WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:08.160 So ready to start? Yes. This is supportive ethics meeting on Monday, March 6th, 2023. 00:00:08.160 --> 00:00:21.960 We do have a quorum present. Our first item for consideration will be BOE 23-011, 00:00:21.960 --> 00:00:31.160 approval of the minutes for February 6th. Do I carry the motions for approval? 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. 00:00:37.480 --> 00:00:52.400 Shannon Claussen moved to make a second. So all in favor? Passes unanimously. Now for 00:00:52.400 --> 00:01:00.640 item BO323-12, receive a report, hold a discussion, and take necessary action 00:01:00.640 --> 00:01:05.320 regarding potential proposals to amend the city of Denton code ordinance's 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. 00:01:14.240 --> 00:01:20.320 Awesome. So we're trying to finalize our 2023 letter of proposed amendments to 00:01:20.320 --> 00:01:24.320 the ethics ordinance. After last meeting where we had most of that draft language 00:01:24.320 --> 00:01:30.000 pretty much set, I sent that to our special counsel for review, and he came 00:01:30.000 --> 00:01:32.840 back with a few clarifying questions and a couple like a little minor 00:01:32.840 --> 00:01:37.600 adjustment, so I wanted just to go over that really quick this meeting so that 00:01:37.600 --> 00:01:43.760 we can get direction there. So first is on proposal one, which is about clarifying 00:01:43.760 --> 00:01:48.600 the gifts prohibition. He raised some questions regarding additional 00:01:48.600 --> 00:01:55.480 clarification in two or three places, I guess. One would be if the board had 00:01:55.480 --> 00:01:59.480 interest in specifically forbidding any acceptance of cash or equivalents, which 00:01:59.480 --> 00:02:07.240 would be prepaid credit cards or gift cards. Two, it was if the board had 00:02:07.240 --> 00:02:12.280 interest in forbidding vendors from offering gifts to city officials or 00:02:12.280 --> 00:02:17.680 their relatives, which is what we did previously. And then three would be just 00:02:17.680 --> 00:02:24.720 on clarifying if we needed to disclose any gift you received or did 00:02:24.720 --> 00:02:29.160 not have to disclose the ones that were considered exceptions. I hope that made 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, 00:02:36.480 --> 00:02:43.440 number two, gifts should be gifts. Sorry, say that again. Number two, forbidding vendors 00:02:43.440 --> 00:02:50.760 from offering or giving gifts. There's an F missing in there. 00:03:00.160 --> 00:03:06.200 On the propel. Oh, thank you. Sorry, I'm putting it at the screen. 00:03:06.200 --> 00:03:16.640 Maybe that's been corrected? In the ordinance? No, in the description of 23-1. 00:03:16.640 --> 00:03:23.160 Did you do that down there a little bit or? 00:03:23.160 --> 00:03:28.800 Oh, in the disclosure part? Uh-huh. 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 00:03:43.880 --> 00:03:50.240 that we look at these one, two, three individually or as a group? I guess I 00:03:50.240 --> 00:03:56.600 would ask, are you guys okay with this? Because I, are you guys okay with it? 00:03:56.600 --> 00:04:02.520 Yeah, so essentially one would add this section, which we weren't, had not 00:04:02.520 --> 00:04:07.040 previously been, was not previously in the ordinance. Two would add just this 00:04:07.040 --> 00:04:10.760 sentence to this section that's already in the ordinance. And then three, any 00:04:10.760 --> 00:04:15.360 direction on, if you intend for the disclosure to be all gifts or to not 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? 00:04:25.440 --> 00:04:31.200 I'm fine with it. I mean, I guess more clarification is a good thing. 00:04:31.200 --> 00:04:44.120 Madam Chair? Yes. My issue on number one is the city officials, specific council, can 00:04:44.120 --> 00:04:52.120 receive unlimited funds in their campaign. And I would think we'd want to 00:04:52.120 --> 00:04:59.120 clarify, we're talking here, cash that's going to them individually as opposed to 00:04:59.120 --> 00:05:06.840 cash that's going into their campaign, which I think both could influence. My 00:05:06.840 --> 00:05:13.480 thought was potentially saying that any contribution to a campaign in excess of 00:05:13.480 --> 00:05:21.380 $50, they need to recuse themselves from a decision. So one of the 00:05:21.380 --> 00:05:26.160 proposals that the Board is presenting to the council is to require recusal if 00:05:26.160 --> 00:05:29.720 you've received more than $500 in aggregate from a person or a business 00:05:29.720 --> 00:05:35.560 entity in campaign contributions. In campaign? Yes. So I think for this 00:05:35.560 --> 00:05:40.480 specific thing, I think it's specifically talking about like actual cash or like a 00:05:40.480 --> 00:05:45.520 gift card or something, prohibiting just accepting that in general. We could 00:05:45.520 --> 00:05:51.560 obviously add, unless it's a campaign contribution, if you wanted to, since 00:05:51.560 --> 00:05:55.920 we're covering that in another section potentially. So but this is just, this was 00:05:55.920 --> 00:06:01.400 brought up by the special counsel. So and this is what he had basically exactly 00:06:01.400 --> 00:06:06.120 written out as suggested. I would recommend including it there as opposed 00:06:06.120 --> 00:06:12.080 to having to read further on and say, oh that's an exception. So including that 00:06:12.080 --> 00:06:17.320 campaign contributions are accepted here. Right. Okay. So it makes it clear to 00:06:17.320 --> 00:06:24.200 whoever's reading. I would suggest specifically addressing campaign 00:06:24.200 --> 00:06:33.800 contributions that say exceptions and then give a uniformity card. B, gifts, number five. 00:06:33.800 --> 00:06:40.920 Oh actually. Give us a reference. Campaign contributions might already be considered and 00:06:40.920 --> 00:06:46.800 accepted. So in this section already of gifts, it excludes a lawful campaign 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 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. 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. 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 00:07:14.040 --> 00:07:18.880 citation, having the reference rather than encourages the reader to go and look at 00:07:18.880 --> 00:07:23.360 other exceptions as well. So you become more and more familiar with it becomes 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 00:07:29.800 --> 00:07:38.200 very clear. Here's the, here's the ethical guideline. Well we want city officials to 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 00:07:48.120 --> 00:07:54.640 ordinance. And here it basically, the cash prohibition we're talking about 00:07:54.640 --> 00:08:01.360 will basically go here. And then here's the list of exceptions. And this is the 00:08:01.360 --> 00:08:10.440 local campaign contribution. If that helps. Madam Chair, question. Could we talk about 00:08:10.440 --> 00:08:17.600 officials. The definition, we're part of that definition are we not? So it's committee 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 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 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 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 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 00:08:46.800 --> 00:08:52.560 have people looking at this it might assist them in reaching to look at the 00:08:52.560 --> 00:08:57.000 other exemptions and such. Versus, oh another city and like looking at New 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 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 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 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 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 00:09:34.200 --> 00:09:40.840 then it listed again on a lettered item under number five. That's just my 00:09:40.840 --> 00:09:45.520 personal, I feel like it'd be more confusing because then it alludes that 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 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 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. 