1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:08,160 So ready to start? Yes. This is supportive ethics meeting on Monday, March 6th, 2023. 2 00:00:08,160 --> 00:00:21,960 We do have a quorum present. Our first item for consideration will be BOE 23-011, 3 00:00:21,960 --> 00:00:31,160 approval of the minutes for February 6th. Do I carry the motions for approval? 4 00:00:31,160 --> 00:00:37,480 I'll move to approve them. Dustin Pavlik moved to approve them. Is there a second? Second. 5 00:00:37,480 --> 00:00:52,400 Shannon Claussen moved to make a second. So all in favor? Passes unanimously. Now for 6 00:00:52,400 --> 00:01:00,640 item BO323-12, receive a report, hold a discussion, and take necessary action 7 00:01:00,640 --> 00:01:05,320 regarding potential proposals to amend the city of Denton code ordinance's 8 00:01:05,320 --> 00:01:14,240 Chapter 13 article on ethics. All right. I can take this away if you would like? Yes. 9 00:01:14,240 --> 00:01:20,320 Awesome. So we're trying to finalize our 2023 letter of proposed amendments to 10 00:01:20,320 --> 00:01:24,320 the ethics ordinance. After last meeting where we had most of that draft language 11 00:01:24,320 --> 00:01:30,000 pretty much set, I sent that to our special counsel for review, and he came 12 00:01:30,000 --> 00:01:32,840 back with a few clarifying questions and a couple like a little minor 13 00:01:32,840 --> 00:01:37,600 adjustment, so I wanted just to go over that really quick this meeting so that 14 00:01:37,600 --> 00:01:43,760 we can get direction there. So first is on proposal one, which is about clarifying 15 00:01:43,760 --> 00:01:48,600 the gifts prohibition. He raised some questions regarding additional 16 00:01:48,600 --> 00:01:55,480 clarification in two or three places, I guess. One would be if the board had 17 00:01:55,480 --> 00:01:59,480 interest in specifically forbidding any acceptance of cash or equivalents, which 18 00:01:59,480 --> 00:02:07,240 would be prepaid credit cards or gift cards. Two, it was if the board had 19 00:02:07,240 --> 00:02:12,280 interest in forbidding vendors from offering gifts to city officials or 20 00:02:12,280 --> 00:02:17,680 their relatives, which is what we did previously. And then three would be just 21 00:02:17,680 --> 00:02:24,720 on clarifying if we needed to disclose any gift you received or did 22 00:02:24,720 --> 00:02:29,160 not have to disclose the ones that were considered exceptions. I hope that made 23 00:02:29,160 --> 00:02:36,480 sense. So this is the first one I'll take direction here. There is a typo, you know, 24 00:02:36,480 --> 00:02:43,440 number two, gifts should be gifts. Sorry, say that again. Number two, forbidding vendors 25 00:02:43,440 --> 00:02:50,760 from offering or giving gifts. There's an F missing in there. 26 00:03:00,160 --> 00:03:06,200 On the propel. Oh, thank you. Sorry, I'm putting it at the screen. 27 00:03:06,200 --> 00:03:16,640 Maybe that's been corrected? In the ordinance? No, in the description of 23-1. 28 00:03:16,640 --> 00:03:23,160 Did you do that down there a little bit or? 29 00:03:23,160 --> 00:03:28,800 Oh, in the disclosure part? Uh-huh. 30 00:03:29,160 --> 00:03:43,880 I don't have that up there. Okay, we'll look for it in. Madam Chair, do you wish 31 00:03:43,880 --> 00:03:50,240 that we look at these one, two, three individually or as a group? I guess I 32 00:03:50,240 --> 00:03:56,600 would ask, are you guys okay with this? Because I, are you guys okay with it? 33 00:03:56,600 --> 00:04:02,520 Yeah, so essentially one would add this section, which we weren't, had not 34 00:04:02,520 --> 00:04:07,040 previously been, was not previously in the ordinance. Two would add just this 35 00:04:07,040 --> 00:04:10,760 sentence to this section that's already in the ordinance. And then three, any 36 00:04:10,760 --> 00:04:15,360 direction on, if you intend for the disclosure to be all gifts or to not 37 00:04:15,360 --> 00:04:22,920 include those that are exceptions, basically. It's not the best way to word that, but. Yeah, can I? 38 00:04:25,440 --> 00:04:31,200 I'm fine with it. I mean, I guess more clarification is a good thing. 39 00:04:31,200 --> 00:04:44,120 Madam Chair? Yes. My issue on number one is the city officials, specific council, can 40 00:04:44,120 --> 00:04:52,120 receive unlimited funds in their campaign. And I would think we'd want to 41 00:04:52,120 --> 00:04:59,120 clarify, we're talking here, cash that's going to them individually as opposed to 42 00:04:59,120 --> 00:05:06,840 cash that's going into their campaign, which I think both could influence. My 43 00:05:06,840 --> 00:05:13,480 thought was potentially saying that any contribution to a campaign in excess of 44 00:05:13,480 --> 00:05:21,380 $50, they need to recuse themselves from a decision. So one of the 45 00:05:21,380 --> 00:05:26,160 proposals that the Board is presenting to the council is to require recusal if 46 00:05:26,160 --> 00:05:29,720 you've received more than $500 in aggregate from a person or a business 47 00:05:29,720 --> 00:05:35,560 entity in campaign contributions. In campaign? Yes. So I think for this 48 00:05:35,560 --> 00:05:40,480 specific thing, I think it's specifically talking about like actual cash or like a 49 00:05:40,480 --> 00:05:45,520 gift card or something, prohibiting just accepting that in general. We could 50 00:05:45,520 --> 00:05:51,560 obviously add, unless it's a campaign contribution, if you wanted to, since 51 00:05:51,560 --> 00:05:55,920 we're covering that in another section potentially. So but this is just, this was 52 00:05:55,920 --> 00:06:01,400 brought up by the special counsel. So and this is what he had basically exactly 53 00:06:01,400 --> 00:06:06,120 written out as suggested. I would recommend including it there as opposed 54 00:06:06,120 --> 00:06:12,080 to having to read further on and say, oh that's an exception. So including that 55 00:06:12,080 --> 00:06:17,320 campaign contributions are accepted here. Right. Okay. So it makes it clear to 56 00:06:17,320 --> 00:06:24,200 whoever's reading. I would suggest specifically addressing campaign 57 00:06:24,200 --> 00:06:33,800 contributions that say exceptions and then give a uniformity card. B, gifts, number five. 58 00:06:33,800 --> 00:06:40,920 Oh actually. Give us a reference. Campaign contributions might already be considered and 59 00:06:40,920 --> 00:06:46,800 accepted. So in this section already of gifts, it excludes a lawful campaign 60 00:06:46,800 --> 00:06:53,040 contribution. So it's already accepted. I'm sorry. I didn't anticipate that coming in. But it's 61 00:06:53,040 --> 00:07:00,440 in the ordinance already that that's excluded. So it would be excluded from this as well basically. 62 00:07:00,440 --> 00:07:07,160 That makes sense. I think you're saying it should be mentioned here too. Yeah as opposed to, oh it's over here. 63 00:07:07,160 --> 00:07:14,040 So. It helps the continuity. Continuity of the reader as opposed to. Well I think having the 64 00:07:14,040 --> 00:07:18,880 citation, having the reference rather than encourages the reader to go and look at 65 00:07:18,880 --> 00:07:23,360 other exceptions as well. So you become more and more familiar with it becomes 66 00:07:23,360 --> 00:07:29,800 almost a teaching tool. But we're not teaching here. We're just trying to make it 67 00:07:29,800 --> 00:07:38,200 very clear. Here's the, here's the ethical guideline. Well we want city officials to 68 00:07:38,200 --> 00:07:48,120 learn how to use this. So having familiarity is a way to learn how to use it. So this is the current 69 00:07:48,120 --> 00:07:54,640 ordinance. And here it basically, the cash prohibition we're talking about 70 00:07:54,640 --> 00:08:01,360 will basically go here. And then here's the list of exceptions. And this is the 71 00:08:01,360 --> 00:08:10,440 local campaign contribution. If that helps. Madam Chair, question. Could we talk about 72 00:08:10,440 --> 00:08:17,600 officials. The definition, we're part of that definition are we not? So it's committee 73 00:08:17,600 --> 00:08:22,760 members as well as City Council, P&Z. So we were looking at a rather broad brush. I 74 00:08:22,760 --> 00:08:31,280 want to make sure we didn't forget that. Yeah. So would you be in favor of putting that in 75 00:08:31,280 --> 00:08:37,640 another place or would you like to add? I like just a somewhat of a, it's there we 76 00:08:37,640 --> 00:08:42,000 can then look at. But I like it, more times it's somewhere in there I feel 77 00:08:42,000 --> 00:08:46,800 like it's a less of a part of the expression a hunt and peck. Because if we 78 00:08:46,800 --> 00:08:52,560 have people looking at this it might assist them in reaching to look at the 79 00:08:52,560 --> 00:08:57,000 other exemptions and such. Versus, oh another city and like looking at New 80 00:08:57,000 --> 00:09:01,560 York. Can I say that? I don't know, it's not here anymore. But you know what I'm 81 00:09:01,560 --> 00:09:06,840 saying it can be overwhelming but if we see that it's there we can then look for 82 00:09:06,840 --> 00:09:22,400 it because we know it's in place. That's my only thought on that. If I may, looking at it, it seems as though we'd have to amend all of them to include that and then it be listed 83 00:09:22,400 --> 00:09:27,640 again if we were going to list it on one. So I don't know if that quite makes 84 00:09:27,640 --> 00:09:34,200 sense to me to list it just on one of these numbered items that we list and 85 00:09:34,200 --> 00:09:40,840 then it listed again on a lettered item under number five. That's just my 86 00:09:40,840 --> 00:09:45,520 personal, I feel like it'd be more confusing because then it alludes that 87 00:09:45,520 --> 00:09:51,400 one, two, three, four that are already up there are not included in that list if we 88 00:09:51,400 --> 00:09:57,240 just place it in one of those numbered items in my, in the way that I would read 89 00:09:57,240 --> 00:10:16,040 it. I don't know if anybody else sees it that way. I don't know if we need to add that into that definition that you had it before since it's like two paragraphs below it has the list of exceptions and I don't know if we need to highlight one of the exceptions over any of the other ones, it's on the same page as mine. 90 00:10:16,040 --> 00:10:30,840 So I hear two points of view. So if someone would make a positive motion, then we can vote on it and decide which one we want to go with it. So positive motions entertain? 