WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.400 >> And everybody's here, please call in. 00:00:04.400 --> 00:00:06.060 >> Okay. It's 530. 00:00:06.060 --> 00:00:07.740 So we'll go ahead and get started and call 00:00:07.740 --> 00:00:12.140 to order this meeting of the regular meeting 00:00:12.140 --> 00:00:14.100 of the Board of Ethics. 00:00:14.100 --> 00:00:17.720 It's 530, August 7th, 2023. 00:00:17.720 --> 00:00:23.720 Jumping into the agenda, item A, BOE 23-032. 00:00:23.720 --> 00:00:28.720 Consider approval of minutes for June 5th, June 22nd, 00:00:28.720 --> 00:00:32.520 and July 27th, 2023, and it was a regular meeting 00:00:32.520 --> 00:00:35.620 and then two advisory opinions. 00:00:35.620 --> 00:00:38.040 I wasn't there, but everything looked okay to me. 00:00:38.040 --> 00:00:39.460 Is there any -- 00:00:39.460 --> 00:00:41.300 >> I move approval. 00:00:41.300 --> 00:00:43.000 >> For all three? 00:00:43.000 --> 00:00:43.940 >> Now we have e-comments. 00:00:43.940 --> 00:00:46.240 We have to state that we didn't receive any e-comments. 00:00:46.240 --> 00:00:47.380 That's true. 00:00:47.380 --> 00:00:48.080 >> Oh, before we get started? 00:00:48.080 --> 00:00:48.840 Oh, okay. 00:00:48.840 --> 00:00:49.540 >> Yeah, sorry. 00:00:49.540 --> 00:00:51.120 >> I read the new procedure. 00:00:51.120 --> 00:00:55.040 >> Okay. So opening administrative business. 00:00:55.040 --> 00:00:56.280 State of the time. 00:00:56.280 --> 00:00:58.760 Quorum is present. 00:00:58.760 --> 00:01:00.220 Everybody who said they were going to come was here. 00:01:00.220 --> 00:01:00.960 We have seven people present. 00:01:00.960 --> 00:01:05.120 And we have no e-comments received. 00:01:05.120 --> 00:01:08.260 So now to approval of minutes, meeting minutes. 00:01:08.260 --> 00:01:09.860 Do I have a motion? 00:01:09.860 --> 00:01:11.440 >> I move to approve. 00:01:11.440 --> 00:01:13.040 >> Of all three? 00:01:13.040 --> 00:01:14.940 >> Of all three. 00:01:14.940 --> 00:01:16.300 If that's okay. 00:01:16.300 --> 00:01:17.740 >> I'll submit any objection to that. 00:01:17.740 --> 00:01:19.700 Okay. Any discussion? 00:01:19.700 --> 00:01:21.340 Or I need a second? 00:01:21.340 --> 00:01:22.080 >> I'll second. 00:01:22.080 --> 00:01:24.720 >> Second by Hannah, moved by Annette, second by Hannah. 00:01:24.720 --> 00:01:26.480 Any discussion? 00:01:26.480 --> 00:01:28.020 All in favor say aye. 00:01:28.020 --> 00:01:28.780 >> Aye. 00:01:28.780 --> 00:01:31.180 >> Aye. I think everyone, I think it's unanimous. 00:01:31.180 --> 00:01:37.060 So we approve the prior meeting minutes for those three meetings. 00:01:37.060 --> 00:01:43.960 Okay. So BOE 23-033, agenda item B. Receive report, hold discussion, 00:01:43.960 --> 00:01:47.240 take necessary action regarding the ethics complaint process detailed 00:01:47.240 --> 00:01:52.540 in quota ordinance number two, article 11, section 2-281. 00:01:52.540 --> 00:01:58.880 Meetings in section 2-282, disposition. 00:01:58.880 --> 00:02:03.220 So do you want me to just turn this over to you, Madison? 00:02:03.220 --> 00:02:05.460 Do you have a presentation on this? 00:02:05.460 --> 00:02:06.260 >> Not really. 00:02:06.260 --> 00:02:08.860 >> Oh. I didn't know I was to look it up there. 00:02:08.860 --> 00:02:13.660 >> Yeah. Last meeting, we discussed the burden of proof 00:02:13.660 --> 00:02:14.960 for two meetings prior to this. 00:02:14.960 --> 00:02:17.140 Last meeting there was majority consensus 00:02:17.140 --> 00:02:21.360 to remove section 2-281(c)(4) burden of proof 00:02:21.360 --> 00:02:23.000 from the ethics ordinance. 00:02:23.000 --> 00:02:26.100 At that time, staff was provided direction, or was directed 00:02:26.100 --> 00:02:30.440 to provide potential options on how we could gather additional evidence 00:02:30.440 --> 00:02:35.560 if needed for an ethics complaint if it was not directed by the complainant. 00:02:35.560 --> 00:02:40.960 So I developed, this shows kind of a summary of the current model as well 00:02:40.960 --> 00:02:43.700 as three options that I put together based 00:02:43.700 --> 00:02:47.000 on just ideas that you all had discussed. 00:02:47.000 --> 00:02:49.540 These aren't, we're not necessarily limited to those. 00:02:49.540 --> 00:02:53.800 That's just what I tried to do, what you all directed me to do, so. 00:02:53.800 --> 00:02:55.660 That's really all I've got. 00:02:55.660 --> 00:03:02.940 >> Okay. I was not here for the last meeting. 00:03:02.940 --> 00:03:05.580 I wanted to vote it to get rid of the burden of proof. 00:03:05.580 --> 00:03:09.180 So I don't really have a lot of comment about this. 00:03:09.180 --> 00:03:17.280 >> I think it's really important to consider getting rid 00:03:17.280 --> 00:03:24.940 of the burden of proof because on the citizen, because it doesn't appear 00:03:24.940 --> 00:03:30.360 that way in any other city that I have found, and it's not in the model code. 00:03:30.360 --> 00:03:38.800 It is clear that the burden of proof is between the city and the complainant. 00:03:38.800 --> 00:03:43.000 I think to put that pressure on a city will mean that no one's going 00:03:43.000 --> 00:03:52.280 to want to file a complaint even if they have what they consider valid reasons. 00:03:52.280 --> 00:03:58.320 And I think that the city needs to be the one to say no. 00:03:58.320 --> 00:04:00.380 This is between us and you. 00:04:00.380 --> 00:04:06.480 It's not even, I don't even think that should be put on us as a board. 00:04:06.480 --> 00:04:20.660 I think it's a city thing that if you're violating the code of ethics, then so. 00:04:20.660 --> 00:04:24.700 >> So I had to go back and review some of the discussion 00:04:24.700 --> 00:04:26.860 from the last meeting because it's been a while. 00:04:26.860 --> 00:04:32.040 And a lot of the discussion was about the burden replacing the complainant, 00:04:32.040 --> 00:04:39.280 how that would limit certain citizens from wanting to file a complaint for fear 00:04:39.280 --> 00:04:43.560 of retribution or fear of the process and having to go through and stand 00:04:43.560 --> 00:04:47.720 up in front of the board and present evidence and that sort of thing. 00:04:47.720 --> 00:04:52.760 And I think a lot of the discussion was how do we make it so that our process allows 00:04:52.760 --> 00:04:57.240 for someone to make a complaint and then not have the responsibility 00:04:57.240 --> 00:05:02.000 to be a prosecutor in the process. 00:05:02.000 --> 00:05:10.380 And there was a lot of discussion about if we could have outside counsel present 00:05:10.380 --> 00:05:14.380 that evidence or do some sort of additional investigation 00:05:14.380 --> 00:05:20.260 on a complaint to gather evidence or if we could have an advocate or something 00:05:20.260 --> 00:05:26.600 like that being a board member or some other party that would guide the complainant 00:05:26.600 --> 00:05:33.040 or take their complaint and then ask additional questions prior to the board hearing 00:05:33.040 --> 00:05:37.240 and after the preliminary hearing panel. 00:05:37.240 --> 00:05:44.820 So I think that would be adding a step in between the preliminary review by the panel 00:05:44.820 --> 00:05:51.320 after the complaint is deemed to be complete and have evidence and potentially action. 00:05:51.320 --> 00:05:54.260 So that was where a lot of the discussion was like. 00:05:54.260 --> 00:06:02.560 How can we make it so that a, you know, typical resident of Denton, 00:06:02.560 --> 00:06:08.400 if they have a legitimate complaint, we make it so the process is, 00:06:08.400 --> 00:06:12.320 I don't want to say more inviting, but maybe less intimidating 00:06:12.320 --> 00:06:16.480 so that they feel comfortable making a complaint. 00:06:16.480 --> 00:06:20.160 And we had some discussion about, well, if I'm going to make a complaint, 00:06:20.160 --> 00:06:22.460 I'm going to hire an attorney to do that. 00:06:22.460 --> 00:06:28.960 And I don't think that is the typical, you know, something typical for a resident 00:06:28.960 --> 00:06:35.300 of the city of Denton to want to do, hire an attorney to submit a complaint 00:06:35.300 --> 00:06:37.980 for a violation of Denton's ordinance. 00:06:37.980 --> 00:06:44.280 So I think what we asked Madison to help with was give us some guidance 00:06:44.280 --> 00:06:49.380 on your different options of what we can do compared to where we are now to take some 00:06:49.380 --> 00:06:55.200 of that burden off of the complainant and what we could possibly do to make that, 00:06:55.200 --> 00:07:02.640 make the process work and not require a citizen to be the complainant to be party 00:07:02.640 --> 00:07:08.700 to the entire process after their complaint is deemed valid and not frivolous. 