So ready to start? Yes. This is supportive ethics meeting on Monday, March 6th, 2023.
We do have a quorum present. Our first item for consideration will be BOE 23-011,
approval of the minutes for February 6th. Do I carry the motions for approval?
I'll move to approve them. Dustin Pavlik moved to approve them. Is there a second? Second.
Shannon Claussen moved to make a second. So all in favor? Passes unanimously. Now for
item BO323-12, receive a report, hold a discussion, and take necessary action
regarding potential proposals to amend the city of Denton code ordinance's
Chapter 13 article on ethics. All right. I can take this away if you would like? Yes.
Awesome. So we're trying to finalize our 2023 letter of proposed amendments to
the ethics ordinance. After last meeting where we had most of that draft language
pretty much set, I sent that to our special counsel for review, and he came
back with a few clarifying questions and a couple like a little minor
adjustment, so I wanted just to go over that really quick this meeting so that
we can get direction there. So first is on proposal one, which is about clarifying
the gifts prohibition. He raised some questions regarding additional
clarification in two or three places, I guess. One would be if the board had
interest in specifically forbidding any acceptance of cash or equivalents, which
would be prepaid credit cards or gift cards. Two, it was if the board had
interest in forbidding vendors from offering gifts to city officials or
their relatives, which is what we did previously. And then three would be just
on clarifying if we needed to disclose any gift you received or did
not have to disclose the ones that were considered exceptions. I hope that made
sense. So this is the first one I'll take direction here. There is a typo, you know,
number two, gifts should be gifts. Sorry, say that again. Number two, forbidding vendors
from offering or giving gifts. There's an F missing in there.
On the propel. Oh, thank you. Sorry, I'm putting it at the screen.
Maybe that's been corrected? In the ordinance? No, in the description of 23-1.
Did you do that down there a little bit or?
Oh, in the disclosure part? Uh-huh.
I don't have that up there. Okay, we'll look for it in. Madam Chair, do you wish
that we look at these one, two, three individually or as a group? I guess I
would ask, are you guys okay with this? Because I, are you guys okay with it?
Yeah, so essentially one would add this section, which we weren't, had not
previously been, was not previously in the ordinance. Two would add just this
sentence to this section that's already in the ordinance. And then three, any
direction on, if you intend for the disclosure to be all gifts or to not
include those that are exceptions, basically. It's not the best way to word that, but. Yeah, can I?
I'm fine with it. I mean, I guess more clarification is a good thing.
Madam Chair? Yes. My issue on number one is the city officials, specific council, can
receive unlimited funds in their campaign. And I would think we'd want to
clarify, we're talking here, cash that's going to them individually as opposed to
cash that's going into their campaign, which I think both could influence. My
thought was potentially saying that any contribution to a campaign in excess of
$50, they need to recuse themselves from a decision. So one of the
proposals that the Board is presenting to the council is to require recusal if
you've received more than $500 in aggregate from a person or a business
entity in campaign contributions. In campaign? Yes. So I think for this
specific thing, I think it's specifically talking about like actual cash or like a
gift card or something, prohibiting just accepting that in general. We could
obviously add, unless it's a campaign contribution, if you wanted to, since
we're covering that in another section potentially. So but this is just, this was
brought up by the special counsel. So and this is what he had basically exactly
written out as suggested. I would recommend including it there as opposed
to having to read further on and say, oh that's an exception. So including that
campaign contributions are accepted here. Right. Okay. So it makes it clear to
whoever's reading. I would suggest specifically addressing campaign
contributions that say exceptions and then give a uniformity card. B, gifts, number five.
Oh actually. Give us a reference. Campaign contributions might already be considered and
accepted. So in this section already of gifts, it excludes a lawful campaign
contribution. So it's already accepted. I'm sorry. I didn't anticipate that coming in. But it's
in the ordinance already that that's excluded. So it would be excluded from this as well basically.
