WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.500 So this is the Board of Ethics meeting for Monday, November 6th at 5.30 p.m. 00:00:07.500 --> 00:00:18.000 And we are going to start with item BOE 23-42, receive nominations and hold an election of the chair and vice chair. 00:00:18.000 --> 00:00:25.000 Just so that everyone is aware, Dustin said he was willing to be chair and vice chair if he was nominated. 00:00:25.000 --> 00:00:30.000 -Willing to be what? Both? -Yeah, you could be, yeah. 00:00:30.000 --> 00:00:34.000 Okay, so I'll take nominations for chair first. 00:00:34.000 --> 00:00:40.000 I will nominate Panetta for chair. 00:00:40.000 --> 00:00:45.000 Okay. Are there any other nominations? 00:00:45.000 --> 00:00:52.000 Okay, we'll close the nominations and what about all in favor say aye. 00:00:52.000 --> 00:00:55.000 -Aye. -Okay. 00:00:55.000 --> 00:01:00.000 Now for vice chair, so I'll entertain nominations for vice chair. 00:01:00.000 --> 00:01:09.000 -I will nominate Dustin. -Yeah. 00:01:09.000 --> 00:01:15.000 I think he'd be great. Any other, sorry, any other nominations? 00:01:15.000 --> 00:01:24.000 Okay, so all in favor of Dustin Pavlik being the vice chair of the Board of Ethics, raise your hand. 00:01:24.000 --> 00:01:28.000 -Aye. -That says unanimously, right? 00:01:28.000 --> 00:01:40.000 Okay, so on to item B, BOE 23-047, consider approval of minutes for October 2nd, 2023. 00:01:40.000 --> 00:01:47.000 Do I hear any, anyone want to move that we approve them? 00:01:47.000 --> 00:01:51.000 I move that we approve them. 00:01:51.000 --> 00:01:58.000 Patricia Renke moved approval of the minutes from October 2nd, 2023. 00:01:58.000 --> 00:02:00.000 Do you need it? I don't think we need it. 00:02:00.000 --> 00:02:01.000 -Second, yes. -Do you need it? 00:02:01.000 --> 00:02:02.000 -Second, yes. -Do you need it? 00:02:02.000 --> 00:02:06.000 -I second. -Andrea seconded. 00:02:06.000 --> 00:02:11.000 -So all in favor? -Aye. 00:02:11.000 --> 00:02:18.000 -I abstained because I wasn't here, so. -Okay, that's fair. 00:02:18.000 --> 00:02:23.000 -I didn't see BOE 23-046. -I'm sorry. 00:02:23.000 --> 00:02:33.000 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. 00:02:33.000 --> 00:02:42.000 -Really? -It was actually the, yeah, so I just wanted to clarify that so that we are... 00:02:42.000 --> 00:02:46.000 -For the order, is that correct? I mean, I'm not denying it. 00:02:46.000 --> 00:02:48.000 -Yeah. -What do you want to do, since you sat down? 00:02:48.000 --> 00:02:51.000 -Well, I'll leave the chair's discretion on that. 00:02:51.000 --> 00:03:00.000 -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. 00:03:00.000 --> 00:03:03.000 -Well, I didn't vote against it. -Yeah, I know, I know. 00:03:03.000 --> 00:03:07.000 -So how does that help with setting the precedent that... 00:03:07.000 --> 00:03:10.000 -I have never heard that, that's interesting. 00:03:10.000 --> 00:03:22.000 -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. 00:03:22.000 --> 00:03:33.000 -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. 00:03:33.000 --> 00:03:35.000 -Because we're the quasi-judicial committee? 00:03:35.000 --> 00:03:45.000 -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. 00:03:45.000 --> 00:03:50.000 -Okay, I appreciate you bringing that up, I've never heard that. 00:03:50.000 --> 00:03:52.000 -Interesting. 00:03:52.000 --> 00:03:59.000 -How does that change if the minutes of that meeting are not complete or does that change anything? 00:03:59.000 --> 00:04:01.000 -No, it's the process. 00:04:01.000 --> 00:04:16.000 -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. 00:04:16.000 --> 00:04:21.000 -Yeah, but we can get hung up on better things. 00:04:21.000 --> 00:04:23.000 -Let's find them. 00:04:23.000 --> 00:04:38.000 Okay, item C, BOE 23-046, hold a discussion and consider changes to the start time of regular Board of Ethics meetings. 00:04:38.000 --> 00:04:41.000 -This, I think, was requested last meeting. 00:04:41.000 --> 00:04:54.000 -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. 00:04:54.000 --> 00:05:00.000 -Yeah, and so we looked here at just some options, we could even change the day, I just didn't assume. 00:05:00.000 --> 00:05:10.000 -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, 00:05:10.000 --> 00:05:12.000 I believe it would be better for them. 00:05:12.000 --> 00:05:18.000 So, not that I want to do that just around the staff, but it's a point. 00:05:18.000 --> 00:05:23.000 So, let's have discussion about this. 00:05:23.000 --> 00:05:34.000 -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. 00:05:34.000 --> 00:05:43.000 -I think we also would exclude a large population. For example, I'm a teacher, I would not be able to meet at all. 00:05:43.000 --> 00:05:52.000 So, in terms of inclusiveness, I would not. I would have to take a personal day every month to attend the meeting. 00:05:52.000 --> 00:05:56.000 And that would take care of all the other days that I have. 00:05:56.000 --> 00:06:02.000 -So, is four o'clock a stretch for you as well? 00:06:02.000 --> 00:06:07.000 -Four o'clock is a stretch, but it's doable, especially since I'm close. 00:06:07.000 --> 00:06:15.000 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. 00:06:15.000 --> 00:06:20.000 I mean, if we're talking about accessibility of being able to serve on the board. 00:06:20.000 --> 00:06:24.000 -I don't think we have anybody else who is a teacher on the board. 00:06:24.000 --> 00:06:38.000 -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. 00:06:38.000 --> 00:06:48.000 -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. 00:06:48.000 --> 00:06:50.000 -Not today. 00:06:50.000 --> 00:06:51.000 -Not today. 00:06:51.000 --> 00:06:54.000 -But today would have been two o'clock. 00:06:54.000 --> 00:06:57.000 -Just for the record, I'm fine with a different time. 00:06:57.000 --> 00:07:00.000 -Okay. What time would you like? 00:07:00.000 --> 00:07:04.000 -Oh, I don't have a preference for any of the times mentioned I can do. 00:07:04.000 --> 00:07:07.000 -Okay. Thank you. That's all you can do. 00:07:07.000 --> 00:07:15.000 -Are there any three or four o'clock conflicts for this room from council or other committees and city staff? 00:07:15.000 --> 00:07:16.000 -Not on Monday. 00:07:16.000 --> 00:07:17.000 -Not regularly. 00:07:17.000 --> 00:07:21.000 -Well, I'm a 5.30, so... 00:07:21.000 --> 00:07:34.000 -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. 00:07:34.000 --> 00:07:50.000 -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. 00:07:50.000 --> 00:07:59.000 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. 00:07:59.000 --> 00:08:12.000 -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. 00:08:12.000 --> 00:08:23.000 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. 00:08:23.000 --> 00:08:33.000 -So, I hear 5.30, and I hear four o'clock as possible options. 00:08:33.000 --> 00:08:37.000 -Are you looking for a motion, Madam Chair? 00:08:37.000 --> 00:08:38.000 -Yes. 00:08:38.000 --> 00:08:44.000 -I move that we keep the current time of 5.30 for our ethics meeting. 00:08:44.000 --> 00:08:46.000 -Okay. Is there a second to that? 00:08:46.000 --> 00:08:47.000 -I'll second. 00:08:47.000 --> 00:08:51.000 -Okay. All in favor, raise your hand. 00:08:51.000 --> 00:09:01.000 -So, Tom and Rob and David and Andrea, so it passes. So, we'll leave it at 5.30. 00:09:01.000 --> 00:09:07.000 -I'm sorry. So, there was four yeas and two nays? 00:09:07.000 --> 00:09:11.000 -Are you allowed to abstain from that vote, or do you have to take a stand on the way to the other? 00:09:11.000 --> 00:09:14.000 -I'm going to vote now. Do you want to vote one way or the other? 00:09:14.000 --> 00:09:22.000 -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. 00:09:22.000 --> 00:09:32.000 -So, I just need to be clear for the minute what the vote was. So, four yeas, one no, and one abstention? 00:09:32.000 --> 00:09:55.000 -Yeah. Item D, BOE 23-043, receive training and hold a discussion regarding the City of Denton Post ordinances, Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics. 00:09:55.000 --> 00:09:59.000 So, take it away, Madison. 00:09:59.000 --> 00:10:06.000 -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. 00:10:06.000 --> 00:10:12.000 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. 00:10:12.000 --> 00:10:20.000 You're probably the most familiar with the Ethics Ordinance. 00:10:20.000 --> 00:10:26.000 So, we'll start today, we'll be covering the ethical expectations laid out in the City's Ethics Ordinance. 00:10:26.000 --> 00:10:33.000 The ordinance's mandates and prohibitions are what it requires, how city officials subject to the ordinance can request clarification on its application, 00:10:33.000 --> 00:10:38.000 and a quick overview of what happens if an ethics complaint is submitted against you as a city official. 00:10:38.000 --> 00:10:46.000 To begin, the City of Denton's Ethics Ordinance was adopted in 2018 and was most recently amended in 2023. 00:10:46.000 --> 00:10:51.000 The Ethics Code is intended to foster an environment of integrity for those that serve the City of Denton and its residents 00:10:51.000 --> 00:11:00.000 by ensuring that decision makers provide reasonable stewardship of city resources and assets, and providing behavioral guidelines and requirements. 00:11:00.000 --> 00:11:05.000 The key goal of the Ethics Ordinance is to further the public's trust in those who govern their community. 00:11:05.000 --> 00:11:10.000 More specifically, the Ethics Ordinance outlines six aspirational expectations. 00:11:10.000 --> 00:11:17.000 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. 00:11:17.000 --> 00:11:25.000 These include conducting yourself in a manner that fosters public trust, performing your public duties with personal and organizational integrity, 00:11:25.000 --> 00:11:30.000 avoiding behavior that might call your motives into question and erode public confidence, 00:11:30.000 --> 00:11:41.000 placing the interests and concerns of Denton's residents above your own, valuing honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, objectivity, fairness, due process, efficiency, and prudence, 00:11:41.000 --> 00:11:50.000 and balancing transparency with the duty to protect personal privacy and preserve any confidential information that you have been trusted with. 00:11:50.000 --> 00:11:58.000 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. 00:11:58.000 --> 00:12:06.000 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. 00:12:06.000 --> 00:12:12.000 It's also important to realize that these expectations are not only focused on the way things are, but also how they appear. 00:12:12.000 --> 00:12:16.000 A city official has a position of privilege within their community that they must respect. 00:12:16.000 --> 00:12:21.000 Serving your community as a city official is an honor that requires integrity and dedication. 