WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.260 >> All right, ready? 00:00:04.260 --> 00:00:06.260 All right, hello, welcome to this meeting, 00:00:06.260 --> 00:00:08.240 special call meeting of the Board of Ethics. 00:00:08.240 --> 00:00:10.740 It is Monday, March 13th. 00:00:10.740 --> 00:00:15.440 It is 5.30 p.m. We have our full panel. 00:00:15.440 --> 00:00:19.420 And the first order of business is for the panel 00:00:19.420 --> 00:00:21.940 to select the presiding officer. 00:00:21.940 --> 00:00:24.220 Hand it over to you all. 00:00:24.220 --> 00:00:25.980 >> And I said I wouldn't do it before. 00:00:25.980 --> 00:00:27.420 >> I would love for you to do that. 00:00:27.420 --> 00:00:30.800 I was going to nominate you since you were vice-chair 00:00:30.800 --> 00:00:31.660 in the past. 00:00:31.660 --> 00:00:33.220 >> Yep. 00:00:33.220 --> 00:00:36.160 >> I don't think we need to -- do they need to have a motion? 00:00:36.160 --> 00:00:38.160 >> If you can say if there's no objection, 00:00:38.160 --> 00:00:40.600 Hannah will serve as the chairman. 00:00:40.600 --> 00:00:42.880 >> If there's no objections, I will -- 00:00:42.880 --> 00:00:45.680 Hannah, you can take over as presiding officer. 00:00:45.680 --> 00:00:46.980 >> Excellent. 00:00:46.980 --> 00:00:48.220 All right. 00:00:48.220 --> 00:00:52.280 And then how are we running this one? 00:00:52.280 --> 00:00:53.580 Just same -- 00:00:53.580 --> 00:00:55.860 >> Yeah, I think just call the first item and then -- 00:00:55.860 --> 00:00:58.320 >> Okay, great, thank you. 00:00:58.320 --> 00:01:05.400 So we have item for consideration, BOE 23-017. 00:01:05.400 --> 00:01:08.500 It says 001. 00:01:08.500 --> 00:01:09.300 >> That's the item number. 00:01:09.300 --> 00:01:10.800 This is the advisory opinion number. 00:01:10.800 --> 00:01:11.460 >> Got it. 00:01:11.460 --> 00:01:15.300 Request for advisory opinion number 23-001, 00:01:15.300 --> 00:01:19.340 received February 28th, 2023 from Council Member McGee, 00:01:19.340 --> 00:01:23.580 concerning potential acceptance of a gift, applicability 00:01:23.580 --> 00:01:26.680 of exceptions, and disclosure recommendations. 00:01:26.680 --> 00:01:33.720 Okay, so we need to discuss the request 00:01:33.720 --> 00:01:35.800 for the advisory opinion. 00:01:35.800 --> 00:01:37.160 >> I can't hold the request. 00:01:37.160 --> 00:01:37.860 >> Yeah, thank you. 00:01:37.860 --> 00:01:39.260 Sorry, I didn't download it. 00:01:39.260 --> 00:01:41.760 I thought -- didn't -- 00:01:41.760 --> 00:01:42.540 >> I didn't say that. 00:01:42.540 --> 00:01:45.740 >> -- nominate myself and then not download this, so my bad. 00:01:45.740 --> 00:01:46.540 >> You're good. 00:01:46.540 --> 00:01:50.300 >> So do you want me to read the email in its entirety or -- 00:01:53.840 --> 00:01:56.180 >> I think this is the best summary of it. 00:01:56.180 --> 00:02:02.180 >> Okay. So I believe we've all read it. 00:02:02.180 --> 00:02:02.660 >> Yes. 00:02:02.660 --> 00:02:04.020 >> Do you want me to read it aloud? 00:02:04.020 --> 00:02:04.960 >> I don't think you have to. 00:02:04.960 --> 00:02:06.820 >> Okay. 00:02:06.820 --> 00:02:08.300 >> It's posted. 00:02:08.300 --> 00:02:12.460 >> Great. So discussion -- yeah. 00:02:12.460 --> 00:02:14.360 Do you want to summarize it? 00:02:14.360 --> 00:02:17.040 >> Yeah, I went through this and it's -- 00:02:17.040 --> 00:02:23.100 the request is for an advisory opinion regarding accepting 00:02:23.100 --> 00:02:27.640 transportation to the All In for Equality Advocacy Day 00:02:27.640 --> 00:02:29.540 at the Texas Capitol. 00:02:29.540 --> 00:02:34.160 And I think the date is the 30th, is that right? 