WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:13.040 Good evening. It is Monday October 7th and we are meeting for the Board of 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 00:00:21.880 --> 00:00:28.720 wants to make public comments. His name is Charles Lee. So if you will come to 00:00:28.720 --> 00:00:37.560 the podium and state your name, your three minutes will begin. 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 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 00:00:57.240 --> 00:01:03.640 want to say that I truly appalled that a council member who benefit from a solar 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 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 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 00:01:18.600 --> 00:01:24.720 a little portion of my utility bill is going to the profit of a 00:01:24.720 --> 00:01:28.960 council member without solar panels who can't afford it. I found it absolutely 00:01:28.960 --> 00:01:34.440 appalling and I find it absolutely disgusting, and thank you very much for 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 00:01:43.040 --> 00:01:51.660 items for consideration. Item A, B0E24-031, consider approval of minutes for 00:01:51.660 --> 00:01:56.080 August 5th and September 11th. 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 00:02:09.560 --> 00:02:14.080 favor of approving the minutes? 00:02:17.440 --> 00:02:27.240 Okay. Item number B, B0E24-35, receive a report, hold a discussion, and take 00:02:27.240 --> 00:02:33.560 necessary action regarding the ethics complaint process detailed in the Code 00:02:33.560 --> 00:02:40.920 of Ordinances Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics, Section 2-281, Meetings, 00:02:40.920 --> 00:02:48.720 and Section 2-282, Disposition and the Board of Ethics Rules and Procedure. 00:02:48.720 --> 00:02:54.920 We've had discussions about the written proof several times. I tried to create some 00:02:54.920 --> 00:02:59.440 options based on those discussions, what we could do, and some of the discussions 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 00:03:03.640 --> 00:03:08.120 documentation you would like, or as far as the ordinance or the rules and 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... 00:03:11.520 --> 00:03:16.680 So we were wanting to talk about kind of brainstorming so that if we take this 00:03:16.680 --> 00:03:23.560 back to council, we can tell them why we thought this was important. I can also 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 00:03:29.280 --> 00:03:35.000 want people to feel free to suggest whatever they want to. So whoever has 00:03:35.000 --> 00:03:47.720 suggestions, who wants to begin. Well, we've talked about this before. My feelings have 00:03:47.720 --> 00:03:52.280 been pretty well known. This burden of proof is not found elsewhere, and I can 00:03:52.280 --> 00:03:57.400 find it anywhere in the state of Texas. It marginalizes people who have the 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 00:04:01.560 --> 00:04:10.040 through. So I don't see any way to modify this. I just would suggest this 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 00:04:18.320 --> 00:04:24.120 we haven't found it in any other ethics ordinance, and then the other is it 00:04:24.120 --> 00:04:35.560 marginalizes people. I think it puts the focus on the complaint, and it has a 00:04:35.560 --> 00:04:44.820 chilling effect. Completely. Yeah, we've had no complaints, and it's almost 00:04:44.820 --> 00:04:51.240 built a wall around the entire complaint process. Don't bother us. 00:04:51.240 --> 00:04:58.080 So, okay, we're just kind of brainstorming here. So Andrea, what would you like to 00:04:58.080 --> 00:05:01.080 suggest? 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 00:05:16.680 --> 00:05:25.880 pretty much. Okay, you don't have any reasons why we should not have this? 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 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 00:05:38.240 --> 00:05:41.760 person making the complaint, and I don't think that that is helping the process. 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. 00:05:47.000 --> 00:05:58.640 Okay. Dustin, can you think of? I mean, I agree with everyone here in attendance 00:05:58.640 --> 00:06:05.160 today. I think some of the concerns of the council members during their 00:06:05.160 --> 00:06:12.280 discussion and reviewing this were misplaced. They seem to think that there 00:06:12.280 --> 00:06:18.160 would be more frivolous complaints, and this would be, and that we were creating 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. 00:06:24.600 --> 00:06:31.360 Part of the work that we have done to address frivolous complaints in the past, 00:06:31.360 --> 00:06:37.960 and as part of this proposed revision, would address that. We have a mechanism there 00:06:37.960 --> 00:06:45.400 for preventing that, or at least for discouraging that, or limiting multiple 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. 