WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:11.180 Okay, so it's 6 o'clock, so we'll go ahead and begin the meeting. 00:00:11.180 --> 00:00:15.080 So let's start with the first item for consideration, A. 00:00:15.080 --> 00:00:26.740 Oh, it's 6 p.m. and we have six regular board members here, so we have a forum, and so we'll 00:00:26.740 --> 00:00:37.760 jump in, item A, BOE 23-001, receive nominations and hold an election of a chair and vice chair. 00:00:37.760 --> 00:00:42.680 And so, guests will receive nominations and vote on that. 00:00:42.680 --> 00:01:00.580 I've been chair since 2019, I'm open to someone else wanting to do it, yeah, nominations. 00:01:00.580 --> 00:01:05.580 Are you open like you don't want to do it anymore, or you're open like someone else 00:01:05.580 --> 00:01:06.940 wants to do it? 00:01:06.940 --> 00:01:11.420 I'm open if somebody else wants to do it, nobody else wants to do it, I can, but my 00:01:11.420 --> 00:01:17.200 term ends in August, and I'm pretty sure it's the end, so whoever's vice chair would be 00:01:17.200 --> 00:01:18.200 taking over then. 00:01:18.200 --> 00:01:22.060 I thought it was two years ago, but I think this one really is the end, of like, you can 00:01:22.060 --> 00:01:28.220 only serve like three in a row, so. 00:01:28.220 --> 00:01:32.780 Are you volunteering? 00:01:32.780 --> 00:01:38.420 No, absolutely not, I would not like to be vice chair this year. 00:01:38.420 --> 00:01:45.060 I don't want to be chair either, so, preference, but Laura, if you'd like to stay on, I'd 00:01:45.060 --> 00:01:47.700 like to nominate you. 00:01:47.700 --> 00:01:51.380 I guess I can, I don't know, I mean, I don't want this, like, I haven't been chair since 00:01:51.380 --> 00:01:57.140 2019, so if anybody else is like one and two, or, I'm not trying to be, you know, dictator 00:01:57.140 --> 00:02:03.940 here or anything, but, so we have, I guess, motion for me to be chair. 00:02:03.940 --> 00:02:09.420 Do you have a second? 00:02:09.420 --> 00:02:16.620 Second, from Annetta, and I guess we'll hold a vote on that, all voting for me being chair 00:02:16.620 --> 00:02:17.620 again, say aye. 00:02:17.620 --> 00:02:18.620 Aye. 00:02:18.620 --> 00:02:21.620 I'll go ahead and abstain so I don't vote for myself. 00:02:21.620 --> 00:02:28.620 Now we need a vice chair, Hannah says she's not interested again this year, anybody else 00:02:28.620 --> 00:02:29.620 interested? 00:02:29.620 --> 00:02:32.260 I would love to be vice chair. 00:02:32.260 --> 00:02:36.540 All right, I'll make a motion, I think I'm going to make a motion as chair, I'll make 00:02:36.540 --> 00:02:38.660 a motion for Annetta to be vice chair. 00:02:38.660 --> 00:02:39.660 I'll second that. 00:02:39.660 --> 00:02:45.660 Seconded by Andrea, right, okay. 00:02:45.660 --> 00:02:50.140 All in, and I'll, is there any discussion? 00:02:50.140 --> 00:02:53.380 All in favor of Annetta being vice chair, say aye. 00:02:53.380 --> 00:02:54.380 Aye. 00:02:54.380 --> 00:03:02.020 All right, so we have our chair and vice chair, all right, consider approval of minutes for 00:03:02.020 --> 00:03:06.540 November 7th, 2022, I mean, I looked through them, I was not at that meeting, does anybody 00:03:06.540 --> 00:03:09.540 have any issues with those minutes? 00:03:09.540 --> 00:03:14.460 I looked through them and I just, if I have any issues, I'll make a motion to approve. 00:03:14.460 --> 00:03:15.460 Motion? 00:03:15.460 --> 00:03:16.460 I'll second it. 00:03:16.460 --> 00:03:21.580 All right, so Dustin made motion to approve the minutes, and then I second it. 00:03:21.580 --> 00:03:23.580 Any more discussion? 00:03:23.580 --> 00:03:26.580 All in favor of approving the minutes? 00:03:26.580 --> 00:03:27.580 Say aye. 00:03:27.580 --> 00:03:28.580 Aye. 00:03:28.580 --> 00:03:29.580 Any opposed? 00:03:29.580 --> 00:03:32.180 All right, motion carries unanimously. 00:03:32.180 --> 00:03:39.740 Sorry Laura, I did want to say there is one instance where my last name is misspelled, 00:03:39.740 --> 00:03:40.740 but I think other than that it's fine. 00:03:40.740 --> 00:03:41.740 Oh no, that was a different sheet. 00:03:41.740 --> 00:03:42.740 Sorry, yes, that's fine. 00:03:42.740 --> 00:03:47.340 All right, so approved as written, unless there's anything else. 00:03:47.340 --> 00:03:48.340 Okay. 00:03:48.340 --> 00:03:58.580 All right, CBOE 23-003, hold a discussion and consider adoption of a 2023 meeting schedule. 00:03:58.580 --> 00:04:06.540 Okay, so we got an agenda information sheet about that. 00:04:06.540 --> 00:04:12.220 Madison has put together February, March, April, May, June, skip July, August, skip September, 00:04:12.220 --> 00:04:13.220 October, November, December. 00:04:13.220 --> 00:04:14.220 Is September a holiday? 00:04:14.220 --> 00:04:15.220 It's a holiday, I believe. 00:04:15.220 --> 00:04:20.220 Okay, all right, so, I mean, I think every Monday. 00:04:20.220 --> 00:04:25.220 I move approval of it. 00:04:25.220 --> 00:04:26.220 Okay. 00:04:26.220 --> 00:04:31.700 I move to approval of the first Monday in every month except, I guess, July, August 00:04:31.700 --> 00:04:32.700 as written here. 00:04:32.700 --> 00:04:33.700 Any second? 