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? 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. 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? 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 00:13:23.040 --> 00:13:27.040 Can I rephrase it just for my own understanding? Please. 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. 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. 00:13:57.040 --> 00:14:01.040 So you are in favor of it as written. Is that correct? 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 00:15:23.040 --> 00:15:27.040 Yeah. 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. 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. 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. 00:16:09.040 --> 00:16:10.040 We've got enough of that going. 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. 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. 00:16:45.040 --> 00:16:47.040 What about Andrew? 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. 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. 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. 00:17:30.040 --> 00:17:34.040 It becomes public, which is a good thing. 00:17:34.040 --> 00:17:37.040 It's the transparency thing. 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. 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. 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. 00:18:15.040 --> 00:18:18.040 So maybe it would be in the figure of a dollar a minute. 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. 00:18:26.040 --> 00:18:27.040 Does that help? 00:18:27.040 --> 00:18:30.040 Absolutely. 00:18:30.040 --> 00:18:45.040 Yes, thank you. I'm looking for the part on the conferences and the exception. Yes. 00:18:45.040 --> 00:18:48.040 That is B. 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? 00:18:57.040 --> 00:19:00.040 That's B or this here. 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. 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? 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? 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. 00:19:56.040 --> 00:20:03.040 Right. 00:20:03.040 --> 00:20:05.040 Yes. 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. 00:20:29.040 --> 00:20:35.040 Would that be grounds for a complaint? 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. 00:21:02.040 --> 00:21:07.040 Yeah, it's fodder for... 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. 00:21:18.040 --> 00:21:19.040 Right. 00:21:19.040 --> 00:21:23.040 And then... 00:21:23.040 --> 00:21:25.040 That is a lot of paperwork. 00:21:25.040 --> 00:21:32.040 Oh, I worked for the federal government. I just kind of do it all the time. 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? 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. 00:22:00.040 --> 00:22:02.040 Exceeds? 00:22:02.040 --> 00:22:08.040 Yes, sorry. 00:22:08.040 --> 00:22:13.040 And that's in two and three here. 00:22:13.040 --> 00:22:25.040 And then now we're proposing to add just cash of any value, basically, as well. 00:22:25.040 --> 00:22:29.040 So do we need a motion on this one? 00:22:29.040 --> 00:22:36.040 Can I go back to where we would know how to make the motion? 00:22:36.040 --> 00:22:42.040 I don't know if this would help. 00:22:42.040 --> 00:22:44.040 Yes, number three, because that's what we're looking at. 00:22:44.040 --> 00:22:51.040 Yes. 00:22:51.040 --> 00:22:56.040 So the question is all or only non-exceptions. 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. 00:23:09.040 --> 00:23:10.040 Non-exceptions? 00:23:10.040 --> 00:23:11.040 Yes, ma'am. 00:23:11.040 --> 00:23:13.040 Okay. Second to that? 00:23:13.040 --> 00:23:15.040 I second that. 00:23:15.040 --> 00:23:17.040 I know Clauston seconded it. 00:23:17.040 --> 00:23:24.040 So all in favor of the motion to clarify disclosure of gifts, but only non-exceptions? 00:23:24.040 --> 00:23:25.040 Yes. 00:23:25.040 --> 00:23:26.040 All in favor? 00:23:26.040 --> 00:23:31.040 Aye. 00:23:31.040 --> 00:23:33.040 And all opposed? 00:23:33.040 --> 00:23:36.040 Okay, anybody else? 00:23:36.040 --> 00:23:39.040 Okay, so that passes six to one. 00:23:39.040 --> 00:23:40.040 Correct? 00:23:40.040 --> 00:23:41.040 Good, it's what I got as well. 00:23:41.040 --> 00:23:44.040 Okay. 00:23:44.040 --> 00:23:49.040 Thank you. 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. 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. 00:24:29.040 --> 00:24:33.040 And that's why this was added to the section. 00:24:33.040 --> 00:24:37.040 Would you wish to do anything with that information? 00:24:37.040 --> 00:24:42.040 So their direction was to take the last sentence out? 00:24:42.040 --> 00:24:44.040 Your direction was to take the last sentence out. 00:24:44.040 --> 00:24:45.040 Okay. 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. 00:24:55.040 --> 00:24:57.040 Okay. 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? 00:25:05.040 --> 00:25:07.040 Does that roll back mean? 00:25:07.040 --> 00:25:09.040 Not really with this sentence. 00:25:09.040 --> 00:25:10.040 That's what I was asking, okay. 00:25:10.040 --> 00:25:19.040 Yes. 00:25:19.040 --> 00:25:24.040 Discussion? 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? 00:25:37.040 --> 00:25:43.040 It is already being proposed to add that to the conflict of interest definition. 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. 00:25:58.040 --> 00:26:04.040 Okay. 00:26:04.040 --> 00:26:11.040 So comments? 00:26:11.040 --> 00:26:19.040 If they already have it, I'm happy with Council's suggestion. 00:26:19.040 --> 00:26:28.040 Any other opinion? 00:26:28.040 --> 00:26:30.040 Do we hear a motion? 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. 00:26:34.040 --> 00:26:35.040 Okay. 00:26:35.040 --> 00:26:38.040 And is this a motion needed for this? 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. 00:26:52.040 --> 00:26:54.040 I'm sorry. 00:26:54.040 --> 00:26:57.040 I'm a little confused, I apologize. 00:26:57.040 --> 00:27:00.040 The Prop. 2 is with the marked out? 00:27:00.040 --> 00:27:01.040 Correct. 00:27:01.040 --> 00:27:04.040 Okay. 