1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:03,780
 >> Good evening.

2
00:00:03,780 --> 00:00:09,220
 It is Monday, February 5th, 2024, and it is 5.30 p.m.,

3
00:00:09,220 --> 00:00:11,660
 and this is the Board of Ethics meeting,

4
00:00:11,660 --> 00:00:15,460
 and I am now calling this meeting to order.

5
00:00:15,460 --> 00:00:18,560
 So we do not have any presentation

6
00:00:18,560 --> 00:00:21,160
 from members of the public.

7
00:00:21,160 --> 00:00:25,100
 So we will move to item two on our agenda.

8
00:00:25,100 --> 00:00:32,440
 BOE 24-006, consider approval of minutes from January 8th, 2024.

9
00:00:32,440 --> 00:00:40,420
 So does anyone have any amendments or concerns?

10
00:00:40,420 --> 00:00:43,020
 Seeing none, I can entertain a --

11
00:00:43,020 --> 00:00:45,120
 >> Make a motion.

12
00:00:45,120 --> 00:00:48,420
 >> Does the public move to approve the minutes?

13
00:00:48,420 --> 00:00:49,060
 Is there a second?

14
00:00:49,060 --> 00:00:49,820
 >> I second.

15
00:00:49,820 --> 00:00:53,220
 >> Patricia Roenke has seconded.

16
00:00:53,220 --> 00:00:55,700
 So all in favor?

17
00:00:55,700 --> 00:00:57,840
 >> Aye.

18
00:00:57,840 --> 00:01:01,600
 >> Unanimous, we have five people here tonight.

19
00:01:01,600 --> 00:01:09,780
 So we will now move on to BOE 24-007.

20
00:01:09,780 --> 00:01:11,540
 Receive a report, hold a discussion,

21
00:01:11,540 --> 00:01:14,680
 and give staff directions on the draft red lines

22
00:01:14,680 --> 00:01:19,220
 for potential proposed amendments for the Board of Ethics to one,

23
00:01:19,220 --> 00:01:25,620
 repeal and replace Ethics Code Ordinance Section 2-273(a),

24
00:01:25,620 --> 00:01:34,100
 conflicts of interest, and two, eliminate Section 2-281(c)(4),

25
00:01:34,100 --> 00:01:37,280
 burden and proof, including amending the Board of Ethics

26
00:01:37,280 --> 00:01:41,300
 rules of procedure to adjust evidence for hearing procedures

27
00:01:41,300 --> 00:01:44,120
 to reflect the elimination of the requirement

28
00:01:44,120 --> 00:01:48,820
 for the complainant to testify at an evidence reading.

29
00:01:48,820 --> 00:01:57,700
 So Madison has sent us several items, and I've asked them

30
00:01:57,700 --> 00:02:04,060
 to propose Articulous Red Line Talkies.

31
00:02:04,060 --> 00:02:08,440
 So thank you, Madison, for doing that.

32
00:02:08,440 --> 00:02:11,100
 So I guess we can start.

33
00:02:11,100 --> 00:02:13,580
 Did you -- you're going to do a presentation?

34
00:02:13,580 --> 00:02:15,140
 >> I don't really have anything prepared.

35
00:02:15,140 --> 00:02:18,780
 These are things that we -- this is something that we used last time

36
00:02:18,780 --> 00:02:20,520
 when we talked about this proposal,

37
00:02:20,520 --> 00:02:23,620
 and then this is just the red lines on this slide.

38
00:02:23,620 --> 00:02:25,260
 I don't -- yeah.

39
00:02:25,260 --> 00:02:30,920
 >> Okay. I'm assuming everybody had a chance to look at things,

40
00:02:30,920 --> 00:02:34,200
 so we'll move on to things you want to address,

41
00:02:34,200 --> 00:02:37,360
 and I'll recognize David Zeltner.

42
00:02:37,360 --> 00:02:40,260
 >> One question for Madison.

43
00:02:40,260 --> 00:02:46,780
 The schedule now -- two more readings, March and April.

44
00:02:46,780 --> 00:02:49,480
 Do we have a tannity schedule when what we're --

45
00:02:49,480 --> 00:02:53,120
 where we're at is finally going to make it back

46
00:02:53,120 --> 00:02:55,780
 to the city council, or do you have any idea?

47
00:02:55,780 --> 00:03:03,300
 >> Yes. So the council, I'm going to present to them the things

48
00:03:03,300 --> 00:03:07,160
 that you approved on June 4th during work session.

49
00:03:07,160 --> 00:03:09,160
 They'll give us direction at that point to do

50
00:03:09,160 --> 00:03:10,800
 with whatever their direction is,

51
00:03:10,800 --> 00:03:13,000
 and if there are changes they would like made,

52
00:03:13,000 --> 00:03:15,000
 we'll bring back an amended ordinance sometime

53
00:03:15,000 --> 00:03:17,240
 after that, hopefully in July.

54
00:03:17,240 --> 00:03:20,280
 >> So we might potentially have to bring a new council

55
00:03:20,280 --> 00:03:23,780
 in before this gets to them, after the elections, I guess.

56
00:03:23,780 --> 00:03:25,820
 >> It will be after the election.

57
00:03:25,820 --> 00:03:27,720
 >> Okay. That's what I'm trying to understand,

58
00:03:27,720 --> 00:03:30,880
 is if we can get this wrapped up in any way

59
00:03:30,880 --> 00:03:33,360
 for the current council, but apparently not then.

60
00:03:33,360 --> 00:03:34,320
 Is that right?

61
00:03:34,320 --> 00:03:36,300
 >> Right. I discussed it with the city manager,

62
00:03:36,300 --> 00:03:40,860
 and there's -- the work sessions are full, basically, until June.

63
00:03:40,860 --> 00:03:41,740
 They're busy.

64
00:03:41,740 --> 00:03:45,600
 I don't know. It will still take a long time to present to them.

65
00:03:45,600 --> 00:03:46,980
 >> June's the earliest then.

66
00:03:46,980 --> 00:03:47,440
 >> Correct.

67
00:03:47,440 --> 00:03:49,040
 >> Okay. Okay.

68
00:03:49,040 --> 00:03:58,680
 >> Moving at government speed.

69
00:03:58,680 --> 00:04:00,180
 >> Well, that's --

70
00:04:00,180 --> 00:04:05,820
 >> Okay. So please -- do you want to do a page turn?

71
00:04:05,820 --> 00:04:07,720
 What is it going to be?

72
00:04:07,720 --> 00:04:11,900
 >> We can also pull it up on -- okay, that'll be easy.

73
00:04:11,900 --> 00:04:32,440
 I don't know if you want to start with proposal one, or --

74
00:04:32,440 --> 00:04:34,620
 well, I don't know if you want to start with conflict of interest

75
00:04:34,620 --> 00:04:37,720
 or board of burden of proof.

76
00:04:37,720 --> 00:04:40,020
 Burden of proof is more in the procedures.

77
00:04:40,020 --> 00:04:41,660
 >> I thought we had kind of --

78
00:04:41,660 --> 00:04:42,720
 >> It sort of got discussed.

79
00:04:42,720 --> 00:04:44,720
 I don't know if you want to discuss it again, but --

80
00:04:44,720 --> 00:04:47,560
 >> Does anyone want to discuss it again?

81
00:04:47,560 --> 00:04:49,100
 Conflict of interest?

82
00:04:49,100 --> 00:04:49,960
 >> Burden of proof.

83
00:04:49,960 --> 00:04:52,260
 >> Burden of proof.

84
00:04:52,260 --> 00:04:53,500
 >> I don't know anything.

85
00:04:53,500 --> 00:04:56,540
 >> I'd say we move on, because I think the, you know,

86
00:04:56,540 --> 00:05:00,980
 conflict of interest is the big deal right now.

87
00:05:00,980 --> 00:05:04,040
 >> So I -- so there's clearly a bunch

88
00:05:04,040 --> 00:05:09,480
 of definitions that we've added based on the direction I was

89
00:05:09,480 --> 00:05:13,360
 given to essentially model what's in our code

90
00:05:13,360 --> 00:05:15,160
 after what's in the model code.

91
00:05:15,160 --> 00:05:19,260
 So that's why all these new definitions are in here.

92
00:05:19,260 --> 00:05:23,000
 We can go back to them as we go through the section

93
00:05:23,000 --> 00:05:24,600
 that's actually changing.

94
00:05:24,600 --> 00:05:29,940
 So essentially just took out all what was there

95
00:05:29,940 --> 00:05:32,980
 and replaced it with this new language.

96
00:05:34,640 --> 00:05:38,380
 >> So I know you guys have had a chance to look at it.

97
00:05:38,380 --> 00:05:42,880
 >> I just had a couple of minor things in paragraph one.

98
00:05:42,880 --> 00:05:44,660
 That's on the screen there.

99
00:05:44,660 --> 00:05:49,060
 Line two, I think it should be or influence others,

100
00:05:49,060 --> 00:05:51,160
 unless I misunderstood.

101
00:05:51,160 --> 00:05:52,960
 I think it's just missing an "S" on there.

102
00:05:52,960 --> 00:05:54,500
 Okay?

103
00:05:54,500 --> 00:05:57,200
 All right.

104
00:05:57,200 --> 00:06:11,640
 And then paragraph B, for substantial customer,

105
00:06:11,640 --> 00:06:13,820
 that's not a -- there's no definition for that.

106
00:06:13,820 --> 00:06:16,260
 Do we need to have a definition for that, because I --

107
00:06:16,260 --> 00:06:20,020
 that was the only thing that I saw that I wasn't really sure.

108
00:06:20,020 --> 00:06:22,800
 I know we talked a little bit about, do we define that,

109
00:06:22,800 --> 00:06:29,100
 or what that would look like, it's not in the definitions now,

110
00:06:29,100 --> 00:06:31,140
 but it's separate from -- it says a client

111
00:06:31,140 --> 00:06:34,940
 or substantial customer, and I'm not sure how --

112
00:06:34,940 --> 00:06:36,380
 >> I feel like -- did we --

113
00:06:36,380 --> 00:06:38,380
 was there a direction to take substantial out last time?

114
00:06:38,380 --> 00:06:39,820
 I could have just forgotten about that.

115
00:06:39,820 --> 00:06:42,020
 >> I think that was my big deal.

116
00:06:42,020 --> 00:06:42,720
 >> Okay.

117
00:06:42,720 --> 00:06:44,220
 [ Laughter ]

118
00:06:44,220 --> 00:06:45,420
 >> Yeah.

119
00:06:45,420 --> 00:06:49,160
 >> I couldn't remember from our discussion the details on that.

120
00:06:49,160 --> 00:06:51,160
 I just noticed that that was still there

121
00:06:51,160 --> 00:06:53,060
 and that there wasn't a definition.

122
00:06:53,060 --> 00:06:53,860
 >> Yeah.

123
00:06:53,860 --> 00:06:57,640
 >> I would be fine with taking the substantial out,

124
00:06:57,640 --> 00:07:03,700
 because I don't think we need to define that with a hard number

125
00:07:03,700 --> 00:07:07,240
 of, you know, whatever the number was or whatever.

