1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:09,180
 Today is Monday January 6, 2025. It is 6 p.m. This is the Board of Ethics meeting

2
00:00:09,180 --> 00:00:16,440
 and we are going to look at item one on the agenda presentation from members of

3
00:00:16,440 --> 00:00:22,440
 the public and we have one presentation from Charles Lee.

4
00:00:27,920 --> 00:00:36,560
 So I believe you have three minutes so if you will state your name and address.

5
00:00:36,560 --> 00:00:42,640
 Good evening. My name is Charles Lee. I live on Elm Street. I just want to say

6
00:00:42,640 --> 00:00:48,320
 the last time I was here I heard a lot of disturbing things about

7
00:00:48,320 --> 00:00:55,360
 process and I just want to understand that even though this might be just a

8
00:00:55,360 --> 00:01:01,360
 judicial board and I think Board of Ethics, the Constitution is still full

9
00:01:01,360 --> 00:01:05,080
 force of effect. I had a little discussion with you people before that

10
00:01:05,080 --> 00:01:11,440
 you all took up to the Constitution and I heard statements about and I think you

11
00:01:11,440 --> 00:01:15,720
 have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. This system is a

12
00:01:15,720 --> 00:01:20,720
 supremacy clause. It's the law of the land so anywhere you go in this country

13
00:01:20,720 --> 00:01:25,920
 you see the flag outside it's you know the Constitution is in effect and when

14
00:01:25,920 --> 00:01:29,440
 you have these own complaintants following these complaints and then you

15
00:01:29,440 --> 00:01:35,000
 have the accused, the defendant. I just want to say that the defendant has the

16
00:01:35,000 --> 00:01:41,280
 presumption of innocence. That person is innocent until the complaintant actually

17
00:01:41,280 --> 00:01:46,200
 has actual evidence that they have the burden to prove to prove their case. They

18
00:01:46,200 --> 00:01:52,920
 have to prove that whoever they're accusing actually is guilty and there is

19
00:01:52,920 --> 00:01:58,120
 a, I'm not an entity, I understand that, but eventually at a certain point they

20
00:01:58,120 --> 00:02:02,560
 have to come up in front of everybody in the public. They've got to look the

21
00:02:02,560 --> 00:02:06,440
 accused or the defendant or whoever they're accusing did any kind of wrongdoing.

22
00:02:06,440 --> 00:02:11,680
 They've got to look them in the eye and tell them they did it publicly and that's our

23
00:02:11,680 --> 00:02:17,480
 constitutional system. It hasn't changed and if you start deviating that process

24
00:02:17,480 --> 00:02:23,680
 you're just setting up the town for lawsuits and as a taxpayer I'm tired of

25
00:02:23,680 --> 00:02:28,440
 paying the town's lawsuits. If you go to court that's the way it's going to be and it hasn't

26
00:02:28,440 --> 00:02:33,800
 changed and I highly suggest that people start looking into their fourth, fifth, and

27
00:02:33,800 --> 00:02:37,960
 sixth amendments because they haven't changed. It's been going off for this

28
00:02:37,960 --> 00:02:42,740
 country that way for over 200 years now and I would like to keep it going and

29
00:02:42,740 --> 00:02:48,280
 that's all I have to say. Have a nice night. Thank you very much Mr. Booth.

30
00:02:48,280 --> 00:02:58,720
 Okay, item two, items for consideration. Item A, BOE 25-002. Receive

31
00:02:58,720 --> 00:03:03,960
 nominations and hold an election of a chair and vice chair.

32
00:03:03,960 --> 00:03:17,000
 Can you be re-elected? Is that something that you can be re-elected? Yes. Okay well

33
00:03:17,000 --> 00:03:23,280
 I'm new to this committee. I don't know the job you've done but I do believe in

34
00:03:23,280 --> 00:03:29,800
 experience and so I would recommend that you be chairing it.

35
00:03:29,800 --> 00:03:37,880
 I'll second that. Do I hear any other nominations? Make sure we're being fair.

36
00:03:37,880 --> 00:03:50,120
 I do want to do it. So all in favor raise your hand. So it's unanimous. Okay now

37
00:03:50,120 --> 00:03:56,920
 nominations for vice chair. I'd like to nominate Dustin for vice chair. I would

38
00:03:56,920 --> 00:04:02,320
 second that. Okay any other nominations for Dustin?

39
00:04:02,320 --> 00:04:12,320
 Not for Dustin. For vice chair. For vice. Okay so, and you're okay with doing it?

40
00:04:12,320 --> 00:04:21,240
 No. Okay. So all in favor raise your hands. Okay so I will continue as chair. Does

41
00:04:21,240 --> 00:04:31,040
 someone need a vice chair? Yes. Yeah I abstain from the vice chair. Okay we have

42
00:04:31,040 --> 00:04:43,760
 one abstention. Sorry. So I want to make sure I got it correct. Okay item B, BOE 25-003. Hold the

43
00:04:43,760 --> 00:04:50,240
 discussion and consider an adoption of the 2025 meeting schedule. May I first

44
00:04:50,240 --> 00:04:56,400
 just ask last week Diane was not able to be here and I would like to have her

45
00:04:56,400 --> 00:05:03,400
 introduce herself and maybe have each of you. Well I'll try to keep it short. It's been a

46
00:05:03,400 --> 00:05:09,240
 long career but I was a college coach. I was also the assistant athletic

47
00:05:09,240 --> 00:05:20,120
 director for 17 years for Stephen F. Austin and I'm an author. I am in five Hall of

48
00:05:20,120 --> 00:05:24,720
 Thames because I think they thought I was going to die so they all put me in it.

49
00:05:24,720 --> 00:05:29,680
 And I currently am the national promotions director for three and two

50
00:05:29,680 --> 00:05:38,600
 which is a clothing line and in baseball and softball and I was the national

51
00:05:38,600 --> 00:05:44,680
 promotions director for the Shutt Sports if you like football. Most of the

52
00:05:44,680 --> 00:05:49,000
 football helmets were made by Shutt Sports and I was also in the baseball

53
00:05:49,000 --> 00:05:53,920
 softball. During my time which is the most important thing for me to tell you

54
00:05:53,920 --> 00:06:00,240
 during my time with my organization I was the author of the ethics code that

55
00:06:00,240 --> 00:06:05,640
 has 9,000 members. I loved ethics. I wanted to be on this committee for a

56
00:06:05,640 --> 00:06:11,160
 long time. It's very important for me that the standards are upheld and that

57
00:06:11,160 --> 00:06:15,880
 we do the right thing the best we can. So I'm really happy to be here. I'm sorry I

58
00:06:15,880 --> 00:06:21,520
 missed last week but I I've watched you and I'm going to be different because

59
00:06:21,520 --> 00:06:27,880
 I'm more, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a council person. I had I've come from a

60
00:06:27,880 --> 00:06:34,080
 different area and when I speak it's from my heart and what I believe in and I

61
00:06:34,080 --> 00:06:39,320
 won't bear from that. So I just want to thank you for allowing me to be on this

62
00:06:39,320 --> 00:06:47,040
 committee. We're glad to have you back. Welcome. Thank you. I guess you heard the introductions we all made to each other. Ma'am? You heard the

63
00:06:47,040 --> 00:06:52,760
 introductions that we made to each other. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Good. Yeah.

64
00:06:52,760 --> 00:06:58,160
 Perfect. So. Okay. Thank you. If you have any questions for me I'd be more happy to. Yeah.

