1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:13,040
 Good evening. It is Monday October 7th and we are meeting for the Board of

2
00:00:13,040 --> 00:00:21,880
 Ethics in our regular meeting. It is now 6 o' 1 p.m. and we do have someone who

3
00:00:21,880 --> 00:00:28,720
 wants to make public comments. His name is Charles Lee. So if you will come to

4
00:00:28,720 --> 00:00:37,560
 the podium and state your name, your three minutes will begin.

5
00:00:37,560 --> 00:00:48,360
 Hello, good evening. My name is all Charles Lee and I want to speak on, I don't

6
00:00:48,360 --> 00:00:57,240
 know, what is it? B0E24-032. I'm not going to take my whole three minutes, but I just

7
00:00:57,240 --> 00:01:03,640
 want to say that I truly appalled that a council member who benefit from a solar

8
00:01:03,640 --> 00:01:08,680
 program and receive money from a solar program, and I'm just a renter and I can

9
00:01:08,680 --> 00:01:13,680
 barely afford my rent, and it's the simple fact that I can't afford to have

10
00:01:13,680 --> 00:01:18,600
 solar panels. I'm a renter. I don't have the option to have solar panels, but then

11
00:01:18,600 --> 00:01:24,720
 a little portion of my utility bill is going to the profit of a

12
00:01:24,720 --> 00:01:28,960
 council member without solar panels who can't afford it. I found it absolutely

13
00:01:28,960 --> 00:01:34,440
 appalling and I find it absolutely disgusting, and thank you very much for

14
00:01:34,440 --> 00:01:43,040
 your time and you have a nice day. Thank you, Mr. Lee. Okay, we will move on to the

15
00:01:43,040 --> 00:01:51,660
 items for consideration. Item A, B0E24-031, consider approval of minutes for

16
00:01:51,660 --> 00:01:56,080
 August 5th and September 11th.

17
00:01:56,080 --> 00:02:09,560
 Do I hear approved? So Zeltner has new to approve. I'll second. Andrea seconded. All in

18
00:02:09,560 --> 00:02:14,080
 favor of approving the minutes?

19
00:02:17,440 --> 00:02:27,240
 Okay. Item number B, B0E24-35, receive a report, hold a discussion, and take

20
00:02:27,240 --> 00:02:33,560
 necessary action regarding the ethics complaint process detailed in the Code

21
00:02:33,560 --> 00:02:40,920
 of Ordinances Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics, Section 2-281, Meetings,

22
00:02:40,920 --> 00:02:48,720
 and Section 2-282, Disposition and the Board of Ethics Rules and Procedure.

23
00:02:48,720 --> 00:02:54,920
 We've had discussions about the written proof several times. I tried to create some

24
00:02:54,920 --> 00:02:59,440
 options based on those discussions, what we could do, and some of the discussions

25
00:02:59,440 --> 00:03:03,640
 council had, but that was not intended to limit you in any way. I can hold it to the

26
00:03:03,640 --> 00:03:08,120
 documentation you would like, or as far as the ordinance or the rules and

27
00:03:08,120 --> 00:03:11,520
 procedure, I'd really like to look at it in particular, but I don't really have a...

28
00:03:11,520 --> 00:03:16,680
 So we were wanting to talk about kind of brainstorming so that if we take this

29
00:03:16,680 --> 00:03:23,560
 back to council, we can tell them why we thought this was important. I can also

30
00:03:23,560 --> 00:03:29,280
 pull up a word document, if we want to just take notes together. I would like that. So I

31
00:03:29,280 --> 00:03:35,000
 want people to feel free to suggest whatever they want to. So whoever has

32
00:03:35,000 --> 00:03:47,720
 suggestions, who wants to begin. Well, we've talked about this before. My feelings have

33
00:03:47,720 --> 00:03:52,280
 been pretty well known. This burden of proof is not found elsewhere, and I can

34
00:03:52,280 --> 00:03:57,400
 find it anywhere in the state of Texas. It marginalizes people who have the

35
00:03:57,400 --> 00:04:01,560
 courage to speak up, but then may not have the ability to carry it all the way

36
00:04:01,560 --> 00:04:10,040
 through. So I don't see any way to modify this. I just would suggest this

37
00:04:10,040 --> 00:04:18,320
 needs to be disposed of as quickly as possible. So one thing I've heard is that

38
00:04:18,320 --> 00:04:24,120
 we haven't found it in any other ethics ordinance, and then the other is it

39
00:04:24,120 --> 00:04:35,560
 marginalizes people. I think it puts the focus on the complaint, and it has a

40
00:04:35,560 --> 00:04:44,820
 chilling effect. Completely. Yeah, we've had no complaints, and it's almost

41
00:04:44,820 --> 00:04:51,240
 built a wall around the entire complaint process. Don't bother us.

42
00:04:51,240 --> 00:04:58,080
 So, okay, we're just kind of brainstorming here. So Andrea, what would you like to

43
00:04:58,080 --> 00:05:01,080
 suggest?

