Jan 08, 2024 Board of Ethics on 2024-01-08 5:30 PM

And it's 5.30. >> Okay. So it is 5.30 p.m. on Monday, January 8th, 2024, and this is the Board of Ethics meeting. So we're going to start, we do not have any presentations from members of the public this evening, so we will move on to our items for consideration. We do have everyone, everyone is present, everyone that's on the board. So we have a full board and a full agenda for tonight. So item A is BOE 24-001, consider approval of minutes from December 4th, 2023. Do I hear a motion to that effect? >> I move that we approve of it. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry. Pavlik has moved, and Zoltner has seconded it. So item -- >> Here we go. >> All in favor. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> So that's unanimous. Six in favor. So item B, BOE 24-002, hold a discussion and consider adoption of the 2024 meeting schedule. >> Madam Chair, can I ask a question? >> Yes. >> Are we required to meet every month? >> I was going to ask about that because I noticed that there was a couple of meetings. I know it was holidays. >> We're not required to meet every month. I think we're required to meet maybe once a year or something. >> That's what I'm -- >> Okay. >> Yeah, this is similar to the schedule we adopted last year. We -- so we're excluding July and September because there are city holidays on those Mondays. But it's typically the first Monday of the year. And then in May, my entire office will be out for training. So that's why it's the week after. >> I don't know the question. >> So if you would like to not meet every -- >> Well, I guess I'm concerned it depends on how things go in the next couple of months. But I would like to consider having meetings on those months that we were like the 4th of July and I guess Labor Day dumped us. But I -- what do you guys think? >> I would agree with that. And it also kind of depends on Madison's schedule. She has some items to go before the council, but we're not aware of. There might be some clarification that we need to take care of here before it goes back to you. So that's all kind of up in the air in terms of -- >> I mean, we can certainly -- >> We are working on some modifications now. So it's kind of a process here. >> Yeah. So I think currently the plan is either in March or April to basically forward whatever -- what you all are currently working on to the city council. So then they will either discuss that in March or April or May, just depends a little bit on where we're at. And then once they give direction, then we bring back in ordinance that will be approved probably in the summer at some point. So that's just how long it takes to get stuff before them basically. >> But not before March, is that what you're -- >> I don't know. I mean, it would be really difficult to get something before them. >> Kind of depends on how tonight and next month go. >> I would like to say -- I would love to recommend that we hold the possibility of adding meetings in those two months where we're not scheduled for meetings if we feel the need when we get closer to it. >> We can always call a special meeting if you would like to. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> How does that sound? Okay. >> I think that would be more prudent than just adding a meeting at this point. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I'm thinking if we are all in agreement and we figure out something and it gets to council, then I don't feel the need to rush through things. But there's a couple of things that in my head are pretty important. >> And could we also -- you've opened the possibility of canceling a meeting if we don't feel like we have a lot to discuss. Like let's say in May or June we don't have a lot to discuss. We could -- >> Sure. >> Talk about it and cancel the meeting. >> And July would be a great month to be off. >> Yeah. >> So -- >> So is that a motion for a special meeting next or February? >> Me? >> Well, what do you -- >> Oh, no, we're just -- I think what we're talking about is we could call a special meeting during all those months as we get closer to that time. >> Typically during the future agenda item section if you decided in June, hey, we want to meet in July, we could discuss, we could call a special meeting. We would just have to, after the meeting, get everybody's availability basically. >> I do want to take less items to cancel next time because I think we just overwhelmed them with 10 items. And I think if we have two that we think are important, that's a great starting place. >> I think it'll take about the same amount of time. >> Yeah. >> Make sure it will. >> Yeah. >> Okay, so can someone make a motion to approve the schedule as written in the -- >> So moved. >> Okay. >> I'll second. >> Moved by Zeltner and seconded by Newhart. So we are now going to -- >> Seconded by Newhart. >> Oh, sorry, keep forgetting about that. All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Six ayes, no nays. Okay, the thing I've been wanting to get to all day, BOE 24-003 Receiver Report, Hold the Discussion and Take Necessary Action Regarding Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Article 11, Epics, Section 2-269, Definitions, and Section 2-273, Prohibitions. >> Yeah, so this is essentially just a continuation of our meeting last time where we talked about kind of what kind of rules we would like to see. This is kind of defining when they apply and then when they do come in -- when they do apply, how they should be reported. So essentially what we're going to talk about today. So I'm just going to jump in with talking about the relevant relationships. So this first slide was included as kind of a handout in your agenda, but it compares the personal relationships covered by the model code to what's currently in Denton's code. And then I included the degree of consanguinity and affinity just so that you were aware of which ones they were. And so my understanding is the board would like to use kind of that list form that's in the model code, but it needs direction on what you want included in that list essentially. So we can start with this. I don't know if you want to just go copy the model code, do -- keep what Denton currently has or do a little bit of both. >> As usual, I think you did a really good job of breaking it down. And I was looking at that -- the page two of the