00:12:21.000 --> 00:12:25.000 In general, you can think about an ethics code as a stoplight. 00:12:25.000 --> 00:12:29.000 In some instances, the code clearly prohibits specific behaviors or creates a red light. 00:12:29.000 --> 00:12:34.000 However, in other areas, the code creates broader prohibitions or yellow lights. 00:12:34.000 --> 00:12:44.000 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. 00:12:44.000 --> 00:12:49.000 Throughout the presentation, I'll be calling out which parts of the code are red lights versus yellow lights to help provide guidance. 00:12:49.000 --> 00:12:55.000 So now that we've covered the basics of the city's ethical expectations and general guidance, I'll get into more specifics. 00:12:55.000 --> 00:13:04.000 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. 00:13:04.000 --> 00:13:14.000 Beginning with mandates, the ethics ordinance requires that city officials disclose certain business relationships if they are relevant to a pending matter. 00:13:14.000 --> 00:13:30.000 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. 00:13:30.000 --> 00:13:34.000 All disclosures will be provided to the relevant body before the deliberations. 00:13:34.000 --> 00:13:49.000 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. 00:13:49.000 --> 00:13:59.000 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. 00:13:59.000 --> 00:14:06.000 These mandates are red lights and not reporting a known violation of the ordinance is itself considered to be a violation. 00:14:06.000 --> 00:14:10.000 So I'll stop here because this is the most confusing part of the ordinance I think. 00:14:10.000 --> 00:14:14.000 So are there any questions about this? 00:14:14.000 --> 00:14:33.000 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? 00:14:33.000 --> 00:14:42.000 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. 00:14:42.000 --> 00:14:47.000 I remember the PUD had a couple, but I don't recall them at this point. 00:14:47.000 --> 00:14:48.000 Yeah, I don't remember them. 00:14:48.000 --> 00:14:50.000 It was about investments I believe. 00:14:50.000 --> 00:15:01.000 Yeah. Oh yeah, I did get a couple times a question about the difference between fair market value of a business and stock percentages. 00:15:01.000 --> 00:15:12.000 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? 00:15:12.000 --> 00:15:13.000 Yes. 00:15:13.000 --> 00:15:23.000 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. 00:15:23.000 --> 00:15:36.000 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? 00:15:36.000 --> 00:15:43.000 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. 00:15:43.000 --> 00:15:46.000 It might be permissible, Madam Chair. 00:15:46.000 --> 00:15:48.000 Yeah. 00:15:48.000 --> 00:15:49.000 I'll bring it back up one more time. 00:15:49.000 --> 00:15:56.000 Did no one have any questions about pending matter because I find it to be confusing? 00:15:56.000 --> 00:15:59.000 In fact, we have something we're going to discuss tonight. 00:15:59.000 --> 00:16:03.000 No one during the training presentation has had a question about pending matter. 00:16:03.000 --> 00:16:13.000 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. 00:16:13.000 --> 00:16:23.000 I'd like to have all that because that's on the agenda, so sideways, but it's on. 00:16:23.000 --> 00:16:35.000 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. 00:16:35.000 --> 00:16:47.000 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. 00:16:47.000 --> 00:16:57.000 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? 00:16:57.000 --> 00:16:59.000 Well, this is the training on the current ordinance. 00:16:59.000 --> 00:17:00.000 Okay. 00:17:00.000 --> 00:17:10.000 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. 00:17:10.000 --> 00:17:13.000 So we're great to nothing long-term in any of this. 00:17:13.000 --> 00:17:19.000 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. 00:17:19.000 --> 00:17:20.000 That's fine. 00:17:20.000 --> 00:17:33.000 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. 00:17:33.000 --> 00:17:49.000 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. 00:17:49.000 --> 00:17:55.000 This general guidance is a yellow light that is intended to draw attention to the risk of conflicts of interest. 00:17:55.000 --> 00:18:03.000 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. 00:18:03.000 --> 00:18:22.000 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, 00:18:22.000 --> 00:18:38.000 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. 00:18:38.000 --> 00:18:49.000 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. 00:18:49.000 --> 00:19:02.000 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. 00:19:02.000 --> 00:19:10.000 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. 00:19:10.000 --> 00:19:16.000 This prohibition also applies to former city officials for one year after termination of their official duties. 00:19:16.000 --> 00:19:32.000 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. 00:19:32.000 --> 00:19:47.000 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. 00:19:47.000 --> 00:19:50.000 Good summary. 00:19:50.000 --> 00:20:02.000 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. 00:20:02.000 --> 00:20:06.000 This is a general prohibition that acts as a yellow light for city officials. 00:20:06.000 --> 00:20:09.000 The ordinance does also include gift-related red lights. 00:20:09.000 --> 00:20:18.000 Specifically, a city official cannot accept a single gift valued more than $50 or multiple gifts with a total value of more than $200. 00:20:18.000 --> 00:20:27.000 In general, the gift is considered to be anything of monetary value, such as cash, property, services, meals, entertainment, or travel-related expenses. 00:20:27.000 --> 00:20:36.000 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. 00:20:36.000 --> 00:20:43.000 If a gift is accepted, the city official must disclose the acceptance and the remedy by filing a disclosure with the city office. 00:20:43.000 --> 00:20:52.000 The ordinance does allow certain exceptions to the gift's prohibition, meaning that these are considered green lights, which include lawful campaign contributions, 00:20:52.000 --> 00:20:59.000 expenses related to a city official's travel to a conference or other training event that is connected to the city, 00:20:59.000 --> 00:21:05.000 expenses related to appearances at nonprofit or community events related to city business, 00:21:05.000 --> 00:21:13.000 complimentary attendance at fundraising events or hospitality functions, complimentary or promotional copies of trade publications or clothing items, 00:21:13.000 --> 00:21:21.000 or gifts that are given due to a personal, familial, or professional relationship, regardless of the city official's city-related duties. 00:21:21.000 --> 00:21:28.000 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. 00:21:28.000 --> 00:21:31.000 Questions about gifts? 00:21:31.000 --> 00:21:34.000 Great. 00:21:34.000 --> 00:21:42.000 Next, it is a violation of the ordinance for a city official to misuse the influence or information gained due to their city position. 00:21:42.000 --> 00:21:50.000 Specifically, a city official may not use their influence to secure special privileges or treatment for a person, group, or business organization 00:21:50.000 --> 00:21:55.000 beyond what is normally available or to imply that they can use those things. 00:21:55.000 --> 00:22:04.000 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 00:22:04.000 --> 00:22:08.000 so that they can more easily access normally available services. 00:22:08.000 --> 00:22:14.000 For that reason, city officials should proceed cautiously and thoughtfully when trying to help the public with specific concerns. 00:22:14.000 --> 00:22:22.000 Particularly, city officials should be cautious when stating what they can or cannot do to make sure that a concern is addressed. 00:22:22.000 --> 00:22:30.000 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. 00:22:30.000 --> 00:22:42.000 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. 00:22:42.000 --> 00:22:53.000 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. 00:22:53.000 --> 00:22:54.000 Good question. 00:22:54.000 --> 00:22:55.000 Yes. 00:22:55.000 --> 00:23:05.000 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? 00:23:05.000 --> 00:23:06.000 Correct. 00:23:06.000 --> 00:23:08.000 Okay. 00:23:08.000 --> 00:23:10.000 Are there any questions on this section? 00:23:10.000 --> 00:23:15.000 I do have a question about acting as a representative. 00:23:15.000 --> 00:23:19.000 I think several of us got an email recently by a journalism student. 00:23:19.000 --> 00:23:20.000 Yes. 00:23:20.000 --> 00:23:33.000 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. 00:23:33.000 --> 00:23:44.000 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. 00:23:44.000 --> 00:23:47.000 And I think that that can be difficult. 00:23:47.000 --> 00:23:49.000 With a college student. 00:23:49.000 --> 00:23:52.000 I'm just going to bring them to you. 00:23:52.000 --> 00:23:59.000 And we do have a chief communications officer, chief information, I don't know, I think it's communication officer now. 00:23:59.000 --> 00:24:03.000 So maybe refer to this. Sorry, what? 00:24:03.000 --> 00:24:04.000 Who is that? 00:24:04.000 --> 00:24:07.000 His name is Dustin Steinbeck. 00:24:07.000 --> 00:24:08.000 Okay. 00:24:08.000 --> 00:24:10.000 He started like last month. 00:24:10.000 --> 00:24:13.000 Should we have received a copy of what he said to that person? 00:24:13.000 --> 00:24:20.000 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. 00:24:20.000 --> 00:24:24.000 I was just wondering, wouldn't it be nice if that was shared with us so we know what the response was? 00:24:24.000 --> 00:24:28.000 Yeah. I'll reach out and see if he did send anything and let you know. 00:24:28.000 --> 00:24:29.000 Thank you. 00:24:29.000 --> 00:24:33.000 Yeah, I just want to say, kind of have a problem with that. 00:24:33.000 --> 00:24:39.000 And I totally understand not saying that we're saying this as a member of the board. 00:24:39.000 --> 00:24:49.000 But I just, I feel like it kind of infringes on free speech, I guess. 00:24:49.000 --> 00:24:53.000 So I'm just going to say that, I'm not asking for any. 00:24:53.000 --> 00:24:58.000 I'm giving you the best advice I could use to protect yourself. 00:24:58.000 --> 00:24:59.000 I hear that. 00:24:59.000 --> 00:25:03.000 But that doesn't mean you cannot do it. 00:25:03.000 --> 00:25:06.000 My sense has been no discussion. 00:25:06.000 --> 00:25:14.000 But, you know, for maybe people on the city council or the city administrators, that's what they want. 00:25:14.000 --> 00:25:18.000 But that's not what residents want. 00:25:18.000 --> 00:25:24.000 And so I felt torn between those two points of view. 00:25:24.000 --> 00:25:26.000 Are we discussing this? 00:25:26.000 --> 00:25:27.000 This is a training. 00:25:27.000 --> 00:25:30.000 I think we want to discuss the merits. 