 I've been given direction to draft new sanctions for frivolous complaints 00:33:47.000 --> 00:33:53.000 that would prohibit that person from filing complaints for a specific period of time. 00:33:53.000 --> 00:33:55.000 At least on the Dallas board. 00:33:55.000 --> 00:33:56.000 Thank you. 00:33:56.000 --> 00:34:01.000 We just haven't had this kind of discussion about it yet. 00:34:01.000 --> 00:34:07.000 So what is our recommendation going to be on that first question? 00:34:07.000 --> 00:34:11.000 Yes. 00:34:11.000 --> 00:34:22.000 I'm hearing some concern about not offering an entire frivolity hearing always. 00:34:22.000 --> 00:34:29.000 But I'm also hearing a lot of people in favor of moving towards wrapping it up 00:34:29.000 --> 00:34:34.000 if we have sufficient evidence in the evidence hearing. 00:34:34.000 --> 00:34:38.000 Mr. Pryor, I think to speak to what you said about frivolous being vague, 00:34:38.000 --> 00:34:43.000 there is currently a section in the ordinance that says this is what should be considered. 00:34:43.000 --> 00:34:44.000 I saw that. 00:34:44.000 --> 00:34:45.000 Yeah, okay. 00:34:45.000 --> 00:34:48.000 Yeah, it's fine. 00:34:48.000 --> 00:34:53.000 So, keep it the same? Is that what we're recommending? 00:34:53.000 --> 00:34:59.000 I mean, I think based on the scheduling of the hearings, 00:34:59.000 --> 00:35:09.000 we don't really have the option to do that frivolity hearing in the evidence hearing, right? 00:35:09.000 --> 00:35:11.000 Right, that's correct. 00:35:11.000 --> 00:35:20.000 So the question is really, does the board issue an order to show cause at that meeting? 00:35:20.000 --> 00:35:22.000 Is that correct? 00:35:22.000 --> 00:35:24.000 I think there's three options. 00:35:24.000 --> 00:35:26.000 Sorry. 00:35:26.000 --> 00:35:29.000 No, they're in there, so don't hear them. 00:35:29.000 --> 00:35:34.000 There's the option where the complaint has to be, 00:35:34.000 --> 00:35:43.000 well, there's the option that you get to an evidence hearing and in order to determine it's frivolous, 00:35:43.000 --> 00:35:46.000 you have to issue an order to show cause and have a separate hearing. 00:35:46.000 --> 00:35:53.000 There's another option of as part of that hearing, you would not have a whole other hearing, 00:35:53.000 --> 00:35:59.000 but you could, the board could also still determine that it's frivolous. Does that make sense? 00:35:59.000 --> 00:36:04.000 Without collection of additional evidence? 00:36:04.000 --> 00:36:09.000 Yes, there's only two options, I'm sorry. 00:36:09.000 --> 00:36:13.000 Well, and then there's those two options, and then the third, I guess, is you could do both. 00:36:13.000 --> 00:36:18.000 You could do either, right? The board, so, yes. 00:36:18.000 --> 00:36:24.000 So I mean, at that point, the board is determining, if it gets to the point where they, 00:36:24.000 --> 00:36:30.000 we're recommending a frivolity hearing or review or making that determination, 00:36:30.000 --> 00:36:35.000 we've already decided that the complaint is baseless, right? 00:36:35.000 --> 00:36:36.000 Yes. 00:36:36.000 --> 00:36:41.000 So for the respondent, there's, at that point, it's over for them. 00:36:41.000 --> 00:36:47.000 If we go to it, if we issue an order to show cause, they can submit some additional information that they make. 00:36:47.000 --> 00:36:50.000 That would be like, we think it's frivolous, but we need more information. 00:36:50.000 --> 00:36:56.000 I would just go to the order to show cause process, so like lengthening that doesn't, 00:36:56.000 --> 00:36:59.000 isn't necessarily detrimental to the respondent. 00:36:59.000 --> 00:37:09.000 I mean, it's going to be, I think, for the board, but I don't want to say it. 00:37:09.000 --> 00:37:14.000 I think it would be difficult for us to get to a point where we make it all the way to an evidentiary hearing 00:37:14.000 --> 00:37:21.000 without coming to a conclusion that there is potentially a frivolous complaint. 00:37:21.000 --> 00:37:23.000 I mean, maybe I'm wrong. 00:37:23.000 --> 00:37:27.000 I don't think anything like that has happened before. 00:37:27.000 --> 00:37:32.000 I think it was very clear when the complaint was received and reviewed by the initial panel that, 00:37:32.000 --> 00:37:38.000 you know, this claim is baseless and potentially frivolous, and it goes into that process. 