00:02:34.160 --> 00:02:36.060 >> I think it's the 20th or something along the line. 00:02:36.060 --> 00:02:38.220 >> Twenty -- it's a week from today. 00:02:38.220 --> 00:02:41.060 Yeah, March 20th, 2023. 00:02:41.060 --> 00:02:48.640 And so I think the question is does this fall 00:02:48.640 --> 00:02:54.800 under the ethics ordinance under accepting a gift? 00:02:54.800 --> 00:02:57.840 And that's why Councilmember McGee asked 00:02:57.840 --> 00:02:59.820 for an advisory opinion. 00:02:59.820 --> 00:03:05.160 And I looked at this -- I looked at the request. 00:03:05.160 --> 00:03:08.120 I looked at the event publication. 00:03:08.120 --> 00:03:11.560 It's put on by Equality Texas. 00:03:11.560 --> 00:03:14.120 And on their website, they list themselves 00:03:14.120 --> 00:03:17.600 as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit. 00:03:17.600 --> 00:03:24.900 And the event announcement lists itself as a community event. 00:03:24.900 --> 00:03:30.740 And in our ordinance under exceptions, 00:03:30.740 --> 00:03:43.160 this is Section 2-273(b)(5)(C) under exceptions. 00:03:43.160 --> 00:03:47.700 It lists acceptable exceptions as meals, lodging, 00:03:47.700 --> 00:03:50.540 transportation, or entertainment furnished in connection 00:03:50.540 --> 00:03:54.140 with public events, appearances, or ceremonies related 00:03:54.140 --> 00:03:57.000 to official city business, nonprofit functions, 00:03:57.000 --> 00:04:00.740 or charity functions, or community events if furnished 00:04:00.740 --> 00:04:04.420 by the sponsor of such events who is in attendance. 00:04:04.420 --> 00:04:09.720 So unless I'm missing something, it seems like this event falls 00:04:09.720 --> 00:04:16.360 under the community events part of Paragraph C. It's 00:04:16.360 --> 00:04:18.820 by a nonprofit organization. 00:04:18.820 --> 00:04:21.400 And this would be accepting transportation provided 00:04:21.400 --> 00:04:24.800 by the event sponsor, which falls directly 00:04:24.800 --> 00:04:26.800 under that exception. 00:04:26.800 --> 00:04:32.200 I don't know if you guys saw something different in this, 00:04:32.200 --> 00:04:35.640 but I mean that's what I could find on the website listing 00:04:35.640 --> 00:04:38.020 about the event and the organization sponsoring 00:04:38.020 --> 00:04:39.220 the event. 00:04:39.220 --> 00:04:43.880 So this would fall under the exception guideline under gifts. 00:04:43.880 --> 00:04:50.020 >> We know that I'd like to ask just to make sure 00:04:50.020 --> 00:04:51.860 that I understand correctly. 00:04:51.860 --> 00:04:56.200 It is transportation only that the question is about, correct? 00:04:56.200 --> 00:04:59.240 There's nothing else involved other than the transportation 00:04:59.240 --> 00:05:00.900 from Denton to Austin. 00:05:00.900 --> 00:05:02.180 >> That is my understanding. 00:05:02.180 --> 00:05:04.340 >> And the only other question 00:05:04.340 --> 00:05:09.040 that I would have was this offer and gift of transportation made 00:05:09.040 --> 00:05:16.020 to any other council members or other members of the community. 00:05:16.020 --> 00:05:19.520 >> I believe that the event website says it's any 00:05:19.520 --> 00:05:21.420 transportation for anybody is available. 00:05:21.420 --> 00:05:24.720 >> And that is what I thought I read when I was looking at it, 00:05:24.720 --> 00:05:27.200 is that there was more or less a car tour, 00:05:27.200 --> 00:05:30.340 whatever you want to call it, organized to get people 00:05:30.340 --> 00:05:32.340 from different places to the event. 00:05:32.340 --> 00:05:33.940 >> Yeah, I don't know if it was specifically offered 00:05:33.940 --> 00:05:34.800 to other council members. 00:05:34.800 --> 00:05:38.280 >> Okay. All right. 