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? 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. 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. 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. 00:27:36.040 --> 00:27:39.040 We only need a motion if you want to change what's written here. 00:27:39.040 --> 00:27:44.040 Oh, I apologize. No second. Just let me die. 00:27:44.040 --> 00:27:46.040 Figuratively. 00:27:46.040 --> 00:27:47.040 Ow. 00:27:47.040 --> 00:27:48.040 Figuratively. 00:27:48.040 --> 00:27:49.040 Thank you very much. 00:27:49.040 --> 00:27:51.040 Okay, I think I might be able to get it. 00:27:51.040 --> 00:27:53.040 Okay. 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. 00:27:59.040 --> 00:28:03.040 Okay, and that would be to basically put this language back in. 00:28:03.040 --> 00:28:04.040 Yeah, to leave the language in. 00:28:04.040 --> 00:28:05.040 Okay. 00:28:05.040 --> 00:28:08.040 I'll second that. I'll come back to life. 00:28:08.040 --> 00:28:17.040 So the motion on the floor is to strike Prop. 2. All in favor? 00:28:17.040 --> 00:28:18.040 Aye. 00:28:18.040 --> 00:28:19.040 Aye. 00:28:19.040 --> 00:28:22.040 That was unanimous. 00:28:22.040 --> 00:28:27.040 Okay. So 7-0 to strike Prop. 2. 00:28:27.040 --> 00:28:31.040 Thank you. Very nice. 00:28:31.040 --> 00:28:35.040 All right. We're almost done with this. 00:28:35.040 --> 00:28:38.040 Next, this is kind of just a notification. 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, 00:28:42.040 --> 00:28:49.040 but Special Counsel basically suggested the original wording of this Prop. 9 was a little confusing, 00:28:49.040 --> 00:28:55.040 so I sent this reworded clause to them and they said, "Sounds better." 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. 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... 00:29:07.040 --> 00:29:08.040 I like that a lot, though. 00:29:08.040 --> 00:29:10.040 Just to clarify... 00:29:10.040 --> 00:29:14.040 Yeah, it's just rewording it from what was originally... 00:29:14.040 --> 00:29:20.040 I think it's... 00:29:20.040 --> 00:29:22.040 I have to material change, I think so. 00:29:22.040 --> 00:29:25.040 Okay. But we do need a motion, sorry. 00:29:25.040 --> 00:29:26.040 Okay. 00:29:26.040 --> 00:29:28.040 Basically to change it from... 00:29:28.040 --> 00:29:33.040 To change the actual language of Prop. 9 from this to this. 00:29:33.040 --> 00:29:34.040 Okay. 00:29:34.040 --> 00:29:36.040 Which counsel likes better? 00:29:36.040 --> 00:29:42.040 So do I hear a motion to change the wording? 00:29:42.040 --> 00:29:43.040 From this to that? 00:29:43.040 --> 00:29:46.040 From this to that. Yeah. 00:29:46.040 --> 00:29:49.040 I'm going to move it. Go ahead. Just a second. 00:29:49.040 --> 00:29:50.040 Go ahead. 00:29:50.040 --> 00:29:53.040 Put Duster down, and I'll second. 00:29:53.040 --> 00:29:56.040 Okay. So moved by Duster. 00:29:56.040 --> 00:30:04.040 Okay. And seconded by Rob Rayner. 00:30:04.040 --> 00:30:11.040 It is more clear. 00:30:11.040 --> 00:30:12.040 Seconded by Rob Rayner. 00:30:12.040 --> 00:30:14.040 Oh, okay. All in favor? 00:30:14.040 --> 00:30:15.040 Aye. 00:30:15.040 --> 00:30:16.040 Aye. 00:30:16.040 --> 00:30:20.040 That's even less. 00:30:20.040 --> 00:30:21.040 Okay. Awesome. 00:30:21.040 --> 00:30:25.040 Last one, basically. 00:30:25.040 --> 00:30:27.040 This was just another clarification 00:30:27.040 --> 00:30:30.040 that the Federal Council wanted to make sure that 00:30:30.040 --> 00:30:32.040 by saying the member is present, 00:30:32.040 --> 00:30:34.040 it would effectively... 00:30:34.040 --> 00:30:37.040 Could effectively lower the number of affirmative votes necessary 00:30:37.040 --> 00:30:39.040 to conclude probability. 00:30:39.040 --> 00:30:40.040 So if you only... 00:30:40.040 --> 00:30:42.040 Normally we would have seven. We would want that. 00:30:42.040 --> 00:30:43.040 But if we only had... 00:30:43.040 --> 00:30:45.040 Currently we only have six members, 00:30:45.040 --> 00:30:47.040 because we have vacancy, if we could only get six, 00:30:47.040 --> 00:30:49.040 two-thirds of that would be the same as seven. 00:30:49.040 --> 00:30:51.040 So if we had five, two-thirds of that would be less 00:30:51.040 --> 00:30:53.040 than what we would normally require, essentially. 00:30:53.040 --> 00:30:57.040 So that was just to clarify that that's what you guys intended 00:30:57.040 --> 00:30:59.040 when we were making this change. 00:30:59.040 --> 00:31:01.040 Okay. 00:31:01.040 --> 00:31:11.040 So discussion on this? 00:31:11.040 --> 00:31:16.040 So basically the motion would be to add the members present. 00:31:16.040 --> 00:31:17.040 No, it's already there. 00:31:17.040 --> 00:31:21.040 So if you wanted, you could make a motion to remove that, 00:31:21.040 --> 00:31:23.040 which would make it less clear. 00:31:23.040 --> 00:31:24.040 Okay. 00:31:24.040 --> 00:31:25.040 Yeah. 00:31:25.040 --> 00:31:28.040 So a motion to remove the members present. 00:31:28.040 --> 00:31:33.040 Anybody want to make that motion? 00:31:33.040 --> 00:31:36.040 I mean, if I may. 00:31:36.040 --> 00:31:44.040 I think that that could stay, 00:31:44.040 --> 00:31:48.040 because if there were only five, 00:31:48.040 --> 00:31:51.040 having to ensure that four would be able to attend 00:31:51.040 --> 00:31:53.040 could be tricky. 00:31:53.040 --> 00:31:57.040 I think sometimes we have difficulty getting that together 00:31:57.040 --> 00:31:59.040 within the ten business days. 00:31:59.040 --> 00:32:05.040 So two-thirds of the members present seems... 00:32:05.040 --> 00:32:07.040 And we always try to get seven, obviously. 00:32:07.040 --> 00:32:11.040 And I think we partially added this, at least, 00:32:11.040 --> 00:32:14.040 to make it more clear if it was of the members present 00:32:14.040 --> 00:32:20.040 or of seven, basically. 00:32:20.040 --> 00:32:23.040 So basically I'm just bringing this up to special counsel. 00:32:23.040 --> 00:32:25.040 Wanted me to make sure that it was clear to you all 00:32:25.040 --> 00:32:28.040 that that's what you were doing. 00:32:28.040 --> 00:32:30.040 So I don't think it needs to change. 00:32:30.040 --> 00:32:31.040 Okay. 00:32:31.040 --> 00:32:34.040 I think that's fine, but... 00:32:34.040 --> 00:32:37.040 So would you like to put that in the form of a motion, 00:32:37.040 --> 00:32:39.040 or do we need to discuss that more? 00:32:39.040 --> 00:32:40.040 If we're not changing this language, 00:32:40.040 --> 00:32:41.040 it doesn't need a motion. 00:32:41.040 --> 00:32:42.040 Okay. 00:32:42.040 --> 00:32:45.040 So just move on. 00:32:45.040 --> 00:32:48.040 So that means we're moving forward with the proposal 10 00:32:48.040 --> 00:32:50.040 as we had intended prior. 00:32:50.040 --> 00:32:52.040 Correct. 00:32:52.040 --> 00:32:57.040 Direction that to change. 00:32:57.040 --> 00:33:00.040 Awesome. 00:33:00.040 --> 00:33:01.040 And then there was one additional, 00:33:01.040 --> 00:33:06.040 this minor clarity change that special counsel suggested, 00:33:06.040 --> 00:33:09.040 which is just to change the word affiliated to related, 00:33:09.040 --> 00:33:12.040 because we are now defining affiliated. 