WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.780 >> Good evening. 00:00:03.780 --> 00:00:09.220 It is Monday, February 5th, 2024, and it is 5.30 p.m., 00:00:09.220 --> 00:00:11.660 and this is the Board of Ethics meeting, 00:00:11.660 --> 00:00:15.460 and I am now calling this meeting to order. 00:00:15.460 --> 00:00:18.560 So we do not have any presentation 00:00:18.560 --> 00:00:21.160 from members of the public. 00:00:21.160 --> 00:00:25.100 So we will move to item two on our agenda. 00:00:25.100 --> 00:00:32.440 BOE 24-006, consider approval of minutes from January 8th, 2024. 00:00:32.440 --> 00:00:40.420 So does anyone have any amendments or concerns? 00:00:40.420 --> 00:00:43.020 Seeing none, I can entertain a -- 00:00:43.020 --> 00:00:45.120 >> Make a motion. 00:00:45.120 --> 00:00:48.420 >> Does the public move to approve the minutes? 00:00:48.420 --> 00:00:49.060 Is there a second? 00:00:49.060 --> 00:00:49.820 >> I second. 00:00:49.820 --> 00:00:53.220 >> Patricia Roenke has seconded. 00:00:53.220 --> 00:00:55.700 So all in favor? 00:00:55.700 --> 00:00:57.840 >> Aye. 00:00:57.840 --> 00:01:01.600 >> Unanimous, we have five people here tonight. 00:01:01.600 --> 00:01:09.780 So we will now move on to BOE 24-007. 00:01:09.780 --> 00:01:11.540 Receive a report, hold a discussion, 00:01:11.540 --> 00:01:14.680 and give staff directions on the draft red lines 00:01:14.680 --> 00:01:19.220 for potential proposed amendments for the Board of Ethics to one, 00:01:19.220 --> 00:01:25.620 repeal and replace Ethics Code Ordinance Section 2-273(a), 00:01:25.620 --> 00:01:34.100 conflicts of interest, and two, eliminate Section 2-281(c)(4), 00:01:34.100 --> 00:01:37.280 burden and proof, including amending the Board of Ethics 00:01:37.280 --> 00:01:41.300 rules of procedure to adjust evidence for hearing procedures 00:01:41.300 --> 00:01:44.120 to reflect the elimination of the requirement 00:01:44.120 --> 00:01:48.820 for the complainant to testify at an evidence reading. 00:01:48.820 --> 00:01:57.700 So Madison has sent us several items, and I've asked them 00:01:57.700 --> 00:02:04.060 to propose Articulous Red Line Talkies. 00:02:04.060 --> 00:02:08.440 So thank you, Madison, for doing that. 00:02:08.440 --> 00:02:11.100 So I guess we can start. 00:02:11.100 --> 00:02:13.580 Did you -- you're going to do a presentation? 00:02:13.580 --> 00:02:15.140 >> I don't really have anything prepared. 00:02:15.140 --> 00:02:18.780 These are things that we -- this is something that we used last time 00:02:18.780 --> 00:02:20.520 when we talked about this proposal, 00:02:20.520 --> 00:02:23.620 and then this is just the red lines on this slide. 00:02:23.620 --> 00:02:25.260 I don't -- yeah. 00:02:25.260 --> 00:02:30.920 >> Okay. I'm assuming everybody had a chance to look at things, 00:02:30.920 --> 00:02:34.200 so we'll move on to things you want to address, 00:02:34.200 --> 00:02:37.360 and I'll recognize David Zeltner. 00:02:37.360 --> 00:02:40.260 >> One question for Madison. 00:02:40.260 --> 00:02:46.780 The schedule now -- two more readings, March and April. 00:02:46.780 --> 00:02:49.480 Do we have a tannity schedule when what we're -- 00:02:49.480 --> 00:02:53.120 where we're at is finally going to make it back 00:02:53.120 --> 00:02:55.780 to the city council, or do you have any idea? 00:02:55.780 --> 00:03:03.300 >> Yes. So the council, I'm going to present to them the things 00:03:03.300 --> 00:03:07.160 that you approved on June 4th during work session. 00:03:07.160 --> 00:03:09.160 They'll give us direction at that point to do 00:03:09.160 --> 00:03:10.800 with whatever their direction is, 00:03:10.800 --> 00:03:13.000 and if there are changes they would like made, 00:03:13.000 --> 00:03:15.000 we'll bring back an amended ordinance sometime 00:03:15.000 --> 00:03:17.240 after that, hopefully in July. 00:03:17.240 --> 00:03:20.280 >> So we might potentially have to bring a new council 00:03:20.280 --> 00:03:23.780 in before this gets to them, after the elections, I guess. 00:03:23.780 --> 00:03:25.820 >> It will be after the election. 00:03:25.820 --> 00:03:27.720 >> Okay. That's what I'm trying to understand, 00:03:27.720 --> 00:03:30.880 is if we can get this wrapped up in any way 00:03:30.880 --> 00:03:33.360 for the current council, but apparently not then. 00:03:33.360 --> 00:03:34.320 Is that right? 00:03:34.320 --> 00:03:36.300 >> Right. I discussed it with the city manager, 00:03:36.300 --> 00:03:40.860 and there's -- the work sessions are full, basically, until June. 00:03:40.860 --> 00:03:41.740 They're busy. 00:03:41.740 --> 00:03:45.600 I don't know. It will still take a long time to present to them. 00:03:45.600 --> 00:03:46.980 >> June's the earliest then. 00:03:46.980 --> 00:03:47.440 >> Correct. 00:03:47.440 --> 00:03:49.040 >> Okay. Okay. 00:03:49.040 --> 00:03:58.680 >> Moving at government speed. 00:03:58.680 --> 00:04:00.180 >> Well, that's -- 00:04:00.180 --> 00:04:05.820 >> Okay. So please -- do you want to do a page turn? 00:04:05.820 --> 00:04:07.720 What is it going to be? 00:04:07.720 --> 00:04:11.900 >> We can also pull it up on -- okay, that'll be easy. 00:04:11.900 --> 00:04:32.440 I don't know if you want to start with proposal one, or -- 00:04:32.440 --> 00:04:34.620 well, I don't know if you want to start with conflict of interest 00:04:34.620 --> 00:04:37.720 or board of burden of proof. 00:04:37.720 --> 00:04:40.020 Burden of proof is more in the procedures. 00:04:40.020 --> 00:04:41.660 >> I thought we had kind of -- 00:04:41.660 --> 00:04:42.720 >> It sort of got discussed. 00:04:42.720 --> 00:04:44.720 I don't know if you want to discuss it again, but -- 00:04:44.720 --> 00:04:47.560 >> Does anyone want to discuss it again? 00:04:47.560 --> 00:04:49.100 Conflict of interest? 00:04:49.100 --> 00:04:49.960 >> Burden of proof. 00:04:49.960 --> 00:04:52.260 >> Burden of proof. 00:04:52.260 --> 00:04:53.500 >> I don't know anything. 00:04:53.500 --> 00:04:56.540 >> I'd say we move on, because I think the, you know, 00:04:56.540 --> 00:05:00.980 conflict of interest is the big deal right now. 00:05:00.980 --> 00:05:04.040 >> So I -- so there's clearly a bunch 00:05:04.040 --> 00:05:09.480 of definitions that we've added based on the direction I was 00:05:09.480 --> 00:05:13.360 given to essentially model what's in our code 00:05:13.360 --> 00:05:15.160 after what's in the model code. 00:05:15.160 --> 00:05:19.260 So that's why all these new definitions are in here. 00:05:19.260 --> 00:05:23.000 We can go back to them as we go through the section 00:05:23.000 --> 00:05:24.600 that's actually changing. 00:05:24.600 --> 00:05:29.940 So essentially just took out all what was there 00:05:29.940 --> 00:05:32.980 and replaced it with this new language. 00:05:34.640 --> 00:05:38.380 >> So I know you guys have had a chance to look at it. 00:05:38.380 --> 00:05:42.880 >> I just had a couple of minor things in paragraph one. 00:05:42.880 --> 00:05:44.660 That's on the screen there. 00:05:44.660 --> 00:05:49.060 Line two, I think it should be or influence others, 00:05:49.060 --> 00:05:51.160 unless I misunderstood. 00:05:51.160 --> 00:05:52.960 I think it's just missing an "S" on there. 00:05:52.960 --> 00:05:54.500 Okay? 00:05:54.500 --> 00:05:57.200 All right. 00:05:57.200 --> 00:06:11.640 And then paragraph B, for substantial customer, 00:06:11.640 --> 00:06:13.820 that's not a -- there's no definition for that. 00:06:13.820 --> 00:06:16.260 Do we need to have a definition for that, because I -- 00:06:16.260 --> 00:06:20.020 that was the only thing that I saw that I wasn't really sure. 00:06:20.020 --> 00:06:22.800 I know we talked a little bit about, do we define that, 00:06:22.800 --> 00:06:29.100 or what that would look like, it's not in the definitions now, 00:06:29.100 --> 00:06:31.140 but it's separate from -- it says a client 00:06:31.140 --> 00:06:34.940 or substantial customer, and I'm not sure how -- 00:06:34.940 --> 00:06:36.380 >> I feel like -- did we -- 00:06:36.380 --> 00:06:38.380 was there a direction to take substantial out last time? 00:06:38.380 --> 00:06:39.820 I could have just forgotten about that. 00:06:39.820 --> 00:06:42.020 >> I think that was my big deal. 00:06:42.020 --> 00:06:42.720 >> Okay. 00:06:42.720 --> 00:06:44.220 [ Laughter ] 00:06:44.220 --> 00:06:45.420 >> Yeah. 00:06:45.420 --> 00:06:49.160 >> I couldn't remember from our discussion the details on that. 00:06:49.160 --> 00:06:51.160 I just noticed that that was still there 00:06:51.160 --> 00:06:53.060 and that there wasn't a definition. 