1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:02,060
 And it's 5.30.

2
00:00:02,060 --> 00:00:11,580
 >> Okay. So it is 5.30 p.m. on Monday, January 8th, 2024,

3
00:00:11,580 --> 00:00:14,480
 and this is the Board of Ethics meeting.

4
00:00:14,480 --> 00:00:18,640
 So we're going to start, we do not have any presentations

5
00:00:18,640 --> 00:00:21,280
 from members of the public this evening, so we will move

6
00:00:21,280 --> 00:00:24,560
 on to our items for consideration.

7
00:00:24,560 --> 00:00:30,440
 We do have everyone, everyone is present,

8
00:00:30,440 --> 00:00:32,900
 everyone that's on the board.

9
00:00:32,900 --> 00:00:36,800
 So we have a full board and a full agenda for tonight.

10
00:00:36,800 --> 00:00:43,280
 So item A is BOE 24-001, consider approval of minutes

11
00:00:43,280 --> 00:00:45,580
 from December 4th, 2023.

12
00:00:45,580 --> 00:00:49,680
 Do I hear a motion to that effect?

13
00:00:49,680 --> 00:00:51,480
 >> I move that we approve of it.

14
00:00:51,480 --> 00:00:52,120
 >> Okay.

15
00:00:52,120 --> 00:00:53,220
 >> I'm sorry.

16
00:00:53,220 --> 00:00:59,600
 Pavlik has moved, and Zoltner has seconded it.

17
00:00:59,600 --> 00:01:01,160
 So item --

18
00:01:01,160 --> 00:01:01,900
 >> Here we go.

19
00:01:01,900 --> 00:01:03,760
 >> All in favor.

20
00:01:03,760 --> 00:01:04,540
 >> Aye.

21
00:01:04,540 --> 00:01:06,000
 >> Aye.

22
00:01:06,000 --> 00:01:07,800
 >> So that's unanimous.

23
00:01:07,800 --> 00:01:10,240
 Six in favor.

24
00:01:10,240 --> 00:01:16,940
 So item B, BOE 24-002, hold a discussion and consider adoption

25
00:01:16,940 --> 00:01:20,180
 of the 2024 meeting schedule.

26
00:01:20,180 --> 00:01:24,580
 >> Madam Chair, can I ask a question?

27
00:01:24,580 --> 00:01:25,820
 >> Yes.

28
00:01:25,820 --> 00:01:29,920
 >> Are we required to meet every month?

29
00:01:29,920 --> 00:01:32,720
 >> I was going to ask about that because I noticed

30
00:01:32,720 --> 00:01:34,260
 that there was a couple of meetings.

31
00:01:34,260 --> 00:01:36,600
 I know it was holidays.

32
00:01:36,600 --> 00:01:37,800
 >> We're not required to meet every month.

33
00:01:37,800 --> 00:01:40,640
 I think we're required to meet maybe once a year or something.

34
00:01:40,640 --> 00:01:41,840
 >> That's what I'm --

35
00:01:41,840 --> 00:01:44,000
 >> Okay.

36
00:01:44,000 --> 00:01:47,780
 >> Yeah, this is similar to the schedule we adopted last year.

37
00:01:47,780 --> 00:01:50,520
 We -- so we're excluding July and September

38
00:01:50,520 --> 00:01:52,940
 because there are city holidays on those Mondays.

39
00:01:52,940 --> 00:01:56,320
 But it's typically the first Monday of the year.

40
00:01:56,320 --> 00:02:01,260
 And then in May, my entire office will be out for training.

41
00:02:01,260 --> 00:02:05,100
 So that's why it's the week after.

42
00:02:05,100 --> 00:02:07,020
 >> I don't know the question.

43
00:02:07,020 --> 00:02:09,460
 >> So if you would like to not meet every --

44
00:02:09,460 --> 00:02:13,840
 >> Well, I guess I'm concerned it depends on how things go

45
00:02:13,840 --> 00:02:15,060
 in the next couple of months.

46
00:02:15,060 --> 00:02:20,400
 But I would like to consider having meetings on those months

47
00:02:20,400 --> 00:02:22,580
 that we were like the 4th of July

48
00:02:22,580 --> 00:02:26,140
 and I guess Labor Day dumped us.

49
00:02:26,140 --> 00:02:30,180
 But I -- what do you guys think?

50
00:02:30,180 --> 00:02:31,280
 >> I would agree with that.

51
00:02:31,280 --> 00:02:34,280
 And it also kind of depends on Madison's schedule.

52
00:02:34,280 --> 00:02:37,120
 She has some items to go before the council,

53
00:02:37,120 --> 00:02:38,600
 but we're not aware of.

54
00:02:38,600 --> 00:02:41,220
 There might be some clarification that we need

55
00:02:41,220 --> 00:02:44,260
 to take care of here before it goes back to you.

56
00:02:44,260 --> 00:02:48,240
 So that's all kind of up in the air in terms of --

57
00:02:48,240 --> 00:02:49,540
 >> I mean, we can certainly --

58
00:02:49,540 --> 00:02:52,340
 >> We are working on some modifications now.

59
00:02:52,340 --> 00:02:55,740
 So it's kind of a process here.

60
00:02:55,740 --> 00:03:01,540
 >> Yeah. So I think currently the plan is either in March

61
00:03:01,540 --> 00:03:05,380
 or April to basically forward whatever --

62
00:03:05,380 --> 00:03:08,220
 what you all are currently working on to the city council.

63
00:03:08,220 --> 00:03:11,460
 So then they will either discuss that in March or April

64
00:03:11,460 --> 00:03:15,100
 or May, just depends a little bit on where we're at.

65
00:03:15,100 --> 00:03:20,460
 And then once they give direction, then we bring back

66
00:03:20,460 --> 00:03:22,440
 in ordinance that will be approved probably

67
00:03:22,440 --> 00:03:24,040
 in the summer at some point.

68
00:03:24,040 --> 00:03:27,980
 So that's just how long it takes to get stuff before them basically.

69
00:03:27,980 --> 00:03:31,340
 >> But not before March, is that what you're --

70
00:03:31,340 --> 00:03:32,340
 >> I don't know.

71
00:03:32,340 --> 00:03:34,480
 I mean, it would be really difficult

72
00:03:34,480 --> 00:03:36,680
 to get something before them.

73
00:03:36,680 --> 00:03:39,980
 >> Kind of depends on how tonight and next month go.

74
00:03:39,980 --> 00:03:44,060
 >> I would like to say -- I would love to recommend

75
00:03:44,060 --> 00:03:48,100
 that we hold the possibility of adding meetings

76
00:03:48,100 --> 00:03:51,100
 in those two months where we're not scheduled for meetings

77
00:03:51,100 --> 00:03:53,860
 if we feel the need when we get closer to it.

78
00:03:53,860 --> 00:03:57,400
 >> We can always call a special meeting if you would like to.

79
00:03:57,400 --> 00:03:58,500
 >> Okay.

80
00:03:58,500 --> 00:04:00,280
 >> Yeah.

81
00:04:00,280 --> 00:04:03,080
 >> How does that sound?

82
00:04:03,080 --> 00:04:04,440
 Okay.

83
00:04:04,440 --> 00:04:06,040
 >> I think that would be more prudent

84
00:04:06,040 --> 00:04:07,640
 than just adding a meeting at this point.

85
00:04:07,640 --> 00:04:09,280
 >> Yeah. Yeah.

86
00:04:09,280 --> 00:04:12,560
 >> I'm thinking if we are all in agreement and we figure

87
00:04:12,560 --> 00:04:14,760
 out something and it gets to council,

88
00:04:14,760 --> 00:04:18,120
 then I don't feel the need to rush through things.

89
00:04:18,120 --> 00:04:19,400
 But there's a couple of things

90
00:04:19,400 --> 00:04:22,220
 that in my head are pretty important.

91
00:04:22,220 --> 00:04:23,960
 >> And could we also --

92
00:04:23,960 --> 00:04:26,640
 you've opened the possibility of canceling a meeting

93
00:04:26,640 --> 00:04:29,500
 if we don't feel like we have a lot to discuss.

94
00:04:29,500 --> 00:04:32,800
 Like let's say in May or June we don't have a lot to discuss.

95
00:04:32,800 --> 00:04:33,700
 We could --

96
00:04:33,700 --> 00:04:34,900
 >> Sure.

97
00:04:34,900 --> 00:04:36,140
 >> Talk about it and cancel the meeting.

98
00:04:36,140 --> 00:04:38,320
 >> And July would be a great month to be off.

99
00:04:38,320 --> 00:04:39,480
 >> Yeah.

100
00:04:39,480 --> 00:04:40,620
 >> So --

101
00:04:40,620 --> 00:04:44,720
 >> So is that a motion for a special meeting next

102
00:04:44,720 --> 00:04:46,080
 or February?

103
00:04:46,080 --> 00:04:47,680
 >> Me?

104
00:04:47,680 --> 00:04:49,220
 >> Well, what do you --

105
00:04:49,220 --> 00:04:50,560
 >> Oh, no, we're just --

106
00:04:50,560 --> 00:04:54,320
 I think what we're talking about is we could call a special

107
00:04:54,320 --> 00:05:00,040
 meeting during all those months as we get closer to that time.

108
00:05:00,040 --> 00:05:02,500
 >> Typically during the future agenda item section

109
00:05:02,500 --> 00:05:05,200
 if you decided in June, hey, we want to meet in July,

110
00:05:05,200 --> 00:05:07,740
 we could discuss, we could call a special meeting.

111
00:05:07,740 --> 00:05:09,440
 We would just have to, after the meeting,

112
00:05:09,440 --> 00:05:11,280
 get everybody's availability basically.

113
00:05:11,280 --> 00:05:14,580
 >> I do want to take less items to cancel next time

114
00:05:14,580 --> 00:05:18,720
 because I think we just overwhelmed them with 10 items.

115
00:05:18,720 --> 00:05:22,560
 And I think if we have two that we think are important,

116
00:05:22,560 --> 00:05:23,860
 that's a great starting place.

117
00:05:23,860 --> 00:05:25,660
 >> I think it'll take about the same amount of time.

118
00:05:25,660 --> 00:05:26,960
 >> Yeah.

119
00:05:26,960 --> 00:05:28,260
 >> Make sure it will.

120
00:05:28,260 --> 00:05:30,100
 >> Yeah.

121
00:05:30,100 --> 00:05:33,440
 >> Okay, so can someone make a motion

122
00:05:33,440 --> 00:05:37,980
 to approve the schedule as written in the --

123
00:05:37,980 --> 00:05:38,980
 >> So moved.

124
00:05:38,980 --> 00:05:39,980
 >> Okay.

125
00:05:39,980 --> 00:05:41,480
 >> I'll second.

126
00:05:41,480 --> 00:05:45,740
 >> Moved by Zeltner and seconded by Newhart.

127
00:05:45,740 --> 00:05:48,020
 So we are now going to --

128
00:05:48,020 --> 00:05:49,380
 >> Seconded by Newhart.

129
00:05:49,380 --> 00:05:51,620
 >> Oh, sorry, keep forgetting about that.

130
00:05:51,620 --> 00:05:52,760
 All in favor?

131
00:05:52,760 --> 00:05:54,080
 >> Aye.

132
00:05:54,080 --> 00:05:56,720
 >> Aye.

133
00:05:56,720 --> 00:06:02,000
 >> Six ayes, no nays.

134
00:06:02,000 --> 00:06:06,300
 Okay, the thing I've been wanting to get to all day,

135
00:06:06,300 --> 00:06:11,680
 BOE 24-003 Receiver Report, Hold the Discussion

136
00:06:11,680 --> 00:06:13,780
 and Take Necessary Action Regarding Code

137
00:06:13,780 --> 00:06:20,440
 of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Article 11, Epics, Section 2-269,

138
00:06:20,440 --> 00:06:26,320
 Definitions, and Section 2-273, Prohibitions.

139
00:06:26,320 --> 00:06:28,220
 >> Yeah, so this is essentially just a continuation

140
00:06:28,220 --> 00:06:31,260
 of our meeting last time where we talked about kind

141
00:06:31,260 --> 00:06:35,800
 of what kind of rules we would like to see.

142
00:06:35,800 --> 00:06:38,600
 This is kind of defining when they apply and then

143
00:06:38,600 --> 00:06:41,600
 when they do come in -- when they do apply,

144
00:06:41,600 --> 00:06:42,900
 how they should be reported.

145
00:06:42,900 --> 00:06:45,280
 So essentially what we're going to talk about today.

146
00:06:45,280 --> 00:06:49,280
 So I'm just going to jump in with talking

147
00:06:49,280 --> 00:06:51,440
 about the relevant relationships.

148
00:06:51,440 --> 00:06:56,180
 So this first slide was included as kind of a handout

149
00:06:56,180 --> 00:07:00,320
 in your agenda, but it compares the personal relationships

150
00:07:00,320 --> 00:07:04,000
 covered by the model code to what's currently in Denton's code.

151
00:07:04,000 --> 00:07:09,200
 And then I included the degree of consanguinity and affinity just

152
00:07:09,200 --> 00:07:12,800
 so that you were aware of which ones they were.

153
00:07:12,800 --> 00:07:17,080
 And so my understanding is the board would like to use kind

154
00:07:17,080 --> 00:07:18,900
 of that list form that's in the model code,

155
00:07:18,900 --> 00:07:21,140
 but it needs direction on what you want included

156
00:07:21,140 --> 00:07:22,080
 in that list essentially.

157
00:07:22,080 --> 00:07:24,920
 So we can start with this.

158
00:07:24,920 --> 00:07:27,580
 I don't know if you want to just go copy the model code,

159
00:07:27,580 --> 00:07:33,420
 do -- keep what Denton currently has or do a little bit of both.

160
00:07:33,420 --> 00:07:35,620
 >> As usual, I think you did a really good job

161
00:07:35,620 --> 00:07:36,920
 of breaking it down.

162
00:07:36,920 --> 00:07:41,000
 And I was looking at that -- the page two of the handout

163
00:07:41,000 --> 00:07:44,960
 where you talked about each of the issues.