00:33:12.040 --> 00:33:14.040 I can bring that up if you would like. 00:33:14.040 --> 00:33:16.040 It really doesn't, I think, impact. 00:33:16.040 --> 00:33:18.040 It was just to make sure that that wasn't confusing 00:33:18.040 --> 00:33:24.040 to anybody in the future. 00:33:24.040 --> 00:33:28.040 Awesome. 00:33:28.040 --> 00:33:31.040 Okay. 00:33:31.040 --> 00:33:32.040 Thank you. 00:33:32.040 --> 00:33:33.040 Thank you, Madison. 00:33:33.040 --> 00:33:34.040 So are we ready to move on? 00:33:34.040 --> 00:33:35.040 Yes. 00:33:35.040 --> 00:33:39.040 So this would be BOE 23-013. 00:33:39.040 --> 00:33:40.040 Correct. 00:33:40.040 --> 00:33:45.040 So we're moving on to item C. 00:33:45.040 --> 00:33:46.040 Okay. 00:33:46.040 --> 00:33:48.040 So this is about proposal three, 00:33:48.040 --> 00:33:51.040 which last meeting was stricken from the letter 00:33:51.040 --> 00:33:54.040 of proposed amendments, 00:33:54.040 --> 00:33:58.040 and then the board directed staff to bring back research 00:33:58.040 --> 00:34:00.040 on what other municipalities do 00:34:00.040 --> 00:34:05.040 and what the model code says regarding financial prohibitions. 00:34:05.040 --> 00:34:10.040 This was the changing all of the $600 to 10% conversation 00:34:10.040 --> 00:34:13.040 we had last time. 00:34:13.040 --> 00:34:18.040 So this is what -- basically there are five of our benchmark 00:34:18.040 --> 00:34:22.040 municipalities that kind of have a general conflict 00:34:22.040 --> 00:34:29.040 of interest -- general conflict of interest prohibition 00:34:29.040 --> 00:34:32.040 for financial considerations, if that makes any sense. 00:34:32.040 --> 00:34:34.040 Basically, they prohibit official action 00:34:34.040 --> 00:34:38.040 if an economic interest would be affected in a way 00:34:38.040 --> 00:34:40.040 that's distinguishable from the effect on the public. 00:34:40.040 --> 00:34:42.040 The model code has similar language, 00:34:42.040 --> 00:34:45.040 so that's kind of what's presented here. 00:34:45.040 --> 00:34:53.040 The remaining five municipalities have specifically defined 00:34:53.040 --> 00:34:57.040 thresholds for different things like we currently do, 00:34:57.040 --> 00:34:59.040 and that's what's presented here. 00:34:59.040 --> 00:35:05.040 So we can have a discussion if you would enjoy it. 00:35:05.040 --> 00:35:09.040 If you want to continue, basically, 00:35:09.040 --> 00:35:12.040 do you want to continue having a proposal three at all? 00:35:12.040 --> 00:35:15.040 And if so, if you want to use something more similar 00:35:15.040 --> 00:35:17.040 to the model code, where it's more of a general prohibition 00:35:17.040 --> 00:35:19.040 or with specific financial thresholds, 00:35:19.040 --> 00:35:24.040 which is what we previously had and what those thresholds are. 00:35:24.040 --> 00:35:27.040 So we can open this for discussion. 00:35:27.040 --> 00:35:29.040 That's all I got. 00:35:29.040 --> 00:35:36.040 I have a question because city officials are still held 00:35:36.040 --> 00:35:42.040 by Chapter 171 of the Texas Code, 00:35:42.040 --> 00:35:47.040 and the proposed percentages are right out of there. 00:35:47.040 --> 00:35:53.040 Ten percent, ten percent, and then ownership value 15,000, 00:35:53.040 --> 00:35:57.040 and then real property, 2,500. 00:35:57.040 --> 00:36:05.040 Those are right out of 171 as a substantial interest. 00:36:05.040 --> 00:36:16.040 But then 171 goes on to say that in the case 00:36:16.040 --> 00:36:18.040 of a substantial interest in a business entity, 00:36:18.040 --> 00:36:20.040 the action on the matter will have a special economic effect 00:36:20.040 --> 00:36:23.040 on the business entity that is distinguishable 00:36:23.040 --> 00:36:27.040 from the effect on the public or goes on in the same vein. 00:36:27.040 --> 00:36:31.040 So essentially, it sounds like some of the cities are taking 00:36:31.040 --> 00:36:35.040 the second part in talking about finances, 00:36:35.040 --> 00:36:38.040 even if they're not setting a limit. 00:36:38.040 --> 00:36:40.040 I mean, the city council and city officials 00:36:40.040 --> 00:36:43.040 still have to abide by this. 00:36:43.040 --> 00:36:44.040 This is the threshold. 00:36:44.040 --> 00:36:48.040 This is the law, but ethics is supposed to be higher. 00:36:48.040 --> 00:36:51.040 Exactly, and so I don't know why this is changing. 00:36:51.040 --> 00:36:54.040 And number two, if they do violate it, 00:36:54.040 --> 00:36:57.040 then it's not only under the proposed language 00:36:57.040 --> 00:37:01.040 an ethical violation, it's a misdemeanor as well, 00:37:01.040 --> 00:37:03.040 it's a criminal case. 00:37:03.040 --> 00:37:09.040 So I'm just wondering why we're doing this. 00:37:09.040 --> 00:37:12.040 I apologize if I missed it. 00:37:12.040 --> 00:37:13.040 Why we're doing what? 00:37:13.040 --> 00:37:17.040 Why we're even talking about changing it and then-- 00:37:17.040 --> 00:37:20.040 So I think because the Denton code currently 00:37:20.040 --> 00:37:23.040 is the first column there, so it's five percent, 00:37:23.040 --> 00:37:28.040 and then 600 for the last three items, so it's well below those. 00:37:28.040 --> 00:37:30.040 And then what the proposed language was 00:37:30.040 --> 00:37:36.040 from that August meeting was to change that to all 10%. 00:37:36.040 --> 00:37:40.040 But the exception is that under our code, 00:37:40.040 --> 00:37:47.040 when we have a pending matter, 00:37:47.040 --> 00:37:53.040 it only addresses three things, a request for a permit, a case, 00:37:53.040 --> 00:37:58.040 and some very peculiar contracts. 00:37:58.040 --> 00:38:00.040 So it limits it, so even though this is smaller, 00:38:00.040 --> 00:38:02.040 it's still a much more limited scope 00:38:02.040 --> 00:38:15.040 than what officials are already required by law to do. 00:38:15.040 --> 00:38:17.040 I think I got a little bit confused. 00:38:17.040 --> 00:38:20.040 You might explain that again, the legal versus the ethical, 00:38:20.040 --> 00:38:27.040 the differences and why one is irrelevant, more briefly. 00:38:27.040 --> 00:38:32.040 Not that it's irrelevant, but under the current ethical code 00:38:32.040 --> 00:38:37.040 for the city of Denton, we have five percent ownership 00:38:37.040 --> 00:38:40.040 of that first column that it applies. 00:38:40.040 --> 00:38:43.040 That's an ethical violation if you go beyond that 00:38:43.040 --> 00:38:45.040 in a pending matter. 00:38:45.040 --> 00:38:49.040 So it's not like it's inclusive like in the law, 00:38:49.040 --> 00:38:54.040 which is much broader. 00:38:54.040 --> 00:38:58.040 Our ethical code is specific to those three things. 00:38:58.040 --> 00:39:05.040 Our ethical code is lighter, I guess, would be a better word. 00:39:05.040 --> 00:39:07.040 Well, yeah, it is. 00:39:07.040 --> 00:39:14.040 Yeah, that pending matter really makes me crazy, actually. 00:39:14.040 --> 00:39:17.040 What do you refer to as the three? 00:39:17.040 --> 00:39:20.040 When you're referencing the three? 00:39:20.040 --> 00:39:21.040 The pending matter. 00:39:21.040 --> 00:39:22.040 The pending matter. 00:39:22.040 --> 00:39:23.040 I can bring up the definition. 