00:05:38.280 --> 00:05:40.440 >> Yeah. I mean, from what I saw on the website, 00:05:40.440 --> 00:05:43.720 it was publicly available to accept transportation, 00:05:43.720 --> 00:05:47.020 regardless of your position in the city. 00:05:47.020 --> 00:05:50.380 I could access that, so I could have signed up. 00:05:50.380 --> 00:05:56.300 And I think even if it were, I think it would still be, 00:05:56.300 --> 00:05:58.800 I think it would still fall under that exception, 00:05:58.800 --> 00:06:01.460 regardless of what it was. 00:06:01.460 --> 00:06:04.860 And since it's a community event and not a ticketed event, 00:06:04.860 --> 00:06:07.700 it falls under that exception. 00:06:07.700 --> 00:06:09.540 And I just wanted to double-check on that, 00:06:09.540 --> 00:06:11.580 because that is how, when I looked at the website, 00:06:11.580 --> 00:06:14.320 it looked like it was an open event, it wasn't ticketed, 00:06:14.320 --> 00:06:16.120 there was nothing, there was nothing other 00:06:16.120 --> 00:06:18.240 than just a community event. 00:06:18.240 --> 00:06:20.820 So yeah, that was my impression when I saw it, 00:06:20.820 --> 00:06:24.820 when I looked at the information. 00:06:24.820 --> 00:06:26.560 >> So, it sounds like we have consensus. 00:06:26.560 --> 00:06:29.000 Do you need us to like call a vote, 00:06:29.000 --> 00:06:32.360 or how do we offer that advice? 00:06:32.360 --> 00:06:38.340 >> Yes, take direction. 00:06:38.340 --> 00:06:39.640 >> Do you need direction? 00:06:39.640 --> 00:06:43.200 >> I would think, so you have to issue an advisory opinion, 00:06:43.200 --> 00:06:47.520 so I think you would want to make a motion or have a vote, 00:06:47.520 --> 00:06:50.720 certainly, to issue an advisory opinion to some extent, 00:06:50.720 --> 00:06:53.560 in some direction, does that make sense? 00:06:53.560 --> 00:06:59.520 >> I move that we draft an advisory opinion stating this 00:06:59.520 --> 00:07:03.200 would fall under the exceptions portion of the give section 00:07:03.200 --> 00:07:06.160 of the ordinance, and there's no conflict 00:07:06.160 --> 00:07:08.840 of interest because of that. 00:07:08.840 --> 00:07:09.900 >> Do I have a second? 00:07:09.900 --> 00:07:11.000 >> I second that. 00:07:11.000 --> 00:07:13.740 >> Okay, so all in favor? 00:07:13.740 --> 00:07:14.940 >> Aye. 00:07:14.940 --> 00:07:16.180 >> Opposed? 00:07:16.180 --> 00:07:18.640 It passes unanimously. 00:07:18.640 --> 00:07:23.120 Do you need me to re-say what Dustin said, or you got it? 00:07:23.120 --> 00:07:26.220 >> What I heard was that you made a motion 00:07:26.220 --> 00:07:32.920 that this would fall under section B, 00:07:32.920 --> 00:07:34.820 exception of letter C? 00:07:34.820 --> 00:07:36.100 >> Yes. 00:07:36.100 --> 00:07:38.500 >> Under the give section of the ethics ordinance, 00:07:38.500 --> 00:07:44.140 and as such would be an exception to the ordinance? 00:07:44.140 --> 00:07:46.640 And she seconded it, and then it was C&S? 00:07:46.640 --> 00:07:49.600 >> Yes. 00:07:49.600 --> 00:07:52.080 >> And to write an advisory opinion to that? 00:07:52.080 --> 00:07:53.540 >> Yes. 00:07:57.180 --> 00:07:59.380 >> I believe there was a question 00:07:59.380 --> 00:08:02.680 about if a disclosure was required as part of this. 00:08:02.680 --> 00:08:07.260 I mean, I think that goes back to our last meeting. 00:08:07.260 --> 00:08:08.620 Done. 00:08:08.620 --> 00:08:11.100 >> I don't think we've created anything 00:08:11.100 --> 00:08:14.560 that requires either way right now. 00:08:14.560 --> 00:08:18.940 It's still in limbo from my understanding. 00:08:18.940 --> 00:08:22.800 So the disclosure, like a formal disclosure, 00:08:22.800 --> 00:08:25.280 is that the question? 