00:04:33.700 --> 00:04:34.700 Ask a question. 00:04:34.700 --> 00:04:38.460 Is there really this much work to require that? 00:04:38.460 --> 00:04:46.100 My concern, having served on different types of committees and boards, is that we commit 00:04:46.100 --> 00:04:51.740 to having meetings and then we end up making work for the staff because, well, we're going 00:04:51.740 --> 00:04:52.740 to meet. 00:04:52.740 --> 00:04:58.980 In the past, sometimes there's not quorums or whatever and we cancel them. 00:04:58.980 --> 00:05:01.340 I would say we cancel if we don't have them. 00:05:01.340 --> 00:05:07.540 I mean, I think there's people on the board that are always coming up with new things 00:05:07.540 --> 00:05:13.140 they want to discuss about the Board of Ethics, so I could foresee us having a meeting every 00:05:13.140 --> 00:05:14.140 time. 00:05:14.140 --> 00:05:18.540 I think me and Madison have talked about trying to keep these meetings hour, hour and a half 00:05:18.540 --> 00:05:26.740 so nobody gets burned out, but, so yeah, I guess I could see us having that and I'm trying 00:05:26.740 --> 00:05:33.300 to, you might have seen the last agenda item today is to discuss future meetings to try 00:05:33.300 --> 00:05:36.500 to plan out, hey, this is what we're going to talk about at least two months in advance, 00:05:36.500 --> 00:05:40.460 so if we're like, hey, we don't have anything we want to talk about, we can cancel then, 00:05:40.460 --> 00:05:41.460 right? 00:05:41.460 --> 00:05:46.100 And so I think that will help at least not make more work for us if there's not quorums 00:05:46.100 --> 00:05:47.100 to be done. 00:05:47.100 --> 00:05:48.100 Yes. 00:05:48.100 --> 00:05:52.280 I guess we might have, whether we're going to have meetings or not, done this so she 00:05:52.280 --> 00:05:58.980 can reserve the room, make sure everything can set up so we can have a meeting if needed 00:05:58.980 --> 00:05:59.980 too. 00:05:59.980 --> 00:06:00.980 Right. 00:06:00.980 --> 00:06:06.420 We're required by the board handbook that the city has to set a schedule at the beginning 00:06:06.420 --> 00:06:11.860 of the year so that those are the regular meetings, and then obviously we can have special 00:06:11.860 --> 00:06:17.560 meetings if we need to if like an ethics complaint happens or advisory opinion, but yeah, this 00:06:17.560 --> 00:06:22.460 way we have the rooms scheduled and we know that we could meet these days if we need to. 00:06:22.460 --> 00:06:23.460 Okay. 00:06:23.460 --> 00:06:27.260 And I would say we have been pretty busy the last few months. 00:06:27.260 --> 00:06:28.260 Yeah. 00:06:28.260 --> 00:06:29.260 We are busy. 00:06:29.260 --> 00:06:30.260 So. 00:06:30.260 --> 00:06:34.660 There's a lot of things on that future tapas. 00:06:34.660 --> 00:06:35.660 There are. 00:06:35.660 --> 00:06:36.660 There are. 00:06:36.660 --> 00:06:37.660 Okay. 00:06:37.660 --> 00:06:38.660 Anymore discussion? 00:06:38.660 --> 00:06:39.660 Questions? 00:06:39.660 --> 00:06:45.660 Did we get a second for approving this meeting schedule? 00:06:45.660 --> 00:06:46.660 No. 00:06:46.660 --> 00:06:47.660 Okay. 00:06:47.660 --> 00:06:50.060 Inclusion in this was the moving of the time. 00:06:50.060 --> 00:06:54.660 I thought we'd maybe discuss that in a separate kind of. 00:06:54.660 --> 00:06:59.660 By understanding from the motion, but even obviously corrected, was it just the dates? 00:06:59.660 --> 00:07:00.660 I'll second. 00:07:00.660 --> 00:07:01.980 Seconded by Dustin. 00:07:01.980 --> 00:07:04.980 Anymore discussion on just the dates? 00:07:04.980 --> 00:07:05.980 All in favor say aye. 00:07:05.980 --> 00:07:06.980 Aye. 00:07:06.980 --> 00:07:07.980 Aye. 00:07:07.980 --> 00:07:10.980 Anybody opposed or abstained? 00:07:10.980 --> 00:07:14.940 I think it carries unanimously. 00:07:14.940 --> 00:07:23.940 All right so Madison has suggested or proposed maybe moving the meetings to 5.30 from 6. 00:07:23.940 --> 00:07:27.260 It doesn't really matter for me. 00:07:27.260 --> 00:07:32.540 Does anybody have any strong feelings about 5.30 or 6 or Madison you can say why. 00:07:32.540 --> 00:07:33.540 It was just a suggestion. 00:07:33.540 --> 00:07:38.540 Like I said a little earlier I have another week or that needs at 5.30 so it's another 00:07:38.540 --> 00:07:44.620 time we could meet to get done a little earlier in the day but it's obviously up to you all. 00:07:44.620 --> 00:07:49.340 But I know people you know you might get off work at 5 and then it's harder so does anybody 00:07:49.340 --> 00:07:51.420 have any opinions 5.30 or 6? 00:07:51.420 --> 00:07:52.420 I'm good with it. 00:07:52.420 --> 00:07:53.420 5.30 or 6? 00:07:53.420 --> 00:07:54.420 5.30. 00:07:54.420 --> 00:07:55.420 I would like 5.30 if no one else has a strong opinion. 00:07:55.420 --> 00:07:56.420 I would prefer 5.30 as well. 00:07:56.420 --> 00:07:57.420 Sounds like everybody likes 5.30. 00:07:57.420 --> 00:07:58.420 Does anybody want to make a motion? 00:07:58.420 --> 00:07:59.420 I'll make a motion to move the meetings to 5.30. 