WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.140 So we'll go ahead and begin. 00:00:03.140 --> 00:00:05.480 Yes. Okay. 00:00:05.480 --> 00:00:06.740 Good evening. 00:00:06.740 --> 00:00:12.520 It is 5.30 p.m. on Monday, December 16, 2024. 00:00:12.520 --> 00:00:16.080 This is a meeting of the Board of Ethics. 00:00:16.080 --> 00:00:19.960 And we are -- I understand that we do not have any 00:00:19.960 --> 00:00:22.920 presentations from members of the public. 00:00:22.920 --> 00:00:26.600 So we'll move on to items for consideration. 00:00:26.600 --> 00:00:30.600 And so that would be BOE 24-04A, 00:00:30.600 --> 00:00:34.200 Consider Approval of Minutes from November 4th 00:00:34.200 --> 00:00:36.140 and December 2nd. 00:00:36.140 --> 00:00:39.040 So we'll start with November 4th. 00:00:39.040 --> 00:00:43.380 Are there any questions about the minutes 00:00:43.380 --> 00:00:45.480 from November 4th? 00:00:45.480 --> 00:00:46.380 >> Move approval. 00:00:46.380 --> 00:00:49.180 >> Okay. So Zeltner has moved approval. 00:00:49.180 --> 00:00:50.180 Do I hear a second? 00:00:50.180 --> 00:00:50.960 >> I second. 00:00:50.960 --> 00:00:53.980 >> Everhart has seconded. 00:00:53.980 --> 00:00:56.900 So all in favor? 00:00:56.900 --> 00:00:57.400 >> Aye. 00:00:57.400 --> 00:00:58.220 >> Aye. 00:00:58.220 --> 00:00:59.760 >> Passes unanimously. 00:00:59.760 --> 00:01:02.360 Okay. Exhibit 2, Regular Meeting Minutes 00:01:02.360 --> 00:01:06.000 from December 2nd. 00:01:06.000 --> 00:01:14.240 Sorry. The next thing would be the evidentiary hearing minutes. 00:01:14.240 --> 00:01:17.680 So anybody have any questions about it? 00:01:17.680 --> 00:01:22.820 Okay. So -- 00:01:22.820 --> 00:01:24.260 >> I'll move that we approve. 00:01:24.260 --> 00:01:26.820 >> I will move to approval. 00:01:26.820 --> 00:01:28.660 Everhart seconded. 00:01:28.660 --> 00:01:30.020 All in favor? 00:01:30.020 --> 00:01:31.720 >> Aye. 00:01:31.720 --> 00:01:35.060 >> So Exhibit 3, Regular Meeting Cancellation Minutes 00:01:35.060 --> 00:01:39.860 from when we had the meeting but we got blotted out. 00:01:39.860 --> 00:01:43.700 So any question about the statement 00:01:43.700 --> 00:01:47.080 that we couldn't have the meeting? 00:01:47.080 --> 00:01:50.740 Okay. Motion to approve. 00:01:50.740 --> 00:01:53.340 I heard Zeltner. 00:01:53.340 --> 00:01:54.120 >> I'll second. 00:01:54.120 --> 00:01:59.620 >> Second. So Zeltner moved and Reiki seconded. 00:01:59.620 --> 00:02:01.160 All in favor? 00:02:01.160 --> 00:02:02.360 >> Aye. 00:02:02.360 --> 00:02:03.720 >> Passes unanimously. 00:02:03.720 --> 00:02:09.600 Okay. I will say I apologize. 00:02:09.600 --> 00:02:11.100 I am soft spoken. 00:02:11.100 --> 00:02:15.760 And so if any of you cannot hear me, give me a little signal 00:02:15.760 --> 00:02:20.440 and I will do a better job of speaking up. 00:02:20.440 --> 00:02:26.340 So Item B, BOE 24-049 Received Training 00:02:26.340 --> 00:02:30.780 and Madison Rochart is ready to give us our training. 00:02:30.780 --> 00:02:31.580 >> All right. 00:02:31.580 --> 00:02:33.460 This is the Ethics Ordinance Training 00:02:33.460 --> 00:02:38.360 which is required annually for city officials including you 00:02:38.360 --> 00:02:40.100 as the Board of Ethics. 00:02:40.100 --> 00:02:42.760 So I'm just going to go ahead and start the training. 00:02:42.760 --> 00:02:47.100 It shouldn't take super long but we'll have questions at the end. 00:02:47.100 --> 00:02:49.700 So today we will be covering one, 00:02:49.700 --> 00:02:52.840 the ethical expectations laid out in the city's ethics ordinance. 00:02:52.840 --> 00:02:55.580 Two, the ordinance's mandates and prohibitions 00:02:55.580 --> 00:02:57.180 or what it requires. 00:02:57.180 --> 00:03:01.420 Three, how city officials including yourselves can request 00:03:01.420 --> 00:03:02.980 clarification on its application. 00:03:02.980 --> 00:03:05.520 And four, a quick overview of what happens 00:03:05.520 --> 00:03:07.560 if an ethics complaint is submitted against you 00:03:07.560 --> 00:03:09.280 as a city official. 00:03:09.280 --> 00:03:11.320 I'll dive right in. 00:03:11.320 --> 00:03:14.520 To begin, City of Denton's ethics ordinance was adopted 00:03:14.520 --> 00:03:19.100 in 2018 and was most recently amended in 2023. 00:03:19.100 --> 00:03:22.240 This ethics code is intended to foster an environment of integrity 00:03:22.240 --> 00:03:25.080 for those that serve the City of Denton and its residents 00:03:25.080 --> 00:03:28.940 by ensuring that decision makers provide reasonable stewardship 00:03:28.940 --> 00:03:31.420 of city resources and assets 00:03:31.420 --> 00:03:34.220 and providing behavioral guidelines and requirements. 00:03:34.220 --> 00:03:36.080 The key goal of the ethics ordinance is 00:03:36.080 --> 00:03:37.380 to further the public's trust 00:03:37.380 --> 00:03:39.520 in those who govern their community. 00:03:39.520 --> 00:03:42.060 More specifically, the ethics ordinance outlines six 00:03:42.060 --> 00:03:44.100 aspirational expectations. 00:03:44.100 --> 00:03:46.320 These expectations cannot be used as the basis 00:03:46.320 --> 00:03:48.800 of an ethics complaint but they are intended to guide City 00:03:48.800 --> 00:03:51.300 officials in carrying out their duties. 00:03:51.300 --> 00:03:53.640 These include conducting yourself in a manner 00:03:53.640 --> 00:03:57.040 that fosters public trust, performing your public duties 00:03:57.040 --> 00:04:00.840 with personal and organizational integrity, avoiding behavior 00:04:00.840 --> 00:04:02.540 that might call your motives into question 00:04:02.540 --> 00:04:05.320 and erode public confidence, placing the interests 00:04:05.320 --> 00:04:08.020 and concerns of Denton's residents above your own, 00:04:08.020 --> 00:04:11.220 valuing honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, 00:04:11.220 --> 00:04:15.660 objectivity, fairness, due process, efficiency and prudence, 00:04:15.660 --> 00:04:17.560 and balancing transparency with the duty 00:04:17.560 --> 00:04:19.300 to protect personal privacy 00:04:19.300 --> 00:04:21.160 and preserve any confidential information 00:04:21.160 --> 00:04:24.400 that you have been trusted with. 00:04:24.400 --> 00:04:27.500 While the rest of this training will focus on specific behaviors 00:04:27.500 --> 00:04:29.340 that City officials must comply with, 00:04:29.340 --> 00:04:31.980 this is the most important section of the ethics ordinance. 00:04:31.980 --> 00:04:34.440 You ever find yourself questioning if a specific action 00:04:34.440 --> 00:04:36.340 or inaction might be ethical? 00:04:36.340 --> 00:04:39.420 First, ask yourself if it would align with these expectations. 00:04:39.420 --> 00:04:41.880 It is important to realize that these expectations are not only 00:04:41.880 --> 00:04:43.620 focused on the way things actually are 00:04:43.620 --> 00:04:45.620 but also how they appear. 00:04:45.620 --> 00:04:48.160 A City official has a position of privilege within their community 00:04:48.160 --> 00:04:49.860 that they must respect. 00:04:49.860 --> 00:04:52.320 Serving your community as a City official is an honor 00:04:52.320 --> 00:04:54.760 that requires integrity and dedication. 00:04:54.760 --> 00:04:57.140 In general, you can think about an ethics code 00:04:57.140 --> 00:04:59.700 or this ordinance as a stoplight. 00:04:59.700 --> 00:05:02.800 In some instances, the code clearly prohibits specific behaviors 00:05:02.800 --> 00:05:03.900 or creates a red light. 00:05:03.900 --> 00:05:05.000 However, in other areas, 00:05:05.000 --> 00:05:08.440 the code creates broader prohibitions or yellow lights. 00:05:08.440 --> 00:05:11.220 Yellow lights communicate that a City official should thoughtfully 00:05:11.220 --> 00:05:15.020 and cautiously consider if the action or inaction is ethical based 00:05:15.020 --> 00:05:18.180 on the City's expectations as they proceed. 00:05:18.180 --> 00:05:20.160 Throughout this presentation, I'll be calling out which parts 00:05:20.160 --> 00:05:22.020 of the code are red lights versus yellow lights 00:05:22.020 --> 00:05:23.720 to help provide guidance. 00:05:23.720 --> 00:05:25.120 Now that we've covered the basics 00:05:25.120 --> 00:05:28.400 of the City's ethical expectations and general guidance, 00:05:28.400 --> 00:05:30.440 I'll get into some more specifics. 00:05:30.440 --> 00:05:33.260 So the ethics ordinance includes three mandates and nine 00:05:33.260 --> 00:05:35.700 prohibitions that cover different actions or behaviors 00:05:35.700 --> 00:05:37.700 that City officials may take. 00:05:37.700 --> 00:05:40.580 We'll briefly cover them over the next couple of slides. 00:05:40.580 --> 00:05:44.880 However, more details are available in the ethics ordinance. 00:05:44.880 --> 00:05:48.420 So beginning with mandates, the ethics ordinance requires 00:05:48.420 --> 00:05:51.460 that City officials disclose certain business relationships 00:05:51.460 --> 00:05:53.960 if they are relevant to a pending matter. 00:05:53.960 --> 00:05:55.660 Specifically, if a business entity 00:05:55.660 --> 00:06:00.160 with a pending matter is owned by a City official's partner, 00:06:00.160 --> 00:06:02.360 the City official must disclose this relationship 00:06:02.360 --> 00:06:04.300 to the City secretary and City auditor 00:06:04.300 --> 00:06:06.500 at least one business day before the meeting 00:06:06.500 --> 00:06:09.640 where the pending matter will be deliberated. 00:06:09.640 --> 00:06:12.740 All disclosures will then be provided 00:06:12.740 --> 00:06:15.040 to the relevant body before the deliberations. 00:06:15.040 --> 00:06:16.980 This disclosure requirement is a yellow light 00:06:16.980 --> 00:06:19.980 in the ethics code, as even though City officials are allowed 00:06:19.980 --> 00:06:22.260 to deliberate on these matters by the ethics ordinance, 00:06:22.260 --> 00:06:24.320 it calls out that there may be a risk that this type 00:06:24.320 --> 00:06:26.620 of business interest may receive unfair treatment 00:06:26.620 --> 00:06:29.400 from the related City official. 00:06:29.400 --> 00:06:31.960 In addition, it requires that City officials comply 00:06:31.960 --> 00:06:35.000 with any financial disclosures required by Texas state law 00:06:35.000 --> 00:06:37.060 and that City officials report any person 00:06:37.060 --> 00:06:40.340 that they know has violated the City's ethics ordinance. 00:06:40.340 --> 00:06:42.740 These mandates are red lights and not reporting 00:06:42.740 --> 00:06:44.900 a known violation is itself considered 00:06:44.900 --> 00:06:47.440 to be a violation of the ordinance. 00:06:47.440 --> 00:06:50.480 So now, any questions on mandates or prohibitions? 00:06:50.480 --> 00:06:56.680 On to, I'm sorry, on to prohibitions, 00:06:56.680 --> 00:06:58.820 which are potential City official behaviors 00:06:58.820 --> 00:07:00.960 that are specifically considered violations of the ethics 00:07:00.960 --> 00:07:01.780 ordinance. 00:07:01.780 --> 00:07:05.200 So beginning with conflicts of interest, 00:07:05.200 --> 00:07:08.200 ethical best practices suggest that a City official recuse 00:07:08.200 --> 00:07:10.060 from deliberating on a pending matter 00:07:10.060 --> 00:07:11.940 if they or their relative have a personal 00:07:11.940 --> 00:07:14.700 or economic interest in the business entity 00:07:14.700 --> 00:07:17.800 or property that is not shared with the general public. 00:07:17.800 --> 00:07:19.740 This general guidance is a yellow light 00:07:19.740 --> 00:07:21.640 that is intended to draw attention to the risks 00:07:21.640 --> 00:07:22.720 of conflicts of interest. 00:07:22.720 --> 00:07:24.780 However, I should note that while this is good guidance 00:07:24.780 --> 00:07:27.240 for City officials, this general prohibition 00:07:27.240 --> 00:07:30.720 is not actually included in the City's ethics ordinance. 00:07:30.720 --> 00:07:33.320 DINZEF ordinance does include some red lights 00:07:33.320 --> 00:07:34.920 and specifically defines the following 00:07:34.920 --> 00:07:36.520 as conflicts of interest. 00:07:36.520 --> 00:07:38.820 Owning 5% or more of a business entity's 00:07:38.820 --> 00:07:40.660 voting shares or stock. 00:07:40.660 --> 00:07:43.360 Owning $600 or more of a business entity's 00:07:43.360 --> 00:07:45.340 fair market value. 00:07:45.340 --> 00:07:47.900 Owning $600 or more of the fair market value 00:07:47.900 --> 00:07:49.240 of real property. 00:07:49.240 --> 00:07:53.140 Receiving $600 or more in income from a business entity. 00:07:53.140 --> 00:07:54.600 Serving on the board of directors 00:07:54.600 --> 00:07:57.620 or as an officer of a business entity or nonprofit. 00:07:57.620 --> 00:08:00.120 Or having solicited, received, or accepted 00:08:00.120 --> 00:08:02.340 an offer of employment from a business entity 00:08:02.340 --> 00:08:04.260 or person in the last 12 months. 00:08:04.260 --> 00:08:07.880 You have a conflict of interest as defined on the slide 00:08:07.880 --> 00:08:09.860 with a pending matter on an agenda. 00:08:09.860 --> 00:08:11.920 You are required to recuse yourself from the discussion 00:08:11.920 --> 00:08:15.460 and submit an affidavit of abstention to the city auditor. 00:08:15.460 --> 00:08:16.660 Which is me. 00:08:16.660 --> 00:08:18.660 A pending matter includes an application 00:08:18.660 --> 00:08:20.800 seeking approval or authorization, 00:08:20.800 --> 00:08:22.640 a proposal to enter into a contract, 00:08:22.640 --> 00:08:25.500 or a case involving the city that is or may be 00:08:25.500 --> 00:08:28.040 before a civil, criminal, or administrative tribunal. 00:08:28.040 --> 00:08:31.180 Further, it is a violation of the ordinance 00:08:31.180 --> 00:08:33.540 for current City officials to represent a person, 00:08:33.540 --> 00:08:35.980 group, or entity before a City Board or commission 00:08:35.980 --> 00:08:36.980 for compensation. 00:08:37.880 --> 00:08:40.060 This prohibition also applies to former City officials 00:08:40.060 --> 00:08:43.260 for one year after termination of their official duties. 00:08:43.260 --> 00:08:45.660 Similarly, former City officials 00:08:45.660 --> 00:08:48.420 are prohibited from performing compensated work 00:08:48.420 --> 00:08:50.900 on a City contract or arrangement 00:08:50.900 --> 00:08:53.460 if they substantially participated in the negotiation, 00:08:53.460 --> 00:08:56.200 award, or administration of the contract. 00:08:56.200 --> 00:08:58.880 Unless that participation was limited to deliberation. 00:08:58.880 --> 00:09:01.380 Any questions on conflict of interest 00:09:01.380 --> 00:09:02.880 or anything else on this slide? 00:09:07.420 --> 00:09:09.720 Next, the ethics ordinance prohibits a City official 00:09:09.720 --> 00:09:11.820 or their relative from accepting any gift 00:09:11.820 --> 00:09:13.920 that might reasonably influence a City official 00:09:13.920 --> 00:09:16.520 in discharging their official duties. 00:09:16.520 --> 00:09:18.020 This is a general prohibition that acts 00:09:18.020 --> 00:09:19.920 as a yellow light for City officials. 00:09:19.920 --> 00:09:23.660 The ordinance does also include gift-related red lights. 00:09:23.660 --> 00:09:26.560 Specifically, a City official cannot accept a single gift 00:09:26.560 --> 00:09:29.500 valued more than $50 or multiple gifts 00:09:29.500 --> 00:09:32.080 with a total value of more than $200. 00:09:32.080 --> 00:09:35.000 In general, a gift is considered to be anything 00:09:35.000 --> 00:09:38.480 of monetary value, such as cash, property, services, 00:09:38.480 --> 00:09:42.020 meals, entertainment, or travel-related expenses. 00:09:42.020 --> 00:09:44.520 If a gift is accepted, the City official may remedy 00:09:44.520 --> 00:09:47.580 that potential violation by promptly donating it 00:09:47.580 --> 00:09:49.720 or reversing the gift giver for the actual 00:09:49.720 --> 00:09:52.260 or fair market value of the gift. 00:09:52.260 --> 00:09:54.260 If a gift is accepted, the City official 00:09:54.260 --> 00:09:56.500 must disclose the acceptance and the remedy 00:09:56.500 --> 00:09:59.660 by filing a disclosure with the City auditor. 00:09:59.660 --> 00:10:01.560 The ordinance does allow certain exceptions 00:10:01.560 --> 00:10:03.140 to the gift's prohibition, meaning 00:10:03.140 --> 00:10:04.740 that these are considered green lights, 00:10:04.740 --> 00:10:07.440 which includes lawful campaign contributions, 00:10:07.440 --> 00:10:09.680 expenses related to a City official's travel 00:10:09.680 --> 00:10:11.440 to a conference or other training event 00:10:11.440 --> 00:10:13.440 that's connected to the City, 00:10:13.440 --> 00:10:15.880 expenses related to appearances at nonprofit 00:10:15.880 --> 00:10:19.160 or community events related to City business, 00:10:19.160 --> 00:10:21.360 complimentary attendance at fundraising events 00:10:21.360 --> 00:10:23.660 or hospitality functions, complimentary 00:10:23.660 --> 00:10:25.800 or promotional copies of trade publications 00:10:25.800 --> 00:10:28.600 or clothing items, or gifts that are given 00:10:28.600 --> 00:10:31.760 due to personal, familial, or professional relationships, 00:10:31.760 --> 00:10:34.900 regardless of the City official's City-related duties. 00:10:34.900 --> 00:10:37.540 Any items that fall under one of these exceptions 00:10:37.540 --> 00:10:39.140 do not need to be disclosed. 00:10:39.140 --> 00:10:41.080 However, a City official may choose to disclose it 00:10:41.080 --> 00:10:42.680 at their own discretion. 00:10:42.680 --> 00:10:44.080 Questions about gifts? 00:10:44.080 --> 00:10:51.720 Next is a violation of the ordinance for a City official 00:10:51.720 --> 00:10:54.660 to misuse the influence or information gained 00:10:54.660 --> 00:10:57.220 due to their official City position. 00:10:57.220 --> 00:10:59.600 Specifically, a City official may not use their influence 00:10:59.600 --> 00:11:02.000 to secure special privileges or treatment 00:11:02.000 --> 00:11:04.540 for a person, group, or business organization 00:11:04.540 --> 00:11:06.500 beyond what is normally available 00:11:06.500 --> 00:11:08.960 or to imply that they can do such things. 00:11:08.960 --> 00:11:10.500 While this is a specific prohibition, 00:11:10.500 --> 00:11:13.380 it is a yellow light as it's not meant to prohibit 00:11:13.380 --> 00:11:15.720 a City official from providing individuals, groups, 00:11:15.720 --> 00:11:18.880 or businesses with information on how City processes work 00:11:18.880 --> 00:11:20.580 so that they may more easily access 00:11:20.580 --> 00:11:22.780 normally available services. 00:11:22.780 --> 00:11:25.020 For that reason, City officials should proceed cautiously 00:11:25.020 --> 00:11:26.860 and thoughtfully when trying to help the public 00:11:26.860 --> 00:11:28.460 with specific concerns. 