00:08:25.280 --> 00:08:30.320 I mean, the way this reads now is that disclosure is only 00:08:30.320 --> 00:08:32.880 required if the city official has a conflicting interest 00:08:32.880 --> 00:08:37.480 in a pending matter, and since this is an exception, 00:08:37.480 --> 00:08:40.160 there's no conflicting interest, right? 00:08:40.160 --> 00:08:44.420 I think there was a question at the last meeting was do we -- 00:08:44.420 --> 00:08:46.700 does there have to be a disclosure if there -- 00:08:46.700 --> 00:08:50.200 if it does fall under an exception? 00:08:50.200 --> 00:08:53.840 >> Right. That has not taken effect yet, though, so. 00:08:53.840 --> 00:08:58.140 So I think -- and we -- part of having that entire section -- 00:08:58.140 --> 00:09:03.480 proposal is it's not clear if disclosure is required, so. 00:09:03.480 --> 00:09:05.940 >> Okay. So we would need to advise whether 00:09:05.940 --> 00:09:09.280 or not disclosure was required based on our interpretation 00:09:09.280 --> 00:09:13.280 of this is what I'm understanding? 00:09:13.280 --> 00:09:15.360 >> I think you can give -- you can give, yeah, 00:09:15.360 --> 00:09:18.600 advice on whether the council member should disclose this 00:09:18.600 --> 00:09:20.360 acceptance or not. 00:09:20.360 --> 00:09:22.260 >> Based on what's written right now, 00:09:22.260 --> 00:09:24.360 I don't believe there's anything to say 00:09:24.360 --> 00:09:27.000 that it needs to be disclosed. 00:09:27.000 --> 00:09:28.360 >> That's my opinion. 00:09:28.360 --> 00:09:32.640 >> Yeah. So again, I think we're consensus-y on that, 00:09:32.640 --> 00:09:35.940 but should we motion to get a vote? 00:09:35.940 --> 00:09:36.940 >> I think so. 00:09:36.940 --> 00:09:41.080 >> Any motion that there -- in the disclosure? 00:09:41.080 --> 00:09:43.520 >> I will make the motion that we -- 00:09:43.520 --> 00:09:49.180 that there is -- based on our reading, there is no need 00:09:49.180 --> 00:09:53.960 for disclosure based on the ordinance at this point. 00:09:53.960 --> 00:09:55.400 >> I second that. 00:09:55.400 --> 00:09:57.060 >> So all in favor? 00:09:57.060 --> 00:09:58.460 >> Aye. 00:09:58.460 --> 00:10:00.960 >> This is your name missing. 00:10:00.960 --> 00:10:05.360 The advice would be to not need to disclose. 00:10:05.360 --> 00:10:10.680 >> I'm just going to pull up the received request again. 00:10:10.680 --> 00:10:13.920 >> So when you have your opinion written -- 00:10:13.920 --> 00:10:15.320 and my name is Dorothy Colombo. 00:10:15.320 --> 00:10:16.580 I'm with the Vortez Law Firm. 00:10:16.580 --> 00:10:19.380 I'm the special counsel for your meeting. 00:10:19.380 --> 00:10:22.260 So when you're writing your opinion on the section 00:10:22.260 --> 00:10:25.820 of disclosure, do you want to make a simple statement 00:10:25.820 --> 00:10:28.600 that the ethics ordinance does not require disclosure 00:10:28.600 --> 00:10:29.600 at this time? 00:10:29.600 --> 00:10:31.400 >> Yes. 00:10:45.140 --> 00:10:47.940 >> I believe that addresses the questions. 00:10:47.940 --> 00:10:51.620 Do you agree? 00:10:51.620 --> 00:10:55.460 >> Yes. The only other thing we looked at was whether the value 00:10:55.460 --> 00:10:58.360 of the transportation was less than $50. 00:10:58.360 --> 00:11:03.660 And in these types of groups that take people to the Capitol, 00:11:03.660 --> 00:11:09.200 typically by bus, and we did find two values 00:11:09.200 --> 00:11:13.640 for bus transportation from this area to Austin. 00:11:13.640 --> 00:11:16.480 One was on mega bus, it was less than $50. 00:11:16.480 --> 00:11:20.440 And the other was on the Flix bus, it's also less than $50. 