00:06:53.060 --> 00:06:53.860 >> Yeah. 00:06:53.860 --> 00:06:57.640 >> I would be fine with taking the substantial out, 00:06:57.640 --> 00:07:03.700 because I don't think we need to define that with a hard number 00:07:03.700 --> 00:07:07.240 of, you know, whatever the number was or whatever. 00:07:07.240 --> 00:07:11.520 >> In the model code, there is, like, a number associated 00:07:11.520 --> 00:07:14.020 with it in the definition that is not in the definition 00:07:14.020 --> 00:07:16.220 that we put in our code based on the direction that you all gave. 00:07:16.220 --> 00:07:17.980 So it might have just forgotten to take 00:07:17.980 --> 00:07:19.860 out the word "substantial." 00:07:19.860 --> 00:07:26.120 >> Okay. I would like to strike "substantial" for me. 00:07:26.120 --> 00:07:27.300 >> Andrea would? 00:07:27.300 --> 00:07:28.600 >> I would. 00:07:28.600 --> 00:07:31.500 >> What about David and Patricia? 00:07:31.500 --> 00:07:35.500 Do you want to strike "substantial"? 00:07:35.500 --> 00:07:36.800 >> Does it -- 00:07:36.800 --> 00:07:38.540 >> Yeah. 00:07:38.540 --> 00:07:41.180 >> Does it cause any problem 00:07:41.180 --> 00:07:46.580 with any other possible relationships that aren't defined? 00:07:46.580 --> 00:07:50.380 Does that make sense? 00:07:50.380 --> 00:07:53.380 >> I think people know what a client means, but I'm not -- 00:07:53.380 --> 00:07:57.320 I'm kind of not sure about "substantial" customers. 00:07:57.320 --> 00:07:58.920 >> So even if it's vague, it's -- 00:07:58.920 --> 00:08:01.800 >> Yeah. I think that part of the reason I brought -- 00:08:01.800 --> 00:08:03.160 >> Define it or take it out. 00:08:03.160 --> 00:08:08.240 >> Yeah. We are defining customer or client. 00:08:08.240 --> 00:08:09.500 >> Yeah. 00:08:09.500 --> 00:08:11.780 >> That's added to the definitions. 00:08:11.780 --> 00:08:14.240 And so that was the only thing that kind of jumped out at me 00:08:14.240 --> 00:08:17.180 that we have "substantial" in the body of the text, 00:08:17.180 --> 00:08:18.980 but not in the definition. 00:08:18.980 --> 00:08:21.640 So I think the way it is -- if we take "substantial" out, 00:08:21.640 --> 00:08:23.780 it's pretty clear what that means 00:08:23.780 --> 00:08:26.180 from the definition that's been added. 00:08:26.180 --> 00:08:30.960 >> So just -- that double R should just say a client. 00:08:30.960 --> 00:08:34.720 Some kind of -- or just -- 00:08:34.720 --> 00:08:35.960 >> Client or customer. 00:08:35.960 --> 00:08:36.960 >> Okay. 00:08:36.960 --> 00:08:38.860 Client can cover a lot of categories. 00:08:38.860 --> 00:08:39.800 >> Right. 00:08:39.800 --> 00:08:41.460 >> Yeah. So it's probably client. 00:08:41.460 --> 00:08:46.180 >> So just take out "more substantial." 00:08:46.180 --> 00:08:50.880 >> Okay. So everybody's okay with that? 00:08:50.880 --> 00:08:51.980 >> All in favor? 00:08:51.980 --> 00:08:52.940 >> All in favor? 00:08:52.940 --> 00:08:53.780 >> Yes. 00:08:53.780 --> 00:08:55.580 >> It seems like there's a general consensus to remove -- 00:08:55.580 --> 00:09:02.180 >> It's right "substantial" from section A1, B2. 00:09:02.180 --> 00:09:05.160 >> We do need to vote on these things? 00:09:05.160 --> 00:09:05.720 >> No. 00:09:05.720 --> 00:09:06.520 >> Okay. 00:09:06.520 --> 00:09:08.120 >> Okay. 00:09:08.120 --> 00:09:10.960 >> You still have a given official group, right? 00:09:10.960 --> 00:09:12.840 So we're all in favor of that. 00:09:12.840 --> 00:09:13.560 So we're good. 00:09:13.560 --> 00:09:14.660 >> Well, yeah, this is a -- 00:09:14.660 --> 00:09:15.660 >> I have a question. 00:09:15.660 --> 00:09:17.400 >> Yes. 00:09:17.400 --> 00:09:19.240 >> Are we going to work our -- I'm just -- 00:09:19.240 --> 00:09:21.640 procedure-wise, are we going to work our way through all 00:09:21.640 --> 00:09:25.280 of the red line stuff that you have first? 00:09:25.280 --> 00:09:28.580 Because I've got one or two small items 00:09:28.580 --> 00:09:31.980 that have not been indicated as an issue at this point. 00:09:31.980 --> 00:09:35.860 So we're going to do that at the end, or what's the -- 00:09:35.860 --> 00:09:37.060 >> Why don't we work our way 00:09:37.060 --> 00:09:38.660 through what we're working on right now, 00:09:38.660 --> 00:09:40.460 and then we'll come back to the other stuff? 00:09:40.460 --> 00:09:41.460 >> Okay, that's fine. 00:09:41.460 --> 00:09:42.520 That's fine, yeah. 00:09:42.520 --> 00:09:44.020 >> All right. 00:09:44.020 --> 00:09:46.640 >> So next in that section, what's -- 00:09:46.640 --> 00:09:51.260 >> I have a similar question on item 3. 00:09:51.260 --> 00:09:55.380 There's "substantial debtor or creditor." 00:09:55.380 --> 00:09:57.900 If we want to keep "substantial," there -- 00:09:57.900 --> 00:09:59.940 I don't believe there's definition added 00:09:59.940 --> 00:10:01.620 for "debtor or creditor." 00:10:01.620 --> 00:10:03.480 I think we all know what that means. 00:10:03.480 --> 00:10:06.180 I don't know what it means to be separately defined. 00:10:06.180 --> 00:10:08.460 The question is more just the "substantial." 00:10:08.460 --> 00:10:11.720 Does that mean to be defined, or does that mean to be removed? 00:10:11.720 --> 00:10:14.600 >> Do you want to take it out of one, 00:10:14.600 --> 00:10:16.800 or do you want to take it out of the other? 00:10:16.800 --> 00:10:20.060 >> This is on page number 7 of your complex. 00:10:20.060 --> 00:10:21.040 >> Yes. 00:10:21.040 --> 00:10:22.340 >> Okay. 00:10:22.340 --> 00:10:25.940 >> If I could -- I'd provide a little insight on that. 00:10:25.940 --> 00:10:28.800 I think the "substantial" is there 00:10:28.800 --> 00:10:32.820 to really give you all leeway to make a judgment call. 00:10:32.820 --> 00:10:35.220 So if you take it out, then it's objective. 00:10:35.220 --> 00:10:36.580 But if you leave it in there, then you all get -- 00:10:36.580 --> 00:10:38.980 but, you know, here the board hears -- 00:10:38.980 --> 00:10:42.720 the complaint could say, "Okay, yes, it's a debtor or creditor. 00:10:42.720 --> 00:10:44.080 Does it mean "substantial"? 00:10:44.080 --> 00:10:46.860 And leaving it out of the file gives room 00:10:46.860 --> 00:10:48.320 for discussion on that point. 00:10:48.320 --> 00:10:50.360 >> And that's why I thought we left it in last time, 00:10:50.360 --> 00:10:53.240 was because it's definitely a debtor or creditor. 00:10:53.240 --> 00:10:56.600 >> So how do you guys -- I think that's helpful information. 00:10:56.600 --> 00:11:01.100 >> It's helpful to hear that from the council. 00:11:01.100 --> 00:11:06.520 >> Yeah. So then what do you guys think about leaving it? 00:11:06.520 --> 00:11:09.540 >> And I'm sorry, what's your name? 00:11:09.540 --> 00:11:10.440 >> Scott. 00:11:10.440 --> 00:11:16.020 >> Scott. Can you see a problem with not having it in? 00:11:16.020 --> 00:11:19.220 >> I don't want to weigh in on "shoulds." 00:11:19.220 --> 00:11:22.660 I just want to -- I think sort of trying to understand -- 00:11:22.660 --> 00:11:24.700 >> But that's -- yeah, this is why -- 00:11:24.700 --> 00:11:26.060 >> -- statutes why those things are included. 00:11:26.060 --> 00:11:27.700 >> This is why a board would exist. 00:11:27.700 --> 00:11:28.860 >> This is a statute of law. 00:11:28.860 --> 00:11:32.500 >> Is that we do make a decision. 00:11:32.500 --> 00:11:35.700 >> It wouldn't constrain us to not have that word in there. 00:11:35.700 --> 00:11:37.580 >> I think it's more legal, yeah. 00:11:37.580 --> 00:11:42.020 >> To Scott's point, right, with the client or customer, 00:11:42.020 --> 00:11:45.180 if any person -- this is what the definition says right now. 00:11:45.180 --> 00:11:49.280 Any person or entity which they've supplied goods 00:11:49.280 --> 00:11:53.160 or services to in the past 24 months would then conflict 00:11:53.160 --> 00:11:54.420 and then out of that. 00:11:54.420 --> 00:11:57.860 So I don't -- obviously, there's some judgment there, 00:11:57.860 --> 00:12:02.000 but you might, to Scott's point, substantial give you leeway. 00:12:02.000 --> 00:12:05.200 Well, did they just sell them a lawnmower? 00:12:05.200 --> 00:12:06.700 I don't know, you know what I mean? 00:12:06.700 --> 00:12:08.700 >> Girl scout cookies. 00:12:08.700 --> 00:12:14.680 So I think our discussion last time, though, was in terms 00:12:14.680 --> 00:12:18.120 of the -- I can see the point when it comes 00:12:18.120 --> 00:12:21.780 to substantial debt or creditor because there's that -- 00:12:21.780 --> 00:12:24.660 there's leeway there. 