Nov 06, 2023 Board of Ethics on 2023-11-06 5:30 PM

So this is the Board of Ethics meeting for Monday, November 6th at 5.30 p.m. And we are going to start with item BOE 23-42, receive nominations and hold an election of the chair and vice chair. Just so that everyone is aware, Dustin said he was willing to be chair and vice chair if he was nominated. -Willing to be what? Both? -Yeah, you could be, yeah. Okay, so I'll take nominations for chair first. I will nominate Panetta for chair. Okay. Are there any other nominations? Okay, we'll close the nominations and what about all in favor say aye. -Aye. -Okay. Now for vice chair, so I'll entertain nominations for vice chair. -I will nominate Dustin. -Yeah. I think he'd be great. Any other, sorry, any other nominations? Okay, so all in favor of Dustin Pavlik being the vice chair of the Board of Ethics, raise your hand. -Aye. -That says unanimously, right? Okay, so on to item B, BOE 23-047, consider approval of minutes for October 2nd, 2023. Do I hear any, anyone want to move that we approve them? I move that we approve them. Patricia Renke moved approval of the minutes from October 2nd, 2023. Do you need it? I don't think we need it. -Second, yes. -Do you need it? -Second, yes. -Do you need it? -I second. -Andrea seconded. -So all in favor? -Aye. -I abstained because I wasn't here, so. -Okay, that's fair. -I didn't see BOE 23-046. -I'm sorry. In the past, because I had done exactly that, I was told that that was abstaining from the minutes was not an option just because we were absent. -Really? -It was actually the, yeah, so I just wanted to clarify that so that we are... -For the order, is that correct? I mean, I'm not denying it. -Yeah. -What do you want to do, since you sat down? -Well, I'll leave the chair's discretion on that. -I don't have a problem, I mean, I think if you want to abstain because you weren't here, but I think the point of voting against it would be there's something in the minutes that you disagreed with. -Well, I didn't vote against it. -Yeah, I know, I know. -So how does that help with setting the precedent that... -I have never heard that, that's interesting. -It was my very first meeting and that's why I bring it up. My very first meeting on the board, I wanted to abstain because I had not been present and I had no way of voting for or against, in my opinion, so I just wanted clarification. -I think you're right, there's a rule for some boards that we don't do is abstention because this board is governed by the ethics code. -Because we're the quasi-judicial committee? -No, I mean, I just think in this case it's fine, also because it's not a deciding vote, I think it's the chair's discretion. -Okay, I appreciate you bringing that up, I've never heard that. -Interesting. -How does that change if the minutes of that meeting are not complete or does that change anything? -No, it's the process. -I would think that someone would bring it up and say there's a problem with the minutes and then the motion would be approval as amended and then it's not a problem, but I don't know, it's kind of a weird thing to get hung up on. -Yeah, but we can get hung up on better things. -Let's find them. Okay, item C, BOE 23-046, hold a discussion and consider changes to the start time of regular Board of Ethics meetings. -This, I think, was requested last meeting. -It was someone who brought that up because for me, personally, daytime would be better, I notice it's tough being at 5.30 or 6 because people are fighting traffic. -Yeah, and so we looked here at just some options, we could even change the day, I just didn't assume. -My other personal thing is I know there's at least three staff members who are having to stay late because of our meetings and if it's just as convenient to meet during the day, I believe it would be better for them. So, not that I want to do that just around the staff, but it's a point. So, let's have discussion about this. -Undies in the morning, Madam Chair, would be very difficult for me due to my business and seeing what needs to be done because of the weekend. -I think we also would exclude a large population. For example, I'm a teacher, I would not be able to meet at all. So, in terms of inclusiveness, I would not. I would have to take a personal day every month to attend the meeting. And that would take care of all the other days that I have. -So, is four o'clock a stretch for you as well? -Four o'clock is a stretch, but it's doable, especially since I'm close. I mean, for me, it's probably possible. Teachers that would come from other campuses, it probably would be more of a stretch in the future. I mean, if we're talking about accessibility of being able to serve on the board. -I don't think we have anybody else who is a teacher on the board. -Well, I wouldn't have a problem keeping it at 5.30, because I want safety travel for all of us. So, I would lean towards keeping it at 5.30, Madam Chair, just for the conversation we've had thus far. -I would love to see four, because I notice people are fighting traffic, and I think by four o'clock you'd leave the traffic. -Not today. -Not today. -But today would have been two o'clock. -Just for the record, I'm fine with a different time. -Okay. What time would you like? -Oh, I don't have a preference for any of the times mentioned I can do. -Okay. Thank you. That's all you can do. -Are there any three or four o'clock conflicts for this room from council or other committees and city staff? -Not on Monday. -Not regularly. -Well, I'm a 5.30, so... -Okay. What about 4.30, because then you'd get here before traffic starts getting bad, and then 5.30 would be out of here when traffic is, like, between 5 and 5.30 when traffic is in danger. -Well, if we're moving to, like, three o'clock is prohibitive for our school schedule. Four o'clock is doable, however, like, currently I have a meeting right before this that is supposed to end at five o'clock, and it gives me enough time to travel. Now, if we are entertaining a four o'clock, then we'd have to move it. Like, for my availability, we'd have to move it from the first of my day. -I would say for those of us who are counselors, evening is not great for me, because I have to cancel people, because I see so many school students who can't leave school to see therapists. So, I guess, I mean, I'm just used to telling people I'm not available, but five o'clock in the morning, the prime time is for school students. -So, I hear 5.30, and I hear four o'clock as possible options. -Are you looking for a motion, Madam Chair? -Yes. -I move that we keep the current time of 5.30 for our ethics meeting. -Okay. Is there a second to that? -I'll second. -Okay. All in favor, raise your hand. -So, Tom and Rob and David and Andrea, so it passes. So, we'll leave it at 5.30. -I'm sorry. So, there was four yeas and two nays? -Are you allowed to abstain from that vote, or do you have to take a stand on the way to the other? -I'm going to vote now. Do you want to vote one way or the other? -I don't know. -In fact, we need positive votes to make for a motion to pass. So, an abstention is the same as an aye. -So, I just need to be clear for the minute what the vote was. So, four yeas, one no, and one abstention? -Yeah. Item D, BOE 23-043, receive training and hold a discussion regarding the City of Denton Post ordinances, Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics. So, take it away, Madison. -So, this is the updated training that y'all did get a preview of. It was changed a little bit based on that discussion, but everybody has to do it. I've been doing it at other boards and commissions, so I'm just going to run through it, and I'll stop every so often if y'all have questions. You're probably the most familiar with the Ethics Ordinance. So, we'll start today, we'll be covering the ethical expectations laid out in the City's Ethics Ordinance. The ordinance's mandates and prohibitions are what it requires, how city officials subject to the ordinance can request clarification on its application, and a quick overview of what happens if an ethics complaint is submitted against you as a city official. To begin, the City of Denton's Ethics Ordinance was adopted in 2018 and was most recently amended in 2023. The Ethics Code is intended to foster an environment of integrity for those that serve the City of Denton and its residents by ensuring that decision makers provide reasonable stewardship of city resources and assets, and providing behavioral guidelines and requirements. The key goal of the Ethics Ordinance is to further the public's trust in those who govern their community. More specifically, the Ethics Ordinance outlines six aspirational expectations. These expectations cannot be used as the basis of an ethics complaint, but they are intended to guide city officials in carrying out their duties. These include conducting yourself in a manner that fosters public trust, performing your public duties with personal and organizational integrity, avoiding behavior that might call your motives into question and erode public confidence, placing the interests and concerns of Denton's residents above your own, valuing honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, objectivity, fairness, due process, efficiency, and prudence, and balancing transparency with the duty to protect personal privacy and preserve any confidential information that you have been trusted with. While the rest of the training will focus on specific behaviors that city officials must comply with, this is the most important section of the Ethics Ordinance. If you ever find yourself questioning if a specific action or inaction might be ethical, first ask yourself if it would align with these expectations. It's also important to realize that these expectations are not only focused on the way things are, but also how they appear. A city official has a position of privilege within their community that they must respect. Serving your community as a city official is an honor that requires integrity and dedication. In general, you can think about an ethics code as a stoplight. In some instances, the code clearly prohibits specific behaviors or creates a red light. However, in other areas, the code creates broader prohibitions or yellow lights. Yellow lights communicate that a city official should thoughtfully and cautiously consider if the action or inaction is ethical based on the city's expectations as they proceed. Throughout the presentation, I'll be calling out which parts of the code are red lights versus yellow lights to help provide guidance. So now that we've covered the basics of the city's ethical expectations and general guidance, I'll get into more specifics. The ethics ordinance includes three mandates and nine prohibitions that cover different actions or behaviors that city officials may take, and I'll briefly cover them over the next few slides. Beginning with mandates, the ethics ordinance requires that city officials disclose certain business relationships if they are relevant to a pending matter. Specifically, if a business entity with a pending matter is owned by a city official's partner, the city official must disclose this relationship to the city secretary and the city auditor at least one business day before the meeting where the pending matter will be deliberated. All disclosures will be provided to the relevant body before the deliberations. This disclosure requirement is a yellow light in the ethics code as even though city officials are allowed to deliberate on these matters per the ordinance, it calls out that there might be a risk that this type of business interest may receive unfair treatment from the related city official. In addition, it requires that city officials comply with any financial disclosures required by Texas state law and that city officials report any person that they know has violated the ethics ordinance. These mandates are red lights and not reporting a known violation of the ordinance is itself considered to be a violation. So I'll stop here because this is the most confusing part of the ordinance I think. So are there any questions about this? I'd like to know, because you presented this to other boards and such, were there any questions that were asked that you thought might be pertinent to bring to our attention? No, there weren't a lot of questions asked to be honest. A lot of them have also been on the boards for several years so they saw the longer video too several times. I remember the PUD had a couple, but I don't recall them at this point. Yeah, I don't remember them. It was about investments I believe. Yeah. Oh yeah, I did get a couple times a question about the difference between fair market value of a business and stock percentages. There was some question about if I own more than $600 worth of stock in a large major business, can I vote on things like that? Yes. But I think my understanding is that because it's stock it's different a little bit, especially for larger companies, but that's kind of what I'm trying to explain. And I think it was the question, and I didn't know if this was the appropriate time to ask that, but the question about stock caught my attention because I thought we may own some stock in smaller businesses even here, and would that affect us? I think that is a discussion for our future agenda items if we want to discuss that as a board, but that is something that has to happen. It might be permissible, Madam Chair. Yeah. I'll bring it back up one more time. Did no one have any questions about pending matter because I find it to be confusing? In fact, we have something we're going to discuss tonight. No one during the training presentation has had a question about pending matter. We did get one question after the ordinance training that I've got in the management reports that's in there, so we can talk about that question a little more then if you would prefer. I'd like to have all that because that's on the agenda, so sideways, but it's on. I'd like to second that thought because right now the entire conflict of interest section of our code weighs heavily on what is or is not pending matter. So that may be a debatable subject if we ever get back around to visiting, well, for example, the conflict of interest is starting out on the agenda tonight. So there may be some items here that may not apply in the future, so this is kind of a workable document, can we call it that? Well, this is the training on the current ordinance. Okay. Yes, you can certainly suggest amendments to the ordinance in the future, they have to be approved by the city council, and so if that happens in the future, this training will be updated for that process. So we're great to nothing long-term in any of this. Correct, this is just, I'm telling you this is what's in the ordinance right now because I am required to by the ordinance. That's fine. Okay, great, so are we good with this section? All right, on to prohibitions or potential city official behaviors that are specifically considered violations of the ethics ordinance. Beginning with conflicts of interest, ethical best practices suggest that a city official recuse from deliberating on a pending matter if they or their relative have a personal or economic interest in a business entity or property that's not shared with the general public. This general guidance is a yellow light that is intended to draw attention to the risk of conflicts of interest. I should note that while this is good guidance for city officials, this general prohibition is not actually currently included in the city's ethics ordinance. This ordinance does include some red lights and specifically defines the following as conflicts of interest, owning 5% or more of a business entity's voting shares or stock, owning $600 or more of a business entity's fair market value, owning $600 or more of the fair market value of real property, receiving $600 or more in income from a business entity, serving on the board of directors or as an officer of a business entity or a nonprofit, or having solicited, received, or accepted an offer of employment from a business entity or person in the last 12 months. And you have a conflict of interest as defined on the slide. With a pending matter on an agenda, you are required to recuse yourself from the discussion and submit an affidavit of extension to the city auditor. A pending matter includes an application seeking approval or authorization, proposal to enter into a contract, or a case involving the city that is or may be before a civil, criminal, or administrative tribunal. Further, it's a violation of the ordinance for a current city official to represent a person, group, or entity before a city board or commission for compensation. This prohibition also applies to former city officials for one year after termination of their official duties. Similarly, former city officials are prohibited from performing compensated work on a city contract or arrangement if they substantially participated in the negotiation, award, or administration of the contract unless that was limited to deliberations. With questions about what's currently a conflict of interest, as we discussed earlier, we can do, as the Board of Ethics, we can make proposals to change that, but this is the current. Good summary. Alright, next, the ethics ordinance prohibits a city official or their relative from accepting any gift that might reasonably influence a city official in discharging their official duties. This is a general prohibition that acts as a yellow light for city officials. The ordinance does also include gift-related red lights. Specifically, a city official cannot accept a single gift valued more than $50 or multiple gifts with a total value of more than $200. In general, the gift is considered to be anything of monetary value, such as cash, property, services, meals, entertainment, or travel-related expenses. If a gift is accepted, the city official may remedy the violation by promptly donating it or reimbursing the gift giver the actual or fair market value of the gift. If a gift is accepted, the city official must disclose the acceptance and the remedy by filing a disclosure with the city office. The ordinance does allow certain exceptions to the gift's prohibition, meaning that these are considered green