May 01, 2023 Board of Ethics on 2023-05-01 5:30 PM

it's been a Monday for most of us yeah all right so I guess I'll call the order on the meeting of the Board of Ethics and we have a quorum here uh you know now let me know if I miss anything I'm supposed to say it's 5 30 Monday Monday May 1st 2023 um all right so just go into the items consideration Board of Ethics 1A BOE 23-018 consider approval of minutes March 6th and March 13th 2023 I believe uh March 6th was the regular meeting I was absent so I mean I didn't see any glaring obvious like any glaring obvious approval that's approval any discussion everybody want to say anything about all right is there a second second all right uh moved by Annetta second by Tom Pryor uh I don't know can I call on the first names are y'all planning like that okay no um all right so all in favor of approving the March 6th minutes say aye aye all opposed right so uh everybody unanimous approval and then the March 13th minutes our advisory board of um I think it was Hannah and Dustin and Andrea and um so anything any discussion those look good to you guys motion for Dustin for approval second by Hannah all in favor say aye all opposed all right unanimous approval of that okay uh item 1B BOE 23-022 receive a report and hold a discussion regarding the 2023 packet of proposed amendments to the ethics ordinance and board of ethics rules and procedure and I will throw that to you Hanson all right so as you all know the board of ethics uh boarded a packet of nine proposed amendments the ethics ordinance and rules of procedure to the city council and they discussed that on April 4th uh based on that discussion the city council generally gave direction to include proposals one and five uh in in amended ethics ordinance as the board intended in addition the council gave direction to amend the ordinance to create clear procedures for submitting affiliated or partner business entity relationship disclosures as well as require the city auditor to provide a copy of a submitted complaint to the complainant once it's accepted those two amendments were related to proposals nine and ten but not did not include the entire part of them did not include their in their entirety and then no direction was given to move forward with any of the other five proposals uh the next steps are to bring revise language forward to the city council for adoption probably a junior no five uh as an individual consideration item so that's the update on that so um the ones that they didn't have direction um I mean I don't want to get too lost in the weeds on this uh did they just not say anything or there was like like for instance the campaign contribution is what I'm interested in was there any discussion or they did they did discuss them I would have to go back I think I provided some backup a small summary in the backup um so I could pull that up I can't remember off my head what the discussion was you can look at it on the it's also reported yeah I I didn't watch it they had a lot to say actually we talked for about two hours for a certain discussion about all of them yeah not just that one pretty heated really I guess maybe like people four people against and I got here or this is just harder reading there was a real circular discussion that was hard paying anybody down they were kind of unwilling to take so we just kind of went nowhere this is a very divided council and I have watched some council meetings where it just kind of raised my blood pressure to watch but let me say it was two or three times worse being in the room oh you were you were there oh yeah that's right I think I know it was body yelling wow some yelling by a couple of people and then body language that was really fearful from some I mean it's not nice to sit here and watch just stuff you don't see on the video it was very circular interesting if there's no direction what are we what are we supposed to do with them um that means that they didn't give direction to include the amendment and didn't give direction to the board to continue working on the proposal it doesn't mean that you can't bring it up again just that they did not give direction for you to do so that sounds like answer your question I mean it just doesn't sound very productive but I mean we work really hard and then they are just well that yeah I guess I'm just wondering or are we supposed to revisit this now and change the language are we supposed to review the notes from the meeting and there were some that I would say some of the issue was just like we need more clarification on what this means okay so if and so if you would like to revisit those we can okay all right I guess we might consider we might bring this slide back up when we get to the end and talk about future meetings because we might want to change what our future meetings are based on this based on what we're going to do um yeah I would say a lot would depend on how the election turns out yeah I think if I mean potentially city council could change a lot and we could potentially if we still believe in some of these bringing again into different people maybe different so maybe not so they're literally split three and three yeah so it's well I think that's on a lot of issues currently no I don't know okay um I felt badly for um well she's the only well she's one of a few people in this room that gets paid to do it at least the rest of us for taking that's true yes can I ask a question please I'm sorry yes go for it with the election result I mean could we literally just we you know take the I mean could we just resubmit it after the election is over and the new the new city council I think they can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't there's nothing saying we can't if we wanted to have you wanted to submit any another packet of proposals in July or whenever um well not July but because we don't meet in July but uh whenever you would like you can bring any proposals you would like forward adjust it however you would like okay that's a long list I guess my advice to submit would be to reduce us down to two or three items that we feel are the most important like in the future in the future as opposed to if especially if I'm a new council person and I see this long list of changes I'm gonna kind of be deer in the headlights but if you just say here are the two or three we're recommending at this time we're still working on others then we're saying this is not everything but these are three of importance that we really recommend at this time I think that's not that's a pretty good idea and devil's advocate some of these are pretty clear and short but that might be a better idea and that way we're not stuck for two hours people getting mad and yelling at each other um something for us to consider any other discussion on this I have a downer well we did work and they're like I'm great I mean I can wait until we until we discuss our our future meeting topics but if we have direction on nine and ten we can revise that language and submit those to you that that is going to happen they give that direction to me oh that's just once once that language is adopted I'll make sure you all are aware of what exactly is the ordinance that's unchanged oh I see so they took they were like we want it revised in this way and you're just going to do that and send back okay correct so we don't have to do that's what I was thinking we have to do that no we have that basically done okay more wins than I realized yeah yeah four then all right uh any more discussion about this okay um anything else on that uh not at this time okay um all right item 1c boe 23-019 receiver report hold the discussion and take necessary action regarding the creation of a public comment period for the board of ethics meeting um let me see that's um do you want to kind of just go over I can go over really quick and then yeah sure so during the february meeting of the board gave direction to set up a method to receive public comment based on discussion with the city secretary's office there are two main methods of public comment that are used by other cities and boards in general one is basically to specifically comment on agenda items and the other is to just present on items that are not necessarily included on the agenda so two two is agenda items and then three is presentations which just means not necessarily on the agenda