91 00:10:30,840 --> 00:10:41,040 I would like to make a motion to accept the interest, be it forbidden or accepted cash as it was suggested by council. 92 00:10:41,040 --> 00:11:02,040 Okay. Does that mean a second? A second. Okay. So Andrea made the motion to accept it as proposed by council and Debra Cosimo seconded. So all in favor of the motion to leave it the way council proposed it? 93 00:11:02,040 --> 00:11:20,040 Can you clarify, you're saying leave it this way as written here? That's correct. That's what I intended to do. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. So all in favor say aye. Aye. And all opposed? 94 00:11:20,040 --> 00:11:36,040 Okay. So six, did you vote wrong? I'm sorry. Did you vote wrong? I did not say that one, but I will be in favor. So six in favor and one opposed. 95 00:11:36,040 --> 00:11:58,040 So that is my understanding that was just for one. Great. So there's direction to include that in the proposal as written here. Right. So we're looking at two now. 96 00:11:58,040 --> 00:12:10,040 Basically just, this is already, this is already in here. And so it would just be to include city officials relative, which is kind of what we're already doing in the other two, the general, the general specification. 97 00:12:10,040 --> 00:12:34,040 So I hear a motion for two. Motion. So Anna moves that we accept two as written. I'll second. And Dustin seconds. So all in favor? Aye. So that motion passes unanimously. 98 00:12:34,040 --> 00:12:51,040 So now we're looking at three, which is essentially just to make clear if, so there's a list of exceptions, right. Which is here. 99 00:12:51,040 --> 00:13:07,040 So the council basically just asked, wanted to make more clear if a city council member is required to disclose all gifts, including these exceptions that they receive and what they do with them. 100 00:13:07,040 --> 00:13:23,040 If they're an exception, they don't have to do anything with them, but if they're, but still required to disclose them or just gifts that they receive that they then have to dispose of in some manner, according to the ordinance basically. 101 00:13:23,040 --> 00:13:27,040 Can I rephrase it just for my own understanding? Please. 102 00:13:27,040 --> 00:13:38,040 So what we're looking for is a direction of if they receive a gift that is part of this exception, do they have to disclose it? Yes or no? Yes. 103 00:13:38,040 --> 00:13:57,040 I would be in favor of that. I think that is transparency. Yeah. And the ethics code, I think, you know, if they receive it, and it's an exception to what they can receive it, there's no harm in them disclosing it. 104 00:13:57,040 --> 00:14:01,040 So you are in favor of it as written. Is that correct? 105 00:14:01,040 --> 00:14:15,040 I don't think we're discussing the language of those exceptions. I think we're only discussing the fact of whether or not if they receive one of those gifts that is part of the exception, like a contribution if they have to disclose that they received it. 106 00:14:15,040 --> 00:14:32,040 Yes, there's no, there's no language written here. Currently the language states, sorry, disclosure required if a city official chooses to accept a gift, the city official shall disclose the value of the gift and the nature of the gift's acceptance by filing an affidavit with the city honor. 107 00:14:32,040 --> 00:14:45,040 I think I would just add, choose us to accept any gift, or any gift including those that are exceptions, along those lines, if you gave direction to go that direction. Yeah, that is. 108 00:14:45,040 --> 00:15:05,040 I guess we may pull up the list of exceptions from the ordinance again, just to make sure we all understand what's on there. There are some things on there that I don't, I agree with the transparency is a good thing, but this may be 109 00:15:05,040 --> 00:15:23,040 a little bit, yeah, I mean, a couple of copies of trade publications like that. If someone, if a council member, for example, is receiving something like that and they have to disclose that handwriting to the city auditor that feels a little excessive, since it's already listed as an exception. 110 00:15:23,040 --> 00:15:27,040 Yeah. 111 00:15:27,040 --> 00:15:45,040 If I'm, I was going to say something very similar to Dustin because I think with meals, like, we could get as nitpicky as, you know, they get them 50 cents french fries from McDonald's and that seems a little excessive to have to file an affidavit for any of those. 112 00:15:45,040 --> 00:15:58,040 So, I might not be in favor of all disclosures, including exceptions, since there are some things on there that are fairly small and likely common and that would require a lot of paperwork. 113 00:15:58,040 --> 00:16:09,040 And it also, the worry that I would have would be that it would be a way that people could pummel each other on council and I really don't want that. 114 00:16:09,040 --> 00:16:10,040 We've got enough of that going. 115 00:16:10,040 --> 00:16:22,040 We've had enough of that. Yeah, so I think I would make it more broad, because this is narrow. 116 00:16:22,040 --> 00:16:45,040 I guess I'm, it's, we've included these items as exceptions because they are exceptions to the gift part of the ordinance, for a reason, and I think that if we're saying there are exceptions to this, I don't know that I see value in having those disclosed. 117 00:16:45,040 --> 00:16:47,040 What about Andrew? 118 00:16:47,040 --> 00:16:59,040 The only place, and I agree with you on the small gifts, the one place where I think it could become a question is the campaign contributions. 119 00:16:59,040 --> 00:17:19,040 That is a place where, so maybe we can think of a dollar amount in excess of, because if you pile up all of those exceptions, that can amount to a large sum as well. 120 00:17:19,040 --> 00:17:30,040 But just say, I think, I believe campaign contributions have to be disclosed basically elsewhere as part of the financial statements and campaign contributions. So it's addressed. 121 00:17:30,040 --> 00:17:34,040 It becomes public, which is a good thing. 122 00:17:34,040 --> 00:17:37,040 It's the transparency thing. 123 00:17:37,040 --> 00:17:47,040 I would say to disclose it all, because as you say, some of these things can rack up quite a large amount like lodging. 124 00:17:47,040 --> 00:18:05,040 Lodging, meals, transportation, and so it could be in excess of $1,000, but if there's no disclosure, then I just, and the exceptions are a conference seminar or a similar event. 125 00:18:05,040 --> 00:18:15,040 Well, who defines a similar event? At least if you're turning it in, there's a way for that paper trail to be tracked. 126 00:18:15,040 --> 00:18:18,040 So maybe it would be in the figure of a dollar a minute. 127 00:18:18,040 --> 00:18:26,040 What I think, it wouldn't even be considered a gift if it was less than $50 or an aggregate of $200 basically. 128 00:18:26,040 --> 00:18:27,040 Does that help? 129 00:18:27,040 --> 00:18:30,040 Absolutely. 130 00:18:30,040 --> 00:18:45,040 Yes, thank you. I'm looking for the part on the conferences and the exception. Yes. 131 00:18:45,040 --> 00:18:48,040 That is B. 132 00:18:48,040 --> 00:18:57,040 No, it's, I thought I read somewhere where regional meetings, national conferences and such. Is that further down? 133 00:18:57,040 --> 00:19:00,040 That's B or this here. 134 00:19:00,040 --> 00:19:21,040 E. So my question is, is this, could you define, are these city of Denton accepted meetings or is this national association or state, since we're talking about people from all different walks of life that are members of these committees. 135 00:19:21,040 --> 00:19:33,040 For example, if I go to the Texas Realtors Convention in Austin, am I meeting that threshold for E or is that just for something else? 136 00:19:33,040 --> 00:19:52,040 It says elsewhere in the code that if you're doing something for your business that you would have normally done, that's not an issue. I mean this code is 30. And I think it would have to be complimentary attendance or it would have to be something that was gifted to you basically. Does that make sense? 137 00:19:52,040 --> 00:19:56,040 So if you just went and you paid for it as part of your business or something. That's not a problem. 138 00:19:56,040 --> 00:20:03,040 Right. 