00:12:24.660 --> 00:12:29.460 But I think in the -- when it comes to the customer part, 00:12:29.460 --> 00:12:38.500 that model code had given a dollar amount what made a 00:12:38.500 --> 00:12:43.140 customer a substantial customer, and our code doesn't have that. 00:12:43.140 --> 00:12:47.280 And so therefore, I said, well, then it becomes, in my opinion, 00:12:47.280 --> 00:12:50.780 too arbitrary of what substantial is. 00:12:50.780 --> 00:12:56.080 And since we had said we wanted to stay away from dollar amounts 00:12:56.080 --> 00:12:59.920 and limits, that in lieu of that, we would just cut 00:12:59.920 --> 00:13:02.720 the substantial in terms of it. 00:13:02.720 --> 00:13:08.760 So any kind of customer relationship would raise to -- 00:13:08.760 --> 00:13:13.340 >> And I believe the model code uses that $1,000 in aggregate 00:13:13.340 --> 00:13:16.300 for substantial -- for client or customer. 00:13:16.300 --> 00:13:19.580 And I think there's something in there about $10,000. 00:13:19.580 --> 00:13:22.340 This is, again, just numbers that's in the model code 00:13:22.340 --> 00:13:25.380 for debtor -- substantial debtor or creditor. 00:13:25.380 --> 00:13:27.820 But I don't know where that is, and so I don't know how -- 00:13:27.820 --> 00:13:31.620 >> An example that I read, and I think it was the model code, 00:13:31.620 --> 00:13:35.360 was that you need to have some leeway in this because, 00:13:35.360 --> 00:13:42.400 let's say, I shopped at Kroger's -- or Albert's, I don't care -- 00:13:42.400 --> 00:13:47.560 and something came up with that thing, then probably just 00:13:47.560 --> 00:13:52.840 about everybody, you know, shops at one of the stores and didn't. 00:13:52.840 --> 00:13:55.640 And so then they would be a client. 00:13:55.640 --> 00:13:58.180 And I think if a question came out just 00:13:58.180 --> 00:14:01.180 because they bought their groceries there, 00:14:01.180 --> 00:14:04.260 that makes them not a substantial customer. 00:14:04.260 --> 00:14:09.520 But, you know, if you have someone selling you one lawnmower, 00:14:09.520 --> 00:14:11.920 that's different from 100 lawnmowers. 00:14:11.920 --> 00:14:17.200 So that's -- I think that is why we need to have that leeway. 00:14:17.200 --> 00:14:20.400 >> I'm going to -- I'm going to go back to the fact of that if, 00:14:20.400 --> 00:14:23.140 you know, we're using the language of the model code, 00:14:23.140 --> 00:14:26.380 but we're not implementing the same definitions 00:14:26.380 --> 00:14:28.140 and limits as the model code. 00:14:28.140 --> 00:14:30.240 And that is where piecemealing -- 00:14:30.240 --> 00:14:36.080 piecemealing model code versus old code produces a problem, right? 00:14:36.080 --> 00:14:37.720 I -- if -- 00:14:37.720 --> 00:14:42.620 >> So you would like to have the number in there, or -- 00:14:42.620 --> 00:14:46.560 >> I don't have -- I'm not set an opinion on that. 00:14:46.560 --> 00:14:47.360 Does that make sense? 00:14:47.360 --> 00:14:48.660 >> Does that make sense? 00:14:48.660 --> 00:14:51.900 >> It's not that I can -- you know, I can have a -- 00:14:51.900 --> 00:14:55.740 I can have a conversation either way, with or without. 00:14:55.740 --> 00:14:59.040 But I think if we're using model code language, 00:14:59.040 --> 00:15:02.040 but we're not defining like the model code, 00:15:02.040 --> 00:15:05.040 then we're opening ourselves potentially up for certain -- 00:15:05.040 --> 00:15:08.180 for things that we're not anticipating at the moment. 00:15:08.180 --> 00:15:11.220 And that is what I'm concerned about with this substantial. 00:15:11.220 --> 00:15:15.960 I get -- I get the -- obviously, everything in this ethics code, 00:15:15.960 --> 00:15:19.800 there's a certain amount of vagueness in order to be able 00:15:19.800 --> 00:15:21.260 to have the conversation, right? 00:15:21.260 --> 00:15:23.500 Because it shouldn't be hard and fast rules. 00:15:23.500 --> 00:15:25.740 Which is exactly one of the reasons why we started this 00:15:25.740 --> 00:15:27.860 whole conversation of conflict of interest. 00:15:27.860 --> 00:15:33.880 Because we all agreed that the way we're defining everything 00:15:33.880 --> 00:15:37.680 with dollar amounts and limits is not productive 00:15:37.680 --> 00:15:41.640 in that conversation of what is substantial? 00:15:41.640 --> 00:15:44.320 What -- what truly -- is it one little more? 00:15:44.320 --> 00:15:46.860 And -- because we want to have that conversation, right? 00:15:46.860 --> 00:15:51.020 One low -- one lawn mower over 100 lawn mowers. 00:15:51.020 --> 00:15:52.600 >> David, did you have -- 00:15:52.600 --> 00:15:54.200 >> Well, no, I just think you're -- 00:15:54.200 --> 00:15:57.360 we're kind of heading right back into that same trap, 00:15:57.360 --> 00:16:01.340 using the word substantial rather than dollars amounts. 00:16:01.340 --> 00:16:03.000 There's just another reminder 00:16:03.000 --> 00:16:06.380 that this is just a general guideline. 00:16:06.380 --> 00:16:10.140 That nothing is going to -- go ahead. 00:16:10.140 --> 00:16:12.120 >> But, David, that is where I disagree with you. 00:16:12.120 --> 00:16:15.980 Is because we don't have -- we don't have dollars amount -- 00:16:15.980 --> 00:16:18.280 dollar amounts, but the model code does. 00:16:18.280 --> 00:16:21.120 The model code has the word substantial. 00:16:21.120 --> 00:16:27.160 I'm arguing I don't want that because then we should also have 00:16:27.160 --> 00:16:29.940 what -- a definition of what is substantial. 00:16:29.940 --> 00:16:32.800 What does substantial mean? 00:16:32.800 --> 00:16:34.200 Just like the model code does. 00:16:34.200 --> 00:16:36.000 >> Right. 00:16:36.000 --> 00:16:38.040 >> So that's where -- 00:16:38.040 --> 00:16:40.440 >> So Patricia -- or -- 00:16:40.440 --> 00:16:44.140 >> I see that point, but I'm really not that concerned with -- 00:16:44.140 --> 00:16:46.680 I'm fine with the word substantial. 00:16:46.680 --> 00:16:49.080 Because I don't think that one way or the other, 00:16:49.080 --> 00:16:53.880 we're ever going to be bound to that limit on hearing 00:16:53.880 --> 00:16:56.360 or anything of that nature. 00:16:56.360 --> 00:16:58.400 So I'm good with -- 00:16:58.400 --> 00:17:05.700 >> I think for the -- just to make sure we're on the same page, 00:17:05.700 --> 00:17:14.840 for the way this is written, that paragraph to a client 00:17:14.840 --> 00:17:16.780 or substantial customer or client 00:17:16.780 --> 00:17:22.180 or customer will be a customer or client of the city official. 00:17:22.180 --> 00:17:25.960 Not the city official is a client or customer of, 00:17:25.960 --> 00:17:28.220 you know, grocery store or department store or whatever. 00:17:28.220 --> 00:17:32.100 So that would be -- that wouldn't apply there. 00:17:32.100 --> 00:17:43.080 And I don't know on -- I think if we were to leave that word 00:17:43.080 --> 00:17:45.240 in for a client or customer, 00:17:45.240 --> 00:17:49.880 it should be both substantial client and/or customer. 00:17:49.880 --> 00:17:54.020 But I'm still -- I still support taking that out. 00:17:54.020 --> 00:17:59.760 For the substantial debtor or creditor, I brought that up more 00:17:59.760 --> 00:18:02.720 as a question because I -- that feels a little bit different 00:18:02.720 --> 00:18:05.200 to me than a customer. 00:18:05.200 --> 00:18:09.540 And having some leeway in evaluating that 00:18:09.540 --> 00:18:12.480 if it does come up makes some sense. 00:18:12.480 --> 00:18:13.600 >> Okay. 00:18:13.600 --> 00:18:14.580 >> I can imagine -- 00:18:14.580 --> 00:18:15.740 >> So you're going to say leave it 00:18:15.740 --> 00:18:17.580 and you're saying it's problematic? 00:18:17.580 --> 00:18:18.480 David, what are your thoughts? 00:18:18.480 --> 00:18:19.140 >> I'm good. 00:18:19.140 --> 00:18:20.720 >> That's all right. 00:18:20.720 --> 00:18:22.640 >> Just leave it or? 00:18:25.120 --> 00:18:30.120 >> I would -- I think we're -- I understand completely 00:18:30.120 --> 00:18:34.560 where you're coming from, but I just think we're kind of backing 00:18:34.560 --> 00:18:38.100 from dollars and cents and a very, very specific code back 00:18:38.100 --> 00:18:39.700 into the general category here. 00:18:39.700 --> 00:18:41.000 I don't think it's going to make a lot 00:18:41.000 --> 00:18:42.340 of difference one way or the other. 00:18:42.340 --> 00:18:44.200 I really don't. 00:18:44.200 --> 00:18:46.840 >> Patricia, what do you think? 