Jan 09, 2023 Board of Ethics on 2023-01-09 6:00 PM

Okay, so it's 6 o'clock, so we'll go ahead and begin the meeting. So let's start with the first item for consideration, A. Oh, it's 6 p.m. and we have six regular board members here, so we have a forum, and so we'll jump in, item A, BOE 23-001, receive nominations and hold an election of a chair and vice chair. And so, guests will receive nominations and vote on that. I've been chair since 2019, I'm open to someone else wanting to do it, yeah, nominations. Are you open like you don't want to do it anymore, or you're open like someone else wants to do it? I'm open if somebody else wants to do it, nobody else wants to do it, I can, but my term ends in August, and I'm pretty sure it's the end, so whoever's vice chair would be taking over then. I thought it was two years ago, but I think this one really is the end, of like, you can only serve like three in a row, so. Are you volunteering? No, absolutely not, I would not like to be vice chair this year. I don't want to be chair either, so, preference, but Laura, if you'd like to stay on, I'd like to nominate you. I guess I can, I don't know, I mean, I don't want this, like, I haven't been chair since 2019, so if anybody else is like one and two, or, I'm not trying to be, you know, dictator here or anything, but, so we have, I guess, motion for me to be chair. Do you have a second? Second, from Annetta, and I guess we'll hold a vote on that, all voting for me being chair again, say aye. Aye. I'll go ahead and abstain so I don't vote for myself. Now we need a vice chair, Hannah says she's not interested again this year, anybody else interested? I would love to be vice chair. All right, I'll make a motion, I think I'm going to make a motion as chair, I'll make a motion for Annetta to be vice chair. I'll second that. Seconded by Andrea, right, okay. All in, and I'll, is there any discussion? All in favor of Annetta being vice chair, say aye. Aye. All right, so we have our chair and vice chair, all right, consider approval of minutes for November 7th, 2022, I mean, I looked through them, I was not at that meeting, does anybody have any issues with those minutes? I looked through them and I just, if I have any issues, I'll make a motion to approve. Motion? I'll second it. All right, so Dustin made motion to approve the minutes, and then I second it. Any more discussion? All in favor of approving the minutes? Say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, motion carries unanimously. Sorry Laura, I did want to say there is one instance where my last name is misspelled, but I think other than that it's fine. Oh no, that was a different sheet. Sorry, yes, that's fine. All right, so approved as written, unless there's anything else. Okay. All right, CBOE 23-003, hold a discussion and consider adoption of a 2023 meeting schedule. Okay, so we got an agenda information sheet about that. Madison has put together February, March, April, May, June, skip July, August, skip September, October, November, December. Is September a holiday? It's a holiday, I believe. Okay, all right, so, I mean, I think every Monday. I move approval of it. Okay. I move to approval of the first Monday in every month except, I guess, July, August as written here. Any second? Ask a question. Is there really this much work to require that? My concern, having served on different types of committees and boards, is that we commit to having meetings and then we end up making work for the staff because, well, we're going to meet. In the past, sometimes there's not quorums or whatever and we cancel them. I would say we cancel if we don't have them. I mean, I think there's people on the board that are always coming up with new things they want to discuss about the Board of Ethics, so I could foresee us having a meeting every time. I think me and Madison have talked about trying to keep these meetings hour, hour and a half so nobody gets burned out, but, so yeah, I guess I could see us having that and I'm trying to, you might have seen the last agenda item today is to discuss future meetings to try to plan out, hey, this is what we're going to talk about at least two months in advance, so if we're like, hey, we don't have anything we want to talk about, we can cancel then, right? And so I think that will help at least not make more work for us if there's not quorums to be done. Yes. I guess we might have, whether we're going to have meetings or not, done this so she can reserve the room, make sure everything can set up so we can have a meeting if needed too. Right. We're required by the board handbook that the city has to set a schedule at the beginning of the year so that those are the regular meetings, and then obviously we can have special meetings if we need to if like an ethics complaint happens or advisory opinion, but yeah, this way we have the rooms scheduled and we know that we could meet these days if we need to. Okay. And I would say we have been pretty busy the last few months. Yeah. We are busy. So. There's a lot of things on that future tapas. There are. There are. Okay. Anymore discussion? Questions? Did we get a second for approving this meeting schedule? No. Okay. Inclusion in this was the moving of the time. I thought we'd maybe discuss that in a separate kind of. By understanding from the motion, but even obviously corrected, was it just the dates? I'll second. Seconded by Dustin. Anymore discussion on just the dates? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Anybody opposed or abstained? I think it carries unanimously. All right so Madison has suggested or proposed maybe moving the meetings to 5.30 from 6. It doesn't really matter for me. Does anybody have any strong feelings about 5.30 or 6 or Madison you can say why. It was just a suggestion. Like I said a little earlier I have another week or that needs at 5.30 so it's another time we could meet to get done a little earlier in the day but it's obviously up to you all. But I know people you know you might get off work at 5 and then it's harder so does anybody have any opinions 5.30 or 6? I'm good with it. 5.30 or 6? 5.30. I would like 5.30 if no one else has a strong opinion. I would prefer 5.30 as well. Sounds like everybody likes 5.30. Does anybody want to make a motion? I'll make a motion to move the meetings to 5.30. I'll second. All right. Motion by Dustin, second by Tom. Anymore discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Anymore discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Anymore discussion? All in favor say aye. All in favor say aye. Aye. Anymore discussion? All in favor of moving the meetings to 5.30 say aye. Aye. All opposed? Abstain? None. Carries unanimously we will now have the meetings at 5.30. Okay so now we're like going to do real stuff. Item D, being OE 23-004, receive a report, hold a discussion and take necessary action regarding potential proposals to amend City of Van Hoodwarts' Chapter 2 Article 11 Ethics to the City Council. So Madison has now put like time, well I guess they're not time limits, we could go over but kind of how long each thing will take. She put 60 minutes here but I don't know if we're all in agreement this might go a lot faster. So I'll just give it to you and you can do the presentation and we can discuss I guess as we go. So just a clarification, this is stuff we've already talked about right? Yes and I guess it's kind of the, correct me if I'm wrong, the presentation we'll be giving to City Council just to double check that she's got everything right that we want. Right. So just in the interest of time what if we just start at the top and go through and stop if any of us have concerns with any of the things we're talking about so we could potentially go past scenario. So this is the first time that y'all have, will have seen actual draft language in the ordinance and so I would like to get at least direction that that's what you want to go forward to Council for each one basically. So would you like a vote or us to just kind of have consensus of yeah that's what we want. What do you think is better? Ultimately there'll be a packet which will have all the. Yeah I think the packet will definitely need a vote on but if we want to just do hey yeah we agree with that language as direction that's fine with me as long as that's good with you. It's posted as take action so. Take necessary action. Yeah I think yeah I think that I mean I agree with that normally just giving directions is fine but I think take action I don't know take necessary action that's a fine distinction I'll leave it up to your discretion sure. Because there's 26 pages. Yes and today we're just going to go over four. I would say since take necessary action I know there's one place where we need to decide on which language maybe we'll we can vote on that but I would say consensus on the rest and if there's a problem like you know raise your hand yell at Madison if anything's wrong that way we you know we don't we're not bogged down all night. Yes yeah and yeah so basically this is just to illustrate where we've been we've talked about we give directions in the draft language I've drafted the language and we're on step three where you're going to approve give directions forward with language for the proposals I've got four for us today even though there is a total of 11 that we're talking about for the packet and so I'll just go forward unless anybody has further questions about that so go forward and okay so the first one is actually proposal four which was originally developed by the board in in October 2021 it was included originally in the June 22 packet of amendments to the City Council however the City Council postponed it with its request for clarity basically sent it back to the board and then it was rediscussed in August and they discussed the clarity issues brought by council and that kind of resulted in creating definitions for a campaign contribution as well as election cycle which are shown on the slide you can see it over this and then we've also added a definition of City Secretary just to make some of this all work for sure and then yeah this is this was basically the original language just added that y'all had approved in the original packet just with adding most recent election cycle as evidenced by the requirement required filings and then adding the definitions basically to try to tighten up what that means any questions concerns about this looks good and this just to be clear this is supposed to take into account any run-offs that may occur basically so it's starting at the last day of the regular election we go all the way until the next election was declared there was a person declared winner for the next election and it's kind of based on language that's in the charter I think that makes sense seeing head nods yep does anybody have any questions or anything about this one all right okay this is proposal seven which was developed in October of 2022 and it is to add to the definition of conflicting interests the existence of a client relationship with a person or business entity the draft language that's at the top that's included in draft ordinance right now is based on San Antonio's ethics ordinance and it does not include a monetary threshold for the existence of this relationship the other option is based on the western model code and has kind of a it's a little more complicated you could say but it has a financial threshold it's a little more clear-cut also and so and just to give you some information