1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:06,560
 All right. Good evening. This is the Board of Ethics meeting on Monday, December 4th,

2
00:00:06,560 --> 00:00:16,880
 2020. It is now 5 30 p.m. and we have a quorum here. So I don't believe we have any presentations

3
00:00:16,880 --> 00:00:24,640
 from members of the public. So we will proceed to item number two. Receive a report, hold a

4
00:00:24,640 --> 00:00:34,640
 discussion, and take necessary action regarding Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics,

5
00:00:34,640 --> 00:00:42,320
 Section 2-269, Definitions, and Section 2-273, Prohibitions.

6
00:00:42,320 --> 00:00:47,200
 I think we skipped the minutes. We can go back to it if you prefer.

7
00:00:47,200 --> 00:01:03,520
 Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. So first we need to look at item BOE23-050, which is the minutes

8
00:01:03,520 --> 00:01:15,120
 for the last meeting. So do I hear a motion to accept them? So moved. Second. Second by Tom.

9
00:01:15,120 --> 00:01:24,400
 So motion by Dave and second by Tom. So all in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. So it passes unanimously.

10
00:01:25,520 --> 00:01:33,520
 So now, yes. One question. I just want to back up for just one second on this item number one,

11
00:01:33,520 --> 00:01:38,640
 presentation for members of the public. This is brand new and I just wanted to clarify with Madison.

12
00:01:38,640 --> 00:01:47,280
 If citizens have items that are on the agenda, they've got three minutes. But if it's a non-agenda item,

13
00:01:49,200 --> 00:01:58,080
 can they use that item without discussion? Yes. Yes. That's correct. So citizens can sign up either

14
00:01:58,080 --> 00:02:03,040
 to present something that's not on the agenda as a presentation from a member of the public,

15
00:02:03,040 --> 00:02:07,840
 or they can sign up to speak on an agenda item and then there can be questions at that time.

16
00:02:07,840 --> 00:02:11,360
 Does that answer your question? Yeah, but either one can happen from that

17
00:02:12,400 --> 00:02:19,120
 base without questions in the case of a non-posted item. Correct. Okay. Okay. Just want to clarify that.

18
00:02:19,120 --> 00:02:23,280
 And the ones for a posted item will be just prior to the item? Is that correct?

19
00:02:23,280 --> 00:02:32,400
 I don't know the exact order of Scott question. Okay. Yes. Yeah. Okay. All right. So we will

20
00:02:32,400 --> 00:02:40,800
 proceed with BOE 23-051, receive a report, hold a discussion, and take necessary action

21
00:02:40,800 --> 00:02:49,520
 regarding code of ordinances, chapter two, article 11, at the exception 2-269, definitions at section

22
00:02:49,520 --> 00:03:00,480
 2-273, prohibitions. So I guess what we have first is the management reports, management report, or

23
00:03:02,080 --> 00:03:10,880
 I should not have downloaded my thing. It was the one you called before. Okay. Okay. So we're ready

24
00:03:10,880 --> 00:03:18,880
 to start discussing. And I know Madison put a lot of work into making a presentation, so.

25
00:03:18,880 --> 00:03:26,000
 Okay. I will move. Yes. So based on the direction from last meeting, I put a presentation together

26
00:03:26,000 --> 00:03:33,760
 to begin discussing the conflict of interest section of the ethics ordinance. So based on

27
00:03:33,760 --> 00:03:38,240
 a review of peer city ethics ordinances, Weshler's model code, and the city of Denton's employee

28
00:03:38,240 --> 00:03:44,880
 ethics policy, there are kind of, I found three general areas of code that shape a conflict of

29
00:03:44,880 --> 00:03:52,000
 interest prohibition, including kind of the rules that are involved, and the relevant relationships,

30
00:03:52,000 --> 00:03:59,120
 and then the fuel and requirements around disclosure. So then I'm going to focus more on kind of the

31
00:03:59,120 --> 00:04:03,840
 broad versus specific rules that we've been discussing over the last couple of meetings.

32
00:04:03,840 --> 00:04:10,480
 So to do this, I've prepared five examples based on peer city ordinances, the ethics,

33
00:04:10,480 --> 00:04:16,160
 the employee ethics policy, and the model code, and I'll run through them from kind of least

34
00:04:16,160 --> 00:04:23,920
 specific or most broad to least broad or most specific, and then hopefully get some direction

35
00:04:23,920 --> 00:04:29,440
 on what direct, how you guys would like to have me bring back language around how we want to,

36
00:04:29,440 --> 00:04:32,640
 you would potentially like to change the ethics conflict of interest section.

37
00:04:32,640 --> 00:04:38,640
 And then we can, then after that, we'll kind of talk about the rest of those sections as well.

