WEBVTT 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. 00:00:14.000 --> 00:00:20.000 And I understand we do not have any presentations from members of the public. 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. 00:00:25.000 --> 00:00:30.000 So if I am pushing too fast, just tell me and I will slow down. 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. 00:00:43.000 --> 00:00:51.000 So we have both the special called minutes, so we'll start with that, exhibit one. 00:00:51.000 --> 00:00:55.000 Does anybody, you were at that meeting, right? 00:00:55.000 --> 00:00:56.000 Yeah. 00:00:56.000 --> 00:00:57.000 The two of you were. 00:00:57.000 --> 00:00:59.000 Did you see anything that needed to change? 00:00:59.000 --> 00:01:00.000 No. 00:01:00.000 --> 00:01:01.000 Okay. 00:01:01.000 --> 00:01:02.000 So can I hear a motion on that? 00:01:02.000 --> 00:01:07.000 I'll motion to accept the minutes for the special, is it a special meeting? 00:01:07.000 --> 00:01:08.000 Special call meeting. 00:01:08.000 --> 00:01:13.000 Special call meeting on November 7th. 00:01:13.000 --> 00:01:17.000 October 7th, sorry. 00:01:17.000 --> 00:01:23.000 And is there a second? 00:01:23.000 --> 00:01:29.000 So I watch the video, can I second it from watching the video of the meeting? 00:01:29.000 --> 00:01:31.000 Anyone can second it. 00:01:31.000 --> 00:01:32.000 I'll second it. 00:01:32.000 --> 00:01:33.000 All right. 00:01:33.000 --> 00:01:37.000 So it's been moved by Andrea and seconded by Patricia. 00:01:37.000 --> 00:01:40.000 And all in favor, raise your hand. 00:01:40.000 --> 00:01:41.000 Aye. 00:01:41.000 --> 00:01:42.000 Okay. 00:01:42.000 --> 00:01:43.000 Those minutes passed. 00:01:43.000 --> 00:01:49.000 Exhibit two, October 7th, 2024, regular meeting minutes. 00:01:49.000 --> 00:01:59.000 Does anybody see any changes that need to be made? 00:01:59.000 --> 00:02:04.000 Hearing none, I'll just ask for a motion. 00:02:04.000 --> 00:02:09.000 I'll motion to accept the minutes for the regular meeting on October 7th. 00:02:09.000 --> 00:02:10.000 Is there a second? 00:02:10.000 --> 00:02:11.000 Second. 00:02:11.000 --> 00:02:15.000 Okay, it has been moved by Andrea and seconded by David. 00:02:15.000 --> 00:02:18.000 All in favor, raise your hand. 00:02:18.000 --> 00:02:22.000 Okay, that's unanimous. 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. 00:02:36.000 --> 00:02:42.000 Detailed and coded ordinance is Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics. 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. 00:02:54.000 --> 00:03:02.000 So we have Exhibit 1, which is an information sheet. 00:03:02.000 --> 00:03:12.000 We have Exhibit 2, which is the proposed language. 00:03:12.000 --> 00:03:16.000 So I guess I'll move on to the proposed language. 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. 00:03:21.000 --> 00:03:26.000 It's almost filled the page, all the brainstorming that we did. 00:03:26.000 --> 00:03:31.000 So what I was trying to do was condense it into as few words as possible. 00:03:31.000 --> 00:03:57.000 So is there anything that needs to be added or taken away from that wording? 00:03:57.000 --> 00:04:01.000 Could someone close the door? 00:04:01.000 --> 00:04:07.000 Thank you. 00:04:07.000 --> 00:04:12.000 So no changes? 00:04:12.000 --> 00:04:15.000 This is only a stylistic thing. 00:04:15.000 --> 00:04:18.000 Chilling effect and complainants? 00:04:18.000 --> 00:04:27.000 Is there anything that needs to be added or taken away from that? 00:04:27.000 --> 00:04:30.000 I should say, I don't know. 00:04:30.000 --> 00:04:36.000 Something more, maybe something more. 00:04:36.000 --> 00:04:45.000 I don't understand what you're saying. 00:04:45.000 --> 00:04:48.000 Is there a better word? 00:04:48.000 --> 00:04:52.000 Chilling effect? 00:04:52.000 --> 00:05:00.000 Could create an undue obstacle? 00:05:00.000 --> 00:05:04.000 It's more technical than chilling. 00:05:04.000 --> 00:05:06.000 Or could discourage? 00:05:06.000 --> 00:05:09.000 I'd say discourage and complainants. 