00:07:08.700 --> 00:07:18.040 Now, I think some of the discussion we ended on was do we want to be able to ask for, 00:07:18.040 --> 00:07:23.420 ask them questions, allow them to submit more evidence or allow board members 00:07:23.420 --> 00:07:27.020 to submit evidence or conduct some kind of investigation. 00:07:27.020 --> 00:07:31.900 And I think that's where we sort of got hung up last time. 00:07:31.900 --> 00:07:37.900 But it seemed like in the discussion everyone kind of was getting to the same point 00:07:37.900 --> 00:07:43.040 of the average citizen is not an attorney. 00:07:43.040 --> 00:07:49.140 They're not a board of ethics member and they're going to be less familiar with all this process. 00:07:49.140 --> 00:07:55.020 And the way it is set up now with the burden of proof lying solely on the complainant, 00:07:55.020 --> 00:08:04.220 that is something that is going to limit a citizen from wanting to or feeling 00:08:04.220 --> 00:08:10.220 like they could submit a complaint for fear of having to come in front of the board 00:08:10.220 --> 00:08:14.400 and speak or be questioned or something like that. 00:08:14.400 --> 00:08:18.100 So I don't know if that helps guide a discussion a little bit. 00:08:18.100 --> 00:08:23.980 I'm just trying to prevent us from having the same discussion we had last time. 00:08:23.980 --> 00:08:31.920 >> Well, as far as these options, I mean, like I said, 00:08:31.920 --> 00:08:34.920 I think that the complaint should have some skin in the game. 00:08:34.920 --> 00:08:36.160 So I wouldn't vote it for this. 00:08:36.160 --> 00:08:41.220 But does anybody have comments about these different options, Madison, before? 00:08:41.220 --> 00:08:43.600 >> I have several. 00:08:43.600 --> 00:08:44.960 >> Okay. 00:08:44.960 --> 00:08:53.200 >> First, I think the BOE advocate is a conflict of interest 00:08:53.200 --> 00:08:57.280 for anyone on the board to be the advocate. 00:08:57.280 --> 00:09:00.380 So I have a real problem with that option. 00:09:00.380 --> 00:09:07.620 It also gives the appearance of bias and also removes a person 00:09:07.620 --> 00:09:11.200 from the pool to even serve on the board rather than advocate. 00:09:11.200 --> 00:09:14.360 So I have a real problem with that. 00:09:14.360 --> 00:09:17.560 I do have a question about the city attorney. 00:09:17.560 --> 00:09:22.140 When I looked up the city attorney, because I remember an incident years ago 00:09:22.140 --> 00:09:27.640 when the city attorney helped me with a violation of the ordinance that a neighbor was doing. 00:09:27.640 --> 00:09:32.880 And according to the website, and I know we have the office representing here, 00:09:32.880 --> 00:09:35.480 the city attorney will assist citizens in preparation 00:09:35.480 --> 00:09:39.680 that probably will cause affidavit for class investing. 00:09:39.680 --> 00:09:41.720 It responds and files motions. 00:09:41.720 --> 00:09:46.020 But I wondered if the city attorney might be someone who could step in 00:09:46.020 --> 00:09:48.660 and help a citizen put together the packet. 00:09:48.660 --> 00:09:55.640 >> Well, I think there is a conflict of interest as we've already discussed going back to 2018, 00:09:55.640 --> 00:09:58.640 that the city attorney is employed by the city. 00:09:58.640 --> 00:10:01.380 So their like bosses are counsel. 00:10:01.380 --> 00:10:06.240 So they have a conflict of interest of any complaints against counsel. 00:10:06.240 --> 00:10:08.240 >> So that would not be an option? 00:10:08.240 --> 00:10:10.080 >> I mean, I don't think so. 00:10:10.080 --> 00:10:12.980 >> If they were helping them put together the paperwork. 00:10:12.980 --> 00:10:15.960 Not necessarily representing them. 00:10:15.960 --> 00:10:18.720 >> I think that probably would be considered representing them, 00:10:18.720 --> 00:10:20.200 but I don't think that would be the paperwork. 00:10:20.200 --> 00:10:21.400 >> Okay. 00:10:21.400 --> 00:10:23.100 >> I wouldn't want to put them in that position. 00:10:23.100 --> 00:10:27.400 I just threw that out there as one option. 00:10:27.400 --> 00:10:32.840 >> Yeah, and I think what you were reading is like there's certain classy complaints 00:10:32.840 --> 00:10:38.080 that citizens can make, like, you know, your, I don't know, 00:10:38.080 --> 00:10:40.580 neighbor's dog's barking or something like that. 00:10:40.580 --> 00:10:43.320 Like not a true crime that's just a final crime. 00:10:43.320 --> 00:10:47.080 I think that's what it's talking about, what you're reading. 00:10:47.080 --> 00:10:58.300 >> So my final comment is that in the code, it says that complaint has the right to be 00:10:58.300 --> 00:11:02.700 represented by legal counsel, which in itself is rather intimidating. 00:11:02.700 --> 00:11:06.480 But then in the procedure, it says legal counsel or another representative, 00:11:06.480 --> 00:11:08.880 which sounds a little bit more user-friendly, 00:11:08.880 --> 00:11:10.740 that you don't necessarily have legal counsel, 00:11:10.740 --> 00:11:15.680 but you could have someone be with you and advocate for you. 00:11:15.680 --> 00:11:21.760 >> Yeah, I think we've discussed this before when we changed that. 00:11:21.760 --> 00:11:26.800 I think we changed it to representative possibly way back several years ago, 00:11:26.800 --> 00:11:31.460 that like you can't have just anybody that's not an attorney come forward. 00:11:31.460 --> 00:11:34.160 I mean, I think you're probably right about the Board of Ethics. 00:11:34.160 --> 00:11:37.160 You have a good point about that, but I think you're all right. 00:11:37.160 --> 00:11:39.740 It could just be anyone that's not an attorney. 00:11:39.740 --> 00:11:42.380 >> So that should be in the code, and it's not. 00:11:42.380 --> 00:11:45.880 It's in the procedure, but it's not in the code. 00:11:45.880 --> 00:12:02.260 >> Madam Chair, is it your feeling as excellent points like that are being brought up, 00:12:02.260 --> 00:12:11.200 do you want us to make a point on that, direct and move on, 00:12:11.200 --> 00:12:18.040 or just at the end we catch and put them all into the basket and see what we've got to talk about? 00:12:18.040 --> 00:12:19.520 >> I mean, I guess that's it. 00:12:19.520 --> 00:12:23.380 I mean, I think that maybe it's a good thing to go through which ones don't work 00:12:23.380 --> 00:12:26.720 and maybe which ones could be looked into more. 00:12:26.720 --> 00:12:32.760 >> Well, because I'm wondering, Deborah's saying another one of the laborers that a motion made 00:12:32.760 --> 00:12:35.800 to have that put back in if it had been taken out. 00:12:35.800 --> 00:12:39.860 >> Well, I think we added it to procedure, but what she's saying, it's never been in the -- 00:12:39.860 --> 00:12:43.040 I don't think it's ever been in the code, because I don't think we took it out. 00:12:43.040 --> 00:12:44.600 Unless we did, I couldn't be remembering it. 00:12:44.600 --> 00:12:47.600 >> Well, that's what I'm asking, you want to have that included in the code, 00:12:47.600 --> 00:12:50.520 and is that something that will go before the council for their approval? 00:12:50.520 --> 00:12:56.820 >> But that would be true in a -- I guess in a court of law, you can have anybody represent you. 00:12:56.820 --> 00:13:00.860 It probably should be an attorney, but -- 00:13:00.860 --> 00:13:03.520 >> Yeah, I mean, in court of law, you can only have an attorney representing you. 00:13:03.520 --> 00:13:05.560 You can't have anybody else. 00:13:05.560 --> 00:13:09.500 Like, you either pro se yourself, you represent yourself for an attorney, 00:13:09.500 --> 00:13:11.640 but I wonder if you even need it in the code. 00:13:11.640 --> 00:13:13.040 That might be something to look into. 00:13:13.040 --> 00:13:15.640 Like, if it's in the procedure, you need it in the code, 00:13:15.640 --> 00:13:18.540 because the procedure is how we do the proceedings. 00:13:18.540 --> 00:13:20.680 >> Or like, interpretive guidance. 00:13:20.680 --> 00:13:22.640 >> Yeah, I mean, because that's what it is. 00:13:22.640 --> 00:13:25.080 It is interpretive guidance, the code. 00:13:25.080 --> 00:13:28.180 >> I think some of the concern about what's in the code is that it says 00:13:28.180 --> 00:13:35.360 that the complainant has the obligation to put forth evidence, including testimony, 00:13:35.360 --> 00:13:42.600 and the complainant is required to testify at the hearing, unless it's determined to be through with us. 00:13:42.600 --> 00:13:50.240 So, a lot of the discussion was, do we want to require the complainant to testify at the hearing? 00:13:50.240 --> 00:13:55.640 And that -- I think the people that are -- a lot of the discussion we've had is, 00:13:55.640 --> 00:14:00.580 is that fair to a citizen to require them to testify? 00:14:00.580 --> 00:14:07.560 If they have submitted all -- they've submitted the complaint correctly, they submitted their evidence, 00:14:07.560 --> 00:14:14.720 do we -- should we require the complainant to come to the hearing that is not a hearing 00:14:14.720 --> 00:14:18.060 about the complaint itself, but about the respondent? 