WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:14.020 Okay, it is now 530 p.m. on Monday August 5th and I am calling the meeting of the 00:00:14.020 --> 00:00:21.600 Board of Ethics to order. So I don't believe we have any presentation from 00:00:21.600 --> 00:00:28.940 members of the public so I will move to item two. Items for consideration BOE 24 00:00:28.940 --> 00:00:36.400 - 28. Consider approval of the minutes for July 8th. 00:00:36.400 --> 00:00:40.480 So moved, Soltner moved to approve them. 00:00:40.480 --> 00:00:42.280 I'll second that. 00:00:42.280 --> 00:00:49.460 Andrea Eberhard moved to second it. So all in favor? 00:00:49.460 --> 00:00:50.960 Aye. 00:00:50.960 --> 00:00:53.960 It's unanimous. 00:00:54.600 --> 00:01:06.980 So moving on to items C, BOE 24 - 027. Receive a report, hold discussion and give 00:01:06.980 --> 00:01:17.040 staff direction regarding updates to the 2024 packet of amendments to the ethics 00:01:17.040 --> 00:01:26.400 ordinance. Oh, I'm sorry, I skipped over. So BOE 24 - 029. Receive a 00:01:26.400 --> 00:01:31.480 report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding future meeting topics. 00:01:31.480 --> 00:01:38.360 So we have that list in our packet. 00:01:44.360 --> 00:01:47.880 Typically we do this at the end. I think we just got out of order so if you would 00:01:47.880 --> 00:01:49.120 like to wait. 00:01:49.120 --> 00:01:54.040 I would like to move it toward the end to see how, okay, so we'll just postpone that. 00:01:54.040 --> 00:01:58.480 So I called it right. 00:01:58.480 --> 00:02:00.480 So. 00:02:00.480 --> 00:02:02.480 Motion to postpone? 00:02:02.480 --> 00:02:10.340 No, I'm just trying to, I mean I think you can move on if you don't get an objection and just bring it back. 00:02:10.340 --> 00:02:13.920 Are there any objections to putting the future meeting topics? 00:02:13.920 --> 00:02:15.920 No. 00:02:15.920 --> 00:02:17.920 At the end. 00:02:17.920 --> 00:02:34.480 Okay, item C, BOE 24 - 027. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding updates to the 2024 packet of proposed amendments to the ethics ordinance and Board of Ethics Rules of Procedure. 00:02:34.480 --> 00:02:44.000 So you have several items, the agenda information sheet and then some recommended proposed updates. 00:02:44.000 --> 00:02:49.040 So if you're, I would like to take a look at Exhibit 2. 00:02:59.040 --> 00:03:06.480 Oh, is that the ethics ordinance, the policy, that this, this section? 00:03:06.480 --> 00:03:08.480 Right. 00:03:08.480 --> 00:03:10.480 Um. 00:03:10.480 --> 00:03:12.480 So. 00:03:12.480 --> 00:03:26.480 Exhibit 2 of the email. 00:03:26.480 --> 00:03:28.480 Okay. 00:03:28.480 --> 00:03:30.480 Okay. 00:03:30.480 --> 00:03:32.480 Do you want to look at the policy or do you want to look at the email? 00:03:32.480 --> 00:03:36.480 So let me just explain if that will help. 00:03:36.480 --> 00:03:46.400 I got sick last week and I got to spend a couple of days actually looking at our Code of Ethics. 00:03:46.400 --> 00:03:55.600 I tried and tried to think of some changes that I thought would bring it to what we would like to see and I, that thing is so interwoven. 00:03:55.600 --> 00:04:15.040 So my suggestion, and this is just so that we have somebody to begin discussing, is that we take out that whole 2-273 section and we replace it with the general rule that is in the city, the ethics policy that the city employees must follow. 00:04:15.040 --> 00:04:30.640 It might get a lot better, it doesn't get into the weeds, so it's a lot more simple and we could add to it, or you could say no and we'll go back to looking at the code that we have. 00:04:30.640 --> 00:04:36.080 So what do you guys think about that? 00:04:36.080 --> 00:04:43.520 Are you saying this is the one you're suggesting to replace it with the one that the city uses or the city employees? 00:04:43.520 --> 00:05:00.560 Yes, if you've ever read that code, I love the way it's worded, it's very positive, the other one doesn't come across to me as positive, I guess. 00:05:00.560 --> 00:05:12.000 And it's full of jargon that you then have to go back to the glossary and define and it's the definitions that to me get it. 00:05:12.000 --> 00:05:34.160 So for example with the existing code, if we take out that pending matter thing, then we've got to go back to the glossary and we've got to remove that, it's the pending matter part that makes our conflict of interest code unworkable. 00:05:34.160 --> 00:05:55.040 So while I was doing that, I looked at five other cities, actually run through them, and all of them, and I looked at Dallas, San Marcos, that was interesting, I looked at Fort Worth, but I wasn't able to find anything. 00:05:55.040 --> 00:06:09.920 But I did look at five cities and they all have what's called a general rule, and the general rule defines ethics rather, conflict of interest broadly, and it doesn't get into a lot of specifics. 00:06:09.920 --> 00:06:23.200 The only city that doesn't just have a general rule was Frisco, and they have five sub-areas that in my opinion make the definition broader, not more narrow. 00:06:23.200 --> 00:06:38.080 So for example in Frisco there, I think the third or fourth of those five is an impending matter, not a pending matter, and it simply means something that is about to be weighted on. 00:06:38.080 --> 00:06:55.840 But this is more general and it's just like, don't do anything that benefits you personally, and the city has a lot of go-arounds throughout the code. 00:06:55.840 --> 00:07:12.800 So what I did change on this definition was, I went ahead and I added back in the language that the city council did agree to about the relationships. 00:07:12.800 --> 00:07:22.640 So I meant it as a starting point, what do you guys think? 00:07:22.640 --> 00:07:36.080 I would like to agree very much with what I'm seeing and what I'm hearing so far, taking it just a little bit further. 00:07:36.080 --> 00:07:43.840 We're going on seven years now discussing two apples and oranges situations here. 00:07:43.840 --> 00:08:00.880 Most of the cities in Texas, and the attorney can correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the cities in the state of Texas have essentially a uniform conflict of interest statute. 00:08:00.880 --> 00:08:12.320 If you read most of them, it's going to say employees and elected officials, so this kind of brings us back to where we're, rather than apples and oranges, we're all kind of on the same page here. 00:08:12.320 --> 00:08:26.640 If we can bring these two conflicts a little bit closer together, and so I think this is a way to kind of facilitate maybe healing where we've been over the past several years and ramp this up. 00:08:26.640 --> 00:08:42.240 And maybe, I know we can't undo the code that the city passed in 2017, so we're stuck, well not stuck, we're kind of obligated here. 00:08:42.240 --> 00:08:52.960 As I see it, to probably have two different codes working at the same time, one for employees and one for elected officials, but this is a way to kind of bring them together. 00:08:52.960 --> 00:09:05.040 And not have two so vastly different codes, and so I see this as a way to heal where we have been over the past several years. 