WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.280
 >> All right.

00:00:02.280 --> 00:00:10.380
 >> All right, it is now 5.30 p.m. on Monday, July 8, 2024.

00:00:10.380 --> 00:00:13.020
 This is the board of ethics meeting

00:00:13.020 --> 00:00:17.460
 and I am calling this meeting to order.

00:00:17.460 --> 00:00:21.460
 So we do not have any presentation

00:00:21.460 --> 00:00:22.760
 for the members of public.

00:00:22.760 --> 00:00:26.460
 We do have someone who will speak before one of the items.

00:00:26.460 --> 00:00:32.340
 So we'll start with item A, BLE24-23,

00:00:32.340 --> 00:00:37.680
 consider approval of minutes from June 3, 2024.

00:00:37.680 --> 00:00:40.240
 Any concerns about the minutes?

00:00:40.240 --> 00:00:41.640
 >> I move.

00:00:41.640 --> 00:00:46.320
 >> So Zeltner, David Zeltner moves to accept them.

00:00:46.320 --> 00:00:47.180
 >> I'll second.

00:00:47.180 --> 00:00:50.120
 >> And Dustin Palak is moving to accept them.

00:00:50.120 --> 00:00:51.560
 All in favor?

00:00:51.560 --> 00:00:52.600
 >> Aye.

00:00:52.600 --> 00:00:54.460
 >> It's unanimous.

00:00:54.460 --> 00:00:59.760
 So I want to move to BLE24-26.

00:00:59.760 --> 00:01:02.400
 I would like to suggest that we postpone this item

00:01:02.400 --> 00:01:05.440
 until the end of the meeting so that we can talk

00:01:05.440 --> 00:01:07.700
 about everything else first.

00:01:07.700 --> 00:01:11.740
 So I guess we would need a motion for that if you guys agree.

00:01:11.740 --> 00:01:18.140
 This is where we would talk about future meeting topics.

00:01:18.140 --> 00:01:19.380
 So who is that?

00:01:19.380 --> 00:01:20.680
 >> You can make that decision as a chair.

00:01:20.680 --> 00:01:21.980
 >> Oh, okay, I mean, I just made that decision.

00:01:21.980 --> 00:01:23.760
 >> Or you can entertain a motion if you prefer.

00:01:23.760 --> 00:01:25.520
 >> I'm addicted or I'm doing it.

00:01:25.520 --> 00:01:28.760
 Okay? So, yeah.

00:01:28.760 --> 00:01:31.000
 >> You want to be seen first then?

00:01:31.000 --> 00:01:32.500
 >> Item C first then?

00:01:32.500 --> 00:01:37.540
 >> Yeah, so now we're down to item C, BLE24-025.

00:01:37.540 --> 00:01:41.440
 And we do have someone, this is the management reports.

00:01:41.440 --> 00:01:44.040
 So would you want to give your management report first

00:01:44.040 --> 00:01:46.880
 and then we can let our speaker speak or?

00:01:46.880 --> 00:01:50.920
 >> Sure. We just, the management report is really just an update

00:01:50.920 --> 00:01:54.220
 on the 2024 packet of proposed amendments.

00:01:54.220 --> 00:01:59.060
 Very briefly, the city council gave direction to move forward

00:01:59.060 --> 00:02:00.720
 with one of the proposed amendments,

00:02:00.720 --> 00:02:05.620
 which was to redefine the definition

00:02:05.620 --> 00:02:08.000
 of relative per the board's direction.

00:02:08.000 --> 00:02:11.500
 The other proposed changes were rejected,

00:02:11.500 --> 00:02:14.740
 which included several items that I will not list right now,

00:02:14.740 --> 00:02:16.600
 but you are all aware of.

00:02:16.600 --> 00:02:21.040
 So you can answer questions about the meeting, but this is time

00:02:21.040 --> 00:02:22.420
 for you all to talk about it as well.

00:02:22.420 --> 00:02:23.820
 >> Yeah. Okay.

00:02:23.820 --> 00:02:27.280
 So I would like to call -- oh.

00:02:27.280 --> 00:02:28.720
 >> One question.

00:02:28.720 --> 00:02:29.780
 I missed part of that.

00:02:29.780 --> 00:02:33.720
 I left one of my pages at home, so I'm sorry.

00:02:33.720 --> 00:02:36.760
 The burden of proof, is that over with or is that?

00:02:36.760 --> 00:02:39.020
 >> The council did not accept that amendment.

00:02:39.020 --> 00:02:41.460
 There's nothing that prohibits the board

00:02:41.460 --> 00:02:42.900
 from bringing a similar amendment

00:02:42.900 --> 00:02:45.900
 to the city council at a different, a later time.

00:02:45.900 --> 00:02:49.180
 But there were four votes, and so for now, it's --

00:02:49.180 --> 00:02:51.140
 >> Well, it was presented to the city council.

00:02:51.140 --> 00:02:53.380
 >> They really didn't even talk about it.

00:02:53.380 --> 00:02:57.540
 They talked about other things instead, so.

00:02:57.540 --> 00:02:59.620
 They kind of talked about it, but --

00:02:59.620 --> 00:03:01.820
 >> I don't believe they actually took a vote.

00:03:01.820 --> 00:03:04.360
 >> Well, they're not allowed to vote during work session.

00:03:04.360 --> 00:03:06.620
 They give direction, so they did not give direction

00:03:06.620 --> 00:03:10.300
 to move forward with that proposed change.

00:03:10.300 --> 00:03:12.460
 >> So four head nods is still on our agenda.

00:03:12.460 --> 00:03:14.440
 At some point then, we can still --

00:03:14.440 --> 00:03:16.740
 >> I believe that one of the council members said,

00:03:16.740 --> 00:03:19.200
 "Bring us back something better,"

00:03:19.200 --> 00:03:22.980
 but I was not clear what he said.

00:03:22.980 --> 00:03:26.820
 What he meant by that, and there's no clarification here.

00:03:26.820 --> 00:03:29.820
 >> There is concern from the council during the discussion

00:03:29.820 --> 00:03:34.480
 on that item about the process being able

00:03:34.480 --> 00:03:39.560
 to be used inappropriately, essentially.

00:03:39.560 --> 00:03:42.600
 >> Which has happened, but I thought we had kind

00:03:42.600 --> 00:03:46.040
 of cleared that up.

00:03:46.040 --> 00:03:47.240
 >> Well, then, just a quick follow-up.

00:03:47.240 --> 00:03:51.940
 Then, now or later, is there a future meeting scheduled

00:03:51.940 --> 00:03:55.140
 with council yet to discuss this, or is that so far

00:03:55.140 --> 00:03:57.580
 into the future that we can't -- do you know?

00:03:57.580 --> 00:04:00.020
 >> We -- tonight, I was hoping that we could talk

00:04:00.020 --> 00:04:03.080
 about what our options are, and what are the best ways

00:04:03.080 --> 00:04:06.320
 of moving forward, so that's --

00:04:06.320 --> 00:04:07.760
 >> So they've not scheduled anything

00:04:07.760 --> 00:04:10.660
 to follow up on what you -- okay.

00:04:10.660 --> 00:04:14.600
 >> The only thing that -- and it's not currently scheduled.

00:04:14.600 --> 00:04:19.740
 They gave direction to accept your amendment

00:04:19.740 --> 00:04:21.780
 to change the definition of relative, so I'm working

00:04:21.780 --> 00:04:24.000
 on drafting that language so that it will go before them

00:04:24.000 --> 00:04:28.580
 for adoption during a future meeting.

00:04:28.580 --> 00:04:31.720
 >> But they did not remove the pending matter

00:04:31.720 --> 00:04:33.280
 from the conflict of interest,

00:04:33.280 --> 00:04:42.920
 and they did not give any direction related about the --

00:04:42.920 --> 00:04:46.460
 instead they got very concerned about campaign donations,

00:04:46.460 --> 00:04:48.640
 which wasn't even on the agenda.

00:04:48.640 --> 00:04:52.800
 >> Yeah. So just time, generally,

00:04:52.800 --> 00:04:55.540
 are we talking later this summer, fall, or later,

00:04:55.540 --> 00:04:58.480
 or is there any -- I mean, I know they're awful busy,

00:04:58.480 --> 00:05:00.580
 and I know you are, too.

00:05:00.580 --> 00:05:03.240
 >> My understanding of the current work session matrix is

00:05:03.240 --> 00:05:05.720
 the earliest we could get on would be the fall, currently,

00:05:05.720 --> 00:05:08.820
 if we wanted to try to have something ready by then.

00:05:08.820 --> 00:05:09.260
 >> Okay.

00:05:09.260 --> 00:05:11.320
 >> For another discussion.

00:05:11.320 --> 00:05:18.160
 >> Any other questions before we --

00:05:18.160 --> 00:05:22.100
 so we have a speaker here, and it is our mentor,

00:05:22.100 --> 00:05:24.900
 and I believe she has four minutes.

00:05:24.900 --> 00:05:26.040
 >> It's three.

00:05:26.040 --> 00:05:26.800
 >> She has three.

00:05:26.800 --> 00:05:31.640
 Okay. And she's a former council person.

00:05:31.640 --> 00:05:34.980
 It was on the council when this code was passed,

00:05:34.980 --> 00:05:39.340
 so I'm interested in hearing what she has to say.

00:05:39.340 --> 00:05:46.360
 >> Hi. My name is Debra Armentar,

00:05:46.360 --> 00:05:50.060
 and my address is 2003, Mr. Blaine.

00:05:50.060 --> 00:05:56.500
 I wanted to thank this board

00:05:56.500 --> 00:06:03.740
 for the very reasonable recommendations that you made

00:06:03.740 --> 00:06:06.740
 to the city council on conflict of interest

00:06:06.740 --> 00:06:10.740
 and burden of proof.

00:06:10.740 --> 00:06:16.280
 As Vanetta mentioned, I'm a former city council member,

00:06:16.280 --> 00:06:20.760
 so I've been on that side of dais,

00:06:20.760 --> 00:06:25.660
 and I don't pretend to be perfect,

00:06:25.660 --> 00:06:29.640
 but even from that side of the dais, my rule was

00:06:29.640 --> 00:06:33.100
 to always regard questions of ethics ordinance,

00:06:33.100 --> 00:06:35.580
 not from my point of view, but from the point

00:06:35.580 --> 00:06:38.180
 of view of the public who I serve.

00:06:38.180 --> 00:06:46.040
 In fact, that is the whole -- or should be the guiding rationale

00:06:46.040 --> 00:06:49.480
 behind every decision regarding an ethics ordinance.

00:06:49.480 --> 00:06:54.360
 So it is -- it was very sad and frustrating for me to see

00:06:54.360 --> 00:06:59.760
 after all of your good work and your just very sensible

00:06:59.760 --> 00:07:10.780
 and standard recommendations to see the obliquely expressed

00:07:10.780 --> 00:07:14.840
 objections expressed in the form of, you know,

00:07:14.840 --> 00:07:18.520
 this could be difficult for council members

00:07:18.520 --> 00:07:19.620
 or for city officials.

00:07:19.620 --> 00:07:22.720
 This could be uncomfortable for city officials.

00:07:22.720 --> 00:07:29.200
 So that was really disappointing to me.

00:07:29.200 --> 00:07:32.320
 I don't know how helpful it is for you to hear that.

00:07:32.320 --> 00:07:35.900
 I might just be preaching to the converted, but I do want you

00:07:35.900 --> 00:07:41.540
 to know that your work is really appreciated by me,

00:07:41.540 --> 00:07:45.900
 and there are people watching, even though I know

00:07:45.900 --> 00:07:48.840
 that it probably feels like nobody's watching

00:07:48.840 --> 00:07:52.520
 and nobody appreciates -- it's very unglamorous work,

00:07:52.520 --> 00:07:55.120
 but it's extremely important work.

00:07:55.120 --> 00:07:57.760
 See how much more time do I have?

00:07:57.760 --> 00:07:58.920
 >> About 52 seconds.

00:07:58.920 --> 00:08:02.120
 >> Okay. In my last 52 seconds, I'll say, you know,

00:08:02.120 --> 00:08:05.160
 it's no secret that when I was on council, you know,

00:08:05.160 --> 00:08:09.560
 I believed and advocated for a repeal and replace

00:08:09.560 --> 00:08:11.240
 of the entire ethics ordinance.

00:08:11.240 --> 00:08:16.280
 To me, that was the easiest way to fix its many problems.

00:08:16.280 --> 00:08:19.480
 At that time, a council majority,

00:08:19.480 --> 00:08:21.380
 and I'm guessing still a council majority,

00:08:21.380 --> 00:08:23.520
 might be opposed to that.

00:08:23.520 --> 00:08:30.080
 I still think that that's the correct solution, but in lieu

00:08:30.080 --> 00:08:34.420
 of that, the next best thing to do is to try

00:08:34.420 --> 00:08:36.660
 to revise the ordinance to make it more

00:08:36.660 --> 00:08:40.240
 like a standard ethics ordinance.

00:08:40.240 --> 00:08:45.340
 We have, as the consultants once said about our ordinance,

00:08:45.340 --> 00:08:48.900
 a very unique ethics ordinance.

00:08:48.900 --> 00:08:52.820
 You may have even said the most unique you've ever seen.

00:08:52.820 --> 00:08:54.320
 Sometimes unique is good.

00:08:54.320 --> 00:08:56.380
 Yeah, in this case, it is not good.

00:08:56.380 --> 00:09:01.720
 We do not want to have a unique ethics ordinance.

