1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:14,000
 So it is Monday, November 4th, 2024 at 5.45 p.m. and I am calling the regular meeting of the Board of Ethics to order.

2
00:00:14,000 --> 00:00:20,000
 And I understand we do not have any presentations from members of the public.

3
00:00:20,000 --> 00:00:25,000
 And just as a note, I'm going to try to kind of push through this agenda.

4
00:00:25,000 --> 00:00:30,000
 So if I am pushing too fast, just tell me and I will slow down.

5
00:00:30,000 --> 00:00:43,000
 Items for consideration, item two, a BOE 24-03A, consider approval of the minutes for October 7th, 2024.

6
00:00:43,000 --> 00:00:51,000
 So we have both the special called minutes, so we'll start with that, exhibit one.

7
00:00:51,000 --> 00:00:55,000
 Does anybody, you were at that meeting, right?

8
00:00:55,000 --> 00:00:56,000
 Yeah.

9
00:00:56,000 --> 00:00:57,000
 The two of you were.

10
00:00:57,000 --> 00:00:59,000
 Did you see anything that needed to change?

11
00:00:59,000 --> 00:01:00,000
 No.

12
00:01:00,000 --> 00:01:01,000
 Okay.

13
00:01:01,000 --> 00:01:02,000
 So can I hear a motion on that?

14
00:01:02,000 --> 00:01:07,000
 I'll motion to accept the minutes for the special, is it a special meeting?

15
00:01:07,000 --> 00:01:08,000
 Special call meeting.

16
00:01:08,000 --> 00:01:13,000
 Special call meeting on November 7th.

17
00:01:13,000 --> 00:01:17,000
 October 7th, sorry.

18
00:01:17,000 --> 00:01:23,000
 And is there a second?

19
00:01:23,000 --> 00:01:29,000
 So I watch the video, can I second it from watching the video of the meeting?

20
00:01:29,000 --> 00:01:31,000
 Anyone can second it.

21
00:01:31,000 --> 00:01:32,000
 I'll second it.

22
00:01:32,000 --> 00:01:33,000
 All right.

23
00:01:33,000 --> 00:01:37,000
 So it's been moved by Andrea and seconded by Patricia.

24
00:01:37,000 --> 00:01:40,000
 And all in favor, raise your hand.

25
00:01:40,000 --> 00:01:41,000
 Aye.

26
00:01:41,000 --> 00:01:42,000
 Okay.

27
00:01:42,000 --> 00:01:43,000
 Those minutes passed.

28
00:01:43,000 --> 00:01:49,000
 Exhibit two, October 7th, 2024, regular meeting minutes.

29
00:01:49,000 --> 00:01:59,000
 Does anybody see any changes that need to be made?

30
00:01:59,000 --> 00:02:04,000
 Hearing none, I'll just ask for a motion.

31
00:02:04,000 --> 00:02:09,000
 I'll motion to accept the minutes for the regular meeting on October 7th.

32
00:02:09,000 --> 00:02:10,000
 Is there a second?

33
00:02:10,000 --> 00:02:11,000
 Second.

34
00:02:11,000 --> 00:02:15,000
 Okay, it has been moved by Andrea and seconded by David.

35
00:02:15,000 --> 00:02:18,000
 All in favor, raise your hand.

36
00:02:18,000 --> 00:02:22,000
 Okay, that's unanimous.

37
00:02:22,000 --> 00:02:36,000
 Item B, DOE 24-040, receive a report, hold a discussion, and take necessary action regarding the ethics complaint process.

38
00:02:36,000 --> 00:02:42,000
 Detailed and coded ordinance is Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics.

39
00:02:42,000 --> 00:02:54,000
 See Section 2-281, meetings, and Section 2-282, disposition in the Board of Ethics rules and procedure.

40
00:02:54,000 --> 00:03:02,000
 So we have Exhibit 1, which is an information sheet.

41
00:03:02,000 --> 00:03:12,000
 We have Exhibit 2, which is the proposed language.

42
00:03:12,000 --> 00:03:16,000
 So I guess I'll move on to the proposed language.

43
00:03:16,000 --> 00:03:21,000
 I'm the one who wrote this, and I do have the sheet that Madison sent me.

44
00:03:21,000 --> 00:03:26,000
 It's almost filled the page, all the brainstorming that we did.

45
00:03:26,000 --> 00:03:31,000
 So what I was trying to do was condense it into as few words as possible.

46
00:03:31,000 --> 00:03:57,000
 So is there anything that needs to be added or taken away from that wording?

47
00:03:57,000 --> 00:04:01,000
 Could someone close the door?

48
00:04:01,000 --> 00:04:07,000
 Thank you.

49
00:04:07,000 --> 00:04:12,000
 So no changes?

50
00:04:12,000 --> 00:04:15,000
 This is only a stylistic thing.

51
00:04:15,000 --> 00:04:18,000
 Chilling effect and complainants?

52
00:04:18,000 --> 00:04:27,000
 Is there anything that needs to be added or taken away from that?

53
00:04:27,000 --> 00:04:30,000
 I should say, I don't know.

54
00:04:30,000 --> 00:04:36,000
 Something more, maybe something more.