00:25:30.000 --> 00:25:32.000 It's hard with you all as you can. 00:25:32.000 --> 00:25:33.000 Okay. 00:25:33.000 --> 00:25:34.000 Yeah. 00:25:34.000 --> 00:25:35.000 All right. 00:25:35.000 --> 00:25:40.000 Thank you for your best response. 00:25:40.000 --> 00:25:41.000 Okay. 00:25:41.000 --> 00:25:44.000 So last of the prohibitions. 00:25:44.000 --> 00:25:52.000 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. 00:25:52.000 --> 00:26:06.000 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. 00:26:06.000 --> 00:26:12.000 While this is a specific prohibition, it's also a yellow light as it does not have clearly defined thresholds. 00:26:12.000 --> 00:26:20.000 And there are instances where a city official can ethically use city resources such as renting a city facility at the publicly available price. 00:26:20.000 --> 00:26:32.000 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. 00:26:32.000 --> 00:26:42.000 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. 00:26:42.000 --> 00:26:49.000 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. 00:26:49.000 --> 00:26:55.000 Questions about this piece here. 00:26:55.000 --> 00:27:05.000 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. 00:27:05.000 --> 00:27:15.000 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. 00:27:15.000 --> 00:27:29.000 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. 00:27:29.000 --> 00:27:41.000 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. 00:27:41.000 --> 00:27:50.000 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. 00:27:50.000 --> 00:27:59.000 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. 00:27:59.000 --> 00:28:05.000 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. 00:28:05.000 --> 00:28:13.000 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. 00:28:13.000 --> 00:28:21.000 So any questions about the advisory opinion process, I know you're all probably pretty familiar with it. 00:28:21.000 --> 00:28:25.000 Finally, the Board of Ethics' primary function is to process ethics complaints. 00:28:25.000 --> 00:28:29.000 There are four phases of the ethics complaint process that I'll now briefly run through. 00:28:29.000 --> 00:28:37.000 Additional information about the ethics complaint process is available on the city's Board of Ethics webpage or can be requested from me. 00:28:37.000 --> 00:28:45.000 First, the initiation phase. During this period, an individual submits an ethics complaint using the prescribed form to the city auditor. 00:28:45.000 --> 00:28:55.000 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. 00:28:55.000 --> 00:29:03.000 The city auditor then determines that the ethics complaint is administratively complete, but does not make any judgments on the complaint's merits. 00:29:03.000 --> 00:29:12.000 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. 00:29:12.000 --> 00:29:20.000 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. 00:29:20.000 --> 00:29:26.000 The complaint is actionable if on its face the behavior alleged in the complaint would constitute a violation of the ordinance. 00:29:26.000 --> 00:29:34.000 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. 00:29:34.000 --> 00:29:39.000 The outcome of the preliminary assessment is communicated to the complainant and responded by the city auditor. 00:29:39.000 --> 00:29:49.000 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. 00:29:49.000 --> 00:29:59.000 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. 00:29:59.000 --> 00:30:06.000 The complainant must attend and testify at this hearing and may also present any additional evidence that they've gathered. 00:30:06.000 --> 00:30:11.000 In addition, the respondent may provide testimony and evidence for the Board's consideration. 00:30:11.000 --> 00:30:20.000 Both the complainant and respondent have a right to be represented by legal counsel at the evidentiary hearing or by another person. 00:30:20.000 --> 00:30:28.000 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. 00:30:28.000 --> 00:30:38.000 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. 00:30:38.000 --> 00:30:48.000 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. 00:30:48.000 --> 00:31:01.000 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. 00:31:01.000 --> 00:31:13.000 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. 00:31:13.000 --> 00:31:18.000 We did it. Any questions about the ethics complaint process? 00:31:18.000 --> 00:31:25.000 I think that's a really good summary of the current code. I can tell you a lot of work into it. 00:31:25.000 --> 00:31:29.000 Any other comments or questions? 00:31:29.000 --> 00:31:31.000 This has been approved by the Council. 00:31:31.000 --> 00:31:32.000 The training? 00:31:32.000 --> 00:31:33.000 Yes. 00:31:33.000 --> 00:31:39.000 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. 00:31:39.000 --> 00:31:40.000 They didn't need to? 00:31:40.000 --> 00:31:41.000 Right. 00:31:41.000 --> 00:31:43.000 Thank you. 00:31:43.000 --> 00:31:52.000 Okay. So we're moving on to item E, BOE 23-045, Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion, and -- 00:31:52.000 --> 00:31:57.000 I'm so sorry. I do need y'all to sign this so that I have evidence that you attended. 00:31:57.000 --> 00:31:59.000 Do I need to? 00:31:59.000 --> 00:32:04.000 Well, I have you already, but you did it again. 00:32:04.000 --> 00:32:07.000 Congrats. 00:32:07.000 --> 00:32:13.000 I'm really in trouble. 00:32:13.000 --> 00:32:29.000 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. 00:32:29.000 --> 00:32:34.000 And this is really the thing on pending matters. 00:32:34.000 --> 00:32:39.000 So you received a question. 00:32:39.000 --> 00:32:52.000 I did, so -- and that's included in the management report, but it is related. Is that fine, Scott? 00:32:52.000 --> 00:32:56.000 Pushing ahead to the next -- if it's relevant to the posting, that's fine. 00:32:56.000 --> 00:33:10.000 It is. I believe that it is. So we received a request -- let me just pull up the picture. 00:33:10.000 --> 00:33:19.000 Received this request from a staff member, but related from a city official, essentially. 00:33:19.000 --> 00:33:32.000 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? 00:33:32.000 --> 00:33:40.000 And so I provided the definition of pending matter, and it doesn't include informative sessions in it, essentially. 00:33:40.000 --> 00:33:44.000 So I was basically like, yes, that seems correct, your interpretation. 00:33:44.000 --> 00:33:50.000 I want to be just cautious about this is not a request for an advisory opinion. 00:33:50.000 --> 00:33:51.000 That's true. 00:33:51.000 --> 00:34:07.000 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. 00:34:07.000 --> 00:34:17.000 Okay, yeah, I hear what you said. 00:34:17.000 --> 00:34:30.000 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. 00:34:30.000 --> 00:34:44.000 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. 00:34:44.000 --> 00:34:54.000 So the entire subject of pending matter is -- historically does not really consider what may happen after that vote occurs. 00:34:54.000 --> 00:35:11.000 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. 00:35:11.000 --> 00:35:40.000 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. 00:35:40.000 --> 00:35:47.000 But this is something that I would like to have this board discuss. 00:35:47.000 --> 00:36:01.000 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. 00:36:01.000 --> 00:36:15.000 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? 00:36:15.000 --> 00:36:18.000 No, we're at 045. 00:36:18.000 --> 00:36:19.000 We're on 045. 00:36:19.000 --> 00:36:22.000 Okay, good. I missed something. I got a little nervous. Thank you. 00:36:22.000 --> 00:36:25.000 Sorry, we moved ahead a little bit, just a shot. 00:36:25.000 --> 00:36:32.000 Well, I knew we had, but I didn't realize the pending nature was under this one. Thank you. 00:36:32.000 --> 00:36:37.000 Anybody else have comments on the pending matter definition? 00:36:37.000 --> 00:36:48.000 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? 00:36:48.000 --> 00:37:05.000 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 -- 00:37:05.000 --> 00:37:08.000 I recuse myself for something on a vote. 00:37:08.000 --> 00:37:09.000 Yeah, yeah. 00:37:09.000 --> 00:37:11.000 Okay, then take me from there. 00:37:11.000 --> 00:37:30.000 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. 00:37:30.000 --> 00:37:40.000 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. 00:37:40.000 --> 00:37:50.000 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. 00:37:50.000 --> 00:37:56.000 And so this is another subject and I really don't want to start it tonight. 00:37:56.000 --> 00:37:59.000 It was helpful just to get your -- I'm trying to get the concept with you. 00:37:59.000 --> 00:38:00.000 That's fine, that's fine. 00:38:00.000 --> 00:38:18.000 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. 00:38:18.000 --> 00:38:20.000 Right, I'm not asking you to defend or -- 00:38:20.000 --> 00:38:27.000 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. 00:38:27.000 --> 00:38:46.000 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. 00:38:46.000 --> 00:39:00.000 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. 00:39:00.000 --> 00:39:05.000 See, this is a present tense problem or issue that we have in our current code right now. 00:39:05.000 --> 00:39:13.000 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. 00:39:13.000 --> 00:39:21.000 And I had the same thing explained to me by a citizen, and I started looking at it. 00:39:21.000 --> 00:39:23.000 Pending matter is a legal term. 00:39:23.000 --> 00:39:30.000 In my opinion, there's too many legal things in this code that ordinary people wouldn't understand. 00:39:30.000 --> 00:39:36.000 But then if you look in the glossary, the glossary definition of it makes it even more narrow. 00:39:36.000 --> 00:39:48.000 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. 00:39:48.000 --> 00:39:52.000 And so when you look at it, it doesn't look too terrible. 00:39:52.000 --> 00:40:00.000 And then when you do a page flip and go back to the glossary, it is the single most troubling part of this stuff. 00:40:00.000 --> 00:40:02.000 It's a giant loophole. 00:40:02.000 --> 00:40:06.000 Yeah, you could drive a Peterbilt truck through it. 00:40:06.000 --> 00:40:09.000 That's how big the loophole is. 00:40:09.000 --> 00:40:14.000 So I think a lot of people get upset, and they want to file an ethics complaint. 00:40:14.000 --> 00:40:23.000 And when they finally calm down enough to read through this stuff, they realize there's no complaint. 00:40:23.000 --> 00:40:27.000 So that's my concern with pending matter. 00:40:27.000 --> 00:40:31.000 No other city in the state of Texas has this definition. 00:40:31.000 --> 00:40:34.000 Austin has matter in their definition. 00:40:34.000 --> 00:40:37.000 No other city even has matter. 