00:18:46.840 --> 00:18:50.140 >> I'm fine with leaving it and I'm also fine with taking it out. 00:18:50.140 --> 00:18:56.960 I think the words substantial would be if there were a case 00:18:56.960 --> 00:19:01.620 that came before us, we would, you know, ask the -- 00:19:01.620 --> 00:19:06.760 when we'd be asking the person, do you believe your involvement 00:19:06.760 --> 00:19:09.260 with this client or customer is substantial enough 00:19:09.260 --> 00:19:11.100 to influence your vote? 00:19:11.100 --> 00:19:13.400 I mean, we'd be asking them those questions 00:19:13.400 --> 00:19:15.600 and see what they say. 00:19:18.080 --> 00:19:20.640 You know, I only loaned it, I only loaned my customer 00:19:20.640 --> 00:19:26.720 or I only get my customer $100 for something, you know. 00:19:26.720 --> 00:19:30.780 You'd say, well, that's not substantial. 00:19:30.780 --> 00:19:40.160 >> Yeah. So one, kind of abstention, two, move it in, 00:19:40.160 --> 00:19:45.240 one, make it more specific. 00:19:45.240 --> 00:19:46.200 So -- 00:19:46.200 --> 00:19:48.000 >> To clarify, I'm not asking for limits. 00:19:48.000 --> 00:19:49.200 I'm not asking for dollars. 00:19:49.200 --> 00:19:52.300 I'm not asking for limits. 00:19:52.300 --> 00:19:54.980 >> Yeah. It's hard. 00:19:54.980 --> 00:19:57.580 I mean, these are -- it's hard to think ahead of all the things 00:19:57.580 --> 00:20:01.020 that could come up. 00:20:01.020 --> 00:20:04.180 I think that that would be probably an opinion case 00:20:04.180 --> 00:20:09.360 and my concern with the rules of procedure, 00:20:09.360 --> 00:20:11.960 which I think probably need to be changed, 00:20:11.960 --> 00:20:15.160 is that you can't actually talk to the person. 00:20:15.160 --> 00:20:18.360 We have to go on what they -- 00:20:18.360 --> 00:20:19.840 and let's find a way to go around it. 00:20:19.840 --> 00:20:23.040 And there is a go around, so -- 00:20:23.040 --> 00:20:26.340 >> Madison, if this -- just a question. 00:20:26.340 --> 00:20:28.140 Did this come from a Wechsler model? 00:20:28.140 --> 00:20:31.680 Was there any discussion from Wechsler on that word 00:20:31.680 --> 00:20:35.720 if that confuses things or where did this come from? 00:20:35.720 --> 00:20:40.280 >> Yes. It's from the Wechsler model code. 00:20:40.280 --> 00:20:45.360 He usually discusses, you know, he puts some narrative 00:20:45.360 --> 00:20:46.800 after most of these. 00:20:46.800 --> 00:20:53.140 Was there any problem that he brought up with? 00:20:53.140 --> 00:20:56.500 >> I don't believe so right under this section, but -- 00:20:56.500 --> 00:20:59.240 well, I mean, let me try to pull it up just to double-check. 00:20:59.240 --> 00:21:00.640 >> Yeah. 00:21:00.640 --> 00:21:09.180 >> For some reason, it's really hard to find out this computer. 00:21:09.180 --> 00:21:11.020 >> Well, we have bigger fish to fry here. 00:21:11.020 --> 00:21:12.180 I'm okay either way. 00:21:12.180 --> 00:21:13.520 I just think we have -- 00:21:13.520 --> 00:21:16.560 >> Yeah, it's right there. 00:21:16.560 --> 00:21:18.220 The word "substantial" is right there. 00:21:18.220 --> 00:21:19.400 >> Yeah, this is the model code. 00:21:19.400 --> 00:21:22.500 I think -- let me click on this. 00:21:22.500 --> 00:21:27.940 Yeah, there's no discussion about the word "substantial." 00:21:27.940 --> 00:21:32.000 That I can see. 00:21:32.000 --> 00:21:35.400 >> I would like to say, hearing what Scott said, 00:21:35.400 --> 00:21:38.680 I would like to have leeway because I think 00:21:38.680 --> 00:21:40.520 if this did come to a hearing, 00:21:40.520 --> 00:21:44.360 then I think the board members would think 00:21:44.360 --> 00:21:51.560 through how that looks and a lot of ethics as a parent, so, 00:21:51.560 --> 00:21:55.400 sadly, the appearance of evil. 00:21:55.400 --> 00:21:56.660 >> I think the question is what -- 00:21:56.660 --> 00:21:59.960 when you say you would like leeway, how do you want 00:21:59.960 --> 00:22:01.400 to make that clear in the code? 00:22:01.400 --> 00:22:05.540 Because right now, if you don't include "substantial," 00:22:05.540 --> 00:22:06.900 it is a conflict of interest 00:22:06.900 --> 00:22:10.580 if you've done -- provided goods or services to a person 00:22:10.580 --> 00:22:12.480 over the last 24 months. 00:22:12.480 --> 00:22:14.540 >> That sounds way too narrow. 00:22:14.540 --> 00:22:16.580 >> We don't want narrow, in my opinion. 00:22:16.580 --> 00:22:18.820 >> Right. I mean, that's the way I'm understanding it 00:22:18.820 --> 00:22:20.020 from what Scott said. 00:22:20.020 --> 00:22:21.860 But he wasn't giving an opinion. 00:22:21.860 --> 00:22:24.860 I'm not a lawyer, so I don't -- 00:22:24.860 --> 00:22:29.160 >> I'd say it sounds like kind of leaning toward like banana. 00:22:29.160 --> 00:22:30.360 I do think we have -- 00:22:30.360 --> 00:22:31.640 >> I would hate to explain -- 00:22:31.640 --> 00:22:35.840 have to explain to somebody why we took it out. 00:22:35.840 --> 00:22:39.140 >> So, I really appreciate your concern, though. 00:22:39.140 --> 00:22:44.440 >> And my reasoning specifically is because you had presented 00:22:44.440 --> 00:22:49.120 to us that the model code has a definition of what "substantial" 00:22:49.120 --> 00:22:52.420 is that is tied to dollar amounts. 00:22:52.420 --> 00:22:53.420 That is my reasoning. 00:22:53.420 --> 00:22:55.720 That was my reasoning for why, 00:22:55.720 --> 00:22:58.820 because then there was an actual this is substantial, 00:22:58.820 --> 00:23:00.160 this is not. 00:23:00.160 --> 00:23:01.100 Does that make sense? 00:23:01.100 --> 00:23:03.560 And that was exactly the reason why I had a question 00:23:03.560 --> 00:23:06.000 when we had that conversation. 00:23:06.000 --> 00:23:10.000 And the city council will also weigh in on this, too. 00:23:10.000 --> 00:23:12.440 So, they'll say, "Well, we don't like that it's vague. 00:23:12.440 --> 00:23:15.080 We want you to tell us an exact amount, and we're going 00:23:15.080 --> 00:23:18.240 to set the exact amount that we think is reasonable." 00:23:18.240 --> 00:23:20.520 So, it's not -- we're not the only ones deciding this, 00:23:20.520 --> 00:23:22.380 the city council, so. 00:23:22.380 --> 00:23:25.520 >> I guess I -- I think it's vague the way it's written 00:23:25.520 --> 00:23:26.820 in the model code. 00:23:26.820 --> 00:23:30.460 It says -- in the definition, it says "customer" or "client," 00:23:30.460 --> 00:23:32.320 but then the body of the text says "client" 00:23:32.320 --> 00:23:35.800 or "substantial customer," which is why, when I read 00:23:35.800 --> 00:23:37.360 through this, I thought this doesn't make sense, 00:23:37.360 --> 00:23:39.000 because we're not defining that. 00:23:39.000 --> 00:23:42.900 Even in the model code, if there is a value there 00:23:42.900 --> 00:23:46.640 in the previous 24 months, an aggregate of greater 00:23:46.640 --> 00:23:49.540 than $1,000, and then there's some more to that. 00:23:49.540 --> 00:23:53.080 But it doesn't -- to me, I don't -- 00:23:53.080 --> 00:23:55.120 I know we're nitpicking one word here, 00:23:55.120 --> 00:23:58.980 but just the way it's written, where it's put in the sentence, 00:23:58.980 --> 00:24:01.760 makes it seem like that is something different. 00:24:01.760 --> 00:24:03.960 Like, a client or a substantial customer. 00:24:03.960 --> 00:24:05.020 >> I think -- 00:24:05.020 --> 00:24:07.660 >> I think if the word stays in either one of those, 00:24:07.660 --> 00:24:10.060 it should precede "client." 00:24:10.060 --> 00:24:12.960 >> I think that -- perhaps I presented it wrong last time. 00:24:12.960 --> 00:24:17.640 What it seems like now is that, per the definition, 00:24:17.640 --> 00:24:19.800 it has nothing to do with the word "substantial." 00:24:19.800 --> 00:24:22.900 The definition is, if you're doing that business 00:24:22.900 --> 00:24:25.480 with a person that's less than $1,000, 00:24:25.480 --> 00:24:28.340 they're not a client or a customer. 00:24:28.340 --> 00:24:30.580 So, the "substantial" is -- 00:24:30.580 --> 00:24:33.880 I don't know why it's only tacking on to "customer." 00:24:33.880 --> 00:24:37.060 But it's saying, if you're doing business with a client 00:24:37.060 --> 00:24:40.500 for more than $1,000 in the last 24 months with a person, 00:24:40.500 --> 00:24:44.000 that's a client, you're conflicted out. 00:24:44.000 --> 00:24:46.600 And then -- or, if you have a customer and you've done more 00:24:46.600 --> 00:24:49.340 than $1,000 -- a person that you've done more than $1,000 00:24:49.340 --> 00:24:52.000 with a business that's a customer, 00:24:52.000 --> 00:24:56.040 then if it's "substantial," then it's a conflict. 00:24:56.040 --> 00:24:58.020 So, there's more leeway just for that customer piece. 