00:11:28.460 --> 00:11:30.820 Specifically, City officials should be cautious 00:11:30.820 --> 00:11:33.060 when stating what they do, what they can do 00:11:33.060 --> 00:11:35.860 to ensure that a concern is addressed. 00:11:35.860 --> 00:11:38.260 Further, a City official may not state or imply 00:11:38.260 --> 00:11:40.800 that they are acting as a representative of the City 00:11:40.800 --> 00:11:42.480 unless they have been authorized to do so 00:11:42.480 --> 00:11:45.580 by the City Council, and it is a violation of the ordinance 00:11:45.580 --> 00:11:48.380 for a City official, either current or former, 00:11:48.380 --> 00:11:50.380 to use confidential information gained 00:11:50.380 --> 00:11:53.180 through their official capacity to advance the personal 00:11:53.180 --> 00:11:56.820 or private financial interests of themselves or anyone else. 00:11:56.820 --> 00:11:59.060 These are red lights as there are no instances 00:11:59.060 --> 00:12:00.320 where misrepresenting yourself 00:12:00.320 --> 00:12:02.420 as an authorized City representative 00:12:02.420 --> 00:12:05.260 or using confidential information for personal 00:12:05.260 --> 00:12:06.900 or private interests would be ethical 00:12:06.900 --> 00:12:08.860 per the City's ethics ordinance. 00:12:08.860 --> 00:12:10.240 Questions about this slide? 00:12:10.240 --> 00:12:17.500 Last of the prohibitions, it is a violation of the ordinance 00:12:17.500 --> 00:12:20.440 for a City official to abuse the City's resources 00:12:20.440 --> 00:12:21.980 or the power or privileges granted 00:12:21.980 --> 00:12:24.080 by their official position. 00:12:24.080 --> 00:12:26.940 Specifically, a City official should not use, request, 00:12:26.940 --> 00:12:29.980 or allow the use of City resources such as facilities, 00:12:29.980 --> 00:12:33.180 personnel, equipment, software, or staff time 00:12:33.180 --> 00:12:35.960 for private purposes, including political, 00:12:35.960 --> 00:12:37.700 except to the extent that those are available 00:12:37.700 --> 00:12:39.100 to other residents. 00:12:39.100 --> 00:12:40.860 While this is a specific prohibition, 00:12:40.860 --> 00:12:42.660 it is also a yellow light 00:12:42.660 --> 00:12:44.700 as it does not have clearly defined thresholds 00:12:44.700 --> 00:12:47.100 and there are instances where a City official 00:12:47.100 --> 00:12:49.380 can ethically use City resources, 00:12:49.380 --> 00:12:50.900 such as renting a City facility 00:12:50.900 --> 00:12:52.500 at the publicly available price. 00:12:53.580 --> 00:12:55.440 On the other hand, it is a violation of the ordinance 00:12:55.440 --> 00:12:57.620 for a City official to harass or discriminate 00:12:57.620 --> 00:12:59.680 against a person based on their ethnicity, 00:12:59.680 --> 00:13:03.620 race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, 00:13:03.620 --> 00:13:06.060 marital or parental status, or religion. 00:13:06.060 --> 00:13:07.660 It is also a violation to interfere 00:13:07.660 --> 00:13:09.360 with any City-related criminal 00:13:09.360 --> 00:13:11.860 or administrative investigation, 00:13:11.860 --> 00:13:13.860 such as persuading or coercing someone else 00:13:13.860 --> 00:13:15.800 to uphold their cooperation. 00:13:15.800 --> 00:13:17.600 These are red lights as there's no instances 00:13:17.600 --> 00:13:19.360 where harassment, discrimination, 00:13:19.360 --> 00:13:20.960 or interfering with an investigation 00:13:20.960 --> 00:13:22.500 would be considered ethical behavior 00:13:22.500 --> 00:13:24.840 under the City's ethics ordinance. 00:13:24.840 --> 00:13:26.100 Any questions about this? 00:13:26.100 --> 00:13:29.180 All right. 00:13:29.180 --> 00:13:31.640 - Would that include an ethics complaint? 00:13:31.640 --> 00:13:36.420 - That last bullet? 00:13:36.420 --> 00:13:40.380 I believe it could. 00:13:40.380 --> 00:13:42.880 I also think there's also the ex parte communication, 00:13:42.880 --> 00:13:44.560 so I think it depends a little bit 00:13:44.560 --> 00:13:46.060 on what exactly was happening. 00:13:46.060 --> 00:13:47.920 - Okay. - Move back, it helps. 00:13:47.920 --> 00:13:50.460 - Yes, thank you. 00:13:50.460 --> 00:13:53.260 All right, now you have an understanding 00:13:53.260 --> 00:13:55.840 of the expectations, mandates, and prohibitions 00:13:55.840 --> 00:13:57.440 outlined in the ordinance. 00:13:57.440 --> 00:13:58.940 If you ever come upon a situation 00:13:58.940 --> 00:14:00.580 where you need additional guidance, 00:14:00.580 --> 00:14:01.640 you have a few options. 00:14:01.640 --> 00:14:04.580 So first, if you need direction helping to find 00:14:04.580 --> 00:14:07.320 a section of the ordinance related to a particular situation 00:14:07.320 --> 00:14:10.220 or an answer about how to submit disclosures or complaints, 00:14:10.220 --> 00:14:12.580 you can reach out to me in the City Auditor. 00:14:12.580 --> 00:14:15.160 Second, if you have an attorney, your personal attorney, 00:14:15.160 --> 00:14:17.860 they may be able to provide you with an interpretation 00:14:17.860 --> 00:14:19.220 of the ethics ordinance to help you decide 00:14:19.220 --> 00:14:23.000 whether to recuse yourself or not in a given situation. 00:14:23.000 --> 00:14:26.000 And finally, you can also request that the Board of Ethics 00:14:26.000 --> 00:14:28.400 after all issue an advisory opinion, 00:14:28.400 --> 00:14:31.100 which is intended to answer questions about compliance 00:14:31.100 --> 00:14:34.200 with the ethics ordinance in a particular situation. 00:14:34.200 --> 00:14:36.020 The biggest advantage of an advisory opinion 00:14:36.020 --> 00:14:37.580 is that a city official may use it 00:14:37.580 --> 00:14:41.280 as an affirmative defense to a submitted ethics complaint 00:14:41.280 --> 00:14:44.020 if they relied upon it in good faith. 00:14:44.020 --> 00:14:45.260 To receive an advisory opinion, 00:14:45.260 --> 00:14:47.260 a city official must submit the request 00:14:47.260 --> 00:14:49.460 in writing to the City Auditor, 00:14:49.460 --> 00:14:52.560 including relevant details of the situation in question. 00:14:52.560 --> 00:14:54.500 The City Auditor will then communicate the request 00:14:54.500 --> 00:14:56.860 to the Board of Ethics Chair, who assigns it to a panel 00:14:56.860 --> 00:14:59.660 of three Board of Ethics members for review. 00:14:59.660 --> 00:15:02.780 The panel then has 30 days to issue the advisory opinion 00:15:02.780 --> 00:15:04.780 once the request is received. 00:15:04.780 --> 00:15:06.880 Any questions about this process? 00:15:16.140 --> 00:15:19.060 Finally, the Board of Ethics' primary function 00:15:19.060 --> 00:15:21.220 is to process ethics complaints. 00:15:21.220 --> 00:15:23.360 There are four phases of the ethics complaint, 00:15:23.360 --> 00:15:27.340 oh, this is disputed perhaps, maybe not. 00:15:27.340 --> 00:15:28.660 Anyway, sorry. 00:15:28.660 --> 00:15:30.580 There are four phases of the ethics complaint process 00:15:30.580 --> 00:15:32.840 that I will now briefly run through. 00:15:32.840 --> 00:15:35.140 Additional information about the ethics complaint process 00:15:35.140 --> 00:15:37.580 is available on the city's Board of Ethics webpage 00:15:37.580 --> 00:15:39.480 or can be requested from the meeting. 00:15:39.480 --> 00:15:42.740 First, initiation. 00:15:42.740 --> 00:15:45.600 During this period, an individual submits 00:15:45.600 --> 00:15:47.700 an ethics complaint using the prescribed form 00:15:47.700 --> 00:15:49.020 to the City Auditor. 00:15:49.020 --> 00:15:51.660 This complaint form should be accompanied by any evidence 00:15:51.660 --> 00:15:53.980 such as images, videos, or documentation 00:15:53.980 --> 00:15:56.700 that the complainant has passed to support their allegations 00:15:56.700 --> 00:15:59.380 and must be sworn to before a notary. 00:15:59.380 --> 00:16:00.620 The City Auditor then determines 00:16:00.620 --> 00:16:03.500 that the ethics complaint is administratively complete, 00:16:03.500 --> 00:16:06.820 but does not make any judgment on the complaint's merits. 00:16:06.820 --> 00:16:09.380 If a complaint is accepted, a copy is forwarded 00:16:09.380 --> 00:16:10.980 to the complainant, the respondent, 00:16:10.980 --> 00:16:12.140 and the Board of Ethics Chair, 00:16:12.140 --> 00:16:14.580 who assigns it to a preliminary assessment panel. 00:16:15.780 --> 00:16:17.420 During the preliminary assessment phase, 00:16:17.420 --> 00:16:19.660 a panel of three Board of Ethics members 00:16:19.660 --> 00:16:21.460 reviews the submitted ethics complaint 00:16:21.460 --> 00:16:24.460 and determines if it is actionable or baseless. 00:16:24.460 --> 00:16:26.120 If the complaint is actionable, 00:16:26.120 --> 00:16:28.780 if on its base the behaviors alleged in the complaint 00:16:28.780 --> 00:16:31.020 would constitute a violation of the ordinance. 00:16:31.020 --> 00:16:35.980 The panel may also recommend that a hearing be held 00:16:35.980 --> 00:16:38.440 to determine if the complaint is frivolous 00:16:38.440 --> 00:16:41.940 instead of determining if it is actionable or baseless. 00:16:41.940 --> 00:16:44.700 The outcome of the preliminary assessment 00:16:44.700 --> 00:16:46.300 is communicated to the complainant 00:16:46.300 --> 00:16:48.220 and responded by the City Auditor. 00:16:48.220 --> 00:16:50.220 If the complaint is determined to be baseless, 00:16:50.220 --> 00:16:52.900 the process stops, though the complainant 00:16:52.900 --> 00:16:55.460 may submit a written appeal within 10 business days, 00:16:55.460 --> 00:16:57.300 which will initiate the hearing phase. 00:16:57.300 --> 00:17:01.620 During the hearing phase, the Board of Ethics 00:17:01.620 --> 00:17:03.460 schedules an evidentiary hearing 00:17:03.460 --> 00:17:06.140 and may request additional documentary evidence 00:17:06.140 --> 00:17:08.920 or issue subpoenas to require individuals to testify. 00:17:08.920 --> 00:17:12.380 The complainant must attend and testify at this hearing 00:17:12.380 --> 00:17:14.460 and may also present any additional evidence 00:17:14.460 --> 00:17:15.840 that they have gathered. 00:17:15.840 --> 00:17:17.980 In addition, the respondent may provide testimony 00:17:17.980 --> 00:17:20.140 and evidence for the board's consideration. 00:17:20.140 --> 00:17:22.300 Both the complainant and respondent have a right 00:17:22.300 --> 00:17:24.820 to be represented by legal counsel 00:17:24.820 --> 00:17:26.940 at the evidentiary hearing. 00:17:26.940 --> 00:17:28.460 Based on this hearing, the Board of Ethics 00:17:28.460 --> 00:17:31.460 will determine if a violation of the ordinance has occurred 00:17:31.460 --> 00:17:33.180 and if so, it may issue a sanction. 00:17:33.180 --> 00:17:37.260 Once the board has decided on the ethics complaint, 00:17:37.260 --> 00:17:39.780 the complainant and respondent both have five business days 00:17:39.780 --> 00:17:42.420 to submit any new evidence and request a reconsideration 00:17:42.420 --> 00:17:44.500 in writing with the city auditor. 00:17:44.500 --> 00:17:45.980 The Board of Ethics chair will review 00:17:45.980 --> 00:17:49.140 the reconsideration request and will unilaterally 00:17:49.140 --> 00:17:51.020 determine if the new hearing is warranted 00:17:51.020 --> 00:17:52.300 based on the new evidence. 00:17:52.300 --> 00:17:56.980 If during the evidentiary hearing, the Board of Ethics 00:17:56.980 --> 00:17:59.520 finds that a violation of the ethics ordinance has occurred, 00:17:59.520 --> 00:18:01.540 they may issue one or four sanctions 00:18:01.540 --> 00:18:04.140 based on the city official's perceived intent 00:18:04.140 --> 00:18:06.420 and the seriousness of the violation. 00:18:06.420 --> 00:18:08.620 This decision process is generally illustrated 00:18:08.620 --> 00:18:11.060 in the decision measures on the slide. 00:18:11.060 --> 00:18:13.140 And if the board decides to impose a sanction, 00:18:13.140 --> 00:18:15.260 the city official will be notified within 10 days 00:18:15.260 --> 00:18:16.260 by the city auditor. 00:18:16.260 --> 00:18:19.460 All right, congratulations. 00:18:19.460 --> 00:18:21.540 You've completed the ethics ordinance training. 00:18:21.540 --> 00:18:23.300 Any questions about that, the last part, 00:18:23.300 --> 00:18:26.300 but a lot of y'all have gone through the hearing process. 00:18:26.300 --> 00:18:30.340 - Thank you, Madison. 00:18:30.340 --> 00:18:32.020 - And then I have a form for everybody 00:18:32.020 --> 00:18:34.140 who has intended to sign. 00:18:34.140 --> 00:18:40.020 As acknowledgement, and then we did get a request 00:18:40.020 --> 00:18:45.020 from Scott to assist, hold, to suspend? 00:18:45.020 --> 00:18:47.060 - Recess for 10 minutes. 00:18:47.060 --> 00:18:47.900 - Recess, yes. 00:18:47.900 --> 00:18:51.340 - Well, can I make a request? 00:18:51.340 --> 00:18:54.780 We have a new member here, and I wanted to introduce him 00:18:54.780 --> 00:18:57.260 and let him introduce himself to us. 00:18:57.260 --> 00:19:01.020 So could we just take that time to get to know each other? 00:19:01.020 --> 00:19:03.820 - Sure, I think that's recess maybe, 00:19:03.820 --> 00:19:05.420 but I don't know, I guess we could do a-- 00:19:05.420 --> 00:19:06.660 - Can we call it recess? 00:19:07.780 --> 00:19:10.180 - Just one question for Madison. 00:19:10.180 --> 00:19:14.340 Madison, part of our training used to be Wechsler's 00:19:14.340 --> 00:19:15.180 in a nutshell. 00:19:15.180 --> 00:19:18.740 Has that been pushed aside or is that the entire package? 00:19:18.740 --> 00:19:22.860 I mean, it's still excellent reading. 00:19:22.860 --> 00:19:24.580 - Yeah, I think it's recommended. 00:19:24.580 --> 00:19:25.940 I don't have any way to ensure 00:19:25.940 --> 00:19:27.980 that people have completed that reading. 00:19:27.980 --> 00:19:32.060 - Is it still, it was listed on-- 00:19:32.060 --> 00:19:33.980 - I believe it's still on the website. 00:19:33.980 --> 00:19:35.860 - As recommended, but not required. 00:19:35.860 --> 00:19:37.260 - Yes, I believe so. 00:19:37.260 --> 00:19:38.780 - Okay. 00:19:38.780 --> 00:19:40.900 Well, for the new members, I would also-- 00:19:40.900 --> 00:19:42.220 - I highly recommend it. 00:19:42.220 --> 00:19:43.700 - I would pass that along. 00:19:43.700 --> 00:19:45.940 - And if you wanna dive into this down some pages. 00:19:45.940 --> 00:19:48.340 - Yeah, it's so-- - I recommend that too. 00:19:48.340 --> 00:19:49.900 - I'll send you the link if you're interested, 00:19:49.900 --> 00:19:54.700 but it's 24 pages that takes this well into the next level. 00:19:54.700 --> 00:19:57.780 I mean, that's, what you've done is excellent there. 00:19:57.780 --> 00:20:00.100 - And this is our actual ordinance, and so, yeah. 00:20:00.100 --> 00:20:03.700 - And there's, well, and since you bring that up, 00:20:03.700 --> 00:20:07.020 85% of that is great, 15% is toxic. 00:20:07.300 --> 00:20:10.060 And these are paired, so that's, anyway. 00:20:10.060 --> 00:20:13.340 - You mean the content? 00:20:13.340 --> 00:20:17.020 - Well, no, our current code. 00:20:17.020 --> 00:20:18.020 - Oh, yeah. 00:20:18.020 --> 00:20:20.580 - No, no, I just-- - No, I mean-- 00:20:20.580 --> 00:20:22.300 - I can't say enough about Weschler. 00:20:22.300 --> 00:20:27.300 He is a, he's probably the most recognized city ethics, 00:20:27.300 --> 00:20:33.420 and he's a Harvard and Columbia trained lawyer, so. 00:20:35.060 --> 00:20:40.060 Anyway, so, our new, go with the introductions, 00:20:40.060 --> 00:20:44.380 our new member is Kenneth Ferguson, so. 00:20:44.380 --> 00:20:48.540 Can you say, tell us a little bit about yourself? 00:20:48.540 --> 00:20:49.580 - Yes, ma'am. 00:20:49.580 --> 00:20:52.940 So, Kenneth Ferguson, I own the Ferguson law firm 00:20:52.940 --> 00:20:57.900 here in Denton, do civil litigation all over the country, 00:20:57.900 --> 00:21:02.780 but I am from originally Kerrville, Texas, 00:21:02.780 --> 00:21:05.300 if anyone knows where that's at. 00:21:05.300 --> 00:21:07.020 And my Germany-- - Hill Country. 00:21:07.020 --> 00:21:09.740 - It is beautiful little place, it is the Hill Country, 00:21:09.740 --> 00:21:10.740 so it's very rocky. 00:21:10.740 --> 00:21:16.780 I started up here about two and a half years ago now, 00:21:16.780 --> 00:21:20.940 maybe three, and I just really enjoyed being up here 00:21:20.940 --> 00:21:23.900 in Denton, I like the community and I like the people around. 00:21:23.900 --> 00:21:27.140 I've got a wife and one kid, he's just turned three 00:21:27.140 --> 00:21:29.740 last week, so, little baby. 00:21:29.740 --> 00:21:32.940 And, yeah, that sets me in a nutshell. 00:21:32.940 --> 00:21:36.780 - The excitement at your house is just overflowing right now. 00:21:36.780 --> 00:21:40.340 - Yes, yeah, so, we're hoping to have another one here 00:21:40.340 --> 00:21:43.180 coming up soon this year, so, that'd be nice. 00:21:43.180 --> 00:21:45.740 - We are so glad to have you here. 00:21:45.740 --> 00:21:49.020 We've been waiting for new members, so. 00:21:49.020 --> 00:21:51.420 - Especially with young child, it's so grateful 00:21:51.420 --> 00:21:54.020 that you're willing to contribute your time 00:21:54.020 --> 00:21:58.060 with probably your wife and child, wish you were home. 00:21:58.060 --> 00:22:01.420 - Oh, no, wife of an attorney, she is used to not seeing me 00:22:01.420 --> 00:22:05.220 until about midnight, get up at 5 a.m. and I'm gone, 00:22:05.220 --> 00:22:06.860 so, yeah, she's used to it. 00:22:06.860 --> 00:22:08.180 - Thank you so much for your time. 00:22:08.180 --> 00:22:09.020 - Thank you. 00:22:09.020 --> 00:22:10.340 - Of course, I'm excited to be here. 00:22:10.340 --> 00:22:14.340 - So, Andrea, I'm gonna tell him a little bit about yourself. 00:22:14.340 --> 00:22:19.900 - Yes, Andrea Eberhardt, I am a special education teacher 00:22:19.900 --> 00:22:24.900 here in Denton ISD, I work with students, more specifically, 00:22:25.020 --> 00:22:28.780 that have behavior issues at school. 00:22:28.780 --> 00:22:33.460 My background is in psychology and research psychology, 00:22:33.460 --> 00:22:35.540 so, I have a little bit of a different path 00:22:35.540 --> 00:22:40.140 than a regular teacher, I have two grown children, 00:22:40.140 --> 00:22:45.140 both graduated from college, one is about to be 25, 00:22:45.140 --> 00:22:48.180 the other one is 22. 00:22:48.180 --> 00:22:49.020 - Nice. 00:22:51.140 --> 00:22:55.580 - My name's Annetta Ramsey, I am a PhD trained 00:22:55.580 --> 00:22:58.820 licensed counselor, I specialize in eating disorders. 