handout where you talked about each of the issues. So I identified six and there's one -- well, eight total or nine I guess. So I thought we'd kind of go down those -- down that narrative that you have and look at each one. I think most of them page -- handout -- or 03 page two. >> Is it a two? >> And it's under the heading financial relationships. >> Okay. Would you like to give direction on the personal relationships first? Or we can go to financial? >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Yeah, let's do that. >> I thought this might be the easiest one, but. >> Yeah. So Denton's current ordinance is generally similar to the model code except the model code does not include the third degree relationships. First cousins, great-grandparents, great-grandchildren. And first cousins, great-grandparents and great-grandchildren of this file. So what's your pleasure? >> Well, the model code does include relationships -- committed relationships. So I think that would be good to include. >> I agree. >> The domestic partner? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I'd rather say committed relationships. >> This code was written -- the model code was written some years ago. So there's some language that, in my opinion, is outdated. But I still really like the spirit of it. So. >> We can -- if you would like that included, we can refine that definition next time. >> Or use the term of our choice. So what -- so Tom is in agreement of going more with the model code, Andrea model code, without -- >> Yeah, I would agree with that. Absolutely, yeah, I have several things that I'd like to come to around here when we -- yeah. >> Okay, so. >> Okay, so for this -- >> We're good with this. >> We're good with what the model code has, even though it is -- doesn't include some things that the current code does. >> Yeah. >> Great. Okay, moving on to the page, the heading, financial relationships. And so I just ticked off -- the first part is the model code includes -- includes the outside employer or business, which generally includes entities the city official receives compensation from or owns, which is similar to the city's, but Denton's code includes financial thresholds that are not present in the model code. So what's your opinion of the -- going with the model code in that area? In other words, I guess it would do away with the thresholds. >> Yeah, I'll -- I think we went over this some last month. I'm in support of trying to get away from thresholds because the thresholds are different -- have different meaning to different people. And I think we ran into a lot of challenges when we tried to go from a fixed dollar figure to a percentage and that sort of thing. And it makes it much more complicated to apply. >> Okay, so Dustin's in the room. What about the rest of you? >> I agree with Dustin. >> So if we didn't have any -- any money amount attached, and so let's say a city council person had a relationship with someone but there's no money amount, how would they know if it was enough to recuse themselves? >> It further down, it kind of accounts for it. But what I hate about the thresholds is that that number's going to have to change up. >> Right. No, I agree with that. I'm just wondering how they -- then you decide. We'll decide that later. >> It's more about the activity is the way I understood it than the number. >> And would they just say that I have a relationship with this business but I can still vote on the issues or I have a relationship with this business and I have to recuse myself? >> Probably you should have to recuse yourself. I would think -- is that how the rest of you understood it? >> Yeah. >> That's how I would look at it, and a lot of it is about just the appearance, right, and not the actual action. >> The appearance of people, which is an ethical concept. >> And it could also -- and that is where they could ask for an advisory opinion. >> Right. >> And then we can look at it, right, and I think if there is more -- in a way, I would hope that if there's a little bit more vagueness rather than, oh, I'm just 50 cents shy of the threshold, then it's okay. But if there's vagueness, then there's going to be hopefully the question for an advisory opinion from the ethics board, and then it becomes a collective decision rather than an individual decision. >> So Tom, do you have your hand raised with that? >> Well, I wrote months ago, just to try to clarify for myself, I wrote the following, a conflict of interest is when a person can benefit from actions or decisions in their official capacity. So it's no percentages, no dollars. >> Right. In ways that other people don't benefit. So it's not a conflict of interest if you benefit, but everybody else benefits, too. >> It's a city. >> So I hear unanimity, so check that one out. >> So just to clarify, we would like to remove basically what the current code has and include what the model code has. Are we okay with -- there's some exceptions in that definition, which includes entities that they receive compensation for goods or services, except unless they're necessary expenses that are reimbursed. So like travel expenses, we're fine with that exception. These are just specific pieces, so I just wanted to double check. And then for the ownership interest, it had an exception for public corporations, where the interest is less than $50,000 or 5%. So there are thresholds there. So I just wanted to double check on that as well. >> Everybody okay with that? >> Yes. >> We move on. So I guess the next one is substantial clients or customers, which are defined as people or entities that the city council official has supplied goods or services -- oh, that's -- you just asked about that. >> No, that's not wrong. >> Okay. Has supplied goods or services valued at more than $1,000 in the last 24 months, including those that did business with their outside employer that they knew about. And the city doesn't have that. >> So what do you guys think about that? That is a way of being a little more specific. So what do you guys think? >> That definition is from the lobby article? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Can I take just a moment here? >> Sure. >> Okay. This discussion goes back about -- it's been about five years now. In January of 2018, the city council sat in this very room and this whole conflict of interest situation was raised by Alan Bork with us, you know, the ethics attorney that we brought up here from Austin to discuss this. He presented basically four options on this whole conflict of interest solution. The first one is the one that we've ended up with in our current code now where we have all these financial thresholds, pending matters, percentages, dollar amounts, and all of this kind of stuff that we have now. One of the other things that he presented that day was another option that almost every other city in Texas that he has worked with as an ethics consultant. And it's -- none of it is based on percentages or dollar amounts or pending matters. It's as we are suggesting right now that it is on more general rules. And I just -- I was so interested in going back over what he presented that day. Now, I have a copy for everyone here just for information and for thought process. But he presented several options that day to the city council sitting in this very room. The first one was all these financial thresholds based on this first option. The city council never went beyond this first option. Never. Now, this -- this example for -- and there's a copy here for everyone else. This example for is the model code that almost every other city in Texas has ended up with based on. And there were only two people in the room that day other than the city council, myself and Venn Record Chronicle reporter. And we were trying to get the council to turn the page and look at option four, look at option three and option four. Don't lock yourself into all these dollars and percentages. You're making a fatal mistake. And so all of the things that we're discussing here, the financial relationships, the business relationships, that's pretty much all covered below the opening paragraph there. And so we can make this as complicated as you like or as simple as you like, but we can repeal what we've got right now as a horrible mistake that's going on five years old and move towards something that option three. And this is what was -- this is not day's world. This is what was presented by Ellen Bork with us, our ethics consultant, and it was never, ever considered by the city council that day. That was a mistake that we've been living with for about five years now. And so we have an opportunity to turn the clock back and get -- didn't in line with other cities with the general, but generally comprehensive conflict of interest code, which is not only -- one of the things -- one of the problems is the current code we have now is time specific. In other words, if you get right up to a vote, if you can get through a vote, you're good. This is a current and future matters. This covers, you know, something that you might think that you can get by the council. But again, this is not Dave's language. This is direct language from almost every other -- well, most other municipalities in the city of Texas. It's amendable, obviously, but those provisions at the bottom are pretty much standard from other cities. And just from my own perspective, I would encourage us, you know, we can do this and we can go line by line by line by line for the next three months. But I would just suggest we just kind of step back here and say we have -- I think the model code is kind of what we're talking about here. But there's a model right there. And it could be over just that quickly. And nothing would be left out. >> Then what we're discussing right now is the definition of outside client, which is in your example number four. This is what -- this is what the model code defines that. So we're discussing that definition so that we can actually put it in the code. >> So what does that mean for this item about the $1,000 in the last 24 months when we just say a substantial client or when we leave that out on which you're following? >> On which one now? >> What we're looking at here, that the model code includes substantial clients or customers, which are people that have supplied goods or services at more than $1,000 in the past 24 months. >> That would apply. There would be no dollar amount. Whether or not you are benefiting or not from that relationship, it could be $50. If no one else in the city of Benton puts $50 in their pocket, but you do, that's a problem. Or that's at least something that you need to discuss with Madison or your internal auditor. So there's -- again, there's no dollar amounts here. And that's the thing that we've been trying to -- we've been kind of tap dancing around since we started talking about this. >> So what you just handed out, number seven, would cover this and be a little bit more general. >> Let's talk about number four. >> Number three. >> Number -- is there a -- >> Well, number four is the model that if you -- again, if you go through Dallas, El Paso, you're going to find something very similar to that exhibit four. And that's where Alan Boric was. That's where he -- you know, he has worked with these other cities that we're talking about. And so this was -- this would not be anything that would be unique to Denton. It's -- you know, it's obviously modifiable, amendable. But that's -- that -- >> So how would you change the model code? Would you just put this -- >> What's in example four is basically the model code. >> Okay. >> What's in example four is basically the model code. I've split it out this way so that we can discuss each one because we're talking about changing the entire node. And it -- the model code includes these thousand dollar thresholds to define what is in example four's outside client. So I just need direction on if you want to just not have the definition or if you do want to have a definition, what it is. >> So I guess -- I think the -- part of the question is in example four, bullet three, it says these are her outside client. And I think we're trying to make a decision on whether or not we leave it at that language or have a definition with the value and the -- >> Perfect. But I'm just laying this out as a framework rather than trying to reinvent the wheel right here. Which is where we got, you know, five years ago. This is where we got into trouble. We had models available to us at the time that were amendable. But I'm just saying that this is a framework that most other cities in Texas have found work very adequately for them. >> I wanted to clarify because I think Madison, what you told us is that this substantial client definition comes from