00:09:05.040 --> 00:09:12.320 This is not extreme, this is very reminiscent and customary for what you'll find in most other cities. 00:09:12.320 --> 00:09:22.560 The only dilemma here in Denton is that we're forced to have, you know, what Todd Heilman started as city manager, plus what we've got to do now as an ethics company. 00:09:22.560 --> 00:09:29.840 And this will kind of, I think, bring it very much together to where we can move ahead from here. 00:09:36.000 --> 00:09:38.480 I mean, I like it. 00:09:38.480 --> 00:09:49.920 My concern has been that the city employees actually have a better code that is, it's general enough that you can catch a lot of things in it. 00:09:49.920 --> 00:10:00.800 And it's basically, I like the wording in there, it's actually real or not, which is the appearance of evil as a part of how you think about ethics. 00:10:00.800 --> 00:10:09.200 But it bothers me that the city employees are held to a higher standard and can lose their jobs than the city council. 00:10:09.200 --> 00:10:18.480 And in fact, I know it was something they argued on the day they approved the current code for the city council. 00:10:18.480 --> 00:10:27.200 The women on the city council objected and said that they thought it should at least be a strongest state law, and it's not. 00:10:27.200 --> 00:10:36.960 So we could potentially have a city council person break the law and get in trouble. 00:10:36.960 --> 00:10:47.600 And for example, that happened in Cincinnati over campaign contributions. 00:10:47.600 --> 00:10:56.000 And at least one of those people went to jail, and I was trying to read through it today, I think two more of their stuff is pending. 00:10:56.000 --> 00:11:03.040 That's really concerning. I would rather have somebody that catches stuff before people break the law. 00:11:03.040 --> 00:11:09.040 Because I'd rather have an ethics violation against me than go to jail. 00:11:09.040 --> 00:11:14.960 So this is general enough that I think it would strengthen it. 00:11:14.960 --> 00:11:23.040 And I would kind of love to add some stuff, one of the things that we have on our thing to consider, I'd like to add to it a little bit. 00:11:23.040 --> 00:11:31.760 But I'd be so happy if they just passed this and called it good. That would be a step forward. 00:11:31.760 --> 00:11:42.000 But there is one other thing. I think the first thing we should ask the city council to do is to take out that burden of proof thing. 00:11:42.000 --> 00:11:47.600 And we need to be really strong on that. And then we ask them to approve this. 00:11:47.600 --> 00:11:53.600 But if they don't take out that burden of proof, I don't know if this is going to do any good. 00:11:53.600 --> 00:11:57.840 So I'd like to hear what you guys think about that. 00:11:57.840 --> 00:12:05.760 So what do they have in this code that would relate to burden of proof? 00:12:05.760 --> 00:12:06.880 Nothing. 00:12:06.880 --> 00:12:12.160 Would it just be that the supervisor in the situation would? 00:12:12.160 --> 00:12:17.120 None of the cities that I'm with that mentioned burden of proof, period. 00:12:17.120 --> 00:12:28.000 So I think it should be a silent matter. Dallas has a whole weird different thing and I won't get into this so different. 00:12:28.000 --> 00:12:43.600 But they immediately have the investigator general, inspector general, the inspector general makes the first determination. 00:12:43.600 --> 00:12:55.280 And if they think there is cause, then they call jurists to, you know, retired lawyers or justice of the peace, to make the decision. 00:12:55.280 --> 00:13:00.080 And the burden rests on them. But that's the only city that even mentioned it. 00:13:00.080 --> 00:13:08.080 And the fact that Dallas is immediately assuming it's a legal matter, I guess kind of tells you where they are. 00:13:08.080 --> 00:13:15.280 But no other city even brought up burden of proof. It's a legal term. 00:13:15.280 --> 00:13:22.080 We're a, we're not a judicial board, we're a semi-judicial board. 00:13:22.080 --> 00:13:29.040 So I just think it has a chilling effect. 00:13:29.040 --> 00:13:42.400 If the fear of the council person is that somebody from the community would accuse them of something and they want there to be a burden of proof, is that what you understand them to mean? 00:13:42.400 --> 00:13:53.120 Yeah, then it could come back on that person who filed the complaint. And in fact, that happened in one of our cases. 00:13:53.120 --> 00:14:15.600 So, okay, go ahead, Andrea. Because that is also what, that is also, I think the city council in their rejection of our recommendations, I think also used legal language in the sense that they have the right to, no, that they have the right to confront their, face the person, and they want to face the person. 00:14:15.600 --> 00:14:29.200 That's fine. I mean, I, I, if we want to require the person to be there, I would prefer to say that they have to be there and that they have to be there to answer questions. 00:14:29.200 --> 00:14:42.160 No, I don't disagree with you. I don't disagree with you because we have this long conversation and that is exactly where I landed on, on the, on that is the fact that it is intimidating. 00:14:42.160 --> 00:15:00.400 It is intimidating if you think that you have to provide the proof that this is truly happening, right? If you have a concern, you should be able to voice that concern and then it should be, and then it should be investigated by the appropriate entity within the city, right? 00:15:00.400 --> 00:15:16.400 And that is, and that is what's available to them, right? And, and so that's why I think it's like to turn it into quasi-legal, into a completely legal arena, right? Where, where we are using all of that legal. 00:15:16.400 --> 00:15:30.400 So quasi-judicial means that y'all are, y'all are subject to due process requirements. So it doesn't mean that it's not a legal process. It is a legal process. 00:15:30.400 --> 00:15:47.920 Quasi-judicial just means you're not judges, but you still are decision makers, making decisions that could have, in their government decision. And so you do have due process requirements. So you should be considering those questions. 00:15:47.920 --> 00:16:05.920 I definitely think that the person should be able to face their accuser, but I think we need to do that in a way that is not overly intimidating, and right now it is. It's, you know. 00:16:05.920 --> 00:16:21.920 Question. The due process that you mentioned, the question in my mind and a lot of other citizens, well, other citizens in this town, is that due process the requirement of one individual complainant or the entire board of ethics? 00:16:21.920 --> 00:16:37.920 And that's, that's where I think we're kind of getting off into the, I want to agree with, with Nettie's opening remarks there. It's no secret that I've been opposed to this whole burden-approved thing since day one. 00:16:37.920 --> 00:16:53.920 It's not found in any other code that I can find. It weaponizes this code against citizens who would dare even think about a complaint. And it's one of the main reasons, in my opinion, that citizens have just said, go do your thing. 