139 00:20:03,040 --> 00:20:05,040 Yes. 140 00:20:05,040 --> 00:20:29,040 To figure out what side of this I'm on, where do we go to say what happens if they were not to disclose an exception, what would happen? That might be a determining factor on what side I land on. 141 00:20:29,040 --> 00:20:35,040 Would that be grounds for a complaint? 142 00:20:35,040 --> 00:21:02,040 I would think it could be. Then it would happen. All the material would have to be introduced anyway. I think this has gotten really picky. And it opens everyone up to more complaints and more. I mean there should be a complaint, there should be a complaint. 143 00:21:02,040 --> 00:21:07,040 Yeah, it's fodder for... 144 00:21:07,040 --> 00:21:18,040 Well I think the documentation being a safety valve for the official is documented and turned in. It fulfilled the requirements of the ethics code. 145 00:21:18,040 --> 00:21:19,040 Right. 146 00:21:19,040 --> 00:21:23,040 And then... 147 00:21:23,040 --> 00:21:25,040 That is a lot of paperwork. 148 00:21:25,040 --> 00:21:32,040 Oh, I worked for the federal government. I just kind of do it all the time. 149 00:21:32,040 --> 00:21:41,040 Can I clarify one more thing? You said the definition of a gift is that it is greater than 50 and less than 200? 150 00:21:41,040 --> 00:22:00,040 It says it's a violation for the city official to accept any gift for which the fair market value is greater than $50 or to accept multiple gifts for which the cumulative fair market value exceeds $200 in a single fiscal year. 151 00:22:00,040 --> 00:22:02,040 Exceeds? 152 00:22:02,040 --> 00:22:08,040 Yes, sorry. 153 00:22:08,040 --> 00:22:13,040 And that's in two and three here. 154 00:22:13,040 --> 00:22:25,040 And then now we're proposing to add just cash of any value, basically, as well. 155 00:22:25,040 --> 00:22:29,040 So do we need a motion on this one? 156 00:22:29,040 --> 00:22:36,040 Can I go back to where we would know how to make the motion? 157 00:22:36,040 --> 00:22:42,040 I don't know if this would help. 158 00:22:42,040 --> 00:22:44,040 Yes, number three, because that's what we're looking at. 159 00:22:44,040 --> 00:22:51,040 Yes. 160 00:22:51,040 --> 00:22:56,040 So the question is all or only non-exceptions. 161 00:22:56,040 --> 00:23:09,040 Madam Chair, I move that we accept number three as written clarification on disclosure of gifts, but only non-exceptions. 162 00:23:09,040 --> 00:23:10,040 Non-exceptions? 163 00:23:10,040 --> 00:23:11,040 Yes, ma'am. 164 00:23:11,040 --> 00:23:13,040 Okay. Second to that? 165 00:23:13,040 --> 00:23:15,040 I second that. 166 00:23:15,040 --> 00:23:17,040 I know Clauston seconded it. 167 00:23:17,040 --> 00:23:24,040 So all in favor of the motion to clarify disclosure of gifts, but only non-exceptions? 168 00:23:24,040 --> 00:23:25,040 Yes. 169 00:23:25,040 --> 00:23:26,040 All in favor? 170 00:23:26,040 --> 00:23:31,040 Aye. 171 00:23:31,040 --> 00:23:33,040 And all opposed? 172 00:23:33,040 --> 00:23:36,040 Okay, anybody else? 173 00:23:36,040 --> 00:23:39,040 Okay, so that passes six to one. 174 00:23:39,040 --> 00:23:40,040 Correct? 175 00:23:40,040 --> 00:23:41,040 Good, it's what I got as well. 176 00:23:41,040 --> 00:23:44,040 Okay. 177 00:23:44,040 --> 00:23:49,040 Thank you. 178 00:23:49,040 --> 00:24:09,040 The City Council here just wanted to, in proposal two, to basically eliminate some language that gave an exception to the subsequent work on projects to basically all elected or appointed city officials, if that makes sense. 179 00:24:09,040 --> 00:24:29,040 And City Council, or Special Council, sorry, wanted just to ensure that I provide context to the Board that this had previously been included in order to ensure that citizens were not potentially deterred from public service or from taking lawful employment, basically. 180 00:24:29,040 --> 00:24:33,040 And that's why this was added to the section. 181 00:24:33,040 --> 00:24:37,040 Would you wish to do anything with that information? 182 00:24:37,040 --> 00:24:42,040 So their direction was to take the last sentence out? 183 00:24:42,040 --> 00:24:44,040 Your direction was to take the last sentence out. 184 00:24:44,040 --> 00:24:45,040 Okay. 185 00:24:45,040 --> 00:24:55,040 They just want, Special Council gave context around that decision, and then I just thought I should bring it to the Board. 186 00:24:55,040 --> 00:24:57,040 Okay. 187 00:24:57,040 --> 00:25:05,040 The question is, do you want to roll back what you've done with the proposal or not, essentially, based on that additional context? 188 00:25:05,040 --> 00:25:07,040 Does that roll back mean? 189 00:25:07,040 --> 00:25:09,040 Not really with this sentence. 190 00:25:09,040 --> 00:25:10,040 That's what I was asking, okay. 191 00:25:10,040 --> 00:25:19,040 Yes. 192 00:25:19,040 --> 00:25:24,040 Discussion? 193 00:25:24,040 --> 00:25:37,040 So the alternative is to add a solicitation of employment to the conflict of interest definition, if this is removed? 194 00:25:37,040 --> 00:25:43,040 It is already being proposed to add that to the conflict of interest definition. 195 00:25:43,040 --> 00:25:58,040 Yeah, I think you're right. Special Council did mention that because the Board was already adding to the conflict of interest definition the solicitation of employment, but that might cover the concerns that they were, that the Board was trying to address by removing this. 196 00:25:58,040 --> 00:26:04,040 Okay. 197 00:26:04,040 --> 00:26:11,040 So comments? 198 00:26:11,040 --> 00:26:19,040 If they already have it, I'm happy with Council's suggestion. 199 00:26:19,040 --> 00:26:28,040 Any other opinion? 200 00:26:28,040 --> 00:26:30,040 Do we hear a motion? 201 00:26:30,040 --> 00:26:34,040 I wouldn't say Council necessarily suggested not doing it. They just wanted to give more context to the Board. 202 00:26:34,040 --> 00:26:35,040 Okay. 203 00:26:35,040 --> 00:26:38,040 And is this a motion needed for this? 204 00:26:38,040 --> 00:26:52,040 I would think if you wanted to motion to basically not move forward with Prop. 2, we would need a motion yet, because we've already kind of decided to go forward with it. 205 00:26:52,040 --> 00:26:54,040 I'm sorry. 206 00:26:54,040 --> 00:26:57,040 I'm a little confused, I apologize. 207 00:26:57,040 --> 00:27:00,040 The Prop. 2 is with the marked out? 208 00:27:00,040 --> 00:27:01,040 Correct. 209 00:27:01,040 --> 00:27:04,040 Okay. 210 00:27:04,040 --> 00:27:14,040 Madam Chair, I move that we accept Prop. 2 as amended or as suggested by Council. Is that would be the way you want it? 211 00:27:14,040 --> 00:27:24,040 Yeah, so this is currently Prop. 2. Council wanted to give, I'm sorry, this is confusing, to give context that might change the Board's decision on what to do with Prop. 2. 212 00:27:24,040 --> 00:27:30,040 It is currently scheduled to go forward to the City Council as it's in current life right here. 213 00:27:30,040 --> 00:27:36,040 You could just decide not to do that based on Council's direction or change it or we could just move on, essentially. 214 00:27:36,040 --> 00:27:39,040 We only need a motion if you want to change what's written here. 215 00:27:39,040 --> 00:27:44,040 Oh, I apologize. No second. Just let me die. 216 00:27:44,040 --> 00:27:46,040 Figuratively. 217 00:27:46,040 --> 00:27:47,040 Ow. 218 00:27:47,040 --> 00:27:48,040 Figuratively. 219 00:27:48,040 --> 00:27:49,040 Thank you very much. 220 00:27:49,040 --> 00:27:51,040 Okay, I think I might be able to get it. 221 00:27:51,040 --> 00:27:53,040 Okay. 222 00:27:53,040 --> 00:27:59,040 I motion that we strike Prop. 2 from the packet that we're presenting to City Council. 223 00:27:59,040 --> 00:28:03,040 Okay, and that would be to basically put this language back in. 224 00:28:03,040 --> 00:28:04,040 Yeah, to leave the language in. 225 00:28:04,040 --> 00:28:05,040 Okay. 226 00:28:05,040 --> 00:28:08,040 I'll second that. I'll come back to life. 227 00:28:08,040 --> 00:28:17,040 So the motion on the floor is to strike Prop. 2. All in favor? 228 00:28:17,040 --> 00:28:18,040 Aye. 229 00:28:18,040 --> 00:28:19,040 Aye. 230 00:28:19,040 --> 00:28:22,040 That was unanimous. 231 00:28:22,040 --> 00:28:27,040 Okay. So 7-0 to strike Prop. 2. 232 00:28:27,040 --> 00:28:31,040 Thank you. Very nice. 233 00:28:31,040 --> 00:28:35,040 All right. We're almost done with this. 234 00:28:35,040 --> 00:28:38,040 Next, this is kind of just a notification. 235 00:28:38,040 --> 00:28:42,040 I don't know that we necessarily need to have any action on this unless we really want to, 236 00:28:42,040 --> 00:28:49,040 but Special Counsel basically suggested the original wording of this Prop. 9 was a little confusing, 237 00:28:49,040 --> 00:28:55,040 so I sent this reworded clause to them and they said, "Sounds better." 238 00:28:55,040 --> 00:29:01,040 So unless there's any questions or concerns about that, we don't have to discuss it. 239 00:29:01,040 --> 00:29:07,040 I don't think so. Do you think we need a motion to change it? I think it's already... 240 00:29:07,040 --> 00:29:08,040 I like that a lot, though. 241 00:29:08,040 --> 00:29:10,040 Just to clarify... 242 00:29:10,040 --> 00:29:14,040 Yeah, it's just rewording it from what was originally... 243 00:29:14,040 --> 00:29:20,040 I think it's... 244 00:29:20,040 --> 00:29:22,040 I have to material change, I think so. 245 00:29:22,040 --> 00:29:25,040 Okay. But we do need a motion, sorry. 