1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:12,320 Alright. Okay, ready? It is 5 30 p.m. and on Thursday July 27, 2023 and this is a special call 2 00:00:12,320 --> 00:00:18,320 meeting of the Board of Ethics for the City of Denton, Texas. We have one item for consideration 3 00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:29,280 tonight and that is item BOE 23-031. I request for an advisory opinion for 23-003 4 00:00:30,560 --> 00:00:35,440 from Councilmember Meltzer concerning potential pending matters, conflict of interests, 5 00:00:35,440 --> 00:00:45,680 or improper use of influence, applicability, and refusal recommendation. So we have a couple 6 00:00:45,680 --> 00:00:54,160 of questions that I think will help us determine the decision. So the first question would be, 7 00:00:54,160 --> 00:01:00,640 would a discussion or vote made by the Deep Denton Economic Development Partnership Board 8 00:01:00,640 --> 00:01:09,120 regarding the board's composition be a pending matter? So I ask the members what you think. 9 00:01:09,120 --> 00:01:20,880 If I may ask, in our background, the 12 members, their titles listed here, not their names, but 10 00:01:21,600 --> 00:01:30,160 these would be the titles of the membership that we will be using for this. And Councilman 11 00:01:30,160 --> 00:01:36,720 Meltzer, I'm assuming, is one of the two Councilmembers? Yes, that's correct. Thank you 12 00:01:36,720 --> 00:01:43,120 for that clarification. Okay. And if I may ask, who is the second City Councilmember? I couldn't 13 00:01:43,120 --> 00:01:48,160 look it up. Well, I'm just curious why we're just dealing with one. He requested the advisory 14 00:01:48,160 --> 00:01:56,960 opinion because he's a member of LULAC. He is concerned that there is no Latino representation 15 00:01:56,960 --> 00:02:04,320 on this board and the Latino population is now 25% of the city. And I agree with that. I mean, 16 00:02:04,320 --> 00:02:10,000 I saw that. That was fun. I'm just curious. Right. And then we're not really posted to discuss what 17 00:02:10,000 --> 00:02:14,560 the composition of the board should be, just if he can recommend to the board being a member of 18 00:02:14,560 --> 00:02:20,640 LULAC, that LULAC replace the Hispanic Chamber. But that does not release any responsibility 19 00:02:20,640 --> 00:02:26,080 of the second Councilmember if they feel like there's conflict. I mean, if they had a different 20 00:02:26,080 --> 00:02:30,160 conflict, they could. I don't know what that would be. That's my question. Right. Thank you. 21 00:02:30,160 --> 00:02:41,040 Okay. Can I clarify what we're asked to determine, right? First of all, so at the moment, this is not 22 00:02:41,040 --> 00:02:48,080 before the City Council, correct? Correct. Essentially, we're in the hypothetical situation, 23 00:02:48,080 --> 00:02:52,400 we're asking if he would be allowed to do this per the rules of the other board. Right. And 24 00:02:52,400 --> 00:03:00,160 have dual roles, one being a member of LULAC and secondly, being on the Economic Development 25 00:03:00,160 --> 00:03:07,680 Partnership Board, correct? I think that his concern is, is there an issue with him recommending 26 00:03:07,680 --> 00:03:13,760 LULAC, an organization he's a member of, replace the Hispanic Chamber on the board 27 00:03:13,760 --> 00:03:20,000 by having a member? Because he believes the Hispanic Chamber is now a defunct organization. 28 00:03:20,000 --> 00:03:27,840 So I, then I have, I've got the record facts correct. Okay, that was mine. So do you think, 29 00:03:27,840 --> 00:03:33,520 do you guys think that is a pending matter? And maybe we need to look at the pending matter 30 00:03:33,520 --> 00:03:44,560 definition. And while they're doing that, if I could ask, is, is this being, is the Council 31 00:03:44,560 --> 00:03:50,880 member being, is he asking to, in a sense, fill two spots, one being the City Council member and the 32 00:03:50,880 --> 00:03:57,840 other one filling the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce? I think he's just asking if, as a member of LULAC, 33 00:03:57,840 --> 00:04:03,840 it would be a conflict of interest of him to recommend that LULAC be the one to... Right. I 34 00:04:03,840 --> 00:04:09,840 don't think, my understanding is he's not asking to be both met, both appointed positions. He's just 35 00:04:09,840 --> 00:04:15,520 saying, instead of the Hispanic Chamber, can I recommend LULAC replace them essentially? Thank you. 36 00:04:15,520 --> 00:04:23,200 So it's not, that's what I was curious, I appreciate that. So this is the pending matter. 