126
00:07:07,240 --> 00:07:11,520
 >> In the model code, there is, like, a number associated

127
00:07:11,520 --> 00:07:14,020
 with it in the definition that is not in the definition

128
00:07:14,020 --> 00:07:16,220
 that we put in our code based on the direction that you all gave.

129
00:07:16,220 --> 00:07:17,980
 So it might have just forgotten to take

130
00:07:17,980 --> 00:07:19,860
 out the word "substantial."

131
00:07:19,860 --> 00:07:26,120
 >> Okay. I would like to strike "substantial" for me.

132
00:07:26,120 --> 00:07:27,300
 >> Andrea would?

133
00:07:27,300 --> 00:07:28,600
 >> I would.

134
00:07:28,600 --> 00:07:31,500
 >> What about David and Patricia?

135
00:07:31,500 --> 00:07:35,500
 Do you want to strike "substantial"?

136
00:07:35,500 --> 00:07:36,800
 >> Does it --

137
00:07:36,800 --> 00:07:38,540
 >> Yeah.

138
00:07:38,540 --> 00:07:41,180
 >> Does it cause any problem

139
00:07:41,180 --> 00:07:46,580
 with any other possible relationships that aren't defined?

140
00:07:46,580 --> 00:07:50,380
 Does that make sense?

141
00:07:50,380 --> 00:07:53,380
 >> I think people know what a client means, but I'm not --

142
00:07:53,380 --> 00:07:57,320
 I'm kind of not sure about "substantial" customers.

143
00:07:57,320 --> 00:07:58,920
 >> So even if it's vague, it's --

144
00:07:58,920 --> 00:08:01,800
 >> Yeah. I think that part of the reason I brought --

145
00:08:01,800 --> 00:08:03,160
 >> Define it or take it out.

146
00:08:03,160 --> 00:08:08,240
 >> Yeah. We are defining customer or client.

147
00:08:08,240 --> 00:08:09,500
 >> Yeah.

148
00:08:09,500 --> 00:08:11,780
 >> That's added to the definitions.

149
00:08:11,780 --> 00:08:14,240
 And so that was the only thing that kind of jumped out at me

150
00:08:14,240 --> 00:08:17,180
 that we have "substantial" in the body of the text,

151
00:08:17,180 --> 00:08:18,980
 but not in the definition.

152
00:08:18,980 --> 00:08:21,640
 So I think the way it is -- if we take "substantial" out,

153
00:08:21,640 --> 00:08:23,780
 it's pretty clear what that means

154
00:08:23,780 --> 00:08:26,180
 from the definition that's been added.

155
00:08:26,180 --> 00:08:30,960
 >> So just -- that double R should just say a client.

156
00:08:30,960 --> 00:08:34,720
 Some kind of -- or just --

157
00:08:34,720 --> 00:08:35,960
 >> Client or customer.

158
00:08:35,960 --> 00:08:36,960
 >> Okay.

159
00:08:36,960 --> 00:08:38,860
 Client can cover a lot of categories.

160
00:08:38,860 --> 00:08:39,800
 >> Right.

161
00:08:39,800 --> 00:08:41,460
 >> Yeah. So it's probably client.

162
00:08:41,460 --> 00:08:46,180
 >> So just take out "more substantial."

163
00:08:46,180 --> 00:08:50,880
 >> Okay. So everybody's okay with that?

164
00:08:50,880 --> 00:08:51,980
 >> All in favor?

165
00:08:51,980 --> 00:08:52,940
 >> All in favor?

166
00:08:52,940 --> 00:08:53,780
 >> Yes.

167
00:08:53,780 --> 00:08:55,580
 >> It seems like there's a general consensus to remove --

168
00:08:55,580 --> 00:09:02,180
 >> It's right "substantial" from section A1, B2.

169
00:09:02,180 --> 00:09:05,160
 >> We do need to vote on these things?

170
00:09:05,160 --> 00:09:05,720
 >> No.

171
00:09:05,720 --> 00:09:06,520
 >> Okay.

172
00:09:06,520 --> 00:09:08,120
 >> Okay.

173
00:09:08,120 --> 00:09:10,960
 >> You still have a given official group, right?

174
00:09:10,960 --> 00:09:12,840
 So we're all in favor of that.

175
00:09:12,840 --> 00:09:13,560
 So we're good.

176
00:09:13,560 --> 00:09:14,660
 >> Well, yeah, this is a --

177
00:09:14,660 --> 00:09:15,660
 >> I have a question.

178
00:09:15,660 --> 00:09:17,400
 >> Yes.

179
00:09:17,400 --> 00:09:19,240
 >> Are we going to work our -- I'm just --

180
00:09:19,240 --> 00:09:21,640
 procedure-wise, are we going to work our way through all

181
00:09:21,640 --> 00:09:25,280
 of the red line stuff that you have first?

182
00:09:25,280 --> 00:09:28,580
 Because I've got one or two small items

183
00:09:28,580 --> 00:09:31,980
 that have not been indicated as an issue at this point.

184
00:09:31,980 --> 00:09:35,860
 So we're going to do that at the end, or what's the --

185
00:09:35,860 --> 00:09:37,060
 >> Why don't we work our way

186
00:09:37,060 --> 00:09:38,660
 through what we're working on right now,

187
00:09:38,660 --> 00:09:40,460
 and then we'll come back to the other stuff?

188
00:09:40,460 --> 00:09:41,460
 >> Okay, that's fine.

189
00:09:41,460 --> 00:09:42,520
 That's fine, yeah.

190
00:09:42,520 --> 00:09:44,020
 >> All right.

191
00:09:44,020 --> 00:09:46,640
 >> So next in that section, what's --

192
00:09:46,640 --> 00:09:51,260
 >> I have a similar question on item 3.

193
00:09:51,260 --> 00:09:55,380
 There's "substantial debtor or creditor."

194
00:09:55,380 --> 00:09:57,900
 If we want to keep "substantial," there --

195
00:09:57,900 --> 00:09:59,940
 I don't believe there's definition added

196
00:09:59,940 --> 00:10:01,620
 for "debtor or creditor."

197
00:10:01,620 --> 00:10:03,480
 I think we all know what that means.

198
00:10:03,480 --> 00:10:06,180
 I don't know what it means to be separately defined.

199
00:10:06,180 --> 00:10:08,460
 The question is more just the "substantial."

200
00:10:08,460 --> 00:10:11,720
 Does that mean to be defined, or does that mean to be removed?

201
00:10:11,720 --> 00:10:14,600
 >> Do you want to take it out of one,

202
00:10:14,600 --> 00:10:16,800
 or do you want to take it out of the other?

203
00:10:16,800 --> 00:10:20,060
 >> This is on page number 7 of your complex.

204
00:10:20,060 --> 00:10:21,040
 >> Yes.

205
00:10:21,040 --> 00:10:22,340
 >> Okay.

206
00:10:22,340 --> 00:10:25,940
 >> If I could -- I'd provide a little insight on that.

207
00:10:25,940 --> 00:10:28,800
 I think the "substantial" is there

208
00:10:28,800 --> 00:10:32,820
 to really give you all leeway to make a judgment call.

209
00:10:32,820 --> 00:10:35,220
 So if you take it out, then it's objective.

210
00:10:35,220 --> 00:10:36,580
 But if you leave it in there, then you all get --

211
00:10:36,580 --> 00:10:38,980
 but, you know, here the board hears --

212
00:10:38,980 --> 00:10:42,720
 the complaint could say, "Okay, yes, it's a debtor or creditor.

213
00:10:42,720 --> 00:10:44,080
 Does it mean "substantial"?

214
00:10:44,080 --> 00:10:46,860
 And leaving it out of the file gives room

215
00:10:46,860 --> 00:10:48,320
 for discussion on that point.

216
00:10:48,320 --> 00:10:50,360
 >> And that's why I thought we left it in last time,

217
00:10:50,360 --> 00:10:53,240
 was because it's definitely a debtor or creditor.

218
00:10:53,240 --> 00:10:56,600
 >> So how do you guys -- I think that's helpful information.

219
00:10:56,600 --> 00:11:01,100
 >> It's helpful to hear that from the council.

220
00:11:01,100 --> 00:11:06,520
 >> Yeah. So then what do you guys think about leaving it?

221
00:11:06,520 --> 00:11:09,540
 >> And I'm sorry, what's your name?

222
00:11:09,540 --> 00:11:10,440
 >> Scott.

223
00:11:10,440 --> 00:11:16,020
 >> Scott. Can you see a problem with not having it in?

224
00:11:16,020 --> 00:11:19,220
 >> I don't want to weigh in on "shoulds."

225
00:11:19,220 --> 00:11:22,660
 I just want to -- I think sort of trying to understand --

226
00:11:22,660 --> 00:11:24,700
 >> But that's -- yeah, this is why --

227
00:11:24,700 --> 00:11:26,060
 >> -- statutes why those things are included.

228
00:11:26,060 --> 00:11:27,700
 >> This is why a board would exist.

229
00:11:27,700 --> 00:11:28,860
 >> This is a statute of law.

230
00:11:28,860 --> 00:11:32,500
 >> Is that we do make a decision.

231
00:11:32,500 --> 00:11:35,700
 >> It wouldn't constrain us to not have that word in there.

232
00:11:35,700 --> 00:11:37,580
 >> I think it's more legal, yeah.

233
00:11:37,580 --> 00:11:42,020
 >> To Scott's point, right, with the client or customer,

234
00:11:42,020 --> 00:11:45,180
 if any person -- this is what the definition says right now.

235
00:11:45,180 --> 00:11:49,280
 Any person or entity which they've supplied goods

236
00:11:49,280 --> 00:11:53,160
 or services to in the past 24 months would then conflict

237
00:11:53,160 --> 00:11:54,420
 and then out of that.

238
00:11:54,420 --> 00:11:57,860
 So I don't -- obviously, there's some judgment there,

239
00:11:57,860 --> 00:12:02,000
 but you might, to Scott's point, substantial give you leeway.

240
00:12:02,000 --> 00:12:05,200
 Well, did they just sell them a lawnmower?

241
00:12:05,200 --> 00:12:06,700
 I don't know, you know what I mean?

242
00:12:06,700 --> 00:12:08,700
 >> Girl scout cookies.

243
00:12:08,700 --> 00:12:14,680
 So I think our discussion last time, though, was in terms

244
00:12:14,680 --> 00:12:18,120
 of the -- I can see the point when it comes

245
00:12:18,120 --> 00:12:21,780
 to substantial debt or creditor because there's that --

246
00:12:21,780 --> 00:12:24,660
 there's leeway there.

247
00:12:24,660 --> 00:12:29,460
 But I think in the -- when it comes to the customer part,

248
00:12:29,460 --> 00:12:38,500
 that model code had given a dollar amount what made a

249
00:12:38,500 --> 00:12:43,140
 customer a substantial customer, and our code doesn't have that.

250
00:12:43,140 --> 00:12:47,280
 And so therefore, I said, well, then it becomes, in my opinion,

251
00:12:47,280 --> 00:12:50,780
 too arbitrary of what substantial is.