65
00:06:58,160 --> 00:07:02,320
 You have an impressive background. Thank you. Thank you.

66
00:07:02,320 --> 00:07:09,120
 So we'll move on to item B-BOE25-03, hold a discussion and consider

67
00:07:09,120 --> 00:07:17,000
 adoption of the 2025 meeting schedule. So there's two possibilities. Yeah, so

68
00:07:17,000 --> 00:07:21,280
 historically we met on the first Monday of each month. Some members have raised

69
00:07:21,280 --> 00:07:25,800
 concerns that that doesn't, that could be easier if we just change to the second

70
00:07:25,800 --> 00:07:31,600
 Monday. So I presented both the options. That would also allow us to meet during

71
00:07:31,600 --> 00:07:37,520
 months that we've previously not been able to meet, if we would like to. So on the

72
00:07:37,520 --> 00:07:41,360
 right side of the screen is the second Monday of every month. On the left side

73
00:07:41,360 --> 00:07:46,800
 is the first Monday. What this is going to look like. I staff recommends continuing to meet at

74
00:07:46,800 --> 00:07:52,440
 530 if possible. That still works for everybody, but it's really up to y'all.

75
00:07:52,440 --> 00:08:01,640
 So what's your pleasure? I do know, I hate to be new. I want to be at the

76
00:08:01,640 --> 00:08:08,360
 meetings. It's very important to me. On March the 2nd through the 17th, I am in

77
00:08:08,360 --> 00:08:16,080
 charge of an event going on in Florida. And I'm willing to work, go earlier or

78
00:08:16,080 --> 00:08:20,240
 later, but that's the only day that's conflicting with me. Rest of the year

79
00:08:20,240 --> 00:08:25,600
 should be a piece of cake, but I do have that conflict and I don't want to miss

80
00:08:25,600 --> 00:08:32,120
 the meetings if you can agree that. So if you have to miss a meeting, you

81
00:08:32,120 --> 00:08:37,080
 have to fill out a form to say that you're going to miss a meeting. And I

82
00:08:37,080 --> 00:08:44,680
 think you're allowed to miss it during your term, is that? I do not remember. It's

83
00:08:44,680 --> 00:08:50,880
 two during your term or two a year. I think it's a year. And I think for work or

84
00:08:50,880 --> 00:08:55,120
 something is excused and that doesn't count towards that. Yeah, vacation does

85
00:08:55,120 --> 00:09:04,680
 not, but that's clearly work. So I kind of like the second, the second week that

86
00:09:04,680 --> 00:09:09,720
 would be my preference because I hated it last summer when we weren't able to

87
00:09:09,720 --> 00:09:16,440
 meet. We had stuff that we felt like we needed to be doing. So. I'm one of, I'm

88
00:09:16,440 --> 00:09:20,680
 one of the ones that asked to move it to the SEC just because I have, I have other

89
00:09:20,680 --> 00:09:25,160
 responsibilities that are on the first Monday that I have no, I have absolutely

90
00:09:25,160 --> 00:09:30,120
 no control over when those meetings are happening. So it would make it a little

91
00:09:30,120 --> 00:09:35,680
 bit easier for me to be here. And I do like, I do like the fact, just like you

92
00:09:35,680 --> 00:09:39,680
 said, that if we move to the second, the second Monday, then we'll have, we're not

93
00:09:39,680 --> 00:09:44,040
 going to run into all of those holidays that have prevented us from meeting. So if

94
00:09:44,040 --> 00:09:50,400
 there are things to be discussed, we can. So is there anybody really wanting the

95
00:09:50,400 --> 00:10:01,240
 first Monday of the month? Okay. So you want, do we need to make a motion for that?

96
00:10:01,240 --> 00:10:07,240
 Well, I think we have to adopt it technically. So we do need a motion. Okay. And I mean to

97
00:10:07,240 --> 00:10:10,800
 remember, Baker's plan, if we wanted to change the March date, we could do that

98
00:10:10,800 --> 00:10:17,280
 easily right now so that she, you know, she knows she could attend. But that's up to

99
00:10:17,280 --> 00:10:22,360
 y'all as well. Well, one was for my family and I know that's not excused. The other

100
00:10:22,360 --> 00:10:25,720
 one is business. And I know that's not excused. But I don't want to get to a

101
00:10:25,720 --> 00:10:35,680
 situation, I'm just starting and I'm getting kicked off. So. Yeah, we're not going to get kicked off here. Yeah. So. But I think

102
00:10:35,680 --> 00:10:40,920
 we've all run into that issue, right? Where. I think that's unlikely to happen. Yeah. And it's the same

103
00:10:40,920 --> 00:10:44,920
 thing. It's like I know that I will not be here on July 14th if we choose to meet

104
00:10:44,920 --> 00:10:53,880
 in July. So. But. But it's a work thing. Yeah. I think. I'd say just go with that

105
00:10:53,880 --> 00:11:07,120
 schedule as is. And the 530 is not a better option. Right. So do I hear a motion? You're going with

106
00:11:07,120 --> 00:11:17,480
 the second one? Yes. I move. Second option. Okay. Second. I second that. Andrea seconded. So all in favor?

107
00:11:17,480 --> 00:11:37,840
 Aye. It's unanimous. Okay. So. Item C. BOE 25-004. Consider approval of minutes for December 16th, 2024. Does anybody see any

108
00:11:37,840 --> 00:11:52,920
 changes that need to occur? There was no voting, but I can see any subject during those minutes. Is that correct? No, we're just considering all those

109
00:11:52,920 --> 00:12:09,040
 options. Okay. There was a vote on the minutes, but that was the online. Right. Well, on the last meeting. Okay. I'll move to adopt. Andrea moved to adopt the minutes from

110
00:12:09,040 --> 00:12:29,080
 December 16th. I'll second. Public seconded. So all in favor? Aye. It's unanimous. Okay. Item D. BOE 25-006. Receive a report, hold a

111
00:12:29,080 --> 00:12:41,360
 discussion, and give staff direction regarding potential changes to the City of Denton Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Article 11, Section 2-269,

112
00:12:41,360 --> 00:13:03,160
 definition Section 2-277, Board of Ethics in Section 2-281, Hearings. So. Yes. Based on the discussion last time, I revised some of the

113
00:13:03,160 --> 00:13:13,400
 language that we had presented, and then I got some feedback from the city attorney's office on that. So I can pull up the red lines. That kind of shows

114
00:13:13,400 --> 00:13:22,080
 everything. But based on discussion with the city attorney's office, we recommend keeping the thresholds in there and maybe combining that a little bit so that

115
00:13:22,080 --> 00:13:43,320
 there's clear guidelines, and then cleaning up some of the two sections a little bit after this. So we can discuss that a little further. So one of the things that this would do, it

116
00:13:43,320 --> 00:13:57,320
 removes the definition of pending matter, it redefines relative, and then removes the definition of conflicting interest, and creates a definition of conflict of

117
00:13:57,320 --> 00:14:07,440
 interest. So this is kind of the language that came up with and then gave to Scott and then got comments back on that, but we didn't quite make it in time to

118
00:14:07,440 --> 00:14:19,840
 readjust that. So essentially, this is what you saw last time, except a couple of changes. I think after discussing with the city attorney's office, we might combine these two

119
00:14:19,840 --> 00:14:32,720
 paragraphs since they're very similar, and a little just because it's just kind of, it's not necessary. But then we do recommend keeping these thresholds so that there is some