164
00:07:44,960 --> 00:07:53,780
 So I identified six and there's one -- well, eight total

165
00:07:53,780 --> 00:07:55,380
 or nine I guess.

166
00:07:55,380 --> 00:07:59,540
 So I thought we'd kind of go down those --

167
00:07:59,540 --> 00:08:02,180
 down that narrative that you have and look at each one.

168
00:08:02,180 --> 00:08:12,620
 I think most of them page -- handout -- or 03 page two.

169
00:08:12,620 --> 00:08:14,000
 >> Is it a two?

170
00:08:14,000 --> 00:08:16,400
 >> And it's under the heading financial relationships.

171
00:08:16,400 --> 00:08:18,100
 >> Okay. Would you like to give direction

172
00:08:18,100 --> 00:08:20,640
 on the personal relationships first?

173
00:08:20,640 --> 00:08:22,700
 Or we can go to financial?

174
00:08:22,700 --> 00:08:23,500
 >> Oh, I'm sorry.

175
00:08:23,500 --> 00:08:25,480
 >> Yeah, let's do that.

176
00:08:25,480 --> 00:08:29,580
 >> I thought this might be the easiest one, but.

177
00:08:29,580 --> 00:08:34,820
 >> Yeah. So Denton's current ordinance is generally similar

178
00:08:34,820 --> 00:08:38,620
 to the model code except the model code does not include the

179
00:08:38,620 --> 00:08:41,220
 third degree relationships.

180
00:08:41,220 --> 00:08:43,100
 First cousins, great-grandparents,

181
00:08:43,100 --> 00:08:44,860
 great-grandchildren.

182
00:08:44,860 --> 00:08:48,240
 And first cousins, great-grandparents

183
00:08:48,240 --> 00:08:51,140
 and great-grandchildren of this file.

184
00:08:54,180 --> 00:09:00,880
 So what's your pleasure?

185
00:09:00,880 --> 00:09:06,680
 >> Well, the model code does include relationships --

186
00:09:06,680 --> 00:09:09,660
 committed relationships.

187
00:09:09,660 --> 00:09:12,720
 So I think that would be good to include.

188
00:09:12,720 --> 00:09:14,060
 >> I agree.

189
00:09:14,060 --> 00:09:19,360
 >> The domestic partner?

190
00:09:19,360 --> 00:09:20,500
 >> Yeah. Yeah.

191
00:09:20,500 --> 00:09:23,060
 >> I'd rather say committed relationships.

192
00:09:23,060 --> 00:09:24,240
 >> This code was written --

193
00:09:24,240 --> 00:09:26,540
 the model code was written some years ago.

194
00:09:26,540 --> 00:09:30,380
 So there's some language that, in my opinion, is outdated.

195
00:09:30,380 --> 00:09:34,820
 But I still really like the spirit of it.

196
00:09:34,820 --> 00:09:36,080
 So.

197
00:09:36,080 --> 00:09:37,520
 >> We can -- if you would like that included,

198
00:09:37,520 --> 00:09:40,180
 we can refine that definition next time.

199
00:09:40,180 --> 00:09:42,220
 >> Or use the term of our choice.

200
00:09:42,220 --> 00:09:46,860
 So what -- so Tom is in agreement of going more

201
00:09:46,860 --> 00:09:55,500
 with the model code, Andrea model code, without --

202
00:09:55,500 --> 00:09:59,740
 >> Yeah, I would agree with that.

203
00:09:59,740 --> 00:10:01,940
 Absolutely, yeah, I have several things that I'd

204
00:10:01,940 --> 00:10:04,240
 like to come to around here when we -- yeah.

205
00:10:04,240 --> 00:10:05,540
 >> Okay, so.

206
00:10:05,540 --> 00:10:06,340
 >> Okay, so for this --

207
00:10:06,340 --> 00:10:07,420
 >> We're good with this.

208
00:10:07,420 --> 00:10:08,720
 >> We're good with what the model code has,

209
00:10:08,720 --> 00:10:11,920
 even though it is -- doesn't include some things

210
00:10:11,920 --> 00:10:13,060
 that the current code does.

211
00:10:13,060 --> 00:10:13,620
 >> Yeah.

212
00:10:13,620 --> 00:10:14,960
 >> Great.

213
00:10:14,960 --> 00:10:20,860
 Okay, moving on to the page, the heading, financial relationships.

214
00:10:20,860 --> 00:10:28,300
 And so I just ticked off -- the first part is the model code includes --

215
00:10:28,300 --> 00:10:31,780
 includes the outside employer or business,

216
00:10:31,780 --> 00:10:36,380
 which generally includes entities the city official receives

217
00:10:36,380 --> 00:10:41,220
 compensation from or owns, which is similar to the city's,

218
00:10:41,220 --> 00:10:45,160
 but Denton's code includes financial thresholds

219
00:10:45,160 --> 00:10:49,620
 that are not present in the model code.

220
00:10:49,620 --> 00:10:55,200
 So what's your opinion of the --

221
00:10:55,200 --> 00:10:58,300
 going with the model code in that area?

222
00:10:58,300 --> 00:11:05,000
 In other words, I guess it would do away with the thresholds.

223
00:11:08,240 --> 00:11:13,920
 >> Yeah, I'll -- I think we went over this some last month.

224
00:11:13,920 --> 00:11:17,160
 I'm in support of trying to get away from thresholds

225
00:11:17,160 --> 00:11:19,520
 because the thresholds are different --

226
00:11:19,520 --> 00:11:21,320
 have different meaning to different people.

227
00:11:21,320 --> 00:11:24,320
 And I think we ran into a lot of challenges when we tried to go

228
00:11:24,320 --> 00:11:28,960
 from a fixed dollar figure to a percentage and that sort of thing.

229
00:11:28,960 --> 00:11:33,240
 And it makes it much more complicated to apply.

230
00:11:33,240 --> 00:11:35,200
 >> Okay, so Dustin's in the room.

231
00:11:35,200 --> 00:11:36,440
 What about the rest of you?

232
00:11:36,440 --> 00:11:40,040
 >> I agree with Dustin.

233
00:11:40,040 --> 00:11:46,720
 >> So if we didn't have any -- any money amount attached,

234
00:11:46,720 --> 00:11:53,080
 and so let's say a city council person had a relationship

235
00:11:53,080 --> 00:11:55,660
 with someone but there's no money amount,

236
00:11:55,660 --> 00:12:01,360
 how would they know if it was enough to recuse themselves?

237
00:12:01,360 --> 00:12:03,640
 >> It further down, it kind of accounts for it.

238
00:12:03,640 --> 00:12:06,240
 But what I hate about the thresholds is

239
00:12:06,240 --> 00:12:08,440
 that that number's going to have to change up.

240
00:12:08,440 --> 00:12:09,800
 >> Right. No, I agree with that.

241
00:12:09,800 --> 00:12:12,480
 I'm just wondering how they -- then you decide.

242
00:12:12,480 --> 00:12:13,840
 We'll decide that later.

243
00:12:13,840 --> 00:12:17,080
 >> It's more about the activity is the way I understood it

244
00:12:17,080 --> 00:12:19,440
 than the number.

245
00:12:19,440 --> 00:12:22,960
 >> And would they just say that I have a relationship

246
00:12:22,960 --> 00:12:26,360
 with this business but I can still vote on the issues

247
00:12:26,360 --> 00:12:27,760
 or I have a relationship with this business

248
00:12:27,760 --> 00:12:30,700
 and I have to recuse myself?

249
00:12:30,700 --> 00:12:33,700
 >> Probably you should have to recuse yourself.

250
00:12:33,700 --> 00:12:37,540
 I would think -- is that how the rest of you understood it?

251
00:12:37,540 --> 00:12:38,440
 >> Yeah.

252
00:12:38,440 --> 00:12:44,880
 >> That's how I would look at it, and a lot of it is

253
00:12:44,880 --> 00:12:50,720
 about just the appearance, right, and not the actual action.

254
00:12:50,720 --> 00:12:55,180
 >> The appearance of people, which is an ethical concept.

255
00:12:55,180 --> 00:12:58,820
 >> And it could also -- and that is where they could ask

256
00:12:58,820 --> 00:13:00,600
 for an advisory opinion.

257
00:13:00,600 --> 00:13:01,760
 >> Right.

258
00:13:01,760 --> 00:13:03,220
 >> And then we can look at it, right,

259
00:13:03,220 --> 00:13:09,040
 and I think if there is more -- in a way, I would hope

260
00:13:09,040 --> 00:13:12,100
 that if there's a little bit more vagueness rather than,

261
00:13:12,100 --> 00:13:16,600
 oh, I'm just 50 cents shy of the threshold, then it's okay.

262
00:13:16,600 --> 00:13:19,440
 But if there's vagueness, then there's going

263
00:13:19,440 --> 00:13:22,440
 to be hopefully the question for an advisory opinion

264
00:13:22,440 --> 00:13:27,380
 from the ethics board, and then it becomes a collective decision

265
00:13:27,380 --> 00:13:29,080
 rather than an individual decision.

266
00:13:29,080 --> 00:13:31,320
 >> So Tom, do you have your hand raised with that?

267
00:13:31,320 --> 00:13:37,000
 >> Well, I wrote months ago, just to try to clarify for myself,

268
00:13:37,000 --> 00:13:41,000
 I wrote the following, a conflict of interest is

269
00:13:41,000 --> 00:13:44,940
 when a person can benefit from actions or decisions

270
00:13:44,940 --> 00:13:47,100
 in their official capacity.

271
00:13:47,100 --> 00:13:49,240
 So it's no percentages, no dollars.

272
00:13:49,240 --> 00:13:52,200
 >> Right. In ways that other people don't benefit.

273
00:13:52,200 --> 00:13:55,920
 So it's not a conflict of interest if you benefit,

274
00:13:55,920 --> 00:13:57,920
 but everybody else benefits, too.

275
00:13:57,920 --> 00:13:58,920
 >> It's a city.

276
00:13:58,920 --> 00:14:05,260
 >> So I hear unanimity, so check that one out.

277
00:14:05,260 --> 00:14:10,160
 >> So just to clarify, we would like to remove basically what

278
00:14:10,160 --> 00:14:12,660
 the current code has and include what the model code has.

279
00:14:12,660 --> 00:14:16,360
 Are we okay with -- there's some exceptions in that definition,

280
00:14:16,360 --> 00:14:20,160
 which includes entities that they receive compensation

281
00:14:20,160 --> 00:14:21,400
 for goods or services,

282
00:14:21,400 --> 00:14:25,940
 except unless they're necessary expenses that are reimbursed.

283
00:14:25,940 --> 00:14:30,080
 So like travel expenses, we're fine with that exception.

284
00:14:30,080 --> 00:14:33,240
 These are just specific pieces, so I just wanted to double check.

285
00:14:33,240 --> 00:14:36,320
 And then for the ownership interest,

286
00:14:36,320 --> 00:14:38,420
 it had an exception for public corporations,

287
00:14:38,420 --> 00:14:41,160
 where the interest is less than $50,000 or 5%.

288
00:14:41,160 --> 00:14:43,520
 So there are thresholds there.

289
00:14:43,520 --> 00:14:46,520
 So I just wanted to double check on that as well.

290
00:14:46,520 --> 00:14:47,900
 >> Everybody okay with that?

291
00:14:47,900 --> 00:14:49,400
 >> Yes.

292
00:14:49,400 --> 00:14:51,500
 >> We move on.

293
00:14:51,500 --> 00:14:54,740
 So I guess the next one is substantial clients

294
00:14:54,740 --> 00:14:58,040
 or customers, which are defined as people or entities

295
00:14:58,040 --> 00:15:02,340
 that the city council official has supplied goods or services --

296
00:15:02,340 --> 00:15:04,880
 oh, that's -- you just asked about that.

297
00:15:04,880 --> 00:15:06,240
 >> No, that's not wrong.

298
00:15:06,240 --> 00:15:09,020
 >> Okay. Has supplied goods or services valued at more

299
00:15:09,020 --> 00:15:14,220
 than $1,000 in the last 24 months, including those

300
00:15:14,220 --> 00:15:17,320
 that did business with their outside employer

301
00:15:17,320 --> 00:15:19,820
 that they knew about.

302
00:15:19,820 --> 00:15:23,300
 And the city doesn't have that.

303
00:15:23,300 --> 00:15:26,340
 >> So what do you guys think about that?

304
00:15:26,340 --> 00:15:29,040
 That is a way of being a little more specific.

305
00:15:29,040 --> 00:15:32,780
 So what do you guys think?

306
00:15:32,780 --> 00:15:41,480
 >> That definition is from the lobby article?

307
00:15:41,480 --> 00:15:42,880
 >> Yes.

308
00:15:42,880 --> 00:15:50,620
 >> Yeah. Can I take just a moment here?

309
00:15:50,620 --> 00:15:51,320
 >> Sure.

310
00:15:51,320 --> 00:15:57,560
 >> Okay. This discussion goes back about --

311
00:15:57,560 --> 00:15:59,100
 it's been about five years now.

312
00:15:59,100 --> 00:16:05,000
 In January of 2018, the city council sat in this very room

313
00:16:05,000 --> 00:16:09,240
 and this whole conflict of interest situation was raised

314
00:16:09,240 --> 00:16:12,080
 by Alan Bork with us, you know, the ethics attorney that we brought

315
00:16:12,080 --> 00:16:16,720
 up here from Austin to discuss this.

316
00:16:16,720 --> 00:16:20,320
 He presented basically four options on this whole conflict

317
00:16:20,320 --> 00:16:22,180
 of interest solution.

318
00:16:22,180 --> 00:16:25,260
 The first one is the one that we've ended up with

319
00:16:25,260 --> 00:16:28,360
 in our current code now where we have all these financial

320
00:16:28,360 --> 00:16:32,900
 thresholds, pending matters, percentages, dollar amounts,

321
00:16:32,900 --> 00:16:37,540
 and all of this kind of stuff that we have now.