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 00:07:08.120 --> 00:07:16.400 session by the council members was, the tone of it was protecting themselves 00:07:16.400 --> 00:07:22.280 from an ethics ordinance, an ethics ordinance that is functional. What we have 00:07:22.280 --> 00:07:34.080 today is in some ways not functional, especially for average citizens who are 00:07:34.080 --> 00:07:40.840 not embedded in local politics. I think what we've tried to do is clean up 00:07:40.840 --> 00:07:46.360 specifically the burden of proof section that makes it very difficult for someone 00:07:46.360 --> 00:07:53.260 who is a citizen that believes there was a violation to make a complaint. 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 00:08:00.360 --> 00:08:05.880 the point that a citizen complainant would lack the legal resources to get 00:08:05.880 --> 00:08:12.000 testimony and compile documents, and so they're off on an island trying to 00:08:12.000 --> 00:08:17.240 prosecute something without the legal resources necessary. 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. 00:08:24.240 --> 00:08:28.120 And that is something, you know, like when I'm talking, when I'm 00:08:28.120 --> 00:08:33.080 thinking about the process, right, it's like we're supposed to be an independent 00:08:33.080 --> 00:08:42.680 panel to assess, but at the same time we do not have... Sometimes, like I've 00:08:42.680 --> 00:08:46.600 been in previous, in previous complaints where I'm just like, well I would like to 00:08:46.600 --> 00:08:53.360 see there to be an actual kind of like an investigation that is independent of 00:08:53.360 --> 00:08:57.680 the person making the complaint or the person that the complaint is made 00:08:57.680 --> 00:09:04.040 against, right, where there would be an entity that actually looks at things 00:09:04.040 --> 00:09:11.840 like what was actually discussed and what was the agenda item that was 00:09:11.840 --> 00:09:22.920 responded to, or... I think the code has been weaponized from the beginning, but 00:09:22.920 --> 00:09:29.040 it's mostly been weaponized council member against council member, and I 00:09:29.040 --> 00:09:38.000 think this is taking out a valuable voice that might actually be more 00:09:38.000 --> 00:09:45.680 objective, but, you know, putting the burden on them just shuts it out. 00:09:52.000 --> 00:10:00.080 Most of our complaints have been council member against council member, and I'm 00:10:00.080 --> 00:10:03.440 really tired of that. 00:10:03.440 --> 00:10:13.160 And that, and I really do think that that is also, there's a part that 00:10:13.160 --> 00:10:25.000 there is this thinking that recusal is something bad, right? I think making, 00:10:25.000 --> 00:10:32.120 like making recusal from a very simple debate or a very simple, you know, 00:10:32.120 --> 00:10:36.840 deliberation, that should be, especially when people are so embedded in the 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. 00:10:44.280 --> 00:10:48.320 I should have said something about that part of the discussion that they had. 00:10:48.320 --> 00:10:54.560 There, I think there was a misunderstanding of what was required to 00:10:54.560 --> 00:11:00.200 ask for an advisory opinion, because from the discussion it sounded like they 00:11:00.200 --> 00:11:04.800 were concerned that they would have to constantly, they, someone used the term go 00:11:04.800 --> 00:11:09.720 before the board to get an advisory opinion for recusal or something like 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. 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 00:11:21.520 --> 00:11:28.440 written in the language of the, of the ordinance, and then send a memo back. 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 00:11:33.680 --> 00:11:39.320 meeting. They send an email and say can you review this? And then if at that 00:11:39.320 --> 00:11:45.600 point we say no, this doesn't require a recusal, and then someone makes a 00:11:45.600 --> 00:11:53.240 complaint to the board that they did not recuse themselves, then they can say I 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. 00:11:58.600 --> 00:12:01.960 And we have circumstances, we have circumstances like that, right? 