120
00:14:32,720 --> 00:14:42,800
 clear guidance on what absolutely is a conflict of interest, as well as this additional general guidance. Does that make sense? It's kind of like what's going on in the gifts

121
00:14:42,800 --> 00:15:04,880
 section where we have this general violation, but then the specific information as well. So is everybody following? Any questions? Any discussion? Can your, the section that you said

122
00:15:04,880 --> 00:15:17,440
 would get added back in with the thresholds? It's that section. Right, so it wouldn't necessarily have this definition piece, but we incorporate these specific

123
00:15:17,440 --> 00:15:28,240
 thresholds back in so that there are clear definitions of absolutely it's a violation if you are voting on something or deliberating on something where it fits your

124
00:15:28,240 --> 00:15:38,960
 employers, right? So creating kind of those very clear guidelines, as well as having, giving a little more wiggle room for the board to interpret these general rules about

125
00:15:38,960 --> 00:15:54,640
 financial or personal interests that might be impacted different than a substantial segment of the city's population. Does that make more sense? And then this is how we would redefine relative as

126
00:15:54,640 --> 00:16:20,240
 well, which is up here. So, discussion? I think we kind of went over it. Right, it's very similar. The only big kind of thing that didn't get changed in this version that we would

127
00:16:20,240 --> 00:16:31,280
 change in the next version that we present to you in February is that those specific thresholds would be reincorporated. There are any ordinance currently, so we just keep some of that information.

128
00:16:31,280 --> 00:16:49,040
 Okay. Because we want to make sure that we're giving clear guidelines so that there's no issues with due process. Just a general thought. This change right here really pretty much aligns us with the other cities

129
00:16:49,040 --> 00:17:06,000
 that have a code based on the model code and really fixes a lot of the problems that we've had in my opinion. This is one of the two things I think is really important. Yeah, so I'm, you know, there might be a word or two, and we've kind of gotten

130
00:17:06,000 --> 00:17:24,880
 down that word tweaking trail. But these are concepts, again. This is something that we need to kind of model ourselves after understanding that the model code has years and many, many, many people smarter than us that have gone through all of this exactly.

131
00:17:24,880 --> 00:17:37,680
 So I'm very much in favor, again, there might be a word or two here and there, but I think that's the general thrust of where we're heading, and I'm very much in favor of where we're at with the conflict change.

132
00:17:37,680 --> 00:18:07,600
 It would broaden the definition. The one we have had is very narrow. You would have to thread the needle so tightly that you probably, I can't see that anything would ever be. Yeah. And the other part that I don't like about the old one was that there's a go around, and that you can, as long as you vote on whatever you're going to do first, you can do whatever you want to.

133
00:18:07,600 --> 00:18:28,480
 Afterwards, and this, you know, basically a conflict of interest is something that benefits you and doesn't benefit everybody else on the council, or everybody else in the city, actually. So I like this broader definition, because if it's only benefiting you, that's good.

134
00:18:28,480 --> 00:18:53,280
 And not only that, this fixes one of the problems that we had with the original, in my opinion, where it adds or may have the potential. This is kind of future-oriented as well. So it's not just the pending matters that are before, but this opens the door to the possibility that something may be slipping through into the future that would be missed with that older language.

135
00:18:53,280 --> 00:19:04,320
 So this is broader, more encompassing of a general ethics code. So this future, or may have the potential, to me is a key to this improvement.

136
00:19:04,320 --> 00:19:19,120
 What is a household member? Any partner, a spouse, a child, a parent? So it's not somebody in your house that runs your room?

137
00:19:19,120 --> 00:19:30,720
 The definition is anyone whose primary residence is the city official's home, including non-relatives who are not renters. So not a renter.

138
00:19:30,720 --> 00:19:46,560
 Can I ask a question regarding, because we have, the way it's redlined right now, the way we're talking about the specific thresholds, right?

139
00:19:46,560 --> 00:20:12,640
 There, because we have a definition of conflict of interest. So do you envision making these specific thresholds that we had deliberated a very long time ago to be more in the section of disclosure requirements?

140
00:20:12,640 --> 00:20:31,440
 Like right above it? Or how will we, because I like the idea of having, like you explained, that it would keep some of those very specifics that council members have kind of asked for.

141
00:20:31,440 --> 00:20:41,840
 To keep them in, I think what we should look at is how we want to incorporate them, because I think it would be very confusing if we have a definition of conflict of interest

142
00:20:41,840 --> 00:20:53,920
 that is a broad definition above, under section one, and then we'll have the same kind of definition of conflict of interest.

143
00:20:53,920 --> 00:21:07,520
 So I personally, to me it would make sense to incorporate those specific thresholds under those disclosure requirements, because then it is very straightforward to say,

144
00:21:07,520 --> 00:21:16,960
 if you are, if you're a council member and you have ownership of 5%, then you need to reduce yourself from that deliberation.

145
00:21:16,960 --> 00:21:27,440
 Okay. Yeah, I'm obviously all working with the City of China's office on trying to make the language fit while keeping those in there.

146
00:21:27,440 --> 00:21:48,960
 Okay. Do we, being nit-picky again here, under A1, so we're definition of conflict of interest, I like the future language as well.

147
00:21:48,960 --> 00:22:02,240
 Do we need to add in there that something is known that it could have a future impact, right, so may have an impact.

148
00:22:02,240 --> 00:22:12,960
 What if I don't know about the potential impact, right, so I don't know, I feel like we need to narrow down that future a little bit to like,

149
00:22:12,960 --> 00:22:18,560
 it's not a conflict of interest if you don't know that this is going to happen or that this could benefit you in the future.

150
00:22:18,560 --> 00:22:30,320
 Okay, I like the word foreseeable. That may or may foreseeably have the potential to influence, yeah.

151
00:22:30,320 --> 00:22:36,400
 Potentially, yeah. Yeah, yeah, just something that...

152
00:22:36,400 --> 00:22:45,680
 Yeah, that's right, yeah, I mean something might be a conflict in a year, but you wouldn't know about it when you vote.

153
00:22:45,680 --> 00:22:56,080
 Makes sense.

154
00:22:56,080 --> 00:22:57,760
 Okay, I've noted that down.

155
00:22:57,760 --> 00:23:05,680
 Okay, do we need to vote on each of these items? Okay, okay, okay, so we're still...

156
00:23:05,680 --> 00:23:06,880
 Working through the language.

157
00:23:06,880 --> 00:23:09,200
 Hammering, okay.

158
00:23:09,200 --> 00:23:18,720
 And then, so any other on this conflict of interest part, because there's also the burden of proof section.

159
00:23:18,720 --> 00:23:26,800
 In the mandate section before that, paragraphs C under business disclosures, we still have pending matter in there.

160
00:23:26,800 --> 00:23:28,160
 Oh, okay.

161
00:23:28,160 --> 00:23:40,880
 So we may need to clean that up somehow, because it's not defined, and actually it's C and D, the business disclosures and disclosure process.

162
00:23:40,880 --> 00:23:54,240
 And then under the last sentence of the business disclosure paragraph, it says...

163
00:23:54,240 --> 00:24:06,320
 Basically says that you can still deliberate absent of conflicting interest, maybe just change that to conflict of interest as described below or something.

164
00:24:06,320 --> 00:24:13,280
 Yeah, yeah, I'm sorry, I'll make sure that gets updated to make it consistent through that section as well.