the model code. >> That's correct. >> So we're not reinventing the wheel. We are actually going with what we have kind of like used as our guide, which is the model code. So -- >> Right. Which -- >> It's almost exactly like example four. But what you're saying, no money amount, but that does have money amount, so. >> I'm saying that, right, that this model code does not include dollar amounts. Now this is the framework. But the only thing, the only reason I mention this is rather than get into, you know, we've gone down this wordsmithing road before and we have refused for six years to take advantage of other people's success with this. And that's all I'm saying is that we have a model here that works everywhere -- well, works almost everywhere else in Texas. And that's all I'm suggesting is that it would be a -- it would be a repeal and replace of this current corrupted, confusing obtuse thing that we've got right now that we call our conflict of interest. Pending matters and all this other nonsense, in my opinion, needs to go in favor of something like this. >> The paragraph that we're looking at that begins the model could also include substantial clients. If we just took out value more than $1,000 in the past 24, and just leave the -- and just take out those few words, it would be fine? Is that -- >> I'm going to make the suggestion that a substantial client is somebody different than just a client. I think this is a special definition of a substantial client. That is my -- that is where I'm thinking the difference of language could come in. Because I'm not going to read it the same way with number -- like in example number four, number three, when it says his or her outside client, that to me does not match a substantial client definition. I think that that is a special definition of a -- that goes above and beyond of an outside client. >> That makes sense, yeah, appropriately. >> I'm just thinking of the -- what is written here is fine as long as we don't get into the weeds with numbers. Is that -- I just want to make sure I'm hearing -- >> I mean, we have -- you're trying to write a code. >> Yeah. >> So if you don't want to define it, we don't have to. >> Okay. So if we just take out value more than $1,000, that might -- that might cover it. What do you guys think? >> It's just -- I'm just clarifying from that. >> No, I appreciate that and that's -- >> Tom, what do you think about that? >> Keep it simple. >> Keep it simple, that's good. >> Having all these -- >> Okay. >> -- different varieties, I think just makes it work. >> I really don't want to confuse this, but there have been a lot of citizens in this town that have been waiting for five or six years to clear this matter up. >> Okay. >> Okay. Well, I think if we leave it the way it is and just take out the number, I think we'll be fine. >> So you don't want to define substantial client? >> I'm not ready to do that because I think what we need to do is we need to really -- is the model code using substantial client as a different -- with a different definition from an outside client? I would like that to be clarified to see if -- because if we're using this anonymously, then there might be a conversation to be had, but if they're two different things, then -- >> What if we just said clients and looked out substantial that are people that the official has -- >> Well, isn't that what the first one is? >> So maybe just strike that one altogether, that one little paragraph? >> If that makes it simpler, yes. >> Yeah. So this is where this comes from, in the model code. A client or substantial client, and then you go down to client and it defines it this way, which is what's written. >> I think that -- thank you, you know, thank you. I think I would -- I want to hear what you -- that's not for me to debate. So take out that specificity or maybe some of it in. What's your -- what's your thinking? I think if you just define it as benefit, then that opens the door for like David's people he's been talking about, that -- then they can say, "Well, I think this is a benefit, so I'm going to bring it to the ethics board as a violation." >> Or the auditor. >> Or auditor, yeah. >> Right. This is exactly where Madison would come into play, where it is so difficult to define every circumstance here, and that's what's been so frustrating and why -- well, frankly, like I said, I know of some complaints that never move forward because they didn't want to go down this pending matter $500, $600 grab and hold. So this -- this is a -- this is a -- this is proven stuff. This works in Texas. That's all I'm saying. There may be some modifications or wording is better, but -- >> In the end, it has to be a judgment call, you know, and that's why there's a board and not just one person that says, "Oh, you're fine," or "No." >> And it puts the answer in the auditor in a more -- in more of a central role, too, more important role for ethics determinations than this is written -- well, this is $600, and whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, what? That's not the way -- that's not the way it should work. I don't make any judgment calls in the ethics process. >> Yeah. You just administer and -- >> Right. >> I don't want to be in a more central role. >> Okay. And thank you for that because the way I'm looking at it now is we just need to leave the adjectives out. >> Just use client. >> And just use client, or customer, or whatever. >> The model code has the definition of client, though. So are you saying leave the dollar not out of the definition of client? >> Use the substantial. Use the -- leave the substantial out and leave the dollars out. >> Right. But I think the definition of the model code is -- >> It is for client. >> It's for client, not substantial client. >> Yep. >> That would make it a lot more clear. >> I don't think I understand what we're saying here. The model code defines client as a person or entity to which a person or entity has supplied goods or services during the previous 24 months, having in the aggregate a value greater than $1,000. And then there's a part B to that. If the official or employee's outside business has supplied goods or services during these 24 months, having in aggregate the value greater than $1,000. So in both of those scenarios, we're talking about taking out the word substantial, but the definition of the model code is not for a