WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.060 And it's 5.30. 00:00:02.060 --> 00:00:11.580 >> Okay. So it is 5.30 p.m. on Monday, January 8th, 2024, 00:00:11.580 --> 00:00:14.480 and this is the Board of Ethics meeting. 00:00:14.480 --> 00:00:18.640 So we're going to start, we do not have any presentations 00:00:18.640 --> 00:00:21.280 from members of the public this evening, so we will move 00:00:21.280 --> 00:00:24.560 on to our items for consideration. 00:00:24.560 --> 00:00:30.440 We do have everyone, everyone is present, 00:00:30.440 --> 00:00:32.900 everyone that's on the board. 00:00:32.900 --> 00:00:36.800 So we have a full board and a full agenda for tonight. 00:00:36.800 --> 00:00:43.280 So item A is BOE 24-001, consider approval of minutes 00:00:43.280 --> 00:00:45.580 from December 4th, 2023. 00:00:45.580 --> 00:00:49.680 Do I hear a motion to that effect? 00:00:49.680 --> 00:00:51.480 >> I move that we approve of it. 00:00:51.480 --> 00:00:52.120 >> Okay. 00:00:52.120 --> 00:00:53.220 >> I'm sorry. 00:00:53.220 --> 00:00:59.600 Pavlik has moved, and Zoltner has seconded it. 00:00:59.600 --> 00:01:01.160 So item -- 00:01:01.160 --> 00:01:01.900 >> Here we go. 00:01:01.900 --> 00:01:03.760 >> All in favor. 00:01:03.760 --> 00:01:04.540 >> Aye. 00:01:04.540 --> 00:01:06.000 >> Aye. 00:01:06.000 --> 00:01:07.800 >> So that's unanimous. 00:01:07.800 --> 00:01:10.240 Six in favor. 00:01:10.240 --> 00:01:16.940 So item B, BOE 24-002, hold a discussion and consider adoption 00:01:16.940 --> 00:01:20.180 of the 2024 meeting schedule. 00:01:20.180 --> 00:01:24.580 >> Madam Chair, can I ask a question? 00:01:24.580 --> 00:01:25.820 >> Yes. 00:01:25.820 --> 00:01:29.920 >> Are we required to meet every month? 00:01:29.920 --> 00:01:32.720 >> I was going to ask about that because I noticed 00:01:32.720 --> 00:01:34.260 that there was a couple of meetings. 00:01:34.260 --> 00:01:36.600 I know it was holidays. 00:01:36.600 --> 00:01:37.800 >> We're not required to meet every month. 00:01:37.800 --> 00:01:40.640 I think we're required to meet maybe once a year or something. 00:01:40.640 --> 00:01:41.840 >> That's what I'm -- 00:01:41.840 --> 00:01:44.000 >> Okay. 00:01:44.000 --> 00:01:47.780 >> Yeah, this is similar to the schedule we adopted last year. 00:01:47.780 --> 00:01:50.520 We -- so we're excluding July and September 00:01:50.520 --> 00:01:52.940 because there are city holidays on those Mondays. 00:01:52.940 --> 00:01:56.320 But it's typically the first Monday of the year. 00:01:56.320 --> 00:02:01.260 And then in May, my entire office will be out for training. 00:02:01.260 --> 00:02:05.100 So that's why it's the week after. 00:02:05.100 --> 00:02:07.020 >> I don't know the question. 00:02:07.020 --> 00:02:09.460 >> So if you would like to not meet every -- 00:02:09.460 --> 00:02:13.840 >> Well, I guess I'm concerned it depends on how things go 00:02:13.840 --> 00:02:15.060 in the next couple of months. 00:02:15.060 --> 00:02:20.400 But I would like to consider having meetings on those months 00:02:20.400 --> 00:02:22.580 that we were like the 4th of July 00:02:22.580 --> 00:02:26.140 and I guess Labor Day dumped us. 00:02:26.140 --> 00:02:30.180 But I -- what do you guys think? 00:02:30.180 --> 00:02:31.280 >> I would agree with that. 00:02:31.280 --> 00:02:34.280 And it also kind of depends on Madison's schedule. 00:02:34.280 --> 00:02:37.120 She has some items to go before the council, 00:02:37.120 --> 00:02:38.600 but we're not aware of. 00:02:38.600 --> 00:02:41.220 There might be some clarification that we need 00:02:41.220 --> 00:02:44.260 to take care of here before it goes back to you. 00:02:44.260 --> 00:02:48.240 So that's all kind of up in the air in terms of -- 00:02:48.240 --> 00:02:49.540 >> I mean, we can certainly -- 00:02:49.540 --> 00:02:52.340 >> We are working on some modifications now. 00:02:52.340 --> 00:02:55.740 So it's kind of a process here. 00:02:55.740 --> 00:03:01.540 >> Yeah. So I think currently the plan is either in March 00:03:01.540 --> 00:03:05.380 or April to basically forward whatever -- 00:03:05.380 --> 00:03:08.220 what you all are currently working on to the city council. 00:03:08.220 --> 00:03:11.460 So then they will either discuss that in March or April 00:03:11.460 --> 00:03:15.100 or May, just depends a little bit on where we're at. 00:03:15.100 --> 00:03:20.460 And then once they give direction, then we bring back 00:03:20.460 --> 00:03:22.440 in ordinance that will be approved probably 00:03:22.440 --> 00:03:24.040 in the summer at some point. 00:03:24.040 --> 00:03:27.980 So that's just how long it takes to get stuff before them basically. 00:03:27.980 --> 00:03:31.340 >> But not before March, is that what you're -- 00:03:31.340 --> 00:03:32.340 >> I don't know. 00:03:32.340 --> 00:03:34.480 I mean, it would be really difficult 00:03:34.480 --> 00:03:36.680 to get something before them. 00:03:36.680 --> 00:03:39.980 >> Kind of depends on how tonight and next month go. 00:03:39.980 --> 00:03:44.060 >> I would like to say -- I would love to recommend 00:03:44.060 --> 00:03:48.100 that we hold the possibility of adding meetings 00:03:48.100 --> 00:03:51.100 in those two months where we're not scheduled for meetings 00:03:51.100 --> 00:03:53.860 if we feel the need when we get closer to it. 00:03:53.860 --> 00:03:57.400 >> We can always call a special meeting if you would like to. 00:03:57.400 --> 00:03:58.500 >> Okay. 00:03:58.500 --> 00:04:00.280 >> Yeah. 00:04:00.280 --> 00:04:03.080 >> How does that sound? 00:04:03.080 --> 00:04:04.440 Okay. 00:04:04.440 --> 00:04:06.040 >> I think that would be more prudent 00:04:06.040 --> 00:04:07.640 than just adding a meeting at this point. 00:04:07.640 --> 00:04:09.280 >> Yeah. Yeah. 00:04:09.280 --> 00:04:12.560 >> I'm thinking if we are all in agreement and we figure 00:04:12.560 --> 00:04:14.760 out something and it gets to council, 00:04:14.760 --> 00:04:18.120 then I don't feel the need to rush through things. 00:04:18.120 --> 00:04:19.400 But there's a couple of things 00:04:19.400 --> 00:04:22.220 that in my head are pretty important. 00:04:22.220 --> 00:04:23.960 >> And could we also -- 00:04:23.960 --> 00:04:26.640 you've opened the possibility of canceling a meeting 00:04:26.640 --> 00:04:29.500 if we don't feel like we have a lot to discuss. 00:04:29.500 --> 00:04:32.800 Like let's say in May or June we don't have a lot to discuss. 00:04:32.800 --> 00:04:33.700 We could -- 00:04:33.700 --> 00:04:34.900 >> Sure. 00:04:34.900 --> 00:04:36.140 >> Talk about it and cancel the meeting. 00:04:36.140 --> 00:04:38.320 >> And July would be a great month to be off. 00:04:38.320 --> 00:04:39.480 >> Yeah. 00:04:39.480 --> 00:04:40.620 >> So -- 00:04:40.620 --> 00:04:44.720 >> So is that a motion for a special meeting next 00:04:44.720 --> 00:04:46.080 or February? 00:04:46.080 --> 00:04:47.680 >> Me? 00:04:47.680 --> 00:04:49.220 >> Well, what do you -- 00:04:49.220 --> 00:04:50.560 >> Oh, no, we're just -- 00:04:50.560 --> 00:04:54.320 I think what we're talking about is we could call a special 00:04:54.320 --> 00:05:00.040 meeting during all those months as we get closer to that time. 00:05:00.040 --> 00:05:02.500 >> Typically during the future agenda item section 00:05:02.500 --> 00:05:05.200 if you decided in June, hey, we want to meet in July, 00:05:05.200 --> 00:05:07.740 we could discuss, we could call a special meeting. 00:05:07.740 --> 00:05:09.440 We would just have to, after the meeting, 00:05:09.440 --> 00:05:11.280 get everybody's availability basically. 00:05:11.280 --> 00:05:14.580 >> I do want to take less items to cancel next time 00:05:14.580 --> 00:05:18.720 because I think we just overwhelmed them with 10 items. 00:05:18.720 --> 00:05:22.560 And I think if we have two that we think are important, 00:05:22.560 --> 00:05:23.860 that's a great starting place. 00:05:23.860 --> 00:05:25.660 >> I think it'll take about the same amount of time. 00:05:25.660 --> 00:05:26.960 >> Yeah. 00:05:26.960 --> 00:05:28.260 >> Make sure it will. 00:05:28.260 --> 00:05:30.100 >> Yeah. 00:05:30.100 --> 00:05:33.440 >> Okay, so can someone make a motion 00:05:33.440 --> 00:05:37.980 to approve the schedule as written in the -- 00:05:37.980 --> 00:05:38.980 >> So moved. 00:05:38.980 --> 00:05:39.980 >> Okay. 00:05:39.980 --> 00:05:41.480 >> I'll second. 00:05:41.480 --> 00:05:45.740 >> Moved by Zeltner and seconded by Newhart. 00:05:45.740 --> 00:05:48.020 So we are now going to -- 00:05:48.020 --> 00:05:49.380 >> Seconded by Newhart. 00:05:49.380 --> 00:05:51.620 >> Oh, sorry, keep forgetting about that. 00:05:51.620 --> 00:05:52.760 All in favor? 00:05:52.760 --> 00:05:54.080 >> Aye. 00:05:54.080 --> 00:05:56.720 >> Aye. 00:05:56.720 --> 00:06:02.000 >> Six ayes, no nays. 00:06:02.000 --> 00:06:06.300 Okay, the thing I've been wanting to get to all day, 00:06:06.300 --> 00:06:11.680 BOE 24-003 Receiver Report, Hold the Discussion 00:06:11.680 --> 00:06:13.780 and Take Necessary Action Regarding Code 00:06:13.780 --> 00:06:20.440 of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Article 11, Epics, Section 2-269, 00:06:20.440 --> 00:06:26.320 Definitions, and Section 2-273, Prohibitions. 00:06:26.320 --> 00:06:28.220 >> Yeah, so this is essentially just a continuation 00:06:28.220 --> 00:06:31.260 of our meeting last time where we talked about kind 00:06:31.260 --> 00:06:35.800 of what kind of rules we would like to see. 00:06:35.800 --> 00:06:38.600 This is kind of defining when they apply and then 00:06:38.600 --> 00:06:41.600 when they do come in -- when they do apply, 00:06:41.600 --> 00:06:42.900 how they should be reported. 00:06:42.900 --> 00:06:45.280 So essentially what we're going to talk about today. 00:06:45.280 --> 00:06:49.280 So I'm just going to jump in with talking 00:06:49.280 --> 00:06:51.440 about the relevant relationships. 00:06:51.440 --> 00:06:56.180 So this first slide was included as kind of a handout 00:06:56.180 --> 00:07:00.320 in your agenda, but it compares the personal relationships 00:07:00.320 --> 00:07:04.000 covered by the model code to what's currently in Denton's code. 00:07:04.000 --> 00:07:09.200 And then I included the degree of consanguinity and affinity just 00:07:09.200 --> 00:07:12.800 so that you were aware of which ones they were. 00:07:12.800 --> 00:07:17.080 And so my understanding is the board would like to use kind 00:07:17.080 --> 00:07:18.900 of that list form that's in the model code, 00:07:18.900 --> 00:07:21.140 but it needs direction on what you want included 00:07:21.140 --> 00:07:22.080 in that list essentially. 00:07:22.080 --> 00:07:24.920 So we can start with this. 00:07:24.920 --> 00:07:27.580 I don't know if you want to just go copy the model code, 00:07:27.580 --> 00:07:33.420 do -- keep what Denton currently has or do a little bit of both. 00:07:33.420 --> 00:07:35.620 >> As usual, I think you did a really good job 00:07:35.620 --> 00:07:36.920 of breaking it down. 00:07:36.920 --> 00:07:41.000 And I was looking at that -- the page two of the handout 00:07:41.000 --> 00:07:44.960 where you talked about each of the issues. 00:07:44.960 --> 00:07:53.780 So I identified six and there's one -- well, eight total 00:07:53.780 --> 00:07:55.380 or nine I guess. 