That makes sense. I think you're saying it should be mentioned here too. Yeah as opposed to, oh it's over here.
So. It helps the continuity. Continuity of the reader as opposed to. Well I think having the
citation, having the reference rather than encourages the reader to go and look at
other exceptions as well. So you become more and more familiar with it becomes
almost a teaching tool. But we're not teaching here. We're just trying to make it
very clear. Here's the, here's the ethical guideline. Well we want city officials to
learn how to use this. So having familiarity is a way to learn how to use it. So this is the current
ordinance. And here it basically, the cash prohibition we're talking about
will basically go here. And then here's the list of exceptions. And this is the
local campaign contribution. If that helps. Madam Chair, question. Could we talk about
officials. The definition, we're part of that definition are we not? So it's committee
members as well as City Council, P&Z. So we were looking at a rather broad brush. I
want to make sure we didn't forget that. Yeah. So would you be in favor of putting that in
another place or would you like to add? I like just a somewhat of a, it's there we
can then look at. But I like it, more times it's somewhere in there I feel
like it's a less of a part of the expression a hunt and peck. Because if we
have people looking at this it might assist them in reaching to look at the
other exemptions and such. Versus, oh another city and like looking at New
York. Can I say that? I don't know, it's not here anymore. But you know what I'm
saying it can be overwhelming but if we see that it's there we can then look for
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
again if we were going to list it on one. So I don't know if that quite makes
sense to me to list it just on one of these numbered items that we list and
then it listed again on a lettered item under number five. That's just my
personal, I feel like it'd be more confusing because then it alludes that
one, two, three, four that are already up there are not included in that list if we
just place it in one of those numbered items in my, in the way that I would read
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.
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?
I would like to make a motion to accept the interest, be it forbidden or accepted cash as it was suggested by council.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can I rephrase it just for my own understanding? Please.
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.
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.
So you are in favor of it as written. Is that correct?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Yeah.
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.
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.
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.
We've got enough of that going.
We've had enough of that. Yeah, so I think I would make it more broad, because this is narrow.
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.
What about Andrew?
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.
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.
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.
It becomes public, which is a good thing.
It's the transparency thing.
I would say to disclose it all, because as you say, some of these things can rack up quite a large amount like lodging.
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.
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.
So maybe it would be in the figure of a dollar a minute.
What I think, it wouldn't even be considered a gift if it was less than $50 or an aggregate of $200 basically.
Does that help?
Absolutely.
Yes, thank you. I'm looking for the part on the conferences and the exception. Yes.
That is B.
No, it's, I thought I read somewhere where regional meetings, national conferences and such. Is that further down?
That's B or this here.
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.
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?
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?
So if you just went and you paid for it as part of your business or something. That's not a problem.
Right.
Yes.
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.
Would that be grounds for a complaint?
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.
Yeah, it's fodder for...
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.
Right.
And then...
That is a lot of paperwork.
Oh, I worked for the federal government. I just kind of do it all the time.
Can I clarify one more thing? You said the definition of a gift is that it is greater than 50 and less than 200?
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.
Exceeds?
Yes, sorry.
And that's in two and three here.
And then now we're proposing to add just cash of any value, basically, as well.
So do we need a motion on this one?
Can I go back to where we would know how to make the motion?
I don't know if this would help.
Yes, number three, because that's what we're looking at.
Yes.
So the question is all or only non-exceptions.
Madam Chair, I move that we accept number three as written clarification on disclosure of gifts, but only non-exceptions.
Non-exceptions?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay. Second to that?
I second that.
I know Clauston seconded it.
So all in favor of the motion to clarify disclosure of gifts, but only non-exceptions?
Yes.
All in favor?
Aye.
And all opposed?
Okay, anybody else?
Okay, so that passes six to one.
Correct?
Good, it's what I got as well.
Okay.
Thank you.
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.
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.
And that's why this was added to the section.
Would you wish to do anything with that information?
So their direction was to take the last sentence out?
