WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:18.200
 Today is June 5th, 2023, and this is the Board of Ethics meeting, and we have a quorum present,

00:00:18.200 --> 00:00:29.080
 so we will begin with Item A, BOE 23-24, Approval of Minutes, from May 1st, 2023.

00:00:29.080 --> 00:00:33.640
 Speak before that item or not?

00:00:33.640 --> 00:00:36.160
 Before the minutes.

00:00:36.160 --> 00:00:38.120
 Not until the items.

00:00:38.120 --> 00:00:39.360
 Not until the item.

00:00:39.360 --> 00:00:40.360
 Okay.

00:00:40.360 --> 00:00:42.080
 Yeah, we're good.

00:00:42.080 --> 00:00:48.400
 So the minutes, do I hear a motion to approve it?

00:00:48.400 --> 00:00:52.000
 I move to approve the minutes.

00:00:52.000 --> 00:00:53.400
 Hold a second.

00:00:53.400 --> 00:00:58.800
 It's been moved by Dustin Havlick and seconded by Rob Reiner.

00:00:58.800 --> 00:00:59.800
 No ma'am.

00:00:59.800 --> 00:01:03.520
 Oh, I'm sorry, by Tom Priner.

00:01:03.520 --> 00:01:05.640
 So all in favor?

00:01:05.640 --> 00:01:06.640
 Aye.

00:01:06.640 --> 00:01:07.640
 Any nays?

00:01:07.640 --> 00:01:11.200
 The minutes pass unanimously.

00:01:11.200 --> 00:01:22.800
 So Item BOE 23, I believe we, do we have a speaker for this one, or I'm not clear what?

00:01:22.800 --> 00:01:23.800
 Item.

00:01:23.800 --> 00:01:25.800
 Oh, B and E?

00:01:25.800 --> 00:01:26.800
 V.

00:01:26.800 --> 00:01:27.800
 Okay.

00:01:27.800 --> 00:01:33.800
 We have a speaker, I'm going to permit this person to speak for four minutes, if someone

00:01:33.800 --> 00:01:35.800
 can, has a timer that they can.

00:01:35.800 --> 00:01:36.800
 I can time.

00:01:36.800 --> 00:01:37.800
 I don't know.

00:01:37.800 --> 00:01:38.800
 Okay.

00:01:38.800 --> 00:01:40.800
 So do you want the comment before the item, or do you want it after?

00:01:40.800 --> 00:01:41.800
 It has to be before.

00:01:41.800 --> 00:01:42.800
 It has to be before?

00:01:42.800 --> 00:01:43.800
 Yeah, we appreciate the comment before.

00:01:43.800 --> 00:01:44.800
 We have a parliamentarian here.

00:01:44.800 --> 00:01:55.800
 Okay, so it's, and so you have the, this is Neil Grantz, and if you will come to the

00:01:55.800 --> 00:02:03.800
 podium and give your name and address, and your four minutes will begin.

00:02:03.800 --> 00:02:07.800
 Yeah, thank you.

00:02:07.800 --> 00:02:13.800
 My name is Neil Grantz, my address is 1108 North Locust, Denton County, Texas.

00:02:13.800 --> 00:02:18.800
 I just drove in from Oklahoma City, so I'm going to stand here as long as you'll allow

00:02:18.800 --> 00:02:19.800
 me.

00:02:19.800 --> 00:02:21.800
 I've been sitting for the last six.

00:02:21.800 --> 00:02:29.800
 I wanted to address the board on two items this evening, first on B, and then when it

00:02:29.800 --> 00:02:31.800
 comes to E, I'd like to talk about that.

00:02:31.800 --> 00:02:42.800
 With regard to what is item B regarding public comment, I have to tell you, I was, don't

00:02:42.800 --> 00:02:46.800
 worry, your neils and ratings are safe, but I've been kind of sneaking in and watching

00:02:46.800 --> 00:02:53.800
 what's going on in the board here, watching the broadcasts that go out to the public,

00:02:53.800 --> 00:02:57.800
 and it's caused me some great, some great, great concern.

00:02:57.800 --> 00:03:02.800
 Issues that should take about five to ten minutes with virtually no questions, they're

00:03:02.800 --> 00:03:05.800
 taking weeks, and they shouldn't.

00:03:05.800 --> 00:03:13.800
 And I was, I do recall several people talking about city government said that lack of pragmatism

00:03:13.800 --> 00:03:20.800
 always means outside influence, especially when they don't have proper advice.

00:03:20.800 --> 00:03:26.800
 My comment on the issue of whether or not the public can come in and speak to you and

00:03:26.800 --> 00:03:34.800
 how long, the only issue here is how long, whether or not they come in under 551.007

00:03:34.800 --> 00:03:40.800
 of the Texas Government Code said that if you're a city or county and you have any subdivision

00:03:40.800 --> 00:03:46.800
 or any appointed committee by either one of those governing bodies, the city council or

00:03:46.800 --> 00:03:51.800
 county commissioners court, then they have to allow public commentary.

00:03:51.800 --> 00:03:56.800
 This is a no-brainer, and this should be approved unanimously.

00:03:56.800 --> 00:03:57.800
 Why?

00:03:57.800 --> 00:04:00.800
 Because it's hard enough to get people involved in city government.

00:04:00.800 --> 00:04:04.800
 We definitely need them coming down here and talking about these things.

00:04:04.800 --> 00:04:11.800
 And a board of ethics is one of the most interactive or should be the most interactive with the

00:04:11.800 --> 00:04:16.800
 public of any of the boards and commissions of a city or a county.

00:04:16.800 --> 00:04:19.800
 Not to mention, it's just good common sense.

00:04:19.800 --> 00:04:24.800
 You know, inviting people down, regardless of what their points of view may be, at least

00:04:24.800 --> 00:04:25.800
 they're being heard.

00:04:25.800 --> 00:04:31.800
 And that, I've had a lot of people talk to me about how they don't mind, when they've

00:04:31.800 --> 00:04:35.800
 been heard, they don't mind whether you follow them or you don't follow them, or you take

00:04:35.800 --> 00:04:37.800
 their advice and don't take their advice.

00:04:37.800 --> 00:04:39.800
 The fact is you're listening to them.

00:04:39.800 --> 00:04:41.800
 And that's the first thing.

00:04:41.800 --> 00:04:44.800
 So, I don't know how much time I have back.

00:04:44.800 --> 00:04:48.800
 If I do have any, I'll give it back to you, or can I save it for the next time.

00:04:48.800 --> 00:04:59.800
 But in any event, we need to be careful because this law, and I don't know who advises y'all

00:04:59.800 --> 00:05:05.800
 or how you get your advice, do you get a briefing or whatever, this shouldn't even have come

00:05:05.800 --> 00:05:10.800
 up because the law was passed over seven years ago and it's been in effect since then.

00:05:10.800 --> 00:05:16.800
 So the issue about how it got on as an agenda item, I have no idea because it shouldn't

00:05:16.800 --> 00:05:17.800
 be.

00:05:17.800 --> 00:05:19.800
 It should be, hey, the law says you've got to do it, you've got to do it.

00:05:19.800 --> 00:05:23.800
 Unless or somebody wants to start advocating some kind of anarchy and I don't think we

00:05:23.800 --> 00:05:25.800
 can do that either.

00:05:25.800 --> 00:05:29.800
 So, thank you for your time and I hope to speak to you in a few more minutes.

00:05:29.800 --> 00:05:30.800
 Thank you.

00:05:30.800 --> 00:05:31.800
 Thank you, Mr. Durantz.

00:05:31.800 --> 00:05:36.800
 Okay, I'll open the floor for discussion on item B.

00:05:36.800 --> 00:05:37.800
 Madam Chair.

00:05:37.800 --> 00:05:38.800
 Yes.

00:05:38.800 --> 00:05:41.800
 If we wanted to ask a question from Mr. Durantz, we can do that.

00:05:41.800 --> 00:05:43.800
 I don't think we're supposed to do that.

00:05:43.800 --> 00:05:44.800
 I don't know.

00:05:44.800 --> 00:05:46.800
 You can after the report.

00:05:46.800 --> 00:05:47.800
 Okay.

00:05:47.800 --> 00:05:48.800
 The report first.

00:05:48.800 --> 00:05:49.800
 Okay.

00:05:49.800 --> 00:05:53.800
 If y'all are discussing, y'all can call and ask some questions if you want.

00:05:53.800 --> 00:05:57.800
 So, I just have a quick update on where we're at with implementing the public comp period

00:05:57.800 --> 00:05:59.800
 that you gave direction for.

00:05:59.800 --> 00:06:05.800
 As of today, obviously we have a sign-up sheet that's out that the speakers may sign up on

00:06:05.800 --> 00:06:07.800
 to speak on agenda items.

00:06:07.800 --> 00:06:14.800
 During the July 18th regular council meeting, we will present the limits on time and speaker

00:06:14.800 --> 00:06:18.800
 number that y'all gave us direction for last meeting.

00:06:18.800 --> 00:06:25.800
 And then as of August 7th, those limits will be in place as long as that's adopted by council.

00:06:25.800 --> 00:06:27.800
 E-comment will be available online.

00:06:27.800 --> 00:06:31.800
 And then sign-ups for presentations will be in as well.

00:06:31.800 --> 00:06:34.800
 So, I can answer any questions on where we're at with that.

00:06:34.800 --> 00:06:38.800
 So, the big thing we have to decide is what time limit we want.

00:06:38.800 --> 00:06:44.800
 Right, which you gave direction for last time, which was three minutes for both agenda item

00:06:44.800 --> 00:06:49.800
 comments and then presentations and then limit of five speakers for presentations.

00:06:49.800 --> 00:06:50.800
 I'm sorry, how long?

00:06:50.800 --> 00:06:51.800
 Three minutes.

00:06:51.800 --> 00:06:52.800
 And what was the five?

00:06:52.800 --> 00:07:00.800
 Five speakers for presentations, which are items that are not on the agenda.

00:07:00.800 --> 00:07:03.800
 Any questions on that?

00:07:03.800 --> 00:07:07.800
 I don't necessarily need direction, but you can give some.

00:07:07.800 --> 00:07:10.800
 Do you want to discuss anything?

00:07:10.800 --> 00:07:13.800
 Any comments or?

00:07:13.800 --> 00:07:16.800
 Are we now open for when we can ask questions?

00:07:16.800 --> 00:07:19.800
 Yes.

00:07:19.800 --> 00:07:21.800
 Go ahead, Bob.

00:07:21.800 --> 00:07:24.800
 What is your question?

00:07:24.800 --> 00:07:26.800
 To Mr. Durrance, if I may ask.

00:07:26.800 --> 00:07:32.800
 Because of your experience, city council, PNZ, the past and all, what time limit for

00:07:32.800 --> 00:07:37.800
 a committee of this size do you think would be appropriate and would be too arduous,

00:07:37.800 --> 00:07:41.800
 especially if we had five speakers come in at one time on one topic?

00:07:41.800 --> 00:07:48.800
 Well, first of all, let me say that the law says that it is up to you all to make that

00:07:48.800 --> 00:07:54.800
 determination, but you don't have to have, in fact, you're mandated not to, you don't

00:07:54.800 --> 00:07:57.800
 have to have any city council approval for anything you're doing.

00:07:57.800 --> 00:08:02.800
 And I don't mean to imply by that, but your experience being in that, I'm just looking

00:08:02.800 --> 00:08:04.800
 at a time, what do you think?

00:08:04.800 --> 00:08:09.800
 Yeah, I think it's three to four minutes, just personal opinion, I think three to four

00:08:09.800 --> 00:08:14.800
 minutes for any kind of commentary is just fine, you can probably get a cost in that.

00:08:14.800 --> 00:08:20.800
 But with presentations, if somebody has something, evidence they want to provide to you, presentations

00:08:20.800 --> 00:08:22.800
 should be allowed at least ten.

00:08:22.800 --> 00:08:28.800
 And I'll tell you why, because sometimes we deal with subjects that aren't just very,

00:08:28.800 --> 00:08:32.800
 very black and white, and they're not very clear.

00:08:32.800 --> 00:08:37.800
 And sometimes people need to explain why they're taking a position on a particular, in your

00:08:37.800 --> 00:08:44.800
 case, particular portion of the ethics code, maybe even a matter which is before the committee.

00:08:44.800 --> 00:08:48.800
 So I would encourage ten minutes, I know when I was in city council, I answered your question

00:08:48.800 --> 00:08:53.800
 more directly, you know, making people do presentations in four minutes, when they were

00:08:53.800 --> 00:08:58.800
 talking about zoning right next to their house, you know, they all started dividing it up,

00:08:58.800 --> 00:09:02.800
 parsing it out, you know, and they'd divide it up and everybody would start taking their

00:09:02.800 --> 00:09:05.800
 three minutes and then somebody would say, no, you were supposed to talk about this or

00:09:05.800 --> 00:09:09.800
 that, and it just kind of encouraged just kind of general mayhem in the chamber.

00:09:09.800 --> 00:09:11.800
 You know, that's not a good idea.

00:09:11.800 --> 00:09:13.800
 Give someone time to develop their case.

00:09:13.800 --> 00:09:20.800
 Now, the other thing I would caution and also tell you about too is, and that's for basically

00:09:20.800 --> 00:09:24.800
 the chairman, whoever the chairman of the committee is, if you've got somebody up here

00:09:24.800 --> 00:09:29.800
 just ranting and raving and not, you know, saying the same thing over and over, they

00:09:29.800 --> 00:09:34.800
 should be allowed to step in and say, no, we're going to preside over, I preside over

00:09:34.800 --> 00:09:39.800
 this meeting and we understand your point, we get it, you don't have to tell us five

00:09:39.800 --> 00:09:43.800
 times, because there are people who think that you have to keep telling people things

00:09:43.800 --> 00:09:46.800
 again and again and again and again, and that's not true.