lights, which include lawful campaign contributions, expenses related to a city official's travel to a conference or other training event that is connected to the city, expenses related to appearances at nonprofit or community events related to city business, complimentary attendance at fundraising events or hospitality functions, complimentary or promotional copies of trade publications or clothing items, or gifts that are given due to a personal, familial, or professional relationship, regardless of the city official's city-related duties. Any items that fall under one of these exceptions do not need to be disclosed. However, a city official may choose to disclose them if they would like to. Questions about gifts? Great. Next, it is a violation of the ordinance for a city official to misuse the influence or information gained due to their city position. Specifically, a city official may not use their influence to secure special privileges or treatment for a person, group, or business organization beyond what is normally available or to imply that they can use those things. While this is a specific prohibition, it is a yellow light as it is not meant to prohibit a city official from providing individuals, groups, or businesses with information on how city processes work so that they can more easily access normally available services. For that reason, city officials should proceed cautiously and thoughtfully when trying to help the public with specific concerns. Particularly, city officials should be cautious when stating what they can or cannot do to make sure that a concern is addressed. Further, a city official may not state or imply that they are acting as a representative of the city unless they have been authorized to do so by the city council. It is a violation of the ordinance for a city official, either current or former, to use confidential information gained through their official capacity to advance the personal or private financial interests of themselves or anyone else. A yellow light, as there are no instances where misrepresenting yourself as an authorized city representative or using confidential information for personal or private interests would be considered ethical by the ordinance. Good question. Yes. So are those tied directly to the points? In other words, the yellow is the first point and the red is the second and the red is the third? Correct. Okay. Are there any questions on this section? I do have a question about acting as a representative. I think several of us got an email recently by a journalism student. Yes. And I feel like we ought to be able to talk to them, but I felt like from signals I've gotten in the past, the answer was probably no. I don't have a clear answer on that. I think if you are going to do something like that, you have to be very clear that you're talking just as a person, as a person. And I think that that can be difficult. With a college student. I'm just going to bring them to you. And we do have a chief communications officer, chief information, I don't know, I think it's communication officer now. So maybe refer to this. Sorry, what? Who is that? His name is Dustin Steinbeck. Okay. He started like last month. Should we have received a copy of what he said to that person? I didn't get one, but I'll follow up with him and see if he sent any. I don't know that he sent something, I just know that I gave it to him to decide. I was just wondering, wouldn't it be nice if that was shared with us so we know what the response was? Yeah. I'll reach out and see if he did send anything and let you know. Thank you. Yeah, I just want to say, kind of have a problem with that. And I totally understand not saying that we're saying this as a member of the board. But I just, I feel like it kind of infringes on free speech, I guess. So I'm just going to say that, I'm not asking for any. I'm giving you the best advice I could use to protect yourself. I hear that. But that doesn't mean you cannot do it. My sense has been no discussion. But, you know, for maybe people on the city council or the city administrators, that's what they want. But that's not what residents want. And so I felt torn between those two points of view. Are we discussing this? This is a training. I think we want to discuss the merits. It's hard with you all as you can. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you for your best response. Okay. So last of the prohibitions. It is a violation of the ordinance for a city official to abuse their city's resources or their power or privileges granted by their official division. Specifically, a city official should not use, request, or allow the use of city resources such as facilities, personnel, equipment, software, or staff time for private purposes, including political, except to the extent that those are available to other residents. While this is a specific prohibition, it's also a yellow light as it does not have clearly defined thresholds. And there are instances where a city official can ethically use city resources such as renting a city facility at the publicly available price. On the other hand, it is a violation of these ordinance for a city official to harass or discriminate against a person based on their ethnicity, race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital or parental status, or religion. It is also a violation to interfere with any city-related criminal or administrative investigation, including persuading or coercing someone else to withhold their cooperation. These are red lights as there is no instance where harassment, discrimination, or interfering with an investigation would be considered ethical behavior for the ordinance. Questions about this piece here. Now that you have an understanding of the expectations, mandates, and prohibitions outlined in the ordinance, if you ever come upon a situation where you need additional guidance, you have two options. First, if you need help kind of just finding a section of the ordinance related to a particular situation or an answer about how to submit a disclosure or a complaint, you can reach out to me. Second, if you have a personal attorney, they may be able to help provide you with an interpretation of the ethics ordinance, help you decide whether to refuse yourself in a given situation, but that does not include Scott or any of the city attorney's office staff. And then finally, you can also request that the Board of Ethics y'all issue an advisory opinion, which is intended to answer a question about compliance with the ethics ordinance in a particular situation. The biggest advantage of an advisory opinion is that a city official may know as an affirmative defense to a submitted ethics complaint if they relied upon it in good faith. To receive an advisory opinion, a city official must submit the request in writing to the city auditor, including relevant details of the situation in question. I will then communicate the request to the Board of Ethics chair who assigns it to a panel of three Board of Ethics members for review. The panel has 30 days to issue the advisory opinion once the request is received, but as you know, it often occurs much faster than that. So any questions about the advisory opinion process, I know you're all probably pretty familiar with it. Finally, the Board of Ethics' primary function is to process ethics complaints. There are four phases of the ethics complaint process that I'll now briefly run through. Additional information about the ethics complaint process is available on the city's Board of Ethics webpage or can be requested from me. First, the initiation phase. During this period, an individual submits an ethics complaint using the prescribed form to the city auditor. This complaint form should be accompanied by any evidence such as images, videos, or documentation that the complainant has to support their allegations and must be sworn to in front of a notary. The city auditor then determines that the ethics complaint is administratively complete, but does not make any judgments on the complaint's merits. If the complaint is accepted, a copy is forwarded to the complainant, the respondent, and the Board of Ethics chair who assigns it to a preliminary assessment panel. During the preliminary assessment phase, a panel of three Board of Ethics members reviews the submitted ethics complaint and determines if it is actionable or baseless. The complaint is actionable if on its face the behavior alleged in the complaint would constitute a violation of the ordinance. The panel may also recommend that a hearing be held to determine if the complaint is frivolous instead of determining if it is actionable or baseless. The outcome of the preliminary assessment is communicated to the complainant and responded by the city auditor. If the complaint is determined to be baseless, the process stops, though the complainant may submit a written appeal within 10 business days which will initiate the hearing phase. During the hearing phase, the Board of Ethics schedules an evidentiary hearing and may request additional documentary evidence or issued subpoenas to require individuals to testify. The complainant