00:37:38.000 --> 00:37:47.000 So I don't, I think scheduling meetings prevents us from doing this all in one. 00:37:47.000 --> 00:37:53.000 We could, to make sure that we get all of the right information in front of the board 00:37:53.000 --> 00:37:57.000 and get everyone an opportunity to present their evidence, 00:37:57.000 --> 00:38:02.000 issuing an order to show cause is probably the cleanest way to do that. 00:38:02.000 --> 00:38:07.000 I think it would be pretty rare for us to get into a situation where we have to do that. 00:38:07.000 --> 00:38:11.000 But at least at that point, the respondent is no longer, 00:38:11.000 --> 00:38:17.000 they no longer have an open ethics complaint against them that, you know, 00:38:17.000 --> 00:38:20.000 I'm thinking in election time. 00:38:20.000 --> 00:38:24.000 Like what we've seen before, when there is an open complaint, 00:38:24.000 --> 00:38:29.000 that's sort of what gets headlines and clicks on websites. 00:38:29.000 --> 00:38:33.000 So we would, by doing this, if we're holding the hearing, 00:38:33.000 --> 00:38:40.000 making that determination that this is baseless and then recommending that we issue an order to show cause, 00:38:40.000 --> 00:38:43.000 that takes the respondent out of the process at that point, 00:38:43.000 --> 00:38:48.000 other than being able to supply information for the frivolity hearing. 00:38:48.000 --> 00:38:54.000 So I don't, it's not ideal because now we're extending the whole timeline for all of this, 00:38:54.000 --> 00:38:59.000 but at least we're getting the respondent cleared of a potential ethics violation. 00:38:59.000 --> 00:39:05.000 So, I mean, I think that makes sense. 00:39:05.000 --> 00:39:12.000 So I guess to summarize, I think the cleanest way to do this is if we get to an evidence hearing, 00:39:12.000 --> 00:39:19.000 there is a, the claim is deemed baseless and then in that hearing, 00:39:19.000 --> 00:39:23.000 there is a recommendation that is potentially frivolous. 00:39:23.000 --> 00:39:29.000 At that point, that or the board would issue an order to show cause, 00:39:29.000 --> 00:39:33.000 and then we would just jump into the other part of the process. 00:39:33.000 --> 00:39:36.000 I see what you're saying, Dustin, and I can agree with that. 00:39:36.000 --> 00:39:40.000 I will say there's another side issue here and one that probably, 00:39:40.000 --> 00:39:54.000 if somebody, in our ethical code, the complainant has to be the one who comes together with all the information 00:39:54.000 --> 00:40:01.000 and presents the prosecution, if you will, that's not done like that in other cities. 00:40:01.000 --> 00:40:06.000 In other cities, probably someone from the ethical board, from the board of ethics, 00:40:06.000 --> 00:40:10.000 or somebody does the investigation and acts like a prosecutor. 00:40:10.000 --> 00:40:13.000 Isn't that correct? 00:40:13.000 --> 00:40:19.000 Well, that's correct, and you're kind of already getting into my request. 00:40:19.000 --> 00:40:23.000 So I think the best thing to do is what Dustin is recommending, 00:40:23.000 --> 00:40:27.000 and then this other issue is, to me, a very big issue. 00:40:27.000 --> 00:40:33.000 This whole burden of proof issue is, in my mind, still to be resolved. 00:40:33.000 --> 00:40:37.000 It's been four years, it's been an elephant in this room, 00:40:37.000 --> 00:40:42.000 and it's time, in my opinion, to review this whole burden of proof and where the responsibility lies. 00:40:42.000 --> 00:40:44.000 So that's a side issue. 00:40:44.000 --> 00:40:47.000 We're not posing for that in this item. 00:40:47.000 --> 00:40:52.000 So I go, Dustin, can you make a motion for that? 00:40:52.000 --> 00:41:04.000 Okay, I'll make a motion that if a complaint is deemed baseless and potentially frivolous in an interim hearing, 00:41:04.000 --> 00:41:09.000 then the board would issue in order to show cause, starting that process. 00:41:09.000 --> 00:41:11.000 So number one would be no. 00:41:11.000 --> 00:41:12.000 I second. 00:41:12.000 --> 00:41:14.000 Yeah, okay, thank you. 00:41:14.000 --> 00:41:16.000 Yeah, so no on number one. 00:41:16.000 --> 00:41:18.000 Okay, no, it's a number one. 00:41:18.000 --> 00:41:30.000 It's a number one. 00:41:30.000 --> 00:41:34.000 All right, that's an odd way of saying that. 00:41:34.000 --> 00:41:38.000 All those in favor of no to number one? 00:41:38.000 --> 00:41:41.000 Aye. 00:41:41.000 --> 00:41:44.000 All those opposed? 