55
00:04:36,000 --> 00:04:45,000
 I don't understand what you're saying.

56
00:04:45,000 --> 00:04:48,000
 Is there a better word?

57
00:04:48,000 --> 00:04:52,000
 Chilling effect?

58
00:04:52,000 --> 00:05:00,000
 Could create an undue obstacle?

59
00:05:00,000 --> 00:05:04,000
 It's more technical than chilling.

60
00:05:04,000 --> 00:05:06,000
 Or could discourage?

61
00:05:06,000 --> 00:05:09,000
 I'd say discourage and complainants.

62
00:05:09,000 --> 00:05:18,000
 I just switched discourages and complainants with the face.

63
00:05:18,000 --> 00:05:21,000
 I agree.

64
00:05:21,000 --> 00:05:31,000
 Any other?

65
00:05:31,000 --> 00:05:42,000
 While that's second, all other quotes do not mention?

66
00:05:42,000 --> 00:05:53,000
 Okay.

67
00:05:53,000 --> 00:05:54,000
 Okay.

68
00:05:54,000 --> 00:05:57,000
 What else?

69
00:05:57,000 --> 00:06:00,000
 Anything else?

70
00:06:00,000 --> 00:06:14,000
 Anything to take out, anything to add?

71
00:06:14,000 --> 00:06:19,000
 Maybe dismisses anyone lacking information, maybe some.

72
00:06:19,000 --> 00:06:22,000
 Anything else?

73
00:06:22,000 --> 00:06:27,000
 Okay.

74
00:06:27,000 --> 00:06:28,000
 Okay.

75
00:06:28,000 --> 00:06:29,000
 Anything else?

76
00:06:29,000 --> 00:06:30,000
 Sorry, what was that?

77
00:06:30,000 --> 00:06:31,000
 Change anyone to someone?

78
00:06:31,000 --> 00:06:33,000
 Dismisses someone lacking.

79
00:06:33,000 --> 00:06:42,000
 Just to some.

80
00:06:42,000 --> 00:06:50,000
 What else?

81
00:06:50,000 --> 00:06:56,000
 Is that a fear, maybe confusion?

82
00:06:56,000 --> 00:07:00,000
 I like that.

83
00:07:00,000 --> 00:07:02,000
 At which point?

84
00:07:02,000 --> 00:07:09,000
 The third from the bottom, when it says fear based on counsel.

85
00:07:09,000 --> 00:07:14,000
 I like that just because it uses another word.

86
00:07:14,000 --> 00:07:28,000
 It's easy to dismiss fear versus confusion is easier.

87
00:07:28,000 --> 00:07:40,000
 What about the bottom one, fear of weaponization, potential for weaponizing code?

88
00:07:40,000 --> 00:07:45,000
 Okay.

89
00:07:45,000 --> 00:07:55,000
 Madison, I can make those changes and just send you up.

90
00:07:55,000 --> 00:07:56,000
 Sure.

91
00:07:56,000 --> 00:07:59,000
 Yeah, I took my notes on it, but that works for me too.

92
00:07:59,000 --> 00:08:02,000
 I will do that and send it to you, John.

93
00:08:02,000 --> 00:08:03,000
 Anything else?

94
00:08:03,000 --> 00:08:11,000
 I'm still hovering over that last one that is already recognized between counsel members.

95
00:08:11,000 --> 00:08:13,000
 Take that one.

96
00:08:13,000 --> 00:08:17,000
 Potential for weaponizing code to stop there?

97
00:08:17,000 --> 00:08:18,000
 Yes.

98
00:08:18,000 --> 00:08:20,000
 Yeah.

99
00:08:20,000 --> 00:08:22,000
 Yeah, that does sound a little...

100
00:08:22,000 --> 00:08:23,000
 Too wordy?

101
00:08:23,000 --> 00:08:29,000
 Well, it sounds a little accusatory.

102
00:08:29,000 --> 00:08:32,000
 Yeah, so I'm fine with that.

103
00:08:32,000 --> 00:08:37,000
 Madison, is there any way for you to add these suggestions to the big screen here?

104
00:08:37,000 --> 00:08:40,000
 I'm having kind of a problem hearing some of them.

105
00:08:40,000 --> 00:08:41,000
 Oh, sorry.

106
00:08:41,000 --> 00:08:43,000
 Oh, let me just go over.

107
00:08:43,000 --> 00:08:48,000
 So on the second bullet point, it should now read all other codes.

108
00:08:48,000 --> 00:08:52,000
 Do not mention burden of proof.

109
00:08:52,000 --> 00:08:54,000
 On the strike silent?

110
00:08:54,000 --> 00:08:55,000
 Mm-hmm.

111
00:08:55,000 --> 00:08:56,000
 Okay.

112
00:08:56,000 --> 00:08:57,000
 I'm sorry.

113
00:08:57,000 --> 00:08:58,000
 This is a PDF.

114
00:08:58,000 --> 00:08:59,000
 I can't change it.

115
00:08:59,000 --> 00:09:00,000
 Go ahead.

116
00:09:00,000 --> 00:09:07,000
 On the fourth one, discourages complainants who could face frivolity finding.

117
00:09:07,000 --> 00:09:08,000
 Okay.