00:39:23.040 --> 00:39:27.040 What that means is that you could vote on something 00:39:27.040 --> 00:39:31.040 that involves your property, and then you could do your action 00:39:31.040 --> 00:39:35.040 the very next day, because it would no longer be a pending matter. 00:39:35.040 --> 00:39:37.040 Okay. 00:39:37.040 --> 00:39:40.040 That's kind of a slang definition, 00:39:40.040 --> 00:39:46.040 and that's what bothers me. 00:39:46.040 --> 00:39:50.040 The other part that I have a concern with is that percentage, 00:39:50.040 --> 00:39:53.040 because if I own a piece of property, 00:39:53.040 --> 00:39:55.040 and I have only one person interested in it, 00:39:55.040 --> 00:39:59.040 I think I'd be very interested in what happens. 00:39:59.040 --> 00:40:03.040 I guess it's kind of like saying marijuana is illegal, 00:40:03.040 --> 00:40:05.040 but it's okay if you have just a little. 00:40:05.040 --> 00:40:12.040 It's still illegal, as our council has talked about recently. 00:40:12.040 --> 00:40:16.040 So why is this? 00:40:16.040 --> 00:40:17.040 I don't know. 00:40:17.040 --> 00:40:20.040 I think that's a good analogy. 00:40:20.040 --> 00:40:23.040 Your point is then to what? 00:40:23.040 --> 00:40:42.040 Isn't the model code more -- 00:40:42.040 --> 00:40:44.040 Basically, it's not putting numbers to it. 00:40:44.040 --> 00:40:50.040 It's saying that if you benefit in any way 00:40:50.040 --> 00:40:53.040 that the general public would not benefit, 00:40:53.040 --> 00:40:56.040 then that's an ethical violation. 00:40:56.040 --> 00:41:05.040 And I like that so much more, because there are going to be times 00:41:05.040 --> 00:41:08.040 when you're going to vote on something that would benefit you, 00:41:08.040 --> 00:41:13.040 but if it benefits everybody else, that's okay. 00:41:13.040 --> 00:41:18.040 And you wouldn't have to recuse yourself. 00:41:18.040 --> 00:41:25.040 But this 5%, 10%, $600, $15, how do you -- 00:41:25.040 --> 00:41:29.040 I mean, I don't have tax, but -- 00:41:29.040 --> 00:41:31.040 So I'm going to -- I'm sorry. 00:41:31.040 --> 00:41:33.040 That's fine. 00:41:33.040 --> 00:41:40.040 One of the things that bothers me about the model code 00:41:40.040 --> 00:41:46.040 is because it is so big. 00:41:46.040 --> 00:41:51.040 And so for me -- and plus I also was -- 00:41:51.040 --> 00:41:55.040 I was not in favor of exact amounts, 00:41:55.040 --> 00:42:00.040 because an exact dollar amount has a different meaning 00:42:00.040 --> 00:42:03.040 for different income groups. 00:42:03.040 --> 00:42:07.040 And so I was always in favor of the percentages, 00:42:07.040 --> 00:42:12.040 because I think it makes it more equitable. 00:42:12.040 --> 00:42:21.040 However, the way -- if we're thinking along with the legal, 00:42:21.040 --> 00:42:23.040 you're saying that certain things -- 00:42:23.040 --> 00:42:28.040 these things are already covered by legal definitions, or the law. 00:42:28.040 --> 00:42:30.040 Right, in the state law for government officials. 00:42:30.040 --> 00:42:32.040 In the state law for government officials. 00:42:32.040 --> 00:42:36.040 So this would only be added on top of that, right? 00:42:36.040 --> 00:42:43.040 If we're going to do the same thing as the state, then -- 00:42:43.040 --> 00:42:45.040 Why do you even have that? 00:42:45.040 --> 00:42:47.040 If it's violated, it's a criminal case. 00:42:47.040 --> 00:42:48.040 Right. 00:42:48.040 --> 00:42:59.040 So we move beyond ethics and the appearance of non-conflict interest. 00:42:59.040 --> 00:43:03.040 I'm just concerned -- I'm just concerned that personal 00:43:03.040 --> 00:43:07.040 or financial benefit is so vague that somebody could say, 00:43:07.040 --> 00:43:11.040 "Well, that really isn't -- it's not really a benefit to me." 00:43:11.040 --> 00:43:13.040 So it really depends on -- 00:43:13.040 --> 00:43:15.040 Well, yeah, they certainly can. 00:43:15.040 --> 00:43:18.040 They can say that because your partner works at a university, 00:43:18.040 --> 00:43:21.040 you can't bet on anything related to that. 00:43:21.040 --> 00:43:27.040 That's been done. 00:43:27.040 --> 00:43:30.040 And I fail to see where there's a benefit. 00:43:30.040 --> 00:43:40.040 But when I have seen this come up, there was a case -- 00:43:40.040 --> 00:43:44.040 and I forget what city -- maybe Plano. 00:43:44.040 --> 00:43:45.040 I don't remember. 00:43:45.040 --> 00:43:51.040 It was the mayor of a city, and she was dating a developer. 00:43:51.040 --> 00:43:56.040 And while the guy was building things in the city, 00:43:56.040 --> 00:44:00.040 she voted on his projects 30 times, something like that. 00:44:00.040 --> 00:44:01.040 It was a crazy number. 00:44:01.040 --> 00:44:09.040 And so I think it's kind of like a target where you have a bullseye, 00:44:09.040 --> 00:44:15.040 and if you keep shooting your arrows and they land outside of the target, 00:44:15.040 --> 00:44:18.040 if you do it enough, you're going to get called on this. 00:44:18.040 --> 00:44:20.040 And I think that's what happened. 00:44:20.040 --> 00:44:22.040 They both -- I believe they both went to jail. 00:44:22.040 --> 00:44:23.040 Yeah, they did. 00:44:23.040 --> 00:44:31.040 But I would be in favor of the model code just because it has that broadness. 00:44:31.040 --> 00:44:37.040 Now, I think if that happened once or twice, yeah, but I don't know. 00:44:37.040 --> 00:44:40.040 I just -- how do you get around the -- 00:44:40.040 --> 00:44:43.040 if it's just a little bit of something that's illegal, 00:44:43.040 --> 00:44:46.040 that's not a big deal, but yeah. 00:44:46.040 --> 00:44:54.040 I'm wrestling with what's the difference between 9.99% versus 10.01%. 00:44:54.040 --> 00:44:55.040 Yeah, yeah. 00:44:55.040 --> 00:44:59.040 I think once you put numbers in there, then -- yeah. 00:44:59.040 --> 00:45:03.040 But I think it's more -- this is a thing I learned in ethics. 00:45:03.040 --> 00:45:05.040 We have to take ethics programs. 00:45:05.040 --> 00:45:08.040 And the presenter gave that bullseye thing. 00:45:08.040 --> 00:45:11.040 He said you can do something that's not ethical, 00:45:11.040 --> 00:45:15.040 but if you do it repeatedly, there are going to be times. 00:45:15.040 --> 00:45:18.040 And that made a lot of sense to me. 00:45:18.040 --> 00:45:24.040 You know, I still like the model code because I think it -- 00:45:24.040 --> 00:45:28.040 you know, this is what we're shooting for. 00:45:28.040 --> 00:45:32.040 If your arrows are all going outside the bull -- outside the whole target, 00:45:32.040 --> 00:45:35.040 you're going to get called on it. 00:45:35.040 --> 00:45:43.040 I think in a model code, there is some definition of -- at least for a client. 00:45:43.040 --> 00:45:50.040 It's described as someone -- if you've received more than $1,000 00:45:50.040 --> 00:45:53.040 in the previous 24 months, so there is some definition. 00:45:53.040 --> 00:45:57.040 There is a threshold for what is considered an incline. 00:45:57.040 --> 00:46:01.040 So I mean, I know there's been discussion at the previous meeting 00:46:01.040 --> 00:46:07.040 about how there is no threshold for what is the conflict of interest. 00:46:07.040 --> 00:46:11.040 It's this sort of like gray thing where all of us in this room 00:46:11.040 --> 00:46:13.040 probably understand what it means. 