00:09:46.800 --> 00:09:50.800
 Most people, especially if you're bright enough to be on the commission or the city council,

00:09:50.800 --> 00:09:54.800
 you're going to get it in the first hour and then if they have questions, let them ask

00:09:54.800 --> 00:09:57.800
 questions too, and I would encourage that as well.

00:09:57.800 --> 00:09:58.800
 Thank you.

00:09:58.800 --> 00:09:59.800
 I'm not sorry.

00:09:59.800 --> 00:10:02.800
 Any other questions?

00:10:02.800 --> 00:10:04.800
 No?

00:10:04.800 --> 00:10:06.800
 Just one other comment.

00:10:06.800 --> 00:10:13.800
 One of the things that I find reading that 551.07 that is more specific for possibly

00:10:13.800 --> 00:10:19.800
 larger governmental bodies is that it's very specific about addressing an action item at

00:10:19.800 --> 00:10:20.800
 that meeting.

00:10:20.800 --> 00:10:21.800
 Oh, yes.

00:10:21.800 --> 00:10:26.800
 Now, from a standpoint of an ethics committee, there may be some citizens out there that

00:10:26.800 --> 00:10:29.800
 have an issue that they want to bring to our attention.

00:10:29.800 --> 00:10:35.800
 You know, our open forum at the city council meeting is broken down to scheduled items

00:10:35.800 --> 00:10:38.800
 and then unscheduled, but can't be discussed.

00:10:38.800 --> 00:10:45.800
 But my only, I'm just throwing out for discussion, is should we just make it to where any topic

00:10:45.800 --> 00:10:50.800
 that a citizen wishes to make this committee aware of?

00:10:50.800 --> 00:10:51.800
 Otherwise, how...

00:10:51.800 --> 00:11:00.800
 Can I say one thing about that to kind of, the statute itself, you're correct, the statute

00:11:00.800 --> 00:11:07.800
 says that you're only allowed to have public commentary on items that are on the agenda,

00:11:07.800 --> 00:11:14.800
 which means you can do what most city councils and other commissions do, and that is set

00:11:14.800 --> 00:11:16.800
 up in open mic time.

00:11:16.800 --> 00:11:19.800
 And you do it at the beginning and you can limit people to two to three minutes and that

00:11:19.800 --> 00:11:20.800
 kind of thing.

00:11:20.800 --> 00:11:25.800
 But if somebody wants to speak to an item on the agenda, and then you also have to say,

00:11:25.800 --> 00:11:30.800
 if somebody wants to speak to an item on the agenda, you have to talk about do they do

00:11:30.800 --> 00:11:35.800
 it immediately before, do they deliberate and then take public commentary, or do you

00:11:35.800 --> 00:11:40.800
 just put all the public commentary, regardless of what's on the agenda, at the beginning?

00:11:40.800 --> 00:11:45.800
 Obviously, I think it would be best to take it item by item because then everybody likes

00:11:45.800 --> 00:11:46.800
 up.

00:11:46.800 --> 00:11:51.800
 What you're talking about is doing an open mic thing, which is purely up to you all.

00:11:51.800 --> 00:11:53.800
 If you want to do that, that's great.

00:11:53.800 --> 00:11:56.800
 So are you suggesting that 007 includes the open mic?

00:11:56.800 --> 00:11:58.800
 No, it does not address that.

00:11:58.800 --> 00:12:00.800
 See, it doesn't address that at all.

00:12:00.800 --> 00:12:06.800
 It just says, if you have an item on the agenda and somebody wants to come in and give public

00:12:06.800 --> 00:12:08.800
 comment about it, they can.

00:12:08.800 --> 00:12:16.800
 And here's one thing, you've got the decision to make as to how long and do they do it before,

00:12:16.800 --> 00:12:18.800
 during, and after, that kind of thing.

00:12:18.800 --> 00:12:20.800
 Where on the agenda would they do that?

00:12:20.800 --> 00:12:23.800
 But they have to be allowed to speak.

00:12:23.800 --> 00:12:26.800
 But that's a very good point.

00:12:26.800 --> 00:12:32.800
 Well, so you're saying that it would not exclude someone wanting to suggest an item or a future

00:12:32.800 --> 00:12:33.800
 agenda?

00:12:33.800 --> 00:12:38.800
 Well, those have to be done by committee members normally, normally.

00:12:38.800 --> 00:12:43.800
 And if somebody comes in and says, you know, I want to talk about this particular section

00:12:43.800 --> 00:12:48.800
 of the Ethics Code or something like that, they can't just come in here willy-nilly and

00:12:48.800 --> 00:12:50.800
 start commenting on it.

00:12:50.800 --> 00:12:55.800
 They would need to talk to their members of the committee and say, we need an agenda item

00:12:55.800 --> 00:12:56.800
 on this.

00:12:56.800 --> 00:13:02.800
 And then I think, I don't know what the rule you all have about who can bring up an issue

00:13:02.800 --> 00:13:09.800
 I would presume anyone could ask that something be placed on the agenda, and then it could

00:13:09.800 --> 00:13:11.800
 be addressed that way.

00:13:11.800 --> 00:13:16.800
 Because like I said again, ignoring the public, you do it at your own peril.

00:13:16.800 --> 00:13:22.800
 And that's why I've never had anybody approach me at all at my city service or any other.

00:13:22.800 --> 00:13:27.800
 And if they said they wanted to see something on the agenda, I said, oh, no, we're not going

00:13:27.800 --> 00:13:28.800
 to do that.

00:13:28.800 --> 00:13:29.800
 No.

00:13:29.800 --> 00:13:32.800
 You put it on, you ask it to be put on, you consider it.

00:13:32.800 --> 00:13:35.800
 And you might say, bad idea, we're not going to do it.

00:13:35.800 --> 00:13:37.800
 You might say, good idea, it can't be.

00:13:37.800 --> 00:13:40.800
 That's, again, back to letting people speak.

00:13:40.800 --> 00:13:42.800
 I'm sorry, Jason.

00:13:42.800 --> 00:13:44.800
 Anything else?

00:13:44.800 --> 00:13:50.800
 Do we need any more discussion on this topic?

00:13:50.800 --> 00:13:55.800
 I'll just add that, I mean, I think we've covered that in our last meeting, allowing

00:13:55.800 --> 00:13:59.800
 public comments on agenda items limited to three minutes per item.

00:13:59.800 --> 00:14:04.800
 And then the in-person presentation for members of the public, that allows for comment on

00:14:04.800 --> 00:14:07.800
 things that are not on that agenda.

00:14:07.800 --> 00:14:13.800
 So I think we've addressed all of the items.

00:14:13.800 --> 00:14:17.800
 So I guess we don't need to take any action on this item.

00:14:17.800 --> 00:14:19.800
 Unless you have a different direction from last week.

00:14:19.800 --> 00:14:22.800
 Anybody has a different direction?

00:14:22.800 --> 00:14:30.800
 So we're moving on to item C, number BO-23-026.

00:14:30.800 --> 00:14:34.800
 Receive a report, hold a discussion, and take necessary action regarding proposed

00:14:34.800 --> 00:14:39.800
 amendments to the ethics ordinance and board of ethics rules and procedure.

00:14:39.800 --> 00:14:43.800
 Okay, so during the last meeting, the board gave direction to the staff to bring back

00:14:43.800 --> 00:14:48.800
 any board proposals for the 2023 packet of proposed amendments that did not receive

00:14:48.800 --> 00:14:52.800
 direction from the city council in April.

00:14:52.800 --> 00:14:56.800
 So I'm just going to run through each proposal that didn't receive direction.

00:14:56.800 --> 00:15:04.800
 The direction options are essentially allow the proposal to just remain rejected,

00:15:04.800 --> 00:15:08.800
 is the language we use, but just allow it to not come back, not put it on a future

00:15:08.800 --> 00:15:10.800
 agenda item at this time.

00:15:10.800 --> 00:15:17.800
 You could also ask to put it on the potential agenda topics for the future,

00:15:17.800 --> 00:15:21.800
 which is what we'll talk about in the future agenda items section.

00:15:21.800 --> 00:15:24.800
 Or we could just forward it back to the city council as it was originally written,

00:15:24.800 --> 00:15:26.800
 if that's what you would like to do.

00:15:26.800 --> 00:15:32.800
 So those are kind of the three options for direction at this point in time.

00:15:32.800 --> 00:15:35.800
 So what is your pleasure?

00:15:35.800 --> 00:15:37.800
 Oh, I was going to run through each one.

00:15:37.800 --> 00:15:38.800
 Okay, sorry.

00:15:38.800 --> 00:15:41.800
 That's all right.

00:15:41.800 --> 00:15:42.800
 Go ahead.

00:15:42.800 --> 00:15:44.800
 Okay.

00:15:44.800 --> 00:15:48.800
 So the first one was proposal four, which was developed by the board in October

00:15:48.800 --> 00:15:53.800
 of 2021 and was included in the June -- originally included in the June 2022

00:15:53.800 --> 00:15:55.800
 packet of amendments.

00:15:55.800 --> 00:16:01.800
 It was postponed at that point for clarity, which is in its -- the campaign

00:16:01.800 --> 00:16:09.800
 contributions as part of the conflict of interest prohibition.

00:16:09.800 --> 00:16:14.800
 So basically it's what you see on this slide.

00:16:14.800 --> 00:16:19.800
 During April of this year, the city council had some confusion on if the

00:16:19.800 --> 00:16:24.800
 election cycle period that's in the conflict of interest definition included

00:16:24.800 --> 00:16:29.800
 essentially both the most recent and the current one.

00:16:29.800 --> 00:16:32.800
 And then previously there had also been some concerns from council that the

00:16:32.800 --> 00:16:34.800
 $500 limit was too low.

00:16:34.800 --> 00:16:41.800
 So that's kind of the discussion -- a small summary of the discussion about this.

00:16:41.800 --> 00:16:47.800
 So what is your -- Madam Chair, if I may ask, so are you telling us that the

00:16:47.800 --> 00:16:51.800
 city council did not do any action on this proposal?

00:16:51.800 --> 00:16:52.800
 Correct.

00:16:52.800 --> 00:16:56.800
 In April of this year, there was no direction to move forward with -- no

00:16:56.800 --> 00:16:57.800
 direction on this proposal.

00:16:57.800 --> 00:17:01.800
 And was it because of those two primary questions that came up or issues, that

00:17:01.800 --> 00:17:07.800
 were being -- the timeframe and then they thought maybe the $500 was too low?

00:17:07.800 --> 00:17:10.800
 Those were the primary things discussed during that meeting.

00:17:10.800 --> 00:17:14.800
 So Madam Chair, I'd like to ask, are we then, as it put upon us, to take those

00:17:14.800 --> 00:17:18.800
 suggestions from the city council and try to tweak it, or do we just say we're

00:17:18.800 --> 00:17:23.800
 going to give it back to you and make you make those changes?

00:17:23.800 --> 00:17:26.800
 Let me answer that in a more general way, because I was looking at these ones

00:17:26.800 --> 00:17:30.800
 that got -- that they didn't want us to move forward with.

00:17:30.800 --> 00:17:37.800
 I think they're kind of little details that could be better solved by our

00:17:37.800 --> 00:17:40.800
 paying attention to other parts of the code of ethics.

00:17:40.800 --> 00:17:45.800
 So from where I sit, I'm not bothered that we were not asked -- that we weren't

00:17:45.800 --> 00:17:47.800
 encouraged to move forward on any of them.

00:17:47.800 --> 00:17:51.800
 Because I think ethics is bigger than some of these things.

00:17:51.800 --> 00:17:54.800
 So they -- I don't think we brought this up.

00:17:54.800 --> 00:17:58.800
 I think this came from city council.

00:17:58.800 --> 00:18:01.800
 Is that correct?

00:18:01.800 --> 00:18:07.800
 The campaign was brought forward originally in October of 2021 by a board

00:18:07.800 --> 00:18:08.800
 member.

00:18:08.800 --> 00:18:09.800
 Okay.

00:18:09.800 --> 00:18:11.800
 It was discussed and then voted to be included in the 2022 packet of the

00:18:11.800 --> 00:18:14.800
 post-members.

00:18:14.800 --> 00:18:18.800
 And that was in the throes of the election, right?

00:18:18.800 --> 00:18:20.800
 It was originally presented in October of 2021.

00:18:20.800 --> 00:18:23.800
 Which was -- and the election was a month later.

00:18:23.800 --> 00:18:27.800
 Because that was the year we had the announcement.

00:18:27.800 --> 00:18:28.800
 Maybe.

00:18:28.800 --> 00:18:29.800
 I don't remember.

00:18:29.800 --> 00:18:31.800
 Yeah, it was.

00:18:31.800 --> 00:18:35.800
 There's a lot that goes around with the elections.

00:18:35.800 --> 00:18:41.800
 Honestly, if they didn't want us to move forward with it, that's my opinion.

00:18:41.800 --> 00:18:45.800
 But I want to hear what you guys think.

00:18:45.800 --> 00:18:49.800
 Do you mind speaking to, like, where we could kind of revisit this in a

00:18:49.800 --> 00:18:54.800
 different part of the code from what you've seen?

00:18:54.800 --> 00:18:59.800
 Okay.

00:18:59.800 --> 00:19:07.800
 Make the definition of conflict of interest broader.

00:19:07.800 --> 00:19:11.800
 I guess to me would be the bigger thing.

00:19:11.800 --> 00:19:16.800
 Because, you know, technically when you're looking at ethics, you know,

00:19:16.800 --> 00:19:24.800
 the reason we have a board is that these things are very gray.

00:19:24.800 --> 00:19:32.800
 And so, in my opinion, $500 is a lot of money for a city election.

00:19:32.800 --> 00:19:39.800
 And although lately that's not been true, but I'd like to get back to the

00:19:39.800 --> 00:19:46.800
 point where we're not spending so much money on city elections.