322
00:16:37,540 --> 00:16:40,000
 One of the other things that he presented

323
00:16:40,000 --> 00:16:45,880
 that day was another option that almost every other city in Texas

324
00:16:45,880 --> 00:16:48,940
 that he has worked with as an ethics consultant.

325
00:16:48,940 --> 00:16:51,960
 And it's -- none of it is based on percentages or dollar amounts

326
00:16:51,960 --> 00:16:53,380
 or pending matters.

327
00:16:53,380 --> 00:16:56,920
 It's as we are suggesting right now that it is

328
00:16:56,920 --> 00:16:59,160
 on more general rules.

329
00:16:59,160 --> 00:17:03,520
 And I just -- I was so interested in going back

330
00:17:03,520 --> 00:17:06,760
 over what he presented that day.

331
00:17:06,760 --> 00:17:12,640
 Now, I have a copy for everyone here just for information

332
00:17:12,640 --> 00:17:15,680
 and for thought process.

333
00:17:15,680 --> 00:17:18,100
 But he presented several options that day

334
00:17:18,100 --> 00:17:21,620
 to the city council sitting in this very room.

335
00:17:21,620 --> 00:17:24,520
 The first one was all these financial thresholds based

336
00:17:24,520 --> 00:17:26,580
 on this first option.

337
00:17:26,580 --> 00:17:31,720
 The city council never went beyond this first option.

338
00:17:31,720 --> 00:17:38,160
 Never. Now, this -- this example for --

339
00:17:38,160 --> 00:17:41,260
 and there's a copy here for everyone else.

340
00:17:41,260 --> 00:17:45,800
 This example for is the model code

341
00:17:45,800 --> 00:17:52,080
 that almost every other city in Texas has ended up with based on.

342
00:17:52,080 --> 00:17:55,280
 And there were only two people in the room that day

343
00:17:55,280 --> 00:17:57,080
 other than the city council, myself

344
00:17:57,080 --> 00:18:01,580
 and Venn Record Chronicle reporter.

345
00:18:01,580 --> 00:18:05,480
 And we were trying to get the council to turn the page

346
00:18:05,480 --> 00:18:09,360
 and look at option four, look at option three and option four.

347
00:18:09,360 --> 00:18:12,720
 Don't lock yourself into all these dollars and percentages.

348
00:18:12,720 --> 00:18:15,760
 You're making a fatal mistake.

349
00:18:15,760 --> 00:18:18,040
 And so all of the things that we're discussing here,

350
00:18:18,040 --> 00:18:21,640
 the financial relationships, the business relationships,

351
00:18:21,640 --> 00:18:26,840
 that's pretty much all covered below the opening paragraph there.

352
00:18:26,840 --> 00:18:29,780
 And so we can make this as complicated as you like

353
00:18:29,780 --> 00:18:35,180
 or as simple as you like, but we can repeal what we've got right

354
00:18:35,180 --> 00:18:39,980
 now as a horrible mistake that's going on five years old

355
00:18:39,980 --> 00:18:43,360
 and move towards something that option three.

356
00:18:43,360 --> 00:18:45,720
 And this is what was -- this is not day's world.

357
00:18:45,720 --> 00:18:48,600
 This is what was presented by Ellen Bork with us,

358
00:18:48,600 --> 00:18:50,700
 our ethics consultant, and it was never,

359
00:18:50,700 --> 00:18:54,400
 ever considered by the city council that day.

360
00:18:54,400 --> 00:18:56,280
 That was a mistake that we've been living

361
00:18:56,280 --> 00:18:58,780
 with for about five years now.

362
00:18:58,780 --> 00:19:02,780
 And so we have an opportunity to turn the clock back and get --

363
00:19:02,780 --> 00:19:05,880
 didn't in line with other cities with the general,

364
00:19:05,880 --> 00:19:11,260
 but generally comprehensive conflict of interest code,

365
00:19:11,260 --> 00:19:13,960
 which is not only -- one of the things --

366
00:19:13,960 --> 00:19:17,420
 one of the problems is the current code we have now

367
00:19:17,420 --> 00:19:18,520
 is time specific.

368
00:19:18,520 --> 00:19:20,600
 In other words, if you get right up to a vote,

369
00:19:20,600 --> 00:19:22,900
 if you can get through a vote, you're good.

370
00:19:22,900 --> 00:19:26,600
 This is a current and future matters.

371
00:19:26,600 --> 00:19:29,700
 This covers, you know, something that you might think

372
00:19:29,700 --> 00:19:31,940
 that you can get by the council.

373
00:19:31,940 --> 00:19:34,240
 But again, this is not Dave's language.

374
00:19:34,240 --> 00:19:36,640
 This is direct language from almost every other --

375
00:19:36,640 --> 00:19:40,920
 well, most other municipalities in the city of Texas.

376
00:19:40,920 --> 00:19:44,760
 It's amendable, obviously, but those provisions

377
00:19:44,760 --> 00:19:47,920
 at the bottom are pretty much standard from other cities.

378
00:19:47,920 --> 00:19:52,300
 And just from my own perspective, I would encourage us,

379
00:19:52,300 --> 00:19:55,660
 you know, we can do this and we can go line by line by line

380
00:19:55,660 --> 00:19:58,100
 by line for the next three months.

381
00:19:58,100 --> 00:20:00,740
 But I would just suggest we just kind of step back here

382
00:20:00,740 --> 00:20:04,740
 and say we have -- I think the model code is kind

383
00:20:04,740 --> 00:20:06,400
 of what we're talking about here.

384
00:20:06,400 --> 00:20:08,780
 But there's a model right there.

385
00:20:08,780 --> 00:20:11,580
 And it could be over just that quickly.

386
00:20:11,580 --> 00:20:12,980
 And nothing would be left out.

387
00:20:12,980 --> 00:20:15,340
 >> Then what we're discussing right now is the definition

388
00:20:15,340 --> 00:20:19,060
 of outside client, which is in your example number four.

389
00:20:19,060 --> 00:20:23,060
 This is what -- this is what the model code defines that.

390
00:20:23,060 --> 00:20:25,020
 So we're discussing that definition

391
00:20:25,020 --> 00:20:28,760
 so that we can actually put it in the code.

392
00:20:28,760 --> 00:20:32,260
 >> So what does that mean for this item about the $1,000

393
00:20:32,260 --> 00:20:37,380
 in the last 24 months when we just say a substantial client

394
00:20:37,380 --> 00:20:41,880
 or when we leave that out on which you're following?

395
00:20:41,880 --> 00:20:43,340
 >> On which one now?

396
00:20:43,340 --> 00:20:46,280
 >> What we're looking at here,

397
00:20:46,280 --> 00:20:52,060
 that the model code includes substantial clients or customers,

398
00:20:52,060 --> 00:20:55,820
 which are people that have supplied goods or services

399
00:20:55,820 --> 00:20:59,600
 at more than $1,000 in the past 24 months.

400
00:20:59,600 --> 00:21:00,760
 >> That would apply.

401
00:21:00,760 --> 00:21:02,640
 There would be no dollar amount.

402
00:21:02,640 --> 00:21:04,060
 Whether or not you are benefiting

403
00:21:04,060 --> 00:21:08,100
 or not from that relationship, it could be $50.

404
00:21:08,100 --> 00:21:13,040
 If no one else in the city of Benton puts $50 in their pocket,

405
00:21:13,040 --> 00:21:16,180
 but you do, that's a problem.

406
00:21:16,180 --> 00:21:18,540
 Or that's at least something that you need to discuss

407
00:21:18,540 --> 00:21:21,640
 with Madison or your internal auditor.

408
00:21:21,640 --> 00:21:25,060
 So there's -- again, there's no dollar amounts here.

409
00:21:25,060 --> 00:21:27,460
 And that's the thing that we've been trying to --

410
00:21:27,460 --> 00:21:29,120
 we've been kind of tap dancing around

411
00:21:29,120 --> 00:21:30,920
 since we started talking about this.

412
00:21:30,920 --> 00:21:33,300
 >> So what you just handed out, number seven,

413
00:21:33,300 --> 00:21:36,600
 would cover this and be a little bit more general.

414
00:21:36,600 --> 00:21:39,140
 >> Let's talk about number four.

415
00:21:39,140 --> 00:21:40,740
 >> Number three.

416
00:21:40,740 --> 00:21:43,040
 >> Number -- is there a --

417
00:21:43,040 --> 00:21:47,280
 >> Well, number four is the model that if you --

418
00:21:47,280 --> 00:21:50,280
 again, if you go through Dallas, El Paso,

419
00:21:50,280 --> 00:21:52,480
 you're going to find something very similar

420
00:21:52,480 --> 00:21:53,580
 to that exhibit four.

421
00:21:53,580 --> 00:21:56,180
 And that's where Alan Boric was.

422
00:21:56,180 --> 00:21:58,180
 That's where he -- you know, he has worked

423
00:21:58,180 --> 00:22:01,320
 with these other cities that we're talking about.

424
00:22:01,320 --> 00:22:03,160
 And so this was -- this would not be anything

425
00:22:03,160 --> 00:22:04,500
 that would be unique to Denton.

426
00:22:04,500 --> 00:22:09,060
 It's -- you know, it's obviously modifiable, amendable.

427
00:22:09,060 --> 00:22:11,460
 But that's -- that --

428
00:22:11,460 --> 00:22:13,300
 >> So how would you change the model code?

429
00:22:13,300 --> 00:22:15,240
 Would you just put this --

430
00:22:15,240 --> 00:22:17,880
 >> What's in example four is basically the model code.

431
00:22:17,880 --> 00:22:19,240
 >> Okay.

432
00:22:19,240 --> 00:22:22,080
 >> What's in example four is basically the model code.

433
00:22:22,080 --> 00:22:24,620
 I've split it out this way so that we can discuss each one

434
00:22:24,620 --> 00:22:27,780
 because we're talking about changing the entire node.

435
00:22:27,780 --> 00:22:31,620
 And it -- the model code includes these thousand dollar

436
00:22:31,620 --> 00:22:36,060
 thresholds to define what is in example four's outside client.

437
00:22:36,060 --> 00:22:38,220
 So I just need direction on if you want

438
00:22:38,220 --> 00:22:40,760
 to just not have the definition or if you do want

439
00:22:40,760 --> 00:22:44,200
 to have a definition, what it is.

440
00:22:44,200 --> 00:22:47,560
 >> So I guess -- I think the --

441
00:22:47,560 --> 00:22:50,940
 part of the question is in example four, bullet three,

442
00:22:50,940 --> 00:22:53,380
 it says these are her outside client.

443
00:22:53,380 --> 00:22:56,040
 And I think we're trying to make a decision on whether

444
00:22:56,040 --> 00:22:58,920
 or not we leave it at that language

445
00:22:58,920 --> 00:23:02,660
 or have a definition with the value and the --

446
00:23:02,660 --> 00:23:04,220
 >> Perfect.

447
00:23:04,220 --> 00:23:08,060
 But I'm just laying this out as a framework rather than trying

448
00:23:08,060 --> 00:23:09,860
 to reinvent the wheel right here.

449
00:23:09,860 --> 00:23:12,500
 Which is where we got, you know, five years ago.

450
00:23:12,500 --> 00:23:14,060
 This is where we got into trouble.

451
00:23:14,060 --> 00:23:18,900
 We had models available to us at the time that were amendable.

452
00:23:18,900 --> 00:23:22,640
 But I'm just saying that this is a framework that most other

453
00:23:22,640 --> 00:23:28,640
 cities in Texas have found work very adequately for them.

454
00:23:28,640 --> 00:23:31,380
 >> I wanted to clarify because I think Madison,

455
00:23:31,380 --> 00:23:34,780
 what you told us is that this substantial client definition

456
00:23:34,780 --> 00:23:36,060
 comes from the model code.

457
00:23:36,060 --> 00:23:37,420
 >> That's correct.

458
00:23:37,420 --> 00:23:38,820
 >> So we're not reinventing the wheel.

459
00:23:38,820 --> 00:23:40,500
 We are actually going with what we have kind of like used

460
00:23:40,500 --> 00:23:42,060
 as our guide, which is the model code.

461
00:23:42,060 --> 00:23:43,360
 So --

462
00:23:43,360 --> 00:23:44,760
 >> Right. Which --

463
00:23:44,760 --> 00:23:46,700
 >> It's almost exactly like example four.

464
00:23:46,700 --> 00:23:49,360
 But what you're saying, no money amount,

465
00:23:49,360 --> 00:23:52,060
 but that does have money amount, so.

466
00:23:52,060 --> 00:23:53,740
 >> I'm saying that, right,

467
00:23:53,740 --> 00:23:58,000
 that this model code does not include dollar amounts.

468
00:23:58,000 --> 00:24:00,580
 Now this is the framework.

469
00:24:00,580 --> 00:24:02,880
 But the only thing, the only reason I mention this is rather

470
00:24:02,880 --> 00:24:05,920
 than get into, you know, we've gone

471
00:24:05,920 --> 00:24:09,780
 down this wordsmithing road before and we have refused

472
00:24:09,780 --> 00:24:11,680
 for six years to take advantage

473
00:24:11,680 --> 00:24:15,060
 of other people's success with this.

474
00:24:15,060 --> 00:24:17,460
 And that's all I'm saying is that we have a model here

475
00:24:17,460 --> 00:24:19,360
 that works everywhere -- well,

476
00:24:19,360 --> 00:24:22,560
 works almost everywhere else in Texas.

477
00:24:22,560 --> 00:24:25,300
 And that's all I'm suggesting is that it would be a --

478
00:24:25,300 --> 00:24:31,240
 it would be a repeal and replace of this current corrupted,

479
00:24:31,240 --> 00:24:34,140
 confusing obtuse thing that we've got right now

480
00:24:34,140 --> 00:24:36,080
 that we call our conflict of interest.

481
00:24:36,080 --> 00:24:39,380
 Pending matters and all this other nonsense,

482
00:24:39,380 --> 00:24:42,980
 in my opinion, needs to go in favor of something like this.

483
00:24:42,980 --> 00:24:45,580
 >> The paragraph that we're looking at that begins the model

484
00:24:45,580 --> 00:24:48,260
 could also include substantial clients.