00:14:18.060 --> 00:14:22.500 >> Well, I think you should also think about the accused and the rights they have, you know, 00:14:22.500 --> 00:14:29.080 whether whichever council member it is, should they have a right to confront who's accused them? 00:14:29.080 --> 00:14:34.480 And witnesses against them, but, you know, that's kind of -- my criminal background is like, you know -- 00:14:34.480 --> 00:14:38.620 >> Yeah, I think they should certainly have the right to know who's filing a complaint, 00:14:38.620 --> 00:14:44.560 but I think them putting all of the -- you've got to gather all of the data, 00:14:44.560 --> 00:14:46.420 which they might not have access to. 00:14:46.420 --> 00:14:50.000 >> But if everybody's in consensus that we're moving on from that, 00:14:50.000 --> 00:14:53.560 I guess I don't really think there's a point discussing it longer. 00:14:53.560 --> 00:14:56.800 We just have to figure out, so what do we do now? 00:14:56.800 --> 00:15:00.600 >> I think we've already taken that out, the requirement for the complainant. 00:15:00.600 --> 00:15:01.380 >> Well, I guess -- 00:15:01.380 --> 00:15:02.940 >> I think that's already -- 00:15:02.940 --> 00:15:05.100 >> A recommendation, right? 00:15:05.100 --> 00:15:07.320 >> Well, there's majority consensus. 00:15:07.320 --> 00:15:11.620 We haven't settled on language yet, exactly, because I don't know what to replace it with. 00:15:11.620 --> 00:15:14.220 So we haven't voted on a specific proposal yet. 00:15:14.220 --> 00:15:15.660 We're still kind of crafting it. 00:15:15.660 --> 00:15:18.220 >> Okay. Okay. 00:15:18.220 --> 00:15:28.800 And so there's an outside counsel, so up there, I wonder how can entire counsel be 00:15:28.800 --> 00:15:35.580 about being able to hire attorneys to investigate them. 00:15:35.580 --> 00:15:37.940 Just throwing that out there. 00:15:37.940 --> 00:15:41.280 Is that likely to, you know, be something that's -- 00:15:41.280 --> 00:15:44.880 >> So we're more concerned probably about what the counsel thinks 00:15:44.880 --> 00:15:47.020 than what's best for the citizen. 00:15:47.020 --> 00:15:52.420 >> Well, I mean, if we present it to them and they don't accept it, then nothing gets done. 00:15:52.420 --> 00:15:55.380 >> No, that doesn't happen. 00:15:55.380 --> 00:15:58.260 >> Yeah, that's -- I mean, I go back to, like, they don't -- 00:15:58.260 --> 00:16:03.160 they did not pass that they can't vote on things they take money about. 00:16:03.160 --> 00:16:09.400 So, you know, would they want to hire attorneys to investigate them? 00:16:09.400 --> 00:16:16.340 Might be something to think about as far as that one. 00:16:16.340 --> 00:16:23.220 >> I just think it's one of the many ways this code is like no other that I've read anywhere. 00:16:23.220 --> 00:16:28.980 And it's -- puts a very heavy burden on citizens. 00:16:28.980 --> 00:16:39.100 And I do think if we had a preliminary hearing, I think some of the complaints 00:16:39.100 --> 00:16:46.440 that have been filed would have gone away just in that. 00:16:46.440 --> 00:16:51.540 >> So at the preliminary hearing, it says city auditor responsible 00:16:51.540 --> 00:16:55.580 for acquiring additional evidence as directed to the extent possible. 00:16:55.580 --> 00:17:00.460 But then is that a conflict of the city auditor doing an investigation on city council 00:17:00.460 --> 00:17:04.220 and the city auditor is an employee of city council? 00:17:04.220 --> 00:17:08.060 >> I mean, it certainly could be. 00:17:08.060 --> 00:17:09.960 >> Yeah, I might have a concern. 00:17:09.960 --> 00:17:15.100 >> But I don't -- I mean, literally anybody who works with the city is 00:17:15.100 --> 00:17:18.040 in some way conflicted to the state council. 00:17:18.040 --> 00:17:21.980 >> Well, I mean, that's why I think when we have advisory opinions, 00:17:21.980 --> 00:17:27.820 when we have actual hearings, that's why we bring in the law firm. 00:17:27.820 --> 00:17:30.320 That's necessarily, you know, hypothetically thinking 00:17:30.320 --> 00:17:32.780 at these things I don't think is a conflict. 00:17:32.780 --> 00:17:38.120 But when you're actually talking about, you know, accusing someone in the city 00:17:38.120 --> 00:17:41.260 of doing something, then you start getting into the conflict. 00:17:41.260 --> 00:17:59.340 >> So we're agreed that it's okay to shift the burden away from the complainant, 00:17:59.340 --> 00:18:02.340 but we just don't know how to work that? 00:18:02.340 --> 00:18:05.480 Does that -- am I understanding that correctly? 00:18:05.480 --> 00:18:11.660 >> I think there was -- my understanding from last meeting was there was majority consensus 00:18:11.660 --> 00:18:16.000 to essentially strike the section of the code that says burden approved. 00:18:16.000 --> 00:18:22.000 That specifically puts that on the complainant, which based on the research, 00:18:22.000 --> 00:18:25.340 there's no other section like -- no other city has a specific section 00:18:25.340 --> 00:18:27.200 that specifically calls that out. 00:18:27.200 --> 00:18:28.140 >> Right. 00:18:28.140 --> 00:18:29.880 >> That's true. 00:18:29.880 --> 00:18:33.180 But then the question was, well, then if we do that, 00:18:33.180 --> 00:18:35.380 what other ways do we gather additional evidence? 00:18:35.380 --> 00:18:37.880 If we need it, who -- how do we run the hearing? 00:18:37.880 --> 00:18:39.760 And that kind of -- there were those questions. 00:18:39.760 --> 00:18:42.380 So there were several ideas tossed around. 00:18:42.380 --> 00:18:45.720 I tried to put them on paper so that we could discuss them. 00:18:45.720 --> 00:18:50.700 >> If I may -- go ahead. 00:18:50.700 --> 00:18:52.300 >> This says gather additional evidence. 00:18:52.300 --> 00:18:57.800 I guess my question or thought would be, like, just because you're gathering evidence, 00:18:57.800 --> 00:19:02.340 does that necessarily mean it has to be in favor of the complainant? 00:19:02.340 --> 00:19:10.440 Like, if you gathered additional evidence as, let's say, city auditor in this second row, 00:19:10.440 --> 00:19:13.560 you might find that different evidence that is, like, to the contrary. 00:19:13.560 --> 00:19:17.960 So you're doing your job, but you're not necessarily favoring a side. 00:19:17.960 --> 00:19:21.420 >> Well, I mean, I think you could probably call that investigation. 00:19:21.420 --> 00:19:22.420 >> Okay. 00:19:22.420 --> 00:19:26.560 >> You know, and I think the investigation of the complaint against, you know, okay, good. 00:19:26.560 --> 00:19:30.300 If they find something that says the person didn't do anything, that's good. 00:19:30.300 --> 00:19:35.640 But -- and, I mean, I trust Madison's ethics, but what if you have a city auditor 00:19:35.640 --> 00:19:39.340 that that's their bosses and they want their contract renewed? 00:19:39.340 --> 00:19:43.720 Then they might find evidence that, you know, is favorable toward the council member. 00:19:43.720 --> 00:19:47.660 And so that's where you have the conflict of things could go bad, and they might not want 00:19:47.660 --> 00:19:48.920 to find that bad evidence. 00:19:48.920 --> 00:19:54.600 So even if they find good stuff, they're still investigating the council person. 00:19:54.600 --> 00:19:57.080 And, you know, we'll see what comes out of it. 00:19:57.080 --> 00:19:58.400 But that's where the conflict is. 00:19:58.400 --> 00:20:00.480 >> Yeah. That's a conflict. 00:20:00.480 --> 00:20:03.000 Absolutely. 00:20:03.000 --> 00:20:12.580 >> So if no other city has a burden of proof, what's the process that they use to -- 00:20:12.580 --> 00:20:14.240 >> It's often similar to what we're doing. 00:20:14.240 --> 00:20:17.980 There's just not a section in the ordinance that specifically says burden 00:20:17.980 --> 00:20:22.220 of proof is the totally -- I mean, it doesn't exactly say the totally the complainant, 00:20:22.220 --> 00:20:24.420 but that's basically what it says. 00:20:24.420 --> 00:20:28.880 >> So what you're saying is the other cities, it's on the complainant? 00:20:28.880 --> 00:20:33.160 >> The complainant is typically required to at least testify at a preliminary hearing 00:20:33.160 --> 00:20:38.160 or hearing and present their -- what they submitted in the complaint as a narrative. 00:20:38.160 --> 00:20:41.400 >> I thought Fort Worth was the only city that required them to testify 00:20:41.400 --> 00:20:43.640 and the others didn't know that. 00:20:43.640 --> 00:20:47.800 >> No. There was -- most of them require them to testify. 00:20:47.800 --> 00:20:49.200 I could go back to our previous -- 00:20:49.200 --> 00:20:51.000 >> I feel like we had a chart about that at one point. 00:20:51.000 --> 00:20:58.520 >> Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. 