00:22:58.820 --> 00:23:04.460 I also like to write and I'm finishing up a book right now, 00:23:04.460 --> 00:23:08.300 so, and I have two grown sons, one is an engineer 00:23:08.300 --> 00:23:12.580 who works at Peterbilt and the other is, 00:23:12.580 --> 00:23:17.220 he works at Yellowstone, so we get to Yellowstone 00:23:17.220 --> 00:23:18.900 and we come in canvases. 00:23:19.940 --> 00:23:21.660 - Nice, I'm a sucker for Yellowstone. 00:23:21.660 --> 00:23:23.580 - Oh, he's such an important place. 00:23:23.580 --> 00:23:28.100 - My name's Dustin Pavlick, I'm a mechanical engineer, 00:23:28.100 --> 00:23:30.980 I work for a consulting firm, it's based in Houston, 00:23:30.980 --> 00:23:34.020 but I work here in Denton, I was born and raised 00:23:34.020 --> 00:23:38.060 in Denton, went to Denton ISD schools and I had two kids 00:23:38.060 --> 00:23:40.540 in Denton ISD schools, one was in elementary 00:23:40.540 --> 00:23:44.300 and one was a freshman and didn't run, nice, okay. 00:23:44.300 --> 00:23:49.300 - I'm Pat Renke and I'm a licensed professional counselor 00:23:49.300 --> 00:23:53.020 and I'm mostly retired and have few clients still. 00:23:53.020 --> 00:23:58.260 And I have three grown children and four grandchildren 00:23:58.260 --> 00:24:03.260 and lived in Denton since 1985 and involved in a lot 00:24:03.260 --> 00:24:05.940 of different groups over the years. 00:24:05.940 --> 00:24:12.940 - My name is David Zoltner, I have been a Denton resident 00:24:12.940 --> 00:24:16.580 for about 40 years, my children have all graduated 00:24:16.580 --> 00:24:20.100 and moved on, I have been a city council candidate 00:24:20.100 --> 00:24:21.760 more than once, ever one. 00:24:21.760 --> 00:24:26.140 This ethics board and the ethics ordinance 00:24:26.140 --> 00:24:31.140 was one of our endeavors back in the early 2012s, 00:24:31.140 --> 00:24:35.700 so this is kind of what I've been shooting for 00:24:35.700 --> 00:24:39.540 and hoping for for many, many years, so welcome. 00:24:39.540 --> 00:24:40.540 - Thank you. 00:24:40.540 --> 00:24:43.520 - Great, are we still in recess? 00:24:43.520 --> 00:24:46.060 - Give me those. 00:24:46.060 --> 00:24:46.900 - Do what? 00:24:46.900 --> 00:24:50.140 - Do we have a time for the recess, did you get the time? 00:24:50.140 --> 00:24:51.340 - You have to call. 00:24:51.340 --> 00:24:52.580 - I don't know if we called it. 00:24:52.580 --> 00:24:53.860 - I don't think we did. 00:24:53.860 --> 00:24:56.460 - Oh, okay, but we are officially in recess, 00:24:56.460 --> 00:25:01.460 this is now 5.55, so we will recess until 6.05. 00:25:01.460 --> 00:25:05.820 - Yes, Scott said he's five minutes away, 00:25:05.820 --> 00:25:06.660 so he should be here. 00:25:06.660 --> 00:25:07.500 - Okay. 00:25:14.620 --> 00:25:16.700 - Madison, can you say a little bit? 00:25:16.700 --> 00:25:20.780 Madison is our advisor and she is the auditor 00:25:20.780 --> 00:25:21.620 for the city. 00:25:21.620 --> 00:25:23.900 - I'm the city auditor. 00:25:23.900 --> 00:25:26.180 (audience laughing) 00:25:26.180 --> 00:25:27.100 - I just gathered. 00:25:27.100 --> 00:25:32.420 - I was in 2020, I report directly to the city council. 00:25:32.420 --> 00:25:37.080 I do performance auditing for the city, 00:25:37.080 --> 00:25:41.620 so that's my real job, but I am happy to help out here. 00:25:42.820 --> 00:25:46.180 - Have you won a national award for plus two? 00:25:46.180 --> 00:25:47.500 - I think it was a couple years ago. 00:25:47.500 --> 00:25:49.820 - A couple years ago, yeah. 00:25:49.820 --> 00:25:52.020 - We won a couple awards, so. 00:25:52.020 --> 00:25:53.220 - Nice, yeah. 00:25:53.220 --> 00:25:57.180 How long have you been in city politics for? 00:25:57.180 --> 00:26:03.140 - This city, I moved here in 2019, 00:26:03.140 --> 00:26:04.860 and I was at a college station before that, 00:26:04.860 --> 00:26:06.100 I'm part of the city now. 00:26:06.100 --> 00:26:06.940 - Okay, nice. 00:26:10.300 --> 00:26:12.980 - What about Joey, who are you? 00:26:12.980 --> 00:26:17.980 - All right, I'm the financial administrative assistant. 00:26:17.980 --> 00:26:21.140 I work with Madison, and I also work with 00:26:21.140 --> 00:26:24.940 marketing communications, budget, payroll, a lot of hats. 00:26:24.940 --> 00:26:29.180 But I'm the one, I guess, trying to set everything up. 00:26:29.180 --> 00:26:31.940 - The one who gets things done, yeah. 00:26:31.940 --> 00:26:32.900 - Try, try. 00:26:32.900 --> 00:26:38.740 - Okay, we will continue with our recess. 00:26:40.700 --> 00:26:42.540 - I don't think, I think we can, I don't know. 00:26:42.540 --> 00:26:43.660 - Okay, we can call ourselves, 00:26:43.660 --> 00:26:46.020 I'm calling an end to the recess. 00:26:46.020 --> 00:26:49.460 - No, you should wait until 6 o' five, 00:26:49.460 --> 00:26:52.260 because someone has left, expecting until-- 00:26:52.260 --> 00:26:54.180 - Oh, okay, that's good, okay. 00:26:54.180 --> 00:27:00.220 - I'm sorry, I'm late, I worked here for three years, 00:27:00.220 --> 00:27:02.740 I never had that happen, where my calendar 00:27:02.740 --> 00:27:04.580 just didn't have a meeting on it, so. 00:27:04.580 --> 00:27:05.580 - Oh man. 00:27:05.580 --> 00:27:08.300 - I forgot to check the public notices, so. 00:27:09.660 --> 00:27:13.500 - Thank you for giving, you're pretty important to us. 00:27:13.500 --> 00:27:19.260 So why don't you introduce yourself, we've all. 00:27:19.260 --> 00:27:22.580 - Oh, I'm Scott, I'm the deputy city attorney, 00:27:22.580 --> 00:27:25.260 I'm a parliamentarian for this board. 00:27:25.260 --> 00:27:27.900 So I try to help with, I help with the 00:27:27.900 --> 00:27:30.500 parliamentary procedure, Robert's Rules, stuff like that. 00:27:30.500 --> 00:27:36.660 I don't, I try not to get too deep into giving advice, 00:27:36.860 --> 00:27:40.820 because my office is covered by, 00:27:40.820 --> 00:27:42.300 well not, maybe not me specifically, 00:27:42.300 --> 00:27:45.300 but my boss is covered by the ethics ordinance, 00:27:45.300 --> 00:27:49.100 so I try to let y'all make those recommendations 00:27:49.100 --> 00:27:52.500 to city council without interfering too much. 00:27:52.500 --> 00:27:54.860 But I just try to make sure we're all complying 00:27:54.860 --> 00:27:59.500 with the means act and Robert's Rules, yeah. 00:27:59.500 --> 00:28:05.300 - Are you an RP or a PRP, the registered parliamentarian? 00:28:05.300 --> 00:28:07.100 - Yes, I am a registered parliamentarian. 00:28:07.100 --> 00:28:08.940 - Nice, I wanted to talk with you about that, 00:28:08.940 --> 00:28:13.940 and wanting to, you know, there's not a course for that. 00:28:13.940 --> 00:28:18.300 You would think it would be like a Barbary-style, 00:28:18.300 --> 00:28:23.300 here's how you, let's prep you for the RP test, but. 00:28:23.300 --> 00:28:27.220 - No, but they're, the test's pretty easy. 00:28:27.220 --> 00:28:28.540 And there's a. 00:28:28.540 --> 00:28:30.100 - Don't even say that. 00:28:30.100 --> 00:28:32.540 - There's a really short book that's just, 00:28:34.780 --> 00:28:39.460 like Robert's Rules Made Easy or something like that. 00:28:39.460 --> 00:28:42.820 So as long as you, all the answers to the test are in there, 00:28:42.820 --> 00:28:44.660 pretty much work for work. 00:28:44.660 --> 00:28:47.900 So just read that through and then you're good for the. 00:28:47.900 --> 00:28:52.020 The first step, now getting the advanced, 00:28:52.020 --> 00:28:53.740 sort of like, whatever it's called, 00:28:53.740 --> 00:28:56.620 the thing I don't have, that's a more complicated test, 00:28:56.620 --> 00:28:59.340 where you really have to know all the minutiae. 00:28:59.340 --> 00:29:03.380 It takes a lot of time, a lot of effort, but. 00:29:03.380 --> 00:29:07.300 I really wish more people knew about Robert's Rules of Order, 00:29:07.300 --> 00:29:10.180 'cause it really can streamline a meeting. 00:29:10.180 --> 00:29:15.180 But when most people don't understand it, it's tough, so. 00:29:15.180 --> 00:29:21.940 - Then you end up with your stereotypical HOA meeting, 00:29:21.940 --> 00:29:26.020 everybody's yelling and speaking out of order and all that. 00:29:26.020 --> 00:29:26.860 - Oh, yeah. 00:29:26.860 --> 00:29:27.700 - No. 00:29:31.540 --> 00:29:33.980 - Robert's Rules. 00:29:33.980 --> 00:29:36.620 - No, it still works, so. 00:29:36.620 --> 00:29:44.860 I was a student body officer in college 00:29:44.860 --> 00:29:49.020 and we were debating something really tough 00:29:49.020 --> 00:29:51.740 and the vice president wanted to participate 00:29:51.740 --> 00:29:54.940 in the discussion, so he handed the gavel to me 00:29:54.940 --> 00:29:59.740 in my first week as the elected secretary of the student body 00:29:59.740 --> 00:30:01.500 and it was an epic fail. 00:30:01.500 --> 00:30:04.260 - Can I ask you a question? 00:30:04.260 --> 00:30:05.220 Let's see how long. 00:30:05.220 --> 00:30:06.260 - You're out of order. 00:30:06.260 --> 00:30:07.820 - Oh, I thought you were in recess. 00:30:07.820 --> 00:30:10.900 - We were, actually, sorry, should we get back into it? 00:30:10.900 --> 00:30:11.780 - Yeah. - I know. 00:30:11.780 --> 00:30:13.140 - Yeah. - Sorry. 00:30:13.140 --> 00:30:16.060 - Sorry, we are out of recess now, yeah. 00:30:16.060 --> 00:30:24.340 Okay, so we're going to agenda item C, 00:30:24.340 --> 00:30:29.180 BOE 24-050, receive a report, hold a discussion, 00:30:29.180 --> 00:30:32.380 and give staff direction regarding the processing 00:30:32.380 --> 00:30:36.540 of anonymous hotline reports related to alleged violations 00:30:36.540 --> 00:30:38.540 of the City of Denton Code of Ordinances, 00:30:38.540 --> 00:30:43.380 chapter two, article 11, ethics. 00:30:43.380 --> 00:30:48.140 - Yeah, so this is an issue, I'm sorry, 00:30:48.140 --> 00:30:52.780 that recently came up for the first time, we got to, 00:30:52.780 --> 00:30:55.340 the anonymous hotline is really intended 00:30:55.340 --> 00:30:57.020 for fraud, waste, and abuse complaints. 00:30:57.020 --> 00:31:00.820 It's managed by my office, so we received, 00:31:00.820 --> 00:31:05.740 and Scott's also one that can lead the process of those, 00:31:05.740 --> 00:31:07.820 but, and so is the HR director, 00:31:07.820 --> 00:31:10.980 but we received two anonymous hotline reports 00:31:10.980 --> 00:31:13.980 that appeared to be related to the ethics appointments, 00:31:13.980 --> 00:31:15.620 so I'm making you aware of those. 00:31:15.620 --> 00:31:18.260 We handled them by just notifying them 00:31:18.260 --> 00:31:22.180 that they had not submitted an administratively complete 00:31:22.180 --> 00:31:24.100 complaint, which is required, you have to be required 00:31:24.100 --> 00:31:26.940 to use the form, but we wanted to bring that up to y'all 00:31:26.940 --> 00:31:29.060 because it's kind of a gray area, 00:31:29.060 --> 00:31:31.820 an ordinance, exactly what should happen. 00:31:31.820 --> 00:31:36.620 In the mandate section, it says that there's a duty 00:31:36.620 --> 00:31:38.580 to report, but it says that you can basically 00:31:38.580 --> 00:31:41.540 absolve that duty by using the anonymous hotline, 00:31:41.540 --> 00:31:44.460 but it also says that I have no duty to actually 00:31:44.460 --> 00:31:46.380 investigate anything submitted that way, 00:31:46.380 --> 00:31:49.060 so it's a little unclear what should happen, 00:31:49.060 --> 00:31:51.420 so I brought a couple of potential options, 00:31:51.420 --> 00:31:53.620 but I wanted to get direction on future complaints 00:31:53.620 --> 00:31:56.180 from y'all if we receive any that way, 00:31:56.180 --> 00:32:00.100 what you would like to occur, if that makes sense. 00:32:00.100 --> 00:32:03.500 - So what is your pleasure, looking at these three options? 00:32:03.500 --> 00:32:09.140 - For clarification, you were able to retrieve 00:32:09.140 --> 00:32:10.740 a phone number and-- 00:32:10.740 --> 00:32:13.660 - No, so the system-- - Because it is an in, okay. 00:32:13.660 --> 00:32:16.340 - It's anonymous, so the system is essentially 00:32:16.340 --> 00:32:19.940 a case management system, so it allows you to respond 00:32:19.940 --> 00:32:23.180 within the system, but it required for the person 00:32:23.180 --> 00:32:26.380 to get that information, they have to log back in 00:32:26.380 --> 00:32:30.420 as a whole process for that, but I don't necessarily know 00:32:30.420 --> 00:32:32.380 if they have logged back in or not. 00:32:32.380 --> 00:32:35.020 - Okay, so you don't know if your 00:32:35.020 --> 00:32:40.220 direction was received by the person or not. 00:32:40.220 --> 00:32:41.860 - That's correct. - There's, okay. 00:32:41.860 --> 00:32:47.820 - So what's your pleasure, guys? 00:32:47.820 --> 00:32:53.020 - So are these still active, or have they expired? 00:32:53.020 --> 00:32:55.020 - They, at this point, they have been, 00:32:55.020 --> 00:32:57.740 they're considered abandoned, there's been 10 business days 00:32:57.740 --> 00:33:00.780 with no resubmission on the correct form. 00:33:00.780 --> 00:33:04.980 - Well this was, like I said, this is kind of new territory 00:33:04.980 --> 00:33:09.260 for all of us, so I just had some questions here. 00:33:09.260 --> 00:33:13.780 If there, were the, you said two complaints, 00:33:13.780 --> 00:33:15.900 was it two complaints from the same person 00:33:15.900 --> 00:33:18.340 or two different people on the same topic? 00:33:18.340 --> 00:33:20.340 - I do not know, they're anonymous. 00:33:20.340 --> 00:33:21.300 - You do not, okay. 00:33:22.180 --> 00:33:23.980 Were they on the same topic? 00:33:23.980 --> 00:33:25.060 - They were not on the same, 00:33:25.060 --> 00:33:26.660 they were not the same complaint. 00:33:26.660 --> 00:33:29.300 That makes sense. 00:33:29.300 --> 00:33:32.740 - So from what you have now, you're not really sure 00:33:32.740 --> 00:33:36.220 whether they were just alleged or actual violations. 00:33:36.220 --> 00:33:40.300 - Correct, only one of them's, I mean, 00:33:40.300 --> 00:33:43.140 I don't wanna get too into the actual complaints because-- 00:33:43.140 --> 00:33:46.060 - I'm not asking you to, I'm just, for future, 00:33:46.060 --> 00:33:47.340 your future word there, yeah. 00:33:47.340 --> 00:33:51.900 - Okay, yeah, they both referenced 00:33:51.900 --> 00:33:53.540 that ethics ordinance, one of them 00:33:53.540 --> 00:33:54.860 was a little more specific. 00:33:54.860 --> 00:34:01.060 - Well in the future, I think this is something 00:34:01.060 --> 00:34:04.220 that we maybe need to talk more about at some point. 00:34:04.220 --> 00:34:07.260 Because I would hate to see two separate pathways 00:34:07.260 --> 00:34:09.220 for staff members and citizens here. 00:34:09.220 --> 00:34:12.900 So either we put them together, you know, just-- 00:34:12.900 --> 00:34:15.420 - Well everybody can submit a complaint. 00:34:15.420 --> 00:34:19.380 The anonymous hotline is open to anybody. 00:34:19.380 --> 00:34:22.660 Staff members, city staff, and members of the public. 00:34:22.660 --> 00:34:25.500 Does that make sense? 00:34:25.500 --> 00:34:26.780 - Yeah, so members of the public 00:34:26.780 --> 00:34:30.380 are now able to submit anonymous? 00:34:30.380 --> 00:34:31.340 - Yes. - Always have been. 00:34:31.340 --> 00:34:33.620 - They always have been, yeah. 00:34:33.620 --> 00:34:35.820 - But then how do they, well-- 00:34:35.820 --> 00:34:38.700 - I just wanna say, I've always had a hard time 00:34:38.700 --> 00:34:40.860 with the anonymous part because it does not 00:34:40.860 --> 00:34:42.980 feel like due process. 00:34:42.980 --> 00:34:45.060 And I feel like if you're gonna make a complaint, 00:34:45.060 --> 00:34:48.420 you should say who you are. 00:34:48.420 --> 00:34:50.900 Is it possible, I don't think it's possible 00:34:50.900 --> 00:34:53.820 for a complaint to be administratively complete 00:34:53.820 --> 00:34:55.980 if it is anonymous, right? 00:34:55.980 --> 00:34:58.180 - That's correct, because the ordinance requires 00:34:58.180 --> 00:35:00.740 certain contents basically of the complaint, 00:35:00.740 --> 00:35:02.740 which I think includes their name and address, 00:35:02.740 --> 00:35:03.580 things like that. 00:35:03.580 --> 00:35:07.540 - So I think the only way, unless we change 00:35:07.540 --> 00:35:11.860 the requirements for an administratively complete complaint, 00:35:11.860 --> 00:35:17.460 then it has, we can't use the anonymous hotline. 00:35:18.580 --> 00:35:21.500 So I think the question is more of do we, 00:35:21.500 --> 00:35:25.020 should we allow for an anonymous ethics complaint 00:35:25.020 --> 00:35:28.180 to be submitted, and if that's the path we go, 00:35:28.180 --> 00:35:31.300 then we have to rewrite a huge part of the code 00:35:31.300 --> 00:35:36.300 and the rules and procedure or whatever the document is. 00:35:36.300 --> 00:35:39.340 - So maybe number three, recommend that city council 00:35:39.340 --> 00:35:42.380 remove the language about anonymity. 00:35:42.380 --> 00:35:47.100 Is that, that was-- 00:35:47.100 --> 00:35:52.100 - So to me, as far as what is the easiest path forward 00:35:52.100 --> 00:35:56.740 to make this work, that's the easiest path. 00:35:56.740 --> 00:35:59.940 And I don't think that there should be, 00:35:59.940 --> 00:36:04.380 I think that there is reason for having a requirement 00:36:04.380 --> 00:36:09.380 to have the complainant involved in the process. 00:36:09.380 --> 00:36:12.220 - Called to process, I think, yeah. 00:36:12.220 --> 00:36:17.220 - Right, and it's not, I mean, I think combining 00:36:17.220 --> 00:36:23.140 number one and number three there would be 00:36:23.140 --> 00:36:25.740 probably the best path, because there may be people 00:36:25.740 --> 00:36:30.740 that are submitting an ethics complaint in good faith 00:36:30.740 --> 00:36:35.700 and using that tool to do it and they just don't know. 00:36:35.700 --> 00:36:39.900 So if you have a canned response that says, 00:36:39.900 --> 00:36:43.020 this, thank you for your complaint, here is the correct 00:36:43.020 --> 00:36:48.020 method and forms to do that, I feel like we're 00:36:48.020 --> 00:36:52.620 kinda closing the loop on the complaint if that person 00:36:52.620 --> 00:36:57.620 is interested in that becoming, going into the actual 00:36:57.620 --> 00:37:02.140 ethics complaint process, I don't see any reason 00:37:02.140 --> 00:37:05.980 to ask you to forward any kind of report or complaint to us 00:37:05.980 --> 00:37:09.380 that's anonymous because we can't do anything with it. 00:37:09.380 --> 00:37:10.800 So I would rather not. 00:37:10.800 --> 00:37:15.020 - I think if the city council would just take the language 00:37:15.020 --> 00:37:17.900 out, that would solve the problem. 00:37:17.900 --> 00:37:19.780 - But where does that language appear? 