essentially um and so uh based on that information these are all the options essentially um and then just as a note if uh you would like to allow for public comment we may need to change the rules of procedure I think I'm not entirely sure but it's certainly if it's one of the you want to allow it at meetings where it's currently prohibited we would have to do that so that would have to go to council for adoption essentially I have one thought um I think we should we can discuss because I think there's people with opinions as far as regular meetings when it comes to advisory and preliminary evidentiary hearings I'm kind of hesitant to want to have any public comment because like I don't want the people on this board to feel intimidated by maybe someone powerful that comes in and makes some statement and it just it's it seems like it would make it not as uh I guess you know maybe fair and you know I think that's a whole different creature yeah so I in my head that's not I don't think there should be public comment at a hearing but I definitely would like to consider it for regular meetings is there anybody who thinks we should have public comment and what's bc and one bc and d up there I do not um Madison first of all I thought you did an excellent job of kind of splitting this up and where we can kind of look at these individually as far as the regular meetings and I think that's that's really a great way to look at I agree um with what war has just mentioned I think we need to take these individually and discuss all of them um one at a time because I really think that like you already mentioned in the case of of advisories or without the full participation of the board I think it would be extremely difficult to allow the public end of that discussion with half the board missing from that meeting so um yeah I think when you're going on like a specific issue like and something has maybe happened it just seems I don't know I don't like the thought of like the public to just come and say what they want and then you know it could sway people on things that aren't actually in the evidence we've also had a discussion about whether or not the complainant should be involved in those hearings that so I don't see why we would open that up for a comment yeah the complaint is not yeah so how about we just if everybody's in agreement it's just we're just going to go on regular meetings and move to number two does that sound good all right so should comment on Jenna items be allowed so um did you want to say anything about this Madison of like how different how it's done or do you have any I mean so there are a couple of different ways you could either do it in person where someone would have to come in person um and literally come up to the mic and speak um there's also an e-comment where the cards would basically be with their they're included in the agenda and then also I believe distributed to y'all um I don't know if it's necessarily before but I know that you guys would see them and then the city council allows for comment by phone at the beginning of the meeting as well so that's typically when this happens well that's true about all these um but that's also all of those methods are possible for presentations does that make sense so and then apart from that generally most other boards and commissions have like a time limit for whoever is speaking and then some of them have a speaker limit to say like only two people can speak or something like that for each meeting that makes sense well and I know we talked last time I mean I kind of like the e-comment because it opens it up to everybody like I know I was like super rushed getting here at 5 30 from work and then people at work at night and I kind of think that way you can have e-comments they can come to all of us and if one of us agrees and feels strongly then we can you know maybe put it on the next agenda or something like that that's that's my thought and then you know we're not having it I guess we'd only have our regular meetings and I kind of think the in-person could just bog us down versus e-comment we could all get it we can all look at it and decide if it's something we need to talk about or not that's my thoughts I agree I think that that is my preferred method as well like you said it's more accessible to everyone rather than it being kind of limited to those who can make it in person they're calling it this time but they could still come in person right I mean I guess if we put it well I don't know how that would work I mean since you put it as a agenda item we'd have to that's probably something else to look at can I guess we could ask whoever we want to come speak I don't know yeah so you can do both where you have an e-comment as well as an in-person if you would like you would just I believe you have to sign up so that we know somebody's coming well I guess are you saying like have e-comment but also add that person or have e-comment and then if it's something we want to talk about let like allow that person to come like make a presentation at the board which one are you saying I'm saying I'd like to see both oh I'm actually I've actually gone to the historic well in the city council and you fill out a form and they call your name the chair calls your name and you you have however many minutes that we wanted so I like that method personally but I can see how the e-comments I mean I noticed that one of the boards does it both ways and I think that's would be good for us if it's the e-comment does that not get included in the agenda automatically and then become part of the minutes for our meeting e-comment would be any e-comments we would see would be included as part of the agenda or the minutes sorry like we want to go over them specifically we would just say we got right so like for city council if you've seen the mayor says like we've got this many blue cards for this agenda item I think it's blue I don't know what the color of the cards are and they're you know I think maybe he says this many things of course something um for some that like that and the council sees them they all get to see them yes I'm not sure at what point yeah okay if it's before or as part of the minutes after we're actually uh in my opinion we're about eight years behind the curve getting the citizens involved in this entire epic process other cities uh I don't know about the e-comments and how much technology is involved there we also have to kind of consider whether or not open meetings are going to apply here in other words if we have a scheduled agenda item do we allow the public to weigh in on that agenda item work and we have essentially cross discussion between this board and the citizens that might attend or want to speak so you never have cross discussion the the comments just get made and the people on the board listen well in city council I mean they're free to actually ask questions so those are some of the things here I think we need to be very careful and take these individuals and consider every circumstance that might apply because the e-comments I don't know how much if we have the same technology for this particular board as the city council might but it's like to say it's been about eight years and the citizens it's not like they're clamoring at the door to get into these meetings but I think the more we open this up and the more we make it available to citizens that this is your board unlike unlike most other boards in the city of Denton this is your board and I think the citizens do not yet understand that and the way to do that is to open it up whether it's in-person speak or or anything that we choose I would rather open it up and just see what happens to invite the public in at some point in the future if it proves to be a burden then we can adjust as we go but I would really discourage limiting this in any way after eight years I would like to see it opened up to any way that we can to involve the citizens of this town in ethics in any way and I would not really recommend shutting this down or making it too narrow from the we can always fix it later if we have to but again it's been eight years and an ethics board is the one board in any city that should have just an open invitation to discuss their feelings about how things are going so can I just clarify something on that real quick if you do it if you all go for a like a public