38
00:04:38,640 --> 00:04:48,320
 I'll bring back similar points for discussion. So to start with the city of Houston, this code

39
00:04:48,320 --> 00:04:52,560
 does not actually even include the words conflict of interest, but instead prohibits city officials

40
00:04:52,560 --> 00:04:57,280
 from engaging in any business or professional activity that conflicts with the discharge of

41
00:04:57,280 --> 00:05:02,960
 official duties. This is the least specific of the conflict of interest examples, as it provides

42
00:05:02,960 --> 00:05:07,600
 minimal guidance to city officials on the terms business, professional activity, or conflicts,

43
00:05:07,600 --> 00:05:13,520
 what those mean. In addition, compared to some more specific codes, it does not provide a baseline

44
00:05:13,520 --> 00:05:18,480
 for comparison when determining if something is a conflict, and I think that'll make more sense

45
00:05:18,480 --> 00:05:24,880
 kind of once we look at some other definitions. Next is the city's employee ethics policy. So this

46
00:05:24,880 --> 00:05:30,400
 is slightly less broad and does actually use the term conflict of interest. It's more specific as

47
00:05:30,400 --> 00:05:35,280
 it does include the concept of personal and financial interests, however, it still provides

48
00:05:35,280 --> 00:05:40,800
 relatively limited guidance on what that means to a city official, as those terms are not defined

49
00:05:40,800 --> 00:05:46,080
 in the policy. In addition, it also does not include kind of a baseline for comparison when

50
00:05:46,080 --> 00:05:52,480
 determining if something is a personal or financial interest. So then this middle option on this kind

51
00:05:52,480 --> 00:05:59,040
 of continuum is Weschler's model code. This option uses the term conflict of interest and creates

52
00:05:59,040 --> 00:06:03,920
 definitions for personal and financial benefits and interests, although they are fairly broad.

53
00:06:04,720 --> 00:06:07,920
 In addition, it provides that comparison baseline that I've been talking about

54
00:06:07,920 --> 00:06:13,760
 by saying that only benefits not shared with a substantial segment of the population

55
00:06:13,760 --> 00:06:19,280
 create a conflict. So that's kind of one of the key differences between the first two and this here.

56
00:06:19,280 --> 00:06:25,760
 Next is the city of San Marcos' code, which is slightly more specific than the model code

57
00:06:25,760 --> 00:06:30,640
 and defines economic interests and benefits to provide city officials with guidance on

58
00:06:30,640 --> 00:06:36,160
 circumstances that would create a conflict of interest and provides guidance to the ethics

59
00:06:36,160 --> 00:06:42,480
 body on interpreting the word effect. It also creates a comparison baseline using the public

60
00:06:42,480 --> 00:06:48,160
 or a substantial segment of the population. The major difference between this code and the

61
00:06:48,160 --> 00:06:54,000
 model code is the focus on kind of effects to economic interest versus the resulting benefits

62
00:06:54,000 --> 00:06:59,840
 from an action. This is kind of discussed by Weschler in the model code, who I'm paraphrasing

63
00:06:59,840 --> 00:07:04,960
 here but says that the purpose of an ethics code is not necessarily to completely prevent conflicts

64
00:07:04,960 --> 00:07:10,480
 of interest, which is often possible for volunteer positions, but to ensure that conflicts are managed

65
00:07:10,480 --> 00:07:18,080
 honestly and responsibly when they do come about. And then finally, pulled together the city of

66
00:07:18,080 --> 00:07:24,880
 Dallas as well, it has kind of the most specific rules of the five options today. It's very similar

67
00:07:24,880 --> 00:07:30,560
 to the city of San Marcos, however it also creates a definition for substantial economic interests.

68
00:07:30,560 --> 00:07:35,680
 This term includes some specific financial thresholds that create a conflict of interest,

69
00:07:35,680 --> 00:07:42,640
 which is currently similar to some of what Denton has right now, and the $600 list essentially.

70
00:07:42,640 --> 00:07:48,800
 But still, as I previously mentioned in previous meetings, Denton doesn't actually have a general

71
00:07:48,800 --> 00:07:53,520
 rule regarding conflict of interest right now, only those specific ones. So in that way,

72
00:07:53,520 --> 00:07:59,200
 Dallas has a broader code than Denton does at this point. So this slide is to try to summarize

73
00:07:59,200 --> 00:08:05,280
 all of the rules of each code that I just really went over really quickly, and so really I'd like

74
00:08:05,280 --> 00:08:12,160
 to get some direction on the board via consensus on any kind of change to the language in the code

75
00:08:12,160 --> 00:08:18,640
 that you would like me to bring back, if you would like me to, or potentially future research or

76
00:08:18,640 --> 00:08:23,840
 anything for future discussion. I could go back and forth, but now it's y'all's turn.

77
00:08:23,840 --> 00:08:28,240
 Okay, so we'll open the floor for discussion. So

78
00:08:28,240 --> 00:08:36,720
 what would you like to, what is looking really interesting to you?

79
00:08:44,720 --> 00:08:52,560
 I would recommend a broader definition that's not specific, because

80
00:08:52,560 --> 00:09:02,320
 just like AI right now, I don't know what the potential impacts might be. And so for us to say,

81
00:09:02,320 --> 00:09:11,360
 here are all the potential conflicts of interest, it'll never be an ending list, and we can't,

82
00:09:12,480 --> 00:09:18,240
 I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know what that might be. So I would recommend a broad

83
00:09:18,240 --> 00:09:26,080
 definition, but not a list of, and here are examples. I thought medicine did a really great

84
00:09:26,080 --> 00:09:32,480
 job of delineating the general and specific. Andrea? And I wanted to add to that as well,

85
00:09:32,480 --> 00:09:37,440
 because I've actually, I started out where I, when we first started the discussion of the conflict

86
00:09:37,440 --> 00:09:42,640
 of interest, and we were talking about the different limits and everything, I started out as somebody

87
00:09:42,640 --> 00:09:49,040
 that was, I thought, okay, we'll do, we'll do the, we'll update the limits, and that will help us

88
00:09:49,040 --> 00:09:56,240
 have better ethics code. But then the more I was thinking about it in those times is, we don't know

89
00:09:56,240 --> 00:10:01,040
 what's going to happen in the future, right? And we do not know, so we are all actually trying to

90
00:10:01,040 --> 00:10:08,720
 address something where, if we are too specific, then we will end up in a similar position as we

91
00:10:08,720 --> 00:10:15,920
 did with the ethics, the problem that we were presented with, where we just, we cannot respond

92
00:10:15,920 --> 00:10:23,360
 because our tools are so limited and so specific that we then cannot actually hold somebody

93
00:10:23,360 --> 00:10:29,840
 accountable for something that may stare all of us in the face as, yes, that is a conflict of interest.