00:16:53.920 --> 00:17:08.920 We want nothing to do with this ethics process, because it's going to put me in the center of this room when I know that there's something wrong, but I'm not willing to stand up there and risk my reputation and my family or whatever I do. So it's no secret. 00:17:08.920 --> 00:17:30.920 I want this entire burden-approved thing struck even to the point, and I've, and Ed and I have briefly discussed this, if we can't get that thing set aside by a vote of this board that goes directly to the council, whether it's a work session or a regular session, I see no use for this, for this group beyond that. 00:17:30.920 --> 00:17:42.920 I'm personally done. And I've told Annette that I'm through with this. If we cannot get rid of that burden-approved, there's no point in having an ethics board in this town. And that's just -- 00:17:42.920 --> 00:17:48.920 And I would agree with you, because that is exactly, that was exactly my sentiment last month. I mean, I was, I mean -- 00:17:48.920 --> 00:17:53.920 I'm tired of being nice. I want to do what's best for everybody. 00:17:53.920 --> 00:18:10.920 And that's why, and I think it's even presented in what Annette has said, that even being the number one item going back to the council, because if they're not willing to set this burden-approved aside, I don't care what they do with the conflict of interest. 00:18:10.920 --> 00:18:23.920 I don't care. Because this is a dead, a dead board. If we move on with this, with this burden-approved hanging over our heads indefinitely, and the citizens going, "Yeah, yeah, right." 00:18:23.920 --> 00:18:35.920 So, it's not only two separate issues, but for me, it's also, it's kind of a timing issue, too. If that burden-approved doesn't go bye-bye, I'm bye-bye. 00:18:35.920 --> 00:18:44.920 It's that poisonous weaponizing this code against the citizens of this town. So, same, same, same. 00:18:44.920 --> 00:18:53.920 I think just silence is the best answer. That does not mean the person bringing the complaint does not have a burden. 00:18:53.920 --> 00:19:00.920 It does not mean the board does not have a burden that you have to, you know. 00:19:00.920 --> 00:19:12.920 Question. Max, do you have any idea, schedule-wise, this summer or fall, how does this work session, or what would be next after that last? 00:19:12.920 --> 00:19:20.920 If we have proposals to bring back to them, I can get us on the work session schedule. My guess is it would be probably in December, at this point. 00:19:20.920 --> 00:19:21.920 When? 00:19:21.920 --> 00:19:22.920 December. 00:19:22.920 --> 00:19:23.920 December? 00:19:23.920 --> 00:19:33.920 Yeah, but I haven't looked at the schedule today, so it's possible something could open up in October or November. I'm pretty sure September is pretty full. 00:19:33.920 --> 00:19:48.920 That is really not acceptable. We had to wait six months to bring this last stuff, and then they got off the track. I think that we should have some priority to come back quickly. 00:19:48.920 --> 00:19:53.920 I mean, I can talk to the city manager tomorrow about the schedule. 00:19:53.920 --> 00:20:01.920 I may be speaking out of turn, but in all reality, September we're not meeting, correct? Because of Labor Day. 00:20:01.920 --> 00:20:05.920 I was wanting to bring that up. Not Labor Day, but... 00:20:05.920 --> 00:20:09.920 Well... 00:20:09.920 --> 00:20:11.920 We don't have a regular meeting schedule. 00:20:11.920 --> 00:20:14.920 No, we do not have a regular meeting schedule for September. 00:20:14.920 --> 00:20:25.920 So, it would take October to work on it anyways. So then November, December is maybe feasible. 00:20:25.920 --> 00:20:33.920 Plus, it would, like, it will have to be, we will have to make changes in the language, right? 00:20:33.920 --> 00:20:52.920 I don't know. I mean, if we're lifting it straight out of the, out of the employees thing, I don't, unless there's some, I would recommend that we not, and we just say, look, we want to lift this, and we're going to go with the wording that you already agreed to on the relatives. 00:20:52.920 --> 00:21:00.920 Well, but at minimum, at minimum, there have to be clarifications of things like employees would have to be changed to... 00:21:00.920 --> 00:21:04.920 We did. We changed it. 00:21:04.920 --> 00:21:06.920 If you'll look at what... 00:21:06.920 --> 00:21:18.920 So, I mean, we could bring, we could bring forward a proposal to them that does not have red lines, if that's what you would like to do. 00:21:18.920 --> 00:21:35.920 I just think the simpler, the better, and I do like what's, I actually love everything about the city employee code because it is very readable. There's no jargon. It's very clear. 00:21:35.920 --> 00:21:48.920 I like the fact that it allows for, you know, whether people, whether you really did something or it just looks like you did, that's not good. 00:21:48.920 --> 00:21:58.920 Just the readability of it, the simplicity of it, I don't know how you could argue with it. So I, you've got that. 00:21:58.920 --> 00:22:08.920 I think that the council's concern was that it was overly, the restrictions were not, they were very broad. I think that this broadens them. 00:22:08.920 --> 00:22:13.920 I'm not, which is not to say it's wrong or right, I'm just saying I don't know that we've addressed the council's concerns. 00:22:13.920 --> 00:22:28.920 Actually, as I was reading back through what we presented to them, the very first thing that came up was the red-lined definition of business relationship. 00:22:28.920 --> 00:22:40.920 And that was what Councilwoman Jester was concerned about. And when I read it and like, oh, that's the first thing I'm looking at, I could kind of see where she was coming from. 00:22:40.920 --> 00:22:45.920 I don't think she read, it doesn't appear to me that she read much further. 00:22:45.920 --> 00:22:56.920 So I think what I don't like about our code is that it is so in the weeds on business relationship and $600. 00:22:56.920 --> 00:23:11.920 I think we just need something general. If you're doing something that looks bad or is bad, then that merits an ethics complaint. So what do you think about that? 00:23:11.920 --> 00:23:21.920 I don't disagree. I don't disagree with you on any of that point. I just think that if we're wanting to present it to council, I really do think we need to. 00:23:21.920 --> 00:23:26.920 I mean, because I'm looking through here and there are several things where we just delay. 00:23:26.920 --> 00:23:37.920 I would prefer red lines over just saying adapt this with minimal changes because that's, I don't think that that's going to be effective. 00:23:37.920 --> 00:23:53.920 So if a council person did not want to have a conflict of interest complaint against them, if they were proactive in being very transparent with any of their relationships 00:23:53.920 --> 00:23:59.920 related to anything coming up before the council, then it wouldn't be a problem for them. 00:23:59.920 --> 00:24:09.920 And let's say something did come up, then they still have the opportunity to do the panel proactively to say, hey, is this an ethical violation? 