37 00:04:28,480 --> 00:04:31,920 So you want to read that definition or just something you think? 38 00:04:31,920 --> 00:04:37,360 To me, the pending matter definition is confusing. 39 00:04:37,360 --> 00:04:44,960 Right, and I framed it this way because if there's not a pending matter, 40 00:04:44,960 --> 00:04:47,200 there can't be a conflict of interest for the epics. 41 00:04:58,080 --> 00:05:06,160 My understanding is that it's something that's about to happen and once, once you get past that 42 00:05:06,160 --> 00:05:15,200 date, then, and that's the part that has always confused me about the pending matter definition. 43 00:05:20,160 --> 00:05:27,760 Madam Chair, I think not knowing the full ramification of the Economic Development Partnership Board, 44 00:05:27,760 --> 00:05:35,040 and looking at some of the explanation given to us, I would think if it does not conflict 45 00:05:35,040 --> 00:05:39,760 with the portion that says, "arranging with the city for the provision of good services, 46 00:05:39,760 --> 00:05:48,720 real property, or other things of value in case involving the city," if the operation or the 47 00:05:48,720 --> 00:05:54,400 guidelines of the Economic Development Partnership Board, if that doesn't cross that threshold, 48 00:05:54,400 --> 00:05:57,840 I personally do not see a conflict. I would agree. 49 00:05:57,840 --> 00:06:02,880 But I use that as a caveat. If that, if we find that the board 50 00:06:02,880 --> 00:06:11,920 is more than we think based on those criteria, then I may have a different vote. 51 00:06:11,920 --> 00:06:14,000 But as of right now, I do not see a conflict. 52 00:06:14,960 --> 00:06:18,640 I don't. I can't think. We're looking at pending matter, 53 00:06:18,640 --> 00:06:24,160 and we're looking at the question number one, is there a pending matter? Now, when you look 54 00:06:24,160 --> 00:06:31,520 at your definitions and you go back to your guidelines for definitions, it says these boards 55 00:06:31,520 --> 00:06:37,440 will have these meetings, except where the context clearly indicates a different meeting. 56 00:06:37,440 --> 00:06:44,560 So he's bringing up that this could be a pending matter. So it's up to the board to determine 57 00:06:44,560 --> 00:06:47,600 whether that may fall within the context of pending matter. 58 00:06:47,600 --> 00:06:51,120 I don't hear that there are goods or services or property 59 00:06:51,120 --> 00:06:56,960 hanging on this. I hear it is more of a representation issue. 60 00:06:56,960 --> 00:07:03,920 So I'm going to tease it apart this way. It's like, I believe just because it is about to happen, 61 00:07:03,920 --> 00:07:08,080 in my opinion, it is a pending matter, right? Because his actions will, you know, 62 00:07:08,080 --> 00:07:15,040 will depend on whether or not, right? So I would say, so therefore we can discuss it. 63 00:07:15,040 --> 00:07:19,840 But at the same time, I also don't believe that being a member in an organization, 64 00:07:19,840 --> 00:07:30,960 it's a non-profit organization, and there is no monetary benefit that Council Member Meltzer 65 00:07:30,960 --> 00:07:35,120 would have from making the recommendation he's about to make. 66 00:07:35,120 --> 00:07:43,520 So Rob, what do you think? I believe from my past experience 67 00:07:43,520 --> 00:07:49,920 with Council Member Meltzer that if he sees, while he's on here, something that would be 68 00:07:49,920 --> 00:07:58,880 considered a conflict, I would think that he would recognize that and then recuse himself. 69 00:07:58,880 --> 00:08:04,640 And I appreciate this. It's a great exercise for us to see how this whole process works. 70 00:08:05,760 --> 00:08:12,320 With that in mind, I would move forward with it not being, with the understanding that he knows 71 00:08:12,320 --> 00:08:16,480 if there is one that does pop up because he's familiar with the pending matter. 