00:07:55.380 --> 00:07:59.540 So I thought we'd kind of go down those -- 00:07:59.540 --> 00:08:02.180 down that narrative that you have and look at each one. 00:08:02.180 --> 00:08:12.620 I think most of them page -- handout -- or 03 page two. 00:08:12.620 --> 00:08:14.000 >> Is it a two? 00:08:14.000 --> 00:08:16.400 >> And it's under the heading financial relationships. 00:08:16.400 --> 00:08:18.100 >> Okay. Would you like to give direction 00:08:18.100 --> 00:08:20.640 on the personal relationships first? 00:08:20.640 --> 00:08:22.700 Or we can go to financial? 00:08:22.700 --> 00:08:23.500 >> Oh, I'm sorry. 00:08:23.500 --> 00:08:25.480 >> Yeah, let's do that. 00:08:25.480 --> 00:08:29.580 >> I thought this might be the easiest one, but. 00:08:29.580 --> 00:08:34.820 >> Yeah. So Denton's current ordinance is generally similar 00:08:34.820 --> 00:08:38.620 to the model code except the model code does not include the 00:08:38.620 --> 00:08:41.220 third degree relationships. 00:08:41.220 --> 00:08:43.100 First cousins, great-grandparents, 00:08:43.100 --> 00:08:44.860 great-grandchildren. 00:08:44.860 --> 00:08:48.240 And first cousins, great-grandparents 00:08:48.240 --> 00:08:51.140 and great-grandchildren of this file. 00:08:54.180 --> 00:09:00.880 So what's your pleasure? 00:09:00.880 --> 00:09:06.680 >> Well, the model code does include relationships -- 00:09:06.680 --> 00:09:09.660 committed relationships. 00:09:09.660 --> 00:09:12.720 So I think that would be good to include. 00:09:12.720 --> 00:09:14.060 >> I agree. 00:09:14.060 --> 00:09:19.360 >> The domestic partner? 00:09:19.360 --> 00:09:20.500 >> Yeah. Yeah. 00:09:20.500 --> 00:09:23.060 >> I'd rather say committed relationships. 00:09:23.060 --> 00:09:24.240 >> This code was written -- 00:09:24.240 --> 00:09:26.540 the model code was written some years ago. 00:09:26.540 --> 00:09:30.380 So there's some language that, in my opinion, is outdated. 00:09:30.380 --> 00:09:34.820 But I still really like the spirit of it. 00:09:34.820 --> 00:09:36.080 So. 00:09:36.080 --> 00:09:37.520 >> We can -- if you would like that included, 00:09:37.520 --> 00:09:40.180 we can refine that definition next time. 00:09:40.180 --> 00:09:42.220 >> Or use the term of our choice. 00:09:42.220 --> 00:09:46.860 So what -- so Tom is in agreement of going more 00:09:46.860 --> 00:09:55.500 with the model code, Andrea model code, without -- 00:09:55.500 --> 00:09:59.740 >> Yeah, I would agree with that. 00:09:59.740 --> 00:10:01.940 Absolutely, yeah, I have several things that I'd 00:10:01.940 --> 00:10:04.240 like to come to around here when we -- yeah. 00:10:04.240 --> 00:10:05.540 >> Okay, so. 00:10:05.540 --> 00:10:06.340 >> Okay, so for this -- 00:10:06.340 --> 00:10:07.420 >> We're good with this. 00:10:07.420 --> 00:10:08.720 >> We're good with what the model code has, 00:10:08.720 --> 00:10:11.920 even though it is -- doesn't include some things 00:10:11.920 --> 00:10:13.060 that the current code does. 00:10:13.060 --> 00:10:13.620 >> Yeah. 00:10:13.620 --> 00:10:14.960 >> Great. 00:10:14.960 --> 00:10:20.860 Okay, moving on to the page, the heading, financial relationships. 00:10:20.860 --> 00:10:28.300 And so I just ticked off -- the first part is the model code includes -- 00:10:28.300 --> 00:10:31.780 includes the outside employer or business, 00:10:31.780 --> 00:10:36.380 which generally includes entities the city official receives 00:10:36.380 --> 00:10:41.220 compensation from or owns, which is similar to the city's, 00:10:41.220 --> 00:10:45.160 but Denton's code includes financial thresholds 00:10:45.160 --> 00:10:49.620 that are not present in the model code. 00:10:49.620 --> 00:10:55.200 So what's your opinion of the -- 00:10:55.200 --> 00:10:58.300 going with the model code in that area? 00:10:58.300 --> 00:11:05.000 In other words, I guess it would do away with the thresholds. 00:11:08.240 --> 00:11:13.920 >> Yeah, I'll -- I think we went over this some last month. 00:11:13.920 --> 00:11:17.160 I'm in support of trying to get away from thresholds 00:11:17.160 --> 00:11:19.520 because the thresholds are different -- 00:11:19.520 --> 00:11:21.320 have different meaning to different people. 00:11:21.320 --> 00:11:24.320 And I think we ran into a lot of challenges when we tried to go 00:11:24.320 --> 00:11:28.960 from a fixed dollar figure to a percentage and that sort of thing. 00:11:28.960 --> 00:11:33.240 And it makes it much more complicated to apply. 00:11:33.240 --> 00:11:35.200 >> Okay, so Dustin's in the room. 00:11:35.200 --> 00:11:36.440 What about the rest of you? 00:11:36.440 --> 00:11:40.040 >> I agree with Dustin. 00:11:40.040 --> 00:11:46.720 >> So if we didn't have any -- any money amount attached, 00:11:46.720 --> 00:11:53.080 and so let's say a city council person had a relationship 00:11:53.080 --> 00:11:55.660 with someone but there's no money amount, 00:11:55.660 --> 00:12:01.360 how would they know if it was enough to recuse themselves? 00:12:01.360 --> 00:12:03.640 >> It further down, it kind of accounts for it. 00:12:03.640 --> 00:12:06.240 But what I hate about the thresholds is 00:12:06.240 --> 00:12:08.440 that that number's going to have to change up. 00:12:08.440 --> 00:12:09.800 >> Right. No, I agree with that. 00:12:09.800 --> 00:12:12.480 I'm just wondering how they -- then you decide. 00:12:12.480 --> 00:12:13.840 We'll decide that later. 00:12:13.840 --> 00:12:17.080 >> It's more about the activity is the way I understood it 00:12:17.080 --> 00:12:19.440 than the number. 00:12:19.440 --> 00:12:22.960 >> And would they just say that I have a relationship 00:12:22.960 --> 00:12:26.360 with this business but I can still vote on the issues 00:12:26.360 --> 00:12:27.760 or I have a relationship with this business 00:12:27.760 --> 00:12:30.700 and I have to recuse myself? 00:12:30.700 --> 00:12:33.700 >> Probably you should have to recuse yourself. 00:12:33.700 --> 00:12:37.540 I would think -- is that how the rest of you understood it? 00:12:37.540 --> 00:12:38.440 >> Yeah. 00:12:38.440 --> 00:12:44.880 >> That's how I would look at it, and a lot of it is 00:12:44.880 --> 00:12:50.720 about just the appearance, right, and not the actual action. 00:12:50.720 --> 00:12:55.180 >> The appearance of people, which is an ethical concept. 00:12:55.180 --> 00:12:58.820 >> And it could also -- and that is where they could ask 00:12:58.820 --> 00:13:00.600 for an advisory opinion. 00:13:00.600 --> 00:13:01.760 >> Right. 00:13:01.760 --> 00:13:03.220 >> And then we can look at it, right, 00:13:03.220 --> 00:13:09.040 and I think if there is more -- in a way, I would hope 00:13:09.040 --> 00:13:12.100 that if there's a little bit more vagueness rather than, 00:13:12.100 --> 00:13:16.600 oh, I'm just 50 cents shy of the threshold, then it's okay. 00:13:16.600 --> 00:13:19.440 But if there's vagueness, then there's going 00:13:19.440 --> 00:13:22.440 to be hopefully the question for an advisory opinion 00:13:22.440 --> 00:13:27.380 from the ethics board, and then it becomes a collective decision 00:13:27.380 --> 00:13:29.080 rather than an individual decision. 00:13:29.080 --> 00:13:31.320 >> So Tom, do you have your hand raised with that? 00:13:31.320 --> 00:13:37.000 >> Well, I wrote months ago, just to try to clarify for myself, 00:13:37.000 --> 00:13:41.000 I wrote the following, a conflict of interest is 00:13:41.000 --> 00:13:44.940 when a person can benefit from actions or decisions 00:13:44.940 --> 00:13:47.100 in their official capacity. 00:13:47.100 --> 00:13:49.240 So it's no percentages, no dollars. 00:13:49.240 --> 00:13:52.200 >> Right. In ways that other people don't benefit. 00:13:52.200 --> 00:13:55.920 So it's not a conflict of interest if you benefit, 00:13:55.920 --> 00:13:57.920 but everybody else benefits, too. 00:13:57.920 --> 00:13:58.920 >> It's a city. 00:13:58.920 --> 00:14:05.260 >> So I hear unanimity, so check that one out. 00:14:05.260 --> 00:14:10.160 >> So just to clarify, we would like to remove basically what 00:14:10.160 --> 00:14:12.660 the current code has and include what the model code has. 00:14:12.660 --> 00:14:16.360 Are we okay with -- there's some exceptions in that definition, 00:14:16.360 --> 00:14:20.160 which includes entities that they receive compensation 00:14:20.160 --> 00:14:21.400 for goods or services, 00:14:21.400 --> 00:14:25.940 except unless they're necessary expenses that are reimbursed. 00:14:25.940 --> 00:14:30.080 So like travel expenses, we're fine with that exception. 00:14:30.080 --> 00:14:33.240 These are just specific pieces, so I just wanted to double check. 00:14:33.240 --> 00:14:36.320 And then for the ownership interest, 00:14:36.320 --> 00:14:38.420 it had an exception for public corporations, 00:14:38.420 --> 00:14:41.160 where the interest is less than $50,000 or 5%. 00:14:41.160 --> 00:14:43.520 So there are thresholds there. 00:14:43.520 --> 00:14:46.520 So I just wanted to double check on that as well. 00:14:46.520 --> 00:14:47.900 >> Everybody okay with that? 00:14:47.900 --> 00:14:49.400 >> Yes. 00:14:49.400 --> 00:14:51.500 >> We move on. 00:14:51.500 --> 00:14:54.740 So I guess the next one is substantial clients 00:14:54.740 --> 00:14:58.040 or customers, which are defined as people or entities 00:14:58.040 --> 00:15:02.340 that the city council official has supplied goods or services -- 00:15:02.340 --> 00:15:04.880 oh, that's -- you just asked about that. 00:15:04.880 --> 00:15:06.240 >> No, that's not wrong. 00:15:06.240 --> 00:15:09.020 >> Okay. Has supplied goods or services valued at more 00:15:09.020 --> 00:15:14.220 than $1,000 in the last 24 months, including those 00:15:14.220 --> 00:15:17.320 that did business with their outside employer 00:15:17.320 --> 00:15:19.820 that they knew about. 00:15:19.820 --> 00:15:23.300 And the city doesn't have that. 00:15:23.300 --> 00:15:26.340 >> So what do you guys think about that? 00:15:26.340 --> 00:15:29.040 That is a way of being a little more specific. 00:15:29.040 --> 00:15:32.780 So what do you guys think? 00:15:32.780 --> 00:15:41.480 >> That definition is from the lobby article? 00:15:41.480 --> 00:15:42.880 >> Yes. 00:15:42.880 --> 00:15:50.620 >> Yeah. Can I take just a moment here? 00:15:50.620 --> 00:15:51.320 >> Sure. 00:15:51.320 --> 00:15:57.560 >> Okay. This discussion goes back about -- 00:15:57.560 --> 00:15:59.100 it's been about five years now. 00:15:59.100 --> 00:16:05.000 In January of 2018, the city council sat in this very room 00:16:05.000 --> 00:16:09.240 and this whole conflict of interest situation was raised 00:16:09.240 --> 00:16:12.080 by Alan Bork with us, you know, the ethics attorney that we brought 00:16:12.080 --> 00:16:16.720 up here from Austin to discuss this. 00:16:16.720 --> 00:16:20.320 He presented basically four options on this whole conflict 00:16:20.320 --> 00:16:22.180 of interest solution. 00:16:22.180 --> 00:16:25.260 The first one is the one that we've ended up with 00:16:25.260 --> 00:16:28.360 in our current code now where we have all these financial 00:16:28.360 --> 00:16:32.900 thresholds, pending matters, percentages, dollar amounts, 00:16:32.900 --> 00:16:37.540 and all of this kind of stuff that we have now. 00:16:37.540 --> 00:16:40.000 One of the other things that he presented 00:16:40.000 --> 00:16:45.880 that day was another option that almost every other city in Texas 00:16:45.880 --> 00:16:48.940 that he has worked with as an ethics consultant. 