00:05:09.000 --> 00:05:18.000 I just switched discourages and complainants with the face. 00:05:18.000 --> 00:05:21.000 I agree. 00:05:21.000 --> 00:05:31.000 Any other? 00:05:31.000 --> 00:05:42.000 While that's second, all other quotes do not mention? 00:05:42.000 --> 00:05:53.000 Okay. 00:05:53.000 --> 00:05:54.000 Okay. 00:05:54.000 --> 00:05:57.000 What else? 00:05:57.000 --> 00:06:00.000 Anything else? 00:06:00.000 --> 00:06:14.000 Anything to take out, anything to add? 00:06:14.000 --> 00:06:19.000 Maybe dismisses anyone lacking information, maybe some. 00:06:19.000 --> 00:06:22.000 Anything else? 00:06:22.000 --> 00:06:27.000 Okay. 00:06:27.000 --> 00:06:28.000 Okay. 00:06:28.000 --> 00:06:29.000 Anything else? 00:06:29.000 --> 00:06:30.000 Sorry, what was that? 00:06:30.000 --> 00:06:31.000 Change anyone to someone? 00:06:31.000 --> 00:06:33.000 Dismisses someone lacking. 00:06:33.000 --> 00:06:42.000 Just to some. 00:06:42.000 --> 00:06:50.000 What else? 00:06:50.000 --> 00:06:56.000 Is that a fear, maybe confusion? 00:06:56.000 --> 00:07:00.000 I like that. 00:07:00.000 --> 00:07:02.000 At which point? 00:07:02.000 --> 00:07:09.000 The third from the bottom, when it says fear based on counsel. 00:07:09.000 --> 00:07:14.000 I like that just because it uses another word. 00:07:14.000 --> 00:07:28.000 It's easy to dismiss fear versus confusion is easier. 00:07:28.000 --> 00:07:40.000 What about the bottom one, fear of weaponization, potential for weaponizing code? 00:07:40.000 --> 00:07:45.000 Okay. 00:07:45.000 --> 00:07:55.000 Madison, I can make those changes and just send you up. 00:07:55.000 --> 00:07:56.000 Sure. 00:07:56.000 --> 00:07:59.000 Yeah, I took my notes on it, but that works for me too. 00:07:59.000 --> 00:08:02.000 I will do that and send it to you, John. 00:08:02.000 --> 00:08:03.000 Anything else? 00:08:03.000 --> 00:08:11.000 I'm still hovering over that last one that is already recognized between counsel members. 00:08:11.000 --> 00:08:13.000 Take that one. 00:08:13.000 --> 00:08:17.000 Potential for weaponizing code to stop there? 00:08:17.000 --> 00:08:18.000 Yes. 00:08:18.000 --> 00:08:20.000 Yeah. 00:08:20.000 --> 00:08:22.000 Yeah, that does sound a little... 00:08:22.000 --> 00:08:23.000 Too wordy? 00:08:23.000 --> 00:08:29.000 Well, it sounds a little accusatory. 00:08:29.000 --> 00:08:32.000 Yeah, so I'm fine with that. 00:08:32.000 --> 00:08:37.000 Madison, is there any way for you to add these suggestions to the big screen here? 00:08:37.000 --> 00:08:40.000 I'm having kind of a problem hearing some of them. 00:08:40.000 --> 00:08:41.000 Oh, sorry. 00:08:41.000 --> 00:08:43.000 Oh, let me just go over. 00:08:43.000 --> 00:08:48.000 So on the second bullet point, it should now read all other codes. 00:08:48.000 --> 00:08:52.000 Do not mention burden of proof. 00:08:52.000 --> 00:08:54.000 On the strike silent? 00:08:54.000 --> 00:08:55.000 Mm-hmm. 00:08:55.000 --> 00:08:56.000 Okay. 00:08:56.000 --> 00:08:57.000 I'm sorry. 00:08:57.000 --> 00:08:58.000 This is a PDF. 00:08:58.000 --> 00:08:59.000 I can't change it. 00:08:59.000 --> 00:09:00.000 Go ahead. 00:09:00.000 --> 00:09:07.000 On the fourth one, discourages complainants who could face frivolity finding. 00:09:07.000 --> 00:09:08.000 Okay. 00:09:08.000 --> 00:09:15.000 And on the sixth one, dismisses someone lacking information, resources, or unique means to 00:09:15.000 --> 00:09:18.000 pursue complaints. 00:09:18.000 --> 00:09:20.000 To pursue complaints. 00:09:20.000 --> 00:09:24.000 That's the one I just matched up with. 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 00:09:31.000 --> 00:09:35.000 on counsel's lack of understanding about code's purpose. 00:09:35.000 --> 00:09:41.000 And then the last one, we're just going to say potentially weaponizes code. 00:09:41.000 --> 00:09:43.000 How's that? 00:09:43.000 --> 00:09:53.000 Okay. 00:09:53.000 --> 00:09:58.000 I will type those in and send them to you in the morning medicine. 00:09:58.000 --> 00:10:01.000 So are you okay with these things? 