00:24:09.920 --> 00:24:23.920 So they have that to protect them. So I'm thinking if we present this as is or, you know, with the elected officials also to present it as it's broad in general, 00:24:23.920 --> 00:24:29.920 but there's ways that council people can protect themselves by being transparent. 00:24:29.920 --> 00:24:38.920 So if you have a relationship, somebody gave money to your PAC or whatever, and now there's legislation or something coming forward about it. 00:24:38.920 --> 00:24:48.920 If they're transparent about it or if they're not sure, then they could do the proactive panel and that protects them from having a complaint against them. 00:24:48.920 --> 00:24:57.920 So that's two ways they could protect themselves from complaints. 00:24:57.920 --> 00:25:08.920 Because the idea is for transparency. I think the whole reason for the ethics board was to increase transparency because people were worried about back room dealings that they didn't know about. 00:25:08.920 --> 00:25:19.920 So if there's transparency, you know, then everybody knows what's on the table. 00:25:19.920 --> 00:25:26.920 I think my concern about just like saying put this language straight into the ordinances is specifically the disclosures piece. 00:25:26.920 --> 00:25:34.920 I mean, the employee, yeah, it's easy to change that instead of the official. The disclosures piece is a little more specific to employees. 00:25:34.920 --> 00:25:40.920 We could go forward to them with no red line and basically say this is the board of ethics' idea. 00:25:40.920 --> 00:25:45.920 Would you like me to draft red lines for you, the council, to discuss? 00:25:45.920 --> 00:25:49.920 Yeah, I'd like to throw the ball in their court to see what they would want to add. 00:25:49.920 --> 00:25:54.920 But I really do think we need to get that burden of proof thing struck first. 00:25:54.920 --> 00:26:00.920 Well, it's not in this, so you don't have to strike anything if you're presenting this. 00:26:00.920 --> 00:26:07.920 I want to agree with what Annetta just said, and maybe this is a question for city attorney. 00:26:07.920 --> 00:26:16.920 How can we as a board right now today, whether this item doesn't come up until December or next year or whenever, 00:26:16.920 --> 00:26:27.920 how can we decide today, tonight, that that burden of proof is going to be by vote the number one issue that goes back to this council? 00:26:27.920 --> 00:26:37.920 Can we take a vote tonight that this is the number one, that we're prioritizing the issues 00:26:37.920 --> 00:26:45.920 that they must decide on this burden of proof issue before we'll get into all the weeds on the complex of interest? 00:26:45.920 --> 00:26:49.920 Can that be done by a vote? 00:26:49.920 --> 00:27:00.920 Sure, you could do it by a motion, or you could give direction to Madison that that's what you want brought to city council first. 00:27:00.920 --> 00:27:07.920 I mean, if that's, if you want to, but the thing is, city council can do whatever they want to do. 00:27:07.920 --> 00:27:12.920 This is their, they can make the changes, so you can go to them and say, 00:27:12.920 --> 00:27:20.920 "We don't support making the employees change unless you strike burden of proof." 00:27:20.920 --> 00:27:29.920 And they may go, "Well, we love your employees change idea, but we disagree with you on that, so we're just going to take that anyway." 00:27:29.920 --> 00:27:37.920 So there's not a whole lot you can do to stop them from considering whatever they want to consider. 00:27:37.920 --> 00:27:47.920 But y'all could give your direction that this is what you recommend, that you think you'd like for them to consider these two things, 00:27:47.920 --> 00:27:49.920 but you don't recommend making that change. 00:27:49.920 --> 00:27:57.920 I understand completely what you're saying, with the reminder that this is a quasi-judicial governing body, 00:27:57.920 --> 00:28:01.920 and we do get to take our priorities, whether or not the council approves them or not, 00:28:01.920 --> 00:28:07.920 we at least get to prioritize the order in which they consider them. 00:28:07.920 --> 00:28:15.920 So your role as a quasi-judicial board applies only in the capacity where you're making, that doesn't confer anything. 00:28:15.920 --> 00:28:22.920 Quasi-judicial is something, is by virtue of what you do, you become a quasi-judicial board. 00:28:22.920 --> 00:28:30.920 Being a quasi-judicial board doesn't, it's just a legal sort of term that says now you have to meet certain requirements. 00:28:30.920 --> 00:28:40.920 So essentially by handling complaints and having the power to punish people for violating the ethics ordinance, 00:28:40.920 --> 00:28:48.920 that's when you're exercising your quasi-judicial authority, and that's when, because you have the power to punish, 00:28:48.920 --> 00:28:57.920 that's when your process requirements, equal protection requirements, all the protections that people have in courts apply to you. 00:28:57.920 --> 00:29:03.920 Within the members of what we do, it's just those here where that matters. 00:29:03.920 --> 00:29:11.920 Outside of it, you're really just performing an advisory role when it comes to changes to the ethics ordinance. 00:29:11.920 --> 00:29:18.920 I have a question in the way you're using legally the word punishment, because that is exactly one of the things we discussed. 00:29:18.920 --> 00:29:26.920 I don't think the ethics policy as it is right now, we have any actual, what I would consider in a layman's way, as a punishment. 00:29:26.920 --> 00:29:33.920 We have the authority to either agree or disagree with it being an ethics violation, 00:29:33.920 --> 00:29:46.920 but there is nothing in the ethics code at the moment that allows us to even do, like one of the things that we had proposed was a, 00:29:46.920 --> 00:30:00.920 so I'm just asking legally, because I just don't think that there is anything in the ethics code that would give us the power to punish, the way I understand it. 00:30:00.920 --> 00:30:18.920 The review committee said that we should have strong and meaningful sanctions, and I don't, I think our power is a letter, and I understand that's shaming, and yeah. 00:30:18.920 --> 00:30:27.920 So that's a good question, because that's where I think the due process conversation that y'all are having about what goes in the code is really important, 00:30:27.920 --> 00:30:33.920 because what process is due depends on the punishment that you're given. 00:30:33.920 --> 00:30:40.920 So the more severe the punishment, the more thorough your due process needs to be. 00:30:40.920 --> 00:30:45.920 So when you're talking about this, consider what are the punishments available. 00:30:45.920 --> 00:30:54.920 And one of them is pretty, I mean y'all have the, I think the power to disbar a vendor, right, for a year or something like that, that's one of them. 00:30:54.920 --> 00:31:01.920 So that's a pretty severe punishment that y'all can do, to say you can't do any contract with the city for a year. 00:31:01.920 --> 00:31:05.920 That, you know, how much process should we do to somebody who's running that? 00:31:05.920 --> 00:31:07.920 That would be meaningful. 