substantial client. It's just for a customer or client. So I'm not sure I understand where we're going. The model code defines it based on dollar amount, which if we want to just take that out, I'm fine with that, and then just say we define a client as that, basically, that same definition without the aggregate dollar amount and either use what's in the model code or the 24 months or what's in this example of, I think it says 12 months, right? So to me, that's what the discussion is about, not so much, like I think this example is excellent, but it's almost the same as what's in the model code, which I think we're all going towards. Like the question that keeps coming up is, do we have a dollar amount here? And I think in our code right now, there's a bunch of that. It's very confusing that we've talked about, and it's hard to follow. In the model code, it's more straightforward, but it's still there. So I think unless I'm missing something, we're kind of all on board adjusting this so that we have a more basic definition of the conflict of interest. And it's more of a broader-- yeah. And for the customer or client, it's just a matter of do we include some dollar amount and some time definition in there, which I could probably be convinced either way. I don't want to leave this yet, but I will say what's in this example does not include anything on campaign contributions. And that is in the model code, so I don't want to jump to that. There are other sections. That is only the conflict of interest section, the poor quiz. No, there are other gifts and campaign. That's not the entire-- and the only reason I mention this is I just wanted everyone to understand this was never, ever discussed, and that is important. It went straight to dollars and percentages and pending matters. And the citizens have to go, time out, time out. And there were a couple of people on the council, a couple of women who tried to raise-- Who tried to stop it. And they basically shut it down. And there's some stuff in our current code like pending matter means-- well, there are some definitions and things that make no sense right now. So I think we are agreeing maybe take out the word substantial and take out the aggregate amount, the aggregate $1,000. And then we're all good with this amount. With the 24 months? With 24 months left here? I was wondering about that myself. I think when you start putting numbers on it, it makes it awfully specific. What if it was 25 months? What if it was five years ago? Yeah. I think, to me, if something came before this board, I did a potential conflict of interest. And it was five years ago when it was $50. We're probably going to look at that differently than if it was two weeks ago when it was $10,000. Sure. But if we-- so if we put a number in there, either a dollar amount or a tiny constraint, then-- So what do you guys think? So we're all in agreement except for this time constraint. That's what we're going. Tom? Yeah, I think you should limit how far you go back. I think 24 months is-- Reasonable. --reasonable. What do you guys think? Yeah. I mean, I think that's a reasonable amount of time. So keep with the 24 months? OK. And the other point about this real quickly is this model code, the word "likely" appears in here. Now, that's a very simple word. But it implies that something that could happen in the future-- and that's a problem with our current code. Because our current code, it's so cut and dried that if it hasn't happened by the day you vote on it, you're in the clear as a council member. And so this is a big difference where if a council member might think, gosh, now, what shall I do here? I think we're on agreement on this point. I want to save our time for it getting to the point. OK. Well, that's-- Because I think it's going to be more interesting. So the next point would be the model code includes campaign contributions, including people and their families, entities and their owners, directors, officers, and political committees that contributed more than $200 during the last election cycle. OK. Discussion. I'll just add for context, something similar was brought before council last time. And I believe they were confused about the election cycle, how that was defined. And so that is part of why they did not vote for it. It was also, there were only six members on the council at that time. So what are your thoughts about it, please? I think this needs to be in there. I don't know how we clean up the language on the past election cycle. I know that I watched that council meeting and I was-- I'm sure they were upset about it. No, I mean, I guess I don't think we had discussed that at all in any of our meetings about any confusion about that. And part of that's probably because as far as I know, none of us are elected officials and we probably don't think about that sort of thing. So I don't know how I clean up the language for that, but it would be-- maybe we need to-- What if we said within the last 24 months, go back to, I mean, that would cover, you know, seems like a reasonable amount. But I think the dollar numbers, I want to discuss that too. It would be cynical to use 24 months. So it's our list. We have a definition for most recent and past election cycle that we didn't draft is confusing, you know. I would support sticking with 24 months for that as well, just so there's some consistency. Like I realize that a client and a campaign contributor are very different things, but if we start to do different timespans there, it's going to just make it more confusing. I think that's clear and it kind of squares with the other time when we set up. What do you guys-- I really do think that going with the 24 months would be a lot more clean. What is the term of a council? Two years. That's what it is. Not that this code is applying only to them. OK. So we have agreement on that. What about the dollar amount? Are we in agreement with that, or should it be a little higher? It's going to be outdated five years from now. Yeah, I think when a TAC donates a lot of money, that's where I get like thousands of dollars. But I don't know where to draw the line. I think that was a point of contention for the city council members as well. I know it was. So do we need to draw a line here? Do we need to have a financial threshold for that? We just had the discussion of taking that out as a substantial client or