>> Good evening.
It is Monday, February 5th, 2024, and it is 5.30 p.m.,
and this is the Board of Ethics meeting,
and I am now calling this meeting to order.
So we do not have any presentation
from members of the public.
So we will move to item two on our agenda.
BOE 24-006, consider approval of minutes from January 8th, 2024.
So does anyone have any amendments or concerns?
Seeing none, I can entertain a --
>> Make a motion.
>> Does the public move to approve the minutes?
Is there a second?
>> I second.
>> Patricia Roenke has seconded.
So all in favor?
>> Aye.
>> Unanimous, we have five people here tonight.
So we will now move on to BOE 24-007.
Receive a report, hold a discussion,
and give staff directions on the draft red lines
for potential proposed amendments for the Board of Ethics to one,
repeal and replace Ethics Code Ordinance Section 2-273(a),
conflicts of interest, and two, eliminate Section 2-281(c)(4),
burden and proof, including amending the Board of Ethics
rules of procedure to adjust evidence for hearing procedures
to reflect the elimination of the requirement
for the complainant to testify at an evidence reading.
So Madison has sent us several items, and I've asked them
to propose Articulous Red Line Talkies.
So thank you, Madison, for doing that.
So I guess we can start.
Did you -- you're going to do a presentation?
>> I don't really have anything prepared.
These are things that we -- this is something that we used last time
when we talked about this proposal,
and then this is just the red lines on this slide.
I don't -- yeah.
>> Okay. I'm assuming everybody had a chance to look at things,
so we'll move on to things you want to address,
and I'll recognize David Zeltner.
>> One question for Madison.
The schedule now -- two more readings, March and April.
Do we have a tannity schedule when what we're --
where we're at is finally going to make it back
to the city council, or do you have any idea?
>> Yes. So the council, I'm going to present to them the things
that you approved on June 4th during work session.
They'll give us direction at that point to do
with whatever their direction is,
and if there are changes they would like made,
we'll bring back an amended ordinance sometime
after that, hopefully in July.
>> So we might potentially have to bring a new council
in before this gets to them, after the elections, I guess.
>> It will be after the election.
>> Okay. That's what I'm trying to understand,
is if we can get this wrapped up in any way
for the current council, but apparently not then.
Is that right?
>> Right. I discussed it with the city manager,
and there's -- the work sessions are full, basically, until June.
They're busy.
I don't know. It will still take a long time to present to them.
>> June's the earliest then.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> Moving at government speed.
>> Well, that's --
>> Okay. So please -- do you want to do a page turn?
What is it going to be?
>> We can also pull it up on -- okay, that'll be easy.
I don't know if you want to start with proposal one, or --
well, I don't know if you want to start with conflict of interest
or board of burden of proof.
Burden of proof is more in the procedures.
>> I thought we had kind of --
>> It sort of got discussed.
I don't know if you want to discuss it again, but --
>> Does anyone want to discuss it again?
Conflict of interest?
>> Burden of proof.
>> I don't know anything.
>> I'd say we move on, because I think the, you know,
conflict of interest is the big deal right now.
>> So I -- so there's clearly a bunch
of definitions that we've added based on the direction I was
given to essentially model what's in our code
after what's in the model code.
So that's why all these new definitions are in here.
We can go back to them as we go through the section
that's actually changing.
So essentially just took out all what was there
and replaced it with this new language.
>> So I know you guys have had a chance to look at it.
>> I just had a couple of minor things in paragraph one.
That's on the screen there.
Line two, I think it should be or influence others,
unless I misunderstood.
I think it's just missing an "S" on there.
Okay?
All right.
And then paragraph B, for substantial customer,
that's not a -- there's no definition for that.
Do we need to have a definition for that, because I --
that was the only thing that I saw that I wasn't really sure.
I know we talked a little bit about, do we define that,
or what that would look like, it's not in the definitions now,
but it's separate from -- it says a client
or substantial customer, and I'm not sure how --
>> I feel like -- did we --
was there a direction to take substantial out last time?
I could have just forgotten about that.
>> I think that was my big deal.
>> Okay.
[ Laughter ]
>> Yeah.
>> I couldn't remember from our discussion the details on that.
I just noticed that that was still there
and that there wasn't a definition.
>> Yeah.
>> I would be fine with taking the substantial out,
because I don't think we need to define that with a hard number
of, you know, whatever the number was or whatever.
>> In the model code, there is, like, a number associated
with it in the definition that is not in the definition
that we put in our code based on the direction that you all gave.
So it might have just forgotten to take
out the word "substantial."