00:10:01.000 --> 00:10:02.000 Did I leave anything out? 00:10:02.000 --> 00:10:08.000 Because it was like a page of stuff, but there was a little bit of redundancy. 00:10:08.000 --> 00:10:09.000 That's what I suspected. 00:10:09.000 --> 00:10:10.000 Yeah. 00:10:10.000 --> 00:10:11.000 Yeah. 00:10:11.000 --> 00:10:12.000 Yeah, that's typical. 00:10:12.000 --> 00:10:13.000 Yeah. 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. 00:10:18.000 --> 00:10:19.000 Good. 00:10:19.000 --> 00:10:26.000 So, we will add those to our reasons why we are not going to do this. 00:10:26.000 --> 00:10:32.000 Why we would recommend against the burden of proof being made. 00:10:32.000 --> 00:10:36.000 So if we're ready to move on. 00:10:36.000 --> 00:10:38.000 Well, I guess, what's the direction? 00:10:38.000 --> 00:10:40.000 We have this language now. 00:10:40.000 --> 00:10:46.000 What is the direction as far as like, does that make sense? 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. 00:10:51.000 --> 00:10:52.000 Right. 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. 00:11:00.000 --> 00:11:01.000 Right. 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. 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? 00:11:15.000 --> 00:11:17.000 This is not proposed language. 00:11:17.000 --> 00:11:22.000 This is just the reasons we recommend the removal of burden of proof. 00:11:22.000 --> 00:11:26.000 I think that is such an important thing. 00:11:26.000 --> 00:11:28.000 I do have a question now. 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. 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. 00:11:48.000 --> 00:11:51.000 So how does that work? 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. 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. 00:12:19.000 --> 00:12:23.000 I'm just asking who does have the burden of proof? 00:12:23.000 --> 00:12:24.000 Nobody? 00:12:24.000 --> 00:12:26.000 Really nobody I guess. 00:12:26.000 --> 00:12:28.000 It's just silent everywhere else. 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. 00:12:35.000 --> 00:12:41.000 I've spent an hour explaining it, but I've not found it anywhere else. 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. 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. 00:13:03.000 --> 00:13:09.000 It puts focus on the complainant instead of the merits of the complaint. 00:13:09.000 --> 00:13:14.000 So, you know, does that make sense? 00:13:14.000 --> 00:13:20.000 I'm still confused because who does have the burden of proof then? 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. 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? 00:13:48.000 --> 00:13:53.000 And for this thing, I just don't think that's very helpful. 00:13:53.000 --> 00:13:57.000 I think it's more about here's the complaint. 00:13:57.000 --> 00:14:00.000 Here's what the respondent has to say. 00:14:00.000 --> 00:14:04.000 They have a chance to respond. 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. 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." 00:14:34.000 --> 00:14:36.000 And then where would you go? 00:14:36.000 --> 00:14:49.000 Well, I think that's different because we are not ever discussing breaking of laws. 00:14:49.000 --> 00:14:54.000 Well, we would be discussing… 00:14:54.000 --> 00:14:59.000 The ordinance is a law. So we are discussing it. It's just a local law. 00:14:59.000 --> 00:15:02.000 Okay. 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. 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. 00:15:23.000 --> 00:15:29.000 We would have to proceed to the preliminary hearing on this assessment at that point. 00:15:29.000 --> 00:15:35.000 And that's where the panel would determine if it was a complaint on its face. 00:15:35.000 --> 00:15:38.000 If we assumed everything in it was true, would it be a complaint? 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. 00:15:49.000 --> 00:15:55.000 But that does put the burden of presenting evidence on the complaint. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 00:17:19.000 --> 00:17:23.000 Am I wrong in my recollection? 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. 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. 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. 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. 00:18:27.000 --> 00:18:32.000 Or they're there to answer questions, which I think would be important. 00:18:32.000 --> 00:18:37.000 But it wouldn't require them to be there to answer questions. 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. 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. 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. 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? 00:19:37.000 --> 00:19:43.000 I don't think they even have procedures that are as complicated as ours. 00:19:43.000 --> 00:19:49.000 Well, we've never asked if they have procedures. 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. 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. 00:20:15.000 --> 00:20:19.000 We don't have that set up. 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. 00:20:30.000 --> 00:20:39.000 I mean, there must have been a lot of staff for that one thing. 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. 00:20:47.000 --> 00:20:54.000 What we're really discussing is the elimination of that. 00:20:54.000 --> 00:20:56.000 The term, those buzzwords. 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. 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... 00:21:23.000 --> 00:21:26.000 Well, we're still requiring that. 00:21:26.000 --> 00:21:34.000 No, we don't. I mean, at the moment, yes, but the proposal would eliminate that. 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. 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. 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. 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. 00:22:50.000 --> 00:22:51.000 Because it was what? 00:22:51.000 --> 00:22:52.000 It's weaker than state law. 00:22:52.000 --> 00:22:53.000 Oh, weaker. 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. 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. 00:23:30.000 --> 00:23:34.000 Does that answer your questions? 00:23:34.000 --> 00:23:37.000 It answers that I understand your opinion. 00:23:37.000 --> 00:23:39.000 Okay. 00:23:39.000 --> 00:23:42.000 So you don't agree with that? 00:23:42.000 --> 00:23:46.000 Not entirely. 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. 00:24:10.000 --> 00:24:18.000 Okay. So do we need to make a motion on that? 00:24:18.000 --> 00:24:21.000 What do we actually have to get to that? 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. 00:24:30.000 --> 00:24:35.000 These are just the reasons. 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. 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... 00:25:02.000 --> 00:25:03.000 True. 00:25:03.000 --> 00:25:07.000 Is that exhibit three? 00:25:07.000 --> 00:25:08.000 It's in the next item. 00:25:08.000 --> 00:25:11.000 It's in the next cluster of things. 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. 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. 00:25:41.000 --> 00:25:46.000 Because four is, two is when we're going to decide what we talk about next. 00:25:46.000 --> 00:25:51.000 Yeah, we can go in whenever we want. 00:25:51.000 --> 00:26:04.000 So if we get to exhibit three, the Recommended Changes for Denton's Ethics Ordinance. 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. 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. 00:26:50.000 --> 00:26:57.000 What are we, I'm sorry, what are we, were we posted for this? 00:26:57.000 --> 00:26:58.000 Future agenda items. 00:26:58.000 --> 00:26:59.000 Future agenda items. 00:26:59.000 --> 00:27:00.000 Yeah. 00:27:00.000 --> 00:27:01.000 Right. 00:27:01.000 --> 00:27:07.000 So we, so we're discussing, discussing these items at a future meeting. 00:27:07.000 --> 00:27:08.000 Right. 