Your direction was to take the last sentence out.
Okay.
They just want, Special Council gave context around that decision, and then I just thought I should bring it to the Board.
Okay.
The question is, do you want to roll back what you've done with the proposal or not, essentially, based on that additional context?
Does that roll back mean?
Not really with this sentence.
That's what I was asking, okay.
Yes.
Discussion?
So the alternative is to add a solicitation of employment to the conflict of interest definition, if this is removed?
It is already being proposed to add that to the conflict of interest definition.
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.
Okay.
So comments?
If they already have it, I'm happy with Council's suggestion.
Any other opinion?
Do we hear a motion?
I wouldn't say Council necessarily suggested not doing it. They just wanted to give more context to the Board.
Okay.
And is this a motion needed for this?
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.
I'm sorry.
I'm a little confused, I apologize.
The Prop. 2 is with the marked out?
Correct.
Okay.
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?
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.
It is currently scheduled to go forward to the City Council as it's in current life right here.
You could just decide not to do that based on Council's direction or change it or we could just move on, essentially.
We only need a motion if you want to change what's written here.
Oh, I apologize. No second. Just let me die.
Figuratively.
Ow.
Figuratively.
Thank you very much.
Okay, I think I might be able to get it.
Okay.
I motion that we strike Prop. 2 from the packet that we're presenting to City Council.
Okay, and that would be to basically put this language back in.
Yeah, to leave the language in.
Okay.
I'll second that. I'll come back to life.
So the motion on the floor is to strike Prop. 2. All in favor?
Aye.
That was unanimous.
Okay. So 7-0 to strike Prop. 2.
Thank you. Very nice.
All right. We're almost done with this.
Next, this is kind of just a notification.
I don't know that we necessarily need to have any action on this unless we really want to,
but Special Counsel basically suggested the original wording of this Prop. 9 was a little confusing,
so I sent this reworded clause to them and they said, "Sounds better."
So unless there's any questions or concerns about that, we don't have to discuss it.
I don't think so. Do you think we need a motion to change it? I think it's already...
I like that a lot, though.
Just to clarify...
Yeah, it's just rewording it from what was originally...
I think it's...
I have to material change, I think so.
Okay. But we do need a motion, sorry.
Okay.
Basically to change it from...
To change the actual language of Prop. 9 from this to this.
Okay.
Which counsel likes better?
So do I hear a motion to change the wording?
From this to that?
From this to that. Yeah.
I'm going to move it. Go ahead. Just a second.
Go ahead.
Put Duster down, and I'll second.
Okay. So moved by Duster.
Okay. And seconded by Rob Rayner.
It is more clear.
Seconded by Rob Rayner.
Oh, okay. All in favor?
Aye.
That's even less.
Okay. Awesome.
Last one, basically.
This was just another clarification
that the Federal Council wanted to make sure that
by saying the member is present,
it would effectively...
Could effectively lower the number of affirmative votes necessary
to conclude probability.
So if you only...
Normally we would have seven. We would want that.
But if we only had...
Currently we only have six members,
because we have vacancy, if we could only get six,
two-thirds of that would be the same as seven.
So if we had five, two-thirds of that would be less
than what we would normally require, essentially.
So that was just to clarify that that's what you guys intended
when we were making this change.
Okay.
So discussion on this?
So basically the motion would be to add the members present.
No, it's already there.
So if you wanted, you could make a motion to remove that,
which would make it less clear.
Okay.
Yeah.
So a motion to remove the members present.
Anybody want to make that motion?
I mean, if I may.
I think that that could stay,
because if there were only five,
having to ensure that four would be able to attend
could be tricky.
I think sometimes we have difficulty getting that together
within the ten business days.
So two-thirds of the members present seems...
And we always try to get seven, obviously.
And I think we partially added this, at least,
to make it more clear if it was of the members present
or of seven, basically.
So basically I'm just bringing this up to special counsel.
Wanted me to make sure that it was clear to you all
that that's what you were doing.