must attend and testify at this hearing and may also present any additional evidence that they've gathered. In addition, the respondent may provide testimony and evidence for the Board's consideration. Both the complainant and respondent have a right to be represented by legal counsel at the evidentiary hearing or by another person. Based on this evidentiary hearing, the Board will determine if a violation of the ordinance has occurred and if so, the Board may issue a sanction. Once the Board has decided on the evidence complaint, the complainant and respondent both have five business days to submit any new evidence and request a reconsideration in writing with the city auditor. The Board of Ethics Chair will then review the reconsideration request and will unilaterally determine if the new hearing is warranted based on the new evidence. So then, very quickly, if during the evidentiary hearing the Board of Ethics finds that a violation of the ordinance has occurred, they may issue one of four sanctions based on the city official's perceived intent and the seriousness of the violation. I've illustrated the decision process generally just on the slide and then if the Board decides to impose a sanction, the city official will be notified within ten days by the city auditor. We did it. Any questions about the ethics complaint process? I think that's a really good summary of the current code. I can tell you a lot of work into it. Any other comments or questions? This has been approved by the Council. The training? Yes. The ordinance actually gives me the authority to design and do the training myself. So they have seen it, but they didn't approve it. They didn't need to? Right. Thank you. Okay. So we're moving on to item E, BOE 23-045, Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion, and -- I'm so sorry. I do need y'all to sign this so that I have evidence that you attended. Do I need to? Well, I have you already, but you did it again. Congrats. I'm really in trouble. Yeah, so Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion, and Take Necessary Action Regarding Code and Ordinance of Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics, Section 2-269, Definitions, and Section 2-273, Prohibitions. And this is really the thing on pending matters. So you received a question. I did, so -- and that's included in the management report, but it is related. Is that fine, Scott? Pushing ahead to the next -- if it's relevant to the posting, that's fine. It is. I believe that it is. So we received a request -- let me just pull up the picture. Received this request from a staff member, but related from a city official, essentially. And the request was essentially, does this city official need to recuse from a work session or essentially what's just an informative item that they're not making any sort of decision on? And so I provided the definition of pending matter, and it doesn't include informative sessions in it, essentially. So I was basically like, yes, that seems correct, your interpretation. I want to be just cautious about this is not a request for an advisory opinion. That's true. So let's maybe -- if we can somehow discuss how you all want definition of pending matter to change without opining on this specific question. Okay, yeah, I hear what you said. Well, this whole pending matter subject and definition assumes that we stay with the original conflict of interest chapter as it was presented seven years ago now. If there are any amendments where the conflict of interest is brought up to date, that entire pending matter may be subject to review possible amendment. So the entire subject of pending matter is -- historically does not really consider what may happen after that vote occurs. So there are some citizens in this town that have called me more than once since this originally passed to remind me that pending matter is kind of a trouble spot in this code because it does not apply to anything that may happen after that vote. So there are some -- there's lots of things that need to be discussed under the current conflict of interest, and it's on your agenda to at least start that tonight or to think about it, because there are several citizens in this town who would not cry at all if this entire conflict of interest section, including the pending matter, would just disappear in favor of, and there's some very simple alternative language that I won't bother you with tonight. But this is something that I would like to have this board discuss. It's probably not posted to discuss tonight under these items, but alternative language for conflicts of interest I would respectfully suggest be on a future agenda coming up as soon as possible. And I may -- oh, I'm sorry, or you two did. It went so quick. We finished 045, then, is that right? Are we at 048? No, we're at 045. We're on 045. Okay, good. I missed something. I got a little nervous. Thank you. Sorry, we moved ahead a little bit, just a shot. Well, I knew we had, but I didn't realize the pending nature was under this one. Thank you. Anybody else have comments on the pending matter definition? If I may, so are you indicating today that on the pending matter, it does have an expiration date on each issue, does it not, or are you saying that it doesn't? It does currently, and our current code, as it's written, but the entire pending matter, I really don't want to get into this because it's a little bit confusing and we really need to spend some time on it, but our current code right now, after a vote -- I recuse myself for something on a vote. Yeah, yeah. Okay, then take me from there. Just as an example, as an example, most other cities, the language is to replace all of this, 6%, 10%, all of this, no action affecting any economic or personal interest of replaces all of that, and that puts a lot of stuff into the future. In other words, you can vote on the pending matter today and don't get your buddy tomorrow and cook the deal that was not on the table tonight. And so that's the problem that a lot of folks have had with this code for the past seven years, is there is no preventative value, it's a buddy type system. And so this is another subject and I really don't want to start it tonight. It was helpful just to get your -- I'm trying to get the concept with you. That's fine, that's fine. I don't, obviously I want us to have a meeting that doesn't last several hours, but I do, I think, I tried to, I've heard this discussion before, so I tried to point it out in this table here, what you're discussing, they're usually in codes, is a general prohibition for conflict of interest. Right, I'm not asking you to defend or -- Right, I'm just, from my research, there usually is a general, that is in the backup, and there's not one in our code. Right, right. So all I'm suggesting is that a conflict of interest revision or reform has been on my and several other people's agenda in this town since 2015, in May, when this thing passed. The whole 6%, 10%, all of that is historical and has been set aside in other cities that use simpler language to say you've got anything to do, this is going to change the future in any way for you, the present or the future. See, this is a present tense problem or issue that we have in our current code right now. Like I say, two days after you vote on something, you can go out and do a deal, and you're not in violation of anything under our current code. And I had the same thing explained to me by a citizen, and I started looking at it. Pending matter is a legal term. In my opinion, there's too many legal things in this code that ordinary people wouldn't understand. But then if you look in the glossary, the glossary definition of it makes it even more narrow. And so pending matter in law, and please correct me if I prompt, could mean something that could come up later, but the way it is narrowed in our glossary is the problem. And so when you look at it, it doesn't look too terrible. And then when you do a page flip and go back to the glossary, it is the single most troubling part of this stuff. It's a giant loophole. Yeah, you could drive a Peterbilt truck through it. That's how big the loophole is. So I think a lot of people get upset, and they want to file an ethics complaint. And when they finally calm down enough to read through this stuff, they realize there's no complaint. So that's my concern with pending matter. No other city in the state of Texas has this definition. Austin has matter in their definition. No other city even has matter. So it is a weird-- See, in our code right here, I'm looking at definitions of our code, pending matter is an application or a permit only. It's a deal that could have already been done that is going to go through two days after the council meets. So this has been a huge problem for me and some other people in this town for several years. And this is one of the things that I would like for us to discuss at the appropriate time. I know it's not on the agenda tonight, so I'm not-- I think it is. Okay, it is, yeah. I will just say it's a terrible definition and very confusing. It took somebody else to explain it to me and then I had to look it