00:41:44.000 --> 00:41:46.000 Oh, I didn't vote aye, sorry. 00:41:46.000 --> 00:41:53.000 All those opposed? None. 00:41:53.000 --> 00:42:01.000 Okay, number two is basically just should, if you get all the way to the end of a frivolity hearing, 00:42:01.000 --> 00:42:08.000 should the respondent be told what happened with them, what the determination was? 00:42:08.000 --> 00:42:10.000 It's public record, is it? 00:42:10.000 --> 00:42:19.000 Yes, I would have to send an official notice to the complainant and the city attorney. 00:42:19.000 --> 00:42:23.000 There's several people that I generally have to say, this is what happened at this meeting, 00:42:23.000 --> 00:42:27.000 even though it might have even been there. 00:42:27.000 --> 00:42:31.000 This is a new process, so that's why I'm asking about the respondent, 00:42:31.000 --> 00:42:37.000 because we've had several decisions to try to not include them basically as much as possible. 00:42:37.000 --> 00:42:49.000 So I move that we not notify the respondent. 00:42:49.000 --> 00:42:52.000 All those in favor of not notifying the respondent? 00:42:52.000 --> 00:42:54.000 Aye. 00:42:54.000 --> 00:43:01.000 All those opposed? 00:43:01.000 --> 00:43:08.000 Okay, and so then, finally, this is the last one for a direction for this. 00:43:08.000 --> 00:43:12.000 I think you can kind of scratch respondent out of this at this point, 00:43:12.000 --> 00:43:17.000 but should the complainant be able to file a reconsideration 00:43:17.000 --> 00:43:21.000 once the board has made a determination on the frivolity hearing, 00:43:21.000 --> 00:43:25.000 which reconsideration is a process that after a hearing, 00:43:25.000 --> 00:43:31.000 basically they have ten days to file basically new evidence, 00:43:31.000 --> 00:43:37.000 and the board chair reviews that and then kind of unilaterally can determine, 00:43:37.000 --> 00:43:41.000 hey, is this actually new evidence or is it just the old evidence? 00:43:41.000 --> 00:43:49.000 And if it's new evidence, they're supposed to hold another hearing basically to consider it. 00:43:49.000 --> 00:43:55.000 I think it's really complicated because if there's new evidence then there might be support for an ethics violation. 00:43:55.000 --> 00:43:57.000 Wouldn't that be another complaint? 00:43:57.000 --> 00:43:59.000 I would think so. 00:43:59.000 --> 00:44:01.000 Members only. 00:44:01.000 --> 00:44:08.000 I remember a brief discussion from Alan Boracuis when he was asked something similar to this, 00:44:08.000 --> 00:44:11.000 when they were graphing this code, and if I remember correctly, 00:44:11.000 --> 00:44:16.000 he made the comment that at the end of a hearing and it has been determined frivolous, 00:44:16.000 --> 00:44:19.000 that is the end of the road for that particular complaint. 00:44:19.000 --> 00:44:28.000 You're certainly free to file a new complaint based on possibly problems that the actual board committed, 00:44:28.000 --> 00:44:36.000 but that should be the end of the road, I think, for that particular complaint if it's been deemed frivolous. 00:44:36.000 --> 00:44:41.000 It's not super clear in the code, so that's why I'm asking. 00:44:41.000 --> 00:44:46.000 I just do want to point out that if the sanctions that you have discussed get approved, 00:44:46.000 --> 00:44:50.000 they would not be able to submit a new complaint potentially. 00:44:50.000 --> 00:44:57.000 So I'm just pointing that out. 00:44:57.000 --> 00:45:03.000 I don't think they should be able to file for reconsideration. 00:45:03.000 --> 00:45:14.000 We already have a timeline in there that's fairly generous on them supplying evidence for the frivolity hearing, 00:45:14.000 --> 00:45:20.000 so I don't really see the point in allowing for that. 00:45:20.000 --> 00:45:26.000 And that in order to show cause, show cause or don't, it's done. 00:45:26.000 --> 00:45:30.000 So I move that we say no to that. 00:45:30.000 --> 00:45:33.000 I'll second that. 00:45:33.000 --> 00:45:43.000 All those in favor of saying we should not allow for them to file a reconsideration? 00:45:43.000 --> 00:45:44.000 Aye. 00:45:44.000 --> 00:45:45.000 Aye. 00:45:45.000 --> 00:45:46.000 All those opposed? 00:45:46.000 --> 00:45:54.000 No abstentions. 