00:09:01.720 --> 00:09:06.020
 We need to make it more like other ethics ordinances,

00:09:06.020 --> 00:09:08.520
 and that's what your recommendations did.

00:09:08.520 --> 00:09:13.800
 I hope that you continue pushing forward in the spirit

00:09:13.800 --> 00:09:18.200
 of these revisions, and I look forward to hearing,

00:09:18.200 --> 00:09:22.100
 and I'm sure other members of the public, too,

00:09:22.100 --> 00:09:27.880
 would like to hear from you what we can do to help y'all.

00:09:27.880 --> 00:09:30.420
 I wrote to council before the meeting,

00:09:30.420 --> 00:09:33.920
 asked them to take your recommendations,

00:09:33.920 --> 00:09:38.920
 and I got to thank you for your comments, and that was that.

00:09:38.920 --> 00:09:42.020
 So thank you so much.

00:09:42.020 --> 00:09:43.360
 >> Thank you.

00:09:48.460 --> 00:09:53.400
 >> Dr. Armentor, I have a blind question.

00:09:53.400 --> 00:09:55.580
 >> Sure, sure.

00:09:55.580 --> 00:10:01.080
 >> From your experience and what you know about city officials

00:10:01.080 --> 00:10:04.480
 and city government, what do you think is the best way forward

00:10:04.480 --> 00:10:09.880
 for us, because that's what I want to think about tonight?

00:10:09.880 --> 00:10:11.760
 >> That's a really good question.

00:10:11.760 --> 00:10:16.600
 I was asking you all that question.

00:10:16.600 --> 00:10:18.400
 I want to know, too.

00:10:18.400 --> 00:10:20.700
 I wish I knew.

00:10:20.700 --> 00:10:28.700
 I just have to be honest and say, you know, I don't know.

00:10:28.700 --> 00:10:32.540
 I think it depends on the council and the council members,

00:10:32.540 --> 00:10:44.220
 but I do know that presenting rational arguments

00:10:44.220 --> 00:10:47.260
 and explaining why they're correct

00:10:47.260 --> 00:10:51.160
 and why objections are wrong doesn't always work.

00:10:51.160 --> 00:10:52.960
 That's what should work, right?

00:10:52.960 --> 00:10:54.660
 Next time we'll come back and we'll explain this

00:10:54.660 --> 00:10:57.700
 and we'll explain that.

00:10:57.700 --> 00:11:00.540
 So I would be lying if I said, oh, well, just, you know,

00:11:00.540 --> 00:11:04.240
 make some more arguments, and that will definitely get them

00:11:04.240 --> 00:11:10.140
 to see what is good for Denton, not just the public,

00:11:10.140 --> 00:11:13.120
 but good for our government to avoid the appearance

00:11:13.120 --> 00:11:16.520
 of conflict of interest, which, again, is what it's all about,

00:11:16.520 --> 00:11:18.360
 as you all know, about avoiding the appearance

00:11:18.360 --> 00:11:19.320
 of conflict of interest.

00:11:19.320 --> 00:11:27.460
 It's not about pointing fingers and being suspicious

00:11:27.460 --> 00:11:32.100
 of everybody, it's about trust, the public trust.

00:11:32.100 --> 00:11:35.940
 So anyway, I'm really sorry I have a lousy answer

00:11:35.940 --> 00:11:37.180
 to that question.

00:11:37.180 --> 00:11:40.780
 I am wondering the same thing myself.

00:11:40.780 --> 00:11:42.020
 >> Do you have a question?

00:11:42.020 --> 00:11:43.740
 >> I don't have a question for Dr. Armitage.

00:11:43.740 --> 00:11:49.560
 I have a question for us, more for you than for anybody else.

00:11:49.560 --> 00:11:51.880
 >> Well, let me say, I'm assuming

00:11:51.880 --> 00:11:56.520
 that everybody has had a chance to look at the video.

00:11:56.520 --> 00:11:59.420
 Did you get to look at it?

00:11:59.420 --> 00:12:00.560
 >> I did not look at it, no.

00:12:00.560 --> 00:12:01.600
 >> Okay.

00:12:01.600 --> 00:12:03.160
 >> Which one, council?

00:12:03.160 --> 00:12:05.940
 >> The day we went to council and what they had to say.

00:12:05.940 --> 00:12:06.740
 >> The council video.

00:12:06.740 --> 00:12:07.040
 >> Right.

00:12:07.040 --> 00:12:07.740
 >> Yeah, okay.

00:12:07.740 --> 00:12:09.380
 >> So you did and you didn't.

00:12:09.380 --> 00:12:10.840
 What fill you in, Andrea?

00:12:10.840 --> 00:12:15.440
 >> My question is beyond that part.

00:12:15.440 --> 00:12:17.520
 Is there room for discussion at this point?

00:12:17.520 --> 00:12:18.380
 >> There will be.

00:12:18.380 --> 00:12:21.180
 What I wanted to do is kind of go around Robin

00:12:21.180 --> 00:12:23.080
 and just start with each person.

00:12:23.080 --> 00:12:26.520
 I wanted to ask Dustin first because he was actually

00:12:26.520 --> 00:12:29.560
 in the room and then we'll start with David

00:12:29.560 --> 00:12:31.560
 and we'll end up with you.

00:12:31.560 --> 00:12:35.000
 So each one of you will be able to tell us what you're thinking

00:12:35.000 --> 00:12:37.340
 about and what you think the options are.

00:12:37.340 --> 00:12:39.500
 So, Dustin.

00:12:39.500 --> 00:12:40.980
 >> I can start.

00:12:40.980 --> 00:12:45.840
 So I attended the work session and then a few days later,

00:12:45.840 --> 00:12:50.220
 I went back and watched the video of the work session to try

00:12:50.220 --> 00:12:54.720
 and make sure I understand how the discussion was going.

00:12:54.720 --> 00:12:57.320
 I'll start in general.

00:12:57.320 --> 00:13:00.820
 It sounded like from most of the discussion in the room

00:13:00.820 --> 00:13:07.800
 that there was concern about how this would affect their ability

00:13:07.800 --> 00:13:10.460
 to conduct business as council members.

00:13:10.460 --> 00:13:14.340
 Most of the criticisms of the language we used started

00:13:14.340 --> 00:13:19.080
 with a hypothetical of what if this happened

00:13:19.080 --> 00:13:22.480
 for someone coming into my business

00:13:22.480 --> 00:13:26.420
 and then they do some small amount of, we do some small amount

00:13:26.420 --> 00:13:29.160
 of work for this person and then they're going

00:13:29.160 --> 00:13:32.260
 to bring something before council later on

00:13:32.260 --> 00:13:34.320
 which would then be a pending matter.

00:13:34.320 --> 00:13:35.720
 So they were kind of focused

00:13:35.720 --> 00:13:38.600
 on the pending matter thing still even though some

00:13:38.600 --> 00:13:43.240
 of our proposed amendments addressed those concerns.

00:13:43.240 --> 00:13:47.500
 But the discussion was they were concerned

00:13:47.500 --> 00:13:50.400
 that this would be weaponized against them

00:13:50.400 --> 00:13:55.720
 so someone would intentionally, the word they used was gag them

00:13:55.720 --> 00:13:59.240
 for a period of two years on the council.

00:13:59.240 --> 00:14:02.720
 That is absolutely not what our intentions were

00:14:02.720 --> 00:14:06.760
 as a board I don't think would definitely wasn't mine.

00:14:06.760 --> 00:14:08.700
 I don't believe it was anybody else's.

00:14:08.700 --> 00:14:10.220
 >> There would be a way to, yeah.

00:14:10.220 --> 00:14:11.960
 >> We would put anything in there to do that.

00:14:11.960 --> 00:14:14.600
 >> That one of the sanctions would be considered.

00:14:14.600 --> 00:14:20.040
 >> We talked multiple times about the weaponization

00:14:20.040 --> 00:14:23.140
 of the ordinance in the past and it was interesting

00:14:23.140 --> 00:14:25.700
 because that was used in a different way

00:14:25.700 --> 00:14:28.780
 for the last ethics complaint that was heard by the board.

00:14:28.780 --> 00:14:32.680
 What they described in their hypothetical was intentionally

00:14:32.680 --> 00:14:40.560
 using this prior business against them to prevent them

00:14:40.560 --> 00:14:45.260
 from considering something before the council.

00:14:45.260 --> 00:14:49.000
 I understand that concept.

00:14:49.000 --> 00:14:54.240
 We had multiple discussions about dollar limits of, you know,

00:14:54.240 --> 00:14:58.380
 value of goods or services exchanged and we all agreed

00:14:58.380 --> 00:15:01.580
 in our multiple meetings that we had

00:15:01.580 --> 00:15:05.340
 that placing a dollar value on that would be very difficult

00:15:05.340 --> 00:15:09.820
 because a threshold value makes it a little bit harder

00:15:09.820 --> 00:15:14.080
 to exercise judgment as a board in reviewing some of these.

00:15:14.080 --> 00:15:22.520
 I found there were some concerns about reputational benefit

00:15:22.520 --> 00:15:25.960
 and the hypothetical in that case was if someone gets an award

00:15:25.960 --> 00:15:30.400
 from a non-profit entity would they have a conflict of interest

00:15:30.400 --> 00:15:33.000
 if they had business before the council?

00:15:33.000 --> 00:15:35.580
 What about having dinner at a restaurant?

00:15:35.580 --> 00:15:39.820
 What if someone that works there now has a matter before council

00:15:39.820 --> 00:15:43.520
 and then that series of hypotheticals ended

00:15:43.520 --> 00:15:46.880
 with the question of are there any attorneys on the board

00:15:46.880 --> 00:15:52.320
 of ethics which I found to be very frustrating.

00:15:52.320 --> 00:15:56.360
 A comment that sounded to me like a criticism

00:15:56.360 --> 00:15:59.460
 of the work that this board has done.

00:15:59.460 --> 00:16:11.080
 That was by council member Jester who I think, hopefully,

00:16:11.080 --> 00:16:14.920
 as a new council member she'll get to go

00:16:14.920 --> 00:16:18.560
 through the ethics training and familiarize herself

00:16:18.560 --> 00:16:21.660
 with our ethics ordinance, how it's written

00:16:21.660 --> 00:16:26.260
 and why we made our proposed amendments to the ordinance.

00:16:26.260 --> 00:16:30.460
 Council member Bird was very hopeful in trying

00:16:30.460 --> 00:16:40.740
 to maybe calm some of the concerns about the defensiveness

00:16:40.740 --> 00:16:44.380
 that I was hearing in the room and relay the story

00:16:44.380 --> 00:16:46.280
 about how she was a member of a non-profit

00:16:46.280 --> 00:16:49.140
 and they wanted to use a city facility.

00:16:49.140 --> 00:16:52.920
 She described coming before the board to get that review.

00:16:52.920 --> 00:16:56.860
 I guess in actuality I don't believe she came before the

00:16:56.860 --> 00:17:01.960
 board, I think she asked for a panel which she did not have

00:17:01.960 --> 00:17:06.960
 to attend, the only effort was send an email to Madison.

00:17:06.960 --> 00:17:09.900
 We convened a panel, we reviewed that and offered it.

00:17:09.900 --> 00:17:13.940
 So I think that was something that was very unclear

00:17:13.940 --> 00:17:15.400
 to some of the members of the council

00:17:15.400 --> 00:17:17.480
 that were very critical of our amendments

00:17:17.480 --> 00:17:22.840
 that this is not meant to be a burden for them.

00:17:22.840 --> 00:17:29.920
 The ethics ordinance is meant, as our speaker perfectly said,

00:17:29.920 --> 00:17:34.620
 this is to allow for some transparency

00:17:34.620 --> 00:17:36.060
 in our local government.

00:17:36.060 --> 00:17:39.900
 It's not meant to be a burden on them and I think the volunteers

00:17:39.900 --> 00:17:44.840
 on this board have tried to make that possible by clearing

00:17:44.840 --> 00:17:47.200
 up some of the things that are very confusing on this

00:17:47.200 --> 00:17:50.200
 so that it is easier for our officials who are subjected

00:17:50.200 --> 00:17:54.080
 to the ethics ordinance but also for the citizens

00:17:54.080 --> 00:17:57.640
 who would potentially file a complaint.

00:17:57.640 --> 00:17:59.740
 We've taken out or attempted

00:17:59.740 --> 00:18:02.460
 to remove the burden of proof section.

00:18:02.460 --> 00:18:06.260
 That was also rejected which I think after all

00:18:06.260 --> 00:18:08.820
 of our discussions and things that we talked about,

00:18:08.820 --> 00:18:12.000
 we all kind of agree that is,

00:18:12.000 --> 00:18:15.200
 that burden of proof is actually a burden on the citizens

00:18:15.200 --> 00:18:21.600
 who would like to -- yeah, it makes people not want

00:18:21.600 --> 00:18:26.680
 to submit an ethics complaint.

00:18:26.680 --> 00:18:30.520
 Council member Holland supported council member's gesture.

00:18:30.520 --> 00:18:33.480
 Council member Jester's comment on the concern

00:18:33.480 --> 00:18:36.180
 for gagging a council member for two years

00:18:36.180 --> 00:18:39.520
 and without offering any additional discussion

00:18:39.520 --> 00:18:45.700
 or recommendation said I am rejecting the amendment and I

00:18:45.700 --> 00:18:48.140
 believe that was all that he provided.

00:18:48.140 --> 00:18:55.700
 Council member Beck, he gave the direction

00:18:55.700 --> 00:18:58.880
 to do a wholesale replacement of the conflict of interest section

00:18:58.880 --> 00:19:02.320
 which is essentially what we tried to do by using language

00:19:02.320 --> 00:19:04.680
 out of the model code.