>> Okay. I would like to strike "substantial" for me.
>> Andrea would?
>> I would.
>> What about David and Patricia?
Do you want to strike "substantial"?
>> Does it --
>> Yeah.
>> Does it cause any problem
with any other possible relationships that aren't defined?
Does that make sense?
>> I think people know what a client means, but I'm not --
I'm kind of not sure about "substantial" customers.
>> So even if it's vague, it's --
>> Yeah. I think that part of the reason I brought --
>> Define it or take it out.
>> Yeah. We are defining customer or client.
>> Yeah.
>> That's added to the definitions.
And so that was the only thing that kind of jumped out at me
that we have "substantial" in the body of the text,
but not in the definition.
So I think the way it is -- if we take "substantial" out,
it's pretty clear what that means
from the definition that's been added.
>> So just -- that double R should just say a client.
Some kind of -- or just --
>> Client or customer.
>> Okay.
Client can cover a lot of categories.
>> Right.
>> Yeah. So it's probably client.
>> So just take out "more substantial."
>> Okay. So everybody's okay with that?
>> All in favor?
>> Yes.
>> It seems like there's a general consensus to remove --
>> It's right "substantial" from section A1, B2.
>> We do need to vote on these things?
>> No.
>> Okay.
>> You still have a given official group, right?
So we're all in favor of that.
So we're good.
>> Well, yeah, this is a --
>> I have a question.
>> Yes.
>> Are we going to work our -- I'm just --
procedure-wise, are we going to work our way through all
of the red line stuff that you have first?
Because I've got one or two small items
that have not been indicated as an issue at this point.
So we're going to do that at the end, or what's the --
>> Why don't we work our way
through what we're working on right now,
and then we'll come back to the other stuff?
>> Okay, that's fine.
That's fine, yeah.
>> All right.
>> So next in that section, what's --
>> I have a similar question on item 3.
There's "substantial debtor or creditor."
If we want to keep "substantial," there --
I don't believe there's definition added
for "debtor or creditor."
I think we all know what that means.
I don't know what it means to be separately defined.
The question is more just the "substantial."
Does that mean to be defined, or does that mean to be removed?
>> Do you want to take it out of one,
or do you want to take it out of the other?
>> This is on page number 7 of your complex.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> If I could -- I'd provide a little insight on that.
I think the "substantial" is there
to really give you all leeway to make a judgment call.
So if you take it out, then it's objective.
But if you leave it in there, then you all get --
but, you know, here the board hears --
the complaint could say, "Okay, yes, it's a debtor or creditor.
Does it mean "substantial"?
And leaving it out of the file gives room
for discussion on that point.
>> And that's why I thought we left it in last time,
was because it's definitely a debtor or creditor.
>> So how do you guys -- I think that's helpful information.
>> It's helpful to hear that from the council.
>> Yeah. So then what do you guys think about leaving it?
>> And I'm sorry, what's your name?
>> Scott.
>> Scott. Can you see a problem with not having it in?
>> I don't want to weigh in on "shoulds."
I just want to -- I think sort of trying to understand --
>> But that's -- yeah, this is why --
>> -- statutes why those things are included.
>> This is why a board would exist.
>> This is a statute of law.
>> Is that we do make a decision.
>> It wouldn't constrain us to not have that word in there.
>> I think it's more legal, yeah.
>> To Scott's point, right, with the client or customer,
if any person -- this is what the definition says right now.
Any person or entity which they've supplied goods
or services to in the past 24 months would then conflict
and then out of that.
So I don't -- obviously, there's some judgment there,
but you might, to Scott's point, substantial give you leeway.
Well, did they just sell them a lawnmower?
I don't know, you know what I mean?
>> Girl scout cookies.
So I think our discussion last time, though, was in terms
of the -- I can see the point when it comes
to substantial debt or creditor because there's that --
there's leeway there.
But I think in the -- when it comes to the customer part,
that model code had given a dollar amount what made a
customer a substantial customer, and our code doesn't have that.
And so therefore, I said, well, then it becomes, in my opinion,
too arbitrary of what substantial is.
And since we had said we wanted to stay away from dollar amounts
and limits, that in lieu of that, we would just cut
the substantial in terms of it.
So any kind of customer relationship would raise to --
>> And I believe the model code uses that $1,000 in aggregate
for substantial -- for client or customer.
And I think there's something in there about $10,000.
This is, again, just numbers that's in the model code
for debtor -- substantial debtor or creditor.