00:20:58.520 --> 00:21:01.240 >> We did. 00:21:01.240 --> 00:21:05.200 It was in May. 00:21:05.200 --> 00:21:07.480 Thank you, Madison. 00:21:07.480 --> 00:21:07.880 >> Oh my gosh. 00:21:07.880 --> 00:21:10.000 How do you remember which meeting that was? 00:21:10.000 --> 00:21:12.360 >> I know. 00:21:12.360 --> 00:21:14.520 Madison's good. 00:21:14.520 --> 00:21:20.240 >> Incredible. 00:21:20.240 --> 00:21:22.200 >> Wow. 00:21:22.200 --> 00:21:23.760 >> Whoa. 00:21:23.760 --> 00:21:40.400 >> I feel like we looked at this chart and we talked about it and we didn't take it for now. 00:21:40.400 --> 00:21:41.480 Is that what happened at that meeting? 00:21:41.480 --> 00:21:42.760 >> This was in May. 00:21:42.760 --> 00:21:44.200 >> In June, you directed it. 00:21:44.200 --> 00:21:44.440 >> Okay. 00:21:44.440 --> 00:21:48.000 >> And then in June, yeah, in May, you directed me to present more detail 00:21:48.000 --> 00:21:49.600 about Fort Worth and Austin, I believe. 00:21:49.600 --> 00:21:55.880 And then in June, there was majority consensus to remove that. 00:21:55.880 --> 00:22:04.920 >> If I may, what is the difference between the testifying and the presuming? 00:22:04.920 --> 00:22:07.840 >> I think there's not a difference. 00:22:07.840 --> 00:22:08.360 I don't know. 00:22:08.360 --> 00:22:13.440 That's -- well, I guess if we just took the burden of evidence out -- 00:22:13.440 --> 00:22:15.080 >> Well, I don't think it occurred to you. 00:22:15.080 --> 00:22:18.040 That's what I -- I'm sorry, and then -- 00:22:18.040 --> 00:22:23.360 >> I guess if we just took the burden of proof out, that would be a step forward. 00:22:23.360 --> 00:22:31.160 And then I guess I think what we were struggling with that time was, 00:22:31.160 --> 00:22:34.840 should the complainant be compelled to testify? 00:22:34.840 --> 00:22:42.560 >> I think that there should be something to replace burden of proof if it's taken out. 00:22:42.560 --> 00:22:47.600 Otherwise, there's no direction in how evidence is collected. 00:22:47.600 --> 00:22:49.720 And somebody might just put a complaint up, 00:22:49.720 --> 00:22:52.120 and then nobody has the responsibility to look into it. 00:22:52.120 --> 00:22:55.160 And then we go to a hearing, and it's like default judgment 00:22:55.160 --> 00:22:57.360 because there's no evidence against it. 00:22:57.360 --> 00:22:59.520 >> That's happened. 00:22:59.520 --> 00:23:02.320 >> Well, then that means it's the complainant's burden still, 00:23:02.320 --> 00:23:03.920 because that's the only person. 00:23:03.920 --> 00:23:06.960 So you either have to -- you keep it as is. 00:23:06.960 --> 00:23:11.880 You make it ambiguous, and the complainant doesn't even know it's their responsibility. 00:23:11.880 --> 00:23:16.240 Or you figure out how to do it a new way. 00:23:16.240 --> 00:23:20.200 Which I think I brought it up at the May meeting, if that's the last time when I was 00:23:20.200 --> 00:23:22.640 at and we looked over this. 00:23:22.640 --> 00:23:27.320 You're going to have to ask city council to probably hire out somebody from the outside, 00:23:27.320 --> 00:23:32.120 or hire some sort of investigator to do this. 00:23:32.120 --> 00:23:35.640 And I think that probably is a challenge, and I know you brought it before. 00:23:35.640 --> 00:23:38.280 I wish we'd think about whether they would do it or not. 00:23:38.280 --> 00:23:41.280 But I mean, I think we should, because if they're not going to do it, 00:23:41.280 --> 00:23:46.120 we need to think of a good way to do it. 00:23:46.120 --> 00:23:56.360 >> Well, if we're making sure that the council member or the complainee has representation, 00:23:56.360 --> 00:24:01.240 why wouldn't we also provide that for a complainant? 00:24:01.240 --> 00:24:04.440 Why wouldn't we give them some support, even if it -- 00:24:04.440 --> 00:24:06.320 >> The person that complains against? 00:24:06.320 --> 00:24:09.000 We don't provide counsel for them. 00:24:09.000 --> 00:24:14.360 >> No, but why would -- I mean, if we're doing it for the accused, 00:24:14.360 --> 00:24:16.800 why would we not also do it? 00:24:16.800 --> 00:24:20.680 I mean, this is not like a court of law for -- 00:24:20.680 --> 00:24:23.520 >> We don't provide counsel for the accused. 00:24:23.520 --> 00:24:25.080 >> Or either side. 00:24:25.080 --> 00:24:26.600 >> They provide their own -- 00:24:26.600 --> 00:24:28.440 >> Or they do themselves. 00:24:28.440 --> 00:24:32.240 I think -- because I think, like, Paul had an attorney. 00:24:32.240 --> 00:24:32.920 >> Right. 00:24:32.920 --> 00:24:35.640 >> But I don't know if -- I don't remember her. 00:24:35.640 --> 00:24:36.400 I think I'm missing -- 00:24:36.400 --> 00:24:38.080 >> His attorney wasn't a city employee. 00:24:38.080 --> 00:24:40.120 >> Yeah. I feel like he -- that was -- I mean, I don't -- 00:24:40.120 --> 00:24:41.960 I actually don't think he hired him. 00:24:41.960 --> 00:24:44.720 I'm not totally sure, but, you know, he did -- 00:24:44.720 --> 00:24:46.360 the city didn't provide an attorney. 00:24:46.360 --> 00:24:48.640 >> Our office recuses itself entirely. 00:24:48.640 --> 00:24:51.720 >> Yeah. And then we get -- we get counsel as the board of ethics. 00:24:51.720 --> 00:24:54.080 They pay for outside counsel for us. 00:24:54.080 --> 00:24:56.920 So you're talking about the city would have to pay outside counsel 00:24:56.920 --> 00:25:00.560 for us and outside counsel as the investigator. 00:25:00.560 --> 00:25:03.720 So two different outside counsels. 00:25:03.720 --> 00:25:05.080 >> Makes it expensive. 00:25:05.080 --> 00:25:08.080 >> Yes. So something to consider. 00:25:08.080 --> 00:25:08.560 Yes? 00:25:08.560 --> 00:25:13.000 >> So if -- what I'm hearing, and correct me if I'm wrong, 00:25:13.000 --> 00:25:17.480 is that the point of contention is the phrase burden of proof. 00:25:17.480 --> 00:25:20.360 But the process remains the same. 00:25:20.360 --> 00:25:25.520 >> Well, based on if we just took out the wording burden of proof, 00:25:25.520 --> 00:25:29.200 then -- or just took out the section about burden of proof, 00:25:29.200 --> 00:25:33.420 then there's no section saying how evidence comes to us. 00:25:33.420 --> 00:25:36.440 And so really the -- it's ambiguous. 00:25:36.440 --> 00:25:38.080 So the complaint wanted no. 00:25:38.080 --> 00:25:39.400 And the only way you're really going 00:25:39.400 --> 00:25:42.480 to get evidence to us is the complaint would bring it. 00:25:42.480 --> 00:25:45.120 >> So is there another phrase that would take care of that issue 00:25:45.120 --> 00:25:48.600 without it sounding like burden of proof? 00:25:48.600 --> 00:25:50.800 >> I mean, but -- well, then you're just -- I mean -- 00:25:50.800 --> 00:25:52.080 >> I know it's synaptic. 00:25:52.080 --> 00:25:53.000 >> Yeah, exactly. 00:25:53.000 --> 00:25:56.160 The things that you all are worried about are still there. 00:25:56.160 --> 00:25:59.640 >> But that is the thing that I have objected to the most about -- 00:25:59.640 --> 00:26:02.640 one of the things about this code is 00:26:02.640 --> 00:26:05.840 that it clearly says this rests on a citizen. 00:26:05.840 --> 00:26:11.160 And I -- maybe it makes it more ambiguous, but at least let's stay 00:26:11.160 --> 00:26:17.200 with taking it out and then figure out what we need to clean 00:26:17.200 --> 00:26:19.720 up, you know, for the rest of the procedures. 00:26:19.720 --> 00:26:23.640 It's pretty obvious someone is making a complaint. 00:26:23.640 --> 00:26:26.480 It's kind of part of the democratic process 00:26:26.480 --> 00:26:29.600 that you know your accuser. 00:26:29.600 --> 00:26:33.440 You know, I personally would expect all those things. 00:26:33.440 --> 00:26:37.960 I just really object to the very strong statement 00:26:37.960 --> 00:26:40.720 that this is on the citizen. 00:26:40.720 --> 00:26:45.920 I just don't think that's a good way to couch it. 00:26:45.920 --> 00:26:49.040 >> So you're saying you want to just like put it to council, 00:26:49.040 --> 00:26:51.400 let's just take this section out. 00:26:51.400 --> 00:26:54.560 And what if council's like, okay, whoever's presenting this, 00:26:54.560 --> 00:26:57.120 how are we -- how would the Board of Ethics get evidence then? 00:26:57.120 --> 00:27:00.080 >> I don't think anything would change. 00:27:00.080 --> 00:27:04.080 I mean I don't think anything is changing except 00:27:04.080 --> 00:27:08.520 for the last sentence there. 00:27:08.520 --> 00:27:10.920 I mean if they -- if we take this -- 00:27:10.920 --> 00:27:13.960 if we completely strike that from the ordinance, 00:27:13.960 --> 00:27:17.320 then a complaints failure to testify 00:27:17.320 --> 00:27:22.680 to hearing is not grounds for dismissal of the complaint. 