1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:10,440
 Alright, welcome to this special call advisory panel meeting of the City of Denton's Board

2
00:00:10,440 --> 00:00:11,440
 of Ethics.

3
00:00:11,440 --> 00:00:17,560
 It's 5.30 p.m. on Thursday, February 8th, 2024.

4
00:00:17,560 --> 00:00:21,400
 I'm Madison Rorschach, Denton City Auditor, and the staff is on to the Board of Ethics.

5
00:00:21,400 --> 00:00:28,520
 I'm going to hand it over to the three-member panel to select the presiding officer.

6
00:00:28,520 --> 00:00:31,880
 I know one of you would make a motion to appoint somebody to be your--

7
00:00:31,880 --> 00:00:35,480
 I move that Dustin you be our presiding officer.

8
00:00:35,480 --> 00:00:36,480
 Second.

9
00:00:36,480 --> 00:00:39,480
 Do we have to vote?

10
00:00:39,480 --> 00:00:40,480
 Yeah.

11
00:00:40,480 --> 00:00:41,480
 All in favor?

12
00:00:41,480 --> 00:00:42,480
 All in favor.

13
00:00:42,480 --> 00:00:45,480
 I don't know if I'm supposed to vote.

14
00:00:45,480 --> 00:00:46,480
 Unanimous.

15
00:00:46,480 --> 00:00:47,480
 You can or you cannot.

16
00:00:47,480 --> 00:00:48,480
 Okay.

17
00:00:48,480 --> 00:00:51,760
 So I think that we don't have--do we have to call the meeting to order now?

18
00:00:51,760 --> 00:00:52,760
 No, I didn't.

19
00:00:52,760 --> 00:00:53,760
 Okay.

20
00:00:53,760 --> 00:01:00,360
 So we have one item for consideration tonight, EOE 24-010, request for advisory opinion number

21
00:01:00,360 --> 00:01:07,760
 24-001, received February 1st, 2024 from Council Member Byrd concerning potential and proper

22
00:01:07,760 --> 00:01:12,360
 use of influence, applicability, and recusal recommendations.

23
00:01:12,360 --> 00:01:21,680
 And then the agenda information sheet, did you guys have time to look at it?

24
00:01:21,680 --> 00:01:22,680
 Okay.

25
00:01:22,680 --> 00:01:28,640
 Well, we can start with that and the request, and in general, I guess there were a couple

26
00:01:28,640 --> 00:01:36,960
 of things that I wanted to point out on this in the initial request.

27
00:01:36,960 --> 00:01:43,920
 This is a public service group that Council Member Byrd is a member of, and they're planning

28
00:01:43,920 --> 00:01:50,080
 a virtual meet, the candidate event in a few weeks, and it says, "Since I'm in city government,

29
00:01:50,080 --> 00:01:59,160
 they asked if I could moderate the event, which will include city school board candidates."

30
00:01:59,160 --> 00:02:04,320
 From that, I mean, I think it implies that Council Member Byrd would be participating

31
00:02:04,320 --> 00:02:12,040
 as a representative of the city, since that's in the request.

32
00:02:12,040 --> 00:02:20,440
 It does state in the last email in the agenda packet that Council Member Byrd is not on

33
00:02:20,440 --> 00:02:26,880
 the board for that group and is not receiving any gifts or payments at any time.

34
00:02:26,880 --> 00:02:33,320
 So just to point those things out while we consider this, and I think Madison had some

35
00:02:33,320 --> 00:02:39,080
 discussion back and forth with Member Byrd on the possible sections of ethics ordinance

36
00:02:39,080 --> 00:02:46,360
 that would apply under conflict of interest, yes, and improper influence.

37
00:02:46,360 --> 00:03:08,600
 I went through those and looked at them, and as far as the sections of our ethics ordinance

38
00:03:08,600 --> 00:03:16,080
 are concerned, the improper influence, I think, is the only section that applies, except for

39
00:03:16,080 --> 00:03:23,160
 the abuse of resources, that since this is an online forum, I don't think that use of

40
00:03:23,160 --> 00:03:28,720
 city facilities, personnel, equipment, software, supplies, or staff time for this purpose would

41
00:03:28,720 --> 00:03:31,800
 be allowed under the ethics ordinance.

42
00:03:31,800 --> 00:03:36,400
 I don't think that was really the request from Council Member Byrd, but I wanted to

43
00:03:36,400 --> 00:03:38,360
 point that out.

44
00:03:38,360 --> 00:03:45,440
 The section of improper influence, there are five paragraphs under that section.

45
00:03:45,440 --> 00:03:49,680
 The last two, I don't think, apply at all.