118
00:09:08,000 --> 00:09:15,000
 And on the sixth one, dismisses someone lacking information, resources, or unique means to

119
00:09:15,000 --> 00:09:18,000
 pursue complaints.

120
00:09:18,000 --> 00:09:20,000
 To pursue complaints.

121
00:09:20,000 --> 00:09:24,000
 That's the one I just matched up with.

122
00:09:24,000 --> 00:09:31,000
 And then the next one that should start with fear based on counsel's lack, confusion based

123
00:09:31,000 --> 00:09:35,000
 on counsel's lack of understanding about code's purpose.

124
00:09:35,000 --> 00:09:41,000
 And then the last one, we're just going to say potentially weaponizes code.

125
00:09:41,000 --> 00:09:43,000
 How's that?

126
00:09:43,000 --> 00:09:53,000
 Okay.

127
00:09:53,000 --> 00:09:58,000
 I will type those in and send them to you in the morning medicine.

128
00:09:58,000 --> 00:10:01,000
 So are you okay with these things?

129
00:10:01,000 --> 00:10:02,000
 Did I leave anything out?

130
00:10:02,000 --> 00:10:08,000
 Because it was like a page of stuff, but there was a little bit of redundancy.

131
00:10:08,000 --> 00:10:09,000
 That's what I suspected.

132
00:10:09,000 --> 00:10:10,000
 Yeah.

133
00:10:10,000 --> 00:10:11,000
 Yeah.

134
00:10:11,000 --> 00:10:12,000
 Yeah, that's typical.

135
00:10:12,000 --> 00:10:13,000
 Yeah.

136
00:10:13,000 --> 00:10:18,000
 No, I think this is a good summary of what we had and what our concerns were.

137
00:10:18,000 --> 00:10:19,000
 Good.

138
00:10:19,000 --> 00:10:26,000
 So, we will add those to our reasons why we are not going to do this.

139
00:10:26,000 --> 00:10:32,000
 Why we would recommend against the burden of proof being made.

140
00:10:32,000 --> 00:10:36,000
 So if we're ready to move on.

141
00:10:36,000 --> 00:10:38,000
 Well, I guess, what's the direction?

142
00:10:38,000 --> 00:10:40,000
 We have this language now.

143
00:10:40,000 --> 00:10:46,000
 What is the direction as far as like, does that make sense?

144
00:10:46,000 --> 00:10:51,000
 Yeah, it's our reasons for why we would like to see the burden of proof removed.

145
00:10:51,000 --> 00:10:52,000
 Right.

146
00:10:52,000 --> 00:11:00,000
 Which I think is great because I don't know if they understand what we're coming from or why that was a problem.

147
00:11:00,000 --> 00:11:01,000
 Right.

148
00:11:01,000 --> 00:11:08,000
 So then you want to take a proposed amendment to the city council with this additional language.

149
00:11:08,000 --> 00:11:15,000
 Would you like it to be basically the same language changes that you proposed last time or do you want to revisit that?

150
00:11:15,000 --> 00:11:17,000
 This is not proposed language.

151
00:11:17,000 --> 00:11:22,000
 This is just the reasons we recommend the removal of burden of proof.

152
00:11:22,000 --> 00:11:26,000
 I think that is such an important thing.

153
00:11:26,000 --> 00:11:28,000
 I do have a question now.

154
00:11:28,000 --> 00:11:37,000
 I talked to my son-in-law and also a friend, they're both lawyers, and they don't understand why we wouldn't want burden of proof.

155
00:11:37,000 --> 00:11:48,000
 And that's what some of the council people are saying because they are worried about people just coming up with accusations without any proof.

156
00:11:48,000 --> 00:11:51,000
 So how does that work?

157
00:11:51,000 --> 00:12:07,000
 Because if the person is in most legal situations innocent until proven guilty, then the accuser has to provide the proof that the defendant did something wrong.

158
00:12:07,000 --> 00:12:19,000
 Typically the whole presentation would be made in a court of law, it would be made by someone defending the person.

159
00:12:19,000 --> 00:12:23,000
 I'm just asking who does have the burden of proof?

160
00:12:23,000 --> 00:12:24,000
 Nobody?

161
00:12:24,000 --> 00:12:26,000
 Really nobody I guess.

162
00:12:26,000 --> 00:12:28,000
 It's just silent everywhere else.

163
00:12:28,000 --> 00:12:35,000
 I've never seen it anywhere except in Dallas, but their system is so different from ours.

164
00:12:35,000 --> 00:12:41,000
 I've spent an hour explaining it, but I've not found it anywhere else.

165
00:12:41,000 --> 00:12:51,000
 And what I think it does is it skews it so that the attention is then placed on the person who is making the accusations.

166
00:12:51,000 --> 00:13:03,000
 I mean it's one of the things we said that it weakens the constituent's perspective and it takes out the voices that could be more objective.

167
00:13:03,000 --> 00:13:09,000
 It puts focus on the complainant instead of the merits of the complaint.

168
00:13:09,000 --> 00:13:14,000
 So, you know, does that make sense?

169
00:13:14,000 --> 00:13:20,000
 I'm still confused because who does have the burden of proof then?