So I don't think it needs to change.
Okay.
I think that's fine, but...
So would you like to put that in the form of a motion,
or do we need to discuss that more?
If we're not changing this language,
it doesn't need a motion.
Okay.
So just move on.
So that means we're moving forward with the proposal 10
as we had intended prior.
Correct.
Direction that to change.
Awesome.
And then there was one additional,
this minor clarity change that special counsel suggested,
which is just to change the word affiliated to related,
because we are now defining affiliated.
I can bring that up if you would like.
It really doesn't, I think, impact.
It was just to make sure that that wasn't confusing
to anybody in the future.
Awesome.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madison.
So are we ready to move on?
Yes.
So this would be BOE 23-013.
Correct.
So we're moving on to item C.
Okay.
So this is about proposal three,
which last meeting was stricken from the letter
of proposed amendments,
and then the board directed staff to bring back research
on what other municipalities do
and what the model code says regarding financial prohibitions.
This was the changing all of the $600 to 10% conversation
we had last time.
So this is what -- basically there are five of our benchmark
municipalities that kind of have a general conflict
of interest -- general conflict of interest prohibition
for financial considerations, if that makes any sense.
Basically, they prohibit official action
if an economic interest would be affected in a way
that's distinguishable from the effect on the public.
The model code has similar language,
so that's kind of what's presented here.
The remaining five municipalities have specifically defined
thresholds for different things like we currently do,
and that's what's presented here.
So we can have a discussion if you would enjoy it.
If you want to continue, basically,
do you want to continue having a proposal three at all?
And if so, if you want to use something more similar
to the model code, where it's more of a general prohibition
or with specific financial thresholds,
which is what we previously had and what those thresholds are.
So we can open this for discussion.
That's all I got.
I have a question because city officials are still held
by Chapter 171 of the Texas Code,
and the proposed percentages are right out of there.
Ten percent, ten percent, and then ownership value 15,000,
and then real property, 2,500.
Those are right out of 171 as a substantial interest.
But then 171 goes on to say that in the case
of a substantial interest in a business entity,
the action on the matter will have a special economic effect
on the business entity that is distinguishable
from the effect on the public or goes on in the same vein.
So essentially, it sounds like some of the cities are taking
the second part in talking about finances,
even if they're not setting a limit.
I mean, the city council and city officials
still have to abide by this.
This is the threshold.
This is the law, but ethics is supposed to be higher.
Exactly, and so I don't know why this is changing.
And number two, if they do violate it,
then it's not only under the proposed language
an ethical violation, it's a misdemeanor as well,
it's a criminal case.
So I'm just wondering why we're doing this.
I apologize if I missed it.
Why we're doing what?
Why we're even talking about changing it and then--
So I think because the Denton code currently
is the first column there, so it's five percent,
and then 600 for the last three items, so it's well below those.
And then what the proposed language was
from that August meeting was to change that to all 10%.
But the exception is that under our code,
when we have a pending matter,
it only addresses three things, a request for a permit, a case,
and some very peculiar contracts.
So it limits it, so even though this is smaller,
it's still a much more limited scope
than what officials are already required by law to do.
I think I got a little bit confused.
You might explain that again, the legal versus the ethical,
the differences and why one is irrelevant, more briefly.
Not that it's irrelevant, but under the current ethical code
for the city of Denton, we have five percent ownership
of that first column that it applies.
That's an ethical violation if you go beyond that
in a pending matter.
So it's not like it's inclusive like in the law,
which is much broader.
Our ethical code is specific to those three things.
Our ethical code is lighter, I guess, would be a better word.
Well, yeah, it is.
Yeah, that pending matter really makes me crazy, actually.
What do you refer to as the three?
When you're referencing the three?
The pending matter.
I can bring up the definition.
What that means is that you could vote on something
that involves your property, and then you could do your action
the very next day, because it would no longer be a pending matter.
Okay.
