WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.560 All right. Good evening. This is the Board of Ethics meeting on Monday, December 4th, 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 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 00:00:24.640 --> 00:00:34.640 discussion, and take necessary action regarding Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics, 00:00:34.640 --> 00:00:42.320 Section 2-269, Definitions, and Section 2-273, Prohibitions. 00:00:42.320 --> 00:00:47.200 I think we skipped the minutes. We can go back to it if you prefer. 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 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. 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. 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, 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. 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, 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 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, 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. 00:02:07.840 --> 00:02:11.360 Does that answer your question? Yeah, but either one can happen from that 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. 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? 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 00:02:32.400 --> 00:02:40.800 proceed with BOE 23-051, receive a report, hold a discussion, and take necessary action 00:02:40.800 --> 00:02:49.520 regarding code of ordinances, chapter two, article 11, at the exception 2-269, definitions at section 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 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 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. 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 00:03:26.000 --> 00:03:33.760 to begin discussing the conflict of interest section of the ethics ordinance. So based on 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 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 00:03:44.880 --> 00:03:52.000 interest prohibition, including kind of the rules that are involved, and the relevant relationships, 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 00:03:59.120 --> 00:04:03.840 broad versus specific rules that we've been discussing over the last couple of meetings. 00:04:03.840 --> 00:04:10.480 So to do this, I've prepared five examples based on peer city ordinances, the ethics, 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 00:04:16.160 --> 00:04:23.920 specific or most broad to least broad or most specific, and then hopefully get some direction 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, 00:04:29.440 --> 00:04:32.640 you would potentially like to change the ethics conflict of interest section. 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. 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 00:04:48.320 --> 00:04:52.560 does not actually even include the words conflict of interest, but instead prohibits city officials 00:04:52.560 --> 00:04:57.280 from engaging in any business or professional activity that conflicts with the discharge of 00:04:57.280 --> 00:05:02.960 official duties. This is the least specific of the conflict of interest examples, as it provides 00:05:02.960 --> 00:05:07.600 minimal guidance to city officials on the terms business, professional activity, or conflicts, 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 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 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 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 00:05:30.400 --> 00:05:35.280 it does include the concept of personal and financial interests, however, it still provides 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 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 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 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 00:05:59.040 --> 00:06:03.920 definitions for personal and financial benefits and interests, although they are fairly broad. 00:06:04.720 --> 00:06:07.920 In addition, it provides that comparison baseline that I've been talking about 00:06:07.920 --> 00:06:13.760 by saying that only benefits not shared with a substantial segment of the population 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. 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 00:06:25.760 --> 00:06:30.640 and defines economic interests and benefits to provide city officials with guidance on 00:06:30.640 --> 00:06:36.160 circumstances that would create a conflict of interest and provides guidance to the ethics 00:06:36.160 --> 00:06:42.480 body on interpreting the word effect. It also creates a comparison baseline using the public 00:06:42.480 --> 00:06:48.160 or a substantial segment of the population. The major difference between this code and the 00:06:48.160 --> 00:06:54.000 model code is the focus on kind of effects to economic interest versus the resulting benefits 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 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 00:07:04.960 --> 00:07:10.480 of interest, which is often possible for volunteer positions, but to ensure that conflicts are managed 00:07:10.480 --> 00:07:18.080 honestly and responsibly when they do come about. And then finally, pulled together the city of 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 00:07:24.880 --> 00:07:30.560 to the city of San Marcos, however it also creates a definition for substantial economic interests. 00:07:30.560 --> 00:07:35.680 This term includes some specific financial thresholds that create a conflict of interest, 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. 00:07:42.640 --> 00:07:48.800 But still, as I previously mentioned in previous meetings, Denton doesn't actually have a general 00:07:48.800 --> 00:07:53.520 rule regarding conflict of interest right now, only those specific ones. So in that way, 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 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 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 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 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. 00:08:23.840 --> 00:08:28.240 Okay, so we'll open the floor for discussion. So 00:08:28.240 --> 00:08:36.720 what would you like to, what is looking really interesting to you? 00:08:44.720 --> 00:08:52.560 I would recommend a broader definition that's not specific, because 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, 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, 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:10:15.920 --> 00:10:23.360 because our tools are so limited and so specific that we then cannot actually hold somebody 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. 