But I don't know where that is, and so I don't know how --
>> An example that I read, and I think it was the model code,
was that you need to have some leeway in this because,
let's say, I shopped at Kroger's -- or Albert's, I don't care --
and something came up with that thing, then probably just
about everybody, you know, shops at one of the stores and didn't.
And so then they would be a client.
And I think if a question came out just
because they bought their groceries there,
that makes them not a substantial customer.
But, you know, if you have someone selling you one lawnmower,
that's different from 100 lawnmowers.
So that's -- I think that is why we need to have that leeway.
>> I'm going to -- I'm going to go back to the fact of that if,
you know, we're using the language of the model code,
but we're not implementing the same definitions
and limits as the model code.
And that is where piecemealing --
piecemealing model code versus old code produces a problem, right?
I -- if --
>> So you would like to have the number in there, or --
>> I don't have -- I'm not set an opinion on that.
Does that make sense?
>> Does that make sense?
>> It's not that I can -- you know, I can have a --
I can have a conversation either way, with or without.
But I think if we're using model code language,
but we're not defining like the model code,
then we're opening ourselves potentially up for certain --
for things that we're not anticipating at the moment.
And that is what I'm concerned about with this substantial.
I get -- I get the -- obviously, everything in this ethics code,
there's a certain amount of vagueness in order to be able
to have the conversation, right?
Because it shouldn't be hard and fast rules.
Which is exactly one of the reasons why we started this
whole conversation of conflict of interest.
Because we all agreed that the way we're defining everything
with dollar amounts and limits is not productive
in that conversation of what is substantial?
What -- what truly -- is it one little more?
And -- because we want to have that conversation, right?
One low -- one lawn mower over 100 lawn mowers.
>> David, did you have --
>> Well, no, I just think you're --
we're kind of heading right back into that same trap,
using the word substantial rather than dollars amounts.
There's just another reminder
that this is just a general guideline.
That nothing is going to -- go ahead.
>> But, David, that is where I disagree with you.
Is because we don't have -- we don't have dollars amount --
dollar amounts, but the model code does.
The model code has the word substantial.
I'm arguing I don't want that because then we should also have
what -- a definition of what is substantial.
What does substantial mean?
Just like the model code does.
>> Right.
>> So that's where --
>> So Patricia -- or --
>> I see that point, but I'm really not that concerned with --
I'm fine with the word substantial.
Because I don't think that one way or the other,
we're ever going to be bound to that limit on hearing
or anything of that nature.
So I'm good with --
>> I think for the -- just to make sure we're on the same page,
for the way this is written, that paragraph to a client
or substantial customer or client
or customer will be a customer or client of the city official.
Not the city official is a client or customer of,
you know, grocery store or department store or whatever.
So that would be -- that wouldn't apply there.
And I don't know on -- I think if we were to leave that word
in for a client or customer,
it should be both substantial client and/or customer.
But I'm still -- I still support taking that out.
For the substantial debtor or creditor, I brought that up more
as a question because I -- that feels a little bit different
to me than a customer.
And having some leeway in evaluating that
if it does come up makes some sense.
>> Okay.
>> I can imagine --
>> So you're going to say leave it
and you're saying it's problematic?
David, what are your thoughts?
>> I'm good.
>> That's all right.
>> Just leave it or?
>> I would -- I think we're -- I understand completely
where you're coming from, but I just think we're kind of backing
from dollars and cents and a very, very specific code back
into the general category here.
I don't think it's going to make a lot
of difference one way or the other.
I really don't.
>> Patricia, what do you think?
>> I'm fine with leaving it and I'm also fine with taking it out.
I think the words substantial would be if there were a case
that came before us, we would, you know, ask the --
when we'd be asking the person, do you believe your involvement
with this client or customer is substantial enough
to influence your vote?
I mean, we'd be asking them those questions
and see what they say.
You know, I only loaned it, I only loaned my customer
or I only get my customer $100 for something, you know.
You'd say, well, that's not substantial.
>> Yeah. So one, kind of abstention, two, move it in,
one, make it more specific.
So --
>> To clarify, I'm not asking for limits.
I'm not asking for dollars.
I'm not asking for limits.
>> Yeah. It's hard.
I mean, these are -- it's hard to think ahead of all the things
that could come up.
I think that that would be probably an opinion case
and my concern with the rules of procedure,
which I think probably need to be changed,
is that you can't actually talk to the person.
We have to go on what they --
and let's find a way to go around it.
And there is a go around, so --
>> Madison, if this -- just a question.
Did this come from a Wechsler model?
Was there any discussion from Wechsler on that word
if that confuses things or where did this come from?
>> Yes. It's from the Wechsler model code.