485
00:24:48,260 --> 00:24:53,300
 If we just took out value more than $1,000 in the past 24,

486
00:24:53,300 --> 00:24:57,000
 and just leave the -- and just take out those few words,

487
00:24:57,000 --> 00:24:58,660
 it would be fine?

488
00:24:58,660 --> 00:24:59,740
 Is that --

489
00:24:59,740 --> 00:25:01,400
 >> I'm going to make the suggestion

490
00:25:01,400 --> 00:25:06,300
 that a substantial client is somebody different

491
00:25:06,300 --> 00:25:08,480
 than just a client.

492
00:25:08,480 --> 00:25:10,240
 I think this is a special definition

493
00:25:10,240 --> 00:25:11,340
 of a substantial client.

494
00:25:11,340 --> 00:25:15,980
 That is my -- that is where I'm thinking the difference

495
00:25:15,980 --> 00:25:17,580
 of language could come in.

496
00:25:17,580 --> 00:25:22,420
 Because I'm not going to read it the same way with number --

497
00:25:22,420 --> 00:25:24,860
 like in example number four, number three, when it says his

498
00:25:24,860 --> 00:25:26,560
 or her outside client,

499
00:25:26,560 --> 00:25:29,600
 that to me does not match a substantial client definition.

500
00:25:29,600 --> 00:25:32,540
 I think that that is a special definition of a --

501
00:25:32,540 --> 00:25:36,540
 that goes above and beyond of an outside client.

502
00:25:36,540 --> 00:25:39,480
 >> That makes sense, yeah, appropriately.

503
00:25:39,480 --> 00:25:42,940
 >> I'm just thinking of the -- what is written here is fine

504
00:25:42,940 --> 00:25:46,240
 as long as we don't get into the weeds with numbers.

505
00:25:46,240 --> 00:25:48,220
 Is that -- I just want to make sure I'm hearing --

506
00:25:48,220 --> 00:25:50,920
 >> I mean, we have -- you're trying to write a code.

507
00:25:50,920 --> 00:25:51,820
 >> Yeah.

508
00:25:51,820 --> 00:25:54,920
 >> So if you don't want to define it, we don't have to.

509
00:25:54,920 --> 00:26:01,320
 >> Okay. So if we just take out value more than $1,000,

510
00:26:01,320 --> 00:26:04,600
 that might -- that might cover it.

511
00:26:04,600 --> 00:26:05,700
 What do you guys think?

512
00:26:05,700 --> 00:26:09,800
 >> It's just -- I'm just clarifying from that.

513
00:26:09,800 --> 00:26:13,940
 >> No, I appreciate that and that's --

514
00:26:13,940 --> 00:26:16,240
 >> Tom, what do you think about that?

515
00:26:16,240 --> 00:26:17,480
 >> Keep it simple.

516
00:26:17,480 --> 00:26:19,720
 >> Keep it simple, that's good.

517
00:26:19,720 --> 00:26:21,740
 >> Having all these --

518
00:26:21,740 --> 00:26:22,820
 >> Okay.

519
00:26:22,820 --> 00:26:25,460
 >> -- different varieties, I think just makes it work.

520
00:26:25,460 --> 00:26:27,620
 >> I really don't want to confuse this, but there have been a lot

521
00:26:27,620 --> 00:26:30,160
 of citizens in this town that have been waiting for five

522
00:26:30,160 --> 00:26:32,820
 or six years to clear this matter up.

523
00:26:32,820 --> 00:26:33,660
 >> Okay.

524
00:26:33,660 --> 00:26:37,800
 >> Okay. Well, I think if we leave it the way it is

525
00:26:37,800 --> 00:26:41,200
 and just take out the number, I think we'll be fine.

526
00:26:41,200 --> 00:26:44,200
 >> So you don't want to define substantial client?

527
00:26:44,200 --> 00:26:46,880
 >> I'm not ready to do that because I think what we need

528
00:26:46,880 --> 00:26:49,340
 to do is we need to really --

529
00:26:49,340 --> 00:26:51,820
 is the model code using substantial client

530
00:26:51,820 --> 00:26:54,940
 as a different -- with a different definition

531
00:26:54,940 --> 00:26:58,020
 from an outside client?

532
00:26:58,020 --> 00:27:02,580
 I would like that to be clarified to see if --

533
00:27:02,580 --> 00:27:04,820
 because if we're using this anonymously,

534
00:27:04,820 --> 00:27:07,360
 then there might be a conversation to be had,

535
00:27:07,360 --> 00:27:10,960
 but if they're two different things, then --

536
00:27:10,960 --> 00:27:15,260
 >> What if we just said clients and looked out substantial

537
00:27:15,260 --> 00:27:18,980
 that are people that the official has --

538
00:27:18,980 --> 00:27:21,580
 >> Well, isn't that what the first one is?

539
00:27:21,580 --> 00:27:30,720
 >> So maybe just strike that one altogether,

540
00:27:30,720 --> 00:27:32,960
 that one little paragraph?

541
00:27:32,960 --> 00:27:40,000
 >> If that makes it simpler, yes.

542
00:27:40,000 --> 00:27:41,300
 >> Yeah.

543
00:27:41,300 --> 00:27:50,440
 So this is where this comes from, in the model code.

544
00:27:50,440 --> 00:27:54,400
 A client or substantial client, and then you go down to client

545
00:27:54,400 --> 00:27:58,840
 and it defines it this way, which is what's written.

546
00:27:58,840 --> 00:28:02,480
 >> I think that -- thank you, you know, thank you.

547
00:28:02,480 --> 00:28:06,620
 I think I would -- I want to hear what you --

548
00:28:06,620 --> 00:28:10,920
 that's not for me to debate.

549
00:28:10,920 --> 00:28:15,160
 So take out that specificity or maybe some of it in.

550
00:28:15,160 --> 00:28:19,160
 What's your -- what's your thinking?

551
00:28:26,540 --> 00:28:33,580
 I think if you just define it as benefit, then that opens the door

552
00:28:33,580 --> 00:28:38,180
 for like David's people he's been talking about, that --

553
00:28:38,180 --> 00:28:40,860
 then they can say, "Well, I think this is a benefit,

554
00:28:40,860 --> 00:28:44,720
 so I'm going to bring it to the ethics board as a violation."

555
00:28:44,720 --> 00:28:46,320
 >> Or the auditor.

556
00:28:46,320 --> 00:28:47,100
 >> Or auditor, yeah.

557
00:28:47,100 --> 00:28:50,360
 >> Right. This is exactly where Madison would come into play,

558
00:28:50,360 --> 00:28:54,960
 where it is so difficult to define every circumstance here,

559
00:28:54,960 --> 00:28:58,700
 and that's what's been so frustrating and why --

560
00:28:58,700 --> 00:29:01,240
 well, frankly, like I said, I know of some complaints

561
00:29:01,240 --> 00:29:03,280
 that never move forward because they didn't want

562
00:29:03,280 --> 00:29:08,420
 to go down this pending matter $500, $600 grab and hold.

563
00:29:08,420 --> 00:29:13,360
 So this -- this is a -- this is a -- this is proven stuff.

564
00:29:13,360 --> 00:29:15,020
 This works in Texas.

565
00:29:15,020 --> 00:29:16,360
 That's all I'm saying.

566
00:29:16,360 --> 00:29:21,860
 There may be some modifications or wording is better, but --

567
00:29:21,860 --> 00:29:25,740
 >> In the end, it has to be a judgment call, you know,

568
00:29:25,740 --> 00:29:29,100
 and that's why there's a board and not just one person

569
00:29:29,100 --> 00:29:32,980
 that says, "Oh, you're fine," or "No."

570
00:29:32,980 --> 00:29:35,400
 >> And it puts the answer in the auditor in a more --

571
00:29:35,400 --> 00:29:39,980
 in more of a central role, too, more important role

572
00:29:39,980 --> 00:29:43,320
 for ethics determinations than this is written --

573
00:29:43,320 --> 00:29:45,680
 well, this is $600, and whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, what?

574
00:29:45,680 --> 00:29:49,360
 That's not the way -- that's not the way it should work.

575
00:29:49,360 --> 00:29:53,500
 I don't make any judgment calls in the ethics process.

576
00:29:53,500 --> 00:29:56,960
 >> Yeah. You just administer and --

577
00:29:56,960 --> 00:29:57,860
 >> Right.

578
00:29:57,860 --> 00:30:01,100
 >> I don't want to be in a more central role.

579
00:30:01,100 --> 00:30:04,140
 >> Okay. And thank you for that because the way I'm looking

580
00:30:04,140 --> 00:30:07,680
 at it now is we just need to leave the adjectives out.

581
00:30:07,680 --> 00:30:08,640
 >> Just use client.

582
00:30:08,640 --> 00:30:14,220
 >> And just use client, or customer, or whatever.

583
00:30:14,220 --> 00:30:17,480
 >> The model code has the definition of client, though.

584
00:30:17,480 --> 00:30:20,860
 So are you saying leave the dollar not

585
00:30:20,860 --> 00:30:23,220
 out of the definition of client?

586
00:30:23,220 --> 00:30:24,400
 >> Use the substantial.

587
00:30:24,400 --> 00:30:29,060
 Use the -- leave the substantial out and leave the dollars out.

588
00:30:29,060 --> 00:30:32,000
 >> Right. But I think the definition of the model code is --

589
00:30:32,000 --> 00:30:32,840
 >> It is for client.

590
00:30:32,840 --> 00:30:35,140
 >> It's for client, not substantial client.

591
00:30:35,140 --> 00:30:36,440
 >> Yep.

592
00:30:36,440 --> 00:30:39,080
 >> That would make it a lot more clear.

593
00:30:39,080 --> 00:30:42,020
 >> I don't think I understand what we're saying here.

594
00:30:42,020 --> 00:30:48,660
 The model code defines client as a person or entity

595
00:30:48,660 --> 00:30:53,020
 to which a person or entity has supplied goods

596
00:30:53,020 --> 00:30:55,720
 or services during the previous 24 months,

597
00:30:55,720 --> 00:30:59,900
 having in the aggregate a value greater than $1,000.

598
00:30:59,900 --> 00:31:02,800
 And then there's a part B to that.

599
00:31:02,800 --> 00:31:06,440
 If the official or employee's outside business has supplied

600
00:31:06,440 --> 00:31:09,640
 goods or services during these 24 months,

601
00:31:09,640 --> 00:31:13,040
 having in aggregate the value greater than $1,000.

602
00:31:13,040 --> 00:31:18,080
 So in both of those scenarios, we're talking about taking

603
00:31:18,080 --> 00:31:21,680
 out the word substantial, but the definition of the model code is

604
00:31:21,680 --> 00:31:23,480
 not for a substantial client.

605
00:31:23,480 --> 00:31:26,060
 It's just for a customer or client.

606
00:31:26,060 --> 00:31:28,860
 So I'm not sure I understand where we're going.

607
00:31:28,860 --> 00:31:31,800
 The model code defines it based on dollar amount,

608
00:31:31,800 --> 00:31:34,960
 which if we want to just take that out, I'm fine with that,

609
00:31:34,960 --> 00:31:40,180
 and then just say we define a client as that, basically,

610
00:31:40,180 --> 00:31:44,680
 that same definition without the aggregate dollar amount

611
00:31:44,680 --> 00:31:48,980
 and either use what's in the model code or the 24 months

612
00:31:48,980 --> 00:31:56,020
 or what's in this example of, I think it says 12 months, right?

613
00:31:56,020 --> 00:31:58,520
 So to me, that's what the discussion is about,

614
00:31:58,520 --> 00:32:03,120
 not so much, like I think this example is excellent,

615
00:32:03,120 --> 00:32:05,900
 but it's almost the same as what's in the model code,

616
00:32:05,900 --> 00:32:09,160
 which I think we're all going towards.

617
00:32:09,160 --> 00:32:11,360
 Like the question that keeps coming up is,

618
00:32:11,360 --> 00:32:13,140
 do we have a dollar amount here?

619
00:32:13,140 --> 00:32:15,940
 And I think in our code right now, there's a bunch of that.

620
00:32:15,940 --> 00:32:18,580
 It's very confusing that we've talked about,

621
00:32:18,580 --> 00:32:20,340
 and it's hard to follow.

622
00:32:20,340 --> 00:32:22,780
 In the model code, it's more straightforward,

623
00:32:22,780 --> 00:32:24,180
 but it's still there.

624
00:32:24,180 --> 00:32:28,660
 So I think unless I'm missing something, we're kind of all

625
00:32:28,660 --> 00:32:32,520
 on board adjusting this so that we have a more basic

626
00:32:32,520 --> 00:32:34,960
 definition of the conflict of interest.

627
00:32:34,960 --> 00:32:38,320
 And it's more of a broader-- yeah.

628
00:32:38,320 --> 00:32:43,900
 And for the customer or client, it's just a matter

629
00:32:43,900 --> 00:32:49,380
 of do we include some dollar amount and some time

630
00:32:49,380 --> 00:32:53,680
 definition in there, which I could probably

631
00:32:53,680 --> 00:32:56,340
 be convinced either way.

632
00:32:56,340 --> 00:32:58,620
 I don't want to leave this yet, but I

633
00:32:58,620 --> 00:33:01,120
 will say what's in this example does not

634
00:33:01,120 --> 00:33:05,380
 include anything on campaign contributions.

635
00:33:05,380 --> 00:33:09,700
 And that is in the model code, so I don't want to jump to that.

636
00:33:09,700 --> 00:33:10,800
 There are other sections.

637
00:33:10,800 --> 00:33:15,140
 That is only the conflict of interest section, the poor quiz.

638
00:33:15,140 --> 00:33:18,000
 No, there are other gifts and campaign.

639
00:33:18,000 --> 00:33:21,240
 That's not the entire-- and the only reason I mention this

640
00:33:21,240 --> 00:33:26,880
 is I just wanted everyone to understand this was never, ever

641
00:33:26,880 --> 00:33:29,980
 discussed, and that is important.