46
00:03:49,680 --> 00:03:57,220
 Paragraph four is not applicable, and paragraph five is not applicable, because this is not

47
00:03:57,220 --> 00:04:00,880
 for state or local government agents.

48
00:04:00,880 --> 00:04:04,040
 And she herself is not running for office at this time, right?

49
00:04:04,040 --> 00:04:05,040
 Correct.

50
00:04:05,040 --> 00:04:07,040
 That's correct.

51
00:04:07,040 --> 00:04:15,480
 So the first three items under improper influence could potentially apply.

52
00:04:15,480 --> 00:04:22,640
 It wasn't clear to me if all candidates running for those offices that she mentioned in her

53
00:04:22,640 --> 00:04:25,360
 email would be invited to this forum.

54
00:04:25,360 --> 00:04:35,280
 If it's only for certain candidates that are invited, I think that is questionable to me.

55
00:04:35,280 --> 00:04:43,920
 And I believe if she is endorsing any of those candidates, since she is appearing as a city

56
00:04:43,920 --> 00:04:50,640
 council member, then I don't think that that would be allowed.

57
00:04:50,640 --> 00:04:55,800
 That's not laid out specifically in our ethics ordinance.

58
00:04:55,800 --> 00:05:01,480
 I tried to do a little digging on that and see if that appeared in the model code.

59
00:05:01,480 --> 00:05:03,400
 I didn't see anything clear there.

60
00:05:03,400 --> 00:05:09,640
 The only thing I found was in the ethics ordinance for Sunnyvale, Texas, they have something

61
00:05:09,640 --> 00:05:18,920
 specific about political support at public forums, and it discusses something very similar

62
00:05:18,920 --> 00:05:19,920
 to this situation.

63
00:05:19,920 --> 00:05:24,480
 It says council members may support board and commission members who are running for

64
00:05:24,480 --> 00:05:30,920
 office, but not in an official forum in their capacity as a council member.

65
00:05:30,920 --> 00:05:34,880
 So that's something as a reference.

66
00:05:34,880 --> 00:05:40,480
 Their ethics ordinance does specifically would not allow for endorsement.

67
00:05:40,480 --> 00:05:46,840
 The request from Councilmember Byrd says nothing about endorsement, it just mentions moderation

68
00:05:46,840 --> 00:05:47,840
 of the event.

69
00:05:47,840 --> 00:05:51,280
 And as moderator, it would imply it's neutral.

70
00:05:51,280 --> 00:05:58,080
 She's being neutral, she's moderating, but I guess at that event, if she then changes

71
00:05:58,080 --> 00:06:04,600
 from moderating to actually becoming political, then somebody could complain about that.

72
00:06:04,600 --> 00:06:09,840
 But on the face of it, I don't see that there would be any conflict of interest if she stays

73
00:06:09,840 --> 00:06:12,280
 just as a neutral moderator.

74
00:06:12,280 --> 00:06:13,280
 Right.

75
00:06:13,280 --> 00:06:17,680
 Yeah, that was pretty much the conclusion I came to.

76
00:06:17,680 --> 00:06:24,200
 So the only things that were questionable to me were whether or not all candidates for

77
00:06:24,200 --> 00:06:28,280
 those in those races were invited to the event.

78
00:06:28,280 --> 00:06:29,520
 And do we know that?

79
00:06:29,520 --> 00:06:31,000
 We don't know that.

80
00:06:31,000 --> 00:06:35,720
 And I don't think, I mean, Councilmember Byrd is not here, and I don't think that we could

81
00:06:35,720 --> 00:06:37,920
 ask if she were, right?

82
00:06:37,920 --> 00:06:42,120
 Yeah, per the rules of procedure, we're not allowed to hear comments from the public,

83
00:06:42,120 --> 00:06:47,680
 though we have suspended those in the past to hear the requesting city official before.

84
00:06:47,680 --> 00:06:48,680
 Okay.

85
00:06:48,680 --> 00:06:49,840
 But she's not here.

86
00:06:49,840 --> 00:06:50,840
 Right.

87
00:06:50,840 --> 00:06:59,640
 It's my understanding that Vicki would be interviewing, as moderator, would be engaging

88
00:06:59,640 --> 00:07:06,040
 directly with the candidates for her existing seat.

89
00:07:06,040 --> 00:07:16,680
 And as a district representative, this gets a little bit into the general appearance of

90
00:07:16,680 --> 00:07:17,680
 impropriety.

91
00:07:17,680 --> 00:07:22,720
 And I know this is not part of our specific code, but I'm a little bit concerned that

92
00:07:22,720 --> 00:07:31,200
 this is a risk that Vicki would necessarily not need to take to get the job done.