He usually discusses, you know, he puts some narrative
after most of these.
Was there any problem that he brought up with?
>> I don't believe so right under this section, but --
well, I mean, let me try to pull it up just to double-check.
>> Yeah.
>> For some reason, it's really hard to find out this computer.
>> Well, we have bigger fish to fry here.
I'm okay either way.
I just think we have --
>> Yeah, it's right there.
The word "substantial" is right there.
>> Yeah, this is the model code.
I think -- let me click on this.
Yeah, there's no discussion about the word "substantial."
That I can see.
>> I would like to say, hearing what Scott said,
I would like to have leeway because I think
if this did come to a hearing,
then I think the board members would think
through how that looks and a lot of ethics as a parent, so,
sadly, the appearance of evil.
>> I think the question is what --
when you say you would like leeway, how do you want
to make that clear in the code?
Because right now, if you don't include "substantial,"
it is a conflict of interest
if you've done -- provided goods or services to a person
over the last 24 months.
>> That sounds way too narrow.
>> We don't want narrow, in my opinion.
>> Right. I mean, that's the way I'm understanding it
from what Scott said.
But he wasn't giving an opinion.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't --
>> I'd say it sounds like kind of leaning toward like banana.
I do think we have --
>> I would hate to explain --
have to explain to somebody why we took it out.
>> So, I really appreciate your concern, though.
>> And my reasoning specifically is because you had presented
to us that the model code has a definition of what "substantial"
is that is tied to dollar amounts.
That is my reasoning.
That was my reasoning for why,
because then there was an actual this is substantial,
this is not.
Does that make sense?
And that was exactly the reason why I had a question
when we had that conversation.
And the city council will also weigh in on this, too.
So, they'll say, "Well, we don't like that it's vague.
We want you to tell us an exact amount, and we're going
to set the exact amount that we think is reasonable."
So, it's not -- we're not the only ones deciding this,
the city council, so.
>> I guess I -- I think it's vague the way it's written
in the model code.
It says -- in the definition, it says "customer" or "client,"
but then the body of the text says "client"
or "substantial customer," which is why, when I read
through this, I thought this doesn't make sense,
because we're not defining that.
Even in the model code, if there is a value there
in the previous 24 months, an aggregate of greater
than $1,000, and then there's some more to that.
But it doesn't -- to me, I don't --
I know we're nitpicking one word here,
but just the way it's written, where it's put in the sentence,
makes it seem like that is something different.
Like, a client or a substantial customer.
>> I think --
>> I think if the word stays in either one of those,
it should precede "client."
>> I think that -- perhaps I presented it wrong last time.
What it seems like now is that, per the definition,
it has nothing to do with the word "substantial."
The definition is, if you're doing that business
with a person that's less than $1,000,
they're not a client or a customer.
So, the "substantial" is --
I don't know why it's only tacking on to "customer."
But it's saying, if you're doing business with a client
for more than $1,000 in the last 24 months with a person,
that's a client, you're conflicted out.
And then -- or, if you have a customer and you've done more
than $1,000 -- a person that you've done more than $1,000
with a business that's a customer,
then if it's "substantial," then it's a conflict.
So, there's more leeway just for that customer piece.
I don't -- it's not really clear to me what the difference
between "customer" or "client" is, but --
perhaps there's a professional thing -- I don't know.
But I think the point here is that if you just sold somebody
a lawnmower for $500,
they're not a client or customer, per the model code.
-Yeah, and I don't see why anybody would see it that way.
-But per our code, you would need it,
because we don't have that value threshold.
-So what? -Per the red lines, I'm sorry.
Not our code. -Okay.
-That's my understanding.
-I'm not sure what I'm hearing.
You want to leave it in, or do you want to take it out?
-Let's have a vote. I move to leave it in.
-Okay. Before we do -- before we take a vote.
Because I can -- like, if we're not attaching dollar amounts
with the "substantial" and we're good with that,
I can absolutely go with it.
Now the question becomes, should we also make
the client substantial,
or is that a completely different relationship
that is not affected?
-Yeah, just move that word to the "substantial client"
or "customer," but that word "substantial"
before "client" and "customer."
-That would make more sense. -That makes a lot of sense.
-That makes more sense to me, too, then.
-So I think that I -- I know that we had a motion,
so I think we have to resolve that.
But I think the direction I'm hearing is to leave
"substantial" land, but move it to before a client.
-You don't need official nationalized?
Do you want to withdraw your motion,
or do you want to carry it through?
-What do you think about a motion
to change it to "substantial client" or "customer"?
Right? -That's fine.