165
00:24:13,280 --> 00:24:26,640
 I think that's the only place I saw that's... I may have missed it somewhere else, but that's the only place that I saw that those are still in the body of the text, but we're striking that from the definition.

166
00:24:26,640 --> 00:24:35,680
 Thanks, Justin, that's the whole thing is you want to catch.

167
00:24:35,680 --> 00:24:47,120
 And it may make sense once you add back in those thresholds, but however we do that, it needs to be... I don't want it to look like...

168
00:24:47,120 --> 00:25:15,920
 I think we would be tying our hands a little bit if we make it so that it suggests that those are the conflicts of interest only. I think our intent is not that, but I could imagine someone saying, well, there's a list here and this doesn't fall under the list, and I'm sure we can make that work. I don't know how to do that.

169
00:25:15,920 --> 00:25:30,560
 That's why I suggested to put it under disclosure requirements, because these thresholds are very definite, right? So if you fall into that category, then you have to disclose.

170
00:25:30,560 --> 00:25:57,200
 Whereas conflict of interest is more... we are trying to go for more overarching and having... and prompting a discussion of whether that does make up a conflict of interest or not. I mean, that's... I think that is what we are looking for, right?

171
00:25:57,200 --> 00:26:26,560
 We need to change in three, deliberation prohibited. So we say it shall be a violation. So red line, participate in deliberations involving a current conflict of interest. I think we talked about this last time. The word "current" takes away the future. So since conflict of interest is already defined as a current or foreseeable future...

172
00:26:26,560 --> 00:26:35,600
 Yes, we can just take "current" out of the second sentence and third sentence. No, fourth. Second, fourth.

173
00:26:35,600 --> 00:26:49,200
 I kind of like your idea, because my conflict of interest might be different than your conflict of interest.

174
00:26:49,200 --> 00:27:04,400
 Although it will be. And so if it's spelled out that everybody knows what's going on, then there's no surprise at the end of what to have to disclose or not.

175
00:27:04,400 --> 00:27:12,400
 I think less words are less things to get hung up on, too.

176
00:27:12,400 --> 00:27:39,600
 I have a question, if I may. So the way this is, we have that A1 is definition of conflict of interest. A2, general rules. City officials shall avoid actions or conduct in their official capacity that they know or should know is likely to impact the personal or financial interests of the following.

177
00:27:39,600 --> 00:27:56,000
 That A2 doesn't reference conflict of interest at all currently. It just kind of creates a new list of connections that it asks about.

178
00:27:56,000 --> 00:28:21,600
 Three, deliberation prohibited. Four, disclosure required. Those are both mandates. And so, I guess a couple questions. One is, is 2 intended to be a different thing than a conflict of interest, or are we accidentally defining conflict of interest twice by having A1 and A2?

179
00:28:21,600 --> 00:28:51,200
 And then, is 2 a prohibition that would arguably have some kind of ramification under the ethics code, or is it aspirational? I think it behooves you to try to be as specific as possible in what, A, when does a conflict of interest arise, and B, when does that conflict of interest give rise to a penalty?

180
00:28:51,200 --> 00:29:06,400
 And I think it's just really important that y'all, it's very clear to anybody reading this, that their conduct, or that there is a conflict of interest when there is one. That there's no question to them, is there or is there not?

181
00:29:06,400 --> 00:29:28,400
 So vague definitions can be problematic in that. And then also, okay, I've identified that there's a conflict of interest. Did I do anything wrong, or should I refrain from some kind of conduct? That really needs to be clear as well. And so, I think that's the due process conversation we're having.

182
00:29:28,400 --> 00:29:38,400
 Yeah, I hear what you're saying, so what would you recommend to address that take out, or just be specific on this?

183
00:29:38,400 --> 00:30:01,400
 I mean, that's as far as I'm not y'all, I'm not writing this ordinance, but I just want to say that I know y'all want to have flexibility and just balancing. It's up to y'all to decide, I think, whether you balance that effectively, but just that that should be a major consideration in that decision.

184
00:30:01,400 --> 00:30:23,400
 I think where it's not real clear in the way it's written right now is that paragraph one with the definition of conflict of interest, it doesn't refer to paragraph two where the relationships are hard to describe.

185
00:30:23,400 --> 00:30:44,400
 So, the first sentence of the conflict of interest definition says personal and/or financial considerations, but that doesn't just include the city official, it includes all these relationships that are defined in paragraph two.

186
00:30:44,400 --> 00:31:12,400
 I know Madison said something about combining those two after talking to you, and I don't know if that is what you're getting at here, but I think we're saying that there is a conflict of interest based on these relationships where there is a financial interest involved, a personal or financial consideration for the city official where all these people are defined below.

187
00:31:12,400 --> 00:31:22,400
 I don't know how to rewrite that or combine those two, but I think that kind of cleans that up a little bit.

188
00:31:22,400 --> 00:31:32,400
 Would it help to make number two number one and number one number two to start out with the general rules and then go to definition of conflict of interest?

189
00:31:32,400 --> 00:31:49,400
 I think we need to put 2A through G under one, and we can almost move that second sentence of one to the start of number two.

190
00:31:49,400 --> 00:32:09,400
 Conflict of interest or challenging organizational concerns, blah, blah, blah, can go under general rules because we're generally saying, hey, these are, you know, they're challenging, okay? City officials shall avoid conflicts of interest as defined above in one, A through G.

191
00:32:09,400 --> 00:32:25,400
 Yeah, I like that, yeah. And that shortens the definition, that is the definition, and then the considerations are under number two.

192
00:32:25,400 --> 00:32:45,400
 Yeah, I like that too.

193
00:32:45,400 --> 00:33:00,400
 I also have a problem with the time period. The way I'm reading it, it's saying that if there's a conflict of interest and you have to report, you have all calendar year of last year up to your conflict.

194
00:33:00,400 --> 00:33:18,400
 So we're giving them 12 months, maybe 13 months, 14 months to report. I mean, are we kidding? I mean, why are we giving them that much? If there's a conflict of interest, they should have a certain period in which they have to report.

195
00:33:18,400 --> 00:33:36,400
 They're not stupid. And, you know, and we want to bite it in the butt because if they have a conflict of interest in, let's say, January 2nd, and they don't report until December 1st, they've had the whole year, they have all kinds of things going on.

196
00:33:36,400 --> 00:33:41,400
 I'm curious on why we're giving them that time limit.

197
00:33:41,400 --> 00:33:59,400
 Are you referring to Section D? Referring down here for, yeah, right there. I'm just wondering why we're giving them so much time to report this issue.

198
00:33:59,400 --> 00:34:19,400
 I mean, that could be fixed by saying, you know, easy, I'm making this up, but 90 days from the conflict of interest or, you know, 30 days from conflict of interest. I just think we're allowing too much time to go on before we're taking care of the problem.

199
00:34:19,400 --> 00:34:24,400
 I see your point.

200
00:34:24,400 --> 00:34:30,400
 Well, that's an easy fix, I mean, just put a time limit in there.

201
00:34:30,400 --> 00:34:37,400
 You could say 60 days from the time the conflict was, you know, or something like that.

202
00:34:37,400 --> 00:34:39,400
 90 days.

203
00:34:39,400 --> 00:34:42,400
 90 days, whatever.

204
00:34:42,400 --> 00:34:48,400
 My only concern is that some disclosures do not become immediately available, I mean apparent.

205
00:34:48,400 --> 00:35:01,400
 Stuff develops and people talk and, oh yeah, that should have been. So, I don't know about a year, but a really, really narrow period.