client. $200 to a city council, it sounds like a lot of money to me. Especially for city council, the most donations are not a problem. Especially since city politics are supposed to be more partisan. Then I think we get into political issues that probably shouldn't be there. I think the one we proposed was $500. That's helpful. I can't remember if it was in the council meeting or if it was something else I read. There was a lot of discussion about the political committee part of it. Because if a political action committee donates to a candidate, and someone that is involved with that political action committee has business before the council, does that member have to recuse himself because of that relationship when that individual did not make the contribution? And I don't know how to resolve that. I don't know if that was something you'd have the answer to. The question came up in the meeting in that discussion, I believe. And it was, to me, it was something I had never thought about and did not know was even a potential issue. But it almost sounded like they were aware of that possibility or that having the answer in the past. So I don't know how to resolve that. Well, that's definitely one way to circumvent it. Correct. So there's a "what you would like to see" and "what seems realistic" kind of thing going on here. So does this apply to PACs, or are they candidatrix? The model code applies to individuals, business entities, and party town/non-candidate political committees. A political committee would be a PAC, right? I think non-candidate political committee, this is a PAC. I think. That would be my guess. Because I know the law changed maybe four or five years ago where a PAC does not have to identify his affiliation. And so it makes it even more complicated. Because on a federal level, they don't have to identify where they're coming from, which I think is protective for a company that might be-- Does anyone know how much the PAC's donated to it? I tried to clock it on a council person, I mean. Last time, it was more than $500,000. Oh, very much more. $500,000. And this wouldn't stop council members from receiving money. This would just require them to refuse themselves from matters involving that organization. Might be one of their quesals. Yeah. Well, I think that's the point of this. Yeah, yeah. Because the biggest one I saw was a group of realtors, and there was one group in North Texas, and there was another group out in Lubbock, which I found interesting. And it was thousands and thousands of dollars. It was in the newspaper. I think I would support going with the model code definition and the wording here. Because I think it's a lot harder to just sort of strike this down as, well, we don't know how to apply this. For the council to say, there's a lot of gray area here. We don't know how to apply this. We can't actually use this if we use the model code language. And I would strongly support keeping this as part of the conflict of interest. With the 24-months? With the 24-months definition to try and resolve the issue that they're concerned they had before about the election cycle, because I don't know how to fix that part of it. I mean, it doesn't-- I listened to it like three times, and it didn't make sense to me. That's good to know. So go-- so I hear Dustin supporting it with just changing the 24-months. [INAUDIBLE] OK. I agree, too. Move on. The model code also includes non-relative housemates and substantial debtors or creditors of the city official. You good with that? Yes. Dave? For now, yes. Andrea? Tom? I'm good with it. OK. So this next one is the city of debt and includes people or entities that have offered a city official employment, ownership of real property, which are not included in the model code. Isn't that kind of covered in some of the others, more generally? The property was covered by annual disclosures, perhaps. I mean, in some way, it's just not as explicitly covered. So what do you guys think about this? [SIDE CONVERSATION] I was involved in one of the tribunals, the three people, and there was a council member who was a director. I believe it was the title of a charity. A service organization. I wanted to make sure that-- Which I'm really glad she did. [SIDE CONVERSATION] Somebody put the flags up. Yeah, this works. Because she knew she was a director of that nonprofit. So she brought it to us. So are you saying leave that part from the city? I would. Andrea, what do you think? Leave it? OK, can we splice it in? Yeah, so I think what we just talked about was nonprofit organizations being on the board, being part of the conflict of interest. That's in both. So I'm hearing yes to that. The model code doesn't clearly have being a non-compensated board member for a business entity. I did not read it clearly in there. That is in the city's code. Do we really like to keep that? So maybe there's something the city code has that's better. We might be in favor of leaving it, that part. I'm in favor of leaving that in. Patricia? Yeah. Yes. Yes? Yes. OK. And then I have a couple more, sorry. Yeah. The author of employment, I think, again, it's not as explicitly defined in the model code. You could say it's covered, potentially. But that we actually just amended the code to include. I'll leave that. Are you saying it's redundant, or-- It's kind of-- Saying it's for clarification. Yeah, clarification, I find. Good. Thumbs up all around? Yeah, good. OK. OK. So then do we go into the section that begins with withdrawal from participation, or-- I think there's one more discussion about the real property. Oh, OK. Because the way that the model code defines it is it basically lifts people. So in this list of people, it doesn't include property, because property is not a person. But it does include taking action that would impact your personal or financial benefit, and then requires property to be disclosed annually. So I think it's covered that way in the model code. So I just wanted to make sure that we are aware. We would basically be taking that as clearly out, but it would still be in there, in that way. In that way. I like that they could be more work for you, because it gets submitted to you, right? It's more work for you. It's like the national debt. What do you guys think? I'm not sure I understood what you're saying. Sorry. Leaving in the model code's-- Basically, I just wanted to make clear