252
00:12:50,780 --> 00:12:56,080
 And since we had said we wanted to stay away from dollar amounts

253
00:12:56,080 --> 00:12:59,920
 and limits, that in lieu of that, we would just cut

254
00:12:59,920 --> 00:13:02,720
 the substantial in terms of it.

255
00:13:02,720 --> 00:13:08,760
 So any kind of customer relationship would raise to --

256
00:13:08,760 --> 00:13:13,340
 >> And I believe the model code uses that $1,000 in aggregate

257
00:13:13,340 --> 00:13:16,300
 for substantial -- for client or customer.

258
00:13:16,300 --> 00:13:19,580
 And I think there's something in there about $10,000.

259
00:13:19,580 --> 00:13:22,340
 This is, again, just numbers that's in the model code

260
00:13:22,340 --> 00:13:25,380
 for debtor -- substantial debtor or creditor.

261
00:13:25,380 --> 00:13:27,820
 But I don't know where that is, and so I don't know how --

262
00:13:27,820 --> 00:13:31,620
 >> An example that I read, and I think it was the model code,

263
00:13:31,620 --> 00:13:35,360
 was that you need to have some leeway in this because,

264
00:13:35,360 --> 00:13:42,400
 let's say, I shopped at Kroger's -- or Albert's, I don't care --

265
00:13:42,400 --> 00:13:47,560
 and something came up with that thing, then probably just

266
00:13:47,560 --> 00:13:52,840
 about everybody, you know, shops at one of the stores and didn't.

267
00:13:52,840 --> 00:13:55,640
 And so then they would be a client.

268
00:13:55,640 --> 00:13:58,180
 And I think if a question came out just

269
00:13:58,180 --> 00:14:01,180
 because they bought their groceries there,

270
00:14:01,180 --> 00:14:04,260
 that makes them not a substantial customer.

271
00:14:04,260 --> 00:14:09,520
 But, you know, if you have someone selling you one lawnmower,

272
00:14:09,520 --> 00:14:11,920
 that's different from 100 lawnmowers.

273
00:14:11,920 --> 00:14:17,200
 So that's -- I think that is why we need to have that leeway.

274
00:14:17,200 --> 00:14:20,400
 >> I'm going to -- I'm going to go back to the fact of that if,

275
00:14:20,400 --> 00:14:23,140
 you know, we're using the language of the model code,

276
00:14:23,140 --> 00:14:26,380
 but we're not implementing the same definitions

277
00:14:26,380 --> 00:14:28,140
 and limits as the model code.

278
00:14:28,140 --> 00:14:30,240
 And that is where piecemealing --

279
00:14:30,240 --> 00:14:36,080
 piecemealing model code versus old code produces a problem, right?

280
00:14:36,080 --> 00:14:37,720
 I -- if --

281
00:14:37,720 --> 00:14:42,620
 >> So you would like to have the number in there, or --

282
00:14:42,620 --> 00:14:46,560
 >> I don't have -- I'm not set an opinion on that.

283
00:14:46,560 --> 00:14:47,360
 Does that make sense?

284
00:14:47,360 --> 00:14:48,660
 >> Does that make sense?

285
00:14:48,660 --> 00:14:51,900
 >> It's not that I can -- you know, I can have a --

286
00:14:51,900 --> 00:14:55,740
 I can have a conversation either way, with or without.

287
00:14:55,740 --> 00:14:59,040
 But I think if we're using model code language,

288
00:14:59,040 --> 00:15:02,040
 but we're not defining like the model code,

289
00:15:02,040 --> 00:15:05,040
 then we're opening ourselves potentially up for certain --

290
00:15:05,040 --> 00:15:08,180
 for things that we're not anticipating at the moment.

291
00:15:08,180 --> 00:15:11,220
 And that is what I'm concerned about with this substantial.

292
00:15:11,220 --> 00:15:15,960
 I get -- I get the -- obviously, everything in this ethics code,

293
00:15:15,960 --> 00:15:19,800
 there's a certain amount of vagueness in order to be able

294
00:15:19,800 --> 00:15:21,260
 to have the conversation, right?

295
00:15:21,260 --> 00:15:23,500
 Because it shouldn't be hard and fast rules.

296
00:15:23,500 --> 00:15:25,740
 Which is exactly one of the reasons why we started this

297
00:15:25,740 --> 00:15:27,860
 whole conversation of conflict of interest.

298
00:15:27,860 --> 00:15:33,880
 Because we all agreed that the way we're defining everything

299
00:15:33,880 --> 00:15:37,680
 with dollar amounts and limits is not productive

300
00:15:37,680 --> 00:15:41,640
 in that conversation of what is substantial?

301
00:15:41,640 --> 00:15:44,320
 What -- what truly -- is it one little more?

302
00:15:44,320 --> 00:15:46,860
 And -- because we want to have that conversation, right?

303
00:15:46,860 --> 00:15:51,020
 One low -- one lawn mower over 100 lawn mowers.

304
00:15:51,020 --> 00:15:52,600
 >> David, did you have --

305
00:15:52,600 --> 00:15:54,200
 >> Well, no, I just think you're --

306
00:15:54,200 --> 00:15:57,360
 we're kind of heading right back into that same trap,

307
00:15:57,360 --> 00:16:01,340
 using the word substantial rather than dollars amounts.

308
00:16:01,340 --> 00:16:03,000
 There's just another reminder

309
00:16:03,000 --> 00:16:06,380
 that this is just a general guideline.

310
00:16:06,380 --> 00:16:10,140
 That nothing is going to -- go ahead.

311
00:16:10,140 --> 00:16:12,120
 >> But, David, that is where I disagree with you.

312
00:16:12,120 --> 00:16:15,980
 Is because we don't have -- we don't have dollars amount --

313
00:16:15,980 --> 00:16:18,280
 dollar amounts, but the model code does.

314
00:16:18,280 --> 00:16:21,120
 The model code has the word substantial.

315
00:16:21,120 --> 00:16:27,160
 I'm arguing I don't want that because then we should also have

316
00:16:27,160 --> 00:16:29,940
 what -- a definition of what is substantial.

317
00:16:29,940 --> 00:16:32,800
 What does substantial mean?

318
00:16:32,800 --> 00:16:34,200
 Just like the model code does.

319
00:16:34,200 --> 00:16:36,000
 >> Right.

320
00:16:36,000 --> 00:16:38,040
 >> So that's where --

321
00:16:38,040 --> 00:16:40,440
 >> So Patricia -- or --

322
00:16:40,440 --> 00:16:44,140
 >> I see that point, but I'm really not that concerned with --

323
00:16:44,140 --> 00:16:46,680
 I'm fine with the word substantial.

324
00:16:46,680 --> 00:16:49,080
 Because I don't think that one way or the other,

325
00:16:49,080 --> 00:16:53,880
 we're ever going to be bound to that limit on hearing

326
00:16:53,880 --> 00:16:56,360
 or anything of that nature.

327
00:16:56,360 --> 00:16:58,400
 So I'm good with --

328
00:16:58,400 --> 00:17:05,700
 >> I think for the -- just to make sure we're on the same page,

329
00:17:05,700 --> 00:17:14,840
 for the way this is written, that paragraph to a client

330
00:17:14,840 --> 00:17:16,780
 or substantial customer or client

331
00:17:16,780 --> 00:17:22,180
 or customer will be a customer or client of the city official.

332
00:17:22,180 --> 00:17:25,960
 Not the city official is a client or customer of,

333
00:17:25,960 --> 00:17:28,220
 you know, grocery store or department store or whatever.

334
00:17:28,220 --> 00:17:32,100
 So that would be -- that wouldn't apply there.

335
00:17:32,100 --> 00:17:43,080
 And I don't know on -- I think if we were to leave that word

336
00:17:43,080 --> 00:17:45,240
 in for a client or customer,

337
00:17:45,240 --> 00:17:49,880
 it should be both substantial client and/or customer.

338
00:17:49,880 --> 00:17:54,020
 But I'm still -- I still support taking that out.

339
00:17:54,020 --> 00:17:59,760
 For the substantial debtor or creditor, I brought that up more

340
00:17:59,760 --> 00:18:02,720
 as a question because I -- that feels a little bit different

341
00:18:02,720 --> 00:18:05,200
 to me than a customer.

342
00:18:05,200 --> 00:18:09,540
 And having some leeway in evaluating that

343
00:18:09,540 --> 00:18:12,480
 if it does come up makes some sense.

344
00:18:12,480 --> 00:18:13,600
 >> Okay.

345
00:18:13,600 --> 00:18:14,580
 >> I can imagine --

346
00:18:14,580 --> 00:18:15,740
 >> So you're going to say leave it

347
00:18:15,740 --> 00:18:17,580
 and you're saying it's problematic?

348
00:18:17,580 --> 00:18:18,480
 David, what are your thoughts?

349
00:18:18,480 --> 00:18:19,140
 >> I'm good.

350
00:18:19,140 --> 00:18:20,720
 >> That's all right.

351
00:18:20,720 --> 00:18:22,640
 >> Just leave it or?

352
00:18:25,120 --> 00:18:30,120
 >> I would -- I think we're -- I understand completely

353
00:18:30,120 --> 00:18:34,560
 where you're coming from, but I just think we're kind of backing

354
00:18:34,560 --> 00:18:38,100
 from dollars and cents and a very, very specific code back

355
00:18:38,100 --> 00:18:39,700
 into the general category here.

356
00:18:39,700 --> 00:18:41,000
 I don't think it's going to make a lot

357
00:18:41,000 --> 00:18:42,340
 of difference one way or the other.

358
00:18:42,340 --> 00:18:44,200
 I really don't.

359
00:18:44,200 --> 00:18:46,840
 >> Patricia, what do you think?

360
00:18:46,840 --> 00:18:50,140
 >> I'm fine with leaving it and I'm also fine with taking it out.

361
00:18:50,140 --> 00:18:56,960
 I think the words substantial would be if there were a case

362
00:18:56,960 --> 00:19:01,620
 that came before us, we would, you know, ask the --

363
00:19:01,620 --> 00:19:06,760
 when we'd be asking the person, do you believe your involvement

364
00:19:06,760 --> 00:19:09,260
 with this client or customer is substantial enough

365
00:19:09,260 --> 00:19:11,100
 to influence your vote?

366
00:19:11,100 --> 00:19:13,400
 I mean, we'd be asking them those questions

367
00:19:13,400 --> 00:19:15,600
 and see what they say.

368
00:19:18,080 --> 00:19:20,640
 You know, I only loaned it, I only loaned my customer

369
00:19:20,640 --> 00:19:26,720
 or I only get my customer $100 for something, you know.

370
00:19:26,720 --> 00:19:30,780
 You'd say, well, that's not substantial.

371
00:19:30,780 --> 00:19:40,160
 >> Yeah. So one, kind of abstention, two, move it in,

372
00:19:40,160 --> 00:19:45,240
 one, make it more specific.

373
00:19:45,240 --> 00:19:46,200
 So --

374
00:19:46,200 --> 00:19:48,000
 >> To clarify, I'm not asking for limits.