00:19:04.680 --> 00:19:11.020
 Probably council member -- I live in council member Beck's district.

00:19:11.020 --> 00:19:14.460
 Probably one of the most frustrating things that was said

00:19:14.460 --> 00:19:18.260
 in the meeting was that when he said they were overly tied

00:19:18.260 --> 00:19:21.740
 to wordsmithing rather than crafting.

00:19:21.740 --> 00:19:24.240
 >> Which is what we had to use up last time.

00:19:24.240 --> 00:19:30.340
 >> That was his quote, I don't think we did anything

00:19:30.340 --> 00:19:34.140
 in putting together the proposed amendments

00:19:34.140 --> 00:19:37.420
 that I would consider wordsmithing rather than crafting.

00:19:37.420 --> 00:19:39.580
 I think we tried to just clean up a lot of stuff

00:19:39.580 --> 00:19:45.360
 that didn't make sense, make this easier to apply

00:19:45.360 --> 00:19:49.560
 with a focus on transparency for our officials.

00:19:49.560 --> 00:19:54.960
 So I don't really know what to do with that is feedback.

00:19:54.960 --> 00:20:01.800
 If you would like to give us some guidance on how we can redo

00:20:01.800 --> 00:20:06.940
 that conflict of interest section without wordsmithing

00:20:06.940 --> 00:20:13.120
 and doing some more crafting, I would be very open to hear that.

00:20:13.120 --> 00:20:15.980
 He did say that we need specificity

00:20:15.980 --> 00:20:18.680
 on what is regular business.

00:20:18.680 --> 00:20:22.960
 I don't think we define that in the --

00:20:22.960 --> 00:20:24.860
 I don't think that's defined in the ordinance.

00:20:24.860 --> 00:20:31.640
 And I don't know that we want to do that.

00:20:31.640 --> 00:20:33.840
 I think we spend a lot of time trying

00:20:33.840 --> 00:20:41.280
 to decide what definition we want to put in for a reason.

00:20:41.280 --> 00:20:45.320
 One of the other questions Council Member McGee asked us

00:20:45.320 --> 00:20:50.780
 or asked Madison, I think, to define substantial.

00:20:50.780 --> 00:20:52.620
 And that was a question I thought we might get

00:20:52.620 --> 00:20:55.500
 because we intentionally did not define it.

00:20:55.500 --> 00:20:58.100
 We did that on purpose for the same reason.

00:20:58.100 --> 00:20:59.600
 We didn't define some of the other things.

00:20:59.600 --> 00:21:06.800
 We did it because we want to be able to use some judgment.

00:21:06.800 --> 00:21:11.500
 We want to be able to apply the ordinance fairly.

00:21:11.500 --> 00:21:14.380
 And I don't think that we want things

00:21:14.380 --> 00:21:18.220
 like what the hypothetical that Council Member Jester brought

00:21:18.220 --> 00:21:21.580
 up about someone doing a very small amount of business

00:21:21.580 --> 00:21:25.180
 with her firm just to gag her for a period of two years.

00:21:25.180 --> 00:21:28.800
 I think that is the entire point of not defining

00:21:28.800 --> 00:21:30.920
 that with a dollar amount.

00:21:30.920 --> 00:21:36.900
 The question was also asked is any goods

00:21:36.900 --> 00:21:41.000
 or service exchange a conflict of interest?

00:21:41.000 --> 00:21:42.700
 The answer to that is no.

00:21:42.700 --> 00:21:43.740
 I think we all know that.

00:21:43.740 --> 00:21:48.040
 I think that the discussion kind of veered off and let's talk more

00:21:48.040 --> 00:21:51.040
 about hypotheticals and not about the value

00:21:51.040 --> 00:21:57.860
 of these amendments that were before the board.

00:21:57.860 --> 00:22:00.960
 Mayor Esbeth did ask about personal benefit

00:22:00.960 --> 00:22:04.060
 and he had some concern on that, ambiguity of that,

00:22:04.060 --> 00:22:07.560
 and did ask about endorsing someone.

00:22:07.560 --> 00:22:11.800
 I believe he was talking about in a local race

00:22:11.800 --> 00:22:15.840
 if he could endorse someone since ratification

00:22:15.840 --> 00:22:19.680
 of election results would eventually be a pending matter.

00:22:19.680 --> 00:22:24.680
 So I think the idea is if he as a sitting council member,

00:22:24.680 --> 00:22:27.780
 as mayor, endorsed another candidate and in that,

00:22:27.780 --> 00:22:30.520
 when those election results came before council,

00:22:30.520 --> 00:22:32.520
 that becomes a pending matter and he was worried

00:22:32.520 --> 00:22:34.360
 that that would be a conflict of interest.

00:22:34.360 --> 00:22:37.960
 We had already addressed the pending matter issue

00:22:37.960 --> 00:22:40.200
 in the amendments we provided.

00:22:40.200 --> 00:22:42.040
 That was normally discussed.

00:22:42.040 --> 00:22:49.300
 But I understand that, but again, we have to,

00:22:49.300 --> 00:22:55.020
 we're trying to write a general ethics code for the city

00:22:55.020 --> 00:22:59.620
 and it's extremely difficult to address every one

00:22:59.620 --> 00:23:04.320
 of these hypotheticals and I felt like what was different

00:23:04.320 --> 00:23:08.760
 about these amendments that we sent to council for approval

00:23:08.760 --> 00:23:12.560
 compared to what we sent before is that we took out a lot

00:23:12.560 --> 00:23:21.200
 of things that made it so that we could exercise some

00:23:21.200 --> 00:23:25.440
 reasonable, fair judgment if there is a complaint

00:23:25.440 --> 00:23:30.580
 and we have put in some things that are intentionally meant

00:23:30.580 --> 00:23:36.360
 to not allow people to weaponize the ethics code for any purpose.

00:23:36.360 --> 00:23:40.320
 The only purpose of this is for transparency

00:23:40.320 --> 00:23:42.600
 and to protect the citizens.

00:23:42.600 --> 00:23:49.360
 I, in general, I will say that I was extremely discouraged

00:23:49.360 --> 00:23:53.380
 by the results of that work session.

00:23:53.380 --> 00:23:57.040
 I was discouraged by the comments that a lot

00:23:57.040 --> 00:24:08.360
 of the council members made and I am hopeful that we can come

00:24:08.360 --> 00:24:13.460
 up with something so that we can clean up some of the issues

00:24:13.460 --> 00:24:19.200
 in our ordinance and that we don't spend hours and hours

00:24:19.200 --> 00:24:22.940
 in this room trying to fix something that's broken only

00:24:22.940 --> 00:24:30.280
 to just have our recommendations almost completely ignored.

00:24:30.280 --> 00:24:33.680
 So those are my general comments.

00:24:33.680 --> 00:24:36.020
 I don't have a great plan.

00:24:36.020 --> 00:24:40.060
 >> Do you have a recommendation about what might be the best way forward?

00:24:40.060 --> 00:24:44.100
 >> So I think the best way forward is if we choose

00:24:44.100 --> 00:24:52.100
 to resubmit amendments on these same parts of the ordinance,

00:24:52.100 --> 00:24:56.540
 if we can, prior to that discussion in our meeting,

00:24:56.540 --> 00:25:01.680
 take their specific comments, there were some very,

00:25:01.680 --> 00:25:04.920
 there were very few specific comments that they made

00:25:04.920 --> 00:25:07.560
 that I think we can actually apply.

00:25:07.560 --> 00:25:13.060
 And some of the criticism, maybe we can, well,

00:25:13.060 --> 00:25:15.560
 I don't think we want to put it in the code things

00:25:15.560 --> 00:25:20.660
 like defining substantial and personal benefit in a different way.

00:25:20.660 --> 00:25:24.500
 I think that when we present it to them, we can tell them,

00:25:24.500 --> 00:25:28.880
 this is not defined purposefully because of this reason.

00:25:28.880 --> 00:25:34.140
 We have taken this language, not this wordsmith language

00:25:34.140 --> 00:25:38.480
 that we came up with in the meeting, we pulled this from the model code

00:25:38.480 --> 00:25:42.760
 and we can present it to them that way so that it is more clear to them

00:25:42.760 --> 00:25:47.100
 that we are not just making things up here.

00:25:47.100 --> 00:25:51.460
 We're trying to change, excuse me, change our ordinance

00:25:51.460 --> 00:25:59.200
 so that it is functional and so that we are not a very unique code.

00:25:59.200 --> 00:26:02.180
 We have something that we can actually do something with.

00:26:02.180 --> 00:26:11.380
 I've been on this board for like three years and in that time,

00:26:11.380 --> 00:26:17.520
 we've had one complaint that actually came before the board,

00:26:17.520 --> 00:26:22.300
 not a panel, but the actual board.

00:26:22.300 --> 00:26:27.800
 And that one complaint was found to be frivolous.

00:26:27.800 --> 00:26:34.900
 And either that means our council members, our city staff,

00:26:34.900 --> 00:26:42.520
 everyone who is subjected to the rules of this ordinance are doing a really good job

00:26:42.520 --> 00:26:46.020
 or no one wants to deal with this.

00:26:46.020 --> 00:26:55.420
 And I would hope it's the former, but I'm a little concerned it's more of the latter

00:26:55.420 --> 00:27:00.960
 and that this, I mean, you look at what we have right now

00:27:00.960 --> 00:27:09.000
 and it's very difficult to look at that and actually, as a citizen,

00:27:09.000 --> 00:27:11.540
 figure out how do you apply them.

00:27:11.540 --> 00:27:23.880
 And I really thought that what we had proposed was pushing it in the right direction,

00:27:23.880 --> 00:27:31.060
 but unfortunately the council members, most of them did not agree with that.

00:27:31.060 --> 00:27:35.860
 I would like to, sorry that was a very long one.

00:27:35.860 --> 00:27:40.660
 I think what we can do is if we can take those comments

00:27:40.660 --> 00:27:44.940
 and we can just clean up some of the language a little bit

00:27:44.940 --> 00:27:52.980
 and present to them almost something very similar that addresses their criticisms

00:27:52.980 --> 00:27:57.880
 because I don't think starting over or skipping over to some other section of the code

00:27:57.880 --> 00:28:02.780
 that is kind of screwed up that needs work is the right thing to do.

00:28:02.780 --> 00:28:09.520
 If we can't fix the conflict of interest section of an ethics code and get a council

00:28:09.520 --> 00:28:15.960
 to agree on that, then I don't know what we're doing in these meetings.

00:28:15.960 --> 00:28:23.440
 So, sorry for the long... -Thank you, Dustin. I appreciate your comments.

00:28:23.440 --> 00:28:26.040
 We'll move on to David Zoller.

00:28:26.040 --> 00:28:31.480
 -Well, Dustin, you've done a very excellent job of covering just about everything.

00:28:31.480 --> 00:28:34.580
 I was not here in the room, but I was watching on TV

00:28:34.580 --> 00:28:42.020
 and I watched the whole thing again this morning just to try and remember some of these things.

00:28:42.020 --> 00:28:49.300
 I think that one of the things that I've probably missed the first time,

00:28:49.300 --> 00:28:57.640
 the council of all of these have the greatest difficulty with the complex of interest A1D,

00:28:57.640 --> 00:29:02.440
 which is this is where all the lawyers and the clients come into play.

00:29:02.440 --> 00:29:04.320
 And I understand that completely.

00:29:04.320 --> 00:29:08.080
 And this, to be real honest, I hadn't thought a whole lot about that

00:29:08.080 --> 00:29:14.260
 because this model code, from my standpoint and from my years looking at this,

00:29:14.260 --> 00:29:18.960
 was pretty inclusive and it shouldn't raise a lot of eyebrows.

00:29:18.960 --> 00:29:23.400
 But obviously, with all due respect to the lawyers in the room,

00:29:23.400 --> 00:29:30.500
 obviously that raised some eyebrows when this client or substantial customer came in.

00:29:30.500 --> 00:29:36.040
 I don't know where we go from here, quite honestly, because my line in the sand,

00:29:36.040 --> 00:29:42.420
 I thought if anything should be easily dispatched, it would be this whole burden of proof

00:29:42.420 --> 00:29:47.560
 that took a code and weaponized it against citizens who might dare,

00:29:47.560 --> 00:29:52.100
 dare to file a complaint against something they've heard.

00:29:52.100 --> 00:30:03.740
 And so that to me was kind of my takeaway that if we can't repair or get rid of that burden of proof,

00:30:03.740 --> 00:30:08.900
 I don't know where we go from here and how we repair what's happened up to now.

00:30:08.900 --> 00:30:14.180
 There are model codes all over the United States and the state of Texas,

00:30:14.180 --> 00:30:20.060
 and I don't understand why we're at this point right now that we have to defend stuff

00:30:20.060 --> 00:30:23.320
 that is working everywhere else except debt.

00:30:23.320 --> 00:30:27.920
 And so this is my frustration too, listening to what was said.

00:30:27.920 --> 00:30:32.300
 I don't know where we go from here.

00:30:32.300 --> 00:30:35.460
 Ms. Armentor mentioned, you know, do you amend the current code,

00:30:35.460 --> 00:30:39.140
 or do you just tear this thing in half and start over and just go right back

00:30:39.140 --> 00:30:45.420
 to a universal model code that's working pretty much everywhere else in the state of Texas.

00:30:45.420 --> 00:30:49.980
 So I'm frankly, I don't know where we go from this point, but I do know just

00:30:49.980 --> 00:30:54.060
 from a personal standpoint, again, personal standpoint only,

00:30:54.060 --> 00:30:57.960
 if that burden of proof remains in this code, I'm done.