246 00:29:25,040 --> 00:29:26,040 Okay. 247 00:29:26,040 --> 00:29:28,040 Basically to change it from... 248 00:29:28,040 --> 00:29:33,040 To change the actual language of Prop. 9 from this to this. 249 00:29:33,040 --> 00:29:34,040 Okay. 250 00:29:34,040 --> 00:29:36,040 Which counsel likes better? 251 00:29:36,040 --> 00:29:42,040 So do I hear a motion to change the wording? 252 00:29:42,040 --> 00:29:43,040 From this to that? 253 00:29:43,040 --> 00:29:46,040 From this to that. Yeah. 254 00:29:46,040 --> 00:29:49,040 I'm going to move it. Go ahead. Just a second. 255 00:29:49,040 --> 00:29:50,040 Go ahead. 256 00:29:50,040 --> 00:29:53,040 Put Duster down, and I'll second. 257 00:29:53,040 --> 00:29:56,040 Okay. So moved by Duster. 258 00:29:56,040 --> 00:30:04,040 Okay. And seconded by Rob Rayner. 259 00:30:04,040 --> 00:30:11,040 It is more clear. 260 00:30:11,040 --> 00:30:12,040 Seconded by Rob Rayner. 261 00:30:12,040 --> 00:30:14,040 Oh, okay. All in favor? 262 00:30:14,040 --> 00:30:15,040 Aye. 263 00:30:15,040 --> 00:30:16,040 Aye. 264 00:30:16,040 --> 00:30:20,040 That's even less. 265 00:30:20,040 --> 00:30:21,040 Okay. Awesome. 266 00:30:21,040 --> 00:30:25,040 Last one, basically. 267 00:30:25,040 --> 00:30:27,040 This was just another clarification 268 00:30:27,040 --> 00:30:30,040 that the Federal Council wanted to make sure that 269 00:30:30,040 --> 00:30:32,040 by saying the member is present, 270 00:30:32,040 --> 00:30:34,040 it would effectively... 271 00:30:34,040 --> 00:30:37,040 Could effectively lower the number of affirmative votes necessary 272 00:30:37,040 --> 00:30:39,040 to conclude probability. 273 00:30:39,040 --> 00:30:40,040 So if you only... 274 00:30:40,040 --> 00:30:42,040 Normally we would have seven. We would want that. 275 00:30:42,040 --> 00:30:43,040 But if we only had... 276 00:30:43,040 --> 00:30:45,040 Currently we only have six members, 277 00:30:45,040 --> 00:30:47,040 because we have vacancy, if we could only get six, 278 00:30:47,040 --> 00:30:49,040 two-thirds of that would be the same as seven. 279 00:30:49,040 --> 00:30:51,040 So if we had five, two-thirds of that would be less 280 00:30:51,040 --> 00:30:53,040 than what we would normally require, essentially. 281 00:30:53,040 --> 00:30:57,040 So that was just to clarify that that's what you guys intended 282 00:30:57,040 --> 00:30:59,040 when we were making this change. 283 00:30:59,040 --> 00:31:01,040 Okay. 284 00:31:01,040 --> 00:31:11,040 So discussion on this? 285 00:31:11,040 --> 00:31:16,040 So basically the motion would be to add the members present. 286 00:31:16,040 --> 00:31:17,040 No, it's already there. 287 00:31:17,040 --> 00:31:21,040 So if you wanted, you could make a motion to remove that, 288 00:31:21,040 --> 00:31:23,040 which would make it less clear. 289 00:31:23,040 --> 00:31:24,040 Okay. 290 00:31:24,040 --> 00:31:25,040 Yeah. 291 00:31:25,040 --> 00:31:28,040 So a motion to remove the members present. 292 00:31:28,040 --> 00:31:33,040 Anybody want to make that motion? 293 00:31:33,040 --> 00:31:36,040 I mean, if I may. 294 00:31:36,040 --> 00:31:44,040 I think that that could stay, 295 00:31:44,040 --> 00:31:48,040 because if there were only five, 296 00:31:48,040 --> 00:31:51,040 having to ensure that four would be able to attend 297 00:31:51,040 --> 00:31:53,040 could be tricky. 298 00:31:53,040 --> 00:31:57,040 I think sometimes we have difficulty getting that together 299 00:31:57,040 --> 00:31:59,040 within the ten business days. 300 00:31:59,040 --> 00:32:05,040 So two-thirds of the members present seems... 301 00:32:05,040 --> 00:32:07,040 And we always try to get seven, obviously. 302 00:32:07,040 --> 00:32:11,040 And I think we partially added this, at least, 303 00:32:11,040 --> 00:32:14,040 to make it more clear if it was of the members present 304 00:32:14,040 --> 00:32:20,040 or of seven, basically. 305 00:32:20,040 --> 00:32:23,040 So basically I'm just bringing this up to special counsel. 306 00:32:23,040 --> 00:32:25,040 Wanted me to make sure that it was clear to you all 307 00:32:25,040 --> 00:32:28,040 that that's what you were doing. 308 00:32:28,040 --> 00:32:30,040 So I don't think it needs to change. 309 00:32:30,040 --> 00:32:31,040 Okay. 310 00:32:31,040 --> 00:32:34,040 I think that's fine, but... 311 00:32:34,040 --> 00:32:37,040 So would you like to put that in the form of a motion, 312 00:32:37,040 --> 00:32:39,040 or do we need to discuss that more? 313 00:32:39,040 --> 00:32:40,040 If we're not changing this language, 314 00:32:40,040 --> 00:32:41,040 it doesn't need a motion. 315 00:32:41,040 --> 00:32:42,040 Okay. 316 00:32:42,040 --> 00:32:45,040 So just move on. 317 00:32:45,040 --> 00:32:48,040 So that means we're moving forward with the proposal 10 318 00:32:48,040 --> 00:32:50,040 as we had intended prior. 319 00:32:50,040 --> 00:32:52,040 Correct. 320 00:32:52,040 --> 00:32:57,040 Direction that to change. 321 00:32:57,040 --> 00:33:00,040 Awesome. 322 00:33:00,040 --> 00:33:01,040 And then there was one additional, 323 00:33:01,040 --> 00:33:06,040 this minor clarity change that special counsel suggested, 324 00:33:06,040 --> 00:33:09,040 which is just to change the word affiliated to related, 325 00:33:09,040 --> 00:33:12,040 because we are now defining affiliated. 326 00:33:12,040 --> 00:33:14,040 I can bring that up if you would like. 327 00:33:14,040 --> 00:33:16,040 It really doesn't, I think, impact. 328 00:33:16,040 --> 00:33:18,040 It was just to make sure that that wasn't confusing 329 00:33:18,040 --> 00:33:24,040 to anybody in the future. 330 00:33:24,040 --> 00:33:28,040 Awesome. 331 00:33:28,040 --> 00:33:31,040 Okay. 332 00:33:31,040 --> 00:33:32,040 Thank you. 333 00:33:32,040 --> 00:33:33,040 Thank you, Madison. 334 00:33:33,040 --> 00:33:34,040 So are we ready to move on? 335 00:33:34,040 --> 00:33:35,040 Yes. 336 00:33:35,040 --> 00:33:39,040 So this would be BOE 23-013. 337 00:33:39,040 --> 00:33:40,040 Correct. 338 00:33:40,040 --> 00:33:45,040 So we're moving on to item C. 339 00:33:45,040 --> 00:33:46,040 Okay. 340 00:33:46,040 --> 00:33:48,040 So this is about proposal three, 341 00:33:48,040 --> 00:33:51,040 which last meeting was stricken from the letter 342 00:33:51,040 --> 00:33:54,040 of proposed amendments, 343 00:33:54,040 --> 00:33:58,040 and then the board directed staff to bring back research 344 00:33:58,040 --> 00:34:00,040 on what other municipalities do 345 00:34:00,040 --> 00:34:05,040 and what the model code says regarding financial prohibitions. 346 00:34:05,040 --> 00:34:10,040 This was the changing all of the $600 to 10% conversation 347 00:34:10,040 --> 00:34:13,040 we had last time. 348 00:34:13,040 --> 00:34:18,040 So this is what -- basically there are five of our benchmark 349 00:34:18,040 --> 00:34:22,040 municipalities that kind of have a general conflict 350 00:34:22,040 --> 00:34:29,040 of interest -- general conflict of interest prohibition 351 00:34:29,040 --> 00:34:32,040 for financial considerations, if that makes any sense. 352 00:34:32,040 --> 00:34:34,040 Basically, they prohibit official action 353 00:34:34,040 --> 00:34:38,040 if an economic interest would be affected in a way 354 00:34:38,040 --> 00:34:40,040 that's distinguishable from the effect on the public. 355 00:34:40,040 --> 00:34:42,040 The model code has similar language, 356 00:34:42,040 --> 00:34:45,040 so that's kind of what's presented here. 357 00:34:45,040 --> 00:34:53,040 The remaining five municipalities have specifically defined 358 00:34:53,040 --> 00:34:57,040 thresholds for different things like we currently do, 359 00:34:57,040 --> 00:34:59,040 and that's what's presented here. 360 00:34:59,040 --> 00:35:05,040 So we can have a discussion if you would enjoy it. 361 00:35:05,040 --> 00:35:09,040 If you want to continue, basically, 362 00:35:09,040 --> 00:35:12,040 do you want to continue having a proposal three at all? 363 00:35:12,040 --> 00:35:15,040 And if so, if you want to use something more similar 364 00:35:15,040 --> 00:35:17,040 to the model code, where it's more of a general prohibition 365 00:35:17,040 --> 00:35:19,040 or with specific financial thresholds, 366 00:35:19,040 --> 00:35:24,040 which is what we previously had and what those thresholds are. 367 00:35:24,040 --> 00:35:27,040 So we can open this for discussion. 368 00:35:27,040 --> 00:35:29,040 That's all I got. 369 00:35:29,040 --> 00:35:36,040 I have a question because city officials are still held 370 00:35:36,040 --> 00:35:42,040 by Chapter 171 of the Texas Code, 371 00:35:42,040 --> 00:35:47,040 and the proposed percentages are right out of there. 372 00:35:47,040 --> 00:35:53,040 Ten percent, ten percent, and then ownership value 15,000, 373 00:35:53,040 --> 00:35:57,040 and then real property, 2,500. 374 00:35:57,040 --> 00:36:05,040 Those are right out of 171 as a substantial interest. 375 00:36:05,040 --> 00:36:16,040 But then 171 goes on to say that in the case 376 00:36:16,040 --> 00:36:18,040 of a substantial interest in a business entity, 377 00:36:18,040 --> 00:36:20,040 the action on the matter will have a special economic effect 378 00:36:20,040 --> 00:36:23,040 on the business entity that is distinguishable 379 00:36:23,040 --> 00:36:27,040 from the effect on the public or goes on in the same vein. 380 00:36:27,040 --> 00:36:31,040 So essentially, it sounds like some of the cities are taking 381 00:36:31,040 --> 00:36:35,040 the second part in talking about finances, 382 00:36:35,040 --> 00:36:38,040 even if they're not setting a limit. 