93
00:07:31,200 --> 00:07:36,880
 In Rotary, her organization, there are a number of other individuals that I'm told could take

94
00:07:36,880 --> 00:07:37,880
 that spot.

95
00:07:37,880 --> 00:07:46,520
 And I commend Vicki for filing this, and I absolutely consider her an example of transparency

96
00:07:46,520 --> 00:07:48,240
 in this matter.

97
00:07:48,240 --> 00:07:57,520
 But I'm very concerned if a debate went well and nothing happened, like you say, but political

98
00:07:57,520 --> 00:08:03,080
 debates and political events in Denton have a history of kind of turning a curve.

99
00:08:03,080 --> 00:08:11,920
 And I would hate very much to have Vicki in a situation where she would have to essentially

100
00:08:11,920 --> 00:08:14,520
 ride her on two candidates.

101
00:08:14,520 --> 00:08:20,120
 And so I'm very concerned about how this could end up.

102
00:08:20,120 --> 00:08:25,000
 So as a disclaimer, I know Vicki fairly well, she's my representative, she's actually a

103
00:08:25,000 --> 00:08:32,440
 neighbor, and I'd like very much to approach this from the standpoint, from the appearance

104
00:08:32,440 --> 00:08:33,440
 of impropriety.

105
00:08:33,440 --> 00:08:39,000
 And I know the appearance of impropriety is not a specific part of our code as it's written,

106
00:08:39,000 --> 00:08:43,560
 but it's a significant feature of most every other ethics code in Texas.

107
00:08:43,560 --> 00:08:49,480
 And so you avoid unnecessary risk when you can.

108
00:08:49,480 --> 00:08:56,360
 And I think this is an opportunity to save Vicki some possible trouble.

109
00:08:56,360 --> 00:09:06,040
 And again, even her filing this request even suggests to me that she's a little bit aware

110
00:09:06,040 --> 00:09:12,200
 of the position that she's putting herself in trying to represent Rotary.

111
00:09:12,200 --> 00:09:22,120
 So I don't know if we're at the point to actually state our position, but I'm very concerned

112
00:09:22,120 --> 00:09:27,360
 that Vicki, should she choose to moderate that.

113
00:09:27,360 --> 00:09:32,880
 And there's all opportunities for her to supply information to the questioner.

114
00:09:32,880 --> 00:09:37,400
 She could be in the background, she could do almost anything that she would need to

115
00:09:37,400 --> 00:09:42,520
 do to support either one or both of these candidates.

116
00:09:42,520 --> 00:09:47,160
 So, but as the actual moderator, to me, that becomes the issue.

117
00:09:47,160 --> 00:09:48,160
 Yeah.

118
00:09:48,160 --> 00:09:49,160
 Okay.

119
00:09:49,160 --> 00:09:58,720
 I guess for the specific request, I think it sounds like we're kind of all on the same

120
00:09:58,720 --> 00:10:06,920
 page, that what she has been asked to do in itself is not a violation or just moderating

121
00:10:06,920 --> 00:10:14,480
 the forum is not a violation of our ethics ordinance, because she is not being paid.

122
00:10:14,480 --> 00:10:22,280
 And as long as all candidates that are, the invitation has been extended to all the candidates

123
00:10:22,280 --> 00:10:28,560
 in those races, to me, that would not be granting special privilege or benefit to any individuals

124
00:10:28,560 --> 00:10:35,040
 there as long as all the candidates were allowed to participate.

125
00:10:35,040 --> 00:10:42,320
 Going through all of that stuff, it seems like there is a potential for, in carrying

126
00:10:42,320 --> 00:10:50,880
 out that duty as a moderator, it is possible that if there is any sort of endorsement there

127
00:10:50,880 --> 00:11:02,240
 that is given at that forum, then that would potentially be a violation of the ethics ordinance.

128
00:11:02,240 --> 00:11:09,120
 At least, as it's written in, not specifically in our code, for some of the example codes

129
00:11:09,120 --> 00:11:11,120
 that we use, it would be a violation.

130
00:11:11,120 --> 00:11:18,480
 When I've attended some of these kind of things, it seems like there's questions that have

131
00:11:18,480 --> 00:11:23,240
 already been thought of, and each candidate has asked the same question and given the

132
00:11:23,240 --> 00:11:24,960
 opportunity to answer the questions.

133
00:11:24,960 --> 00:11:31,440
 So usually, the moderator doesn't really get into anything political with that.

134
00:11:31,440 --> 00:11:38,080
 So it seems like it could be pretty safe, but that's for her to decide, and if it does

135
00:11:38,080 --> 00:11:43,160
 go south, like you were suggesting it could possibly, then that would be another thing.