comment any topic then there can't be discussion if it's whereas if if someone's come then they sign up to speak on a specific agenda topic then there can be discussion because I guess then it's on the agenda yeah but if someone just comes in and just talks about whatever they want to and y'all can't discuss it because it won't be posted but we didn't put that on a future agenda yes so and that's the difference between item two and three so this one you can discuss this one you could not essentially what you've just said that complies completely with the open meetings act and I get that completely I've been an advocate for many many years on the open meetings act so what I don't want to do is have someone show up in a meeting and be told well we can't we can't discuss that with you at this meeting whether it's on an agenda whether it's a scheduled agenda item or it's something that is on the mind of a citizen I would really I would really discourage us putting any roadblocks in discussion well but we can't we're putting any roadblocks they can come in and say what they want I'm sorry if y'all want to do that that's fine but it's not going to be a situation where y'all going back and forth with that person unless it's already unless it's already yeah well within the time within a four-minute timeline or whatever an ethics board is is a different it's a quasi-judicial body and I understand completely where you're coming from but I'm just suggesting that an ethics board is a citizen is the only citizen-driven board in this town or would be and so I would just suggest that a little bit of dialogue shouldn't be a problem up to a point so I understand so I've heard people talk about e-comment in person there's also like phone but kind of seems to me like you could do an e-comment or show up phone I think be the most difficult to implement yeah because I feel like e-comment I mean you could throw something up on the website probably relatively quickly and just get us the comments and I don't even know how many how many changes we would have to do to any of our rules or anything so I don't know like I think maybe unless I'm wrong we can kind of focus on in-person or e-comment and how everybody feels and I guess we're going on too so this is like her agenda item right so what would happen is at the beginning of any meeting there would be an agenda item that would allow for comment on agenda items and so they have somebody if you wanted to do in person they could they would have to come in person and present whatever they wanted within the time limit all set and then that would be how in-person worked or e-comment that would just be it would still have that agenda item but the minute it would be included in the minutes whatever was submitted it's like it's like e-capital comment is that like some kind of program or this is just a way of saying like somebody to email in a comment uh there's a there's like a form that the city secretary's office would help us set up to where that would be on the website yes okay all right other thoughts I just think anything we can do to let people know that we at least want to hear what they have to say I think that's an ethical code is here for everyone's trust it is not here to make elected officials comfortable it's not here to make them uncomfortable either it's just here for trust and sometimes I think we've lost that and I think that there is a perception then that that's not important all right so would y'all like to just start voting like maybe we vote on it get a motion vote on in-person motion vote on e-comment and then maybe we'll just leave out phone unless somebody feels strongly can I ask a question in person would be from what I'm understanding via online sign up or it would be like someone just walks in because I think that would make difference I believe both are possible okay yes you would walk in and fill out a blue card at the door blue card would be handed to the chair right so I'm hearing all or none like it's both or neither if we were to vote or you're saying like we could vote for just one or the other you could you could you can give direction for whichever whatever you take it one at a time we consider comment on agenda items via e-comment all right so having and I guess with e-comment we're not going to have time limit or speaker limit so we don't have to get into that right or you comment that's correct so I know that his motion for e-comment for agenda items from the public which madison would help implement I assume to allow that I'm sorry I wasn't um I guess you don't really need to get make a motion I'm just to be clear oh I just get oh this is just all right on the in the exhibit for this agenda item it's there's a table that has what the other boards and commissions currently do I don't know if that would that would be I think that would be helpful just so everyone can see what if what the other boards are doing because on all of them there is some level of public participation in the meetings some of them this isn't all the other boards and commissions to be okay sorry but the ones that are listed allow for citizen comment on agenda items and public presentations well are we kind of all in agreement to allow the e-comment that I guess would we can have it you would have them all and it would be distributed to us and there'd be like something agenda there were comments and we can choose to discuss or not am I saying it right that's how it would work is everybody okay with that anybody seems like I think the majority is in favor of that so I think we'll move forward with the comment if if that makes sense max yes we can clarify more if needed okay so then the next thing on your slide was in person I don't know I personally kind of think like the e-comment would take care of it and we could then decide whether we want to talk about or not and not you know just spend time on things we think are important and not on things that are not important I think two of you want in person I just think we're going to deal with some residents who are not computer savvy and then we prefer them so that for that reason I think it's important to to have in person if they want that option and what does everybody else think you agree to have in person I would agree to have it in person yes let's say it's fine woman okay well I lose out on this one we will also have in person okay and for in person is that uh are we still speaking of just on agenda I think we're just talking agenda items though right we're going one by one so we don't get confused um okay so definitely I think we should have time limits and speaker limits just because oh for sure I also think we should have on the e-comments I think there should be a there should be a limit as well because I don't want to type a 30 page yeah I'm not gonna read that I mean we have time is there is there a word limit on the e-comment like I believe that the I have to look I don't know if that's something we can do or not so I have to come back with that okay well I mean I guess the thing is if somebody sends us 30 pages it's not likely everybody's gonna read that and maybe a citizen is just gonna have to understand that like you know versus just a few pages or not even that much a paragraph um okay yeah that's what it looks like yeah most of them have so um now citizen comment on agenda these other ones don't have a speaker limit but they have a speaker limit on presentation I'm not sure why they it seems to make sense to have speaking on both so what do you guys like three minutes and what this is two and five speakers I think it to me makes sense to have a limit of speakers on public presentations because those are current agenda items but for the citizen comment if if someone wants to comment on an agenda item for that meeting that's their only opportunity so if there's some controversial agenda item on that meeting agenda for whatever reason I don't know that we should exclude somebody's opportunity to get their thoughts up that's a good point maybe we just go with that and then if we start having meetings with 20 people wanting to comment maybe we agree look at it but I kind of don't think that's gonna happen okay so if everybody's in agreement we'll open that up three minute in person no speaker limit on agenda and then the next thing do you want to bring up your slide again yes so we kind of know what we're