00:40:37.000 --> 00:40:40.000 So it is a weird-- 00:40:40.000 --> 00:40:49.000 See, in our code right here, I'm looking at definitions of our code, pending matter is an application or a permit only. 00:40:49.000 --> 00:40:55.000 It's a deal that could have already been done that is going to go through two days after the council meets. 00:40:55.000 --> 00:41:02.000 So this has been a huge problem for me and some other people in this town for several years. 00:41:02.000 --> 00:41:08.000 And this is one of the things that I would like for us to discuss at the appropriate time. 00:41:08.000 --> 00:41:10.000 I know it's not on the agenda tonight, so I'm not-- 00:41:10.000 --> 00:41:12.000 I think it is. 00:41:12.000 --> 00:41:14.000 Okay, it is, yeah. 00:41:14.000 --> 00:41:20.000 I will just say it's a terrible definition and very confusing. 00:41:20.000 --> 00:41:27.000 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. 00:41:27.000 --> 00:41:29.000 It's so narrow. 00:41:29.000 --> 00:41:33.000 You have to thread the needle to get an ethics code violation. 00:41:33.000 --> 00:41:38.000 So do either of you have the language that we'd like to replace it with? 00:41:38.000 --> 00:41:40.000 Funny you should ask. 00:41:40.000 --> 00:41:55.000 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. 00:41:55.000 --> 00:41:57.000 And that's the most simple definition. 00:41:57.000 --> 00:41:59.000 It's not about dollars and cents. 00:41:59.000 --> 00:42:01.000 It could be hurrying favors. 00:42:01.000 --> 00:42:03.000 It could be about money. 00:42:03.000 --> 00:42:06.000 It could be about sleeping with someone. 00:42:06.000 --> 00:42:15.000 So we need a broader definition and that's why we have a board is that ethics are not always that cut and dried. 00:42:15.000 --> 00:42:21.000 They're much more nuanced, I guess. 00:42:21.000 --> 00:42:28.000 But I will say you could vote for something if a person votes for something that benefits them. 00:42:28.000 --> 00:42:32.000 It's not a conflict of interest if it benefits everybody else in the state. 00:42:32.000 --> 00:42:37.000 So there are times when you're going to benefit for something that, you know, do something that benefits you. 00:42:37.000 --> 00:42:44.000 But we just need a broader sweep here and not trying to catch warn people. 00:42:44.000 --> 00:42:54.000 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. 00:42:54.000 --> 00:42:57.000 That's no doubt. 00:42:57.000 --> 00:43:08.000 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. 00:43:08.000 --> 00:43:21.000 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. 00:43:21.000 --> 00:43:22.000 Then there's that list. 00:43:22.000 --> 00:43:27.000 That's current and future, which we don't cover the future now. 00:43:27.000 --> 00:43:30.000 Like I say, two days after that deal goes down. 00:43:30.000 --> 00:43:37.000 And please don't use the term consanguinity because that's not a term that most people understand. 00:43:37.000 --> 00:43:42.000 I think the better way, you know, parent, child, aunt, and both. 00:43:42.000 --> 00:43:44.000 I mean, go ahead and list all of them. 00:43:44.000 --> 00:43:46.000 We're not trying to complicate this. 00:43:46.000 --> 00:43:48.000 It's actually much simpler than what our code says. 00:43:48.000 --> 00:43:56.000 Weschler has a beautiful one in his model code, but most ethics ordinances have this very simply written. 00:43:56.000 --> 00:44:03.000 You know, you're not, yeah, it's the most awful definition in this day of Texas. 00:44:03.000 --> 00:44:09.000 Does anyone have an objection to changing it to the model code definition here? 00:44:09.000 --> 00:44:10.000 I do. 00:44:10.000 --> 00:44:12.000 Yeah, I'd like to hear more about that. 00:44:12.000 --> 00:44:17.000 You have industries in this town that would be affected greatly by that. 00:44:17.000 --> 00:44:23.000 Surveyors, title companies, real estate professionals, appraisers. 00:44:23.000 --> 00:44:29.000 Anything that would be related into that umbrella of land purchase or land use. 00:44:29.000 --> 00:44:30.000 Developers. 00:44:30.000 --> 00:44:31.000 Developers. 00:44:31.000 --> 00:44:34.000 You would be where the current one catches them at the moment. 00:44:34.000 --> 00:44:38.000 There might be an occasional council member that occasionally. 00:44:38.000 --> 00:44:42.000 No, I would have, I respectfully disagree with you there. 00:44:42.000 --> 00:44:44.000 Because we're not talking about just council members. 00:44:44.000 --> 00:44:47.000 This is officers. Who are officers? 00:44:47.000 --> 00:44:52.000 So it includes the Planning and Zoning Commission, Zoning Board of Adjustments, 00:44:52.000 --> 00:44:57.000 the Public Utilities Board, the City Council, the Historic Landmark Commission, 00:44:57.000 --> 00:45:02.000 and then the city manager, the city attorney, the municipal judge, and me. 00:45:02.000 --> 00:45:03.000 Public Utility Board. 00:45:03.000 --> 00:45:04.000 That's correct. 00:45:04.000 --> 00:45:05.000 And the Ethics Board. 00:45:05.000 --> 00:45:06.000 Ethics Board. 00:45:06.000 --> 00:45:07.000 And y'all, yes, sorry. 00:45:07.000 --> 00:45:09.000 So we're talking about a rather broad network. 00:45:09.000 --> 00:45:12.000 Anything that's outside judicial is. 00:45:12.000 --> 00:45:14.000 I don't know that for sure. 00:45:14.000 --> 00:45:16.000 I just know that's the Historic Landmark Commission. 00:45:16.000 --> 00:45:20.000 So I see this as effective catching now. 00:45:20.000 --> 00:45:28.000 Futuristic, I think you are putting a burden, an unnecessary burden, 00:45:28.000 --> 00:45:35.000 on many people that do not think of the way you have some individuals thinking. 00:45:35.000 --> 00:45:37.000 They're always bad apples somewhere. 00:45:37.000 --> 00:45:43.000 But that's why I would be against such a restrictive. Your broadness, it's hidden interesting. 00:45:43.000 --> 00:45:46.000 The broadness is more restrictive than the restrictiveness is, 00:45:46.000 --> 00:45:50.000 what we're talking about on the definition. 00:45:50.000 --> 00:45:52.000 I would disagree with you there. 00:45:52.000 --> 00:45:59.000 This is what is applied to probably 80 to 90 percent of Texas municipalities right now. 00:45:59.000 --> 00:46:01.000 It's a very simple wording. 00:46:01.000 --> 00:46:11.000 You're going to go down a road that neither one of us can predict right now on this 5%, $600 stuff, 00:46:11.000 --> 00:46:14.000 not knowing what's going to happen after that vote. 00:46:14.000 --> 00:46:18.000 Then realizing that this is in the future. 00:46:18.000 --> 00:46:19.000 This works. 00:46:19.000 --> 00:46:20.000 This is not an experiment. 00:46:20.000 --> 00:46:23.000 This works right now in Texas. 00:46:23.000 --> 00:46:28.000 I just wanted to offer, and from the research, often codes do have both. 00:46:28.000 --> 00:46:34.000 They'll have a general prohibition and they'll have some specifics specifically about on votes and things like that. 00:46:34.000 --> 00:46:43.000 That's a possibility as well. 00:46:43.000 --> 00:46:49.000 I've read a bunch of codes in the state because I'm a nerd, I guess. 00:46:49.000 --> 00:46:54.000 But the one that struck me the hardest was the city of San Marcos. 00:46:54.000 --> 00:47:04.000 They literally say, I think they say, they name some group, don't even think about running for city council. 00:47:04.000 --> 00:47:07.000 That's what they said in their ethics code. 00:47:07.000 --> 00:47:12.000 I read it and I was like, whoa, that's harsh. 00:47:12.000 --> 00:47:20.000 But I will say that Jitin has a long history of this kind of thing. 00:47:20.000 --> 00:47:28.000 It goes all the way back to 1890 when a real estate syndicate started what became UNT. 00:47:28.000 --> 00:47:31.000 What they did was they bought 300 acres. 00:47:31.000 --> 00:47:34.000 They forced the city to annex it. 00:47:34.000 --> 00:47:39.000 The city went from 200 acres to 500 because of these 300 acres. 00:47:39.000 --> 00:47:45.000 They gave 10 acres right in the middle to the normal college. 00:47:45.000 --> 00:47:52.000 Then they developed the rest as lots and left all the way to the bank. 00:47:52.000 --> 00:47:56.000 That kind of thing has happened throughout our history. 00:47:56.000 --> 00:48:01.000 I will also say I think that's fairly common in small cities. 00:48:01.000 --> 00:48:06.000 This is not a small city anymore. 00:48:06.000 --> 00:48:10.000 Well, Madam Chair, we've had that discussion for the existence of this board. 00:48:10.000 --> 00:48:19.000 Other chairmen have told you that that is not something we would be discussing because it is the history. 00:48:19.000 --> 00:48:22.000 We are looking at something that would be today and futuristic. 00:48:22.000 --> 00:48:26.000 But for bringing up issues such as that, we didn't think it was germane then. 00:48:26.000 --> 00:48:28.000 I don't think it's germane now. 00:48:28.000 --> 00:48:30.000 Because there was no ethics, was there then? 00:48:30.000 --> 00:48:32.000 No, there wasn't. 00:48:32.000 --> 00:48:38.000 I think that's part of how a group grows is that they have to shift into things. 00:48:38.000 --> 00:48:44.000 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. 00:48:44.000 --> 00:48:45.000 True. 00:48:45.000 --> 00:48:49.000 So let's not throw a disparaging word on too many. 00:48:49.000 --> 00:48:52.000 I'd rather it be more generic than what you have just said. 00:48:52.000 --> 00:48:54.000 Okay. 00:48:54.000 --> 00:48:56.000 So how do we bring this to conclusion? 00:48:56.000 --> 00:49:00.000 This is an interesting discussion, but it's just a discussion. 00:49:00.000 --> 00:49:02.000 I think it needs to change. 00:49:02.000 --> 00:49:05.000 I think it needs to be at least a little more broad. 00:49:05.000 --> 00:49:09.000 Maybe the glossary definition needs to be... 00:49:09.000 --> 00:49:12.000 I mean, I'll take whatever direction there is for it. 00:49:12.000 --> 00:49:18.000 I think a motion would be clearer, but I don't know what the motion would be. 00:49:18.000 --> 00:49:22.000 I think there's many options for how you could potentially change the code. 00:49:22.000 --> 00:49:24.000 There's also the not changing the code option. 00:49:24.000 --> 00:49:27.000 I hear two possible motions. 00:49:27.000 --> 00:49:31.000 So could we get a straw poll of how people are feeling about it? 00:49:31.000 --> 00:49:33.000 I don't think we can do a straw poll. 00:49:33.000 --> 00:49:40.000 Y'all could give direction on Madison bringing back some options potentially of language. 00:49:40.000 --> 00:49:42.000 I think that'd be very helpful at this point. 00:49:42.000 --> 00:49:44.000 Would that be all right with you, David? 00:49:44.000 --> 00:49:45.000 That would be fine. 00:49:45.000 --> 00:49:54.000 And one thing that I might also add, we've used Wexler's examples from the very start. 00:49:54.000 --> 00:50:00.000 Wexler discusses this issue of dollars and percentages versus the general principles 00:50:00.000 --> 00:50:03.000 that are in most current codes. 