00:07:59.420 --> 00:08:00.420 I'll second. 00:08:00.420 --> 00:08:01.420 All right. 00:08:01.420 --> 00:08:02.420 Motion by Dustin, second by Tom. 00:08:02.420 --> 00:08:03.420 Anymore discussion? 00:08:03.420 --> 00:08:04.420 All in favor say aye. 00:08:04.420 --> 00:08:05.420 Aye. 00:08:05.420 --> 00:08:06.420 Anymore discussion? 00:08:06.420 --> 00:08:07.420 All in favor say aye. 00:08:07.420 --> 00:08:08.420 Aye. 00:08:08.420 --> 00:08:09.420 Anymore discussion? 00:08:09.420 --> 00:08:10.420 All in favor say aye. 00:08:10.420 --> 00:08:14.740 All in favor say aye. 00:08:14.740 --> 00:08:15.740 Aye. 00:08:15.740 --> 00:08:16.740 Anymore discussion? 00:08:16.740 --> 00:08:17.740 All in favor of moving the meetings to 5.30 say aye. 00:08:17.740 --> 00:08:18.740 Aye. 00:08:18.740 --> 00:08:19.740 All opposed? 00:08:19.740 --> 00:08:20.740 Abstain? 00:08:20.740 --> 00:08:21.740 None. 00:08:21.740 --> 00:08:24.740 Carries unanimously we will now have the meetings at 5.30. 00:08:24.740 --> 00:08:27.580 Okay so now we're like going to do real stuff. 00:08:27.580 --> 00:08:34.180 Item D, being OE 23-004, receive a report, hold a discussion and take necessary action 00:08:34.180 --> 00:08:41.700 regarding potential proposals to amend City of Van Hoodwarts' Chapter 2 Article 11 Ethics 00:08:41.700 --> 00:08:43.700 to the City Council. 00:08:43.700 --> 00:08:50.640 So Madison has now put like time, well I guess they're not time limits, we could go over 00:08:50.640 --> 00:08:53.460 but kind of how long each thing will take. 00:08:53.460 --> 00:08:57.180 She put 60 minutes here but I don't know if we're all in agreement this might go a lot 00:08:57.180 --> 00:08:58.180 faster. 00:08:58.180 --> 00:09:02.340 So I'll just give it to you and you can do the presentation and we can discuss I guess 00:09:02.340 --> 00:09:04.460 as we go. 00:09:04.460 --> 00:09:10.060 So just a clarification, this is stuff we've already talked about right? 00:09:10.060 --> 00:09:15.300 Yes and I guess it's kind of the, correct me if I'm wrong, the presentation we'll be 00:09:15.300 --> 00:09:21.220 giving to City Council just to double check that she's got everything right that we want. 00:09:21.220 --> 00:09:22.220 Right. 00:09:22.220 --> 00:09:28.620 So just in the interest of time what if we just start at the top and go through and stop 00:09:28.620 --> 00:09:33.940 if any of us have concerns with any of the things we're talking about so we could potentially 00:09:33.940 --> 00:09:35.900 go past scenario. 00:09:35.900 --> 00:09:41.060 So this is the first time that y'all have, will have seen actual draft language in the 00:09:41.060 --> 00:09:45.060 ordinance and so I would like to get at least direction that that's what you want to go 00:09:45.060 --> 00:09:48.980 forward to Council for each one basically. 00:09:48.980 --> 00:09:53.820 So would you like a vote or us to just kind of have consensus of yeah that's what we want. 00:09:53.820 --> 00:09:56.820 What do you think is better? 00:09:56.820 --> 00:10:00.540 Ultimately there'll be a packet which will have all the. 00:10:00.540 --> 00:10:05.300 Yeah I think the packet will definitely need a vote on but if we want to just do hey yeah 00:10:05.300 --> 00:10:10.220 we agree with that language as direction that's fine with me as long as that's good with you. 00:10:10.220 --> 00:10:14.700 It's posted as take action so. 00:10:14.700 --> 00:10:16.220 Take necessary action. 00:10:16.220 --> 00:10:21.020 Yeah I think yeah I think that I mean I agree with that normally just giving directions 00:10:21.020 --> 00:10:27.020 is fine but I think take action I don't know take necessary action that's a fine distinction 00:10:27.020 --> 00:10:28.540 I'll leave it up to your discretion sure. 00:10:28.540 --> 00:10:31.060 Because there's 26 pages. 00:10:31.060 --> 00:10:32.980 Yes and today we're just going to go over four. 00:10:32.980 --> 00:10:38.740 I would say since take necessary action I know there's one place where we need to decide 00:10:38.740 --> 00:10:43.580 on which language maybe we'll we can vote on that but I would say consensus on the rest 00:10:43.580 --> 00:10:50.060 and if there's a problem like you know raise your hand yell at Madison if anything's wrong 00:10:50.060 --> 00:10:53.260 that way we you know we don't we're not bogged down all night. 00:10:53.260 --> 00:10:58.500 Yes yeah and yeah so basically this is just to illustrate where we've been we've talked 00:10:58.500 --> 00:11:02.580 about we give directions in the draft language I've drafted the language and we're on step 00:11:02.580 --> 00:11:07.580 three where you're going to approve give directions forward with language for the proposals I've 00:11:07.580 --> 00:11:10.980 got four for us today even though there is a total of 11 that we're talking about for 00:11:10.980 --> 00:11:18.140 the packet and so I'll just go forward unless anybody has further questions about that so 00:11:18.140 --> 00:11:24.900 go forward and okay so the first one is actually proposal four which was originally developed 00:11:24.900 --> 00:11:33.140 by the board in in October 2021 it was included originally in the June 