talking about so I think we we've covered one two so we're on three should presentations be allowed if yes for my direction on in person e-comment phone time limit and speaker limit okay so all the boards interestingly enough only have in person on that do you know is it just like maybe it's just too broad to be sending in whatever yeah and I may not be correct that you can have e-comment because I think it's meant to indicate like yes I am in favor of this or no oh wait are you saying like you might not for number three this might not actually be an option oh okay I think there's still email we still have that process where they could email me and then I can distribute it okay yeah we already talked about that yeah that's already in place I would just say presentation should just be in person there's a few of these that don't have presentations but I don't know I guess you know we have I know we have a couple board members that feel very strongly I'm not sure everybody else feels but maybe we could try it out and see you know if it bogs us all down and we can't get anything done we've got you know we don't spend more than an hour we can talk about it again but you know maybe just come up with one of these for four minutes up to five speakers I don't know how's everybody feel I think there should be a time limit obviously but one of the things that would be a little bit different possibly about this board then for example city council you sign up for city council you've got four minutes now here we could have a time limit but let's say I have I have I show up in a meeting I'm a citizen I have two concerns on the agenda can I split it up can I talk two minutes on this one and two minutes on that one I don't want to confuse it too much here but I'm trying to draw citizens into this ethics process as well I mean I would just say it's for agenda item it yes so I don't like it before in a total per item or just four minutes from John no I would look at it or I thought he said three minutes unless anybody like feels differently three minutes per posted item yes okay now are they allowed to three minutes on in an unposted topic not over can't be discussion well now we're getting into number three yeah okay so what we're saying is number three should I suggest that we just have three minute limits for one presentation for up to five people per meeting okay now backing up what what was I missed what was decided about evidence for hearing someone we already skipped over there are we done with I thought that we all decided we just not going to have any comments on b through d because those are like hearings like um that would would there be a reason for that I'm just curious I already mentioned some of them I don't know what everybody else thinks I think we're if we're having a hearing your advisory panel we are deciding on current issues with current council people and we might not want every person off the street to come and try to influence us when we're trying to stay above the board and not be influenced in any way and just go back Dustin brought up a good point that the complaint actually we have discussed like complaint and you know who can eat like people involved can't even present some kind of a reason why we would have you know we should bring in private citizens yeah okay I think if they're I think if if someone not involved in the process not the person that the complaint is about wants to us to review something they should submit a complaint very good and they should be that should be a separate complaint yeah they should not like tag along to another complaint by someone else because rather than involve someone that is going to speak to that item on that that so that would be the the respondent could ask someone to speak at their hearing but that would be separate from public comment and if they have a comment about one of those things we're on number three they could present at the next meeting right okay okay so so for number three is everybody kind of I mean does anybody have any thoughts or opinions on just going with kind of what the other boards go and present it time limit five speakers in person yes I don't know if we even do phone or any comment like Madison was saying I don't think that would be feasible does this all seem like things you could implement right now I think so okay I mean if there's trouble we'll talk about it we'll put on each other for next meeting okay um I will I just want to say I will do the make this direction and work with the city secretary's office I cannot promise it'll be ready by June but we'll do our best yeah I I mean I I think everybody understands that like I mean just you know put it in place correctly and I can see it's not being ready in one month that's happens I guess he just said it took eight years what's one more month right all right so agenda item is there anything else on that okay I'm going to take a motion to amend the rules of procedure do you think we need to do that well I think city council's gonna have to approve it yeah okay they're gonna have to so are we gonna have to come up with language for that is this just going to be something we're going to have to revisit I think that do you think we could include it in the ICA in the ICA for that work session for this next no because this is going to be well if you have presentation on it talk about but I think they're going to want to split out because it's going to be a new thing that's too different okay I think if you would like to make a motion we'll take it and then I don't think that the language unless you really want to review it necessarily needs to just a motion that yeah okay and then we can take it to council whenever as best we can as fast as possible okay and then maybe at the next meeting um we can maybe discuss what happens and then one of us if we don't like the language we can talk about it then but it already may be in place there's there's no way that we will be able to get an ordinance adopted by council in may okay so okay all right so um look I think that we amend the rules of procedure to allow comment on agenda items with a three via e in-person or e comment with a three-minute time limit right now and speakers yeah we said no limit on agenda and then that we further amend it to allow presentations um yeah in-person but honestly I don't know how much I haven't made presentations before and I swear four minutes comes up lightning fast well that gets people on you know on topic true so we do it are we going to do I think we talked discuss three three okay with five I'm not trying to say as maybe as discussed as discussed second second by Hannah not repeating it but so just as a point of just to make sure I understand yes the motion correctly to amend the rules of procedure to allow in-person and e comment comments on agenda items with a three-minute limit and no speaking limit and allow in-person presentations from members of the public with three minute limit and by a speaker limit what you said correct yes do we have the fact that this is only applied to regular meetings not currently in the motion can you add that to the motion okay and then I guess do we second again yeah I still second with the amendment only to regular meetings thank you for pointing that out okay anything else okay all in favor aye all opposed all right motion carries unanimously we have something in place and we'll see over the next couple months how it works um all right so agenda item 1d receive a report hold the discussion and take necessary action regarding the format of discussion regarding code of ordinance chapter 2 article 11 ethics well let's burden proof I think we'll know we're having happen to say that um and then let's see all right did you want to start by talking about I would do a quick intro so during the November 2022 meeting the board gave direction to have a full discussion on the burden proof requirements and the ethics ordinance as such staff reviewed Wessler's model code and found five points of consideration or at least for today's meeting which included one what entities are capable of initiating a complaint two if complainants are required to swear to their allegations three what sources of evidence are used to evaluate whether allegations are actionable four what the evidence requirements are to move to a hearing and five if the complainant is required to attend