72 00:08:16,480 --> 00:08:21,360 That's a good way to put it, and this is why I don't like this pending matter working in an 73 00:08:21,360 --> 00:08:26,160 organization. I've said that before. But I think that's a good way to look at it, is that we need 74 00:08:26,160 --> 00:08:32,400 to rely on his ability to figure if there is something that could benefit him and that I 75 00:08:33,360 --> 00:08:40,080 would expect that he would recuse himself at that point. Right, I think he's just asking for advice 76 00:08:40,080 --> 00:08:47,200 on if he should. I would say because of the way we're looking at it, it's not a pending matter. 77 00:08:47,200 --> 00:08:52,880 But I hear what you're saying. Madam Chair, do we need a vote for each one of these or just a 78 00:08:52,880 --> 00:08:59,440 conversation? Okay, so would you make a motion? Is that how you would handle that? I would vote 79 00:08:59,440 --> 00:09:10,160 for each one. Madam Chair, I move that item one of the discussion is I don't think that it is not 80 00:09:10,160 --> 00:09:21,280 a pending matter concern or a violation of the ethics. Okay. I'll second that. Okay, all in favor 81 00:09:21,280 --> 00:09:29,120 say aye. Aye. So it is not a pending matter. So question number two, would a discussion or vote 82 00:09:29,760 --> 00:09:35,920 made by the City Council regarding economic development partnerships composition be a pending 83 00:09:35,920 --> 00:09:51,840 matter? Discussion? Madam Chair, I would once again revert back to my original statement. 84 00:09:51,840 --> 00:09:59,200 And everyone on that council is familiar with the pending matter on what we have discussed. So I 85 00:09:59,440 --> 00:10:05,360 would think that... Same kind of the same logic. I think it would fall in the same safe harbor. 86 00:10:05,360 --> 00:10:12,160 Yeah. And I would move Madam Chair, and I don't mean to speak to her, I move Madam Chair that 87 00:10:12,160 --> 00:10:22,000 item two also be considered a non-violation of the Board of Ethics. Okay. So number two, you're just 88 00:10:22,000 --> 00:10:27,840 considering whether it's a pending matter? For the City Council. For the City Council. That's correct. 89 00:10:29,520 --> 00:10:34,080 In fact, I don't think it would be as long as they don't fall within those criteria. 90 00:10:34,080 --> 00:10:38,160 Right. Is it your motion then that it's not a pending matter? That is correct. Yes ma'am. 91 00:10:38,160 --> 00:10:46,000 Would you be willing to second that? I second that. So all in favor of it not being a pending matter 92 00:10:46,000 --> 00:10:54,320 for the City Council? Aye. Third, if there is a pending matter, I guess we don't have to answer 93 00:10:54,320 --> 00:11:03,280 that question because we've decided it's not. Well this may be, would that be the case or is this just 94 00:11:03,280 --> 00:11:12,400 a standalone pending matter? Well you know this, I think we should vote on this too. So like what you 95 00:11:12,400 --> 00:11:20,880 said Rob, if there is a pending matter then he would have a conflict of interest regarding his 96 00:11:20,880 --> 00:11:26,160 membership in the black? I think that would be true. Okay. Could you say this again please? 97 00:11:26,160 --> 00:11:31,680 If there is a pending matter, does Council Member Meltzer have a conflict of interest 98 00:11:31,680 --> 00:11:41,280 per the definition of conflict of interest? So I would advise him to be cautious moving forward 99 00:11:41,280 --> 00:11:48,720 and to refuse himself if he believes there is a pending matter in the future. With the understanding 100 00:11:48,720 --> 00:11:55,600 of the outline that we have for what a conflict of interest is. Yeah. Which is? So the conflict of 101 00:11:55,600 --> 00:12:03,760 interest definition is that you're an officer of the non-profit. So he's not. He's not. Okay, good 102 00:12:03,760 --> 00:12:11,840 point. Well and if anything else of these that might come up, there may be some monetary issues 103 00:12:11,840 --> 00:12:18,080 of such. And that's why I think it's good that we cover all of those even though they may not be 104 00:12:18,080 --> 00:12:24,720 germane at this moment. But we don't know what the pending matter could become. I looked at Council 105 00:12:24,720 --> 00:12:34,400 Members Meltzer's territory, if you will, and it goes from Fulton Street all the way over to I-35. 