206
00:35:01,400 --> 00:35:18,400
 Yeah, you know, it could be, I'm okay with, you know, shortening it, or making a longer, I don't think we should give them a year and a half or a year and a half to figure out what we have to do.

207
00:35:18,400 --> 00:35:32,400
 Six months, would that be more of a, I don't really understand what this sentence is telling, is that what it's saying, Scott, do you have an opinion?

208
00:35:32,400 --> 00:35:39,400
 I read, well, I get what Ms. Baker's saying, but I don't think it addresses that.

209
00:35:39,400 --> 00:35:48,400
 I mean, this is saying that you need to disclose any conflict that happened during the previous year and up to the date of the deliberation.

210
00:35:48,400 --> 00:35:53,400
 What would happen if we just took that out, took that sentence out?

211
00:35:53,400 --> 00:36:05,400
 See, I read it as an expiration date, so your disclosure is good for one year after the date you disclosed it and it's come up to you.

212
00:36:05,400 --> 00:36:09,400
 That's kind of how I'm reading it.

213
00:36:09,400 --> 00:36:11,400
 That just needs to be said more clearly.

214
00:36:11,400 --> 00:36:20,400
 Because I would say what you're talking about, it doesn't have a time limit at all, it just says you have to do it, it doesn't say by when, because that's how I would read this sentence.

215
00:36:20,400 --> 00:36:31,400
 And then, yes, it seems, but I would agree with what you're saying, if you find that it's good for a year, basically.

216
00:36:31,400 --> 00:36:37,400
 I think a disclosure is good for one calendar year from the date of disclosure.

217
00:36:37,400 --> 00:36:39,400
 Yeah, that's nice.

218
00:36:39,400 --> 00:36:41,400
 But that doesn't answer the question.

219
00:36:41,400 --> 00:36:42,400
 Right.

220
00:36:42,400 --> 00:36:43,400
 They're being adaptive.

221
00:36:43,400 --> 00:36:47,400
 Well, I mean, I think it's a little clearer, but there's four people here who tried to figure out what it meant.

222
00:36:47,400 --> 00:36:52,400
 So it wasn't clear enough, so number one.

223
00:36:52,400 --> 00:36:59,400
 But I do like that, because once you've made that disclosure, why do you have to keep making it?

224
00:36:59,400 --> 00:37:05,400
 I mean, I think a year is a little long, but that's just me.

225
00:37:05,400 --> 00:37:09,400
 Six months, maybe?

226
00:37:09,400 --> 00:37:12,400
 It's not something that's going to be long.

227
00:37:12,400 --> 00:37:15,400
 But I'm just saying, I think it's too long.

228
00:37:15,400 --> 00:37:19,400
 I do know that sometimes in council, they revisit things.

229
00:37:19,400 --> 00:37:33,400
 I know some, especially we do a lot of business with UNT, some council members have been employed by UNT and have had to disclose that, have practiced, basically, it went so they were accused every time disclosing it.

230
00:37:33,400 --> 00:37:34,400
 Yeah.

231
00:37:34,400 --> 00:37:41,400
 That's a bit of practice, but this maybe reads that they only needed to do that once.

232
00:37:41,400 --> 00:37:53,400
 That's how I rate it. It's like, if you have a conflict of interest, you disclose it, then if it comes up again the next month, you don't have to disclose it again, because it's on the record that you...

233
00:37:53,400 --> 00:37:56,400
 And then you'd have to recuse.

234
00:37:56,400 --> 00:38:04,400
 Yeah, the previous paragraph would require them to recuse themselves from any deliberation.

235
00:38:04,400 --> 00:38:30,400
 So what about a paragraph that just reads, "Disclosures under this subsection must be made within 30 days of the conflict of interest arising and shall remain valid for the period covering one calendar year."

236
00:38:30,400 --> 00:38:42,400
 For one calendar year from the disclosure? From the date of disclosure or the date the conflict of interest is resolved, whichever occurs first.

237
00:38:42,400 --> 00:38:52,400
 That adds the deadline to disclose. You don't need six months to disclose. You need 30 minutes, but we'll give 30 days.

238
00:38:52,400 --> 00:39:02,400
 And then that disclosure will last you for a year, at which point you need to renew it if the conflict has not been resolved.

239
00:39:02,400 --> 00:39:22,400
 And then if it resolves three days after you make the disclosure, good, then the disclosure expires at that time.

240
00:39:22,400 --> 00:39:32,400
 And then the deadline to again disclose within 30 days, and it stays valid for 12 months?

241
00:39:32,400 --> 00:39:46,400
 You have 30 days to disclose that a conflict of interest has arisen, and it then remains valid for one calendar year or until the conflict is resolved, whichever comes first.

242
00:39:46,400 --> 00:39:52,400
 A calendar year is January to December.

243
00:39:52,400 --> 00:39:56,400
 Physical year, right? Physical year is date to date.

244
00:39:56,400 --> 00:40:03,400
 The city's fiscal year is October to September. If you want to say a year, say 12 months.

245
00:40:03,400 --> 00:40:05,400
 12 months, one year, one date.

246
00:40:05,400 --> 00:40:08,400
 Just to clarify, a calendar year is specifically...

247
00:40:08,400 --> 00:40:13,400
 So we go with the language of 12 months?

248
00:40:13,400 --> 00:40:16,400
 So everybody's in agreement about that?

249
00:40:16,400 --> 00:40:17,400
 Yes.

250
00:40:17,400 --> 00:40:21,400
 Good morning. At least we all know what it's saying.

251
00:40:21,400 --> 00:40:42,400
 That's a good thing.

252
00:40:42,400 --> 00:40:47,400
 Are we ready for the next thing?

253
00:40:47,400 --> 00:40:50,400
 And it's up to y'all.

254
00:40:50,400 --> 00:40:52,400
 I'm ready. Are you?

255
00:40:52,400 --> 00:40:53,400
 Yes.

256
00:40:53,400 --> 00:40:56,400
 Yes. You okay?

257
00:40:56,400 --> 00:40:57,400
 Do y'all want to...

258
00:40:57,400 --> 00:40:58,400
 That's okay.

259
00:40:58,400 --> 00:41:04,400
 Go... I rewrote that last, that definition of conflict of interest.

260
00:41:04,400 --> 00:41:08,400
 Do you want to put that on the record so that they're able to type it out?

261
00:41:08,400 --> 00:41:09,400
 Yeah.

262
00:41:09,400 --> 00:41:11,400
 Okay.

263
00:41:11,400 --> 00:41:18,400
 So how I have it written, I think, reads, "The conflict of interest arises when personal

264
00:41:18,400 --> 00:41:25,400
 or financial considerations influence or have the potential to influence the judgment

265
00:41:25,400 --> 00:41:31,400
 or actions of a city official in their official capacity, period.

266
00:41:31,400 --> 00:41:38,400
 City officials shall avoid actions or conduct in their official capacity that they know

267
00:41:38,400 --> 00:41:44,400
 or should know are likely to impact the personal or financial interests of any

268
00:41:44,400 --> 00:41:49,400
 of the following in a way that is not shared with a substantial segment

269
00:41:49,400 --> 00:41:54,400
 of the city's population, A through G."

270
00:41:54,400 --> 00:41:57,400
 And that basically is combining one and two?

271
00:41:57,400 --> 00:42:04,400
 That would be just one, and then you can leave two, because two is that general rule.