375
00:19:48,000 --> 00:19:49,200
 I'm not asking for dollars.

376
00:19:49,200 --> 00:19:52,300
 I'm not asking for limits.

377
00:19:52,300 --> 00:19:54,980
 >> Yeah. It's hard.

378
00:19:54,980 --> 00:19:57,580
 I mean, these are -- it's hard to think ahead of all the things

379
00:19:57,580 --> 00:20:01,020
 that could come up.

380
00:20:01,020 --> 00:20:04,180
 I think that that would be probably an opinion case

381
00:20:04,180 --> 00:20:09,360
 and my concern with the rules of procedure,

382
00:20:09,360 --> 00:20:11,960
 which I think probably need to be changed,

383
00:20:11,960 --> 00:20:15,160
 is that you can't actually talk to the person.

384
00:20:15,160 --> 00:20:18,360
 We have to go on what they --

385
00:20:18,360 --> 00:20:19,840
 and let's find a way to go around it.

386
00:20:19,840 --> 00:20:23,040
 And there is a go around, so --

387
00:20:23,040 --> 00:20:26,340
 >> Madison, if this -- just a question.

388
00:20:26,340 --> 00:20:28,140
 Did this come from a Wechsler model?

389
00:20:28,140 --> 00:20:31,680
 Was there any discussion from Wechsler on that word

390
00:20:31,680 --> 00:20:35,720
 if that confuses things or where did this come from?

391
00:20:35,720 --> 00:20:40,280
 >> Yes. It's from the Wechsler model code.

392
00:20:40,280 --> 00:20:45,360
 He usually discusses, you know, he puts some narrative

393
00:20:45,360 --> 00:20:46,800
 after most of these.

394
00:20:46,800 --> 00:20:53,140
 Was there any problem that he brought up with?

395
00:20:53,140 --> 00:20:56,500
 >> I don't believe so right under this section, but --

396
00:20:56,500 --> 00:20:59,240
 well, I mean, let me try to pull it up just to double-check.

397
00:20:59,240 --> 00:21:00,640
 >> Yeah.

398
00:21:00,640 --> 00:21:09,180
 >> For some reason, it's really hard to find out this computer.

399
00:21:09,180 --> 00:21:11,020
 >> Well, we have bigger fish to fry here.

400
00:21:11,020 --> 00:21:12,180
 I'm okay either way.

401
00:21:12,180 --> 00:21:13,520
 I just think we have --

402
00:21:13,520 --> 00:21:16,560
 >> Yeah, it's right there.

403
00:21:16,560 --> 00:21:18,220
 The word "substantial" is right there.

404
00:21:18,220 --> 00:21:19,400
 >> Yeah, this is the model code.

405
00:21:19,400 --> 00:21:22,500
 I think -- let me click on this.

406
00:21:22,500 --> 00:21:27,940
 Yeah, there's no discussion about the word "substantial."

407
00:21:27,940 --> 00:21:32,000
 That I can see.

408
00:21:32,000 --> 00:21:35,400
 >> I would like to say, hearing what Scott said,

409
00:21:35,400 --> 00:21:38,680
 I would like to have leeway because I think

410
00:21:38,680 --> 00:21:40,520
 if this did come to a hearing,

411
00:21:40,520 --> 00:21:44,360
 then I think the board members would think

412
00:21:44,360 --> 00:21:51,560
 through how that looks and a lot of ethics as a parent, so,

413
00:21:51,560 --> 00:21:55,400
 sadly, the appearance of evil.

414
00:21:55,400 --> 00:21:56,660
 >> I think the question is what --

415
00:21:56,660 --> 00:21:59,960
 when you say you would like leeway, how do you want

416
00:21:59,960 --> 00:22:01,400
 to make that clear in the code?

417
00:22:01,400 --> 00:22:05,540
 Because right now, if you don't include "substantial,"

418
00:22:05,540 --> 00:22:06,900
 it is a conflict of interest

419
00:22:06,900 --> 00:22:10,580
 if you've done -- provided goods or services to a person

420
00:22:10,580 --> 00:22:12,480
 over the last 24 months.

421
00:22:12,480 --> 00:22:14,540
 >> That sounds way too narrow.

422
00:22:14,540 --> 00:22:16,580
 >> We don't want narrow, in my opinion.

423
00:22:16,580 --> 00:22:18,820
 >> Right. I mean, that's the way I'm understanding it

424
00:22:18,820 --> 00:22:20,020
 from what Scott said.

425
00:22:20,020 --> 00:22:21,860
 But he wasn't giving an opinion.

426
00:22:21,860 --> 00:22:24,860
 I'm not a lawyer, so I don't --

427
00:22:24,860 --> 00:22:29,160
 >> I'd say it sounds like kind of leaning toward like banana.

428
00:22:29,160 --> 00:22:30,360
 I do think we have --

429
00:22:30,360 --> 00:22:31,640
 >> I would hate to explain --

430
00:22:31,640 --> 00:22:35,840
 have to explain to somebody why we took it out.

431
00:22:35,840 --> 00:22:39,140
 >> So, I really appreciate your concern, though.

432
00:22:39,140 --> 00:22:44,440
 >> And my reasoning specifically is because you had presented

433
00:22:44,440 --> 00:22:49,120
 to us that the model code has a definition of what "substantial"

434
00:22:49,120 --> 00:22:52,420
 is that is tied to dollar amounts.

435
00:22:52,420 --> 00:22:53,420
 That is my reasoning.

436
00:22:53,420 --> 00:22:55,720
 That was my reasoning for why,

437
00:22:55,720 --> 00:22:58,820
 because then there was an actual this is substantial,

438
00:22:58,820 --> 00:23:00,160
 this is not.

439
00:23:00,160 --> 00:23:01,100
 Does that make sense?

440
00:23:01,100 --> 00:23:03,560
 And that was exactly the reason why I had a question

441
00:23:03,560 --> 00:23:06,000
 when we had that conversation.

442
00:23:06,000 --> 00:23:10,000
 And the city council will also weigh in on this, too.

443
00:23:10,000 --> 00:23:12,440
 So, they'll say, "Well, we don't like that it's vague.

444
00:23:12,440 --> 00:23:15,080
 We want you to tell us an exact amount, and we're going

445
00:23:15,080 --> 00:23:18,240
 to set the exact amount that we think is reasonable."

446
00:23:18,240 --> 00:23:20,520
 So, it's not -- we're not the only ones deciding this,

447
00:23:20,520 --> 00:23:22,380
 the city council, so.

448
00:23:22,380 --> 00:23:25,520
 >> I guess I -- I think it's vague the way it's written

449
00:23:25,520 --> 00:23:26,820
 in the model code.

450
00:23:26,820 --> 00:23:30,460
 It says -- in the definition, it says "customer" or "client,"

451
00:23:30,460 --> 00:23:32,320
 but then the body of the text says "client"

452
00:23:32,320 --> 00:23:35,800
 or "substantial customer," which is why, when I read

453
00:23:35,800 --> 00:23:37,360
 through this, I thought this doesn't make sense,

454
00:23:37,360 --> 00:23:39,000
 because we're not defining that.

455
00:23:39,000 --> 00:23:42,900
 Even in the model code, if there is a value there

456
00:23:42,900 --> 00:23:46,640
 in the previous 24 months, an aggregate of greater

457
00:23:46,640 --> 00:23:49,540
 than $1,000, and then there's some more to that.

458
00:23:49,540 --> 00:23:53,080
 But it doesn't -- to me, I don't --

459
00:23:53,080 --> 00:23:55,120
 I know we're nitpicking one word here,

460
00:23:55,120 --> 00:23:58,980
 but just the way it's written, where it's put in the sentence,

461
00:23:58,980 --> 00:24:01,760
 makes it seem like that is something different.

462
00:24:01,760 --> 00:24:03,960
 Like, a client or a substantial customer.

463
00:24:03,960 --> 00:24:05,020
 >> I think --

464
00:24:05,020 --> 00:24:07,660
 >> I think if the word stays in either one of those,

465
00:24:07,660 --> 00:24:10,060
 it should precede "client."

466
00:24:10,060 --> 00:24:12,960
 >> I think that -- perhaps I presented it wrong last time.

467
00:24:12,960 --> 00:24:17,640
 What it seems like now is that, per the definition,

468
00:24:17,640 --> 00:24:19,800
 it has nothing to do with the word "substantial."

469
00:24:19,800 --> 00:24:22,900
 The definition is, if you're doing that business

470
00:24:22,900 --> 00:24:25,480
 with a person that's less than $1,000,

471
00:24:25,480 --> 00:24:28,340
 they're not a client or a customer.

472
00:24:28,340 --> 00:24:30,580
 So, the "substantial" is --

473
00:24:30,580 --> 00:24:33,880
 I don't know why it's only tacking on to "customer."

474
00:24:33,880 --> 00:24:37,060
 But it's saying, if you're doing business with a client

475
00:24:37,060 --> 00:24:40,500
 for more than $1,000 in the last 24 months with a person,

476
00:24:40,500 --> 00:24:44,000
 that's a client, you're conflicted out.

477
00:24:44,000 --> 00:24:46,600
 And then -- or, if you have a customer and you've done more

478
00:24:46,600 --> 00:24:49,340
 than $1,000 -- a person that you've done more than $1,000

479
00:24:49,340 --> 00:24:52,000
 with a business that's a customer,

480
00:24:52,000 --> 00:24:56,040
 then if it's "substantial," then it's a conflict.

481
00:24:56,040 --> 00:24:58,020
 So, there's more leeway just for that customer piece.

482
00:24:58,020 --> 00:25:00,120
 I don't -- it's not really clear to me what the difference

483
00:25:00,120 --> 00:25:02,520
 between "customer" or "client" is, but --

484
00:25:02,520 --> 00:25:07,020
 perhaps there's a professional thing -- I don't know.

485
00:25:07,020 --> 00:25:12,460
 But I think the point here is that if you just sold somebody

486
00:25:12,460 --> 00:25:14,360
 a lawnmower for $500,

487
00:25:14,360 --> 00:25:18,840
 they're not a client or customer, per the model code.

488
00:25:18,840 --> 00:25:21,300
 -Yeah, and I don't see why anybody would see it that way.

489
00:25:21,300 --> 00:25:24,040
 -But per our code, you would need it,

490
00:25:24,040 --> 00:25:29,180
 because we don't have that value threshold.

491
00:25:29,180 --> 00:25:31,680
 -So what? -Per the red lines, I'm sorry.

492
00:25:31,680 --> 00:25:35,720
 Not our code. -Okay.

493
00:25:35,720 --> 00:25:37,320
 -That's my understanding.

494
00:25:37,320 --> 00:25:38,660
 -I'm not sure what I'm hearing.

495
00:25:38,660 --> 00:25:41,460
 You want to leave it in, or do you want to take it out?

496
00:25:41,460 --> 00:25:46,820
 -Let's have a vote. I move to leave it in.

497
00:25:46,820 --> 00:25:50,500
 -Okay. Before we do -- before we take a vote.