383 00:36:38,040 --> 00:36:40,040 I mean, the city council and city officials 384 00:36:40,040 --> 00:36:43,040 still have to abide by this. 385 00:36:43,040 --> 00:36:44,040 This is the threshold. 386 00:36:44,040 --> 00:36:48,040 This is the law, but ethics is supposed to be higher. 387 00:36:48,040 --> 00:36:51,040 Exactly, and so I don't know why this is changing. 388 00:36:51,040 --> 00:36:54,040 And number two, if they do violate it, 389 00:36:54,040 --> 00:36:57,040 then it's not only under the proposed language 390 00:36:57,040 --> 00:37:01,040 an ethical violation, it's a misdemeanor as well, 391 00:37:01,040 --> 00:37:03,040 it's a criminal case. 392 00:37:03,040 --> 00:37:09,040 So I'm just wondering why we're doing this. 393 00:37:09,040 --> 00:37:12,040 I apologize if I missed it. 394 00:37:12,040 --> 00:37:13,040 Why we're doing what? 395 00:37:13,040 --> 00:37:17,040 Why we're even talking about changing it and then-- 396 00:37:17,040 --> 00:37:20,040 So I think because the Denton code currently 397 00:37:20,040 --> 00:37:23,040 is the first column there, so it's five percent, 398 00:37:23,040 --> 00:37:28,040 and then 600 for the last three items, so it's well below those. 399 00:37:28,040 --> 00:37:30,040 And then what the proposed language was 400 00:37:30,040 --> 00:37:36,040 from that August meeting was to change that to all 10%. 401 00:37:36,040 --> 00:37:40,040 But the exception is that under our code, 402 00:37:40,040 --> 00:37:47,040 when we have a pending matter, 403 00:37:47,040 --> 00:37:53,040 it only addresses three things, a request for a permit, a case, 404 00:37:53,040 --> 00:37:58,040 and some very peculiar contracts. 405 00:37:58,040 --> 00:38:00,040 So it limits it, so even though this is smaller, 406 00:38:00,040 --> 00:38:02,040 it's still a much more limited scope 407 00:38:02,040 --> 00:38:15,040 than what officials are already required by law to do. 408 00:38:15,040 --> 00:38:17,040 I think I got a little bit confused. 409 00:38:17,040 --> 00:38:20,040 You might explain that again, the legal versus the ethical, 410 00:38:20,040 --> 00:38:27,040 the differences and why one is irrelevant, more briefly. 411 00:38:27,040 --> 00:38:32,040 Not that it's irrelevant, but under the current ethical code 412 00:38:32,040 --> 00:38:37,040 for the city of Denton, we have five percent ownership 413 00:38:37,040 --> 00:38:40,040 of that first column that it applies. 414 00:38:40,040 --> 00:38:43,040 That's an ethical violation if you go beyond that 415 00:38:43,040 --> 00:38:45,040 in a pending matter. 416 00:38:45,040 --> 00:38:49,040 So it's not like it's inclusive like in the law, 417 00:38:49,040 --> 00:38:54,040 which is much broader. 418 00:38:54,040 --> 00:38:58,040 Our ethical code is specific to those three things. 419 00:38:58,040 --> 00:39:05,040 Our ethical code is lighter, I guess, would be a better word. 420 00:39:05,040 --> 00:39:07,040 Well, yeah, it is. 421 00:39:07,040 --> 00:39:14,040 Yeah, that pending matter really makes me crazy, actually. 422 00:39:14,040 --> 00:39:17,040 What do you refer to as the three? 423 00:39:17,040 --> 00:39:20,040 When you're referencing the three? 424 00:39:20,040 --> 00:39:21,040 The pending matter. 425 00:39:21,040 --> 00:39:22,040 The pending matter. 426 00:39:22,040 --> 00:39:23,040 I can bring up the definition. 427 00:39:23,040 --> 00:39:27,040 What that means is that you could vote on something 428 00:39:27,040 --> 00:39:31,040 that involves your property, and then you could do your action 429 00:39:31,040 --> 00:39:35,040 the very next day, because it would no longer be a pending matter. 430 00:39:35,040 --> 00:39:37,040 Okay. 431 00:39:37,040 --> 00:39:40,040 That's kind of a slang definition, 432 00:39:40,040 --> 00:39:46,040 and that's what bothers me. 433 00:39:46,040 --> 00:39:50,040 The other part that I have a concern with is that percentage, 434 00:39:50,040 --> 00:39:53,040 because if I own a piece of property, 435 00:39:53,040 --> 00:39:55,040 and I have only one person interested in it, 436 00:39:55,040 --> 00:39:59,040 I think I'd be very interested in what happens. 437 00:39:59,040 --> 00:40:03,040 I guess it's kind of like saying marijuana is illegal, 438 00:40:03,040 --> 00:40:05,040 but it's okay if you have just a little. 439 00:40:05,040 --> 00:40:12,040 It's still illegal, as our council has talked about recently. 440 00:40:12,040 --> 00:40:16,040 So why is this? 441 00:40:16,040 --> 00:40:17,040 I don't know. 442 00:40:17,040 --> 00:40:20,040 I think that's a good analogy. 443 00:40:20,040 --> 00:40:23,040 Your point is then to what? 444 00:40:23,040 --> 00:40:42,040 Isn't the model code more -- 445 00:40:42,040 --> 00:40:44,040 Basically, it's not putting numbers to it. 446 00:40:44,040 --> 00:40:50,040 It's saying that if you benefit in any way 447 00:40:50,040 --> 00:40:53,040 that the general public would not benefit, 448 00:40:53,040 --> 00:40:56,040 then that's an ethical violation. 449 00:40:56,040 --> 00:41:05,040 And I like that so much more, because there are going to be times 450 00:41:05,040 --> 00:41:08,040 when you're going to vote on something that would benefit you, 451 00:41:08,040 --> 00:41:13,040 but if it benefits everybody else, that's okay. 452 00:41:13,040 --> 00:41:18,040 And you wouldn't have to recuse yourself. 453 00:41:18,040 --> 00:41:25,040 But this 5%, 10%, $600, $15, how do you -- 454 00:41:25,040 --> 00:41:29,040 I mean, I don't have tax, but -- 455 00:41:29,040 --> 00:41:31,040 So I'm going to -- I'm sorry. 456 00:41:31,040 --> 00:41:33,040 That's fine. 457 00:41:33,040 --> 00:41:40,040 One of the things that bothers me about the model code 458 00:41:40,040 --> 00:41:46,040 is because it is so big. 459 00:41:46,040 --> 00:41:51,040 And so for me -- and plus I also was -- 460 00:41:51,040 --> 00:41:55,040 I was not in favor of exact amounts, 461 00:41:55,040 --> 00:42:00,040 because an exact dollar amount has a different meaning 462 00:42:00,040 --> 00:42:03,040 for different income groups. 463 00:42:03,040 --> 00:42:07,040 And so I was always in favor of the percentages, 464 00:42:07,040 --> 00:42:12,040 because I think it makes it more equitable. 465 00:42:12,040 --> 00:42:21,040 However, the way -- if we're thinking along with the legal, 466 00:42:21,040 --> 00:42:23,040 you're saying that certain things -- 467 00:42:23,040 --> 00:42:28,040 these things are already covered by legal definitions, or the law. 468 00:42:28,040 --> 00:42:30,040 Right, in the state law for government officials. 469 00:42:30,040 --> 00:42:32,040 In the state law for government officials. 470 00:42:32,040 --> 00:42:36,040 So this would only be added on top of that, right? 471 00:42:36,040 --> 00:42:43,040 If we're going to do the same thing as the state, then -- 472 00:42:43,040 --> 00:42:45,040 Why do you even have that? 473 00:42:45,040 --> 00:42:47,040 If it's violated, it's a criminal case. 474 00:42:47,040 --> 00:42:48,040 Right. 475 00:42:48,040 --> 00:42:59,040 So we move beyond ethics and the appearance of non-conflict interest. 476 00:42:59,040 --> 00:43:03,040 I'm just concerned -- I'm just concerned that personal 477 00:43:03,040 --> 00:43:07,040 or financial benefit is so vague that somebody could say, 478 00:43:07,040 --> 00:43:11,040 "Well, that really isn't -- it's not really a benefit to me." 479 00:43:11,040 --> 00:43:13,040 So it really depends on -- 480 00:43:13,040 --> 00:43:15,040 Well, yeah, they certainly can. 481 00:43:15,040 --> 00:43:18,040 They can say that because your partner works at a university, 482 00:43:18,040 --> 00:43:21,040 you can't bet on anything related to that. 483 00:43:21,040 --> 00:43:27,040 That's been done. 484 00:43:27,040 --> 00:43:30,040 And I fail to see where there's a benefit. 485 00:43:30,040 --> 00:43:40,040 But when I have seen this come up, there was a case -- 486 00:43:40,040 --> 00:43:44,040 and I forget what city -- maybe Plano. 487 00:43:44,040 --> 00:43:45,040 I don't remember. 488 00:43:45,040 --> 00:43:51,040 It was the mayor of a city, and she was dating a developer. 489 00:43:51,040 --> 00:43:56,040 And while the guy was building things in the city, 490 00:43:56,040 --> 00:44:00,040 she voted on his projects 30 times, something like that. 491 00:44:00,040 --> 00:44:01,040 It was a crazy number. 492 00:44:01,040 --> 00:44:09,040 And so I think it's kind of like a target where you have a bullseye, 493 00:44:09,040 --> 00:44:15,040 and if you keep shooting your arrows and they land outside of the target, 494 00:44:15,040 --> 00:44:18,040 if you do it enough, you're going to get called on this. 495 00:44:18,040 --> 00:44:20,040 And I think that's what happened. 496 00:44:20,040 --> 00:44:22,040 They both -- I believe they both went to jail. 497 00:44:22,040 --> 00:44:23,040 Yeah, they did. 498 00:44:23,040 --> 00:44:31,040 But I would be in favor of the model code just because it has that broadness. 499 00:44:31,040 --> 00:44:37,040 Now, I think if that happened once or twice, yeah, but I don't know. 500 00:44:37,040 --> 00:44:40,040 I just -- how do you get around the -- 501 00:44:40,040 --> 00:44:43,040 if it's just a little bit of something that's illegal, 502 00:44:43,040 --> 00:44:46,040 that's not a big deal, but yeah. 503 00:44:46,040 --> 00:44:54,040 I'm wrestling with what's the difference between 9.99% versus 10.01%. 