That's kind of a slang definition,
and that's what bothers me.
The other part that I have a concern with is that percentage,
because if I own a piece of property,
and I have only one person interested in it,
I think I'd be very interested in what happens.
I guess it's kind of like saying marijuana is illegal,
but it's okay if you have just a little.
It's still illegal, as our council has talked about recently.
So why is this?
I don't know.
I think that's a good analogy.
Your point is then to what?
Isn't the model code more --
Basically, it's not putting numbers to it.
It's saying that if you benefit in any way
that the general public would not benefit,
then that's an ethical violation.
And I like that so much more, because there are going to be times
when you're going to vote on something that would benefit you,
but if it benefits everybody else, that's okay.
And you wouldn't have to recuse yourself.
But this 5%, 10%, $600, $15, how do you --
I mean, I don't have tax, but --
So I'm going to -- I'm sorry.
That's fine.
One of the things that bothers me about the model code
is because it is so big.
And so for me -- and plus I also was --
I was not in favor of exact amounts,
because an exact dollar amount has a different meaning
for different income groups.
And so I was always in favor of the percentages,
because I think it makes it more equitable.
However, the way -- if we're thinking along with the legal,
you're saying that certain things --
these things are already covered by legal definitions, or the law.
Right, in the state law for government officials.
In the state law for government officials.
So this would only be added on top of that, right?
If we're going to do the same thing as the state, then --
Why do you even have that?
If it's violated, it's a criminal case.
Right.
So we move beyond ethics and the appearance of non-conflict interest.
I'm just concerned -- I'm just concerned that personal
or financial benefit is so vague that somebody could say,
"Well, that really isn't -- it's not really a benefit to me."
So it really depends on --
Well, yeah, they certainly can.
They can say that because your partner works at a university,
you can't bet on anything related to that.
That's been done.
And I fail to see where there's a benefit.
But when I have seen this come up, there was a case --
and I forget what city -- maybe Plano.
I don't remember.
It was the mayor of a city, and she was dating a developer.
And while the guy was building things in the city,
she voted on his projects 30 times, something like that.
It was a crazy number.
And so I think it's kind of like a target where you have a bullseye,
and if you keep shooting your arrows and they land outside of the target,
if you do it enough, you're going to get called on this.
And I think that's what happened.
They both -- I believe they both went to jail.
Yeah, they did.
But I would be in favor of the model code just because it has that broadness.
Now, I think if that happened once or twice, yeah, but I don't know.
I just -- how do you get around the --
if it's just a little bit of something that's illegal,
that's not a big deal, but yeah.
I'm wrestling with what's the difference between 9.99% versus 10.01%.
Yeah, yeah.
I think once you put numbers in there, then -- yeah.
But I think it's more -- this is a thing I learned in ethics.
We have to take ethics programs.
And the presenter gave that bullseye thing.
He said you can do something that's not ethical,
but if you do it repeatedly, there are going to be times.
And that made a lot of sense to me.
You know, I still like the model code because I think it --
you know, this is what we're shooting for.
If your arrows are all going outside the bull -- outside the whole target,
you're going to get called on it.
I think in a model code, there is some definition of -- at least for a client.
It's described as someone -- if you've received more than $1,000
in the previous 24 months, so there is some definition.
There is a threshold for what is considered an incline.
So I mean, I know there's been discussion at the previous meeting
about how there is no threshold for what is the conflict of interest.
It's this sort of like gray thing where all of us in this room
probably understand what it means.
And when that would come up, it seems obvious to us.
But if there is a case where there is someone who there is an ethics complaint filed against,
it's going to be -- as a board, we're going to have to have some definition of that to make a decision.
So let me just give an example with that.
Let's say I shop at a grocery store called Alpha Beta Gamma.
And Alpha Beta Gamma comes to council and they want to do something.
Well, I shop there all the time.
Now I spent more than $1,000 last year because I bought eggs.
Sure, but you don't have to -- you're not purchasing shares of that grocery store.