up and go, oh my God, it's bad. It's so narrow. You have to thread the needle to get an ethics code violation. So do either of you have the language that we'd like to replace it with? Funny you should ask. Yeah, I think I'd use model code, but basically a conflict of interest should simply be anything that benefits you personally and doesn't benefit other people. And that's the most simple definition. It's not about dollars and cents. It could be hurrying favors. It could be about money. It could be about sleeping with someone. So we need a broader definition and that's why we have a board is that ethics are not always that cut and dried. They're much more nuanced, I guess. But I will say you could vote for something if a person votes for something that benefits them. It's not a conflict of interest if it benefits everybody else in the state. So there are times when you're going to benefit for something that, you know, do something that benefits you. But we just need a broader sweep here and not trying to catch warn people. But I feel sorry when people are like, hey, I have a complaint and I have to say I wouldn't even try to make that one fly. That's no doubt. The majority of other Texas cities our size have used the model code as an example and most other cities it can be this simple. General rule to avoid the risk of impropriety, a city official or employee shall not take any official action that he or she knows is likely to affect the economic interests of the parent, the outside client. Then there's that list. That's current and future, which we don't cover the future now. Like I say, two days after that deal goes down. And please don't use the term consanguinity because that's not a term that most people understand. I think the better way, you know, parent, child, aunt, and both. I mean, go ahead and list all of them. We're not trying to complicate this. It's actually much simpler than what our code says. Weschler has a beautiful one in his model code, but most ethics ordinances have this very simply written. You know, you're not, yeah, it's the most awful definition in this day of Texas. Does anyone have an objection to changing it to the model code definition here? I do. Yeah, I'd like to hear more about that. You have industries in this town that would be affected greatly by that. Surveyors, title companies, real estate professionals, appraisers. Anything that would be related into that umbrella of land purchase or land use. Developers. Developers. You would be where the current one catches them at the moment. There might be an occasional council member that occasionally. No, I would have, I respectfully disagree with you there. Because we're not talking about just council members. This is officers. Who are officers? So it includes the Planning and Zoning Commission, Zoning Board of Adjustments, the Public Utilities Board, the City Council, the Historic Landmark Commission, and then the city manager, the city attorney, the municipal judge, and me. Public Utility Board. That's correct. And the Ethics Board. Ethics Board. And y'all, yes, sorry. So we're talking about a rather broad network. Anything that's outside judicial is. I don't know that for sure. I just know that's the Historic Landmark Commission. So I see this as effective catching now. Futuristic, I think you are putting a burden, an unnecessary burden, on many people that do not think of the way you have some individuals thinking. They're always bad apples somewhere. But that's why I would be against such a restrictive. Your broadness, it's hidden interesting. The broadness is more restrictive than the restrictiveness is, what we're talking about on the definition. I would disagree with you there. This is what is applied to probably 80 to 90 percent of Texas municipalities right now. It's a very simple wording. You're going to go down a road that neither one of us can predict right now on this 5%, $600 stuff, not knowing what's going to happen after that vote. Then realizing that this is in the future. This works. This is not an experiment. This works right now in Texas. I just wanted to offer, and from the research, often codes do have both. They'll have a general prohibition and they'll have some specifics specifically about on votes and things like that. That's a possibility as well. I've read a bunch of codes in the state because I'm a nerd, I guess. But the one that struck me the hardest was the city of San Marcos. They literally say, I think they say, they name some group, don't even think about running for city council. That's what they said in their ethics code. I read it and I was like, whoa, that's harsh. But I will say that Jitin has a long history of this kind of thing. It goes all the way back to 1890 when a real estate syndicate started what became UNT. What they did was they bought 300 acres. They forced the city to annex it. The city went from 200 acres to 500 because of these 300 acres. They gave 10 acres right in the middle to the normal college. Then they developed the rest as lots and left all the way to the bank. That kind of thing has happened throughout our history. I will also say I think that's fairly common in small cities. This is not a small city anymore. Well, Madam Chair, we've had that discussion for the existence of this board. Other chairmen have told you that that is not something we would be discussing because it is the history. We are looking at something that would be today and futuristic. But for bringing up issues such as that, we didn't think it was germane then. I don't think it's germane now. Because there was no ethics, was there then? No, there wasn't. I think that's part of how a group grows is that they have to shift into things. Well, I would like to make it note that it's more than just real estate people that have problems and did things bad to the city. True. So let's not throw a disparaging word on too many. I'd rather it be more generic than what you have just said. Okay. So how do we bring this to conclusion? This is an interesting discussion, but it's just a discussion. I think it needs to change. I think it needs to be at least a little more broad. Maybe the glossary definition needs to be... I mean, I'll take whatever direction there is for it. I think a motion would be clearer, but I don't know what the motion would be. I think there's many options for how you could potentially change the code. There's also the not changing the code option. I hear two possible motions. So could we get a straw poll of how people are feeling about it? I don't think we can do a straw poll. Y'all could give direction on Madison bringing back some options potentially of language. I think that'd be very helpful at this point. Would that be all right with you, David? That would be fine. And one thing that I might also add, we've used Wexler's examples from the very start. Wexler discusses this issue of dollars and percentages versus the general principles that are in most current codes. It's maybe 50 or 60 pages. It's a lot of reading, and he explains exactly what Rob and I are discussing right now, the pros and cons. And it's not an accident that most other Texas cities have gone for this simpler language that says you don't do it now and you don't do it in the future. And so I understand that. And that is my understanding of what pending matter actually means, but it's the glossary that really kicks it. But I still don't like pending matter. I think it's confusing. Yes, Andrea? So we've had issues with really drilling down. When we had the whole discussion about actual dollar amounts, we had really a difficult time drilling down on what would be reasonable. And that is one of the reasons why I would be entertaining something that is simpler, because also a $500 amount is not equal to all people. To some people $500 is a ton of money, and to others it's a drop in the bucket. And that has always been my issue with exact dollar amounts. But what I would like, because I wouldn't be ready to drill one way or the other today anyway, I really think that we need more concrete examples of what -- and really a cohesive discussion about what does this mean if we have exact dollar amounts and what does it mean if we're going to a broader definition of what conflict of interest is. So that would be my wish. And if we took the dollar amounts out, wouldn't it be then if somebody did bring up an ethics complaint, that's the whole point of the board to determine, without any dollar amounts, just like did this person that's under the purview of these guidelines, did they do something that looks unethical? And that's the whole point of the board to decide that is unethical or is not unethical, whether or not you have dollar amounts. Yeah, I mean it could be a lot of broader things. So I think there's direction for me to bring back some potential options based on this discussion. Yes. So do we need to vote on that? No, I don't think so. Okay. Can I be a little bit more specific even for you? I would love that. I would really like to see if we're going to a broader definition of conflict of interest, what are we eliminating out of the current code? What language written sections