22 packet of amendments 00:11:33.140 --> 00:11:37.580 to the City Council however the City Council postponed it with its request for clarity 00:11:37.580 --> 00:11:43.260 basically sent it back to the board and then it was rediscussed in August and they discussed 00:11:43.260 --> 00:11:48.220 the clarity issues brought by council and that kind of resulted in creating definitions 00:11:48.220 --> 00:11:53.220 for a campaign contribution as well as election cycle which are shown on the slide you can 00:11:53.220 --> 00:11:57.860 see it over this and then we've also added a definition of City Secretary just to make 00:11:57.860 --> 00:12:04.940 some of this all work for sure and then yeah this is this was basically the original language 00:12:04.940 --> 00:12:11.460 just added that y'all had approved in the original packet just with adding most recent 00:12:11.460 --> 00:12:21.700 election cycle as evidenced by the requirement required filings and then adding the definitions 00:12:21.700 --> 00:12:29.660 basically to try to tighten up what that means any questions concerns about this looks good 00:12:29.660 --> 00:12:36.300 and this just to be clear this is supposed to take into account any run-offs that may 00:12:36.300 --> 00:12:41.140 occur basically so it's starting at the last day of the regular election we go all the 00:12:41.140 --> 00:12:45.540 way until the next election was declared there was a person declared winner for the next 00:12:45.540 --> 00:12:53.300 election and it's kind of based on language that's in the charter I think that makes sense 00:12:53.300 --> 00:13:03.700 seeing head nods yep does anybody have any questions or anything about this one all right 00:13:03.700 --> 00:13:14.620 okay this is proposal seven which was developed in October of 2022 and it is to add to the 00:13:14.620 --> 00:13:19.700 definition of conflicting interests the existence of a client relationship with a person or 00:13:19.700 --> 00:13:26.140 business entity the draft language that's at the top that's included in draft ordinance 00:13:26.140 --> 00:13:30.820 right now is based on San Antonio's ethics ordinance and it does not include a monetary 00:13:30.820 --> 00:13:35.940 threshold for the existence of this relationship the other option is based on the western 00:13:35.940 --> 00:13:43.300 model code and has kind of a it's a little more complicated you could say but it has 00:13:43.300 --> 00:13:51.700 a financial threshold it's a little more clear-cut also and so and just to give you some information 00:13:51.700 --> 00:13:56.060 based on we talked to council about this a little bit in December and they stated that 00:13:56.060 --> 00:14:02.180 they some of them say they prefer the San Antonio definition over the model code and 00:14:02.180 --> 00:14:09.460 so yeah this is kind of where we need some clear direction on which one you prefer I 00:14:09.460 --> 00:14:24.220 like the first one so if we sent this to council they won't take the first one I mean they 00:14:24.220 --> 00:14:30.100 could have met it themselves right and put in a money amount they could yeah I kind of 00:14:30.100 --> 00:14:39.620 I kind of like the first one this is more simple it's not always about money yeah and 00:14:39.620 --> 00:14:45.660 I think then that's I think that's an issue in half in the past with client relationships 00:14:45.660 --> 00:14:58.320 with city council members I would think we set forth the first one too any other opinions 00:14:58.320 --> 00:15:01.140 and I guess this is the one maybe we should have a motion on because we haven't really 00:15:01.140 --> 00:15:06.860 talked about language yes I mean if we accept the first one Adnetta has moved to accept 00:15:06.860 --> 00:15:12.660 the first one do we have a second seconded by Hannah any more discussion on this one 00:15:12.660 --> 00:15:22.020 not seeing any all in favor of the first definition here on this slide existence of a client relationship 00:15:22.020 --> 00:15:26.300 with a person or this standing including any business financial or professional relationship 00:15:26.300 --> 00:15:30.780 to which a duty of care confident trust or privilege applies to city council city official 00:15:30.780 --> 00:15:38.420 be added to conflict of interest that's the one you want say aye any opposed or abstaining 00:15:38.420 --> 00:15:49.380 carries unanimously that we'll use that first definition yep okay nine was developed in 00:15:49.380 --> 00:15:55.740 October of 2022 and it adds to the definition of conflict of interest having a business 00:15:55.740 --> 00:16:00.660 relationship with an individual or business entity the draft language for this proposal 00:16:00.660 --> 00:16:05.860 is based on San Antonio's ethics ordinance as well as the current business disclosures 00:16:05.860 --> 00:16:11.420 requirement and the ethics ordinance which is this right here the but the part that's 00:16:11.420 --> 00:16:18.940 black that's taken out so this proposal would essentially remove that disclosures requirement 00:16:18.940 --> 00:16:25.660 and instead replace it with a recusal requirement which will still require disclosure by