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 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, 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 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, 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 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 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 00:11:19.520 --> 00:11:26.960 code itself, but we have some issues because our current ethics policy does not go beyond 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, 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 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 00:11:48.240 --> 00:11:54.080 backtrack several years and give some serious thought to that model code, what is good about 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 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, 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 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, 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 00:12:33.760 --> 00:12:38.400 from a broader perspective, like you say, not knowing what the next conflict may be. 00:12:38.400 --> 00:12:45.680 So I'm very much gratified and just almost elated to see us getting back to 00:12:46.800 --> 00:12:49.920 a broader discussion. Question, though, I just what happened? 00:12:49.920 --> 00:12:57.680 Was the current conflict of interest, the standards, the thresholds? Was that set aside? 00:12:57.680 --> 00:13:00.480 Is that not an option here? I mean, I'm glad it's not. 00:13:00.480 --> 00:13:06.800 Someone asked me what happened to the current standards? Well, it currently exists. It is an 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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... 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:17:09.120 --> 00:17:15.280 decisions with the power have done that in partially for the benefit of the citizens. 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:18:22.560 --> 00:18:27.120 the code. It's the intent and who benefits. And she had the right intent. Yeah. 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? 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 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 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 00:19:00.800 --> 00:19:06.800 other cities and municipalities most of their ethics codes and especially this conflict of 00:19:06.800 --> 00:19:13.840 interest covers not only pending matters but future. Something that's going to be voted on 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 00:20:33.280 --> 00:20:40.160 narrow and I've never seen pending matter in a conflict of definition conflict of interest 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 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 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 00:21:01.520 --> 00:21:07.600 really talks it's really about disclosures and the requirements for when you have to disclose 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 00:21:12.960 --> 00:21:19.040 that a disclosure section in the conflict of intersection there's nothing that's capturing 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? 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:22:08.080 --> 00:22:13.840 between you know our current ethics policy and the model code because our current ethics policy 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:23:34.960 --> 00:23:41.920 everybody I'm hearing pretty good consensus that we need something different so would someone be 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:24:58.720 --> 00:25:03.840 um what if we look at the model code and 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:26:30.560 --> 00:26:37.760 monetary amount is um is for the election campaign contribution which I think is separate 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:27:47.200 --> 00:27:53.120 missions where we have the conflict of interest discussions with liberation prohibition disclosure 00:27:53.120 --> 00:27:57.920 requirement and definitions of conflict of interest is that the portion where it would go 00:27:58.800 --> 00:28:04.640 my understanding is but yeah so we go in that prohibition section okay 00:28:04.640 --> 00:28:11.120 because I think we need to be very clear about what sections we are 00:28:11.120 --> 00:28:17.760 looking at and what are we which parts we are replacing or changing right understanding is 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 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 00:28:32.800 --> 00:28:37.040 not necessarily the dollar thresholds but some of these like relationships that we want to include 00:28:37.040 --> 00:28:50.560 our code uses consanguinity and he uses spouses um and he just you know household 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:30:05.280 --> 00:30:12.640 essentially this language that's basically replaced this section section three 00:30:12.640 --> 00:30:18.320 and then have some discussion about are there relationships within this list that are not 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 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 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 00:30:39.360 --> 00:30:42.240 so we can talk about that as well 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 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 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 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 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 00:31:34.640 --> 00:31:39.680 last time uh the council gave direction to eliminate alternate members um that ordinance 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:32:25.120 --> 00:32:25.760 okay okay 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:33:26.960 --> 00:33:32.320 so we'll move on to boe 23-053 00:33:32.320 --> 00:33:37.920 receiver report hold the discussion and give staff direction regarding future meeting topics 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:35:13.920 --> 00:35:16.160 basically our posts on it 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 00:35:28.800 --> 00:35:34.720 next week or when no no so historically we've taken all of the proposed amendments 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:36:16.640 --> 00:36:20.000 it's hard to see 00:36:20.000 --> 00:36:23.680 but currently 00:36:23.680 --> 00:36:32.800 currently that's the only item the burden of proof elimination 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:37:43.440 --> 00:37:48.880 am i correct that there have been no ethical complaints brought to this committee 00:37:50.720 --> 00:37:56.880 um there have been there have been um requests for clarification oh sure 00:37:56.880 --> 00:38:06.800 my point being is uh i would offer up for consideration that we complement 00:38:06.800 --> 00:38:13.920 the council and the city employees for adhering to the spirit of this 00:38:15.840 --> 00:38:22.720 there have been ethics complaints we just ended you have been that sustained probably yeah 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:40:19.600 --> 00:40:26.640 filing and presenting complaints i just think it's positive especially at christmas time 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 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 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 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 00:41:04.000 --> 00:41:06.000 happy holidays 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 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 00:41:28.320 --> 00:41:36.240 thank you guys thank you good discussion