498
00:25:50,500 --> 00:25:53,760
 Because I can -- like, if we're not attaching dollar amounts

499
00:25:53,760 --> 00:25:55,540
 with the "substantial" and we're good with that,

500
00:25:55,540 --> 00:25:57,340
 I can absolutely go with it.

501
00:25:57,340 --> 00:25:59,600
 Now the question becomes, should we also make

502
00:25:59,600 --> 00:26:01,440
 the client substantial,

503
00:26:01,440 --> 00:26:03,620
 or is that a completely different relationship

504
00:26:03,620 --> 00:26:05,120
 that is not affected?

505
00:26:05,120 --> 00:26:08,220
 -Yeah, just move that word to the "substantial client"

506
00:26:08,220 --> 00:26:10,460
 or "customer," but that word "substantial"

507
00:26:10,460 --> 00:26:12,160
 before "client" and "customer."

508
00:26:12,160 --> 00:26:14,860
 -That would make more sense. -That makes a lot of sense.

509
00:26:14,860 --> 00:26:16,800
 -That makes more sense to me, too, then.

510
00:26:16,800 --> 00:26:19,320
 -So I think that I -- I know that we had a motion,

511
00:26:19,320 --> 00:26:20,660
 so I think we have to resolve that.

512
00:26:20,660 --> 00:26:23,560
 But I think the direction I'm hearing is to leave

513
00:26:23,560 --> 00:26:28,200
 "substantial" land, but move it to before a client.

514
00:26:28,200 --> 00:26:29,900
 -You don't need official nationalized?

515
00:26:29,900 --> 00:26:31,740
 Do you want to withdraw your motion,

516
00:26:31,740 --> 00:26:36,340
 or do you want to carry it through?

517
00:26:36,340 --> 00:26:39,920
 -What do you think about a motion

518
00:26:39,920 --> 00:26:44,720
 to change it to "substantial client" or "customer"?

519
00:26:44,720 --> 00:26:49,320
 Right? -That's fine.

520
00:26:49,320 --> 00:26:52,260
 -Okay. You want to put that motion out?

521
00:26:52,260 --> 00:26:53,900
 -Yeah, I'll -- I'm in that.

522
00:26:53,900 --> 00:26:56,840
 Yeah, just move "substantial" to "customer."

523
00:26:56,840 --> 00:27:01,000
 -Okay. So, all in favor of "substantial client"?

524
00:27:01,000 --> 00:27:03,440
 -There's going to be a second. -Oh, sorry.

525
00:27:03,440 --> 00:27:05,740
 Does anybody want to second this?

526
00:27:05,740 --> 00:27:07,180
 -I'll second it. -Okay.

527
00:27:07,180 --> 00:27:10,220
 -Andrea's second. -We got Patricia and Andrew.

528
00:27:10,220 --> 00:27:12,280
 Okay, so all in favor?

529
00:27:12,280 --> 00:27:15,620
 -Aye. -Aye.

530
00:27:15,620 --> 00:27:18,160
 -Thank you, Justin, for pointing that out.

531
00:27:18,160 --> 00:27:19,960
 -I don't know if I helped anything.

532
00:27:19,960 --> 00:27:22,420
 I think I confused everybody, including myself.

533
00:27:22,420 --> 00:27:24,400
 -No. Thank you, Andrea, for it.

534
00:27:24,400 --> 00:27:27,700
 -But it makes more sense now the way it's written there.

535
00:27:27,700 --> 00:27:32,000
 -Okay. What's the next?

536
00:27:32,000 --> 00:27:34,540
 Are we still on page 7, or are we moving to --

537
00:27:34,540 --> 00:27:37,640
 -And that was a 501 book, right?

538
00:27:37,640 --> 00:27:40,140
 -Right.

539
00:27:47,080 --> 00:27:50,260
 -Okay. Next.

540
00:27:50,260 --> 00:28:01,100
 -I just had a typo on page number 8, paragraph 2C.

541
00:28:01,100 --> 00:28:04,640
 I think the last initial is "public record of the board."

542
00:28:04,640 --> 00:28:08,680
 "Of" or "for" -- I don't know what the right grammar is there.

543
00:28:08,680 --> 00:28:13,480
 -There's an "F" behind the "O."

544
00:28:13,480 --> 00:28:16,540
 -That's easy to do. -Easy to do.

545
00:28:16,540 --> 00:28:18,420
 -Okay. Thank you for catching that.

546
00:28:18,420 --> 00:28:20,520
 What else? -There's an Irish paragraph.

547
00:28:20,520 --> 00:28:22,420
 -What's that? -What?

548
00:28:22,420 --> 00:28:28,760
 -May the light be with you.

549
00:28:28,760 --> 00:28:30,900
 Okay. Next.

550
00:28:46,580 --> 00:28:49,340
 -That was all I had. I don't know if you remember me.

551
00:28:49,340 --> 00:28:51,380
 Those were the only things that I had questions about

552
00:28:51,380 --> 00:28:56,780
 or comments on. Everything else looked great.

553
00:28:56,780 --> 00:29:02,660
 -So I have one thing just to draw your attention to.

554
00:29:02,660 --> 00:29:05,400
 What is this now? -Letter.

555
00:29:05,400 --> 00:29:12,060
 -2 -- Yeah. So section 2 of the new code, or 2B.

556
00:29:12,060 --> 00:29:13,940
 There's a whole section where you have to inform

557
00:29:13,940 --> 00:29:18,300
 a particular person or a body if you have withdrawn.

558
00:29:18,300 --> 00:29:22,340
 So that's not currently required by our code.

559
00:29:22,340 --> 00:29:28,380
 That's the -- So 2A and 2C are currently required by our code.

560
00:29:28,380 --> 00:29:33,960
 There's this 2B, "Inform the appropriate individual or body

561
00:29:33,960 --> 00:29:38,660
 pursuant to section 5 if you have to withdraw."

562
00:29:38,660 --> 00:29:40,000
 Right? Is that what it says?

563
00:29:40,000 --> 00:29:46,360
 -Section 2. It's on page 8.

564
00:29:46,360 --> 00:29:50,100
 -I'm sorry. It's on page 8.

565
00:29:50,100 --> 00:29:54,800
 Section 2B references that you have to inform

566
00:29:54,800 --> 00:29:57,880
 the appropriate individual or body pursuant to --

567
00:29:57,880 --> 00:30:00,080
 It says subsection 5. That should be subsection 4.

568
00:30:00,080 --> 00:30:02,580
 I'm sorry.

569
00:30:02,580 --> 00:30:05,960
 So then subsection 4 has a whole list of,

570
00:30:05,960 --> 00:30:11,520
 "If you have to withdraw, go tell this person." Right?

571
00:30:11,520 --> 00:30:14,220
 So for the city council, if you're an elected official

572
00:30:14,220 --> 00:30:16,960
 and you have to withdraw, not only do you have to stop

573
00:30:16,960 --> 00:30:22,500
 tracking withdrawal and you have to submit an affidavit to me,

574
00:30:22,500 --> 00:30:25,800
 you would then also have to go tell the mayor.

575
00:30:25,800 --> 00:30:27,880
 That's not something that's in our current code.

576
00:30:27,880 --> 00:30:32,980
 It's not something we really discussed last time.

577
00:30:32,980 --> 00:30:35,240
 So I would like to get direction on that.

578
00:30:35,240 --> 00:30:40,120
 I put it in here because it's part of the model code.

579
00:30:40,120 --> 00:30:42,860
 -I think leave it in.

580
00:30:42,860 --> 00:30:44,360
 -That we would want them to go tell.

581
00:30:44,360 --> 00:30:46,100
 -Inform the mayor.

582
00:30:46,100 --> 00:30:58,340
 -Should we just say, "Inform the mayor"?

583
00:30:58,340 --> 00:31:02,980
 -Well, it's already in there. Just leave it in.

584
00:31:02,980 --> 00:31:08,540
 -Right. So the way it would work, if y'all, an appointed board,

585
00:31:08,540 --> 00:31:14,820
 if one of you had to disclose something,

586
00:31:14,820 --> 00:31:17,760
 you would tell Annetta as the chair of the board.

587
00:31:17,760 --> 00:31:20,260
 If Annetta did, she would inform the secretary.

588
00:31:20,260 --> 00:31:23,900
 That's not a position that exists.

589
00:31:23,900 --> 00:31:28,500
 So then I think you would have to tell the city council somehow.

590
00:31:28,500 --> 00:31:31,240
 I, as an appointed person but not on a body,

591
00:31:31,240 --> 00:31:33,500
 you would have to inform the city council.

592
00:31:33,500 --> 00:31:36,480
 A city council member would have to inform the mayor.

593
00:31:36,480 --> 00:31:38,980
 There's nothing about who the mayor would have to say,

594
00:31:38,980 --> 00:31:41,180
 tell him. So I don't know about that.

595
00:31:41,180 --> 00:31:44,080
 Maybe the mayor pretend we could write that in.

596
00:31:44,080 --> 00:31:47,320
 -What would be the benefit of this?

597
00:31:47,320 --> 00:31:48,880
 Because it seems, I mean,

598
00:31:48,880 --> 00:31:52,680
 it does seem like a really nice thing to do.

599
00:31:52,680 --> 00:31:56,760
 -Yes. So this is on top of you're exposed to withdrawal,

600
00:31:56,760 --> 00:32:00,500
 and then you still have to file a written disclosure with me.

601
00:32:00,500 --> 00:32:03,260
 So there is already a disclosure piece.

602
00:32:03,260 --> 00:32:07,040
 -So what do you guys think about that?

603
00:32:07,040 --> 00:32:17,020
 -Well, to me, this circles all the way

604
00:32:17,020 --> 00:32:20,140
 back to a lot of these business disclosures.

605
00:32:20,140 --> 00:32:23,660
 Under definitions of things I'd like to talk about separately.

606
00:32:23,660 --> 00:32:34,640
 So I had not taken the model code under a microscope, correctly.

607
00:32:34,640 --> 00:32:37,940
 I mean, I'm taking it as it was written.

608
00:32:37,940 --> 00:32:41,100
 If we get to that point,

609
00:32:41,100 --> 00:32:44,820
 then we all have a lot more work to do.

610
00:32:44,820 --> 00:32:49,460
 -Justin, I'm curious what you think.

611
00:32:50,980 --> 00:32:54,020
 -I don't have a strong opinion.

612
00:32:54,020 --> 00:32:57,580
 I mean, I don't see this as

613
00:32:57,580 --> 00:33:02,660
 a huge burden to the person that is accusing themselves.

614
00:33:02,660 --> 00:33:08,300
 I don't know how much value it brings to the whole process.

615
00:33:08,300 --> 00:33:10,360
 I mean, it adds a step.

616
00:33:10,360 --> 00:33:15,260
 Outside of letting Madison know and filing an affidavit,

617
00:33:18,020 --> 00:33:22,100
 I'm trying to think of why this would be

618
00:33:22,100 --> 00:33:28,300
 included and why this would be valuable to include.

619
00:33:28,300 --> 00:33:36,220
 -I think the mayor runs the meetings so it wouldn't be nice to-

620
00:33:36,220 --> 00:33:38,020
 -Like for understanding for-

621
00:33:38,020 --> 00:33:39,220
 -Yeah, running the meetings.