170
00:13:20,000 --> 00:13:38,000
 Basically it's what the person submits, but by completely placing the burden on them, it's just turned out to be a very negative thing from what I've seen.

171
00:13:38,000 --> 00:13:48,000
 It's all about why did Andrea make this accusation against this council member and what are her motives?

172
00:13:48,000 --> 00:13:53,000
 And for this thing, I just don't think that's very helpful.

173
00:13:53,000 --> 00:13:57,000
 I think it's more about here's the complaint.

174
00:13:57,000 --> 00:14:00,000
 Here's what the respondent has to say.

175
00:14:00,000 --> 00:14:04,000
 They have a chance to respond.

176
00:14:04,000 --> 00:14:23,000
 But at least, especially in the way it gets covered in the newspaper, it's all about human complainant.

177
00:14:23,000 --> 00:14:34,000
 I mean somebody could kind of say, "Council person so-and-so broke the law with no proof." And then the council person said, "No, I didn't."

178
00:14:34,000 --> 00:14:36,000
 And then where would you go?

179
00:14:36,000 --> 00:14:49,000
 Well, I think that's different because we are not ever discussing breaking of laws.

180
00:14:49,000 --> 00:14:54,000
 Well, we would be discussing…

181
00:14:54,000 --> 00:14:59,000
 The ordinance is a law. So we are discussing it. It's just a local law.

182
00:14:59,000 --> 00:15:02,000
 Okay.

183
00:15:02,000 --> 00:15:15,000
 I think if someone just said, "Council person Smith broke the law and didn't offer any more than that," that wouldn't even be a complaint.

184
00:15:15,000 --> 00:15:23,000
 I guess if they filled out the form and that's what they wrote on it and they got it notarized, it wouldn't be a complaint.

185
00:15:23,000 --> 00:15:29,000
 We would have to proceed to the preliminary hearing on this assessment at that point.

186
00:15:29,000 --> 00:15:35,000
 And that's where the panel would determine if it was a complaint on its face.

187
00:15:35,000 --> 00:15:38,000
 If we assumed everything in it was true, would it be a complaint?

188
00:15:38,000 --> 00:15:49,000
 At that point, if it literally just said, "They broke the law," my assumption would be we would not determine that to be baseless because there's no evidence.

189
00:15:49,000 --> 00:15:55,000
 But that does put the burden of presenting evidence on the complaint.

190
00:15:55,000 --> 00:16:03,000
 Yeah, it does. I just haven't seen it in any other code. I know we've looked at every code in the state.

191
00:16:03,000 --> 00:16:26,000
 But I wonder, isn't it, that is what we were discussing though, is the burden of proof of coming in front of the meeting and presenting the proof of why council member Sump, whatever, broke the law.

192
00:16:26,000 --> 00:16:37,000
 That is the part that we want because the complaint form is still the same. The complaint force still is going to ask for pieces of that.

193
00:16:37,000 --> 00:16:51,000
 But I think our biggest discussion was about the requirement for the complainant to come in front of the committee and providing evidence in additional level to prove their point.

194
00:16:51,000 --> 00:16:58,000
 And that is the hindrance that we were trying to eliminate by removing this burden of proof.

195
00:16:58,000 --> 00:17:19,000
 Not the fact that there's no evidence that would be submitted, but it's a very different thing to fill out the form and attach the proof that we think that shows that there is a complaint versus coming in front of this board and making a presentation of why.

196
00:17:19,000 --> 00:17:23,000
 Am I wrong in my recollection?

197
00:17:23,000 --> 00:17:49,000
 Yes. In the original red line language that we presented to council, what we changed in the ordinance was just removing that burden of proof section. And then there was a bunch of changes to the rules of procedure, which requires the complainant to appear and to testify.

198
00:17:49,000 --> 00:18:04,000
 This part here is determined if the complainant is present. We removed that basically. If the complainant is not present, the complainant automatically gets dismissed. That was part of that language.

199
00:18:04,000 --> 00:18:19,000
 And then this is currently how the evidence hearing is structured, where the complainant makes this opening statement for three minutes, then the respondent goes.

200
00:18:19,000 --> 00:18:27,000
 So the changes that we made basically made this like a "if they're there," where they have the option to do that.

201
00:18:27,000 --> 00:18:32,000
 Or they're there to answer questions, which I think would be important.

202
00:18:32,000 --> 00:18:37,000
 But it wouldn't require them to be there to answer questions.

203
00:18:37,000 --> 00:19:00,000
 The way it was is asking them to be like a legal representative, which means I think any wise person who makes a complaint the way that is, they're going to have to hire a lawyer. And so that's what we mean when we say it.

204
00:19:00,000 --> 00:19:11,000
 If you as a citizen saw something that was wrong and you can prove it, don't think you have to hire a lawyer to make that complaint.

205
00:19:11,000 --> 00:19:26,000
 And I'm not saying that they can't. They can, certainly. But I think it just takes out voices that really could have some important concerns that you need to raise.

206
00:19:26,000 --> 00:19:37,000
 And the other codes that you looked at that don't have the wording burden of proof, is it just implied that there's going to be some evidence that a person would very much make a complaint?

207
00:19:37,000 --> 00:19:43,000
 I don't think they even have procedures that are as complicated as ours.

