>> All right, ready?
All right, hello, welcome to this meeting,
special call meeting of the Board of Ethics.
It is Monday, March 13th.
It is 5.30 p.m. We have our full panel.
And the first order of business is for the panel
to select the presiding officer.
Hand it over to you all.
>> And I said I wouldn't do it before.
>> I would love for you to do that.
I was going to nominate you since you were vice-chair
in the past.
>> Yep.
>> I don't think we need to -- do they need to have a motion?
>> If you can say if there's no objection,
Hannah will serve as the chairman.
>> If there's no objections, I will --
Hannah, you can take over as presiding officer.
>> Excellent.
All right.
And then how are we running this one?
Just same --
>> Yeah, I think just call the first item and then --
>> Okay, great, thank you.
So we have item for consideration, BOE 23-017.
It says 001.
>> That's the item number.
This is the advisory opinion number.
>> Got it.
Request for advisory opinion number 23-001,
received February 28th, 2023 from Council Member McGee,
concerning potential acceptance of a gift, applicability
of exceptions, and disclosure recommendations.
Okay, so we need to discuss the request
for the advisory opinion.
>> I can't hold the request.
>> Yeah, thank you.
Sorry, I didn't download it.
I thought -- didn't --
>> I didn't say that.
>> -- nominate myself and then not download this, so my bad.
>> You're good.
>> So do you want me to read the email in its entirety or --
>> I think this is the best summary of it.
>> Okay. So I believe we've all read it.
>> Yes.
>> Do you want me to read it aloud?
>> I don't think you have to.
>> Okay.
>> It's posted.
>> Great. So discussion -- yeah.
Do you want to summarize it?
>> Yeah, I went through this and it's --
the request is for an advisory opinion regarding accepting
transportation to the All In for Equality Advocacy Day
at the Texas Capitol.
And I think the date is the 30th, is that right?
>> I think it's the 20th or something along the line.
>> Twenty -- it's a week from today.
Yeah, March 20th, 2023.
And so I think the question is does this fall
under the ethics ordinance under accepting a gift?
And that's why Councilmember McGee asked
for an advisory opinion.
And I looked at this -- I looked at the request.
I looked at the event publication.
It's put on by Equality Texas.
And on their website, they list themselves
as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit.
And the event announcement lists itself as a community event.
And in our ordinance under exceptions,
this is Section 2-273(b)(5)(C) under exceptions.
It lists acceptable exceptions as meals, lodging,
transportation, or entertainment furnished in connection
with public events, appearances, or ceremonies related
to official city business, nonprofit functions,
or charity functions, or community events if furnished
by the sponsor of such events who is in attendance.
So unless I'm missing something, it seems like this event falls
under the community events part of Paragraph C. It's
by a nonprofit organization.
And this would be accepting transportation provided
by the event sponsor, which falls directly
under that exception.
I don't know if you guys saw something different in this,
but I mean that's what I could find on the website listing
about the event and the organization sponsoring
the event.
So this would fall under the exception guideline under gifts.
>> We know that I'd like to ask just to make sure
that I understand correctly.
It is transportation only that the question is about, correct?
There's nothing else involved other than the transportation
from Denton to Austin.
>> That is my understanding.
>> And the only other question
that I would have was this offer and gift of transportation made
to any other council members or other members of the community.
>> I believe that the event website says it's any
transportation for anybody is available.
>> And that is what I thought I read when I was looking at it,
is that there was more or less a car tour,
whatever you want to call it, organized to get people
from different places to the event.
>> Yeah, I don't know if it was specifically offered
to other council members.
>> Okay. All right.
>> Yeah. I mean, from what I saw on the website,
it was publicly available to accept transportation,
regardless of your position in the city.
I could access that, so I could have signed up.
And I think even if it were, I think it would still be,
I think it would still fall under that exception,
regardless of what it was.
And since it's a community event and not a ticketed event,
it falls under that exception.
And I just wanted to double-check on that,
because that is how, when I looked at the website,
it looked like it was an open event, it wasn't ticketed,
there was nothing, there was nothing other
than just a community event.
So yeah, that was my impression when I saw it,
when I looked at the information.
>> So, it sounds like we have consensus.
Do you need us to like call a vote,
or how do we offer that advice?
>> Yes, take direction.
>> Do you need direction?
>> I would think, so you have to issue an advisory opinion,
so I think you would want to make a motion or have a vote,
certainly, to issue an advisory opinion to some extent,
in some direction, does that make sense?
>> I move that we draft an advisory opinion stating this
would fall under the exceptions portion of the give section
of the ordinance, and there's no conflict
of interest because of that.
>> Do I have a second?
>> I second that.
>> Okay, so all in favor?
>> Aye.
>> Opposed?
It passes unanimously.
Do you need me to re-say what Dustin said, or you got it?
>> What I heard was that you made a motion
that this would fall under section B,
exception of letter C?
>> Yes.
>> Under the give section of the ethics ordinance,
and as such would be an exception to the ordinance?
And she seconded it, and then it was C&S?
>> Yes.
>> And to write an advisory opinion to that?
>> Yes.
>> I believe there was a question
about if a disclosure was required as part of this.
I mean, I think that goes back to our last meeting.
Done.
>> I don't think we've created anything
that requires either way right now.
It's still in limbo from my understanding.
So the disclosure, like a formal disclosure,
is that the question?
I mean, the way this reads now is that disclosure is only
required if the city official has a conflicting interest
in a pending matter, and since this is an exception,
there's no conflicting interest, right?