00:24:58.020 --> 00:25:00.120 I don't -- it's not really clear to me what the difference 00:25:00.120 --> 00:25:02.520 between "customer" or "client" is, but -- 00:25:02.520 --> 00:25:07.020 perhaps there's a professional thing -- I don't know. 00:25:07.020 --> 00:25:12.460 But I think the point here is that if you just sold somebody 00:25:12.460 --> 00:25:14.360 a lawnmower for $500, 00:25:14.360 --> 00:25:18.840 they're not a client or customer, per the model code. 00:25:18.840 --> 00:25:21.300 -Yeah, and I don't see why anybody would see it that way. 00:25:21.300 --> 00:25:24.040 -But per our code, you would need it, 00:25:24.040 --> 00:25:29.180 because we don't have that value threshold. 00:25:29.180 --> 00:25:31.680 -So what? -Per the red lines, I'm sorry. 00:25:31.680 --> 00:25:35.720 Not our code. -Okay. 00:25:35.720 --> 00:25:37.320 -That's my understanding. 00:25:37.320 --> 00:25:38.660 -I'm not sure what I'm hearing. 00:25:38.660 --> 00:25:41.460 You want to leave it in, or do you want to take it out? 00:25:41.460 --> 00:25:46.820 -Let's have a vote. I move to leave it in. 00:25:46.820 --> 00:25:50.500 -Okay. Before we do -- before we take a vote. 00:25:50.500 --> 00:25:53.760 Because I can -- like, if we're not attaching dollar amounts 00:25:53.760 --> 00:25:55.540 with the "substantial" and we're good with that, 00:25:55.540 --> 00:25:57.340 I can absolutely go with it. 00:25:57.340 --> 00:25:59.600 Now the question becomes, should we also make 00:25:59.600 --> 00:26:01.440 the client substantial, 00:26:01.440 --> 00:26:03.620 or is that a completely different relationship 00:26:03.620 --> 00:26:05.120 that is not affected? 00:26:05.120 --> 00:26:08.220 -Yeah, just move that word to the "substantial client" 00:26:08.220 --> 00:26:10.460 or "customer," but that word "substantial" 00:26:10.460 --> 00:26:12.160 before "client" and "customer." 00:26:12.160 --> 00:26:14.860 -That would make more sense. -That makes a lot of sense. 00:26:14.860 --> 00:26:16.800 -That makes more sense to me, too, then. 00:26:16.800 --> 00:26:19.320 -So I think that I -- I know that we had a motion, 00:26:19.320 --> 00:26:20.660 so I think we have to resolve that. 00:26:20.660 --> 00:26:23.560 But I think the direction I'm hearing is to leave 00:26:23.560 --> 00:26:28.200 "substantial" land, but move it to before a client. 00:26:28.200 --> 00:26:29.900 -You don't need official nationalized? 00:26:29.900 --> 00:26:31.740 Do you want to withdraw your motion, 00:26:31.740 --> 00:26:36.340 or do you want to carry it through? 00:26:36.340 --> 00:26:39.920 -What do you think about a motion 00:26:39.920 --> 00:26:44.720 to change it to "substantial client" or "customer"? 00:26:44.720 --> 00:26:49.320 Right? -That's fine. 00:26:49.320 --> 00:26:52.260 -Okay. You want to put that motion out? 00:26:52.260 --> 00:26:53.900 -Yeah, I'll -- I'm in that. 00:26:53.900 --> 00:26:56.840 Yeah, just move "substantial" to "customer." 00:26:56.840 --> 00:27:01.000 -Okay. So, all in favor of "substantial client"? 00:27:01.000 --> 00:27:03.440 -There's going to be a second. -Oh, sorry. 00:27:03.440 --> 00:27:05.740 Does anybody want to second this? 00:27:05.740 --> 00:27:07.180 -I'll second it. -Okay. 00:27:07.180 --> 00:27:10.220 -Andrea's second. -We got Patricia and Andrew. 00:27:10.220 --> 00:27:12.280 Okay, so all in favor? 00:27:12.280 --> 00:27:15.620 -Aye. -Aye. 00:27:15.620 --> 00:27:18.160 -Thank you, Justin, for pointing that out. 00:27:18.160 --> 00:27:19.960 -I don't know if I helped anything. 00:27:19.960 --> 00:27:22.420 I think I confused everybody, including myself. 00:27:22.420 --> 00:27:24.400 -No. Thank you, Andrea, for it. 00:27:24.400 --> 00:27:27.700 -But it makes more sense now the way it's written there. 00:27:27.700 --> 00:27:32.000 -Okay. What's the next? 00:27:32.000 --> 00:27:34.540 Are we still on page 7, or are we moving to -- 00:27:34.540 --> 00:27:37.640 -And that was a 501 book, right? 00:27:37.640 --> 00:27:40.140 -Right. 00:27:47.080 --> 00:27:50.260 -Okay. Next. 00:27:50.260 --> 00:28:01.100 -I just had a typo on page number 8, paragraph 2C. 00:28:01.100 --> 00:28:04.640 I think the last initial is "public record of the board." 00:28:04.640 --> 00:28:08.680 "Of" or "for" -- I don't know what the right grammar is there. 00:28:08.680 --> 00:28:13.480 -There's an "F" behind the "O." 00:28:13.480 --> 00:28:16.540 -That's easy to do. -Easy to do. 00:28:16.540 --> 00:28:18.420 -Okay. Thank you for catching that. 00:28:18.420 --> 00:28:20.520 What else? -There's an Irish paragraph. 00:28:20.520 --> 00:28:22.420 -What's that? -What? 00:28:22.420 --> 00:28:28.760 -May the light be with you. 00:28:28.760 --> 00:28:30.900 Okay. Next. 00:28:46.580 --> 00:28:49.340 -That was all I had. I don't know if you remember me. 00:28:49.340 --> 00:28:51.380 Those were the only things that I had questions about 00:28:51.380 --> 00:28:56.780 or comments on. Everything else looked great. 00:28:56.780 --> 00:29:02.660 -So I have one thing just to draw your attention to. 00:29:02.660 --> 00:29:05.400 What is this now? -Letter. 00:29:05.400 --> 00:29:12.060 -2 -- Yeah. So section 2 of the new code, or 2B. 00:29:12.060 --> 00:29:13.940 There's a whole section where you have to inform 00:29:13.940 --> 00:29:18.300 a particular person or a body if you have withdrawn. 00:29:18.300 --> 00:29:22.340 So that's not currently required by our code. 00:29:22.340 --> 00:29:28.380 That's the -- So 2A and 2C are currently required by our code. 00:29:28.380 --> 00:29:33.960 There's this 2B, "Inform the appropriate individual or body 00:29:33.960 --> 00:29:38.660 pursuant to section 5 if you have to withdraw." 00:29:38.660 --> 00:29:40.000 Right? Is that what it says? 00:29:40.000 --> 00:29:46.360 -Section 2. It's on page 8. 00:29:46.360 --> 00:29:50.100 -I'm sorry. It's on page 8. 00:29:50.100 --> 00:29:54.800 Section 2B references that you have to inform 00:29:54.800 --> 00:29:57.880 the appropriate individual or body pursuant to -- 00:29:57.880 --> 00:30:00.080 It says subsection 5. That should be subsection 4. 00:30:00.080 --> 00:30:02.580 I'm sorry. 00:30:02.580 --> 00:30:05.960 So then subsection 4 has a whole list of, 00:30:05.960 --> 00:30:11.520 "If you have to withdraw, go tell this person." Right? 00:30:11.520 --> 00:30:14.220 So for the city council, if you're an elected official 00:30:14.220 --> 00:30:16.960 and you have to withdraw, not only do you have to stop 00:30:16.960 --> 00:30:22.500 tracking withdrawal and you have to submit an affidavit to me, 00:30:22.500 --> 00:30:25.800 you would then also have to go tell the mayor. 00:30:25.800 --> 00:30:27.880 That's not something that's in our current code. 00:30:27.880 --> 00:30:32.980 It's not something we really discussed last time. 00:30:32.980 --> 00:30:35.240 So I would like to get direction on that. 00:30:35.240 --> 00:30:40.120 I put it in here because it's part of the model code. 00:30:40.120 --> 00:30:42.860 -I think leave it in. 00:30:42.860 --> 00:30:44.360 -That we would want them to go tell. 00:30:44.360 --> 00:30:46.100 -Inform the mayor. 00:30:46.100 --> 00:30:58.340 -Should we just say, "Inform the mayor"? 00:30:58.340 --> 00:31:02.980 -Well, it's already in there. Just leave it in. 00:31:02.980 --> 00:31:08.540 -Right. So the way it would work, if y'all, an appointed board, 00:31:08.540 --> 00:31:14.820 if one of you had to disclose something, 00:31:14.820 --> 00:31:17.760 you would tell Annetta as the chair of the board. 00:31:17.760 --> 00:31:20.260 If Annetta did, she would inform the secretary. 00:31:20.260 --> 00:31:23.900 That's not a position that exists. 00:31:23.900 --> 00:31:28.500 So then I think you would have to tell the city council somehow. 00:31:28.500 --> 00:31:31.240 I, as an appointed person but not on a body, 00:31:31.240 --> 00:31:33.500 you would have to inform the city council. 00:31:33.500 --> 00:31:36.480 A city council member would have to inform the mayor. 00:31:36.480 --> 00:31:38.980 There's nothing about who the mayor would have to say, 00:31:38.980 --> 00:31:41.180 tell him. So I don't know about that. 00:31:41.180 --> 00:31:44.080 Maybe the mayor pretend we could write that in. 00:31:44.080 --> 00:31:47.320 -What would be the benefit of this? 00:31:47.320 --> 00:31:48.880 Because it seems, I mean, 00:31:48.880 --> 00:31:52.680 it does seem like a really nice thing to do. 00:31:52.680 --> 00:31:56.760 -Yes. So this is on top of you're exposed to withdrawal, 00:31:56.760 --> 00:32:00.500 and then you still have to file a written disclosure with me. 00:32:00.500 --> 00:32:03.260 So there is already a disclosure piece. 00:32:03.260 --> 00:32:07.040 -So what do you guys think about that? 00:32:07.040 --> 00:32:17.020 -Well, to me, this circles all the way 00:32:17.020 --> 00:32:20.140 back to a lot of these business disclosures. 