00:50:03.000 --> 00:50:06.000 It's maybe 50 or 60 pages. 00:50:06.000 --> 00:50:12.000 It's a lot of reading, and he explains exactly what Rob and I are discussing right now, 00:50:12.000 --> 00:50:14.000 the pros and cons. 00:50:14.000 --> 00:50:20.000 And it's not an accident that most other Texas cities have gone for this simpler language 00:50:20.000 --> 00:50:25.000 that says you don't do it now and you don't do it in the future. 00:50:25.000 --> 00:50:28.000 And so I understand that. 00:50:28.000 --> 00:50:33.000 And that is my understanding of what pending matter actually means, 00:50:33.000 --> 00:50:36.000 but it's the glossary that really kicks it. 00:50:36.000 --> 00:50:39.000 But I still don't like pending matter. 00:50:39.000 --> 00:50:41.000 I think it's confusing. 00:50:41.000 --> 00:50:43.000 Yes, Andrea? 00:50:43.000 --> 00:50:49.000 So we've had issues with really drilling down. 00:50:49.000 --> 00:50:52.000 When we had the whole discussion about actual dollar amounts, 00:50:52.000 --> 00:50:57.000 we had really a difficult time drilling down on what would be reasonable. 00:50:57.000 --> 00:51:03.000 And that is one of the reasons why I would be entertaining something that is simpler, 00:51:03.000 --> 00:51:10.000 because also a $500 amount is not equal to all people. 00:51:10.000 --> 00:51:16.000 To some people $500 is a ton of money, and to others it's a drop in the bucket. 00:51:16.000 --> 00:51:21.000 And that has always been my issue with exact dollar amounts. 00:51:21.000 --> 00:51:28.000 But what I would like, because I wouldn't be ready to drill one way or the other today anyway, 00:51:28.000 --> 00:51:33.000 I really think that we need more concrete examples of what -- 00:51:33.000 --> 00:51:41.000 and really a cohesive discussion about what does this mean if we have exact dollar amounts 00:51:41.000 --> 00:51:47.000 and what does it mean if we're going to a broader definition of what conflict of interest is. 00:51:47.000 --> 00:51:51.000 So that would be my wish. 00:51:51.000 --> 00:51:57.000 And if we took the dollar amounts out, wouldn't it be then if somebody did bring up an ethics complaint, 00:51:57.000 --> 00:52:02.000 that's the whole point of the board to determine, without any dollar amounts, 00:52:02.000 --> 00:52:10.000 just like did this person that's under the purview of these guidelines, 00:52:10.000 --> 00:52:12.000 did they do something that looks unethical? 00:52:12.000 --> 00:52:17.000 And that's the whole point of the board to decide that is unethical or is not unethical, 00:52:17.000 --> 00:52:21.000 whether or not you have dollar amounts. 00:52:21.000 --> 00:52:30.000 Yeah, I mean it could be a lot of broader things. 00:52:30.000 --> 00:52:36.000 So I think there's direction for me to bring back some potential options based on this discussion. 00:52:36.000 --> 00:52:37.000 Yes. 00:52:37.000 --> 00:52:39.000 So do we need to vote on that? 00:52:39.000 --> 00:52:40.000 No, I don't think so. 00:52:40.000 --> 00:52:41.000 Okay. 00:52:41.000 --> 00:52:44.000 Can I be a little bit more specific even for you? 00:52:44.000 --> 00:52:49.000 I would love that. 00:52:49.000 --> 00:52:55.000 I would really like to see if we're going to a broader definition of conflict of interest, 00:52:55.000 --> 00:52:59.000 what are we eliminating out of the current code? 00:52:59.000 --> 00:53:05.000 What language written sections are we actually more or less replacing? 00:53:05.000 --> 00:53:06.000 Right? 00:53:06.000 --> 00:53:10.000 That is what I want to see. 00:53:10.000 --> 00:53:19.000 That's good. 00:53:19.000 --> 00:53:23.000 I would argue numbers are good. 00:53:23.000 --> 00:53:30.000 If it doesn't say 30 miles an hour, but it says drive at a reasonable rate of speed, 00:53:30.000 --> 00:53:32.000 guess what's going to happen? 00:53:32.000 --> 00:53:33.000 Yeah. 00:53:33.000 --> 00:53:34.000 It would be crazy. 00:53:34.000 --> 00:53:38.000 I would argue there is some value in having some specific dollar amount. 00:53:38.000 --> 00:53:44.000 Maybe they need to change over time, but maybe you think they need to be larger or smaller, 00:53:44.000 --> 00:53:47.000 but having a number is useful. 00:53:47.000 --> 00:53:51.000 The other part about the number is it's going to get outdated in a couple of years. 00:53:51.000 --> 00:53:53.000 Well, so it is. 00:53:53.000 --> 00:53:59.000 I deal with behavior, and I'm telling you when we're talking behavior in students, 00:53:59.000 --> 00:54:02.000 it's not always about numbers. 00:54:02.000 --> 00:54:05.000 There's a lot of qualitative stuff that needs going to. 00:54:05.000 --> 00:54:17.000 My concern has always been $500 today is not going to be the same as $500 in 10 years. 00:54:17.000 --> 00:54:24.000 I think that we should at least give it an opportunity to have a much more concrete discussion. 00:54:24.000 --> 00:54:34.000 There's a lot more information that we can actually decide on rather than just a quick conversation today. 00:54:34.000 --> 00:54:39.000 I completely agree with that. 00:54:39.000 --> 00:54:45.000 This came up when the council first worked through this. 00:54:45.000 --> 00:54:50.000 It was a Saturday morning, January 27, 2015, 00:54:50.000 --> 00:54:55.000 and they spent no more than 45 minutes making this decision rather than flipping the page 00:54:55.000 --> 00:54:58.000 and looking at other alternatives across Texas. 00:54:58.000 --> 00:55:00.000 There was not a lot of thought put into this. 00:55:00.000 --> 00:55:07.000 And they had been told to use citizens, and they chose not to. 00:55:07.000 --> 00:55:19.000 I would hope that we could come up with something that would prohibit the appearance of evil 00:55:19.000 --> 00:55:23.000 as far as some of the businesses we're talking about, 00:55:23.000 --> 00:55:27.000 but I would also think that if you're voting for something, 00:55:27.000 --> 00:55:33.000 and let's say I'm a developer and I'm on city council, 00:55:33.000 --> 00:55:40.000 I'm voting for something that the majority of my constituents are telling me is a good thing, 00:55:40.000 --> 00:55:51.000 and I don't think that has to be a bad thing. 00:55:51.000 --> 00:55:55.000 I'm sorry, I'd have to disagree because now you're bringing it back into the council, 00:55:55.000 --> 00:55:58.000 and this is a much broader net. 00:55:58.000 --> 00:55:59.000 I understand. 00:55:59.000 --> 00:56:01.000 I'm just trying to give an example. 00:56:01.000 --> 00:56:04.000 Well, I think your example is a bit narrow. 00:56:04.000 --> 00:56:06.000 Okay. 00:56:06.000 --> 00:56:08.000 Noted. 00:56:08.000 --> 00:56:09.000 All right. 00:56:09.000 --> 00:56:13.000 Any other comments or questions? 00:56:13.000 --> 00:56:14.000 Okay. 00:56:14.000 --> 00:56:15.000 Shall we move on? 00:56:15.000 --> 00:56:21.000 Please. 00:56:21.000 --> 00:56:29.000 So we are on BOE 23-048, that's number F, management reports. 00:56:29.000 --> 00:56:34.000 So the October 20-23 advisory opinion responses report, 00:56:34.000 --> 00:56:39.000 and two, the Board of Ethics alternatives upcoming city council discussion. 00:56:39.000 --> 00:56:43.000 So we'll start with one, the advisory responses report. 00:56:43.000 --> 00:56:47.000 This is really just kind of a heads up that this was asked. 00:56:47.000 --> 00:56:52.000 I think as Scott mentioned earlier, this is not for you to give an opinion on. 00:56:52.000 --> 00:56:55.000 This is just so you know this happened, 00:56:55.000 --> 00:57:01.000 and this was my response based on guidance that was outlined in the procedures manual. 00:57:01.000 --> 00:57:02.000 Okay. 00:57:02.000 --> 00:57:09.000 So then we're on to the alternatives upcoming city council discussion. 00:57:09.000 --> 00:57:12.000 Yes, so this happened very quickly. 00:57:12.000 --> 00:57:17.000 The council is having a discussion tomorrow in general about boards 00:57:17.000 --> 00:57:19.000 and commissions composition. 00:57:19.000 --> 00:57:22.000 We had had some discussion about alternate members historically, 00:57:22.000 --> 00:57:28.000 so I provided them some information about how alternate members have been used 00:57:28.000 --> 00:57:32.000 as far as meeting the quorum requirements in general. 00:57:32.000 --> 00:57:35.000 We haven't had to have alternates to meet quorum requirements, 00:57:35.000 --> 00:57:38.000 though they fill out the board often. 00:57:38.000 --> 00:57:43.000 But a lot of that is due to vacancies. 00:57:43.000 --> 00:57:45.000 So that's just some information there. 00:57:45.000 --> 00:57:47.000 I don't know if you would like to provide additional -- 00:57:47.000 --> 00:57:50.000 I'm going to be there tomorrow for the discussion. 00:57:50.000 --> 00:57:52.000 In case they have questions, I don't really know what will happen, 00:57:52.000 --> 00:57:54.000 but that's for you to know. 00:57:54.000 --> 00:57:58.000 I guess you could ask questions or provide direction if you would like to. 00:57:58.000 --> 00:58:00.000 If you don't know about direction, maybe. 00:58:00.000 --> 00:58:04.000 It's an IC item, so. 00:58:04.000 --> 00:58:05.000 David. 00:58:05.000 --> 00:58:06.000 Well, I'd like to clear up one. 00:58:06.000 --> 00:58:10.000 I have kind of a list of items here that were not on the agenda. 00:58:10.000 --> 00:58:13.000 So this is kind of one of my extra questions. 00:58:13.000 --> 00:58:16.000 It kind of gets back to the last meeting. 00:58:16.000 --> 00:58:24.000 When -- by a 4-0-1 vote, this is when that burden of proof was set aside, 00:58:24.000 --> 00:58:27.000 which I agree with completely. 00:58:27.000 --> 00:58:32.000 Rob voted yes. 00:58:32.000 --> 00:58:35.000 It was 4-1, and I think you abstained. 00:58:35.000 --> 00:58:37.000 Yeah, because I -- 00:58:37.000 --> 00:58:38.000 Well, which is fine. 00:58:38.000 --> 00:58:39.000 It wasn't fair. 00:58:39.000 --> 00:58:40.000 I had no problem. 00:58:40.000 --> 00:58:44.000 But my question is, when the attendance was that short, 00:58:44.000 --> 00:58:47.000 what would have happened if that was a 3-1-1 vote? 00:58:47.000 --> 00:58:49.000 Would that have gone down? 00:58:49.000 --> 00:58:50.000 Yes. 00:58:50.000 --> 00:58:51.000 Yes. 00:58:51.000 --> 00:58:53.000 That would have been the majority of the meeting, right? 00:58:53.000 --> 00:58:54.000 Yeah. 00:58:54.000 --> 00:58:57.000 But that would have been a simple majority of the attendance, 00:58:57.000 --> 00:59:00.000 which would have mean it was an affirmative motion. 00:59:00.000 --> 00:59:05.000 Right. 00:59:05.000 --> 00:59:11.000 So burden of proof is moving forward based on that fourth vote, 00:59:11.000 --> 00:59:14.000 two of which -- there were two regulars and two alternates. 00:59:14.000 --> 00:59:15.000 You were -- 00:59:15.000 --> 00:59:16.000 I was an alternate. 00:59:16.000 --> 00:59:17.000 So two alternates. 00:59:17.000 --> 00:59:20.000 So burden of proof is still alive and kicking. 00:59:20.000 --> 00:59:21.000 Is that right? 00:59:21.000 --> 00:59:22.000 I guess. 