00:16:48.940 --> 00:16:51.960 And it's -- none of it is based on percentages or dollar amounts 00:16:51.960 --> 00:16:53.380 or pending matters. 00:16:53.380 --> 00:16:56.920 It's as we are suggesting right now that it is 00:16:56.920 --> 00:16:59.160 on more general rules. 00:16:59.160 --> 00:17:03.520 And I just -- I was so interested in going back 00:17:03.520 --> 00:17:06.760 over what he presented that day. 00:17:06.760 --> 00:17:12.640 Now, I have a copy for everyone here just for information 00:17:12.640 --> 00:17:15.680 and for thought process. 00:17:15.680 --> 00:17:18.100 But he presented several options that day 00:17:18.100 --> 00:17:21.620 to the city council sitting in this very room. 00:17:21.620 --> 00:17:24.520 The first one was all these financial thresholds based 00:17:24.520 --> 00:17:26.580 on this first option. 00:17:26.580 --> 00:17:31.720 The city council never went beyond this first option. 00:17:31.720 --> 00:17:38.160 Never. Now, this -- this example for -- 00:17:38.160 --> 00:17:41.260 and there's a copy here for everyone else. 00:17:41.260 --> 00:17:45.800 This example for is the model code 00:17:45.800 --> 00:17:52.080 that almost every other city in Texas has ended up with based on. 00:17:52.080 --> 00:17:55.280 And there were only two people in the room that day 00:17:55.280 --> 00:17:57.080 other than the city council, myself 00:17:57.080 --> 00:18:01.580 and Venn Record Chronicle reporter. 00:18:01.580 --> 00:18:05.480 And we were trying to get the council to turn the page 00:18:05.480 --> 00:18:09.360 and look at option four, look at option three and option four. 00:18:09.360 --> 00:18:12.720 Don't lock yourself into all these dollars and percentages. 00:18:12.720 --> 00:18:15.760 You're making a fatal mistake. 00:18:15.760 --> 00:18:18.040 And so all of the things that we're discussing here, 00:18:18.040 --> 00:18:21.640 the financial relationships, the business relationships, 00:18:21.640 --> 00:18:26.840 that's pretty much all covered below the opening paragraph there. 00:18:26.840 --> 00:18:29.780 And so we can make this as complicated as you like 00:18:29.780 --> 00:18:35.180 or as simple as you like, but we can repeal what we've got right 00:18:35.180 --> 00:18:39.980 now as a horrible mistake that's going on five years old 00:18:39.980 --> 00:18:43.360 and move towards something that option three. 00:18:43.360 --> 00:18:45.720 And this is what was -- this is not day's world. 00:18:45.720 --> 00:18:48.600 This is what was presented by Ellen Bork with us, 00:18:48.600 --> 00:18:50.700 our ethics consultant, and it was never, 00:18:50.700 --> 00:18:54.400 ever considered by the city council that day. 00:18:54.400 --> 00:18:56.280 That was a mistake that we've been living 00:18:56.280 --> 00:18:58.780 with for about five years now. 00:18:58.780 --> 00:19:02.780 And so we have an opportunity to turn the clock back and get -- 00:19:02.780 --> 00:19:05.880 didn't in line with other cities with the general, 00:19:05.880 --> 00:19:11.260 but generally comprehensive conflict of interest code, 00:19:11.260 --> 00:19:13.960 which is not only -- one of the things -- 00:19:13.960 --> 00:19:17.420 one of the problems is the current code we have now 00:19:17.420 --> 00:19:18.520 is time specific. 00:19:18.520 --> 00:19:20.600 In other words, if you get right up to a vote, 00:19:20.600 --> 00:19:22.900 if you can get through a vote, you're good. 00:19:22.900 --> 00:19:26.600 This is a current and future matters. 00:19:26.600 --> 00:19:29.700 This covers, you know, something that you might think 00:19:29.700 --> 00:19:31.940 that you can get by the council. 00:19:31.940 --> 00:19:34.240 But again, this is not Dave's language. 00:19:34.240 --> 00:19:36.640 This is direct language from almost every other -- 00:19:36.640 --> 00:19:40.920 well, most other municipalities in the city of Texas. 00:19:40.920 --> 00:19:44.760 It's amendable, obviously, but those provisions 00:19:44.760 --> 00:19:47.920 at the bottom are pretty much standard from other cities. 00:19:47.920 --> 00:19:52.300 And just from my own perspective, I would encourage us, 00:19:52.300 --> 00:19:55.660 you know, we can do this and we can go line by line by line 00:19:55.660 --> 00:19:58.100 by line for the next three months. 00:19:58.100 --> 00:20:00.740 But I would just suggest we just kind of step back here 00:20:00.740 --> 00:20:04.740 and say we have -- I think the model code is kind 00:20:04.740 --> 00:20:06.400 of what we're talking about here. 00:20:06.400 --> 00:20:08.780 But there's a model right there. 00:20:08.780 --> 00:20:11.580 And it could be over just that quickly. 00:20:11.580 --> 00:20:12.980 And nothing would be left out. 00:20:12.980 --> 00:20:15.340 >> Then what we're discussing right now is the definition 00:20:15.340 --> 00:20:19.060 of outside client, which is in your example number four. 00:20:19.060 --> 00:20:23.060 This is what -- this is what the model code defines that. 00:20:23.060 --> 00:20:25.020 So we're discussing that definition 00:20:25.020 --> 00:20:28.760 so that we can actually put it in the code. 00:20:28.760 --> 00:20:32.260 >> So what does that mean for this item about the $1,000 00:20:32.260 --> 00:20:37.380 in the last 24 months when we just say a substantial client 00:20:37.380 --> 00:20:41.880 or when we leave that out on which you're following? 00:20:41.880 --> 00:20:43.340 >> On which one now? 00:20:43.340 --> 00:20:46.280 >> What we're looking at here, 00:20:46.280 --> 00:20:52.060 that the model code includes substantial clients or customers, 00:20:52.060 --> 00:20:55.820 which are people that have supplied goods or services 00:20:55.820 --> 00:20:59.600 at more than $1,000 in the past 24 months. 00:20:59.600 --> 00:21:00.760 >> That would apply. 00:21:00.760 --> 00:21:02.640 There would be no dollar amount. 00:21:02.640 --> 00:21:04.060 Whether or not you are benefiting 00:21:04.060 --> 00:21:08.100 or not from that relationship, it could be $50. 00:21:08.100 --> 00:21:13.040 If no one else in the city of Benton puts $50 in their pocket, 00:21:13.040 --> 00:21:16.180 but you do, that's a problem. 00:21:16.180 --> 00:21:18.540 Or that's at least something that you need to discuss 00:21:18.540 --> 00:21:21.640 with Madison or your internal auditor. 00:21:21.640 --> 00:21:25.060 So there's -- again, there's no dollar amounts here. 00:21:25.060 --> 00:21:27.460 And that's the thing that we've been trying to -- 00:21:27.460 --> 00:21:29.120 we've been kind of tap dancing around 00:21:29.120 --> 00:21:30.920 since we started talking about this. 00:21:30.920 --> 00:21:33.300 >> So what you just handed out, number seven, 00:21:33.300 --> 00:21:36.600 would cover this and be a little bit more general. 00:21:36.600 --> 00:21:39.140 >> Let's talk about number four. 00:21:39.140 --> 00:21:40.740 >> Number three. 00:21:40.740 --> 00:21:43.040 >> Number -- is there a -- 00:21:43.040 --> 00:21:47.280 >> Well, number four is the model that if you -- 00:21:47.280 --> 00:21:50.280 again, if you go through Dallas, El Paso, 00:21:50.280 --> 00:21:52.480 you're going to find something very similar 00:21:52.480 --> 00:21:53.580 to that exhibit four. 00:21:53.580 --> 00:21:56.180 And that's where Alan Boric was. 00:21:56.180 --> 00:21:58.180 That's where he -- you know, he has worked 00:21:58.180 --> 00:22:01.320 with these other cities that we're talking about. 00:22:01.320 --> 00:22:03.160 And so this was -- this would not be anything 00:22:03.160 --> 00:22:04.500 that would be unique to Denton. 00:22:04.500 --> 00:22:09.060 It's -- you know, it's obviously modifiable, amendable. 00:22:09.060 --> 00:22:11.460 But that's -- that -- 00:22:11.460 --> 00:22:13.300 >> So how would you change the model code? 00:22:13.300 --> 00:22:15.240 Would you just put this -- 00:22:15.240 --> 00:22:17.880 >> What's in example four is basically the model code. 00:22:17.880 --> 00:22:19.240 >> Okay. 00:22:19.240 --> 00:22:22.080 >> What's in example four is basically the model code. 00:22:22.080 --> 00:22:24.620 I've split it out this way so that we can discuss each one 00:22:24.620 --> 00:22:27.780 because we're talking about changing the entire node. 00:22:27.780 --> 00:22:31.620 And it -- the model code includes these thousand dollar 00:22:31.620 --> 00:22:36.060 thresholds to define what is in example four's outside client. 00:22:36.060 --> 00:22:38.220 So I just need direction on if you want 00:22:38.220 --> 00:22:40.760 to just not have the definition or if you do want 00:22:40.760 --> 00:22:44.200 to have a definition, what it is. 00:22:44.200 --> 00:22:47.560 >> So I guess -- I think the -- 00:22:47.560 --> 00:22:50.940 part of the question is in example four, bullet three, 00:22:50.940 --> 00:22:53.380 it says these are her outside client. 00:22:53.380 --> 00:22:56.040 And I think we're trying to make a decision on whether 00:22:56.040 --> 00:22:58.920 or not we leave it at that language 00:22:58.920 --> 00:23:02.660 or have a definition with the value and the -- 00:23:02.660 --> 00:23:04.220 >> Perfect. 00:23:04.220 --> 00:23:08.060 But I'm just laying this out as a framework rather than trying 00:23:08.060 --> 00:23:09.860 to reinvent the wheel right here. 00:23:09.860 --> 00:23:12.500 Which is where we got, you know, five years ago. 00:23:12.500 --> 00:23:14.060 This is where we got into trouble. 00:23:14.060 --> 00:23:18.900 We had models available to us at the time that were amendable. 00:23:18.900 --> 00:23:22.640 But I'm just saying that this is a framework that most other 00:23:22.640 --> 00:23:28.640 cities in Texas have found work very adequately for them. 00:23:28.640 --> 00:23:31.380 >> I wanted to clarify because I think Madison, 00:23:31.380 --> 00:23:34.780 what you told us is that this substantial client definition 00:23:34.780 --> 00:23:36.060 comes from the model code. 00:23:36.060 --> 00:23:37.420 >> That's correct. 00:23:37.420 --> 00:23:38.820 >> So we're not reinventing the wheel. 00:23:38.820 --> 00:23:40.500 We are actually going with what we have kind of like used 00:23:40.500 --> 00:23:42.060 as our guide, which is the model code. 00:23:42.060 --> 00:23:43.360 So -- 00:23:43.360 --> 00:23:44.760 >> Right. Which -- 00:23:44.760 --> 00:23:46.700 >> It's almost exactly like example four. 00:23:46.700 --> 00:23:49.360 But what you're saying, no money amount, 00:23:49.360 --> 00:23:52.060 but that does have money amount, so. 00:23:52.060 --> 00:23:53.740 >> I'm saying that, right, 00:23:53.740 --> 00:23:58.000 that this model code does not include dollar amounts. 00:23:58.000 --> 00:24:00.580 Now this is the framework. 00:24:00.580 --> 00:24:02.880 But the only thing, the only reason I mention this is rather 00:24:02.880 --> 00:24:05.920 than get into, you know, we've gone 00:24:05.920 --> 00:24:09.780 down this wordsmithing road before and we have refused 00:24:09.780 --> 00:24:11.680 for six years to take advantage 00:24:11.680 --> 00:24:15.060 of other people's success with this. 00:24:15.060 --> 00:24:17.460 And that's all I'm saying is that we have a model here 00:24:17.460 --> 00:24:19.360 that works everywhere -- well, 00:24:19.360 --> 00:24:22.560 works almost everywhere else in Texas. 