are we actually more or less replacing? Right? That is what I want to see. That's good. I would argue numbers are good. If it doesn't say 30 miles an hour, but it says drive at a reasonable rate of speed, guess what's going to happen? Yeah. It would be crazy. I would argue there is some value in having some specific dollar amount. Maybe they need to change over time, but maybe you think they need to be larger or smaller, but having a number is useful. The other part about the number is it's going to get outdated in a couple of years. Well, so it is. I deal with behavior, and I'm telling you when we're talking behavior in students, it's not always about numbers. There's a lot of qualitative stuff that needs going to. My concern has always been $500 today is not going to be the same as $500 in 10 years. I think that we should at least give it an opportunity to have a much more concrete discussion. There's a lot more information that we can actually decide on rather than just a quick conversation today. I completely agree with that. This came up when the council first worked through this. It was a Saturday morning, January 27, 2015, and they spent no more than 45 minutes making this decision rather than flipping the page and looking at other alternatives across Texas. There was not a lot of thought put into this. And they had been told to use citizens, and they chose not to. I would hope that we could come up with something that would prohibit the appearance of evil as far as some of the businesses we're talking about, but I would also think that if you're voting for something, and let's say I'm a developer and I'm on city council, I'm voting for something that the majority of my constituents are telling me is a good thing, and I don't think that has to be a bad thing. I'm sorry, I'd have to disagree because now you're bringing it back into the council, and this is a much broader net. I understand. I'm just trying to give an example. Well, I think your example is a bit narrow. Okay. Noted. All right. Any other comments or questions? Okay. Shall we move on? Please. So we are on BOE 23-048, that's number F, management reports. So the October 20-23 advisory opinion responses report, and two, the Board of Ethics alternatives upcoming city council discussion. So we'll start with one, the advisory responses report. This is really just kind of a heads up that this was asked. I think as Scott mentioned earlier, this is not for you to give an opinion on. This is just so you know this happened, and this was my response based on guidance that was outlined in the procedures manual. Okay. So then we're on to the alternatives upcoming city council discussion. Yes, so this happened very quickly. The council is having a discussion tomorrow in general about boards and commissions composition. We had had some discussion about alternate members historically, so I provided them some information about how alternate members have been used as far as meeting the quorum requirements in general. We haven't had to have alternates to meet quorum requirements, though they fill out the board often. But a lot of that is due to vacancies. So that's just some information there. I don't know if you would like to provide additional -- I'm going to be there tomorrow for the discussion. In case they have questions, I don't really know what will happen, but that's for you to know. I guess you could ask questions or provide direction if you would like to. If you don't know about direction, maybe. It's an IC item, so. David. Well, I'd like to clear up one. I have kind of a list of items here that were not on the agenda. So this is kind of one of my extra questions. It kind of gets back to the last meeting. When -- by a 4-0-1 vote, this is when that burden of proof was set aside, which I agree with completely. Rob voted yes. It was 4-1, and I think you abstained. Yeah, because I -- Well, which is fine. It wasn't fair. I had no problem. But my question is, when the attendance was that short, what would have happened if that was a 3-1-1 vote? Would that have gone down? Yes. Yes. That would have been the majority of the meeting, right? Yeah. But that would have been a simple majority of the attendance, which would have mean it was an affirmative motion. Right. So burden of proof is moving forward based on that fourth vote, two of which -- there were two regulars and two alternates. You were -- I was an alternate. So two alternates. So burden of proof is still alive and kicking. Is that right? I guess. No. I think we voted to -- We voted to -- I mean, nothing has happened because the City Council has to approve it. Right, right. So the Board has given direction to have that as a proposal that will move forward to the City Council. But it would not even go to the Council had there been a 3-1-1. No, it would. It would, because that was a positive vote, 3-1-1 is a positive vote. Right? Yes. So we had quorum. Right. We had quorum, so 3-1-1 would be a majority yes vote. Okay. I want to clear that up. So it didn't take a fourth vote. Correct. Because when you read -- well, okay, I don't want to confuse that anymore. Okay. Good. Well, if I may, I think that's an example of how the alternates work. I think you agree with that. And many times, especially in the earlier years, when we were alternates -- Right. We sat in the back row in the sense of absorbing us from what was being said, with no input or vote, but I accepted that position when they asked me to be an alternate. Right. Not realizing that many times the alternates are almost more -- Well, actually -- I have a better record of attendance and -- Actually, I want to say it changed until January of 2020, because you got on I think in September or October. I got on before COVID. Yeah. You got on pre-COVID. I'm a pre-COVID. But following January, suddenly alternates were persona non grata. It was a palpable change, and Laura was looking over her shoulder to make sure -- I don't know what changed, but it changed. But prior to that, alternates were allowed to vote. They were allowed to discuss, and something changed. I can't tell you what. When I came on, it was not acceptable for me to ask questions. Those first couple meetings, though, because you got on at the same time I did. I knew that I had to write notes and give them to -- Yeah. The gentleman's passed away now. I'm the attorney -- But anyway -- Anyway, I had to write notes because I wasn't permitted to talk. The only reason I asked that is because on city council, a 3-3 vote goes nowhere until they get one more try. So I'm kind of feeling like a 3-1-1, we would have had to bring it back up to another meeting, or I don't see how that moves on. It depends on how many people are at the meeting, not the number exact. So because a 3-3 vote, there's six people, so you don't have a majority. A 3-1-1 vote, there's five people, so you do. Well, Robert's rules says even if there are two absences, it would still take a fourth to make a call. Yes. I'm fine. Okay. So I like what you said about alternates. I would really like to just have everybody be the same. I will make a comment, too, that I've been on hearing boards where there was an alternate who felt kind of lost because we were working on procedures that they weren't sort of involved in the discussion about, and I felt really badly for them. So I really would like alternates to have rights. So I liked what you said. I mean, there's only -- I do have a question. Is there a seat that is just not -- Currently, there's a vacant seat on the board. Okay. Hannah, our classmate, has a vacant seat. Okay. And prior to that, there was a vacancy before kind of the new switch that I think Patricia built. Okay. Yeah, I -- We've had a vacancy for a while. Yeah. Are we all full to verification purposes? Are we all today -- are we all full members today? No. No, I'm an alternate. So, Rob, how do you feel about this? I'm fine with it. I mean, I understand because of other boards that I'm on, I understand the position of an alternate, and if I take that position, I need to be as well-educated as you because I may be called in as part of the -- sports analogy, kick or get hurt. Rainer, you're next. So -- So, I'm ready. And I understand that. So, fortunately, I have been not only on -- as a voting member here, but also on hearing panels of three. I think you were with me on our very first one, Dave, with a citizen that asked a question. We met over -- but anyway, I have no problem with it because I take the position as if I was appointed as a first chair. How would you feel about -- if you were not an alternate, you would be required to attend meetings. Would that be -- I take that responsibility. I have no -- it's a wash for me. You don't feel like you have a dog in the hunt, in other words? Well, I have a dog in the hunt in that I am part of the committee, even though I may not have a tag, but I'm part of the pack. And so, I'm here for that purpose. Okay. So, either way -- So, being the lone alternate, I don't have a problem with it. So, are you filling the position -- the vacant position in right now because you are as an alternate? Yes. So, because there's a vacancy