106 00:12:34,400 --> 00:12:45,520 There is a large section of less expensive rent apartments that I think are probably, 107 00:12:47,200 --> 00:12:55,040 I do think there's, I think there's a lot of Latino people in his district and he is 108 00:12:55,040 --> 00:13:00,160 white. I'm glad that he's in the black and I'm glad that he's representing 109 00:13:00,160 --> 00:13:08,400 that group because it's important for inclusion. And unless there is a monetary thing, I'm not 110 00:13:08,400 --> 00:13:14,720 concerned that it is a conflict of interest. I think that would be a whole different matter. 111 00:13:15,440 --> 00:13:22,720 For him to be a member. Yeah. I mean for one, we've established the fact that he's not a board 112 00:13:22,720 --> 00:13:30,800 member. Yeah. Therefore, the conflict of interest does not, does not apply. And secondly, he's 113 00:13:30,800 --> 00:13:36,160 already being very transparent. If we're talking about being, you know, if you scrolled up a little 114 00:13:36,160 --> 00:13:42,560 bit, you know, he's already making, he's disclosing that he's a member. He's not hiding that fact. So 115 00:13:43,120 --> 00:13:51,120 I think. Yeah. So I would say it's not. No. Is that a motion? 116 00:13:51,120 --> 00:13:58,320 Do you want to make a motion, Andrea? I'm going to make the motion and it comes to a discussion 117 00:13:58,320 --> 00:14:04,240 point number three that council member Meltzer doesn't, does not appear to have a conflict of 118 00:14:04,240 --> 00:14:13,280 interest as a member of LULAC. I would second that with that term that you put it, does not. 119 00:14:13,280 --> 00:14:20,880 As not being an officer. Well, could you reread that motion, please? My understanding is 120 00:14:20,880 --> 00:14:27,120 the motion that council member Meltzer does not have a conflict of interest as a member of LULAC. 121 00:14:28,480 --> 00:14:35,440 You had added something else though I thought, as we understand, I think you put in. Oh, I did not 122 00:14:35,440 --> 00:14:39,520 put that in the motion, but that was part of my discussion. Oh, I thought that was part of the 123 00:14:39,520 --> 00:14:50,000 motion. Yeah. Okay. He's just a member. Simple member, yeah. So, so you seconded. So all in favor. 124 00:14:54,320 --> 00:15:01,280 And fourth point would council member Meltzer recommending that LULAC chapter, 125 00:15:01,280 --> 00:15:06,880 chapter replace the Denton Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on the Economic Development Partnership 126 00:15:06,880 --> 00:15:14,320 Board be considered improper use of influence per the ethics ordinance? Is there improper influence 127 00:15:14,320 --> 00:15:21,760 in the glossary? No, but this is the section that discusses improper influence, but there's no 128 00:15:21,760 --> 00:15:33,680 definition of anything. Secure special privileges. Greet any special consideration. 129 00:15:33,680 --> 00:15:38,880 Assist the 130 00:15:42,240 --> 00:15:55,520 prestige of the officials or employees in your position in order to advance private 131 00:15:55,520 --> 00:16:05,120 Madam Chair. Yes. I may ask with the letter of explanation from council member Meltzer, 132 00:16:07,840 --> 00:16:12,960 stating that the Denton Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, an organization 133 00:16:12,960 --> 00:16:21,040 that for all intents and purposes no longer exists. So my question is, 134 00:16:21,040 --> 00:16:26,320 is it our opinion that 135 00:16:26,320 --> 00:16:36,800 we have the authority to have that taken off as a title and be replaced from LULAC? I'm wondering 136 00:16:36,800 --> 00:16:43,600 if that should be done, let's say from council level, because if it is for all practical purposes. 137 00:16:43,600 --> 00:16:51,840 That's, that makes, that's a good point. I mean, whether, whatever we think, I believe it's a 138 00:16:51,840 --> 00:16:57,360 council, it's the city council's position or should be their position to make that change, 139 00:16:57,360 --> 00:17:02,480 because we don't have the authority to move names back and forth and such. But we, that's not on the 140 00:17:02,480 --> 00:17:08,960 agenda. You're not posted to discuss the composition of the EDPP, only if council member Meltzer can't 141 00:17:08,960 --> 00:17:14,400 suggest that the composition be changed. But I can address it from the letter that he gave us, 142 00:17:14,400 --> 00:17:20,960 can I not? No, you can't make like a recommendation. No, no, no, I'm not making a recommendation. I 143 00:17:20,960 --> 00:17:31,280 apologize if that was the inference. Speaking just as