the difference between the model code and the current code. The current code clearly calls out that owning property. If you own property that's impacted by appending matter, then you have to refuse. Whereas that's not as explicit in the model code, but it's implied, basically. And the model code makes you list all of your property once a year. Right. Within the city. So it's just kind of too-- it's not, yeah, if you own something in California, you don't have to dispose of it. It's just kind of two different ways of making that, of stating that. Does our current code say you have to recuse or just disclose? I believe it says you have to recuse if appending matter would impact a property that you own. So if council was hearing my case, my zoning case or something, and I was on council, I would have to not vote on that, is what it says. OK. It's just explicit in the current debt and code, whereas you would still have to recuse under the model code. It's just not as explicit. Yeah. Or I think you would still be expected to recuse. That could be a challenge to someone if they own property all over the city, right? Potentially. I don't know how many. I don't-- Reaction? I think if they-- are they required to reveal the properties once a year? Is that what you were saying? In the model code, the model code includes an annual disclosure process, which is not in our current code. That requires you to list all the properties you own within the city limits and a mile outside or something, including the properties your spouse owns, I believe, annually, yes. And then that disclosure, all those disclosures get given to the Board of Advocates essentially. Get given to the what? The Board of Advocates. Yeah. The Advocates Commission. What do you think, Tom? That's a lot of work for us. That's a lot of work for us. But I think that's helpful because-- It's easier to say you must recuse yourself if you own property that's going to be impacted by your vote, as opposed to-- This is where in the city of San Marcos, they're like, don't even think about being a city official. If you-- and this was-- that was where I called a friend and said, what? Why was this so specific? And he said, because we've had problems. And I said, OK, got it. But I think that's helpful. But if there's a disclosure process once a year, that also makes it much more reasonable why it doesn't have to be so explicit. And you have to recuse yourself because at that point, the assumption becomes, well, they know that I own this. And then the appearance is-- right? Yeah. So does that mean that we will now-- we will also recommend that there's going to be a disclosure process for these-- That's also part of today's discussion. OK. Yeah. We're comfortable with there not being an explicit statement about it because we are going to recommend there being this other disclosure piece. That's mostly what I was trying to get to. OK. So up, down. And up is how the needs of-- Less specific. --and have the disclosure thing. Yeah, I'm with that. So you agree with that? Yes, yes. I'll comment. For me, they have to be in combination. For me, they have to be in combination. I will only go less specific if there's a disclosure. If there's no disclosure, then it needs to be specific. Oh, so there's no disclosure required in the model code? It is-- There it is, yeah. The disclosure-- the recusalism as specific. In the model code, it doesn't clearly list that owning property is a conflict of interest the way it does in our code. But that's because it's very much implied by the rest of the code. I support that. I mean, I support the idea of defining it as a conflict of interest and requiring recusal and trying to make sense of the requirement for disclosure annually. I don't know if that-- I think there's some discussion about how much extra work that is, not just for Madison or possibly this board, but for the council members and everyone else that's affected by the ethics code. I wonder if we could just require that when someone gets elected and then they have to update if they buy or sell any of those. That's work, too. If I turn in, here's my list today, it very likely could change tomorrow. The only reason I'm hesitating is because we are-- I think what we're doing is trying to put a list together to go back and say, hey, we got you on this one you told us before, that you have ownership stake in whatever property and then you board it on this zoning change or whatever it is. And it's having trouble separating. We're not requiring them to disclose personal relationships or client relationships, which could potentially result in a conflict of interest. Because that, I think, is unreasonable to ask for. And I'm just trying to convince myself it's unreasonable to ask someone to disclose all of their real property to the city or this board or whoever else. Does it make sense to require that? I wonder if this was written before-- you can look stuff up and write strikers. It's not hard to find out unless people are using root names. I'm fine with requiring disclosure. I'm just trying to think of how do we do this in a way that we get the things in the code that we think genuinely need to be there for this to be effective and to cover things that are not covered now without council saying, oh, no, we're going to ignore this. Disclosure as an actual item comes up, or just the entire disclosure process? Like an annual disclosure process, to me, is a lot of effort for someone. And I'm thinking about what you described about San Marcos and what I saw in the council meeting where they discussed our previous revisions. And it was like, oh, they saw something in those revisions that we proposed. And then automatically, it was like, well, I don't-- this is bad. This is bad. I don't even want to discuss this. I think we could cover it more economically or more easily by just making sure that recusal is expected. Yeah, I'm 100% in support of that. And not requiring an annual disclosure does not make it so that they can now vote on something where they have a conflict of interest. They are required to disclose that if a pending matter comes up. That would be the language I would support. It would be simpler and more [INAUDIBLE] Otherwise, you leave it up to partnerships and all kinds of stuff on the others. That could get horribly-- All I'm trying to avoid, I think, is-- well, there's two things. One is the