00:12:01.960 --> 00:12:08.040 Exactly. We have, we have, we've given advisory opinions about exactly is this a 00:12:08.040 --> 00:12:12.440 monetary, a monetary benefit that I have to be concerned about or not? And it was 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 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 00:12:23.720 --> 00:12:29.800 typing. Something I realized just this last week is that the charter requires 00:12:29.800 --> 00:12:35.160 four things for our code of ethics, and the only thing that's solidly clearly in 00:12:35.160 --> 00:12:40.440 it is recusal process. The other three things that the charter says should be 00:12:40.440 --> 00:12:46.800 there are either there or they're there in a very weak form. For example, you 00:12:46.800 --> 00:12:51.840 know my concerns with conflict of interest. It doesn't say anything about 00:12:51.840 --> 00:12:59.080 appearance of conflict of interest, and that's actually what's in the charter. So 00:12:59.080 --> 00:13:04.880 I, it's, it was astonishing when I realized that because I was thinking well 00:13:04.880 --> 00:13:09.080 that's why everything seems to be about recusal. It's the only thing that's 00:13:09.080 --> 00:13:15.360 clearly defined, and we have a city charter that 80% of the voters approve, 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 00:13:20.800 --> 00:13:29.960 me continue my drumbeat that we, this code is broken, and we need something better. 00:13:29.960 --> 00:13:39.280 Good job. 00:13:39.280 --> 00:13:49.000 Any other comments? Okay. What do you want to do with this? Because this is a 00:13:49.000 --> 00:13:54.160 lot of stuff in it, do we need to, obviously we need to go through and 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 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 00:14:11.400 --> 00:14:17.240 sending me your document, and then I could come up with kind of a pared down 00:14:17.240 --> 00:14:22.680 version that covers, are you guys okay with that, and then we present it at the 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, 00:14:31.560 --> 00:14:41.920 I'm, yeah, for sure. Transparency? Yes. Yeah. Okay. So will the next step be work 00:14:41.920 --> 00:14:49.320 sessions at some point in the future again, or is that still? You know, I'm, 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 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 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. 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. 00:15:25.240 --> 00:15:36.880 Okay. Item C, BOE 24-036. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and take necessary 00:15:36.880 --> 00:15:41.960 action regarding the ethics complaint process detailed in Code of Ordinances 00:15:41.960 --> 00:15:50.440 Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics, C 2-278, Advisory Opinions, and the Board of 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 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 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 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 00:16:18.880 --> 00:16:28.120 this opinion for someone else? So, or maybe we should say that the advisory 00:16:28.120 --> 00:16:36.880 opinion should be sought just for that person? So. Okay, can I, are you concerned 00:16:36.880 --> 00:16:43.120 that council members or people are seeking opinions about somebody else's 00:16:43.120 --> 00:16:50.760 behavior? Or potential future? Or potential, potential future behavior? 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 00:17:00.560 --> 00:17:07.240 someone else? Because I will say I was on that panel and we were pretty 00:17:07.240 --> 00:17:16.680 confused. We had more questions than answers. So, what do you guys think about that? 00:17:16.680 --> 00:17:23.760 Well, I think that would explain some of what was reported on how council members 00:17:23.760 --> 00:17:33.960 are concerned about weaponizing the Ethics Code. Right, yeah. 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 00:17:48.080 --> 00:18:00.040 politician. I never even considered using this process in that way. So, I don't know 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 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 00:18:25.680 --> 00:18:33.120 would be a need for us to allow anyone to request an advisory opinion that does 00:18:33.120 --> 00:18:43.280 not apply to their potential conflict or a requirement for recusal. I, there, there, 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 00:18:49.400 --> 00:18:56.600 you're describing. Because if you're, if you're concerned about somebody else's 00:18:56.600 --> 00:19:01.800 behavior, then you just make a complaint. Right. Or what if you just contacted that 00:19:01.800 --> 00:19:09.120 person and say, here's my concern. You know, you mean internal, yeah, like 00:19:09.120 --> 00:19:17.200 communication and professional opinion and having a conversation about how 00:19:17.200 --> 00:19:21.840 something may potentially be perceived in the public? Or maybe we should change our 00:19:21.840 --> 00:19:27.200 procedures that if we can't understand, because I know when I first read that 00:19:27.200 --> 00:19:32.160 complaint, I really didn't understand what was, what was being asked and I 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 00:19:38.720 --> 00:19:44.080 through and kind of answered them for myself incorrectly, I might add. So it 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 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 00:19:55.240 --> 00:20:02.960 procedures. I, yeah, because I, we rushed around and I know I rescheduled my 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 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. 