an open mic situation, I would 144 00:17:32,960 --> 00:17:37,920 I would be, I would not be in favor of passing that on. 145 00:17:37,920 --> 00:17:44,160 I'm looking at the improper influence and if you look down to number five, 146 00:17:44,160 --> 00:17:53,120 stating or implying to state that the city official is a representative of the city 147 00:17:54,240 --> 00:18:05,760 in an organization or to recommend to the city council without having those, having been submitted 148 00:18:05,760 --> 00:18:14,800 to the city council. That's the area I think we need to look at. So are you asking, like, is this 149 00:18:14,800 --> 00:18:19,760 a process issue? Like, could the EDPP do this without going to council? Is that your question? 150 00:18:20,960 --> 00:18:26,480 I don't think number five applies. Yeah. Because that is stated or applied to state or local 151 00:18:26,480 --> 00:18:32,400 government agencies. That's not what he's, that would, this in making a recommendation kind of 152 00:18:32,400 --> 00:18:39,040 in front of the city council would not, number five would not apply in my opinion. The other part that 153 00:18:39,040 --> 00:18:48,160 I, I think that if you were elected to an office like, like city council, your job is to influence 154 00:18:48,160 --> 00:18:54,320 the other members with your opinion because you're representing your constituents and I don't think 155 00:18:54,320 --> 00:19:02,160 that's improper influence. So. I would agree with that. Yeah. In my opinion, the influence that he's 156 00:19:02,160 --> 00:19:10,000 exerting as a representative of Hispanics is part of what he's, what his role is as a city council 157 00:19:10,000 --> 00:19:17,040 member. Because this is sadly a marginalized group and they need all the, in my opinion, they need 158 00:19:17,040 --> 00:19:23,440 all the representation they can get. Our fair representation would be better, you know. I have no, 159 00:19:23,440 --> 00:19:31,120 I have no conflict with that. I just, the way this is worded, recommending LULAC to be, 160 00:19:31,120 --> 00:19:35,040 to replace Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, I don't even think that that would be 161 00:19:35,040 --> 00:19:42,000 that procedure, that mechanism. I'm not sure that's even in the Board of Ethics 162 00:19:42,960 --> 00:19:49,920 anyway. That's why I bring that up that way. Now is that a proper process or thinking? 163 00:19:49,920 --> 00:19:56,560 It's kind of like legislation. There's a mental health law that was on the books 164 00:19:56,560 --> 00:20:04,400 since 1983 that didn't include my license and therefore I could not get reimbursed for Medicare 165 00:20:04,400 --> 00:20:11,040 or Medicaid because only psychologists existed when the law was written. We finally got that 166 00:20:11,040 --> 00:20:19,120 changed this year. So sometimes what's written in documents becomes outdated and then it becomes 167 00:20:19,120 --> 00:20:25,280 problematic. I think that's something that we might want to encourage city council to fix, 168 00:20:25,280 --> 00:20:30,880 but it's not our, and maybe that's a whole different matter. The composition of the EDP? 169 00:20:30,880 --> 00:20:36,800 Yes, we are not discussing whether or not they should change it. You don't have any authority to 170 00:20:36,800 --> 00:20:45,360 do that. I wanted to bring up a point. When they talk about city official and whether they have 171 00:20:45,360 --> 00:20:51,600 conflicts, they talk about council members, department heads, member of the Board of Ethics, 172 00:20:51,600 --> 00:20:57,440 Planning and Zoning Commission, Board of Adjustment, Landmark, or Public Utilities. It doesn't list 173 00:20:57,440 --> 00:21:09,120 the Economic Development Board. That's a really good point. That's a hyper-technical point. 174 00:21:09,120 --> 00:21:14,720 The ordinance needs to be amended. That's my point, and if we can't make that suggestion to 175 00:21:14,720 --> 00:21:22,000 the council, to me that handcuffs us. In your motion you could say because the Economic Development 176 00:21:22,000 --> 00:21:31,280 Board is not listed. Yes. It's not an improper influence. You can't be subject to the ordinance 177 00:21:31,280 --> 00:21:37,200 as improper influence on number four. Because it doesn't exist. Because it doesn't follow the 178 00:21:37,200 --> 00:21:42,960 ordinance, but you can go on to say a recommendation that you consider. 