00:27:22.680 --> 00:27:25.920 Like that -- as far as like in practice what's actually going 00:27:25.920 --> 00:27:28.320 to happen, that's the only thing that's really going 00:27:28.320 --> 00:27:29.560 to change here. 00:27:29.560 --> 00:27:32.600 Right now they still have to submit their evidence 00:27:32.600 --> 00:27:37.080 like that farther up in the -- in the ordinance. 00:27:37.080 --> 00:27:41.600 Part of the complaint package includes their, you know, 00:27:41.600 --> 00:27:44.840 the name of the complainant, their information, 00:27:44.840 --> 00:27:47.840 what section they're violating and then some other things, 00:27:47.840 --> 00:27:51.280 the statement of facts and other documents and materials. 00:27:51.280 --> 00:27:52.880 We're not changing any of that. 00:27:52.880 --> 00:27:56.680 The reality is we could strike out that burden 00:27:56.680 --> 00:27:59.040 of proof paragraph completely. 00:27:59.040 --> 00:28:01.560 Everything would be exactly the same as it is now. 00:28:01.560 --> 00:28:05.160 It might feel better because it doesn't say burden of proof, 00:28:05.160 --> 00:28:09.360 but they still have to do everything except for testify. 00:28:09.360 --> 00:28:12.200 And right now the way it's written is if they don't show 00:28:12.200 --> 00:28:15.440 up to the hearing, not the preliminary panel hearing, 00:28:15.440 --> 00:28:20.360 but the actual hearing after a complaint deemed actionable 00:28:20.360 --> 00:28:23.400 and complete, if they don't show up to that hearing, 00:28:23.400 --> 00:28:26.760 then we throw out the complaint. 00:28:26.760 --> 00:28:28.960 So in practice, the only thing that we're doing 00:28:28.960 --> 00:28:32.640 by striking this whole paragraph would be maybe making us feel 00:28:32.640 --> 00:28:36.160 better about not using the word burden of proof 00:28:36.160 --> 00:28:39.040 and not requiring the complainant to testify. 00:28:39.040 --> 00:28:42.880 And I don't know if those are good things or bad. 00:28:42.880 --> 00:28:46.560 I mean, I think there is some concern 00:28:46.560 --> 00:28:50.800 over not requiring the complainant to show up at the hearing 00:28:50.800 --> 00:28:53.960 because they -- the respondent is being accused of something 00:28:53.960 --> 00:28:58.320 and they have the right to respond however they respond. 00:28:58.320 --> 00:29:00.800 But are they responding to the person or are they responding 00:29:00.800 --> 00:29:04.040 to the complaint, the evidence that was submitted? 00:29:04.040 --> 00:29:07.000 >> So I guess, I mean, so does everyone want 00:29:07.000 --> 00:29:11.880 to just take this out and just not have a backup? 00:29:11.880 --> 00:29:12.600 Is that what you're saying? 00:29:12.600 --> 00:29:16.520 Is that -- I would -- I think -- 00:29:16.520 --> 00:29:20.280 oh, I don't think Rob's talking on the subject. 00:29:20.280 --> 00:29:23.920 >> If we don't have a title, if we don't call it something, 00:29:23.920 --> 00:29:27.280 we're all gone. 00:29:27.280 --> 00:29:28.160 We're gone. 00:29:28.160 --> 00:29:30.280 Next month, let's say, we have a new group come in. 00:29:30.280 --> 00:29:32.040 How do they find this? 00:29:32.040 --> 00:29:35.960 >> How do they find this? 00:29:35.960 --> 00:29:36.880 >> There's no title. 00:29:36.880 --> 00:29:39.400 There's nothing -- there's nothing here to -- 00:29:39.400 --> 00:29:41.240 if we wanted to see the procedure here 00:29:41.240 --> 00:29:43.720 and we don't have a title for it, how -- 00:29:43.720 --> 00:29:46.000 where are you going to look it up to look for it? 00:29:46.000 --> 00:29:46.680 Procedure? 00:29:46.680 --> 00:29:47.800 Yeah. 00:29:47.800 --> 00:29:50.520 >> If that's not in there and doesn't have a title, 00:29:50.520 --> 00:29:52.400 if that paragraph is gone, 00:29:52.400 --> 00:29:55.840 nothing changes except that we cannot throw out a complaint 00:29:55.840 --> 00:29:59.120 if the complaint doesn't show up. 00:29:59.120 --> 00:30:03.800 Right now, we're not discussing who can conduct an investigation 00:30:03.800 --> 00:30:05.600 or present more evidence. 00:30:05.600 --> 00:30:08.880 Right now, the way it's written, that is solely on the complaint 00:30:08.880 --> 00:30:11.280 and that's not because of this paragraph. 00:30:11.280 --> 00:30:13.880 That's because that's the way it's written up above whenever 00:30:13.880 --> 00:30:15.320 they have to submit their complaint. 00:30:15.320 --> 00:30:16.400 >> And I'm fine with that. 00:30:16.400 --> 00:30:18.120 It's this burden-improved thing. 00:30:18.120 --> 00:30:19.240 It's something they'll turn. 00:30:19.240 --> 00:30:23.680 >> And it's another way this document is a legal document. 00:30:23.680 --> 00:30:26.360 >> Well, I mean, it is a legal document and it is a hearing. 00:30:26.360 --> 00:30:31.080 >> It's an ethical code and ethics are not the same as law. 00:30:31.080 --> 00:30:33.480 >> But you were accusing someone of doing something 00:30:33.480 --> 00:30:37.440 that could affect them, like, you know, I don't know. 00:30:37.440 --> 00:30:38.160 >> Understood. 00:30:38.160 --> 00:30:43.960 >> About not giving, you know, all the legal, you know, 00:30:43.960 --> 00:30:47.200 procedural due process to the counselor. 00:30:47.200 --> 00:30:52.360 >> The law is a set of rules and ethics are something different 00:30:52.360 --> 00:30:54.000 and it is something -- 00:30:54.000 --> 00:30:57.000 >> But in order to go through a complaint, you have to have a set 00:30:57.000 --> 00:30:59.800 of rules and it's an ordinance and it is a law. 00:30:59.800 --> 00:31:03.640 >> I was about to say, may I finish? 00:31:03.640 --> 00:31:06.000 >> Yeah, sure. 00:31:06.000 --> 00:31:07.480 >> It's something that I think a lot 00:31:07.480 --> 00:31:09.520 of lawyers don't understand. 00:31:09.520 --> 00:31:13.240 >> Okay, we're not going to talk badly 00:31:13.240 --> 00:31:15.960 about people of certain professions, Hannah. 00:31:15.960 --> 00:31:21.520 >> It's gone. 00:31:21.520 --> 00:31:23.720 It's back with Rob, so I'll let it go. 00:31:23.720 --> 00:31:27.000 >> All right, so we've spent the allotted time on this. 00:31:27.000 --> 00:31:30.040 Is it that we just want to, there was consensus last time 00:31:30.040 --> 00:31:33.240 to leave out burden of proof and so we're saying we don't want 00:31:33.240 --> 00:31:36.040 to do any of the options Madison says and just go forward 00:31:36.040 --> 00:31:38.000 with just getting that out. 00:31:38.000 --> 00:31:40.720 I mean, if anybody has a motion for that, they can do that, 00:31:40.720 --> 00:31:43.720 or if we need to give more guidance to Madison 00:31:43.720 --> 00:31:48.840 to further the conversation, we can do that. 00:31:48.840 --> 00:31:52.520 >> I would propose modification. 00:31:52.520 --> 00:31:57.120 I like the file complaint is the complaint. 00:31:57.120 --> 00:32:00.040 Well, same law, the column one. 00:32:00.040 --> 00:32:03.920 Column two, I like that the Board of Ethics have, 00:32:03.920 --> 00:32:06.680 we have a responsibility of saying here's what evidence we 00:32:06.680 --> 00:32:10.640 would need to agree with you or disagree. 00:32:10.640 --> 00:32:14.800 Then who's responsible for gathering the initial evidence? 00:32:14.800 --> 00:32:17.920 I believe it's the complainant, not a city auditor 00:32:17.920 --> 00:32:20.640 or the other options that are listed there. 00:32:20.640 --> 00:32:26.360 And then the Board of Ethics listens to the evidence 00:32:26.360 --> 00:32:27.760 and makes a decision. 00:32:27.760 --> 00:32:32.520 So it's a modification of the second line there. 00:32:32.520 --> 00:32:34.520 >> Who would make the present, I apologize, 00:32:34.520 --> 00:32:38.160 who would make the present evidence, or present the evidence, 00:32:38.160 --> 00:32:44.720 are you saying the Board of Ethics would then present the evidence? 00:32:44.720 --> 00:32:45.400 Who would present it? 00:32:45.400 --> 00:32:48.480 >> We're saying, I would say the Board of Ethics says, 00:32:48.480 --> 00:32:51.200 here's what we need to make a judgment. 00:32:51.200 --> 00:32:52.680 >> I got that. 00:32:52.680 --> 00:32:56.120 >> And then the complainant is responsible for gathering 00:32:56.120 --> 00:32:59.720 that evidence that we've listed, here's what's required. 00:32:59.720 --> 00:33:02.440 And then in the normal course of events, 00:33:02.440 --> 00:33:05.600 the Board of Ethics makes a decision as to, yes, 00:33:05.600 --> 00:33:09.480 this is a valid complaint, or no, this is frivolous. 00:33:09.480 --> 00:33:10.160 >> So the fourth form -- 00:33:10.160 --> 00:33:12.600 >> Just saying at the hearing, we just look at the evidence 00:33:12.600 --> 00:33:13.840 that has been gathered. 00:33:13.840 --> 00:33:14.360 >> Yeah. 00:33:14.360 --> 00:33:15.960 >> Okay. 00:33:15.960 --> 00:33:19.360 >> So no formal presentation, per se, by the complainant? 