a hearing on their allegations based on those kind of five points of consideration staff conducted research on the practices of the 10 adopted benchmarks and socialities which is summarized in the table on the slide so I can take direction on if you potentially want to change you need to bring back draft language or if you want me to do additional research on anything basically whatever you would like so in these cities that have individual or commission they have like an ethics commission is it like our ethics board or is it something else the ones that are that say commission generally have something very similar to what we have some of the other ones like better that say individual or council members council members some of them don't have a board at all it's just like an ethics code that then the council members enforce on each other in some ways and then uh like san marcos has a code similar to our board similar to ours I believe Richardson does as well it's not clear in their code who exactly can submit complaints but like McAllen McAllen and Mesquite and they don't have a board like this essentially I don't know my thought like if an individual can file a complaint can any individual like people on the board of ethics can file complaints as well I don't know if it's happened yet I can't remember it's happened twice actually I think that that is intended to mean that the commission itself can say we need to initiate a complaint against and essentially not an individual board member but the board as a whole yeah well I mean then can't anyone on the board initiate a complaint I don't know it's kind of like if there isn't if there's an issue like have individuals speak up like why does it have to be voted on somebody believes in it strongly they should just file it but my opinion um so uh like I guess how do we want to do this do y'all want to like go over these these five um considerations that Madison came up with can we just talk more generally about where the garden improve the lie and why that might well I guess I mean what like what are what are the actual things we're going to get from that versus just going through these specific items that can be actionable I'm just just a general comment kind of addresses what's your this this in my opinion has been one of the biggest problems in this code that's existed existed for since it was initially passed we have weaponized this code and placed any complaint in position that I don't think anybody in this room wants to be in and we have a number of neighboring cities we have a model code this is really not that difficult in my opinion that once a complaint is sworn to and filed by a complainant and the facts have been verified in 95 of the other jurisdictions that complaint is no longer part of the process I don't know if that's true based on Madison's research here well but and also it's interesting you say weaponized because if you have a complaint that is filing a complaint and then washes their hands of it and never does anything again it can be weaponized that way in other jurisdictions the complainant can be required to attend a hearing if there would be any questions but to put the complaint in the prosecutor's seat happens nowhere else that I know of in Texas this has been a problem since this code was passed well what about Dallas and San Marcos it well it's not no the complainant does not prosecute the complaint in Dallas or no well that's the source of evidence for the hearing but I don't think the burden is on the burden is the burden is very clearly on the complainant and the problem with it is if the complainant well first of all they're not going to have access to a lot of information that somebody in a city position would have but if they're really emotional that's not well I guess so what would what would y'all say that Madison does it that the city hire an investigator to investigate the crimes or the ethics complaint that comes under the purview of the board of ethics that is the job of this board so you're saying we would go out and investigate well actually in San Antonio they have an entire office exactly um it's I mean this I like the way she divided it out but it doesn't tell the whole story because in San Antonio they have an entire staff well and that's I guess that's what I'm getting at like if it's not on the complaint there will like I don't think I think there might be kind of a conflict for Madison because she works for city council to be investigating city council so you're going to need some outside commission or like hired person to do it and then as far as the volunteer board and we don't like first of all we don't even we couldn't do any better than complain anyway I don't think I don't know if that's what anybody signed up for to be an investigator helpful my understanding of how it works in the model code and I may not be completely correct is that a complainant submits a complaint as long along with evidence that they believe applies the commission essentially holds um like a pre-hearing where they review that evidence they might issue subpoenas um or or request other documents basically request other documentation and evidence be gathered if they think that it needs to be and then um decide if an evidentiary here if like a hearing to decide sanctions and things needs to be like take that and have another hearing to say like we would have a hearing basically of like um you know present your cases and things like that this complainant is not required to attend but they might be required if subpoenaed essentially and then does that make sense and then the respondent is allowed to come and testify as well so where where does the evidence come from who it comes it does come from the complainant but then also at that free evidentiary here in my understanding is that the board basically might require more evidence to be brought for and so that's our board our ethics ordinance lets us file subpoenas but and even if the model code says that but we like they have no teeth like we can we could put out a subpoena and somebody can ignore it and nothing will happen so can i give you i think i think andrea raise your hand she hasn't spoken yet so if what i do like what i do like is the fact that it would be a multi-step process right you know when there's a complaint we we look at the complaint and then we could request additional evidence that that's true and that that is already the board is already capable of that okay it's just not we don't it's not required as part of the process well the problem is like i said we had this discussion in 2018 when this board started and jesse was actually on it with me we're both attorneys it's like okay we can subpoena but we have no power like they can say they can they would just vote i mean and maybe you can correct me if i'm wrong they like what is our power power is we're not judges all we can do is file an ethics ordinance against them for not bringing forth the information but if it's information that hurts them they're not going to bring it forward so it's kind of i don't know what the answer is but and i will say i have access to records that the city has that i could get yeah so i mean there are some like there there's some things we can but i would not be comfortable conducting an investigation an ethics investigation yes well i know umesh had said like at a previous city he worked at it was it was set up like that but he was totally separate from counsel when he was an investigator i believe that's like how in houston the inspector general's office works and that's why they're allowed they can do that but i'm not certain because i think that's i mean you know we can't get the council to agree to not vote for things they got money for in a campaign i doubt they're going to agree to hire investigators to investigate them just putting it that out there i think you make an excellent point let me make give you an example um in my profession for licensed professional counselors if a complaint gets filed it has to be investigated whether it has any sort of merit or not psychologists on the other hand if a complaint is filed against them the the um psychology board has some kind of internal way to determine if there's merit to it and it doesn't move forward unless there is so guess which which board has a year backlog on all the complaints they have to hear licensed counselors