currently, we call an alternate every meeting. Okay. Yes. And then -- Okay. Just to mention -- She's definitely going to be here as well. She's traveling, so -- Right, right, right. Okay. Well, we might have called her to fill us in because he was absent, but -- Yeah, we are the only two. And, yeah, there's a vacant alternate position right now as well. Okay. Okay. So, when you are called in to be part of the meeting as an -- you know, to occupy the seat of a regular member, then you have voting rights. I do. It is -- so, I'm not exactly sure what we're actually discussing is because -- As an alternate, I realize I don't have voting rights. Right. But I'm acting as an alternate. Right. Other than that, I -- my vote's just -- Right. Exactly. Yes. So, I'm not exactly sure what are we -- what the concern is that if we have -- like, then -- why not -- I mean, I don't see why -- if we're calling them alternates, they're obviously not full members. They're alternates to fuller position when there's -- when there's somebody missing. When they come and sit there, they vote. But if we're -- if we're giving an alternate that is attending a meeting and a vote, then we're expanding the board. I believe that, too. So, I don't -- I mean, if -- then we might as well just expand the board and not have alternates. I -- to me, it makes no sense to -- That would be up to the council then. Right. Pardon me for interrupting, but I -- Yeah, but -- I think part of the discussion here is I would -- if you have thoughts on would you prefer the board be expanded, would you prefer to remain the way it is, or would you prefer the board be -- the board be shrunk to some degree and not have alternate positions anymore. If you have direction or thoughts as a board on that, that would be helpful for the council to know. Yeah. At this point, I don't really know if that's clear to me either, but it's just a -- that's kind of why I'm bringing it up. I don't see the point for having alternates. I just think it's confusing. I think quorum should be 50% plus one of whatever number attend, and if we can't get that number, then it's not a meeting. But I would prefer to have everybody here for the same discussions. That's my preference. I don't know what -- But I don't necessarily see that -- like how many members do we have on this board at the moment? Currently there are eight -- there are ten positions. Ten positions? Yeah, three of them are alternates. So seven regular members, three alternates. Correct. If I'm not mistaken, each council member was given -- Each council member has to nominate one council member. I don't know if they roll the dice to see who the other three come from. I think that it's just whoever nominates somebody first, it comes up for the alternate. So the original seven is represented by the council members. The alternates then are the alternates. Whoever picks somebody. Right. And they don't even have to pick them from their district. I don't know for sure. I'm not -- I'm appointed by some -- I'm not living in the district by the councilman. I've only really heard one person give me an opinion that was clear, which is fine. I can just say the board discussed it and it doesn't have any opinion in general as a body. So what is the quorum that's needed for voting? Four. Four. We have to have four people who can attend. We haven't had issues with quorum, even excluding the alternates that were asked to attend to fill vacant positions for two years, basically. But I do know another historic landmark commission has had issues with quorum. Right. A lot of boards and commissions are having issues with quorum, which I think is why they're having this discussion at all. They're not just discussing the Board of Ethics. Four regular or alternates, just like last time we were talking about. Well, even last meeting we had -- I think we had enough. I don't remember. I think there's only two board -- city boards right now that are full. I mean, that's how sad it is trying to get volunteers. Council members are just -- they're -- I mean, they can't get people to come in. I think it's deeper than that. I think that people are not filling role. I don't want us to get too off topic. Yeah. So I don't have a problem with having alternates, but it doesn't seem like it's needed for this particular board. But maybe other boards might need alternates. Is that the case? Well, actually, I would disagree. I'm sorry to say this, but I mean, Robert has been here, like, on a regular basis as an alternate. So I really do think that there is a need for an alternate. But if he weren't here, we'd have a quorum, so. Today we did. Last week -- last month we would not have had a quorum. Oh, I thought Madison said we didn't have any. I think we were close last month. We wouldn't have last month. That's what I said. And that was one of the big reasons -- that was one of the big reasons why we delayed certain things because -- Well, we didn't do the voting for the -- Right, because the alternates didn't feel -- the alternates that had not been as involved as -- The two of the alternates felt like it wasn't fair to pick someone. Yes. We felt it was necessary for the appointed members to get their say. What if we have alternates who may come if they want to, if they're not? Because right now -- It's a public meeting. Alternates can come if they want to. Okay. I get an e-mail -- I would like them to have voice and vote. And the alternate thing comes in when we're doing panels. If we don't have enough people, we give them a panel. Well, then it looks like we do need alternates if we don't always meet quorum, so that if we need them, then we should just keep -- We do typically meet quorum without the alternates involved. Last meeting -- that's true that last meeting that wasn't true. I think that you were here -- we had three -- yeah, we had three, but then you were here too. I don't remember. Maybe we should leave it -- Okay. I'm not really clear on the direction, if there is any -- Is the typical makeup of a board the same, where there's seven regular members and three alternates? No. There's not typically alternate members. What if we allowed alternates to attend if they're not invited, if they choose, and they have voice but no vote? Alternates can attend right now. The ordinance says that they can only participate if they've been invited to fill the needs. Madam Chair, I'd be concerned -- I think I would like to get an opinion from the council, or legal, as to how this document was created. I mean, how we were created as far as our positions for voting versus alternate, so that we don't catch the council off guard, because they're thinking, I appointed you, I appointed -- so they're all appointed. And we, whatever -- and I think it was a great idea to have alternates, because the public utility board doesn't have alternates, do we? No. And there are times that they just don't meet. I mean, that's public utility board. They just don't meet. Think about that. We're talking about millions of dollars that we're dealing with. Well, we'll do that next month. But that's the beast that was created. But I'd like to get an opinion from the city council, how we can then swim in that water, as it were. There is a decision to be made there, because I was an alternate. And I have been to more than one of these meetings sitting right there, not able to speak or vote. Only because my TV didn't pick this up at home all the way. But I sat right there, making it more possible. Andrea? I'm going back to the fact that if we have seven members, we have seven members. And if we -- you know, to me, an alternate -- there's a difference between a full member and an alternate. And right there -- so, yes, can I understand the frustration of not being able to speak? But, you know, there's a bunch of -- there's all of our citizens that are not able to speak at this board either. So I -- I mean, either no alternates or alternates stay as the definition as we have them. But changing their ability to speak and their ability to vote, I think then we're really getting into an area where -- so what's the difference between a regular member and an alternate, if they have all the rights? And not that I want to eliminate rights, but then we'd have to discuss expanding the board to ten members. We'd have to get the council to agree to that. Exactly. And they're going to want to think a thought into it. We wouldn't want an even number anyway, because there would be -- that would be difficult for them. Yes. But, yeah, I just -- I think that when we're delivering these issues, I want to have as many opinions as possible, even if we don't agree. So -- yes, and I don't disagree with your voices, but if -- then we should have the conversation about expanding the board and not having -- and not changing the role or the rights of an alternate. I guess you can tell them that we were mixed, if you want. Okay. Yeah. I think that's inaccurate. I know they should have been sitting over here watching us, but couldn't talk. I'm not going to do that. I can see that. Okay, so are we finished? Are we finished with item F? Please. Okay, move on to item G, BOE 23-049, receive a