having 00:16:25.660 --> 00:16:33.660 to file an affidavit of abstention the addition of this language also requires would require 00:16:33.660 --> 00:16:41.260 us to define affiliated and partner as part of what the language that's shown on the slide 00:16:41.260 --> 00:16:47.020 and those definitions the definition of affiliated is taken from San Antonio and the definition 00:16:47.020 --> 00:16:54.420 of partner is taken from the current business disclosures requirement and that is what that 00:16:54.420 --> 00:17:07.020 proposal will do any questions about that so that knowledge of an individual that's 00:17:07.020 --> 00:17:11.780 added to conflict of interest correct yeah this of this piece would be added to conflict 00:17:11.780 --> 00:17:21.620 of interest and then this would be removed and these two at the bottom would be definitions 00:17:21.620 --> 00:17:27.180 would be added to the definition section of the ordinance basically to explain what this 00:17:27.180 --> 00:17:39.140 means i like this like the partner one better to me it's more clear oh i i think they're 00:17:39.140 --> 00:17:46.140 are they both they're both in it yes oh okay so i think these are um she's saying like 00:17:46.140 --> 00:17:49.500 we're going to add that conflict of interest change business disclosures and those two 00:17:49.500 --> 00:17:53.780 on the bottom are both going to go like kind of correct yes all right so you just need 00:17:53.780 --> 00:18:00.580 an upper down yeah basically yeah i set it up and i don't i don't think i was here for 00:18:00.580 --> 00:18:05.540 these discussions so if everybody believes this is kind of what everybody agreed on at 00:18:05.540 --> 00:18:21.100 the previous meetings then we can we can move to the next one any discussion okay i think 00:18:21.100 --> 00:18:28.940 that's good all right last one so okay this is uh proposal 11 was developed in october 00:18:28.940 --> 00:18:34.100 and november and it's intended to clarify how the board may find a complaint to the 00:18:34.100 --> 00:18:40.340 frivolous to do this it creates an order of order to show cause process which is described 00:18:40.340 --> 00:18:46.860 illustrated here on the slide some critical changes here include that the board either 00:18:46.860 --> 00:18:52.260 a preliminary assessment or an evidentiary hearing must formally dismiss a complaint before 00:18:52.260 --> 00:18:58.620 it can issue this order to show cause and it also has to issue an order to show cause 00:18:58.620 --> 00:19:04.340 in order for it to find a complaint to be frivolous the change is intended to provide 00:19:04.340 --> 00:19:09.980 closure to the respondent as quickly as possible in addition requires that the complainant 00:19:09.980 --> 00:19:14.020 be given a chance to show why their complaint is not frivolous by allowing for written responses 00:19:14.020 --> 00:19:19.580 to be submitted as well as allowing for the complainant to present a defense at the frivolity 00:19:19.580 --> 00:19:25.780 hearing though that's not required and then should be noted that the change prohibits 00:19:25.780 --> 00:19:30.300 the complainant from requesting reconsideration uh if the complaint has been determined to 00:19:30.300 --> 00:19:37.420 be frivolous which was something we discussed in November and this is the actual language 00:19:37.420 --> 00:19:43.340 these are significant changes for the proposal there's been a couple little minor minor changes 00:19:43.340 --> 00:19:48.380 to clarify that a hearing can be scheduled if an order to show cause is issued and to 00:19:48.380 --> 00:19:54.180 create just a definition of what order to show causes are we also changing the rules 00:19:54.180 --> 00:20:00.060 of procedure for all this I have not drafted that yet but I will bring that back next time 00:20:00.060 --> 00:20:27.700 okay I get it okay I guess I'll give everybody a minute to read 00:20:27.700 --> 00:20:56.360 it really just kind of puts in the words what we didn't have in words yeah what we made 00:20:56.360 --> 00:21:04.140 up on the fly yeah I mean if it worked out I think because Laura did a good job but I'm 00:21:04.140 --> 00:21:11.440 glad it's written down because it was a little frightening yeah there was no direction there's 00:21:11.440 --> 00:21:30.900 currently no direction so I think anything we add is going to be an improvement that 00:21:30.900 --> 00:21:35.900 I like what you wrote there's one typo that I heard in two last sentence in order to so 00:21:35.900 --> 00:21:36.900 cause I think it's meant to say show so there's just meant to be an age on that one into the 00:21:36.900 --> 00:21:37.900 last sentence uh not the last sentence I'm sorry last sentence of the first paragraph 00:21:37.900 --> 00:21:44.900 that would be more helpful for me to say in order to yeah all right we will correct that 00:21:44.900 --> 00:21:58.620 yeah other than that yeah I think it looks great um and I guess I missed some meetings 00:21:58.620 --> 00:22:03.700 so the respond is prohibited from presenting a defense did everybody agree on that at the 00:22:03.700 --> 00:22:15.300 November meeting there was consensus