00:24:22.560 --> 00:24:25.300 And that's all I'm suggesting is that it would be a -- 00:24:25.300 --> 00:24:31.240 it would be a repeal and replace of this current corrupted, 00:24:31.240 --> 00:24:34.140 confusing obtuse thing that we've got right now 00:24:34.140 --> 00:24:36.080 that we call our conflict of interest. 00:24:36.080 --> 00:24:39.380 Pending matters and all this other nonsense, 00:24:39.380 --> 00:24:42.980 in my opinion, needs to go in favor of something like this. 00:24:42.980 --> 00:24:45.580 >> The paragraph that we're looking at that begins the model 00:24:45.580 --> 00:24:48.260 could also include substantial clients. 00:24:48.260 --> 00:24:53.300 If we just took out value more than $1,000 in the past 24, 00:24:53.300 --> 00:24:57.000 and just leave the -- and just take out those few words, 00:24:57.000 --> 00:24:58.660 it would be fine? 00:24:58.660 --> 00:24:59.740 Is that -- 00:24:59.740 --> 00:25:01.400 >> I'm going to make the suggestion 00:25:01.400 --> 00:25:06.300 that a substantial client is somebody different 00:25:06.300 --> 00:25:08.480 than just a client. 00:25:08.480 --> 00:25:10.240 I think this is a special definition 00:25:10.240 --> 00:25:11.340 of a substantial client. 00:25:11.340 --> 00:25:15.980 That is my -- that is where I'm thinking the difference 00:25:15.980 --> 00:25:17.580 of language could come in. 00:25:17.580 --> 00:25:22.420 Because I'm not going to read it the same way with number -- 00:25:22.420 --> 00:25:24.860 like in example number four, number three, when it says his 00:25:24.860 --> 00:25:26.560 or her outside client, 00:25:26.560 --> 00:25:29.600 that to me does not match a substantial client definition. 00:25:29.600 --> 00:25:32.540 I think that that is a special definition of a -- 00:25:32.540 --> 00:25:36.540 that goes above and beyond of an outside client. 00:25:36.540 --> 00:25:39.480 >> That makes sense, yeah, appropriately. 00:25:39.480 --> 00:25:42.940 >> I'm just thinking of the -- what is written here is fine 00:25:42.940 --> 00:25:46.240 as long as we don't get into the weeds with numbers. 00:25:46.240 --> 00:25:48.220 Is that -- I just want to make sure I'm hearing -- 00:25:48.220 --> 00:25:50.920 >> I mean, we have -- you're trying to write a code. 00:25:50.920 --> 00:25:51.820 >> Yeah. 00:25:51.820 --> 00:25:54.920 >> So if you don't want to define it, we don't have to. 00:25:54.920 --> 00:26:01.320 >> Okay. So if we just take out value more than $1,000, 00:26:01.320 --> 00:26:04.600 that might -- that might cover it. 00:26:04.600 --> 00:26:05.700 What do you guys think? 00:26:05.700 --> 00:26:09.800 >> It's just -- I'm just clarifying from that. 00:26:09.800 --> 00:26:13.940 >> No, I appreciate that and that's -- 00:26:13.940 --> 00:26:16.240 >> Tom, what do you think about that? 00:26:16.240 --> 00:26:17.480 >> Keep it simple. 00:26:17.480 --> 00:26:19.720 >> Keep it simple, that's good. 00:26:19.720 --> 00:26:21.740 >> Having all these -- 00:26:21.740 --> 00:26:22.820 >> Okay. 00:26:22.820 --> 00:26:25.460 >> -- different varieties, I think just makes it work. 00:26:25.460 --> 00:26:27.620 >> I really don't want to confuse this, but there have been a lot 00:26:27.620 --> 00:26:30.160 of citizens in this town that have been waiting for five 00:26:30.160 --> 00:26:32.820 or six years to clear this matter up. 00:26:32.820 --> 00:26:33.660 >> Okay. 00:26:33.660 --> 00:26:37.800 >> Okay. Well, I think if we leave it the way it is 00:26:37.800 --> 00:26:41.200 and just take out the number, I think we'll be fine. 00:26:41.200 --> 00:26:44.200 >> So you don't want to define substantial client? 00:26:44.200 --> 00:26:46.880 >> I'm not ready to do that because I think what we need 00:26:46.880 --> 00:26:49.340 to do is we need to really -- 00:26:49.340 --> 00:26:51.820 is the model code using substantial client 00:26:51.820 --> 00:26:54.940 as a different -- with a different definition 00:26:54.940 --> 00:26:58.020 from an outside client? 00:26:58.020 --> 00:27:02.580 I would like that to be clarified to see if -- 00:27:02.580 --> 00:27:04.820 because if we're using this anonymously, 00:27:04.820 --> 00:27:07.360 then there might be a conversation to be had, 00:27:07.360 --> 00:27:10.960 but if they're two different things, then -- 00:27:10.960 --> 00:27:15.260 >> What if we just said clients and looked out substantial 00:27:15.260 --> 00:27:18.980 that are people that the official has -- 00:27:18.980 --> 00:27:21.580 >> Well, isn't that what the first one is? 00:27:21.580 --> 00:27:30.720 >> So maybe just strike that one altogether, 00:27:30.720 --> 00:27:32.960 that one little paragraph? 00:27:32.960 --> 00:27:40.000 >> If that makes it simpler, yes. 00:27:40.000 --> 00:27:41.300 >> Yeah. 00:27:41.300 --> 00:27:50.440 So this is where this comes from, in the model code. 00:27:50.440 --> 00:27:54.400 A client or substantial client, and then you go down to client 00:27:54.400 --> 00:27:58.840 and it defines it this way, which is what's written. 00:27:58.840 --> 00:28:02.480 >> I think that -- thank you, you know, thank you. 00:28:02.480 --> 00:28:06.620 I think I would -- I want to hear what you -- 00:28:06.620 --> 00:28:10.920 that's not for me to debate. 00:28:10.920 --> 00:28:15.160 So take out that specificity or maybe some of it in. 00:28:15.160 --> 00:28:19.160 What's your -- what's your thinking? 00:28:26.540 --> 00:28:33.580 I think if you just define it as benefit, then that opens the door 00:28:33.580 --> 00:28:38.180 for like David's people he's been talking about, that -- 00:28:38.180 --> 00:28:40.860 then they can say, "Well, I think this is a benefit, 00:28:40.860 --> 00:28:44.720 so I'm going to bring it to the ethics board as a violation." 00:28:44.720 --> 00:28:46.320 >> Or the auditor. 00:28:46.320 --> 00:28:47.100 >> Or auditor, yeah. 00:28:47.100 --> 00:28:50.360 >> Right. This is exactly where Madison would come into play, 00:28:50.360 --> 00:28:54.960 where it is so difficult to define every circumstance here, 00:28:54.960 --> 00:28:58.700 and that's what's been so frustrating and why -- 00:28:58.700 --> 00:29:01.240 well, frankly, like I said, I know of some complaints 00:29:01.240 --> 00:29:03.280 that never move forward because they didn't want 00:29:03.280 --> 00:29:08.420 to go down this pending matter $500, $600 grab and hold. 00:29:08.420 --> 00:29:13.360 So this -- this is a -- this is a -- this is proven stuff. 00:29:13.360 --> 00:29:15.020 This works in Texas. 00:29:15.020 --> 00:29:16.360 That's all I'm saying. 00:29:16.360 --> 00:29:21.860 There may be some modifications or wording is better, but -- 00:29:21.860 --> 00:29:25.740 >> In the end, it has to be a judgment call, you know, 00:29:25.740 --> 00:29:29.100 and that's why there's a board and not just one person 00:29:29.100 --> 00:29:32.980 that says, "Oh, you're fine," or "No." 00:29:32.980 --> 00:29:35.400 >> And it puts the answer in the auditor in a more -- 00:29:35.400 --> 00:29:39.980 in more of a central role, too, more important role 00:29:39.980 --> 00:29:43.320 for ethics determinations than this is written -- 00:29:43.320 --> 00:29:45.680 well, this is $600, and whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, what? 00:29:45.680 --> 00:29:49.360 That's not the way -- that's not the way it should work. 00:29:49.360 --> 00:29:53.500 I don't make any judgment calls in the ethics process. 00:29:53.500 --> 00:29:56.960 >> Yeah. You just administer and -- 00:29:56.960 --> 00:29:57.860 >> Right. 00:29:57.860 --> 00:30:01.100 >> I don't want to be in a more central role. 00:30:01.100 --> 00:30:04.140 >> Okay. And thank you for that because the way I'm looking 00:30:04.140 --> 00:30:07.680 at it now is we just need to leave the adjectives out. 00:30:07.680 --> 00:30:08.640 >> Just use client. 00:30:08.640 --> 00:30:14.220 >> And just use client, or customer, or whatever. 00:30:14.220 --> 00:30:17.480 >> The model code has the definition of client, though. 00:30:17.480 --> 00:30:20.860 So are you saying leave the dollar not 00:30:20.860 --> 00:30:23.220 out of the definition of client? 00:30:23.220 --> 00:30:24.400 >> Use the substantial. 00:30:24.400 --> 00:30:29.060 Use the -- leave the substantial out and leave the dollars out. 00:30:29.060 --> 00:30:32.000 >> Right. But I think the definition of the model code is -- 00:30:32.000 --> 00:30:32.840 >> It is for client. 00:30:32.840 --> 00:30:35.140 >> It's for client, not substantial client. 00:30:35.140 --> 00:30:36.440 >> Yep. 00:30:36.440 --> 00:30:39.080 >> That would make it a lot more clear. 00:30:39.080 --> 00:30:42.020 >> I don't think I understand what we're saying here. 00:30:42.020 --> 00:30:48.660 The model code defines client as a person or entity 00:30:48.660 --> 00:30:53.020 to which a person or entity has supplied goods 00:30:53.020 --> 00:30:55.720 or services during the previous 24 months, 00:30:55.720 --> 00:30:59.900 having in the aggregate a value greater than $1,000. 00:30:59.900 --> 00:31:02.800 And then there's a part B to that. 00:31:02.800 --> 00:31:06.440 If the official or employee's outside business has supplied 00:31:06.440 --> 00:31:09.640 goods or services during these 24 months, 00:31:09.640 --> 00:31:13.040 having in aggregate the value greater than $1,000. 00:31:13.040 --> 00:31:18.080 So in both of those scenarios, we're talking about taking 00:31:18.080 --> 00:31:21.680 out the word substantial, but the definition of the model code is 00:31:21.680 --> 00:31:23.480 not for a substantial client. 00:31:23.480 --> 00:31:26.060 It's just for a customer or client. 00:31:26.060 --> 00:31:28.860 So I'm not sure I understand where we're going. 00:31:28.860 --> 00:31:31.800 The model code defines it based on dollar amount, 00:31:31.800 --> 00:31:34.960 which if we want to just take that out, I'm fine with that, 00:31:34.960 --> 00:31:40.180 and then just say we define a client as that, basically, 00:31:40.180 --> 00:31:44.680 that same definition without the aggregate dollar amount 00:31:44.680 --> 00:31:48.980 and either use what's in the model code or the 24 months 00:31:48.980 --> 00:31:56.020 or what's in this example of, I think it says 12 months, right? 00:31:56.020 --> 00:31:58.520 So to me, that's what the discussion is about, 00:31:58.520 --> 00:32:03.120 not so much, like I think this example is excellent, 00:32:03.120 --> 00:32:05.900 but it's almost the same as what's in the model code, 00:32:05.900 --> 00:32:09.160 which I think we're all going towards. 00:32:09.160 --> 00:32:11.360 Like the question that keeps coming up is, 00:32:11.360 --> 00:32:13.140 do we have a dollar amount here? 00:32:13.140 --> 00:32:15.940 And I think in our code right now, there's a bunch of that. 00:32:15.940 --> 00:32:18.580 It's very confusing that we've talked about, 00:32:18.580 --> 00:32:20.340 and it's hard to follow. 00:32:20.340 --> 00:32:22.780 In the model code, it's more straightforward, 00:32:22.780 --> 00:32:24.180 but it's still there. 00:32:24.180 --> 00:32:28.660 So I think unless I'm missing something, we're kind of all 00:32:28.660 --> 00:32:32.520 on board adjusting this so that we have a more basic 00:32:32.520 --> 00:32:34.960 definition of the conflict of interest. 