00:31:07.920 --> 00:31:11.920 See, and that is one of the things I did not consider as, may recommend. 00:31:11.920 --> 00:31:14.920 Recommend, so yeah, okay. 00:31:14.920 --> 00:31:18.920 And that's that, right, recommendations, they're all written as recommendations. 00:31:18.920 --> 00:31:19.920 Right. 00:31:19.920 --> 00:31:28.920 I haven't done enough research to opine on how that affects y'all's status as quasi-judicial, 00:31:28.920 --> 00:31:36.920 but considering that y'all have indicated that you want more ability to give this thing teeth, that's a consideration. 00:31:36.920 --> 00:31:43.920 Okay, so one of the things that I'm going to go back to is because I don't disagree, 00:31:43.920 --> 00:31:48.920 I don't disagree with anything you've said or what David has said, not at all. 00:31:48.920 --> 00:31:57.920 I am just trying to be as pragmatic as possible to get these things actually listened and done, right? 00:31:57.920 --> 00:32:05.920 So I am thinking if we're just saying, because again, what is missing and what I harped on so much last month 00:32:05.920 --> 00:32:11.920 was the fact of if we're just saying get rid of the burden of proof, 00:32:11.920 --> 00:32:19.920 because as long as the burden of proof is on there, on the books, there's nothing worth doing. 00:32:19.920 --> 00:32:27.920 But that does not reflect any of the considerations of why we're asking the burden of proof to be removed. 00:32:27.920 --> 00:32:32.920 And that was my frustration last week, and I think we're going down the same road again 00:32:32.920 --> 00:32:38.920 where we want to just quickly present something, but if we're quickly presenting just a recommendation 00:32:38.920 --> 00:32:45.920 without the ability to provide any of our reasoning and justification of why we think that's important, 00:32:45.920 --> 00:32:47.920 I think we're going to get the same result. 00:32:47.920 --> 00:32:54.920 And that is where I'm asking again that we're finding creative ways of making the board 00:32:54.920 --> 00:33:00.920 not listen to our recommendation, but to the work behind that, 00:33:00.920 --> 00:33:08.920 the work that reflects the actual justification for why it is important to remove it. 00:33:08.920 --> 00:33:13.920 So what would you recommend? That's the point. 00:33:13.920 --> 00:33:20.920 So Andrea, does that seem, well, I understand completely, I kind of understand what you're saying. 00:33:20.920 --> 00:33:23.920 We've really not explained this to the Council when we have it at that time. 00:33:23.920 --> 00:33:30.920 So if we have the opportunity to walk them through all of the downsides of this burden of proof, 00:33:30.920 --> 00:33:33.920 this is what can happen to a citizen complainant. 00:33:33.920 --> 00:33:36.920 This is why you haven't had a complaint in the past four years. 00:33:36.920 --> 00:33:41.920 This is why, and spell it out for them, which we haven't done, 00:33:41.920 --> 00:33:47.920 and we're assuming that they understand all of the downsides of having some citizen 00:33:47.920 --> 00:33:55.920 who has a perfectly legitimate ethics complaint going, "Uh-uh, no way. I'm not touching this." 00:33:55.920 --> 00:33:57.920 And I'm going to use myself as an example. 00:33:57.920 --> 00:34:03.920 I am going to use myself as an example because when I first started reading the ethics code, 00:34:03.920 --> 00:34:07.920 I thought, okay, all of these limits, this is wonderful, right? 00:34:07.920 --> 00:34:11.920 This is very precise, this many dollars, that action. 00:34:11.920 --> 00:34:19.920 But in our conversation, the rationale that you were bringing to the table became clear to me. 00:34:19.920 --> 00:34:26.920 So I'm going to really say my involvement on where we are with this ethics code has changed dramatically 00:34:26.920 --> 00:34:32.920 because I have the background, and that is because it was provided to me. 00:34:32.920 --> 00:34:36.920 We had a constructive conversation about it. 00:34:36.920 --> 00:34:45.920 And so, I'm coming back to exactly what I asked last month. 00:34:45.920 --> 00:34:51.920 I want them to listen to the rationale, not just a recommendation. 00:34:51.920 --> 00:34:59.920 And saying that no other city, we can find no other city with anything even similar to this burden of proof 00:34:59.920 --> 00:35:03.920 really doesn't carry the weight that you're saying. 00:35:03.920 --> 00:35:09.920 Here's the downside. Here's all the BS that can happen if this stays in this weapon. 00:35:09.920 --> 00:35:12.920 Prove why it doesn't work the way it's written right now. 00:35:12.920 --> 00:35:14.920 Yeah, that makes sense. 00:35:14.920 --> 00:35:18.920 Yeah, I agree. I agree. 00:35:18.920 --> 00:35:27.920 I do want to keep whatever we put forward to them as simple as possible because they got off into the weeds big time. 00:35:27.920 --> 00:35:35.920 And so, ideally, I would like to present at one meeting, this is why we want to remove the burden of proof, 00:35:35.920 --> 00:35:43.920 this is why we want to put the city employee code in. 00:35:43.920 --> 00:35:50.920 I just feel that we have to wait a long time before we get to go before council and then if they get off into the weeds, 00:35:50.920 --> 00:35:53.920 which I know they've got a lot of stuff to digest. 00:35:53.920 --> 00:36:03.920 But, the other thing they did not like was the A1D part where they were limiting campaign contributions. 00:36:03.920 --> 00:36:05.920 It's not a limit. 00:36:05.920 --> 00:36:06.920 I know. 00:36:06.920 --> 00:36:08.920 I tried to make clear it came clear. 00:36:08.920 --> 00:36:12.920 I know. But, I mean, that's pretty much all they were talking about. 00:36:12.920 --> 00:36:21.920 So, which is interesting in light of some information that just came to light in the paper. 00:36:21.920 --> 00:36:24.920 So. 00:36:24.920 --> 00:36:28.920 So, every time we send something to them, there's a letter from the board. 00:36:28.920 --> 00:36:35.920 You could include more information about the rationale within that letter. 00:36:35.920 --> 00:36:37.920 You can use that as part of the presentation. 00:36:37.920 --> 00:36:43.920 I cannot come up with the rationale and put it in the letter. 00:36:43.920 --> 00:36:50.920 I will come up with it. 00:36:50.920 --> 00:37:01.920 Does that rationale, could that rationale be drafted at least in terms of like the broad points by us as a board? 00:37:01.920 --> 00:37:11.920 So, maybe at the next meeting we talk about this burden of proof thing and I start making a list of what the rationale looks like. 00:37:11.920 --> 00:37:17.920 And we make sure that we all agree that we're, at least most of us agree on that. 00:37:17.920 --> 00:37:20.920 Yeah, I'm fine with that. 00:37:20.920 --> 00:37:24.920 But, I really feel like we need to do one thing at a time or they're just going to. 00:37:24.920 --> 00:37:27.920 And I agree with you 100% on that. 00:37:27.920 --> 00:37:28.920 Yeah. 00:37:28.920 --> 00:37:33.920 If you would like to just bring the burden of proof forward in a letter with a rationale, we can certainly do that. 00:37:33.920 --> 00:37:47.920 Okay. And then we drop, we talked about dropping the conflict adventures, because I just think this wording is so much better than all of the $600. 