-Okay. You want to put that motion out?
-Yeah, I'll -- I'm in that.
Yeah, just move "substantial" to "customer."
-Okay. So, all in favor of "substantial client"?
-There's going to be a second. -Oh, sorry.
Does anybody want to second this?
-I'll second it. -Okay.
-Andrea's second. -We got Patricia and Andrew.
Okay, so all in favor?
-Aye. -Aye.
-Thank you, Justin, for pointing that out.
-I don't know if I helped anything.
I think I confused everybody, including myself.
-No. Thank you, Andrea, for it.
-But it makes more sense now the way it's written there.
-Okay. What's the next?
Are we still on page 7, or are we moving to --
-And that was a 501 book, right?
-Right.
-Okay. Next.
-I just had a typo on page number 8, paragraph 2C.
I think the last initial is "public record of the board."
"Of" or "for" -- I don't know what the right grammar is there.
-There's an "F" behind the "O."
-That's easy to do. -Easy to do.
-Okay. Thank you for catching that.
What else? -There's an Irish paragraph.
-What's that? -What?
-May the light be with you.
Okay. Next.
-That was all I had. I don't know if you remember me.
Those were the only things that I had questions about
or comments on. Everything else looked great.
-So I have one thing just to draw your attention to.
What is this now? -Letter.
-2 -- Yeah. So section 2 of the new code, or 2B.
There's a whole section where you have to inform
a particular person or a body if you have withdrawn.
So that's not currently required by our code.
That's the -- So 2A and 2C are currently required by our code.
There's this 2B, "Inform the appropriate individual or body
pursuant to section 5 if you have to withdraw."
Right? Is that what it says?
-Section 2. It's on page 8.
-I'm sorry. It's on page 8.
Section 2B references that you have to inform
the appropriate individual or body pursuant to --
It says subsection 5. That should be subsection 4.
I'm sorry.
So then subsection 4 has a whole list of,
"If you have to withdraw, go tell this person." Right?
So for the city council, if you're an elected official
and you have to withdraw, not only do you have to stop
tracking withdrawal and you have to submit an affidavit to me,
you would then also have to go tell the mayor.
That's not something that's in our current code.
It's not something we really discussed last time.
So I would like to get direction on that.
I put it in here because it's part of the model code.
-I think leave it in.
-That we would want them to go tell.
-Inform the mayor.
-Should we just say, "Inform the mayor"?
-Well, it's already in there. Just leave it in.
-Right. So the way it would work, if y'all, an appointed board,
if one of you had to disclose something,
you would tell Annetta as the chair of the board.
If Annetta did, she would inform the secretary.
That's not a position that exists.
So then I think you would have to tell the city council somehow.
I, as an appointed person but not on a body,
you would have to inform the city council.
A city council member would have to inform the mayor.
There's nothing about who the mayor would have to say,
tell him. So I don't know about that.
Maybe the mayor pretend we could write that in.
-What would be the benefit of this?
Because it seems, I mean,
it does seem like a really nice thing to do.
-Yes. So this is on top of you're exposed to withdrawal,
and then you still have to file a written disclosure with me.
So there is already a disclosure piece.
-So what do you guys think about that?
-Well, to me, this circles all the way
back to a lot of these business disclosures.
Under definitions of things I'd like to talk about separately.
So I had not taken the model code under a microscope, correctly.
I mean, I'm taking it as it was written.
If we get to that point,
then we all have a lot more work to do.
-Justin, I'm curious what you think.
-I don't have a strong opinion.
I mean, I don't see this as
a huge burden to the person that is accusing themselves.
I don't know how much value it brings to the whole process.
I mean, it adds a step.
Outside of letting Madison know and filing an affidavit,
I'm trying to think of why this would be
included and why this would be valuable to include.
-I think the mayor runs the meetings so it wouldn't be nice to-
-Like for understanding for-
-Yeah, running the meetings.
Somebody is going to recuse themselves because of conflict of interest.
-I guess that makes sense, and that's why for the board members to inform
the chair of the board, that makes sense.
-It would avoid embarrassment to the mayor if you didn't know.
-Right. Okay.
I guess I don't know that there's a need to make that.
I mean, I suppose the affidavit would be public, right?
-It's a public document.
-It should be.
-Yeah. I mean, I don't know that the statement of recusal is required
at a meeting in the record of the meeting for discussion of whatever
the topic is that the person is recusing.
If they just choose to not participate,
if they file the affidavit and notify the chair of the meeting,
whether that is the board chair or the mayor,
I mean, procedurally, I guess that makes sense, right?