208
00:19:43,000 --> 00:19:49,000
 Well, we've never asked if they have procedures.

209
00:19:49,000 --> 00:20:00,000
 Most don't have, that we looked at from what I can remember, because we did look at this, don't have a specific section of the ordinance that calls out that the complainant has the burden of proof.

210
00:20:00,000 --> 00:20:15,000
 Most do either require the complainant to testify or present some evidence at a hearing or something similar to a hearing, or they have essentially a separate body that investigates those complaints.

211
00:20:15,000 --> 00:20:19,000
 We don't have that set up.

212
00:20:19,000 --> 00:20:30,000
 In some cities, somebody from the board actually does some investigation. Like in San Antonio, they have an entire office.

213
00:20:30,000 --> 00:20:39,000
 I mean, there must have been a lot of staff for that one thing.

214
00:20:39,000 --> 00:20:47,000
 So what this burden of proof is not eliminating is the form that actually requires to provide some evidence.

215
00:20:47,000 --> 00:20:54,000
 What we're really discussing is the elimination of that.

216
00:20:54,000 --> 00:20:56,000
 The term, those buzzwords.

217
00:20:56,000 --> 00:21:10,000
 Well, and this, the complainant being present. Well, evidence is providing a burden of proof, providing some sort of proof.

218
00:21:10,000 --> 00:21:23,000
 But it's technically speaking part of the complaint process that gets it started versus where the burden of proof requires the attendance of the...

219
00:21:23,000 --> 00:21:26,000
 Well, we're still requiring that.

220
00:21:26,000 --> 00:21:34,000
 No, we don't. I mean, at the moment, yes, but the proposal would eliminate that.

221
00:21:34,000 --> 00:21:54,000
 And yeah, I wouldn't be getting ahead, but I was going to suggest the person would be required to attend or their proxy as a compromise, because the city councilman didn't like that. They wouldn't attend. So I think if they're not going to attend, then they need a proxy attend.

222
00:21:54,000 --> 00:22:06,000
 Well, I definitely believe that they should face their accuser. And I mean, that's part of the process.

223
00:22:06,000 --> 00:22:32,000
 It is skewed very much in the favor of, "You're going to have to come tell me. You're going to have to do the whole..." I think just knowing that you would have to file the thing and provide the evidence and also come with an opening statement in 30 minutes, that's much.

224
00:22:32,000 --> 00:22:50,000
 And in our code is pretty mild. I mean, the stuff that we cover is not state law. And in fact, that was one of the arguments when they were looking at this, the three women who were on council did not like it because it was weaker than state law. And it still is.

225
00:22:50,000 --> 00:22:51,000
 Because it was what?

226
00:22:51,000 --> 00:22:52,000
 It's weaker than state law.

227
00:22:52,000 --> 00:22:53,000
 Oh, weaker.

228
00:22:53,000 --> 00:23:08,000
 You could break state law and not be in violation of this code, because we just don't cover it. So that's problematic, because in these other cities, like Dallas and San Antonio, they've had some awful stuff happen.

229
00:23:08,000 --> 00:23:30,000
 It's scar tissue. They have these big offices. Also something I learned when I went to the Charter and Youth Committee was that it's right at about the size that cities get ethical codes, because they're big enough that the city's a big enough business.

230
00:23:30,000 --> 00:23:34,000
 Does that answer your questions?

231
00:23:34,000 --> 00:23:37,000
 It answers that I understand your opinion.

232
00:23:37,000 --> 00:23:39,000
 Okay.

233
00:23:39,000 --> 00:23:42,000
 So you don't agree with that?

234
00:23:42,000 --> 00:23:46,000
 Not entirely.

235
00:23:46,000 --> 00:24:10,000
 I'm going to take out the words "burden of proof" because like you say, they stopped to thaw the form with their evidence. We have a panel to see if there's enough evidence. But I guess the part I disagree with, I don't think that a person has a complaint that doesn't have to show up or send a proxy. That was the one I had a problem with.

236
00:24:10,000 --> 00:24:18,000
 Okay. So do we need to make a motion on that?

237
00:24:18,000 --> 00:24:21,000
 What do we actually have to get to that?

238
00:24:21,000 --> 00:24:30,000
 I understand this is language that you would like the Council to see. I guess I'm a little confused on how you want that to be delivered.

239
00:24:30,000 --> 00:24:35,000
 These are just the reasons.

240
00:24:35,000 --> 00:24:48,000
 So, because I mean, if you're not, if you don't, if the direction is not to pair it with a proposal, we could send it in a Friday report, and it would go to them.

241
00:24:48,000 --> 00:25:02,000
 But if we look at the next thing, because I wrote a whole page of things that I think need to happen for our code to be workable, so we might look at that and figure out, because "burden of proof" is on there. Does that sound...

242
00:25:02,000 --> 00:25:03,000
 True.

243
00:25:03,000 --> 00:25:07,000
 Is that exhibit three?

244
00:25:07,000 --> 00:25:08,000
 It's in the next item.

245
00:25:08,000 --> 00:25:11,000
 It's in the next cluster of things.

246
00:25:11,000 --> 00:25:21,000
 So let's close this discussion and move on to the other item, if that makes sense.