00:59:22.000 --> 00:59:23.000 No. 00:59:23.000 --> 00:59:24.000 I think we voted to -- 00:59:24.000 --> 00:59:25.000 We voted to -- 00:59:25.000 --> 00:59:28.000 I mean, nothing has happened because the City Council has to approve it. 00:59:28.000 --> 00:59:29.000 Right, right. 00:59:29.000 --> 00:59:32.000 So the Board has given direction to have that as a proposal 00:59:32.000 --> 00:59:34.000 that will move forward to the City Council. 00:59:34.000 --> 00:59:38.000 But it would not even go to the Council had there been a 3-1-1. 00:59:38.000 --> 00:59:39.000 No, it would. 00:59:39.000 --> 00:59:43.000 It would, because that was a positive vote, 3-1-1 is a positive vote. 00:59:43.000 --> 00:59:44.000 Right? 00:59:44.000 --> 00:59:45.000 Yes. 00:59:45.000 --> 00:59:48.000 So we had quorum. 00:59:48.000 --> 00:59:49.000 Right. 00:59:49.000 --> 00:59:53.000 We had quorum, so 3-1-1 would be a majority yes vote. 00:59:53.000 --> 00:59:54.000 Okay. 00:59:54.000 --> 00:59:55.000 I want to clear that up. 00:59:55.000 --> 00:59:58.000 So it didn't take a fourth vote. 00:59:58.000 --> 00:59:59.000 Correct. 00:59:59.000 --> 01:00:02.000 Because when you read -- well, okay, I don't want to confuse that anymore. 01:00:02.000 --> 01:00:03.000 Okay. 01:00:03.000 --> 01:00:04.000 Good. 01:00:04.000 --> 01:00:11.000 Well, if I may, I think that's an example of how the alternates work. 01:00:11.000 --> 01:00:12.000 I think you agree with that. 01:00:12.000 --> 01:00:16.000 And many times, especially in the earlier years, when we were alternates -- 01:00:16.000 --> 01:00:17.000 Right. 01:00:17.000 --> 01:00:25.000 We sat in the back row in the sense of absorbing us from what was being said, 01:00:25.000 --> 01:00:31.000 with no input or vote, but I accepted that position when they asked me to be an alternate. 01:00:31.000 --> 01:00:32.000 Right. 01:00:32.000 --> 01:00:35.000 Not realizing that many times the alternates are almost more -- 01:00:35.000 --> 01:00:36.000 Well, actually -- 01:00:36.000 --> 01:00:39.000 I have a better record of attendance and -- 01:00:39.000 --> 01:00:45.000 Actually, I want to say it changed until January of 2020, 01:00:45.000 --> 01:00:48.000 because you got on I think in September or October. 01:00:48.000 --> 01:00:49.000 I got on before COVID. 01:00:49.000 --> 01:00:50.000 Yeah. 01:00:50.000 --> 01:00:51.000 You got on pre-COVID. 01:00:51.000 --> 01:00:52.000 I'm a pre-COVID. 01:00:52.000 --> 01:00:57.000 But following January, suddenly alternates were persona non grata. 01:00:57.000 --> 01:01:03.000 It was a palpable change, and Laura was looking over her shoulder to make sure -- 01:01:03.000 --> 01:01:06.000 I don't know what changed, but it changed. 01:01:06.000 --> 01:01:10.000 But prior to that, alternates were allowed to vote. 01:01:10.000 --> 01:01:13.000 They were allowed to discuss, and something changed. 01:01:13.000 --> 01:01:15.000 I can't tell you what. 01:01:15.000 --> 01:01:22.000 When I came on, it was not acceptable for me to ask questions. 01:01:22.000 --> 01:01:26.000 Those first couple meetings, though, because you got on at the same time I did. 01:01:26.000 --> 01:01:29.000 I knew that I had to write notes and give them to -- 01:01:29.000 --> 01:01:30.000 Yeah. 01:01:30.000 --> 01:01:32.000 The gentleman's passed away now. 01:01:32.000 --> 01:01:36.000 I'm the attorney -- 01:01:36.000 --> 01:01:37.000 But anyway -- 01:01:37.000 --> 01:01:41.000 Anyway, I had to write notes because I wasn't permitted to talk. 01:01:41.000 --> 01:01:48.000 The only reason I asked that is because on city council, a 3-3 vote goes nowhere until they get one more try. 01:01:48.000 --> 01:01:56.000 So I'm kind of feeling like a 3-1-1, we would have had to bring it back up to another meeting, 01:01:56.000 --> 01:01:58.000 or I don't see how that moves on. 01:01:58.000 --> 01:02:02.000 It depends on how many people are at the meeting, not the number exact. 01:02:02.000 --> 01:02:06.000 So because a 3-3 vote, there's six people, so you don't have a majority. 01:02:06.000 --> 01:02:09.000 A 3-1-1 vote, there's five people, so you do. 01:02:09.000 --> 01:02:15.000 Well, Robert's rules says even if there are two absences, it would still take a fourth to make a call. 01:02:15.000 --> 01:02:16.000 Yes. 01:02:16.000 --> 01:02:17.000 I'm fine. 01:02:17.000 --> 01:02:19.000 Okay. 01:02:19.000 --> 01:02:22.000 So I like what you said about alternates. 01:02:22.000 --> 01:02:27.000 I would really like to just have everybody be the same. 01:02:27.000 --> 01:02:34.000 I will make a comment, too, that I've been on hearing boards where there was an alternate who felt kind of lost 01:02:34.000 --> 01:02:41.000 because we were working on procedures that they weren't sort of involved in the discussion about, 01:02:41.000 --> 01:02:43.000 and I felt really badly for them. 01:02:43.000 --> 01:02:53.000 So I really would like alternates to have rights. 01:02:53.000 --> 01:02:56.000 So I liked what you said. 01:02:56.000 --> 01:03:04.000 I mean, there's only -- I do have a question. Is there a seat that is just not -- 01:03:04.000 --> 01:03:06.000 Currently, there's a vacant seat on the board. 01:03:06.000 --> 01:03:07.000 Okay. 01:03:07.000 --> 01:03:09.000 Hannah, our classmate, has a vacant seat. 01:03:09.000 --> 01:03:10.000 Okay. 01:03:10.000 --> 01:03:16.000 And prior to that, there was a vacancy before kind of the new switch that I think Patricia built. 01:03:16.000 --> 01:03:18.000 Okay. 01:03:18.000 --> 01:03:19.000 Yeah, I -- 01:03:19.000 --> 01:03:21.000 We've had a vacancy for a while. 01:03:21.000 --> 01:03:23.000 Yeah. 01:03:23.000 --> 01:03:26.000 Are we all full to verification purposes? 01:03:26.000 --> 01:03:31.000 Are we all today -- are we all full members today? 01:03:31.000 --> 01:03:32.000 No. 01:03:32.000 --> 01:03:34.000 No, I'm an alternate. 01:03:34.000 --> 01:03:36.000 So, Rob, how do you feel about this? 01:03:36.000 --> 01:03:38.000 I'm fine with it. 01:03:38.000 --> 01:03:44.000 I mean, I understand because of other boards that I'm on, I understand the position of an alternate, 01:03:44.000 --> 01:03:51.000 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 -- 01:03:51.000 --> 01:03:55.000 sports analogy, kick or get hurt. Rainer, you're next. 01:03:55.000 --> 01:03:56.000 So -- 01:03:56.000 --> 01:04:04.000 So, I'm ready. And I understand that. So, fortunately, I have been not only on -- as a voting member here, 01:04:04.000 --> 01:04:10.000 but also on hearing panels of three. I think you were with me on our very first one, Dave, 01:04:10.000 --> 01:04:17.000 with a citizen that asked a question. We met over -- but anyway, I have no problem with it because I take the position 01:04:17.000 --> 01:04:22.000 as if I was appointed as a first chair. 01:04:22.000 --> 01:04:31.000 How would you feel about -- if you were not an alternate, you would be required to attend meetings. Would that be -- 01:04:31.000 --> 01:04:35.000 I take that responsibility. I have no -- it's a wash for me. 01:04:35.000 --> 01:04:39.000 You don't feel like you have a dog in the hunt, in other words? 01:04:39.000 --> 01:04:46.000 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. 01:04:46.000 --> 01:04:49.000 And so, I'm here for that purpose. 01:04:49.000 --> 01:04:52.000 Okay. So, either way -- 01:04:52.000 --> 01:04:55.000 So, being the lone alternate, I don't have a problem with it. 01:04:55.000 --> 01:05:01.000 So, are you filling the position -- the vacant position in right now because you are as an alternate? 01:05:01.000 --> 01:05:05.000 Yes. So, because there's a vacancy currently, we call an alternate every meeting. 01:05:05.000 --> 01:05:06.000 Okay. 01:05:06.000 --> 01:05:07.000 Yes. And then -- 01:05:07.000 --> 01:05:08.000 Okay. Just to mention -- 01:05:08.000 --> 01:05:09.000 She's definitely going to be here as well. She's traveling, so -- 01:05:09.000 --> 01:05:10.000 Right, right, right. Okay. 01:05:10.000 --> 01:05:13.000 Well, we might have called her to fill us in because he was absent, but -- 01:05:13.000 --> 01:05:15.000 Yeah, we are the only two. 01:05:15.000 --> 01:05:18.000 And, yeah, there's a vacant alternate position right now as well. 01:05:18.000 --> 01:05:19.000 Okay. 01:05:19.000 --> 01:05:20.000 Okay. 01:05:20.000 --> 01:05:33.000 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. 01:05:33.000 --> 01:05:34.000 I do. 01:05:34.000 --> 01:05:40.000 It is -- so, I'm not exactly sure what we're actually discussing is because -- 01:05:40.000 --> 01:05:42.000 As an alternate, I realize I don't have voting rights. 01:05:42.000 --> 01:05:43.000 Right. 01:05:43.000 --> 01:05:44.000 But I'm acting as an alternate. 01:05:44.000 --> 01:05:45.000 Right. 01:05:45.000 --> 01:05:47.000 Other than that, I -- my vote's just -- 01:05:47.000 --> 01:05:48.000 Right. Exactly. 01:05:48.000 --> 01:05:49.000 Yes. 01:05:49.000 --> 01:06:01.000 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. 01:06:01.000 --> 01:06:05.000 They're alternates to fuller position when there's -- when there's somebody missing. 01:06:05.000 --> 01:06:06.000 When they come and sit there, they vote. 01:06:06.000 --> 01:06:15.000 But if we're -- if we're giving an alternate that is attending a meeting and a vote, then we're expanding the board. 01:06:15.000 --> 01:06:16.000 I believe that, too. 01:06:16.000 --> 01:06:21.000 So, I don't -- I mean, if -- then we might as well just expand the board and not have alternates. 01:06:21.000 --> 01:06:23.000 I -- to me, it makes no sense to -- 01:06:23.000 --> 01:06:24.000 That would be up to the council then. 01:06:24.000 --> 01:06:25.000 Right. 01:06:25.000 --> 01:06:26.000 Pardon me for interrupting, but I -- 01:06:26.000 --> 01:06:27.000 Yeah, but -- 01:06:27.000 --> 01:06:35.000 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 -- 01:06:35.000 --> 01:06:39.000 the board be shrunk to some degree and not have alternate positions anymore. 01:06:39.000 --> 01:06:44.000 If you have direction or thoughts as a board on that, that would be helpful for the council to know. 01:06:44.000 --> 01:06:45.000 Yeah. 01:06:45.000 --> 01:06:56.000 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. 01:06:56.000 --> 01:06:58.000 I don't see the point for having alternates. 01:06:58.000 --> 01:07:01.000 I just think it's confusing. 01:07:01.000 --> 01:07:12.000 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. 01:07:12.000 --> 01:07:21.000 But I would prefer to have everybody here for the same discussions. 01:07:21.000 --> 01:07:22.000 That's my preference. 01:07:22.000 --> 01:07:31.000 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? 01:07:31.000 --> 01:07:34.000 Currently there are eight -- there are ten positions. 01:07:34.000 --> 01:07:35.000 Ten positions? 01:07:35.000 --> 01:07:38.000 Yeah, three of them are alternates. 01:07:38.000 --> 01:07:40.000 So seven regular members, three alternates. 01:07:40.000 --> 01:07:41.000 Correct. 01:07:41.000 --> 01:07:45.000 If I'm not mistaken, each council member was given -- 01:07:45.000 --> 01:07:48.000 Each council member has to nominate one council member. 