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 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 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 00:20:40.240 --> 00:20:44.080 to, you know, to advise on that. 00:20:44.080 --> 00:20:58.440 We've just been through this. Now C2, the request for an advisory opinion, fairly 00:20:58.440 --> 00:21:04.040 and accurately disclosed the relevant facts. Now we have just lived through the 00:21:04.040 --> 00:21:10.120 nightmare there where someone used that part of the code. Now they apologized 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 00:21:15.880 --> 00:21:23.200 we spent, you know, going over that request before. But I think we, I don't 00:21:23.200 --> 00:21:28.400 know how much clearer this code can be under C2. Request for advisory opinion, 00:21:28.400 --> 00:21:32.880 fairly and accurately disclosed. If you're shooting hypotheticals through 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. 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. 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 00:21:52.560 --> 00:21:59.080 is this? You know. We all walked out of here that day. We were all hoodwinked, 00:21:59.080 --> 00:22:05.960 including legal. And that was embarrassing, frankly. Yeah. And again, I 00:22:05.960 --> 00:22:11.400 don't know if there has been any public apologies for what happened there. I mean, 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 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 00:22:22.680 --> 00:22:31.760 got it right there. So what, can I ask another clarifying question? Because we're 00:22:31.760 --> 00:22:38.600 talking about the, it was an act, a complaint? It was a request for an 00:22:38.600 --> 00:22:43.600 advisor. It was a request for an advisor opinion. The advisory opinion. Like last month. Right. 00:22:43.600 --> 00:22:48.200 Exactly, yes. So that was independent of, that was independent of? Well, it was 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 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. 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 00:23:21.840 --> 00:23:28.080 online to the city's Board of Ethics webpage. And then the rules of procedure, I 00:23:28.080 --> 00:23:32.800 present like a summary of any advisory opinions at the next regular meeting. So 00:23:32.800 --> 00:23:37.360 the next item is a management report that includes that we issued that. When I got 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 00:23:42.800 --> 00:23:49.760 to write down some dates to make sure I understand. Like what happened here. So does 00:23:49.760 --> 00:23:58.160 anybody have any recommendations? We've talked about a couple things. I think 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 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 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, 00:24:13.960 --> 00:24:20.320 until we get these questions answered, we can't move forward with this. I really 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 00:24:25.000 --> 00:24:30.080 for you, Scott, because, because if we're asked to make an advisory opinion and 00:24:30.080 --> 00:24:34.680 fairly and accurately disclose the relevant facts. So if we're sitting in an, 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 00:24:41.400 --> 00:24:47.440 being disclosed accurately and that they're actually relevant, I mean, can we 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 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? 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 00:25:08.640 --> 00:25:14.480 the whole paragraph, it, it shall be an affirmative defense to a complaint that 00:25:14.480 --> 00:25:18.960 the respondent relied upon an advisory opinion. So that doesn't really come up 00:25:18.960 --> 00:25:24.560 in the issuing of the advisory opinion, any of those. And of course you all can 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 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 00:25:35.040 --> 00:25:40.760 an advisory opinion, because you're sort of assuming the hypothetical that you've been given. 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 00:25:44.760 --> 00:25:49.480 accurate in our language of the advisory where we're saying, based on these facts, 00:25:49.480 --> 00:25:54.560 this would be the opinion, but we, as an advisory board, are concerned that there 00:25:54.560 --> 00:26:00.760 might not, that there might be not all facts presented. As a hypothetical? 