00:33:19.360 --> 00:33:22.880 >> Well, they present the evidence that we asked for. 00:33:22.880 --> 00:33:25.600 >> Okay, but so, okay, I was trying to get, 00:33:25.600 --> 00:33:30.600 who's under the number four category then? 00:33:30.600 --> 00:33:32.560 >> That's the responsibility of the complainant. 00:33:32.560 --> 00:33:33.280 >> Thank you. 00:33:33.280 --> 00:33:35.680 >> So providing, here's the evidence that I have. 00:33:35.680 --> 00:33:40.880 If you like me saying, I saw Dustin speeding on the way 00:33:40.880 --> 00:33:45.000 to this meeting, that's my complaint. 00:33:45.000 --> 00:33:49.720 Then this board would say, okay, Tom, how are you going to -- 00:33:49.720 --> 00:33:52.160 we need some evidence that really happened. 00:33:52.160 --> 00:33:53.760 Well, believe me, it did. 00:33:53.760 --> 00:33:56.000 Well, no, that's not going to be that valid. 00:33:56.000 --> 00:33:59.900 So I'd have to provide other evidence for you to make -- 00:33:59.900 --> 00:34:02.120 to go forward, you probably would say, no, 00:34:02.120 --> 00:34:04.360 that's frivolous, Tom, out with you. 00:34:04.360 --> 00:34:08.120 Or if I came in and said, here's a picture of my speedometer 00:34:08.120 --> 00:34:11.280 and there's his car in front of me. 00:34:11.280 --> 00:34:15.380 But, so it's my responsibility as a complainant 00:34:15.380 --> 00:34:17.200 to say here's the evidence that I have. 00:34:17.200 --> 00:34:19.400 >> But you don't necessarily have to testify. 00:34:19.400 --> 00:34:22.800 >> No, I can just, it could be written, answers to the, 00:34:22.800 --> 00:34:26.320 what the Board of Ethics says they need. 00:34:26.320 --> 00:34:29.000 >> And if I may, if we wanted to add an "or" there, 00:34:29.000 --> 00:34:30.520 like the complainant or the Board of Ethics, 00:34:30.520 --> 00:34:33.720 let's say somebody gets stage fright, don't show up, 00:34:33.720 --> 00:34:35.800 but we have all the evidence we need. 00:34:35.800 --> 00:34:38.280 That would be kind of a weird situation, right, 00:34:38.280 --> 00:34:40.360 to just throw it out because all the evidence 00:34:40.360 --> 00:34:41.640 that somebody doesn't want to speak 00:34:41.640 --> 00:34:43.280 in front of people so they don't show up. 00:34:43.280 --> 00:34:43.880 >> So you're -- 00:34:43.880 --> 00:34:44.440 >> Not optimal. 00:34:44.440 --> 00:34:46.460 >> I think that's kind of the same thing Tom's saying, 00:34:46.460 --> 00:34:49.120 that the complainant could represent it or not. 00:34:49.120 --> 00:34:51.240 >> But if we want, if we want to add an "or," 00:34:51.240 --> 00:34:53.520 complainant or Board of Ethics can present evidence, 00:34:53.520 --> 00:34:54.840 that might -- 00:34:54.840 --> 00:34:55.960 >> Why not a middle point? 00:34:55.960 --> 00:34:58.120 >> I want to say we're presenting the evidence, 00:34:58.120 --> 00:35:00.640 but maybe just something 00:35:00.640 --> 00:35:04.360 about like reviewing the evidence that's been gathered. 00:35:04.360 --> 00:35:06.320 It's like we want to really be presenting it 00:35:06.320 --> 00:35:09.640 because we're the, we're the judges right now. 00:35:09.640 --> 00:35:10.920 >> Thank you. 00:35:10.920 --> 00:35:14.440 >> So -- 00:35:14.440 --> 00:35:19.880 >> If we went that route, no. 00:35:19.880 --> 00:35:20.680 >> That's quite right. 00:35:20.680 --> 00:35:21.320 Thank you. 00:35:21.320 --> 00:35:22.360 That's not there. 00:35:22.360 --> 00:35:24.040 I forgot. 00:35:24.040 --> 00:35:24.680 >> Any questions? 00:35:24.680 --> 00:35:25.560 Okay. 00:35:25.560 --> 00:35:27.680 >> So I mean, so currently if the, 00:35:27.680 --> 00:35:31.000 there's a procedure where if the complainant or respond, 00:35:31.000 --> 00:35:35.000 and respondent are a -- or a -- I'm sorry. 00:35:35.000 --> 00:35:38.320 Send the evidence, additional evidence basically, 00:35:38.320 --> 00:35:39.720 if they would like it presented at the hearing. 00:35:39.720 --> 00:35:41.920 It's required to go in the packet in order for the board 00:35:41.920 --> 00:35:44.320 to discuss it through the Texas Open Meetings Act, 00:35:44.320 --> 00:35:46.120 the Texas Open Meetings Act. 00:35:46.120 --> 00:35:50.520 So any evidence that they would like to present has to go 00:35:50.520 --> 00:35:53.080 to me anyway so that it can be given to you prior 00:35:53.080 --> 00:35:55.120 to the meeting, my understanding of how it works 00:35:55.120 --> 00:35:57.720 and how we've done in the past. 00:35:57.720 --> 00:36:01.720 I can't tell if Scott's like, that's not right. 00:36:01.720 --> 00:36:03.840 So in that way I guess they wouldn't have 00:36:03.840 --> 00:36:06.000 to necessarily present it. 00:36:06.000 --> 00:36:09.640 It's already there for you to consider. 00:36:09.640 --> 00:36:11.480 Just there's no necessary, there's no requirement 00:36:11.480 --> 00:36:15.560 for them to verbally say, I brought you XYZ. 00:36:15.560 --> 00:36:17.760 >> And if I might, if they don't present, 00:36:17.760 --> 00:36:20.280 they're probably lessening their odds 00:36:20.280 --> 00:36:24.040 of having their complaint agreed upon. 00:36:24.040 --> 00:36:26.280 But that's their choice. 00:36:26.280 --> 00:36:29.600 We're taking that burden from them. 00:36:29.600 --> 00:36:32.080 >> If we kept the complaint but then added 00:36:32.080 --> 00:36:35.240 or a representative, it doesn't have to be an attorney. 00:36:35.240 --> 00:36:39.800 It might be somebody that's more eloquent in their train 00:36:39.800 --> 00:36:43.040 of thought is something that -- and then maybe nurses can't be. 00:36:43.040 --> 00:36:47.160 Could we then just make that complaint and/or representative? 00:36:47.160 --> 00:36:51.000 >> Yeah, and I think that's already how the procedure rules 00:36:51.000 --> 00:36:52.160 are ready. 00:36:52.160 --> 00:36:55.880 So I'm going to, and you know, I don't want us to like go way 00:36:55.880 --> 00:37:00.600 over time because now we have kind of a new idea. 00:37:00.600 --> 00:37:05.160 Do we want to continue the discussion with this new idea 00:37:05.160 --> 00:37:07.520 and see what we can, maybe at the next meeting 00:37:07.520 --> 00:37:11.160 or does everybody want to accept that? 00:37:11.160 --> 00:37:14.040 Or is everybody like, no, we don't want that? 00:37:14.040 --> 00:37:15.120 What do you all think? 00:37:15.120 --> 00:37:15.960 Just to -- 00:37:15.960 --> 00:37:17.080 >> I guess if I could keep things -- 00:37:17.080 --> 00:37:19.360 so what I've heard is there's general consensus 00:37:19.360 --> 00:37:25.080 to not require the complainant to testify at the hearing 00:37:25.080 --> 00:37:26.360 but to give them direction. 00:37:26.360 --> 00:37:28.920 We would like you to provide answers, additional evidence 00:37:28.920 --> 00:37:30.840 for XYZ at some point. 00:37:30.840 --> 00:37:33.200 So I could bring back language that does those things 00:37:33.200 --> 00:37:35.400 or we could say let's wait on that 00:37:35.400 --> 00:37:37.080 and have a continued discussion next time. 00:37:37.080 --> 00:37:38.680 >> Well, I don't know. 00:37:38.680 --> 00:37:40.760 I'll let everybody say something that they want. 00:37:40.760 --> 00:37:43.280 But maybe you come up with language about that 00:37:43.280 --> 00:37:46.800 and maybe language with this new line that I think is kind 00:37:46.800 --> 00:37:51.440 of hits maybe more of what everybody's thinking. 00:37:51.440 --> 00:37:53.840 And then we kind of have a new discussion based 00:37:53.840 --> 00:37:54.760 on the new language you bring. 00:37:54.760 --> 00:37:56.880 And maybe it'll be like this and we'll come up with something new 00:37:56.880 --> 00:38:00.400 but maybe we can all like, come up, like, decide on something. 00:38:00.400 --> 00:38:05.440 >> I just have, what if the complainant is asked to come 00:38:05.440 --> 00:38:08.800 up with something that requires an open records request? 00:38:08.800 --> 00:38:12.920 I guess those can take what, two days? 00:38:12.920 --> 00:38:13.920 >> I think -- 00:38:13.920 --> 00:38:17.560 >> I believe there is a response required in 10 days 00:38:17.560 --> 00:38:18.880 but I've deferred it out on that. 00:38:18.880 --> 00:38:21.000 >> I mean, they can be quick if it's an easy yes. 00:38:21.000 --> 00:38:22.960 But yeah, I mean, they can take longer than 10 days 00:38:22.960 --> 00:38:24.280 if there's information -- 00:38:24.280 --> 00:38:25.640 >> You get an attorney general looking at it and it'll -- 00:38:25.640 --> 00:38:27.680 it could be much longer. 00:38:27.680 --> 00:38:29.920 But how about we knock it in the weeds on that tonight? 00:38:29.920 --> 00:38:33.200 >> I think we could write something in that said, 00:38:33.200 --> 00:38:36.000 I could facilitate that process in some way. 00:38:36.000 --> 00:38:37.520 >> Okay. So -- 00:38:37.520 --> 00:38:40.200 >> At least help get them submit the request and things like that. 00:38:40.200 --> 00:38:43.720 >> Okay. So how about you write a language 00:38:43.720 --> 00:38:46.600 that, you know, I guess we want to take this out. 00:38:46.600 --> 00:38:48.000 We don't want them to testify. 