01:07:48.000 --> 01:07:51.000 I don't know if they roll the dice to see who the other three come from. 01:07:51.000 --> 01:07:57.000 I think that it's just whoever nominates somebody first, it comes up for the alternate. 01:07:57.000 --> 01:08:01.000 So the original seven is represented by the council members. 01:08:01.000 --> 01:08:04.000 The alternates then are the alternates. 01:08:04.000 --> 01:08:06.000 Whoever picks somebody. 01:08:06.000 --> 01:08:07.000 Right. 01:08:07.000 --> 01:08:10.000 And they don't even have to pick them from their district. 01:08:10.000 --> 01:08:12.000 I don't know for sure. 01:08:12.000 --> 01:08:20.000 I'm not -- I'm appointed by some -- I'm not living in the district by the councilman. 01:08:20.000 --> 01:08:25.000 I've only really heard one person give me an opinion that was clear, which is fine. 01:08:25.000 --> 01:08:31.000 I can just say the board discussed it and it doesn't have any opinion in general as a body. 01:08:31.000 --> 01:08:34.000 So what is the quorum that's needed for voting? 01:08:34.000 --> 01:08:35.000 Four. 01:08:35.000 --> 01:08:36.000 Four. 01:08:36.000 --> 01:08:38.000 We have to have four people who can attend. 01:08:38.000 --> 01:08:47.000 We haven't had issues with quorum, even excluding the alternates that were asked to attend to fill vacant positions for two years, basically. 01:08:47.000 --> 01:08:52.000 But I do know another historic landmark commission has had issues with quorum. 01:08:52.000 --> 01:08:53.000 Right. 01:08:53.000 --> 01:08:57.000 A lot of boards and commissions are having issues with quorum, which I think is why they're having this discussion at all. 01:08:57.000 --> 01:08:59.000 They're not just discussing the Board of Ethics. 01:08:59.000 --> 01:09:05.000 Four regular or alternates, just like last time we were talking about. 01:09:05.000 --> 01:09:08.000 Well, even last meeting we had -- I think we had enough. 01:09:08.000 --> 01:09:10.000 I don't remember. 01:09:10.000 --> 01:09:16.000 I think there's only two board -- city boards right now that are full. 01:09:16.000 --> 01:09:20.000 I mean, that's how sad it is trying to get volunteers. 01:09:20.000 --> 01:09:27.000 Council members are just -- they're -- I mean, they can't get people to come in. 01:09:27.000 --> 01:09:29.000 I think it's deeper than that. 01:09:29.000 --> 01:09:33.000 I think that people are not filling role. 01:09:33.000 --> 01:09:35.000 I don't want us to get too off topic. 01:09:35.000 --> 01:09:37.000 Yeah. 01:09:37.000 --> 01:09:43.000 So I don't have a problem with having alternates, but it doesn't seem like it's needed for this particular board. 01:09:43.000 --> 01:09:46.000 But maybe other boards might need alternates. 01:09:46.000 --> 01:09:48.000 Is that the case? 01:09:48.000 --> 01:09:50.000 Well, actually, I would disagree. 01:09:50.000 --> 01:09:56.000 I'm sorry to say this, but I mean, Robert has been here, like, on a regular basis as an alternate. 01:09:56.000 --> 01:10:00.000 So I really do think that there is a need for an alternate. 01:10:00.000 --> 01:10:03.000 But if he weren't here, we'd have a quorum, so. 01:10:03.000 --> 01:10:04.000 Today we did. 01:10:04.000 --> 01:10:08.000 Last week -- last month we would not have had a quorum. 01:10:08.000 --> 01:10:11.000 Oh, I thought Madison said we didn't have any. 01:10:11.000 --> 01:10:14.000 I think we were close last month. 01:10:14.000 --> 01:10:15.000 We wouldn't have last month. 01:10:15.000 --> 01:10:16.000 That's what I said. 01:10:16.000 --> 01:10:22.000 And that was one of the big reasons -- that was one of the big reasons why we delayed certain things because -- 01:10:22.000 --> 01:10:23.000 Well, we didn't do the voting for the -- 01:10:23.000 --> 01:10:27.000 Right, because the alternates didn't feel -- the alternates that had not been as involved as -- 01:10:27.000 --> 01:10:31.000 The two of the alternates felt like it wasn't fair to pick someone. 01:10:31.000 --> 01:10:32.000 Yes. 01:10:32.000 --> 01:10:35.000 We felt it was necessary for the appointed members to get their say. 01:10:35.000 --> 01:10:41.000 What if we have alternates who may come if they want to, if they're not? 01:10:41.000 --> 01:10:42.000 Because right now -- 01:10:42.000 --> 01:10:43.000 It's a public meeting. 01:10:43.000 --> 01:10:44.000 Alternates can come if they want to. 01:10:44.000 --> 01:10:45.000 Okay. 01:10:45.000 --> 01:10:48.000 I get an e-mail -- 01:10:48.000 --> 01:10:51.000 I would like them to have voice and vote. 01:10:51.000 --> 01:10:55.000 And the alternate thing comes in when we're doing panels. 01:10:55.000 --> 01:10:59.000 If we don't have enough people, we give them a panel. 01:10:59.000 --> 01:11:05.000 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 -- 01:11:05.000 --> 01:11:09.000 We do typically meet quorum without the alternates involved. 01:11:09.000 --> 01:11:14.000 Last meeting -- that's true that last meeting that wasn't true. 01:11:14.000 --> 01:11:19.000 I think that you were here -- we had three -- yeah, we had three, but then you were here too. 01:11:19.000 --> 01:11:21.000 I don't remember. 01:11:21.000 --> 01:11:26.000 Maybe we should leave it -- 01:11:26.000 --> 01:11:32.000 Okay. I'm not really clear on the direction, if there is any -- 01:11:32.000 --> 01:11:41.000 Is the typical makeup of a board the same, where there's seven regular members and three alternates? 01:11:41.000 --> 01:11:42.000 No. 01:11:42.000 --> 01:11:45.000 There's not typically alternate members. 01:11:45.000 --> 01:11:55.000 What if we allowed alternates to attend if they're not invited, if they choose, and they have voice but no vote? 01:11:55.000 --> 01:11:57.000 Alternates can attend right now. 01:11:57.000 --> 01:12:05.000 The ordinance says that they can only participate if they've been invited to fill the needs. 01:12:05.000 --> 01:12:14.000 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. 01:12:14.000 --> 01:12:22.000 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, 01:12:22.000 --> 01:12:26.000 because they're thinking, I appointed you, I appointed -- so they're all appointed. 01:12:26.000 --> 01:12:35.000 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? 01:12:35.000 --> 01:12:36.000 No. 01:12:36.000 --> 01:12:39.000 And there are times that they just don't meet. 01:12:39.000 --> 01:12:41.000 I mean, that's public utility board. 01:12:41.000 --> 01:12:42.000 They just don't meet. 01:12:42.000 --> 01:12:43.000 Think about that. 01:12:43.000 --> 01:12:46.000 We're talking about millions of dollars that we're dealing with. 01:12:46.000 --> 01:12:49.000 Well, we'll do that next month. 01:12:49.000 --> 01:12:53.000 But that's the beast that was created. 01:12:53.000 --> 01:13:00.000 But I'd like to get an opinion from the city council, how we can then swim in that water, as it were. 01:13:00.000 --> 01:13:05.000 There is a decision to be made there, because I was an alternate. 01:13:05.000 --> 01:13:12.000 And I have been to more than one of these meetings sitting right there, not able to speak or vote. 01:13:12.000 --> 01:13:19.000 Only because my TV didn't pick this up at home all the way. 01:13:19.000 --> 01:13:23.000 But I sat right there, making it more possible. 01:13:23.000 --> 01:13:25.000 Andrea? 01:13:25.000 --> 01:13:29.000 I'm going back to the fact that if we have seven members, we have seven members. 01:13:29.000 --> 01:13:35.000 And if we -- you know, to me, an alternate -- there's a difference between a full member and an alternate. 01:13:35.000 --> 01:13:42.000 And right there -- so, yes, can I understand the frustration of not being able to speak? 01:13:42.000 --> 01:13:48.000 But, you know, there's a bunch of -- there's all of our citizens that are not able to speak at this board either. 01:13:48.000 --> 01:13:56.000 So I -- I mean, either no alternates or alternates stay as the definition as we have them. 01:13:56.000 --> 01:14:06.000 But changing their ability to speak and their ability to vote, I think then we're really getting into an area where -- 01:14:06.000 --> 01:14:11.000 so what's the difference between a regular member and an alternate, if they have all the rights? 01:14:11.000 --> 01:14:17.000 And not that I want to eliminate rights, but then we'd have to discuss expanding the board to ten members. 01:14:17.000 --> 01:14:19.000 We'd have to get the council to agree to that. 01:14:19.000 --> 01:14:20.000 Exactly. 01:14:20.000 --> 01:14:22.000 And they're going to want to think a thought into it. 01:14:22.000 --> 01:14:27.000 We wouldn't want an even number anyway, because there would be -- that would be difficult for them. 01:14:27.000 --> 01:14:28.000 Yes. 01:14:28.000 --> 01:14:39.000 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. 01:14:39.000 --> 01:14:54.000 So -- yes, and I don't disagree with your voices, but if -- then we should have the conversation about expanding the board 01:14:54.000 --> 01:14:59.000 and not having -- and not changing the role or the rights of an alternate. 01:14:59.000 --> 01:15:02.000 I guess you can tell them that we were mixed, if you want. 01:15:02.000 --> 01:15:03.000 Okay. 01:15:03.000 --> 01:15:04.000 Yeah. 01:15:04.000 --> 01:15:06.000 I think that's inaccurate. 01:15:06.000 --> 01:15:11.000 I know they should have been sitting over here watching us, but couldn't talk. 01:15:11.000 --> 01:15:15.000 I'm not going to do that. 01:15:15.000 --> 01:15:17.000 I can see that. 01:15:17.000 --> 01:15:19.000 Okay, so are we finished? 01:15:19.000 --> 01:15:21.000 Are we finished with item F? 01:15:21.000 --> 01:15:24.000 Please. 01:15:24.000 --> 01:15:38.000 Okay, move on to item G, BOE 23-049, receive a report for the discussion and give staff direction regarding future meeting topics. 01:15:38.000 --> 01:15:50.000 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. 01:15:50.000 --> 01:15:57.000 So this is the list of things we've discussed talking about. 01:15:57.000 --> 01:16:00.000 Some of them -- we've previously talked about their previous proposals. 01:16:00.000 --> 01:16:06.000 I wanted to just mention Patricia emailed me separately and said she wanted to talk about campaign contributions 01:16:06.000 --> 01:16:13.000 and then also brought up the potential campaign financing restrictions, which is something that's not currently in the code at all. 01:16:13.000 --> 01:16:26.000 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. 01:16:26.000 --> 01:16:28.000 I would like to have that. 01:16:28.000 --> 01:16:31.000 Yeah, some of this stuff has come up a long time ago. 01:16:31.000 --> 01:16:32.000 Yes. 01:16:32.000 --> 01:16:33.000 Some of it's more fresh. 01:16:33.000 --> 01:16:37.000 I would definitely like to personally like to have pending matter. 01:16:37.000 --> 01:16:41.000 I'd like to work on that one at the next meeting. 01:16:41.000 --> 01:16:49.000 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? 