44
00:05:01,080 --> 00:05:16,680
 I think I'm a little bit speechless. Okay. After the, I mean, I voice my opinions

45
00:05:16,680 --> 00:05:25,880
 pretty much. Okay, you don't have any reasons why we should not have this?

46
00:05:25,880 --> 00:05:30,680
 Do you have reasons why we should? Why we shouldn't have the burden of proof on

47
00:05:30,680 --> 00:05:38,240
 the complaint? No, I don't really. I agree. It's like, it puts the burden on the

48
00:05:38,240 --> 00:05:41,760
 person making the complaint, and I don't think that that is helping the process.

49
00:05:41,760 --> 00:05:47,000
 So yes, I think that they're. Okay, so you're agreeing. Yes, I do agree, and that's.

50
00:05:47,000 --> 00:05:58,640
 Okay. Dustin, can you think of? I mean, I agree with everyone here in attendance

51
00:05:58,640 --> 00:06:05,160
 today. I think some of the concerns of the council members during their

52
00:06:05,160 --> 00:06:12,280
 discussion and reviewing this were misplaced. They seem to think that there

53
00:06:12,280 --> 00:06:18,160
 would be more frivolous complaints, and this would be, and that we were creating

54
00:06:18,160 --> 00:06:24,600
 a scenario where the ethics ordinance could be weaponized. I think there was something that was said.

55
00:06:24,600 --> 00:06:31,360
 Part of the work that we have done to address frivolous complaints in the past,

56
00:06:31,360 --> 00:06:37,960
 and as part of this proposed revision, would address that. We have a mechanism there

57
00:06:37,960 --> 00:06:45,400
 for preventing that, or at least for discouraging that, or limiting multiple

58
00:06:45,400 --> 00:06:51,500
 complaints after a complaint is deemed frivolous. So we tried to address that as much as we can.

59
00:06:51,500 --> 00:07:08,120
 I'll stop there. I think that it was. The discussion in the meeting, in the work

60
00:07:08,120 --> 00:07:16,400
 session by the council members was, the tone of it was protecting themselves

61
00:07:16,400 --> 00:07:22,280
 from an ethics ordinance, an ethics ordinance that is functional. What we have

62
00:07:22,280 --> 00:07:34,080
 today is in some ways not functional, especially for average citizens who are

63
00:07:34,080 --> 00:07:40,840
 not embedded in local politics. I think what we've tried to do is clean up

64
00:07:40,840 --> 00:07:46,360
 specifically the burden of proof section that makes it very difficult for someone

65
00:07:46,360 --> 00:07:53,260
 who is a citizen that believes there was a violation to make a complaint.

66
00:07:53,260 --> 00:08:00,360
 David? I'm not sure, I'm having a hard time reading what's up there, but we've also made

67
00:08:00,360 --> 00:08:05,880
 the point that a citizen complainant would lack the legal resources to get

68
00:08:05,880 --> 00:08:12,000
 testimony and compile documents, and so they're off on an island trying to

69
00:08:12,000 --> 00:08:17,240
 prosecute something without the legal resources necessary.

70
00:08:17,240 --> 00:08:24,240
 Maybe up there somewhere, but I'm trying to... The citizens wouldn't have access to... Thank you, thank you.

71
00:08:24,240 --> 00:08:28,120
 And that is something, you know, like when I'm talking, when I'm

72
00:08:28,120 --> 00:08:33,080
 thinking about the process, right, it's like we're supposed to be an independent

73
00:08:33,080 --> 00:08:42,680
 panel to assess, but at the same time we do not have... Sometimes, like I've

74
00:08:42,680 --> 00:08:46,600
 been in previous, in previous complaints where I'm just like, well I would like to

75
00:08:46,600 --> 00:08:53,360
 see there to be an actual kind of like an investigation that is independent of

76
00:08:53,360 --> 00:08:57,680
 the person making the complaint or the person that the complaint is made

77
00:08:57,680 --> 00:09:04,040
 against, right, where there would be an entity that actually looks at things

78
00:09:04,040 --> 00:09:11,840
 like what was actually discussed and what was the agenda item that was

79
00:09:11,840 --> 00:09:22,920
 responded to, or... I think the code has been weaponized from the beginning, but

80
00:09:22,920 --> 00:09:29,040
 it's mostly been weaponized council member against council member, and I

81
00:09:29,040 --> 00:09:38,000
 think this is taking out a valuable voice that might actually be more

82
00:09:38,000 --> 00:09:45,680
 objective, but, you know, putting the burden on them just shuts it out.

83
00:09:52,000 --> 00:10:00,080
 Most of our complaints have been council member against council member, and I'm

84
00:10:00,080 --> 00:10:03,440
 really tired of that.

85
00:10:03,440 --> 00:10:13,160
 And that, and I really do think that that is also, there's a part that

86
00:10:13,160 --> 00:10:25,000
 there is this thinking that recusal is something bad, right? I think making,

87
00:10:25,000 --> 00:10:32,120
 like making recusal from a very simple debate or a very simple, you know,

88
00:10:32,120 --> 00:10:36,840
 deliberation, that should be, especially when people are so embedded in the

89
00:10:36,840 --> 00:10:44,280
 community, that should be the norm, rather than an exception. It's like taking the high road.