00:19:46.800 --> 00:19:48.800
 But that's just my opinion.

00:19:48.800 --> 00:19:54.800
 What do the rest of you think?

00:19:54.800 --> 00:20:00.800
 I suppose my good question is, the question is, following your lead, Madam Chair,

00:20:00.800 --> 00:20:02.800
 I would agree, we'll just leave this alone.

00:20:02.800 --> 00:20:06.800
 So do we just lay it on the table or just dismiss it?

00:20:06.800 --> 00:20:09.800
 There's no motion necessary for us to give --

00:20:09.800 --> 00:20:10.800
 That's a good question.

00:20:10.800 --> 00:20:12.800
 -- this body the --

00:20:12.800 --> 00:20:14.800
 I won't ask our problem entirely.

00:20:14.800 --> 00:20:15.800
 No.

00:20:15.800 --> 00:20:17.800
 I mean, if you're not going to do anything with it, then there's no action.

00:20:17.800 --> 00:20:18.800
 Just a little bit.

00:20:18.800 --> 00:20:19.800
 Yeah.

00:20:19.800 --> 00:20:21.800
 Very well.

00:20:21.800 --> 00:20:22.800
 Dustin?

00:20:22.800 --> 00:20:27.800
 I think this is -- I went back and watched the city council video,

00:20:27.800 --> 00:20:32.800
 and I think this is the one where a lot of the discussion was around the

00:20:32.800 --> 00:20:46.800
 intent of this proposal to limit the influence of PACs in local elections.

00:20:46.800 --> 00:20:52.800
 And one of the comments that stood out to me was that even if -- their

00:20:52.800 --> 00:20:59.800
 impression was that we were adding this so that a member of a PAC -- if a

00:20:59.800 --> 00:21:06.800
 member of the PAC that has a pending matter before the council, that council

00:21:06.800 --> 00:21:10.800
 member who received that contribution from the PAC would have to recuse

00:21:10.800 --> 00:21:11.800
 himself.

00:21:11.800 --> 00:21:13.800
 And the comment was, that's not the case.

00:21:13.800 --> 00:21:15.800
 A PAC does not have a pending matter.

00:21:15.800 --> 00:21:20.800
 A member of the PAC may, but they wouldn't have to recuse themselves.

00:21:20.800 --> 00:21:22.800
 And that was, like, a lot of the discussion.

00:21:22.800 --> 00:21:29.800
 And I completely understand that, but this is written specifically as an

00:21:29.800 --> 00:21:32.800
 individual business entity or other organization.

00:21:32.800 --> 00:21:38.800
 So it's not realizing that a PAC is not going to have a pending matter

00:21:38.800 --> 00:21:42.800
 because they're not really doing business in the city.

00:21:42.800 --> 00:21:47.800
 And an individual that is a member or a supporter or contributor to a PAC

00:21:47.800 --> 00:21:52.800
 could, but they would be separate from this recusal requirement.

00:21:52.800 --> 00:21:59.800
 I don't -- I understand that there is some concern over how that wouldn't

00:21:59.800 --> 00:22:01.800
 work in that case.

00:22:01.800 --> 00:22:07.800
 But I don't understand why there was so much concern over just omitting this

00:22:07.800 --> 00:22:11.800
 completely and saying, well, because it doesn't work in a specific instance,

00:22:11.800 --> 00:22:14.800
 we are just going to not have any direction on this.

00:22:14.800 --> 00:22:17.800
 We're not going to consider this.

00:22:17.800 --> 00:22:18.800
 Right.

00:22:18.800 --> 00:22:21.800
 And so that -- I mean, to me, I read this.

00:22:21.800 --> 00:22:25.800
 And other than the timing of the election cycle, the wording on that,

00:22:25.800 --> 00:22:28.800
 like, I understand -- I did not understand that before.

00:22:28.800 --> 00:22:33.800
 I understand that partially now after their very lengthy discussion on it.

00:22:33.800 --> 00:22:40.800
 So if there is a way to fix that part of it so there's no potential

00:22:40.800 --> 00:22:43.800
 misunderstanding of when this applies, maybe we can do that.

00:22:43.800 --> 00:22:46.800
 But I don't -- I hate to just throw this out and say, well,

00:22:46.800 --> 00:22:49.800
 they didn't give us directions to work in it.

00:22:49.800 --> 00:22:51.800
 Not include this.

00:22:51.800 --> 00:22:52.800
 Okay.

00:22:52.800 --> 00:22:53.800
 So how would you fix it?

00:22:53.800 --> 00:23:00.800
 I would fix it by either changing how we define the election cycle

00:23:00.800 --> 00:23:10.800
 or resubmitting it to them and maybe with some different commentary or discussion.

00:23:10.800 --> 00:23:16.800
 I don't know how to -- I just -- I don't want to get into a habit of spending

00:23:16.800 --> 00:23:21.800
 a lot of time trying to make good faith revisions to the code,

00:23:21.800 --> 00:23:25.800
 handing it to counsel, and then it just gets shot down.

00:23:25.800 --> 00:23:30.800
 And so we don't do anything with that to try and fix what we spend a lot of

00:23:30.800 --> 00:23:35.800
 time in these meetings talking about how there are problems with our code.

00:23:35.800 --> 00:23:39.800
 And a lot of our -- since I've been on this board, almost all of the time,

00:23:39.800 --> 00:23:43.800
 I've spent in these meetings is fixing stuff in the code,

00:23:43.800 --> 00:23:47.800
 not applying any of it or reviewing a complaint.

00:23:47.800 --> 00:23:51.800
 It's -- we have this code that we're trying to make it work.

00:23:51.800 --> 00:23:56.800
 And all of our effort to do that is just sort of getting --

00:23:56.800 --> 00:24:02.800
 I think it might get a very different -- a different response now.

00:24:02.800 --> 00:24:07.800
 So I'm hearing that you would be in favor of keeping it.

00:24:07.800 --> 00:24:11.800
 I see some head notes.

00:24:11.800 --> 00:24:13.800
 If the -- all right, sorry.

00:24:13.800 --> 00:24:18.800
 If we -- the concern is the election cycle confusion,

00:24:18.800 --> 00:24:22.800
 we could potentially change the most recent to say the current

00:24:22.800 --> 00:24:26.800
 and most previous or something like that,

00:24:26.800 --> 00:24:29.800
 if that's what the intention of the board is to have.

00:24:29.800 --> 00:24:31.800
 So if that is --

00:24:31.800 --> 00:24:33.800
 Yeah, we could tighten the language, yeah.

00:24:33.800 --> 00:24:36.800
 I definitely hear what Dustin is saying.

00:24:36.800 --> 00:24:38.800
 We spend a lot of time on that.

00:24:38.800 --> 00:24:41.800
 So if I understood the three options you gave us,

00:24:41.800 --> 00:24:45.800
 I don't hear anyone saying we should reject it.

00:24:45.800 --> 00:24:48.800
 I don't hear anyone saying we should forward it as it is.

00:24:48.800 --> 00:24:51.800
 So I thought the other option is postpone

00:24:51.800 --> 00:24:55.800
 and make these potential changes that are being discussed.

00:24:55.800 --> 00:24:56.800
 So --

00:24:56.800 --> 00:24:57.800
 That's a good idea.

00:24:57.800 --> 00:25:00.800
 Which would mean to me putting on the agenda of a future meeting.

00:25:00.800 --> 00:25:01.800
 That sounds good.

00:25:01.800 --> 00:25:03.800
 Is that the direction?

00:25:03.800 --> 00:25:04.800
 Yeah.

00:25:04.800 --> 00:25:07.800
 Okay, do we need to make a motion for that?

00:25:07.800 --> 00:25:09.800
 Yeah, it's just a direction.

00:25:09.800 --> 00:25:12.800
 Okay, consensus is we're happy --

00:25:12.800 --> 00:25:13.800
 Postpone.

00:25:13.800 --> 00:25:16.800
 -- postponing and tightening.

00:25:16.800 --> 00:25:20.800
 Okay, thank you all for your comments.

00:25:20.800 --> 00:25:22.800
 Okay, so do we have any --

00:25:22.800 --> 00:25:23.800
 Yes, there's several.

00:25:23.800 --> 00:25:25.800
 Yes.

00:25:25.800 --> 00:25:28.800
 Proposal six was originally developed in October of 2022

00:25:28.800 --> 00:25:32.800
 and went out to the definition of conflicting interest,

00:25:32.800 --> 00:25:35.800
 recent business opportunity negotiations,

00:25:35.800 --> 00:25:39.800
 which was originally defined as seen on the slide.

00:25:39.800 --> 00:25:42.800
 It was based on San Antonio's ethics ordinance.

00:25:42.800 --> 00:25:47.800
 And during the April 2023 discussion,

00:25:47.800 --> 00:25:49.800
 the city council was generally concerned

00:25:49.800 --> 00:25:51.800
 that there was not necessarily a clear definition

00:25:51.800 --> 00:25:53.800
 of what recent business --

00:25:53.800 --> 00:25:58.800
 what business opportunity negotiations was.

00:25:58.800 --> 00:26:03.800
 Okay, how do you guys feel about this one?

00:26:03.800 --> 00:26:09.800
 Need to move forward as is or tweak it?

00:26:09.800 --> 00:26:11.800
 What I would like to comment on is, I mean,

00:26:11.800 --> 00:26:19.800
 you've had several members that are routinely guiding us

00:26:19.800 --> 00:26:23.800
 or making comments about ethics code being more broad

00:26:23.800 --> 00:26:26.800
 in order to be more effective.

00:26:26.800 --> 00:26:29.800
 And what we're getting from the city council on all of these

00:26:29.800 --> 00:26:31.800
 is the language isn't tight enough.

00:26:31.800 --> 00:26:33.800
 The language isn't tight enough.

00:26:33.800 --> 00:26:35.800
 So those things, I mean --

00:26:35.800 --> 00:26:36.800
 Yeah.

00:26:36.800 --> 00:26:41.800
 So which -- and that is a problem, right?

00:26:41.800 --> 00:26:46.800
 Again, I think going forward it might be different right now

00:26:46.800 --> 00:26:48.800
 because we have had a very split.

00:26:48.800 --> 00:26:54.800
 At the time this went to council, it was extremely split.

00:26:54.800 --> 00:26:59.800
 But yeah, but I do -- I think that our --

00:26:59.800 --> 00:27:01.800
 I think that the consensus on the committee

00:27:01.800 --> 00:27:03.800
 is that we want to make it broader

00:27:03.800 --> 00:27:05.800
 and we want to make it fit better.

00:27:05.800 --> 00:27:08.800
 And we have some people who don't.

00:27:08.800 --> 00:27:10.800
 No.

00:27:10.800 --> 00:27:11.800
 Miss yourself.

00:27:11.800 --> 00:27:13.800
 Back yourself.

00:27:13.800 --> 00:27:15.800
 One of the things in this proposal

00:27:15.800 --> 00:27:18.800
 that kind of even goes back to the previous ones

00:27:18.800 --> 00:27:21.800
 we just talked about, and I've mentioned this before,

00:27:21.800 --> 00:27:25.800
 this word "pending matter" has always bothered me in this code

00:27:25.800 --> 00:27:29.800
 because this would suggest that if a matter is pending,

00:27:29.800 --> 00:27:32.800
 it would exclude any future items.

00:27:32.800 --> 00:27:35.800
 In other words, it could be something on next week's agenda.

00:27:35.800 --> 00:27:38.800
 And so this whole pending matter issue

00:27:38.800 --> 00:27:41.800
 has been a problem for me since the very start.

00:27:41.800 --> 00:27:45.800
 I don't know if there's better language there.

00:27:45.800 --> 00:27:48.800
 But even in that last one, when you mentioned those two words,

00:27:48.800 --> 00:27:52.800
 because the universal model code just says any issue

00:27:52.800 --> 00:27:56.800
 either implies either it's present

00:27:56.800 --> 00:27:59.800
 or it's a future item that might show up next week.

00:27:59.800 --> 00:28:01.800
 I think this kind of rules out --

00:28:01.800 --> 00:28:04.800
 The definition of pending matter is on our list of future agenda items.

00:28:04.800 --> 00:28:06.800
 Yeah.

00:28:06.800 --> 00:28:09.800
 So the word "pending matters" is always troubling.

00:28:09.800 --> 00:28:13.800
 And so I don't know if I have a solution in terms of this proposal.

00:28:13.800 --> 00:28:20.800
 This might be one where looking at the pending matter

00:28:20.800 --> 00:28:22.800
 would take care of this,

00:28:22.800 --> 00:28:25.800
 because I was thinking some of these things would just go away

00:28:25.800 --> 00:28:28.800
 if we have a broader code.

00:28:28.800 --> 00:28:31.800
 The problem is this opens a whole new can of worms

00:28:31.800 --> 00:28:35.800
 about having to go back into the definitions of our code

00:28:35.800 --> 00:28:38.800
 and discuss whether or not pending matter is --

00:28:38.800 --> 00:28:43.800
 So that's opening a can of worms that I'm not ready to do right now.

00:28:43.800 --> 00:28:49.800
 But for that reason alone, I'm not in favor of either of these.

00:28:49.800 --> 00:28:51.800
 I concur.

00:28:51.800 --> 00:28:54.800
 Are you saying just let this die?

00:28:54.800 --> 00:28:56.800
 Pardon the expression.

00:28:56.800 --> 00:28:58.800
 Whatever term you want, what was the first one?

00:28:58.800 --> 00:29:00.800
 Reject.

00:29:00.800 --> 00:29:02.800
 I would concur with you on rejecting this at this time.

00:29:02.800 --> 00:29:09.800
 I'm not ready to provide alternatives or other ideas here,

00:29:09.800 --> 00:29:11.800
 but this has bothered me.

00:29:11.800 --> 00:29:17.800
 This whole pending matter that we're pending.