based on we talked to council about this a little bit in December and they stated that they some of them say they prefer the San Antonio definition over the model code and so yeah this is kind of where we need some clear direction on which one you prefer I like the first one so if we sent this to council they won't take the first one I mean they could have met it themselves right and put in a money amount they could yeah I kind of I kind of like the first one this is more simple it's not always about money yeah and I think then that's I think that's an issue in half in the past with client relationships with city council members I would think we set forth the first one too any other opinions and I guess this is the one maybe we should have a motion on because we haven't really talked about language yes I mean if we accept the first one Adnetta has moved to accept the first one do we have a second seconded by Hannah any more discussion on this one not seeing any all in favor of the first definition here on this slide existence of a client relationship with a person or this standing including any business financial or professional relationship to which a duty of care confident trust or privilege applies to city council city official be added to conflict of interest that's the one you want say aye any opposed or abstaining carries unanimously that we'll use that first definition yep okay nine was developed in October of 2022 and it adds to the definition of conflict of interest having a business relationship with an individual or business entity the draft language for this proposal is based on San Antonio's ethics ordinance as well as the current business disclosures requirement and the ethics ordinance which is this right here the but the part that's black that's taken out so this proposal would essentially remove that disclosures requirement and instead replace it with a recusal requirement which will still require disclosure by having to file an affidavit of abstention the addition of this language also requires would require us to define affiliated and partner as part of what the language that's shown on the slide and those definitions the definition of affiliated is taken from San Antonio and the definition of partner is taken from the current business disclosures requirement and that is what that proposal will do any questions about that so that knowledge of an individual that's added to conflict of interest correct yeah this of this piece would be added to conflict of interest and then this would be removed and these two at the bottom would be definitions would be added to the definition section of the ordinance basically to explain what this means i like this like the partner one better to me it's more clear oh i i think they're are they both they're both in it yes oh okay so i think these are um she's saying like we're going to add that conflict of interest change business disclosures and those two on the bottom are both going to go like kind of correct yes all right so you just need an upper down yeah basically yeah i set it up and i don't i don't think i was here for these discussions so if everybody believes this is kind of what everybody agreed on at the previous meetings then we can we can move to the next one any discussion okay i think that's good all right last one so okay this is uh proposal 11 was developed in october and november and it's intended to clarify how the board may find a complaint to the frivolous to do this it creates an order of order to show cause process which is described illustrated here on the slide some critical changes here include that the board either a preliminary assessment or an evidentiary hearing must formally dismiss a complaint before it can issue this order to show cause and it also has to issue an order to show cause in order for it to find a complaint to be frivolous the change is intended to provide closure to the respondent as quickly as possible in addition requires that the complainant be given a chance to show why their complaint is not frivolous by allowing for written responses to be submitted as well as allowing for the complainant to present a defense at the frivolity hearing though that's not required and then should be noted that the change prohibits the complainant from requesting reconsideration uh if the complaint has been determined to be frivolous which was something we discussed in November and this is the actual language these are significant changes for the proposal there's been a couple little minor minor changes to clarify that a hearing can be scheduled if an order to show cause is issued and to create just a definition of what order to show causes are we also changing the rules of procedure for all this I have not drafted that yet but I will bring that back next time okay I get it okay I guess I'll give everybody a minute to read it really just kind of puts in the words what we didn't have in words yeah what we made up on the fly yeah I mean if it worked out I think because Laura did a good job but I'm glad it's written down because it was a little frightening yeah there was no direction there's currently no direction so I think anything we add is going to be an improvement that I like what you wrote there's one typo that I heard in two last sentence in order to so cause I think it's meant to say show so there's just meant to be an age on that one into the last sentence uh not the last sentence I'm sorry last sentence of the first paragraph that would be more helpful for me to say in order to yeah all right we will correct that yeah other than that yeah I think it looks great um and I guess I missed some meetings so the respond is prohibited from presenting a defense did everybody agree on that at the November meeting there was