because a psychologist you know a lot of them they're able to go oh that's not a big deal and and they close it it's it's over well don't we have that in our ethics ordinance with the preliminary hearings there's a preliminary assessment which is intended to say on on the face of the complaint would this be a violation if everything is true essentially and then if not then it's considered baseless because it wouldn't be a violation even if what was in the complaint was true and like going to other things like with lawyers the state bar if there's a grievance or something there is a office of lawyers and investigators that investigate and prosecute it and so changing some of these things like you you would need that here and so i don't know i mean if that like i just don't see that we basically end up hearing everything that comes right at least every complaint a preliminary assessment panel is held for as fast as can be held go ahead i think we've talked about some of this before um with the source of evidence pre-hearing and all that coming from the complainant we also talked about what or not the board members could add to that evidence and i think everyone i could be wrong on this but i think we all agree that we could um and i think some of the concern about the burden of proof being on the complainant is focused on the last column there whether or not they have to attend and present at the hearing and to me that that's the part that would maybe discourage someone from submitting a complaint or the other things i mean the source of evidence the complainant should have some evidence whatever if that's an email or an ad flyer or a comment at a meeting whatever it is they need to have some sort of evidence or they shouldn't be submitting a complaint they shouldn't be the only source for that evidence or maybe they are the only source but we shouldn't limit the sources for evidence to only the complainant well then where would we get the other evidence i mean maybe it's from a board member um maybe it's from the respondent we've talked about that as well um i i just i i think some of the concern that you guys may have is is over the last column whether or not the complainant is supposed to come in here and act as a prosecutor and i and i don't really think that's the the point of the board or the point of the complaint process but i i think for us to actually review a complaint and actually do something with it if it's actionable we have to have some sort of evidence both from the complainant and then from whatever sources are available i mean i'm not an investigator and none of us want that role and i don't think we're gonna get a council or further emails or whatever but if there is evidence that we gather in part of the normal course of reviewing the complaint that should be allowed in the hearing and we should be allowed to use that to make a judgment on the complaint yeah i agree completely the problem is that very last word up there and present now we've already discussed previously that if that complainant is not particularly skilled in in working groups of people then the option by our code is that that complaint is torn up and thrown in the trash well that's not true that's changed we even if it's a valid complaint that thing is ripped up and thrown in the trash i think we've changed that the complainant is no longer required and i think they're they're required to for a complaint that they presented or that they submitted they're required to attend and and provide testimony it's not that it's it's not that it's ripped up we go through a preliminary hearing we go to an evidentiary hearing but if they do not attend this board is essentially required to say that it's dismissed that's that part is true i'm thinking that was the whole other order the respondent going to frivolous well i sorry i think that also goes to you know so far most of our complaints have been people that are well they're frivolous and so if you take away one more thing as far as what a complaint needs to do then we have the bad actors that will file whatever complaint they want right around the election about whoever they want that may or may not have merit just to try to get things going but those are the places that don't get by madison if they're frivolous in the past we have that supposedly we have fixed that well up to a point i don't think that's true because we've found we've found complaints frivolous that have gotten all the way to the end frivolous comes at the end the beginning what madison does is you know have you followed have you followed the form my dad has shored up our frivolous provisions in this code so far my you know to my understanding right now we are much less likely to end up where we were with campbell in prior years that's so i don't i don't think the council really didn't accept any of those amendments well yeah you know eight years two complaints yeah they simply said we understand what you're trying to do you're trying to so i want to get back to the beginning of this conversation okay we've talked for about 20 minutes about all this what are the actionable things that we can do that we can vote on as a board because i think there's different opinions what are the actual things we can do i don't think the person should go ahead so what i'm hearing is that if we can change and present and uh in the last column and sources of evidence pre-hearing allow other parties specifically this board that would meet the need am i is that what i'm hearing no and that is saying well i would say there should be no requirements on the complaint so they don't need to attend and they don't need to present well i i think that's going to get you are going to get frivolous complaints like we already get them when they have to do things and that's kind of all we get almost that just requires a much better job on the front end of handling frivolous complaints and making sure they don't know that's the whole point but then but then depending on who's on this board you can get rid of all the complaints that way i mean i think we need to think about how this ordinance has been used as a sword and not a shield well that's true i mean i can certainly understand that i do not have the authority to dismiss a complaint so as long as it is correct the form is correctly filled out it's my job to pour it to the chair who then assigns it to a preliminary panel no offense i kind of don't want you to because while i trust you're an ethical person whoever's in that position would have a lot of power and you work for city council so i guess like hannah had the comments and i guess that didn't like still what what is actionable because we can talk all night about oh you know what's in wishlers what should we do like what can we what actionable things do we want to try to put forward and i guess you know whether the city council will take her or not because they don't take a lot of what we say and whether we want to put it forth whether we want to go forward on this one like i said i mean not that i'm bitter anything but they can't even approve our campaign contribution i believe yeah i think we tried to fix this and i think we should move forward with that again maybe i think we need to wait and see as far as making changes about burden of proof because i mean i'm open but like what what is actual that we can do that will make sense that will not result in more frivolous complaints that will not result in having to hire an investigative team or commission or for somebody outside of madison i'm just like what what can we do is there consent it sounds like these are two separate points so if i may is there consensus that pre-hearing we add and commission i think that's what i was hearing dustin say earlier like we can bring forth evidence i mean i guess why not but uh yeah i would say i think right now we can't do anything all we can do is review the evidence that was submitted with the complaint so i wouldn't want to be just on us because i i think you know the complaint well first of all like we might not have anything like we aren't there and the complaint is the one who's bringing forth the evidence but i mean i guess what what is the harm in us as the board as far as letting the whole city bring forth evidence i don't know if we want to open that up but i don't know do you have any thoughts tom i think the complaint