90
00:10:44,280 --> 00:10:48,320
 I should have said something about that part of the discussion that they had.

91
00:10:48,320 --> 00:10:54,560
 There, I think there was a misunderstanding of what was required to

92
00:10:54,560 --> 00:11:00,200
 ask for an advisory opinion, because from the discussion it sounded like they

93
00:11:00,200 --> 00:11:04,800
 were concerned that they would have to constantly, they, someone used the term go

94
00:11:04,800 --> 00:11:09,720
 before the board to get an advisory opinion for recusal or something like

95
00:11:09,720 --> 00:11:15,840
 that. It's in the email. You send an email to Madison, and then Madison will ask us.

96
00:11:15,840 --> 00:11:21,520
 So we would convene a panel like we did earlier, review it, compare it to what's

97
00:11:21,520 --> 00:11:28,440
 written in the language of the, of the ordinance, and then send a memo back.

98
00:11:28,440 --> 00:11:33,680
 Here's our advisory. Right. They don't have to, they don't have to come to a

99
00:11:33,680 --> 00:11:39,320
 meeting. They send an email and say can you review this? And then if at that

100
00:11:39,320 --> 00:11:45,600
 point we say no, this doesn't require a recusal, and then someone makes a

101
00:11:45,600 --> 00:11:53,240
 complaint to the board that they did not recuse themselves, then they can say I

102
00:11:53,240 --> 00:11:58,600
 have this advisory opinion of the ethics board that says I did not need to recuse myself.

103
00:11:58,600 --> 00:12:01,960
 And we have circumstances, we have circumstances like that, right?

104
00:12:01,960 --> 00:12:08,040
 Exactly. We have, we have, we've given advisory opinions about exactly is this a

105
00:12:08,040 --> 00:12:12,440
 monetary, a monetary benefit that I have to be concerned about or not? And it was

106
00:12:12,440 --> 00:12:19,360
 a, was a very quick and easy. That may be outside of the burden section. I want to

107
00:12:19,360 --> 00:12:23,720
 make a comment, and Madison you're doing a great job. So you don't have to be

108
00:12:23,720 --> 00:12:29,800
 typing. Something I realized just this last week is that the charter requires

109
00:12:29,800 --> 00:12:35,160
 four things for our code of ethics, and the only thing that's solidly clearly in

110
00:12:35,160 --> 00:12:40,440
 it is recusal process. The other three things that the charter says should be

111
00:12:40,440 --> 00:12:46,800
 there are either there or they're there in a very weak form. For example, you

112
00:12:46,800 --> 00:12:51,840
 know my concerns with conflict of interest. It doesn't say anything about

113
00:12:51,840 --> 00:12:59,080
 appearance of conflict of interest, and that's actually what's in the charter. So

114
00:12:59,080 --> 00:13:04,880
 I, it's, it was astonishing when I realized that because I was thinking well

115
00:13:04,880 --> 00:13:09,080
 that's why everything seems to be about recusal. It's the only thing that's

116
00:13:09,080 --> 00:13:15,360
 clearly defined, and we have a city charter that 80% of the voters approve,

117
00:13:15,360 --> 00:13:20,800
 and three of the four things are just not in there, and so that it just makes

118
00:13:20,800 --> 00:13:29,960
 me continue my drumbeat that we, this code is broken, and we need something better.

119
00:13:29,960 --> 00:13:39,280
 Good job.

120
00:13:39,280 --> 00:13:49,000
 Any other comments? Okay. What do you want to do with this? Because this is a

121
00:13:49,000 --> 00:13:54,160
 lot of stuff in it, do we need to, obviously we need to go through and

122
00:13:54,160 --> 00:14:00,160
 clean it up. Do you want, how do you want to do that? I don't want to hash it out

123
00:14:00,160 --> 00:14:11,400
 tonight. I mean no offense, but what do you? I do not want to clean it up. Would you be comfortable

124
00:14:11,400 --> 00:14:17,240
 sending me your document, and then I could come up with kind of a pared down

125
00:14:17,240 --> 00:14:22,680
 version that covers, are you guys okay with that, and then we present it at the

126
00:14:22,680 --> 00:14:31,560
 next meeting. Can we do a side-by-side? Yeah. Original and then you clean up? Yeah,

127
00:14:31,560 --> 00:14:41,920
 I'm, yeah, for sure. Transparency? Yes. Yeah. Okay. So will the next step be work

128
00:14:41,920 --> 00:14:49,320
 sessions at some point in the future again, or is that still? You know, I'm,

129
00:14:49,320 --> 00:14:58,560
 we'll talk about it in a minute, because kind of a separate topic. Along the lines

130
00:14:58,560 --> 00:15:05,920
 of what I said. Okay. So, but I'm happy to clean it up and see if you guys are good

131
00:15:05,920 --> 00:15:14,480
 with that, and it, you'll have a chance to help me help with the final thing.