consensus that that would be the decision okay as well as that there was the complainant could not ask for reconsideration okay it was a firm list decision may I ask a question does every city that has an ethics ordinance include a frivolity hearing yeah may I ask why we chose to do that I think we have because we've had some really frivolous complaints I think it's really because the burden of proof is on the complainant if the in most cities the burden of proof is like the complainant makes a complaint and then the ethics board investigates it and the complainant fades into the background and then they decide to move forward with it they're not and that's something we should definitely be talking about because it really is puts a citizen who may be trying to do something really important into a bad position in other cities I don't think I know of any other city we we have that coming up okay that's fine okay and I was to say the concept of complaining frivolous is from the original draft of the or the original approved version of the ordinance so this has been trying to refine that process and we had one that we thought was frivolous and there was no framework of how to find it frivolous so then we discussed like well at the time we had a hearing we kind of made it up as we went but we were like we really like direction in the ordinance and the rules of procedure so we know exactly how we're supposed to be doing this because it is in the ordinance currently whether you know whether that you know there's any changes or not like currently it is the way it is so if something can be frivolous we need to know how to do that it is to me again I'm new to this if this board or the I guess the group that assigned the case decides it's without merit then to come on and say now we're going to decide whether it's frivolous or not to me just feels like jumping on again I guess and if I'm a if I'm a citizen it's like why would you know you're picking this adjective this kind of attack yeah yeah well and like I said currently the ordinance does have frivolous so you know it does so we gotta you know I think I think it's good for us to have these so we know how to do it whether we suggest to change that or not I think it's for the future but I mean I think I think what they you know speculating is is why they put it in there is so that people don't you know for instance the elections coming up and they just make up something to try to hurt you know the person that's running for office so it gets in the paper you know that's what I think so with the May election when might we expect some yeah that's about when we see them for better or worse because we've actually talked to about you know should we have it where we don't file a complaint for a certain amount before the election but then if we have we didn't we didn't agree on that I think because you know if there is an actual ethics complaint it does need to be filed so I guess the frivolous thing is kind of a way to try to get people to not file frivolous complaints right before an election just to try to hurt a candidate they don't like but in cities where they do it differently from us there's no need to worry about frivolous complaints because well I mean you could still you know even if Madison was doing the investigation I could still make up a fake complaint and leak it to the paper yeah so you know I think there could be a frivolous complaint either way but not getting too much in the weeds about a future discussion I think these are just in the framework we have now we should know how to decide so other questions other discussion questions for Madison or anything and I think I think like I said some key differences between now right now the preliminary assessment and the way they do it at a preliminary assessment is they recommend to have a frivolity hearing before they determine the complaint if it's baseless or true basically and so this process requires first that it be dismissed basically saying to the respondent you're okay don't worry I guess and then and then requires that the board issue in order to go cause so not just dismiss it but issue a whole separate process essentially and then have a hearing to decide on that so it puts more steps into the process basically some ways to say we have to really be clear that we think this is frivolous before we go down that road all right anything else does this look good as far as I think we do need to have figure out what we're going to put in the rule of procedure that will mirror this but this will be for the ordinance any does it sound like everything y'all discussed or we agree on it all right I think it looks good to you know so far you have direction that everything looks good for the future packet and then we voted on the one definition we wanted clarity on all right so e item e BoE 23-005 receiver report full discussion and give staff direction regarding future meetings topics all right so how do you want yes so yes I can show the list these are in the slide I just have so the amended proposals are kind of we went over four of them tonight and I think you previously said like you so the proposals you kind of broke them up not knowing how long it would take to go over all of them and I think you said it's kind of more difficult ones are tonight and then February ones that we can maybe get through each one quicker which I mean we would do this much quicker than I did yeah but I mean I don't know like something could have been on there that somebody disagreed with and it could have taken longer so you know I appreciate you your foresight into maybe you know making sure we didn't you weren't here all night but so okay so the proposals on this agenda information sheet proposal one through eleven we've already