272
00:42:04,400 --> 00:42:12,400
 City officials shall be proactive and transparent, and then we can take out that second sentence

273
00:42:12,400 --> 00:42:16,400
 in paragraph one.

274
00:42:16,400 --> 00:42:17,400
 Remove this.

275
00:42:17,400 --> 00:42:20,400
 Yeah. You can throw that into two if we want it.

276
00:42:20,400 --> 00:42:21,400
 I think that should be taken out.

277
00:42:21,400 --> 00:42:22,400
 I think it should be taken out.

278
00:42:22,400 --> 00:42:23,400
 Yeah.

279
00:42:23,400 --> 00:42:26,400
 Just remove this.

280
00:42:26,400 --> 00:42:27,400
 This is still here.

281
00:42:27,400 --> 00:42:29,400
 Did that mess list go back up here?

282
00:42:29,400 --> 00:42:30,400
 Correct.

283
00:42:30,400 --> 00:42:35,400
 Second and third sentence in paragraph one.

284
00:42:35,400 --> 00:42:39,400
 Starting a conflict of interest or challenging organization.

285
00:42:39,400 --> 00:42:45,400
 I don't think anybody cares.

286
00:42:45,400 --> 00:42:53,400
 Number two restates that in a different way, so I think that the gist of that last sentence

287
00:42:53,400 --> 00:42:56,400
 is already in the general rules.

288
00:42:56,400 --> 00:43:03,400
 This sentence will be removed. These two sentences will be removed.

289
00:43:03,400 --> 00:43:08,400
 This will be reworded to what you just said.

290
00:43:08,400 --> 00:43:11,400
 This list will move up.

291
00:43:11,400 --> 00:43:12,400
 Move up under there.

292
00:43:12,400 --> 00:43:18,400
 And then this states?

293
00:43:18,400 --> 00:43:21,400
 It sounded like you removed that as well.

294
00:43:21,400 --> 00:43:25,400
 Which were the first sentence of two?

295
00:43:25,400 --> 00:43:33,400
 Based on what you said, which I didn't get it all down, I don't know that any of this

296
00:43:33,400 --> 00:43:39,400
 is still necessary if we just move this list up to be under what you said, but I'm not

297
00:43:39,400 --> 00:43:41,400
 looking at it.

298
00:43:41,400 --> 00:43:42,400
 I got it.

299
00:43:42,400 --> 00:43:47,400
 I think you moved part of paragraph two up to paragraph one under the definition.

300
00:43:47,400 --> 00:43:48,400
 Yes.

301
00:43:48,400 --> 00:43:51,400
 I don't know that those needed to be two separate paragraphs.

302
00:43:51,400 --> 00:43:57,400
 Yes, but I think that what we're trying to say, the city officials shall be proactive

303
00:43:57,400 --> 00:43:58,400
 and transparent.

304
00:43:58,400 --> 00:44:06,400
 I think that needs to be incorporated under number one.

305
00:44:06,400 --> 00:44:10,400
 Yeah, definitely believe in transparency.

306
00:44:10,400 --> 00:44:18,400
 That's a big ethical concept.

307
00:44:18,400 --> 00:44:21,400
 Have we thoroughly confused you?

308
00:44:21,400 --> 00:44:24,400
 I thought that could be the opening sentence though.

309
00:44:24,400 --> 00:44:27,400
 Couldn't that be the first sentence?

310
00:44:27,400 --> 00:44:29,400
 Officials shall be proactive and transparent.

311
00:44:29,400 --> 00:44:33,400
 Like this is the expectation and then get into the specifics.

312
00:44:33,400 --> 00:44:38,400
 I like that.

313
00:44:38,400 --> 00:44:42,400
 And I don't think you need based on perception.

314
00:44:42,400 --> 00:44:44,400
 That's opinion.

315
00:44:44,400 --> 00:44:47,400
 That is subjective opinion.

316
00:44:47,400 --> 00:44:55,400
 When you use that word, I don't think there's any place for code of ethics to have subjective

317
00:44:55,400 --> 00:44:56,400
 opinion.

318
00:44:56,400 --> 00:44:57,400
 It should be objective.

319
00:44:57,400 --> 00:45:00,400
 So that's just a waste of words in my opinion.

320
00:45:00,400 --> 00:45:04,400
 And a potential place for confusion.

321
00:45:04,400 --> 00:45:06,400
 I know what you're trying to do.

322
00:45:06,400 --> 00:45:08,400
 Remove all of this basically.

323
00:45:08,400 --> 00:45:10,400
 Yeah, definitely remove that.

324
00:45:10,400 --> 00:45:19,400
 I think that came out of the city staff code of ethics.

325
00:45:19,400 --> 00:45:22,400
 I don't think it needs to be.

326
00:45:22,400 --> 00:45:24,400
 Can you email whatever you want to?

327
00:45:24,400 --> 00:45:26,400
 Am I allowed to?

328
00:45:26,400 --> 00:45:29,400
 Yeah, you can email us.

329
00:45:29,400 --> 00:45:36,400
 That would be easier than coming back and trying to listen to the tape.

330
00:45:36,400 --> 00:45:37,400
 If possible.

331
00:45:37,400 --> 00:45:39,400
 Perfect.

332
00:45:39,400 --> 00:45:41,400
 Thank you very much, Charles.

333
00:45:41,400 --> 00:45:49,400
 Those are good suggestions.

334
00:45:49,400 --> 00:45:51,400
 Yeah, I think it makes it a lot more clear.

335
00:45:51,400 --> 00:46:00,400
 We don't want to put more confusion in there because that will be fodder for your complaints.

336
00:46:09,400 --> 00:46:34,400
 So we're ready to go on to the next thing?

337
00:46:34,400 --> 00:46:41,400
 So I wanted to discuss the burden of proof section.

338
00:46:41,400 --> 00:46:47,400
 The red lines, I changed them to how we discussed last time.

339
00:46:47,400 --> 00:46:52,400
 I did want to give just a quick overview of burden of proof.

340
00:46:52,400 --> 00:46:59,400
 So because the Board of Ethics is quasi judicial, means it's like a court because code of ethics is a local law.

341
00:46:59,400 --> 00:47:07,400
 The burden of proof is the duty or responsibility placed upon somebody to prove or dispute the facts.

342
00:47:07,400 --> 00:47:15,400
 Often that's the plaintiff in the United States because there's an assumption of innocence of whoever is being accused.

343
00:47:15,400 --> 00:47:22,400
 A very, very brief summary of what that looks like in civil and criminal courts.

344
00:47:22,400 --> 00:47:30,400
 And the burden of proof is the amount that has to be proven.

345
00:47:30,400 --> 00:47:35,400
 So in criminal, it's got a reasonable doubt.

346
00:47:35,400 --> 00:47:39,400
 In civil, it's generally imponderance, which means more likely than not.

347
00:47:39,400 --> 00:47:44,400
 Our current code doesn't actually say which burden of proof we're using.

348
00:47:44,400 --> 00:47:51,400
 It just says the plaintiff has to do it, which is typical.

349
00:47:51,400 --> 00:48:00,400
 So does that help set this conversation up a little better?

350
00:48:00,400 --> 00:48:11,400
 Well, it all goes, and I might be out of order, so please let me know if I am, but that goes to who is making the complaint.

351
00:48:11,400 --> 00:48:12,400
 Yes.