-It seems like a good-
-There's not a requirement to do that for procedure.
-And just to make sure we're clear, so our current code only really
applies during meetings, right? You have to file,
you have to withdraw publicly and file an affidavit.
This new code, the red lines, require you, even if you're just at dinner
with somebody and something comes up and you have to withdraw,
you would have to disclose that that had occurred by doing all these things.
So by stopping from participating, then you would have to go tell somebody,
whoever it is, according to this other section,
and then you would also have to file an affidavit with me
if you were at dinner with somebody and something came up.
That's the big change of the conflict of interest section,
is it's not just applicable to pending matters.
-So it's outside of the meeting, isn't it?
-Right. I don't know that everybody is filing their affidavits, right?
You've trained them to do that. So I guess my concern is,
we're going to put this in here, if you don't do it,
it's a reason that you're violating the code.
I think that making the process more burdensome is not going to help
as far as getting the change through the civic council.
-Yeah. I think for that reason, I would like to not have it in here,
but I'd like to agree with anything.
-I'm going to agree with David because I think this is exactly one of the big
issues if you're piecemealing code, because we're running into things
that are not defined, we're running into things that will add procedural burdens
that we don't have at this point. It's not just a matter of making the code
less maximum and minimum oriented as it is at the moment,
but more vague so that there is leeway to make decisions.
So I struggle not with the language, I struggle with our potential unintended
consequences of taking something.
-The model code is a very transparent one, and the code we have now
is not so transparent.
-I'm sorry, say that again.
-The model code is very transparent, and the one we have now is not
as transparent, so yeah, I mean, there's unintended consequences.
-What do you guys want to do?
-Because at the end of the day, if it is a private dinner,
the conversation is substantially influencing, then yeah, I would like for
that to be included and necessary to disclose it.
-And the section that we're talking about, getting rid of it wouldn't not
require them to disclose it, it would just only go to me, which I'm not
actually allowed to do anything with.
-Well, and that is exactly where I feel the transparency, because I think
that this is what this is doing, by having to have that extra level of
reporting, that to me is a lot of professional courtesy, because you are
restricted from certain communications, whereas if I have to recuse myself to
that, then there is another individual that actually is aware, and I don't
think that that is necessarily a bad thing, because it forces certain
professionalism to be maintained for granted, but this oftentimes
is not happening.
-So you're just saying leave it in, or take it out?
-I think we should leave it in.
-I think it increases transparency, but isn't that what we want?
-What I would recommend, since we don't have a secretary, it could be
the vice chair, instead of the secretary for the chair, and every board
is required to have a vice chair, so that's a good slot fixed.
-I think that makes sense.
Reading through this, I don't see this as adding a huge burden on anyone.
On all these things, I'm looking at it as does it make sense, can we apply it
as a board, and is there anything in it that would make the council just
stride through this and say we're not going to do that, because that's kind of
what happened with our last set of revisions, a lot of it just sort of got
scratched, and it was confusing.
This feels really straightforward, and we're trying to apply the entire
ethics code to acting in a way that is transparent, and it doesn't feel like
there's an undue burden here.
The first sentence on paragraph four, I think it should be subsection 2B.
This isn't extremely complicated, they're already having to file an affidavit,
and it just says inform, I don't know.
-But I do like the Vice Chair's suggestion.
-It feels like a good thing to have it, and like this would be going in the
direction where I think everyone wants the code to go without giving the
council something to just draw a line through.
-I would hate to put us in a position where we have to defend every line of a
universal model code that is stood all across all these other municipalities,
and so there's always going to be time, if something comes up, this is why most
of these ethics ordinances or codes are fairly general.
There's always an opportunity to go back and fix a problem, if it occurs,
but to try and predict at this point where something could jump the tracks.
I think that we need to kind of focus on this universal code.
Something might happen, yes, but I'm very comfortable with the language that's here,
at least as a place to start.
We've got a lot to do here.
-So I'm here, you're good, you're good, you're good, you're good, you're good.
-With the change to the Vice Chair, and then I, well maybe I just said this,
but for the Mayor, for Inform the Mayor Pro Tem, it's basically the same.
-Perfect, all right, I like that.
Okay, what other?
-Would that become subsection D then?
-I figured I could just add it to C, okay?
Because that's how A works, is it correct?
-Yeah.
-Okay, what next?
-Yeah.
-Oh, thank you.
Appreciate that.
-I do remember, I think you said something about the domestic partner definition last
time, I don't know if you wanted to look at that.
-Just say partner?
Where is that?
-Partner is described, it's on page four.
-Well, it's not defined anywhere else.