136
00:11:43,160 --> 00:11:44,160
 But we don't know the future.

137
00:11:44,160 --> 00:11:46,160
 We have a crystal ball to see what's going to happen.

138
00:11:46,160 --> 00:11:49,600
 So it's kind of up to her if she wants to take that risk or not.

139
00:11:49,600 --> 00:11:55,240
 I would say the only thing that, just on what we know today, the only thing that would make

140
00:11:55,240 --> 00:12:02,080
 it a clear violation of our ordinance, to me, would be if, at this forum, the candidates

141
00:12:02,080 --> 00:12:08,440
 that are running are not all allowed or were not all invited to participate.

142
00:12:08,440 --> 00:12:14,200
 That would be the only thing that would be black and white to me based on this, because

143
00:12:14,200 --> 00:12:19,720
 from her request for this advisory opinion, she stated that she would ask to do that as

144
00:12:19,720 --> 00:12:22,000
 a member of city government.

145
00:12:22,000 --> 00:12:29,160
 So we would include that in our advisory, that as long as all candidates are invited,

146
00:12:29,160 --> 00:12:31,480
 we see no conflict.

147
00:12:31,480 --> 00:12:36,520
 That would not be a conflict or a violation of our ethics ordinance.

148
00:12:36,520 --> 00:12:43,600
 I think that how that is carried out, how she carried out the duty as moderator, there

149
00:12:43,600 --> 00:12:51,760
 is a potential for something else or one of these things to be violated.

150
00:12:51,760 --> 00:12:56,840
 So I don't want to make that choice for her or say that you shouldn't do this because

151
00:12:56,840 --> 00:13:03,840
 just doing it is not a violation as long as everyone that is running is invited to speak.

152
00:13:03,840 --> 00:13:05,080
 I agree with that.

153
00:13:05,080 --> 00:13:12,000
 If it's helpful, we're posted basically to give her two things, would it be a violation

154
00:13:12,000 --> 00:13:17,880
 of the ordinance, but also should you have a recommendation on if you should do it or

155
00:13:17,880 --> 00:13:18,880
 not.

156
00:13:18,880 --> 00:13:23,800
 You have to at least tell her if it's a violation of the ordinance, and then if you would like

157
00:13:23,800 --> 00:13:28,040
 to say, but we recommend you don't do this or we recommend you do, but you have to do

158
00:13:28,040 --> 00:13:31,040
 it this way, you can do that as part of the advisory opinion.

159
00:13:31,040 --> 00:13:32,040
 Okay.

160
00:13:32,040 --> 00:13:33,040
 Yeah.

161
00:13:33,040 --> 00:13:34,040
 All right.

162
00:13:34,040 --> 00:13:35,040
 Can I ask a question?

163
00:13:35,040 --> 00:13:36,040
 Sure.

164
00:13:36,040 --> 00:13:39,040
 When I read the materials, I didn't think that they were inviting her to be moderator

165
00:13:39,040 --> 00:13:40,040
 in her official capacity.

166
00:13:40,040 --> 00:13:41,040
 Am I wrong?

167
00:13:41,040 --> 00:13:42,040
 It's not clear to me necessarily.

168
00:13:42,040 --> 00:13:49,040
 It's not an official capacity.

169
00:13:49,040 --> 00:13:57,600
 Well, it says moderating in virtual.

170
00:13:57,600 --> 00:14:02,560
 That doesn't say as a council person, she is moderating as a member of the group.

171
00:14:02,560 --> 00:14:07,960
 It's in the initial email, the third sentence here says, "Since I'm in city government,

172
00:14:07,960 --> 00:14:12,680
 they asked if I could moderate the event, which really includes any school board candidates."

173
00:14:12,680 --> 00:14:17,440
 So it doesn't say they invited me in just the instance.

174
00:14:17,440 --> 00:14:18,440
 Yeah.

175
00:14:18,440 --> 00:14:19,440
 Yeah.

176
00:14:19,440 --> 00:14:20,440
 Yeah.

177
00:14:20,440 --> 00:14:21,440
 Yeah.

178
00:14:21,440 --> 00:14:28,560
 I don't know the answer to your question, but I read that as ...

179
00:14:28,560 --> 00:14:33,320
 Well, I think if you're going to make any recommendations, if she chooses to do it,

180
00:14:33,320 --> 00:14:38,800
 she would say that she has to make it clear that she's not appearing in her official capacity

181
00:14:38,800 --> 00:14:44,360
 as a council member for the City of Denton, and then you can list some reasons.