622
00:33:39,220 --> 00:33:43,220
 Somebody is going to recuse themselves because of conflict of interest.

623
00:33:43,220 --> 00:33:47,860
 -I guess that makes sense, and that's why for the board members to inform

624
00:33:47,860 --> 00:33:52,860
 the chair of the board, that makes sense.

625
00:33:52,860 --> 00:33:55,820
 -It would avoid embarrassment to the mayor if you didn't know.

626
00:33:55,820 --> 00:34:01,460
 -Right. Okay.

627
00:34:01,460 --> 00:34:08,300
 I guess I don't know that there's a need to make that.

628
00:34:08,300 --> 00:34:13,700
 I mean, I suppose the affidavit would be public, right?

629
00:34:13,700 --> 00:34:15,540
 -It's a public document.

630
00:34:15,540 --> 00:34:18,100
 -It should be.

631
00:34:18,100 --> 00:34:28,820
 -Yeah. I mean, I don't know that the statement of recusal is required

632
00:34:28,820 --> 00:34:35,220
 at a meeting in the record of the meeting for discussion of whatever

633
00:34:35,220 --> 00:34:37,820
 the topic is that the person is recusing.

634
00:34:37,820 --> 00:34:43,260
 If they just choose to not participate,

635
00:34:43,260 --> 00:34:46,340
 if they file the affidavit and notify the chair of the meeting,

636
00:34:46,340 --> 00:34:52,140
 whether that is the board chair or the mayor,

637
00:34:52,140 --> 00:34:57,300
 I mean, procedurally, I guess that makes sense, right?

638
00:34:57,300 --> 00:34:58,540
 -It seems like a good-

639
00:34:58,540 --> 00:35:03,100
 -There's not a requirement to do that for procedure.

640
00:35:03,100 --> 00:35:09,420
 -And just to make sure we're clear, so our current code only really

641
00:35:09,420 --> 00:35:13,700
 applies during meetings, right? You have to file,

642
00:35:13,700 --> 00:35:18,140
 you have to withdraw publicly and file an affidavit.

643
00:35:18,140 --> 00:35:22,540
 This new code, the red lines, require you, even if you're just at dinner

644
00:35:22,540 --> 00:35:25,780
 with somebody and something comes up and you have to withdraw,

645
00:35:25,780 --> 00:35:31,180
 you would have to disclose that that had occurred by doing all these things.

646
00:35:31,180 --> 00:35:36,140
 So by stopping from participating, then you would have to go tell somebody,

647
00:35:36,140 --> 00:35:38,540
 whoever it is, according to this other section,

648
00:35:38,540 --> 00:35:42,260
 and then you would also have to file an affidavit with me

649
00:35:42,260 --> 00:35:48,780
 if you were at dinner with somebody and something came up.

650
00:35:48,780 --> 00:35:53,380
 That's the big change of the conflict of interest section,

651
00:35:53,380 --> 00:35:56,860
 is it's not just applicable to pending matters.

652
00:35:56,860 --> 00:35:59,620
 -So it's outside of the meeting, isn't it?

653
00:35:59,620 --> 00:36:08,740
 -Right. I don't know that everybody is filing their affidavits, right?

654
00:36:08,740 --> 00:36:13,300
 You've trained them to do that. So I guess my concern is,

655
00:36:13,300 --> 00:36:16,620
 we're going to put this in here, if you don't do it,

656
00:36:16,620 --> 00:36:20,100
 it's a reason that you're violating the code.

657
00:36:20,100 --> 00:36:25,380
 I think that making the process more burdensome is not going to help

658
00:36:25,380 --> 00:36:31,540
 as far as getting the change through the civic council.

659
00:36:31,540 --> 00:36:38,060
 -Yeah. I think for that reason, I would like to not have it in here,

660
00:36:38,060 --> 00:36:46,020
 but I'd like to agree with anything.

661
00:36:46,020 --> 00:36:51,740
 -I'm going to agree with David because I think this is exactly one of the big

662
00:36:51,740 --> 00:36:58,300
 issues if you're piecemealing code, because we're running into things

663
00:36:58,300 --> 00:37:04,140
 that are not defined, we're running into things that will add procedural burdens

664
00:37:04,140 --> 00:37:14,180
 that we don't have at this point. It's not just a matter of making the code

665
00:37:14,180 --> 00:37:20,900
 less maximum and minimum oriented as it is at the moment,

666
00:37:20,900 --> 00:37:25,340
 but more vague so that there is leeway to make decisions.

667
00:37:25,340 --> 00:37:39,140
 So I struggle not with the language, I struggle with our potential unintended

668
00:37:39,140 --> 00:37:43,700
 consequences of taking something.

669
00:37:43,700 --> 00:37:49,420
 -The model code is a very transparent one, and the code we have now

670
00:37:49,420 --> 00:37:51,140
 is not so transparent.

671
00:37:51,140 --> 00:37:52,580
 -I'm sorry, say that again.

672
00:37:52,580 --> 00:37:58,860
 -The model code is very transparent, and the one we have now is not

673
00:37:58,860 --> 00:38:10,180
 as transparent, so yeah, I mean, there's unintended consequences.

674
00:38:10,180 --> 00:38:21,020
 -What do you guys want to do?

675
00:38:21,020 --> 00:38:26,220
 -Because at the end of the day, if it is a private dinner,

676
00:38:26,220 --> 00:38:32,620
 the conversation is substantially influencing, then yeah, I would like for

677
00:38:32,620 --> 00:38:41,140
 that to be included and necessary to disclose it.

678
00:38:41,140 --> 00:38:45,140
 -And the section that we're talking about, getting rid of it wouldn't not

679
00:38:45,140 --> 00:38:52,580
 require them to disclose it, it would just only go to me, which I'm not

680
00:38:52,580 --> 00:38:54,140
 actually allowed to do anything with.

681
00:38:54,140 --> 00:38:58,940
 -Well, and that is exactly where I feel the transparency, because I think

682
00:38:58,940 --> 00:39:02,940
 that this is what this is doing, by having to have that extra level of

683
00:39:02,940 --> 00:39:08,220
 reporting, that to me is a lot of professional courtesy, because you are

684
00:39:08,220 --> 00:39:15,180
 restricted from certain communications, whereas if I have to recuse myself to

685
00:39:15,180 --> 00:39:22,700
 that, then there is another individual that actually is aware, and I don't

686
00:39:22,700 --> 00:39:31,860
 think that that is necessarily a bad thing, because it forces certain

687
00:39:31,860 --> 00:39:35,580
 professionalism to be maintained for granted, but this oftentimes

688
00:39:35,580 --> 00:39:37,940
 is not happening.

689
00:39:37,940 --> 00:39:44,500
 -So you're just saying leave it in, or take it out?

690
00:39:44,500 --> 00:39:47,860
 -I think we should leave it in.

691
00:39:47,860 --> 00:39:52,660
 -I think it increases transparency, but isn't that what we want?

692
00:39:52,660 --> 00:39:57,940
 -What I would recommend, since we don't have a secretary, it could be

693
00:39:57,940 --> 00:40:06,660
 the vice chair, instead of the secretary for the chair, and every board

694
00:40:06,660 --> 00:40:11,740
 is required to have a vice chair, so that's a good slot fixed.

695
00:40:11,740 --> 00:40:18,340
 -I think that makes sense.

696
00:40:18,340 --> 00:40:25,940
 Reading through this, I don't see this as adding a huge burden on anyone.

697
00:40:25,940 --> 00:40:32,460
 On all these things, I'm looking at it as does it make sense, can we apply it

698
00:40:32,460 --> 00:40:40,220
 as a board, and is there anything in it that would make the council just

699
00:40:40,220 --> 00:40:44,260
 stride through this and say we're not going to do that, because that's kind of

700
00:40:44,260 --> 00:40:48,660
 what happened with our last set of revisions, a lot of it just sort of got

701
00:40:48,660 --> 00:40:51,980
 scratched, and it was confusing.

702
00:40:51,980 --> 00:41:00,620
 This feels really straightforward, and we're trying to apply the entire

703
00:41:00,620 --> 00:41:10,700
 ethics code to acting in a way that is transparent, and it doesn't feel like

704
00:41:10,700 --> 00:41:14,340
 there's an undue burden here.

705
00:41:14,340 --> 00:41:25,900
 The first sentence on paragraph four, I think it should be subsection 2B.

706
00:41:25,900 --> 00:41:34,420
 This isn't extremely complicated, they're already having to file an affidavit,

707
00:41:34,420 --> 00:41:38,260
 and it just says inform, I don't know.

708
00:41:38,260 --> 00:41:47,860
 -But I do like the Vice Chair's suggestion.

709
00:41:47,860 --> 00:41:53,900
 -It feels like a good thing to have it, and like this would be going in the

710
00:41:53,900 --> 00:42:01,500
 direction where I think everyone wants the code to go without giving the

711
00:42:01,500 --> 00:42:07,940
 council something to just draw a line through.

712
00:42:07,940 --> 00:42:13,180
 -I would hate to put us in a position where we have to defend every line of a

713
00:42:13,180 --> 00:42:20,060
 universal model code that is stood all across all these other municipalities,

714
00:42:20,060 --> 00:42:30,740
 and so there's always going to be time, if something comes up, this is why most

715
00:42:30,740 --> 00:42:35,020
 of these ethics ordinances or codes are fairly general.

716
00:42:35,020 --> 00:42:39,380
 There's always an opportunity to go back and fix a problem, if it occurs,

717
00:42:39,380 --> 00:42:46,980
 but to try and predict at this point where something could jump the tracks.

718
00:42:46,980 --> 00:42:51,300
 I think that we need to kind of focus on this universal code.

719
00:42:51,300 --> 00:42:58,860
 Something might happen, yes, but I'm very comfortable with the language that's here,

720
00:42:58,860 --> 00:43:00,580
 at least as a place to start.

721
00:43:00,580 --> 00:43:03,900
 We've got a lot to do here.

722
00:43:03,900 --> 00:43:10,060
 -So I'm here, you're good, you're good, you're good, you're good, you're good.

723
00:43:10,060 --> 00:43:16,100
 -With the change to the Vice Chair, and then I, well maybe I just said this,

724
00:43:16,100 --> 00:43:22,460
 but for the Mayor, for Inform the Mayor Pro Tem, it's basically the same.

725
00:43:22,460 --> 00:43:27,300
 -Perfect, all right, I like that.

726
00:43:27,300 --> 00:43:30,300
 Okay, what other?

727
00:43:30,300 --> 00:43:33,500
 -Would that become subsection D then?

728
00:43:33,500 --> 00:43:38,020
 -I figured I could just add it to C, okay?

729
00:43:38,020 --> 00:43:39,740
 Because that's how A works, is it correct?

730
00:43:39,740 --> 00:43:44,540
 -Yeah.

731
00:43:44,540 --> 00:43:47,540
 -Okay, what next?

732
00:44:03,540 --> 00:44:06,540
 -Yeah.