132
00:15:14,480 --> 00:15:23,840
 Talk about it in a minute? What do you mean in a minute? During the future? During the future meeting? Yeah, at the next meeting. Okay.

133
00:15:25,240 --> 00:15:36,880
 Okay. Item C, BOE 24-036. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and take necessary

134
00:15:36,880 --> 00:15:41,960
 action regarding the ethics complaint process detailed in Code of Ordinances

135
00:15:41,960 --> 00:15:50,440
 Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics, C 2-278, Advisory Opinions, and the Board of

136
00:15:50,440 --> 00:15:58,240
 Ethics Rules of Procedure. I'm the one who put this in based on things that have

137
00:15:58,240 --> 00:16:06,240
 been happening in the last week or two. I feel like we need to clear up, maybe

138
00:16:06,240 --> 00:16:11,880
 have a form for people to fill out when they want to make, ask for an advisory

139
00:16:11,880 --> 00:16:18,880
 opinion, and the biggest thing I want to know is, is this for you? Are you seeking

140
00:16:18,880 --> 00:16:28,120
 this opinion for someone else? So, or maybe we should say that the advisory

141
00:16:28,120 --> 00:16:36,880
 opinion should be sought just for that person? So. Okay, can I, are you concerned

142
00:16:36,880 --> 00:16:43,120
 that council members or people are seeking opinions about somebody else's

143
00:16:43,120 --> 00:16:50,760
 behavior? Or potential future? Or potential, potential future behavior?

144
00:16:50,760 --> 00:17:00,560
 At least I'd like to be clear, are you asking for yourself or are you asking for

145
00:17:00,560 --> 00:17:07,240
 someone else? Because I will say I was on that panel and we were pretty

146
00:17:07,240 --> 00:17:16,680
 confused. We had more questions than answers. So, what do you guys think about that?

147
00:17:16,680 --> 00:17:23,760
 Well, I think that would explain some of what was reported on how council members

148
00:17:23,760 --> 00:17:33,960
 are concerned about weaponizing the Ethics Code. Right, yeah.

149
00:17:33,960 --> 00:17:48,080
 What do you guys think? I think this is, I never even considered, this is why I'm not a

150
00:17:48,080 --> 00:18:00,040
 politician. I never even considered using this process in that way. So, I don't know

151
00:18:00,040 --> 00:18:13,400
 that, I, I'd like to think that wouldn't happen, but obviously I'm maybe too

152
00:18:13,400 --> 00:18:25,680
 optimistic about how this all works. I, I don't, I think it's, I don't see why there

153
00:18:25,680 --> 00:18:33,120
 would be a need for us to allow anyone to request an advisory opinion that does

154
00:18:33,120 --> 00:18:43,280
 not apply to their potential conflict or a requirement for recusal. I, there, there,

155
00:18:43,280 --> 00:18:49,400
 I can think of one way that someone would want to do that, and that's what

156
00:18:49,400 --> 00:18:56,600
 you're describing. Because if you're, if you're concerned about somebody else's

157
00:18:56,600 --> 00:19:01,800
 behavior, then you just make a complaint. Right. Or what if you just contacted that

158
00:19:01,800 --> 00:19:09,120
 person and say, here's my concern. You know, you mean internal, yeah, like

159
00:19:09,120 --> 00:19:17,200
 communication and professional opinion and having a conversation about how

160
00:19:17,200 --> 00:19:21,840
 something may potentially be perceived in the public? Or maybe we should change our

161
00:19:21,840 --> 00:19:27,200
 procedures that if we can't understand, because I know when I first read that

162
00:19:27,200 --> 00:19:32,160
 complaint, I really didn't understand what was, what was being asked and I

163
00:19:32,160 --> 00:19:38,720
 didn't know. There's a lot of things I didn't know. I kind of thought them

164
00:19:38,720 --> 00:19:44,080
 through and kind of answered them for myself incorrectly, I might add. So it

165
00:19:44,080 --> 00:19:50,800
 might be that we would have the right to review it and say, this is incomplete, we

166
00:19:50,800 --> 00:19:55,240
 don't know what you're asking, that maybe that's just what needs to go into our

167
00:19:55,240 --> 00:20:02,960
 procedures. I, yeah, because I, we rushed around and I know I rescheduled my

168
00:20:02,960 --> 00:20:11,840
 schedule twice to try to make sure I could be here and I felt pretty used, you

169
00:20:11,840 --> 00:20:20,200
 know, that it wasn't, you know, we have a weak code, we don't like it, I don't like it.

170
00:20:20,200 --> 00:20:26,400
 I'm trying to speak for you guys. And, and it, I hate for it to be used as a

171
00:20:26,400 --> 00:20:32,440
 battering ram and I believe that's what happened. And that's not what I'm here

172
00:20:32,440 --> 00:20:40,240
 for. I'm not here to beat people up. I'm here to do what's right for the city or

173
00:20:40,240 --> 00:20:44,080
 to, you know, to advise on that.