94
00:10:31,680 --> 00:10:39,360
 Thank you. Dave? Well, I want to piggyback on both of what I've just heard. It's been about eight

95
00:10:39,360 --> 00:10:44,880
 years since this passed, and I've been wondering how long it's going to take us to kind of shut,

96
00:10:44,880 --> 00:10:50,480
 you know, some of these specifics that have been so burdensome over the years and get us back to

97
00:10:50,480 --> 00:10:55,600
 where we're looking at this from the standpoint of the model code or some of these other cities,

98
00:10:55,600 --> 00:11:03,520
 because like you say, we don't know, you know, and these, this, all of this pending matter nonsense

99
00:11:03,520 --> 00:11:11,600
 has restricted us, our understanding, for way, way, way too long. And so I'm actually on this list

100
00:11:11,600 --> 00:11:19,520
 here before we get, I mean, I'm kind of stuck between our current ethics policy and the model

101
00:11:19,520 --> 00:11:26,960
 code itself, but we have some issues because our current ethics policy does not go beyond

102
00:11:26,960 --> 00:11:35,280
 the city manager making a determination. So, you know, for eight years, I've been more inclined to,

103
00:11:35,280 --> 00:11:43,200
 if possible, get us back closer to this model code. It's Wexler's and whoever, you know, whoever's

104
00:11:43,200 --> 00:11:48,240
 written it and updated it, it would be a major improvement for the city of Benton to kind of

105
00:11:48,240 --> 00:11:54,080
 backtrack several years and give some serious thought to that model code, what is good about

106
00:11:54,080 --> 00:12:00,480
 it, what may still be, you know, what may still need to be modified. Are you talking about the

107
00:12:00,480 --> 00:12:07,360
 model code for the conflict of interest? Yeah, well, we have an issue here, obviously, in Benton,

108
00:12:07,360 --> 00:12:17,040
 because in January of 2015, when this original code passed, it was just so singularly focused on

109
00:12:17,920 --> 00:12:27,280
 all these financial standards. So the 6%, 500, we got so trapped into a narrow stream early on,

110
00:12:27,280 --> 00:12:33,760
 it was just almost impossible for us to get back to where we should be to take care of this city

111
00:12:33,760 --> 00:12:38,400
 from a broader perspective, like you say, not knowing what the next conflict may be.

112
00:12:38,400 --> 00:12:45,680
 So I'm very much gratified and just almost elated to see us getting back to

113
00:12:46,800 --> 00:12:49,920
 a broader discussion. Question, though, I just what happened?

114
00:12:49,920 --> 00:12:57,680
 Was the current conflict of interest, the standards, the thresholds? Was that set aside?

115
00:12:57,680 --> 00:13:00,480
 Is that not an option here? I mean, I'm glad it's not.

116
00:13:00,480 --> 00:13:06,800
 Someone asked me what happened to the current standards? Well, it currently exists. It is an

117
00:13:06,800 --> 00:13:11,680
 option. I guess I didn't add it. But it's option six, I guess, is to just keep what we currently

118
00:13:11,680 --> 00:13:16,560
 have. It didn't seem like that was the will of the board. So I didn't include it. I agree

119
00:13:16,560 --> 00:13:22,400
 completely, but it's still... I mean, it currently exists. It has to go through council for it to

120
00:13:22,400 --> 00:13:30,240
 change. It would definitely be the most specific. Right. And it's so specific. It's like threading

121
00:13:30,240 --> 00:13:37,520
 the needle through a really tiny hole. Well, this is one vote only. And this is why I've been asked

122
00:13:37,520 --> 00:13:43,120
 to come back and join this group. This is one vote for the model code and getting us back in the

123
00:13:43,120 --> 00:13:50,880
 direction of Wexler's law code and what other and what the majority of other Texas cities have done

124
00:13:50,880 --> 00:13:56,640
 with their ethics code. You cannot get in a car and drive a day and find anything similar to what

125
00:13:56,640 --> 00:14:07,600
 we've got right now in Texas. This $500, 6% stuff is just, I hope it's headed for them.

126
00:14:09,120 --> 00:14:15,520
 Okay. And if you want to, if you're asking... I'm sorry. No. We had long and broad discussions

127
00:14:15,520 --> 00:14:22,320
 about changing those limits and then it was shut down by city council. So that was, and I think

128
00:14:22,320 --> 00:14:28,880
 that is one of the reasons why it came back up for us to discuss again, because we had made adjustments

129
00:14:28,880 --> 00:14:35,520
 that we tried to get approved, but they were not. But what I'm hearing you say is that in looking

130
00:14:35,520 --> 00:14:40,480
 at the end, you're realizing that wasn't the whole picture. So I think Dustin, before...