00:11:20.440 --> 00:11:28.860 So since you already decided that it's under your 273B5C 00:11:28.860 --> 00:11:32.360 portion of the ordinance, you don't have to put 00:11:32.360 --> 00:11:35.660 that in there, but if you so choose, you could also look 00:11:35.660 --> 00:11:39.900 at the value of the transportation. 00:11:39.900 --> 00:11:42.260 >> So that -- but that value doesn't apply 00:11:42.260 --> 00:11:43.700 since it's an exception? 00:11:43.700 --> 00:11:49.480 >> Right. So the way I looked at it was if you found the value 00:11:49.480 --> 00:11:51.840 of the transportation to be under $50, 00:11:51.840 --> 00:11:54.280 the ethics ordinance doesn't apply. 00:11:54.280 --> 00:11:57.680 But however, if the value of the transportation is over 50, 00:11:57.680 --> 00:12:02.320 then section 273B5C would apply. 00:12:02.320 --> 00:12:05.860 So you could put both of those things in your opinion 00:12:05.860 --> 00:12:08.800 or just the one that you voted on. 00:12:12.400 --> 00:12:14.760 >> Which I would like to add. 00:12:14.760 --> 00:12:17.260 >> I think it would be harder. 00:12:17.260 --> 00:12:18.400 >> Yeah, I don't think it would -- 00:12:18.400 --> 00:12:21.280 I don't know that it's necessary since that falls 00:12:21.280 --> 00:12:24.680 under an exception, but I have a problem including 00:12:24.680 --> 00:12:29.140 that the council suggested that the value is -- 00:12:29.140 --> 00:12:32.280 the value of the travel is less than $50. 00:12:32.280 --> 00:12:33.720 >> My only concern with including 00:12:33.720 --> 00:12:37.460 that would then potentially create precedent that if it was, 00:12:37.460 --> 00:12:39.660 it were $50, now we've created something 00:12:39.660 --> 00:12:42.220 where there's this loophole of if it's over $50, 00:12:42.220 --> 00:12:44.520 but potentially an exception, does that now cause 00:12:44.520 --> 00:12:47.000 like a disclosure thing to fire? 00:12:47.000 --> 00:12:49.800 So that's my only concern about including it. 00:12:49.800 --> 00:12:52.640 >> So the disclosure doesn't apply regardless 00:12:52.640 --> 00:12:55.900 of whether it's under 50 or over 50. 00:12:55.900 --> 00:13:00.140 And for the gifts disclosure, and I used 00:13:00.140 --> 00:13:02.940 to be the senior assistant city attorney in Denton 00:13:02.940 --> 00:13:06.980 from the years 2000 to 2005. 00:13:06.980 --> 00:13:09.140 And there was always -- 00:13:09.140 --> 00:13:12.720 council would always just voluntarily file if they received 00:13:12.720 --> 00:13:16.360 a gift, and as a disclosure, I don't know what the current 00:13:16.360 --> 00:13:20.160 practice is for that gifts disclosure form. 00:13:20.160 --> 00:13:21.800 It was always voluntary. 00:13:21.800 --> 00:13:24.600 >> Yeah, the current practice is we have a gifts disclosure form. 00:13:24.600 --> 00:13:29.040 There's nothing that requires it clearly in the code. 00:13:29.040 --> 00:13:34.800 So sometimes they file -- they disclose a gift, or sometimes -- 00:13:34.800 --> 00:13:37.040 I mean, I don't know if they don't disclose it, right? 00:13:37.040 --> 00:13:40.380 >> Yeah, so it's typically a council choice 00:13:40.380 --> 00:13:45.380 for transparency, but it's not required. 00:13:45.380 --> 00:13:48.160 >> So maybe in our advisory opinion, we can say 00:13:48.160 --> 00:13:51.660 that it is not required according to the -- 00:13:51.660 --> 00:13:54.920 because it falls under exceptions, 00:13:54.920 --> 00:13:58.760 and leave it to councilmember McGee to choose to file 00:13:58.760 --> 00:14:03.900 on affidavit stating that it accepted this. 00:14:03.900 --> 00:14:08.400 I don't see why that would be required at all. 00:14:08.400 --> 00:14:18.680 >> It's voluntary, whether they want to do that or not. 00:14:18.680 --> 00:14:24.220 >> So would it be -- would you advise to just put it in there 00:14:24.220 --> 00:14:27.620 that if he chooses to disclose that we found also 00:14:27.620 --> 00:14:30.620 that the baton was less than $50 and -- 00:14:30.620 --> 00:14:35.540 but still disclosed it for full transparency if he chooses to? 00:14:35.540 --> 00:14:41.400 >> So the way that I would word it is voluntary -- 00:14:41.400 --> 00:14:46.700 let me call that one. 00:14:46.700 --> 00:14:48.080 >> The gifts disclosure? 