00:38:48.000 --> 00:38:51.920 Write a language with kind of what Tom has said 00:38:51.920 --> 00:38:53.920 and what we kind of all talked about. 00:38:53.920 --> 00:38:56.400 And then we'll just continue this discussion next week 00:38:56.400 --> 00:38:58.600 and I think we'll have maybe a better starting point 00:38:58.600 --> 00:39:00.840 to maybe we can all come to an agreement. 00:39:00.840 --> 00:39:02.400 How does that sound? 00:39:02.400 --> 00:39:04.240 All right. 00:39:04.240 --> 00:39:06.240 All right. 00:39:06.240 --> 00:39:09.280 [ Inaudible ] 00:39:09.280 --> 00:39:12.520 Okay. So Madison's taking notes. 00:39:12.520 --> 00:39:14.680 Is there anything else you need as far 00:39:14.680 --> 00:39:17.760 as guidance on that agenda item? 00:39:17.760 --> 00:39:20.360 >> I don't think so at this time. 00:39:20.360 --> 00:39:27.360 >> Okay. Item C, BOE 23-034, Receive a report, 00:39:27.360 --> 00:39:29.520 hold the discussion, and take necessary action regarding the 00:39:29.520 --> 00:39:35.480 definition and role of alternate members of the Board of Ethics. 00:39:35.480 --> 00:39:45.440 So going to the agenda sheet -- I don't have a presentation. 00:39:45.440 --> 00:39:50.040 Okay. So I guess what -- I don't know 00:39:50.040 --> 00:39:51.640 if I was here during this discussion. 00:39:51.640 --> 00:39:56.840 I mean, right now, it's just like can the regular members come 00:39:56.840 --> 00:40:00.760 and if not, I mean, I don't even tell Madison. 00:40:00.760 --> 00:40:03.000 I think we just randomly kind of picked the next person 00:40:03.000 --> 00:40:06.360 up for alternate to attend. 00:40:06.360 --> 00:40:09.680 I think we talked about this before and we decided, like, 00:40:09.680 --> 00:40:11.280 you know, you have the seven people 00:40:11.280 --> 00:40:13.440 and if there's more alternates, they can come, but they're not, 00:40:13.440 --> 00:40:18.400 like, participating in the discussion just to, you know, 00:40:18.400 --> 00:40:19.600 not have the ten person -- you know, 00:40:19.600 --> 00:40:21.920 just to keep it at the seven person. 00:40:21.920 --> 00:40:26.720 >> With our own edification to keep up with the view of the Board, 00:40:26.720 --> 00:40:28.920 I think the extra alternate -- 00:40:28.920 --> 00:40:30.760 if they're coming and they're sitting on the side, 00:40:30.760 --> 00:40:32.000 that's what you're saying. 00:40:32.000 --> 00:40:33.360 >> Yeah, but they don't -- yeah, 00:40:33.360 --> 00:40:35.240 they don't participate in the actual discussion. 00:40:35.240 --> 00:40:36.960 >> I thought somebody had a car accident. 00:40:36.960 --> 00:40:38.400 >> Mops in. 00:40:38.400 --> 00:40:39.600 >> It's a page hitter. 00:40:39.600 --> 00:40:42.120 >> Yeah, I guess so. 00:40:42.120 --> 00:40:45.920 So I don't know, what was the -- 00:40:45.920 --> 00:40:50.280 >> I was given direction to bring this to the Board. 00:40:50.280 --> 00:40:57.520 >> I think that we should let alternates come to the meetings 00:40:57.520 --> 00:41:02.360 and at least have voice, and I know that there's a provision 00:41:02.360 --> 00:41:06.480 of Robert's Rules of Order for voice, but no vote, 00:41:06.480 --> 00:41:08.880 but the way things work when we have 00:41:08.880 --> 00:41:12.600 to sub in new alternates every time, I think it slows 00:41:12.600 --> 00:41:17.400 down our discussion because then we have to kind of bring them, 00:41:17.400 --> 00:41:20.080 people who haven't been there before, up to speed, 00:41:20.080 --> 00:41:22.480 to understand what we're talking about. 00:41:22.480 --> 00:41:24.720 >> Well, I mean, isn't that the same issue just -- 00:41:24.720 --> 00:41:27.040 whatever Board member is not there, who's not there, 00:41:27.040 --> 00:41:30.040 and will have a different idea the next time? 00:41:30.040 --> 00:41:35.480 I think the -- I mean, my idea is like the Board is kind 00:41:35.480 --> 00:41:38.160 of the seven people that if they could all show up every meeting, 00:41:38.160 --> 00:41:41.560 the alternates wouldn't have any say. 00:41:41.560 --> 00:41:47.920 So I guess -- I don't see a reason to really change it. 00:41:47.920 --> 00:41:48.760 Go ahead. 00:41:48.760 --> 00:41:49.840 >> I'm confused. 00:41:49.840 --> 00:41:53.440 Is the question whether or not they're allowed to attend? 00:41:53.440 --> 00:41:54.840 >> No, I don't -- I mean, I don't think so. 00:41:54.840 --> 00:41:56.160 I mean, because it's a public meeting. 00:41:56.160 --> 00:41:57.280 >> Okay. All right. 00:41:57.280 --> 00:41:58.760 I think I just got a little -- 00:41:58.760 --> 00:42:01.120 >> They're not allowed to have a voice or a vote. 00:42:01.120 --> 00:42:02.440 >> Okay. Okay. 00:42:02.440 --> 00:42:05.200 >> Unless they're asked to sub in for someone. 00:42:05.200 --> 00:42:06.560 >> Thank you. 00:42:06.560 --> 00:42:09.480 >> And no other cities, once again, 00:42:09.480 --> 00:42:12.160 no other cities do this. 00:42:12.160 --> 00:42:14.440 So we're, once again, unique. 00:42:14.440 --> 00:42:15.640 >> Good. 00:42:15.640 --> 00:42:17.920 >> No other cities do what? 00:42:17.920 --> 00:42:19.720 >> Have alternates. 00:42:19.720 --> 00:42:20.920 >> Board members. 00:42:20.920 --> 00:42:22.720 >> So they just -- they don't have alternates at all. 00:42:22.720 --> 00:42:24.160 They just have the board. 00:42:24.160 --> 00:42:26.040 >> Right. 00:42:26.040 --> 00:42:27.360 >> That might be a problem. 00:42:27.360 --> 00:42:29.040 >> They have no quorum. 00:42:29.040 --> 00:42:30.560 >> Yeah. That's what I was thinking. 00:42:30.560 --> 00:42:34.360 Because if you just have -- if you have the -- 00:42:34.360 --> 00:42:37.840 I mean, isn't it a lesser quorum if you have a lesser actual board? 00:42:37.840 --> 00:42:40.600 And then if you -- the quorum is four because the board is seven. 00:42:40.600 --> 00:42:44.280 So it doesn't matter that we have the extra alternate members. 00:42:44.280 --> 00:42:47.800 I mean, to make quorum if we're missing members, it helps 00:42:47.800 --> 00:42:49.680 because then we can call them in. 00:42:49.680 --> 00:42:52.120 We don't always know that ahead of time. 00:42:52.120 --> 00:42:53.760 >> Yeah. And if we did have -- 00:42:53.760 --> 00:42:57.400 if we were barely meeting quorum and we have an alternate sitting here, 00:42:57.400 --> 00:43:00.120 we wouldn't not be meeting quorum. 00:43:00.120 --> 00:43:08.280 And it's just a unique thing about how Denton does their boards and commissions. 00:43:08.280 --> 00:43:11.760 >> I'm having trouble seeing that there's a problem with it. 00:43:11.760 --> 00:43:15.040 >> Well, I'll tell you where there is a problem. 00:43:15.040 --> 00:43:22.280 I have had to seek permission to get a change made to my historic structure. 00:43:22.280 --> 00:43:27.720 I had to wait an extra two months because the HLC could not get quorum. 00:43:27.720 --> 00:43:30.560 And they didn't have enough alternates to sub in. 00:43:30.560 --> 00:43:32.000 >> Well, I mean, that's a different board. 00:43:32.000 --> 00:43:33.200 >> Well, I know, but -- 00:43:33.200 --> 00:43:35.080 >> We haven't had that problem here. 00:43:35.080 --> 00:43:41.400 >> I really think that the more people we have having opinions is a good thing. 00:43:41.400 --> 00:43:47.200 And if they're willing to come, that would be a good thing. 00:43:47.200 --> 00:43:47.800 Go ahead. 00:43:47.800 --> 00:43:53.360 >> Are we trying to decide if the alternate members can speak at the meetings? 00:43:53.360 --> 00:43:55.360 Is that what the question is? 00:43:55.360 --> 00:43:57.240 >> They're not even allowed to come. 00:43:57.240 --> 00:43:58.240 Yeah, they can't speak. 00:43:58.240 --> 00:43:59.840 >> Well, they can attend. 00:43:59.840 --> 00:44:04.080 >> Yeah, we have an alternate sitting here. 00:44:04.080 --> 00:44:09.240 >> Right. I guess I'm just trying to understand what we're trying to get to here 00:44:09.240 --> 00:44:13.640 because it's not -- I don't think it's the Board of Ethics 00:44:13.640 --> 00:44:17.760 that defines the alternate member role, right? 00:44:17.760 --> 00:44:24.440 I mean, maybe we have the option to allow for an alternate member and it's to speak. 00:44:24.440 --> 00:44:29.800 I don't really think they would be allowed to vote no matter what we would like them to do, right? 00:44:29.800 --> 00:44:32.600 >> And now we have public comment, so they could -- 00:44:32.600 --> 00:44:36.960 >> Public comment would be allowable from an alternate member, correct? 00:44:36.960 --> 00:44:37.200 >> Yes. 00:44:37.200 --> 00:44:38.040 >> Yeah, I don't see why not. 00:44:38.040 --> 00:44:43.200 >> And that could be done for any agenda item, right? 00:44:43.200 --> 00:44:43.520 >> Correct. 00:44:43.520 --> 00:44:45.400 It's my understanding. 