131
00:14:40,480 --> 00:14:48,400
 Yeah, I know. I spent a lot of time trying to think about this after some of the conversation

132
00:14:48,400 --> 00:14:55,120
 at the last meeting that I was in at about those limits and how do you define that? Like $500 to

133
00:14:55,120 --> 00:15:00,560
 me is different from $500 to someone else on the board or someone else in the city. And I went back

134
00:15:00,560 --> 00:15:06,640
 to the model code and I was trying to understand why it's written the way it's written with

135
00:15:06,640 --> 00:15:11,680
 kind of the way Madison framed it as sort of middle ground. Like there's some specific

136
00:15:11,680 --> 00:15:18,080
 things here. There's some things that are more general. And looking at the website for the model

137
00:15:18,080 --> 00:15:24,320
 code, if it's all right, can I read this comment? This is from Westford. And he's giving an example

138
00:15:24,320 --> 00:15:32,480
 about, from our article in Tennessee, and there's some specifics to that about whether or not the

139
00:15:32,480 --> 00:15:37,440
 mayor in this town benefited from something and whether or not it was a conflict of interest.

140
00:15:37,440 --> 00:15:42,480
 And he said he didn't see any conflict because he didn't get it personally. And Wexler's comment is

141
00:15:42,480 --> 00:15:49,680
 to look at it that way is to ignore the principal purpose of an ethics code, to instill trust in

142
00:15:49,680 --> 00:15:54,800
 government to make its decisions seem impartial so that people do not believe the government is run

143
00:15:54,800 --> 00:16:03,360
 for the benefit of those who run it rather than in public interest. And so I think that's when I was

144
00:16:03,360 --> 00:16:09,520
 trying to like get in my head like what's a what's a good dollar number, what's a good percentage of

145
00:16:09,520 --> 00:16:19,520
 your I don't like your your your income or whatever they come from something that that I think is

146
00:16:19,520 --> 00:16:27,360
 totally missing the point that this is not you know we're not setting specific limits here that

147
00:16:27,360 --> 00:16:34,480
 says an ethics code. We have an entire board of people who are here to make decisions and assess

148
00:16:34,480 --> 00:16:43,520
 things for the benefit of the city of Denton. And while I think in some other meetings I've kind of

149
00:16:43,520 --> 00:16:49,520
 had in my head well I don't want to be on this board and try and make a decision you know is

150
00:16:49,520 --> 00:16:55,520
 this really that bad or not you know is this is this benefit that they receive or potentially

151
00:16:55,520 --> 00:17:01,760
 receive is that enough money involved and that's to me I realize that's the completely wrong

152
00:17:01,760 --> 00:17:09,120
 approach it shouldn't be the amount it is it's that it's it's to make sure that the people making

153
00:17:09,120 --> 00:17:15,280
 decisions with the power have done that in partially for the benefit of the citizens.

154
00:17:15,280 --> 00:17:20,400
 So that's kind of how I would that's how I'm going to approach this discussion on whatever decision.

155
00:17:22,080 --> 00:17:35,200
 I recall I was a one of three you know a meeting that and I forget the council

156
00:17:35,200 --> 00:17:44,080
 woman's name but she was asking appropriately because she is on a she's a volunteer on a board

157
00:17:44,080 --> 00:17:50,960
 and wanted to make sure that would it be okay for this particular company to install American flags

158
00:17:52,160 --> 00:17:57,040
 and she just wanted to make sure that was she making the right decision and that there was no

159
00:17:57,040 --> 00:18:06,240
 conflict of interest. I like a general code that causes city employees to say I'm going to take

160
00:18:06,240 --> 00:18:15,120
 this to the ethics committee as opposed to Mrs. Dustin is this 500 or is it 499 you know no

161
00:18:15,920 --> 00:18:22,560
 is the is am I going to approve something or recommend something that's in the spirit of

162
00:18:22,560 --> 00:18:27,120
 the code. It's the intent and who benefits. And she had the right intent. Yeah.

163
00:18:27,120 --> 00:18:34,720
 And am I getting ahead of things but is there somewhere where we'll talk about disclosure?

164
00:18:36,080 --> 00:18:46,800
 Yes eventually not tonight not tonight okay that's part of the definition. Yeah okay. One of the most

165
00:18:46,800 --> 00:18:53,360
 important things to me and one of the issues that is kind of a common denominator of everything on

166
00:18:53,360 --> 00:19:00,800
 that board right there that we do not now currently enjoy in Denton is the fact that most all of these

167
00:19:00,800 --> 00:19:06,800
 other cities and municipalities most of their ethics codes and especially this conflict of

168
00:19:06,800 --> 00:19:13,840
 interest covers not only pending matters but future. Something that's going to be voted on

169
00:19:13,840 --> 00:19:21,120
 next week is this is one of the most one of the most important issues to me here in Denton the

170
00:19:21,120 --> 00:19:29,680
 way we're awarded now a pending issue not only can the current council member without a friend

171
00:19:29,680 --> 00:19:35,440
 involved not only can you discuss it up to the point of the vote but the day after the vote

172
00:19:35,440 --> 00:19:45,520
 you can buy in through a deal not so. Yeah and the problem with Denton just for clarification is that

173
00:19:45,520 --> 00:19:52,320
 the conflict of interest definition in the code is narrow but then when you look at the glossary

174
00:19:52,320 --> 00:19:58,800
 that's where it says it's something that has I mean it's I looked it up and Scott can correct

175
00:19:58,800 --> 00:20:04,960
 me if I'm wrong about legal leaves but I think that pending matter means anything that could be

176
00:20:04,960 --> 00:20:12,560
 voted on now or in the future and it's what's in the glossary that kills our definition.