00:45:54.000 --> 00:46:03.000 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, 00:46:03.000 --> 00:46:12.000 and then at some point it will come back to kind of finalize and forward to the city council. 00:46:12.000 --> 00:46:27.000 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. 00:46:27.000 --> 00:46:32.000 So are we moving on to D at this point or are we going to go through the flowchart and the other stuff? 00:46:32.000 --> 00:46:35.000 If you have questions about the flowchart or anything, we can talk about it. 00:46:35.000 --> 00:46:41.000 That'll probably be a separate item as well just to kind of finalize the update to that whenever we, 00:46:41.000 --> 00:46:47.000 that won't be updated until it's been adopted, so that would really just help everybody visualize. 00:46:47.000 --> 00:46:50.000 In the narratives piece, I think it was number eight. 00:46:50.000 --> 00:46:53.000 There might have been a not that was left out. 00:46:53.000 --> 00:46:54.000 I just wanted to point that out. 00:46:54.000 --> 00:46:55.000 I have the same. 00:46:55.000 --> 00:46:56.000 Did you? 00:46:56.000 --> 00:46:57.000 Yes. 00:46:57.000 --> 00:47:02.000 I think there was something crossed out that was just one word too many that got crossed out. 00:47:02.000 --> 00:47:08.000 Number eight. 00:47:08.000 --> 00:47:10.000 I think, let's just not worry about this right now. 00:47:10.000 --> 00:47:11.000 Okay. 00:47:11.000 --> 00:47:12.000 We're going to work on it. 00:47:12.000 --> 00:47:13.000 Cool. 00:47:13.000 --> 00:47:14.000 That works. 00:47:14.000 --> 00:47:15.000 We'll come back. 00:47:15.000 --> 00:47:16.000 Okay. 00:47:16.000 --> 00:47:17.000 Okay. 00:47:17.000 --> 00:47:27.000 So BOE 22-030, receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding future 00:47:27.000 --> 00:47:30.000 meeting topics. 00:47:30.000 --> 00:47:37.000 So basically, we've talked about a lot of stuff in the last year. 00:47:37.000 --> 00:47:47.000 We have, I believe, 11 current proposals since the last, since we did the last packet that 00:47:47.000 --> 00:47:52.000 are kind of, I haven't drafted them yet, but they haven't been given direction to do so. 00:47:52.000 --> 00:47:54.000 That's that final line here. 00:47:54.000 --> 00:47:56.000 There's also several things. 00:47:56.000 --> 00:48:00.000 This is just kind of a recap of, these are things we've discussed and we have had stuff 00:48:00.000 --> 00:48:02.000 come out of basically. 00:48:02.000 --> 00:48:09.000 There's still some pieces that we haven't discussed down here, these prioritize. 00:48:09.000 --> 00:48:13.000 And then I have those three with the star next to them. 00:48:13.000 --> 00:48:19.000 I think we could do kind of all together because every, a lot of the amendments are basically 00:48:19.000 --> 00:48:23.000 going to change the whole conflict of interest section. 00:48:23.000 --> 00:48:30.000 And so I think we can address those applicable relationships and period of relevance when 00:48:30.000 --> 00:48:33.000 we go into those pieces. 00:48:33.000 --> 00:48:38.000 So basically, I'm asking for direction on when do you want to do another packet to the 00:48:38.000 --> 00:48:43.000 council and then is that what you want to focus on or do you want to try to come up 00:48:43.000 --> 00:48:47.000 or do you want to do some more review and have more amendments to go into that before 00:48:47.000 --> 00:48:51.000 it gets sent to them. 00:48:51.000 --> 00:48:57.000 And then I guess there's also room for more discussion as well. 00:48:57.000 --> 00:49:01.000 Do you remember when you went, what month that was? 00:49:01.000 --> 00:49:02.000 It was June? 00:49:02.000 --> 00:49:05.000 Yeah. 00:49:05.000 --> 00:49:07.000 Been a very busy five months. 00:49:07.000 --> 00:49:09.000 Yes, it has. 00:49:09.000 --> 00:49:14.000 I think we've got a lot to present and so maybe doing something sooner rather than later 00:49:14.000 --> 00:49:18.000 like January might be best. 00:49:18.000 --> 00:49:22.000 There's no possible way for us to present to city council in January. 00:49:22.000 --> 00:49:23.000 Oh, when is the? 00:49:23.000 --> 00:49:28.000 Our next meeting is not until January at the earliest. 00:49:28.000 --> 00:49:29.000 Our next meeting? 