00:30:57.960 --> 00:31:02.980
 I want nothing to do with this moving forward.

00:31:02.980 --> 00:31:08.540
 If you can do to citizens who only, you know, this was passed, you know,

00:31:08.540 --> 00:31:13.500
 I mean seven years ago now, and the four criteria that were there,

00:31:13.500 --> 00:31:18.980
 and there's no point, you know, Madison had them in our notes for today,

00:31:18.980 --> 00:31:22.180
 without going over all those four criteria that should have been in the code,

00:31:22.180 --> 00:31:26.220
 I don't know where we go from here, you know.

00:31:26.220 --> 00:31:34.020
 So I'm very frustrated with where we're at and what we try to do.

00:31:34.020 --> 00:31:40.900
 We try to do nothing other than what is already working in cities all over the state of Texas.

00:31:40.900 --> 00:31:47.900
 And so there's nothing extreme here or, again, with the exception of this client

00:31:47.900 --> 00:31:53.900
 or substantial customer, this 1D, I understand where, for example,

00:31:53.900 --> 00:31:57.460
 where misgestures was coming from. I do understand that.

00:31:57.460 --> 00:32:02.660
 And that's going to change my perspective on this, on the entire conflict of interest.

00:32:02.660 --> 00:32:08.100
 I think that's still a lot of work that we can do there to make that right.

00:32:08.100 --> 00:32:11.660
 But for me, that burden of proof is a line in the sand.

00:32:11.660 --> 00:32:14.980
 And that's why there have been no complaints in the three years,

00:32:14.980 --> 00:32:17.780
 because the citizens in this town that I've talked to,

00:32:17.780 --> 00:32:21.980
 who know how long this arm and tour myself and other citizens,

00:32:21.980 --> 00:32:26.780
 they just said, "We're done. We want nothing to do. There are complaints."

00:32:26.780 --> 00:32:30.660
 And if nothing else, one thing that frustrates a lot of citizens

00:32:30.660 --> 00:32:33.180
 is that you can handle them differently.

00:32:33.180 --> 00:32:37.420
 If the complaint comes from a citizen, they've got to check all these boxes

00:32:37.420 --> 00:32:39.780
 and turn into an amateur prosecutor.

00:32:39.780 --> 00:32:45.020
 And now somebody on city staff can do it through picking up a telephone

00:32:45.020 --> 00:32:51.540
 and calling the other alternative route there for fraud, waste, and abuse hotline.

00:32:51.540 --> 00:32:57.980
 So the burden of proof to me is the deal breaker.

00:32:57.980 --> 00:33:06.340
 If we can't repair that or get rid of it, I think we're in trouble.

00:33:06.340 --> 00:33:13.260
 - Just to be clear, the fraud, waste, and abuse hotline is open to literally anybody.

00:33:13.260 --> 00:33:16.380
 But there's not a very clear procedure on what I am supposed to do

00:33:16.380 --> 00:33:24.580
 if we receive an ethics complaint through that hotline.

00:33:24.580 --> 00:33:29.300
 - So what's your thought about the best way to move forward?

00:33:29.300 --> 00:33:34.820
 - Well, that's why I was asking earlier, are we just at a time out here?

00:33:34.820 --> 00:33:39.660
 Or can we take this back?

00:33:39.660 --> 00:33:43.140
 I don't know actually how to do this other than one of the things

00:33:43.140 --> 00:33:50.420
 that I've been curious about is if we have someone in the state of Texas,

00:33:50.420 --> 00:33:59.100
 possibly in Denton, and Robert, I can't think of his name, Bob Bland from UNT,

00:33:59.100 --> 00:34:04.340
 now we have some professionals in Denton that might be able to help.

00:34:04.340 --> 00:34:08.180
 And I was asking or wondering, you know...

00:34:08.180 --> 00:34:13.060
 - Dr. Bland heads up the public policy department.

00:34:13.060 --> 00:34:17.020
 I forget what it's called, but basically it's public policy.

00:34:17.020 --> 00:34:24.780
 - Well, the point was that, you know, Alec Barquist stood up there for weeks on end

00:34:24.780 --> 00:34:30.260
 charging the city of Denton, and the end product is an ethics code

00:34:30.260 --> 00:34:33.900
 that embarrasses me and a lot of citizens in this town.

00:34:33.900 --> 00:34:37.980
 Do we have a budget at all?

00:34:37.980 --> 00:34:44.300
 I mean, other than Madison's well-qualified, do we have the ability to go out

00:34:44.300 --> 00:34:49.820
 and find someone that can speak for us and for what we're talking about,

00:34:49.820 --> 00:34:54.820
 trying to do here, and present the other side, not that you couldn't,

00:34:54.820 --> 00:35:00.020
 but I would not have wanted to be in your seat during that work session, frankly,

00:35:00.020 --> 00:35:02.540
 because that was just not fun.

00:35:02.540 --> 00:35:07.900
 - Yeah, I'm sorry to interrupt, I should have said Madison did an outstanding job here in the meeting,

00:35:07.900 --> 00:35:10.420
 so thanks for reprimanding us.

00:35:10.420 --> 00:35:12.420
 - Thank you.

00:35:12.420 --> 00:35:16.220
 - I've been in common on that for sure.

00:35:16.220 --> 00:35:20.780
 - So I know we don't have a budget beyond zero.

00:35:20.780 --> 00:35:22.380
 - We have $10,000.

00:35:22.380 --> 00:35:28.740
 Some of it has been used for outside consultants for the board of ethics.

00:35:28.740 --> 00:35:35.420
 We typically use that with the Borges firm when we have to process ethics complaints

00:35:35.420 --> 00:35:42.820
 or advisory opinions for the city council, because the city attorney's office refuses them.

00:35:42.820 --> 00:35:48.540
 So we would have to go through a procurement process, but we have some money available

00:35:48.540 --> 00:35:52.860
 if you would like to give direction to go that way.

00:35:52.860 --> 00:35:56.980
 - I would be very much in favor of that, not that we don't have many, many dedicated,

00:35:56.980 --> 00:36:03.060
 well-qualified people right here, but we need some help to have this city council

00:36:03.060 --> 00:36:09.540
 understand the difference between an ethics code and an ordinance,

00:36:09.540 --> 00:36:13.260
 and they're ordinance-driven, not code, they don't understand the difference

00:36:13.260 --> 00:36:18.100
 between an ethics code and an ordinance, and that's a fundamental problem,

00:36:18.100 --> 00:36:23.660
 not because we've got maybe too many lawyers on the council, I don't know,

00:36:23.660 --> 00:36:28.900
 but there's a fundamental misunderstanding about what an ethics code is and what it is not.

00:36:28.900 --> 00:36:36.020
 And that's what I think someone that would come in and help them understand

00:36:36.020 --> 00:36:40.820
 that you're not going to be able to have 92 bullet points up and down an ethics code

00:36:40.820 --> 00:36:44.620
 and cover every possible scenario where someone can step over the line.

00:36:44.620 --> 00:36:46.780
 That's not going to happen ever.

00:36:46.780 --> 00:36:52.900
 And if that's their goal, we're wasting time.

00:36:52.900 --> 00:37:10.340
 So, we're not the first city in the state of Texas that's just tried to pass an ethics code.

00:37:10.340 --> 00:37:17.420
 This has been done before, and this council is acting like this is the first time ever.

00:37:17.420 --> 00:37:26.180
 So, I don't know how to fix that or to get some help.

00:37:26.180 --> 00:37:31.620
 >> So, I agree with a lot of what I'm hearing.

00:37:31.620 --> 00:37:38.300
 I like the idea of maybe having some consultants come and speak to us

00:37:38.300 --> 00:37:47.420
 and then maybe help, maybe even for us or whatever, but to help us be able to present the idea

00:37:47.420 --> 00:37:54.380
 of an ethics code that is very non-controversial, which was what we were trying to do,

00:37:54.380 --> 00:38:02.220
 and reduce the fear level, because the fear level I saw was very up on the ceiling.

00:38:02.220 --> 00:38:06.820
 They're afraid we're out to get them, and quite the opposite, we're trying to protect them

00:38:06.820 --> 00:38:13.900
 from frivolous accusations at election time and other frivolous complaints.

00:38:13.900 --> 00:38:15.300
 And they're not believing that.

00:38:15.300 --> 00:38:16.980
 So, there's a problem there.

00:38:16.980 --> 00:38:19.460
 Why do they fear us?

00:38:19.460 --> 00:38:21.540
 And because that is not what we're trying to do.

00:38:21.540 --> 00:38:27.980
 We're trying to increase transparency, increase the ease of use and understanding of the ethics code.

00:38:27.980 --> 00:38:32.340
 We have an ethics code that is pretty generic that other cities use.

00:38:32.340 --> 00:38:35.380
 And so, something's not translating.

00:38:35.380 --> 00:38:37.260
 And so, that's my concern.

00:38:37.260 --> 00:38:40.700
 How can we have a better discussion with city council?

00:38:40.700 --> 00:38:46.140
 I don't know if it's ever allowed to have a work session instead of just presenting them

00:38:46.140 --> 00:38:49.620
 with some recommendations and then they voted up and down.

00:38:49.620 --> 00:38:53.100
 If we could have a work session where we all sit together and talk about it,

00:38:53.100 --> 00:38:56.220
 because it's not just about them telling us what they don't like.

00:38:56.220 --> 00:38:57.940
 I'd love to hear what they do want.

00:38:57.940 --> 00:39:02.100
 You know, I'd like to hear what would you like to see.

00:39:02.100 --> 00:39:06.700
 And so, you know, that would be helpful and I don't know if that's even allowed to do that.

00:39:06.700 --> 00:39:10.820
 Or if that's out of order to do something like that.

00:39:10.820 --> 00:39:14.220
 But I'd love to do anything we can do to reduce the fear level.

00:39:14.220 --> 00:39:16.140
 To show that we're an advisory board.

00:39:16.140 --> 00:39:17.100
 We have panels.

00:39:17.100 --> 00:39:22.740
 We have ways of buffering them from frivolous complaints.

00:39:22.740 --> 00:39:28.660
 They can come and ask a panel is, you know, is this going to be an ethics violation?

00:39:28.660 --> 00:39:33.380
 And I don't think that's a huge burden because it doesn't come up that often that there's,

00:39:33.380 --> 00:39:35.660
 you know, even a question about an ethics violation.

00:39:35.660 --> 00:39:38.260
 So I don't see it as a huge burden.

00:39:38.260 --> 00:39:43.980
 And I think we do need to address the concerns that the different council people brought up.

00:39:43.980 --> 00:39:49.420
 But maybe do it in a way that seems less scary to them.

00:39:49.420 --> 00:39:59.500
 And for example, the idea of, if I went to a grocery store and bought groceries and then

00:39:59.500 --> 00:40:03.180
 that grocery store wanted a zoning change, would I have to refuse myself?

00:40:03.180 --> 00:40:06.460
 And you think, oh no, that's, you know, that's silly.

00:40:06.460 --> 00:40:09.220
 But what if I bought something expensive like a car?

00:40:09.220 --> 00:40:12.700
 Would I have to recuse myself that that car dealership wanted a zoning change?

00:40:12.700 --> 00:40:13.940
 Not necessarily.

00:40:13.940 --> 00:40:14.580
 It wouldn't have to.

00:40:14.580 --> 00:40:18.980
 Just because a car is more expensive, it would be like if they gave you a car right before

00:40:18.980 --> 00:40:23.540
 the zoning change, or if the grocery store gave you a year's worth of free groceries,

00:40:23.540 --> 00:40:25.780
 then you might say, hey, this is a little shady.

00:40:25.780 --> 00:40:29.820
 But most of the time, these things that come up are not going to be ethics violations.

00:40:29.820 --> 00:40:31.180
 That's why you have a board.

00:40:31.180 --> 00:40:33.380
 And you have a board to say, hey, you're OK.

00:40:33.380 --> 00:40:34.260
 You're cool.

00:40:34.260 --> 00:40:34.900
 Don't worry about it.

00:40:34.900 --> 00:40:36.180
 It's like buying a shop and buying groceries.

00:40:36.180 --> 00:40:36.460
 Yeah.

00:40:36.460 --> 00:40:40.860
 And if there's anything to worry about, then you talk about it even before it gets to the

00:40:40.860 --> 00:40:43.540
 higher level of an actual hearing.

00:40:43.540 --> 00:40:51.060
 So I just wish we could figure out some way to reduce the misunderstandings of the fair.

00:40:51.060 --> 00:40:55.860
 The city council does occasionally have joint meetings with certain other committees or

00:40:55.860 --> 00:41:01.260
 other political bodies, like the independent school district and things like that.

00:41:01.260 --> 00:41:02.820
 So I can check in on that.

00:41:02.820 --> 00:41:07.900
 They have not had one with the board of ethics before.

00:41:07.900 --> 00:41:15.580
 I have to say, seeing what I saw at this last meeting, I would not be interested.

00:41:15.580 --> 00:41:19.460
 So Andrea, do you want to go before me, or should I--

00:41:19.460 --> 00:41:21.380
 That was actually exactly my question.

00:41:21.380 --> 00:41:23.020
 My original question was exactly that.

00:41:23.020 --> 00:41:28.340
 What request do we have in terms of communication with the board directly?

00:41:28.340 --> 00:41:33.260
 Because what I'm hearing, all of these things, if you remember now of our discussion, I was

00:41:33.260 --> 00:41:39.020
 very concerned about a very broad definition of things.