00:37:19.780 --> 00:37:22.700 - It's in section-- 00:37:22.700 --> 00:37:25.740 - Yeah, that's gonna go straight to our amendment 00:37:25.740 --> 00:37:27.540 to our current code then. 00:37:27.540 --> 00:37:29.180 - That would be part of the run language. 00:37:29.180 --> 00:37:34.180 - It's in section 2-272A, duty to report under mandates. 00:37:37.940 --> 00:37:42.940 And it's like the last line that it says, it's essentially 00:37:42.940 --> 00:37:49.180 just saying if you know about a violation, you can report 00:37:49.180 --> 00:37:53.540 it anonymously and that fulfills your duty under 00:37:53.540 --> 00:37:56.780 the ordinance, but I don't know how, you guys could just 00:37:56.780 --> 00:37:58.380 say that you did that, but. 00:37:58.380 --> 00:38:04.420 - So could we, if we have a motion to add that, 00:38:04.940 --> 00:38:08.340 just striking that last line at that one section 00:38:08.340 --> 00:38:09.940 as part of our red line thing? 00:38:09.940 --> 00:38:12.580 - Drew, if you would like to give direction to move forward 00:38:12.580 --> 00:38:14.420 with the order to do a motion. 00:38:14.420 --> 00:38:16.580 - Do I hear a motion? 00:38:16.580 --> 00:38:23.300 - Well, while I am making things easier 100%, 00:38:23.300 --> 00:38:32.380 do we risk the protection, the anonymity, 00:38:35.100 --> 00:38:39.660 and this complaint process provides to maybe 00:38:39.660 --> 00:38:43.300 the more vulnerable public and-- 00:38:43.300 --> 00:38:45.460 - Great question, yeah. 00:38:45.460 --> 00:38:47.300 - It's a fine. 00:38:47.300 --> 00:38:49.780 - Yeah, that's an absolutely great question. 00:38:49.780 --> 00:38:52.180 It's something we're debating on and then a part of the-- 00:38:52.180 --> 00:38:56.500 - Right, that is a huge part of the conversation 00:38:56.500 --> 00:39:00.140 that we've had over the past year, is making it 00:39:00.140 --> 00:39:04.720 more accessible and available to all citizens. 00:39:05.020 --> 00:39:09.660 My concern is if we are having anonymous complaints, 00:39:09.660 --> 00:39:14.660 then the whole frivolousness of potential complaints 00:39:14.660 --> 00:39:19.100 becomes a whole different story, because then 00:39:19.100 --> 00:39:21.580 there is absolutely, you know, then there's-- 00:39:21.580 --> 00:39:23.780 - Could you skew it in the other direction? 00:39:23.780 --> 00:39:27.180 I think a better fix would be to look at this, 00:39:27.180 --> 00:39:29.820 removing the, there's one thing that we're, 00:39:29.820 --> 00:39:31.980 hopefully we'll talk about tonight, 00:39:31.980 --> 00:39:35.060 that I think would fix it, but-- 00:39:35.060 --> 00:39:40.060 - It seems like this language and the ordinance is to, 00:39:40.060 --> 00:39:48.340 is to kind of protect someone who is aware of a complaint 00:39:48.340 --> 00:39:50.460 and has a duty to enforce-- - And fears 00:39:50.460 --> 00:39:52.380 some kind of retribution. 00:39:52.380 --> 00:39:56.700 - Or more so than it is to allow for anonymous complaints 00:39:56.700 --> 00:40:01.060 by the public, because the, I mean, the code is written 00:40:01.060 --> 00:40:04.860 sets that we can't do anything with an anonymous complaint. 00:40:04.860 --> 00:40:08.540 I mean, there's not a pathway for that to ever get 00:40:08.540 --> 00:40:12.420 to a three member panel to review it. 00:40:12.420 --> 00:40:15.900 - Well, I think it would depend on the complaint. 00:40:15.900 --> 00:40:22.300 I think there are some complaints that could be acted upon 00:40:22.300 --> 00:40:25.780 even though it was anonymous, can't give you an example. 00:40:25.780 --> 00:40:29.140 - We don't have a, that's not allowed by the code. 00:40:29.140 --> 00:40:31.060 I mean, it's not so much that like whether or not 00:40:31.060 --> 00:40:36.060 the complaint is, should be actionable or if it's frivolous 00:40:36.060 --> 00:40:39.380 or whatever it is, we would never, the board members 00:40:39.380 --> 00:40:43.140 would never see or hear the complaint because the process 00:40:43.140 --> 00:40:47.020 requires Madison to review the complaint 00:40:47.020 --> 00:40:50.700 for administrative completeness, which would require 00:40:50.700 --> 00:40:55.020 the complainants to be named and all the, I mean that, 00:40:56.220 --> 00:41:01.220 unless we could, we could look at changing that process 00:41:01.220 --> 00:41:06.420 so that there is some pathway for an anonymous complaint 00:41:06.420 --> 00:41:10.100 that comes in through the hotline to be considered 00:41:10.100 --> 00:41:14.060 or to be exempt from that naming of the complainant, 00:41:14.060 --> 00:41:19.060 which is fine with me, but we would have to change the words. 00:41:19.060 --> 00:41:22.500 - I agree with that completely because what could happen 00:41:22.500 --> 00:41:26.060 theoretically is a staff member could be aware of something 00:41:26.060 --> 00:41:28.460 and file an anonymous complaint, 00:41:28.460 --> 00:41:30.740 really not hoping that it ever goes anywhere, 00:41:30.740 --> 00:41:33.580 but I'm off the hook, you know, because I'm with the West. 00:41:33.580 --> 00:41:34.420 - Right. 00:41:34.420 --> 00:41:38.060 - And so I think that could be a very harmful tool 00:41:38.060 --> 00:41:42.260 if we let that go without, you know, very completely. 00:41:42.260 --> 00:41:45.380 - When we drafted this policy or this ordinance, 00:41:45.380 --> 00:41:48.300 why didn't we include a conflicting provision 00:41:48.300 --> 00:41:50.420 that doesn't allow anonymous complaints 00:41:50.420 --> 00:41:52.060 but allows anonymous complaints? 00:41:52.060 --> 00:41:53.660 - That's a really great question. 00:41:53.660 --> 00:41:55.260 (laughing) 00:41:55.260 --> 00:41:56.460 - Welcome to the-- 00:41:56.460 --> 00:41:57.660 - So glad you're here. 00:41:57.660 --> 00:42:00.580 - One you can answer. 00:42:00.580 --> 00:42:03.580 - Yeah, we can't answer that, yeah. 00:42:03.580 --> 00:42:05.740 Nobody gets the answer to that. 00:42:05.740 --> 00:42:08.900 So do I hear a motion about how-- 00:42:08.900 --> 00:42:11.060 - This is a, we're not posted for action, 00:42:11.060 --> 00:42:14.060 so let's give staff directions of the motion. 00:42:14.060 --> 00:42:17.580 - So what recommendation? 00:42:17.580 --> 00:42:23.300 - I'm the Dustin, I like a combination of one and three, 00:42:24.580 --> 00:42:28.060 and I think that we should consider adding 00:42:28.060 --> 00:42:33.740 the complaint process back onto the agenda. 00:42:33.740 --> 00:42:39.980 - I like the idea, is there a way we could 00:42:39.980 --> 00:42:48.420 recommend an amendment to maybe a confidential complaint? 00:42:48.420 --> 00:42:50.940 - Yes. 00:42:50.940 --> 00:42:53.540 - So that, you know, you can make this confidentially, 00:42:53.540 --> 00:42:56.940 you know, it's not anonymous, we have to know who you are 00:42:56.940 --> 00:43:00.340 so we can look into it, but it is confidential. 00:43:00.340 --> 00:43:01.180 - Right. 00:43:01.180 --> 00:43:03.660 Because at the end of the day, none of us, 00:43:03.660 --> 00:43:07.340 it matters to none of us who that complainant is. 00:43:07.340 --> 00:43:08.180 - No, not at all. 00:43:08.180 --> 00:43:12.340 - It just, as long as it is administratively completed. 00:43:12.340 --> 00:43:14.180 - And I think that if it's confidential, 00:43:14.180 --> 00:43:16.780 the person should be able to state 00:43:16.780 --> 00:43:19.780 why they need the confidentiality. 00:43:21.260 --> 00:43:25.060 - So, complaints are considered confidential 00:43:25.060 --> 00:43:27.020 until they are posted on an agenda. 00:43:27.020 --> 00:43:27.860 - Right. 00:43:27.860 --> 00:43:31.540 - Don't know, I guess the complaint itself, 00:43:31.540 --> 00:43:34.940 you could redact from there, I don't know Scott, 00:43:34.940 --> 00:43:37.380 we'd have to look a couple of times. 00:43:37.380 --> 00:43:39.140 - Well, I would just want to look into 00:43:39.140 --> 00:43:41.820 Public Information Act, 'cause we can say, 00:43:41.820 --> 00:43:43.260 you know, call something confidential, 00:43:43.260 --> 00:43:46.180 but it might not actually be confidential 00:43:46.180 --> 00:43:48.980 under open records laws, and it could be 00:43:48.980 --> 00:43:51.500 a request by the respondent. 00:43:51.500 --> 00:43:55.300 - Maybe we should revisit this issue again 00:43:55.300 --> 00:44:00.820 at the next meeting, and give you some time to make some. 00:44:00.820 --> 00:44:05.060 - We can do, that's the direction, 00:44:05.060 --> 00:44:08.860 do research into confidentiality 00:44:08.860 --> 00:44:12.380 under the Open Records Act for these types of complaints. 00:44:12.380 --> 00:44:14.980 And then in the meantime, it sounds like we're, 00:44:14.980 --> 00:44:18.540 if we get another one, we'll go with step, 00:44:18.540 --> 00:44:20.580 or option one, right, in time, basically. 00:44:20.580 --> 00:44:21.420 - Mm-hmm. 00:44:21.420 --> 00:44:24.580 - What, on the general direction, or? 00:44:24.580 --> 00:44:25.580 - Yes, question. 00:44:25.580 --> 00:44:30.380 I was kind of on the fence between a couple of these, 00:44:30.380 --> 00:44:33.260 but one of the things I always wonder 00:44:33.260 --> 00:44:36.140 is where we are with other cities. 00:44:36.140 --> 00:44:39.140 I mean, any time we hit a new issue, 00:44:39.140 --> 00:44:43.060 I'm always wondering about other cities. 00:44:43.060 --> 00:44:45.180 Is this fraud, waste, and abuse hotline 00:44:45.180 --> 00:44:47.980 elsewhere in Madison, or is there anything similar 00:44:47.980 --> 00:44:51.780 that we can learn from our neighbors on this? 00:44:51.780 --> 00:44:58.060 - I know that most cities that have city auditors, 00:44:58.060 --> 00:45:01.460 or inspector generals, have a fraud, waste, 00:45:01.460 --> 00:45:06.380 and abuse hotline, but not all cities have city auditors. 00:45:06.380 --> 00:45:12.620 If that helps, so I can look into 00:45:12.620 --> 00:45:16.860 the ones, our general benchmark cities, 00:45:16.860 --> 00:45:19.780 if they have city auditors, if they have 00:45:19.780 --> 00:45:21.220 a fraud, waste, and abuse hotline, 00:45:21.220 --> 00:45:23.100 and if it's referenced at all in there. 00:45:23.100 --> 00:45:26.260 I mean, in most of the cities that we look at, 00:45:26.260 --> 00:45:29.300 the city auditor isn't involved in the process at all. 00:45:29.300 --> 00:45:34.100 It's usually the city secretary, or some other. 00:45:34.100 --> 00:45:37.020 - I think it probably has to do with the size of the city, 00:45:37.020 --> 00:45:39.540 too, because the bigger the cities, 00:45:39.540 --> 00:45:44.180 the more auditors and hotlines. 00:45:44.180 --> 00:45:46.220 - Yeah, usually larger cities. 00:45:46.220 --> 00:45:48.380 I could easily be convinced to just do away 00:45:48.380 --> 00:45:51.340 with fraud, waste, and abuse hotline all together, 00:45:51.340 --> 00:45:53.660 but I'd like to know more about what other cities 00:45:53.660 --> 00:45:55.700 have going on, or what they have. 00:45:55.700 --> 00:45:57.340 - That's not on the agenda. 00:45:57.340 --> 00:45:58.380 - Oh, yeah. - Yeah. 00:45:58.380 --> 00:46:00.060 - I mean-- - It's not today, though. 00:46:00.060 --> 00:46:01.940 - The fraud, waste, and abuse hotline is not under 00:46:01.940 --> 00:46:03.540 the discretion of the Board of Ethics. 00:46:03.540 --> 00:46:04.780 - Yeah. 00:46:04.780 --> 00:46:06.420 - If it's in the ordinance, you can make 00:46:06.420 --> 00:46:08.140 a recommendation about it. 00:46:08.140 --> 00:46:09.260 - Well, I made a recommendation. 00:46:09.260 --> 00:46:11.980 I know we don't have the authority to line it up. 00:46:11.980 --> 00:46:14.660 - I would like to hear what Scott can come up with 00:46:14.660 --> 00:46:16.420 in terms of investigating it, 00:46:16.420 --> 00:46:18.380 'cause I know he has so little to do. 00:46:18.380 --> 00:46:22.260 - Can I add something? - Yes. 00:46:22.260 --> 00:46:24.420 - I think that we spend a bunch of time trying 00:46:24.420 --> 00:46:27.340 to pull the responsibilities, like all the burden-approved 00:46:27.340 --> 00:46:32.340 stuff out, with the intention of making it easier 00:46:32.340 --> 00:46:38.220 for a citizen to go through the process 00:46:38.220 --> 00:46:40.460 of making a complaint and having it heard. 00:46:40.460 --> 00:46:41.740 - We need something that bridges. 00:46:41.740 --> 00:46:45.900 - Right, and those recommendations were rejected 00:46:45.900 --> 00:46:50.900 by Council, so I don't know what that did to me. 00:46:50.900 --> 00:46:58.180 Knowing that, I would expect them to support 00:46:58.180 --> 00:47:02.320 removing that language from the ordinance. 00:47:02.320 --> 00:47:08.780 One, it doesn't allow for a complaint to be processed 00:47:12.140 --> 00:47:15.260 through that hotline, and two, because we can't 00:47:15.260 --> 00:47:18.860 do anything with it, so anyway, I don't know 00:47:18.860 --> 00:47:20.740 if that matters or not. 00:47:20.740 --> 00:47:22.780 - I like the third option for those reasons, 00:47:22.780 --> 00:47:26.380 and one of the main purposes of the Board of Ethics 00:47:26.380 --> 00:47:31.140 is transparency, and I think it is important 00:47:31.140 --> 00:47:34.680 that the person filing the complaint be known. 00:47:34.680 --> 00:47:38.980 There's so many ways it could be abused. 00:47:38.980 --> 00:47:41.580 - So can we put this on the agenda for next time 00:47:41.580 --> 00:47:44.600 to delve into it a little bit more? 00:47:44.600 --> 00:47:48.980 - You say, you mean come back with potentially 00:47:48.980 --> 00:47:51.960 some research on open ethics ability, or? 00:47:51.960 --> 00:47:57.440 - I mean, I think it's really important to, 00:47:57.440 --> 00:48:01.620 I mean, we can't do anything with the way it stands now, 00:48:01.620 --> 00:48:04.820 but at the same time, I think it is a way 00:48:04.820 --> 00:48:07.780 to protect vulnerable citizens who are just trying 00:48:07.780 --> 00:48:11.420 to do the right thing, so something that would bridge 00:48:11.420 --> 00:48:15.100 that gap would be good, and maybe a recommendation 00:48:15.100 --> 00:48:16.400 to put into the code. 00:48:16.400 --> 00:48:21.600 - I'm personally not even all that concerned necessarily 00:48:21.600 --> 00:48:25.420 about vulnerable citizens, but what about city employees 00:48:25.420 --> 00:48:30.420 that are actually, that might be privy to ethic complaints, 00:48:30.420 --> 00:48:32.880 but are then concerned about it? 00:48:32.880 --> 00:48:37.860 - They have their own code, which I think 00:48:37.860 --> 00:48:39.660 is a very good one, actually. 00:48:41.220 --> 00:48:42.740 - They have their own policy? 00:48:42.740 --> 00:48:45.460 - Yes, I would say that, but I think you're speaking 00:48:45.460 --> 00:48:48.980 about employees who are trying to take a complaint 00:48:48.980 --> 00:48:50.860 about city officials, right? 00:48:50.860 --> 00:48:56.720 - Could you look into, I think what I'd really like 00:48:56.720 --> 00:49:00.500 to look into, how could we have something 00:49:00.500 --> 00:49:03.860 that's confidential and still not violate 00:49:03.860 --> 00:49:08.540 the Open Records Act, if that's even a possible path? 00:49:08.540 --> 00:49:11.260 - But in general, I'd like to lean toward three. 00:49:11.260 --> 00:49:15.240 Does that make sense? 00:49:15.240 --> 00:49:16.080 - Yep. 00:49:16.080 --> 00:49:16.920 - Okay. 00:49:16.920 --> 00:49:22.800 So, are we ready to move on to the next item? 00:49:22.800 --> 00:49:26.620 - I believe we have direction. 00:49:26.620 --> 00:49:27.460 - Yes, okay. 00:49:27.460 --> 00:49:34.580 Okay, item D, BOE 24-051, receiver report, 00:49:34.580 --> 00:49:37.220 hold a discussion and give staff direction 00:49:37.220 --> 00:49:40.680 regarding ethical changes in the code of ordinances, 00:49:40.680 --> 00:49:45.680 Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics, Section 2-269, 00:49:45.680 --> 00:49:52.060 Definitions, Section 2-272, Mandates, Section 2-273, 00:49:52.060 --> 00:49:58.020 Prohibition, Section 2-277, Board of Ethics, 00:49:58.020 --> 00:50:00.820 and Section 2-281, here it is. 00:50:06.660 --> 00:50:10.300 - So these were the changes that you presented last time. 00:50:10.300 --> 00:50:13.600 I attempted to incorporate them into the ordinance 00:50:13.600 --> 00:50:18.600 based on what was in that, so we can talk through them or? 00:50:18.600 --> 00:50:20.600 - Sure. 00:50:35.100 --> 00:50:40.100 So basically, there were just, there were four things 00:50:40.100 --> 00:50:46.460 that the citizens voted on in 2017 00:50:46.460 --> 00:50:50.420 that were supposed to be in the ethical code. 00:50:50.420 --> 00:50:53.340 In studying it, when this came out to Charter Review 00:50:53.340 --> 00:50:56.180 recently, I realized most of the things 00:50:56.180 --> 00:50:59.460 that the citizens overwhelmingly voted for 00:50:59.460 --> 00:51:01.840 were not in our Code of Ethics. 00:51:01.840 --> 00:51:04.220 So this is an attempt to fix it. 00:51:05.540 --> 00:51:10.540 So, I was hoping we could use the city employee code 00:51:10.540 --> 00:51:13.220 'cause I really like the way it's written, 00:51:13.220 --> 00:51:17.380 but in studying it more, I realized it has a lot of things 00:51:17.380 --> 00:51:18.980 that are specific to a place, 00:51:18.980 --> 00:51:22.140 and we can't just have a sign of that. 00:51:22.140 --> 00:51:25.020 So we're gonna have to go find my item. 00:51:25.020 --> 00:51:28.340 So, this first one would be... 00:51:33.820 --> 00:51:35.140 I'm sorry, I can't read it. 00:51:35.140 --> 00:51:36.640 Okay, read it now. 00:51:36.640 --> 00:51:40.540 So, definition of conflict of interest 00:51:40.540 --> 00:51:45.540 is a very narrow definition, and the wording, 00:51:45.540 --> 00:51:50.060 the, is that where the pending matter thing is? 00:51:50.060 --> 00:51:52.980 - This is straight from the employee ethics files. 00:51:52.980 --> 00:51:54.700 - Okay, okay. 00:51:54.700 --> 00:51:58.280 So, their code is much more broad, 00:51:58.280 --> 00:52:01.140 and it is written in a very great way 00:52:01.140 --> 00:52:03.860 because it explains some of these concepts, 00:52:03.860 --> 00:52:06.380 like what is conflict of interest? 00:52:06.380 --> 00:52:10.300 Our code does not, and the definitions are very narrow. 00:52:10.300 --> 00:52:11.860 There's some loopholes. 00:52:11.860 --> 00:52:17.220 So, I was hoping we could just take the part 00:52:17.220 --> 00:52:20.620 of the city employee thing that I like so much 00:52:20.620 --> 00:52:23.700 and put it in place of what is there. 00:52:23.700 --> 00:52:26.740 - Easier if I pulled up the employee ethics policy? 00:52:26.740 --> 00:52:28.060 Would that be easier? 00:52:28.060 --> 00:52:29.700 And it's basically this language. 00:52:29.700 --> 00:52:31.140 - Yeah, it's this language. 