00:49:29.000 --> 00:49:31.000 Yes. 00:49:31.000 --> 00:49:34.000 Okay. 00:49:34.000 --> 00:49:39.000 So we would need another meeting and then it would be. 00:49:39.000 --> 00:49:44.000 If not more than one, just because like I said, there are 11 amendments that we have to 00:49:44.000 --> 00:49:47.000 discuss specific language on. 00:49:47.000 --> 00:49:52.000 So unless we wanted to be here, unless we wanted to have a really late night. 00:49:52.000 --> 00:49:53.000 Okay. 00:49:53.000 --> 00:49:58.000 My brain's starting to digest all of what you just said. 00:49:58.000 --> 00:50:01.000 Anyone have any thoughts? 00:50:01.000 --> 00:50:10.000 Well, as I mentioned earlier, I have thought long and hard about where we are with this 00:50:10.000 --> 00:50:13.000 burden of proof. 00:50:13.000 --> 00:50:19.000 And it's been several years and from the very start, we have weaponized this code against 00:50:19.000 --> 00:50:22.000 complainants in debt. 00:50:22.000 --> 00:50:27.000 And as you are aware, if you check these other benchmark cities, no one else does to 00:50:27.000 --> 00:50:35.000 complainants what we do to complainants here in debt or try to do. 00:50:35.000 --> 00:50:37.000 We don't need to, but we do. 00:50:37.000 --> 00:50:38.000 Well, we don't, right. 00:50:38.000 --> 00:50:45.000 And it's even, if anything, it's gone from maybe even bad to worse because now we have 00:50:45.000 --> 00:50:46.000 orders to show cost. 00:50:46.000 --> 00:50:52.000 We make life very, very hard for people that may have valid complaints. 00:50:52.000 --> 00:50:56.000 Why would you bother to file a complaint in debt even if you know that there's been a 00:50:56.000 --> 00:50:58.000 violation of this code? 00:50:58.000 --> 00:51:01.000 I wouldn't do it looking at what's in this code right now. 00:51:01.000 --> 00:51:09.000 So I, for the past three or four years, I would suggest that we have a responsibility 00:51:09.000 --> 00:51:13.000 to go back and look at this entire burden of proof from the very start because I had 00:51:13.000 --> 00:51:20.000 very little citizen input from the start when this thing was passed in May of 2018. 00:51:20.000 --> 00:51:26.000 So whether or not it actually receives a priority number, your dance card is full here, 00:51:26.000 --> 00:51:32.000 but I think this entire burden of proof that puts that complainant at the center stage 00:51:32.000 --> 00:51:35.000 and you live or die on that complaint. 00:51:35.000 --> 00:51:43.000 In almost every other jurisdiction, the benchmark is if you file a complaint, if it's accurate, 00:51:43.000 --> 00:51:51.000 if it's timely, if it's notarized, you take an oath, you are offstage as the complainant. 00:51:51.000 --> 00:51:56.000 You have a right to attend any of the hearings, you have a right to comment, but you have 00:51:56.000 --> 00:52:02.000 no responsibility to show up and God help us if you start throwing out complaints if 00:52:02.000 --> 00:52:04.000 a complainant doesn't even show up. 00:52:04.000 --> 00:52:09.000 That is so wrong in my opinion, I can't even begin to express it. 00:52:09.000 --> 00:52:12.000 So can you help me understand how that applies to what we're talking about? 00:52:12.000 --> 00:52:15.000 Do you want to put it on the topics list? 00:52:15.000 --> 00:52:18.000 Do you want to wait to take anything to city council until it's been discussed? 00:52:18.000 --> 00:52:20.000 What are you proposing? 00:52:20.000 --> 00:52:28.000 Where it appears, if it's prioritized as a future topic, that's up to this board. 00:52:28.000 --> 00:52:33.000 So whether it's on this list or whether individual citizens, which had I not been sitting here, 00:52:33.000 --> 00:52:36.000 I was going to take it directly to the council anyway. 00:52:36.000 --> 00:52:42.000 Because I think that is the worst possible treatment that we could offer for a complainant 00:52:42.000 --> 00:52:43.000 in the city of Denny. 00:52:43.000 --> 00:52:48.000 And it says you can't retaliate, but there's no definition of what that means. 00:52:48.000 --> 00:52:49.000 Yeah, it's just-- 00:52:49.000 --> 00:52:50.000 And retaliation has happened. 00:52:50.000 --> 00:52:54.000 You will not find anything similar to this in any of these benchmarks codes. 00:52:54.000 --> 00:53:00.000 We've visited these benchmark cities for other input and good luck trying to find anybody 00:53:00.000 --> 00:53:03.000 that treats a complainant like we would here in Denny. 