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 00:26:05.480 --> 00:26:08.560 that here's the hypothetical we've been presented with. That's why there's no 00:26:08.560 --> 00:26:13.960 evidentiary portion to the, to the advisory opinion process either, because 00:26:13.960 --> 00:26:22.680 it's, some official has asked, given, assuming these facts, what would the 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 00:26:26.120 --> 00:26:30.000 advisory opinion, it hasn't happened yet, and therefore it is all hypothetical. 00:26:30.000 --> 00:26:34.640 Because none of it may happen. And so even the question of like, well, someone 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 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 00:26:43.440 --> 00:26:53.120 effect? And the effect is, only if you all determined that there's not a 00:26:53.120 --> 00:27:01.160 violation, then that, that official has an affirmative defense. Otherwise, it's not, 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 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 00:27:13.400 --> 00:27:19.320 is really the, the meat of what the advisory opinion does for you, if you get 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 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 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 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 00:27:38.520 --> 00:27:44.720 then in the actual behavior, it's color black, then, then the facts that we were 00:27:44.720 --> 00:27:49.480 presented with are no longer, are no longer valid, and that should invalidate the 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 00:27:53.800 --> 00:27:58.080 advisory opinion that describes different facts, as an affirmative defense, if, if I 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 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 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 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? 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 00:28:30.920 --> 00:28:46.600 think the complaint we received was misleading. I, I. So if we move forward, if 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 00:28:51.080 --> 00:29:00.880 work with it. How many advisory opinions are given in the state of Texas right 00:29:00.880 --> 00:29:05.600 now? I mean, I'm just, we're sitting here trying to repair something that may 00:29:05.600 --> 00:29:10.560 already have a solution in other cities. So have we looked at other advisory 00:29:10.560 --> 00:29:16.880 opinion chapters in other codes? I mean, I'm just, I don't have an immediate 00:29:16.880 --> 00:29:21.360 solution for what I'm hearing, other than I'm wondering what do they do in 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 00:29:26.240 --> 00:29:32.480 invent something that may have already been. I don't think. I believe, we haven't 00:29:32.480 --> 00:29:37.240 looked, I haven't done the research and presented it to you about benchmark city 00:29:37.240 --> 00:29:43.560 advisory opinion processes or the ethics complaint or that model ethics code, what 00:29:43.560 --> 00:29:48.120 it says. I believe that there are other cities that haven't, just based on how 00:29:48.120 --> 00:29:52.040 many other codes I've looked at to present research to you on other areas. We 00:29:52.040 --> 00:29:56.920 have not done that section specifically in the past. Well, I'm immediately 00:29:56.920 --> 00:30:01.240 suspicious and curious. For example, what does city of Austin do, you know, with 00:30:01.240 --> 00:30:06.200 first advisory opinions right out of the box? I mean, how do they prevent from 00:30:06.200 --> 00:30:10.520 happening what we went through just last month? So, you know, we're learning here, 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 00:30:19.160 --> 00:30:26.240 out there to help us with this advisory opinion issue that might be evident and 00:30:26.240 --> 00:30:33.160 visible. I mean, I've done benchmarking research and presented it to you all in 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 00:30:38.040 --> 00:30:43.320 what you guys would like? Benchmark information? We've lived the nightmare. 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 00:30:48.560 --> 00:30:53.960 think just maybe some some advisory opinion processes from around the state 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 00:30:59.160 --> 00:31:04.360 happens in Austin or Fort Worth or El Paso, for example. 00:31:06.240 --> 00:31:09.760 Good to make more work for you, but I think that would be very helpful. 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? 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. 