that that would be the decision okay as well as 00:22:15.300 --> 00:22:23.260 that there was the complainant could not ask for reconsideration okay it was a firm list 00:22:23.260 --> 00:22:29.700 decision may I ask a question does every city that has an ethics ordinance include a frivolity 00:22:29.700 --> 00:22:38.060 hearing yeah may I ask why we chose to do that I think we have because we've had some 00:22:38.060 --> 00:22:47.260 really frivolous complaints I think it's really because the burden of proof is on the complainant 00:22:47.260 --> 00:22:53.180 if the in most cities the burden of proof is like the complainant makes a complaint 00:22:53.180 --> 00:23:00.140 and then the ethics board investigates it and the complainant fades into the background 00:23:00.140 --> 00:23:04.420 and then they decide to move forward with it they're not and that's something we should 00:23:04.420 --> 00:23:13.940 definitely be talking about because it really is puts a citizen who may be trying to do 00:23:13.940 --> 00:23:20.900 something really important into a bad position in other cities I don't think I know of any 00:23:20.900 --> 00:23:30.780 other city we we have that coming up okay that's fine okay and I was to say the concept 00:23:30.780 --> 00:23:36.340 of complaining frivolous is from the original draft of the or the original approved version 00:23:36.340 --> 00:23:42.700 of the ordinance so this has been trying to refine that process and we had one that we 00:23:42.700 --> 00:23:50.700 thought was frivolous and there was no framework of how to find it frivolous so then we discussed 00:23:50.700 --> 00:23:55.300 like well at the time we had a hearing we kind of made it up as we went but we were 00:23:55.300 --> 00:23:59.460 like we really like direction in the ordinance and the rules of procedure so we know exactly 00:23:59.460 --> 00:24:05.140 how we're supposed to be doing this because it is in the ordinance currently whether you 00:24:05.140 --> 00:24:09.420 know whether that you know there's any changes or not like currently it is the way it is 00:24:09.420 --> 00:24:17.500 so if something can be frivolous we need to know how to do that it is to me again I'm 00:24:17.500 --> 00:24:26.000 new to this if this board or the I guess the group that assigned the case decides it's 00:24:26.000 --> 00:24:30.860 without merit then to come on and say now we're going to decide whether it's frivolous 00:24:30.860 --> 00:24:39.660 or not to me just feels like jumping on again I guess and if I'm a if I'm a citizen it's 00:24:39.660 --> 00:24:48.220 like why would you know you're picking this adjective this kind of attack yeah yeah well 00:24:48.220 --> 00:24:54.420 and like I said currently the ordinance does have frivolous so you know it does so we gotta 00:24:54.420 --> 00:24:58.500 you know I think I think it's good for us to have these so we know how to do it whether 00:24:58.500 --> 00:25:04.380 we suggest to change that or not I think it's for the future but I mean I think I think 00:25:04.380 --> 00:25:10.340 what they you know speculating is is why they put it in there is so that people don't you 00:25:10.340 --> 00:25:14.640 know for instance the elections coming up and they just make up something to try to 00:25:14.640 --> 00:25:21.660 hurt you know the person that's running for office so it gets in the paper you know that's 00:25:21.660 --> 00:25:30.660 what I think so with the May election when might we expect some yeah that's about when 00:25:30.660 --> 00:25:38.460 we see them for better or worse because we've actually talked to about you know should we 00:25:38.460 --> 00:25:41.780 have it where we don't file a complaint for a certain amount before the election but then 00:25:41.780 --> 00:25:46.840 if we have we didn't we didn't agree on that I think because you know if there is an actual 00:25:46.840 --> 00:25:52.300 ethics complaint it does need to be filed so I guess the frivolous thing is kind of a way 00:25:52.300 --> 00:25:57.900 to try to get people to not file frivolous complaints right before an election just to 00:25:57.900 --> 00:26:03.460 try to hurt a candidate they don't like but in cities where they do it differently from 00:26:03.460 --> 00:26:09.220 us there's no need to worry about frivolous complaints because well I mean you could still 00:26:09.220 --> 00:26:15.300 you know even if Madison was doing the investigation I could still make up a fake complaint and 00:26:15.300 --> 00:26:19.740 leak it to the paper yeah so you know I think there could be a frivolous complaint either 00:26:19.740 --> 00:26:25.140 way but not getting too much in the weeds about a future discussion I think these are 00:26:25.140 --> 00:26:34.860 just in the framework we have now we should know how to decide so other questions other 00:26:34.860 --> 00:26:40.640 discussion questions for Madison or anything and I think I think like I said some key differences 00:26:40.640 --> 00:26:48.140 between now right now the preliminary assessment and the way they do it at a preliminary assessment 00:26:48.140 --> 00:26:55.500 is they recommend to have a frivolity hearing before they