504 00:44:54,040 --> 00:44:55,040 Yeah, yeah. 505 00:44:55,040 --> 00:44:59,040 I think once you put numbers in there, then -- yeah. 506 00:44:59,040 --> 00:45:03,040 But I think it's more -- this is a thing I learned in ethics. 507 00:45:03,040 --> 00:45:05,040 We have to take ethics programs. 508 00:45:05,040 --> 00:45:08,040 And the presenter gave that bullseye thing. 509 00:45:08,040 --> 00:45:11,040 He said you can do something that's not ethical, 510 00:45:11,040 --> 00:45:15,040 but if you do it repeatedly, there are going to be times. 511 00:45:15,040 --> 00:45:18,040 And that made a lot of sense to me. 512 00:45:18,040 --> 00:45:24,040 You know, I still like the model code because I think it -- 513 00:45:24,040 --> 00:45:28,040 you know, this is what we're shooting for. 514 00:45:28,040 --> 00:45:32,040 If your arrows are all going outside the bull -- outside the whole target, 515 00:45:32,040 --> 00:45:35,040 you're going to get called on it. 516 00:45:35,040 --> 00:45:43,040 I think in a model code, there is some definition of -- at least for a client. 517 00:45:43,040 --> 00:45:50,040 It's described as someone -- if you've received more than $1,000 518 00:45:50,040 --> 00:45:53,040 in the previous 24 months, so there is some definition. 519 00:45:53,040 --> 00:45:57,040 There is a threshold for what is considered an incline. 520 00:45:57,040 --> 00:46:01,040 So I mean, I know there's been discussion at the previous meeting 521 00:46:01,040 --> 00:46:07,040 about how there is no threshold for what is the conflict of interest. 522 00:46:07,040 --> 00:46:11,040 It's this sort of like gray thing where all of us in this room 523 00:46:11,040 --> 00:46:13,040 probably understand what it means. 524 00:46:13,040 --> 00:46:17,040 And when that would come up, it seems obvious to us. 525 00:46:17,040 --> 00:46:23,040 But if there is a case where there is someone who there is an ethics complaint filed against, 526 00:46:23,040 --> 00:46:33,040 it's going to be -- as a board, we're going to have to have some definition of that to make a decision. 527 00:46:33,040 --> 00:46:36,040 So let me just give an example with that. 528 00:46:36,040 --> 00:46:41,040 Let's say I shop at a grocery store called Alpha Beta Gamma. 529 00:46:41,040 --> 00:46:46,040 And Alpha Beta Gamma comes to council and they want to do something. 530 00:46:46,040 --> 00:46:48,040 Well, I shop there all the time. 531 00:46:48,040 --> 00:46:53,040 Now I spent more than $1,000 last year because I bought eggs. 532 00:46:53,040 --> 00:46:57,040 Sure, but you don't have to -- you're not purchasing shares of that grocery store. 533 00:46:57,040 --> 00:47:00,040 I know, I know. But if we put a threshold -- 534 00:47:00,040 --> 00:47:05,040 You were there -- I mean, you're -- I don't think that would apply in this. 535 00:47:05,040 --> 00:47:14,040 So I think in the model code it's saying if you owned the property that that grocery store leased 536 00:47:14,040 --> 00:47:20,040 and that grocery store wants to expand their business so that you would incur more than $1,000 -- 537 00:47:20,040 --> 00:47:23,040 I think that would be the intent for sure, you're right. 538 00:47:23,040 --> 00:47:29,040 But I think when you put a threshold in, someone could get reared. 539 00:47:29,040 --> 00:47:35,040 So thresholds make me nervous because within a few years they might change. 540 00:47:35,040 --> 00:47:37,040 Sure. I'm just imagining -- 541 00:47:37,040 --> 00:47:39,040 I think it's really the spirit of it. 542 00:47:39,040 --> 00:47:45,040 Right. I'm just imagining it being in this room for a -- trying to review a complaint 543 00:47:45,040 --> 00:47:54,040 and trying to decide the spirit of the code and it's going to affect someone's ability to run for office 544 00:47:54,040 --> 00:48:00,040 or their business reputation or whatever. I think -- I don't know that I have a good answer. 545 00:48:00,040 --> 00:48:01,040 Yeah, I don't either. 546 00:48:01,040 --> 00:48:04,040 I'm just trying -- I spent some time thinking about this and looking at the model code 547 00:48:04,040 --> 00:48:07,040 after some of the discussion about how there's no threshold. 548 00:48:07,040 --> 00:48:14,040 And there is some threshold here and under this it also includes the campaign contributions 549 00:48:14,040 --> 00:48:17,040 and has a dollar threshold for that of $200. 550 00:48:17,040 --> 00:48:25,040 So the model code does provide some of that and some of the other things that as far as ownership 551 00:48:25,040 --> 00:48:31,040 of a business I don't think there is a percentage or a dollar amount threshold. 552 00:48:31,040 --> 00:48:39,040 But for establishing a client relationship and campaign contributions there is a dollar threshold. 553 00:48:39,040 --> 00:48:50,040 So the question that we're trying to decide is a model code approach versus leave it like it is. 554 00:48:50,040 --> 00:48:56,040 Well, so yeah, there's a couple of options, right? 555 00:48:56,040 --> 00:49:05,040 There's -- you could give direction today to go with language similar to the model code. 556 00:49:05,040 --> 00:49:15,040 I would have to write it and draft it and then I would assume you would want to see it before it goes to hand. 557 00:49:15,040 --> 00:49:16,040 I would want to see it. 558 00:49:16,040 --> 00:49:21,040 Yes. So that might push back the March 21st presentation. 559 00:49:21,040 --> 00:49:23,040 Okay. 560 00:49:23,040 --> 00:49:28,040 Or we could just strike three for now, continue having these discussions, 561 00:49:28,040 --> 00:49:34,040 so I could bring it back in April or whatever and that would be part of the next set of updates we present. 562 00:49:34,040 --> 00:49:40,040 If we wanted to stick with the thresholds, which it's not going to mean exactly what we want to do, 563 00:49:40,040 --> 00:49:43,040 that would be pretty easy because that's already what's written. 564 00:49:43,040 --> 00:49:47,040 So you could just take $600 and stick in whatever you wanted. 565 00:49:47,040 --> 00:49:48,040 So that could still go. 566 00:49:48,040 --> 00:49:53,040 So I think that's kind of -- do we want to make a decision today? 567 00:49:53,040 --> 00:49:56,040 So what is your pleasure? 568 00:49:56,040 --> 00:50:01,040 You've got some really interesting options. 569 00:50:01,040 --> 00:50:08,040 We can certainly push back the presentation of the proposals if that is the way you would like to go. 570 00:50:08,040 --> 00:50:09,040 Okay. 571 00:50:09,040 --> 00:50:20,040 And I want to be listening -- I would say strike three for now and come back to it because I think it is a big -- is big. 572 00:50:20,040 --> 00:50:30,040 And I think we need some time to ponder it some more, but I don't want to not be listening. 573 00:50:30,040 --> 00:50:35,040 Did council request that we review this and revise the thresholds? 574 00:50:35,040 --> 00:50:40,040 No, this was -- we brought this on ourselves. 575 00:50:40,040 --> 00:50:46,040 The board decided to have a comprehensive review of the conflict amendment definition, 576 00:50:46,040 --> 00:50:50,040 which led to most of the proposals that are out there. 577 00:50:50,040 --> 00:50:58,040 But this is a big, big issue and I don't think we should make it lively. 578 00:50:58,040 --> 00:51:03,040 Could we have another look at our recommendation? 579 00:51:03,040 --> 00:51:07,040 Your recommendation? 580 00:51:07,040 --> 00:51:15,040 The original proposal was basically to take all of these and make them 10%. 581 00:51:15,040 --> 00:51:18,040 That makes sense. 582 00:51:18,040 --> 00:51:32,040 This could put somebody in violation of the law if their 10% was greater than 15,000 or greater than 2,500. 583 00:51:32,040 --> 00:51:36,040 I would say strike three for now. 584 00:51:36,040 --> 00:51:42,040 I think I have three for at least that direction is what I'm getting at. 585 00:51:42,040 --> 00:51:44,040 Robert would like to hear from you. 586 00:51:44,040 --> 00:51:46,040 Well, I think -- thank you. 587 00:51:46,040 --> 00:51:52,040 I would like to kind of dovetail with Dustin on those specific numbers that someone else had mentioned. 588 00:51:52,040 --> 00:52:01,040 This market, I think in real estate, fluctuation is so fluid it goes sky high, it drops to the bottom. 589 00:52:01,040 --> 00:52:06,040 I can see us having to review those numbers before the end of this year. 590 00:52:06,040 --> 00:52:09,040 That's what makes me nervous. 591 00:52:09,040 --> 00:52:19,040 That's why I like the model because we are of the opinion, I think, that whoever is sitting here or sitting on the council, 592 00:52:19,040 --> 00:52:25,040 not only did they want to do this but the citizens voted on them or were approved somehow, 593 00:52:25,040 --> 00:52:32,040 we are not molds dug in to do nefarious things. 594 00:52:32,040 --> 00:52:35,040 We all have a good heart for the city of Denver. 595 00:52:35,040 --> 00:52:40,040 So I kind of like the idea of not having the numbers because the words are strong enough for me. 596 00:52:40,040 --> 00:52:42,040 And I like your idea of bullseye. 597 00:52:42,040 --> 00:52:48,040 We'll know the scoundrel soon enough. 598 00:52:48,040 --> 00:52:50,040 I want to cover everybody. 599 00:52:50,040 --> 00:52:53,040 We'll know them soon enough and then we'll take care of it. 600 00:52:53,040 --> 00:52:55,040 That's my thoughts on that. 601 00:52:55,040 --> 00:52:58,040 I kind of like just going with the model of moving on. 602 00:52:58,040 --> 00:53:01,040 I think it has merit. 