182
00:14:44,360 --> 00:14:53,120
 Just to give you some ideas, I looked at some of the ethics opinions on the Texas Ethics

183
00:14:53,120 --> 00:14:59,640
 Commission, and so some of the things don't appear in your official capacity, make it

184
00:14:59,640 --> 00:15:05,760
 clear it's not city-sponsored, all candidates provided the same opportunity to appear and

185
00:15:05,760 --> 00:15:06,760
 speak.

186
00:15:06,760 --> 00:15:13,840
 She can't show deference in her questioning, allow one to speak more than the other, and

187
00:15:13,840 --> 00:15:24,200
 then what you brought up are certain candidates excluded, and then however she moderates,

188
00:15:24,200 --> 00:15:29,000
 it could be perceived as an endorsement, and she could draw a complaint that way.

189
00:15:29,000 --> 00:15:30,000
 Yeah.

190
00:15:30,000 --> 00:15:37,000
 So those would be the ... In your recommendations, you could either make whatever recommendation

191
00:15:37,000 --> 00:15:44,080
 you want, or you could list some of these concerns or factors for her to consider.

192
00:15:44,080 --> 00:15:45,080
 Okay.

193
00:15:45,080 --> 00:15:47,960
 That makes sense.

194
00:15:47,960 --> 00:15:53,920
 So I don't know if we're ... It sounds like we're, I think, all on the same page.

195
00:15:53,920 --> 00:16:00,600
 The participation is not a violation of her ethics ordinance, and if we can make some

196
00:16:00,600 --> 00:16:07,240
 recommendations to her, outlining those things that if she is not in her official capacity

197
00:16:07,240 --> 00:16:12,120
 as a representative of the city council, and that all ...

198
00:16:12,120 --> 00:16:13,120
 She needs to make it clear.

199
00:16:13,120 --> 00:16:21,080
 She needs to make that clear at the forum, then that's acceptable, but there is potential

200
00:16:21,080 --> 00:16:26,080
 for a violation, depending on how that is carried out, in any ...

201
00:16:26,080 --> 00:16:31,200
 Yeah, we wouldn't necessarily recommend that she do it because of the perception that she

202
00:16:31,200 --> 00:16:34,200
 might be favoring one candidate over another.

203
00:16:34,200 --> 00:16:35,200
 Yeah.

204
00:16:35,200 --> 00:16:38,200
 And I don't think we can answer that today.

205
00:16:38,200 --> 00:16:45,640
 So you can't say that ... I don't think we could possibly answer that today.

206
00:16:45,640 --> 00:16:46,640
 We don't know.

207
00:16:46,640 --> 00:16:50,760
 Whether or not she would violate that ordinance by doing that.

208
00:16:50,760 --> 00:16:57,880
 Her moderating the panel is not a violation of the ordinance, but in carrying out that

209
00:16:57,880 --> 00:17:00,880
 duty, she could potentially violate our ethics ordinance.

210
00:17:00,880 --> 00:17:01,880
 Yeah.

211
00:17:01,880 --> 00:17:02,880
 That's like I said.

212
00:17:02,880 --> 00:17:08,440
 As our code is currently written, minus that appearance of impropriety, I agree, but I

213
00:17:08,440 --> 00:17:12,760
 just believe on Vicki's behalf, this is an unnecessary risk.

214
00:17:12,760 --> 00:17:13,760
 Right.

215
00:17:13,760 --> 00:17:14,760
 That's okay.

216
00:17:14,760 --> 00:17:17,760
 That's what we're trying to say.

217
00:17:17,760 --> 00:17:24,760
 Yeah, I'll just add, as long as all candidates that are running are, were invited to the

218
00:17:24,760 --> 00:17:25,760
 forum.

219
00:17:25,760 --> 00:17:30,760
 If they're not, then that would be a violation.

220
00:17:30,760 --> 00:17:37,760
 Can we add on that she ... Yeah, in your recommendation that she should

221
00:17:37,760 --> 00:17:40,760
 make it clear she's not representing the city.

222
00:17:40,760 --> 00:17:41,760
 Yeah.

223
00:17:41,760 --> 00:17:47,760
 As a city council member, all candidates should be invited.

224
00:17:47,760 --> 00:17:48,760
 Yeah.

225
00:17:48,760 --> 00:17:49,760
 Say that.

226
00:17:49,760 --> 00:17:50,760
 Okay.

227
00:17:50,760 --> 00:17:51,760
 What she said.

228
00:17:51,760 --> 00:17:56,760
 And then all candidates be allowed an equal opportunity to speak.

229
00:17:56,760 --> 00:18:00,760
 Oh, that's good to know.