247
00:25:21,000 --> 00:25:41,000
 So item C, BOE 24-041, Receiver of Holdings Discussion and Give Staff Direction Regarding Future Meeting Topics. I would like to ask that exhibit two be moved to the end, and we look at one, three, four, and then two.

248
00:25:41,000 --> 00:25:46,000
 Because four is, two is when we're going to decide what we talk about next.

249
00:25:46,000 --> 00:25:51,000
 Yeah, we can go in whenever we want.

250
00:25:51,000 --> 00:26:04,000
 So if we get to exhibit three, the Recommended Changes for Denton's Ethics Ordinance.

251
00:26:04,000 --> 00:26:27,000
 So when I looked, I spent a lot of time looking at the City Employees Code, which I love because the wording is so positive and it explains what transparency is, but the things, it has a lot of stuff on nepotism, which is not a particular issue for counsel.

252
00:26:27,000 --> 00:26:50,000
 So I would recommend that we look at taking removed Section 2-273A and replace the City Employees Ethical Code, Section I, Complex of Interest, or one, Complex of Interest, and two, Private Interest in its place.

253
00:26:50,000 --> 00:26:57,000
 What are we, I'm sorry, what are we, were we posted for this?

254
00:26:57,000 --> 00:26:58,000
 Future agenda items.

255
00:26:58,000 --> 00:26:59,000
 Future agenda items.

256
00:26:59,000 --> 00:27:00,000
 Yeah.

257
00:27:00,000 --> 00:27:01,000
 Right.

258
00:27:01,000 --> 00:27:07,000
 So we, so we're discussing, discussing these items at a future meeting.

259
00:27:07,000 --> 00:27:08,000
 Right.

260
00:27:08,000 --> 00:27:11,000
 Put the, you're asking, what's the topic?

261
00:27:11,000 --> 00:27:19,000
 I want to just show people what I think would make it okay, and then we can talk about it hopefully at the next meeting.

262
00:27:19,000 --> 00:27:31,000
 You want to, I'm just confused, you want to put this list of things on an agenda to be discussed at a future meeting?

263
00:27:31,000 --> 00:27:32,000
 Right.

264
00:27:32,000 --> 00:27:35,000
 Well then you shouldn't be discussing the list necessarily.

265
00:27:35,000 --> 00:27:36,000
 Okay.

266
00:27:36,000 --> 00:27:42,000
 Or are you wanting to go through and make each of them individual agenda items for a future meeting?

267
00:27:42,000 --> 00:27:45,000
 I think that's where I'm confused.

268
00:27:45,000 --> 00:27:48,000
 We could do that.

269
00:27:48,000 --> 00:28:05,000
 I would like, my concern is that there are things that are not in this code of ethics that were mandated when the 80% of the residents voted for a code of ethics.

270
00:28:05,000 --> 00:28:17,000
 And so if we did most of the things on this list, and some of it's just housekeeping stuff, so the big things would be conflict of interest.

271
00:28:17,000 --> 00:28:27,000
 We have a section there, there's three other parts of the current code of ethics.

272
00:28:27,000 --> 00:28:36,000
 I want to look at the sections B and C to see if we still need them.

273
00:28:36,000 --> 00:28:44,000
 I think the question for the board is, at a future meeting, would you like to look at these things in more detail?

274
00:28:44,000 --> 00:28:48,000
 Like I can bring back what this language would actually look like, and we can make this determination.

275
00:28:48,000 --> 00:28:49,000
 Right.

276
00:28:49,000 --> 00:28:58,000
 If that is the direction that the board would like to put it on in December or January or whatever meeting in the future.

277
00:28:58,000 --> 00:28:59,000
 Does that make sense?

278
00:28:59,000 --> 00:29:00,000
 Yes.

279
00:29:00,000 --> 00:29:03,000
 Does that seem obvious to you, Scott?

280
00:29:03,000 --> 00:29:06,000
 So you want to just have a motion?

281
00:29:06,000 --> 00:29:08,000
 We don't need a motion, just direction.

282
00:29:08,000 --> 00:29:09,000
 Okay.

283
00:29:09,000 --> 00:29:10,000
 This is typically how we do these.

284
00:29:10,000 --> 00:29:18,000
 So are you guys okay with looking at these items at maybe the next meeting?

285
00:29:18,000 --> 00:29:21,000
 And here's kind of what we've got upcoming.

286
00:29:21,000 --> 00:29:22,000
 Right.

287
00:29:22,000 --> 00:29:34,000
 Where I'm a little confused is though, because now we have, and I think that's where you've been, is we have this outline of our rationale.

288
00:29:34,000 --> 00:29:38,000
 But what are we doing with the burden to prove changes that we've done?

289
00:29:38,000 --> 00:29:43,000
 It's one of the things, it's one of the items in there.

290
00:29:43,000 --> 00:29:47,000
 It's one of the items for a future topic.

291
00:29:47,000 --> 00:29:48,000
 For a future topic still?

292
00:29:48,000 --> 00:29:50,000
 For a future topic.

293
00:29:50,000 --> 00:29:52,000
 To make a decision in that.