00:53:03.000 --> 00:53:06.000 I have nothing good to say about it. 00:53:06.000 --> 00:53:12.000 And I would like to see it either on that list or even prioritized because, again, 00:53:12.000 --> 00:53:21.000 here in this--even in this draft, when you have issues right here to consider already, 00:53:21.000 --> 00:53:30.000 evidentiary hearing lives or dies on the complainant's willingness to participate, investigate, 00:53:30.000 --> 00:53:36.000 provide evidence, and quieten the world with anybody, even in Denton. 00:53:36.000 --> 00:53:42.000 And there are even other issues here that, for example, the citizen complainant, 00:53:42.000 --> 00:53:46.000 there's a separate pathway for staff complaints. 00:53:46.000 --> 00:53:48.000 They go to the-- 00:53:48.000 --> 00:53:50.000 Yeah, they have a-- 00:53:50.000 --> 00:53:53.000 Well, they go out to the--what is the-- 00:53:53.000 --> 00:53:55.000 Yeah, but they have their own internal-- 00:53:55.000 --> 00:53:56.000 Yeah. 00:53:56.000 --> 00:53:58.000 That I actually really like. 00:53:58.000 --> 00:54:00.000 Yeah, right. 00:54:00.000 --> 00:54:07.000 I am not proud at all of what we do to honest Denton citizens who have a valid complaint. 00:54:07.000 --> 00:54:08.000 I wouldn't file it. 00:54:08.000 --> 00:54:09.000 Yeah. 00:54:09.000 --> 00:54:15.000 So, where it fits in on future prioritizations or whether or not-- 00:54:15.000 --> 00:54:20.000 I also think that if there was someone who investigated their complaint, 00:54:20.000 --> 00:54:24.000 they could sit down and say, "I don't see evidence of this. 00:54:24.000 --> 00:54:26.000 I don't even know if it rises to a level." 00:54:26.000 --> 00:54:30.000 So, the amount of discussion I'm hearing, this is something that we want to put on the agenda for future meetings. 00:54:30.000 --> 00:54:31.000 Absolutely. 00:54:31.000 --> 00:54:36.000 I'm going to maybe advise us to wait for the discussion until it's been put on an agenda, 00:54:36.000 --> 00:54:40.000 but I think what we need to decide is do we want to put it on an agenda. 00:54:40.000 --> 00:54:42.000 Yes, I'm getting a yes. 00:54:42.000 --> 00:54:43.000 Okay. 00:54:43.000 --> 00:54:45.000 Definitely seems like there's been a motion and a second. 00:54:45.000 --> 00:54:46.000 Okay. 00:54:46.000 --> 00:54:47.000 Do we want to like-- 00:54:47.000 --> 00:54:50.000 I mean, I guess you could probably finally get that officially out. 00:54:50.000 --> 00:54:52.000 Can you officially offer that? 00:54:52.000 --> 00:54:54.000 Yeah. 00:54:54.000 --> 00:54:58.000 Well, yes, I'm offering that as, you know, under number four, 00:54:58.000 --> 00:55:02.000 just direction regarding future meeting topics. 00:55:02.000 --> 00:55:06.000 I'm recommending that be a future meeting topic. 00:55:06.000 --> 00:55:07.000 Okay. 00:55:07.000 --> 00:55:14.000 So, when is up to this board and to this? 00:55:14.000 --> 00:55:15.000 Okay. 00:55:15.000 --> 00:55:18.000 So, that result has made a motion and it's been seconded. 00:55:18.000 --> 00:55:19.000 It's been seconded. 00:55:19.000 --> 00:55:20.000 Okay. 00:55:20.000 --> 00:55:21.000 Yes. 00:55:21.000 --> 00:55:22.000 Yeah, I needed to--we needed to lock that in. 00:55:22.000 --> 00:55:23.000 Okay. 00:55:23.000 --> 00:55:24.000 Wonderful. 00:55:24.000 --> 00:55:25.000 Okay. 00:55:25.000 --> 00:55:27.000 So, now we need to have a vote whether or not that's going to go on the agenda. 00:55:27.000 --> 00:55:29.000 As a future agenda item. 00:55:29.000 --> 00:55:30.000 Excuse me? 00:55:30.000 --> 00:55:31.000 Yes, as a future agenda item. 00:55:31.000 --> 00:55:32.000 Okay. 00:55:32.000 --> 00:55:33.000 Okay. 00:55:33.000 --> 00:55:39.000 So, all of those in favor of adding this as a future agenda item. 00:55:39.000 --> 00:55:41.000 All of those in favor. 00:55:41.000 --> 00:55:42.000 What did I say? 00:55:42.000 --> 00:55:43.000 Yes. 00:55:43.000 --> 00:55:45.000 All of those in favor of adding this as a future agenda item. 00:55:45.000 --> 00:55:46.000 Aye. 00:55:46.000 --> 00:55:47.000 Aye. 00:55:47.000 --> 00:55:48.000 Aye. 00:55:48.000 --> 00:55:49.000 Aye. 00:55:49.000 --> 00:55:50.000 All those opposed. 00:55:50.000 --> 00:55:51.000 No abstentions. 00:55:51.000 --> 00:55:52.000 Okay. 00:55:52.000 --> 00:55:56.000 So, I'm just going to like add it to this presentation. 00:55:56.000 --> 00:55:57.000 Cool. 00:55:57.000 --> 00:55:58.000 Thank you. 00:55:58.000 --> 00:56:17.000 Thank you. 00:56:17.000 --> 00:56:18.000 That's fine. 00:56:18.000 --> 00:56:19.000 You can all see it. 00:56:19.000 --> 00:56:21.000 Yes. 00:56:21.000 --> 00:56:26.000 The stars are in the wrong place. 