230
00:18:00,760 --> 00:18:15,760
 And then if, you know, it could be perceived that she's endorsing one or another in the

231
00:18:15,760 --> 00:18:18,760
 manner in which she questions.

232
00:18:18,760 --> 00:18:19,760
 Yes.

233
00:18:19,760 --> 00:18:20,760
 Do you want to throw that in?

234
00:18:20,760 --> 00:18:21,760
 It could be perceived.

235
00:18:21,760 --> 00:18:22,760
 It could be perceived.

236
00:18:22,760 --> 00:18:30,760
 And they possibly, and then may possibly violate the evidence.

237
00:18:30,760 --> 00:18:31,760
 Yeah.

238
00:18:31,760 --> 00:18:39,760
 There's plenty of other people in the organization that probably moderate it, so she doesn't

239
00:18:39,760 --> 00:18:42,760
 really need to take that risk.

240
00:18:42,760 --> 00:18:49,760
 It could be perceived in how she questions the candidates, because that's kind of what

241
00:18:49,760 --> 00:18:54,760
 they said in these ethics opinions, giving somebody more time than another.

242
00:18:54,760 --> 00:18:55,760
 Right.

243
00:18:55,760 --> 00:18:56,760
 In your facial expressions.

244
00:18:56,760 --> 00:18:57,760
 Right.

245
00:18:57,760 --> 00:18:58,760
 And body language.

246
00:18:58,760 --> 00:18:59,760
 I like you.

247
00:18:59,760 --> 00:19:00,760
 I hate you.

248
00:19:00,760 --> 00:19:01,760
 Okay.

249
00:19:01,760 --> 00:19:02,760
 Do we need to have a vote?

250
00:19:02,760 --> 00:19:17,760
 I believe we need to have a vote on if it's a violation of the ordinance, and then if

251
00:19:17,760 --> 00:19:25,760
 you would like to, according to what conditions that you've discussed, and then if you would

252
00:19:25,760 --> 00:19:31,760
 like to add a recommendation about some of the perceived potential and things that could

253
00:19:31,760 --> 00:19:32,760
 occur if she did it.

254
00:19:32,760 --> 00:19:33,760
 Okay.

255
00:19:33,760 --> 00:19:34,760
 I would think we need two separate motions.

256
00:19:34,760 --> 00:19:35,760
 Two votes.

257
00:19:35,760 --> 00:19:36,760
 Yeah.

258
00:19:36,760 --> 00:19:43,760
 Is there a motion for whether or not this is a violation of our evidence ordinance?

259
00:19:43,760 --> 00:19:48,760
 I believe that it is not a violation of the ordinance.

260
00:19:48,760 --> 00:19:51,760
 Any second.

261
00:19:51,760 --> 00:20:03,760
 I will second that with the only caveat that, again, I'm very concerned about how this could

262
00:20:03,760 --> 00:20:08,760
 even turn and become one of Vicki's problems.

263
00:20:08,760 --> 00:20:09,760
 Sure.

264
00:20:09,760 --> 00:20:14,760
 I think for today, though, we can make that decision for her.

265
00:20:14,760 --> 00:20:17,760
 We can tell her whether or not this is a violation.

266
00:20:17,760 --> 00:20:25,760
 Moderating is a violation of the ethics ordinance or not, and my opinion is that it is not as

267
00:20:25,760 --> 00:20:27,760
 long as all candidates were invited to speak.

268
00:20:27,760 --> 00:20:28,760
 Yeah.

269
00:20:28,760 --> 00:20:31,760
 And then we can make a separate motion.

270
00:20:31,760 --> 00:20:36,760
 We'll say your concerns out of a second vote.

271
00:20:36,760 --> 00:20:44,760
 Having been a city candidate more than once, debates often can turn one way or the other,

272
00:20:44,760 --> 00:20:50,760
 and moderators are often put in the role of having to defend one side or the other.

273
00:20:50,760 --> 00:20:56,760
 And I know Vicki, bless her heart, I just would hate to see Vicki in that position.

274
00:20:56,760 --> 00:21:03,760
 So, yes, the code would allow her to do that, but I'm just going to hold that I just don't

275
00:21:03,760 --> 00:21:05,760
 think this is a good idea.

276
00:21:05,760 --> 00:21:09,760
 So is that a second for the motion?

277
00:21:09,760 --> 00:21:13,760
 So it doesn't violate as long as all candidates are invited to speak.

278
00:21:13,760 --> 00:21:16,760
 That's kind of the motion that I'm hearing.

279
00:21:16,760 --> 00:21:17,760
 Yes.