642
00:33:29,980 --> 00:33:34,960
 It went straight to dollars and percentages and pending matters.

643
00:33:34,960 --> 00:33:38,560
 And the citizens have to go, time out, time out.

644
00:33:38,560 --> 00:33:40,960
 And there were a couple of people on the council,

645
00:33:40,960 --> 00:33:42,800
 a couple of women who tried to raise--

646
00:33:42,800 --> 00:33:43,960
 Who tried to stop it.

647
00:33:43,960 --> 00:33:46,500
 And they basically shut it down.

648
00:33:46,500 --> 00:33:49,300
 And there's some stuff in our current code like pending matter

649
00:33:49,300 --> 00:33:52,440
 means-- well, there are some definitions and things

650
00:33:52,440 --> 00:33:53,800
 that make no sense right now.

651
00:33:53,800 --> 00:33:58,320
 So I think we are agreeing maybe take out the word substantial

652
00:33:58,320 --> 00:34:02,680
 and take out the aggregate amount, the aggregate $1,000.

653
00:34:02,680 --> 00:34:04,820
 And then we're all good with this amount.

654
00:34:04,820 --> 00:34:06,120
 With the 24 months?

655
00:34:06,120 --> 00:34:08,960
 With 24 months left here?

656
00:34:08,960 --> 00:34:11,720
 I was wondering about that myself.

657
00:34:11,720 --> 00:34:13,720
 I think when you start putting numbers on it,

658
00:34:13,720 --> 00:34:17,160
 it makes it awfully specific.

659
00:34:17,160 --> 00:34:20,160
 What if it was 25 months?

660
00:34:20,160 --> 00:34:21,600
 What if it was five years ago?

661
00:34:21,600 --> 00:34:22,100
 Yeah.

662
00:34:27,500 --> 00:34:31,480
 I think, to me, if something came before this board,

663
00:34:31,480 --> 00:34:33,520
 I did a potential conflict of interest.

664
00:34:33,520 --> 00:34:37,420
 And it was five years ago when it was $50.

665
00:34:37,420 --> 00:34:39,780
 We're probably going to look at that differently

666
00:34:39,780 --> 00:34:45,160
 than if it was two weeks ago when it was $10,000.

667
00:34:45,160 --> 00:34:46,060
 Sure.

668
00:34:46,060 --> 00:34:50,300
 But if we-- so if we put a number in there,

669
00:34:50,300 --> 00:34:56,740
 either a dollar amount or a tiny constraint, then--

670
00:34:56,740 --> 00:34:58,500
 So what do you guys think?

671
00:34:58,500 --> 00:35:02,180
 So we're all in agreement except for this time constraint.

672
00:35:02,180 --> 00:35:04,640
 That's what we're going.

673
00:35:04,640 --> 00:35:06,620
 Tom?

674
00:35:06,620 --> 00:35:09,980
 Yeah, I think you should limit how far you go back.

675
00:35:09,980 --> 00:35:11,580
 I think 24 months is--

676
00:35:11,580 --> 00:35:12,080
 Reasonable.

677
00:35:12,080 --> 00:35:13,560
 --reasonable.

678
00:35:13,560 --> 00:35:15,020
 What do you guys think?

679
00:35:15,020 --> 00:35:15,520
 Yeah.

680
00:35:15,520 --> 00:35:19,020
 I mean, I think that's a reasonable amount of time.

681
00:35:19,020 --> 00:35:21,660
 So keep with the 24 months?

682
00:35:21,660 --> 00:35:23,660
 OK.

683
00:35:23,660 --> 00:35:26,300
 And the other point about this real quickly

684
00:35:26,300 --> 00:35:32,500
 is this model code, the word "likely" appears in here.

685
00:35:32,500 --> 00:35:33,900
 Now, that's a very simple word.

686
00:35:33,900 --> 00:35:36,980
 But it implies that something that

687
00:35:36,980 --> 00:35:38,640
 could happen in the future-- and that's

688
00:35:38,640 --> 00:35:40,280
 a problem with our current code.

689
00:35:40,280 --> 00:35:44,020
 Because our current code, it's so cut and dried

690
00:35:44,020 --> 00:35:46,380
 that if it hasn't happened by the day you vote on it,

691
00:35:46,380 --> 00:35:49,720
 you're in the clear as a council member.

692
00:35:49,720 --> 00:35:52,320
 And so this is a big difference where

693
00:35:52,320 --> 00:35:57,360
 if a council member might think, gosh, now, what shall I do here?

694
00:35:57,360 --> 00:35:59,060
 I think we're on agreement on this point.

695
00:35:59,060 --> 00:36:01,140
 I want to save our time for it getting to the point.

696
00:36:01,140 --> 00:36:01,640
 OK.

697
00:36:01,640 --> 00:36:02,140
 Well, that's--

698
00:36:02,140 --> 00:36:06,140
 Because I think it's going to be more interesting.

699
00:36:06,140 --> 00:36:08,100
 So the next point would be the model code

700
00:36:08,100 --> 00:36:10,580
 includes campaign contributions, including

701
00:36:10,580 --> 00:36:13,840
 people and their families, entities and their owners,

702
00:36:13,840 --> 00:36:17,540
 directors, officers, and political committees

703
00:36:17,540 --> 00:36:20,780
 that contributed more than $200 during the last election

704
00:36:20,780 --> 00:36:22,860
 cycle.

705
00:36:22,860 --> 00:36:23,860
 OK.

706
00:36:23,860 --> 00:36:24,360
 Discussion.

707
00:36:24,360 --> 00:36:35,220
 I'll just add for context, something similar

708
00:36:35,220 --> 00:36:38,500
 was brought before council last time.

709
00:36:38,500 --> 00:36:43,620
 And I believe they were confused about the election cycle, how

710
00:36:43,620 --> 00:36:44,780
 that was defined.

711
00:36:44,780 --> 00:36:47,740
 And so that is part of why they did not vote for it.

712
00:36:47,740 --> 00:36:53,380
 It was also, there were only six members on the council at that time.

713
00:36:53,380 --> 00:36:58,300
 So what are your thoughts about it, please?

714
00:36:58,300 --> 00:37:00,140
 I think this needs to be in there.

715
00:37:00,140 --> 00:37:02,860
 I don't know how we clean up the language on the past election

716
00:37:02,860 --> 00:37:04,020
 cycle.

717
00:37:04,020 --> 00:37:10,260
 I know that I watched that council meeting and I was--

718
00:37:10,260 --> 00:37:12,780
 I'm sure they were upset about it.

719
00:37:12,780 --> 00:37:14,460
 No, I mean, I guess I don't think

720
00:37:14,460 --> 00:37:17,220
 we had discussed that at all in any of our meetings

721
00:37:17,220 --> 00:37:19,420
 about any confusion about that.

722
00:37:19,420 --> 00:37:22,260
 And part of that's probably because as far as I know,

723
00:37:22,260 --> 00:37:24,220
 none of us are elected officials and we probably

724
00:37:24,220 --> 00:37:26,940
 don't think about that sort of thing.

725
00:37:26,940 --> 00:37:31,540
 So I don't know how I clean up the language for that,

726
00:37:31,540 --> 00:37:32,980
 but it would be--

727
00:37:32,980 --> 00:37:39,180
 maybe we need to--

728
00:37:39,180 --> 00:37:42,900
 What if we said within the last 24 months,

729
00:37:42,900 --> 00:37:49,380
 go back to, I mean, that would cover, you know,

730
00:37:49,380 --> 00:37:50,700
 seems like a reasonable amount.

731
00:37:50,700 --> 00:37:54,540
 But I think the dollar numbers, I want to discuss that too.

732
00:37:54,540 --> 00:38:02,100
 It would be cynical to use 24 months.

733
00:38:02,100 --> 00:38:04,460
 So it's our list.

734
00:38:04,460 --> 00:38:08,220
 We have a definition for most recent and past election cycle

735
00:38:08,220 --> 00:38:12,820
 that we didn't draft is confusing, you know.

736
00:38:12,820 --> 00:38:19,380
 I would support sticking with 24 months for that as well,

737
00:38:19,380 --> 00:38:21,860
 just so there's some consistency.

738
00:38:21,860 --> 00:38:25,620
 Like I realize that a client and a campaign contributor

739
00:38:25,620 --> 00:38:29,380
 are very different things, but if we

740
00:38:29,380 --> 00:38:34,380
 start to do different timespans there,

741
00:38:34,380 --> 00:38:36,740
 it's going to just make it more confusing.

742
00:38:36,740 --> 00:38:39,460
 I think that's clear and it kind of squares with the other time

743
00:38:39,460 --> 00:38:40,460
 when we set up.

744
00:38:40,460 --> 00:38:41,460
 What do you guys--

745
00:38:41,460 --> 00:38:49,980
 I really do think that going with the 24 months

746
00:38:49,980 --> 00:38:53,420
 would be a lot more clean.

747
00:38:53,420 --> 00:38:56,300
 What is the term of a council?

748
00:38:56,300 --> 00:38:57,300
 Two years.

749
00:38:57,300 --> 00:38:58,300
 That's what it is.

750
00:38:58,300 --> 00:39:04,500
 Not that this code is applying only to them.

751
00:39:07,060 --> 00:39:07,580
 OK.

752
00:39:07,580 --> 00:39:09,980
 So we have agreement on that.

753
00:39:09,980 --> 00:39:11,420
 What about the dollar amount?

754
00:39:11,420 --> 00:39:14,180
 Are we in agreement with that, or should it be a little higher?

755
00:39:14,180 --> 00:39:19,460
 It's going to be outdated five years from now.

756
00:39:19,460 --> 00:39:26,500
 Yeah, I think when a TAC donates a lot of money,

757
00:39:26,500 --> 00:39:31,740
 that's where I get like thousands of dollars.

758
00:39:31,740 --> 00:39:35,620
 But I don't know where to draw the line.

759
00:39:35,620 --> 00:39:38,060
 I think that was a point of contention for the city council

760
00:39:38,060 --> 00:39:38,700
 members as well.

761
00:39:38,700 --> 00:39:41,180
 I know it was.

762
00:39:41,180 --> 00:39:44,460
 So do we need to draw a line here?

763
00:39:44,460 --> 00:39:48,420
 Do we need to have a financial threshold for that?

764
00:39:48,420 --> 00:39:50,260
 We just had the discussion of taking that out

765
00:39:50,260 --> 00:39:52,380
 as a substantial client or client.

766
00:40:01,140 --> 00:40:08,060
 $200 to a city council, it sounds like a lot of money to me.

767
00:40:08,060 --> 00:40:12,340
 Especially for city council, the most donations are not a problem.

768
00:40:12,340 --> 00:40:17,580
 Especially since city politics are supposed to be more partisan.

769
00:40:17,580 --> 00:40:19,660
 Then I think we get into political issues

770
00:40:19,660 --> 00:40:21,860
 that probably shouldn't be there.

771
00:40:21,860 --> 00:40:27,300
 I think the one we proposed was $500.

772
00:40:27,300 --> 00:40:30,260
 That's helpful.

773
00:40:30,260 --> 00:40:34,140
 I can't remember if it was in the council meeting

774
00:40:34,140 --> 00:40:35,460
 or if it was something else I read.

775
00:40:35,460 --> 00:40:41,820
 There was a lot of discussion about the political committee part of it.

776
00:40:41,820 --> 00:40:48,540
 Because if a political action committee donates to a candidate,

777
00:40:48,540 --> 00:40:55,500
 and someone that is involved with that political action committee

778
00:40:55,500 --> 00:41:01,020
 has business before the council, does that member

779
00:41:01,020 --> 00:41:04,580
 have to recuse himself because of that relationship

780
00:41:04,580 --> 00:41:09,780
 when that individual did not make the contribution?

781
00:41:09,780 --> 00:41:13,580
 And I don't know how to resolve that.

782
00:41:13,580 --> 00:41:16,900
 I don't know if that was something you'd have the answer to.

783
00:41:16,900 --> 00:41:21,100
 The question came up in the meeting in that discussion, I believe.

784
00:41:21,100 --> 00:41:24,900
 And it was, to me, it was something I had never thought about

785
00:41:24,900 --> 00:41:28,340
 and did not know was even a potential issue.

786
00:41:28,340 --> 00:41:35,220
 But it almost sounded like they were aware of that possibility

787
00:41:35,220 --> 00:41:39,900
 or that having the answer in the past.

788
00:41:39,900 --> 00:41:44,700
 So I don't know how to resolve that.

789
00:41:44,700 --> 00:41:49,300
 Well, that's definitely one way to circumvent it.

790
00:41:49,300 --> 00:41:49,820
 Correct.

791
00:41:55,900 --> 00:41:58,620
 So there's a "what you would like to see"

792
00:41:58,620 --> 00:42:01,980
 and "what seems realistic" kind of thing going on here.

793
00:42:01,980 --> 00:42:10,260
 So does this apply to PACs, or are they candidatrix?

794
00:42:10,260 --> 00:42:19,700
 The model code applies to individuals, business entities,

795
00:42:19,700 --> 00:42:25,780
 and party town/non-candidate political committees.

796
00:42:25,780 --> 00:42:28,140
 A political committee would be a PAC, right?

797
00:42:28,140 --> 00:42:36,940
 I think non-candidate political committee, this is a PAC.

798
00:42:36,940 --> 00:42:38,340
 I think.

799
00:42:38,340 --> 00:42:39,780
 That would be my guess.

800
00:42:39,780 --> 00:42:43,780
 Because I know the law changed maybe four or five years ago

801
00:42:43,780 --> 00:42:49,980
 where a PAC does not have to identify his affiliation.

802
00:42:49,980 --> 00:42:53,140
 And so it makes it even more complicated.

803
00:42:53,140 --> 00:42:56,860
 Because on a federal level, they don't

804
00:42:56,860 --> 00:42:58,820
 have to identify where they're coming from,

805
00:42:58,820 --> 00:43:03,060
 which I think is protective for a company that might be--

806
00:43:03,060 --> 00:43:05,540
 Does anyone know how much the PAC's donated to it?