177
00:20:12,560 --> 00:20:18,560
 Well the definition yeah the definition in the code is what governs the way time you see the pending

178
00:20:18,560 --> 00:20:27,520
 matter the the Webster's Oxford University doesn't matter those those it's just what's in our code

179
00:20:27,520 --> 00:20:33,280
 and so that paragraph in 2265. So that's the problem is that it takes it from narrow to more

180
00:20:33,280 --> 00:20:40,160
 narrow and I've never seen pending matter in a conflict of definition conflict of interest

181
00:20:40,160 --> 00:20:47,360
 definition anywhere. Well they kind of go ahead I mean just to mention it I mean if you read that

182
00:20:47,360 --> 00:20:54,240
 chapter it's they mention it more than once it's like now once you understand that once we vote on

183
00:20:54,240 --> 00:21:01,520
 this you know all bets are off. I think that pending matter part the way that it's written it

184
00:21:01,520 --> 00:21:07,600
 really talks it's really about disclosures and the requirements for when you have to disclose

185
00:21:07,600 --> 00:21:12,960
 and part of the issue that I think y'all are discussing is because we're really only have

186
00:21:12,960 --> 00:21:19,040
 that a disclosure section in the conflict of intersection there's nothing that's capturing

187
00:21:19,040 --> 00:21:28,160
 anything else apart from when you have to disclose. Patricia was there anything you wanted to add?

188
00:21:28,160 --> 00:21:36,080
 Well I just was asking about the disclosure but so would we like San Marcos better because it

189
00:21:36,080 --> 00:21:45,920
 has a little bit more to it than it's the most it's the most um I don't know I don't know what

190
00:21:45,920 --> 00:21:50,400
 word I know you've read it too but there were parts of that code that I read and I was like whoa

191
00:21:50,400 --> 00:21:56,800
 well yeah I mean it's kind of like it but is it too much do you think? You just get in trouble

192
00:21:56,800 --> 00:22:02,000
 when you try to be too specific in some of these ethics codes and that's kind of what they do here

193
00:22:02,000 --> 00:22:08,080
 and so this is this is kind of my dilemma right now you know I'm still I'm kind of torn right now

194
00:22:08,080 --> 00:22:13,840
 between you know our current ethics policy and the model code because our current ethics policy

195
00:22:13,840 --> 00:22:22,960
 stops and there's a lot of work to do beyond where we are right now in terms of processing and.

196
00:22:22,960 --> 00:22:28,160
 Just to answer your question I was so startled by what I read in the San Marcos code not just

197
00:22:28,160 --> 00:22:34,320
 with conflict of interest but other parts of it at one point it says if you're a developer don't

198
00:22:34,320 --> 00:22:39,840
 even think about being on city council I think it says something and that's when I so I called a

199
00:22:39,840 --> 00:22:46,560
 friend who lives in San Marcos and I'm like why is this so specific and she said well we've had

200
00:22:46,560 --> 00:22:54,240
 some problems and I'm like okay so it's scar tissue okay and she said yeah so yeah I don't I don't

201
00:22:54,240 --> 00:23:01,600
 want our code to be scar tissue I want it to be something that is pretty elegant I guess

202
00:23:02,800 --> 00:23:10,560
 so so I know I know you've read it too well no that's a good way to put it again it's yeah

203
00:23:10,560 --> 00:23:17,920
 I want something more classy for lack of a better word yeah but I what we have is not

204
00:23:17,920 --> 00:23:27,040
 it's it's not good so well again the issue for me for most of these is the issue of current

205
00:23:27,040 --> 00:23:34,960
 versus future dilemma you know future conflicts so to move things along if I'm not stomping on

206
00:23:34,960 --> 00:23:41,920
 everybody I'm hearing pretty good consensus that we need something different so would someone be

207
00:23:41,920 --> 00:23:49,040
 willing to put that into a motion if that's how you feel I move that we recommend the model code

208
00:23:49,040 --> 00:23:57,520
 to replace the current okay so Patricia has just moved that we can you clarify the definition that's

209
00:23:57,520 --> 00:24:06,800
 the model code definition well I think I think Madison's looking for I don't know that we need

210
00:24:06,800 --> 00:24:13,040
 emotion today because I'll have to come back with language anyway I'm hearing consensus that we need

211
00:24:13,040 --> 00:24:19,200
 something different and I like to put that in a motion you certainly can but I am hearing that

212
00:24:19,200 --> 00:24:23,760
 consensus for sure I think the difference is just you would need a motion if we were right now

213
00:24:23,760 --> 00:24:31,200
 moving to amend the ordinance but there's no language drafted right now what to give to city

214
00:24:31,200 --> 00:24:45,200
 council what if we look at Robert Wessler's model code pick another one or two I'm not sure Dallas's

215
00:24:45,200 --> 00:24:50,960
 the last time I looked in on there because I creep on these things the last time I looked at Dallas

216
00:24:50,960 --> 00:24:56,960
 they said they were coming up with another code so I don't pass those a good model also okay

217
00:24:58,720 --> 00:25:03,840
 um what if we look at the model code and

218
00:25:03,840 --> 00:25:11,840
 and and if we look at it we could potentially say we want to look at something else too would that be

219
00:25:11,840 --> 00:25:19,840
 an okay motion or do you want to um I guess when you say look at what do you mean by that