280
00:21:17,760 --> 00:21:19,760
 And then you can vote on it.

281
00:21:19,760 --> 00:21:24,760
 And then you can make a separate motion for what we include in the advisory opinion or

282
00:21:24,760 --> 00:21:26,760
 recommendations on whether or not.

283
00:21:26,760 --> 00:21:28,760
 And how she conducts the moderation.

284
00:21:28,760 --> 00:21:29,760
 How it is conducted.

285
00:21:29,760 --> 00:21:30,760
 Yeah.

286
00:21:36,760 --> 00:21:45,760
 I'm very uncomfortable with the moderator label in this particular case because I know

287
00:21:45,760 --> 00:21:48,760
 how political debates can occasionally go.

288
00:21:48,760 --> 00:21:49,760
 Sure.

289
00:21:49,760 --> 00:21:54,760
 And I just think that Ms. Byrd could do well in an advisory capacity.

290
00:21:54,760 --> 00:22:01,760
 I have no problem with her involving herself in any debate, but this moderator label bothers

291
00:22:01,760 --> 00:22:02,760
 me greatly.

292
00:22:02,760 --> 00:22:05,760
 Yeah, I mean, I'm not arguing that at all.

293
00:22:05,760 --> 00:22:10,760
 I mean, I think that makes sense to think through those things and for her to make a

294
00:22:10,760 --> 00:22:11,760
 decision on that.

295
00:22:11,760 --> 00:22:13,760
 But I mean, we can only go off of what is on.

296
00:22:13,760 --> 00:22:15,760
 They don't know I'm okay with that.

297
00:22:15,760 --> 00:22:16,760
 Okay.

298
00:22:16,760 --> 00:22:22,760
 So that's a second for the motion to recommend that this is not a violation.

299
00:22:22,760 --> 00:22:25,760
 Her moderating is not a violation of the ethics ordinance.

300
00:22:25,760 --> 00:22:28,760
 As long as all candidates were invited.

301
00:22:28,760 --> 00:22:30,760
 As it's currently written, that's for the tech.

302
00:22:30,760 --> 00:22:33,760
 Okay, so let's have a vote on that all in favor.

303
00:22:33,760 --> 00:22:34,760
 Okay.

304
00:22:34,760 --> 00:22:39,760
 So that's unanimous that it is not a violation.

305
00:22:39,760 --> 00:22:48,760
 Now the other part of the recommendation of whether or not a recusal recommendation.

306
00:22:48,760 --> 00:22:56,760
 Okay, so this is where I think we could make a statement that even though this is not a

307
00:22:56,760 --> 00:23:05,760
 violation of the ethics ordinance, if she chooses to do this, she would, she should

308
00:23:05,760 --> 00:23:10,760
 make clear that she's not moderating in an official capacity for the city.

309
00:23:10,760 --> 00:23:13,760
 Make clear that all candidates were invited.

310
00:23:13,760 --> 00:23:22,760
 Make sure that all candidates are given equal opportunity to speak and that she may not

311
00:23:22,760 --> 00:23:29,760
 have control over any perception of attendees or viewers of the forum, whether or not one

312
00:23:29,760 --> 00:23:34,760
 or more candidates was favored based upon her questioning or her response or assessment

313
00:23:34,760 --> 00:23:36,760
 of the responses.

314
00:23:36,760 --> 00:23:40,760
 I move that we make that recommendation as you just outlined.

315
00:23:40,760 --> 00:23:43,760
 Okay.

316
00:23:43,760 --> 00:23:47,760
 She would or would not still wear that moderator label?

317
00:23:47,760 --> 00:23:50,760
 Would not according to what you?

318
00:23:50,760 --> 00:23:56,760
 Well, I mean, if she chooses to do that, we can make a recommendation to her, this is

319
00:23:56,760 --> 00:24:02,760
 a bad idea, but I don't think that's the, I don't think that's where we're going with

320
00:24:02,760 --> 00:24:03,760
 this.

321
00:24:03,760 --> 00:24:06,760
 She has to make a decision on her own on that.

322
00:24:06,760 --> 00:24:12,760
 She asked us, is this a, is moderating this a violation of ethics ordinance and we just

323
00:24:12,760 --> 00:24:20,760
 know that it's not, I think we're all in agreement that it may not be the best idea and that

324
00:24:20,760 --> 00:24:25,760
 she could potentially violate the ethics ordinance by carrying out the duty of moderating it.

325
00:24:25,760 --> 00:24:28,760
 I'm good with that, that language.

326
00:24:28,760 --> 00:24:31,760
 Okay.

327
00:24:31,760 --> 00:24:33,760
 I'll probably give a motion.