00:52:31.140 --> 00:52:36.140 So, what is problematic with the city code 00:52:36.140 --> 00:52:38.300 that we've had for a long time 00:52:38.300 --> 00:52:42.620 is it has pending matter in it, 00:52:42.620 --> 00:52:44.380 and then if you go back to the glossary, 00:52:44.380 --> 00:52:49.060 the definition in the glossary is even more narrow 00:52:49.060 --> 00:52:53.500 than how people generally frame it in law. 00:52:53.500 --> 00:52:58.060 And I'm not a lawyer, but I want something more broad. 00:52:58.060 --> 00:53:03.060 So, I like this language, if you'll take a look at it. 00:53:03.060 --> 00:53:15.380 So, this first part defines conflict of interest 00:53:15.380 --> 00:53:16.800 more broadly. 00:53:16.800 --> 00:53:25.380 The code that we have makes it just about business 00:53:25.380 --> 00:53:28.100 and what percentage of the business you own. 00:53:28.100 --> 00:53:29.540 Do you love before? 00:53:29.540 --> 00:53:37.260 - And for whatever it's for, 00:53:37.260 --> 00:53:41.740 this is kind of a mirror image of the model code itself. 00:53:41.740 --> 00:53:43.860 I mean, this is taking it all the way back 00:53:43.860 --> 00:53:48.500 to the Wexler model. 00:53:48.500 --> 00:53:53.500 So, this is a goal in my mind. 00:53:56.220 --> 00:53:58.140 - So, questions? 00:53:58.140 --> 00:54:02.680 - Under our definition of conflict, 00:54:02.680 --> 00:54:09.540 it says a conflict of interest is a situation 00:54:09.540 --> 00:54:12.200 in which personal and/or financial considerations 00:54:12.200 --> 00:54:16.620 actually have or may have the potential to influence, 00:54:16.620 --> 00:54:20.140 and then under two, the general rules, 00:54:20.140 --> 00:54:25.140 we say city officials shall have proactivity 00:54:25.780 --> 00:54:29.180 and transparent, or shall be proactive and transparent 00:54:29.180 --> 00:54:30.460 within a relationship that creates 00:54:30.460 --> 00:54:32.340 an actual potential conflict. 00:54:32.340 --> 00:54:38.820 But we don't define, because conflict of interest 00:54:38.820 --> 00:54:40.820 is defined as any potential, 00:54:40.820 --> 00:54:46.340 I don't think we need potential in there. 00:54:46.340 --> 00:54:47.180 - Oh, okay. 00:54:47.180 --> 00:54:52.180 - Leads to vagueness, in my opinion. 00:54:54.540 --> 00:54:57.540 - One of the essential differences in this 00:54:57.540 --> 00:55:01.940 and what we have now is that this is not only current, 00:55:01.940 --> 00:55:04.740 but this has a future aspect to it. 00:55:04.740 --> 00:55:06.620 It has now or in the future. 00:55:06.620 --> 00:55:10.660 Our current code is pending matter only. 00:55:10.660 --> 00:55:15.100 So, if it hasn't happened yet, 00:55:15.100 --> 00:55:19.220 so this is more futuristic and all-encompassing, 00:55:19.220 --> 00:55:21.740 encompassing than what our current code is. 00:55:21.740 --> 00:55:23.580 So, not only if-- 00:55:23.580 --> 00:55:26.580 - So, what would you think about taking potential out? 00:55:26.580 --> 00:55:28.740 Would that be okay? 00:55:28.740 --> 00:55:29.580 - Just out of numbers. 00:55:29.580 --> 00:55:30.420 - No, potential is-- 00:55:30.420 --> 00:55:31.260 - That's what I was-- 00:55:31.260 --> 00:55:32.080 - Well, so-- 00:55:32.080 --> 00:55:33.620 - You're talking about just removing this. 00:55:33.620 --> 00:55:35.100 - No, potential is a key word. 00:55:35.100 --> 00:55:37.800 - Well, potential is, a conflict of interest 00:55:37.800 --> 00:55:41.780 is already defined as having the potential to do this. 00:55:41.780 --> 00:55:45.640 So, there can't be a potential, potential. 00:55:45.640 --> 00:55:47.940 So, we're saying there's a potential to have a potential 00:55:47.940 --> 00:55:49.340 to have a conflict of interest. 00:55:49.340 --> 00:55:50.300 - I get that. 00:55:50.300 --> 00:55:52.780 - So, we're just removing a potential to cite it. 00:55:52.780 --> 00:55:55.580 'Cause the definition already covers potential. 00:55:55.580 --> 00:55:56.420 So, it-- 00:55:56.420 --> 00:55:58.640 - But our current code does not. 00:55:58.640 --> 00:55:59.480 - No, no, no. 00:55:59.480 --> 00:56:00.580 - Yeah, our current code, I see. 00:56:00.580 --> 00:56:02.820 - No, no, I'm saying I'm agreeing with you. 00:56:02.820 --> 00:56:05.180 - So, just take it out, I agree. 00:56:05.180 --> 00:56:06.020 - No, I just-- 00:56:06.020 --> 00:56:07.380 - I said less words, I said that. 00:56:07.380 --> 00:56:08.300 - Yeah. 00:56:08.300 --> 00:56:10.820 This is all about pending matter versus future. 00:56:10.820 --> 00:56:11.660 - Yeah. 00:56:11.660 --> 00:56:17.420 Okay, so, do we need to take a vote on that or are we? 00:56:17.420 --> 00:56:19.600 - No. 00:56:19.600 --> 00:56:22.380 - No, because we're still just editing, right? 00:56:22.380 --> 00:56:23.220 - Okay. 00:56:23.220 --> 00:56:33.980 This second part is that B is where we get into 00:56:33.980 --> 00:56:38.820 consanguinity, which I don't care to have in the code 00:56:38.820 --> 00:56:40.420 because it's something that I think 00:56:40.420 --> 00:56:44.180 most people wouldn't understand. 00:56:44.180 --> 00:56:49.180 So, we are spelling out domestic partner, child, 00:56:49.180 --> 00:56:51.600 parent, member of the household. 00:56:53.060 --> 00:56:57.780 Rather than saying, what, three levels of consanguinity? 00:56:57.780 --> 00:57:01.980 Which, I understand that now because I've been 00:57:01.980 --> 00:57:06.020 adjudicated, but I don't think it's something 00:57:06.020 --> 00:57:07.740 that most people wouldn't understand, 00:57:07.740 --> 00:57:12.060 and I feel like citizens and council members 00:57:12.060 --> 00:57:14.340 and board members who are not lawyers 00:57:14.340 --> 00:57:17.060 should be able to read this, not have to. 00:57:17.060 --> 00:57:22.060 - So, you like B like this, not that word that you just said. 00:57:22.060 --> 00:57:24.580 - That's the way it is in the ARHP code. 00:57:24.580 --> 00:57:25.420 We did that, yeah. 00:57:25.420 --> 00:57:36.340 So, are there any things in this section that you see? 00:57:36.340 --> 00:57:41.940 - I just wanted to double check that member of household 00:57:41.940 --> 00:57:46.940 is defined, right, in the correct, yeah, I saw it. 00:57:46.940 --> 00:57:48.860 I just wanted to double check that. 00:57:53.060 --> 00:57:54.060 - Yeah, okay. 00:57:54.060 --> 00:57:58.500 - And then I believe domestic partners defined as well. 00:57:58.500 --> 00:57:59.340 - Okay. 00:57:59.340 --> 00:58:05.900 Any concerns with that section? 00:58:05.900 --> 00:58:07.420 Okay, we move on. 00:58:07.420 --> 00:58:08.580 - I think two looks good. 00:58:08.580 --> 00:58:11.260 I do have a question about three. 00:58:11.260 --> 00:58:16.740 And forgive me for not knowing 00:58:16.740 --> 00:58:18.880 what our disclosure form looks like yet. 00:58:21.860 --> 00:58:23.620 - This is my biggest concern about it. 00:58:23.620 --> 00:58:26.100 This is from the employee ethics policy. 00:58:26.100 --> 00:58:28.420 It doesn't necessarily make sense 00:58:28.420 --> 00:58:30.220 when you've just replaced any official 00:58:30.220 --> 00:58:34.540 because it's intended for employees. 00:58:34.540 --> 00:58:38.860 So, I think the disclosure, and we have, 00:58:38.860 --> 00:58:43.860 the current code has a disclosure and recusal process, 00:58:43.860 --> 00:58:45.660 which is the pending matter. 00:58:45.660 --> 00:58:51.620 It's basically, I'll see. 00:58:52.420 --> 00:58:57.420 This deliberation prohibited section that's crossed out, 00:58:57.420 --> 00:58:59.660 and that's where it talks about pending matter. 00:58:59.660 --> 00:59:03.500 But basically it's requiring, if there's a pending matter, 00:59:03.500 --> 00:59:05.340 you have to disclose and refuse. 00:59:05.340 --> 00:59:10.020 This is, that's what the pending matter is 00:59:10.020 --> 00:59:11.180 within our current process. 00:59:11.180 --> 00:59:14.340 But it does have a more specific definition 00:59:14.340 --> 00:59:16.980 of conflict of interest, which you discussed 00:59:16.980 --> 00:59:20.520 about these different percentages and things. 00:59:22.460 --> 00:59:24.940 And I can pull up what our abstention of, 00:59:24.940 --> 00:59:27.580 affidavit of abstention form looks like if you would like to. 00:59:27.580 --> 00:59:29.220 - Please, yeah, that's, 00:59:29.220 --> 00:59:36.540 there's an interesting topic that me and Scott fall under, 00:59:36.540 --> 00:59:38.960 and you, soon, very soon. 00:59:38.960 --> 00:59:43.340 And that is whenever there's potential conflict 00:59:43.340 --> 00:59:47.460 with something that our client may have, 00:59:49.220 --> 00:59:54.220 relative, I have a conflict of interest (mumbles) 00:59:54.220 --> 00:59:59.500 Okay, that seems okay on the other, right? 00:59:59.500 --> 01:00:04.500 So if I have a client that has an adverse position 01:00:04.500 --> 01:00:07.980 to something that we discussed on the board, 01:00:07.980 --> 01:00:11.460 I have to abstain from it, I can't. 01:00:11.460 --> 01:00:13.120 And then I can't also disclose that, 01:00:13.120 --> 01:00:14.260 'cause it's attorney-client relationship, 01:00:14.260 --> 01:00:16.980 so as long as I can mark the other. 01:00:16.980 --> 01:00:19.060 And I know we have, what, two attorneys, I think, 01:00:19.060 --> 01:00:21.500 on our city council, so we've got attorneys 01:00:21.500 --> 01:00:25.940 throughout our city governance that are affected 01:00:25.940 --> 01:00:27.600 by this disclosure requirement. 01:00:27.600 --> 01:00:33.540 - So this is our current form. 01:00:33.540 --> 01:00:36.180 I think if we updated the conflict of interest section, 01:00:36.180 --> 01:00:38.860 this would need to be updated in some extent as well. 01:00:38.860 --> 01:00:39.700 - Okay. 01:00:39.700 --> 01:00:45.140 Okay, can we, so are we okay with that section, 01:00:45.140 --> 01:00:48.180 and ready to move on? 01:00:48.180 --> 01:00:51.700 - I'm sorry, I'm just pushing it, but I'm not trying to-- 01:00:51.700 --> 01:00:53.140 - I mean, there's parts of this-- 01:00:53.140 --> 01:00:54.460 - It still says employee-- 01:00:54.460 --> 01:00:56.220 - It needs to be cleaned up. 01:00:56.220 --> 01:01:02.620 Just clean it up to-- 01:01:02.620 --> 01:01:04.700 - Where it says, if a conflict is identified, 01:01:04.700 --> 01:01:08.900 the employee will be refused from any decision-making. 01:01:08.900 --> 01:01:11.260 Doesn't need to be city official. 01:01:11.260 --> 01:01:12.900 - Right, yeah. 01:01:12.900 --> 01:01:16.220 - Some of this, I agree, doesn't make a whole lot of sense 01:01:16.220 --> 01:01:18.300 if it's targeting about purchasing. 01:01:18.300 --> 01:01:21.660 - Well, both of those last, those two sentences 01:01:21.660 --> 01:01:24.740 refer to employment, right? 01:01:24.740 --> 01:01:29.740 - Would this be something we could refer to a committee, 01:01:29.740 --> 01:01:33.060 and then, you know, the three of us, or whatever, 01:01:33.060 --> 01:01:37.500 just go through and clean it, make it nice and pretty, 01:01:37.500 --> 01:01:40.140 so that we can actually take an affirmative vote on it? 01:01:40.140 --> 01:01:42.540 - I would love to do that. 01:01:42.540 --> 01:01:46.020 - That's a parliamentarian question. 01:01:46.020 --> 01:01:48.140 - I'll look into it, 'cause I don't know 01:01:48.140 --> 01:01:50.700 if y'all have the power to create a committee, 01:01:50.700 --> 01:01:54.620 the council might be able to create a committee for you, 01:01:54.620 --> 01:01:55.460 but I don't-- 01:01:55.460 --> 01:02:00.140 - Would it be too much to ask the staff 01:02:00.140 --> 01:02:03.780 to make a recommendation on how to clean that up? 01:02:03.780 --> 01:02:06.420 - I mean, my recommendation wouldn't be 01:02:06.420 --> 01:02:09.380 to use the current disclosure process. 01:02:09.380 --> 01:02:10.220 - Okay. 01:02:10.220 --> 01:02:12.860 - Which includes the pending matter definition, 01:02:12.860 --> 01:02:17.100 which can be updated, but the pending matter 01:02:17.100 --> 01:02:22.100 is essentially replacing this section right here, 01:02:22.100 --> 01:02:24.460 because, well, this would normally, 01:02:24.460 --> 01:02:26.700 in the employee policy, this is employees, right, 01:02:26.700 --> 01:02:28.740 so employees involved in purchase of goods 01:02:28.740 --> 01:02:31.620 are required to submit a disclosure. 01:02:31.620 --> 01:02:33.980 Basically, you're taking purchase of goods 01:02:33.980 --> 01:02:35.380 and making it pending matter, 01:02:35.380 --> 01:02:38.900 and then that's what our current section does, 01:02:38.900 --> 01:02:40.780 that's the disclosure requirement. 01:02:40.780 --> 01:02:43.100 It's this right here. 01:02:43.100 --> 01:02:47.300 You have a conflicting interest in a pending matter, 01:02:47.300 --> 01:02:51.340 you have to disclose it and recuse yourself. 01:02:51.340 --> 01:02:53.020 That's up here somewhere. 01:02:53.020 --> 01:02:54.500 Delivery is prohibited. 01:02:54.500 --> 01:02:58.700 So this, delivery is prohibited, disclosure required, 01:02:58.700 --> 01:03:00.900 those two sections are doing the same thing 01:03:00.900 --> 01:03:01.940 that this is doing. 01:03:01.940 --> 01:03:06.700 It's just one is for city officials currently. 01:03:08.860 --> 01:03:12.580 - My problem with pending matter is in very narrow ways 01:03:12.580 --> 01:03:14.140 defined in our glossary. 01:03:14.140 --> 01:03:17.940 But that language-- - We could change 01:03:17.940 --> 01:03:19.420 the definition. 01:03:19.420 --> 01:03:23.700 - That language doesn't appear in any other code nowhere. 01:03:23.700 --> 01:03:24.540 - No. 01:03:24.540 --> 01:03:28.700 - I mean, what's written there in the deliberation 01:03:28.700 --> 01:03:32.580 program in the section that's struck out 01:03:32.580 --> 01:03:36.940 would be perfect for this if we can either remove 01:03:36.940 --> 01:03:40.940 or replace pending matter, 01:03:40.940 --> 01:03:42.820 'cause I think that's what you're most concerned with 01:03:42.820 --> 01:03:46.980 since it is right now, there is a pending matter 01:03:46.980 --> 01:03:51.100 before a council or whatever that I think 01:03:51.100 --> 01:03:53.580 where you're concerned with it. 01:03:53.580 --> 01:03:57.540 - So keep it that way, but just take out pending matter? 01:03:57.540 --> 01:03:59.100 - Yeah, I don't know if it needs to be taken out 01:03:59.100 --> 01:04:01.700 or replaced with something else. 01:04:01.700 --> 01:04:04.540 We're redefining the conflict of interest. 01:04:04.540 --> 01:04:08.300 - Pending matter, if a person has a current 01:04:08.300 --> 01:04:11.140 conflicting interest without any pending matter, 01:04:11.140 --> 01:04:15.220 must recuse themselves. 01:04:15.220 --> 01:04:17.220 Just take it out. 01:04:17.220 --> 01:04:20.780 - 'Cause it's almost like saying the same thing twice. 01:04:20.780 --> 01:04:24.460 - Well, pending matter narrows it so badly 01:04:24.460 --> 01:04:28.820 that you could abstain from a vote 01:04:28.820 --> 01:04:32.460 and the very next day you could do whatever's unethical, 01:04:32.460 --> 01:04:34.380 just the way it is defined in our code. 01:04:34.380 --> 01:04:38.780 And this has been pointed out to me by citizens, 01:04:38.780 --> 01:04:43.780 by voters not, so it's a pending matter language. 01:04:43.780 --> 01:04:47.500 - Adding this part, would make doing that 01:04:47.500 --> 01:04:49.580 what you're discussing a violation still? 01:04:49.580 --> 01:04:52.820 Is that it? 01:04:52.820 --> 01:04:53.660 - Okay. 01:04:53.660 --> 01:04:58.660 - If we have that definition of conflict of interest, 01:04:58.660 --> 01:05:01.500 take the language that's already in our ethics code 01:05:01.500 --> 01:05:04.780 for deliberations prohibited and replace 01:05:04.780 --> 01:05:07.260 conflicting interest in a pending matter 01:05:07.260 --> 01:05:11.260 with conflict of interest that we just redefined, 01:05:11.260 --> 01:05:14.780 it cleans that up and makes it so the language in this 01:05:14.780 --> 01:05:20.780 is correct for a city official and not for an employee. 01:05:20.780 --> 01:05:25.460 That's where that new section for disclosure and recusal, 01:05:25.460 --> 01:05:28.100 not following some of that, some of it doesn't apply. 01:05:29.140 --> 01:05:32.740 Some of it doesn't make sense, so it almost would make 01:05:32.740 --> 01:05:36.020 more sense to use that language and just replace 01:05:36.020 --> 01:05:38.300 conflicting interest in a pending matter 01:05:38.300 --> 01:05:39.860 with conflict of interest. 01:05:39.860 --> 01:05:40.700 - A conflict of interest. 01:05:40.700 --> 01:05:42.420 - Because that's defined. 01:05:42.420 --> 01:05:45.260 There's a new definition for that that I think is, 01:05:45.260 --> 01:05:47.260 like that's what we're trying to get to. 01:05:47.260 --> 01:05:50.260 Does that make sense? 01:05:50.260 --> 01:05:53.020 - I believe so. 01:05:53.020 --> 01:05:57.220 And I can bring that back to make it a little clearer. 01:05:57.220 --> 01:05:58.140 - That sounds good. 01:05:59.460 --> 01:06:00.700 - That would be awesome. 01:06:00.700 --> 01:06:05.140 - So Dustin, what you are proposing is to take 01:06:05.140 --> 01:06:07.820 the words pending matter out? 01:06:07.820 --> 01:06:09.420 - In a pending matter. 01:06:09.420 --> 01:06:10.980 - Yeah, I'm saying. 01:06:10.980 --> 01:06:14.820 - If you just take that out, it just, 01:06:14.820 --> 01:06:17.340 it's coming out of interest, yeah. 01:06:17.340 --> 01:06:19.140 - So you would take out? 01:06:19.140 --> 01:06:21.500 - I would take out regarding a pending matter. 01:06:21.500 --> 01:06:25.980 - Move that and then add a conflict of interest 01:06:25.980 --> 01:06:28.460 which is then redefined. 01:06:28.460 --> 01:06:29.300 - Yes. 01:06:29.300 --> 01:06:30.140 - Yes. 01:06:30.140 --> 01:06:30.980 - Okay. 01:06:30.980 --> 01:06:33.940 - I think that makes more sense and is the purpose 01:06:33.940 --> 01:06:38.620 of these modifications is to be able to apply 01:06:38.620 --> 01:06:41.620 that definition rather than the weird pending matter. 01:06:41.620 --> 01:06:45.260 - It would broaden the interest of the more clear. 01:06:45.260 --> 01:06:47.620 - Pending matter to expand on our list. 01:06:47.620 --> 01:06:51.100 - This would correct that. 01:06:51.100 --> 01:06:54.180 But the language and the deliberation prohibited, 01:06:54.180 --> 01:06:56.180 other than that conflicting interest 01:06:56.180 --> 01:06:59.860 in a pending matter part makes more sense for this, 01:06:59.860 --> 01:07:00.700 for city officials. 01:07:00.700 --> 01:07:03.940 - Take out four little words and I think it's fine. 01:07:03.940 --> 01:07:08.940 - Yeah, I think it's in there twice in those two sentences. 01:07:08.940 --> 01:07:12.940 But I think if we do that, then we get to what 01:07:12.940 --> 01:07:17.940 we're trying to get to, which is making this not a, 01:07:17.940 --> 01:07:24.020 like a moment in time. 01:07:24.020 --> 01:07:28.180 - The pending matter in that pending matter, it's fine. 01:07:28.180 --> 01:07:29.020 It broadens it. 01:07:29.020 --> 01:07:34.060 - I believe I, so update this section. 