report for the discussion and give staff direction regarding future meeting topics. So currently, we don't have anything that we have prioritized for next meeting or the meeting after that, which is typically how we like to at least think out. So this is the list of things we've discussed talking about. Some of them -- we've previously talked about their previous proposals. I wanted to just mention Patricia emailed me separately and said she wanted to talk about campaign contributions and then also brought up the potential campaign financing restrictions, which is something that's not currently in the code at all. And then also we talked about pending matter today, or you gave direction today for me to bring back something, so that could either -- we need to prioritize that as well. I would like to have that. Yeah, some of this stuff has come up a long time ago. Yes. Some of it's more fresh. I would definitely like to personally like to have pending matter. I'd like to work on that one at the next meeting. I would like to know if, Madam Chair, besides that one, is there another one there that might be a 20-minute -- you know what I mean? Yeah. And then we can maybe take a couple or five so we can start with everything down. And I may yield to you, Madison, as to what you think time-wise on some of these would be. What is the debtor-creditor relationship? That was a proposal that we sent to the State Council last time in '23. And it was to include in the conflict of interest definition of the list of $800, $600, blah, blah, blah, whatever it is, the debtor-creditor relationship. Okay. So these are estimates, I would say some of them could be broken into parts, some of them probably will be several parts potentially. That doesn't represent 30 seconds. No, it doesn't. Dave? I have one closing item that's very simple. But, Madison, I would ask you a question. On this conflict of interest versus what we were discussing, without bringing Alan Boracuis back up here out of Austin, would you feel comfortable working up a presentation to help us wrestle with this conflict of interest versus simplifying this to match other cities? I believe that's what I was given direction to do. I just need to know if you want it next meeting or not. Okay. I mean, I've done a lot of research. I don't have an opinion, but I can certainly give you some options. That's good. But would the next meeting, would that be too tight of a schedule for you or would it be better to move it to January? That's, I mean, I think. This is part of my job. Okay. So is that, if I may ask, is that in addition to penny matter or is that a separate issue that you just brought up versus penny? That is the, I was interpreting that as the discussion, the longer discussion that I was getting. Okay, so that is the penny matter. Yeah. Because I would maybe want to just do that. I think that's going to be quite. I think that's awesome. Well, what if we revisit this? I know I had mentioned too the possibility of looking at the city code of ethics, the one that they have for city staff members, and considering that, you know, switching out this code for that one. You're talking about an entire rewrite of the code for the prohibition section? What the city has is actually a pretty decent code. It's not the best I've read, but it's decent. And this one has big holes in it that we need to fix. And after going to the city council meeting, when they pretty much shot down everything we had spent two years talking about, I'm not really excited about piecemealing this thing. I think it's going to take us a long time. I would like to consider that we take the city code, which will, of course, be administered by the city staff. But we put our policies onto -- our procedures onto it. That's an option that I think would fit some uses. So I'd love to look at that code and see what we think about that. All right. So just so I'm clear, are you talking -- because it -- We're talking about -- No, I know which one you're talking about. I just mean, are you talking specifically about, like, the prohibitions section of -- because it has -- No, just the procedures. Because the city's ethics policy doesn't have a process for processing ethics. Right. So you're talking about taking the procedures that are in our code and basically putting them around -- Attaching them to that. But the advantage would be that city employees and city officials would be on the same playing field, if you will, and that we wouldn't have two different codes of ethics. So I can include that as part of the large discussion as an option, potentially? Yeah. It will replace a lot more than just the conflict of interest piece. Yeah. If -- well, there is just a conflict of interest section, or I could look at it, or I could come back with the entire prohibitions part from the POS. So why don't we look at conflict of interest next time? I think we're all in agreement about that. And then we relook at this list, including the possibility of looking at the city staff code of ethics and decide what's going to be next. And I can start including -- because obviously every time I try to present research from other cities, I can start including, if it's relevant, what the city's ethics -- employee ethics policy says as well as part of that. Right. I think that's what you can agree on. But I would love to see everybody on the same page. I think that would be good. I'm not trying to meet ethics policy. Okay. Half the day. So can you get a copy of -- Oh, yeah. We wouldn't. Okay. I just don't have control over it. Yeah. Interesting. Does that -- so next time we'll look at the whole list again, it'll be like a buffet and we'll decide what -- Andrea? I'm sorry. Would it be possible -- like, if you're looking into that, would you be able to send us a link to that code prior to the actual meeting agenda? Would it be possible to just have a -- get an email with the links of the two different ethics codes? I'm sorry. That would be great. Yeah. Both the staff and then the city officials. And I know that they're all available. It's just that -- You're asking for a copy of the city code for the employees and such. Yes. And then send also what we have created as our code for ethics for officers. Yes. It's on the right side right now. It is. And I know it is. And it's just that I've been meaning to -- It's 1.001. That's not pretty long. Yes. We can provide the links. Please. Okay. Any other -- So do we want to -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. Well, I just have one other item that has been on my list for quite some time. It's very simple, and what I would suggest is it's just a simple reminder that this Board of Ethics is a citizen-driven initiative. This is all about citizens trusting the government that we're all living under. We serve no governmental function here whatsoever. Now, in the past, we've had some -- excuse me. We've had some speakers. The last meeting was Dillinger, I think, was his name. What I'm going to suggest, respectfully, is that our agenda include right up at the top public comments. Oh, it should. It does. Because I've gone back over, and this opening paragraph here sounds like whoever visits us needs to talk to a posted agenda item. Now, there are some citizens in this town that want to bring new ideas to this ethics board, citizens that have lived under other forms of ethics. So all I'm suggesting is that we have at the start of every meeting just a simple heading that says public comments under two categories. Number one, if it's a brand new topic, anybody in this town that is concerned about ethics ought to be able to bring a new topic and sit right at that -- or stand right at that roster and talk to us for three or four minutes. The other kind would be somebody that has an opinion about a posted agenda item, which maybe they could just be recognized when we get to that agenda item. Yeah, it should say that. We'll make it update. If that's already been approved by the board, it should say that. It just needs to be clarified. Well, I've gone back over, and I would really love to just literally say the words "public comments" as an invitation to the citizens of this town to know that this is a citizen-driven board, and we need you here, we need to hear what you think about this. I would love it on the agenda. You know, John Doe wants to talk about blah. They have to register to have it on the agenda. Public comments don't have to have that information to them. Whatever hits paper lets them know they're welcome. Come sign up, whether it's a new topic at the first or an agenda item, sign up, whatever. We'll work with the city secretary's office to make sure that's clear on here. That is possible now, but I understand what you're saying. Well, I know we did that in the past, but I just was looking for something a little more visible here that says, "Come on, come on and talk." This is only the second meeting that it's actually been approved, so we're still working out some things. Come on and talk to us. We won't fight. I think that would help with trust. So there are no other comments or anything. So it is now 6.57 and this meeting is adjourned.