00:29:17.800 --> 00:29:22.800
 So I'm here with Dustin.

00:29:22.800 --> 00:29:26.800
 We have spent time on these items,

00:29:26.800 --> 00:29:30.800
 and we felt that these are important items that need to be addressed

00:29:30.800 --> 00:29:33.800
 if we need to, if we want to.

00:29:33.800 --> 00:29:37.800
 Then I would move to or give the direction that we will do the same thing.

00:29:37.800 --> 00:29:38.800
 We'll revisit.

00:29:38.800 --> 00:29:41.800
 Put it in line behind once we talk about pending matter.

00:29:41.800 --> 00:29:45.800
 Yes, and then discuss this if we're, you know,

00:29:45.800 --> 00:29:49.800
 what language changes we need to be making to make this effective.

00:29:49.800 --> 00:29:50.800
 That sounds good.

00:29:50.800 --> 00:29:52.800
 What about -- is that consensus for --

00:29:52.800 --> 00:29:54.800
 I agree with Andrea.

00:29:54.800 --> 00:29:56.800
 And Tom?

00:29:56.800 --> 00:30:00.800
 I think consensus is postponed.

00:30:00.800 --> 00:30:02.800
 Is that postponed?

00:30:02.800 --> 00:30:11.800
 Postponed.

00:30:11.800 --> 00:30:16.800
 Seven was to add a recusal requirement for client relationships,

00:30:16.800 --> 00:30:21.800
 as defined on the screen, to the conflict of interest definition.

00:30:21.800 --> 00:30:26.800
 The State Council was mostly concerned about there not being a clear definition

00:30:26.800 --> 00:30:29.800
 of what client relationship meant.

00:30:29.800 --> 00:30:32.800
 There were some specific questions about, well,

00:30:32.800 --> 00:30:35.800
 is a tax preparer considered a client?

00:30:35.800 --> 00:30:42.800
 Is an auto dealer things like that?

00:30:42.800 --> 00:30:48.800
 So that was the discussion at that time.

00:30:48.800 --> 00:30:52.800
 Any questions?

00:30:52.800 --> 00:30:54.800
 I'm going to put it back on the agenda.

00:30:54.800 --> 00:30:56.800
 I think it's in the same category.

00:30:56.800 --> 00:30:58.800
 So what are you guys saying?

00:30:58.800 --> 00:31:00.800
 We've put a lot of time into this.

00:31:00.800 --> 00:31:02.800
 Exactly.

00:31:02.800 --> 00:31:07.800
 You know, I'm not -- we did this for a reason.

00:31:07.800 --> 00:31:09.800
 And we all were -- we all had concerns.

00:31:09.800 --> 00:31:11.800
 We discussed it.

00:31:11.800 --> 00:31:15.800
 And I think that we just need to either tighten the language,

00:31:15.800 --> 00:31:20.800
 or, you know, and have a discussion about that.

00:31:20.800 --> 00:31:21.800
 Yeah.

00:31:21.800 --> 00:31:22.800
 Okay, so --

00:31:22.800 --> 00:31:25.800
 And maybe it would be -- sorry, I didn't raise my hand.

00:31:25.800 --> 00:31:30.800
 Maybe it would be important for us to look at the definition

00:31:30.800 --> 00:31:32.800
 of client relationship.

00:31:32.800 --> 00:31:39.800
 In my opinion, we just define it with what's literally listed there.

00:31:39.800 --> 00:31:40.800
 Yeah.

00:31:40.800 --> 00:31:41.800
 I'm sure if I may ask.

00:31:41.800 --> 00:31:42.800
 Yes.

00:31:42.800 --> 00:31:49.800
 Looking at proposal four, which is the $500,

00:31:49.800 --> 00:31:53.800
 there's no -- no, I've just -- I apologize.

00:31:53.800 --> 00:31:57.800
 Back to seven, there's no monetary amount here,

00:31:57.800 --> 00:32:00.800
 let's say a contributor were to give to them.

00:32:00.800 --> 00:32:05.800
 I'm just wondering if -- I think proposal four may be strong enough

00:32:05.800 --> 00:32:09.800
 to take care of six and seven that we are now discussing,

00:32:09.800 --> 00:32:11.800
 only because there's a monetary number.

00:32:11.800 --> 00:32:14.800
 I just -- I'd like to hear from what you think on that.

00:32:14.800 --> 00:32:15.800
 Am I off or what?

00:32:15.800 --> 00:32:21.800
 I think the big difference there is proposal four is a campaign contribution.

00:32:21.800 --> 00:32:24.800
 Proposal seven is for a client relationship.

00:32:24.800 --> 00:32:31.800
 And so like if I engage you in some sort of contract to provide services to me,

00:32:31.800 --> 00:32:35.800
 then we would have a client service provider relationship,

00:32:35.800 --> 00:32:36.800
 which would be different.

00:32:36.800 --> 00:32:38.800
 It wouldn't be a campaign contribution.

00:32:38.800 --> 00:32:43.800
 But if they gave a campaign contribution while they were a client.

00:32:43.800 --> 00:32:44.800
 Right.

00:32:44.800 --> 00:32:47.800
 I mean, I guess that would fall under both of those things.

00:32:47.800 --> 00:32:57.800
 Some of the discussion in the council review of this was around

00:32:57.800 --> 00:33:03.800
 establishing what is a -- is there some threshold there?

00:33:03.800 --> 00:33:10.800
 If I have someone come and trim my trees in my house,

00:33:10.800 --> 00:33:12.800
 then I am their client.

00:33:12.800 --> 00:33:15.800
 We have a client service provider relationship now.

00:33:15.800 --> 00:33:19.800
 Would I have to recuse myself from some sort of --

00:33:19.800 --> 00:33:23.800
 like if they bring something before council because they bought some property

00:33:23.800 --> 00:33:27.800
 and they want to change the zoning on that or whatever it may be.

00:33:27.800 --> 00:33:35.800
 So there was concern where there -- some of the discussion, I'll paraphrase, was around

00:33:35.800 --> 00:33:42.800
 we should want the council members to continue doing business

00:33:42.800 --> 00:33:52.800
 and paying for services, which I think was completely missing our intent with this proposal.

00:33:52.800 --> 00:33:59.800
 Our intent here was more of what Annette talked about, like the gray area stuff.

00:33:59.800 --> 00:34:05.800
 We know, after sitting on this board, we know that it would be very easy

00:34:05.800 --> 00:34:12.800
 for someone to set up some sort of contract and then provide some sort of service

00:34:12.800 --> 00:34:16.800
 to someone who is in a position of authority to make decisions.

00:34:16.800 --> 00:34:20.800
 And then that could influence those decisions that they make.

00:34:20.800 --> 00:34:22.800
 Like that is something that could go wrong.

00:34:22.800 --> 00:34:27.800
 We're not talking about just normal course of action.

00:34:27.800 --> 00:34:32.800
 I live in this community, so I'm going to hire someone who also lives in this community

00:34:32.800 --> 00:34:36.800
 and works here to do some work, and I'm not going to let that influence me.

00:34:36.800 --> 00:34:41.800
 I think we know what we're trying to get away from here.

00:34:41.800 --> 00:34:49.800
 And a lot of the discussion was like -- it was almost like very defensive.

00:34:49.800 --> 00:34:53.800
 Like someone is going to use this against me in my position to --

00:34:53.800 --> 00:34:54.800
 To hurt us, though.

00:34:54.800 --> 00:34:55.800
 Right.

00:34:55.800 --> 00:34:59.800
 And that could certainly happen with any of this stuff.

00:34:59.800 --> 00:35:07.800
 But that's -- we have to have -- we have to establish some kind of boundary

00:35:07.800 --> 00:35:11.800
 for what is acceptable and what is unacceptable.

00:35:11.800 --> 00:35:17.800
 And we're in this spot where, like from the discussion that I listened to by council,

00:35:17.800 --> 00:35:23.800
 they don't want any sort of gray area on what is okay and not okay according to the ordinance.

00:35:23.800 --> 00:35:29.800
 They want specific rules, dollar amounts, very clear definitions.

00:35:29.800 --> 00:35:35.800
 And we've spent a tremendous amount of time trying to clean up language

00:35:35.800 --> 00:35:37.800
 and write definitions that make sense.

00:35:37.800 --> 00:35:41.800
 And I think we've done a decent job of that in a lot of cases.

00:35:41.800 --> 00:35:47.800
 But I don't think we can write a bulletproof code that's going to work forever.

00:35:47.800 --> 00:35:52.800
 But to give an example, nobody would call it unethical if you shop at, say,

00:35:52.800 --> 00:35:57.800
 a grocery store like Kroger's all the time and you spend all your grocery money there.

00:35:57.800 --> 00:36:02.800
 But I think it would be called into question if the owner of that store was your business partner

00:36:02.800 --> 00:36:05.800
 and they came up with something.

00:36:05.800 --> 00:36:08.800
 Then you should certainly engage yourself.

00:36:08.800 --> 00:36:13.800
 I don't know why that's so difficult to understand.

00:36:13.800 --> 00:36:17.800
 Wechsler's example on this is a dry cleaner.

00:36:17.800 --> 00:36:22.800
 You spend thousands of dollars on an annual basis at your dry cleaner.

00:36:22.800 --> 00:36:24.800
 And you discuss business.

00:36:24.800 --> 00:36:31.800
 So this is where this really gets a little sticky on professional relationship.

00:36:31.800 --> 00:36:36.800
 Well, he may feel he's a professional dry cleaner.

00:36:36.800 --> 00:36:42.800
 That's why you have a board.

00:36:42.800 --> 00:36:44.800
 And that is exactly what I'm sensing here.

00:36:44.800 --> 00:36:47.800
 I'm sensing that City Council does not trust us,

00:36:47.800 --> 00:36:50.800
 that if those matters are actually coming in front of us, that we will...

00:36:50.800 --> 00:36:53.800
 Some people on City Council don't trust us.

00:36:53.800 --> 00:37:04.800
 And I will say when we take things to them, we will still have a couple people who won't.

00:37:04.800 --> 00:37:07.800
 And if I may, I think that's what I was meaning to say earlier.

00:37:07.800 --> 00:37:10.800
 This is as clear as I think it needs to be.

00:37:10.800 --> 00:37:15.800
 I don't think parsing it down any further would be of any benefit.

00:37:15.800 --> 00:37:18.800
 So are we saying postpone?

00:37:18.800 --> 00:37:19.800
 Postpone.

00:37:19.800 --> 00:37:22.800
 Postpone.

00:37:22.800 --> 00:37:26.800
 So we have 100% consensus.

00:37:26.800 --> 00:37:30.800
 Now, Madam Chair, I'd like to throw out, because we are postponing quite a bit,

00:37:30.800 --> 00:37:34.800
 I don't want us to be misunderstood by the council or anyone else watching this.

00:37:34.800 --> 00:37:36.800
 We're not kicking this can down the road.

00:37:36.800 --> 00:37:43.800
 We're looking to try to figure out a thesaurus to find the right word we want

00:37:43.800 --> 00:37:48.800
 to make it palatable for the council, which is a political animal.

00:37:48.800 --> 00:37:50.800
 And so they are looking at money.

00:37:50.800 --> 00:37:53.800
 They want to look at...that's the point that I don't cross.

00:37:53.800 --> 00:37:58.800
 And the gray area that I think Destin brought up very well, they don't want gray area.

00:37:58.800 --> 00:38:02.800
 It's part of the expression black or white, because the gray area is where they all get in trouble.

00:38:02.800 --> 00:38:03.800
 And so that's what I see.

00:38:03.800 --> 00:38:05.800
 I think they see gray area here, and that's their concern.

00:38:05.800 --> 00:38:08.800
 I just don't know what the words are that makes it gray.

00:38:08.800 --> 00:38:14.800
 I guess my thinking is these are kind of oral issues, and there are some bigger ones

00:38:14.800 --> 00:38:17.800
 that I think would clean some of this up.

00:38:17.800 --> 00:38:20.800
 And then I think we may come back and put this stuff in.

00:38:20.800 --> 00:38:24.800
 A thousand stab wounds do the same thing, Madam Chair.

00:38:24.800 --> 00:38:28.800
 Yeah.

00:38:28.800 --> 00:38:31.800
 I think we have proposed one right here for this one.

00:38:31.800 --> 00:38:33.800
 Another page.

00:38:33.800 --> 00:38:34.800
 All right.

00:38:34.800 --> 00:38:40.800
 This one, it was to add a substantial debtor-creditor relationship as defined

00:38:40.800 --> 00:38:47.800
 on the slide being $5,000 to the conflict of interest definition.

00:38:47.800 --> 00:38:53.800
 I think their concern...their concern seemed to be that they wanted to...

00:38:53.800 --> 00:38:58.800
 they didn't want to be restricted on doing business in the city.

00:38:58.800 --> 00:39:00.800
 Yeah.

00:39:00.800 --> 00:39:04.800
 That is the same thing we were just talking about.

00:39:04.800 --> 00:39:10.800
 Another press phone?

00:39:10.800 --> 00:39:11.800
 Yes, Andrea.

00:39:11.800 --> 00:39:13.800
 It is 610.

00:39:13.800 --> 00:39:20.800
 It's been 40 minutes, and we're revisiting things.

00:39:20.800 --> 00:39:25.800
 I'm going to say, can we get the direction to revisit all of these and clean them up

00:39:25.800 --> 00:39:29.800
 and put them in order back on the agenda and move through them?

00:39:29.800 --> 00:39:33.800
 Have I asked how many more we've done?

00:39:33.800 --> 00:39:36.800
 Because these were all topics that we all felt were important.

00:39:36.800 --> 00:39:37.800
 Three more?

00:39:37.800 --> 00:39:38.800
 Including this one.

00:39:38.800 --> 00:39:41.800
 We just have three more, if that would go on.

00:39:41.800 --> 00:39:43.800
 I'd like to go ahead and do the other three.