174
00:20:44,080 --> 00:20:58,440
 We've just been through this. Now C2, the request for an advisory opinion, fairly

175
00:20:58,440 --> 00:21:04,040
 and accurately disclosed the relevant facts. Now we have just lived through the

176
00:21:04,040 --> 00:21:10,120
 nightmare there where someone used that part of the code. Now they apologized

177
00:21:10,120 --> 00:21:15,880
 in a public meeting. I'm not sure this board ever got an apology for the time

178
00:21:15,880 --> 00:21:23,200
 we spent, you know, going over that request before. But I think we, I don't

179
00:21:23,200 --> 00:21:28,400
 know how much clearer this code can be under C2. Request for advisory opinion,

180
00:21:28,400 --> 00:21:32,880
 fairly and accurately disclosed. If you're shooting hypotheticals through

181
00:21:32,880 --> 00:21:38,320
 here to see what's going to stick on the wall, that's not why we're here. Yeah, yeah.

182
00:21:38,320 --> 00:21:45,680
 So I don't know how we can be much clearer than what we've got right there.

183
00:21:45,680 --> 00:21:52,560
 Yeah, it is pretty clear. I just, I will say from the beginning I was like, what

184
00:21:52,560 --> 00:21:59,080
 is this? You know. We all walked out of here that day. We were all hoodwinked,

185
00:21:59,080 --> 00:22:05,960
 including legal. And that was embarrassing, frankly. Yeah. And again, I

186
00:22:05,960 --> 00:22:11,400
 don't know if there has been any public apologies for what happened there. I mean,

187
00:22:11,400 --> 00:22:15,920
 I've not heard from any individuals. Or I don't know if Madison has ever had a

188
00:22:15,920 --> 00:22:22,680
 word of apology for the time we spent from the person that did this. But we've

189
00:22:22,680 --> 00:22:31,760
 got it right there. So what, can I ask another clarifying question? Because we're

190
00:22:31,760 --> 00:22:38,600
 talking about the, it was an act, a complaint? It was a request for an

191
00:22:38,600 --> 00:22:43,600
 advisor. It was a request for an advisor opinion. The advisory opinion. Like last month. Right.

192
00:22:43,600 --> 00:22:48,200
 Exactly, yes. So that was independent of, that was independent of? Well, it was

193
00:22:48,200 --> 00:22:53,280
 kind of setting up for a complaint. Okay. I mean, that's what I think the goal

194
00:22:53,280 --> 00:23:12,680
 probably was from the beginning. When was the advisory opinion issued? September 15th. Yeah, it was October 11th. That was when the meeting was. So it went out that day. Oh, yes. I believe the advisory opinion was issued to the city official that requested it on the 16th.

195
00:23:12,680 --> 00:23:21,840
 Sorry, does that get published somewhere? Does that get published? I didn't know anything about this at the time. They get published, so they get published

196
00:23:21,840 --> 00:23:28,080
 online to the city's Board of Ethics webpage. And then the rules of procedure, I

197
00:23:28,080 --> 00:23:32,800
 present like a summary of any advisory opinions at the next regular meeting. So

198
00:23:32,800 --> 00:23:37,360
 the next item is a management report that includes that we issued that. When I got

199
00:23:37,360 --> 00:23:42,800
 that agenda, that's the first time I became aware of this. So I'm just trying

200
00:23:42,800 --> 00:23:49,760
 to write down some dates to make sure I understand. Like what happened here. So does

201
00:23:49,760 --> 00:23:58,160
 anybody have any recommendations? We've talked about a couple things. I think

202
00:23:58,160 --> 00:24:03,440
 going forward I'm going to be, I'm going to be asking more questions anytime we

203
00:24:03,440 --> 00:24:08,680
 get a request for an advisory opinion. Because if it's not clear to me, I don't

204
00:24:08,680 --> 00:24:13,960
 think it'll be clear to anybody else. And I would like the right to say, no, we,

205
00:24:13,960 --> 00:24:20,320
 until we get these questions answered, we can't move forward with this. I really

206
00:24:20,320 --> 00:24:25,000
 think, I really think that as a, and I don't know, this is a, this is a question

207
00:24:25,000 --> 00:24:30,080
 for you, Scott, because, because if we're asked to make an advisory opinion and

208
00:24:30,080 --> 00:24:34,680
 fairly and accurately disclose the relevant facts. So if we're sitting in an,

209
00:24:34,680 --> 00:24:41,400
 on an advisory board and we do not feel that these, that the, the, the facts are

210
00:24:41,400 --> 00:24:47,440
 being disclosed accurately and that they're actually relevant, I mean, can we

211
00:24:47,440 --> 00:24:52,160
 go back and ask for more? I, I guess we could simply say we don't have enough

212
00:24:52,160 --> 00:25:00,920
 information so that we can't give you an opinion. And I mean, so Scott, is there something that you would like to add?