00:27:08.000 --> 00:27:11.000 Put the, you're asking, what's the topic? 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. 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? 00:27:31.000 --> 00:27:32.000 Right. 00:27:32.000 --> 00:27:35.000 Well then you shouldn't be discussing the list necessarily. 00:27:35.000 --> 00:27:36.000 Okay. 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? 00:27:42.000 --> 00:27:45.000 I think that's where I'm confused. 00:27:45.000 --> 00:27:48.000 We could do that. 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. 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. 00:28:17.000 --> 00:28:27.000 We have a section there, there's three other parts of the current code of ethics. 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. 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? 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. 00:28:48.000 --> 00:28:49.000 Right. 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. 00:28:58.000 --> 00:28:59.000 Does that make sense? 00:28:59.000 --> 00:29:00.000 Yes. 00:29:00.000 --> 00:29:03.000 Does that seem obvious to you, Scott? 00:29:03.000 --> 00:29:06.000 So you want to just have a motion? 00:29:06.000 --> 00:29:08.000 We don't need a motion, just direction. 00:29:08.000 --> 00:29:09.000 Okay. 00:29:09.000 --> 00:29:10.000 This is typically how we do these. 00:29:10.000 --> 00:29:18.000 So are you guys okay with looking at these items at maybe the next meeting? 00:29:18.000 --> 00:29:21.000 And here's kind of what we've got upcoming. 00:29:21.000 --> 00:29:22.000 Right. 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. 00:29:34.000 --> 00:29:38.000 But what are we doing with the burden to prove changes that we've done? 00:29:38.000 --> 00:29:43.000 It's one of the things, it's one of the items in there. 00:29:43.000 --> 00:29:47.000 It's one of the items for a future topic. 00:29:47.000 --> 00:29:48.000 For a future topic still? 00:29:48.000 --> 00:29:50.000 For a future topic. 00:29:50.000 --> 00:29:52.000 To make a decision in that. 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. 00:29:57.000 --> 00:29:59.000 Okay. 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. 00:30:10.000 --> 00:30:11.000 Okay. 00:30:11.000 --> 00:30:12.000 That's on posting. 00:30:12.000 --> 00:30:13.000 Yes. 00:30:13.000 --> 00:30:18.000 Okay. 00:30:18.000 --> 00:30:21.000 You want to go through these bullet points, or I can't, I'm not sure. 00:30:21.000 --> 00:30:22.000 That one, I think. 00:30:22.000 --> 00:30:23.000 That one. 00:30:23.000 --> 00:30:24.000 Three. 00:30:24.000 --> 00:30:29.000 Okay. 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. 00:30:58.000 --> 00:31:08.000 So that's exhibit three on your agenda. 00:31:08.000 --> 00:31:11.000 So here's the backup that we made. 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. 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. 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. 00:31:48.000 --> 00:31:54.000 So now I'm bringing it to you as part of that direction. 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. 00:32:02.000 --> 00:32:08.000 I would definitely like to look at it at the next meeting. 00:32:08.000 --> 00:32:10.000 It might be a long one. 00:32:10.000 --> 00:32:18.000 Can we, can we move on this tonight? 00:32:18.000 --> 00:32:21.000 We can decide, I mean, move on. 00:32:21.000 --> 00:32:24.000 I guess it's a, it's in the future meetings item. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 00:33:06.000 --> 00:33:14.000 So that is also needed in December, likely, or January. 00:33:14.000 --> 00:33:18.000 Okay, so we're down to deciding. 00:33:18.000 --> 00:33:20.000 So what's your pleasure for the next meeting? 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. 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. 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? 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. 00:34:02.000 --> 00:34:06.000 Will that happen in December or what are we looking at? 