00:32:34.960 --> 00:32:38.320 And it's more of a broader-- yeah. 00:32:38.320 --> 00:32:43.900 And for the customer or client, it's just a matter 00:32:43.900 --> 00:32:49.380 of do we include some dollar amount and some time 00:32:49.380 --> 00:32:53.680 definition in there, which I could probably 00:32:53.680 --> 00:32:56.340 be convinced either way. 00:32:56.340 --> 00:32:58.620 I don't want to leave this yet, but I 00:32:58.620 --> 00:33:01.120 will say what's in this example does not 00:33:01.120 --> 00:33:05.380 include anything on campaign contributions. 00:33:05.380 --> 00:33:09.700 And that is in the model code, so I don't want to jump to that. 00:33:09.700 --> 00:33:10.800 There are other sections. 00:33:10.800 --> 00:33:15.140 That is only the conflict of interest section, the poor quiz. 00:33:15.140 --> 00:33:18.000 No, there are other gifts and campaign. 00:33:18.000 --> 00:33:21.240 That's not the entire-- and the only reason I mention this 00:33:21.240 --> 00:33:26.880 is I just wanted everyone to understand this was never, ever 00:33:26.880 --> 00:33:29.980 discussed, and that is important. 00:33:29.980 --> 00:33:34.960 It went straight to dollars and percentages and pending matters. 00:33:34.960 --> 00:33:38.560 And the citizens have to go, time out, time out. 00:33:38.560 --> 00:33:40.960 And there were a couple of people on the council, 00:33:40.960 --> 00:33:42.800 a couple of women who tried to raise-- 00:33:42.800 --> 00:33:43.960 Who tried to stop it. 00:33:43.960 --> 00:33:46.500 And they basically shut it down. 00:33:46.500 --> 00:33:49.300 And there's some stuff in our current code like pending matter 00:33:49.300 --> 00:33:52.440 means-- well, there are some definitions and things 00:33:52.440 --> 00:33:53.800 that make no sense right now. 00:33:53.800 --> 00:33:58.320 So I think we are agreeing maybe take out the word substantial 00:33:58.320 --> 00:34:02.680 and take out the aggregate amount, the aggregate $1,000. 00:34:02.680 --> 00:34:04.820 And then we're all good with this amount. 00:34:04.820 --> 00:34:06.120 With the 24 months? 00:34:06.120 --> 00:34:08.960 With 24 months left here? 00:34:08.960 --> 00:34:11.720 I was wondering about that myself. 00:34:11.720 --> 00:34:13.720 I think when you start putting numbers on it, 00:34:13.720 --> 00:34:17.160 it makes it awfully specific. 00:34:17.160 --> 00:34:20.160 What if it was 25 months? 00:34:20.160 --> 00:34:21.600 What if it was five years ago? 00:34:21.600 --> 00:34:22.100 Yeah. 00:34:27.500 --> 00:34:31.480 I think, to me, if something came before this board, 00:34:31.480 --> 00:34:33.520 I did a potential conflict of interest. 00:34:33.520 --> 00:34:37.420 And it was five years ago when it was $50. 00:34:37.420 --> 00:34:39.780 We're probably going to look at that differently 00:34:39.780 --> 00:34:45.160 than if it was two weeks ago when it was $10,000. 00:34:45.160 --> 00:34:46.060 Sure. 00:34:46.060 --> 00:34:50.300 But if we-- so if we put a number in there, 00:34:50.300 --> 00:34:56.740 either a dollar amount or a tiny constraint, then-- 00:34:56.740 --> 00:34:58.500 So what do you guys think? 00:34:58.500 --> 00:35:02.180 So we're all in agreement except for this time constraint. 00:35:02.180 --> 00:35:04.640 That's what we're going. 00:35:04.640 --> 00:35:06.620 Tom? 00:35:06.620 --> 00:35:09.980 Yeah, I think you should limit how far you go back. 00:35:09.980 --> 00:35:11.580 I think 24 months is-- 00:35:11.580 --> 00:35:12.080 Reasonable. 00:35:12.080 --> 00:35:13.560 --reasonable. 00:35:13.560 --> 00:35:15.020 What do you guys think? 00:35:15.020 --> 00:35:15.520 Yeah. 00:35:15.520 --> 00:35:19.020 I mean, I think that's a reasonable amount of time. 00:35:19.020 --> 00:35:21.660 So keep with the 24 months? 00:35:21.660 --> 00:35:23.660 OK. 00:35:23.660 --> 00:35:26.300 And the other point about this real quickly 00:35:26.300 --> 00:35:32.500 is this model code, the word "likely" appears in here. 00:35:32.500 --> 00:35:33.900 Now, that's a very simple word. 00:35:33.900 --> 00:35:36.980 But it implies that something that 00:35:36.980 --> 00:35:38.640 could happen in the future-- and that's 00:35:38.640 --> 00:35:40.280 a problem with our current code. 00:35:40.280 --> 00:35:44.020 Because our current code, it's so cut and dried 00:35:44.020 --> 00:35:46.380 that if it hasn't happened by the day you vote on it, 00:35:46.380 --> 00:35:49.720 you're in the clear as a council member. 00:35:49.720 --> 00:35:52.320 And so this is a big difference where 00:35:52.320 --> 00:35:57.360 if a council member might think, gosh, now, what shall I do here? 00:35:57.360 --> 00:35:59.060 I think we're on agreement on this point. 00:35:59.060 --> 00:36:01.140 I want to save our time for it getting to the point. 00:36:01.140 --> 00:36:01.640 OK. 00:36:01.640 --> 00:36:02.140 Well, that's-- 00:36:02.140 --> 00:36:06.140 Because I think it's going to be more interesting. 00:36:06.140 --> 00:36:08.100 So the next point would be the model code 00:36:08.100 --> 00:36:10.580 includes campaign contributions, including 00:36:10.580 --> 00:36:13.840 people and their families, entities and their owners, 00:36:13.840 --> 00:36:17.540 directors, officers, and political committees 00:36:17.540 --> 00:36:20.780 that contributed more than $200 during the last election 00:36:20.780 --> 00:36:22.860 cycle. 00:36:22.860 --> 00:36:23.860 OK. 00:36:23.860 --> 00:36:24.360 Discussion. 00:36:24.360 --> 00:36:35.220 I'll just add for context, something similar 00:36:35.220 --> 00:36:38.500 was brought before council last time. 00:36:38.500 --> 00:36:43.620 And I believe they were confused about the election cycle, how 00:36:43.620 --> 00:36:44.780 that was defined. 00:36:44.780 --> 00:36:47.740 And so that is part of why they did not vote for it. 00:36:47.740 --> 00:36:53.380 It was also, there were only six members on the council at that time. 00:36:53.380 --> 00:36:58.300 So what are your thoughts about it, please? 00:36:58.300 --> 00:37:00.140 I think this needs to be in there. 00:37:00.140 --> 00:37:02.860 I don't know how we clean up the language on the past election 00:37:02.860 --> 00:37:04.020 cycle. 00:37:04.020 --> 00:37:10.260 I know that I watched that council meeting and I was-- 00:37:10.260 --> 00:37:12.780 I'm sure they were upset about it. 00:37:12.780 --> 00:37:14.460 No, I mean, I guess I don't think 00:37:14.460 --> 00:37:17.220 we had discussed that at all in any of our meetings 00:37:17.220 --> 00:37:19.420 about any confusion about that. 00:37:19.420 --> 00:37:22.260 And part of that's probably because as far as I know, 00:37:22.260 --> 00:37:24.220 none of us are elected officials and we probably 00:37:24.220 --> 00:37:26.940 don't think about that sort of thing. 00:37:26.940 --> 00:37:31.540 So I don't know how I clean up the language for that, 00:37:31.540 --> 00:37:32.980 but it would be-- 00:37:32.980 --> 00:37:39.180 maybe we need to-- 00:37:39.180 --> 00:37:42.900 What if we said within the last 24 months, 00:37:42.900 --> 00:37:49.380 go back to, I mean, that would cover, you know, 00:37:49.380 --> 00:37:50.700 seems like a reasonable amount. 00:37:50.700 --> 00:37:54.540 But I think the dollar numbers, I want to discuss that too. 00:37:54.540 --> 00:38:02.100 It would be cynical to use 24 months. 00:38:02.100 --> 00:38:04.460 So it's our list. 00:38:04.460 --> 00:38:08.220 We have a definition for most recent and past election cycle 00:38:08.220 --> 00:38:12.820 that we didn't draft is confusing, you know. 00:38:12.820 --> 00:38:19.380 I would support sticking with 24 months for that as well, 00:38:19.380 --> 00:38:21.860 just so there's some consistency. 00:38:21.860 --> 00:38:25.620 Like I realize that a client and a campaign contributor 00:38:25.620 --> 00:38:29.380 are very different things, but if we 00:38:29.380 --> 00:38:34.380 start to do different timespans there, 00:38:34.380 --> 00:38:36.740 it's going to just make it more confusing. 00:38:36.740 --> 00:38:39.460 I think that's clear and it kind of squares with the other time 00:38:39.460 --> 00:38:40.460 when we set up. 00:38:40.460 --> 00:38:41.460 What do you guys-- 00:38:41.460 --> 00:38:49.980 I really do think that going with the 24 months 00:38:49.980 --> 00:38:53.420 would be a lot more clean. 00:38:53.420 --> 00:38:56.300 What is the term of a council? 00:38:56.300 --> 00:38:57.300 Two years. 00:38:57.300 --> 00:38:58.300 That's what it is. 00:38:58.300 --> 00:39:04.500 Not that this code is applying only to them. 00:39:07.060 --> 00:39:07.580 OK. 00:39:07.580 --> 00:39:09.980 So we have agreement on that. 00:39:09.980 --> 00:39:11.420 What about the dollar amount? 00:39:11.420 --> 00:39:14.180 Are we in agreement with that, or should it be a little higher? 00:39:14.180 --> 00:39:19.460 It's going to be outdated five years from now. 00:39:19.460 --> 00:39:26.500 Yeah, I think when a TAC donates a lot of money, 00:39:26.500 --> 00:39:31.740 that's where I get like thousands of dollars. 00:39:31.740 --> 00:39:35.620 But I don't know where to draw the line. 00:39:35.620 --> 00:39:38.060 I think that was a point of contention for the city council 00:39:38.060 --> 00:39:38.700 members as well. 00:39:38.700 --> 00:39:41.180 I know it was. 00:39:41.180 --> 00:39:44.460 So do we need to draw a line here? 00:39:44.460 --> 00:39:48.420 Do we need to have a financial threshold for that? 00:39:48.420 --> 00:39:50.260 We just had the discussion of taking that out 00:39:50.260 --> 00:39:52.380 as a substantial client or client. 00:40:01.140 --> 00:40:08.060 $200 to a city council, it sounds like a lot of money to me. 00:40:08.060 --> 00:40:12.340 Especially for city council, the most donations are not a problem. 00:40:12.340 --> 00:40:17.580 Especially since city politics are supposed to be more partisan. 00:40:17.580 --> 00:40:19.660 Then I think we get into political issues 00:40:19.660 --> 00:40:21.860 that probably shouldn't be there. 00:40:21.860 --> 00:40:27.300 I think the one we proposed was $500. 00:40:27.300 --> 00:40:30.260 That's helpful. 00:40:30.260 --> 00:40:34.140 I can't remember if it was in the council meeting 00:40:34.140 --> 00:40:35.460 or if it was something else I read. 00:40:35.460 --> 00:40:41.820 There was a lot of discussion about the political committee part of it. 00:40:41.820 --> 00:40:48.540 Because if a political action committee donates to a candidate, 00:40:48.540 --> 00:40:55.500 and someone that is involved with that political action committee 00:40:55.500 --> 00:41:01.020 has business before the council, does that member 00:41:01.020 --> 00:41:04.580 have to recuse himself because of that relationship 00:41:04.580 --> 00:41:09.780 when that individual did not make the contribution? 00:41:09.780 --> 00:41:13.580 And I don't know how to resolve that. 00:41:13.580 --> 00:41:16.900 I don't know if that was something you'd have the answer to. 00:41:16.900 --> 00:41:21.100 The question came up in the meeting in that discussion, I believe. 00:41:21.100 --> 00:41:24.900 And it was, to me, it was something I had never thought about 00:41:24.900 --> 00:41:28.340 and did not know was even a potential issue. 