352
00:48:12,400 --> 00:48:22,400
 Okay, and I am very strong-willed about the fact that you should, the person making the complaint, based on what I heard last week,

353
00:48:22,400 --> 00:48:27,400
 they should say their name or we should not take it up.

354
00:48:27,400 --> 00:48:34,400
 We have a right as a human being to be innocent until proven guilty,

355
00:48:34,400 --> 00:48:41,400
 and if they're not strong enough to come up and give their name when they make that complaint,

356
00:48:41,400 --> 00:48:43,400
 we should not take it up.

357
00:48:43,400 --> 00:48:50,400
 We have no business taking it up, and I'm just really strong about that.

358
00:48:50,400 --> 00:48:58,400
 I've never been anywhere in any way that they took a complaint without the person's name being given.

359
00:48:58,400 --> 00:49:06,400
 Now, having said that, it's our responsibility as a board of ethics to make sure that we protect that name

360
00:49:06,400 --> 00:49:11,400
 until a time in which that name has to come forward.

361
00:49:11,400 --> 00:49:17,400
 But the reason I'm bringing this up now is because you're bringing this up, and they kind of come together,

362
00:49:17,400 --> 00:49:27,400
 and this was me listening to you last week, and I was like, I don't think we want what we're trying to say we want.

363
00:49:27,400 --> 00:49:33,400
 You know, I'm sorry, I understand you're trying to protect that person from coming up and speaking,

364
00:49:33,400 --> 00:49:36,400
 but they've got to be strong. I don't know if you've ever gone through that.

365
00:49:36,400 --> 00:49:39,400
 Did somebody blame you for something you didn't do?

366
00:49:39,400 --> 00:49:43,400
 It can ruin a person's life.

367
00:49:43,400 --> 00:49:46,400
 Or you didn't know who was making that complaint.

368
00:49:46,400 --> 00:49:47,400
 Ma'am?

369
00:49:47,400 --> 00:49:50,400
 Or you didn't know who was making that complaint.

370
00:49:50,400 --> 00:49:51,400
 I'm sorry?

371
00:49:51,400 --> 00:49:53,400
 You didn't know who was making that complaint.

372
00:49:53,400 --> 00:49:59,400
 Right, right. I mean, I think, but it goes with this because it's all kind of together.

373
00:49:59,400 --> 00:50:04,400
 Who's going to make that burden of proof?

374
00:50:04,400 --> 00:50:09,400
 And so I think there's a lot of cleaning up that this situation has to do,

375
00:50:09,400 --> 00:50:18,400
 but I just disagree with some of you in here and what you said last week about, you know,

376
00:50:18,400 --> 00:50:24,400
 we're protecting these people because we don't want them not to say what they think.

377
00:50:24,400 --> 00:50:28,400
 Well, they've got to be brave enough to say it.

378
00:50:28,400 --> 00:50:30,400
 It was me that said it.

379
00:50:30,400 --> 00:50:36,400
 Part of this got started is because part of this code was written where part of the staff manual

380
00:50:36,400 --> 00:50:43,400
 kind of snuck in the back door here where you could file a complaint and kind of leave your name aside.

381
00:50:43,400 --> 00:50:46,400
 Maybe that's okay from a staff standpoint,

382
00:50:46,400 --> 00:50:52,400
 but it's pretty clear to me that that should have never snuck its way into an ethics code.

383
00:50:52,400 --> 00:51:01,400
 So I agree completely that the name of the complainant should be protected up to a point

384
00:51:01,400 --> 00:51:04,400
 that there might be a hearing.

385
00:51:04,400 --> 00:51:10,400
 But a lot of this kind of crosses over into the legal side of this where, again,

386
00:51:10,400 --> 00:51:15,400
 I keep coming back to the fact that complainants have no legal resources.

387
00:51:15,400 --> 00:51:20,400
 They are not able to, you know, we're sitting here assuming that a complainant can --

388
00:51:20,400 --> 00:51:29,400
 they have all the resources to investigate and put all this together and present this.

389
00:51:29,400 --> 00:51:33,400
 This is why a lot of citizens don't want to mess with it.

390
00:51:33,400 --> 00:51:38,400
 They may have violent or vehement complaints,

391
00:51:38,400 --> 00:51:44,400
 but they're just not willing to step aside and file what's necessary.

392
00:51:44,400 --> 00:51:48,400
 So I'm not suggesting their name be protected in any way.

393
00:51:48,400 --> 00:51:53,400
 But we have to understand that a lot of times right now we're back and forth between,

394
00:51:53,400 --> 00:51:58,400
 you know, complainants on the staff side being protected from citizens.

395
00:51:58,400 --> 00:52:08,400
 And so I just really want to do what we can do to open this up and allow a complaint to be filed.

396
00:52:08,400 --> 00:52:10,400
 Bias isn't with the name.

397
00:52:10,400 --> 00:52:12,400
 The name should be a matter of record.

398
00:52:12,400 --> 00:52:14,400
 But we're holding them to standards.

399
00:52:14,400 --> 00:52:20,400
 They have no legal resources to investigate and do anything to present this to a board of ethics.

400
00:52:20,400 --> 00:52:23,400
 And that's why a lot of them just say, "What the heck with it.

401
00:52:23,400 --> 00:52:25,400
 I want nothing to do with this."

402
00:52:25,400 --> 00:52:34,400
 I think part of this came up because of the ability of people to anonymously file a complaint,

403
00:52:34,400 --> 00:52:38,400
 an ethics complaint, through the hotline thing.

404
00:52:38,400 --> 00:52:41,400
 I've been on this board for a long time.

405
00:52:41,400 --> 00:52:45,400
 I didn't even know that was an option to do.

406
00:52:45,400 --> 00:52:50,400
 It's a way for a city official to essentially relieve themselves of the duty to report.

407
00:52:50,400 --> 00:52:57,400
 They can use the anonymous hotline to report what they believe to have been a violation.

408
00:52:57,400 --> 00:53:02,400
 And then if somebody comes back and says, "Hey, you knew about that. You should have reported it."

409
00:53:02,400 --> 00:53:06,400
 They can then say, "Well, I did," through the anonymous hotline.

410
00:53:06,400 --> 00:53:08,400
 And then there's a record of that.

411
00:53:08,400 --> 00:53:13,400
 But when we received that, we processed it as though they hadn't completed the form,

412
00:53:13,400 --> 00:53:16,400
 that it wasn't administratively complete, because it wasn't.

413
00:53:16,400 --> 00:53:19,400
 They didn't submit their name. It wasn't notarized.

414
00:53:19,400 --> 00:53:23,400
 And so I brought that to the board to say, "Do we want to keep allowing this?

415
00:53:23,400 --> 00:53:25,400
 Is there some other method we want to do that?"

416
00:53:25,400 --> 00:53:27,400
 Because it never happened before.

417
00:53:27,400 --> 00:53:35,400
 And then we got direction on looking into if we can maybe keep a name confidential for longer, essentially,

418
00:53:35,400 --> 00:53:38,400
 but we're still looking into that still.

419
00:53:38,400 --> 00:53:43,400
 But this discussion about the burden of proof has been going on a lot longer than that.

420
00:53:43,400 --> 00:53:50,400
 We presented to the council last year, "Hey, we don't even think that they should have to present at the hearing."

421
00:53:50,400 --> 00:53:57,400
 So I put this together to try to give us a little more context for legally,

422
00:53:57,400 --> 00:54:03,400
 this is what burden of proof means and how it functions in civil court and criminal court.