328
00:24:33,760 --> 00:24:40,760
 I move that we make that advisory as listed.

329
00:24:40,760 --> 00:24:49,760
 Okay, so the motion that I'm hearing, it would be helpful, is to advise Council Member Byrd

330
00:24:49,760 --> 00:24:55,760
 that if she does choose to moderate the event, to make clear that she's not there in her

331
00:24:55,760 --> 00:25:00,760
 official capacity, to make sure that all candidates are invited and are allowed to participate

332
00:25:00,760 --> 00:25:12,760
 equally, and that she may not have control over the perception of how she moderates the

333
00:25:12,760 --> 00:25:13,760
 event.

334
00:25:13,760 --> 00:25:21,760
 So yes, I wrote for that last one, could be perceived by the attendees or the viewers

335
00:25:21,760 --> 00:25:28,760
 in how she questions the candidates may violate the ethics ordinance and it would be specifically

336
00:25:28,760 --> 00:25:32,760
 number two, bringing special consideration that she's moderating.

337
00:25:32,760 --> 00:25:36,760
 Yeah, I would say that the attendees, viewers, and participants.

338
00:25:36,760 --> 00:25:47,760
 Did you have it written down?

339
00:25:47,760 --> 00:25:49,760
 Yeah, I have it written down.

340
00:25:49,760 --> 00:25:52,760
 It would be helpful if she could read it back to us.

341
00:25:52,760 --> 00:25:53,760
 Okay.

342
00:25:53,760 --> 00:25:56,760
 Or, because there's a motion, but I don't think it's been seconded yet.

343
00:25:56,760 --> 00:26:05,760
 So the motion that I'm hearing is, if she does choose to moderate, she should make clear

344
00:26:05,760 --> 00:26:11,760
 that she's not representing the city in her official capacity, all candidates should be

345
00:26:11,760 --> 00:26:19,760
 invited, all candidates be given an equal opportunity to speak, and she could be perceived

346
00:26:19,760 --> 00:26:25,760
 by attendees, viewers, and participants in how she questions the candidates, which may

347
00:26:25,760 --> 00:26:32,760
 violate the ethics ordinance, and I put number two, the improper influence E2.

348
00:26:32,760 --> 00:26:34,760
 Yes.

349
00:26:34,760 --> 00:26:36,760
 So that was the motion.

350
00:26:36,760 --> 00:26:37,760
 Okay.

351
00:26:37,760 --> 00:26:39,760
 That's the motion that you made.

352
00:26:39,760 --> 00:26:41,760
 I made that motion.

353
00:26:41,760 --> 00:26:42,760
 Did you want to second?

354
00:26:42,760 --> 00:26:46,760
 Well, you're second, so I'm second.

355
00:26:46,760 --> 00:26:48,760
 I'm third.

356
00:26:48,760 --> 00:26:49,760
 I like that.

357
00:26:49,760 --> 00:26:55,760
 I made the motion, and then you would second it, David.

358
00:26:55,760 --> 00:26:58,760
 Well, I would move then.

359
00:26:58,760 --> 00:27:02,760
 Yeah.

360
00:27:02,760 --> 00:27:03,760
 Patricia made the motion.

361
00:27:03,760 --> 00:27:05,760
 You have to second the motion.

362
00:27:05,760 --> 00:27:06,760
 Okay.

363
00:27:06,760 --> 00:27:09,760
 Patricia made the motion, as I read, into the record.

364
00:27:09,760 --> 00:27:10,760
 Well, I second, yes.

365
00:27:10,760 --> 00:27:11,760
 Okay.

366
00:27:11,760 --> 00:27:12,760
 We have a second.

367
00:27:12,760 --> 00:27:13,760
 Let's see.

368
00:27:13,760 --> 00:27:14,760
 All in favor?

369
00:27:14,760 --> 00:27:15,760
 Aye.

370
00:27:15,760 --> 00:27:16,760
 Aye.

371
00:27:16,760 --> 00:27:23,760
 Okay, so do we -- do I draft that, or how does that work?

372
00:27:23,760 --> 00:27:28,760
 We do it, and I'll send you a copy, and then you can provide us any changes you have, and

373
00:27:28,760 --> 00:27:32,760
 you'll sign it as the presiding officer, and then we will provide it to term.

374
00:27:32,760 --> 00:27:33,760
 Perfect.

375
00:27:33,760 --> 00:27:34,760
 Okay.

376
00:27:34,760 --> 00:27:39,760
 That is the only -- I believe we're done with all items on our agenda tonight.

377
00:27:39,760 --> 00:27:52,200
 It is 557, and we are adjourned.