00:56:26.000 --> 00:56:29.000 So, what we need to decide is what we're going to do next. 00:56:29.000 --> 00:56:36.000 Or we need to decide an order of all of the things. 00:56:36.000 --> 00:56:41.000 I mean, either. 00:56:41.000 --> 00:56:47.000 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? 00:56:47.000 --> 00:56:50.000 That sounds good. 00:56:50.000 --> 00:56:52.000 So. 00:56:52.000 --> 00:56:54.000 But I need to know what you want to talk about next. 00:56:54.000 --> 00:56:56.000 Right. 00:56:56.000 --> 00:56:58.000 The start items, were you recommending that be the next thing? 00:56:58.000 --> 00:57:01.000 The start items, I was just saying I think they can all be handled kind of. 00:57:01.000 --> 00:57:02.000 Together. 00:57:02.000 --> 00:57:04.000 As one piece that I don't think we need to have separate. 00:57:04.000 --> 00:57:14.000 I don't think I need to be prioritized separately. 00:57:14.000 --> 00:57:27.000 So, it seems like by looking at all of this, current sanctions would be. 00:57:27.000 --> 00:57:51.000 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. 00:57:51.000 --> 00:57:58.000 I would say the new sanctions for the frivolous ethics complaints would probably logically be the next thing. 00:57:58.000 --> 00:57:59.000 We've already discussed that. 00:57:59.000 --> 00:58:00.000 Okay. 00:58:00.000 --> 00:58:01.000 Yeah. 00:58:01.000 --> 00:58:02.000 So. 00:58:02.000 --> 00:58:03.000 So we're done. 00:58:03.000 --> 00:58:04.000 That's one of the amendments. 00:58:04.000 --> 00:58:11.000 So that's in this item. 00:58:11.000 --> 00:58:25.000 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. 00:58:25.000 --> 00:58:38.000 Would somebody say something else that makes more sense to them? 00:58:38.000 --> 00:58:54.000 I think the burden of the proof should be next, but I want to hear what others think about that. 00:58:54.000 --> 00:58:57.000 That has a huge impact on so many people. 00:58:57.000 --> 00:58:59.000 Everything else, yeah. 00:58:59.000 --> 00:59:03.000 Because I agree with what David said about, it's embarrassing. 00:59:03.000 --> 00:59:21.000 I hate to do that to citizens who are just trying to help out. 00:59:21.000 --> 00:59:33.000 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. 00:59:33.000 --> 00:59:55.000 The items that you had started would be pretty straightforward to finish before it goes before city council. 00:59:55.000 --> 00:59:59.000 So our next meeting is in January? 00:59:59.000 --> 01:00:02.000 Yeah, we can talk about the exact date. 01:00:02.000 --> 01:00:05.000 It's not technically set yet. 01:00:05.000 --> 01:00:10.000 The next one, our calendar goes through December. 01:00:10.000 --> 01:00:12.000 There's no meeting set for December. 01:00:12.000 --> 01:00:14.000 So it would be in January. 01:00:14.000 --> 01:00:16.000 We don't have a date yet for it. 01:00:16.000 --> 01:00:23.000 If we could not do that meeting, then let's go for the 72 if you think that's realistic. 01:00:23.000 --> 01:00:26.000 Or we can do the three that match the start. 01:00:26.000 --> 01:00:33.000 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. 01:00:33.000 --> 01:00:43.000 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? 01:00:43.000 --> 01:00:59.000 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. 01:00:59.000 --> 01:01:07.000 So is there other things that you would like to try to include in that packet before it goes? 01:01:07.000 --> 01:01:10.000 Or do you want to delay it and look at burden of proof? 01:01:10.000 --> 01:01:15.000 I don't have options. That's why I need direction. 01:01:15.000 --> 01:01:22.000 So if we had the applicable relationships and now they kind of fall under the same section? 01:01:22.000 --> 01:01:29.000 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. 01:01:29.000 --> 01:01:31.000 Okay, gotcha. 01:01:31.000 --> 01:01:39.000 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. 01:01:39.000 --> 01:01:46.000 Bring those up once we've finished four, five, and finalization and forwarding of amendment proposals. 01:01:46.000 --> 01:01:50.000 Does that seem reasonable? 01:01:50.000 --> 01:02:01.000 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. 01:02:01.000 --> 01:02:05.000 So then we have agendas set for the next two meetings. 