00:39:43.800 --> 00:39:46.800
 I understand what you're saying.

00:39:46.800 --> 00:39:50.800
 So is there a direction to do it on this one?

00:39:50.800 --> 00:39:59.800
 But what consensus?

00:39:59.800 --> 00:40:04.800
 I could be persuaded to forward it as is, but I'll go along with the group.

00:40:04.800 --> 00:40:08.800
 I think it's the number that's here.

00:40:08.800 --> 00:40:10.800
 I mean, today's inflation.

00:40:10.800 --> 00:40:12.800
 Can we talk like this out loud, Madam Chair?

00:40:12.800 --> 00:40:14.800
 You can do any recognition of thought.

00:40:14.800 --> 00:40:15.800
 Madam Chair?

00:40:15.800 --> 00:40:16.800
 Yes?

00:40:16.800 --> 00:40:17.800
 Oh, if I may.

00:40:17.800 --> 00:40:22.800
 I think it's the number, because today, the way we are with the economics

00:40:22.800 --> 00:40:26.800
 and the financials and all, 5,000 used to be a big number.

00:40:26.800 --> 00:40:28.800
 There was clearly fear.

00:40:28.800 --> 00:40:31.800
 Yeah, 5,000 is not a number anymore.

00:40:31.800 --> 00:40:36.800
 I mean, we've got credit cards up toughing almost, passing 20,000.

00:40:36.800 --> 00:40:38.800
 Personal credit card, 20,000.

00:40:38.800 --> 00:40:41.800
 This is almost like the $500.

00:40:41.800 --> 00:40:43.800
 I think that number should be larger.

00:40:43.800 --> 00:40:47.800
 And I think that that may have been the issue.

00:40:47.800 --> 00:40:49.800
 I guess my opinion, sorry.

00:40:49.800 --> 00:40:54.800
 Again, I think it would have a different response with this council.

00:40:54.800 --> 00:40:56.800
 I think the number may still be a problem.

00:40:56.800 --> 00:41:00.800
 That's what I would like to see the proposal, not to look at that number.

00:41:00.800 --> 00:41:02.800
 Good point.

00:41:02.800 --> 00:41:03.800
 Okay.

00:41:03.800 --> 00:41:05.800
 That was supposed to be done.

00:41:05.800 --> 00:41:09.800
 Proposal 10 was to create specific sanctions for furloughed complaints.

00:41:09.800 --> 00:41:11.800
 What was your question, Scott?

00:41:11.800 --> 00:41:15.800
 Did you get a majority in the consensus?

00:41:15.800 --> 00:41:16.800
 Yes.

00:41:16.800 --> 00:41:18.800
 Okay.

00:41:18.800 --> 00:41:23.800
 I checked for head nods.

00:41:23.800 --> 00:41:25.800
 This is Proposal 10.

00:41:25.800 --> 00:41:28.800
 It was to have specific sanctions for furloughed complaints.

00:41:28.800 --> 00:41:35.800
 The concern appeared to be just having specific sanctions for furloughed complaints at all.

00:41:35.800 --> 00:41:36.800
 I'm sorry, say that again.

00:41:36.800 --> 00:41:39.800
 It seemed to be council's concern was just to have this at all,

00:41:39.800 --> 00:41:45.800
 because they didn't want to discourage people from --

00:41:45.800 --> 00:41:48.800
 they didn't want to, one, discourage people from submitting complaints,

00:41:48.800 --> 00:41:51.800
 and two, bar people from submitting complaints.

00:41:51.800 --> 00:41:59.800
 I pray you will speak.

00:41:59.800 --> 00:42:09.800
 What's your thinking on this?

00:42:09.800 --> 00:42:14.800
 I'm not ready to dismiss this, because this is something that we work really,

00:42:14.800 --> 00:42:20.800
 really hard on in terms of making sure that just from experience,

00:42:20.800 --> 00:42:27.800
 that the frustration of the board was there, that the complaints were made in a way,

00:42:27.800 --> 00:42:31.800
 and we had absolutely no teeth in our recommendations.

00:42:31.800 --> 00:42:38.800
 So I feel that this absolutely needs to be forwarded to council again.

00:42:38.800 --> 00:42:41.800
 Again, and I totally agree with what Andrea was saying,

00:42:41.800 --> 00:42:45.800
 I do think that if we would look at that burden of proof issue,

00:42:45.800 --> 00:42:48.800
 which I know we're going to discuss in another thing,

00:42:48.800 --> 00:42:52.800
 so I'll have some more comments for that, this would go away.

00:42:52.800 --> 00:42:54.800
 Yeah, I think you're right.

00:42:54.800 --> 00:43:01.800
 Would it be just kind of spitballing when we come back to the agenda organization,

00:43:01.800 --> 00:43:06.800
 burden of proof, and then we tack this on to that same discussion to look at again,

00:43:06.800 --> 00:43:11.800
 so we have an idea of what's going to happen when we look at this a second time?

00:43:11.800 --> 00:43:22.800
 I just like we've got bigger fires to think about.

00:43:22.800 --> 00:43:27.800
 Okay, and then the last one was to create the artificial cause process,

00:43:27.800 --> 00:43:33.800
 and this is very similar to the sanctions they didn't want to discourage.

00:43:33.800 --> 00:43:41.800
 They didn't want to create more of a process for people who submitted complaints in good faith

00:43:41.800 --> 00:43:46.800
 to be scared to submit.

00:43:46.800 --> 00:44:01.800
 I'll respond to after burden of proof discussion.

00:44:01.800 --> 00:44:02.800
 That was it, that was the end.

00:44:02.800 --> 00:44:10.800
 Okay, so we're going to move on to item B.

00:44:10.800 --> 00:44:17.800
 Item B, OU23-27, item D, receiver report, hold a discussion and give direction regarding a redesign

00:44:17.800 --> 00:44:22.800
 of the annual ethics ordinance training required by the city of Denton Code Ordinances,

00:44:22.800 --> 00:44:29.800
 article 11, section 2-276, try again.

00:44:29.800 --> 00:44:33.800
 So a quick background, the ethics ordinance requires me as a city auditor to approve a training program

00:44:33.800 --> 00:44:37.800
 that provides an introduction and overview of the expectations, mandates, and prohibitions

00:44:37.800 --> 00:44:44.800
 outlined in the ordinance based on anticipated changes from what council did give direction to go forward with.

00:44:44.800 --> 00:44:49.800
 I have been working to redesign the annual ethics training with the intention to create a presentation

00:44:49.800 --> 00:44:55.800
 that can be easily updated in the future, shorten the content so that can be presented in person regularly

00:44:55.800 --> 00:45:02.800
 to the city officials annually, and then also so that it can be posted,

00:45:02.800 --> 00:45:07.800
 like, re-record each slide individually so that it's also easy to update an online video.

00:45:07.800 --> 00:45:10.800
 So my hope is that this will ease the annual training process.

00:45:10.800 --> 00:45:16.800
 I included the draft training in your agenda information if you have any feedback or questions on it.

00:45:16.800 --> 00:45:21.800
 It doesn't necessarily need to be approved by all, but I was looking for a note that you had.

00:45:21.800 --> 00:45:25.800
 I know it was running short on time, so if you would like to provide any by email after this,

00:45:25.800 --> 00:45:32.800
 I would be happy to see it.

00:45:32.800 --> 00:45:33.800
 Ready, Chip?

00:45:33.800 --> 00:45:35.800
 Yes, Tom?

00:45:35.800 --> 00:45:40.800
 I always think it's important to start off with why this is important.

00:45:40.800 --> 00:45:52.800
 So if you could add at the beginning, why are ethics so important within the city?

00:45:52.800 --> 00:45:57.800
 Support citizen confidence in the city.

00:45:57.800 --> 00:46:06.800
 That's why we're doing this.

00:46:06.800 --> 00:46:12.800
 Well, it's back to Weichler and all his writings about the importance of ethics

00:46:12.800 --> 00:46:15.800
 and the difference between ethics and ordinances.

00:46:15.800 --> 00:46:20.800
 And this kind of gets back to where we're getting stuck in the mud on some of these things that we've had to pass on,

00:46:20.800 --> 00:46:27.800
 because we're trying to play to a city council's understanding of what ethics are and aren't,

00:46:27.800 --> 00:46:31.800
 and a lot of times they're not right trying to set dollar values and all this,

00:46:31.800 --> 00:46:35.800
 and so this is why we're getting stuck so often.

00:46:35.800 --> 00:46:44.800
 Ethics is not always about $600 or 5% because there are lots of ethics issues that come up in other cities

00:46:44.800 --> 00:46:49.800
 where there's nothing on paper, but it still goes to a hearing.

00:46:49.800 --> 00:47:00.800
 First of all, Madison, I know you put a bunch of time into this and I thank you for that,

00:47:00.800 --> 00:47:05.800
 because our code does not say what I think a lot of people believe it says,

00:47:05.800 --> 00:47:10.800
 so I like the shortened idea because it's terrible to read through that whole thing

00:47:10.800 --> 00:47:16.800
 and then miss things because you didn't know it didn't say that.

00:47:16.800 --> 00:47:24.800
 That said, when you really shorten it, it really does make our code look horrible.

00:47:24.800 --> 00:47:30.800
 And one of the things that I dislike the most is the aspirational section of our code,

00:47:30.800 --> 00:47:36.800
 because it is so subjective and it is so open to misinterpretation.

00:47:36.800 --> 00:47:41.800
 And in most cities the aspirational code is a bit more specific

00:47:41.800 --> 00:47:46.800
 and it says things like, "Thou shalt not slander thy neighbor."

00:47:46.800 --> 00:47:54.800
 And I know that's one of the points that Borquist makes in his biblical terms,

00:47:54.800 --> 00:47:59.800
 but in his training video that I guess we won't be watching anymore,

00:47:59.800 --> 00:48:05.800
 because the first time I read that I looked in the code, I'm like, it didn't say anything about slander.

00:48:05.800 --> 00:48:09.800
 The other part is those aspirational things are so vague

00:48:09.800 --> 00:48:16.800
 that I think they're going to be just like the crummy, crummy, crummy code we used to have about ten years ago

00:48:16.800 --> 00:48:23.800
 where it was so vague that one of the council members filed a complaint

00:48:23.800 --> 00:48:27.800
 against one of the women based on something she said on Facebook.

00:48:27.800 --> 00:48:35.800
 And of course there was nothing to it, but it was just sad.

00:48:35.800 --> 00:48:41.800
 So I like those aspirational things. I think I know what behaving professionally means,

00:48:41.800 --> 00:48:48.800
 but I'm not sure that Andrea has the same definition that I do.

00:48:48.800 --> 00:48:57.800
 So it's not very clear, and it's one of the other things about this code that just drives me up the wall,

00:48:57.800 --> 00:49:07.800
 because it's not clear, and if someone filed a complaint on that I think it would end up being what we would consider frivolous.

00:49:07.800 --> 00:49:11.800
 People get mad, especially in elections.

00:49:11.800 --> 00:49:13.800
 A complaint on?

00:49:13.800 --> 00:49:23.800
 Something in the aspirational part. Can you flip to the other part of that?

00:49:23.800 --> 00:49:28.800
 The little slide that you put together.

00:49:28.800 --> 00:49:36.800
 Again, I thought it was vague, but it just shows how narrow our code is.

00:49:36.800 --> 00:49:38.800
 Oh, you wanted this part.

00:49:38.800 --> 00:49:41.800
 Yes.

00:49:41.800 --> 00:49:50.800
 Conduct yourself in a way that fostered public trust, projecting personal and organizational integrity.

00:49:50.800 --> 00:49:55.800
 I mean, those are wonderful things.

00:49:55.800 --> 00:50:00.800
 Avoid behavior that calls your medicine to question.

00:50:00.800 --> 00:50:08.800
 There's nothing real clear and specific about that, and it could be the basis for an ethics complaint, but I think it would just be...

00:50:08.800 --> 00:50:12.800
 I believe that the code says that these cannot be the basis for an ethics complaint.

00:50:12.800 --> 00:50:21.800
 So, why are we highlighting that?

00:50:21.800 --> 00:50:27.800
 It's required for me to highlight that as part of your ordinance.

00:50:27.800 --> 00:50:33.800
 And it speaks to exactly why our ethics is important, right?

00:50:33.800 --> 00:50:41.800
 I mean, these ethical expectations and why are they important, I think they go hand in hand.

00:50:41.800 --> 00:50:45.800
 Adding, so why are these things important?

00:50:45.800 --> 00:50:50.800
 I mean, in a way, it seems redundant, and it seems like it should be common sense.

00:50:50.800 --> 00:50:52.800
 So, why are these are important?

00:50:52.800 --> 00:50:57.800
 But I do agree that it might be good to just highlight.

00:50:57.800 --> 00:51:04.800
 And if I may, I think if our goal is to go more towards addressing the gray, this is the gray, right?

00:51:04.800 --> 00:51:15.800
 I'm concerned that the kind of black and whiteness is starting to move into this, but this is, I think, the gray, the larger area we're looking for.

00:51:15.800 --> 00:51:30.800
 These can't be the basis for a complaint, but they should underpin your approach as a city official.

00:51:30.800 --> 00:51:38.800
 I love that bullseye example that I got at an ethics program I had to attend where, you know, when you're trying to be ethical,

00:51:38.800 --> 00:51:44.800
 you're trying to shoot the arrow at the bullseye, and sometimes you're going to shoot outside of it.

00:51:44.800 --> 00:51:50.800
 But if your motives are good and your intentions are not bad, then you're not going to get in trouble.

00:51:50.800 --> 00:51:56.800
 But if you always shoot your arrow outside of the target, you're going to get in trouble.

00:51:56.800 --> 00:52:07.800
 And so I think there's a, you know, kind of a sideways thing of you do that stuff all the time, and that's where the problems come in.