213
00:25:00,920 --> 00:25:08,640
 I, I just, Andrea, to answer your question, I think that, that section C, if you read

214
00:25:08,640 --> 00:25:14,480
 the whole paragraph, it, it shall be an affirmative defense to a complaint that

215
00:25:14,480 --> 00:25:18,960
 the respondent relied upon an advisory opinion. So that doesn't really come up

216
00:25:18,960 --> 00:25:24,560
 in the issuing of the advisory opinion, any of those. And of course you all can

217
00:25:24,560 --> 00:25:30,200
 consider it and say, well, someone's not going to be able to rely on our opinion

218
00:25:30,200 --> 00:25:35,040
 on this because there aren't accurate facts, but it doesn't mean you can't give

219
00:25:35,040 --> 00:25:40,760
 an advisory opinion, because you're sort of assuming the hypothetical that you've been given.

220
00:25:40,760 --> 00:25:44,760
 Could we go so that, in that case that means we have to, we have to be very

221
00:25:44,760 --> 00:25:49,480
 accurate in our language of the advisory where we're saying, based on these facts,

222
00:25:49,480 --> 00:25:54,560
 this would be the opinion, but we, as an advisory board, are concerned that there

223
00:25:54,560 --> 00:26:00,760
 might not, that there might be not all facts presented. As a hypothetical?

224
00:26:00,760 --> 00:26:05,480
 The way I read it, I, you wouldn't have to say that necessarily, just the point is

225
00:26:05,480 --> 00:26:08,560
 that here's the hypothetical we've been presented with. That's why there's no

226
00:26:08,560 --> 00:26:13,960
 evidentiary portion to the, to the advisory opinion process either, because

227
00:26:13,960 --> 00:26:22,680
 it's, some official has asked, given, assuming these facts, what would the

228
00:26:22,680 --> 00:26:26,120
 situation be? And I mean, and that is really what it is, right? Because if it's an

229
00:26:26,120 --> 00:26:30,000
 advisory opinion, it hasn't happened yet, and therefore it is all hypothetical.

230
00:26:30,000 --> 00:26:34,640
 Because none of it may happen. And so even the question of like, well, someone

231
00:26:34,640 --> 00:26:38,600
 asking about facts that don't apply to them, that's, that's a point, is that

232
00:26:38,600 --> 00:26:43,440
 they're asking a hypothetical to say, if it were, if I did this, what would be the

233
00:26:43,440 --> 00:26:53,120
 effect? And the effect is, only if you all determined that there's not a

234
00:26:53,120 --> 00:27:01,160
 violation, then that, that official has an affirmative defense. Otherwise, it's not,

235
00:27:01,160 --> 00:27:06,960
 it's not a complaint, it's not a, it's not, I mean, you, I guess, I don't want to

236
00:27:06,960 --> 00:27:13,400
 get out of my seat, because then, I know you'll just hang up one, but it's, and that C

237
00:27:13,400 --> 00:27:19,320
 is really the, the meat of what the advisory opinion does for you, if you get

238
00:27:19,320 --> 00:27:24,440
 one issued, is that you can rely on it as a defense and say, you told me I didn't

239
00:27:24,440 --> 00:27:29,320
 have to recuse, so I didn't recuse, and that's where I mean. So let's get, but

240
00:27:29,320 --> 00:27:32,720
 let's get very technical then, right? But if, if we're, if we're given a

241
00:27:32,720 --> 00:27:38,520
 hypothetical that says it's, we're, we're basing all of this on the color red, but

242
00:27:38,520 --> 00:27:44,720
 then in the actual behavior, it's color black, then, then the facts that we were

243
00:27:44,720 --> 00:27:49,480
 presented with are no longer, are no longer valid, and that should invalidate the

244
00:27:49,480 --> 00:27:53,800
 advisory opinion. No, it's just when that person, if they come and try to use an

245
00:27:53,800 --> 00:27:58,080
 advisory opinion that describes different facts, as an affirmative defense, if, if I

246
00:27:58,080 --> 00:28:02,480
 said, you know, yeah, if it's the color red, and then I go, and it's the color

247
00:28:02,480 --> 00:28:08,240
 black, and I go, no, no, I didn't, I didn't break the rules, because y'all said, then

248
00:28:08,240 --> 00:28:16,120
 y'all would say, no, we said red. Not black. Not black. Okay. But, so, yeah, it's. It

249
00:28:16,120 --> 00:28:21,600
 just becomes a very. So we don't need to make any changes or recommend any changes?