current members of council getting our proposed revisions and seeing that and saying, well, I don't want to deal with that. I'm going to vote against this. And also, either the current council members or potential council members in the future who own a lot of property or are realtor or whatever else, and they see that. And they're like, well, I want to serve my city, but I don't have a bunch of stuff here. And I don't want to deal with that, even though I would-- I'm not in the real estate business, but I can imagine there are people that may want to serve on council and want to do that in a way without having a conflict of interest that they're going to-- I suspect this was written-- the MAWA cut was written before you could easily search things and tax records online. It was written in 2006. Yeah. Oh, OK. Sorry to derail. I can be convinced otherwise. But that's all I'm thinking about, is how do we make this as simple as possible without getting it all struck down. That does seem more complicated for everybody. If I'm missing something on the requirements-- So can we go with the recusal thing and just-- I think that if we go with what the MAWA code says, you're saying it requires you to refuse and disclose why you refused anyway. It just wouldn't require the annual disclosure. I'm 100% aware of it. I mean, that's kind of the next part of the discussion, really. Kind of just discuss this. So the model code has the two types of disclosure. Basically, there's the transactional, is what they call it, which is kind of like what we have now when you file an affidavit of this extension. When you basically say, I can't vote on this item, this pending matter because of x, y, z, you file that. And then it gets given to me, hopefully. And then Tammy wonderfully logs it and puts it in a place somewhere that I don't look at because I'm not actually allowed to. So that's how the current code works. Under the MAWA code, it's similar. But it's provided to the FX body as well, as well as the relevant body that they're in. So if they're on the council and they disclose or withdraw from something, it gets told to the register. And then they have the annual disclosure. Kind of sounds like the direction is at. The consensus is that we don't want to have an annual disclosure process. Is that what we're hearing? Yep. Yep. I think that's what we're hearing. That's what I'm hearing. So then we move on to-- So then the last piece is when you have to withdraw, which is the pending matter discussion. So model code requires city officials to refrain from acting on or discussing formally or informally a matter before the city if a conflict of interest exists. A matter, in this instance, is not defined further and is much broader than the city's pending matter definition. Another simple difference between these two definitions is that the model codes may occur at any time, whereas the city may only occur at public meetings. So what do you think, model code versus city? I like the broader definition. So Patricia for the model code, Dave for the model code. Yes, broader, yes. Dustin for model code, Tom, yes. OK. I thought that was going to be a tough one. No. Six in favor of model code. So is that it? So I think that I have the direction I need to draft something for us to review in February. OK. I really do appreciate that you guys have taken so much time to review everything, because it makes our discussions a lot easier. So thank you. So we move on to BOE 24-004, which is item B, management reports. Is there anything to discuss here? No, I just included the activity report. It's online now as well, or it should be soon. And plan to do those in the future. But I don't know if you have to paint them. I don't have to, but sorry if it's helpful. OK. So we now move on to item E, BOE 24-004. I have one question under D. Where do we stand, Madison, on the burden? I've been looking through this memorandum of where we're supposedly covered. Where do we stand on this burden of proof? Yes, so we've given direction to move forward with that. So when we take the packet to council in March or April, it'll go to council at that point. So that-- OK, so that's a done deal. It's done as far as-- From our side. Right, yes. So there would be two items. This whole conflict of interest and the-- yeah, and I feel like if-- I mean, these are two items that are going to-- could be big. But I wouldn't want to add anything more than once we clarify this, we're ready to move to council. Yeah, one, I'll bring back language next time, and then we can decide at that point, are we comfortable with the language, or do we want to review it again in March before we send it to council? OK. So we move on to item E, BOE 24-005, Receiver Report, Hold a Discussion, and Give Staff Direction Regarding Future Meeting Topics. I think on the schedule right now is, like we just discussed, the red lines for the things that we want to bring to council soon. We could add items to the agenda for next time or not. But that's what this item is for. What's your pleasure? I think we need to get a good look at what we've done today in writing a form we had-- So I would say not-- --anything else. --not add. Yes, I would agree. I would agree. Agreed. Boy, we're in unison. All right. Makes it easier for me. I want to thank you guys, because I can tell you are definitely looking at these things and thinking about them. So thank you very much. It was a lot more efficient. Thanks for putting all this together. Yeah, medicine is the best. Thank you, Tammy. I was very sorry. Medicine is a brilliant analytical line. So next meeting is February 5th at 530. Tell Tammy you can't come. Actually, I guess tell me, actually. Don't mess with me. You're irreplaceable, right? No, not irreplaceable. She has been irreplaceable. Yeah, I don't know if we'll have somebody-- I think-- when are you meeting, Tammy? Next week. Oh, wow. OK, don't tell Tammy. Don't leave us. You'll be at the next meeting. Just for fun. You'll bring your popcorn? I'll bring cupcakes. I'll bring water bowls, whatever you-- I'll bring pumpkin butter. There you go. OK. Well, I'll email you and introduce the new person when we get them. OK. And they will likely hopefully be here at that point, so that I don't have to be the next. So it is now 638, and this meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much. Thanks, Grace. My pleasure. Bye. Bye.