00:52:07.800 --> 00:52:14.800
 And that's gray. That's very gray.

00:52:14.800 --> 00:52:23.800
 Okay. Any other comments on this?

00:52:23.800 --> 00:52:33.800
 I think I like the new training, and I think it makes sense to do it the way you laid out so it's easy to update and change

00:52:33.800 --> 00:52:40.800
 and matches with the changes to the ordinance. So I like it.

00:52:40.800 --> 00:52:48.800
 I do like having presentations that will be up in everybody. Is that going to fall under you?

00:52:48.800 --> 00:52:54.800
 Yeah. Another thing under other duties.

00:52:54.800 --> 00:52:58.800
 Yeah, it's mostly this.

00:52:58.800 --> 00:53:08.800
 Yeah, my thought was that I would try to work with the boards if they, well, I would, I think with council,

00:53:08.800 --> 00:53:16.800
 my goal is to try to get in a meeting and do it so that they're all there, and it can occur annually after the elections in May.

00:53:16.800 --> 00:53:23.800
 And then with the boards, either have, this is all kind of a plan, they either have a one that like invite people to come

00:53:23.800 --> 00:53:30.800
 or try to work with some of the other boards to come be a part of their meeting as well. That's the idea.

00:53:30.800 --> 00:53:35.800
 Right. I was sensitive to your talking.

00:53:35.800 --> 00:53:38.800
 This is part of my other duties as assigned.

00:53:38.800 --> 00:53:47.800
 Okay. Are we ready to encourage you to move forward?

00:53:47.800 --> 00:53:52.800
 If you do have any other feedback that you would like, please just shoot me an email.

00:53:52.800 --> 00:53:58.800
 I saw, I see four heads nods over here with about Ronda and Tom. Are you okay with it?

00:53:58.800 --> 00:54:00.800
 Yeah, I'm like, no.

00:54:00.800 --> 00:54:03.800
 Let's go. Do it.

00:54:03.800 --> 00:54:06.800
 I think there's an agenda. This is a good idea to meet.

00:54:06.800 --> 00:54:13.800
 Okay. We'll move into item E, BOE 23-28.

00:54:13.800 --> 00:54:18.800
 Receive a report, hold a discussion, and take necessary action regarding the ethics complaint process.

00:54:18.800 --> 00:54:31.800
 Detailed in the code of ordinances, Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics, Section 2-281, Meetings, and Section 2-282, Disposition.

00:54:31.800 --> 00:54:34.800
 I think we have a comment.

00:54:34.800 --> 00:54:37.800
 Do we have a comment from Mr. Grintz?

00:54:37.800 --> 00:54:38.800
 Yes.

00:54:38.800 --> 00:54:43.800
 He will come up. We'll start your format for minutes.

00:54:43.800 --> 00:54:46.800
 First of all, quit jumping up and down over there in the corner.

00:54:46.800 --> 00:54:51.800
 Let me tell you all something. If conflicts of interest are some kind of a mystery to somebody in here,

00:54:51.800 --> 00:54:54.800
 you all should have had a definition in about five minutes.

00:54:54.800 --> 00:54:59.800
 Call the city attorney's office. They can't come down here and explain it to you in five minutes.

00:54:59.800 --> 00:55:02.800
 Then they need to hang up their license.

00:55:02.800 --> 00:55:07.800
 And there's definitions all over the law and all over business and all over the place,

00:55:07.800 --> 00:55:11.800
 including city councils and city government, as to what a conflict of interest is.

00:55:11.800 --> 00:55:19.800
 You're right. It's broadly graded. You cannot, shoot, $499 makes you ethical, but $500 doesn't?

00:55:19.800 --> 00:55:22.800
 $2,000 makes you ethical, but $5,000 doesn't?

00:55:22.800 --> 00:55:27.800
 No, no, no, no, no. Don't run off those and those rabbit trails. That's just ridiculous.

00:55:27.800 --> 00:55:32.800
 A conflict of interest is shown, has been defined forever. And I'll tell you one case.

00:55:32.800 --> 00:55:36.800
 Louis Pandyce went home and found out his wife.

00:55:36.800 --> 00:55:37.800
 I think you're on.

00:55:37.800 --> 00:55:40.800
 Am I on frame? Okay. Then I'll return.

00:55:40.800 --> 00:55:47.800
 But this is not a mystery. This should have been said in about ten minutes. Okay?

00:55:47.800 --> 00:55:51.800
 So what I wanted to speak to you about is the system that you're having here.

00:55:51.800 --> 00:55:56.800
 I looked at the ordinance, and the ordinance says that the complainant has the burden of proof of showing this.

00:55:56.800 --> 00:56:03.800
 This is completely foreign to Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence since like 1066 all the way up through the day,

00:56:03.800 --> 00:56:06.800
 including 200 years of American jurisprudence.

00:56:06.800 --> 00:56:10.800
 This is the analogy of someone gathering their house broken into, they call the police,

00:56:10.800 --> 00:56:14.800
 the policeman comes out and says, says, "Wow, somebody broke into your house."

00:56:14.800 --> 00:56:17.800
 She said, "Don't you want to take paper prints? What do you want?"

00:56:17.800 --> 00:56:19.800
 I don't know. I don't know.

00:56:19.800 --> 00:56:24.800
 Or the same person going up to the DA's office, and they say, "Hey, we caught the guy. We're going to trial.

00:56:24.800 --> 00:56:28.800
 But you've got to try the case." You know?

00:56:28.800 --> 00:56:33.800
 Now, wait a minute. This is completely inappropriate. Okay?

00:56:33.800 --> 00:56:35.800
 First of all, legally and otherwise.

00:56:35.800 --> 00:56:40.800
 A complainant should come in and make a complaint. It should be governed by probable cause.

00:56:40.800 --> 00:56:45.800
 That gives another term that is easily defined and everybody knows and understands.

00:56:45.800 --> 00:56:47.800
 Even the guy is over there. Okay?

00:56:47.800 --> 00:56:52.800
 So, probable cause. Once probable cause has been determined, and you can do it here if you want to,

00:56:52.800 --> 00:56:57.800
 once it has to be determined, an advocate should be appointed for the complaint.

00:56:57.800 --> 00:57:01.800
 You don't make them come up here and do all this.

00:57:01.800 --> 00:57:07.800
 And the advocate can be a city attorney. It could be this board.

00:57:07.800 --> 00:57:14.800
 It could be a retained counsel. It could be anyone who then also has subpoena power.

00:57:14.800 --> 00:57:19.800
 The way this is set up now, complainant comes in and says, "Well, I think this has to do with streets and roads."

00:57:19.800 --> 00:57:23.800
 Goes over to streets and roads and says, "I want to see all these projects."

00:57:23.800 --> 00:57:29.800
 No, I don't think so. What do they do? Nothing. They can't do anything.

00:57:29.800 --> 00:57:32.800
 This is a recipe to make sure nothing ever gets passed.

00:57:32.800 --> 00:57:37.800
 I know some people are under pressures in here to make sure that this ethics code never goes anywhere

00:57:37.800 --> 00:57:41.800
 and never does anything. But I can tell you this right now.

00:57:41.800 --> 00:57:46.800
 First of all, Austin and Fullworth don't use this.

00:57:46.800 --> 00:57:50.800
 The complainant is requested to testify and shall be dismissed.

00:57:50.800 --> 00:57:56.800
 No, but they have an advocate and they have someone that's brought before the committee to help them.

00:57:56.800 --> 00:58:00.800
 You can't expect somebody to come in here, file a complaint, and then sit there and say,

00:58:00.800 --> 00:58:05.800
 "Well, I understand everything about city government, so I know exactly what department to go to."

00:58:05.800 --> 00:58:08.800
 No. You cannot expect them to do that.

00:58:08.800 --> 00:58:13.800
 So, it needs to be done. You need to do a standard with an advocate of some kind.

00:58:13.800 --> 00:58:17.800
 I don't care how that's done. Well, I do care how it's done.

00:58:17.800 --> 00:58:20.800
 But it's not that difficult. They should have subpoena power.

00:58:20.800 --> 00:58:23.800
 The determination should be by probable cause.

00:58:23.800 --> 00:58:27.800
 And the standard should be, once it comes back after a hearing,

00:58:27.800 --> 00:58:31.800
 whether it be by this board, whether it be by appointed other people.

00:58:31.800 --> 00:58:34.800
 That's another thing that needs to be, should be discussed.

00:58:34.800 --> 00:58:38.800
 The determination should be by, I would suggest, by a preponderance of evidence.

00:58:38.800 --> 00:58:42.800
 Now, some people don't like those standards. Some people think they should be more strict.

00:58:42.800 --> 00:58:44.800
 Some people should use leg strength.

00:58:44.800 --> 00:58:49.800
 But this right here ensures that no one ever, ever gets a complaint filed.

00:58:49.800 --> 00:58:51.800
 Is that my time? I'm excited?

00:58:51.800 --> 00:58:52.800
 Thank you, Mr. Grant.

00:58:52.800 --> 00:58:53.800
 Okay.

00:58:53.800 --> 00:58:58.800
 I have a couple other things I want to say that I'll withdraw at this point.

00:58:58.800 --> 00:58:59.800
 If we have questions.

00:58:59.800 --> 00:59:00.800
 Okay.

00:59:00.800 --> 00:59:03.800
 Don't make it so hard.

00:59:03.800 --> 00:59:07.800
 Okay.

00:59:07.800 --> 00:59:10.800
 Do you want to do a presentation?

00:59:10.800 --> 00:59:11.800
 Sure.

00:59:11.800 --> 00:59:17.800
 Based on our discussion last month, I conducted additional research on Austin and Fort Worth's ethics complaint processes,

00:59:17.800 --> 00:59:22.800
 specifically regarding requirements, requirements for their complainants based on their codes.

00:59:22.800 --> 00:59:25.800
 I tried to outline these on the slide.

00:59:25.800 --> 00:59:33.800
 It should be noted that neither Austin nor Fort Worth have a section in the ordinance that specifically calls out whom the burden of proof rests on,

00:59:33.800 --> 00:59:37.800
 as Dentons does in section 2-281(c)(4).

00:59:37.800 --> 00:59:42.800
 In addition, "testify" for Austin and Fort Worth specifically means that the complainant must appear to, quote,

00:59:42.800 --> 00:59:51.800
 "state the alleged violation and describe in narrative form any testimony or evidence that would be presented to prove the alleged violation in the complaint."

00:59:51.800 --> 00:59:54.800
 They can have legal representation to do that for them.

00:59:54.800 --> 00:59:57.800
 And then lastly, it should be noted that in Austin's ordinance,

00:59:57.800 --> 01:00:01.800
 if there's not a clear requirement for the ethics complaint to be dismissed,

01:00:01.800 --> 01:00:03.800
 if the complainant does not appear to testify,

01:00:03.800 --> 01:00:13.800
 that might be due to Austin's Ethics Commission being able to initiate an ethics complaint process on its own volition instead of as an individual.

01:00:13.800 --> 01:00:15.800
 We all will discuss.

01:00:15.800 --> 01:00:19.800
 Discussion.

01:00:19.800 --> 01:00:20.800
 Madam Chair.

01:00:20.800 --> 01:00:22.800
 Ron.

01:00:22.800 --> 01:00:29.800
 Has the Denton complaint requirement been vetted by our legal department?

01:00:29.800 --> 01:00:35.800
 No, it was used outside counsel to draft the ethics ordinance.

01:00:35.800 --> 01:00:40.800
 Then would it be fair to ask to be vetted by that outside counsel?

01:00:40.800 --> 01:00:41.800
 They wrote it.

01:00:41.800 --> 01:00:42.800
 Yes, they wrote it.

01:00:42.800 --> 01:00:44.800
 Yeah, well, with help.

01:00:44.800 --> 01:00:48.800
 Well, and while I bring that up,

01:00:48.800 --> 01:01:03.800
 I would think it would be an understood, underlining situation that complainant, respondent, any of them could have legal counsel at any of the meetings that they're going to be presented to.

01:01:03.800 --> 01:01:06.800
 Or am I wrong?

01:01:06.800 --> 01:01:13.800
 Yes, that's true in all of these cases that the complainant or respondent may have to be represented by legal counsel.

01:01:13.800 --> 01:01:19.800
 So the complainant would need to hire an attorney in order to file a complaint, which would be prohibited.

01:01:19.800 --> 01:01:21.800
 Well, given that they have the opportunity.

01:01:21.800 --> 01:01:24.800
 Thank you.

01:01:24.800 --> 01:01:33.800
 I just want to make a comment that I went home after our last meeting and I was in a frenzy, an ethical frenzy.

01:01:33.800 --> 01:01:41.800
 And so I pulled up a bunch of ethical codes because I'm weird and I do that kind of thing.

01:01:41.800 --> 01:01:46.800
 And I did word searches on each one of them about burden of proof.

01:01:46.800 --> 01:01:56.800
 And that term does not come up in Austin or Fort Worth or San Marcos or San Antonio, which has some of these strictest codes.

01:01:56.800 --> 01:02:04.800
 In fact, they have a whole office that because there's been a lot of long doing in San Antonio.

01:02:04.800 --> 01:02:13.800
 So burden of proof, I don't care if people are complaining, if they testify or not, or if they have to be there or not.

01:02:13.800 --> 01:02:23.800
 It wasn't until Scott read in the last meeting that the burden of proof rests basically squarely on the shoulders of the complainant.

01:02:23.800 --> 01:02:30.800
 And I know I've read that a bunch, but that hit me like a ton of bricks.

01:02:30.800 --> 01:02:41.800
 And I will say this history has, this city has a history of treating citizens, residents, pretty badly.

01:02:41.800 --> 01:02:50.800
 You know, it's embarrassing and it's a longstanding, it's not a recent pattern, it's something that goes back a long way.