00:44:45.400 --> 00:44:46.040 >> Cool. 00:44:46.040 --> 00:44:53.120 >> Okay, so if I could -- I don't know who has a prompt or whatever, go for it. 00:44:53.120 --> 00:44:56.000 >> All I was going to say is it seems like we just solved that problem. 00:44:56.000 --> 00:44:57.000 >> Oh, with the public comment? 00:44:57.000 --> 00:44:59.280 >> That's all I was going to say. 00:44:59.280 --> 00:45:02.120 >> I just -- a little -- and I think you're right. 00:45:02.120 --> 00:45:08.480 A little history, though, when this board first started, alternates did sit in 00:45:08.480 --> 00:45:10.880 and were allowed to participate. 00:45:10.880 --> 00:45:17.520 But I think there was something from the city attorney's office that had a concern about that and so -- 00:45:17.520 --> 00:45:18.560 >> They muted us. 00:45:18.560 --> 00:45:19.920 >> Yeah, yeah. 00:45:19.920 --> 00:45:26.920 >> I think there's some ambiguity about -- with the Open Meetings Act, about whether an alternate, 00:45:26.920 --> 00:45:33.760 if they're participating in a meeting -- I mean, we have our code that says shall attend only upon request. 00:45:33.760 --> 00:45:41.400 And if we're reading that to have any meaning at all, then that may mean by accepting the role 00:45:41.400 --> 00:45:46.200 of alternate, you are accepting a position that limits your ability to speak of -- 00:45:46.200 --> 00:45:54.840 just like if you accept a position on a board, you can't speak at the public comment section 00:45:54.840 --> 00:45:57.000 for that board or city council. 00:45:57.000 --> 00:46:02.720 So we've read that to mean that all board members, including alternates, 00:46:02.720 --> 00:46:07.480 are limited in their ability to participate in public comment. 00:46:07.480 --> 00:46:10.360 >> So that sounds familiar, you know, if you brought it up. 00:46:10.360 --> 00:46:18.360 >> So alternates cannot participate in public comment if they're not seated at the table? 00:46:18.360 --> 00:46:19.720 >> Yeah. 00:46:19.720 --> 00:46:24.080 >> That's been our direction based on our interpretation of the code in the Open Meetings Act. 00:46:24.080 --> 00:46:29.920 >> So that's not an option, then, to have -- 00:46:29.920 --> 00:46:34.680 >> So if you're an alternate, you can't be a public comment if you're not at the board. 00:46:34.680 --> 00:46:39.520 >> You could propose a change to the ethics ordinance that might suggest otherwise. 00:46:39.520 --> 00:46:44.880 But as our office has read it, no, unless you've been invited to attend the meeting 00:46:44.880 --> 00:46:49.520 by the city office, then you can't participate. 00:46:49.520 --> 00:46:52.880 >> Is that all boards like that one? 00:46:52.880 --> 00:46:55.840 >> As far as I know, it's the only one that has an alternate. 00:46:55.840 --> 00:47:02.520 [ Multiple Speakers ] 00:47:02.520 --> 00:47:10.160 >> So the problem is really just that it doesn't have alternates on their board of ethics 00:47:10.160 --> 00:47:13.160 where nobody else does that. 00:47:13.160 --> 00:47:14.520 So that makes us -- 00:47:14.520 --> 00:47:20.760 >> I think that there were not alternates. 00:47:20.760 --> 00:47:24.720 I know there have been times in the past where it was all alternates 00:47:24.720 --> 00:47:28.720 and one board member just to make quorum. 00:47:28.720 --> 00:47:35.320 So it's much more beneficial to have the option of having alternates to make quorums 00:47:35.320 --> 00:47:38.200 so that people don't have to come back for another meeting 00:47:38.200 --> 00:47:43.200 because you couldn't make a decision, couldn't vote on a decision because you didn't make a quorum. 00:47:43.200 --> 00:47:45.000 >> And I think that's even more important when you're talking 00:47:45.000 --> 00:47:46.320 about preliminary hearings -- 00:47:46.320 --> 00:47:46.760 >> Yes. 00:47:46.760 --> 00:47:51.800 >> -- than hearings, which you want to get the process going so that everyone has due process. 00:47:51.800 --> 00:47:52.800 >> I think that's good. 00:47:52.800 --> 00:47:57.840 I guess the sticking point is do alternates have a voice if they're not at the table? 00:47:57.840 --> 00:48:00.400 And it sounds like no. 00:48:00.400 --> 00:48:02.400 >> Well, I mean, being an alternate is your choice. 00:48:02.400 --> 00:48:07.520 You could resign or not take the position and make a public comment 00:48:07.520 --> 00:48:10.280 at every single meeting about every single agenda item. 00:48:10.280 --> 00:48:18.680 >> Well, I think the alternate understood or understands their role at the very beginning anyway. 00:48:18.680 --> 00:48:23.800 So because there are many times I'm over there by the dock and I'm right -- I'd love to ask, but I can't. 00:48:23.800 --> 00:48:28.840 So I pass on notes to members and they said I couldn't do that. 00:48:28.840 --> 00:48:29.840 But I mean, I tried. 00:48:29.840 --> 00:48:31.960 >> I remember that. 00:48:31.960 --> 00:48:35.560 >> But then I thought back, well, you know, they're right. 00:48:35.560 --> 00:48:41.480 So except the horseshoe road, so I was -- I lived with that. 00:48:41.480 --> 00:48:41.800 >> All right. 00:48:41.800 --> 00:48:49.600 So is there any motions or anything we want to do as far as agenda item C? 00:48:49.600 --> 00:48:52.880 >> I would like to keep it the same. 00:48:52.880 --> 00:48:53.280 >> All right. 00:48:53.280 --> 00:48:56.560 So if we keep it the same, I don't think we need any motions and we can move on. 00:48:56.560 --> 00:49:00.200 I kind of -- from looking at everybody, I think there's a -- 00:49:00.200 --> 00:49:04.720 maybe not unanimous, but there's consensus that we'll just move on. 00:49:04.720 --> 00:49:15.600 All right. So agenda item D, BOE 23-035, management reports, and so these are -- I guess this is -- 00:49:15.600 --> 00:49:17.320 >> Yeah. It's really just informational. 00:49:17.320 --> 00:49:23.440 We issued two advisory opinions since the last meeting, and the ethics ordinance amendments 00:49:23.440 --> 00:49:26.560 that we had previously discussed was officially passed on July 18th. 00:49:26.560 --> 00:49:29.320 So we are technically under a new code now. 00:49:29.320 --> 00:49:31.960 The management report has kind of summarized what actually changed. 00:49:31.960 --> 00:49:35.000 I know the rules of procedure amendment passed that same day as well, 00:49:35.000 --> 00:49:40.600 and so we now officially have public comment with the reasonable rules that you give direction for. 00:49:40.600 --> 00:49:43.960 So that's really just to make sure you're aware of all those changes 00:49:43.960 --> 00:49:46.120 and the advisory opinions that were issued. 00:49:46.120 --> 00:49:50.680 I can answer any questions that you may have about that, but it's really just kind of an FYI. 00:49:50.680 --> 00:50:01.920 >> Okay. Does anybody have any questions, any comments about any of these three items? 00:50:01.920 --> 00:50:04.960 Is it part of our packet? 00:50:04.960 --> 00:50:14.120 Okay. I don't think there is, so -- all right. 00:50:14.120 --> 00:50:16.280 I think we've gone through all the agenda items. 00:50:16.280 --> 00:50:19.000 Is there anything we're missing? 00:50:19.000 --> 00:50:22.240 Everything's been covered? 00:50:22.240 --> 00:50:22.720 All right. 00:50:22.720 --> 00:50:23.280 So I guess -- 00:50:23.280 --> 00:50:24.840 >> Oh, we have the future meeting. 00:50:24.840 --> 00:50:28.000 >> Oh, it's the future meeting. 00:50:28.000 --> 00:50:37.320 So I just have to tell D here, is part of D future meeting what we're going to discuss? 00:50:37.320 --> 00:50:37.680 >> All right. 00:50:37.680 --> 00:50:39.280 It should be on the agenda. 00:50:39.280 --> 00:50:44.040 >> There are no closing items or how many agenda items? 00:50:44.040 --> 00:50:45.240 >> It's E. 00:50:45.240 --> 00:50:46.440 >> Oh, okay. 00:50:46.440 --> 00:50:46.960 I might -- 00:50:46.960 --> 00:50:47.960 >> You were at the wrong meeting? 00:50:47.960 --> 00:50:48.400 >> Yes. 00:50:48.400 --> 00:50:49.640 >> Yes. 00:50:49.640 --> 00:50:50.680 >> I missed E. 00:50:50.680 --> 00:50:53.040 >> Yeah. I was on the wrong agenda. 00:50:53.040 --> 00:50:53.720 >> I think -- 00:50:53.720 --> 00:50:55.520 >> It's not on there, so we can't talk about it. 00:50:55.520 --> 00:50:55.960 >> Yeah. 00:50:55.960 --> 00:51:03.520 Sorry. I think we have already talked about at least one thing we want to talk about next meeting. 00:51:03.520 --> 00:51:07.920 So that was part of -- was on the agenda, the -- 00:51:07.920 --> 00:51:09.120 >> Touchable. 00:51:09.120 --> 00:51:13.560 >> Yeah. The burden-approved stuff, so we know that. 00:51:13.560 --> 00:51:18.280 >> We'll figure out how to change everything that was scheduled for us. 00:51:18.280 --> 00:51:18.880 >> All right. 00:51:18.880 --> 00:51:25.200 We'll -- without an E, we'll call the meeting adjourned at 621. 00:51:25.200 --> 00:51:26.820 Am I missing anything? 00:51:26.820 --> 00:51:27.860 Okay, all right. 00:51:27.860 --> 00:51:28.860 Thank you, everybody.