00:41:28.340 --> 00:41:35.220 But it almost sounded like they were aware of that possibility 00:41:35.220 --> 00:41:39.900 or that having the answer in the past. 00:41:39.900 --> 00:41:44.700 So I don't know how to resolve that. 00:41:44.700 --> 00:41:49.300 Well, that's definitely one way to circumvent it. 00:41:49.300 --> 00:41:49.820 Correct. 00:41:55.900 --> 00:41:58.620 So there's a "what you would like to see" 00:41:58.620 --> 00:42:01.980 and "what seems realistic" kind of thing going on here. 00:42:01.980 --> 00:42:10.260 So does this apply to PACs, or are they candidatrix? 00:42:10.260 --> 00:42:19.700 The model code applies to individuals, business entities, 00:42:19.700 --> 00:42:25.780 and party town/non-candidate political committees. 00:42:25.780 --> 00:42:28.140 A political committee would be a PAC, right? 00:42:28.140 --> 00:42:36.940 I think non-candidate political committee, this is a PAC. 00:42:36.940 --> 00:42:38.340 I think. 00:42:38.340 --> 00:42:39.780 That would be my guess. 00:42:39.780 --> 00:42:43.780 Because I know the law changed maybe four or five years ago 00:42:43.780 --> 00:42:49.980 where a PAC does not have to identify his affiliation. 00:42:49.980 --> 00:42:53.140 And so it makes it even more complicated. 00:42:53.140 --> 00:42:56.860 Because on a federal level, they don't 00:42:56.860 --> 00:42:58.820 have to identify where they're coming from, 00:42:58.820 --> 00:43:03.060 which I think is protective for a company that might be-- 00:43:03.060 --> 00:43:05.540 Does anyone know how much the PAC's donated to it? 00:43:05.540 --> 00:43:08.140 I tried to clock it on a council person, I mean. 00:43:08.140 --> 00:43:10.300 Last time, it was more than $500,000. 00:43:10.300 --> 00:43:12.300 Oh, very much more. 00:43:12.300 --> 00:43:18.100 $500,000. 00:43:18.100 --> 00:43:21.580 And this wouldn't stop council members from receiving money. 00:43:21.580 --> 00:43:24.140 This would just require them to refuse themselves 00:43:24.140 --> 00:43:30.340 from matters involving that organization. 00:43:30.340 --> 00:43:32.020 Might be one of their quesals. 00:43:32.020 --> 00:43:34.500 Yeah. 00:43:34.500 --> 00:43:37.300 Well, I think that's the point of this. 00:43:37.300 --> 00:43:38.900 Yeah, yeah. 00:43:38.900 --> 00:43:44.620 Because the biggest one I saw was a group of realtors, 00:43:44.620 --> 00:43:48.260 and there was one group in North Texas, 00:43:48.260 --> 00:43:51.180 and there was another group out in Lubbock, 00:43:51.180 --> 00:43:55.180 which I found interesting. 00:43:55.180 --> 00:43:57.700 And it was thousands and thousands of dollars. 00:43:57.700 --> 00:43:59.260 It was in the newspaper. 00:44:05.260 --> 00:44:09.100 I think I would support going with the model code definition 00:44:09.100 --> 00:44:12.220 and the wording here. 00:44:12.220 --> 00:44:15.900 Because I think it's a lot harder to just sort of strike 00:44:15.900 --> 00:44:20.460 this down as, well, we don't know how to apply this. 00:44:20.460 --> 00:44:24.340 For the council to say, there's a lot of gray area here. 00:44:24.340 --> 00:44:25.740 We don't know how to apply this. 00:44:25.740 --> 00:44:32.620 We can't actually use this if we use the model code language. 00:44:32.620 --> 00:44:36.300 And I would strongly support keeping this 00:44:36.300 --> 00:44:40.260 as part of the conflict of interest. 00:44:40.260 --> 00:44:42.660 With the 24-months? 00:44:42.660 --> 00:44:47.220 With the 24-months definition to try and resolve the issue 00:44:47.220 --> 00:44:50.100 that they're concerned they had before about the election 00:44:50.100 --> 00:44:52.780 cycle, because I don't know how to fix that part of it. 00:44:52.780 --> 00:44:54.420 I mean, it doesn't-- 00:44:54.420 --> 00:44:55.780 I listened to it like three times, 00:44:55.780 --> 00:44:58.100 and it didn't make sense to me. 00:44:58.100 --> 00:44:59.500 That's good to know. 00:45:03.420 --> 00:45:07.820 So go-- so I hear Dustin supporting it 00:45:07.820 --> 00:45:10.220 with just changing the 24-months. 00:45:10.220 --> 00:45:13.620 [INAUDIBLE] 00:45:13.620 --> 00:45:14.300 OK. 00:45:14.300 --> 00:45:15.780 I agree, too. 00:45:15.780 --> 00:45:18.340 Move on. 00:45:18.340 --> 00:45:21.660 The model code also includes non-relative housemates 00:45:21.660 --> 00:45:25.060 and substantial debtors or creditors 00:45:25.060 --> 00:45:26.260 of the city official. 00:45:26.260 --> 00:45:32.180 You good with that? 00:45:32.180 --> 00:45:34.180 Yes. 00:45:34.180 --> 00:45:34.660 Dave? 00:45:34.660 --> 00:45:43.620 For now, yes. 00:45:43.620 --> 00:45:45.060 Andrea? 00:45:45.060 --> 00:45:46.420 Tom? 00:45:46.420 --> 00:45:48.340 I'm good with it. 00:45:48.340 --> 00:45:48.820 OK. 00:45:48.820 --> 00:45:53.540 So this next one is the city of debt 00:45:53.540 --> 00:45:55.060 and includes people or entities that 00:45:55.060 --> 00:45:58.340 have offered a city official employment, ownership 00:45:58.340 --> 00:46:02.020 of real property, which are not included in the model code. 00:46:03.020 --> 00:46:07.420 Isn't that kind of covered in some of the others, 00:46:07.420 --> 00:46:08.380 more generally? 00:46:08.380 --> 00:46:20.220 The property was covered by annual disclosures, perhaps. 00:46:20.220 --> 00:46:28.940 I mean, in some way, it's just not as explicitly covered. 00:46:28.940 --> 00:46:30.860 So what do you guys think about this? 00:46:32.180 --> 00:46:35.660 [SIDE CONVERSATION] 00:46:35.660 --> 00:46:49.580 I was involved in one of the tribunals, the three people, 00:46:49.580 --> 00:46:52.380 and there was a council member who was a director. 00:46:52.380 --> 00:46:54.980 I believe it was the title of a charity. 00:46:54.980 --> 00:46:55.780 A service organization. 00:46:55.780 --> 00:46:58.540 I wanted to make sure that-- 00:46:58.540 --> 00:47:01.980 Which I'm really glad she did. 00:47:01.980 --> 00:47:04.940 [SIDE CONVERSATION] 00:47:04.940 --> 00:47:07.700 Somebody put the flags up. 00:47:07.700 --> 00:47:09.580 Yeah, this works. 00:47:09.580 --> 00:47:14.420 Because she knew she was a director of that nonprofit. 00:47:14.420 --> 00:47:18.420 So she brought it to us. 00:47:18.420 --> 00:47:22.260 So are you saying leave that part from the city? 00:47:22.260 --> 00:47:25.140 I would. 00:47:25.140 --> 00:47:27.540 Andrea, what do you think? 00:47:27.540 --> 00:47:28.020 Leave it? 00:47:32.020 --> 00:47:35.100 OK, can we splice it in? 00:47:35.100 --> 00:47:37.260 Yeah, so I think what we just talked about 00:47:37.260 --> 00:47:43.020 was nonprofit organizations being on the board, 00:47:43.020 --> 00:47:46.100 being part of the conflict of interest. 00:47:46.100 --> 00:47:47.260 That's in both. 00:47:47.260 --> 00:47:50.300 So I'm hearing yes to that. 00:47:50.300 --> 00:47:56.420 The model code doesn't clearly have 00:47:56.420 --> 00:48:00.220 being a non-compensated board member for a business entity. 00:48:02.940 --> 00:48:05.380 I did not read it clearly in there. 00:48:05.380 --> 00:48:07.820 That is in the city's code. 00:48:07.820 --> 00:48:09.500 Do we really like to keep that? 00:48:09.500 --> 00:48:12.900 So maybe there's something the city code has that's better. 00:48:12.900 --> 00:48:17.420 We might be in favor of leaving it, that part. 00:48:17.420 --> 00:48:23.300 I'm in favor of leaving that in. 00:48:23.300 --> 00:48:24.260 Patricia? 00:48:24.260 --> 00:48:25.060 Yeah. 00:48:25.060 --> 00:48:26.220 Yes. 00:48:26.220 --> 00:48:27.300 Yes? 00:48:27.300 --> 00:48:27.780 Yes. 00:48:27.780 --> 00:48:28.420 OK. 00:48:28.420 --> 00:48:30.220 And then I have a couple more, sorry. 00:48:30.220 --> 00:48:31.180 Yeah. 00:48:31.180 --> 00:48:34.540 The author of employment, I think, again, it's 00:48:34.540 --> 00:48:38.340 not as explicitly defined in the model code. 00:48:38.340 --> 00:48:42.860 You could say it's covered, potentially. 00:48:42.860 --> 00:48:47.940 But that we actually just amended the code to include. 00:48:47.940 --> 00:48:51.020 I'll leave that. 00:48:51.020 --> 00:48:53.740 Are you saying it's redundant, or-- 00:48:53.740 --> 00:48:54.500 It's kind of-- 00:48:54.500 --> 00:48:56.620 Saying it's for clarification. 00:48:56.620 --> 00:48:58.060 Yeah, clarification, I find. 00:49:01.220 --> 00:49:03.580 Good. 00:49:03.580 --> 00:49:04.540 Thumbs up all around? 00:49:04.540 --> 00:49:05.020 Yeah, good. 00:49:05.020 --> 00:49:05.780 OK. 00:49:05.780 --> 00:49:08.300 OK. 00:49:08.300 --> 00:49:10.300 So then do we go into the section that 00:49:10.300 --> 00:49:13.900 begins with withdrawal from participation, or-- 00:49:13.900 --> 00:49:15.300 I think there's one more discussion 00:49:15.300 --> 00:49:16.540 about the real property. 00:49:16.540 --> 00:49:17.940 Oh, OK. 00:49:17.940 --> 00:49:20.100 Because the way that the model code defines it 00:49:20.100 --> 00:49:22.140 is it basically lifts people. 00:49:32.020 --> 00:49:36.020 So in this list of people, it doesn't include property, 00:49:36.020 --> 00:49:38.380 because property is not a person. 00:49:38.380 --> 00:49:40.980 But it does include taking action 00:49:40.980 --> 00:49:43.500 that would impact your personal or financial benefit, 00:49:43.500 --> 00:49:47.220 and then requires property to be disclosed annually. 00:49:47.220 --> 00:49:49.860 So I think it's covered that way in the model code. 00:49:49.860 --> 00:49:52.020 So I just wanted to make sure that we are aware. 00:49:52.020 --> 00:49:54.180 We would basically be taking that as clearly out, 00:49:54.180 --> 00:49:58.380 but it would still be in there, in that way. 00:49:58.380 --> 00:50:02.060 In that way. 00:50:02.060 --> 00:50:04.620 I like that they could be more work for you, 00:50:04.620 --> 00:50:08.420 because it gets submitted to you, right? 00:50:08.420 --> 00:50:11.420 It's more work for you. 00:50:11.420 --> 00:50:12.700 It's like the national debt. 00:50:12.700 --> 00:50:18.860 What do you guys think? 00:50:18.860 --> 00:50:25.580 I'm not sure I understood what you're saying. 00:50:25.580 --> 00:50:27.060 Sorry. 00:50:27.060 --> 00:50:32.660 Leaving in the model code's-- 00:50:32.660 --> 00:50:34.220 Basically, I just wanted to make clear 00:50:34.220 --> 00:50:38.220 the difference between the model code and the current code. 00:50:38.220 --> 00:50:41.780 The current code clearly calls out that owning property. 00:50:41.780 --> 00:50:49.020 If you own property that's impacted by appending matter, 00:50:49.020 --> 00:50:50.620 then you have to refuse. 00:50:50.620 --> 00:50:53.620 Whereas that's not as explicit in the model code, 00:50:53.620 --> 00:50:56.620 but it's implied, basically. 00:50:56.620 --> 00:50:59.820 And the model code makes you list all of your property 00:50:59.820 --> 00:51:00.580 once a year. 00:51:00.580 --> 00:51:01.820 Right. 00:51:01.820 --> 00:51:02.740 Within the city. 00:51:02.740 --> 00:51:07.660 So it's just kind of too-- 00:51:07.660 --> 00:51:09.780 it's not, yeah, if you own something in California, 00:51:09.780 --> 00:51:12.060 you don't have to dispose of it. 00:51:12.060 --> 00:51:16.380 It's just kind of two different ways of making that, 00:51:16.380 --> 00:51:19.020 of stating that. 00:51:19.020 --> 00:51:22.860 Does our current code say you have to recuse or just 00:51:22.860 --> 00:51:24.220 disclose? 