00:32:20.140 --> 00:32:23.660 Under definitions of things I'd like to talk about separately. 00:32:23.660 --> 00:32:34.640 So I had not taken the model code under a microscope, correctly. 00:32:34.640 --> 00:32:37.940 I mean, I'm taking it as it was written. 00:32:37.940 --> 00:32:41.100 If we get to that point, 00:32:41.100 --> 00:32:44.820 then we all have a lot more work to do. 00:32:44.820 --> 00:32:49.460 -Justin, I'm curious what you think. 00:32:50.980 --> 00:32:54.020 -I don't have a strong opinion. 00:32:54.020 --> 00:32:57.580 I mean, I don't see this as 00:32:57.580 --> 00:33:02.660 a huge burden to the person that is accusing themselves. 00:33:02.660 --> 00:33:08.300 I don't know how much value it brings to the whole process. 00:33:08.300 --> 00:33:10.360 I mean, it adds a step. 00:33:10.360 --> 00:33:15.260 Outside of letting Madison know and filing an affidavit, 00:33:18.020 --> 00:33:22.100 I'm trying to think of why this would be 00:33:22.100 --> 00:33:28.300 included and why this would be valuable to include. 00:33:28.300 --> 00:33:36.220 -I think the mayor runs the meetings so it wouldn't be nice to- 00:33:36.220 --> 00:33:38.020 -Like for understanding for- 00:33:38.020 --> 00:33:39.220 -Yeah, running the meetings. 00:33:39.220 --> 00:33:43.220 Somebody is going to recuse themselves because of conflict of interest. 00:33:43.220 --> 00:33:47.860 -I guess that makes sense, and that's why for the board members to inform 00:33:47.860 --> 00:33:52.860 the chair of the board, that makes sense. 00:33:52.860 --> 00:33:55.820 -It would avoid embarrassment to the mayor if you didn't know. 00:33:55.820 --> 00:34:01.460 -Right. Okay. 00:34:01.460 --> 00:34:08.300 I guess I don't know that there's a need to make that. 00:34:08.300 --> 00:34:13.700 I mean, I suppose the affidavit would be public, right? 00:34:13.700 --> 00:34:15.540 -It's a public document. 00:34:15.540 --> 00:34:18.100 -It should be. 00:34:18.100 --> 00:34:28.820 -Yeah. I mean, I don't know that the statement of recusal is required 00:34:28.820 --> 00:34:35.220 at a meeting in the record of the meeting for discussion of whatever 00:34:35.220 --> 00:34:37.820 the topic is that the person is recusing. 00:34:37.820 --> 00:34:43.260 If they just choose to not participate, 00:34:43.260 --> 00:34:46.340 if they file the affidavit and notify the chair of the meeting, 00:34:46.340 --> 00:34:52.140 whether that is the board chair or the mayor, 00:34:52.140 --> 00:34:57.300 I mean, procedurally, I guess that makes sense, right? 00:34:57.300 --> 00:34:58.540 -It seems like a good- 00:34:58.540 --> 00:35:03.100 -There's not a requirement to do that for procedure. 00:35:03.100 --> 00:35:09.420 -And just to make sure we're clear, so our current code only really 00:35:09.420 --> 00:35:13.700 applies during meetings, right? You have to file, 00:35:13.700 --> 00:35:18.140 you have to withdraw publicly and file an affidavit. 00:35:18.140 --> 00:35:22.540 This new code, the red lines, require you, even if you're just at dinner 00:35:22.540 --> 00:35:25.780 with somebody and something comes up and you have to withdraw, 00:35:25.780 --> 00:35:31.180 you would have to disclose that that had occurred by doing all these things. 00:35:31.180 --> 00:35:36.140 So by stopping from participating, then you would have to go tell somebody, 00:35:36.140 --> 00:35:38.540 whoever it is, according to this other section, 00:35:38.540 --> 00:35:42.260 and then you would also have to file an affidavit with me 00:35:42.260 --> 00:35:48.780 if you were at dinner with somebody and something came up. 00:35:48.780 --> 00:35:53.380 That's the big change of the conflict of interest section, 00:35:53.380 --> 00:35:56.860 is it's not just applicable to pending matters. 00:35:56.860 --> 00:35:59.620 -So it's outside of the meeting, isn't it? 00:35:59.620 --> 00:36:08.740 -Right. I don't know that everybody is filing their affidavits, right? 00:36:08.740 --> 00:36:13.300 You've trained them to do that. So I guess my concern is, 00:36:13.300 --> 00:36:16.620 we're going to put this in here, if you don't do it, 00:36:16.620 --> 00:36:20.100 it's a reason that you're violating the code. 00:36:20.100 --> 00:36:25.380 I think that making the process more burdensome is not going to help 00:36:25.380 --> 00:36:31.540 as far as getting the change through the civic council. 00:36:31.540 --> 00:36:38.060 -Yeah. I think for that reason, I would like to not have it in here, 00:36:38.060 --> 00:36:46.020 but I'd like to agree with anything. 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 00:36:51.740 --> 00:36:58.300 issues if you're piecemealing code, because we're running into things 00:36:58.300 --> 00:37:04.140 that are not defined, we're running into things that will add procedural burdens 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 00:37:14.180 --> 00:37:20.900 less maximum and minimum oriented as it is at the moment, 00:37:20.900 --> 00:37:25.340 but more vague so that there is leeway to make decisions. 00:37:25.340 --> 00:37:39.140 So I struggle not with the language, I struggle with our potential unintended 00:37:39.140 --> 00:37:43.700 consequences of taking something. 00:37:43.700 --> 00:37:49.420 -The model code is a very transparent one, and the code we have now 00:37:49.420 --> 00:37:51.140 is not so transparent. 00:37:51.140 --> 00:37:52.580 -I'm sorry, say that again. 00:37:52.580 --> 00:37:58.860 -The model code is very transparent, and the one we have now is not 00:37:58.860 --> 00:38:10.180 as transparent, so yeah, I mean, there's unintended consequences. 00:38:10.180 --> 00:38:21.020 -What do you guys want to do? 00:38:21.020 --> 00:38:26.220 -Because at the end of the day, if it is a private dinner, 00:38:26.220 --> 00:38:32.620 the conversation is substantially influencing, then yeah, I would like for 00:38:32.620 --> 00:38:41.140 that to be included and necessary to disclose it. 00:38:41.140 --> 00:38:45.140 -And the section that we're talking about, getting rid of it wouldn't not 00:38:45.140 --> 00:38:52.580 require them to disclose it, it would just only go to me, which I'm not 00:38:52.580 --> 00:38:54.140 actually allowed to do anything with. 00:38:54.140 --> 00:38:58.940 -Well, and that is exactly where I feel the transparency, because I think 00:38:58.940 --> 00:39:02.940 that this is what this is doing, by having to have that extra level of 00:39:02.940 --> 00:39:08.220 reporting, that to me is a lot of professional courtesy, because you are 00:39:08.220 --> 00:39:15.180 restricted from certain communications, whereas if I have to recuse myself to 00:39:15.180 --> 00:39:22.700 that, then there is another individual that actually is aware, and I don't 00:39:22.700 --> 00:39:31.860 think that that is necessarily a bad thing, because it forces certain 00:39:31.860 --> 00:39:35.580 professionalism to be maintained for granted, but this oftentimes 00:39:35.580 --> 00:39:37.940 is not happening. 00:39:37.940 --> 00:39:44.500 -So you're just saying leave it in, or take it out? 00:39:44.500 --> 00:39:47.860 -I think we should leave it in. 00:39:47.860 --> 00:39:52.660 -I think it increases transparency, but isn't that what we want? 00:39:52.660 --> 00:39:57.940 -What I would recommend, since we don't have a secretary, it could be 00:39:57.940 --> 00:40:06.660 the vice chair, instead of the secretary for the chair, and every board 00:40:06.660 --> 00:40:11.740 is required to have a vice chair, so that's a good slot fixed. 00:40:11.740 --> 00:40:18.340 -I think that makes sense. 00:40:18.340 --> 00:40:25.940 Reading through this, I don't see this as adding a huge burden on anyone. 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 00:40:32.460 --> 00:40:40.220 as a board, and is there anything in it that would make the council just 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 00:40:44.260 --> 00:40:48.660 what happened with our last set of revisions, a lot of it just sort of got 00:40:48.660 --> 00:40:51.980 scratched, and it was confusing. 00:40:51.980 --> 00:41:00.620 This feels really straightforward, and we're trying to apply the entire 00:41:00.620 --> 00:41:10.700 ethics code to acting in a way that is transparent, and it doesn't feel like 00:41:10.700 --> 00:41:14.340 there's an undue burden here. 00:41:14.340 --> 00:41:25.900 The first sentence on paragraph four, I think it should be subsection 2B. 00:41:25.900 --> 00:41:34.420 This isn't extremely complicated, they're already having to file an affidavit, 00:41:34.420 --> 00:41:38.260 and it just says inform, I don't know. 00:41:38.260 --> 00:41:47.860 -But I do like the Vice Chair's suggestion. 