733
00:44:06,540 --> 00:44:09,540
 -Oh, thank you.

734
00:44:09,540 --> 00:44:12,540
 Appreciate that.

735
00:44:12,540 --> 00:44:25,540
 -I do remember, I think you said something about the domestic partner definition last

736
00:44:25,540 --> 00:44:43,540
 time, I don't know if you wanted to look at that.

737
00:44:43,540 --> 00:44:44,540
 -Just say partner?

738
00:44:44,540 --> 00:44:45,540
 Where is that?

739
00:44:45,540 --> 00:44:50,540
 -Partner is described, it's on page four.

740
00:44:50,540 --> 00:44:55,540
 -Well, it's not defined anywhere else.

741
00:44:55,540 --> 00:45:10,540
 -I just think domestic partners is slightly outdated term, and I think that more common

742
00:45:10,540 --> 00:45:13,540
 than now is partner.

743
00:45:13,540 --> 00:45:17,540
 -You can certainly do whatever you want, I think there's other references to business

744
00:45:17,540 --> 00:45:25,540
 partner that might make it a little confusing within the code, but I understand what you're

745
00:45:25,540 --> 00:45:26,540
 saying.

746
00:45:26,540 --> 00:45:29,540
 -I'm really not that bothered by it.

747
00:45:29,540 --> 00:45:30,540
 -Okay.

748
00:45:30,540 --> 00:45:38,540
 -I just remember you brought it up so I'm not sure.

749
00:45:38,540 --> 00:45:43,540
 -Next?

750
00:45:43,540 --> 00:45:45,540
 -Are we leaving domestic partners in that passage?

751
00:45:45,540 --> 00:45:46,540
 -Yes.

752
00:45:46,540 --> 00:45:47,540
 -Okay.

753
00:45:47,540 --> 00:46:01,540
 So when do we, or when can we raise issues with other, with definitions and some other

754
00:46:01,540 --> 00:46:02,540
 things that are in here?

755
00:46:02,540 --> 00:46:03,540
 Is this now or later?

756
00:46:03,540 --> 00:46:04,540
 -I think you might be there.

757
00:46:04,540 --> 00:46:05,540
 -No.

758
00:46:05,540 --> 00:46:06,540
 -Okay.

759
00:46:06,540 --> 00:46:08,540
 So what page would you be looking for?

760
00:46:08,540 --> 00:46:12,540
 -Well, I just, I have two issues only.

761
00:46:12,540 --> 00:46:21,540
 I'm 95% just totally pleased with where we are right now in terms of the process, where

762
00:46:21,540 --> 00:46:26,540
 we've been, where we're heading, but there are just maybe like three or four minor issues

763
00:46:26,540 --> 00:46:28,540
 and I know they're not earth-shaking.

764
00:46:28,540 --> 00:46:44,540
 For example, the definition on page three of complainant, as it stands now, the human

765
00:46:44,540 --> 00:46:48,540
 individual who submitted a complaint to the city.

766
00:46:48,540 --> 00:46:53,540
 That to me is a problem comparing Denton and any other city with an ethics code.

767
00:46:53,540 --> 00:46:59,540
 I would like to discuss or at least start out making a motion that that be amended to

768
00:46:59,540 --> 00:47:02,540
 the individual, public, or private entity.

769
00:47:02,540 --> 00:47:10,540
 This was, this was 2016 baggage trying to keep organizations from being able to file

770
00:47:10,540 --> 00:47:11,540
 complaints.

771
00:47:11,540 --> 00:47:14,540
 And to me, this is a huge problem.

772
00:47:14,540 --> 00:47:19,540
 -We're not actually supposed to talk about the definition.

773
00:47:19,540 --> 00:47:20,540
 We're supposed to for...

774
00:47:20,540 --> 00:47:28,540
 -Yeah, I wouldn't really like to go back and look at the definitions, but it's not,

775
00:47:28,540 --> 00:47:31,540
 yeah, we're not posted for that, so we can't...

776
00:47:31,540 --> 00:47:36,540
 -Well, that's what I, that's why I'm a little confused here because we have the whole...

777
00:47:36,540 --> 00:47:41,540
 -Yeah, we, I asked for that because I wanted to make sure we could look at what we're

778
00:47:41,540 --> 00:47:46,540
 changing and make sure it's in continuity, but I think that's probably a...

779
00:47:46,540 --> 00:47:50,540
 -Well, especially if we have until June now, I mean, there are, there are some definitions

780
00:47:50,540 --> 00:47:54,540
 that really, really need to be talked about and reworked or rethought about.

781
00:47:54,540 --> 00:47:57,540
 -So that's something to bring up at the end of the meeting when we're talking about...

782
00:47:57,540 --> 00:47:58,540
 -That's fine.

783
00:47:58,540 --> 00:47:59,540
 -Next time.

784
00:47:59,540 --> 00:48:00,540
 -Next time.

785
00:48:00,540 --> 00:48:01,540
 -I, I wouldn't, though.

786
00:48:01,540 --> 00:48:02,540
 -Okay.

787
00:48:02,540 --> 00:48:03,540
 -I wouldn't really go into that questions.

788
00:48:03,540 --> 00:48:06,540
 -Is there any good direction to do that?

789
00:48:06,540 --> 00:48:09,540
 -Is there anything else that we're posted about?

790
00:48:09,540 --> 00:48:12,540
 -So that would just be the red lines?

791
00:48:12,540 --> 00:48:13,540
 -Right.

792
00:48:13,540 --> 00:48:14,540
 -And I think if there's a change in it...

793
00:48:14,540 --> 00:48:15,540
 -The red lines only?

794
00:48:15,540 --> 00:48:22,540
 -If there's a definition as it relates to the changes in the conflict of interest section,

795
00:48:22,540 --> 00:48:28,540
 then you can talk about that, but something that's not directly implicated in these changes

796
00:48:28,540 --> 00:48:32,540
 in the conflict of interest section would be outposted.

797
00:48:32,540 --> 00:48:33,540
 -Is that a good one?

798
00:48:33,540 --> 00:48:34,540
 -Yeah, that's clear.

799
00:48:34,540 --> 00:48:35,540
 -Okay.

800
00:48:35,540 --> 00:48:36,540
 -Thank you, Scott.

801
00:48:36,540 --> 00:48:37,540
 -Good clarification.

802
00:48:37,540 --> 00:48:45,540
 -That's probably to make me be more specific, so that's...

803
00:48:45,540 --> 00:48:46,540
 -Yeah.

804
00:48:46,540 --> 00:48:47,540
 Okay.

805
00:48:47,540 --> 00:48:50,540
 So any other things that we are posted to talk about?

806
00:48:50,540 --> 00:48:53,540
 I'm overall pretty happy with it, personally.

807
00:48:53,540 --> 00:48:56,540
 You know, it's a big...

808
00:48:56,540 --> 00:49:04,540
 I don't want to confuse the matter much more right now, because I think that's what happened

809
00:49:04,540 --> 00:49:08,540
 at the council meeting where we took all those changes.

810
00:49:08,540 --> 00:49:11,540
 I think they've just worked over the world.

811
00:49:11,540 --> 00:49:19,540
 -I think these are both very large changes to the code, so I would advise the board not

812
00:49:19,540 --> 00:49:26,540
 to submit more proposals to them for the June 16th meeting, unless they were very small.

813
00:49:26,540 --> 00:49:29,540
 But you can certainly do that if you would like to.

814
00:49:29,540 --> 00:49:34,540
 I just don't have to tell the city manager I need more than an hour.

815
00:49:34,540 --> 00:49:37,540
 -Yeah, because I think we were posted for 30 minutes last time.

816
00:49:37,540 --> 00:49:39,540
 -It was an hour.

817
00:49:39,540 --> 00:49:41,540
 -It went for like two.

818
00:49:41,540 --> 00:49:42,540
 -Yeah.

819
00:49:42,540 --> 00:49:43,540
 -Yeah.

820
00:49:43,540 --> 00:49:50,540
 -So process-wise, then how do we determine what is a future red line power?

821
00:49:50,540 --> 00:49:52,540
 Do we discuss it with you, or...?

822
00:49:52,540 --> 00:49:55,540
 -At the end of the meeting, we have changes.

823
00:49:55,540 --> 00:49:56,540
 -Okay.

824
00:49:56,540 --> 00:49:57,540
 -Yeah.

825
00:49:57,540 --> 00:50:02,540
 -I guess we could decide if we want to add more to this meeting, but I think this is

826
00:50:02,540 --> 00:50:03,540
 enough.

827
00:50:03,540 --> 00:50:10,540
 My opinion, just watching the council members and how overwhelmed they seemed when we talked

828
00:50:10,540 --> 00:50:15,540
 about it, it was like God was shouting from the heavens.

829
00:50:15,540 --> 00:50:18,540
 It was very unpleasant.

830
00:50:18,540 --> 00:50:30,540
 -Okay, well then, so then I guess we're finished with 007?

831
00:50:30,540 --> 00:50:33,540
 -Just to double-check, there's nothing on the burden of proof that you all want to discuss.

832
00:50:33,540 --> 00:50:42,540
 These next steps are I'll bring forward a letter, which will be the formal forwarding

833
00:50:42,540 --> 00:50:45,540
 to the city council that we've done in the past.

834
00:50:45,540 --> 00:50:48,540
 That will be at the next meeting, and then we'll be done with this packet, essentially,

835
00:50:48,540 --> 00:51:08,540
 until they give you direction, give me direction, I guess, on what to do with the proposal.

836
00:51:08,540 --> 00:51:12,540
 There'll be an opportunity next time, just wanted to double-check, since we are posted

837
00:51:12,540 --> 00:51:20,540
 to discuss it today, if you would like to.

838
00:51:20,540 --> 00:51:25,540
 -So basically all that's there is what we crossed out of ours and replaced with model

839
00:51:25,540 --> 00:51:27,540
 code, is that correct?

840
00:51:27,540 --> 00:51:33,540
 -In the code, yes, and that's mostly, that's almost entirely just the proposal, I can't

841
00:51:33,540 --> 00:51:38,540
 remember, one or two that's to repeal and replace the conflict of interest section.

842
00:51:38,540 --> 00:51:43,540
 The other proposal that we're presenting them with is the burden of proof removal, which

843
00:51:43,540 --> 00:51:48,540
 has a bunch of procedural changes to the hearings that go with it, to essentially make it so

844
00:51:48,540 --> 00:51:56,540
 that the complainant does not have to testify at the hearing, if one of those gets that far.

845
00:51:56,540 --> 00:52:01,540
 They can, but they don't have to.

846
00:52:01,540 --> 00:52:08,540
 -I personally feel like we, I know we've talked about this twice, maybe, so in my opinion

847
00:52:08,540 --> 00:52:17,540
 we covered that matter, but I certainly don't want to leave out any opinions.

848
00:52:17,540 --> 00:52:24,540
 Because all opinions are welcome.

849
00:52:24,540 --> 00:52:39,540
 This is just a brief summary of what the procedural changes are intended to do.

850
00:52:39,540 --> 00:52:54,540
 Opinions, Abby, you want to talk about anything?