01:16:49.000 --> 01:16:50.000 Yeah. 01:16:50.000 --> 01:16:54.000 And then we can maybe take a couple or five so we can start with everything down. 01:16:54.000 --> 01:17:03.000 And I may yield to you, Madison, as to what you think time-wise on some of these would be. 01:17:03.000 --> 01:17:06.000 What is the debtor-creditor relationship? 01:17:06.000 --> 01:17:16.000 That was a proposal that we sent to the State Council last time in '23. 01:17:16.000 --> 01:17:26.000 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. 01:17:26.000 --> 01:17:28.000 Okay. 01:17:28.000 --> 01:17:38.000 So these are estimates, I would say some of them could be broken into parts, some of them probably will be several parts potentially. 01:17:38.000 --> 01:17:40.000 That doesn't represent 30 seconds. 01:17:40.000 --> 01:17:43.000 No, it doesn't. 01:17:43.000 --> 01:17:44.000 Dave? 01:17:44.000 --> 01:17:48.000 I have one closing item that's very simple. 01:17:48.000 --> 01:17:50.000 But, Madison, I would ask you a question. 01:17:50.000 --> 01:17:58.000 On this conflict of interest versus what we were discussing, without bringing Alan Boracuis back up here out of Austin, 01:17:58.000 --> 01:18:12.000 would you feel comfortable working up a presentation to help us wrestle with this conflict of interest versus simplifying this to match other cities? 01:18:12.000 --> 01:18:14.000 I believe that's what I was given direction to do. 01:18:14.000 --> 01:18:17.000 I just need to know if you want it next meeting or not. 01:18:17.000 --> 01:18:18.000 Okay. 01:18:18.000 --> 01:18:21.000 I mean, I've done a lot of research. 01:18:21.000 --> 01:18:24.000 I don't have an opinion, but I can certainly give you some options. 01:18:24.000 --> 01:18:26.000 That's good. 01:18:26.000 --> 01:18:32.000 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? 01:18:32.000 --> 01:18:34.000 That's, I mean, I think. 01:18:34.000 --> 01:18:36.000 This is part of my job. 01:18:36.000 --> 01:18:37.000 Okay. 01:18:37.000 --> 01:18:46.000 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? 01:18:46.000 --> 01:18:51.000 That is the, I was interpreting that as the discussion, the longer discussion that I was getting. 01:18:51.000 --> 01:18:52.000 Okay, so that is the penny matter. 01:18:52.000 --> 01:18:53.000 Yeah. 01:18:53.000 --> 01:18:56.000 Because I would maybe want to just do that. 01:18:56.000 --> 01:18:58.000 I think that's going to be quite. 01:18:58.000 --> 01:18:59.000 I think that's awesome. 01:18:59.000 --> 01:19:02.000 Well, what if we revisit this? 01:19:02.000 --> 01:19:11.000 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, 01:19:11.000 --> 01:19:18.000 and considering that, you know, switching out this code for that one. 01:19:18.000 --> 01:19:24.000 You're talking about an entire rewrite of the code for the prohibition section? 01:19:24.000 --> 01:19:27.000 What the city has is actually a pretty decent code. 01:19:27.000 --> 01:19:30.000 It's not the best I've read, but it's decent. 01:19:30.000 --> 01:19:34.000 And this one has big holes in it that we need to fix. 01:19:34.000 --> 01:19:43.000 And after going to the city council meeting, when they pretty much shot down everything we had spent two years talking about, 01:19:43.000 --> 01:19:46.000 I'm not really excited about piecemealing this thing. 01:19:46.000 --> 01:19:49.000 I think it's going to take us a long time. 01:19:49.000 --> 01:19:59.000 I would like to consider that we take the city code, which will, of course, be administered by the city staff. 01:19:59.000 --> 01:20:04.000 But we put our policies onto -- our procedures onto it. 01:20:04.000 --> 01:20:08.000 That's an option that I think would fit some uses. 01:20:08.000 --> 01:20:12.000 So I'd love to look at that code and see what we think about that. 01:20:12.000 --> 01:20:13.000 All right. 01:20:13.000 --> 01:20:16.000 So just so I'm clear, are you talking -- because it -- 01:20:16.000 --> 01:20:17.000 We're talking about -- 01:20:17.000 --> 01:20:18.000 No, I know which one you're talking about. 01:20:18.000 --> 01:20:23.000 I just mean, are you talking specifically about, like, the prohibitions section of -- because it has -- 01:20:23.000 --> 01:20:27.000 No, just the procedures. 01:20:27.000 --> 01:20:34.000 Because the city's ethics policy doesn't have a process for processing ethics. 01:20:34.000 --> 01:20:35.000 Right. 01:20:35.000 --> 01:20:42.000 So you're talking about taking the procedures that are in our code and basically putting them around -- 01:20:42.000 --> 01:20:44.000 Attaching them to that. 01:20:44.000 --> 01:20:53.000 But the advantage would be that city employees and city officials would be on the same playing field, if you will, 01:20:53.000 --> 01:20:58.000 and that we wouldn't have two different codes of ethics. 01:20:58.000 --> 01:21:04.000 So I can include that as part of the large discussion as an option, potentially? 01:21:04.000 --> 01:21:05.000 Yeah. 01:21:05.000 --> 01:21:08.000 It will replace a lot more than just the conflict of interest piece. 01:21:08.000 --> 01:21:09.000 Yeah. 01:21:09.000 --> 01:21:17.000 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. 01:21:17.000 --> 01:21:21.000 So why don't we look at conflict of interest next time? 01:21:21.000 --> 01:21:23.000 I think we're all in agreement about that. 01:21:23.000 --> 01:21:34.000 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. 01:21:34.000 --> 01:21:39.000 And I can start including -- because obviously every time I try to present research from other cities, 01:21:39.000 --> 01:21:47.000 I can start including, if it's relevant, what the city's ethics -- employee ethics policy says as well as part of that. 01:21:47.000 --> 01:21:48.000 Right. 01:21:48.000 --> 01:21:51.000 I think that's what you can agree on. 01:21:51.000 --> 01:21:53.000 But I would love to see everybody on the same page. 01:21:53.000 --> 01:22:01.000 I think that would be good. 01:22:01.000 --> 01:22:04.000 I'm not trying to meet ethics policy. 01:22:04.000 --> 01:22:05.000 Okay. 01:22:05.000 --> 01:22:08.000 Half the day. 01:22:08.000 --> 01:22:09.000 So can you get a copy of -- 01:22:09.000 --> 01:22:10.000 Oh, yeah. 01:22:10.000 --> 01:22:11.000 We wouldn't. 01:22:11.000 --> 01:22:12.000 Okay. 01:22:12.000 --> 01:22:13.000 I just don't have control over it. 01:22:13.000 --> 01:22:14.000 Yeah. 01:22:14.000 --> 01:22:15.000 Interesting. 01:22:15.000 --> 01:22:25.000 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? 01:22:25.000 --> 01:22:26.000 I'm sorry. 01:22:26.000 --> 01:22:37.000 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? 01:22:37.000 --> 01:22:42.000 Would it be possible to just have a -- get an email with the links of the two different ethics codes? 01:22:42.000 --> 01:22:45.000 I'm sorry. 01:22:45.000 --> 01:22:46.000 That would be great. 01:22:46.000 --> 01:22:47.000 Yeah. 01:22:47.000 --> 01:22:52.000 Both the staff and then the city officials. 01:22:52.000 --> 01:22:55.000 And I know that they're all available. 01:22:55.000 --> 01:22:56.000 It's just that -- 01:22:56.000 --> 01:23:02.000 You're asking for a copy of the city code for the employees and such. 01:23:02.000 --> 01:23:03.000 Yes. 01:23:03.000 --> 01:23:10.000 And then send also what we have created as our code for ethics for officers. 01:23:10.000 --> 01:23:12.000 Yes. 01:23:12.000 --> 01:23:13.000 It's on the right side right now. 01:23:13.000 --> 01:23:14.000 It is. 01:23:14.000 --> 01:23:15.000 And I know it is. 01:23:15.000 --> 01:23:17.000 And it's just that I've been meaning to -- 01:23:17.000 --> 01:23:19.000 It's 1.001. 01:23:19.000 --> 01:23:21.000 That's not pretty long. 01:23:21.000 --> 01:23:22.000 Yes. 01:23:22.000 --> 01:23:23.000 We can provide the links. 01:23:23.000 --> 01:23:26.000 Please. 01:23:26.000 --> 01:23:27.000 Okay. 01:23:27.000 --> 01:23:28.000 Any other -- 01:23:28.000 --> 01:23:29.000 So do we want to -- 01:23:29.000 --> 01:23:30.000 I'm sorry. 01:23:30.000 --> 01:23:31.000 Go ahead. 01:23:31.000 --> 01:23:37.000 Well, I just have one other item that has been on my list for quite some time. 01:23:37.000 --> 01:23:48.000 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. 01:23:48.000 --> 01:23:53.000 This is all about citizens trusting the government that we're all living under. 01:23:53.000 --> 01:23:56.000 We serve no governmental function here whatsoever. 01:23:56.000 --> 01:23:59.000 Now, in the past, we've had some -- excuse me. 01:23:59.000 --> 01:24:01.000 We've had some speakers. 01:24:01.000 --> 01:24:07.000 The last meeting was Dillinger, I think, was his name. 01:24:07.000 --> 01:24:16.000 What I'm going to suggest, respectfully, is that our agenda include right up at the top public comments. 01:24:16.000 --> 01:24:18.000 Oh, it should. 01:24:18.000 --> 01:24:19.000 It does. 01:24:19.000 --> 01:24:33.000 Because I've gone back over, and this opening paragraph here sounds like whoever visits us needs to talk to a posted agenda item. 01:24:33.000 --> 01:24:42.000 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. 01:24:42.000 --> 01:24:53.000 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. 01:24:53.000 --> 01:25:02.000 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 01:25:02.000 --> 01:25:09.000 and sit right at that -- or stand right at that roster and talk to us for three or four minutes. 01:25:09.000 --> 01:25:19.000 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. 01:25:19.000 --> 01:25:21.000 Yeah, it should say that. 01:25:21.000 --> 01:25:22.000 We'll make it update. 01:25:22.000 --> 01:25:25.000 If that's already been approved by the board, it should say that. 01:25:25.000 --> 01:25:26.000 It just needs to be clarified. 01:25:26.000 --> 01:25:37.000 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, 01:25:37.000 --> 01:25:40.000 and we need you here, we need to hear what you think about this. 01:25:40.000 --> 01:25:41.000 I would love it on the agenda. 01:25:41.000 --> 01:25:45.000 You know, John Doe wants to talk about blah. 01:25:45.000 --> 01:25:48.000 They have to register to have it on the agenda. 01:25:48.000 --> 01:25:52.000 Public comments don't have to have that information to them. 01:25:52.000 --> 01:25:57.000 Whatever hits paper lets them know they're welcome. 01:25:57.000 --> 01:26:03.000 Come sign up, whether it's a new topic at the first or an agenda item, sign up, whatever. 01:26:03.000 --> 01:26:07.000 We'll work with the city secretary's office to make sure that's clear on here. 01:26:07.000 --> 01:26:11.000 That is possible now, but I understand what you're saying. 01:26:11.000 --> 01:26:18.000 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." 01:26:18.000 --> 01:26:22.000 This is only the second meeting that it's actually been approved, so we're still working out some things. 01:26:22.000 --> 01:26:25.000 Come on and talk to us. We won't fight. 01:26:25.000 --> 01:26:28.000 I think that would help with trust. 01:26:28.000 --> 01:26:33.000 So there are no other comments or anything. 01:26:33.000 --> 01:26:38.000 So it is now 6.57 and this meeting is adjourned.