00:37:47.920 --> 00:37:53.920 So, just to do a silly example of a possible complaint. 00:37:53.920 --> 00:38:09.920 A citizen came forward and accused council person of seeing them having a meeting at a restaurant with somebody that's going to have like a developer coming, you know, situation coming. 00:38:09.920 --> 00:38:16.920 And would they, with burden of proof, would they have to have like a photograph of the two people sitting together? 00:38:16.920 --> 00:38:19.920 And without the burden of proof, they could just say it? 00:38:19.920 --> 00:38:24.920 I mean, I'm trying to understand how this works with burden of proof and not burden of proof. 00:38:24.920 --> 00:38:28.920 That's interesting because I know we had one case where there was a. 00:38:28.920 --> 00:38:29.920 They wouldn't allow the photograph. 00:38:29.920 --> 00:38:33.920 They wouldn't allow a video clip from council meeting. 00:38:33.920 --> 00:38:36.920 We were not sure we could admit that. 00:38:36.920 --> 00:38:54.920 We weren't sure you could use that as part of the three member panel discussion, because according to the code, that's supposed to look at the complaint on his face. 00:38:54.920 --> 00:39:01.920 And that video had not been submitted as part of the complaint because of the way the code was written. 00:39:01.920 --> 00:39:04.920 Which is just. 00:39:04.920 --> 00:39:09.920 So we might need to go back to our procedure part and be more clear on what would be. 00:39:09.920 --> 00:39:10.920 And we did that already. 00:39:10.920 --> 00:39:11.920 That's been clarified. 00:39:11.920 --> 00:39:15.920 So that would not have happened. 00:39:15.920 --> 00:39:34.920 Could a citizen just say, I saw you having lunch with a developer and I overheard you talking about how you're going to vote on that thing that's going to come up in city council. They could just say that? Without any proof? 00:39:34.920 --> 00:39:37.920 I think they could say that. I think it probably wouldn't be as strong. 00:39:37.920 --> 00:39:48.920 How would your board know how to do that? 00:39:48.920 --> 00:39:53.920 I mean, I can't, I don't want to weigh in on again. 00:39:53.920 --> 00:40:09.920 The person I report directly to is covered by them and preventing my rules of lawyer to make it hard for me to give substance to a license. But I can say that again, that due process consideration would come up and there may not be guidance in the ordinance. 00:40:09.920 --> 00:40:19.920 But the board would have to sort of go, are we, are we, what is our, you're kind of having to make that decision on the fly. 00:40:19.920 --> 00:40:21.920 It sounds like in that situation. 00:40:21.920 --> 00:40:30.920 Hopefully with help of whatever legal counsel you have present at that hearing, whether that's outside council or me or someone else. 00:40:30.920 --> 00:40:44.920 I think that's what they're worried about is people just accusing them of things without any basis, but then just the accusation itself can hurt them in an election or whatever. 00:40:44.920 --> 00:40:55.920 I would like to ask a little question that says, so is there, there's a difference between burden of proof and being asked to appear in a white testimony, correct? 00:40:55.920 --> 00:41:05.920 Yeah, right, because yeah, whether you, burden of proof is sort of how much does that testimony have to have for you? 00:41:05.920 --> 00:41:25.920 Whereas, so it would still be possible, like, I mean, it's still possible for somebody. It could be written in such a way that a person would have to appear and be available to provide testimony about what they're, correct? 00:41:25.920 --> 00:41:46.920 Without it being considered burden of proof, like providing the burden of proof, like providing video testimony or providing like hard evidence or like physical evidence of what they're saying, but being able to testify. 00:41:46.920 --> 00:42:03.920 Which would potentially, like if there's a clause in there that the complainant would have to appear and be available to answer questions, that would be different from, that would still be something. 00:42:03.920 --> 00:42:32.920 I think the burden of proofing maybe comes into play when, that's when we get into the frivolity part, because they had the burden to prove it. I think the frivolity part then becomes more, more of a consequence to the person who filed the complaint. 00:42:32.920 --> 00:42:47.920 So if someone came before us that actually said that, would you rule in favor of the person that said they heard this conversation, or would you say that's not enough for us to do an ethics violation for this counsel person? 00:42:47.920 --> 00:42:51.920 I think it would depend a whole lot on how it was presented. 00:42:51.920 --> 00:43:03.920 So again, it seems like the counsel person would be protected by, they would have to do more than just say they heard or saw something like that. Which is sort of like burden of proof but not required. 00:43:03.920 --> 00:43:14.920 They'd have to present a case, you know, of why they get the, there was a violation in their testimony. 00:43:14.920 --> 00:43:35.920 If we present, if we present this to the counsel, with the understanding that we haven't even been able to outline all of the problems that we would get into if this burden of proof exists, where a citizen complainant that has no subpoena power, 00:43:35.920 --> 00:43:47.920 that's on and on and on and on, the differences in a board of ethics pursuing a complaint versus a citizen complainant, it's a night and day comparison. 00:43:47.920 --> 00:43:54.920 And I don't think we've had the opportunity to do that, and I think that's what you're mentioning, would make a big difference. 00:43:54.920 --> 00:44:06.920 So I don't know how we prioritize this to where the next issue this city council has to deal with, and they can't start shooting conflict of interest questions into this. 00:44:06.920 --> 00:44:10.920 That's what they've done. They'll focus on what they want to talk about. 00:44:10.920 --> 00:44:24.920 And when Madison has presented, and bless your heart, this is not a, it's only a comment, it gives them the option when we go through all of the burden of proof and conflicts of interest, 00:44:24.920 --> 00:44:31.920 then they can take and choose the issues that they're interested in and completely ignore what we're after. 00:44:31.920 --> 00:44:40.920 And so that's the only reason why I think this is so important, is to get this burden of proof as an individual agenda item. 00:44:40.920 --> 00:44:50.920 And we don't start talking about conflict of interest until there's an actual vote by this city council to either maintain or kill this burden of proof. 00:44:50.920 --> 00:45:01.920 That's what I'm looking for. I definitely think you're making a great point that we, because we talk, we pretty much all agree that burden of proof is a problem with our code. 00:45:01.920 --> 00:45:05.920 But you're right. I mean, I think you have to walk through that before you understand. 00:45:05.920 --> 00:45:14.920 But we've not had a chance to explain it to the council about how poisonous and how this does weaponize and kill citizen trust in this ethics code. 00:45:14.920 --> 00:45:20.920 And I think there's something that Weschler wrote, which, you know, I love Weschler. 