851
00:52:54,540 --> 00:53:06,540
 -I'm fine with taking out what's taken out.

852
00:53:06,540 --> 00:53:09,540
 -We move on then, right?

853
00:53:09,540 --> 00:53:10,540
 -Yep.

854
00:53:10,540 --> 00:53:14,540
 -Okay, BOE 24-008, management reports.

855
00:53:14,540 --> 00:53:22,540
 So, January 24, advisory opinion responses report.

856
00:53:22,540 --> 00:53:29,540
 -So just an update, we got an advisory opinion request, it's going to be heard by a panel

857
00:53:29,540 --> 00:53:34,540
 on Thursday, which is an update from what was in the packet, because I hadn't gotten

858
00:53:34,540 --> 00:53:38,540
 a request for an actual advisory opinion.

859
00:53:38,540 --> 00:53:46,540
 So really there's nothing to discuss, this is part of the process that I have to follow.

860
00:53:46,540 --> 00:53:49,540
 -So we're done with this, no action required.

861
00:53:49,540 --> 00:53:51,540
 -Unless you have questions or something.

862
00:53:51,540 --> 00:53:52,540
 -Is that here?

863
00:53:52,540 --> 00:53:56,540
 -Right, it'll be here at 5.30, just on Thursday.

864
00:53:56,540 --> 00:53:58,540
 -Okay, thank you.

865
00:53:58,540 --> 00:54:05,540
 -So we move on to BOE 24-09, receiver report, hold a discussion and give staff direction

866
00:54:05,540 --> 00:54:08,540
 regarding future meeting topics.

867
00:54:08,540 --> 00:54:18,540
 So this will be the day before you bring things up.

868
00:54:18,540 --> 00:54:29,540
 -Well, I would like to discuss some definitions.

869
00:54:29,540 --> 00:54:32,540
 Complaints specifically.

870
00:54:32,540 --> 00:54:38,540
 I would like to discuss, under mandates, this business disclosures.

871
00:54:38,540 --> 00:54:47,540
 There's huge problems there, in my opinion.

872
00:54:47,540 --> 00:54:57,540
 So we need to discuss the packet of proposed amendments next month.

873
00:54:57,540 --> 00:55:08,540
 I don't want to get that process moving.

874
00:55:08,540 --> 00:55:09,540
 -You're there.

875
00:55:09,540 --> 00:55:11,540
 You're certainly on time.

876
00:55:11,540 --> 00:55:19,540
 -So would you think about March, what would you think about putting that topic into March?

877
00:55:19,540 --> 00:55:21,540
 -Well, yeah, ASAP.

878
00:55:21,540 --> 00:55:26,540
 -And you want to call it looking at definitions?

879
00:55:26,540 --> 00:55:28,540
 -Well, there's only two.

880
00:55:28,540 --> 00:55:38,540
 There's not a great deal here, but I have that definition, and under mandates 2-272,

881
00:55:38,540 --> 00:55:42,540
 this discussion of business disclosures and pending matters,

882
00:55:42,540 --> 00:55:47,540
 we've already struck the words "pending matters" from our lexicon.

883
00:55:47,540 --> 00:55:56,540
 And so this business disclosures under 2-72C revisits this entire pending matter issue.

884
00:55:56,540 --> 00:56:03,540
 So there's some work to do, in my opinion, on section 2-72C,

885
00:56:03,540 --> 00:56:07,540
 whether that's either amending or just deleting entirely.

886
00:56:07,540 --> 00:56:12,540
 -Okay.

887
00:56:12,540 --> 00:56:17,540
 -Do we need to talk about financial disclosures, like from PACs and things like that,

888
00:56:17,540 --> 00:56:31,540
 or is that already covered?

889
00:56:31,540 --> 00:56:37,540
 -So the ethics code is not a campaign financing code.

890
00:56:37,540 --> 00:56:41,540
 It does not regulate financial disclosures at all.

891
00:56:41,540 --> 00:56:49,540
 It just requires that a city council member file the financial disclosures required by the state of Texas.

892
00:56:49,540 --> 00:56:51,540
 -Does that include PAC money?

893
00:56:51,540 --> 00:56:53,540
 -I don't know.

894
00:56:53,540 --> 00:56:55,540
 I'd have to look that up.

895
00:56:55,540 --> 00:56:59,540
 -I think federal law may be what's--

896
00:56:59,540 --> 00:57:01,540
 well, versus in that area.

897
00:57:01,540 --> 00:57:12,540
 -I do know there were some major changes in disclosures for PACs about six years ago.

898
00:57:12,540 --> 00:57:14,540
 I don't recall exactly.

899
00:57:14,540 --> 00:57:19,540
 But it did change even local elections significantly.

900
00:57:19,540 --> 00:57:30,540
 And I don't know that we-- yeah, I guess I want to say-- personally, I'd like to say I believe it's there.

901
00:57:30,540 --> 00:57:33,540
 But I don't know, Scott.

902
00:57:33,540 --> 00:57:36,540
 Do you have any awareness of that?

903
00:57:36,540 --> 00:57:40,540
 Yeah, I just read a couple of big articles about it.

904
00:57:40,540 --> 00:57:43,540
 -I know candidates are required to make financial disclosures.

905
00:57:43,540 --> 00:57:52,540
 It used to be that they had to also disclose where the money was coming from and the change.

906
00:57:52,540 --> 00:57:54,540
 Was that known to them?

907
00:57:54,540 --> 00:58:00,540
 -If we wanted to get more information on that, I could ask the city secretary's office if they have information on it.

908
00:58:00,540 --> 00:58:02,540
 -OK.

909
00:58:02,540 --> 00:58:04,540
 -And provide it to you.

910
00:58:04,540 --> 00:58:06,540
 I just don't really know.

911
00:58:06,540 --> 00:58:16,540
 I'm really part of the ethics field, so it's not something I try to keep up with as part of this field.

912
00:58:16,540 --> 00:58:17,540
 -OK.

913
00:58:17,540 --> 00:58:18,540
 All right.

914
00:58:18,540 --> 00:58:21,540
 I know I read that on something like Forbes, so it wasn't.

915
00:58:21,540 --> 00:58:26,540
 But anyway.

916
00:58:26,540 --> 00:58:32,540
 If you want to check into that, I would be interested in hearing if anybody knows.

917
00:58:32,540 --> 00:58:39,540
 -I don't think we have the right to supersede federal law.

918
00:58:39,540 --> 00:58:40,540
 -Right.

919
00:58:40,540 --> 00:58:44,540
 And I'd be curious to know what the rules are.

920
00:58:44,540 --> 00:58:50,540
 -Yeah, I can see what the city secretary's office gives to candidates as far as what they are required to do.

921
00:58:50,540 --> 00:58:52,540
 And send that to y'all on email.

922
00:58:52,540 --> 00:59:00,540
 And then if you would like to do anything with that, we can discuss it at the next future meeting item section.

923
00:59:00,540 --> 00:59:01,540
 Does that work?

924
00:59:01,540 --> 00:59:03,540
 -I hope that works.

925
00:59:03,540 --> 00:59:06,540
 Madison, thank you so much for this red line.

926
00:59:06,540 --> 00:59:09,540
 I know that you don't have help right now.

927
00:59:09,540 --> 00:59:13,540
 And as usual, you've got it done.

928
00:59:13,540 --> 00:59:19,540
 So I don't think I just speak for myself in saying that I'm grateful.

929
00:59:19,540 --> 00:59:20,540
 -Agreed.

930
00:59:20,540 --> 00:59:24,540
 -So I'm a little unclear on what you would like to do in March, though.

931
00:59:24,540 --> 00:59:28,540
 -I would like to talk about the business disclosures.

932
00:59:28,540 --> 00:59:31,540
 Would that be the right way, then?

933
00:59:31,540 --> 00:59:32,540
 -Yeah.

934
00:59:32,540 --> 00:59:33,540
 -Which one?

935
00:59:33,540 --> 00:59:34,540
 -272.

936
00:59:34,540 --> 00:59:36,540
 -Yeah, business disclosures.

937
00:59:36,540 --> 00:59:38,540
 -I think I missed that.

938
00:59:38,540 --> 00:59:40,540
 So I think it does have pending matter in there.

939
00:59:40,540 --> 00:59:47,540
 I think it does need to be changed potentially as part of this other -- I think it goes along.

940
00:59:47,540 --> 00:59:48,540
 -So does C.

941
00:59:48,540 --> 00:59:49,540
 -Right, C and E.

942
00:59:49,540 --> 00:59:57,540
 -So if pending matter got removed, then it was like C and E.

943
00:59:57,540 --> 01:00:08,540
 So -- because I almost feel like everything that's included -- because this part is -- what it covers is very weird and confusing.

944
01:00:08,540 --> 01:00:12,540
 And I almost feel like it might be covered under the new conflict of interest section.

945
01:00:12,540 --> 01:00:18,540
 So I'll look at that and see if I can get a better understanding of it before next time.

946
01:00:18,540 --> 01:00:25,540
 -Are there any other things anybody wants to talk about in the moment?

947
01:00:25,540 --> 01:00:31,540
 -Could you just say business disclosures, 272C, question mark?

948
01:00:31,540 --> 01:00:36,540
 And we'll go and take it to TVA if -- I mean, we've got another meeting before.

949
01:00:36,540 --> 01:00:37,540
 -Right, yeah.

950
01:00:37,540 --> 01:00:48,540
 I think we'll do that one first and then -- if it seems like there's no way for this to actually do anything

951
01:00:48,540 --> 01:00:56,540
 with the red lines that you all are giving me direction to go forward with, I'll probably just strike it and include it.

952
01:00:56,540 --> 01:01:01,540
 And we can discuss that and then forward the packet of amendments second if that's fine.

953
01:01:01,540 --> 01:01:08,540
 And if not, we have the April and May meeting to readjust if that doesn't actually work.

954
01:01:08,540 --> 01:01:13,540
 Because it seems like we like where we're going with conflict of interest.

955
01:01:13,540 --> 01:01:22,540
 So if the business disclosures doesn't make sense anymore with that, then it's just that I didn't consider that when I was grabbing the red lines.

956
01:01:22,540 --> 01:01:28,540
 But we'll still have several more meetings if we need to to look at red lines before we forward those to the city council.

957
01:01:28,540 --> 01:01:29,540
 -Okay.

958
01:01:29,540 --> 01:01:36,540
 So let's see how the next meeting goes and then we'll decide if we need to add that to it.

959
01:01:36,540 --> 01:01:37,540
 Sounds good?

960
01:01:37,540 --> 01:01:39,540
 -Yes.

961
01:01:39,540 --> 01:01:47,540
 -Okay. Any other -- okay.

962
01:01:47,540 --> 01:01:52,540
 So we are at the end of our meeting.

963
01:01:52,540 --> 01:02:03,540
 So I say this meeting is adjourned at 630 -- 634 p.m.?

964
01:02:03,540 --> 01:02:04,540
 -So late.

965
01:02:04,540 --> 01:02:09,540
 -Okay. Thank you so much.

966
01:02:09,540 --> 01:02:10,540
 Good job, everybody.