294
00:29:52,000 --> 00:29:57,000
 I was hoping that we could look at the packet and go down the line and say yes, no, yes, no.

295
00:29:57,000 --> 00:29:59,000
 Okay.

296
00:29:59,000 --> 00:30:10,000
 I mean, I'll go through and don't talk, like discussing the merits of each bullet point, just say yes, I want to talk about that in the future, or no, I don't want to talk about that in the future.

297
00:30:10,000 --> 00:30:11,000
 Okay.

298
00:30:11,000 --> 00:30:12,000
 That's on posting.

299
00:30:12,000 --> 00:30:13,000
 Yes.

300
00:30:13,000 --> 00:30:18,000
 Okay.

301
00:30:18,000 --> 00:30:21,000
 You want to go through these bullet points, or I can't, I'm not sure.

302
00:30:21,000 --> 00:30:22,000
 That one, I think.

303
00:30:22,000 --> 00:30:23,000
 That one.

304
00:30:23,000 --> 00:30:24,000
 Three.

305
00:30:24,000 --> 00:30:29,000
 Okay.

306
00:30:29,000 --> 00:30:58,000
 So that would be future item, and then, so I guess we're just telling the, oh, there's a two minute pitch request that we need to look at.

307
00:30:58,000 --> 00:31:08,000
 So that's exhibit three on your agenda.

308
00:31:08,000 --> 00:31:11,000
 So here's the backup that we made.

309
00:31:11,000 --> 00:31:23,000
 So this was a, this was a two minute pitch, which is a process through which council can request the city council, other members of the council, consider things that they would like to do.

310
00:31:23,000 --> 00:31:37,000
 Back in June, council member Beck requested to have a work session to discuss the board essentially providing guidance to council on interactions with petitioners, applicants, and partners.

311
00:31:37,000 --> 00:31:48,000
 That work session then occurred on October 15, I believe, and the council at that time gave direction to send this request for guidance to the board.

312
00:31:48,000 --> 00:31:54,000
 So now I'm bringing it to you as part of that direction.

313
00:31:54,000 --> 00:32:02,000
 They did not really provide any additional guidance on when they would like it back or what they would like that to look like.

314
00:32:02,000 --> 00:32:08,000
 I would definitely like to look at it at the next meeting.

315
00:32:08,000 --> 00:32:10,000
 It might be a long one.

316
00:32:10,000 --> 00:32:18,000
 Can we, can we move on this tonight?

317
00:32:18,000 --> 00:32:21,000
 We can decide, I mean, move on.

318
00:32:21,000 --> 00:32:24,000
 I guess it's a, it's in the future meetings item.

319
00:32:24,000 --> 00:32:32,000
 So if we would like, you would like to discuss it at a future meeting, you can give direction to do that.

320
00:32:32,000 --> 00:32:41,000
 Essentially I need direction on like, what do you want to do next meeting and maybe a little bit on what you want to do the meeting after that.

321
00:32:41,000 --> 00:32:49,000
 So we have that and we have the list to consider for our next meeting or the meeting after, depending on what we decide.

322
00:32:49,000 --> 00:32:58,000
 In last meeting you had given direction to discuss what other cities do with advisory opinions in December.

323
00:32:58,000 --> 00:33:06,000
 And then we had discussed doing the ethics training today, but we're anticipating having new members by December, so I didn't want to miss them.

324
00:33:06,000 --> 00:33:14,000
 So that is also needed in December, likely, or January.

325
00:33:14,000 --> 00:33:18,000
 Okay, so we're down to deciding.

326
00:33:18,000 --> 00:33:20,000
 So what's your pleasure for the next meeting?

327
00:33:20,000 --> 00:33:35,000
 The urgency I've dealt with this list I made is I would like to get this to council last time we had to wait five months.

328
00:33:35,000 --> 00:33:47,000
 I'm not going to make a comment about why I don't want to do that, but.

329
00:33:47,000 --> 00:33:54,000
 Just a question for Madison. Can you kind of summarize where we are right now with the council?

330
00:33:54,000 --> 00:34:02,000
 You may not have names yet, but where we are with nominating process and getting us back to seven members.

331
00:34:02,000 --> 00:34:06,000
 Will that happen in December or what are we looking at?

332
00:34:06,000 --> 00:34:11,000
 Yeah, I believe so. My understanding is at least one of the two people have been nominated.

333
00:34:11,000 --> 00:34:23,000
 At least one of them, I believe, has finished vetting and they should be on the November 19th city council meeting, which is the next council meeting for appointment.

334
00:34:23,000 --> 00:34:32,000
 So then they would have to finish certain trainings, but they would most likely be at the December 2nd meeting.

335
00:34:32,000 --> 00:34:37,000
 So then would they go to training before they can sit, take a seat or pass?

336
00:34:37,000 --> 00:34:44,000
 There's like some Texas Open Meetings Act training that they have to complete that y'all have all had to complete.

337
00:34:44,000 --> 00:34:52,000
 And then we would have the annual ethics training in December for everybody that everybody has to complete anyway.

338
00:34:52,000 --> 00:34:58,000
 We can do that stuff in the evening. It just depends on how personally motivated each one of them are.

339
00:34:58,000 --> 00:35:02,000
 So the very earliest that we can be back to seven members would be?