I know, I know. But if we put a threshold --
You were there -- I mean, you're -- I don't think that would apply in this.
So I think in the model code it's saying if you owned the property that that grocery store leased
and that grocery store wants to expand their business so that you would incur more than $1,000 --
I think that would be the intent for sure, you're right.
But I think when you put a threshold in, someone could get reared.
So thresholds make me nervous because within a few years they might change.
Sure. I'm just imagining --
I think it's really the spirit of it.
Right. I'm just imagining it being in this room for a -- trying to review a complaint
and trying to decide the spirit of the code and it's going to affect someone's ability to run for office
or their business reputation or whatever. I think -- I don't know that I have a good answer.
Yeah, I don't either.
I'm just trying -- I spent some time thinking about this and looking at the model code
after some of the discussion about how there's no threshold.
And there is some threshold here and under this it also includes the campaign contributions
and has a dollar threshold for that of $200.
So the model code does provide some of that and some of the other things that as far as ownership
of a business I don't think there is a percentage or a dollar amount threshold.
But for establishing a client relationship and campaign contributions there is a dollar threshold.
So the question that we're trying to decide is a model code approach versus leave it like it is.
Well, so yeah, there's a couple of options, right?
There's -- you could give direction today to go with language similar to the model code.
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.
I would want to see it.
Yes. So that might push back the March 21st presentation.
Okay.
Or we could just strike three for now, continue having these discussions,
so I could bring it back in April or whatever and that would be part of the next set of updates we present.
If we wanted to stick with the thresholds, which it's not going to mean exactly what we want to do,
that would be pretty easy because that's already what's written.
So you could just take $600 and stick in whatever you wanted.
So that could still go.
So I think that's kind of -- do we want to make a decision today?
So what is your pleasure?
You've got some really interesting options.
We can certainly push back the presentation of the proposals if that is the way you would like to go.
Okay.
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.
And I think we need some time to ponder it some more, but I don't want to not be listening.
Did council request that we review this and revise the thresholds?
No, this was -- we brought this on ourselves.
The board decided to have a comprehensive review of the conflict amendment definition,
which led to most of the proposals that are out there.
But this is a big, big issue and I don't think we should make it lively.
Could we have another look at our recommendation?
Your recommendation?
The original proposal was basically to take all of these and make them 10%.
That makes sense.
This could put somebody in violation of the law if their 10% was greater than 15,000 or greater than 2,500.
I would say strike three for now.
I think I have three for at least that direction is what I'm getting at.
Robert would like to hear from you.
Well, I think -- thank you.
I would like to kind of dovetail with Dustin on those specific numbers that someone else had mentioned.
This market, I think in real estate, fluctuation is so fluid it goes sky high, it drops to the bottom.
I can see us having to review those numbers before the end of this year.
That's what makes me nervous.
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,
not only did they want to do this but the citizens voted on them or were approved somehow,
we are not molds dug in to do nefarious things.
We all have a good heart for the city of Denver.
So I kind of like the idea of not having the numbers because the words are strong enough for me.
And I like your idea of bullseye.
We'll know the scoundrel soon enough.
I want to cover everybody.
We'll know them soon enough and then we'll take care of it.
That's my thoughts on that.
I kind of like just going with the model of moving on.
I think it has merit.
Can I add something?
Yes.
The numbers that are up there now are more restrictive than any of the other cities.
And there's not -- I would say at least in terms of income would be more restrictive than the model code
if you consider income from what the model code defines as a client.
So if the goal here is to make sure that everything is above board,
we are being maybe a little more careful, transparent,
whatever word you want to use is compared to the legal threshold.
I think what is listed there does that.
I'm not 100% sure.
If you're saying the 10% --
I'm saying no, not the 10% of the numbers that are listed there.
What's currently there?
The dollar amount is -- I mean, $600 is a lot of money to me.
It may not be a lot of money to some people.