807
00:43:05,540 --> 00:43:08,140
 I tried to clock it on a council person, I mean.

808
00:43:08,140 --> 00:43:10,300
 Last time, it was more than $500,000.

809
00:43:10,300 --> 00:43:12,300
 Oh, very much more.

810
00:43:12,300 --> 00:43:18,100
 $500,000.

811
00:43:18,100 --> 00:43:21,580
 And this wouldn't stop council members from receiving money.

812
00:43:21,580 --> 00:43:24,140
 This would just require them to refuse themselves

813
00:43:24,140 --> 00:43:30,340
 from matters involving that organization.

814
00:43:30,340 --> 00:43:32,020
 Might be one of their quesals.

815
00:43:32,020 --> 00:43:34,500
 Yeah.

816
00:43:34,500 --> 00:43:37,300
 Well, I think that's the point of this.

817
00:43:37,300 --> 00:43:38,900
 Yeah, yeah.

818
00:43:38,900 --> 00:43:44,620
 Because the biggest one I saw was a group of realtors,

819
00:43:44,620 --> 00:43:48,260
 and there was one group in North Texas,

820
00:43:48,260 --> 00:43:51,180
 and there was another group out in Lubbock,

821
00:43:51,180 --> 00:43:55,180
 which I found interesting.

822
00:43:55,180 --> 00:43:57,700
 And it was thousands and thousands of dollars.

823
00:43:57,700 --> 00:43:59,260
 It was in the newspaper.

824
00:44:05,260 --> 00:44:09,100
 I think I would support going with the model code definition

825
00:44:09,100 --> 00:44:12,220
 and the wording here.

826
00:44:12,220 --> 00:44:15,900
 Because I think it's a lot harder to just sort of strike

827
00:44:15,900 --> 00:44:20,460
 this down as, well, we don't know how to apply this.

828
00:44:20,460 --> 00:44:24,340
 For the council to say, there's a lot of gray area here.

829
00:44:24,340 --> 00:44:25,740
 We don't know how to apply this.

830
00:44:25,740 --> 00:44:32,620
 We can't actually use this if we use the model code language.

831
00:44:32,620 --> 00:44:36,300
 And I would strongly support keeping this

832
00:44:36,300 --> 00:44:40,260
 as part of the conflict of interest.

833
00:44:40,260 --> 00:44:42,660
 With the 24-months?

834
00:44:42,660 --> 00:44:47,220
 With the 24-months definition to try and resolve the issue

835
00:44:47,220 --> 00:44:50,100
 that they're concerned they had before about the election

836
00:44:50,100 --> 00:44:52,780
 cycle, because I don't know how to fix that part of it.

837
00:44:52,780 --> 00:44:54,420
 I mean, it doesn't--

838
00:44:54,420 --> 00:44:55,780
 I listened to it like three times,

839
00:44:55,780 --> 00:44:58,100
 and it didn't make sense to me.

840
00:44:58,100 --> 00:44:59,500
 That's good to know.

841
00:45:03,420 --> 00:45:07,820
 So go-- so I hear Dustin supporting it

842
00:45:07,820 --> 00:45:10,220
 with just changing the 24-months.

843
00:45:10,220 --> 00:45:13,620
 [INAUDIBLE]

844
00:45:13,620 --> 00:45:14,300
 OK.

845
00:45:14,300 --> 00:45:15,780
 I agree, too.

846
00:45:15,780 --> 00:45:18,340
 Move on.

847
00:45:18,340 --> 00:45:21,660
 The model code also includes non-relative housemates

848
00:45:21,660 --> 00:45:25,060
 and substantial debtors or creditors

849
00:45:25,060 --> 00:45:26,260
 of the city official.

850
00:45:26,260 --> 00:45:32,180
 You good with that?

851
00:45:32,180 --> 00:45:34,180
 Yes.

852
00:45:34,180 --> 00:45:34,660
 Dave?

853
00:45:34,660 --> 00:45:43,620
 For now, yes.

854
00:45:43,620 --> 00:45:45,060
 Andrea?

855
00:45:45,060 --> 00:45:46,420
 Tom?

856
00:45:46,420 --> 00:45:48,340
 I'm good with it.

857
00:45:48,340 --> 00:45:48,820
 OK.

858
00:45:48,820 --> 00:45:53,540
 So this next one is the city of debt

859
00:45:53,540 --> 00:45:55,060
 and includes people or entities that

860
00:45:55,060 --> 00:45:58,340
 have offered a city official employment, ownership

861
00:45:58,340 --> 00:46:02,020
 of real property, which are not included in the model code.

862
00:46:03,020 --> 00:46:07,420
 Isn't that kind of covered in some of the others,

863
00:46:07,420 --> 00:46:08,380
 more generally?

864
00:46:08,380 --> 00:46:20,220
 The property was covered by annual disclosures, perhaps.

865
00:46:20,220 --> 00:46:28,940
 I mean, in some way, it's just not as explicitly covered.

866
00:46:28,940 --> 00:46:30,860
 So what do you guys think about this?

867
00:46:32,180 --> 00:46:35,660
 [SIDE CONVERSATION]

868
00:46:35,660 --> 00:46:49,580
 I was involved in one of the tribunals, the three people,

869
00:46:49,580 --> 00:46:52,380
 and there was a council member who was a director.

870
00:46:52,380 --> 00:46:54,980
 I believe it was the title of a charity.

871
00:46:54,980 --> 00:46:55,780
 A service organization.

872
00:46:55,780 --> 00:46:58,540
 I wanted to make sure that--

873
00:46:58,540 --> 00:47:01,980
 Which I'm really glad she did.

874
00:47:01,980 --> 00:47:04,940
 [SIDE CONVERSATION]

875
00:47:04,940 --> 00:47:07,700
 Somebody put the flags up.

876
00:47:07,700 --> 00:47:09,580
 Yeah, this works.

877
00:47:09,580 --> 00:47:14,420
 Because she knew she was a director of that nonprofit.

878
00:47:14,420 --> 00:47:18,420
 So she brought it to us.

879
00:47:18,420 --> 00:47:22,260
 So are you saying leave that part from the city?

880
00:47:22,260 --> 00:47:25,140
 I would.

881
00:47:25,140 --> 00:47:27,540
 Andrea, what do you think?

882
00:47:27,540 --> 00:47:28,020
 Leave it?

883
00:47:32,020 --> 00:47:35,100
 OK, can we splice it in?

884
00:47:35,100 --> 00:47:37,260
 Yeah, so I think what we just talked about

885
00:47:37,260 --> 00:47:43,020
 was nonprofit organizations being on the board,

886
00:47:43,020 --> 00:47:46,100
 being part of the conflict of interest.

887
00:47:46,100 --> 00:47:47,260
 That's in both.

888
00:47:47,260 --> 00:47:50,300
 So I'm hearing yes to that.

889
00:47:50,300 --> 00:47:56,420
 The model code doesn't clearly have

890
00:47:56,420 --> 00:48:00,220
 being a non-compensated board member for a business entity.

891
00:48:02,940 --> 00:48:05,380
 I did not read it clearly in there.

892
00:48:05,380 --> 00:48:07,820
 That is in the city's code.

893
00:48:07,820 --> 00:48:09,500
 Do we really like to keep that?

894
00:48:09,500 --> 00:48:12,900
 So maybe there's something the city code has that's better.

895
00:48:12,900 --> 00:48:17,420
 We might be in favor of leaving it, that part.

896
00:48:17,420 --> 00:48:23,300
 I'm in favor of leaving that in.

897
00:48:23,300 --> 00:48:24,260
 Patricia?

898
00:48:24,260 --> 00:48:25,060
 Yeah.

899
00:48:25,060 --> 00:48:26,220
 Yes.

900
00:48:26,220 --> 00:48:27,300
 Yes?

901
00:48:27,300 --> 00:48:27,780
 Yes.

902
00:48:27,780 --> 00:48:28,420
 OK.

903
00:48:28,420 --> 00:48:30,220
 And then I have a couple more, sorry.

904
00:48:30,220 --> 00:48:31,180
 Yeah.

905
00:48:31,180 --> 00:48:34,540
 The author of employment, I think, again, it's

906
00:48:34,540 --> 00:48:38,340
 not as explicitly defined in the model code.

907
00:48:38,340 --> 00:48:42,860
 You could say it's covered, potentially.

908
00:48:42,860 --> 00:48:47,940
 But that we actually just amended the code to include.

909
00:48:47,940 --> 00:48:51,020
 I'll leave that.

910
00:48:51,020 --> 00:48:53,740
 Are you saying it's redundant, or--

911
00:48:53,740 --> 00:48:54,500
 It's kind of--

912
00:48:54,500 --> 00:48:56,620
 Saying it's for clarification.

913
00:48:56,620 --> 00:48:58,060
 Yeah, clarification, I find.

914
00:49:01,220 --> 00:49:03,580
 Good.

915
00:49:03,580 --> 00:49:04,540
 Thumbs up all around?

916
00:49:04,540 --> 00:49:05,020
 Yeah, good.

917
00:49:05,020 --> 00:49:05,780
 OK.

918
00:49:05,780 --> 00:49:08,300
 OK.

919
00:49:08,300 --> 00:49:10,300
 So then do we go into the section that

920
00:49:10,300 --> 00:49:13,900
 begins with withdrawal from participation, or--

921
00:49:13,900 --> 00:49:15,300
 I think there's one more discussion

922
00:49:15,300 --> 00:49:16,540
 about the real property.

923
00:49:16,540 --> 00:49:17,940
 Oh, OK.

924
00:49:17,940 --> 00:49:20,100
 Because the way that the model code defines it

925
00:49:20,100 --> 00:49:22,140
 is it basically lifts people.

926
00:49:32,020 --> 00:49:36,020
 So in this list of people, it doesn't include property,

927
00:49:36,020 --> 00:49:38,380
 because property is not a person.

928
00:49:38,380 --> 00:49:40,980
 But it does include taking action

929
00:49:40,980 --> 00:49:43,500
 that would impact your personal or financial benefit,

930
00:49:43,500 --> 00:49:47,220
 and then requires property to be disclosed annually.

931
00:49:47,220 --> 00:49:49,860
 So I think it's covered that way in the model code.

932
00:49:49,860 --> 00:49:52,020
 So I just wanted to make sure that we are aware.

933
00:49:52,020 --> 00:49:54,180
 We would basically be taking that as clearly out,

934
00:49:54,180 --> 00:49:58,380
 but it would still be in there, in that way.

935
00:49:58,380 --> 00:50:02,060
 In that way.

936
00:50:02,060 --> 00:50:04,620
 I like that they could be more work for you,

937
00:50:04,620 --> 00:50:08,420
 because it gets submitted to you, right?

938
00:50:08,420 --> 00:50:11,420
 It's more work for you.

939
00:50:11,420 --> 00:50:12,700
 It's like the national debt.

940
00:50:12,700 --> 00:50:18,860
 What do you guys think?

941
00:50:18,860 --> 00:50:25,580
 I'm not sure I understood what you're saying.

942
00:50:25,580 --> 00:50:27,060
 Sorry.

943
00:50:27,060 --> 00:50:32,660
 Leaving in the model code's--

944
00:50:32,660 --> 00:50:34,220
 Basically, I just wanted to make clear

945
00:50:34,220 --> 00:50:38,220
 the difference between the model code and the current code.

946
00:50:38,220 --> 00:50:41,780
 The current code clearly calls out that owning property.

947
00:50:41,780 --> 00:50:49,020
 If you own property that's impacted by appending matter,

948
00:50:49,020 --> 00:50:50,620
 then you have to refuse.

949
00:50:50,620 --> 00:50:53,620
 Whereas that's not as explicit in the model code,

950
00:50:53,620 --> 00:50:56,620
 but it's implied, basically.

951
00:50:56,620 --> 00:50:59,820
 And the model code makes you list all of your property

952
00:50:59,820 --> 00:51:00,580
 once a year.

953
00:51:00,580 --> 00:51:01,820
 Right.

954
00:51:01,820 --> 00:51:02,740
 Within the city.

955
00:51:02,740 --> 00:51:07,660
 So it's just kind of too--

956
00:51:07,660 --> 00:51:09,780
 it's not, yeah, if you own something in California,

957
00:51:09,780 --> 00:51:12,060
 you don't have to dispose of it.

958
00:51:12,060 --> 00:51:16,380
 It's just kind of two different ways of making that,

959
00:51:16,380 --> 00:51:19,020
 of stating that.

960
00:51:19,020 --> 00:51:22,860
 Does our current code say you have to recuse or just

961
00:51:22,860 --> 00:51:24,220
 disclose?

962
00:51:24,220 --> 00:51:29,980
 I believe it says you have to recuse if appending matter

963
00:51:29,980 --> 00:51:32,740
 would impact a property that you own.

964
00:51:32,740 --> 00:51:39,500
 So if council was hearing my case, my zoning case

965
00:51:39,500 --> 00:51:41,500
 or something, and I was on council,

966
00:51:41,500 --> 00:51:45,540
 I would have to not vote on that, is what it says.

967
00:51:45,540 --> 00:51:47,580
 OK.

968
00:51:47,580 --> 00:51:51,020
 It's just explicit in the current debt and code,

969
00:51:51,020 --> 00:51:54,100
 whereas you would still have to recuse under the model

970
00:51:54,100 --> 00:51:54,600
 code.

971
00:51:54,600 --> 00:51:55,860
 It's just not as explicit.

972
00:51:55,860 --> 00:51:57,860
 Yeah.

973
00:51:57,860 --> 00:52:00,980
 Or I think you would still be expected to recuse.

974
00:52:00,980 --> 00:52:03,140
 That could be a challenge to someone

975
00:52:03,140 --> 00:52:05,660
 if they own property all over the city, right?

976
00:52:05,660 --> 00:52:09,460
 Potentially.

977
00:52:09,460 --> 00:52:10,420
 I don't know how many.

978
00:52:10,420 --> 00:52:10,920
 I don't--

979
00:52:10,920 --> 00:52:20,420
 Reaction?