01:02:05.000 --> 01:02:09.000 At least, like I said, this is 11 different items. 01:02:09.000 --> 01:02:13.000 Okay, that will take some time. 01:02:13.000 --> 01:02:20.000 Some of them are pretty simple, and we could begin having the burden of proof discussion while we're finalizing this, potentially. 01:02:20.000 --> 01:02:25.000 If that's what you want to prioritize first of the new stuff. 01:02:25.000 --> 01:02:27.000 I agree with that. 01:02:27.000 --> 01:02:35.000 I'm sorry, that's what you said. 01:02:35.000 --> 01:02:50.000 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. 01:02:50.000 --> 01:02:57.000 Okay. 01:02:57.000 --> 01:03:02.000 So let me just restate and then see some nods maybe. 01:03:02.000 --> 01:03:13.000 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. 01:03:13.000 --> 01:03:20.000 And then for new proposed amendments or new changes we might make, we're going to prioritize burden of proof being the first one. 01:03:20.000 --> 01:03:21.000 Yes. 01:03:21.000 --> 01:03:26.000 And that will certainly hold us up for two meetings if that's what. 01:03:26.000 --> 01:03:28.000 Okay. 01:03:28.000 --> 01:03:37.000 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. 01:03:37.000 --> 01:03:44.000 That's the direction right here. 01:03:44.000 --> 01:03:47.000 We're working so hard to fix the broken code. 01:03:47.000 --> 01:03:51.000 I guess that's my concern. 01:03:51.000 --> 01:03:58.000 But we can do our best. 01:03:58.000 --> 01:04:01.000 So if we were good with nods or we want a full vote. 01:04:01.000 --> 01:04:02.000 We don't need a motion. 01:04:02.000 --> 01:04:03.000 Yeah, this is just direction. 01:04:03.000 --> 01:04:04.000 Cool. 01:04:04.000 --> 01:04:07.000 All right. 01:04:07.000 --> 01:04:09.000 So then we need to get the date on the calendar. 01:04:09.000 --> 01:04:13.000 I think we can do that since we're still kind of talking about future updates. 01:04:13.000 --> 01:04:19.000 So the options are, if we want to have one in January, the first Monday of January is the second. 01:04:19.000 --> 01:04:22.000 I don't think we want to have a meeting that day. 01:04:22.000 --> 01:04:26.000 I think that the city is closed for New Year's Day. 01:04:26.000 --> 01:04:27.000 It's hard to know. 01:04:27.000 --> 01:04:30.000 They haven't put the calendar out yet, but I think it will be. 01:04:30.000 --> 01:04:32.000 So the next Monday would be the ninth. 01:04:32.000 --> 01:04:36.000 And then we could also just skip January and go to February. 01:04:36.000 --> 01:04:37.000 It would be our next meeting. 01:04:37.000 --> 01:04:40.000 Those are two options. 01:04:40.000 --> 01:04:44.000 If you have another, we can do that. 01:04:44.000 --> 01:04:49.000 I move January 9th. 01:04:49.000 --> 01:04:51.000 January will be fine. 01:04:51.000 --> 01:04:52.000 We don't need to vote on that. 01:04:52.000 --> 01:04:55.000 So there's no meeting in December? 01:04:55.000 --> 01:04:56.000 Correct. 01:04:56.000 --> 01:05:03.000 When we adopted a scheduled meeting, there was that one. 01:05:03.000 --> 01:05:05.000 I got January 9th. 01:05:05.000 --> 01:05:08.000 And then after that, it will be the first Monday of the month. 01:05:08.000 --> 01:05:09.000 Right. 01:05:09.000 --> 01:05:12.000 So in January 9th, we'll adopt the meeting for 2023. 01:05:12.000 --> 01:05:18.000 And we'll assume that you want to continue meeting on the same days, but we'll finalize that at that meeting. 01:05:18.000 --> 01:05:26.000 We could potentially do it in December because when we adopted the schedule, it was -- 01:05:26.000 --> 01:05:33.000 I believe the ordinance says that it only takes time for members to call a meeting. 01:05:33.000 --> 01:05:34.000 Is that correct? 01:05:34.000 --> 01:05:36.000 No, don't check that. 01:05:36.000 --> 01:05:44.000 So in theory, you could call the December meeting if you want. 01:05:44.000 --> 01:05:49.000 Okay, we'll go for January 9th. 01:05:49.000 --> 01:05:50.000 All right. 01:05:50.000 --> 01:05:53.000 So we're all in a good place to end the meeting. 01:05:53.000 --> 01:05:55.000 I think that's all the items. 01:05:55.000 --> 01:05:56.000 Yes. 01:05:56.000 --> 01:05:57.000 Great. 01:05:57.000 --> 01:05:59.000 So it is not 8.06. 01:05:59.000 --> 01:06:01.000 It is 7.06 p.m. 01:06:01.000 --> 01:06:04.000 And the meeting of the Board of Ethics is adjourned.