must show up yeah right it's like if i were to say and this is the you know what uh so dustin when did you have that affair with that lady but i don't know yeah so i fill out a form send it in and i agree with that and i get y'all's concern but like that is my concern because of like i said how the ordinance has been used i want the complaint to have some kind of skin in the game yeah because otherwise i'm just starting a rumor yeah which is kind of what we've gotten in our complaints that we found frivolous and should have found frivolous but we didn't have really a a procedure to find them frivolous sort of like it's ethical to have integrity is sort of like what i'm drawing from that yeah like if you said it happened and as far as present i mean i'm if they present just the evidence we have the evidence i mean that i don't know if they necessarily have to be prosecuted we haven't had that many hearings yeah i think i i think they're allowed to cross examine i think because maybe but we're also allowed to have that's true yeah so i think that's part of it is that currently in the code the complainant must attend and then testify and you have questions essentially otherwise the complaint is dismissed without they're not allowed the board my understanding is from the current code is not allowed to continue with that if the complainant does not attend even if they might believe that it is true and there is another essentially yeah i would just in general suggest that we need more information on this topic other than having the presenter or the complaint maybe we could contact some of these other cities san marcos or others to find out without shoveling work you know work in your lab medicine i'd like to know more about what seven people with three alternates can do to actually process a complaint without getting us in deep water i don't think it's that difficult i know it's done elsewhere so i'd like to know more about this other than having the entire burden on someone who's filed that complaint and is required to prosecute it or have it dismissed that is not a good that's not good so what i'm hearing from everybody to hear to steal from what hand is saying is like some of us think the complaint definitely needs to be there others don't there's we're not sure where the evidence should come from but do we tonight have anything actual we can work on because otherwise we could just talk about this all night and i don't think that's very productive like what go ahead okay sorry i was just gonna say i if if it's direction of the board i can bring back more information specifically on this last column from some of the other cities basically next time or whatever but and what i was going to say about as for tonight i think if we're able to make some concessions complainant and commission must attend strike and present like that might be the compromise we can come to between those of us that are here from what i'm hearing i don't know if that's accurate but that's what i'm hearing no one is suggesting that the complaint can go on vacation i mean if they file the complaint i'm expecting them to be in the room when their case is presented to a board of ethics that they shouldn't have to be there i think i said that i'm sorry in some the nuns up there i don't know what those nuns mean but in our particular case i have no problem requiring a complainant to be in the room because there might be some questions that the board of ethics would have that would require an answer right and it might not be part of their paperwork and i would hate to be told well the complainant's not here i'm suggesting yeah and that's where i'm at i mean i i can say i don't know but if if just like in the past if we're getting the information prior to the hearing and we're going through the evidence i don't need the complainant to present that evidence to me however i would like the opportunity to ask that complainant questions about that i'm not suggesting that so if that's what we're if that's what we're talking about we might need to look at the code and procedure as far as like that specific language i don't remember exactly what it says like do i know they have to be there do they have to even speak if they've already given their things but they're allowed to but do they have to speak if they're there and they've given their information i don't remember if we're reading it i have to pull it up so i mean it like is that what we want to focus on because this is just like too broad and we're not i mean no no effect but i just don't feel like we're getting anything done talking around the ground so go ahead i want to bring up one other thing the word retaliation the term retaliation is in our glossary but i haven't seen i believe that it is i haven't seen anything what if someone retaliates because i don't know if that follow falls under this agenda item okay it's it is the same i think there is a section of retaliation but it is a different section we're posted for this subsection four which reads burden of proof because the burden of showing that a violation of this article occurred is placed on the complainant is the complainant that has the obligation to put forth evidence including testimony supporting the complaint the complainant is required to testify at the hearing unless it is held to determine if an accepted complaint is frivolous a complainant's failure to testify at a hearing other than a hearing is determined for quality shall be grounds for dismissal of the complaint that's the entire language of the section so i guess i mean it would be so i guess the question is do they have to testify or do they have to be there we're all in agreement they have to be there i guess yes and then as far as testify i mean i guess what does that mean here really if we're requiring them to be there then we should require them yeah sitting in a room search no purpose i kind of i agree with that um but i mean as far as like prosecuting they would just be they would have to they would have to be there and they would have to i mean it seems pretty broad as far as testimony and this isn't a court of law so what would be testified like they have to say like i believe in this complaint i filed it like it's not like you have to prosecute it we have if we have the evidence yeah i think we have the evidence to testify but i guess but that's what i'm saying like it says testify but i kind of feel like it just means you you have to just stand by your complaint yeah because i know you have to i i think from what i'm hearing i don't have in front of me like you have to answer questions and you have to just like put skin in the game that you filed this not that you necessarily you don't have to what the premise is the complaint after it gets through is administratively complete before it gets to the before it gets to the board now yes there might be questions that arise you know during a panel hearing or whatever and and yes that complaint it should be in the room and should be available to testify if necessary but the i just don't see how different that is than what we have yeah and what we have what he just read i don't like the burden of proving so clearly laid on the complaint i think this says you not only are you a complainant you are a presenter you are a prosecutor otherwise the thing goes in the trash i did not hear prosecution i didn't your prosecutor is i heard testify testify stand by what you've turned in as your evidence for why this needs to go forward so i think that might be something that we need to reread personally and be sure that we're all on the same page with what that's saying i mean i remember in some hearings i've been in i like i feel like i'm the prosecutor when i'm asking the questions from the board and i didn't really feel like the complaint was because i was asking the hard questions they didn't really know what to ask and all they were required to do is testify i don't know did you read it differently did anybody i think it's going to be up to y'all to interpret the language the way you'll when y'all are having a hearing you know it's going to be on y'all to decide and i think and it might have been my fault for posting it wrong this this section right here is what we're posting for there are some things in the rules and procedure that might be more what we're talking about and we can i can bring that with that