01:07:34.060 --> 01:07:36.180 So this would stay in, but we would update it 01:07:36.180 --> 01:07:39.700 to sort of have an pending matter in a conflicting interest. 01:07:39.700 --> 01:07:41.660 It would just be a conflict of interest. 01:07:41.660 --> 01:07:42.500 - Right. 01:07:42.500 --> 01:07:47.140 - I would say that the next paragraph for disclosure 01:07:47.140 --> 01:07:48.940 requires the same thing there. 01:07:48.940 --> 01:07:53.620 'Cause it's the, I mean, it's the language 01:07:53.620 --> 01:07:56.020 we want in there, we just need to fix the conflicting 01:07:56.020 --> 01:07:57.580 interest in the pending matter thing. 01:07:57.580 --> 01:07:58.620 So it's not a-- 01:07:58.620 --> 01:08:01.060 - Yeah, there's nothing wrong with it otherwise. 01:08:01.060 --> 01:08:02.060 - Yeah. 01:08:02.060 --> 01:08:02.900 - So. 01:08:02.900 --> 01:08:05.300 - I have a question, just for clarity. 01:08:05.300 --> 01:08:10.300 So when we're drafting, so pending matter right now, 01:08:10.300 --> 01:08:16.220 it's telling, saying that you're accusing yourself 01:08:16.220 --> 01:08:18.580 from a situation, city officials are accusing themselves 01:08:18.580 --> 01:08:23.140 from a situation where they have decision-making authority. 01:08:23.140 --> 01:08:26.420 That's what pending matter is trying to cover. 01:08:26.420 --> 01:08:29.700 If we remove that and we replace it with this definition 01:08:29.700 --> 01:08:33.180 of conflict of interest, which says a situation 01:08:33.180 --> 01:08:35.220 in which personal or financial considerations 01:08:35.220 --> 01:08:37.780 actually have or may have the potential to influence, 01:08:37.780 --> 01:08:43.660 is there a specific type of, 'cause we're saying 01:08:43.660 --> 01:08:46.180 the city official has to recuse themselves 01:08:46.180 --> 01:08:48.220 in a conflict of interest, and conflict of interest 01:08:48.220 --> 01:08:50.700 is defined as a situation. 01:08:50.700 --> 01:08:53.700 (overlapping chatter) 01:08:53.700 --> 01:08:57.180 What situations are y'all thinking you want to be 01:08:57.180 --> 01:09:00.460 roped into that, 'cause I think it's kind of tough 01:09:00.460 --> 01:09:05.220 to imagine, there are lots of situations where someone 01:09:05.220 --> 01:09:08.660 might not be using their city official power, 01:09:08.660 --> 01:09:10.700 but might still fall under this definition. 01:09:10.700 --> 01:09:13.940 - But if they're not using their city official power, 01:09:13.940 --> 01:09:16.460 then it would be a conflict of interest. 01:09:16.460 --> 01:09:18.860 - Well, that's what I'm asking, is y'all are defining 01:09:18.860 --> 01:09:19.860 conflict of interest. 01:09:19.860 --> 01:09:21.940 I think that would broaden it enough 01:09:21.940 --> 01:09:24.860 that if somebody's doing something behind the scenes, 01:09:24.860 --> 01:09:28.300 that would be covered, and it should be. 01:09:28.300 --> 01:09:35.980 If you think about conflict of interest 01:09:35.980 --> 01:09:39.580 as advancing something that's gonna benefit you 01:09:39.580 --> 01:09:44.100 and not everybody else, then that's-- 01:09:44.100 --> 01:09:45.940 - Maybe I might be misunderstanding. 01:09:45.940 --> 01:09:48.420 I think maybe Scott is talking about people do things 01:09:48.420 --> 01:09:51.460 that could be considered a conflict of interest 01:09:51.460 --> 01:09:54.780 under the definition of benefiting yourself all the time. 01:09:54.780 --> 01:09:58.860 It's just in the, we're specifically trying to regulate 01:09:58.860 --> 01:10:02.020 in the context of using your official city board, 01:10:02.020 --> 01:10:06.980 is my understanding, so maybe we can add language 01:10:06.980 --> 01:10:11.860 around that, because I mean, like going and doing 01:10:11.860 --> 01:10:15.020 a business deal is something, but if it has nothing 01:10:15.020 --> 01:10:16.980 to do with city business, then we're not trying 01:10:16.980 --> 01:10:19.380 to regulate that. - Oh, no, absolutely not. 01:10:19.380 --> 01:10:20.660 - Is that what you're talking about, Scott? 01:10:20.660 --> 01:10:21.500 - Yeah. - Yeah. 01:10:21.500 --> 01:10:25.140 - You say conflict of interest is official city business? 01:10:25.140 --> 01:10:32.020 Instead of, you could maybe have instead of situation. 01:10:32.020 --> 01:10:37.780 - I guess I'm trying to suggest rewriting this, 01:10:37.780 --> 01:10:42.780 asking if that's, if that actually covers the things 01:10:42.780 --> 01:10:44.900 y'all are thinking, y'all are talking about, 01:10:44.900 --> 01:10:47.580 because this is pulled from the rules that govern us 01:10:47.580 --> 01:10:51.180 as employees, this employee ethics policy is really broad 01:10:51.180 --> 01:10:55.180 because we have a lot of rules about what we're allowed 01:10:55.180 --> 01:10:57.540 to do, both at and away from work. 01:10:57.540 --> 01:10:58.980 We can't have certain things like we have to have 01:10:58.980 --> 01:11:01.660 our secondary employment approved by, 01:11:01.660 --> 01:11:06.100 everyone on city council has a different job, 01:11:06.100 --> 01:11:08.700 and nobody who works, very few people who work 01:11:08.700 --> 01:11:11.020 for the city have a different job. 01:11:11.020 --> 01:11:14.380 The little things like that where it covers situations 01:11:14.380 --> 01:11:18.020 that might be challenging for a city council member 01:11:18.020 --> 01:11:19.780 or a board of ethics member. 01:11:19.780 --> 01:11:25.660 But I just, so, but again, if y'all are okay with it, 01:11:25.660 --> 01:11:28.740 then I understand, but I just, I think that y'all are here 01:11:28.740 --> 01:11:32.020 in taking away the specificity of any matter. 01:11:32.020 --> 01:11:35.180 - It sounds like if we added something to the end 01:11:35.180 --> 01:11:40.180 of that first sentence, so compromised professional 01:11:41.220 --> 01:11:45.900 judgment or actions in there, when acting in their capacity 01:11:45.900 --> 01:11:47.020 as a city official. 01:11:47.020 --> 01:11:51.980 - And deliberating city business, or? 01:11:51.980 --> 01:11:55.100 - And deliberating city business, I like that. 01:11:55.100 --> 01:11:58.580 - Something along those lines, just so that it's, 01:11:58.580 --> 01:12:04.820 so that our city code of ethics applied to city officials 01:12:04.820 --> 01:12:09.820 is applied to their actions when acting as a city official. 01:12:11.780 --> 01:12:16.780 - So Scott, your interpretation of pending matter 01:12:16.780 --> 01:12:24.760 means that it is a matter that is actually city business. 01:12:24.760 --> 01:12:28.980 - Believe it, it's a matter that's pending 01:12:28.980 --> 01:12:30.940 before the board that person's on. 01:12:30.940 --> 01:12:35.940 - And I think that our concern is the pending part, 01:12:35.940 --> 01:12:40.460 because we would like to cover, we would like to cover 01:12:40.460 --> 01:12:44.940 things that are not just immediately pending right now, 01:12:44.940 --> 01:12:47.780 but be broader in that sense. 01:12:47.780 --> 01:12:50.820 But I think, I would agree, we need to make sure 01:12:50.820 --> 01:12:54.740 that the language that we are including only 01:12:54.740 --> 01:12:59.740 is applicable to city business, rather than. 01:12:59.740 --> 01:13:05.980 - Yeah, I like what Dustin said about adding that, 01:13:05.980 --> 01:13:09.420 that at the end of the sentence to where it would be, 01:13:09.420 --> 01:13:14.420 so the conflict of interest arises when a person, 01:13:14.420 --> 01:13:17.440 when a personal and/or financial consideration 01:13:17.440 --> 01:13:22.440 actually influences, or have the potential to influence 01:13:22.440 --> 01:13:26.020 the judgment or action of an individual 01:13:26.020 --> 01:13:29.560 in their official capacity as a city official. 01:13:29.560 --> 01:13:31.100 - Or their deliberations. 01:13:31.100 --> 01:13:32.540 - Or their deliberations, yeah. 01:13:32.540 --> 01:13:34.380 - I like that too. 01:13:34.380 --> 01:13:36.020 Yeah, that would cover it. 01:13:36.020 --> 01:13:36.860 - Yeah. 01:13:37.820 --> 01:13:40.020 - But then it's really clear, it's not. 01:13:40.020 --> 01:13:41.240 - That's a good catch, Scott. 01:13:41.240 --> 01:13:42.340 That one little word there. 01:13:42.340 --> 01:13:43.160 - Yeah. 01:13:43.160 --> 01:13:58.500 - Update that, I'll go back and look at the tape. 01:13:58.500 --> 01:14:00.860 (laughing) 01:14:00.860 --> 01:14:02.060 I didn't catch all that, but. 01:14:02.060 --> 01:14:02.880 - Yeah. 01:14:05.860 --> 01:14:07.860 - So that seems like everybody's generally-- 01:14:07.860 --> 01:14:10.020 - Yeah, I think we're in agreement about that. 01:14:10.020 --> 01:14:12.660 - I think we're all gonna catch everybody. 01:14:12.660 --> 01:14:14.380 So, okay. 01:14:14.380 --> 01:14:15.840 So, move on. 01:14:15.840 --> 01:14:22.980 - So the proposal also included 01:14:22.980 --> 01:14:27.100 in adding this private interest section. 01:14:27.100 --> 01:14:30.380 Based on my review of comparing that 01:14:30.380 --> 01:14:31.780 to what's already in the ordinance, 01:14:31.780 --> 01:14:35.340 a lot of it is already covered, to some extent. 01:14:35.340 --> 01:14:37.660 - Awesome, maybe just take it out. 01:14:37.660 --> 01:14:40.340 - So I don't know, I think it depends 01:14:40.340 --> 01:14:43.980 on if you want it here or if you want to just keep 01:14:43.980 --> 01:14:45.620 what we've been using. 01:14:45.620 --> 01:14:55.340 Like representation of others, I think, 01:14:55.340 --> 01:14:57.940 is a little more specific to city officials versus. 01:14:57.940 --> 01:15:03.780 - You know, as long as we take pending matter out 01:15:03.780 --> 01:15:07.060 with being clear on the other stuff we talked about, 01:15:07.060 --> 01:15:10.340 I don't think some of the other stuff has to be changed. 01:15:10.340 --> 01:15:13.220 - I'm just gonna try it again, I don't think one-- 01:15:13.220 --> 01:15:18.220 - As long as we are clear about the conflict 01:15:18.220 --> 01:15:22.020 and the pending matter being gone 01:15:22.020 --> 01:15:24.980 and adding the deliberation 01:15:24.980 --> 01:15:27.420 and the acting in official capacity, 01:15:27.420 --> 01:15:29.740 I think the other stuff's fine. 01:15:29.740 --> 01:15:32.340 What I did not like was all the numbers and-- 01:15:32.340 --> 01:15:34.700 - Yeah, I think, well, from what I can tell, 01:15:34.700 --> 01:15:37.260 a lot of this is already covered in the ordinance. 01:15:37.260 --> 01:15:41.580 - Okay, so I would recommend not putting it, 01:15:41.580 --> 01:15:43.700 just take it out, okay? 01:15:43.700 --> 01:15:44.900 - You're talking about this-- 01:15:44.900 --> 01:15:46.540 - All those percentage things. 01:15:46.540 --> 01:15:47.380 - Yeah. 01:15:47.380 --> 01:15:50.980 - What are you talking about? 01:15:50.980 --> 01:15:52.260 Are you talking about this paragraph? 01:15:52.260 --> 01:15:54.140 - This four, private section. 01:15:54.140 --> 01:15:58.500 - Yeah, I don't recall I ever have any discussion 01:15:58.500 --> 01:16:00.540 about these sections that are already in the ordinance 01:16:00.540 --> 01:16:03.340 that cover most of that. 01:16:03.340 --> 01:16:05.220 I don't think there's ever been any real concerns 01:16:05.220 --> 01:16:06.060 about most of it. 01:16:06.060 --> 01:16:09.860 - Okay, so everybody in agreement? 01:16:09.860 --> 01:16:10.700 - Yes. 01:16:10.700 --> 01:16:11.820 - So strike. 01:16:11.820 --> 01:16:14.580 - Okay. 01:16:14.580 --> 01:16:18.820 Let's see what you think. 01:16:18.820 --> 01:16:22.940 And then, so a lot of the rest is what? 01:16:22.940 --> 01:16:24.340 This is the whole part. 01:16:24.340 --> 01:16:30.380 There was a question about if peace are still relevant. 01:16:31.540 --> 01:16:33.340 There's not, there wasn't a replacement, 01:16:33.340 --> 01:16:34.820 so I believe this is still relevant. 01:16:34.820 --> 01:16:35.940 - Yep. 01:16:35.940 --> 01:16:40.940 - This is only relevant to the four appointed employees, 01:16:40.940 --> 01:16:45.700 so I don't recommend anything like that either. 01:16:45.700 --> 01:16:49.340 Again, this is not something we've ever had an issue with, 01:16:49.340 --> 01:16:50.180 I don't believe. 01:16:50.180 --> 01:16:56.060 Some of this was, again, covered in the private interest, 01:16:56.060 --> 01:16:57.820 but it's already in here, basically. 01:17:01.060 --> 01:17:04.540 Okay, yeah, and then I think, 01:17:04.540 --> 01:17:09.540 so that covers these first three members. 01:17:09.540 --> 01:17:15.380 Okay, then there's the burden of proof discussion. 01:17:15.380 --> 01:17:18.140 There was a suggestion to remove the duty to report. 01:17:18.140 --> 01:17:23.940 And then this process with board members 01:17:23.940 --> 01:17:27.740 to potentially select the ethics board members, 01:17:27.740 --> 01:17:32.020 new ethics board members, so that's what this is doing. 01:17:32.020 --> 01:17:37.220 I don't know how legal that is, honestly, 01:17:37.220 --> 01:17:40.140 because of the way that the charter 01:17:40.140 --> 01:17:42.260 imbues power to the city council. 01:17:42.260 --> 01:17:47.020 - I was dreaming at that point. 01:17:47.020 --> 01:17:49.100 I had to let it go, yeah. 01:17:49.100 --> 01:17:51.780 - I thought I read somewhere that a person could apply 01:17:51.780 --> 01:17:56.780 to be a member of a board without being asked to. 01:17:56.940 --> 01:17:57.780 - You can't. 01:17:57.780 --> 01:18:01.700 - You can apply, but you would still need to be approved 01:18:01.700 --> 01:18:03.860 by the city council, correct. 01:18:03.860 --> 01:18:06.260 - You still have to be, you can apply, 01:18:06.260 --> 01:18:09.180 you can generally apply to be on any board, 01:18:09.180 --> 01:18:12.340 but you still have to be appointed by a council member. 01:18:12.340 --> 01:18:15.020 So I was not asked to apply. 01:18:15.020 --> 01:18:17.100 I applied and went on to the board, 01:18:17.100 --> 01:18:19.780 and then was nominated by-- 01:18:19.780 --> 01:18:23.820 - Let that go, are you guys okay with that? 01:18:23.820 --> 01:18:24.660 - Yes. 01:18:25.940 --> 01:18:27.900 - Before we get to the burden of proof, 01:18:27.900 --> 01:18:30.460 do we want to talk about the duty to report section? 01:18:30.460 --> 01:18:38.980 I mean, the suggestion was just to remove it, I think. 01:18:38.980 --> 01:18:40.980 So that's the discussion. 01:18:40.980 --> 01:18:42.220 I would not recommend that, 01:18:42.220 --> 01:18:45.660 but that's the discussion for you all right now. 01:18:45.660 --> 01:18:48.300 - Yeah, I don't think we should remove, 01:18:48.300 --> 01:18:50.060 I think the whole thing was revolved around 01:18:50.060 --> 01:18:53.060 that last sentence of the anonymous. 01:18:53.060 --> 01:18:57.220 - Let that go, aren't you guys okay with that? 01:18:57.220 --> 01:19:00.220 - Yeah, I think it should be just the last sentence. 01:19:00.220 --> 01:19:02.460 - Yeah, and we'll come back with research on that. 01:19:02.460 --> 01:19:03.740 - Yeah. 01:19:03.740 --> 01:19:06.540 - How it can confidential complaints 01:19:06.540 --> 01:19:08.340 line up with the open records act. 01:19:08.340 --> 01:19:13.340 - So now we're on to the burden of proof, 01:19:13.340 --> 01:19:19.580 I believe that's the last-- - The burden of proof, yeah. 01:19:23.180 --> 01:19:25.940 (paper rustling) 01:19:25.940 --> 01:19:30.300 - I will just say burden of proof 01:19:30.300 --> 01:19:35.300 is not placed on the complainant anywhere 01:19:35.300 --> 01:19:37.420 in any code I've ever written, 01:19:37.420 --> 01:19:40.140 either in the state or nationally. 01:19:40.140 --> 01:19:43.660 We do have an evidentiary hearing 01:19:43.660 --> 01:19:46.140 and the complaint has to be there. 01:19:46.140 --> 01:19:48.860 So don't know why we have to say it. 01:19:48.860 --> 01:19:50.220 I think it's just one more thing 01:19:50.220 --> 01:19:53.580 that has a chilling effect for people 01:19:53.580 --> 01:19:57.020 who might want to file a complaint 01:19:57.020 --> 01:20:00.020 or might have grounds to file a complaint. 01:20:00.020 --> 01:20:03.620 So I wanna hear what the rest of you think. 01:20:03.620 --> 01:20:05.380 - I agree that it's not necessary 01:20:05.380 --> 01:20:08.260 since evidentiary hearing implies 01:20:08.260 --> 01:20:09.980 they're gonna provide evidence 01:20:09.980 --> 01:20:12.380 and if they don't provide evidence 01:20:12.380 --> 01:20:15.700 then it would be baseless or frivolous. 01:20:15.700 --> 01:20:19.020 - So who has to establish the complaint? 01:20:19.980 --> 01:20:23.900 Or is it on the person complained of 01:20:23.900 --> 01:20:26.260 to establish their defense? 01:20:26.260 --> 01:20:28.500 - It would be on both sides actually. 01:20:28.500 --> 01:20:30.980 - The way it is right now, 01:20:30.980 --> 01:20:33.380 the complainant has to fill out a form 01:20:33.380 --> 01:20:35.100 and provide evidence 01:20:35.100 --> 01:20:39.100 and once that is administratively complete 01:20:39.100 --> 01:20:41.540 that means there is evidence that's clearly, 01:20:41.540 --> 01:20:44.060 whatever the violation is of our ordinance 01:20:44.060 --> 01:20:47.340 is called out in the complaint 01:20:47.340 --> 01:20:50.780 and there is some evidence that that did occur 01:20:50.780 --> 01:20:52.700 then that goes to a, 01:20:52.700 --> 01:20:55.980 once that is established it's complete. 01:20:55.980 --> 01:20:58.620 Then it goes to a three member panel 01:20:58.620 --> 01:21:01.820 and those three members look at that complaint 01:21:01.820 --> 01:21:03.540 and say, all right, well if this did occur 01:21:03.540 --> 01:21:05.820 this is potentially a violation of-- 01:21:05.820 --> 01:21:07.820 - If they determine it's actionable 01:21:07.820 --> 01:21:11.340 then the complainant has to show up. 01:21:11.340 --> 01:21:14.540 - Yeah, and the way-- - So it's implied but-- 01:21:14.540 --> 01:21:17.020 - The way it is set up right now is that 01:21:17.020 --> 01:21:19.140 at, once it gets past that point 01:21:19.140 --> 01:21:20.980 it goes to the entire board. 01:21:20.980 --> 01:21:24.140 The complainant and the respondent have to be there 01:21:24.140 --> 01:21:27.420 and because of this burden approved section 01:21:27.420 --> 01:21:30.300 it is almost like up to the complainant 01:21:30.300 --> 01:21:32.500 to act as a prosecutor. 