220
00:25:19,840 --> 00:25:24,720
 I'd like the wording so that we can examine it and see what we think about it

221
00:25:27,360 --> 00:25:34,000
 I mean this is what this is not all of the code obviously this is what we're referencing here if

222
00:25:34,000 --> 00:25:42,240
 you mean like potential language to change then I can do that let's look at the potential at the

223
00:25:42,240 --> 00:25:50,400
 next time I would like to give guidance that we look at the potential model code and is that

224
00:25:50,400 --> 00:26:03,200
 pretty much I guess the specific part of it is narrow coded section 2-273a that's conflicts of

225
00:26:03,200 --> 00:26:08,960
 interest and has a couple of paragraphs and then it defines that with some of the percentages and

226
00:26:08,960 --> 00:26:16,800
 the dollar amounts and I think if we were to take that section and start by replacing that with

227
00:26:16,800 --> 00:26:24,640
 the model code section on what how how that is defined that would be kind of the starting point

228
00:26:24,640 --> 00:26:30,560
 because the model code doesn't have those specific things I think they're the only the only actual

229
00:26:30,560 --> 00:26:37,760
 monetary amount is um is for the election campaign contribution which I think is separate

230
00:26:37,760 --> 00:26:43,600
 yeah I think it's a different section yeah so I don't think that would need to be in this part of

231
00:26:43,600 --> 00:26:51,440
 it I think that could be omitted from our code since that's that's kind of a already listed as

232
00:26:51,440 --> 00:26:58,560
 an exception and Madison one thing I love about the model code is that each section he writes

233
00:26:58,560 --> 00:27:06,720
 like an annotation almost about why why he thinks that's a good thing the way he was thinking when

234
00:27:06,720 --> 00:27:13,760
 he wrote it could we have the annotation as well I mean just cut and paste it out of there stuff

235
00:27:13,760 --> 00:27:21,280
 you want me to just not in the red lines obviously but for you to discuss yeah yes

236
00:27:21,280 --> 00:27:27,200
 because I really I love the way he does that because it'll let us see if we think it's a fit

237
00:27:34,000 --> 00:27:41,120
 um could I have a quick question the the language that we're asking you to look at

238
00:27:41,120 --> 00:27:47,200
 from my own understanding would that go into the section two dash two seven three that the bar

239
00:27:47,200 --> 00:27:53,120
 missions where we have the conflict of interest discussions with liberation prohibition disclosure

240
00:27:53,120 --> 00:27:57,920
 requirement and definitions of conflict of interest is that the portion where it would go

241
00:27:58,800 --> 00:28:04,640
 my understanding is but yeah so we go in that prohibition section okay

242
00:28:04,640 --> 00:28:11,120
 because I think we need to be very clear about what sections we are

243
00:28:11,120 --> 00:28:17,760
 looking at and what are we which parts we are replacing or changing right understanding is

244
00:28:17,760 --> 00:28:26,000
 essentially you would like to replace this section okay okay that's that was my thing the model code

245
00:28:26,000 --> 00:28:32,800
 okay and then I think it's likely that there will be some decisions we need to make about

246
00:28:32,800 --> 00:28:37,040
 not necessarily the dollar thresholds but some of these like relationships that we want to include

247
00:28:37,040 --> 00:28:50,560
 our code uses consanguinity and he uses spouses um and he just you know household

248
00:28:50,560 --> 00:28:57,200
 aunts uncles grandparents so he just lists what all of those relationships are which I I want it

249
00:28:57,200 --> 00:29:03,440
 to be something that a person who doesn't know what consanguinity means would be comfortable with

250
00:29:03,440 --> 00:29:09,520
 so I like the way he lists it all out like and then his wording I mean just to be specific to

251
00:29:09,520 --> 00:29:16,480
 that point you're making after that avoid your parents or risk of impropriety then he goes on

252
00:29:16,480 --> 00:29:23,440
 it's shall not take any action likely to affect the personal or economic interests of all these

253
00:29:23,440 --> 00:29:28,080
 people yeah his or her parent child spouse or other family member with the second degree of

254
00:29:28,080 --> 00:29:35,440
 consanguinity or affinity his or her outside client a member of his or her household the outside

255
00:29:35,440 --> 00:29:41,760
 employer of this official or employee an entity in which the official or employee knows that any

256
00:29:41,760 --> 00:29:48,800
 person listed in the subsection holds an economic interest has that term next there's so bright

257
00:29:48,800 --> 00:29:57,680
 this is so beautiful yeah it's really very easy to understand and others that I've read I'm like

258
00:29:57,680 --> 00:30:04,000
 I'm not sure what they're meaning here so yeah so my intention is to basically come back with

259
00:30:05,280 --> 00:30:12,640
 essentially this language that's basically replaced this section section three

260
00:30:12,640 --> 00:30:18,320
 and then have some discussion about are there relationships within this list that are not

261
00:30:18,320 --> 00:30:24,880
 included in the model code or how do we want to define the relationships that it are considered

262
00:30:24,880 --> 00:30:32,400
 basically this piece of it yeah how do we want to do that and then and then the meaning after that

263
00:30:32,400 --> 00:30:39,360
 we can discuss this disclosure piece because the model code also has a separate section about that

264
00:30:39,360 --> 00:30:42,240
 so we can talk about that as well

265
00:30:42,240 --> 00:30:51,760
 and that that's the piece that is involving any matter right so that's the direction we're