00:46:13.040 --> 00:46:17.040 And when that would come up, it seems obvious to us. 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, 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. 00:46:33.040 --> 00:46:36.040 So let me just give an example with that. 00:46:36.040 --> 00:46:41.040 Let's say I shop at a grocery store called Alpha Beta Gamma. 00:46:41.040 --> 00:46:46.040 And Alpha Beta Gamma comes to council and they want to do something. 00:46:46.040 --> 00:46:48.040 Well, I shop there all the time. 00:46:48.040 --> 00:46:53.040 Now I spent more than $1,000 last year because I bought eggs. 00:46:53.040 --> 00:46:57.040 Sure, but you don't have to -- you're not purchasing shares of that grocery store. 00:46:57.040 --> 00:47:00.040 I know, I know. But if we put a threshold -- 00:47:00.040 --> 00:47:05.040 You were there -- I mean, you're -- I don't think that would apply in this. 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 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 -- 00:47:20.040 --> 00:47:23.040 I think that would be the intent for sure, you're right. 00:47:23.040 --> 00:47:29.040 But I think when you put a threshold in, someone could get reared. 00:47:29.040 --> 00:47:35.040 So thresholds make me nervous because within a few years they might change. 00:47:35.040 --> 00:47:37.040 Sure. I'm just imagining -- 00:47:37.040 --> 00:47:39.040 I think it's really the spirit of it. 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 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 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. 00:48:00.040 --> 00:48:01.040 Yeah, I don't either. 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 00:48:04.040 --> 00:48:07.040 after some of the discussion about how there's no threshold. 00:48:07.040 --> 00:48:14.040 And there is some threshold here and under this it also includes the campaign contributions 00:48:14.040 --> 00:48:17.040 and has a dollar threshold for that of $200. 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 00:48:25.040 --> 00:48:31.040 of a business I don't think there is a percentage or a dollar amount threshold. 00:48:31.040 --> 00:48:39.040 But for establishing a client relationship and campaign contributions there is a dollar threshold. 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. 00:48:50.040 --> 00:48:56.040 Well, so yeah, there's a couple of options, right? 00:48:56.040 --> 00:49:05.040 There's -- you could give direction today to go with language similar to the model code. 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. 00:49:15.040 --> 00:49:16.040 I would want to see it. 00:49:16.040 --> 00:49:21.040 Yes. So that might push back the March 21st presentation. 00:49:21.040 --> 00:49:23.040 Okay. 00:49:23.040 --> 00:49:28.040 Or we could just strike three for now, continue having these discussions, 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. 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, 00:49:40.040 --> 00:49:43.040 that would be pretty easy because that's already what's written. 00:49:43.040 --> 00:49:47.040 So you could just take $600 and stick in whatever you wanted. 00:49:47.040 --> 00:49:48.040 So that could still go. 00:49:48.040 --> 00:49:53.040 So I think that's kind of -- do we want to make a decision today? 00:49:53.040 --> 00:49:56.040 So what is your pleasure? 00:49:56.040 --> 00:50:01.040 You've got some really interesting options. 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. 00:50:08.040 --> 00:50:09.040 Okay. 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. 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. 00:50:30.040 --> 00:50:35.040 Did council request that we review this and revise the thresholds? 00:50:35.040 --> 00:50:40.040 No, this was -- we brought this on ourselves. 00:50:40.040 --> 00:50:46.040 The board decided to have a comprehensive review of the conflict amendment definition, 00:50:46.040 --> 00:50:50.040 which led to most of the proposals that are out there. 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. 00:50:58.040 --> 00:51:03.040 Could we have another look at our recommendation? 00:51:03.040 --> 00:51:07.040 Your recommendation? 00:51:07.040 --> 00:51:15.040 The original proposal was basically to take all of these and make them 10%. 00:51:15.040 --> 00:51:18.040 That makes sense. 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. 00:51:32.040 --> 00:51:36.040 I would say strike three for now. 00:51:36.040 --> 00:51:42.040 I think I have three for at least that direction is what I'm getting at. 00:51:42.040 --> 00:51:44.040 Robert would like to hear from you. 00:51:44.040 --> 00:51:46.040 Well, I think -- thank you. 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. 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. 00:52:01.040 --> 00:52:06.040 I can see us having to review those numbers before the end of this year. 00:52:06.040 --> 00:52:09.040 That's what makes me nervous. 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, 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, 00:52:25.040 --> 00:52:32.040 we are not molds dug in to do nefarious things. 00:52:32.040 --> 00:52:35.040 We all have a good heart for the city of Denver. 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. 00:52:40.040 --> 00:52:42.040 And I like your idea of bullseye. 00:52:42.040 --> 00:52:48.040 We'll know the scoundrel soon enough. 00:52:48.040 --> 00:52:50.040 I want to cover everybody. 00:52:50.040 --> 00:52:53.040 We'll know them soon enough and then we'll take care of it. 00:52:53.040 --> 00:52:55.040 That's my thoughts on that. 00:52:55.040 --> 00:52:58.040 I kind of like just going with the model of moving on. 00:52:58.040 --> 00:53:01.040 I think it has merit. 00:53:01.040 --> 00:53:06.040 Can I add something? 00:53:06.040 --> 00:53:07.040 Yes. 00:53:07.040 --> 00:53:15.040 The numbers that are up there now are more restrictive than any of the other cities. 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 00:53:25.040 --> 00:53:31.040 if you consider income from what the model code defines as a client. 00:53:31.040 --> 00:53:38.040 So if the goal here is to make sure that everything is above board, 00:53:38.040 --> 00:53:45.040 we are being maybe a little more careful, transparent, 00:53:45.040 --> 00:53:50.040 whatever word you want to use is compared to the legal threshold. 00:53:50.040 --> 00:53:52.040 I think what is listed there does that. 00:53:52.040 --> 00:53:54.040 I'm not 100% sure. 00:53:54.040 --> 00:53:55.040 If you're saying the 10% -- 00:53:55.040 --> 00:53:58.040 I'm saying no, not the 10% of the numbers that are listed there. 00:53:58.040 --> 00:54:00.040 What's currently there? 00:54:00.040 --> 00:54:08.040 The dollar amount is -- I mean, $600 is a lot of money to me. 00:54:08.040 --> 00:54:11.040 It may not be a lot of money to some people. 00:54:11.040 --> 00:54:16.040 So I think it's very difficult to come up with a dollar amount. 00:54:16.040 --> 00:54:20.040 But just to step back a little bit, what is currently in there? 00:54:20.040 --> 00:54:25.040 If we left the revision out of the proposal, 00:54:25.040 --> 00:54:32.040 what is currently in the code is comparatively restrictive. 