talked about and then we'll have to do packet finalization and do you want to do that in February or because mark is March cutting it too close to the so the March meeting I believe it's like the first or something like that and the the meeting with the city council will be the 21st so we should have enough time okay all right you like any concerns of like should we do it in February just in case like we don't get a quorum or something in March we could try to do it it's just that like that direction that you're okay with all the language and these to have the final okay all right so I guess we can try well I guess maybe I don't know if anybody has a better idea maybe in February maybe we could post like take necessary action to conclude maybe improving the packet and we'll see if we can that night and if we can't we'll just revisit it in March that way if we do like if we are able to vote on all the proposals and agree we won't have you know March meeting can we won't have to go over it again you know we can like start on the top new topics and if you know and if you do have to go back and right we'll just move it to March does that sound good and so then in March we'll start on new topics and so I guess you have four here review complaint reconsideration process review conference of review of current sanctions conference review of definition of relatives and comprehensive review of burden of proof requirements I know in the past you had us you kind of emailed us all we all ranked them and then we just like whatever got first amongst the board I mean do you like what do you what do you propose what do you think we should which we should do we can do that we have this meaning don't we give direction right now so we could change the order right yeah these are just currently these four just listed in order of when they were there was direction to talk about them last meeting if there was direction to start with burden of proof I would really like to move order to show pause up next as soon as possible because for an approver show cause that is in the February meeting for us to approve right we just we just yeah we all did the order to ship that's part of I'm sorry I mean burden of proof yeah you know because I I feel like that is way more important than one of these other things but I mean I certainly want to hear what other people think well it looks like it's listed here that we're meant to start that in March yes that's here we've got that listed based on direction from last meeting to have the first discussion about that okay and I and Madison's thinking that that will be a longer discussion that maybe we can break up so we keep the meetings at a reasonable amount of time right right now I am I haven't done all the research I need to do for that but I guess you would have done by March yeah I'll know by March so I I would think I mean yeah just move the burden of proof up first and maybe have that the only topic in March if we think it might take a while and then I mean is it that if we just kind of have this discussion for next future for next meetings topic every month and maybe as things change we can I really like that and then just as a reminder if you have other options or other topics that you would like to submit you can always email them to me and as long as it's 10 days before the next meeting I'll make sure that they're in this item basically for for the next that makes sense yeah and I think that's what we've kind of been operating on a little while so yeah I would say burden of proof in March and we'll just kind of see where the discussion goes and then at the end of that meeting decide we want to do we need to have we figured that one out for the time being do we want to discuss it more kind of side after that then that's how good everybody do we need to vote on that or is that just like direction okay all right well then I think are you satisfied with what we've given you for e yeah I just want the top point on there just are we good in general meetings to be an hour I would yeah I would say I guess we're starting at 530 hour to hour and a half like and I would say you know if we get done before that you know good yeah all agreed on everything but I think that you know at some point you know we plan to be finished around 7 yeah I wouldn't want to say that stuff and tonight you know with the national championship hope you know we'll be able to catch it maybe kick off but okay so I think is that everything yep all right if everybody's satisfied with how everything's done done I guess we'll adjourn at 630 I have a question what was the purpose of sending us Neil Durance's letter because it's it's related to the burden of proof issue that that was received over the weekend there's not necessarily if I received public comments it's not a clear process for how to get those to you so I figured I received a public comment I forwarded it on I'm hoping we can have a discussion about how that y'all want that to occur in the future potentially in March you know what you might if you might add that to like you know after approving the minutes I think that might as if you want a discussion yeah that could probably be a quick discussion so maybe you could add that after approving the minutes for maybe even February's meeting just so you know what to do because I mean yeah we're kind of got it we're like okay what's this about and that way if we know like this is a public comment and we know that it's just a public comment and we do what we want so how about we add that to February that's good to me yeah okay it's related to the topic of proof of proof yeah yeah I'll have comments on that person in his letter so all right anything else okay so if there's nothing else we'll adjourn at 636 thank you