179 00:21:42,960 --> 00:21:48,080 Well, I don't think we have that privilege, do we? 180 00:21:48,800 --> 00:21:53,760 Well, I mean, I don't know, as only three members of the board, I don't think you could make, 181 00:21:53,760 --> 00:21:57,920 give direction to tell council something, but you could bring it up at the next board meeting for 182 00:21:57,920 --> 00:22:02,800 discussion by the whole board, essentially, if that makes sense, to make that recommendation. 183 00:22:02,800 --> 00:22:08,320 I think it's better to just stick with that's not mentioned and it's not our thing. 184 00:22:08,320 --> 00:22:15,600 I think it's proven that we phrase it that way and in our own backdoor way, 185 00:22:15,600 --> 00:22:19,520 tell them they need to update. Do I hear a motion here? 186 00:22:19,520 --> 00:22:22,960 I'm trying, but I just love the way she phrased it and I can't quite. 187 00:22:22,960 --> 00:22:34,320 I would just say that the question is, because the Economic Development Board 188 00:22:34,320 --> 00:22:39,840 is not listed. A city official on the Economic Development Board is not covered by the ethics 189 00:22:39,840 --> 00:22:45,760 ordinance that number four, there's no improper influence. I move for that, please. 190 00:22:45,760 --> 00:22:59,600 And that's a way of telling the council. I think without having to 191 00:22:59,600 --> 00:23:08,160 even get the board, get the rest of the board involved, although I think it'll be prudent. 192 00:23:09,120 --> 00:23:12,480 Well, I'll wait for the vote. If you looked at it the way, 193 00:23:12,480 --> 00:23:17,840 I think the board was supposed to work. The board is part of the ethics ordinance. 194 00:23:17,840 --> 00:23:23,360 He's on the board. He's a member of LULAC. Had he been a board member of LULAC, yes, 195 00:23:23,360 --> 00:23:29,760 he should disclose and then not. None of those taxes. 196 00:23:29,760 --> 00:23:33,360 So we have a motion. I will second that. 197 00:23:33,360 --> 00:23:39,040 Oh wait, I believe the motion is that this would not be improper influence because 198 00:23:39,040 --> 00:23:44,160 the Economic Development Board, the Economic Development Partnership Board 199 00:23:44,160 --> 00:23:48,080 is not listed by the ethics ordinance. Yes. 200 00:23:48,080 --> 00:23:51,760 Or a city official acting on the Economic Development Partnership Board 201 00:23:51,760 --> 00:23:57,440 is not covered on the ethics ordinance. Yeah. Yes. And we have a second to that. 202 00:23:58,160 --> 00:24:03,760 All in favor? Aye. All right. Madam Chair, if I may ask, 203 00:24:03,760 --> 00:24:15,040 these findings from this special call to advisory panel, this will be brought before the ethics board? 204 00:24:15,040 --> 00:24:22,400 If we choose to bring it up. I'm going to, on the agenda, have basically a report that just says these 205 00:24:22,400 --> 00:24:27,920 advisory opinions were issued. So there'll be an item on the agenda during which you can discuss it. 206 00:24:27,920 --> 00:24:30,800 Then we could bring it up if we want to. If we want to, right. 207 00:24:30,800 --> 00:24:38,080 Because I'm wondering with number four, as it's now spelled out, we find the other three 208 00:24:38,080 --> 00:24:46,720 without any conflict because this whole matter is about an item that we don't have 209 00:24:46,720 --> 00:24:55,680 any, it's not at our ethics board. Is that correct? Well you found that it wasn't a pending matter. 210 00:24:55,680 --> 00:25:04,640 Correct. Either the council or the ethics board. And then you found that if the way three is boarded, 211 00:25:04,640 --> 00:25:10,080 you could have considered if it was a pending matter, we have a conflict interest. But you found 212 00:25:10,080 --> 00:25:15,600 against it interpreted that way. I just thought maybe four could have taken the thought for how 213 00:25:15,600 --> 00:25:20,160 we moved with four might have been able to take care of the other three. But it's fine. It's what we, 214 00:25:20,160 --> 00:25:25,280 it's the proper way. And I think for a question too, that was regards to the city council, which 215 00:25:25,280 --> 00:25:30,800 is covered by the order. Okay, thank you. So are there any more motions or points for discussion? 216 00:25:30,800 --> 00:25:37,120 It is 5.55 p.m. and this meeting is adjourned.