266
00:30:51,760 --> 00:31:02,800
 giving you all right and is everybody okay with that yes yes yes thumbs up okay there you go all right makes it easy

267
00:31:02,800 --> 00:31:12,320
 for us for us yeah medicine's a pulling double duty right now because tammy is retiring in december

268
00:31:12,320 --> 00:31:25,520
 so yeah so thank you medicine um so i guess the next item would be boe 23-052 management reports

269
00:31:25,520 --> 00:31:34,640
 sorry uh yes so this is just a quick update on we had that discussion about alternate members

270
00:31:34,640 --> 00:31:39,680
 last time uh the council gave direction to eliminate alternate members um that ordinance

271
00:31:39,680 --> 00:31:45,600
 will go before them next tuesday uh and then if that occurs there will be no more alternate

272
00:31:45,600 --> 00:31:51,520
 members currently rob rainer's term is expired so we will not roll over and then uh deborah

273
00:31:51,520 --> 00:32:01,360
 sorry um her term is not expired um but i don't know she won't necessarily stay on it'll just

274
00:32:01,360 --> 00:32:06,720
 kind of depend there is a vacancy on the board currently so i don't know what's going on yeah

275
00:32:07,360 --> 00:32:14,480
 so that's the update there i can answer questions about that if you have any questions yes so does

276
00:32:14,480 --> 00:32:19,920
 any part of this conflict of interest to enter in next week do you make any comments or recommendations

277
00:32:19,920 --> 00:32:25,120
 no so we're not at that point yet no we don't have any language yet to present to the council

278
00:32:25,120 --> 00:32:25,760
 okay okay

279
00:32:25,760 --> 00:32:34,480
 might just follow up on that my intention if we discuss it in january and then february is

280
00:32:34,480 --> 00:32:40,320
 hopefully we can have language to go to council in march so that that'll go in april the april

281
00:32:40,320 --> 00:32:47,600
 is time frame that's kind of our typical cycle um if that is fine if that timeline works for you

282
00:32:47,600 --> 00:32:56,320
 would it be since uh since we have that wall what we have one alternate and is an open position

283
00:32:56,320 --> 00:33:04,160
 would it be appropriate to to ask to move her to her to that permanent place she could be informed

284
00:33:04,160 --> 00:33:09,840
 that if she's interested she could talk to the council member who has an appointment a position

285
00:33:09,840 --> 00:33:16,960
 because the all of the appointments are sitting wide so they don't have to live in the district

286
00:33:16,960 --> 00:33:26,960
 that person yes i can certainly inform her okay um so that's the end of your report

287
00:33:26,960 --> 00:33:32,320
 so we'll move on to boe 23-053

288
00:33:32,320 --> 00:33:37,920
 receiver report hold the discussion and give staff direction regarding future meeting topics

289
00:33:42,560 --> 00:33:50,080
 uh yeah so essentially um right now on the agenda for next meeting is the minutes and uh this

290
00:33:50,080 --> 00:33:55,200
 continuation of conflict of interest uh based on how tonight went i think we could add something

291
00:33:55,200 --> 00:34:01,840
 potentially if you would like to um uh these are this list is other things that we've looked at i

292
00:34:01,840 --> 00:34:06,720
 think some of them are not relevant if we're planning to change the whole definition so some

293
00:34:06,720 --> 00:34:11,600
 of these conflict of interest ones you know maybe you need to look at but there are some other ones

294
00:34:11,600 --> 00:34:17,200
 on here as well and then there's the potential to add eyes if you would like to what if we just leave

295
00:34:17,200 --> 00:34:26,400
 it to that one item and keep it simple keep it simple i mean this is a big very important item so

296
00:34:26,400 --> 00:34:32,480
 i want to make sure we have plenty of time to discuss it because now we're going to be starting

297
00:34:32,480 --> 00:34:39,760
 to go through specific areas is that going to include the um i guess the first two sections of

298
00:34:39,760 --> 00:34:46,480
 that and deliberation prohibited and disclosure required part of it i was i was going to ask if

299
00:34:46,480 --> 00:34:55,680
 you would so um essentially we go back to this slide we've discussed the section today uh we could

300
00:34:55,680 --> 00:35:01,840
 just discuss this section or you can discuss both next time if you would prefer to know yeah based

301
00:35:01,840 --> 00:35:08,080
 on the model code could we discuss both how would you guys fill it on that i think we should put it

302
00:35:08,080 --> 00:35:13,920
 on it for both and if we don't get through it then then we can delay it yeah but yeah take a look

303
00:35:13,920 --> 00:35:16,160
 basically our posts on it

304
00:35:16,160 --> 00:35:28,800
 okay question where are we in the process of do you take this burden of proof back to council

305
00:35:28,800 --> 00:35:34,720
 next week or when no no so historically we've taken all of the proposed amendments

306
00:35:36,240 --> 00:35:42,480
 based on a year's work of work at one time so the burden of proof and whatever we come up with out

307
00:35:42,480 --> 00:35:49,360
 of this would go in the spring of 2024 that's still pending as a four two vote we had here last

308
00:35:49,360 --> 00:35:56,000
 so it's been it's been approved to go to council it just hasn't gone yet because typically we take

309
00:35:56,000 --> 00:36:03,120
 it as a package with other items as well can we review next next month what is on your list or

310
00:36:03,120 --> 00:36:09,920
 where we're at in terms of what goes to council next yes i mean just a review would be helpful

311
00:36:09,920 --> 00:36:16,640
 yeah i think i think it's up to date but there's um this list of items