250
00:28:21,600 --> 00:28:30,920
 It's up to y'all. Well, you're saying changes to the code? No, I, I think, I

251
00:28:30,920 --> 00:28:46,600
 think the complaint we received was misleading. I, I. So if we move forward, if

252
00:28:46,600 --> 00:28:51,080
 we move forward to the next agenda item, can we discuss it in more detail? Let me

253
00:28:51,080 --> 00:29:00,880
 work with it. How many advisory opinions are given in the state of Texas right

254
00:29:00,880 --> 00:29:05,600
 now? I mean, I'm just, we're sitting here trying to repair something that may

255
00:29:05,600 --> 00:29:10,560
 already have a solution in other cities. So have we looked at other advisory

256
00:29:10,560 --> 00:29:16,880
 opinion chapters in other codes? I mean, I'm just, I don't have an immediate

257
00:29:16,880 --> 00:29:21,360
 solution for what I'm hearing, other than I'm wondering what do they do in

258
00:29:21,360 --> 00:29:26,240
 x-y or z cities to prevent this from happening. So, and so we'll always try to

259
00:29:26,240 --> 00:29:32,480
 invent something that may have already been. I don't think. I believe, we haven't

260
00:29:32,480 --> 00:29:37,240
 looked, I haven't done the research and presented it to you about benchmark city

261
00:29:37,240 --> 00:29:43,560
 advisory opinion processes or the ethics complaint or that model ethics code, what

262
00:29:43,560 --> 00:29:48,120
 it says. I believe that there are other cities that haven't, just based on how

263
00:29:48,120 --> 00:29:52,040
 many other codes I've looked at to present research to you on other areas. We

264
00:29:52,040 --> 00:29:56,920
 have not done that section specifically in the past. Well, I'm immediately

265
00:29:56,920 --> 00:30:01,240
 suspicious and curious. For example, what does city of Austin do, you know, with

266
00:30:01,240 --> 00:30:06,200
 first advisory opinions right out of the box? I mean, how do they prevent from

267
00:30:06,200 --> 00:30:10,520
 happening what we went through just last month? So, you know, we're learning here,

268
00:30:10,520 --> 00:30:19,160
 we just had a code for only six years now. So, I feel like we have information

269
00:30:19,160 --> 00:30:26,240
 out there to help us with this advisory opinion issue that might be evident and

270
00:30:26,240 --> 00:30:33,160
 visible. I mean, I've done benchmarking research and presented it to you all in

271
00:30:33,160 --> 00:30:38,040
 the past, so if that's the direction you'd like, we can go that way. Is that

272
00:30:38,040 --> 00:30:43,320
 what you guys would like? Benchmark information? We've lived the nightmare.

273
00:30:43,320 --> 00:30:48,560
 We've lived the nightmare already. We saw what went wrong. And so, yes, I mean, I

274
00:30:48,560 --> 00:30:53,960
 think just maybe some some advisory opinion processes from around the state

275
00:30:53,960 --> 00:30:59,160
 might be a good way to start or look at this and just see what happens in what

276
00:30:59,160 --> 00:31:04,360
 happens in Austin or Fort Worth or El Paso, for example.

277
00:31:06,240 --> 00:31:09,760
 Good to make more work for you, but I think that would be very helpful.

278
00:31:09,760 --> 00:31:16,560
 Six directions, we can have that. Okay. So, do we have to make a motion about that?

279
00:31:16,560 --> 00:31:20,200
 No, I just want to make sure there's all the consensus. I think that would be helpful.

280
00:31:20,200 --> 00:31:22,600
 I'd like to see how other cities handle this.

281
00:31:22,600 --> 00:31:35,200
 Okay, so we're up to item D, BOE 24-033, management reports. September 24th,

282
00:31:35,200 --> 00:31:41,360
 2024 advisory opinion responses report. Take it away, Madison.

283
00:31:41,360 --> 00:31:49,280
 Yes, so during September 2024, Mayor Hudsbeth requested an advisory opinion

284
00:31:49,280 --> 00:31:55,040
 regarding deliberating rates related to the city's solar program. The board met

285
00:31:55,040 --> 00:32:00,720
 on September 11th and issued that opinion, saying that they recommended

286
00:32:00,720 --> 00:32:07,920
 a recusal under the improper influence section. That is the end of the advisory

287
00:32:07,920 --> 00:32:14,320
 opinion process. And it was publicized in the website for the standard practice.

288
00:32:14,320 --> 00:32:20,720
 And then I did forward it to all city council members as well because I

289
00:32:20,720 --> 00:32:25,120
 thought there might be others that had solar counts.

290
00:32:28,880 --> 00:32:35,200
 We kind of got into this in the last, so any, what comments do you guys want to make about that?

291
00:32:35,200 --> 00:32:44,880
 I think finding out what other cities do with this would be helpful.

292
00:32:44,880 --> 00:32:55,840
 Well, I mean, knowing what we got today,

293
00:32:59,120 --> 00:33:05,760
 I think, I think that potentially that advisory opinion was based on incomplete information.

294
00:33:05,760 --> 00:33:15,760
 Or, but we thought it was. Let's not re-litigate the, no, no, yes, I'm sorry.

295
00:33:15,760 --> 00:33:22,400
 Okay, that's off topic. Yes, I'm also conflicted. I'm advising you on it. Thank you, thank you. Okay,

296
00:33:24,480 --> 00:33:30,880
 so end of, end of item D, right? Everybody okay with that?

297
00:33:30,880 --> 00:33:42,240
 Yes. Okay, item E, BOE 24-034. Receive a report, hold a discussion,

298
00:33:42,240 --> 00:33:45,360
 and give staff direction regarding future meeting topics.