00:54:32.040 --> 00:54:35.040 And I think it -- 00:54:35.040 --> 00:54:40.040 So you're saying strike free and -- 00:54:40.040 --> 00:54:42.040 I think that's what we're going to end up on today. 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 00:54:46.040 --> 00:54:50.040 than the legal requirements, 00:54:50.040 --> 00:54:56.040 and at least as far as income goes, more restrictive than the model. 00:54:56.040 --> 00:55:04.040 But you have to pair that income with what would be an ethical violation. 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. 00:55:10.040 --> 00:55:16.040 Our code is very -- 00:55:16.040 --> 00:55:19.040 So I think then we get into the definition of the pending matter thing 00:55:19.040 --> 00:55:23.040 and not just the threshold for conflict of interest. 00:55:23.040 --> 00:55:27.040 I think this proposal three is just the threshold. 00:55:27.040 --> 00:55:30.040 It's basically just this table. 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, 00:55:39.040 --> 00:55:44.040 and then at future meetings discuss how we could potentially incorporate 00:55:44.040 --> 00:55:49.040 some of the model code language into the ordinance, is what I think I'm hearing. 00:55:49.040 --> 00:55:53.040 Somebody want to -- 00:55:53.040 --> 00:55:54.040 But I think -- 00:55:54.040 --> 00:55:57.040 It didn't matter definition to that discussion. 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. 00:56:04.040 --> 00:56:08.040 We really need to look at the language in terms of pending matter. 00:56:08.040 --> 00:56:11.040 Pending matter and the other issues. 00:56:11.040 --> 00:56:15.040 So that we can actually -- 00:56:15.040 --> 00:56:21.040 So we're capturing more of where we want those rules to apply. 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 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, 00:56:39.040 --> 00:56:46.040 Article 3, Division 2, Section 2-62, which refers back to 171. 00:56:46.040 --> 00:56:53.040 But I think that needs to be part of the conversation as well. 00:56:53.040 --> 00:56:55.040 So strike -- 00:56:55.040 --> 00:56:56.040 I'll make a motion. 00:56:56.040 --> 00:56:57.040 Okay. 00:56:57.040 --> 00:57:01.040 I'll make a motion that we strike Proposal 3 from -- 00:57:01.040 --> 00:57:02.040 Proposal 3 is already stricken. 00:57:02.040 --> 00:57:03.040 Okay. 00:57:03.040 --> 00:57:04.040 So -- 00:57:04.040 --> 00:57:05.040 Okay. 00:57:05.040 --> 00:57:06.040 So -- 00:57:06.040 --> 00:57:07.040 I'll make a motion. 00:57:07.040 --> 00:57:08.040 So -- 00:57:08.040 --> 00:57:09.040 I got a second. 00:57:09.040 --> 00:57:12.040 So the direct -- so just so I'm totally clear. 00:57:12.040 --> 00:57:17.040 The direction is continue having Proposal 3 be struck from the -- from the proposals, 00:57:17.040 --> 00:57:23.040 which will still go forward on March 21st for the city council. 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 00:57:29.040 --> 00:57:36.040 the definition of pending matter as well as the conflict of interest definition in light of 00:57:36.040 --> 00:57:42.040 Chapter 171 and the other relative city or city environments. 00:57:42.040 --> 00:57:43.040 Yes. 00:57:43.040 --> 00:57:46.040 And the possible level of coverage. 00:57:46.040 --> 00:57:49.040 Okay. 00:57:49.040 --> 00:57:58.040 So is there anything else on 13? 00:57:58.040 --> 00:57:59.040 Okay. 00:57:59.040 --> 00:58:03.040 So we move on to Item D. 00:58:03.040 --> 00:58:04.040 Did you make a motion? 00:58:04.040 --> 00:58:05.040 Oh. 00:58:05.040 --> 00:58:06.040 Oh, I'm sorry. 00:58:06.040 --> 00:58:07.040 I apologize. 00:58:07.040 --> 00:58:08.040 Okay. 00:58:08.040 --> 00:58:09.040 Cool. 00:58:09.040 --> 00:58:18.040 So then the second thing was just to -- if we made changes forward the letter again, 00:58:18.040 --> 00:58:23.040 which we did, we struck Proposal 2. 00:58:23.040 --> 00:58:24.040 Okay. 00:58:24.040 --> 00:58:30.040 And also just to add the minor clarification that we discussed as well. 00:58:30.040 --> 00:58:33.040 So we do need a motion to forward the letter -- 00:58:33.040 --> 00:58:37.040 A proposed amendment says proceed. 00:58:37.040 --> 00:58:38.040 Or as amended. 00:58:38.040 --> 00:58:39.040 As amended. 00:58:39.040 --> 00:58:40.040 Okay. 00:58:40.040 --> 00:58:41.040 I'll do it. 00:58:41.040 --> 00:58:44.040 I'll make a motion that we -- 00:58:44.040 --> 00:58:45.040 Forward the letter. 00:58:45.040 --> 00:58:46.040 Forward the letter. 00:58:46.040 --> 00:58:48.040 A proposed amendment says amendment. 00:58:48.040 --> 00:58:49.040 All in favor? 00:58:49.040 --> 00:58:50.040 Second. 00:58:50.040 --> 00:58:51.040 Who seconded? 00:58:51.040 --> 00:58:52.040 Anyone? 00:58:52.040 --> 00:58:53.040 Yeah. 00:58:53.040 --> 00:58:54.040 We all could. 00:58:54.040 --> 00:58:55.040 Yeah. 00:58:55.040 --> 00:58:56.040 All in favor? 00:58:56.040 --> 00:58:57.040 Aye. 00:58:57.040 --> 00:58:58.040 So it was unanimous. 00:58:58.040 --> 00:58:59.040 Okay. 00:58:59.040 --> 00:59:00.040 Cool. 00:59:00.040 --> 00:59:15.040 So now we move on to Item D. 00:59:15.040 --> 00:59:16.040 VLE 23-014. 00:59:16.040 --> 00:59:17.040 That's what we just did. 00:59:17.040 --> 00:59:18.040 I'm sorry. 00:59:18.040 --> 00:59:19.040 I'm sorry. 00:59:19.040 --> 00:59:20.040 So we move on to Item E. 00:59:20.040 --> 00:59:21.040 VLE 23-015. 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 00:59:22.040 --> 00:59:23.040 received two requests for advice from City Council members regarding the acceptance of 00:59:23.040 --> 00:59:24.040 gifts. 00:59:24.040 --> 00:59:25.040 One was that we would like to have a discussion with the City Council. 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. 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. 00:59:27.040 --> 00:59:28.040 Okay. 00:59:28.040 --> 00:59:29.040 So we move on to Item D. 00:59:29.040 --> 00:59:30.040 VLE 23-014. 00:59:30.040 --> 00:59:31.040 That's what we just did. 00:59:31.040 --> 00:59:32.040 I'm sorry. 00:59:32.040 --> 00:59:33.040 I'm sorry. 00:59:33.040 --> 00:59:34.040 So we move on to Item E. 00:59:34.040 --> 00:59:35.040 VLE 23-015. 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 00:59:50.040 --> 00:59:51.040 received two requests for advice from City Council members regarding the acceptance of 00:59:51.040 --> 00:59:52.040 gifts. 00:59:52.040 --> 00:59:53.040 One was regarding complementary attendance at a gala held by NCTC. 00:59:53.040 --> 00:59:54.040 Shia Advice was probably an exception, but said that it did not have the authority to 00:59:54.040 --> 00:59:55.040 actually tell them that for sure or not. 00:59:55.040 --> 00:59:56.040 And then the second was regarding complementary transportation provided by Equality Texas. 00:59:56.040 --> 00:59:57.040 And that has since been, Divisory of opinion has been requested for that. 00:59:57.040 --> 01:00:06.000 And so we're at that schedule for next Monday. 01:00:06.000 --> 01:00:07.000 Okay. 01:00:07.000 --> 01:00:14.000 So now we're actually on our participant list. 01:00:14.000 --> 01:00:15.000 Yeah. 01:00:15.000 --> 01:00:16.000 Unless you would like to have a discussion already. 01:00:16.000 --> 01:00:17.000 Are you comfortable being in that position? 