00:41:39.020 --> 00:41:43.540
 And I want to have you back here for a second, because it was actually you as the lawyer

00:41:43.540 --> 00:41:50.420
 who explained to us that substantial is often used in that vague of a sense in order to

00:41:50.420 --> 00:41:56.060
 be able to catch things that are of different value to different people that have different

00:41:56.060 --> 00:41:58.020
 meaning in different situations.

00:41:58.020 --> 00:42:07.300
 So I, personally, am very much, before we spend a ton of money on an expert, what request

00:42:07.300 --> 00:42:13.500
 do we have to actually communicate directly with the city council and actually give them

00:42:13.500 --> 00:42:14.620
 an understanding?

00:42:14.620 --> 00:42:19.780
 Because I also see exactly what was already mentioned, that a lot of these concerns really

00:42:19.780 --> 00:42:26.380
 reflect kind of a misunderstanding of what we are as a board.

00:42:26.380 --> 00:42:31.260
 Because it almost seems like they're afraid of being policed by us, whereas the ethicoats,

00:42:31.260 --> 00:42:36.220
 my understanding is it is so that you know what you should and shouldn't do and that

00:42:36.220 --> 00:42:43.500
 you actually reflect yourself as a city official and as a council member of what is appropriate

00:42:43.500 --> 00:42:52.180
 and what is not appropriate while you're holding you as a person and you as an elected official,

00:42:52.180 --> 00:42:54.940
 or as a hired person, as a representative of the city.

00:42:54.940 --> 00:43:01.060
 That is no different than I have had certain questions as an educator, like when it comes

00:43:01.060 --> 00:43:06.740
 to elections, I have had numerous conversations of am I allowed to do this as a teacher?

00:43:06.740 --> 00:43:11.300
 In what situation while I'm having children at this school, what am I allowed to say,

00:43:11.300 --> 00:43:12.300
 what am I not allowed to say?

00:43:12.300 --> 00:43:18.900
 When am I a parent, when am I an actual representative of the school district?

00:43:18.900 --> 00:43:24.860
 Those are all ethics questions that I really do think that city council is completely missing

00:43:24.860 --> 00:43:27.320
 and it more, yes.

00:43:27.320 --> 00:43:36.540
 So those are the big things for me in terms of, because really and truly the only chance

00:43:36.540 --> 00:43:44.060
 we have to get any other recommendations passed is if we create an understanding within the

00:43:44.060 --> 00:43:47.740
 city council of where our recommendations are coming from.

00:43:47.740 --> 00:43:53.940
 And that is something that I really do think goes beyond your role.

00:43:53.940 --> 00:44:01.940
 And I think that is where we as a board should actually put ourselves out there and say this

00:44:01.940 --> 00:44:04.180
 is why we're making these recommendations.

00:44:04.180 --> 00:44:05.180
 Thank you.

00:44:05.180 --> 00:44:13.980
 Yeah, but what's your thought on best way forward?

00:44:13.980 --> 00:44:20.460
 My best way forward is at this point we've had two rejections in terms of revising the

00:44:20.460 --> 00:44:21.460
 code.

00:44:21.460 --> 00:44:31.820
 One was about two years ago, right, after two years, and then we've had a lot of change

00:44:31.820 --> 00:44:37.140
 and we've recommended other changes, different changes and we were rejected again.

00:44:37.140 --> 00:44:42.580
 So in order for us to plug away and spend more time trying to figure out, which the

00:44:42.580 --> 00:44:51.660
 word smithing really hurts me because that's what we were trying, yes.

00:44:51.660 --> 00:44:58.080
 I really do, I really think that we need to be, we need to be, we need to take a different

00:44:58.080 --> 00:45:02.540
 approach than just presenting through Madison changes.

00:45:02.540 --> 00:45:11.260
 We need to figure out a way of actually educating the city council and having a conversation

00:45:11.260 --> 00:45:17.020
 with the city council so that, which what I don't understand is every single one of

00:45:17.020 --> 00:45:20.600
 us is appointed by a city council member.

00:45:20.600 --> 00:45:27.420
 So if they're appointing us to sit and confirmed by all of them, so if they're doing that and

00:45:27.420 --> 00:45:40.700
 we're sitting here based on their recommendation and their vote, why are we not trusted?

00:45:40.700 --> 00:45:44.340
 So my turn.

00:45:44.340 --> 00:45:48.540
 I want to say I've tried to go into this meeting really positively.

00:45:48.540 --> 00:45:53.420
 I felt like I was in a good frame of mind and I thought what happened last time was

00:45:53.420 --> 00:45:54.420
 terrible.

00:45:54.420 --> 00:45:55.420
 It can't be worse.

00:45:55.420 --> 00:45:56.420
 It was worse.

00:45:56.420 --> 00:46:08.220
 You know last time there were two people who were yelling and I think everybody else was

00:46:08.220 --> 00:46:13.700
 just kind of sitting there like quiet ducks sort of.

00:46:13.700 --> 00:46:17.860
 This time there was no decorum in the meeting.

00:46:17.860 --> 00:46:27.780
 They were off track and from the session before they were looking at some changes and it wasn't

00:46:27.780 --> 00:46:35.900
 being presented by a city staff member, it was being presented by an official with the

00:46:35.900 --> 00:46:42.060
 Chamber of Commerce and it was like thank you, that's wonderful, yay, yay, yay, good

00:46:42.060 --> 00:46:50.180
 job and then the minute our thing came up it was like a switch flipped and it was suddenly,

00:46:50.180 --> 00:47:01.340
 it was just crazy and there was no decorum and I can tell you how much I appreciate Scott

00:47:01.340 --> 00:47:07.740
 because he's explained a lot of things to me and he quietly tells me when we're getting

00:47:07.740 --> 00:47:12.300
 off track and I like to think that I respond and I listen.

00:47:12.300 --> 00:47:21.380
 I saw the same thing happening in this meeting, no response and finally I did and I will say

00:47:21.380 --> 00:47:32.180
 there were two council people sitting right there, Jester and Vicki Bird and they were

00:47:32.180 --> 00:47:37.380
 carrying on a very loud sidebar and it was loud enough that I couldn't hear what was

00:47:37.380 --> 00:47:39.420
 being said in the rest of the room.

00:47:39.420 --> 00:47:44.340
 I was sitting right there right behind them.

00:47:44.340 --> 00:47:51.620
 It was unacceptable and it was disrespectful to Madison, the constant comments and they

00:47:51.620 --> 00:47:59.420
 were both, well Jester was doing a lot of talking and I did not hear her listening and

00:47:59.420 --> 00:48:07.380
 so she's a new council person and she hadn't at that point had the ethics training.

00:48:07.380 --> 00:48:16.980
 I was offended, I felt disrespected, I felt very disrespected for Madison who always has

00:48:16.980 --> 00:48:23.580
 everything together and presents things very well and it was just like we were trying to

00:48:23.580 --> 00:48:32.020
 saw a fillet or something, it was really, really disrespectful.

00:48:32.020 --> 00:48:38.940
 I also feel like we have a couple lawyers on the council now who do not understand the

00:48:38.940 --> 00:48:40.900
 difference between law and ethics.

00:48:40.900 --> 00:48:47.820
 If you think about concentric circles there's a little bit of overlap, law is a set of rules

00:48:47.820 --> 00:48:54.300
 and ethics is more aspirational, they completely don't get it.

00:48:54.300 --> 00:49:02.220
 We're trying to bring people back in before they are in violation of state law but as

00:49:02.220 --> 00:49:10.100
 it stands our code is really weaker than state law so it's possible that someone could be

00:49:10.100 --> 00:49:16.420
 in violation of state law before they get found guilty of an ethics violation and that's

00:49:16.420 --> 00:49:23.620
 sad because if I had the choice between being charged with violation of law and ethics,

00:49:23.620 --> 00:49:28.980
 I'd prefer the ethical charge because that is meant to be a higher level and it's meant

00:49:28.980 --> 00:49:35.740
 to be more aspirational and you're really trying to guide people into better behavior

00:49:35.740 --> 00:49:43.080
 but I felt like they were telling us we were being mean to them.

00:49:43.080 --> 00:49:48.140
 Bottom line for me is I don't think they're listening to constituents.

00:49:48.140 --> 00:49:55.820
 What was lucked out of this whole thing that Borgquist recommended was to involve constituents,

00:49:55.820 --> 00:50:03.620
 voters in the code, that was, and I know that there's a council person who just rotated

00:50:03.620 --> 00:50:10.940
 off who thinks that they were involved but voters were not involved other than their

00:50:10.940 --> 00:50:18.900
 passage of the bond, there's never been a time when they really asked the voters what

00:50:18.900 --> 00:50:27.860
 they think about this and it's meant to engender trust, I don't think it does.

00:50:27.860 --> 00:50:36.420
 Also honestly council members should not be making decisions, so I'm reading from Weschler,

00:50:36.420 --> 00:50:42.880
 the fact that elected officials like to have a final say is in itself a conflict of interest

00:50:42.880 --> 00:50:47.580
 because it certainly is not in the public interest to give them this final say.

00:50:47.580 --> 00:50:52.820
 The more independent the ethics commission, the more it will be trusted by city residents,

00:50:52.820 --> 00:50:59.700
 the less it will be used for political purposes and the more respect its decisions will be

00:50:59.700 --> 00:51:00.700
 given.

00:51:00.700 --> 00:51:07.540
 If the ethics system is not perceived as independent and ethics accusations are politicized, the

00:51:07.540 --> 00:51:14.380
 ethics system can actually undermine the very confidence in government it is supposed to

00:51:14.380 --> 00:51:15.380
 protect.

00:51:15.380 --> 00:51:24.580
 So one option is, and Weschler actually says this at one point in his 1300 pages of writing,

00:51:24.580 --> 00:51:30.980
 he says that some cities are better off without an ethics code, I think that's a possibility

00:51:30.980 --> 00:51:37.500
 that we need to tell council, look, we don't have a viable code, all you can do really

00:51:37.500 --> 00:51:46.620
 is beat up your political opponents with it, it's not a good code, but just don't even

00:51:46.620 --> 00:51:48.660
 try to say we have one.

00:51:48.660 --> 00:51:59.460
 Another question for Madison, has the current council, it's my understanding there's supposed

00:51:59.460 --> 00:52:07.740
 to be some annual ethics training, do you do that yourself or how does, well for example

00:52:07.740 --> 00:52:15.820
 the reason I ask that is during this meeting I heard a council member claim that, well

00:52:15.820 --> 00:52:20.940
 you could, citizens could just keep bringing up the same complaint over and over again,

00:52:20.940 --> 00:52:28.620
 well no they can't, because they can be sanctioned, and so it showed me that there's maybe some

00:52:28.620 --> 00:52:32.100
 folks on this council that really don't understand.

00:52:32.100 --> 00:52:38.860
 Yes, the ethics training for the city council happened about a week and a half after the

00:52:38.860 --> 00:52:39.860
 presentation.

00:52:39.860 --> 00:52:44.700
 So all council members have currently been through training?

00:52:44.700 --> 00:52:48.940
 They received it on June 22nd I believe.

00:52:48.940 --> 00:52:55.540
 Well for example that was just a factually, just an erroneous statement that I heard from

00:52:55.540 --> 00:53:04.020
 doesn't matter who, but so they're living in some other world that is not relevant in

00:53:04.020 --> 00:53:09.900
 terms of an actual ethics code, you know, he can keep bringing up the same complaint

00:53:09.900 --> 00:53:12.460
 over and over and over, no he can't.

00:53:12.460 --> 00:53:17.860
 I felt like the decision had been made before we even made the presentation, did you get

00:53:17.860 --> 00:53:18.860
 that sense?

00:53:18.860 --> 00:53:19.860
 Yes.

00:53:19.860 --> 00:53:29.820
 Anybody else, did anybody get a different perspective of that, because I felt like they

00:53:29.820 --> 00:53:30.820
 had already decided, no.

00:53:30.820 --> 00:53:35.140
 And you know having, the last time we brought, yeah we brought a bunch of little nitpicky

00:53:35.140 --> 00:53:41.020
 things to council, I don't think they understood them, they approved a couple of them, they

00:53:41.020 --> 00:53:43.500
 left most of them on the table.

00:53:43.500 --> 00:53:51.140
 So this time we came back with these are too big, and they were off track the entire presentation.

00:53:51.140 --> 00:53:55.900
 They were looking at other parts of the code, their discussion of either of the points we

00:53:55.900 --> 00:54:02.540
 were trying to make was very very minimal at best, and I kind of feel like the wording

00:54:02.540 --> 00:54:12.100
 change of getting rid of the consequency definition was kind of like, here's a bone, thanks.

00:54:12.100 --> 00:54:18.900
 I was kind of wanting a filet or something, yeah.

00:54:18.900 --> 00:54:25.660
 Well it seems rather simplistic, but to go to the council and say okay San Marcos has

00:54:25.660 --> 00:54:31.140
 a very effective code, El Paso has a very very effective code, Fort Worth, pick one.

00:54:31.140 --> 00:54:32.140
 San Antonio.

00:54:32.140 --> 00:54:33.140
 San Antonio.

00:54:33.140 --> 00:54:38.740
 If you don't like what we're proposing, then you go find a code that you like, and we'll

00:54:38.740 --> 00:54:44.380
 see if we can adapt it to them, but trying to reinvent the wheel when it's been done

00:54:44.380 --> 00:54:47.940
 all over the state of Texas, I don't understand that.

00:54:47.940 --> 00:54:49.580
 We're not trying to invent something.

00:54:49.580 --> 00:54:54.580
 I feel like that's a large part of what we did, what we proposed to them.