So I think it's very difficult to come up with a dollar amount.
But just to step back a little bit, what is currently in there?
If we left the revision out of the proposal,
what is currently in the code is comparatively restrictive.
And I think it --
So you're saying strike free and --
I think that's what we're going to end up on today.
I'm just trying to make a point that what is currently in the code is more restrictive
than the legal requirements,
and at least as far as income goes, more restrictive than the model.
But you have to pair that income with what would be an ethical violation.
And in our code, there are just three cases where it would be standardized under the law.
Our code is very --
So I think then we get into the definition of the pending matter thing
and not just the threshold for conflict of interest.
I think this proposal three is just the threshold.
It's basically just this table.
So what I'm hearing, if I may share, is direction for today is to strike proposal three,
and then at future meetings discuss how we could potentially incorporate
some of the model code language into the ordinance, is what I think I'm hearing.
Somebody want to --
But I think --
It didn't matter definition to that discussion.
But what Dustin has said and what I'm hearing is that it's not just a matter of discussing thresholds.
We really need to look at the language in terms of pending matter.
Pending matter and the other issues.
So that we can actually --
So we're capturing more of where we want those rules to apply.
And I think part of that discussion and part of the information that's provided needs to be 171
and also what members of poison commissions already have to do for the city, which is Chapter 2,
Article 3, Division 2, Section 2-62, which refers back to 171.
But I think that needs to be part of the conversation as well.
So strike --
I'll make a motion.
Okay.
I'll make a motion that we strike Proposal 3 from --
Proposal 3 is already stricken.
Okay.
So --
Okay.
So --
I'll make a motion.
So --
I got a second.
So the direct -- so just so I'm totally clear.
The direction is continue having Proposal 3 be struck from the -- from the proposals,
which will still go forward on March 21st for the city council.
And then in the future meetings topic, we'll discuss what we want -- when we want to discuss
the definition of pending matter as well as the conflict of interest definition in light of
Chapter 171 and the other relative city or city environments.
Yes.
And the possible level of coverage.
Okay.
So is there anything else on 13?
Okay.
So we move on to Item D.
Did you make a motion?
Oh.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I apologize.
Okay.
Cool.
So then the second thing was just to -- if we made changes forward the letter again,
which we did, we struck Proposal 2.
Okay.
And also just to add the minor clarification that we discussed as well.
So we do need a motion to forward the letter --
A proposed amendment says proceed.
Or as amended.
As amended.
Okay.
I'll do it.
I'll make a motion that we --
Forward the letter.
A proposed amendment says amendment.
All in favor?
Second.
Who seconded?
Anyone?
Yeah.
We all could.
Yeah.
All in favor?
Aye.
So it was unanimous.
Okay.
Cool.
So now we move on to Item D.
VLE 23-014.
That's what we just did.
I'm sorry.
So we move on to Item E.
VLE 23-015.
And this is just a notification, unless you want to have a discussion about it, but I
received two requests for advice from City Council members regarding the acceptance of
gifts.
One was that we would like to have a discussion with the City Council.
And the other one was that we would like to have a discussion with the City Council.
Okay.
So we move on to Item D.
VLE 23-014.
That's what we just did.
I'm sorry.
So we move on to Item E.
VLE 23-015.
And this is just a notification, unless you want to have a discussion about it, but I
received two requests for advice from City Council members regarding the acceptance of
gifts.
One was regarding complementary attendance at a gala held by NCTC.
Shia Advice was probably an exception, but said that it did not have the authority to
actually tell them that for sure or not.
And then the second was regarding complementary transportation provided by Equality Texas.
And that has since been, Divisory of opinion has been requested for that.
And so we're at that schedule for next Monday.
Okay.
So now we're actually on our participant list.
Yeah.
Unless you would like to have a discussion already.
Are you comfortable being in that position?
I mean, that's why I brought it up to you.
That's a great question.
I mean, this has happened before.
And deciding in the future I'll bring it to you as part of this structure essentially.