01:21:32.500 --> 01:21:37.500 And our, in the past, since I've been on the board 01:21:37.500 --> 01:21:41.380 that has been a huge concern by every board member that, 01:21:41.380 --> 01:21:43.500 I mean if I'm, 01:21:43.500 --> 01:21:46.180 I'm not gonna submit a complaint 01:21:46.180 --> 01:21:48.460 if I'm just a citizen of Denton 01:21:48.460 --> 01:21:50.180 and I'm concerned about something 01:21:50.180 --> 01:21:51.900 because I'm not a lawyer 01:21:51.900 --> 01:21:54.300 and I don't wanna get in front of 01:21:54.300 --> 01:21:56.180 a panel of ethics members, 01:21:56.180 --> 01:21:58.060 a council member or a board member 01:21:58.060 --> 01:22:00.700 that I'm making a complaint about 01:22:00.700 --> 01:22:03.380 just because I think they violated the ethics ordinance 01:22:03.380 --> 01:22:05.780 like it's not my role to try them 01:22:05.780 --> 01:22:08.180 or to prosecute them. 01:22:08.180 --> 01:22:12.540 I've provided evidence and I've completed the process. 01:22:12.540 --> 01:22:15.300 It should now be up to the board to review that 01:22:15.300 --> 01:22:17.100 and then make a determination 01:22:17.100 --> 01:22:19.740 and it should be up to the respondent to say 01:22:19.740 --> 01:22:21.540 either I did not do this, 01:22:21.540 --> 01:22:23.660 here's evidence that I did not do this 01:22:23.660 --> 01:22:25.700 or explain to the board members 01:22:25.700 --> 01:22:29.500 why this is not a violation of ethics ordinance. 01:22:29.500 --> 01:22:34.500 So I think our intention has been 01:22:34.500 --> 01:22:37.220 we want to make it so that 01:22:37.220 --> 01:22:41.180 if as a private citizen who is not in politics 01:22:41.180 --> 01:22:46.020 or not an employee of the city or something like that, 01:22:46.020 --> 01:22:49.660 we wanna make it so that if they feel there is a violation, 01:22:49.660 --> 01:22:50.980 they can make a complaint 01:22:50.980 --> 01:22:54.500 and then as long as they've done their part 01:22:54.500 --> 01:22:57.020 of going through the process 01:22:57.020 --> 01:23:00.220 of making the complaint correctly and completely, 01:23:00.220 --> 01:23:05.220 they are no longer required to act as a prosecutor. 01:23:05.220 --> 01:23:10.180 That's, I mean, to me this has been like one of the things 01:23:10.180 --> 01:23:13.180 since I've been on the board that I've just been like this, 01:23:13.180 --> 01:23:16.500 this doesn't feel like this is a good way to-- 01:23:16.500 --> 01:23:18.580 - Shifts the focus to the complainants. 01:23:18.580 --> 01:23:22.140 - Yeah, and there will be times where we-- 01:23:22.140 --> 01:23:23.780 - I know David's been trying to say something. 01:23:23.780 --> 01:23:25.180 - No, that's what I don't wanna-- 01:23:25.180 --> 01:23:29.780 - I will throw out that we have worked on putting in a, 01:23:29.780 --> 01:23:34.140 putting in a section to the ordinance 01:23:34.140 --> 01:23:37.140 to address frivolous complaints 01:23:37.140 --> 01:23:41.780 because that, I think that some of this was 01:23:41.780 --> 01:23:45.240 to combat a bunch of frivolous complaints 01:23:45.240 --> 01:23:49.300 and we worked on some language so that now we can, 01:23:49.300 --> 01:23:54.020 we can deal with that a little bit differently 01:23:54.020 --> 01:23:56.340 than we have in the past where it's kinda like 01:23:56.340 --> 01:23:58.980 there's no team to that. 01:23:58.980 --> 01:23:59.980 - I think that that's a cheat. 01:23:59.980 --> 01:24:01.100 - Yeah, sorry. 01:24:01.100 --> 01:24:03.260 - No, no, no, no, I'm fine, I'm listening. 01:24:03.260 --> 01:24:06.620 No, we have discussed this at length more than once 01:24:06.620 --> 01:24:08.260 and this burden of proof, 01:24:08.260 --> 01:24:10.220 placing this on a citizen complaint. 01:24:10.220 --> 01:24:13.780 They don't have, we've discussed all the drawbacks here. 01:24:13.780 --> 01:24:16.580 They don't have the investigatory tools 01:24:16.580 --> 01:24:19.880 that they need to gather the evidence and present it 01:24:19.880 --> 01:24:22.900 and this is one of the greatest drawbacks 01:24:22.900 --> 01:24:24.660 to this ethics code. 01:24:24.660 --> 01:24:28.260 This is in my 15% toxic category 01:24:28.260 --> 01:24:29.980 that needs to be set aside 01:24:29.980 --> 01:24:34.080 and turn the entire investigation process 01:24:34.080 --> 01:24:36.260 back to the Board of Ethics and make that 01:24:36.260 --> 01:24:39.500 their responsibility to gather evidence 01:24:39.500 --> 01:24:42.200 and present it to the rest of the board 01:24:42.200 --> 01:24:44.660 but once the citizen has filed a complaint, 01:24:44.660 --> 01:24:48.780 done it properly, now, in some cities, 01:24:48.780 --> 01:24:51.020 they're not even required to attend the hearing. 01:24:51.020 --> 01:24:54.080 I'm okay with, you know, if you wanna require 01:24:54.080 --> 01:24:57.500 the complainant to attend the hearing, that's okay 01:24:57.500 --> 01:24:59.540 but that should end their responsibility 01:24:59.540 --> 01:25:03.020 once they have filed an adequate complaint, so. 01:25:05.340 --> 01:25:06.940 - And it's just the fact that it's silent 01:25:06.940 --> 01:25:09.580 and I've never read this anywhere else. 01:25:09.580 --> 01:25:11.260 - Well, except for good reason. 01:25:11.260 --> 01:25:13.740 - And I'm an ethics code nerd. 01:25:13.740 --> 01:25:14.740 - For good reason. 01:25:14.740 --> 01:25:17.460 I don't know who will. 01:25:17.460 --> 01:25:20.820 - I agree, for the most part. 01:25:20.820 --> 01:25:26.140 And again, I'm still just thinking like a lawyer here. 01:25:26.140 --> 01:25:28.780 - Well, it kinda makes it so that the citizen 01:25:28.780 --> 01:25:30.820 might feel like they have to file, 01:25:30.820 --> 01:25:34.060 they have to hire legal counsel to file a complaint 01:25:35.020 --> 01:25:36.960 and I think that's a lot to ask. 01:25:36.960 --> 01:25:41.740 - I agree that a citizen should not be required 01:25:41.740 --> 01:25:43.540 because they don't have the-- 01:25:43.540 --> 01:25:45.100 - Resources. - The resources, 01:25:45.100 --> 01:25:48.180 the knowledge, the expertise to establish a case. 01:25:48.180 --> 01:25:49.020 - Thank you. 01:25:49.020 --> 01:25:52.140 - But we also can't then shift the burden 01:25:52.140 --> 01:25:57.140 to the defendant or the person responding, 01:25:57.140 --> 01:26:00.100 so we cannot do that, I don't think. 01:26:00.100 --> 01:26:01.100 That seems-- 01:26:03.020 --> 01:26:06.020 - Well, they can be represented by counsel. 01:26:06.020 --> 01:26:08.460 - I think that's why the evidentiary hearing 01:26:08.460 --> 01:26:12.900 is so important, the evidentiary hearing 01:26:12.900 --> 01:26:16.900 kinda shifts the burden of proof onto the board, 01:26:16.900 --> 01:26:17.740 in a sense. 01:26:17.740 --> 01:26:18.580 - I say, I like that. 01:26:18.580 --> 01:26:22.340 - Yeah, so if we didn't have that evidentiary hearing, 01:26:22.340 --> 01:26:25.260 then I would be, I wouldn't wanna take this out, 01:26:25.260 --> 01:26:29.940 but I do wanna take it out, because at that point, 01:26:29.940 --> 01:26:34.500 the board kinda takes on that thing 01:26:34.500 --> 01:26:36.620 and we do have an attorney present 01:26:36.620 --> 01:26:38.820 while we're making that decision, so we're. 01:26:38.820 --> 01:26:43.500 - Could we shift the burden to us? 01:26:43.500 --> 01:26:44.820 I don't know that we could do that. 01:26:44.820 --> 01:26:46.740 - Well, I think it's better to-- 01:26:46.740 --> 01:26:48.940 - 'Cause then we become the prosecutor, right? 01:26:48.940 --> 01:26:49.780 That's not good. 01:26:49.780 --> 01:26:51.540 - Yeah, we're not the prosecutors. 01:26:51.540 --> 01:26:55.220 We're just waiting-- - People hearing, yeah. 01:26:55.220 --> 01:26:58.940 - Is that still following the quasi-judicial setting? 01:26:58.940 --> 01:27:00.420 - Yeah, when y'all are doing these hearings, 01:27:00.420 --> 01:27:02.660 that's when you're serving your quasi-judicial role, 01:27:02.660 --> 01:27:06.140 but y'all are, y'all are the adjudicators of being the, 01:27:06.140 --> 01:27:07.500 you can't bear the burden of proof, 01:27:07.500 --> 01:27:10.900 because you're having to assess 01:27:10.900 --> 01:27:12.540 the way that the burden of proof is met. 01:27:12.540 --> 01:27:14.540 - Yeah, I think-- 01:27:14.540 --> 01:27:17.020 - Somebody's gotta bear the burden of proof. 01:27:17.020 --> 01:27:22.560 - See, I've been wanting to shift that onto Madison. 01:27:22.560 --> 01:27:25.040 (audience laughs) 01:27:25.040 --> 01:27:25.880 - Or Joey. 01:27:27.620 --> 01:27:29.220 - I don't recommend that. 01:27:29.220 --> 01:27:31.540 (audience laughs) 01:27:31.540 --> 01:27:32.380 - No, but with all-- 01:27:32.380 --> 01:27:34.020 - I am also subject to the ethics one. 01:27:34.020 --> 01:27:35.700 - With all due respect, though, 01:27:35.700 --> 01:27:39.620 I always thought that there should be 01:27:39.620 --> 01:27:44.540 a neutral third party assessing the evidence 01:27:44.540 --> 01:27:46.860 and gathering the evidence. 01:27:46.860 --> 01:27:50.940 That has always been my, so. 01:27:50.940 --> 01:27:53.820 - I would say I am not a neutral third party, 01:27:53.820 --> 01:27:55.340 because I report to the city. 01:27:55.340 --> 01:27:57.940 - Yes, and that's-- - Yes. 01:27:57.940 --> 01:28:00.460 (audience laughs) 01:28:00.460 --> 01:28:01.420 - Mike. 01:28:01.420 --> 01:28:03.940 - Could we get rid of the last two sentences in there? 01:28:03.940 --> 01:28:07.380 That's soft, and that whole is required to appear. 01:28:07.380 --> 01:28:12.380 That's excessive, a complaint is a failure to testify, 01:28:12.380 --> 01:28:15.980 that is automatically your complaint's done. 01:28:15.980 --> 01:28:19.060 That's excessive, you know, like David's saying, 01:28:19.060 --> 01:28:22.260 once they establish it, however they establish it, 01:28:22.260 --> 01:28:24.820 whether it's through testimony or evidence or whatever, 01:28:24.820 --> 01:28:27.380 and it makes it through the evidentiary committee, 01:28:27.380 --> 01:28:30.900 then, yeah, it seems like their burden is good, 01:28:30.900 --> 01:28:34.620 and they meet that first sentence at that point, 01:28:34.620 --> 01:28:35.860 but those second two sentences-- 01:28:35.860 --> 01:28:39.480 - That is another area we have talked about. 01:28:39.480 --> 01:28:41.380 - Most ethics committees have the ability 01:28:41.380 --> 01:28:43.580 to compel testimony. 01:28:43.580 --> 01:28:44.740 If you're just a complainant, 01:28:44.740 --> 01:28:48.440 you have no power whatsoever putting together the facts. 01:28:48.440 --> 01:28:53.440 Your powers, other than getting documents or whatever. 01:28:53.440 --> 01:28:55.620 - And you're even limited there. 01:28:55.620 --> 01:28:59.640 You can't subpoena the document, you're so limited. 01:28:59.640 --> 01:29:05.560 - And the board has limited subpoena ability, right? 01:29:05.560 --> 01:29:06.940 - Yeah, you can always subpoena. 01:29:06.940 --> 01:29:10.680 - Does that come into play during the evidentiary? 01:29:10.680 --> 01:29:13.420 - Yes, it would be during the formal hearing, 01:29:13.420 --> 01:29:14.900 not during the preliminary hearing, 01:29:14.900 --> 01:29:16.780 but during the complaint. 01:29:16.780 --> 01:29:20.780 - It's a hard one, I don't know. 01:29:20.780 --> 01:29:22.700 - It is a hard one. 01:29:22.700 --> 01:29:25.340 - The way it is now, it's just totally chilling, 01:29:25.340 --> 01:29:27.980 in fact, on the complainants. 01:29:27.980 --> 01:29:38.740 - Are we, I guess we're not voting on all of this tonight, 01:29:38.740 --> 01:29:39.580 are we? 01:29:39.580 --> 01:29:41.940 I don't think we're voting on this. 01:29:41.940 --> 01:29:43.820 - We're not voting. - We're not voting. 01:29:43.820 --> 01:29:46.860 - So what we're doing is making recommendations 01:29:46.860 --> 01:29:48.420 that come into play. - Yeah, so ultimately, 01:29:48.420 --> 01:29:51.560 the process, the board has the authority 01:29:51.560 --> 01:29:54.380 to propose recommended amendments and the ordinance 01:29:54.380 --> 01:29:58.420 to the city council, and they make the ultimate decision 01:29:58.420 --> 01:30:00.700 on whether to accept those, adopt those amendments 01:30:00.700 --> 01:30:02.620 to be in the ordinance. 01:30:02.620 --> 01:30:06.260 - Yeah, I would, I would move just to move the, 01:30:06.260 --> 01:30:09.260 to remove the last two sentences, would be my, 01:30:09.260 --> 01:30:12.900 I don't think we can do away with the entire burden proof, 01:30:12.900 --> 01:30:14.580 'cause then we end up with no evidence. 01:30:14.580 --> 01:30:17.280 - So, tell me, I'm just curious, 01:30:17.280 --> 01:30:21.340 how do you answer that it's not in any other code, 01:30:21.340 --> 01:30:24.540 anywhere, 'cause I've looked all over for it. 01:30:24.540 --> 01:30:27.120 I think David and I both have. 01:30:27.120 --> 01:30:32.500 If it's not a common thing, 01:30:32.500 --> 01:30:34.620 what does Weschler say about burden? 01:30:34.620 --> 01:30:37.820 I know you've read up on what burden of proof. 01:30:37.820 --> 01:30:41.220 - Well, it's up to the board of ethics. 01:30:41.220 --> 01:30:42.660 No, not the complainant. 01:30:42.660 --> 01:30:45.660 I mean, the burden of proof rests totally with the board, 01:30:45.660 --> 01:30:50.140 as they, you know, discuss or propose a hearing. 01:30:51.900 --> 01:30:53.180 If nothing else, they have, you know, 01:30:53.180 --> 01:30:56.540 the legal requirements to gather bad evidence 01:30:56.540 --> 01:30:59.620 cannot rest on the complainant alone. 01:30:59.620 --> 01:31:02.020 - So, technically, we could say, 01:31:02.020 --> 01:31:05.220 we don't have enough information to make this decision, 01:31:05.220 --> 01:31:07.700 and that. 01:31:07.700 --> 01:31:14.700 - What about removing the burden of proof 01:31:14.700 --> 01:31:16.620 and putting a duty to investigate? 01:31:19.780 --> 01:31:21.940 - Getting rid of the burden of proof 01:31:21.940 --> 01:31:25.980 and doing a duty to investigate onto the board. 01:31:25.980 --> 01:31:27.100 - Rather than investigate, 01:31:27.100 --> 01:31:29.780 I'd rather see the way the evidence presented. 01:31:29.780 --> 01:31:32.500 - Well, then, but who has the burden to present evidence? 01:31:32.500 --> 01:31:37.500 - That's implied in the language that would they fill out. 01:31:37.500 --> 01:31:40.860 - The burden to present evidence 01:31:40.860 --> 01:31:44.340 is on the complainant in the complaint submission. 01:31:44.340 --> 01:31:46.220 So, they have to provide evidence 01:31:46.220 --> 01:31:47.060 that there wasn't. - Provide the evidence 01:31:47.060 --> 01:31:49.660 of where they're coming from with their complaint. 01:31:49.660 --> 01:31:52.620 It's just a matter of doing slightly different words 01:31:52.620 --> 01:31:53.860 to make it less. 01:31:53.860 --> 01:31:57.260 - And most of the time, 01:31:57.260 --> 01:31:59.520 most of the time when we've had hearings, 01:31:59.520 --> 01:32:02.540 there hasn't been enough evidence. 01:32:02.540 --> 01:32:04.380 - Yeah, there's not enough evidence. 01:32:04.380 --> 01:32:06.820 - And that comes out in the evidence jury hearing. 01:32:06.820 --> 01:32:10.620 A lot of these complaints are filed 01:32:10.620 --> 01:32:16.700 when people are in a pretty emotional state and they're mad, 01:32:16.700 --> 01:32:19.340 and so they fire off something. 01:32:19.340 --> 01:32:21.580 I mean, what I've noticed, 01:32:21.580 --> 01:32:23.200 and then we have to have a hearing, 01:32:23.200 --> 01:32:26.420 and it's pretty obvious within just a few minutes 01:32:26.420 --> 01:32:28.340 that there's really nothing to it. 01:32:28.340 --> 01:32:31.760 - So, but if we remove this, 01:32:31.760 --> 01:32:36.700 there's now not that little voice in your head 01:32:36.700 --> 01:32:38.480 that says, "Hey, before you submit this, 01:32:38.480 --> 01:32:40.300 "are you gonna be able to prove it?" 01:32:40.300 --> 01:32:43.700 Now that it is a chilling effect, 01:32:43.700 --> 01:32:46.020 but is it a rightful chilling effect to say-- 01:32:46.020 --> 01:32:49.340 - But there's wording of evidence that you have to provide 01:32:49.340 --> 01:32:50.180 evidence. 01:32:50.180 --> 01:32:55.340 - The complainant has to show what part of the code 01:32:55.340 --> 01:32:56.980 it violates, 'cause-- 01:32:56.980 --> 01:33:03.020 - I'm glad they believe there's been an ethical violation. 01:33:03.020 --> 01:33:05.020 - I've had people call me and I'm like, 01:33:05.020 --> 01:33:07.260 that's not a violation of our code. 01:33:07.260 --> 01:33:10.140 Don't file it, don't file a complaint. 01:33:10.140 --> 01:33:11.420 - This is the form. 01:33:16.780 --> 01:33:18.300 - Provide a statement of facts 01:33:18.300 --> 01:33:22.300 constituting the violation, that would be the-- 01:33:22.300 --> 01:33:26.780 - But we're not saying much softer language. 01:33:26.780 --> 01:33:28.320 - Just softening the language. 01:33:28.320 --> 01:33:29.160 - Yeah. 01:33:29.160 --> 01:33:32.180 - Well, and that's because this is going to the public 01:33:32.180 --> 01:33:35.060 as to where our ordinance is us, right? 01:33:35.060 --> 01:33:37.020 It's telling us who has the burden. 01:33:37.020 --> 01:33:39.100 It's telling us what to do, 01:33:39.100 --> 01:33:41.380 not telling the public what to do. 01:33:41.380 --> 01:33:45.020 It's telling them what our requirements and obligations are, 01:33:45.020 --> 01:33:47.660 so they're going to know what to expect when they come in. 01:33:47.660 --> 01:33:53.820 But this is to us, so that that way we can't just say, 01:33:53.820 --> 01:33:56.780 ah, you know what, today the burden is on you, defendant. 01:33:56.780 --> 01:33:59.300 You have to prove your innocence. 01:33:59.300 --> 01:34:03.320 You know, it mandates, it prevents us 01:34:03.320 --> 01:34:05.360 from acting arbitrarily. 01:34:05.360 --> 01:34:07.640 - Well, sure, we don't want to do that. 01:34:07.640 --> 01:34:11.840 - Just replace brutal proof with provide evidence. 01:34:13.580 --> 01:34:18.580 Why you leave an ethical, epic code that's been violated. 01:34:18.580 --> 01:34:22.260 - Yeah, we could rewrite, write it like that, 01:34:22.260 --> 01:34:27.260 and it just says, you know, the complaint must, you know, 01:34:27.260 --> 01:34:29.420 provide sufficient facts and evidence 01:34:29.420 --> 01:34:32.340 to establish the violation, and we can do that. 01:34:32.340 --> 01:34:35.740 - We don't even have to go to evidence, we just have to. 01:34:35.740 --> 01:34:37.340 - Evidence is an aggressive word. 01:34:37.340 --> 01:34:41.260 - Right, we all, as long as we're factual statements. 01:34:41.260 --> 01:34:43.900 And I think the complainant needs to say, 01:34:43.900 --> 01:34:45.660 how does it violate the code? 01:34:45.660 --> 01:34:46.500 - Yeah. 01:34:46.500 --> 01:34:47.620 - You know, what section are we looking at? 01:34:47.620 --> 01:34:48.580 What's the wording? 