00:54:54.580 --> 00:54:59.700
 We didn't take necessarily San Marcos or San Antonio, but we took language directly from

00:54:59.700 --> 00:55:02.660
 the model code and presented that.

00:55:02.660 --> 00:55:06.860
 And since then, they wrote the code in the first place, so they presented, they came

00:55:06.860 --> 00:55:14.580
 up with the code in the first place, my understanding is, okay so that code was brought up in 2012,

00:55:14.580 --> 00:55:16.420
 is that correct?

00:55:16.420 --> 00:55:21.420
 And so instead of us just asking over and over again do you like this, do you like that,

00:55:21.420 --> 00:55:26.940
 I would like for them to say this is what we like, and then we can discuss and say yeah

00:55:26.940 --> 00:55:31.300
 that sounds good or oh no there's some things that we don't think will work, but they haven't

00:55:31.300 --> 00:55:37.580
 told us anything what they want, they just say what they don't want.

00:55:37.580 --> 00:55:44.780
 I understand what you're saying, I think, I'm thinking about what Annetta read, and they

00:55:44.780 --> 00:55:48.380
 should not be dictating to us what is in our code.

00:55:48.380 --> 00:55:50.420
 No, but I mean that is the situation though, we can't change that.

00:55:50.420 --> 00:55:52.460
 But I mean we didn't go back to them and present.

00:55:52.460 --> 00:55:57.860
 We really don't like it, I think we probably, I mean one thing we might send a letter and

00:55:57.860 --> 00:56:04.900
 say you're not involving the people who need to trust you, you're not listening to your

00:56:04.900 --> 00:56:09.660
 constituents, you don't know who they're listening to, I don't really care actually.

00:56:09.660 --> 00:56:24.300
 I think there needs to be, their decorum was frustrating and that's the nicest word I can

00:56:24.300 --> 00:56:25.300
 think of.

00:56:25.300 --> 00:56:33.220
 Question for city legal, being a quote unquote quasi judicial governing body, does that give

00:56:33.220 --> 00:56:40.860
 us any special avenues to fix what we're talking about here and being a quote unquote judicial

00:56:40.860 --> 00:56:47.560
 just imposes additional restrictions on how you hold your meeting?

00:56:47.560 --> 00:56:55.260
 So here's the things we've talked about, have a joint meeting, revise what we have and go

00:56:55.260 --> 00:57:03.780
 back and talk to them, a consultant, recommend another code, recommend no code, or maybe

00:57:03.780 --> 00:57:08.900
 an open letter, those are the things that I have.

00:57:08.900 --> 00:57:09.900
 So what?

00:57:09.900 --> 00:57:17.020
 I'll say my preference, my preference would be to take our proposed amendments, make modifications

00:57:17.020 --> 00:57:22.500
 to those proposed amendments to address the very few specific things that they had concerns

00:57:22.500 --> 00:57:29.980
 about, where it makes sense and to not address them where it does not make sense, because

00:57:29.980 --> 00:57:35.900
 we have spent many hours trying to answer a lot of these questions, if we need to add

00:57:35.900 --> 00:57:45.060
 a definition here or make a change to that 273A1D, that section they had concerns about,

00:57:45.060 --> 00:57:48.960
 that's fine, I mean if we need to change that because there are things that we need to consider.

00:57:48.960 --> 00:57:53.100
 Because I was looking at it and thinking, why do these next three little paragraphs

00:57:53.100 --> 00:57:54.100
 even exist?

00:57:54.100 --> 00:58:00.420
 I mean, let's just make it, but I think where it got off the rails was that we put the whole

00:58:00.420 --> 00:58:05.020
 code in the back up and then they start wandering around and we've been telling you the whole

00:58:05.020 --> 00:58:06.180
 thing's broken.

00:58:06.180 --> 00:58:13.220
 I think that, I don't want to start over from scratch looking at a different section or

00:58:13.220 --> 00:58:18.340
 trying to find a totally new code and push that across, it's not going to work.

00:58:18.340 --> 00:58:22.780
 I would like to take the hard work we've already done, clean up the things they had comments

00:58:22.780 --> 00:58:28.260
 about and give it back to them and then they can tell us again why they think we don't

00:58:28.260 --> 00:58:29.260
 know what we're doing.

00:58:29.260 --> 00:58:32.900
 And if they do that, then that's fine.

00:58:32.900 --> 00:58:45.180
 I think at some point, hopefully, people that actually vote will start to see this and say,

00:58:45.180 --> 00:58:49.140
 we can't even get these people to agree to an ethics ordinance here.

00:58:49.140 --> 00:58:54.900
 How can we expect them to conduct business in a way that's for all the citizens?

00:58:54.900 --> 00:59:01.180
 I don't know how to make that happen other than if we continue to push them to do what

00:59:01.180 --> 00:59:07.140
 we think is right after hours and hours of discussion and research and trying to fix

00:59:07.140 --> 00:59:12.660
 the problems we have, they can either accept it or reject it and then like all people in

00:59:12.660 --> 00:59:18.420
 elected positions, they're going to have to face the consequences for those decisions

00:59:18.420 --> 00:59:20.260
 and they're going to have to explain themselves.

00:59:20.260 --> 00:59:26.380
 Maybe simply the people who voted for them care about those things.

00:59:26.380 --> 00:59:30.420
 And I hate to worry about this burden of proof thing, but make it very clear to those same

00:59:30.420 --> 00:59:37.180
 people that as it is right now, this code has been weaponized against you as a citizen.

00:59:37.180 --> 00:59:49.340
 And if you're okay with that, then live with it, because I'm going, but . . .

00:59:49.340 --> 00:59:59.020
 Okay, what other . . . Andrea, what do you think?

00:59:59.020 --> 01:00:06.780
 I mean, I'm willing to make tweaks and re-present it, but I think without a direct or an open

01:00:06.780 --> 01:00:11.820
 letter, some kind of communication of what the rationale and reasoning behind it is and

01:00:11.820 --> 01:00:16.780
 for really explaining what, why we're doing certain things, I really don't think we're

01:00:16.780 --> 01:00:19.180
 going to get any other outcome.

01:00:19.180 --> 01:00:23.220
 That's my . . . I mean, the work I don't have a problem putting in, especially when we're

01:00:23.220 --> 01:00:26.940
 saying let's take these recommendations, see how they make sense.

01:00:26.940 --> 01:00:30.700
 That's absolutely, but I think if we're just presenting it the way we have been presenting

01:00:30.700 --> 01:00:33.020
 it, the outcome is going to be the same.

01:00:33.020 --> 01:00:39.180
 I don't think that there's any kind of convincing otherwise, unless there is a rethinking of

01:00:39.180 --> 01:00:44.500
 what our goals are and how those things are addressed.

01:00:44.500 --> 01:00:46.500
 So, Patricia.

01:00:46.500 --> 01:00:54.460
 I'm more in favor of having some kind of group meeting face-to-face, our council with City

01:00:54.460 --> 01:01:03.380
 Council, because I have a fear that if we try to tweak things, then it'll just . . . like

01:01:03.380 --> 01:01:08.180
 Andrea said, that it will just be shot down again without much thought put into it.

01:01:08.180 --> 01:01:15.860
 So, it's kind of a waste of their time, and our time especially, but I think if it's a

01:01:15.860 --> 01:01:20.820
 frank face-to-face discussion, what are you wanting?

01:01:20.820 --> 01:01:21.820
 What's wrong with this?

01:01:21.820 --> 01:01:22.820
 What would you suggest instead?

01:01:22.820 --> 01:01:29.340
 You know, a real discussion, I think, would make more progress.

01:01:29.340 --> 01:01:30.340
 Okay.

01:01:30.340 --> 01:01:34.740
 David, what do you think?

01:01:34.740 --> 01:01:39.700
 I am ready and willing to jump into this conflict of interest again.

01:01:39.700 --> 01:01:44.860
 I'm okay with the fact that that couldn't be cleaned up a little bit, but again, my

01:01:44.860 --> 01:01:49.140
 line in the sand is this burden to prove, totally.

01:01:49.140 --> 01:01:55.540
 I think the two recommendations we made were the most appropriate ones, the stuff about

01:01:55.540 --> 01:02:01.820
 whether or not you have a $200 political contribution that we weren't . . . that wasn't even on

01:02:01.820 --> 01:02:02.820
 the agenda.

01:02:02.820 --> 01:02:03.820
 That was frustrating to me.

01:02:03.820 --> 01:02:04.820
 Whose job would it have been to bring that in?

01:02:04.820 --> 01:02:05.820
 To not allow that?

01:02:05.820 --> 01:02:06.820
 It just wasn't on the agenda.

01:02:06.820 --> 01:02:07.820
 Yes.

01:02:07.820 --> 01:02:08.820
 I mean, is there somebody to say that we're not voting on that right now?

01:02:08.820 --> 01:02:09.820
 They were off-topic.

01:02:09.820 --> 01:02:10.820
 They were off-topic.

01:02:10.820 --> 01:02:22.220
 Almost the whole time they were talking about it.

01:02:22.220 --> 01:02:27.500
 But who would bring that up, that it's off-topic?

01:02:27.500 --> 01:02:35.060
 I think I saw the attorney trying to get it back on track, because I finally saw him go

01:02:35.060 --> 01:02:36.060
 . . .

01:02:36.060 --> 01:02:37.060
 Because it's, you know, we could discuss it at some point, but it wasn't . . .

01:02:37.060 --> 01:02:42.060
 I finally saw him say, "Well, it's your meeting to run," and at that point, that's when we

01:02:42.060 --> 01:02:43.060
 got the very little change that we did get.

01:02:43.060 --> 01:02:44.060
 But there was no attempt to . . . Personally, I think a couple people should have been rolled

01:02:44.060 --> 01:02:45.060
 out of order.

01:02:45.060 --> 01:02:46.060
 I think that they were . . .

01:02:46.060 --> 01:02:47.060
 Who does it, the attorney or the mayor?

01:02:47.060 --> 01:02:48.060
 The mayor.

01:02:48.060 --> 01:02:49.060
 The chair of the meeting.

01:02:49.060 --> 01:03:12.380
 It was . . . I think the thing that made me maddest is that we try really hard to follow

01:03:12.380 --> 01:03:26.860
 the rules, and the city council isn't even following the rules that they have set for

01:03:26.860 --> 01:03:27.860
 us.

01:03:27.860 --> 01:03:28.860
 That's poor leadership.

01:03:28.860 --> 01:03:31.860
 I like to think that I listen when I get told, "Hey, you're off-topic."

01:03:31.860 --> 01:03:38.660
 I'm pretty sure I saw the city, and I couldn't hear what he was saying, because the distractions

01:03:38.660 --> 01:03:40.140
 over here were so loud.

01:03:40.140 --> 01:03:46.020
 I couldn't even hear, "Madison, I couldn't even hear your presentation at points," because

01:03:46.020 --> 01:03:55.240
 it was a constant chatter and joking, and, you know, "You should wait to be recognized."

01:03:55.240 --> 01:03:57.260
 That wasn't happening.

01:03:57.260 --> 01:04:02.820
 I thought you and Madison did an excellent job during that whole session.

01:04:02.820 --> 01:04:03.820
 I really do.

01:04:03.820 --> 01:04:11.780
 I think Madison always does a great job, and I am so grateful to have Scott here, because

01:04:11.780 --> 01:04:18.960
 he rolls me in, in a good way, and he's quiet about how he does it.

01:04:18.960 --> 01:04:23.620
 I expect the same thing from the city council, and I was disappointed, because I did not

01:04:23.620 --> 01:04:24.620
 see it.

01:04:24.620 --> 01:04:33.020
 It was like a circus atmosphere, just, you know, everybody was talking, there was no . . .

01:04:33.020 --> 01:04:35.700
 There was absolutely zero decorum.

01:04:35.700 --> 01:04:36.700
 Zero.

01:04:36.700 --> 01:04:43.260
 That's why you have Robert's Rules of Order, and then we follow it kind of loosely, but . . .

01:04:43.260 --> 01:04:47.820
 Which might give you an indication of how seriously they consider the ethics ordinance

01:04:47.820 --> 01:04:49.380
 anyway, in the first place.

01:04:49.380 --> 01:04:50.380
 Yeah.

01:04:50.380 --> 01:04:57.940
 I had to wonder if it wasn't, like, well, it's . . . For things that they agree with,

01:04:57.940 --> 01:05:04.820
 there is decorum, but if there's . . . Yeah.

01:05:04.820 --> 01:05:12.500
 So Scott, I have a question for you, if I don't want to, if that's okay.

01:05:12.500 --> 01:05:16.920
 What is our limitation on . . . Like, because, I mean, this is all public record.

01:05:16.920 --> 01:05:20.180
 The work session is public record.

01:05:20.180 --> 01:05:25.620
 What is our limitation as board members to approach a city council member about our discussions,

01:05:25.620 --> 01:05:28.620
 because I mean . . . We could do that.

01:05:28.620 --> 01:05:29.620
 Yeah.

01:05:29.620 --> 01:05:30.620
 There's not a limitation.

01:05:30.620 --> 01:05:31.620
 No.

01:05:31.620 --> 01:05:32.620
 Just not as a group.

01:05:32.620 --> 01:05:33.620
 Not as a group.

01:05:33.620 --> 01:05:34.620
 As a board.

01:05:34.620 --> 01:05:35.620
 More than one.

01:05:35.620 --> 01:05:38.620
 But it's . . . Otherwise, it would be extroverted, right?

01:05:38.620 --> 01:05:41.620
 Yes, but you can . . . But individual conversation.