00:45:20.920 --> 00:45:34.920 But I think he says that this is intimidating and that it could be, so I think quoting him is one of the things that it intimidates the citizen. 00:45:34.920 --> 00:45:41.920 And it could be really helpful to the person who is wanting to behave unethically. 00:45:41.920 --> 00:45:45.920 I know he says that somewhere. Go back through his stuff. 00:45:45.920 --> 00:45:51.920 But that and then anything else we can think of, I would be happy to write that loader once I hear more. 00:45:51.920 --> 00:46:00.920 So I would suggest that we next time we talk about this topic and get it nailed down. 00:46:00.920 --> 00:46:08.920 And then the next time, even if we haven't gotten to go to city council, we talk about the conflict of interest. 00:46:08.920 --> 00:46:15.920 But yeah, I just think this is very, very critical and there will be no complaints. 00:46:15.920 --> 00:46:19.920 It's unlikely that there will actually be complaints. 00:46:19.920 --> 00:46:26.920 I have noticed, too, that when people file complaints, they're feeling pretty emotional. 00:46:26.920 --> 00:46:32.920 And I think that puts, they're feeling pretty emotional. 00:46:32.920 --> 00:46:43.920 And so their view of this is all right and, you know, I mean, that one that turned into a formality complaint was very emotional. 00:46:43.920 --> 00:46:48.920 So we want to find some ways to take some of that out of there. 00:46:48.920 --> 00:46:56.920 We've got to be thoughtful and mindful about what we're saying. 00:46:56.920 --> 00:47:03.920 And people aren't feeling that way when they're filing complaints, usually. 00:47:03.920 --> 00:47:16.920 And they really think that the one thing they put out there, you know, kind of like what we're doing, that it explains everything. 00:47:16.920 --> 00:47:26.920 OK, so I guess we've talked enough about this topic to maybe move on to the next thing. 00:47:26.920 --> 00:47:28.920 Do you have consensus on direction? 00:47:28.920 --> 00:47:31.920 I think everybody has consensus. 00:47:31.920 --> 00:47:42.920 I think the consensus is that we would like to take a proposal just on the burden of proof, striking the burden of proof section to the city council this fall. 00:47:42.920 --> 00:47:50.920 And then next, in a future agenda, we'll work on a letter that will go, that will be the proposal, essentially. 00:47:50.920 --> 00:47:56.920 But right after we draft that, and I want to draft the next thing, and I just really don't want to present them together. 00:47:56.920 --> 00:47:58.920 To restore confidence. 00:47:58.920 --> 00:48:02.920 So why don't you want to present this at the same time? 00:48:02.920 --> 00:48:10.920 I think they'll get off on that, and they barely mentioned the burden of proof issue. 00:48:10.920 --> 00:48:16.920 But I'd be curious to see how they react to this code as a replacement. 00:48:16.920 --> 00:48:17.920 I would, too. 00:48:17.920 --> 00:48:22.920 So I don't see any disadvantage to not presenting it at the same time. 00:48:22.920 --> 00:48:31.920 I think that when we present more than one thing, they're like, here's the bum, we'll pass this, and the rest just goes away. 00:48:31.920 --> 00:48:35.920 That was my impression at that last meeting that we had. 00:48:35.920 --> 00:48:39.920 OK, we'll change the wording about family. 00:48:39.920 --> 00:48:40.920 Next? 00:48:40.920 --> 00:48:46.920 I thought this would not be just passing anything small, it would be passing the whole thing. 00:48:46.920 --> 00:48:48.920 It would be big. 00:48:48.920 --> 00:48:55.920 I think they'd get off on one little thing, at least the way they were in the meetings now. 00:48:55.920 --> 00:49:07.920 And if we need a reason for that, a hundred times more damage has been done to the citizens in terms of their trust of this whole ethics process 00:49:07.920 --> 00:49:13.920 than by that burden of proof than some of the bells, some of the tweaks to the conflict of interest. 00:49:13.920 --> 00:49:21.920 Yeah, the 5% and the $1,600, yeah, that's all obsolete by most standards in the state of Texas. 00:49:21.920 --> 00:49:22.920 But we can fix that. 00:49:22.920 --> 00:49:28.920 But what we've got to do is get folks given the day about this entire ethics process. 00:49:28.920 --> 00:49:30.920 And they think it's a joke. 00:49:30.920 --> 00:49:33.920 And they do, and I don't blame anyone. 00:49:33.920 --> 00:49:35.920 From people I don't know. 00:49:35.920 --> 00:49:44.920 Exactly, because you weaponize that against somebody who has no legal resources to bring it to you, doesn't understand this, can't do that, 00:49:44.920 --> 00:49:48.920 but it's all up to them to bring it to an ethics board. 00:49:48.920 --> 00:49:49.920 No thank you. 00:49:49.920 --> 00:49:54.920 And there's no surprise why people are just going... 00:49:54.920 --> 00:49:58.920 So there's no language of burden of proof in this, right? 00:49:58.920 --> 00:49:59.920 No. 00:49:59.920 --> 00:50:03.920 So why not just present that? 00:50:03.920 --> 00:50:09.920 We could. 00:50:09.920 --> 00:50:12.920 There are two separate sections of the current ordinance. 00:50:12.920 --> 00:50:18.920 The ordinance itself still has a lot of things like the board of ethics itself is created in the ordinance. 00:50:18.920 --> 00:50:25.920 So we can't just take the whole ordinance and repeal it and just replace it with this one section of that. 00:50:25.920 --> 00:50:27.920 No, this is the conflict of interest. 00:50:27.920 --> 00:50:33.920 But the burden of proof section is not in the conflict, it's a whole separate section. 00:50:33.920 --> 00:50:34.920 Then the hearing procedure. 00:50:34.920 --> 00:50:38.920 I think this part will go down easier than the burden of proof. 00:50:38.920 --> 00:50:41.920 Wouldn't that feel like progress? 00:50:41.920 --> 00:50:45.920 Going with this? 00:50:45.920 --> 00:50:50.920 This is what we've been working on this conflict of interest all this time, more than burden of proof at this point. 00:50:50.920 --> 00:50:59.920 I don't think it would change anything from the citizens point of view. 00:50:59.920 --> 00:51:02.920 Well, we've been working on conflict of interest, right? 00:51:02.920 --> 00:51:04.920 So that's what this is. 00:51:04.920 --> 00:51:07.920 Why not continue working on that? 00:51:07.920 --> 00:51:14.920 We'll get to burden of proof when we get to procedures, right? 00:51:14.920 --> 00:51:16.920 Which one are we working on, I guess? 00:51:16.920 --> 00:51:18.920 I thought we were working on conflict of interest. 00:51:18.920 --> 00:51:25.920 I mean, we took both to the council. 00:51:25.920 --> 00:51:27.920 I don't know, what do you think, Andrea? 00:51:27.920 --> 00:51:38.920 I like the idea of presenting small pieces at a time so that we don't convolute the conversation during the work session or during the memo. 00:51:38.920 --> 00:51:40.920 So which piece do we start with? 00:51:40.920 --> 00:51:42.920 And I think that's the question. 00:51:42.920 --> 00:51:46.920 Do you want to start with burden of proof or do you want to start with -- let me just see a strong poll. 00:51:46.920 --> 00:51:50.920 Who wants to start with burden of proof? 