00:51:24.220 --> 00:51:29.980 I believe it says you have to recuse if appending matter 00:51:29.980 --> 00:51:32.740 would impact a property that you own. 00:51:32.740 --> 00:51:39.500 So if council was hearing my case, my zoning case 00:51:39.500 --> 00:51:41.500 or something, and I was on council, 00:51:41.500 --> 00:51:45.540 I would have to not vote on that, is what it says. 00:51:45.540 --> 00:51:47.580 OK. 00:51:47.580 --> 00:51:51.020 It's just explicit in the current debt and code, 00:51:51.020 --> 00:51:54.100 whereas you would still have to recuse under the model 00:51:54.100 --> 00:51:54.600 code. 00:51:54.600 --> 00:51:55.860 It's just not as explicit. 00:51:55.860 --> 00:51:57.860 Yeah. 00:51:57.860 --> 00:52:00.980 Or I think you would still be expected to recuse. 00:52:00.980 --> 00:52:03.140 That could be a challenge to someone 00:52:03.140 --> 00:52:05.660 if they own property all over the city, right? 00:52:05.660 --> 00:52:09.460 Potentially. 00:52:09.460 --> 00:52:10.420 I don't know how many. 00:52:10.420 --> 00:52:10.920 I don't-- 00:52:10.920 --> 00:52:20.420 Reaction? 00:52:20.420 --> 00:52:26.100 I think if they-- are they required to reveal 00:52:26.100 --> 00:52:27.700 the properties once a year? 00:52:27.700 --> 00:52:28.740 Is that what you were saying? 00:52:28.740 --> 00:52:31.020 In the model code, the model code 00:52:31.020 --> 00:52:33.020 includes an annual disclosure process, 00:52:33.020 --> 00:52:34.340 which is not in our current code. 00:52:34.340 --> 00:52:36.220 That requires you to list all the properties 00:52:36.220 --> 00:52:39.140 you own within the city limits and a mile outside 00:52:39.140 --> 00:52:42.940 or something, including the properties your spouse owns, 00:52:42.940 --> 00:52:45.140 I believe, annually, yes. 00:52:45.140 --> 00:52:47.620 And then that disclosure, all those disclosures 00:52:47.620 --> 00:52:51.220 get given to the Board of Advocates essentially. 00:52:51.220 --> 00:52:52.180 Get given to the what? 00:52:52.180 --> 00:52:53.140 The Board of Advocates. 00:52:53.140 --> 00:52:54.640 Yeah. 00:52:54.640 --> 00:52:58.140 The Advocates Commission. 00:52:58.140 --> 00:53:00.540 What do you think, Tom? 00:53:00.540 --> 00:53:03.460 That's a lot of work for us. 00:53:03.460 --> 00:53:06.820 That's a lot of work for us. 00:53:06.820 --> 00:53:08.700 But I think that's helpful because-- 00:53:08.700 --> 00:53:11.620 It's easier to say you must recuse yourself 00:53:11.620 --> 00:53:15.740 if you own property that's going to be impacted by your vote, 00:53:15.740 --> 00:53:17.660 as opposed to-- 00:53:17.660 --> 00:53:19.780 This is where in the city of San Marcos, 00:53:19.780 --> 00:53:23.180 they're like, don't even think about being a city official. 00:53:23.180 --> 00:53:26.300 If you-- and this was-- 00:53:26.300 --> 00:53:28.460 that was where I called a friend and said, what? 00:53:28.460 --> 00:53:30.220 Why was this so specific? 00:53:30.220 --> 00:53:32.020 And he said, because we've had problems. 00:53:32.020 --> 00:53:36.340 And I said, OK, got it. 00:53:36.340 --> 00:53:38.140 But I think that's helpful. 00:53:38.140 --> 00:53:43.100 But if there's a disclosure process once a year, 00:53:43.100 --> 00:53:46.420 that also makes it much more reasonable why it doesn't 00:53:46.420 --> 00:53:47.580 have to be so explicit. 00:53:47.580 --> 00:53:50.220 And you have to recuse yourself because at that point, 00:53:50.220 --> 00:53:52.900 the assumption becomes, well, they know that I own this. 00:53:52.900 --> 00:53:55.820 And then the appearance is-- 00:53:55.820 --> 00:53:56.420 right? 00:53:56.420 --> 00:53:56.920 Yeah. 00:53:56.920 --> 00:54:03.060 So does that mean that we will now-- 00:54:03.060 --> 00:54:04.980 we will also recommend that there's 00:54:04.980 --> 00:54:09.660 going to be a disclosure process for these-- 00:54:09.660 --> 00:54:11.780 That's also part of today's discussion. 00:54:11.780 --> 00:54:12.280 OK. 00:54:12.280 --> 00:54:12.780 Yeah. 00:54:12.780 --> 00:54:15.500 We're comfortable with there not being an explicit statement 00:54:15.500 --> 00:54:17.260 about it because we are going to recommend 00:54:17.260 --> 00:54:19.860 there being this other disclosure piece. 00:54:19.860 --> 00:54:22.060 That's mostly what I was trying to get to. 00:54:22.060 --> 00:54:24.420 OK. 00:54:24.420 --> 00:54:29.020 So up, down. 00:54:29.020 --> 00:54:31.900 And up is how the needs of-- 00:54:31.900 --> 00:54:33.340 Less specific. 00:54:33.340 --> 00:54:35.020 --and have the disclosure thing. 00:54:35.020 --> 00:54:36.420 Yeah, I'm with that. 00:54:36.420 --> 00:54:39.220 So you agree with that? 00:54:39.220 --> 00:54:41.260 Yes, yes. 00:54:41.260 --> 00:54:43.980 I'll comment. 00:54:43.980 --> 00:54:45.700 For me, they have to be in combination. 00:54:45.700 --> 00:54:47.940 For me, they have to be in combination. 00:54:47.940 --> 00:54:51.140 I will only go less specific if there's a disclosure. 00:54:51.140 --> 00:54:55.020 If there's no disclosure, then it needs to be specific. 00:54:55.020 --> 00:55:00.500 Oh, so there's no disclosure required in the model code? 00:55:00.500 --> 00:55:01.060 It is-- 00:55:01.060 --> 00:55:02.540 There it is, yeah. 00:55:02.540 --> 00:55:08.500 The disclosure-- the recusalism as specific. 00:55:08.500 --> 00:55:10.300 In the model code, it doesn't clearly 00:55:10.300 --> 00:55:14.180 list that owning property is a conflict of interest 00:55:14.180 --> 00:55:15.380 the way it does in our code. 00:55:15.380 --> 00:55:17.580 But that's because it's very much 00:55:17.580 --> 00:55:20.740 implied by the rest of the code. 00:55:20.740 --> 00:55:26.060 I support that. 00:55:26.060 --> 00:55:34.660 I mean, I support the idea of defining it 00:55:34.660 --> 00:55:38.740 as a conflict of interest and requiring recusal and trying 00:55:38.740 --> 00:55:43.540 to make sense of the requirement for disclosure annually. 00:55:43.540 --> 00:55:44.340 I don't know if that-- 00:55:44.340 --> 00:55:55.500 I think there's some discussion about how much extra work that 00:55:55.500 --> 00:55:58.660 is, not just for Madison or possibly this board, 00:55:58.660 --> 00:56:02.900 but for the council members and everyone else that's 00:56:02.900 --> 00:56:04.540 affected by the ethics code. 00:56:04.540 --> 00:56:06.580 I wonder if we could just require that when 00:56:06.580 --> 00:56:11.580 someone gets elected and then they 00:56:11.580 --> 00:56:14.860 have to update if they buy or sell any of those. 00:56:14.860 --> 00:56:19.260 That's work, too. 00:56:19.260 --> 00:56:21.500 If I turn in, here's my list today, 00:56:21.500 --> 00:56:24.860 it very likely could change tomorrow. 00:56:24.860 --> 00:56:31.260 The only reason I'm hesitating is because we are-- 00:56:31.260 --> 00:56:33.900 I think what we're doing is trying 00:56:33.900 --> 00:56:36.660 to put a list together to go back and say, 00:56:36.660 --> 00:56:39.540 hey, we got you on this one you told us before, 00:56:39.540 --> 00:56:44.380 that you have ownership stake in whatever property 00:56:44.380 --> 00:56:48.940 and then you board it on this zoning change 00:56:48.940 --> 00:56:50.420 or whatever it is. 00:56:50.420 --> 00:56:56.220 And it's having trouble separating. 00:56:56.220 --> 00:56:58.780 We're not requiring them to disclose 00:56:58.780 --> 00:57:03.860 personal relationships or client relationships, which 00:57:03.860 --> 00:57:07.380 could potentially result in a conflict of interest. 00:57:07.380 --> 00:57:11.140 Because that, I think, is unreasonable to ask for. 00:57:11.140 --> 00:57:14.220 And I'm just trying to convince myself 00:57:14.220 --> 00:57:17.660 it's unreasonable to ask someone to disclose 00:57:17.660 --> 00:57:22.380 all of their real property to the city or this board 00:57:22.380 --> 00:57:24.620 or whoever else. 00:57:24.620 --> 00:57:28.380 Does it make sense to require that? 00:57:28.380 --> 00:57:33.940 I wonder if this was written before-- you can look stuff up 00:57:33.940 --> 00:57:34.900 and write strikers. 00:57:34.900 --> 00:57:40.340 It's not hard to find out unless people are using root names. 00:57:40.340 --> 00:57:42.980 I'm fine with requiring disclosure. 00:57:42.980 --> 00:57:48.460 I'm just trying to think of how do we do this in a way 00:57:48.460 --> 00:57:51.900 that we get the things in the code that we think genuinely 00:57:51.900 --> 00:57:53.940 need to be there for this to be effective 00:57:53.940 --> 00:57:58.260 and to cover things that are not covered now 00:57:58.260 --> 00:58:02.700 without council saying, oh, no, we're going to ignore this. 00:58:02.700 --> 00:58:07.380 Disclosure as an actual item comes up, 00:58:07.380 --> 00:58:10.620 or just the entire disclosure process? 00:58:10.620 --> 00:58:14.380 Like an annual disclosure process, to me, 00:58:14.380 --> 00:58:16.900 is a lot of effort for someone. 00:58:16.900 --> 00:58:19.700 And I'm thinking about what you described about San Marcos 00:58:19.700 --> 00:58:22.700 and what I saw in the council meeting where they discussed 00:58:22.700 --> 00:58:24.500 our previous revisions. 00:58:24.500 --> 00:58:27.900 And it was like, oh, they saw something in those revisions 00:58:27.900 --> 00:58:28.700 that we proposed. 00:58:28.700 --> 00:58:31.620 And then automatically, it was like, well, I don't-- 00:58:31.620 --> 00:58:32.300 this is bad. 00:58:32.300 --> 00:58:32.900 This is bad. 00:58:32.900 --> 00:58:34.420 I don't even want to discuss this. 00:58:34.420 --> 00:58:40.380 I think we could cover it more economically or more easily 00:58:40.380 --> 00:58:44.300 by just making sure that recusal is expected. 00:58:44.300 --> 00:58:46.940 Yeah, I'm 100% in support of that. 00:58:46.940 --> 00:58:52.460 And not requiring an annual disclosure 00:58:52.460 --> 00:58:56.380 does not make it so that they can now 00:58:56.380 --> 00:58:59.180 vote on something where they have a conflict of interest. 00:58:59.180 --> 00:59:02.380 They are required to disclose that if a pending matter comes 00:59:02.380 --> 00:59:03.660 up. 00:59:03.660 --> 00:59:05.500 That would be the language I would support. 00:59:05.500 --> 00:59:08.420 It would be simpler and more [INAUDIBLE] 00:59:08.420 --> 00:59:11.740 Otherwise, you leave it up to partnerships 00:59:11.740 --> 00:59:14.260 and all kinds of stuff on the others. 00:59:14.260 --> 00:59:16.460 That could get horribly-- 00:59:16.460 --> 00:59:19.220 All I'm trying to avoid, I think, is-- 00:59:19.220 --> 00:59:20.220 well, there's two things. 00:59:20.220 --> 00:59:22.740 One is the current members of council 00:59:22.740 --> 00:59:26.140 getting our proposed revisions and seeing that and saying, 00:59:26.140 --> 00:59:27.740 well, I don't want to deal with that. 00:59:27.740 --> 00:59:29.100 I'm going to vote against this. 00:59:29.100 --> 00:59:31.860 And also, either the current council members 00:59:31.860 --> 00:59:34.700 or potential council members in the future 00:59:34.700 --> 00:59:39.020 who own a lot of property or are realtor or whatever else, 00:59:39.020 --> 00:59:39.900 and they see that. 00:59:39.900 --> 00:59:42.020 And they're like, well, I want to serve my city, 00:59:42.020 --> 00:59:44.580 but I don't have a bunch of stuff here. 00:59:44.580 --> 00:59:51.340 And I don't want to deal with that, even though I would-- 00:59:51.340 --> 00:59:52.900 I'm not in the real estate business, 00:59:52.900 --> 00:59:57.300 but I can imagine there are people that may want 00:59:57.300 --> 01:00:02.740 to serve on council and want to do that in a way 01:00:02.740 --> 01:00:06.220 without having a conflict of interest that they're going to-- 01:00:06.220 --> 01:00:08.220 I suspect this was written-- 01:00:08.220 --> 01:00:12.380 the MAWA cut was written before you could easily 01:00:12.380 --> 01:00:15.420 search things and tax records online. 