299
00:33:51,600 --> 00:33:56,560
 I don't, I don't think we have anything on the schedule currently.

300
00:33:56,560 --> 00:34:14,400
 So next time we would be looking at the brainstorming we did about burden and proof

301
00:34:14,400 --> 00:34:24,000
 in my hopefully helpful summary, and then we would be looking maybe, would there be time for you to

302
00:34:24,000 --> 00:34:34,480
 gather information about the advisory process in other cities?

303
00:34:40,800 --> 00:34:46,720
 One else. We do have on the agenda for today the ordinance training.

304
00:34:46,720 --> 00:34:56,720
 I forgot to keep that ready. I mean, I have it, I do it often, but so we can push that or we can,

305
00:34:56,720 --> 00:35:02,080
 I can go run around and get it, we can do it. Whatever you want. What's your pleasure, guys?

306
00:35:08,560 --> 00:35:16,640
 Okay, since we are in appointment season, if we do get new members, they will have to take it.

307
00:35:16,640 --> 00:35:20,880
 So it might be good to wait till next month? Yeah. Okay.

308
00:35:20,880 --> 00:35:28,960
 I would, I would recommend that we wait until next month.

309
00:35:28,960 --> 00:35:35,440
 Is there potential that we would have new members at the next meeting?

310
00:35:36,480 --> 00:35:43,200
 There's a potential. Okay. I'm fine with waiting. I'm okay with waiting. Okay.

311
00:35:43,200 --> 00:35:49,760
 How much you guys feel about talking about

312
00:35:49,760 --> 00:35:58,640
 what's in the city charter and whether or not our code complies with it?

313
00:36:02,320 --> 00:36:07,440
 I believe we just did that, but we could do it again. I mean, I think I presented the charter

314
00:36:07,440 --> 00:36:13,120
 language to y'all at the last meeting maybe, but I can certainly put it, we can do it again.

315
00:36:13,120 --> 00:36:18,640
 I think that might

316
00:36:18,640 --> 00:36:25,840
 be helpful if we put together whatever we're going to propose to the council for

317
00:36:26,960 --> 00:36:33,760
 to try and convince them. To me, it would be helpful because it might inform a decision about

318
00:36:33,760 --> 00:36:40,080
 do we keep trying to fix this code or do we just look at someone? The things that were,

319
00:36:40,080 --> 00:36:49,280
 that I think are not covered, are pretty basic to ethical codes and should be there.

320
00:36:49,280 --> 00:36:55,360
 And it was shocking, they were all thinking through and some of them were just not there.

321
00:36:56,560 --> 00:37:01,200
 So I would like to have a more discussion about that.

322
00:37:01,200 --> 00:37:12,560
 Is that okay with everybody? Andrea? Okay. Do we need to vote on that or?

323
00:37:12,560 --> 00:37:20,880
 No, I'll just note that that's 120 minute or sorry, an hour, 20 minutes, so you're aware.

324
00:37:20,880 --> 00:37:25,120
 All of those things, that's how long the meeting would be about is my estimate.

325
00:37:27,200 --> 00:37:40,160
 Okay. What if we put the research about the advisory panel off until the following month?

326
00:37:40,160 --> 00:37:49,600
 What are you guys thinking about that? That gets us to about an hour.

327
00:37:53,600 --> 00:38:02,960
 Andrea? Yes. So we're moving the advisory opinion discussion to December. December because we're okay.

328
00:38:02,960 --> 00:38:04,960
 Yeah. Okay.

329
00:38:04,960 --> 00:38:14,800
 So you don't need to do a motion, I just need to do the direction. Okay. So since we will not be

330
00:38:14,800 --> 00:38:24,160
 covering item F, then are there any other components or? Yeah, I just want to make sure,

331
00:38:24,160 --> 00:38:28,160
 do they need the motion to postpone that or something Scott or do we just do a group motion?

332
00:38:28,160 --> 00:38:33,280
 I think it'd be clean if you all did a motion to postpone it. Okay, with someone,

333
00:38:33,280 --> 00:38:40,720
 I would entertain a motion to postpone that. So that's going to be postponed item F and?

334
00:38:40,720 --> 00:38:47,440
 To what meeting? To what date? December meeting? To December. Oh, the training? No.

335
00:38:47,440 --> 00:38:56,000
 November 4th, right? The discussion, the research item. Well, the training is on the

336
00:38:56,000 --> 00:39:01,760
 agenda today, so that's the motion to postpone that. Oh, okay. Yeah. Sorry, I'll say that again.

337
00:39:01,760 --> 00:39:11,600
 I move that we postpone item F, BLE 24-037 to the next meeting when we can potentially have you.

338
00:39:11,600 --> 00:39:18,160
 David, are you seconding? Yeah, I'm seconding. All in favor? Aye.

339
00:39:18,160 --> 00:39:30,400
 Unanimous. Okay. So having no further business, this meeting is adjourned. It is now 640 p.m.

340
00:39:31,760 --> 00:39:41,760
 [BLANK_AUDIO]