00:31:20.200 --> 00:31:22.600 I'd like to see how other cities handle this. 00:31:22.600 --> 00:31:35.200 Okay, so we're up to item D, BOE 24-033, management reports. September 24th, 00:31:35.200 --> 00:31:41.360 2024 advisory opinion responses report. Take it away, Madison. 00:31:41.360 --> 00:31:49.280 Yes, so during September 2024, Mayor Hudsbeth requested an advisory opinion 00:31:49.280 --> 00:31:55.040 regarding deliberating rates related to the city's solar program. The board met 00:31:55.040 --> 00:32:00.720 on September 11th and issued that opinion, saying that they recommended 00:32:00.720 --> 00:32:07.920 a recusal under the improper influence section. That is the end of the advisory 00:32:07.920 --> 00:32:14.320 opinion process. And it was publicized in the website for the standard practice. 00:32:14.320 --> 00:32:20.720 And then I did forward it to all city council members as well because I 00:32:20.720 --> 00:32:25.120 thought there might be others that had solar counts. 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? 00:32:35.200 --> 00:32:44.880 I think finding out what other cities do with this would be helpful. 00:32:44.880 --> 00:32:55.840 Well, I mean, knowing what we got today, 00:32:59.120 --> 00:33:05.760 I think, I think that potentially that advisory opinion was based on incomplete information. 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. 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, 00:33:24.480 --> 00:33:30.880 so end of, end of item D, right? Everybody okay with that? 00:33:30.880 --> 00:33:42.240 Yes. Okay, item E, BOE 24-034. Receive a report, hold a discussion, 00:33:42.240 --> 00:33:45.360 and give staff direction regarding future meeting topics. 00:33:51.600 --> 00:33:56.560 I don't, I don't think we have anything on the schedule currently. 00:33:56.560 --> 00:34:14.400 So next time we would be looking at the brainstorming we did about burden and proof 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 00:34:24.000 --> 00:34:34.480 gather information about the advisory process in other cities? 00:34:40.800 --> 00:34:46.720 One else. We do have on the agenda for today the ordinance training. 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, 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? 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. 00:35:16.640 --> 00:35:20.880 So it might be good to wait till next month? Yeah. Okay. 00:35:20.880 --> 00:35:28.960 I would, I would recommend that we wait until next month. 00:35:28.960 --> 00:35:35.440 Is there potential that we would have new members at the next meeting? 00:35:36.480 --> 00:35:43.200 There's a potential. Okay. I'm fine with waiting. I'm okay with waiting. Okay. 00:35:43.200 --> 00:35:49.760 How much you guys feel about talking about 00:35:49.760 --> 00:35:58.640 what's in the city charter and whether or not our code complies with it? 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 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. 00:36:13.120 --> 00:36:18.640 I think that might 00:36:18.640 --> 00:36:25.840 be helpful if we put together whatever we're going to propose to the council for 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 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, 00:36:40.080 --> 00:36:49.280 that I think are not covered, are pretty basic to ethical codes and should be there. 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. 00:36:56.560 --> 00:37:01.200 So I would like to have a more discussion about that. 00:37:01.200 --> 00:37:12.560 Is that okay with everybody? Andrea? Okay. Do we need to vote on that or? 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. 00:37:20.880 --> 00:37:25.120 All of those things, that's how long the meeting would be about is my estimate. 00:37:27.200 --> 00:37:40.160 Okay. What if we put the research about the advisory panel off until the following month? 00:37:40.160 --> 00:37:49.600 What are you guys thinking about that? That gets us to about an hour. 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. 00:38:02.960 --> 00:38:04.960 Yeah. Okay. 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 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, 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? 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, 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? 00:38:40.720 --> 00:38:47.440 To what meeting? To what date? December meeting? To December. Oh, the training? No. 00:38:47.440 --> 00:38:56.000 November 4th, right? The discussion, the research item. Well, the training is on the 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. 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. 00:39:11.600 --> 00:39:18.160 David, are you seconding? Yeah, I'm seconding. All in favor? Aye. 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. 00:39:31.760 --> 00:39:41.760 [BLANK_AUDIO]