01:02:50.800 --> 01:03:02.800
 According to Wedgler, the complaint should be the city versus the person accused. And the complainant is there to say this is where I think it's a problem.

01:03:02.800 --> 01:03:13.800
 I don't care whether they're compelled to testify or not, but it puts a target on the back of anyone who wants to complain and has a chilling effect.

01:03:13.800 --> 01:03:20.800
 And I can tell you retaliation has happened. I personally am aware of a case.

01:03:20.800 --> 01:03:29.800
 So, that's my comments. So I want to hear from you. Andrea, first of all.

01:03:29.800 --> 01:03:41.800
 I was, I was actually, I like, maybe because of the business that I'm in, but I would like to explore the advocacy requirement when it comes to a complainant.

01:03:41.800 --> 01:03:52.800
 Because that would, it would also be, so if somebody makes a complaint and then an advocate is assigned, then I think it also becomes a whole lot less personal.

01:03:52.800 --> 01:03:57.800
 Because the person that is actually making the complaint is kind of like taken out of the process.

01:03:57.800 --> 01:04:13.800
 To a certain extent, it becomes a lot more about the facts that are brought in front of the court rather than who is this person and what are, what are they, what's, what are they, what is there to be, what, yeah, yeah.

01:04:13.800 --> 01:04:35.800
 Yeah, I very much agree with what Dennis is saying and trying to suggest. The first time I saw this, it kind of struck me that any attempt to equate Denton with what goes on in Fort Worth or Austin is maybe just a little bit of an apples and oranges.

01:04:35.800 --> 01:04:48.800
 Because in these other two cities, the complainant either must or shall or may or may not testify. But in Denton, our code is written to actually weaponize this thing against.

01:04:48.800 --> 01:04:50.800
 Against the complainant.

01:04:50.800 --> 01:05:03.800
 Yeah. In other words, not only, not only must they testify, they must gather the evidence, question witnesses, conduct the hearing, subpoena witnesses, and if they don't have subpoena power, they're off just.

01:05:03.800 --> 01:05:11.800
 So, this burden of proof five years ago when this ordinance passed has been my number one target.

01:05:11.800 --> 01:05:26.800
 Because it is the most unethical, unproductive, I just had a real, real problem with doing this to people who would otherwise make a valid complaint against an official in this city.

01:05:26.800 --> 01:05:39.800
 This is, this is an evil proposition for what it does to citizens who might otherwise want to support this code, but oh no, no, I'm not going to get involved. I'm not making that complaint.

01:05:39.800 --> 01:05:51.800
 In other cities, Austin, Fort Worth, and everywhere else in Texas, the Board of Ethics, after they go through their preliminary process, then it goes to a hearing and the Board of Ethics oversees this hearing.

01:05:51.800 --> 01:06:03.800
 And like it says here, in other cities, a complainant may or may not testify. They're required to be there, and I don't understand, you know, I don't have a problem requiring the complainant to be there.

01:06:03.800 --> 01:06:12.800
 But, you know, even requiring a statement is optional in other cities, but it stops right there. They do not become the chief prosecutor of an ethics complaint.

01:06:12.800 --> 01:06:23.800
 This is wrong, and this needs to go in one form or another.

01:06:23.800 --> 01:06:52.800
 I don't know, there's a lot in the current process about frivolous complaints, and that's what's kind of confused me for the few months I've been on this board, is that if there's concern, and obviously there is from David and others, that we're putting too much of a burden on the citizens to come forward and make their case,

01:06:52.800 --> 01:07:10.800
 then why is there a need for a frivolous process, which, well, what that signals to me is that there are a lot of frivolous, and we're not the only city that has that process.

01:07:10.800 --> 01:07:22.800
 So, I'm just confused as to, we're concerned about a lot of frivolous complaints, but then we're concerned that they're not complaining enough, so it's like...

01:07:22.800 --> 01:07:27.800
 They are absolutely the only city that puts it right on the shoulders of...

01:07:27.800 --> 01:07:32.800
 There's only one other city that's in our benchmark set that has a frivolous complaint process.

01:07:32.800 --> 01:07:34.800
 Oh, okay, I'm talking about...

01:07:34.800 --> 01:07:35.800
 I believe it's Dallas.

01:07:35.800 --> 01:07:37.800
 Dallas.

01:07:37.800 --> 01:07:45.800
 Actually, Dallas is revising their ethical code right now, because I tried to find it, and it said that it was under review.

01:07:45.800 --> 01:07:50.800
 It was in their last one. I don't know.

01:07:50.800 --> 01:08:12.800
 I do think, though, that the burden of proof and the person that's making the complaint, having that burden of proof is very different from...that's a process kind of issue, whereas the frivolousness, I think, that is just a separate thing.

01:08:12.800 --> 01:08:13.800
 That's a separate thing.

01:08:13.800 --> 01:08:18.800
 I don't think it would be such a big deal if we tended to them.

01:08:18.800 --> 01:08:34.800
 I will also say that if a citizen is bringing up something that is really bad, they could be putting them...that citizen could be in harm's way if their identity is revealed.

01:08:34.800 --> 01:08:38.800
 That's why I whistleblower acts.

01:08:38.800 --> 01:09:02.800
 So I can just...the city needs to...I see this in other...the Historic Landmark Commission puts it on neighbors and members of the commission to kind of do the dirty work that they've got to do.

01:09:02.800 --> 01:09:18.800
 I know, because I'm a historic house woman. So it's just a kind of a leaning and a pattern where nobody at the city takes responsibility, and it's up to the citizen.

01:09:18.800 --> 01:09:41.800
 And I've heard council members call residents "village idiots." I've heard them say some really awful stuff. It is truly embarrassing the way some of our city officials view the residents who elected them, or are their constituents, whether they voted for them or not.

01:09:41.800 --> 01:09:57.800
 So I just...no other city puts this burden squarely on the shoulders of citizens, and it shouldn't even be like that.

01:09:57.800 --> 01:10:00.800
 It kills me.

01:10:00.800 --> 01:10:05.800
 Any other comments? I know they do pretty strong with someone barking.

01:10:05.800 --> 01:10:17.800
 Well, I mean, if someone yells fire, then they have the responsibility. Where is it? What did it really take place?

01:10:17.800 --> 01:10:23.800
 A complaint against a city employee or elected official, that's fire.

01:10:23.800 --> 01:10:34.800
 City employees have their own code of ethics, and it's actually good. I would take that for city officials in a heartbeat. It's how good that one is.

01:10:34.800 --> 01:10:40.800
 This one is just so narrow.

01:10:40.800 --> 01:10:51.800
 I put myself in the position of being, let's say, a citizen, and I know that council member B did something wrong.

01:10:51.800 --> 01:11:01.800
 It's my responsibility to subpoena witnesses, and it's totally my responsibility to present this to an ethics board.

01:11:01.800 --> 01:11:12.800
 Now, I don't have subpoena power, and I'm walking in the city hall talking to staff members about a city council member that they all may love, and I'm trying to gather information.

01:11:12.800 --> 01:11:18.800
 That's insanity. That is insanity, and it's been in this code for five years since it passed.

01:11:18.800 --> 01:11:36.800
 Now, I don't know what our process here is to actually write a replacement, or actually it's fairly simple to delete that section and just reword it, where the Board of Ethics, I had a draft proposed repeal and replace protocol.

01:11:36.800 --> 01:11:47.800
 The Board of Ethics shall order, preside over, and conduct all evidence or hearings. Complaints and respondents are free to attend, and may be called upon to testify, as it may please the Board.

01:11:47.800 --> 01:11:58.800
 Witnesses may also be subpoenaed by the Board to testify as necessary. Final determinations by the Board may be discussed in closed session, and will be discussed publicly in open session.

01:11:58.800 --> 01:12:02.800
 It's the Board's responsibility to do this, not to complain.

01:12:02.800 --> 01:12:04.800
 And what sort of sets that up very well, really?

01:12:04.800 --> 01:12:17.800
 Yeah, basically the same thing, and like Annette says, you can't find anything similar to this burden of proof section anywhere in the state of Texas, and I started to go beyond and I still couldn't find one anywhere else.

01:12:17.800 --> 01:12:23.800
 So this was written solely to weaponize this code by the city council in 2018.

01:12:23.800 --> 01:12:50.800
 Actually that speaks directly to when we have the ethics complaint, that was my biggest frustration being on this Board, is to not, I had to rely on the evidence that was brought by the complainant, rather than us being able to "investigate" the complaint, the basis of the complaint that was made, and ask the questions that need to be asked to gather the facts.

01:12:50.800 --> 01:12:54.800
 Spot on, spot on.

01:12:54.800 --> 01:13:03.800
 So, I want to hear from Tom and Rob on this.

01:13:03.800 --> 01:13:07.800
 Well, I don't know what the question is. I mean, this is going back five years and saying we're going-

01:13:07.800 --> 01:13:12.800
 Should the burden of proof be on the, on the citizen, or should it be on the city?

01:13:12.800 --> 01:13:14.800
 I think it should be the citizen.

01:13:14.800 --> 01:13:22.800
 On the citizen, okay.

01:13:22.800 --> 01:13:31.800
 This procedure of a dent is used in other organizations that I remember, and it is on the complainant.

01:13:31.800 --> 01:13:41.800
 They present the information, we almost look at it like some of these others that I have are looking at, the preliminary assessment almost be like a grand jury, and then the hearing is the jury itself.

01:13:41.800 --> 01:13:48.800
 And so the complainant presents, has this document presented. We've had it here before.

01:13:48.800 --> 01:13:57.800
 Even before all this, I remember where we did get together, we had, there were three members of the ethics that got together on the preliminary assessment with the complainant.

01:13:57.800 --> 01:14:02.800
 And talked to them, and then decided to go to a hearing, and we had five people.

01:14:02.800 --> 01:14:04.800
 That was our very first one, we ever did.

01:14:04.800 --> 01:14:09.800
 And I thought that worked out very well. I don't know what happened, that it changed.

01:14:09.800 --> 01:14:20.800
 But this, I think the complainant, we don't want to have, the complaints we hope will be kept to a minimum, because it takes a lot of time.

01:14:20.800 --> 01:14:25.800
 Irregardless, it's important to the person making the complaint, so let's go forward with it.

01:14:25.800 --> 01:14:37.800
 But I think the idea of the ethics is to have these outlines so that we can minimize all of this to, to cover important issues.

01:14:37.800 --> 01:14:41.800
 A complainant's going to have a head of steam because they're upset.

01:14:41.800 --> 01:14:46.800
 So they're going to get their evidence, they're going to get whatever they need because they've got the steam power to go to it.

01:14:46.800 --> 01:14:51.800
 Where the respondent may not have very much backup at all.

01:14:51.800 --> 01:14:56.800
 I think it should be the complainant, I think it should be the individual that pushes this.

01:14:56.800 --> 01:15:03.800
 And I see here the complainant's required to testify. Austin, they must attend. Fort Worth, they're required to testify.

01:15:03.800 --> 01:15:07.800
 So they're all showing up at the hearing anyway. Is that right, David?

01:15:07.800 --> 01:15:09.800
 Yes, and again, I don't have a problem with that at all.

01:15:09.800 --> 01:15:11.800
 Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you did. I apologize.

01:15:11.800 --> 01:15:15.800
 No, no, no, no. I'm saying the complainant should be part of the hearing.

01:15:15.800 --> 01:15:17.800
 Oh, without a doubt.

01:15:17.800 --> 01:15:27.800
 But to be responsible, to present everything, again, like I say, when you don't even have subpoena power, how in the world can you be expected to be on a level playing field?

01:15:27.800 --> 01:15:31.800
 They have to be the prosecutor, and I don't have a problem with that.

01:15:31.800 --> 01:15:40.800
 Well, that comes before us. I think the subpoena power is a little bit over what we would be looking at.

01:15:40.800 --> 01:15:48.800
 Because they're going to have evidence, they're going to have that, and so I think the subpoena is a little bit strong for what you're asking.

01:15:48.800 --> 01:15:52.800
 Well, not really, because there may be other evidence that they're not able to assemble.

01:15:52.800 --> 01:15:53.800
 The complainant.

01:15:53.800 --> 01:16:02.800
 Right, the complainant prior to a hearing. So they're just kind of out there in a row, in a light boat all by themselves, trying to put this together.

01:16:02.800 --> 01:16:04.800
 With their attorney, hopefully.

01:16:04.800 --> 01:16:05.800
 Well.

01:16:05.800 --> 01:16:07.800
 I mean, if I'm going to be a complainant, I'm going to have an attorney with me.

01:16:07.800 --> 01:16:10.800
 And you have a right to have an attorney.

01:16:10.800 --> 01:16:24.800
 And I'll let him address, or her, address whatever other documents that I want. But if I may, and someone said advocacy, and I thought that was very interesting, I'd like to see us maybe use an ombudsman at the very beginning.

01:16:24.800 --> 01:16:32.800
 Because that might be able to diffuse or rectify either misunderstandings or show that it really does need to go forward.

01:16:32.800 --> 01:16:40.800
 And it's been very successful in other organizations I've been in with the ombudsman, because they make that phone call with the complaint and they try to find out what is going on.

01:16:40.800 --> 01:16:46.800
 And is it really something that has the merit or the esteem to go forward or not?

01:16:46.800 --> 01:16:48.800
 No? What?

01:16:48.800 --> 01:16:50.800
 Well, you can keep your entire record.

01:16:50.800 --> 01:16:52.800
 Oh, you're talking about my record.

01:16:52.800 --> 01:16:59.800
 I'm not supposed to be recognizing, but I want to speak to everyone of you after the meeting for about three hours.

01:16:59.800 --> 01:17:09.800
 I still think the issue is things being laid so heavily on a complainant who may be angry, of course.

01:17:09.800 --> 01:17:12.800
 I think that's why they're doing it.

01:17:12.800 --> 01:17:20.800
 Why don't they see something really wrong? And it's really wrong.