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 00:41:53.900 --> 00:42:01.500 direction where I think everyone wants the code to go without giving the 00:42:01.500 --> 00:42:07.940 council something to just draw a line through. 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 00:42:13.180 --> 00:42:20.060 universal model code that is stood all across all these other municipalities, 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 00:42:30.740 --> 00:42:35.020 of these ethics ordinances or codes are fairly general. 00:42:35.020 --> 00:42:39.380 There's always an opportunity to go back and fix a problem, if it occurs, 00:42:39.380 --> 00:42:46.980 but to try and predict at this point where something could jump the tracks. 00:42:46.980 --> 00:42:51.300 I think that we need to kind of focus on this universal code. 00:42:51.300 --> 00:42:58.860 Something might happen, yes, but I'm very comfortable with the language that's here, 00:42:58.860 --> 00:43:00.580 at least as a place to start. 00:43:00.580 --> 00:43:03.900 We've got a lot to do here. 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. 00:43:10.060 --> 00:43:16.100 -With the change to the Vice Chair, and then I, well maybe I just said this, 00:43:16.100 --> 00:43:22.460 but for the Mayor, for Inform the Mayor Pro Tem, it's basically the same. 00:43:22.460 --> 00:43:27.300 -Perfect, all right, I like that. 00:43:27.300 --> 00:43:30.300 Okay, what other? 00:43:30.300 --> 00:43:33.500 -Would that become subsection D then? 00:43:33.500 --> 00:43:38.020 -I figured I could just add it to C, okay? 00:43:38.020 --> 00:43:39.740 Because that's how A works, is it correct? 00:43:39.740 --> 00:43:44.540 -Yeah. 00:43:44.540 --> 00:43:47.540 -Okay, what next? 00:44:03.540 --> 00:44:06.540 -Yeah. 00:44:06.540 --> 00:44:09.540 -Oh, thank you. 00:44:09.540 --> 00:44:12.540 Appreciate that. 00:44:12.540 --> 00:44:25.540 -I do remember, I think you said something about the domestic partner definition last 00:44:25.540 --> 00:44:43.540 time, I don't know if you wanted to look at that. 00:44:43.540 --> 00:44:44.540 -Just say partner? 00:44:44.540 --> 00:44:45.540 Where is that? 00:44:45.540 --> 00:44:50.540 -Partner is described, it's on page four. 00:44:50.540 --> 00:44:55.540 -Well, it's not defined anywhere else. 00:44:55.540 --> 00:45:10.540 -I just think domestic partners is slightly outdated term, and I think that more common 00:45:10.540 --> 00:45:13.540 than now is partner. 00:45:13.540 --> 00:45:17.540 -You can certainly do whatever you want, I think there's other references to business 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 00:45:25.540 --> 00:45:26.540 saying. 00:45:26.540 --> 00:45:29.540 -I'm really not that bothered by it. 00:45:29.540 --> 00:45:30.540 -Okay. 00:45:30.540 --> 00:45:38.540 -I just remember you brought it up so I'm not sure. 00:45:38.540 --> 00:45:43.540 -Next? 00:45:43.540 --> 00:45:45.540 -Are we leaving domestic partners in that passage? 00:45:45.540 --> 00:45:46.540 -Yes. 00:45:46.540 --> 00:45:47.540 -Okay. 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 00:46:01.540 --> 00:46:02.540 things that are in here? 00:46:02.540 --> 00:46:03.540 Is this now or later? 00:46:03.540 --> 00:46:04.540 -I think you might be there. 00:46:04.540 --> 00:46:05.540 -No. 00:46:05.540 --> 00:46:06.540 -Okay. 00:46:06.540 --> 00:46:08.540 So what page would you be looking for? 00:46:08.540 --> 00:46:12.540 -Well, I just, I have two issues only. 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 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 00:46:26.540 --> 00:46:28.540 and I know they're not earth-shaking. 00:46:28.540 --> 00:46:44.540 For example, the definition on page three of complainant, as it stands now, the human 00:46:44.540 --> 00:46:48.540 individual who submitted a complaint to the city. 00:46:48.540 --> 00:46:53.540 That to me is a problem comparing Denton and any other city with an ethics code. 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 00:46:59.540 --> 00:47:02.540 the individual, public, or private entity. 00:47:02.540 --> 00:47:10.540 This was, this was 2016 baggage trying to keep organizations from being able to file 00:47:10.540 --> 00:47:11.540 complaints. 00:47:11.540 --> 00:47:14.540 And to me, this is a huge problem. 00:47:14.540 --> 00:47:19.540 -We're not actually supposed to talk about the definition. 00:47:19.540 --> 00:47:20.540 We're supposed to for... 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, 00:47:28.540 --> 00:47:31.540 yeah, we're not posted for that, so we can't... 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... 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 00:47:41.540 --> 00:47:46.540 changing and make sure it's in continuity, but I think that's probably a... 00:47:46.540 --> 00:47:50.540 -Well, especially if we have until June now, I mean, there are, there are some definitions 00:47:50.540 --> 00:47:54.540 that really, really need to be talked about and reworked or rethought about. 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... 00:47:57.540 --> 00:47:58.540 -That's fine. 00:47:58.540 --> 00:47:59.540 -Next time. 00:47:59.540 --> 00:48:00.540 -Next time. 00:48:00.540 --> 00:48:01.540 -I, I wouldn't, though. 00:48:01.540 --> 00:48:02.540 -Okay. 00:48:02.540 --> 00:48:03.540 -I wouldn't really go into that questions. 00:48:03.540 --> 00:48:06.540 -Is there any good direction to do that? 00:48:06.540 --> 00:48:09.540 -Is there anything else that we're posted about? 00:48:09.540 --> 00:48:12.540 -So that would just be the red lines? 00:48:12.540 --> 00:48:13.540 -Right. 00:48:13.540 --> 00:48:14.540 -And I think if there's a change in it... 00:48:14.540 --> 00:48:15.540 -The red lines only? 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, 00:48:22.540 --> 00:48:28.540 then you can talk about that, but something that's not directly implicated in these changes 00:48:28.540 --> 00:48:32.540 in the conflict of interest section would be outposted. 00:48:32.540 --> 00:48:33.540 -Is that a good one? 00:48:33.540 --> 00:48:34.540 -Yeah, that's clear. 00:48:34.540 --> 00:48:35.540 -Okay. 00:48:35.540 --> 00:48:36.540 -Thank you, Scott. 00:48:36.540 --> 00:48:37.540 -Good clarification. 00:48:37.540 --> 00:48:45.540 -That's probably to make me be more specific, so that's... 00:48:45.540 --> 00:48:46.540 -Yeah. 00:48:46.540 --> 00:48:47.540 Okay. 00:48:47.540 --> 00:48:50.540 So any other things that we are posted to talk about? 00:48:50.540 --> 00:48:53.540 I'm overall pretty happy with it, personally. 00:48:53.540 --> 00:48:56.540 You know, it's a big... 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 00:49:04.540 --> 00:49:08.540 at the council meeting where we took all those changes. 00:49:08.540 --> 00:49:11.540 I think they've just worked over the world. 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 00:49:19.540 --> 00:49:26.540 to submit more proposals to them for the June 16th meeting, unless they were very small. 00:49:26.540 --> 00:49:29.540 But you can certainly do that if you would like to. 00:49:29.540 --> 00:49:34.540 I just don't have to tell the city manager I need more than an hour. 00:49:34.540 --> 00:49:37.540 -Yeah, because I think we were posted for 30 minutes last time. 00:49:37.540 --> 00:49:39.540 -It was an hour. 00:49:39.540 --> 00:49:41.540 -It went for like two. 00:49:41.540 --> 00:49:42.540 -Yeah. 00:49:42.540 --> 00:49:43.540 -Yeah. 00:49:43.540 --> 00:49:50.540 -So process-wise, then how do we determine what is a future red line power? 00:49:50.540 --> 00:49:52.540 Do we discuss it with you, or...? 00:49:52.540 --> 00:49:55.540 -At the end of the meeting, we have changes. 00:49:55.540 --> 00:49:56.540 -Okay. 00:49:56.540 --> 00:49:57.540 -Yeah. 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 00:50:02.540 --> 00:50:03.540 enough. 00:50:03.540 --> 00:50:10.540 My opinion, just watching the council members and how overwhelmed they seemed when we talked 00:50:10.540 --> 00:50:15.540 about it, it was like God was shouting from the heavens. 00:50:15.540 --> 00:50:18.540 It was very unpleasant. 00:50:18.540 --> 00:50:30.540 -Okay, well then, so then I guess we're finished with 007? 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. 00:50:33.540 --> 00:50:42.540 These next steps are I'll bring forward a letter, which will be the formal forwarding 00:50:42.540 --> 00:50:45.540 to the city council that we've done in the past. 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, 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. 