-I just think domestic partners is slightly outdated term, and I think that more common
than now is partner.
-You can certainly do whatever you want, I think there's other references to business
partner that might make it a little confusing within the code, but I understand what you're
saying.
-I'm really not that bothered by it.
-Okay.
-I just remember you brought it up so I'm not sure.
-Next?
-Are we leaving domestic partners in that passage?
-Yes.
-Okay.
So when do we, or when can we raise issues with other, with definitions and some other
things that are in here?
Is this now or later?
-I think you might be there.
-No.
-Okay.
So what page would you be looking for?
-Well, I just, I have two issues only.
I'm 95% just totally pleased with where we are right now in terms of the process, where
we've been, where we're heading, but there are just maybe like three or four minor issues
and I know they're not earth-shaking.
For example, the definition on page three of complainant, as it stands now, the human
individual who submitted a complaint to the city.
That to me is a problem comparing Denton and any other city with an ethics code.
I would like to discuss or at least start out making a motion that that be amended to
the individual, public, or private entity.
This was, this was 2016 baggage trying to keep organizations from being able to file
complaints.
And to me, this is a huge problem.
-We're not actually supposed to talk about the definition.
We're supposed to for...
-Yeah, I wouldn't really like to go back and look at the definitions, but it's not,
yeah, we're not posted for that, so we can't...
-Well, that's what I, that's why I'm a little confused here because we have the whole...
-Yeah, we, I asked for that because I wanted to make sure we could look at what we're
changing and make sure it's in continuity, but I think that's probably a...
-Well, especially if we have until June now, I mean, there are, there are some definitions
that really, really need to be talked about and reworked or rethought about.
-So that's something to bring up at the end of the meeting when we're talking about...
-That's fine.
-Next time.
-I, I wouldn't, though.
-Okay.
-I wouldn't really go into that questions.
-Is there any good direction to do that?
-Is there anything else that we're posted about?
-So that would just be the red lines?
-Right.
-And I think if there's a change in it...
-The red lines only?
-If there's a definition as it relates to the changes in the conflict of interest section,
then you can talk about that, but something that's not directly implicated in these changes
in the conflict of interest section would be outposted.
-Is that a good one?
-Yeah, that's clear.
-Okay.
-Thank you, Scott.
-Good clarification.
-That's probably to make me be more specific, so that's...
-Yeah.
Okay.
So any other things that we are posted to talk about?
I'm overall pretty happy with it, personally.
You know, it's a big...
I don't want to confuse the matter much more right now, because I think that's what happened
at the council meeting where we took all those changes.
I think they've just worked over the world.
-I think these are both very large changes to the code, so I would advise the board not
to submit more proposals to them for the June 16th meeting, unless they were very small.
But you can certainly do that if you would like to.
I just don't have to tell the city manager I need more than an hour.
-Yeah, because I think we were posted for 30 minutes last time.
-It was an hour.
-It went for like two.
-Yeah.
-So process-wise, then how do we determine what is a future red line power?
Do we discuss it with you, or...?
-At the end of the meeting, we have changes.
-Okay.
-Yeah.
-I guess we could decide if we want to add more to this meeting, but I think this is
enough.
My opinion, just watching the council members and how overwhelmed they seemed when we talked
about it, it was like God was shouting from the heavens.
It was very unpleasant.
-Okay, well then, so then I guess we're finished with 007?
-Just to double-check, there's nothing on the burden of proof that you all want to discuss.
These next steps are I'll bring forward a letter, which will be the formal forwarding
to the city council that we've done in the past.
That will be at the next meeting, and then we'll be done with this packet, essentially,
until they give you direction, give me direction, I guess, on what to do with the proposal.
There'll be an opportunity next time, just wanted to double-check, since we are posted
to discuss it today, if you would like to.
-So basically all that's there is what we crossed out of ours and replaced with model
code, is that correct?
-In the code, yes, and that's mostly, that's almost entirely just the proposal, I can't
remember, one or two that's to repeal and replace the conflict of interest section.
The other proposal that we're presenting them with is the burden of proof removal, which
has a bunch of procedural changes to the hearings that go with it, to essentially make it so
that the complainant does not have to testify at the hearing, if one of those gets that far.
They can, but they don't have to.
-I personally feel like we, I know we've talked about this twice, maybe, so in my opinion
we covered that matter, but I certainly don't want to leave out any opinions.
Because all opinions are welcome.
This is just a brief summary of what the procedural changes are intended to do.
Opinions, Abby, you want to talk about anything?
-I'm fine with taking out what's taken out.
-We move on then, right?