01:34:48.580 --> 01:34:53.420 I think that's fair, because, 01:34:53.420 --> 01:34:59.780 otherwise you're gonna get these 01:34:59.780 --> 01:35:03.220 really emotional complaints, and that being, 01:35:03.220 --> 01:35:05.820 I mean, there was one we had that was really embarrassing, 01:35:05.820 --> 01:35:10.100 and I felt badly for the person who got complained against, 01:35:10.100 --> 01:35:15.100 and, you know, just, you know, 01:35:15.100 --> 01:35:19.340 you have to take a little, you have to take a step back 01:35:19.340 --> 01:35:22.880 and breathe, and, you know, how's it violate the code? 01:35:22.880 --> 01:35:27.020 - So, amend to just say, you know, 01:35:27.020 --> 01:35:29.060 it's on the complainant to provide facts 01:35:29.060 --> 01:35:30.540 showing the violation. 01:35:30.540 --> 01:35:32.100 - Yeah, that's rich, that's epic. 01:35:32.100 --> 01:35:33.180 So, you got it. 01:35:33.180 --> 01:35:36.860 - I know this is, the complainant has the obligation 01:35:36.860 --> 01:35:39.460 to provide facts. 01:35:39.460 --> 01:35:41.420 - Do we have to call it burdened or approved? 01:35:41.420 --> 01:35:42.260 - No. 01:35:42.260 --> 01:35:44.260 - I was just thinking, what could do, 01:35:44.260 --> 01:35:49.500 establishment of, no, establishing the violation? 01:35:49.500 --> 01:35:52.180 I mean, yeah, well, I don't know, softened language, but. 01:35:52.180 --> 01:35:54.420 - Definitely softer language would be fine. 01:35:54.420 --> 01:35:57.900 I would really appreciate that. 01:35:57.900 --> 01:35:58.820 David? 01:35:58.820 --> 01:36:02.280 - Question for the Chair, or Madison. 01:36:02.280 --> 01:36:04.500 My memory, I apologize. 01:36:04.500 --> 01:36:08.420 Have we not already agreed, six months or a year ago, 01:36:08.420 --> 01:36:12.660 that this burden of proof should be on the delete list 01:36:12.660 --> 01:36:13.500 for our code? 01:36:13.500 --> 01:36:16.140 - Yes, that is why we have a red line, 01:36:16.140 --> 01:36:17.860 but at the same time, we're also trying 01:36:17.860 --> 01:36:19.900 to make this more powerful for the city council. 01:36:19.900 --> 01:36:22.260 - Okay, so we're not debating whether or not it's-- 01:36:22.260 --> 01:36:23.080 - No. 01:36:23.080 --> 01:36:25.100 - Okay. 01:36:25.100 --> 01:36:27.540 - This red line was presented to the city council 01:36:27.540 --> 01:36:28.700 and they rejected it. 01:36:28.700 --> 01:36:29.540 - Yeah, right. 01:36:29.540 --> 01:36:30.660 - This, exactly. 01:36:30.660 --> 01:36:34.100 So, along with trying to update it and make it more powerful. 01:36:34.100 --> 01:36:36.380 - Along with pretty much everything else. 01:36:36.380 --> 01:36:39.940 - Well, I don't know when the time is on our current agenda 01:36:39.940 --> 01:36:43.220 tonight then, but I'm curious what the next, 01:36:43.220 --> 01:36:46.620 I don't wanna get political here, 01:36:46.620 --> 01:36:51.540 but will this be on a city agenda before the next election? 01:36:51.540 --> 01:36:52.780 That issue right there. 01:36:52.780 --> 01:36:55.300 - That was one reason I pushed so hard 01:36:55.300 --> 01:36:56.980 to have a meeting tonight. 01:36:56.980 --> 01:36:59.740 - Well, I hate, I mean, I don't wanna bring this up 01:36:59.740 --> 01:37:02.880 unless it's at the appropriate time, 01:37:02.880 --> 01:37:04.600 but I'd like to know when the city council 01:37:04.600 --> 01:37:06.460 is gonna see this. 01:37:06.460 --> 01:37:10.100 - I don't have it, you don't have a proposal yet, 01:37:10.100 --> 01:37:11.880 so I don't have it on an agenda. 01:37:11.880 --> 01:37:13.620 If you would like me to try to get it 01:37:13.620 --> 01:37:15.660 on a work session agenda, I can do so before the next election. 01:37:15.660 --> 01:37:20.660 - We were told at the last meeting when it kind of blew up, 01:37:20.660 --> 01:37:25.200 basically, that bring in something better. 01:37:25.200 --> 01:37:28.140 And this is hard to hear. 01:37:28.140 --> 01:37:29.500 - Well, do we need to make a motion then 01:37:29.500 --> 01:37:32.540 to get this on the agenda sometime soon? 01:37:32.540 --> 01:37:34.500 Or at least before the next election? 01:37:34.500 --> 01:37:37.020 Because this council's gonna flip today, 01:37:37.020 --> 01:37:40.740 and this may not survive, so, I mean, I'm sorry. 01:37:40.740 --> 01:37:44.220 - Well, the part that I am really unhappy about 01:37:44.220 --> 01:37:46.940 is that we had to wait five months. 01:37:46.940 --> 01:37:50.540 And I think that was a personal decision. 01:37:50.540 --> 01:37:57.020 You know, I do not wanna wait five months again. 01:37:57.020 --> 01:38:01.020 - So can we just a minute to say 01:38:02.460 --> 01:38:06.640 responsibility to establish facts. 01:38:06.640 --> 01:38:07.660 - Or present facts. 01:38:07.660 --> 01:38:09.020 - Or present facts. 01:38:09.020 --> 01:38:11.580 Let's do established. 01:38:11.580 --> 01:38:13.900 Present insinuates that they're gonna be required 01:38:13.900 --> 01:38:15.660 to come to the hearing. 01:38:15.660 --> 01:38:17.140 - They are required to come. 01:38:17.140 --> 01:38:19.140 - Are we, you don't wanna leave that in there? 01:38:19.140 --> 01:38:20.700 - Yeah, we have to. 01:38:20.700 --> 01:38:22.740 We've discussed that a lot. 01:38:22.740 --> 01:38:26.260 - So requirement to establish or to present facts. 01:38:26.260 --> 01:38:28.000 - That are tied to the code. 01:38:28.000 --> 01:38:31.700 - And then that would be the title. 01:38:33.460 --> 01:38:37.180 - Colon, it's on the complaint to provide facts, 01:38:37.180 --> 01:38:41.280 sufficient facts, showing a violation of the code. 01:38:41.280 --> 01:38:44.520 That seems-- - I like that. 01:38:44.520 --> 01:38:46.740 - Soft enough to-- - Yeah. 01:38:46.740 --> 01:38:48.740 - Not chill. 01:38:48.740 --> 01:38:50.660 - Yeah, yeah, I like that. - But still strong enough 01:38:50.660 --> 01:38:53.460 that, you know, in the future, 01:38:53.460 --> 01:38:54.420 nobody's gonna be able to-- - They can't just make up 01:38:54.420 --> 01:38:57.100 any old thing, they have to show some facts. 01:38:57.100 --> 01:39:00.500 - Thinking about it, I just... 01:39:00.500 --> 01:39:02.180 - So let's put something like that in, 01:39:02.180 --> 01:39:04.380 and we'll talk about it at the next meeting, 01:39:04.380 --> 01:39:05.740 and at that point, I guess what we can do. 01:39:05.740 --> 01:39:07.600 - Yeah, I'll just leave it. 01:39:07.600 --> 01:39:08.440 - Okay. 01:39:08.440 --> 01:39:12.020 This is the last item, right? 01:39:12.020 --> 01:39:12.860 - No. 01:39:12.860 --> 01:39:14.300 (laughing) 01:39:14.300 --> 01:39:16.140 - I think we didn't just have a future agenda meeting. 01:39:16.140 --> 01:39:18.540 - You wrote down what-- - Yeah. 01:39:18.540 --> 01:39:20.780 - I did, and it's recorded. 01:39:20.780 --> 01:39:22.860 - So, so-- - For my own, 01:39:22.860 --> 01:39:25.900 can you-- - I believe it would be like, 01:39:25.900 --> 01:39:30.860 responsibility to present facts, 01:39:30.860 --> 01:39:35.860 Homeland, it is the responsibility of the complainant 01:39:35.860 --> 01:39:39.140 to present sufficient facts to establish a violation 01:39:39.140 --> 01:39:41.820 of the ordinance, something like that, 01:39:41.820 --> 01:39:45.700 and then we would still have this language, 01:39:45.700 --> 01:39:47.700 is what I believe-- - Right. 01:39:47.700 --> 01:39:48.860 - The direction it was? 01:39:48.860 --> 01:39:52.980 To require them to still testify at the hearing, 01:39:52.980 --> 01:39:56.580 and then do you still want it to be an automatic dismissal 01:39:56.580 --> 01:39:57.940 if they do not testify? 01:40:00.540 --> 01:40:05.320 - Yeah, I guess it's not really a requirement if it's not. 01:40:05.320 --> 01:40:08.580 - Well, that's another whole issue, honestly. 01:40:08.580 --> 01:40:10.140 - I don't think it should be, but-- 01:40:10.140 --> 01:40:10.980 - I don't think it should be either, but-- 01:40:10.980 --> 01:40:12.420 - It may get struck down by-- 01:40:12.420 --> 01:40:14.100 - I don't think it'll fly. 01:40:14.100 --> 01:40:18.580 But I do think that softer language might fly, 01:40:18.580 --> 01:40:19.780 and that would be... 01:40:19.780 --> 01:40:24.940 Yeah. 01:40:24.940 --> 01:40:28.380 So I like what we've talked about tonight. 01:40:28.380 --> 01:40:33.100 I think this concludes this part of the discussion. 01:40:33.100 --> 01:40:37.380 So can we move on? 01:40:37.380 --> 01:40:38.740 Are you guys okay moving on? 01:40:38.740 --> 01:40:39.580 - Yes. - Yeah. 01:40:39.580 --> 01:40:41.820 - I do have one point of inquiry. 01:40:41.820 --> 01:40:44.160 I'm guessing this is gonna be directed to Scott, 01:40:44.160 --> 01:40:46.580 but is there a motion or something we can file 01:40:46.580 --> 01:40:49.980 to put this on the city council's docket, I don't know. 01:40:49.980 --> 01:40:52.420 - No, he'll have the power to put something on the agenda, 01:40:52.420 --> 01:40:55.540 but there's also no language yet. 01:40:55.540 --> 01:40:59.920 So I think the idea is, the way it's been done, 01:40:59.920 --> 01:41:02.860 is y'all have made recommendations. 01:41:02.860 --> 01:41:05.660 Madison will draft language 01:41:05.660 --> 01:41:09.140 that hopefully accomplishes everything y'all have talked about. 01:41:09.140 --> 01:41:11.840 We'll bring it back. 01:41:11.840 --> 01:41:13.140 I'll help advise a little bit 01:41:13.140 --> 01:41:16.500 to make sure it's legally sound. 01:41:16.500 --> 01:41:20.360 It'll come back, and then you'll approve that language, 01:41:20.360 --> 01:41:22.540 or maybe you might have minor, 01:41:22.540 --> 01:41:24.520 just wordsmithing changes that you wanna make, 01:41:24.520 --> 01:41:26.920 but at that point, you'll have something 01:41:26.920 --> 01:41:28.980 you can actually send to council. 01:41:28.980 --> 01:41:31.740 - My hope is that we can have this mostly firmed up 01:41:31.740 --> 01:41:36.580 at our January meeting, and then say, 01:41:36.580 --> 01:41:38.220 okay, we're ready to. 01:41:38.220 --> 01:41:40.640 - I think we can maybe shoot for April. 01:41:40.640 --> 01:41:45.020 - So timeline-wise, the way it usually works, 01:41:45.020 --> 01:41:47.140 we have a bunch of sessions like this. 01:41:47.140 --> 01:41:48.980 We make changes to the code. 01:41:48.980 --> 01:41:52.120 And then we make one big motion. 01:41:52.120 --> 01:41:53.900 We go through them all again. 01:41:53.900 --> 01:41:55.260 We wanna make one big motion 01:41:55.260 --> 01:41:57.500 so that Madison can get us on the-- 01:41:57.500 --> 01:41:58.960 - Okay. - On the-- 01:41:58.960 --> 01:42:00.100 - And we go through, basically, 01:42:00.100 --> 01:42:02.820 this is how they will be presented to the city council. 01:42:02.820 --> 01:42:05.020 I don't know if you're familiar with the charter process, 01:42:05.020 --> 01:42:07.540 but it's kind of similar, a little bit, 01:42:07.540 --> 01:42:10.420 in where we were like, this is the proposal, 01:42:10.420 --> 01:42:12.100 this is the next proposal, 01:42:12.100 --> 01:42:14.180 so that they can consider them separately. 01:42:14.180 --> 01:42:16.540 - Okay. - Perfect. 01:42:16.540 --> 01:42:18.100 - So I know that council members 01:42:18.100 --> 01:42:20.980 do have the ability to fast-track something. 01:42:20.980 --> 01:42:23.460 - I'm not a council member, 01:42:23.460 --> 01:42:24.940 but-- (laughs) 01:42:24.940 --> 01:42:26.180 - I know they do. 01:42:26.180 --> 01:42:30.180 We will have to chat some more. 01:42:30.180 --> 01:42:34.700 Okay, so we're on to the last item. 01:42:34.700 --> 01:42:39.140 EBOE24-052, Receiver of a Portable Discussion 01:42:39.140 --> 01:42:42.480 that Gives Stat Direction Regarding Future Meeting Topics. 01:42:42.480 --> 01:42:50.380 - So one of the things, yeah, 01:42:50.380 --> 01:42:52.580 so one of the things that you've already talked about 01:42:52.580 --> 01:42:56.900 as the language for, 01:42:56.900 --> 01:43:00.060 or that we talked about newly tonight 01:43:00.060 --> 01:43:02.700 was the Open Meetings Act 01:43:02.700 --> 01:43:07.700 and on this confidential complaint process. 01:43:07.700 --> 01:43:11.300 You brought that up tonight. 01:43:11.300 --> 01:43:12.140 - Yes. 01:43:12.140 --> 01:43:16.660 - And then these are other things 01:43:16.660 --> 01:43:18.380 that we have discussed before. 01:43:19.860 --> 01:43:22.700 Council did give direction to the board 01:43:22.700 --> 01:43:24.220 to try to provide guidance 01:43:24.220 --> 01:43:25.980 on interactions with petitioners. 01:43:25.980 --> 01:43:31.400 I was brought up and there was not necessarily 01:43:31.400 --> 01:43:35.180 a clear timeline on that that they gave direction on. 01:43:35.180 --> 01:43:38.220 - I would just like to ask that we put 01:43:38.220 --> 01:43:42.860 these proposed changes at the top of the agenda. 01:43:42.860 --> 01:43:44.100 - In case we run out of time. 01:43:44.100 --> 01:43:47.540 - Yeah, and I don't care what follows after that, 01:43:47.540 --> 01:43:51.580 but I want to get this done as quickly as we can 01:43:51.580 --> 01:43:55.420 because I know how they delay things. 01:43:55.420 --> 01:43:56.260 - What is the, 01:43:56.260 --> 01:44:01.780 what is the bullet you want under a new item? 01:44:01.780 --> 01:44:02.980 What is council asking? 01:44:02.980 --> 01:44:10.180 - I don't have a lot of more clear direction on it than this. 01:44:10.180 --> 01:44:13.340 So the city council has a process, 01:44:13.340 --> 01:44:14.580 the two minute pitch process 01:44:14.580 --> 01:44:17.300 where they can propose items to each other 01:44:17.300 --> 01:44:21.580 basically one of the council members proposed 01:44:21.580 --> 01:44:24.260 basically asking the board of ethics 01:44:24.260 --> 01:44:27.620 to provide guidance on how they should interact 01:44:27.620 --> 01:44:32.620 with other, it's like petitioners, applicants, developers. 01:44:32.620 --> 01:44:38.660 And I can bring back the exact language 01:44:38.660 --> 01:44:41.180 in that proposal that they gave direction to go forward with 01:44:41.180 --> 01:44:45.940 but that is about the extent of the direction included. 01:44:45.940 --> 01:44:50.940 - So maybe we could make that our next item to look at. 01:44:50.940 --> 01:44:52.140 - Sounds like that. 01:44:52.140 --> 01:44:55.820 That should probably be a question in an advisory opinion. 01:44:55.820 --> 01:45:00.140 If they can request an advisory opinion. 01:45:00.140 --> 01:45:02.780 I don't know how we're going to provide, 01:45:02.780 --> 01:45:06.140 can't just provide guidance to them on how they can act. 01:45:06.140 --> 01:45:10.700 I mean, that's my, that would be my response to that. 01:45:10.700 --> 01:45:12.940 If they have a specific request-- 01:45:12.940 --> 01:45:13.780 - Tell us more, please. 01:45:13.780 --> 01:45:16.340 - We can ask for an advisory opinion 01:45:16.340 --> 01:45:18.300 because there's no mechanism for us 01:45:18.300 --> 01:45:20.460 to give them guidance on anything. 01:45:20.460 --> 01:45:23.980 We can provide recommendations for changing the ordinance 01:45:23.980 --> 01:45:26.060 that they get to vote on and approve 01:45:26.060 --> 01:45:30.660 but other than our advisory opinions, 01:45:30.660 --> 01:45:33.820 there's not a way for us to give them guidance. 01:45:33.820 --> 01:45:34.660 - I would agree. 01:45:34.660 --> 01:45:37.020 It seems like it's outside of our scope. 01:45:37.020 --> 01:45:41.220 - And then the proposed changes from the, 01:45:41.220 --> 01:45:44.020 we just discussed it today and said that's gone, so. 01:45:44.020 --> 01:45:49.340 I would say just start working down the list 01:45:49.340 --> 01:45:54.140 but I feel fairly confident that in the next meeting, 01:45:54.140 --> 01:45:56.740 we're going to spend the whole time talking about 01:45:56.740 --> 01:45:58.980 these changes that we've gone over tonight 01:45:58.980 --> 01:46:01.980 and to me, that's enough. 01:46:01.980 --> 01:46:09.060 - Oh, we had discussed some of the advisory opinion. 01:46:09.060 --> 01:46:11.820 That was on the research. 01:46:11.820 --> 01:46:18.180 So we had a question about how other cities, 01:46:18.180 --> 01:46:21.580 what requirements they have 01:46:21.580 --> 01:46:23.540 around the advisory opinion process 01:46:23.540 --> 01:46:24.740 but we haven't done that research yet 01:46:24.740 --> 01:46:26.620 but that was the request to look into that 01:46:26.620 --> 01:46:28.020 and present it to the board. 01:46:28.020 --> 01:46:33.100 - All of these are things I want to discuss 01:46:33.100 --> 01:46:36.420 but I think this bigger package is the thing 01:46:36.420 --> 01:46:38.420 that we need to get taken care of 01:46:38.420 --> 01:46:41.660 and then we'll get on to other things. 01:46:41.660 --> 01:46:45.300 - So where this, for next time we'll do, 01:46:45.300 --> 01:46:47.020 we'll have the conflict of interest 01:46:47.020 --> 01:46:49.780 and burden of food proposal which will be different. 01:46:49.780 --> 01:46:50.900 It won't be burden of food anymore 01:46:50.900 --> 01:46:55.140 but I'll bring back language we all will discuss 01:46:55.140 --> 01:46:57.380 and try to break them up into different proposals 01:46:57.380 --> 01:47:01.900 if necessary and then maybe in February, 01:47:01.900 --> 01:47:04.180 we can hopefully have, this is the packet 01:47:04.180 --> 01:47:06.260 that we're going to send to them 01:47:06.260 --> 01:47:09.460 and then either March or a guy can ask 01:47:09.460 --> 01:47:12.060 if we can get out on the work session in March or April. 01:47:12.060 --> 01:47:13.900 - March. 01:47:13.900 --> 01:47:15.620 - Please. 01:47:15.620 --> 01:47:18.220 - Question for Madison. 01:47:18.220 --> 01:47:19.660 Are we at the point where anything 01:47:19.660 --> 01:47:23.420 that we ultimately recommend can go to the agenda 01:47:23.420 --> 01:47:27.100 or is it going to end up in one of their work sessions again? 01:47:27.100 --> 01:47:31.420 - Process that we historically followed 01:47:31.420 --> 01:47:33.100 is it goes to work session first 01:47:33.100 --> 01:47:36.060 so that they can provide direction on adoption or not. 01:47:36.060 --> 01:47:37.340 - So even the burden of proof, 01:47:37.340 --> 01:47:39.260 we'll go back to a work session? 01:47:39.260 --> 01:47:40.100 - Yes. 01:47:40.100 --> 01:47:52.500 - So our next meeting is Monday, January 6th. 01:47:52.500 --> 01:47:59.260 - At that meeting, we'll also discuss the schedule 01:47:59.260 --> 01:48:00.980 for the rest of the calendar year 01:48:00.980 --> 01:48:02.940 and then we'll have elections as well. 01:48:02.940 --> 01:48:05.260 - Okay, that should be an inch at night. 01:48:05.260 --> 01:48:06.100 - Yes, it's on there. 01:48:06.100 --> 01:48:07.180 - All right. 01:48:07.180 --> 01:48:08.300 - All right. 01:48:08.300 --> 01:48:11.340 - Okay, so it is now 7.23 p.m. 01:48:11.340 --> 01:48:13.580 I thank all of you for being here tonight 01:48:13.580 --> 01:48:17.780 so close to the holidays and we are adjourned. 01:48:17.780 --> 01:48:18.620 - Thank you. 01:48:18.620 --> 01:48:19.620 - Thank you.