00:51:08.540 --> 00:51:12.540 There'll be an opportunity next time, just wanted to double-check, since we are posted 00:51:12.540 --> 00:51:20.540 to discuss it today, if you would like to. 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 00:51:25.540 --> 00:51:27.540 code, is that correct? 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 00:51:33.540 --> 00:51:38.540 remember, one or two that's to repeal and replace the conflict of interest section. 00:51:38.540 --> 00:51:43.540 The other proposal that we're presenting them with is the burden of proof removal, which 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 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. 00:51:56.540 --> 00:52:01.540 They can, but they don't have to. 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 00:52:08.540 --> 00:52:17.540 we covered that matter, but I certainly don't want to leave out any opinions. 00:52:17.540 --> 00:52:24.540 Because all opinions are welcome. 00:52:24.540 --> 00:52:39.540 This is just a brief summary of what the procedural changes are intended to do. 00:52:39.540 --> 00:52:54.540 Opinions, Abby, you want to talk about anything? 00:52:54.540 --> 00:53:06.540 -I'm fine with taking out what's taken out. 00:53:06.540 --> 00:53:09.540 -We move on then, right? 00:53:09.540 --> 00:53:10.540 -Yep. 00:53:10.540 --> 00:53:14.540 -Okay, BOE 24-008, management reports. 00:53:14.540 --> 00:53:22.540 So, January 24, advisory opinion responses report. 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 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 00:53:34.540 --> 00:53:38.540 a request for an actual advisory opinion. 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. 00:53:46.540 --> 00:53:49.540 -So we're done with this, no action required. 00:53:49.540 --> 00:53:51.540 -Unless you have questions or something. 00:53:51.540 --> 00:53:52.540 -Is that here? 00:53:52.540 --> 00:53:56.540 -Right, it'll be here at 5.30, just on Thursday. 00:53:56.540 --> 00:53:58.540 -Okay, thank you. 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 00:54:05.540 --> 00:54:08.540 regarding future meeting topics. 00:54:08.540 --> 00:54:18.540 So this will be the day before you bring things up. 00:54:18.540 --> 00:54:29.540 -Well, I would like to discuss some definitions. 00:54:29.540 --> 00:54:32.540 Complaints specifically. 00:54:32.540 --> 00:54:38.540 I would like to discuss, under mandates, this business disclosures. 00:54:38.540 --> 00:54:47.540 There's huge problems there, in my opinion. 00:54:47.540 --> 00:54:57.540 So we need to discuss the packet of proposed amendments next month. 00:54:57.540 --> 00:55:08.540 I don't want to get that process moving. 00:55:08.540 --> 00:55:09.540 -You're there. 00:55:09.540 --> 00:55:11.540 You're certainly on time. 00:55:11.540 --> 00:55:19.540 -So would you think about March, what would you think about putting that topic into March? 00:55:19.540 --> 00:55:21.540 -Well, yeah, ASAP. 00:55:21.540 --> 00:55:26.540 -And you want to call it looking at definitions? 00:55:26.540 --> 00:55:28.540 -Well, there's only two. 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, 00:55:38.540 --> 00:55:42.540 this discussion of business disclosures and pending matters, 00:55:42.540 --> 00:55:47.540 we've already struck the words "pending matters" from our lexicon. 00:55:47.540 --> 00:55:56.540 And so this business disclosures under 2-72C revisits this entire pending matter issue. 00:55:56.540 --> 00:56:03.540 So there's some work to do, in my opinion, on section 2-72C, 00:56:03.540 --> 00:56:07.540 whether that's either amending or just deleting entirely. 00:56:07.540 --> 00:56:12.540 -Okay. 00:56:12.540 --> 00:56:17.540 -Do we need to talk about financial disclosures, like from PACs and things like that, 00:56:17.540 --> 00:56:31.540 or is that already covered? 00:56:31.540 --> 00:56:37.540 -So the ethics code is not a campaign financing code. 00:56:37.540 --> 00:56:41.540 It does not regulate financial disclosures at all. 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. 00:56:49.540 --> 00:56:51.540 -Does that include PAC money? 00:56:51.540 --> 00:56:53.540 -I don't know. 00:56:53.540 --> 00:56:55.540 I'd have to look that up. 00:56:55.540 --> 00:56:59.540 -I think federal law may be what's-- 00:56:59.540 --> 00:57:01.540 well, versus in that area. 00:57:01.540 --> 00:57:12.540 -I do know there were some major changes in disclosures for PACs about six years ago. 00:57:12.540 --> 00:57:14.540 I don't recall exactly. 00:57:14.540 --> 00:57:19.540 But it did change even local elections significantly. 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. 00:57:30.540 --> 00:57:33.540 But I don't know, Scott. 00:57:33.540 --> 00:57:36.540 Do you have any awareness of that? 00:57:36.540 --> 00:57:40.540 Yeah, I just read a couple of big articles about it. 00:57:40.540 --> 00:57:43.540 -I know candidates are required to make financial disclosures. 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. 00:57:52.540 --> 00:57:54.540 Was that known to them? 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. 00:58:00.540 --> 00:58:02.540 -OK. 00:58:02.540 --> 00:58:04.540 -And provide it to you. 00:58:04.540 --> 00:58:06.540 I just don't really know. 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. 00:58:16.540 --> 00:58:17.540 -OK. 00:58:17.540 --> 00:58:18.540 All right. 00:58:18.540 --> 00:58:21.540 I know I read that on something like Forbes, so it wasn't. 00:58:21.540 --> 00:58:26.540 But anyway. 00:58:26.540 --> 00:58:32.540 If you want to check into that, I would be interested in hearing if anybody knows. 00:58:32.540 --> 00:58:39.540 -I don't think we have the right to supersede federal law. 00:58:39.540 --> 00:58:40.540 -Right. 00:58:40.540 --> 00:58:44.540 And I'd be curious to know what the rules are. 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. 00:58:50.540 --> 00:58:52.540 And send that to y'all on email. 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. 00:59:00.540 --> 00:59:01.540 Does that work? 00:59:01.540 --> 00:59:03.540 -I hope that works. 00:59:03.540 --> 00:59:06.540 Madison, thank you so much for this red line. 00:59:06.540 --> 00:59:09.540 I know that you don't have help right now. 00:59:09.540 --> 00:59:13.540 And as usual, you've got it done. 00:59:13.540 --> 00:59:19.540 So I don't think I just speak for myself in saying that I'm grateful. 00:59:19.540 --> 00:59:20.540 -Agreed. 00:59:20.540 --> 00:59:24.540 -So I'm a little unclear on what you would like to do in March, though. 00:59:24.540 --> 00:59:28.540 -I would like to talk about the business disclosures. 00:59:28.540 --> 00:59:31.540 Would that be the right way, then? 00:59:31.540 --> 00:59:32.540 -Yeah. 00:59:32.540 --> 00:59:33.540 -Which one? 00:59:33.540 --> 00:59:34.540 -272. 00:59:34.540 --> 00:59:36.540 -Yeah, business disclosures. 00:59:36.540 --> 00:59:38.540 -I think I missed that. 00:59:38.540 --> 00:59:40.540 So I think it does have pending matter in there. 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. 00:59:47.540 --> 00:59:48.540 -So does C. 00:59:48.540 --> 00:59:49.540 -Right, C and E. 00:59:49.540 --> 00:59:57.540 -So if pending matter got removed, then it was like C and E. 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. 01:00:08.540 --> 01:00:12.540 And I almost feel like it might be covered under the new conflict of interest section. 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. 01:00:18.540 --> 01:00:25.540 -Are there any other things anybody wants to talk about in the moment? 01:00:25.540 --> 01:00:31.540 -Could you just say business disclosures, 272C, question mark? 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. 01:00:36.540 --> 01:00:37.540 -Right, yeah. 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 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. 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. 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. 01:01:08.540 --> 01:01:13.540 Because it seems like we like where we're going with conflict of interest. 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. 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. 01:01:28.540 --> 01:01:29.540 -Okay. 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. 01:01:36.540 --> 01:01:37.540 Sounds good? 01:01:37.540 --> 01:01:39.540 -Yes. 01:01:39.540 --> 01:01:47.540 -Okay. Any other -- okay. 01:01:47.540 --> 01:01:52.540 So we are at the end of our meeting. 01:01:52.540 --> 01:02:03.540 So I say this meeting is adjourned at 630 -- 634 p.m.? 01:02:03.540 --> 01:02:04.540 -So late. 01:02:04.540 --> 01:02:09.540 -Okay. Thank you so much. 01:02:09.540 --> 01:02:10.540 Good job, everybody.