603 00:53:01,040 --> 00:53:06,040 Can I add something? 604 00:53:06,040 --> 00:53:07,040 Yes. 605 00:53:07,040 --> 00:53:15,040 The numbers that are up there now are more restrictive than any of the other cities. 606 00:53:15,040 --> 00:53:25,040 And there's not -- I would say at least in terms of income would be more restrictive than the model code 607 00:53:25,040 --> 00:53:31,040 if you consider income from what the model code defines as a client. 608 00:53:31,040 --> 00:53:38,040 So if the goal here is to make sure that everything is above board, 609 00:53:38,040 --> 00:53:45,040 we are being maybe a little more careful, transparent, 610 00:53:45,040 --> 00:53:50,040 whatever word you want to use is compared to the legal threshold. 611 00:53:50,040 --> 00:53:52,040 I think what is listed there does that. 612 00:53:52,040 --> 00:53:54,040 I'm not 100% sure. 613 00:53:54,040 --> 00:53:55,040 If you're saying the 10% -- 614 00:53:55,040 --> 00:53:58,040 I'm saying no, not the 10% of the numbers that are listed there. 615 00:53:58,040 --> 00:54:00,040 What's currently there? 616 00:54:00,040 --> 00:54:08,040 The dollar amount is -- I mean, $600 is a lot of money to me. 617 00:54:08,040 --> 00:54:11,040 It may not be a lot of money to some people. 618 00:54:11,040 --> 00:54:16,040 So I think it's very difficult to come up with a dollar amount. 619 00:54:16,040 --> 00:54:20,040 But just to step back a little bit, what is currently in there? 620 00:54:20,040 --> 00:54:25,040 If we left the revision out of the proposal, 621 00:54:25,040 --> 00:54:32,040 what is currently in the code is comparatively restrictive. 622 00:54:32,040 --> 00:54:35,040 And I think it -- 623 00:54:35,040 --> 00:54:40,040 So you're saying strike free and -- 624 00:54:40,040 --> 00:54:42,040 I think that's what we're going to end up on today. 625 00:54:42,040 --> 00:54:46,040 I'm just trying to make a point that what is currently in the code is more restrictive 626 00:54:46,040 --> 00:54:50,040 than the legal requirements, 627 00:54:50,040 --> 00:54:56,040 and at least as far as income goes, more restrictive than the model. 628 00:54:56,040 --> 00:55:04,040 But you have to pair that income with what would be an ethical violation. 629 00:55:04,040 --> 00:55:10,040 And in our code, there are just three cases where it would be standardized under the law. 630 00:55:10,040 --> 00:55:16,040 Our code is very -- 631 00:55:16,040 --> 00:55:19,040 So I think then we get into the definition of the pending matter thing 632 00:55:19,040 --> 00:55:23,040 and not just the threshold for conflict of interest. 633 00:55:23,040 --> 00:55:27,040 I think this proposal three is just the threshold. 634 00:55:27,040 --> 00:55:30,040 It's basically just this table. 635 00:55:30,040 --> 00:55:39,040 So what I'm hearing, if I may share, is direction for today is to strike proposal three, 636 00:55:39,040 --> 00:55:44,040 and then at future meetings discuss how we could potentially incorporate 637 00:55:44,040 --> 00:55:49,040 some of the model code language into the ordinance, is what I think I'm hearing. 638 00:55:49,040 --> 00:55:53,040 Somebody want to -- 639 00:55:53,040 --> 00:55:54,040 But I think -- 640 00:55:54,040 --> 00:55:57,040 It didn't matter definition to that discussion. 641 00:55:57,040 --> 00:56:04,040 But what Dustin has said and what I'm hearing is that it's not just a matter of discussing thresholds. 642 00:56:04,040 --> 00:56:08,040 We really need to look at the language in terms of pending matter. 643 00:56:08,040 --> 00:56:11,040 Pending matter and the other issues. 644 00:56:11,040 --> 00:56:15,040 So that we can actually -- 645 00:56:15,040 --> 00:56:21,040 So we're capturing more of where we want those rules to apply. 646 00:56:21,040 --> 00:56:28,040 And I think part of that discussion and part of the information that's provided needs to be 171 647 00:56:28,040 --> 00:56:39,040 and also what members of poison commissions already have to do for the city, which is Chapter 2, 648 00:56:39,040 --> 00:56:46,040 Article 3, Division 2, Section 2-62, which refers back to 171. 649 00:56:46,040 --> 00:56:53,040 But I think that needs to be part of the conversation as well. 650 00:56:53,040 --> 00:56:55,040 So strike -- 651 00:56:55,040 --> 00:56:56,040 I'll make a motion. 652 00:56:56,040 --> 00:56:57,040 Okay. 653 00:56:57,040 --> 00:57:01,040 I'll make a motion that we strike Proposal 3 from -- 654 00:57:01,040 --> 00:57:02,040 Proposal 3 is already stricken. 655 00:57:02,040 --> 00:57:03,040 Okay. 656 00:57:03,040 --> 00:57:04,040 So -- 657 00:57:04,040 --> 00:57:05,040 Okay. 658 00:57:05,040 --> 00:57:06,040 So -- 659 00:57:06,040 --> 00:57:07,040 I'll make a motion. 660 00:57:07,040 --> 00:57:08,040 So -- 661 00:57:08,040 --> 00:57:09,040 I got a second. 662 00:57:09,040 --> 00:57:12,040 So the direct -- so just so I'm totally clear. 663 00:57:12,040 --> 00:57:17,040 The direction is continue having Proposal 3 be struck from the -- from the proposals, 664 00:57:17,040 --> 00:57:23,040 which will still go forward on March 21st for the city council. 665 00:57:23,040 --> 00:57:29,040 And then in the future meetings topic, we'll discuss what we want -- when we want to discuss 666 00:57:29,040 --> 00:57:36,040 the definition of pending matter as well as the conflict of interest definition in light of 667 00:57:36,040 --> 00:57:42,040 Chapter 171 and the other relative city or city environments. 668 00:57:42,040 --> 00:57:43,040 Yes. 669 00:57:43,040 --> 00:57:46,040 And the possible level of coverage. 670 00:57:46,040 --> 00:57:49,040 Okay. 671 00:57:49,040 --> 00:57:58,040 So is there anything else on 13? 672 00:57:58,040 --> 00:57:59,040 Okay. 673 00:57:59,040 --> 00:58:03,040 So we move on to Item D. 674 00:58:03,040 --> 00:58:04,040 Did you make a motion? 675 00:58:04,040 --> 00:58:05,040 Oh. 676 00:58:05,040 --> 00:58:06,040 Oh, I'm sorry. 677 00:58:06,040 --> 00:58:07,040 I apologize. 678 00:58:07,040 --> 00:58:08,040 Okay. 679 00:58:08,040 --> 00:58:09,040 Cool. 680 00:58:09,040 --> 00:58:18,040 So then the second thing was just to -- if we made changes forward the letter again, 681 00:58:18,040 --> 00:58:23,040 which we did, we struck Proposal 2. 682 00:58:23,040 --> 00:58:24,040 Okay. 683 00:58:24,040 --> 00:58:30,040 And also just to add the minor clarification that we discussed as well. 684 00:58:30,040 --> 00:58:33,040 So we do need a motion to forward the letter -- 685 00:58:33,040 --> 00:58:37,040 A proposed amendment says proceed. 686 00:58:37,040 --> 00:58:38,040 Or as amended. 687 00:58:38,040 --> 00:58:39,040 As amended. 688 00:58:39,040 --> 00:58:40,040 Okay. 689 00:58:40,040 --> 00:58:41,040 I'll do it. 690 00:58:41,040 --> 00:58:44,040 I'll make a motion that we -- 691 00:58:44,040 --> 00:58:45,040 Forward the letter. 692 00:58:45,040 --> 00:58:46,040 Forward the letter. 693 00:58:46,040 --> 00:58:48,040 A proposed amendment says amendment. 694 00:58:48,040 --> 00:58:49,040 All in favor? 695 00:58:49,040 --> 00:58:50,040 Second. 696 00:58:50,040 --> 00:58:51,040 Who seconded? 697 00:58:51,040 --> 00:58:52,040 Anyone? 698 00:58:52,040 --> 00:58:53,040 Yeah. 699 00:58:53,040 --> 00:58:54,040 We all could. 700 00:58:54,040 --> 00:58:55,040 Yeah. 701 00:58:55,040 --> 00:58:56,040 All in favor? 702 00:58:56,040 --> 00:58:57,040 Aye. 703 00:58:57,040 --> 00:58:58,040 So it was unanimous. 704 00:58:58,040 --> 00:58:59,040 Okay. 705 00:58:59,040 --> 00:59:00,040 Cool. 706 00:59:00,040 --> 00:59:15,040 So now we move on to Item D. 707 00:59:15,040 --> 00:59:16,040 VLE 23-014. 708 00:59:16,040 --> 00:59:17,040 That's what we just did. 709 00:59:17,040 --> 00:59:18,040 I'm sorry. 710 00:59:18,040 --> 00:59:19,040 I'm sorry. 711 00:59:19,040 --> 00:59:20,040 So we move on to Item E. 712 00:59:20,040 --> 00:59:21,040 VLE 23-015. 713 00:59:21,040 --> 00:59:22,040 And this is just a notification, unless you want to have a discussion about it, but I 714 00:59:22,040 --> 00:59:23,040 received two requests for advice from City Council members regarding the acceptance of 715 00:59:23,040 --> 00:59:24,040 gifts. 716 00:59:24,040 --> 00:59:25,040 One was that we would like to have a discussion with the City Council. 717 00:59:25,040 --> 00:59:26,040 And the other one was that we would like to have a discussion with the City Council. 718 00:59:26,040 --> 00:59:27,040 And the other one was that we would like to have a discussion with the City Council. 719 00:59:27,040 --> 00:59:28,040 Okay. 720 00:59:28,040 --> 00:59:29,040 So we move on to Item D. 721 00:59:29,040 --> 00:59:30,040 VLE 23-014. 722 00:59:30,040 --> 00:59:31,040 That's what we just did. 723 00:59:31,040 --> 00:59:32,040 I'm sorry. 724 00:59:32,040 --> 00:59:33,040 I'm sorry. 725 00:59:33,040 --> 00:59:34,040 So we move on to Item E. 726 00:59:34,040 --> 00:59:35,040 VLE 23-015. 727 00:59:35,040 --> 00:59:50,040 And this is just a notification, unless you want to have a discussion about it, but I 728 00:59:50,040 --> 00:59:51,040 received two requests for advice from City Council members regarding the acceptance of 729 00:59:51,040 --> 00:59:52,040 gifts. 730 00:59:52,040 --> 00:59:53,040 One was regarding complementary attendance at a gala held by NCTC. 731 00:59:53,040 --> 00:59:54,040 Shia Advice was probably an exception, but said that it did not have the authority to 732 00:59:54,040 --> 00:59:55,040 actually tell them that for sure or not. 733 00:59:55,040 --> 00:59:56,040 And then the second was regarding complementary transportation provided by Equality Texas. 