340
00:35:02,000 --> 00:35:06,000
 December 2nd.

341
00:35:06,000 --> 00:35:11,000
 So back to the recommended changes for the Denton's ethics organs.

342
00:35:11,000 --> 00:35:17,000
 I think just keep all the whole list in so that gives us flexibility next time to talk about any of them.

343
00:35:17,000 --> 00:35:23,000
 And if we run out of time or change their minds, we can talk about it.

344
00:35:23,000 --> 00:35:28,000
 But then the one that the city council wants us to do is a pretty big topic.

345
00:35:28,000 --> 00:35:33,000
 And so we might need to put that for a future January.

346
00:35:33,000 --> 00:35:43,000
 That makes sense.

347
00:35:43,000 --> 00:35:48,000
 Unless you really want to do all of it.

348
00:35:48,000 --> 00:35:53,000
 I am concerned that we're not going to get to this recommendation of lists in one meeting.

349
00:35:53,000 --> 00:36:03,000
 Well no, but if it's not on there, we can't talk about it. So just keep the whole list to be continued if we don't get through it all.

350
00:36:03,000 --> 00:36:10,000
 There are two big things on that list. The rest of it is stuff like change the language so it's more house keeping.

351
00:36:10,000 --> 00:36:13,000
 Well I do think that eight and nine are pretty big.

352
00:36:13,000 --> 00:36:20,000
 Yeah. I can take them off.

353
00:36:20,000 --> 00:36:24,000
 I would say leave them on just in case we have time to talk about it.

354
00:36:24,000 --> 00:36:25,000
 Yeah, we've been always.

355
00:36:25,000 --> 00:36:31,000
 You just then push it out to the next meeting.

356
00:36:31,000 --> 00:36:38,000
 So the direction that I'm hearing right now is that in December we would have the minutes.

357
00:36:38,000 --> 00:36:41,000
 We would discuss advisory opinion research.

358
00:36:41,000 --> 00:36:45,000
 We would have the annual ethics training.

359
00:36:45,000 --> 00:36:52,000
 And we would at least begin discussing this recommended changes.

360
00:36:52,000 --> 00:36:58,000
 But with your timeline.

361
00:36:58,000 --> 00:37:00,000
 Right, we would be probably at an hour and a half.

362
00:37:00,000 --> 00:37:02,000
 Yeah.

363
00:37:02,000 --> 00:37:03,000
 In December.

364
00:37:03,000 --> 00:37:06,000
 Yeah.

365
00:37:06,000 --> 00:37:10,000
 I don't think that that is feasible.

366
00:37:10,000 --> 00:37:19,000
 Can we take that first one off, the advisory?

367
00:37:19,000 --> 00:37:21,000
 We can do that if that's good.

368
00:37:21,000 --> 00:37:23,000
 Till January?

369
00:37:23,000 --> 00:37:28,000
 Yes, because it is, because that does not go with the list.

370
00:37:28,000 --> 00:37:32,000
 I would agree. Move the advisory opinion research to January.

371
00:37:32,000 --> 00:37:43,000
 And keep the list under ethics training.

372
00:37:43,000 --> 00:37:46,000
 Okay. I will send you an updated list.

373
00:37:46,000 --> 00:37:53,000
 I'll fuse the word changes we made into it.

374
00:37:53,000 --> 00:37:55,000
 The burden of proof list?

375
00:37:55,000 --> 00:37:56,000
 Right.

376
00:37:56,000 --> 00:38:01,000
 Okay. And then do you want that as part of the discussion?

377
00:38:01,000 --> 00:38:06,000
 Well, since burden of proof is on there, those are our reasons that we were offering to council.

378
00:38:06,000 --> 00:38:07,000
 Okay.

379
00:38:07,000 --> 00:38:10,000
 I can include it as an attachment to the item.

380
00:38:10,000 --> 00:38:11,000
 Oh, okay.

381
00:38:11,000 --> 00:38:13,000
 We're talking about the red line?

382
00:38:13,000 --> 00:38:21,000
 So my understanding is for this item, for next time, I'll basically try to put together a red line that does this.

383
00:38:21,000 --> 00:38:23,000
 Yes.

384
00:38:23,000 --> 00:38:30,000
 And then have the rest of the list so that we can discuss some of the kind of clean up things.

385
00:38:30,000 --> 00:38:33,000
 And then these items as well.

386
00:38:33,000 --> 00:38:39,000
 And then also have this as an attachment as part of this discussion.

387
00:38:39,000 --> 00:38:40,000
 Okay.

388
00:38:40,000 --> 00:38:41,000
 Does that make sense?

389
00:38:41,000 --> 00:38:49,000
 Yes, I think so.

390
00:38:49,000 --> 00:39:00,000
 It would be weird if we kissed them.

391
00:39:00,000 --> 00:39:01,000
 That would be weird.

392
00:39:01,000 --> 00:39:02,000
 We won't do that.

393
00:39:02,000 --> 00:39:03,000
 Okay.

394
00:39:03,000 --> 00:39:12,000
 So there are no other items, no other things we need to discuss.

395
00:39:12,000 --> 00:39:19,000
 So it is now 6/25 and this meeting is adjourned.