01:05:41.620 --> 01:05:42.620
 Individually?

01:05:42.620 --> 01:05:43.620
 Sure.

01:05:43.620 --> 01:05:44.620
 Okay.

01:05:44.620 --> 01:05:45.620
 What was the question?

01:05:45.620 --> 01:05:46.620
 I'm sorry.

01:05:46.620 --> 01:05:49.700
 What are our limitations on approaching city council members?

01:05:49.700 --> 01:05:55.860
 I just wanted to make sure that individual conversation, like an individual ethics board

01:05:55.860 --> 01:06:01.260
 member and an individual city council member, it is not out of order to have conversation

01:06:01.260 --> 01:06:05.660
 about these proceedings, because they're public record.

01:06:05.660 --> 01:06:12.460
 Well, that's a correct response, but the only problem, the walking quorum, sometimes can

01:06:12.460 --> 01:06:13.460
 become a problem, too.

01:06:13.460 --> 01:06:14.460
 Yeah, but that . . . Right.

01:06:14.460 --> 01:06:15.460
 That's not . . . Exactly.

01:06:15.460 --> 01:06:24.300
 So what I'm hearing to kind of move things along, I hear three votes for revision.

01:06:24.300 --> 01:06:32.860
 There's one for a joint meeting and one for a vote on other . . . or we could do more

01:06:32.860 --> 01:06:33.860
 than one.

01:06:33.860 --> 01:06:42.540
 So does someone want to make a . . . I would like to make a motion.

01:06:42.540 --> 01:06:48.780
 I would like to make a motion to, once we adopt reconsideration of the language, to

01:06:48.780 --> 01:06:51.780
 invite the city council to participate in our conversation.

01:06:51.780 --> 01:06:59.860
 I don't think that needs a motion, and I'm also not posted for action on this item.

01:06:59.860 --> 01:07:00.860
 Okay.

01:07:00.860 --> 01:07:05.980
 So if y'all want to . . . That's a . . . you're speaking about the next time y'all make a

01:07:05.980 --> 01:07:06.980
 slate of recommendations.

01:07:06.980 --> 01:07:09.980
 So that kind of takes . . . We'll come back to this in a minute.

01:07:09.980 --> 01:07:14.580
 We'll take a note of that and see what happens next.

01:07:14.580 --> 01:07:20.580
 So there's direction to invite the city council to participate in a discussion.

01:07:20.580 --> 01:07:27.580
 Once we've made revisions, which I think that we could probably take care of it.

01:07:27.580 --> 01:07:32.940
 I think I would recommend just looking at the two things we recommended and just tighten

01:07:32.940 --> 01:07:33.940
 them up.

01:07:33.940 --> 01:07:37.820
 Take words out rather than leave them in.

01:07:37.820 --> 01:07:41.820
 Can I amend that, because I think that is not really what I intended.

01:07:41.820 --> 01:07:49.500
 I didn't really intend them to . . . I would like for them to be present during our conversation.

01:07:49.500 --> 01:07:56.620
 Yes, they're able to watch it, and yes, they're able to look at the video, but I would like

01:07:56.620 --> 01:08:05.620
 for them to be present during our actual discussion and revising so that they actually see the

01:08:05.620 --> 01:08:14.440
 thought and care that goes into what we're doing and that we are being held to the standards.

01:08:14.440 --> 01:08:19.440
 So kind of do them both at the same time.

01:08:19.440 --> 01:08:20.440
 Yes.

01:08:20.440 --> 01:08:21.440
 Okay.

01:08:21.440 --> 01:08:22.940
 That makes sense.

01:08:22.940 --> 01:08:23.940
 Okay.

01:08:23.940 --> 01:08:28.980
 So I think the next thing is to receive a report.

01:08:28.980 --> 01:08:30.940
 So we'll move on to item D.

01:08:30.940 --> 01:08:39.420
 BOE 24-24-24.

01:08:39.420 --> 01:08:43.940
 Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the ethics ordinance

01:08:43.940 --> 01:08:48.620
 alignment with the 2017 Charter Review Committee recommendations.

01:08:48.620 --> 01:08:52.260
 I haven't really prepared all that much.

01:08:52.260 --> 01:08:59.260
 I've listed the four requirements that the voters approved during the 2017 Charter Election.

01:08:59.260 --> 01:09:05.540
 I have . . . in the backup, I gave you slides from their committee discussion, and I have

01:09:05.540 --> 01:09:11.540
 backups of what the slides were if you all want them.

01:09:11.540 --> 01:09:12.540
 Okay.

01:09:12.540 --> 01:09:32.020
 So if you would like, I have this slide prepared so we can list them if we believe some sections

01:09:32.020 --> 01:09:35.580
 that currently exist address the current requirements.

01:09:35.580 --> 01:09:43.220
 There's also some recommended elements that are not listed but that are on those slides

01:09:43.220 --> 01:09:45.080
 that I came up with.

01:09:45.080 --> 01:09:50.460
 So what to kind of . . . I'm just trying to move things along a little bit.

01:09:50.460 --> 01:10:03.020
 So on page 13 of Exhibit 2, the recommended charter language for ethics, there is a definition

01:10:03.020 --> 01:10:12.580
 of a prohibitive improper economic interest and personal gain in the code.

01:10:12.580 --> 01:10:15.580
 What's the question?

01:10:15.580 --> 01:10:17.820
 The first item is in the code, right?

01:10:17.820 --> 01:10:18.820
 Right.

01:10:18.820 --> 01:10:25.780
 And then the second definition of recusal, that's definitely in the code.

01:10:25.780 --> 01:10:31.580
 So I . . . number three is not in the code.

01:10:31.580 --> 01:10:32.740
 I apologize, Madison.

01:10:32.740 --> 01:10:45.300
 I thought that I had the right to do it though, but I don't.

01:10:45.300 --> 01:10:46.300
 Okay.

01:10:46.300 --> 01:10:47.300
 It's interesting.

01:10:47.300 --> 01:10:57.980
 I was looking for something else, and I came across a city council or a work session from

01:10:57.980 --> 01:11:06.180
 2017 or 2016, actually, and they were talking about whether they even wanted this to be

01:11:06.180 --> 01:11:07.180
 in the code.

01:11:07.180 --> 01:11:12.180
 And they kind of took a straw poll, and it was four to three and then they decided to

01:11:12.180 --> 01:11:18.180
 send it to . . . So I'm thinking they never wanted the appearance of conflict of interest

01:11:18.180 --> 01:11:27.180
 to be in the code, and it is most certainly not there, unless it's in the aspirational

01:11:27.180 --> 01:11:28.180
 code.

01:11:28.180 --> 01:11:35.260
 You and I were both on the Charter Review Committee.

01:11:35.260 --> 01:11:43.660
 When these four were written, for example, the definition of prohibited improper EGA,

01:11:43.660 --> 01:11:49.420
 this was not even the $500, $1,000 discussion.

01:11:49.420 --> 01:11:54.780
 When we left the Charter Review, we were thinking in terms of all the other cities that had

01:11:54.780 --> 01:12:05.220
 defined it, and so this was kind of an unfortunate situation where all of these . . . the code

01:12:05.220 --> 01:12:16.100
 that was passed essentially ignored these, and so whether or not that makes the code

01:12:16.100 --> 01:12:22.220
 that was passed any less legitimate is not a question that I can answer, but the citizens

01:12:22.220 --> 01:12:26.620
 and the task force said, "These are the things that we want included."

01:12:26.620 --> 01:12:27.620
 Overwhelmingly.

01:12:27.620 --> 01:12:28.620
 Overwhelmingly.

01:12:28.620 --> 01:12:34.680
 And these were basically ignored by the 2017 city council.

01:12:34.680 --> 01:12:41.260
 When they went to work, by the way excluding citizens from the task force, when they went

01:12:41.260 --> 01:12:44.780
 off in a dark corner, they started writing an ethics code.

01:12:44.780 --> 01:12:47.740
 These four things were never discussed.

01:12:47.740 --> 01:12:52.700
 And number four, administration and enforcement of ethics ordinance coupled with strong and

01:12:52.700 --> 01:12:54.420
 meaningful remedies for infraction.

01:12:54.420 --> 01:12:55.420
 Exactly.

01:12:55.420 --> 01:12:56.420
 Definitely not there.

01:12:56.420 --> 01:12:57.420
 We can write in the water.

01:12:57.420 --> 01:12:58.420
 That's it.

01:12:58.420 --> 01:13:02.420
 These citizen mandates, they were ignored when the code was drafted.

01:13:02.420 --> 01:13:03.420
 That may be uncomfortable, but that's a fact.

01:13:03.420 --> 01:13:04.420
 Any more comments on this?

01:13:04.420 --> 01:13:27.300
 Is there a direction to . . . would you like me to bring anything back in regards to this?

01:13:27.300 --> 01:13:39.340
 I can just say, if we do tweak our code, we got a lot of work to do.

01:13:39.340 --> 01:13:45.540
 But the fact that 80% of the people . . . I remember as we were finishing the charter

01:13:45.540 --> 01:13:51.340
 review, the chairman said, "Well, there's one thing I think won't pass and that's the

01:13:51.340 --> 01:13:52.340
 ethics code."

01:13:52.340 --> 01:13:58.940
 And I thought, I think it will.

01:13:58.940 --> 01:14:00.700
 I mean, I think we're in the same place.

01:14:00.700 --> 01:14:07.220
 We're in the same place with our recommendations right now, is if we can work for the next

01:14:07.220 --> 01:14:12.420
 six months and come up with something and present it, and at this point I think we're

01:14:12.420 --> 01:14:13.420
 just spinning our wheels.

01:14:13.420 --> 01:14:20.620
 I think, I think there needs to be . . . I don't know, I mean, I don't like the idea

01:14:20.620 --> 01:14:24.740
 of the City Council to tell us what to do, because that's not what we're supposed . . . that

01:14:24.740 --> 01:14:29.780
 is not the entity that we are, but at the same time I think that we need to open up

01:14:29.780 --> 01:14:34.900
 a conversation in terms of how to move forward and make this functional for the city.

01:14:34.900 --> 01:14:40.700
 This is going to sound like a really country saying it, it's like the fox guarding the

01:14:40.700 --> 01:14:43.100
 chicken coop.

01:14:43.100 --> 01:14:47.220
 And not to say that the City Council members should not have input.

01:14:47.220 --> 01:14:54.420
 I would never, ever say that, but I think the citizens should really be consulted and

01:14:54.420 --> 01:15:02.900
 their consultation was very, very fast, and they came back and overwhelmingly said, "Yes,

01:15:02.900 --> 01:15:14.180
 80 percent, 80 percent said we want this, and we've had a very weak hope, so . . ."

01:15:14.180 --> 01:15:22.280
 Well, I think there's no direction right now other than to just make a note that, that

01:15:22.280 --> 01:15:29.380
 really the things that the citizens voted in are not in this code.

01:15:29.380 --> 01:15:34.360
 It is a consensus, I'm not overstating.

01:15:34.360 --> 01:15:39.980
 Okay, so let's, we're going to go back to item B, Receive Your Report, Hold a Discussion,

01:15:39.980 --> 01:15:48.600
 and give staff direction regarding the future meeting topics.

01:15:48.600 --> 01:15:51.780
 We are scheduled to have a meeting in July, right?

01:15:51.780 --> 01:15:52.780
 August.

01:15:52.780 --> 01:15:55.780
 Yes, August is our next regularly scheduled meeting.

01:15:55.780 --> 01:15:56.780
 Okay.

01:15:56.780 --> 01:16:05.380
 I would recommend that there be three things on the agenda, and one would be, or two things.

01:16:05.380 --> 01:16:13.340
 We can work on what we sent and we can, you know, propose changes to tighten it up, and

01:16:13.340 --> 01:16:19.020
 then recommend that the Council be invited to the next meeting, and I guess we'll need

01:16:19.020 --> 01:16:25.980
 to figure out a format for that, because I think we need to be guiding this discussion.

01:16:25.980 --> 01:16:35.180
 I think they should be invited to observe, and I think our, our agenda item should be

01:16:35.180 --> 01:16:44.180
 incorporating, either incorporating or rejecting their feedback to our previously proposed

01:16:44.180 --> 01:16:47.180
 amendments.

01:16:47.180 --> 01:16:57.180
 And we can go through, I'm happy to go through and make a list of all the actionable input

01:16:57.180 --> 01:17:02.180
 that they gave during the work session, and then we can go one by one through those and

01:17:02.180 --> 01:17:07.180
 decide if we want to incorporate it or not.

01:17:07.180 --> 01:17:08.180
 I don't know what else to do.

01:17:08.180 --> 01:17:15.180
 I think that sounds really good, because we are listening to them, but it's time they

01:17:15.180 --> 01:17:16.180
 listen to us.

01:17:16.180 --> 01:17:17.180
 You know, we are smart people.

01:17:17.180 --> 01:17:20.180
 We have spent many, many hours on this.

01:17:20.180 --> 01:17:28.180
 I felt really disrespected that, honestly, I think we know a lot more about city ethics

01:17:28.180 --> 01:17:33.180
 than all of them put together, and it's not because they're not smart people, but they

01:17:33.180 --> 01:17:37.180
 have so many more things to think about.

01:17:37.180 --> 01:17:48.180
 So, I'm sure I'm going to really make some people mad by that comment, but it was disrespectful.

01:17:48.180 --> 01:17:58.180
 I'd like to revisit the next meeting, the idea of having a consultant come and talk

01:17:58.180 --> 01:18:06.180
 to us, because I think we could definitely run some ideas by the consultant and get some

01:18:06.180 --> 01:18:14.180
 feedback on how to present these ideas in a way that doesn't seem so threatening to

01:18:14.180 --> 01:18:19.180
 the city council, so we can be more cooperative rather than adversarial.