determine the complaint if it's 00:26:55.500 --> 00:27:03.820 baseless or true basically and so this process requires first that it be dismissed basically 00:27:03.820 --> 00:27:10.100 saying to the respondent you're okay don't worry I guess and then and then requires that 00:27:10.100 --> 00:27:15.020 the board issue in order to go cause so not just dismiss it but issue a whole separate 00:27:15.020 --> 00:27:21.980 process essentially and then have a hearing to decide on that so it puts more steps into 00:27:21.980 --> 00:27:30.300 the process basically some ways to say we have to really be clear that we think this 00:27:30.300 --> 00:27:40.420 is frivolous before we go down that road all right anything else does this look good as 00:27:40.420 --> 00:27:44.940 far as I think we do need to have figure out what we're going to put in the rule of procedure 00:27:44.940 --> 00:27:52.280 that will mirror this but this will be for the ordinance any does it sound like everything 00:27:52.280 --> 00:28:01.900 y'all discussed or we agree on it all right I think it looks good to you know so far you 00:28:01.900 --> 00:28:09.820 have direction that everything looks good for the future packet and then we voted on 00:28:09.820 --> 00:28:27.380 the one definition we wanted clarity on all right so e item e BoE 23-005 receiver report 00:28:27.380 --> 00:28:33.540 full discussion and give staff direction regarding future meetings topics all right so how do 00:28:33.540 --> 00:28:43.100 you want yes so yes I can show the list these are in the slide I just have so the amended 00:28:43.100 --> 00:28:48.820 proposals are kind of we went over four of them tonight and I think you previously said 00:28:48.820 --> 00:28:57.940 like you so the proposals you kind of broke them up not knowing how long it would take 00:28:57.940 --> 00:29:02.300 to go over all of them and I think you said it's kind of more difficult ones are tonight 00:29:02.300 --> 00:29:07.340 and then February ones that we can maybe get through each one quicker which I mean we would 00:29:07.340 --> 00:29:15.460 do this much quicker than I did yeah but I mean I don't know like something could have 00:29:15.460 --> 00:29:19.980 been on there that somebody disagreed with and it could have taken longer so you know 00:29:19.980 --> 00:29:25.100 I appreciate you your foresight into maybe you know making sure we didn't you weren't 00:29:25.100 --> 00:29:30.140 here all night but so okay so the proposals on this agenda information sheet proposal 00:29:30.140 --> 00:29:35.820 one through eleven we've already talked about and then we'll have to do packet finalization 00:29:35.820 --> 00:29:40.580 and do you want to do that in February or because mark is March cutting it too close 00:29:40.580 --> 00:29:46.900 to the so the March meeting I believe it's like the first or something like that and 00:29:46.900 --> 00:29:53.720 the the meeting with the city council will be the 21st so we should have enough time 00:29:53.720 --> 00:29:58.500 okay all right you like any concerns of like should we do it in February just in case like 00:29:58.500 --> 00:30:04.180 we don't get a quorum or something in March we could try to do it it's just that like 00:30:04.180 --> 00:30:10.540 that direction that you're okay with all the language and these to have the final okay 00:30:10.540 --> 00:30:19.060 all right so I guess we can try well I guess maybe I don't know if anybody has a better 00:30:19.060 --> 00:30:25.500 idea maybe in February maybe we could post like take necessary action to conclude maybe 00:30:25.500 --> 00:30:29.620 improving the packet and we'll see if we can that night and if we can't we'll just revisit 00:30:29.620 --> 00:30:36.540 it in March that way if we do like if we are able to vote on all the proposals and agree 00:30:36.540 --> 00:30:41.980 we won't have you know March meeting can we won't have to go over it again you know we 00:30:41.980 --> 00:30:51.500 can like start on the top new topics and if you know and if you do have to go back and 00:30:51.500 --> 00:30:59.140 right we'll just move it to March does that sound good and so then in March we'll start 00:30:59.140 --> 00:31:12.140 on new topics and so I guess you have four here review complaint reconsideration process 00:31:12.140 --> 00:31:18.620 review conference of review of current sanctions conference review of definition of relatives 00:31:18.620 --> 00:31:25.180 and comprehensive review of burden of proof requirements I know in the past you had us 00:31:25.180 --> 00:31:32.020 you kind of emailed us all we all ranked them and then we just like whatever got first amongst 00:31:32.020 --> 00:31:36.260 the board I mean do you like what do you what do you propose what do you think we should 00:31:36.260 --> 00:31:41.380 which we should do we can do that we have this meaning don't we give direction right 00:31:41.380 --> 00:31:49.220 now so we could change the order right yeah these are just currently these four just listed 00:31:49.220 --> 00:31:54.660 in order of when they were there was direction to talk about them last meeting if there was 00:31:54.660 --> 00:32:02.700 direction