-Yep.
-Okay, BOE 24-008, management reports.
So, January 24, advisory opinion responses report.
-So just an update, we got an advisory opinion request, it's going to be heard by a panel
on Thursday, which is an update from what was in the packet, because I hadn't gotten
a request for an actual advisory opinion.
So really there's nothing to discuss, this is part of the process that I have to follow.
-So we're done with this, no action required.
-Unless you have questions or something.
-Is that here?
-Right, it'll be here at 5.30, just on Thursday.
-Okay, thank you.
-So we move on to BOE 24-09, receiver report, hold a discussion and give staff direction
regarding future meeting topics.
So this will be the day before you bring things up.
-Well, I would like to discuss some definitions.
Complaints specifically.
I would like to discuss, under mandates, this business disclosures.
There's huge problems there, in my opinion.
So we need to discuss the packet of proposed amendments next month.
I don't want to get that process moving.
-You're there.
You're certainly on time.
-So would you think about March, what would you think about putting that topic into March?
-Well, yeah, ASAP.
-And you want to call it looking at definitions?
-Well, there's only two.
There's not a great deal here, but I have that definition, and under mandates 2-272,
this discussion of business disclosures and pending matters,
we've already struck the words "pending matters" from our lexicon.
And so this business disclosures under 2-72C revisits this entire pending matter issue.
So there's some work to do, in my opinion, on section 2-72C,
whether that's either amending or just deleting entirely.
-Okay.
-Do we need to talk about financial disclosures, like from PACs and things like that,
or is that already covered?
-So the ethics code is not a campaign financing code.
It does not regulate financial disclosures at all.
It just requires that a city council member file the financial disclosures required by the state of Texas.
-Does that include PAC money?
-I don't know.
I'd have to look that up.
-I think federal law may be what's--
well, versus in that area.
-I do know there were some major changes in disclosures for PACs about six years ago.
I don't recall exactly.
But it did change even local elections significantly.
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.
But I don't know, Scott.
Do you have any awareness of that?
Yeah, I just read a couple of big articles about it.
-I know candidates are required to make financial disclosures.
It used to be that they had to also disclose where the money was coming from and the change.
Was that known to them?
-If we wanted to get more information on that, I could ask the city secretary's office if they have information on it.
-OK.
-And provide it to you.
I just don't really know.
I'm really part of the ethics field, so it's not something I try to keep up with as part of this field.
-OK.
All right.
I know I read that on something like Forbes, so it wasn't.
But anyway.
If you want to check into that, I would be interested in hearing if anybody knows.
-I don't think we have the right to supersede federal law.
-Right.
And I'd be curious to know what the rules are.
-Yeah, I can see what the city secretary's office gives to candidates as far as what they are required to do.
And send that to y'all on email.
And then if you would like to do anything with that, we can discuss it at the next future meeting item section.
Does that work?
-I hope that works.
Madison, thank you so much for this red line.
I know that you don't have help right now.
And as usual, you've got it done.
So I don't think I just speak for myself in saying that I'm grateful.
-Agreed.
-So I'm a little unclear on what you would like to do in March, though.
-I would like to talk about the business disclosures.
Would that be the right way, then?
-Yeah.
-Which one?
-272.
-Yeah, business disclosures.
-I think I missed that.
So I think it does have pending matter in there.
I think it does need to be changed potentially as part of this other -- I think it goes along.
-So does C.
-Right, C and E.
-So if pending matter got removed, then it was like C and E.
So -- because I almost feel like everything that's included -- because this part is -- what it covers is very weird and confusing.
And I almost feel like it might be covered under the new conflict of interest section.
So I'll look at that and see if I can get a better understanding of it before next time.
-Are there any other things anybody wants to talk about in the moment?
-Could you just say business disclosures, 272C, question mark?
And we'll go and take it to TVA if -- I mean, we've got another meeting before.
-Right, yeah.
I think we'll do that one first and then -- if it seems like there's no way for this to actually do anything
with the red lines that you all are giving me direction to go forward with, I'll probably just strike it and include it.
And we can discuss that and then forward the packet of amendments second if that's fine.
And if not, we have the April and May meeting to readjust if that doesn't actually work.
Because it seems like we like where we're going with conflict of interest.
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.
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.
-Okay.
So let's see how the next meeting goes and then we'll decide if we need to add that to it.
Sounds good?
-Yes.
-Okay. Any other -- okay.
So we are at the end of our meeting.
So I say this meeting is adjourned at 630 -- 634 p.m.?
-So late.
-Okay. Thank you so much.
Good job, everybody.