01:18:19.180 --> 01:18:23.180
 And I think an outside consultant could be very helpful.

01:18:23.180 --> 01:18:24.180
 I don't know who that would be.

01:18:24.180 --> 01:18:27.180
 You and somebody, but we can talk about that at the next meeting.

01:18:27.180 --> 01:18:34.180
 So, we have to go through a procurement process according to state law.

01:18:34.180 --> 01:18:40.180
 I can look and basically present here some options.

01:18:40.180 --> 01:18:46.180
 It could even be more than one person, based on the direction today.

01:18:46.180 --> 01:18:48.180
 I can bring that back.

01:18:48.180 --> 01:18:50.180
 Options for a consultant at the next meeting.

01:18:50.180 --> 01:18:56.180
 That sounds good.

01:18:56.180 --> 01:19:03.180
 So, we're talking about starting to work on revisions.

01:19:03.180 --> 01:19:14.180
 I like the idea of looking at everything that they raised, considering a consultant.

01:19:14.180 --> 01:19:17.180
 Discussing the format.

01:19:17.180 --> 01:19:22.180
 Further discussing the format that we'll use for a joint meeting.

01:19:22.180 --> 01:19:25.180
 Yep.

01:19:25.180 --> 01:19:31.180
 So, just to be clear, would you like me to informally invite them to attend the next

01:19:31.180 --> 01:19:33.180
 meeting?

01:19:33.180 --> 01:19:36.180
 Would you like to send them a letter asking them to attend?

01:19:36.180 --> 01:19:40.180
 Are you talking deeply into that discussion about the format?

01:19:40.180 --> 01:19:49.180
 I was thinking we need to start working on our proposal to tweak it and then invite

01:19:49.180 --> 01:19:53.180
 them to the meeting after that.

01:19:53.180 --> 01:19:58.180
 And next time I think we should discuss how that's going to look.

01:19:58.180 --> 01:20:06.180
 Because I do not want it to look anything like the Council meeting, the work session.

01:20:06.180 --> 01:20:12.180
 I want mutual respect.

01:20:12.180 --> 01:20:14.180
 Not a constructive format.

01:20:14.180 --> 01:20:16.180
 No, it was not.

01:20:16.180 --> 01:20:24.180
 I think you should listen to constituents, even if their ideas are stupid.

01:20:24.180 --> 01:20:33.180
 You should still listen.

01:20:33.180 --> 01:20:35.180
 Well, I made my point clear.

01:20:35.180 --> 01:20:39.180
 I feel that they should be part of the discussion and they should actually watch a

01:20:39.180 --> 01:20:40.180
 meeting.

01:20:40.180 --> 01:20:47.180
 That there is decorum and people wait to be called on.

01:20:47.180 --> 01:20:52.180
 Well, I think that's what we're thinking about.

01:20:52.180 --> 01:20:54.180
 That's not what I heard from your statement.

01:20:54.180 --> 01:20:58.180
 What I heard from your statement was that you wanted to tweak it first and then

01:20:58.180 --> 01:21:00.180
 invite them for a conversation.

01:21:00.180 --> 01:21:01.180
 Okay.

01:21:01.180 --> 01:21:05.180
 But I think we can still go through each of the things and say this is what we're

01:21:05.180 --> 01:21:13.180
 recommending and give them a chance to respond to that.

01:21:13.180 --> 01:21:14.180
 I do not understand you.

01:21:14.180 --> 01:21:22.180
 Okay, we need to have a meeting to consider what the tweaks might be based on what

01:21:22.180 --> 01:21:28.180
 the concerns they raise were and then have them back and say these are what we're

01:21:28.180 --> 01:21:32.180
 recommending and here's what we're doing it and we would like to hear what you

01:21:32.180 --> 01:21:33.180
 have to say about it.

01:21:33.180 --> 01:21:36.180
 Okay, so are you recommending that we're doing the tweaks in one meeting and

01:21:36.180 --> 01:21:38.180
 then invite them to the next meeting?

01:21:38.180 --> 01:21:42.180
 And that is exactly what I said is where I disagree.

01:21:42.180 --> 01:21:44.180
 Okay.

01:21:44.180 --> 01:21:53.180
 Because my statement was that I feel that they should hear and see the work that

01:21:53.180 --> 01:21:59.180
 is put in rather than just giving them a presentation.

01:21:59.180 --> 01:22:00.180
 Okay.

01:22:00.180 --> 01:22:08.180
 Because I do not know what a meeting would look like if we're presenting them

01:22:08.180 --> 01:22:13.180
 upfront outside of a work session in our meeting with the tweaks that we're

01:22:13.180 --> 01:22:14.180
 making.

01:22:14.180 --> 01:22:17.180
 Is there room for conversation in that?

01:22:17.180 --> 01:22:24.180
 Does any city council member automatically get the right to speak in our meetings?

01:22:24.180 --> 01:22:26.180
 No.

01:22:26.180 --> 01:22:28.180
 They're not, right?

01:22:28.180 --> 01:22:35.180
 My understanding is that unless we have a joint meeting, they are basically

01:22:35.180 --> 01:22:38.180
 attending as a revenue.

01:22:38.180 --> 01:22:42.180
 And that was my understanding and that is what I was working under.

01:22:42.180 --> 01:22:48.180
 But if they attend as a quorum, then it will need to be a joint meeting.

01:22:48.180 --> 01:22:53.180
 And the questions arise about chairs that meeting.

01:22:53.180 --> 01:22:57.180
 But so I don't have the answer to that question.

01:22:57.180 --> 01:23:01.180
 I think that would have to be worked out in an agreement.

01:23:01.180 --> 01:23:06.180
 Would you figure out as we're starting the tweaking process, what would that

01:23:06.180 --> 01:23:07.180
 look like?

01:23:07.180 --> 01:23:11.180
 We've had city council members come to this meeting before.

01:23:11.180 --> 01:23:15.180
 Council Member Holland came somewhat recently.

01:23:15.180 --> 01:23:18.180
 And there's nothing wrong with them coming individually.

01:23:18.180 --> 01:23:21.180
 This meeting is streamed online and recorded.

01:23:21.180 --> 01:23:27.180
 So those are options that you'll have for recommending that they observe how you

01:23:27.180 --> 01:23:32.180
 deal with that business and what you'll do without running into the issue of

01:23:32.180 --> 01:23:38.180
 asking them to accidentally have a quorum.

01:23:38.180 --> 01:23:39.180
 Okay.

01:23:39.180 --> 01:23:41.180
 The state is very --

01:23:41.180 --> 01:23:44.180
 So then in that case, thank you for that clarification.

01:23:44.180 --> 01:23:53.180
 In that case, can we send an official notification or something that we would

01:23:53.180 --> 01:23:59.180
 request for them to please either attend or watch online what we're doing?

01:23:59.180 --> 01:24:04.180
 If more than four -- I think their quorum limit is four.

01:24:04.180 --> 01:24:09.180
 So if four or more attend, then that is technically a city council meeting.

01:24:09.180 --> 01:24:18.180
 And that's where we run into the issues.

01:24:18.180 --> 01:24:19.180
 Right.

01:24:19.180 --> 01:24:20.180
 That's true.

01:24:20.180 --> 01:24:26.180
 We can -- I don't know all the options without talking to the city secretary's

01:24:26.180 --> 01:24:28.180
 office and the city attorney's office.

01:24:28.180 --> 01:24:32.180
 We can certainly send them a letter asking them to attend, but we would have

01:24:32.180 --> 01:24:36.180
 to be very careful about quorum issues.

01:24:36.180 --> 01:24:43.180
 And I don't know how to get around that apart from asking them to let me know

01:24:43.180 --> 01:24:47.180
 or we could post a potential for a quorum.

01:24:47.180 --> 01:24:53.180
 They wouldn't -- if we did that and they all showed up, we'd have to say, like,

01:24:53.180 --> 01:24:55.180
 they can't talk maybe?

01:24:55.180 --> 01:24:56.180
 I don't know.

01:24:56.180 --> 01:24:57.180
 I think there's a lot of --

01:24:57.180 --> 01:25:00.180
 That's where we get into the problems.

01:25:00.180 --> 01:25:03.180
 Well, but problems are there to be solved.

01:25:03.180 --> 01:25:04.180
 I mean, I'm sorry.

01:25:04.180 --> 01:25:05.180
 That is my goal.

01:25:05.180 --> 01:25:07.180
 That is what I do every day.

01:25:07.180 --> 01:25:08.180
 Problems are there to be solved.

01:25:08.180 --> 01:25:12.180
 If we want to move forward and if we want to be strategic about what we're doing

01:25:12.180 --> 01:25:17.180
 so that we can actually make an impact, then we're going to have to be at

01:25:17.180 --> 01:25:21.180
 sometimes trying to figure out how to address something that does not have

01:25:21.180 --> 01:25:28.180
 an easy solution at this moment, and we also need to be a little bit more

01:25:28.180 --> 01:25:32.180
 putting our foot forward in other ways, because right now we are very passive

01:25:32.180 --> 01:25:37.180
 in our goal and we are very -- and this is where we're at.

01:25:37.180 --> 01:25:38.180
 We're spinning our wheels.

01:25:38.180 --> 01:25:43.180
 And so I'm sorry if that sounds controversial, but at the same time,

01:25:43.180 --> 01:25:48.180
 if we want to solve a problem, then we need to take the steps to do that.

01:25:48.180 --> 01:25:53.180
 I like the idea of having a meeting where we come up -- I would like to look at

01:25:53.180 --> 01:25:58.180
 those two sections where we propose changes and decide -- because obviously

01:25:58.180 --> 01:26:02.180
 they're going to look at the whole sections -- is there further tweaking on

01:26:02.180 --> 01:26:09.180
 these two sections, and then we would have it ready to vote on, I guess,

01:26:09.180 --> 01:26:10.180
 the following session.

01:26:10.180 --> 01:26:16.180
 At that point, that's when I'd like to figure out how we involve counsel.

01:26:16.180 --> 01:26:21.180
 We wouldn't have made the final decision, but we would have talked a bit about

01:26:21.180 --> 01:26:23.180
 where we think that needs to go.

01:26:23.180 --> 01:26:27.180
 So I'm not trying to leave them out, but I'm also not trying to get ourselves

01:26:27.180 --> 01:26:30.180
 in trouble, or the counsel.

01:26:30.180 --> 01:26:32.180
 So we want to follow this.

01:26:32.180 --> 01:26:33.180
 That is not my intent.

01:26:33.180 --> 01:26:34.180
 Yeah, no, I know.

01:26:34.180 --> 01:26:37.180
 My intent is to educate, and for them to actually get a sense of what we're

01:26:37.180 --> 01:26:38.180
 doing.

01:26:38.180 --> 01:26:39.180
 Andrea, I did not hear it that way.

01:26:39.180 --> 01:26:45.180
 I just -- I think -- but I do like the idea of having some way to have

01:26:45.180 --> 01:26:50.180
 discussions, and I think we just need next time to think about how we're

01:26:50.180 --> 01:26:51.180
 going to do this.

01:26:51.180 --> 01:26:56.180
 So -- but if we are just working on the beginning of the tweaking and going

01:26:56.180 --> 01:27:03.180
 through the concerns, then I think we would just be saying, here's what we're

01:27:03.180 --> 01:27:07.180
 looking at, and we wouldn't have voted by then, because we would have just

01:27:07.180 --> 01:27:11.180
 said, this is where we're thinking.

01:27:11.180 --> 01:27:17.180
 Well, that part doesn't matter to me, if we have voted on it or not.

01:27:17.180 --> 01:27:22.180
 Because really -- and here's -- I mean, that is -- I'm an educator, and if it

01:27:22.180 --> 01:27:28.180
 takes us educating the city council of what we're doing by them, by ensuring

01:27:28.180 --> 01:27:32.180
 that they're actually watching what we're doing, then that's called modeling.

01:27:32.180 --> 01:27:33.180
 I think that's great.

01:27:33.180 --> 01:27:34.180
 I know.

01:27:34.180 --> 01:27:36.180
 So that is the way we're proposing this.

01:27:36.180 --> 01:27:37.180
 Yes.

01:27:37.180 --> 01:27:38.180
 Okay.

01:27:38.180 --> 01:27:39.180
 So let's go with that path.

01:27:39.180 --> 01:27:40.180
 Okay.

01:27:40.180 --> 01:27:46.180
 So my understanding of the direction for next meeting is look at the

01:27:46.180 --> 01:27:52.180
 feedback, specific feedback from the council meeting to try to incorporate it

01:27:52.180 --> 01:27:56.180
 into any revisions that you would like to make.

01:27:56.180 --> 01:28:01.180
 Have -- discuss options for a consultant, potentially, and then also discuss

01:28:01.180 --> 01:28:07.180
 options for how to engage the council on future revisions for August 5th.

01:28:07.180 --> 01:28:09.180
 Everybody feel the same?

01:28:09.180 --> 01:28:11.180
 Yes.

01:28:11.180 --> 01:28:14.180
 Thank you very much, all of you, for your discussion.

01:28:16.180 --> 01:28:17.180
 I appreciate it.

01:28:17.180 --> 01:28:29.180
 So it is now 6.58 p.m., and this meeting is adjourned.

01:28:29.180 --> 01:28:30.180
 Move to adjourn?

01:28:30.180 --> 01:28:31.180
 Yes.

01:28:31.180 --> 01:28:32.180
 Okay.