And for the logistics of something like that, because dare we ever put you in that kind
of position.
What do we have built in time frame for you to, because obviously this, they're all time
sensitive.
We do.
So you've got the chair and then, I mean, how would you like to see that done?
So I'm basically, I took the, we made, last time we did updates to the code, we put into
the rules of procedure, essentially what you're talking about, timeframes for if I receive
advice requests, what to do with them.
And, and this is basically following that procedure.
Okay.
If I do receive them, I bring them to you.
I pick this up as being outside of what we'd already agreed to.
But if they weren't.
I think, I think, while this one obviously turned into an advisory opinion and we had
the time for that, the first one I think wasn't necessarily phrased as an advisory opinion
request.
But I just took it and used that same procedure, which I think is appropriate.
Ultimately, that's what it kind of was.
Yeah.
I would say if you're comfortable with it, because I thought that was a good decision,
then go for it and if not, then put it back on the list.
And there was not time, basically, for the first one.
And so that's, yeah, that's what the procedure says.
Basically, I can give them references to the code and then I report it to you.
They asked for the advisory opinion after I had made the agenda and there was time.
So that's going to happen in the second one.
Okay.
So that concludes item E, so we're ready for item F.
All right.
EOE 23-016.
The receiver report called the discussion gives staff direction regarding future meeting
topics.
So we've already identified one.
Yes.
So this is what we had previously discussed.
And basically, do you want to make changes to this?
Obviously, we did discuss having that discussion about conflict of interest and pending matter
definition.
So I guess it's just when you want to have that discussion and what you want to move
around.
We are typically aiming between an hour and an hour and a half for the meetings with previous
directions.
I would say if we're going to have the conflict of interest proposal three in March, I would
like to add the pending matter because it all kind of -- March is today.
So we're looking at April and May.
So I would put the pending matter -- proposal three, the threshold, move it down to April.
I mean, we've got it -- it looks like we have a gap in May that we could move some people
down and it wouldn't affect us.
We would just add this kind of new discussion.
Proposal three is essentially done.
We're not forwarding it.
It will be a new proposal.
I'm just thinking of the time discussion.
Yes.
I think it will need at least 30 minutes longer.
You're optimistic.
Yes.
I'm trying.
I suggest we start with the pending matter discussion before we go back to the threshold
since there's a lot of concern about that.
I think a lot of things on that.
Maybe if we try to put that in the May, that additional topic slide in May.
The threshold.
The pending matter discussion first and then do the threshold after that.
We're on less of a time crunch to try and sort that out since that's not going to be
enough when it goes to council.
Okay.
So what I'm hearing is in the additional topics slide, it may have the pending matter discussion
and then do that first, essentially break it up, that discussion we had, which would be
a large discussion away to several bits or parts.
I think so.
Okay.
And I don't know how we can fit it onto this, but I would really like to talk about alternates.
Again, it's in the code and it's in the rules of procedure.
Exact same wording.
And my concern with it is that we have really good people who are alternates who have good
voices and I think more voices are better than less.
So I would like to maybe add that for June.
Can we start looking at that?
Are we meeting in June?
I believe so.
I checked the calendar.
Not July but June.
So I would like to put that in there because I, the other part that bothers me about it
is that we have these good alternates and what if they get called to the board and they
haven't had the benefit of these discussions.
I think that would be helpful.
So we'll look at that for me.
I can give you the section if you want.
I know where it is.
You probably have it anyways.
Okay.
So put it on for June.
Okay.
So we're comfortable with the agenda for April.
We're going to add to May the pending matter definition discussion and for June we're going
to discuss that.
It will be part of the next meeting as well but we'll discuss alternates and financial
thresholds, pending matter.
Are you guys okay with that?
Okay.
That's direction okay.
I think the pending matter 171 should be part of that as well.
Yep.
Got that down.
So we are at the end of the meeting.
So we are adjourning at 6.36 p.m.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.