980
00:52:20,420 --> 00:52:26,100
 I think if they-- are they required to reveal

981
00:52:26,100 --> 00:52:27,700
 the properties once a year?

982
00:52:27,700 --> 00:52:28,740
 Is that what you were saying?

983
00:52:28,740 --> 00:52:31,020
 In the model code, the model code

984
00:52:31,020 --> 00:52:33,020
 includes an annual disclosure process,

985
00:52:33,020 --> 00:52:34,340
 which is not in our current code.

986
00:52:34,340 --> 00:52:36,220
 That requires you to list all the properties

987
00:52:36,220 --> 00:52:39,140
 you own within the city limits and a mile outside

988
00:52:39,140 --> 00:52:42,940
 or something, including the properties your spouse owns,

989
00:52:42,940 --> 00:52:45,140
 I believe, annually, yes.

990
00:52:45,140 --> 00:52:47,620
 And then that disclosure, all those disclosures

991
00:52:47,620 --> 00:52:51,220
 get given to the Board of Advocates essentially.

992
00:52:51,220 --> 00:52:52,180
 Get given to the what?

993
00:52:52,180 --> 00:52:53,140
 The Board of Advocates.

994
00:52:53,140 --> 00:52:54,640
 Yeah.

995
00:52:54,640 --> 00:52:58,140
 The Advocates Commission.

996
00:52:58,140 --> 00:53:00,540
 What do you think, Tom?

997
00:53:00,540 --> 00:53:03,460
 That's a lot of work for us.

998
00:53:03,460 --> 00:53:06,820
 That's a lot of work for us.

999
00:53:06,820 --> 00:53:08,700
 But I think that's helpful because--

1000
00:53:08,700 --> 00:53:11,620
 It's easier to say you must recuse yourself

1001
00:53:11,620 --> 00:53:15,740
 if you own property that's going to be impacted by your vote,

1002
00:53:15,740 --> 00:53:17,660
 as opposed to--

1003
00:53:17,660 --> 00:53:19,780
 This is where in the city of San Marcos,

1004
00:53:19,780 --> 00:53:23,180
 they're like, don't even think about being a city official.

1005
00:53:23,180 --> 00:53:26,300
 If you-- and this was--

1006
00:53:26,300 --> 00:53:28,460
 that was where I called a friend and said, what?

1007
00:53:28,460 --> 00:53:30,220
 Why was this so specific?

1008
00:53:30,220 --> 00:53:32,020
 And he said, because we've had problems.

1009
00:53:32,020 --> 00:53:36,340
 And I said, OK, got it.

1010
00:53:36,340 --> 00:53:38,140
 But I think that's helpful.

1011
00:53:38,140 --> 00:53:43,100
 But if there's a disclosure process once a year,

1012
00:53:43,100 --> 00:53:46,420
 that also makes it much more reasonable why it doesn't

1013
00:53:46,420 --> 00:53:47,580
 have to be so explicit.

1014
00:53:47,580 --> 00:53:50,220
 And you have to recuse yourself because at that point,

1015
00:53:50,220 --> 00:53:52,900
 the assumption becomes, well, they know that I own this.

1016
00:53:52,900 --> 00:53:55,820
 And then the appearance is--

1017
00:53:55,820 --> 00:53:56,420
 right?

1018
00:53:56,420 --> 00:53:56,920
 Yeah.

1019
00:53:56,920 --> 00:54:03,060
 So does that mean that we will now--

1020
00:54:03,060 --> 00:54:04,980
 we will also recommend that there's

1021
00:54:04,980 --> 00:54:09,660
 going to be a disclosure process for these--

1022
00:54:09,660 --> 00:54:11,780
 That's also part of today's discussion.

1023
00:54:11,780 --> 00:54:12,280
 OK.

1024
00:54:12,280 --> 00:54:12,780
 Yeah.

1025
00:54:12,780 --> 00:54:15,500
 We're comfortable with there not being an explicit statement

1026
00:54:15,500 --> 00:54:17,260
 about it because we are going to recommend

1027
00:54:17,260 --> 00:54:19,860
 there being this other disclosure piece.

1028
00:54:19,860 --> 00:54:22,060
 That's mostly what I was trying to get to.

1029
00:54:22,060 --> 00:54:24,420
 OK.

1030
00:54:24,420 --> 00:54:29,020
 So up, down.

1031
00:54:29,020 --> 00:54:31,900
 And up is how the needs of--

1032
00:54:31,900 --> 00:54:33,340
 Less specific.

1033
00:54:33,340 --> 00:54:35,020
 --and have the disclosure thing.

1034
00:54:35,020 --> 00:54:36,420
 Yeah, I'm with that.

1035
00:54:36,420 --> 00:54:39,220
 So you agree with that?

1036
00:54:39,220 --> 00:54:41,260
 Yes, yes.

1037
00:54:41,260 --> 00:54:43,980
 I'll comment.

1038
00:54:43,980 --> 00:54:45,700
 For me, they have to be in combination.

1039
00:54:45,700 --> 00:54:47,940
 For me, they have to be in combination.

1040
00:54:47,940 --> 00:54:51,140
 I will only go less specific if there's a disclosure.

1041
00:54:51,140 --> 00:54:55,020
 If there's no disclosure, then it needs to be specific.

1042
00:54:55,020 --> 00:55:00,500
 Oh, so there's no disclosure required in the model code?

1043
00:55:00,500 --> 00:55:01,060
 It is--

1044
00:55:01,060 --> 00:55:02,540
 There it is, yeah.

1045
00:55:02,540 --> 00:55:08,500
 The disclosure-- the recusalism as specific.

1046
00:55:08,500 --> 00:55:10,300
 In the model code, it doesn't clearly

1047
00:55:10,300 --> 00:55:14,180
 list that owning property is a conflict of interest

1048
00:55:14,180 --> 00:55:15,380
 the way it does in our code.

1049
00:55:15,380 --> 00:55:17,580
 But that's because it's very much

1050
00:55:17,580 --> 00:55:20,740
 implied by the rest of the code.

1051
00:55:20,740 --> 00:55:26,060
 I support that.

1052
00:55:26,060 --> 00:55:34,660
 I mean, I support the idea of defining it

1053
00:55:34,660 --> 00:55:38,740
 as a conflict of interest and requiring recusal and trying

1054
00:55:38,740 --> 00:55:43,540
 to make sense of the requirement for disclosure annually.

1055
00:55:43,540 --> 00:55:44,340
 I don't know if that--

1056
00:55:44,340 --> 00:55:55,500
 I think there's some discussion about how much extra work that

1057
00:55:55,500 --> 00:55:58,660
 is, not just for Madison or possibly this board,

1058
00:55:58,660 --> 00:56:02,900
 but for the council members and everyone else that's

1059
00:56:02,900 --> 00:56:04,540
 affected by the ethics code.

1060
00:56:04,540 --> 00:56:06,580
 I wonder if we could just require that when

1061
00:56:06,580 --> 00:56:11,580
 someone gets elected and then they

1062
00:56:11,580 --> 00:56:14,860
 have to update if they buy or sell any of those.

1063
00:56:14,860 --> 00:56:19,260
 That's work, too.

1064
00:56:19,260 --> 00:56:21,500
 If I turn in, here's my list today,

1065
00:56:21,500 --> 00:56:24,860
 it very likely could change tomorrow.

1066
00:56:24,860 --> 00:56:31,260
 The only reason I'm hesitating is because we are--

1067
00:56:31,260 --> 00:56:33,900
 I think what we're doing is trying

1068
00:56:33,900 --> 00:56:36,660
 to put a list together to go back and say,

1069
00:56:36,660 --> 00:56:39,540
 hey, we got you on this one you told us before,

1070
00:56:39,540 --> 00:56:44,380
 that you have ownership stake in whatever property

1071
00:56:44,380 --> 00:56:48,940
 and then you board it on this zoning change

1072
00:56:48,940 --> 00:56:50,420
 or whatever it is.

1073
00:56:50,420 --> 00:56:56,220
 And it's having trouble separating.

1074
00:56:56,220 --> 00:56:58,780
 We're not requiring them to disclose

1075
00:56:58,780 --> 00:57:03,860
 personal relationships or client relationships, which

1076
00:57:03,860 --> 00:57:07,380
 could potentially result in a conflict of interest.

1077
00:57:07,380 --> 00:57:11,140
 Because that, I think, is unreasonable to ask for.

1078
00:57:11,140 --> 00:57:14,220
 And I'm just trying to convince myself

1079
00:57:14,220 --> 00:57:17,660
 it's unreasonable to ask someone to disclose

1080
00:57:17,660 --> 00:57:22,380
 all of their real property to the city or this board

1081
00:57:22,380 --> 00:57:24,620
 or whoever else.

1082
00:57:24,620 --> 00:57:28,380
 Does it make sense to require that?

1083
00:57:28,380 --> 00:57:33,940
 I wonder if this was written before-- you can look stuff up

1084
00:57:33,940 --> 00:57:34,900
 and write strikers.

1085
00:57:34,900 --> 00:57:40,340
 It's not hard to find out unless people are using root names.

1086
00:57:40,340 --> 00:57:42,980
 I'm fine with requiring disclosure.

1087
00:57:42,980 --> 00:57:48,460
 I'm just trying to think of how do we do this in a way

1088
00:57:48,460 --> 00:57:51,900
 that we get the things in the code that we think genuinely

1089
00:57:51,900 --> 00:57:53,940
 need to be there for this to be effective

1090
00:57:53,940 --> 00:57:58,260
 and to cover things that are not covered now

1091
00:57:58,260 --> 00:58:02,700
 without council saying, oh, no, we're going to ignore this.

1092
00:58:02,700 --> 00:58:07,380
 Disclosure as an actual item comes up,

1093
00:58:07,380 --> 00:58:10,620
 or just the entire disclosure process?

1094
00:58:10,620 --> 00:58:14,380
 Like an annual disclosure process, to me,

1095
00:58:14,380 --> 00:58:16,900
 is a lot of effort for someone.

1096
00:58:16,900 --> 00:58:19,700
 And I'm thinking about what you described about San Marcos

1097
00:58:19,700 --> 00:58:22,700
 and what I saw in the council meeting where they discussed

1098
00:58:22,700 --> 00:58:24,500
 our previous revisions.

1099
00:58:24,500 --> 00:58:27,900
 And it was like, oh, they saw something in those revisions

1100
00:58:27,900 --> 00:58:28,700
 that we proposed.

1101
00:58:28,700 --> 00:58:31,620
 And then automatically, it was like, well, I don't--

1102
00:58:31,620 --> 00:58:32,300
 this is bad.

1103
00:58:32,300 --> 00:58:32,900
 This is bad.

1104
00:58:32,900 --> 00:58:34,420
 I don't even want to discuss this.

1105
00:58:34,420 --> 00:58:40,380
 I think we could cover it more economically or more easily

1106
00:58:40,380 --> 00:58:44,300
 by just making sure that recusal is expected.

1107
00:58:44,300 --> 00:58:46,940
 Yeah, I'm 100% in support of that.

1108
00:58:46,940 --> 00:58:52,460
 And not requiring an annual disclosure

1109
00:58:52,460 --> 00:58:56,380
 does not make it so that they can now

1110
00:58:56,380 --> 00:58:59,180
 vote on something where they have a conflict of interest.

1111
00:58:59,180 --> 00:59:02,380
 They are required to disclose that if a pending matter comes

1112
00:59:02,380 --> 00:59:03,660
 up.

1113
00:59:03,660 --> 00:59:05,500
 That would be the language I would support.

1114
00:59:05,500 --> 00:59:08,420
 It would be simpler and more [INAUDIBLE]

1115
00:59:08,420 --> 00:59:11,740
 Otherwise, you leave it up to partnerships

1116
00:59:11,740 --> 00:59:14,260
 and all kinds of stuff on the others.

1117
00:59:14,260 --> 00:59:16,460
 That could get horribly--

1118
00:59:16,460 --> 00:59:19,220
 All I'm trying to avoid, I think, is--

1119
00:59:19,220 --> 00:59:20,220
 well, there's two things.

1120
00:59:20,220 --> 00:59:22,740
 One is the current members of council

1121
00:59:22,740 --> 00:59:26,140
 getting our proposed revisions and seeing that and saying,

1122
00:59:26,140 --> 00:59:27,740
 well, I don't want to deal with that.

1123
00:59:27,740 --> 00:59:29,100
 I'm going to vote against this.

1124
00:59:29,100 --> 00:59:31,860
 And also, either the current council members

1125
00:59:31,860 --> 00:59:34,700
 or potential council members in the future

1126
00:59:34,700 --> 00:59:39,020
 who own a lot of property or are realtor or whatever else,

1127
00:59:39,020 --> 00:59:39,900
 and they see that.

1128
00:59:39,900 --> 00:59:42,020
 And they're like, well, I want to serve my city,

1129
00:59:42,020 --> 00:59:44,580
 but I don't have a bunch of stuff here.

1130
00:59:44,580 --> 00:59:51,340
 And I don't want to deal with that, even though I would--

1131
00:59:51,340 --> 00:59:52,900
 I'm not in the real estate business,

1132
00:59:52,900 --> 00:59:57,300
 but I can imagine there are people that may want

1133
00:59:57,300 --> 01:00:02,740
 to serve on council and want to do that in a way

1134
01:00:02,740 --> 01:00:06,220
 without having a conflict of interest that they're going to--

1135
01:00:06,220 --> 01:00:08,220
 I suspect this was written--

1136
01:00:08,220 --> 01:00:12,380
 the MAWA cut was written before you could easily

1137
01:00:12,380 --> 01:00:15,420
 search things and tax records online.

1138
01:00:15,420 --> 01:00:16,780
 It was written in 2006.

1139
01:00:16,780 --> 01:00:17,260
 Yeah.

1140
01:00:17,260 --> 01:00:19,780
 Oh, OK.

1141
01:00:19,780 --> 01:00:20,620
 Sorry to derail.

1142
01:00:20,620 --> 01:00:23,020
 I can be convinced otherwise.