00:51:50.920 --> 00:51:52.920 Who wants to start with -- okay. 00:51:52.920 --> 00:51:54.920 Yes, I'm sorry, just one, not two. 00:51:54.920 --> 00:51:57.920 Okay, I saw that. 00:51:57.920 --> 00:52:00.920 Who wants to start with conflict of interest? 00:52:00.920 --> 00:52:04.920 Let's start with burden of proof. 00:52:04.920 --> 00:52:11.920 It would be nice to have a win instead of a controversy again. 00:52:11.920 --> 00:52:18.920 Yeah, but you know, the time before this last one, I thought those were really minor changes. 00:52:18.920 --> 00:52:21.920 And I'll help her, please. 00:52:21.920 --> 00:52:25.920 May I try to ease your reluctance? 00:52:25.920 --> 00:52:30.920 I really do think that the burden of proof is a straightforward yes or no. 00:52:30.920 --> 00:52:33.920 Either we abolish it or we don't, right? 00:52:33.920 --> 00:52:39.920 Whereas I really personally believe that reworking this is going to be a lot more time consuming. 00:52:39.920 --> 00:52:43.920 So why not start with the quick one, whether it's easy or hard, 00:52:43.920 --> 00:52:48.920 and then give us some time to work on, you know, like really looking at the red one. 00:52:48.920 --> 00:52:55.920 Yeah, so one thing that's all yes or no, and then I write the letter depending on what we say, 00:52:55.920 --> 00:53:00.920 then I think we could start moving on the other while we wait. 00:53:00.920 --> 00:53:05.920 But I think one thing at a time, that's what I've learned from this case. 00:53:05.920 --> 00:53:07.920 I would agree. 00:53:07.920 --> 00:53:16.920 And I mean, if you look at their agenda, it is a lot. 00:53:16.920 --> 00:53:19.920 But I do agree with that, and I understand completely. 00:53:19.920 --> 00:53:34.920 But I think using this conflict of interest that we have here as coming from the city code now 00:53:34.920 --> 00:53:37.920 is going to be kind of a small bite. 00:53:37.920 --> 00:53:39.920 I mean, it's going to undo a lot of stuff. 00:53:39.920 --> 00:53:42.920 And I think this is going to be fairly straightforward. 00:53:42.920 --> 00:53:50.920 And I think the council is going to have a much easier time adopting a sister code, 00:53:50.920 --> 00:53:55.920 you know, to this conflict of interest of what we've got now rather than all this 5%, 600. 00:53:55.920 --> 00:54:02.920 I think this is going to be a very small bite for them once we can get this burden of proof out of the way. 00:54:02.920 --> 00:54:04.920 This kind of work. 00:54:04.920 --> 00:54:08.920 So is that clear? 00:54:08.920 --> 00:54:12.920 I think the consensus is that we would like to do one at a time, 00:54:12.920 --> 00:54:15.920 and we would like to start with burden of proof. 00:54:15.920 --> 00:54:16.920 Yes. 00:54:16.920 --> 00:54:18.920 And I'm on record of disagreeing with those things. 00:54:18.920 --> 00:54:20.920 Yes, and that's good. 00:54:20.920 --> 00:54:23.920 Yes, you are. 00:54:23.920 --> 00:54:26.920 Will you allow a disagreement here? 00:54:26.920 --> 00:54:32.920 Okay, you're presenting both, or just the conflict of interest? 00:54:32.920 --> 00:54:36.920 Oh, just -- I don't understand your question. 00:54:36.920 --> 00:54:42.920 Either both this and the burden of proof together, or just this, but not just -- 00:54:42.920 --> 00:54:43.920 Start with the burden of proof. 00:54:43.920 --> 00:54:45.920 Start with burden of proof. 00:54:45.920 --> 00:54:48.920 One item per meeting. 00:54:48.920 --> 00:54:54.920 And I want it to be simple, because -- yeah, and like Andrea said, burden of proof is yes or no. 00:54:54.920 --> 00:55:03.920 With the conflict of interest, I thought it was yes or no to pending matter, and that did not fly. 00:55:03.920 --> 00:55:05.920 At all. 00:55:05.920 --> 00:55:09.920 It was lovely. 00:55:09.920 --> 00:55:16.920 Okay, so I guess we will move on to item B that we've moved to in the meeting. 00:55:16.920 --> 00:55:23.920 So we're going to talk about future topics. 00:55:23.920 --> 00:55:26.920 So our next meeting is in October, currently. 00:55:26.920 --> 00:55:29.920 That's our next regular scheduled meeting. 00:55:29.920 --> 00:55:34.920 We do have the annual ethics witness training for that agenda as well. 00:55:34.920 --> 00:55:42.920 But other than that, there's nothing currently on the schedule, except for -- I'm assuming we would like to add this letter. 00:55:42.920 --> 00:55:45.920 Well, would you like to just discuss? 00:55:45.920 --> 00:55:49.920 I'd like to discuss, and I would like to take notes, and then I'll write it up, and -- 00:55:49.920 --> 00:55:50.920 Okay. 00:55:50.920 --> 00:55:53.920 I'll show it at the next meeting. 00:55:53.920 --> 00:56:00.920 So at the next meeting, discuss burden of proof, come up with our rationale. 00:56:00.920 --> 00:56:08.920 And if we have time, we might start to nibble on the conflict of interest, but I don't think we have time. 00:56:08.920 --> 00:56:09.920 Okay. 00:56:09.920 --> 00:56:15.920 Does that sound good to you? 00:56:15.920 --> 00:56:22.920 The direction I'm hearing is in October, normal business, including the ethics ordinance training, 00:56:22.920 --> 00:56:31.920 to require doing, and then discussion of the burden of proof, rationale. 00:56:31.920 --> 00:56:36.920 If you would like me to, I can bring the letter, like a word document, essentially, 00:56:36.920 --> 00:56:43.920 and we can take bullets together on that, if you would like, as a board. 00:56:43.920 --> 00:56:44.920 I would like that. 00:56:44.920 --> 00:56:48.920 We can have a rough outline at least of the letter at the end of the meeting. 00:56:48.920 --> 00:56:49.920 Yes. 00:56:49.920 --> 00:57:00.920 Sounds good. 00:57:00.920 --> 00:57:05.920 So that brings us to the end of the meeting. 00:57:05.920 --> 00:57:08.920 So are there any more -- David? 00:57:08.920 --> 00:57:14.920 Well, just a couple of questions real quickly for Madison. 00:57:14.920 --> 00:57:23.920 Just as a board member, I'm curious, have you had any requests or advisory opinions at all in the past month or two or three, or -- 00:57:23.920 --> 00:57:25.920 No. 00:57:25.920 --> 00:57:27.920 If I do receive them, I let you know. 00:57:27.920 --> 00:57:39.920 Okay, so there's -- and no complaints that your advice or opinion wouldn't move on, so you've not talked to anybody about complaints that we're not aware of? 00:57:39.920 --> 00:57:40.920 No. 00:57:40.920 --> 00:57:43.920 Okay. 00:57:43.920 --> 00:58:00.920 Actually, I do have one thing that I would like to put in a future discussion of election contributions. 00:58:00.920 --> 00:58:02.920 I know that's a hot bet. 00:58:02.920 --> 00:58:06.920 Oh, yeah, yeah. 00:58:06.920 --> 00:58:11.920 We have a lot to fix before we -- 00:58:11.920 --> 00:58:17.920 We'll start with these two. 00:58:17.920 --> 00:58:31.920 I'm just wondering if we could get some kind of a prohibition against asking for election contributions. 00:58:31.920 --> 00:58:36.920 I'm not sure I have. 00:58:36.920 --> 00:58:38.920 Okay. 00:58:38.920 --> 00:58:45.920 Are there any other things anybody needs to know about? 00:58:45.920 --> 00:58:53.920 So it is now 6/28, and this meeting is adjourned. 00:58:53.920 --> 00:58:55.920 Thank you very much.