01:00:17.000 --> 01:00:18.000 I mean, that's why I brought it up to you. 01:00:18.000 --> 01:00:19.000 That's a great question. 01:00:19.000 --> 01:00:20.000 I mean, this has happened before. 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. 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 01:00:38.000 --> 01:00:39.000 of position. 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 01:00:43.520 --> 01:00:44.520 sensitive. 01:00:44.520 --> 01:00:45.520 We do. 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? 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 01:00:58.000 --> 01:01:01.320 the rules of procedure, essentially what you're talking about, timeframes for if I receive 01:01:01.320 --> 01:01:03.320 advice requests, what to do with them. 01:01:03.320 --> 01:01:08.320 And, and this is basically following that procedure. 01:01:08.320 --> 01:01:09.320 Okay. 01:01:09.320 --> 01:01:11.040 If I do receive them, I bring them to you. 01:01:11.040 --> 01:01:15.000 I pick this up as being outside of what we'd already agreed to. 01:01:15.000 --> 01:01:16.000 But if they weren't. 01:01:16.000 --> 01:01:21.000 I think, I think, while this one obviously turned into an advisory opinion and we had 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 01:01:27.000 --> 01:01:28.000 request. 01:01:28.000 --> 01:01:33.000 But I just took it and used that same procedure, which I think is appropriate. 01:01:33.000 --> 01:01:36.000 Ultimately, that's what it kind of was. 01:01:36.000 --> 01:01:37.000 Yeah. 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, 01:01:42.000 --> 01:01:46.000 then go for it and if not, then put it back on the list. 01:01:46.000 --> 01:01:49.000 And there was not time, basically, for the first one. 01:01:49.000 --> 01:01:53.000 And so that's, yeah, that's what the procedure says. 01:01:53.000 --> 01:01:58.000 Basically, I can give them references to the code and then I report it to you. 01:01:58.000 --> 01:02:02.000 They asked for the advisory opinion after I had made the agenda and there was time. 01:02:02.000 --> 01:02:05.000 So that's going to happen in the second one. 01:02:05.000 --> 01:02:08.000 Okay. 01:02:08.000 --> 01:02:13.000 So that concludes item E, so we're ready for item F. 01:02:13.000 --> 01:02:14.000 All right. 01:02:14.000 --> 01:02:17.000 EOE 23-016. 01:02:17.000 --> 01:02:22.000 The receiver report called the discussion gives staff direction regarding future meeting 01:02:22.000 --> 01:02:27.000 topics. 01:02:27.000 --> 01:02:30.000 So we've already identified one. 01:02:30.000 --> 01:02:33.000 Yes. 01:02:33.000 --> 01:02:36.000 So this is what we had previously discussed. 01:02:36.000 --> 01:02:38.000 And basically, do you want to make changes to this? 01:02:38.000 --> 01:02:43.000 Obviously, we did discuss having that discussion about conflict of interest and pending matter 01:02:43.000 --> 01:02:44.000 definition. 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 01:02:49.000 --> 01:02:50.000 around. 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 01:02:55.000 --> 01:02:56.000 directions. 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 01:03:05.000 --> 01:03:10.000 like to add the pending matter because it all kind of -- March is today. 01:03:10.000 --> 01:03:18.000 So we're looking at April and May. 01:03:18.000 --> 01:03:29.000 So I would put the pending matter -- proposal three, the threshold, move it down to April. 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 01:03:34.000 --> 01:03:39.000 down and it wouldn't affect us. 01:03:39.000 --> 01:03:41.000 We would just add this kind of new discussion. 01:03:41.000 --> 01:03:43.000 Proposal three is essentially done. 01:03:43.000 --> 01:03:44.000 We're not forwarding it. 01:03:44.000 --> 01:03:47.000 It will be a new proposal. 01:03:47.000 --> 01:03:49.000 I'm just thinking of the time discussion. 01:03:49.000 --> 01:03:50.000 Yes. 01:03:50.000 --> 01:03:55.000 I think it will need at least 30 minutes longer. 01:03:55.000 --> 01:03:56.000 You're optimistic. 01:03:56.000 --> 01:03:57.000 Yes. 01:03:57.000 --> 01:04:00.000 I'm trying. 01:04:00.000 --> 01:04:06.000 I suggest we start with the pending matter discussion before we go back to the threshold 01:04:06.000 --> 01:04:09.000 since there's a lot of concern about that. 01:04:09.000 --> 01:04:11.000 I think a lot of things on that. 01:04:11.000 --> 01:04:16.000 Maybe if we try to put that in the May, that additional topic slide in May. 01:04:16.000 --> 01:04:17.000 The threshold. 01:04:17.000 --> 01:04:23.000 The pending matter discussion first and then do the threshold after that. 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 01:04:30.000 --> 01:04:40.000 enough when it goes to council. 01:04:40.000 --> 01:04:41.000 Okay. 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 01:04:45.000 --> 01:04:49.000 and then do that first, essentially break it up, that discussion we had, which would be 01:04:49.000 --> 01:04:53.000 a large discussion away to several bits or parts. 01:04:53.000 --> 01:04:54.000 I think so. 01:04:54.000 --> 01:04:55.000 Okay. 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. 01:05:01.000 --> 01:05:05.000 Again, it's in the code and it's in the rules of procedure. 01:05:05.000 --> 01:05:07.000 Exact same wording. 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 01:05:14.000 --> 01:05:19.000 voices and I think more voices are better than less. 01:05:19.000 --> 01:05:22.000 So I would like to maybe add that for June. 01:05:22.000 --> 01:05:24.000 Can we start looking at that? 01:05:24.000 --> 01:05:26.000 Are we meeting in June? 01:05:26.000 --> 01:05:27.000 I believe so. 01:05:27.000 --> 01:05:29.000 I checked the calendar. 01:05:29.000 --> 01:05:32.000 Not July but June. 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 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 01:05:42.000 --> 01:05:46.000 haven't had the benefit of these discussions. 01:05:46.000 --> 01:05:49.000 I think that would be helpful. 01:05:49.000 --> 01:05:52.000 So we'll look at that for me. 01:05:52.000 --> 01:05:55.000 I can give you the section if you want. 01:05:55.000 --> 01:05:57.000 I know where it is. 01:05:57.000 --> 01:05:59.000 You probably have it anyways. 01:05:59.000 --> 01:06:00.000 Okay. 01:06:00.000 --> 01:06:03.000 So put it on for June. 01:06:03.000 --> 01:06:04.000 Okay. 01:06:04.000 --> 01:06:08.000 So we're comfortable with the agenda for April. 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 01:06:13.000 --> 01:06:16.000 to discuss that. 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 01:06:21.000 --> 01:06:23.000 thresholds, pending matter. 01:06:23.000 --> 01:06:25.000 Are you guys okay with that? 01:06:25.000 --> 01:06:26.000 Okay. 01:06:26.000 --> 01:06:27.000 That's direction okay. 01:06:27.000 --> 01:06:31.000 I think the pending matter 171 should be part of that as well. 01:06:31.000 --> 01:06:32.000 Yep. 01:06:32.000 --> 01:06:36.000 Got that down. 01:06:36.000 --> 01:06:41.000 So we are at the end of the meeting. 01:06:41.000 --> 01:06:51.000 So we are adjourning at 6.36 p.m. 01:06:51.000 --> 01:06:52.000 Thank you very much. 01:06:52.000 --> 01:06:53.000 Thank you.