734 00:59:56,040 --> 00:59:57,040 And that has since been, Divisory of opinion has been requested for that. 735 00:59:57,040 --> 01:00:06,000 And so we're at that schedule for next Monday. 736 01:00:06,000 --> 01:00:07,000 Okay. 737 01:00:07,000 --> 01:00:14,000 So now we're actually on our participant list. 738 01:00:14,000 --> 01:00:15,000 Yeah. 739 01:00:15,000 --> 01:00:16,000 Unless you would like to have a discussion already. 740 01:00:16,000 --> 01:00:17,000 Are you comfortable being in that position? 741 01:00:17,000 --> 01:00:18,000 I mean, that's why I brought it up to you. 742 01:00:18,000 --> 01:00:19,000 That's a great question. 743 01:00:19,000 --> 01:00:20,000 I mean, this has happened before. 744 01:00:20,000 --> 01:00:33,000 And deciding in the future I'll bring it to you as part of this structure essentially. 745 01:00:33,000 --> 01:00:38,000 And for the logistics of something like that, because dare we ever put you in that kind 746 01:00:38,000 --> 01:00:39,000 of position. 747 01:00:39,000 --> 01:00:43,520 What do we have built in time frame for you to, because obviously this, they're all time 748 01:00:43,520 --> 01:00:44,520 sensitive. 749 01:00:44,520 --> 01:00:45,520 We do. 750 01:00:45,520 --> 01:00:50,560 So you've got the chair and then, I mean, how would you like to see that done? 751 01:00:50,560 --> 01:00:58,000 So I'm basically, I took the, we made, last time we did updates to the code, we put into 752 01:00:58,000 --> 01:01:01,320 the rules of procedure, essentially what you're talking about, timeframes for if I receive 753 01:01:01,320 --> 01:01:03,320 advice requests, what to do with them. 754 01:01:03,320 --> 01:01:08,320 And, and this is basically following that procedure. 755 01:01:08,320 --> 01:01:09,320 Okay. 756 01:01:09,320 --> 01:01:11,040 If I do receive them, I bring them to you. 757 01:01:11,040 --> 01:01:15,000 I pick this up as being outside of what we'd already agreed to. 758 01:01:15,000 --> 01:01:16,000 But if they weren't. 759 01:01:16,000 --> 01:01:21,000 I think, I think, while this one obviously turned into an advisory opinion and we had 760 01:01:21,000 --> 01:01:27,000 the time for that, the first one I think wasn't necessarily phrased as an advisory opinion 761 01:01:27,000 --> 01:01:28,000 request. 762 01:01:28,000 --> 01:01:33,000 But I just took it and used that same procedure, which I think is appropriate. 763 01:01:33,000 --> 01:01:36,000 Ultimately, that's what it kind of was. 764 01:01:36,000 --> 01:01:37,000 Yeah. 765 01:01:37,000 --> 01:01:42,000 I would say if you're comfortable with it, because I thought that was a good decision, 766 01:01:42,000 --> 01:01:46,000 then go for it and if not, then put it back on the list. 767 01:01:46,000 --> 01:01:49,000 And there was not time, basically, for the first one. 768 01:01:49,000 --> 01:01:53,000 And so that's, yeah, that's what the procedure says. 769 01:01:53,000 --> 01:01:58,000 Basically, I can give them references to the code and then I report it to you. 770 01:01:58,000 --> 01:02:02,000 They asked for the advisory opinion after I had made the agenda and there was time. 771 01:02:02,000 --> 01:02:05,000 So that's going to happen in the second one. 772 01:02:05,000 --> 01:02:08,000 Okay. 773 01:02:08,000 --> 01:02:13,000 So that concludes item E, so we're ready for item F. 774 01:02:13,000 --> 01:02:14,000 All right. 775 01:02:14,000 --> 01:02:17,000 EOE 23-016. 776 01:02:17,000 --> 01:02:22,000 The receiver report called the discussion gives staff direction regarding future meeting 777 01:02:22,000 --> 01:02:27,000 topics. 778 01:02:27,000 --> 01:02:30,000 So we've already identified one. 779 01:02:30,000 --> 01:02:33,000 Yes. 780 01:02:33,000 --> 01:02:36,000 So this is what we had previously discussed. 781 01:02:36,000 --> 01:02:38,000 And basically, do you want to make changes to this? 782 01:02:38,000 --> 01:02:43,000 Obviously, we did discuss having that discussion about conflict of interest and pending matter 783 01:02:43,000 --> 01:02:44,000 definition. 784 01:02:44,000 --> 01:02:49,000 So I guess it's just when you want to have that discussion and what you want to move 785 01:02:49,000 --> 01:02:50,000 around. 786 01:02:50,000 --> 01:02:55,000 We are typically aiming between an hour and an hour and a half for the meetings with previous 787 01:02:55,000 --> 01:02:56,000 directions. 788 01:02:56,000 --> 01:03:05,000 I would say if we're going to have the conflict of interest proposal three in March, I would 789 01:03:05,000 --> 01:03:10,000 like to add the pending matter because it all kind of -- March is today. 790 01:03:10,000 --> 01:03:18,000 So we're looking at April and May. 791 01:03:18,000 --> 01:03:29,000 So I would put the pending matter -- proposal three, the threshold, move it down to April. 792 01:03:29,000 --> 01:03:34,000 I mean, we've got it -- it looks like we have a gap in May that we could move some people 793 01:03:34,000 --> 01:03:39,000 down and it wouldn't affect us. 794 01:03:39,000 --> 01:03:41,000 We would just add this kind of new discussion. 795 01:03:41,000 --> 01:03:43,000 Proposal three is essentially done. 796 01:03:43,000 --> 01:03:44,000 We're not forwarding it. 797 01:03:44,000 --> 01:03:47,000 It will be a new proposal. 798 01:03:47,000 --> 01:03:49,000 I'm just thinking of the time discussion. 799 01:03:49,000 --> 01:03:50,000 Yes. 800 01:03:50,000 --> 01:03:55,000 I think it will need at least 30 minutes longer. 801 01:03:55,000 --> 01:03:56,000 You're optimistic. 802 01:03:56,000 --> 01:03:57,000 Yes. 803 01:03:57,000 --> 01:04:00,000 I'm trying. 804 01:04:00,000 --> 01:04:06,000 I suggest we start with the pending matter discussion before we go back to the threshold 805 01:04:06,000 --> 01:04:09,000 since there's a lot of concern about that. 806 01:04:09,000 --> 01:04:11,000 I think a lot of things on that. 807 01:04:11,000 --> 01:04:16,000 Maybe if we try to put that in the May, that additional topic slide in May. 808 01:04:16,000 --> 01:04:17,000 The threshold. 809 01:04:17,000 --> 01:04:23,000 The pending matter discussion first and then do the threshold after that. 810 01:04:23,000 --> 01:04:30,000 We're on less of a time crunch to try and sort that out since that's not going to be 811 01:04:30,000 --> 01:04:40,000 enough when it goes to council. 812 01:04:40,000 --> 01:04:41,000 Okay. 813 01:04:41,000 --> 01:04:45,000 So what I'm hearing is in the additional topics slide, it may have the pending matter discussion 814 01:04:45,000 --> 01:04:49,000 and then do that first, essentially break it up, that discussion we had, which would be 815 01:04:49,000 --> 01:04:53,000 a large discussion away to several bits or parts. 816 01:04:53,000 --> 01:04:54,000 I think so. 817 01:04:54,000 --> 01:04:55,000 Okay. 818 01:04:55,000 --> 01:05:01,000 And I don't know how we can fit it onto this, but I would really like to talk about alternates. 819 01:05:01,000 --> 01:05:05,000 Again, it's in the code and it's in the rules of procedure. 820 01:05:05,000 --> 01:05:07,000 Exact same wording. 821 01:05:07,000 --> 01:05:14,000 And my concern with it is that we have really good people who are alternates who have good 822 01:05:14,000 --> 01:05:19,000 voices and I think more voices are better than less. 823 01:05:19,000 --> 01:05:22,000 So I would like to maybe add that for June. 824 01:05:22,000 --> 01:05:24,000 Can we start looking at that? 825 01:05:24,000 --> 01:05:26,000 Are we meeting in June? 826 01:05:26,000 --> 01:05:27,000 I believe so. 827 01:05:27,000 --> 01:05:29,000 I checked the calendar. 828 01:05:29,000 --> 01:05:32,000 Not July but June. 829 01:05:32,000 --> 01:05:38,000 So I would like to put that in there because I, the other part that bothers me about it 830 01:05:38,000 --> 01:05:42,000 is that we have these good alternates and what if they get called to the board and they 831 01:05:42,000 --> 01:05:46,000 haven't had the benefit of these discussions. 832 01:05:46,000 --> 01:05:49,000 I think that would be helpful. 833 01:05:49,000 --> 01:05:52,000 So we'll look at that for me. 834 01:05:52,000 --> 01:05:55,000 I can give you the section if you want. 835 01:05:55,000 --> 01:05:57,000 I know where it is. 836 01:05:57,000 --> 01:05:59,000 You probably have it anyways. 837 01:05:59,000 --> 01:06:00,000 Okay. 838 01:06:00,000 --> 01:06:03,000 So put it on for June. 839 01:06:03,000 --> 01:06:04,000 Okay. 840 01:06:04,000 --> 01:06:08,000 So we're comfortable with the agenda for April. 841 01:06:08,000 --> 01:06:13,000 We're going to add to May the pending matter definition discussion and for June we're going 842 01:06:13,000 --> 01:06:16,000 to discuss that. 843 01:06:16,000 --> 01:06:21,000 It will be part of the next meeting as well but we'll discuss alternates and financial 844 01:06:21,000 --> 01:06:23,000 thresholds, pending matter. 845 01:06:23,000 --> 01:06:25,000 Are you guys okay with that? 846 01:06:25,000 --> 01:06:26,000 Okay. 847 01:06:26,000 --> 01:06:27,000 That's direction okay. 848 01:06:27,000 --> 01:06:31,000 I think the pending matter 171 should be part of that as well. 849 01:06:31,000 --> 01:06:32,000 Yep. 850 01:06:32,000 --> 01:06:36,000 Got that down. 851 01:06:36,000 --> 01:06:41,000 So we are at the end of the meeting. 852 01:06:41,000 --> 01:06:51,000 So we are adjourning at 6.36 p.m. 853 01:06:51,000 --> 01:06:52,000 Thank you very much. 854 01:06:52,000 --> 01:06:53,000 Thank you.