01:00:15.420 --> 01:00:16.780 It was written in 2006. 01:00:16.780 --> 01:00:17.260 Yeah. 01:00:17.260 --> 01:00:19.780 Oh, OK. 01:00:19.780 --> 01:00:20.620 Sorry to derail. 01:00:20.620 --> 01:00:23.020 I can be convinced otherwise. 01:00:23.020 --> 01:00:25.540 But that's all I'm thinking about, is how do we make this 01:00:25.540 --> 01:00:28.660 as simple as possible without getting it all struck down. 01:00:28.660 --> 01:00:31.260 That does seem more complicated for everybody. 01:00:31.260 --> 01:00:33.180 If I'm missing something on the requirements-- 01:00:33.180 --> 01:00:37.060 So can we go with the recusal thing and just-- 01:00:37.060 --> 01:00:41.060 I think that if we go with what the MAWA code says, 01:00:41.060 --> 01:00:44.620 you're saying it requires you to refuse and disclose 01:00:44.620 --> 01:00:47.220 why you refused anyway. 01:00:47.220 --> 01:00:50.540 It just wouldn't require the annual disclosure. 01:00:50.540 --> 01:00:51.900 I'm 100% aware of it. 01:00:51.900 --> 01:00:54.740 I mean, that's kind of the next part of the discussion, really. 01:00:54.740 --> 01:01:03.660 Kind of just discuss this. 01:01:03.660 --> 01:01:11.140 So the model code has the two types of disclosure. 01:01:11.140 --> 01:01:12.780 Basically, there's the transactional, 01:01:12.780 --> 01:01:15.340 is what they call it, which is kind of like what we have now 01:01:15.340 --> 01:01:17.820 when you file an affidavit of this extension. 01:01:17.820 --> 01:01:20.060 When you basically say, I can't vote on this item, 01:01:20.060 --> 01:01:23.620 this pending matter because of x, y, z, you file that. 01:01:23.620 --> 01:01:27.300 And then it gets given to me, hopefully. 01:01:27.300 --> 01:01:30.540 And then Tammy wonderfully logs it and puts it 01:01:30.540 --> 01:01:33.500 in a place somewhere that I don't look at because I'm not 01:01:33.500 --> 01:01:34.300 actually allowed to. 01:01:34.300 --> 01:01:39.300 So that's how the current code works. 01:01:39.300 --> 01:01:43.460 Under the MAWA code, it's similar. 01:01:43.460 --> 01:01:46.780 But it's provided to the FX body as well, 01:01:46.780 --> 01:01:50.820 as well as the relevant body that they're in. 01:01:50.820 --> 01:01:52.420 So if they're on the council and they 01:01:52.420 --> 01:01:54.780 disclose or withdraw from something, 01:01:54.780 --> 01:01:57.860 it gets told to the register. 01:01:57.860 --> 01:01:59.580 And then they have the annual disclosure. 01:01:59.580 --> 01:02:02.420 Kind of sounds like the direction is at. 01:02:02.420 --> 01:02:03.980 The consensus is that we don't want 01:02:03.980 --> 01:02:07.940 to have an annual disclosure process. 01:02:07.940 --> 01:02:10.340 Is that what we're hearing? 01:02:10.340 --> 01:02:11.340 Yep. 01:02:11.340 --> 01:02:12.820 Yep. 01:02:12.820 --> 01:02:14.300 I think that's what we're hearing. 01:02:14.300 --> 01:02:16.420 That's what I'm hearing. 01:02:16.420 --> 01:02:18.740 So then we move on to-- 01:02:18.740 --> 01:02:22.460 So then the last piece is when you have to withdraw, 01:02:22.460 --> 01:02:24.180 which is the pending matter discussion. 01:02:24.180 --> 01:02:33.100 So model code requires city officials 01:02:33.100 --> 01:02:37.420 to refrain from acting on or discussing formally 01:02:37.420 --> 01:02:40.140 or informally a matter before the city 01:02:40.140 --> 01:02:43.180 if a conflict of interest exists. 01:02:43.180 --> 01:02:45.860 A matter, in this instance, is not defined further 01:02:45.860 --> 01:02:48.540 and is much broader than the city's pending matter 01:02:48.540 --> 01:02:51.020 definition. 01:02:51.020 --> 01:02:53.660 Another simple difference between these two definitions 01:02:53.660 --> 01:02:56.980 is that the model codes may occur at any time, 01:02:56.980 --> 01:02:59.780 whereas the city may only occur at public meetings. 01:02:59.780 --> 01:03:07.980 So what do you think, model code versus city? 01:03:07.980 --> 01:03:11.300 I like the broader definition. 01:03:11.300 --> 01:03:14.700 So Patricia for the model code, Dave for the model code. 01:03:14.700 --> 01:03:17.900 Yes, broader, yes. 01:03:17.900 --> 01:03:20.820 Dustin for model code, Tom, yes. 01:03:20.820 --> 01:03:21.300 OK. 01:03:21.300 --> 01:03:23.220 I thought that was going to be a tough one. 01:03:23.220 --> 01:03:24.700 No. 01:03:24.700 --> 01:03:27.100 Six in favor of model code. 01:03:27.100 --> 01:03:35.140 So is that it? 01:03:35.140 --> 01:03:36.900 So I think that I have the direction 01:03:36.900 --> 01:03:43.100 I need to draft something for us to review in February. 01:03:43.100 --> 01:03:43.600 OK. 01:03:45.580 --> 01:03:52.500 I really do appreciate that you guys have taken so much time 01:03:52.500 --> 01:03:57.260 to review everything, because it makes our discussions a lot 01:03:57.260 --> 01:03:58.220 easier. 01:03:58.220 --> 01:03:59.700 So thank you. 01:03:59.700 --> 01:04:10.460 So we move on to BOE 24-004, which is item B, 01:04:10.460 --> 01:04:12.380 management reports. 01:04:12.380 --> 01:04:14.460 Is there anything to discuss here? 01:04:14.460 --> 01:04:17.900 No, I just included the activity report. 01:04:17.900 --> 01:04:21.700 It's online now as well, or it should be soon. 01:04:21.700 --> 01:04:24.380 And plan to do those in the future. 01:04:24.380 --> 01:04:26.540 But I don't know if you have to paint them. 01:04:26.540 --> 01:04:30.420 I don't have to, but sorry if it's helpful. 01:04:30.420 --> 01:04:30.900 OK. 01:04:30.900 --> 01:04:36.380 So we now move on to item E, BOE 24-004. 01:04:36.380 --> 01:04:40.380 I have one question under D. Where 01:04:40.380 --> 01:04:44.580 do we stand, Madison, on the burden? 01:04:44.580 --> 01:04:46.620 I've been looking through this memorandum 01:04:46.620 --> 01:04:48.700 of where we're supposedly covered. 01:04:48.700 --> 01:04:51.940 Where do we stand on this burden of proof? 01:04:51.940 --> 01:04:55.340 Yes, so we've given direction to move forward with that. 01:04:55.340 --> 01:05:00.620 So when we take the packet to council in March or April, 01:05:00.620 --> 01:05:02.220 it'll go to council at that point. 01:05:02.220 --> 01:05:05.540 So that-- OK, so that's a done deal. 01:05:05.540 --> 01:05:07.220 It's done as far as-- 01:05:07.220 --> 01:05:07.980 From our side. 01:05:07.980 --> 01:05:09.180 Right, yes. 01:05:09.180 --> 01:05:10.940 So there would be two items. 01:05:10.940 --> 01:05:14.260 This whole conflict of interest and the-- 01:05:14.260 --> 01:05:15.780 yeah, and I feel like if-- 01:05:15.780 --> 01:05:19.180 I mean, these are two items that are going to-- 01:05:19.180 --> 01:05:20.340 could be big. 01:05:20.340 --> 01:05:23.820 But I wouldn't want to add anything more than once we 01:05:23.820 --> 01:05:27.100 clarify this, we're ready to move to council. 01:05:27.100 --> 01:05:29.380 Yeah, one, I'll bring back language next time, 01:05:29.380 --> 01:05:31.420 and then we can decide at that point, 01:05:31.420 --> 01:05:32.860 are we comfortable with the language, 01:05:32.860 --> 01:05:35.380 or do we want to review it again in March 01:05:35.380 --> 01:05:38.700 before we send it to council? 01:05:38.700 --> 01:05:40.700 OK. 01:05:40.700 --> 01:05:46.220 So we move on to item E, BOE 24-005, Receiver Report, 01:05:46.220 --> 01:05:49.020 Hold a Discussion, and Give Staff Direction 01:05:49.020 --> 01:05:51.580 Regarding Future Meeting Topics. 01:05:51.580 --> 01:05:56.460 I think on the schedule right now is, 01:05:56.460 --> 01:05:59.420 like we just discussed, the red lines for the things 01:05:59.420 --> 01:06:02.620 that we want to bring to council soon. 01:06:02.620 --> 01:06:07.980 We could add items to the agenda for next time or not. 01:06:07.980 --> 01:06:11.540 But that's what this item is for. 01:06:11.540 --> 01:06:13.540 What's your pleasure? 01:06:13.540 --> 01:06:16.260 I think we need to get a good look at what we've done today 01:06:16.260 --> 01:06:18.740 in writing a form we had-- 01:06:18.740 --> 01:06:19.740 So I would say not-- 01:06:19.740 --> 01:06:20.660 --anything else. 01:06:20.660 --> 01:06:21.780 --not add. 01:06:21.780 --> 01:06:22.660 Yes, I would agree. 01:06:22.660 --> 01:06:23.420 I would agree. 01:06:23.420 --> 01:06:24.740 Agreed. 01:06:24.740 --> 01:06:27.140 Boy, we're in unison. 01:06:27.140 --> 01:06:28.020 All right. 01:06:28.020 --> 01:06:29.420 Makes it easier for me. 01:06:29.420 --> 01:06:30.980 I want to thank you guys, because I 01:06:30.980 --> 01:06:33.460 can tell you are definitely looking at these things 01:06:33.460 --> 01:06:34.740 and thinking about them. 01:06:34.740 --> 01:06:36.780 So thank you very much. 01:06:36.780 --> 01:06:40.500 It was a lot more efficient. 01:06:40.500 --> 01:06:42.380 Thanks for putting all this together. 01:06:42.380 --> 01:06:44.220 Yeah, medicine is the best. 01:06:44.220 --> 01:06:45.500 Thank you, Tammy. 01:06:45.500 --> 01:06:48.460 I was very sorry. 01:06:48.460 --> 01:06:52.860 Medicine is a brilliant analytical line. 01:06:52.860 --> 01:06:56.460 So next meeting is February 5th at 530. 01:06:56.460 --> 01:06:57.900 Tell Tammy you can't come. 01:06:57.900 --> 01:07:02.660 Actually, I guess tell me, actually. 01:07:02.660 --> 01:07:05.140 Don't mess with me. 01:07:05.140 --> 01:07:06.900 You're irreplaceable, right? 01:07:06.900 --> 01:07:08.900 No, not irreplaceable. 01:07:08.900 --> 01:07:10.780 She has been irreplaceable. 01:07:10.780 --> 01:07:12.660 Yeah, I don't know if we'll have somebody-- 01:07:12.660 --> 01:07:15.140 I think-- when are you meeting, Tammy? 01:07:15.140 --> 01:07:16.140 Next week. 01:07:16.140 --> 01:07:17.340 Oh, wow. 01:07:17.340 --> 01:07:18.380 OK, don't tell Tammy. 01:07:18.380 --> 01:07:19.500 Don't leave us. 01:07:19.500 --> 01:07:20.980 You'll be at the next meeting. 01:07:20.980 --> 01:07:23.300 Just for fun. 01:07:23.300 --> 01:07:26.340 You'll bring your popcorn? 01:07:26.340 --> 01:07:28.220 I'll bring cupcakes. 01:07:28.220 --> 01:07:30.220 I'll bring water bowls, whatever you-- 01:07:30.220 --> 01:07:31.380 I'll bring pumpkin butter. 01:07:31.380 --> 01:07:32.700 There you go. 01:07:32.700 --> 01:07:33.300 OK. 01:07:33.300 --> 01:07:36.700 Well, I'll email you and introduce the new person 01:07:36.700 --> 01:07:37.820 when we get them. 01:07:37.820 --> 01:07:38.460 OK. 01:07:38.460 --> 01:07:41.140 And they will likely hopefully be here at that point, 01:07:41.140 --> 01:07:44.220 so that I don't have to be the next. 01:07:44.220 --> 01:07:52.500 So it is now 638, and this meeting is adjourned. 01:07:52.500 --> 01:07:53.500 Thank you very much. 01:07:53.500 --> 01:07:54.020 Thanks, Grace. 01:07:54.020 --> 01:07:55.500 My pleasure. 01:07:55.500 --> 01:07:56.060 Bye. 01:07:56.060 --> 01:07:57.620 Bye.