specifically on the agenda next time so maybe we should um like this this is broad like i said it had i guess some of these are interrelated but like what what do we want to work on do we want to have a discussion just about complaining and what testimony means it's like is that where we are because like i said so far i think it's been about 38 minutes and we really haven't gotten much done on this and us not getting anything done doesn't help the ethics code this discussion accomplishes a great deal in my opinion it's not like we're not doing anything here this has been one of the biggest problems with this and i know and you've stayed in position several times and we've heard it several times i think we all understand where you are you do not think they should be the prosecutor you do not think they should have testified they just need to be in the room like we all i think we all agree that and i think at least four of us think they should be there they should have testified they don't have so that's where we are like what would we do going forward from here then we would go back and we would look at these other existing codes that were on that initial chart and look at other cities that did not require the complainant to actually present the evidence this is not that complicated and it's it's a process where i guess madison maybe you should we should have you go back and look at the rules procedure and see if they say they have to present the evidence could we also i specifically the one city that has attend and testify is fort worth so maybe that is what the direction could be is like what is the difference between fort worth's code in terms of must attend and testify versus denton must attend and present and just compare those two and the language in those two i can provide further research on specifically this last column at a future meeting if that's the direction important i agree with andrea let's narrow it down to yeah didn't end forward as a i appreciate you looking at these other cities but that's just going to add to the the amount of time we spend on this let's narrow it down to can we learn anything from them but our charge as i understand it is to say what's the best for denton as opposed to trying to migrate whether others are doing or not doing a lot of are not doing so this is narrowed down to fort worth for our next meeting or whenever that can be an agenda and compare and then make our decisions from there austin has must requires them to attend but not testify so it might be worth including that one as well since we're just as a suggestion so maybe we we narrow it down to that and have you look at austin fort worth and denton and have a discussion more about specifically what you were saying all right and i did believe we would need multiple yeah because it's actually on your thing to like come back but but like i said like it's been 40 minutes and like we don't have anything actually we can do we're we're not in agreement so like let's let's maybe try again next month with those and see if we can talk about it more that's home yeah okay all right so more work for you madison uh or two um okay i'm gonna move along now to one e well this goes right into it what to talk about future meeting topics um so okay it's now it's been you know over an hour was there anything from the first presentation you gave is there anything we need to revisit there uh i think yeah uh as far as future meeting topics the only thing is that the mayor did request that the board consider how a respondent uh might object to a specific board member being assigned to a preliminary panel um held for a complaint fired filed against them um that at the april 4th presentation um so that's just so you know that he requested that be uh discussed as a potential future meeting topic does not require you can decide well i'll tell everybody madison called me and i'm usually like i don't know pick the three people that i have done at least but if there's three people that haven't done it pick somebody that's done it before that's pretty much what i'm saying i have i mean i guess like it could randomly be somebody that has some issue i guess i could see how that might be an issue because i do just try to randomly do it because i don't want anybody like coming after me that i'm like picking and uh and i know for a while there's a lot of turnovers i was on all of them just because i was like the only person that had been on one and luckily i'm not now so i pick other i do not pick myself uh but i could see how that being an issue even if it's a random person it could be a random person that like i don't know the mayor has a lawsuit against or i don't know that might be something legitimate to look at oh well no i'm just saying like say i'm like um you know the three of you are going to be on the preliminary hearing but i don't yeah i think we have a yeah yeah that's there's a so i will put that on the to-do list but that's the direction um so i would say oh so i guess next next meeting we do need to talk about public comment again maybe get an update any discussion that's needed um you already have a burden of proof follow-up i would suggest we increase the time on that yeah i mean maybe we should just put that in the future meeting because we're not going to get through pending matter and i don't know that i mean as far as like the mayor's comment of uh the like objection to plumber that i i kind of think we might agree on that quicker than these other issues on here yeah i'm sure so i don't i mean we could potentially do this is our to-do list essentially um so i can add it to there or we can add it to um i honestly i kind of think i don't know what everybody else thinks that the mayor's thing that he brought up about complaining about who's on the preliminary panel might be quicker than all those things but maybe not because it could be then like what they people council members object to every preliminary panel and then like they're kind of telling you what to do so never mind it's probably long to just put it at the bottom so uh so for june maybe update on the comment public comment and i think that won't take very long because i don't think there'll be a lot of actionable stuff that will just be like hey here's how it's going okay well do and then as far as burden fruit proof talk about um like specifically the testimony and the complaint showing up i don't know if we even want to start tackling another topic because i don't think we would get through it too yeah um i don't know maybe something like definition of alternatives maybe that would be but i mean like i feel like i'm like famous last words if i say any of these different quick so i'm okay if we just put kind of those three things like what we talked about burden proof update on public comment and future meeting topics and then like we won't get burnt out anybody have any that's a good point okay so i think that's that's your direction i believe that's it okay um i have add burden of public comment follow-up increase them and also only just have burden of proof on the next agenda and push pending matter advising to the next one yeah i think i think so and and we can do we can talk about august more i think that's the way to do um yeah all right so is there anything else when would we compare fort worth and austin oh that would be part of the okay we'll just pick right back up on that anything else all right okay we you had mentioned wanting to revisit the previous proposals you want me to add that to the june agenda or no oh as far as like what they said i mean i don't know what does it really think like i kind of think just the ones that they don't i guess like bring to us like kind of what they said about him no just oh like what if an ordinance is adopted before june uh which i don't think it will be um i'll certainly let you know what the new ordinance is and that'll be on the agenda but um yeah i guess if there's new ordinance put on the agenda and maybe we could just put on the agenda the stuff that didn't get passed and maybe we can talk like hey do we want to try to do this again i think that would probably fit in time okay clear is my message i think i understand uh yeah i had a long day i hope i made sense all right any i'm gonna wait till mass is finished writing anything else okay well it's 647 and we will adjourn okay all right thanks everybody