I think there was a question at the last meeting was do we --
does there have to be a disclosure if there --
if it does fall under an exception?
>> Right. That has not taken effect yet, though, so.
So I think -- and we -- part of having that entire section --
proposal is it's not clear if disclosure is required, so.
>> Okay. So we would need to advise whether
or not disclosure was required based on our interpretation
of this is what I'm understanding?
>> I think you can give -- you can give, yeah,
advice on whether the council member should disclose this
acceptance or not.
>> Based on what's written right now,
I don't believe there's anything to say
that it needs to be disclosed.
>> That's my opinion.
>> Yeah. So again, I think we're consensus-y on that,
but should we motion to get a vote?
>> I think so.
>> Any motion that there -- in the disclosure?
>> I will make the motion that we --
that there is -- based on our reading, there is no need
for disclosure based on the ordinance at this point.
>> I second that.
>> So all in favor?
>> Aye.
>> This is your name missing.
The advice would be to not need to disclose.
>> I'm just going to pull up the received request again.
>> So when you have your opinion written --
and my name is Dorothy Colombo.
I'm with the Vortez Law Firm.
I'm the special counsel for your meeting.
So when you're writing your opinion on the section
of disclosure, do you want to make a simple statement
that the ethics ordinance does not require disclosure
at this time?
>> Yes.
>> I believe that addresses the questions.
Do you agree?
>> Yes. The only other thing we looked at was whether the value
of the transportation was less than $50.
And in these types of groups that take people to the Capitol,
typically by bus, and we did find two values
for bus transportation from this area to Austin.
One was on mega bus, it was less than $50.
And the other was on the Flix bus, it's also less than $50.
So since you already decided that it's under your 273B5C
portion of the ordinance, you don't have to put
that in there, but if you so choose, you could also look
at the value of the transportation.
>> So that -- but that value doesn't apply
since it's an exception?
>> Right. So the way I looked at it was if you found the value
of the transportation to be under $50,
the ethics ordinance doesn't apply.
But however, if the value of the transportation is over 50,
then section 273B5C would apply.
So you could put both of those things in your opinion
or just the one that you voted on.
>> Which I would like to add.
>> I think it would be harder.
>> Yeah, I don't think it would --
I don't know that it's necessary since that falls
under an exception, but I have a problem including
that the council suggested that the value is --
the value of the travel is less than $50.
>> My only concern with including
that would then potentially create precedent that if it was,
it were $50, now we've created something
where there's this loophole of if it's over $50,
but potentially an exception, does that now cause
like a disclosure thing to fire?
So that's my only concern about including it.
>> So the disclosure doesn't apply regardless
of whether it's under 50 or over 50.
And for the gifts disclosure, and I used
to be the senior assistant city attorney in Denton
from the years 2000 to 2005.
And there was always --
council would always just voluntarily file if they received
a gift, and as a disclosure, I don't know what the current
practice is for that gifts disclosure form.
It was always voluntary.
>> Yeah, the current practice is we have a gifts disclosure form.
There's nothing that requires it clearly in the code.
So sometimes they file -- they disclose a gift, or sometimes --
I mean, I don't know if they don't disclose it, right?
>> Yeah, so it's typically a council choice
for transparency, but it's not required.
>> So maybe in our advisory opinion, we can say
that it is not required according to the --
because it falls under exceptions,
and leave it to councilmember McGee to choose to file
on affidavit stating that it accepted this.
I don't see why that would be required at all.
>> It's voluntary, whether they want to do that or not.
>> So would it be -- would you advise to just put it in there
that if he chooses to disclose that we found also
that the baton was less than $50 and --
but still disclosed it for full transparency if he chooses to?
>> So the way that I would word it is voluntary --
let me call that one.
>> The gifts disclosure?
>> Yeah, affidavit -- it's on your website,
affidavit regarding gifts received.
That's typically the form.
So you would say in the paragraph
that no disclosure is required under the ethics ordinance
at this time, and you would go on to say however the councilmember
is -- may file the affidavit regarding gifts received.
>> I like that personally.
I find it -- I find it just because it is an ethics question
and a transparency, you know, airing on the side
of being more transparent and less transparent,
I think is always something we should look for,
but at the end of this is towards right, but you can remind
him of that availability.
>> Yeah.
[ Inaudible ]
>> Do you need a motion for that?
>> The chairman can say if there's no objection we'll add that.
>> Yeah, if there are no objections we can add that.
[ Inaudible ]
>> And so in directing your opinion, do you want to make a
motion to include if the value of the transportation is found
to be less than $50, then the ethics ordinance would not apply?
Or do you want to leave that out?
>> I -- so my feeling towards it, just since this is already
a discussion, I don't know if I want to add any more calls
to the fire right now on that one, just to keep it simple
with section 5C and leave it there,
I think would be my preference,
but I don't know if you all have any discussion
on a different preference.
>> Okay, I agree with you.
>> And I will go with -- I could have been swayed, but if both
of you -- if both of you feel that that's the way to go,
then I'll go -- I'll go with the clear thought.
I wouldn't think we need a motion to not do so.
>> No, no.
So the advisory opinion is going to be limited to section 273B5C
and then the last part of the opinion will deal
with whether disclosure is required
and that disclosure is not required
under the ethics ordinance.
However, council member chooses that council member can file
that half a day if the recording gets.
>> Yes.
>> So it is 546 and the meeting is adjourned.