00:14:48.080 --> 00:14:51.580 >> Yeah, affidavit -- it's on your website, 00:14:51.580 --> 00:14:55.780 affidavit regarding gifts received. 00:14:55.780 --> 00:14:59.820 That's typically the form. 00:14:59.820 --> 00:15:02.260 So you would say in the paragraph 00:15:02.260 --> 00:15:05.960 that no disclosure is required under the ethics ordinance 00:15:05.960 --> 00:15:11.100 at this time, and you would go on to say however the councilmember 00:15:11.100 --> 00:15:17.900 is -- may file the affidavit regarding gifts received. 00:15:17.900 --> 00:15:20.880 >> I like that personally. 00:15:20.880 --> 00:15:26.420 I find it -- I find it just because it is an ethics question 00:15:26.420 --> 00:15:28.860 and a transparency, you know, airing on the side 00:15:28.860 --> 00:15:30.960 of being more transparent and less transparent, 00:15:30.960 --> 00:15:34.620 I think is always something we should look for, 00:15:34.620 --> 00:15:38.100 but at the end of this is towards right, but you can remind 00:15:38.100 --> 00:15:40.600 him of that availability. 00:15:40.600 --> 00:15:42.000 >> Yeah. 00:15:42.000 --> 00:15:48.100 [ Inaudible ] 00:15:48.100 --> 00:15:50.900 >> Do you need a motion for that? 00:15:50.900 --> 00:15:55.880 >> The chairman can say if there's no objection we'll add that. 00:15:55.880 --> 00:15:58.320 >> Yeah, if there are no objections we can add that. 00:15:58.320 --> 00:16:02.720 [ Inaudible ] 00:16:02.720 --> 00:16:06.960 >> And so in directing your opinion, do you want to make a 00:16:06.960 --> 00:16:10.160 motion to include if the value of the transportation is found 00:16:10.160 --> 00:16:15.460 to be less than $50, then the ethics ordinance would not apply? 00:16:15.460 --> 00:16:20.240 Or do you want to leave that out? 00:16:20.240 --> 00:16:27.280 >> I -- so my feeling towards it, just since this is already 00:16:27.280 --> 00:16:33.620 a discussion, I don't know if I want to add any more calls 00:16:33.620 --> 00:16:38.060 to the fire right now on that one, just to keep it simple 00:16:38.060 --> 00:16:43.460 with section 5C and leave it there, 00:16:43.460 --> 00:16:45.620 I think would be my preference, 00:16:45.620 --> 00:16:47.600 but I don't know if you all have any discussion 00:16:47.600 --> 00:16:49.060 on a different preference. 00:16:49.060 --> 00:16:50.940 >> Okay, I agree with you. 00:16:50.940 --> 00:16:54.300 >> And I will go with -- I could have been swayed, but if both 00:16:54.300 --> 00:16:56.740 of you -- if both of you feel that that's the way to go, 00:16:56.740 --> 00:16:59.080 then I'll go -- I'll go with the clear thought. 00:16:59.080 --> 00:17:05.080 I wouldn't think we need a motion to not do so. 00:17:05.080 --> 00:17:06.580 >> No, no. 00:17:06.580 --> 00:17:14.460 So the advisory opinion is going to be limited to section 273B5C 00:17:14.460 --> 00:17:18.960 and then the last part of the opinion will deal 00:17:18.960 --> 00:17:21.700 with whether disclosure is required 00:17:21.700 --> 00:17:23.460 and that disclosure is not required 00:17:23.460 --> 00:17:24.800 under the ethics ordinance. 00:17:24.800 --> 00:17:29.140 However, council member chooses that council member can file 00:17:29.140 --> 00:17:31.740 that half a day if the recording gets. 00:17:31.740 --> 00:17:33.240 >> Yes. 00:17:33.240 --> 00:17:50.220 >> So it is 546 and the meeting is adjourned.