1143
01:00:23,020 --> 01:00:25,540
 But that's all I'm thinking about, is how do we make this

1144
01:00:25,540 --> 01:00:28,660
 as simple as possible without getting it all struck down.

1145
01:00:28,660 --> 01:00:31,260
 That does seem more complicated for everybody.

1146
01:00:31,260 --> 01:00:33,180
 If I'm missing something on the requirements--

1147
01:00:33,180 --> 01:00:37,060
 So can we go with the recusal thing and just--

1148
01:00:37,060 --> 01:00:41,060
 I think that if we go with what the MAWA code says,

1149
01:00:41,060 --> 01:00:44,620
 you're saying it requires you to refuse and disclose

1150
01:00:44,620 --> 01:00:47,220
 why you refused anyway.

1151
01:00:47,220 --> 01:00:50,540
 It just wouldn't require the annual disclosure.

1152
01:00:50,540 --> 01:00:51,900
 I'm 100% aware of it.

1153
01:00:51,900 --> 01:00:54,740
 I mean, that's kind of the next part of the discussion, really.

1154
01:00:54,740 --> 01:01:03,660
 Kind of just discuss this.

1155
01:01:03,660 --> 01:01:11,140
 So the model code has the two types of disclosure.

1156
01:01:11,140 --> 01:01:12,780
 Basically, there's the transactional,

1157
01:01:12,780 --> 01:01:15,340
 is what they call it, which is kind of like what we have now

1158
01:01:15,340 --> 01:01:17,820
 when you file an affidavit of this extension.

1159
01:01:17,820 --> 01:01:20,060
 When you basically say, I can't vote on this item,

1160
01:01:20,060 --> 01:01:23,620
 this pending matter because of x, y, z, you file that.

1161
01:01:23,620 --> 01:01:27,300
 And then it gets given to me, hopefully.

1162
01:01:27,300 --> 01:01:30,540
 And then Tammy wonderfully logs it and puts it

1163
01:01:30,540 --> 01:01:33,500
 in a place somewhere that I don't look at because I'm not

1164
01:01:33,500 --> 01:01:34,300
 actually allowed to.

1165
01:01:34,300 --> 01:01:39,300
 So that's how the current code works.

1166
01:01:39,300 --> 01:01:43,460
 Under the MAWA code, it's similar.

1167
01:01:43,460 --> 01:01:46,780
 But it's provided to the FX body as well,

1168
01:01:46,780 --> 01:01:50,820
 as well as the relevant body that they're in.

1169
01:01:50,820 --> 01:01:52,420
 So if they're on the council and they

1170
01:01:52,420 --> 01:01:54,780
 disclose or withdraw from something,

1171
01:01:54,780 --> 01:01:57,860
 it gets told to the register.

1172
01:01:57,860 --> 01:01:59,580
 And then they have the annual disclosure.

1173
01:01:59,580 --> 01:02:02,420
 Kind of sounds like the direction is at.

1174
01:02:02,420 --> 01:02:03,980
 The consensus is that we don't want

1175
01:02:03,980 --> 01:02:07,940
 to have an annual disclosure process.

1176
01:02:07,940 --> 01:02:10,340
 Is that what we're hearing?

1177
01:02:10,340 --> 01:02:11,340
 Yep.

1178
01:02:11,340 --> 01:02:12,820
 Yep.

1179
01:02:12,820 --> 01:02:14,300
 I think that's what we're hearing.

1180
01:02:14,300 --> 01:02:16,420
 That's what I'm hearing.

1181
01:02:16,420 --> 01:02:18,740
 So then we move on to--

1182
01:02:18,740 --> 01:02:22,460
 So then the last piece is when you have to withdraw,

1183
01:02:22,460 --> 01:02:24,180
 which is the pending matter discussion.

1184
01:02:24,180 --> 01:02:33,100
 So model code requires city officials

1185
01:02:33,100 --> 01:02:37,420
 to refrain from acting on or discussing formally

1186
01:02:37,420 --> 01:02:40,140
 or informally a matter before the city

1187
01:02:40,140 --> 01:02:43,180
 if a conflict of interest exists.

1188
01:02:43,180 --> 01:02:45,860
 A matter, in this instance, is not defined further

1189
01:02:45,860 --> 01:02:48,540
 and is much broader than the city's pending matter

1190
01:02:48,540 --> 01:02:51,020
 definition.

1191
01:02:51,020 --> 01:02:53,660
 Another simple difference between these two definitions

1192
01:02:53,660 --> 01:02:56,980
 is that the model codes may occur at any time,

1193
01:02:56,980 --> 01:02:59,780
 whereas the city may only occur at public meetings.

1194
01:02:59,780 --> 01:03:07,980
 So what do you think, model code versus city?

1195
01:03:07,980 --> 01:03:11,300
 I like the broader definition.

1196
01:03:11,300 --> 01:03:14,700
 So Patricia for the model code, Dave for the model code.

1197
01:03:14,700 --> 01:03:17,900
 Yes, broader, yes.

1198
01:03:17,900 --> 01:03:20,820
 Dustin for model code, Tom, yes.

1199
01:03:20,820 --> 01:03:21,300
 OK.

1200
01:03:21,300 --> 01:03:23,220
 I thought that was going to be a tough one.

1201
01:03:23,220 --> 01:03:24,700
 No.

1202
01:03:24,700 --> 01:03:27,100
 Six in favor of model code.

1203
01:03:27,100 --> 01:03:35,140
 So is that it?

1204
01:03:35,140 --> 01:03:36,900
 So I think that I have the direction

1205
01:03:36,900 --> 01:03:43,100
 I need to draft something for us to review in February.

1206
01:03:43,100 --> 01:03:43,600
 OK.

1207
01:03:45,580 --> 01:03:52,500
 I really do appreciate that you guys have taken so much time

1208
01:03:52,500 --> 01:03:57,260
 to review everything, because it makes our discussions a lot

1209
01:03:57,260 --> 01:03:58,220
 easier.

1210
01:03:58,220 --> 01:03:59,700
 So thank you.

1211
01:03:59,700 --> 01:04:10,460
 So we move on to BOE 24-004, which is item B,

1212
01:04:10,460 --> 01:04:12,380
 management reports.

1213
01:04:12,380 --> 01:04:14,460
 Is there anything to discuss here?

1214
01:04:14,460 --> 01:04:17,900
 No, I just included the activity report.

1215
01:04:17,900 --> 01:04:21,700
 It's online now as well, or it should be soon.

1216
01:04:21,700 --> 01:04:24,380
 And plan to do those in the future.

1217
01:04:24,380 --> 01:04:26,540
 But I don't know if you have to paint them.

1218
01:04:26,540 --> 01:04:30,420
 I don't have to, but sorry if it's helpful.

1219
01:04:30,420 --> 01:04:30,900
 OK.

1220
01:04:30,900 --> 01:04:36,380
 So we now move on to item E, BOE 24-004.

1221
01:04:36,380 --> 01:04:40,380
 I have one question under D. Where

1222
01:04:40,380 --> 01:04:44,580
 do we stand, Madison, on the burden?

1223
01:04:44,580 --> 01:04:46,620
 I've been looking through this memorandum

1224
01:04:46,620 --> 01:04:48,700
 of where we're supposedly covered.

1225
01:04:48,700 --> 01:04:51,940
 Where do we stand on this burden of proof?

1226
01:04:51,940 --> 01:04:55,340
 Yes, so we've given direction to move forward with that.

1227
01:04:55,340 --> 01:05:00,620
 So when we take the packet to council in March or April,

1228
01:05:00,620 --> 01:05:02,220
 it'll go to council at that point.

1229
01:05:02,220 --> 01:05:05,540
 So that-- OK, so that's a done deal.

1230
01:05:05,540 --> 01:05:07,220
 It's done as far as--

1231
01:05:07,220 --> 01:05:07,980
 From our side.

1232
01:05:07,980 --> 01:05:09,180
 Right, yes.

1233
01:05:09,180 --> 01:05:10,940
 So there would be two items.

1234
01:05:10,940 --> 01:05:14,260
 This whole conflict of interest and the--

1235
01:05:14,260 --> 01:05:15,780
 yeah, and I feel like if--

1236
01:05:15,780 --> 01:05:19,180
 I mean, these are two items that are going to--

1237
01:05:19,180 --> 01:05:20,340
 could be big.

1238
01:05:20,340 --> 01:05:23,820
 But I wouldn't want to add anything more than once we

1239
01:05:23,820 --> 01:05:27,100
 clarify this, we're ready to move to council.

1240
01:05:27,100 --> 01:05:29,380
 Yeah, one, I'll bring back language next time,

1241
01:05:29,380 --> 01:05:31,420
 and then we can decide at that point,

1242
01:05:31,420 --> 01:05:32,860
 are we comfortable with the language,

1243
01:05:32,860 --> 01:05:35,380
 or do we want to review it again in March

1244
01:05:35,380 --> 01:05:38,700
 before we send it to council?

1245
01:05:38,700 --> 01:05:40,700
 OK.

1246
01:05:40,700 --> 01:05:46,220
 So we move on to item E, BOE 24-005, Receiver Report,

1247
01:05:46,220 --> 01:05:49,020
 Hold a Discussion, and Give Staff Direction

1248
01:05:49,020 --> 01:05:51,580
 Regarding Future Meeting Topics.

1249
01:05:51,580 --> 01:05:56,460
 I think on the schedule right now is,

1250
01:05:56,460 --> 01:05:59,420
 like we just discussed, the red lines for the things

1251
01:05:59,420 --> 01:06:02,620
 that we want to bring to council soon.

1252
01:06:02,620 --> 01:06:07,980
 We could add items to the agenda for next time or not.

1253
01:06:07,980 --> 01:06:11,540
 But that's what this item is for.

1254
01:06:11,540 --> 01:06:13,540
 What's your pleasure?

1255
01:06:13,540 --> 01:06:16,260
 I think we need to get a good look at what we've done today

1256
01:06:16,260 --> 01:06:18,740
 in writing a form we had--

1257
01:06:18,740 --> 01:06:19,740
 So I would say not--

1258
01:06:19,740 --> 01:06:20,660
 --anything else.

1259
01:06:20,660 --> 01:06:21,780
 --not add.

1260
01:06:21,780 --> 01:06:22,660
 Yes, I would agree.

1261
01:06:22,660 --> 01:06:23,420
 I would agree.

1262
01:06:23,420 --> 01:06:24,740
 Agreed.

1263
01:06:24,740 --> 01:06:27,140
 Boy, we're in unison.

1264
01:06:27,140 --> 01:06:28,020
 All right.

1265
01:06:28,020 --> 01:06:29,420
 Makes it easier for me.

1266
01:06:29,420 --> 01:06:30,980
 I want to thank you guys, because I

1267
01:06:30,980 --> 01:06:33,460
 can tell you are definitely looking at these things

1268
01:06:33,460 --> 01:06:34,740
 and thinking about them.

1269
01:06:34,740 --> 01:06:36,780
 So thank you very much.

1270
01:06:36,780 --> 01:06:40,500
 It was a lot more efficient.

1271
01:06:40,500 --> 01:06:42,380
 Thanks for putting all this together.

1272
01:06:42,380 --> 01:06:44,220
 Yeah, medicine is the best.

1273
01:06:44,220 --> 01:06:45,500
 Thank you, Tammy.

1274
01:06:45,500 --> 01:06:48,460
 I was very sorry.

1275
01:06:48,460 --> 01:06:52,860
 Medicine is a brilliant analytical line.

1276
01:06:52,860 --> 01:06:56,460
 So next meeting is February 5th at 530.

1277
01:06:56,460 --> 01:06:57,900
 Tell Tammy you can't come.

1278
01:06:57,900 --> 01:07:02,660
 Actually, I guess tell me, actually.

1279
01:07:02,660 --> 01:07:05,140
 Don't mess with me.

1280
01:07:05,140 --> 01:07:06,900
 You're irreplaceable, right?

1281
01:07:06,900 --> 01:07:08,900
 No, not irreplaceable.

1282
01:07:08,900 --> 01:07:10,780
 She has been irreplaceable.

1283
01:07:10,780 --> 01:07:12,660
 Yeah, I don't know if we'll have somebody--

1284
01:07:12,660 --> 01:07:15,140
 I think-- when are you meeting, Tammy?

1285
01:07:15,140 --> 01:07:16,140
 Next week.

1286
01:07:16,140 --> 01:07:17,340
 Oh, wow.

1287
01:07:17,340 --> 01:07:18,380
 OK, don't tell Tammy.

1288
01:07:18,380 --> 01:07:19,500
 Don't leave us.

1289
01:07:19,500 --> 01:07:20,980
 You'll be at the next meeting.

1290
01:07:20,980 --> 01:07:23,300
 Just for fun.

1291
01:07:23,300 --> 01:07:26,340
 You'll bring your popcorn?

1292
01:07:26,340 --> 01:07:28,220
 I'll bring cupcakes.

1293
01:07:28,220 --> 01:07:30,220
 I'll bring water bowls, whatever you--

1294
01:07:30,220 --> 01:07:31,380
 I'll bring pumpkin butter.

1295
01:07:31,380 --> 01:07:32,700
 There you go.

1296
01:07:32,700 --> 01:07:33,300
 OK.

1297
01:07:33,300 --> 01:07:36,700
 Well, I'll email you and introduce the new person

1298
01:07:36,700 --> 01:07:37,820
 when we get them.

1299
01:07:37,820 --> 01:07:38,460
 OK.

1300
01:07:38,460 --> 01:07:41,140
 And they will likely hopefully be here at that point,

1301
01:07:41,140 --> 01:07:44,220
 so that I don't have to be the next.

1302
01:07:44,220 --> 01:07:52,500
 So it is now 638, and this meeting is adjourned.

1303
01:07:52,500 --> 01:07:53,500
 Thank you very much.

1304
01:07:53,500 --> 01:07:54,020
 Thanks, Grace.

1305
01:07:54,020 --> 01:07:55,500
 My pleasure.

1306
01:07:55,500 --> 01:07:56,060
 Bye.

1307
01:07:56,060 --> 01:07:57,620
 Bye.