to start with burden of proof I would really like to move order to show pause 00:32:02.700 --> 00:32:14.180 up next as soon as possible because for an approver show cause that is in the February 00:32:14.180 --> 00:32:19.380 meeting for us to approve right we just we just yeah we all did the order to ship that's 00:32:19.380 --> 00:32:24.740 part of I'm sorry I mean burden of proof yeah you know because I I feel like that is way 00:32:24.740 --> 00:32:33.500 more important than one of these other things but I mean I certainly want to hear what other 00:32:33.500 --> 00:32:39.620 people think well it looks like it's listed here that we're meant to start that in March 00:32:39.620 --> 00:32:45.980 yes that's here we've got that listed based on direction from last meeting to have the 00:32:45.980 --> 00:32:52.300 first discussion about that okay and I and Madison's thinking that that will be a longer 00:32:52.300 --> 00:32:58.140 discussion that maybe we can break up so we keep the meetings at a reasonable amount of 00:32:58.140 --> 00:33:06.140 time right right now I am I haven't done all the research I need to do for that but I guess 00:33:06.140 --> 00:33:12.820 you would have done by March yeah I'll know by March so I I would think I mean yeah just 00:33:12.820 --> 00:33:18.060 move the burden of proof up first and maybe have that the only topic in March if we think 00:33:18.060 --> 00:33:24.860 it might take a while and then I mean is it that if we just kind of have this discussion 00:33:24.860 --> 00:33:33.460 for next future for next meetings topic every month and maybe as things change we can I 00:33:33.460 --> 00:33:39.820 really like that and then just as a reminder if you have other options or other topics 00:33:39.820 --> 00:33:43.260 that you would like to submit you can always email them to me and as long as it's 10 days 00:33:43.260 --> 00:33:48.540 before the next meeting I'll make sure that they're in this item basically for for the 00:33:48.540 --> 00:33:54.460 next that makes sense yeah and I think that's what we've kind of been operating on a little 00:33:54.460 --> 00:33:59.060 while so yeah I would say burden of proof in March and we'll just kind of see where 00:33:59.060 --> 00:34:03.780 the discussion goes and then at the end of that meeting decide we want to do we need 00:34:03.780 --> 00:34:09.780 to have we figured that one out for the time being do we want to discuss it more kind of 00:34:09.780 --> 00:34:15.020 side after that then that's how good everybody do we need to vote on that or is that just 00:34:15.020 --> 00:34:26.300 like direction okay all right well then I think are you satisfied with what we've given 00:34:26.300 --> 00:34:35.420 you for e yeah I just want the top point on there just are we good in general meetings 00:34:35.420 --> 00:34:44.740 to be an hour I would yeah I would say I guess we're starting at 530 hour to hour and a half 00:34:44.740 --> 00:34:50.020 like and I would say you know if we get done before that you know good yeah all agreed 00:34:50.020 --> 00:34:55.900 on everything but I think that you know at some point you know we plan to be finished 00:34:55.900 --> 00:35:02.260 around 7 yeah I wouldn't want to say that stuff and tonight you know with the national 00:35:02.260 --> 00:35:10.020 championship hope you know we'll be able to catch it maybe kick off but okay so I think 00:35:10.020 --> 00:35:17.260 is that everything yep all right if everybody's satisfied with how everything's done done 00:35:17.260 --> 00:35:22.980 I guess we'll adjourn at 630 I have a question what was the purpose of sending us Neil Durance's 00:35:22.980 --> 00:35:28.340 letter because it's it's related to the burden of proof issue that that was received over 00:35:28.340 --> 00:35:34.100 the weekend there's not necessarily if I received public comments it's not a clear process for 00:35:34.100 --> 00:35:45.100 how to get those to you so I figured I received a public comment I forwarded it on I'm hoping 00:35:45.100 --> 00:35:51.700 we can have a discussion about how that y'all want that to occur in the future potentially 00:35:51.700 --> 00:35:58.580 in March you know what you might if you might add that to like you know after approving 00:35:58.580 --> 00:36:02.860 the minutes I think that might as if you want a discussion yeah that could probably be a 00:36:02.860 --> 00:36:07.420 quick discussion so maybe you could add that after approving the minutes for maybe even 00:36:07.420 --> 00:36:11.660 February's meeting just so you know what to do because I mean yeah we're kind of got it 00:36:11.660 --> 00:36:16.140 we're like okay what's this about and that way if we know like this is a public comment 00:36:16.140 --> 00:36:21.780 and we know that it's just a public comment and we do what we want so how about we add 00:36:21.780 --> 00:36:29.940 that to February that's good to me yeah okay it's related to the topic of proof of proof 00:36:29.940 --> 00:36:43.620 yeah yeah I'll have comments on that person in his letter so all right anything else okay 00:36:43.620 --> 00:36:47.940 so if there's nothing else we'll adjourn at 636 thank you