312
00:36:16,640 --> 00:36:20,000
 it's hard to see

313
00:36:20,000 --> 00:36:23,680
 but currently

314
00:36:23,680 --> 00:36:32,800
 currently that's the only item the burden of proof elimination

315
00:36:32,800 --> 00:36:38,480
 okay that's on the list this happened so the only reason i asked that is someone has

316
00:36:38,480 --> 00:36:44,480
 well two different council members have pointed out to me that when a list gets to them this long

317
00:36:44,480 --> 00:36:52,080
 they kind of go it was it was a very i think we would do ourselves much better if we kind of

318
00:36:52,080 --> 00:36:59,200
 focus that knife a little bit if we know these two down it would be yeah rather than take them

319
00:36:59,200 --> 00:37:06,560
 the entire laundry list yeah i guess the word is let's prioritize these things because this

320
00:37:06,560 --> 00:37:12,000
 burden of proof and this conflict of interest is not the same or as important as whether we

321
00:37:12,000 --> 00:37:21,920
 use the word he or she you know under item six so so um i think having been there i definitely

322
00:37:21,920 --> 00:37:29,760
 think we overwhelmed him last time very honest i think i think it nicely actually so i think two

323
00:37:29,760 --> 00:37:34,800
 items you know once we get this two nailed down then we go and these are both very substantial

324
00:37:34,800 --> 00:37:43,440
 items they are that was my question tom i've been on this committee for just a little over a year

325
00:37:43,440 --> 00:37:48,880
 am i correct that there have been no ethical complaints brought to this committee

326
00:37:50,720 --> 00:37:56,880
 um there have been there have been um requests for clarification oh sure

327
00:37:56,880 --> 00:38:06,800
 my point being is uh i would offer up for consideration that we complement

328
00:38:06,800 --> 00:38:13,920
 the council and the city employees for adhering to the spirit of this

329
00:38:15,840 --> 00:38:22,720
 there have been ethics complaints we just ended you have been that sustained probably yeah

330
00:38:22,720 --> 00:38:29,920
 you know in the history of the ordinance but if it if it was am i correct if it was

331
00:38:29,920 --> 00:38:36,640
 uh requiring attention it would have been brought to the committee is that correct correct so you're

332
00:38:36,640 --> 00:38:42,720
 saying it was dealt with outside of the committee there was no need to bring it here i mean we've

333
00:38:42,720 --> 00:38:49,200
 had a several hearings like the board of ethics has had ethics hearings you say not since he's

334
00:38:49,200 --> 00:38:54,800
 been on oh but not that's you've been on yeah right i'm sorry i hear you're in two months yes

335
00:38:54,800 --> 00:39:06,720
 that's true so i'm just saying good job how often do we tell the city uh the thank you for making

336
00:39:06,720 --> 00:39:13,680
 our job easier but part of that answer pardon me for just a second the part of that answer is the

337
00:39:13,680 --> 00:39:19,360
 fact that the burden of proof has been kind of a wall because there have been people that i know

338
00:39:19,360 --> 00:39:24,880
 that have said i would file a complaint but there's no way in heck i'm going to do that if i'm going

339
00:39:24,880 --> 00:39:30,080
 to end up having to present that to the board of ethics so there have been you know behind the

340
00:39:30,080 --> 00:39:34,960
 scenes there have been some citizens that have concerns that may or may not have been filed

341
00:39:34,960 --> 00:39:40,240
 because of the wording of that burden of proof that's been an obstacle and also the conflict of

342
00:39:40,240 --> 00:39:45,520
 interest that's so narrow i think well i mean i'm not going to get names or specifics but there

343
00:39:45,520 --> 00:39:51,120
 have been three people that told me specifically i would have filed that if i was but if i'm going

344
00:39:51,120 --> 00:39:56,880
 to have to present that myself no way in hell am i going to do that so that's been kind of an obstacle

345
00:39:56,880 --> 00:40:01,840
 i think we clear out now with this burden of proof and so i think we'll have a better code

346
00:40:01,840 --> 00:40:07,680
 the way it will be worded and you may actually see you know complaints are not necessarily a

347
00:40:07,680 --> 00:40:13,280
 negative they can be a very they can be a positive in many situations so i think it's likely a very

348
00:40:13,280 --> 00:40:19,600
 possible but you'll see more activity to improve this when we remove some of these obstacles to

349
00:40:19,600 --> 00:40:26,640
 filing and presenting complaints i just think it's positive especially at christmas time

350
00:40:28,960 --> 00:40:35,440
 thank you for following the spirit of the ordinance right no i know exactly what you mean

351
00:40:35,440 --> 00:40:41,760
 okay i will say one other thing eight years ago the city employees did not have a code of ethics

352
00:40:41,760 --> 00:40:49,280
 and they do now and i have noticed an improvement so there you go that i mean they have a viable code

353
00:40:58,080 --> 00:41:04,000
 not saying anything we're making good we're making progress yeah i think that's that's a good one

354
00:41:04,000 --> 00:41:06,000
 happy holidays

355
00:41:06,000 --> 00:41:15,440
 okay um yeah just a reminder our next meeting is january 8th at 5 30 p.m okay thank you

356
00:41:17,040 --> 00:41:28,320
 so if there is no further discussion this meeting is adjourned at 8 11 oh i'm sorry 6 11 p.m

357
00:41:28,320 --> 00:41:36,240
 thank you guys thank you good discussion