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. 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. 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. 00:34:32.000 --> 00:34:37.000 So then would they go to training before they can sit, take a seat or pass? 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. 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. 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. 00:34:58.000 --> 00:35:02.000 So the very earliest that we can be back to seven members would be? 00:35:02.000 --> 00:35:06.000 December 2nd. 00:35:06.000 --> 00:35:11.000 So back to the recommended changes for the Denton's ethics organs. 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. 00:35:17.000 --> 00:35:23.000 And if we run out of time or change their minds, we can talk about it. 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. 00:35:28.000 --> 00:35:33.000 And so we might need to put that for a future January. 00:35:33.000 --> 00:35:43.000 That makes sense. 00:35:43.000 --> 00:35:48.000 Unless you really want to do all of it. 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. 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. 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. 00:36:10.000 --> 00:36:13.000 Well I do think that eight and nine are pretty big. 00:36:13.000 --> 00:36:20.000 Yeah. I can take them off. 00:36:20.000 --> 00:36:24.000 I would say leave them on just in case we have time to talk about it. 00:36:24.000 --> 00:36:25.000 Yeah, we've been always. 00:36:25.000 --> 00:36:31.000 You just then push it out to the next meeting. 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. 00:36:38.000 --> 00:36:41.000 We would discuss advisory opinion research. 00:36:41.000 --> 00:36:45.000 We would have the annual ethics training. 00:36:45.000 --> 00:36:52.000 And we would at least begin discussing this recommended changes. 00:36:52.000 --> 00:36:58.000 But with your timeline. 00:36:58.000 --> 00:37:00.000 Right, we would be probably at an hour and a half. 00:37:00.000 --> 00:37:02.000 Yeah. 00:37:02.000 --> 00:37:03.000 In December. 00:37:03.000 --> 00:37:06.000 Yeah. 00:37:06.000 --> 00:37:10.000 I don't think that that is feasible. 00:37:10.000 --> 00:37:19.000 Can we take that first one off, the advisory? 00:37:19.000 --> 00:37:21.000 We can do that if that's good. 00:37:21.000 --> 00:37:23.000 Till January? 00:37:23.000 --> 00:37:28.000 Yes, because it is, because that does not go with the list. 00:37:28.000 --> 00:37:32.000 I would agree. Move the advisory opinion research to January. 00:37:32.000 --> 00:37:43.000 And keep the list under ethics training. 00:37:43.000 --> 00:37:46.000 Okay. I will send you an updated list. 00:37:46.000 --> 00:37:53.000 I'll fuse the word changes we made into it. 00:37:53.000 --> 00:37:55.000 The burden of proof list? 00:37:55.000 --> 00:37:56.000 Right. 00:37:56.000 --> 00:38:01.000 Okay. And then do you want that as part of the discussion? 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. 00:38:06.000 --> 00:38:07.000 Okay. 00:38:07.000 --> 00:38:10.000 I can include it as an attachment to the item. 00:38:10.000 --> 00:38:11.000 Oh, okay. 00:38:11.000 --> 00:38:13.000 We're talking about the red line? 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. 00:38:21.000 --> 00:38:23.000 Yes. 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. 00:38:30.000 --> 00:38:33.000 And then these items as well. 00:38:33.000 --> 00:38:39.000 And then also have this as an attachment as part of this discussion. 00:38:39.000 --> 00:38:40.000 Okay. 00:38:40.000 --> 00:38:41.000 Does that make sense? 00:38:41.000 --> 00:38:49.000 Yes, I think so. 00:38:49.000 --> 00:39:00.000 It would be weird if we kissed them. 00:39:00.000 --> 00:39:01.000 That would be weird. 00:39:01.000 --> 00:39:02.000 We won't do that. 00:39:02.000 --> 00:39:03.000 Okay. 00:39:03.000 --> 00:39:12.000 So there are no other items, no other things we need to discuss. 00:39:12.000 --> 00:39:19.000 So it is now 6/25 and this meeting is adjourned.