01:17:20.800 --> 01:17:35.800
 I mean, we've already talked about how this code is weaker than state law.

01:17:35.800 --> 01:17:43.800
 So you could break state law and still not be in violation of our ethical code.

01:17:43.800 --> 01:17:46.800
 And that's just not okay.

01:17:46.800 --> 01:18:05.800
 I think for the sake of whoever's getting, whoever the respondent is, I would like our code to be stronger so that you get in trouble for breaking ethics before you break the law.

01:18:05.800 --> 01:18:09.800
 Well, let's see where everybody sits.

01:18:09.800 --> 01:18:21.800
 What we're going to do here is give direction to Madison so she can draft language.

01:18:21.800 --> 01:18:27.800
 I can come back and then y'all can, unless y'all have language already drafted that y'all are going to make a motion on.

01:18:27.800 --> 01:18:37.800
 But it's not going to make much sense for y'all to sort of vaguely say what you want unless we need to bring language back to y'all so y'all can read it,

01:18:37.800 --> 01:18:40.800
 make amendments to it if you want to and then approve it.

01:18:40.800 --> 01:18:49.800
 Madam Chair, would it be appropriate for us to send emails to Madison as to what our views are and then she can more or less categorize it and then present it to us?

01:18:49.800 --> 01:18:50.800
 No? Yes?

01:18:50.800 --> 01:18:54.800
 No, because it's kind of like a walking quorum.

01:18:54.800 --> 01:18:59.800
 We need to give your direction in this meeting and it needs to be the direction of the board.

01:18:59.800 --> 01:19:01.800
 So you want authority to make the direction.

01:19:01.800 --> 01:19:12.800
 Can I entertain an emotion and then she'll bring it back and we can decide for or against it.

01:19:12.800 --> 01:19:15.800
 Can I make a comment?

01:19:15.800 --> 01:19:16.800
 Yeah.

01:19:16.800 --> 01:19:25.800
 So this gets a little bit confusing when we first start talking about it because when we talk about the burden of proof in the hearing,

01:19:25.800 --> 01:19:31.800
 we're talking about a complaint that has already been reviewed by the preliminary panel of this board,

01:19:31.800 --> 01:19:38.800
 found to be actionable, I think is the right word, and not frivolous, right?

01:19:38.800 --> 01:19:39.800
 So this is a complaint.

01:19:39.800 --> 01:19:41.800
 Frivolous doesn't come in until I return.

01:19:41.800 --> 01:19:44.800
 Right. So I just want to make sure that everyone's clear.

01:19:44.800 --> 01:19:47.800
 We're not talking about a frivolous complaint here.

01:19:47.800 --> 01:19:50.800
 We're talking a complaint that is complete.

01:19:50.800 --> 01:19:54.800
 There is some evidence provided in the actual complaint documents.

01:19:54.800 --> 01:20:01.800
 All the forms are filled out, all the paperwork is done correctly, submitted to the preliminary hearing panel.

01:20:01.800 --> 01:20:04.800
 They find it to be actionable.

01:20:04.800 --> 01:20:08.800
 And then it goes before the board, the full board for a hearing.

01:20:08.800 --> 01:20:21.800
 And then the question I think is at that hearing, is it only the responsibility and only allowable for the complainant to present evidence and testimony?

01:20:21.800 --> 01:20:28.800
 And not only that, are they required to present evidence and act as a prosecutor in that?

01:20:28.800 --> 01:20:31.800
 To me, that sounds like the biggest part of the concern.

01:20:31.800 --> 01:20:37.800
 And we're totally separate from the frivolous complaint process.

01:20:37.800 --> 01:21:00.800
 And it almost sounds like the two groups of concerns are, are we putting undue barriers on citizens to submit a complaint for fear of having to stand in front of this board or retribution from a council member or whatever else.

01:21:00.800 --> 01:21:03.800
 Like that is totally valid to me.

01:21:03.800 --> 01:21:18.800
 I think that me, before being a member of this board, there is no way I would want to submit a complaint if I read this and said, well now I have to go and stand in front of all these people that I don't know and I see their names in the papers.

01:21:18.800 --> 01:21:19.800
 Then it's you against them.

01:21:19.800 --> 01:21:20.800
 Yeah, I don't want to do that.

01:21:20.800 --> 01:21:29.800
 So what I think would make sense is that if we have gotten to the point where we have a valid complaint.

01:21:29.800 --> 01:21:34.800
 And when I say valid, I mean it's been reviewed by Madison and it's complete.

01:21:34.800 --> 01:21:39.800
 It's been reviewed by the preliminary panel and it gets to a hearing process.

01:21:39.800 --> 01:21:57.800
 To me, that is the citizen who submitted that complaint has done their part and they have at that point have not submitted a frivolous complaint and they've submitted enough information for the preliminary panel to make an assessment that there should be a hearing.

01:21:57.800 --> 01:22:03.800
 They should not be required to continue to be the sole person responsible for everything.

01:22:03.800 --> 01:22:16.800
 If we take that requirement away by saying they don't have to do anything, I think we're missing out on something by not being able to ask them questions in the hearing.

01:22:16.800 --> 01:22:25.800
 I think it would be solved by just taking that section out that says the sole responsibility rests on the citizen.

01:22:25.800 --> 01:22:33.800
 That seems like the biggest concern from members of the group that are the most vocal in this and I totally understand that.

01:22:33.800 --> 01:22:35.800
 That doesn't feel right to me.

01:22:35.800 --> 01:22:45.800
 I don't want to have to hire an attorney to represent me when I feel like I did nothing wrong except for say someone violated an ethics complaint.

01:22:45.800 --> 01:22:48.800
 I shouldn't have to do that as a citizen.

01:22:48.800 --> 01:22:50.800
 And it also assumes you speak English.

01:22:50.800 --> 01:22:52.800
 Right.

01:22:52.800 --> 01:23:15.800
 If I could finish the last part, I think what we're trying to do today is we're trying to correct this burden-approved paragraph by either changing that completely, striking it, giving that responsibility to the board, an advocate, a city attorney, however we want to do that.

01:23:15.800 --> 01:23:22.800
 But I think we're, in some of this discussion we're getting the frivolous complaint and the burden-approved stuff.

01:23:22.800 --> 01:23:24.800
 Those are two separate things.

01:23:24.800 --> 01:23:26.800
 Thank you.

01:23:26.800 --> 01:23:31.800
 If I may make a comment.

01:23:31.800 --> 01:23:34.800
 I think I'm on board with everything Dustin just said.

01:23:34.800 --> 01:23:38.800
 What I want to understand better is I like the word advocate.

01:23:38.800 --> 01:23:40.800
 It doesn't mean anything to me right now.

01:23:40.800 --> 01:23:43.800
 So what does that mean?

01:23:43.800 --> 01:23:56.800
 If we can maybe get some understanding or consensus about what that means, I might be able to move forward with that not being solely on them if I know who's helping them if it's not an attorney.

01:23:56.800 --> 01:23:58.800
 Does that make sense?

01:23:58.800 --> 01:24:08.800
 My understanding of an advocate is it could be anybody that has knowledge of the matter and that has an ability to, you know.

01:24:08.800 --> 01:24:13.800
 Because this is an ethical process and not a legal process, that's kind of a parallel.

01:24:13.800 --> 01:24:19.800
 Like saying your attorney can be present or your advocate can speak for you.

01:24:19.800 --> 01:24:21.800
 That wouldn't rule out an attorney.

01:24:21.800 --> 01:24:26.800
 That would also say that an advocate may or may not have to have a legal right.

01:24:26.800 --> 01:24:41.800
 So I'm kind of like, I really like what Dustin said, I think what we need to focus on is what does the hearing process look like and what kind of evidence is brought to that hearing.

01:24:41.800 --> 01:24:44.800
 And where's that evidence coming from?

01:24:44.800 --> 01:24:57.800
 If the evidence for the complaint is not coming from the complainant, then the board still needs to present it with additional information and facts about the complaint.

01:24:57.800 --> 01:25:16.800
 In my opinion, a complainant, a citizen complaint is all to say, hey guys, it looks like there's a problem here and although I kind of hate the fact that the city is kind of like investigating itself in a way,

01:25:16.800 --> 01:25:28.800
 but I think it is on the, like if a citizen is making a complaint about that there's a potential violation, maybe the burden of proof should be on the city to say, well this person actually is not.

01:25:28.800 --> 01:25:37.800
 As a representative, this person is not, you know, having an ethics violation.

01:25:37.800 --> 01:25:53.800
 I think that's reasonable and fair. But again, I just, I must remind everyone one more time, nowhere else in the state of Texas is a complainant required to do what we're asking them to do here and yet it is wrong.

01:25:53.800 --> 01:26:14.800
 So could I, could we make a motion and, or make some wording for a motion? Because I would suggest maybe striking that section that says the burden of proof rests on the citizen, and maybe making some other changes in the document to make it so that it's clear that it's really between the city.

01:26:14.800 --> 01:26:18.800
 Make it a future agenda.

01:26:18.800 --> 01:26:25.800
 And of course, you can vote against that.

01:26:25.800 --> 01:26:34.800
 I think, I know it's difficult for me, possibly for everyone else, we're discussing a flow chart, as opposed to, but we're talking in words.

01:26:34.800 --> 01:26:59.800
 I think we need some words, which we very likely would improve. But that should be the, I believe the action is, let's ask Madison to bring forward a, you know, here's the words that describe the process, then we can strike and add to that, as opposed to, here's the football play.

01:26:59.800 --> 01:27:21.800
 I would suggest amending that section that says that the burden of proof rests on the citizen, on the complainant, and maybe either striking it completely or just saying that it really rests with the Board of Ethics.

01:27:21.800 --> 01:27:40.800
 It's between the Board of Ethics and the complainant, and I really don't care what we ask of the complainant, but I think right now we're just asking too much.

01:27:40.800 --> 01:27:55.800
 I don't care. I think without the complainant, you don't have any direction.

01:27:55.800 --> 01:28:17.800
 Madison needs guidance on, should the complainant bear the burden of proof? That's issue one, let's get some guidance on that. And then who, if not, who does? Let's get some guidance on that. And so we kind of break it up into pieces so we can get a majority on each of those issues.

01:28:17.800 --> 01:28:36.800
 Is that? Yeah, that would be, thank you. Yeah, that's good. Does that give you a starting point? A lot of saying. So it seems like there's direction that it should not, there's general consensus that burden of proof should not be on any point.

01:28:36.800 --> 01:29:00.800
 I'm not sure that's complete, no. There's a majority. There's a majority. And then if not, the complainant, who? Who provides the evidence? Right, I think that's a question for you.

01:29:00.800 --> 01:29:25.800
 Because I would not be comfortable as the ethics board, if we get to the hearing stage, for me not to get any additional information about this complaint. That is outside of what the complainant provided, right? I mean, obviously when they're making a complaint for a preliminary assessment, there's going to be some stuff that they're going to.

01:29:25.800 --> 01:29:43.800
 Someone else needs to take the ball and run with it. Personally, I think it would be great if the complainant could meet with someone from the city attorney staff and hopefully that attorney would do what an attorney would do and advise and say, I don't think you have a case here.

01:29:43.800 --> 01:30:02.800
 Or are you, I think you do, but here are some things that are missing. And that is the role of that advocate, right? That advocate can come from within the city personnel, right? There can be somebody that is familiar with the ethics code.

01:30:02.800 --> 01:30:23.800
 But I think a good attorney or advocate is going to say, I know you're upset about this, but I don't think it passes. So I think that would be another way to avoid it ever going to further this, because hopefully the complainant would be talking off the ledge.

01:30:23.800 --> 01:30:40.800
 Or would be strengthened. Does that require adding a step to the current process? Are you adding that in between the submission of the complaint, talk to an advocate, and then it goes to the ethics board?

01:30:40.800 --> 01:30:55.800
 I would be concerned about me or the city attorney as council appointees. I think it would be against the code of ordinance, the ethics ordinance for us to advise somebody whether or not to submit an ethics complaint against our bosses.

01:30:55.800 --> 01:31:13.800
 Could someone on the board be assigned to that case? And of course they wouldn't be in the hearing. They might sit with a person during the hearing. Potentially. I don't know that anybody else does that, but I think that's an option.

01:31:13.800 --> 01:31:34.800
 This seems like a good one to me, in my opinion. I feel we need to explore this more. We definitely need to discuss this more. It's a deep topic, obviously.

01:31:34.800 --> 01:31:45.800
 So can you bring some wording back like that to give us a starting point for our argument?

01:31:45.800 --> 01:32:14.800
 Sorry Madison. I'll do something. Okay. So we're moving on to item F. Future Meaning Topics. DOE 23-029, item F. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding future meaning topics.

01:32:14.800 --> 01:32:40.800
 So this was what we had originally planned. I believe you would like direction, or you would like Bernda Krupp to come back next meeting. Yes, please. So how would you like to fit that in?

01:32:40.800 --> 01:32:55.800
 Where do all the things that we postpone go? Yeah, those would go on this list. Okay.

01:32:55.800 --> 01:33:10.800
 I just see this as a very big issue that needs timely discussion. I would say top of the August agenda.

01:33:10.800 --> 01:33:28.800
 Followed by a definition of pending matter, and then alternates in that order. So we're already at one hour. If I can, I think pending matter and Bernda Krupp do not need to be in the same meeting.

01:33:28.800 --> 01:33:42.800
 Good. I'd vote pending matter to September. You're right.

01:33:42.800 --> 01:33:50.800
 Do you want to keep the definition of alternates? Or do you want to just have it be Bernda Krupp?

01:33:50.800 --> 01:34:10.800
 I'd like to keep it, but what do you guys think? Keep it.

01:34:10.800 --> 01:34:35.800
 Is there anything else? I think we've got direction for the next meeting. It is now 7.05, and I call this meeting adjourned. Thank you for your time, guys.