423
00:54:03,400 --> 00:54:07,400
 We're not in either of those courts, because this is quasi judicial,

424
00:54:07,400 --> 00:54:11,400
 but when we're talking about burden of proof, this is what we're talking about.

425
00:54:11,400 --> 00:54:18,400
 And the ordinance actually doesn't even set a burden of proof standard, which is confusing.

426
00:54:18,400 --> 00:54:25,400
 But it does require the complainant to meet the burden of proof.

427
00:54:25,400 --> 00:54:36,400
 And that is generally how it works within the United States because of the presumption of innocence for the accused.

428
00:54:36,400 --> 00:54:38,400
 So I want to make that clear.

429
00:54:38,400 --> 00:54:43,400
 Well, how do you know who the complaint is if you don't ask for their name?

430
00:54:43,400 --> 00:54:44,400
 We do require their name.

431
00:54:44,400 --> 00:54:51,400
 Okay, so when they report a violation, they have to give their name at that point.

432
00:54:51,400 --> 00:54:52,400
 Correct.

433
00:54:52,400 --> 00:54:55,400
 And it's our job to protect them.

434
00:54:55,400 --> 00:55:04,400
 And to David's point, he's afraid on one side if we don't protect them, they won't come forward.

435
00:55:04,400 --> 00:55:05,400
 Is that correct?

436
00:55:05,400 --> 00:55:06,400
 Right.

437
00:55:06,400 --> 00:55:14,400
 If they feel like they're putting it all out there and they have no resources within the city to present their case,

438
00:55:14,400 --> 00:55:20,400
 that they have no ability, they have no subpoena power, they have no power to investigate,

439
00:55:20,400 --> 00:55:29,400
 their hands are tied in terms of trying to present this only as a complainant against all of the resources that the city might be able to put.

440
00:55:29,400 --> 00:55:31,400
 But that's not their job, is it David?

441
00:55:31,400 --> 00:55:34,400
 I mean, isn't that our job after they put the complaint in?

442
00:55:34,400 --> 00:55:39,400
 And that's exactly one of the points that, well, I mean, I don't know that I'm skipping ahead here.

443
00:55:39,400 --> 00:55:42,400
 But it says in the code that the burden rests on the complainant.

444
00:55:42,400 --> 00:55:50,400
 Well, there's a statement here to a red line on the establishing the facts, the responsibility to establish the facts.

445
00:55:50,400 --> 00:55:52,400
 This is the red line.

446
00:55:52,400 --> 00:55:58,400
 The complainant shall present sufficient facts to establish that a violation of this article has occurred.

447
00:55:58,400 --> 00:56:00,400
 And then it goes into the red line of burden approved.

448
00:56:00,400 --> 00:56:07,400
 No, it's the board of ethics that shall present the sufficient facts, not the complainant.

449
00:56:07,400 --> 00:56:09,400
 I agree with that.

450
00:56:09,400 --> 00:56:12,400
 But in these red lines, that is exactly what we're eliminating.

451
00:56:12,400 --> 00:56:19,400
 I mean, the burden of proof because the burden of showing is eliminated with those facts that you just read.

452
00:56:19,400 --> 00:56:23,400
 Responsibility to establish facts the complainant shall present.

453
00:56:23,400 --> 00:56:27,400
 That stays, but the burden of proof language is taken out.

454
00:56:27,400 --> 00:56:29,400
 That's what the red line shows.

455
00:56:29,400 --> 00:56:34,400
 I don't want to go all the way back to how this code got written in 2017,

456
00:56:34,400 --> 00:56:39,400
 but this just jumped out initially to the folks on the ethics committee.

457
00:56:39,400 --> 00:56:41,400
 No, wait a minute.

458
00:56:41,400 --> 00:56:47,400
 This is calling on citizens to take on the task of the board of ethics.

459
00:56:47,400 --> 00:56:49,400
 What's this all about?

460
00:56:49,400 --> 00:56:55,400
 The board has subpoena power, that's true.

461
00:56:55,400 --> 00:57:01,400
 But the board cannot be the prosecutor because you're essentially the jury.

462
00:57:01,400 --> 00:57:04,400
 Well, prosecute's a bad word right there.

463
00:57:04,400 --> 00:57:06,400
 It's a law.

464
00:57:06,400 --> 00:57:09,400
 If you're trying to investigate, you can't decide if you've read enough evidence.

465
00:57:09,400 --> 00:57:12,400
 That's not how the legal system works.

466
00:57:12,400 --> 00:57:14,400
 This is a law.

467
00:57:14,400 --> 00:57:16,400
 Yes.

468
00:57:16,400 --> 00:57:18,400
 That's true.

469
00:57:18,400 --> 00:57:23,400
 So we have to make sure that we're complying with the Constitution.

470
00:57:23,400 --> 00:57:29,400
 You are acting as the judge and the jury as part of this legal system.

471
00:57:29,400 --> 00:57:35,400
 So you cannot be the person who's prosecuting the respondent.

472
00:57:35,400 --> 00:57:39,400
 I'm totally fine with the complainant's name being part of the record.

473
00:57:39,400 --> 00:57:44,400
 I'm totally fine with that.

474
00:57:44,400 --> 00:57:50,400
 But I think we're asking way, way, way too much of the complainant as this process gets started.

475
00:57:50,400 --> 00:57:56,400
 Even in our code, who's responsible?

476
00:57:56,400 --> 00:58:05,400
 Let me ask you this though, are you objecting to the complainant shall present sufficient facts to establish that a violation of this article has occurred?

477
00:58:05,400 --> 00:58:10,400
 He presents those facts in writing to the board of ethics.

478
00:58:10,400 --> 00:58:12,400
 So you do not object to that language?

479
00:58:12,400 --> 00:58:14,400
 No, not at all.

480
00:58:14,400 --> 00:58:19,400
 In this red line, the burden of proof is eliminated.

481
00:58:19,400 --> 00:58:28,400
 I'm totally fine with the complainant stating everything they know in that complainant, but then turning the matter over to the board of ethics.

482
00:58:28,400 --> 00:58:30,400
 It's sort of like we did today.

483
00:58:30,400 --> 00:58:38,400
 We had a complaint, a person followed it, we took it up, we voted on it, we had to move forward, we would have moved forward.

484
00:58:38,400 --> 00:58:40,400
 That person gave it their name.

485
00:58:40,400 --> 00:58:45,400
 And so that's what you want, and that's kind of what we did.

486
00:58:45,400 --> 00:58:55,400
 So I don't think after the fact of the complaint, I'm agreeing with all of you that we should not put all that on the complaint.

487
00:58:55,400 --> 00:58:59,400
 I mean, you know, but I don't think in your writing you're doing that.

488
00:58:59,400 --> 00:59:01,400
 I mean, I think you've taken that out.

489
00:59:01,400 --> 00:59:12,400
 But the way this spells it out, yeah, I mean, I think that today they had to put down what they thought, blah, blah, blah, blah.

490
00:59:12,400 --> 00:59:16,400
 And, you know, and we voted on against it.

491
00:59:16,400 --> 00:59:20,400
 But I don't think the complaint has to go three steps up.

492
00:59:20,400 --> 00:59:25,400
 I mean, I think they have the right to say what they think and then move on.

493
00:59:25,400 --> 00:59:31,400
 I agree completely, but that was not -- I don't want to go all the way back to 2017.

494
00:59:31,400 --> 00:59:40,400
 But this code, this particular section of our code was written to weaponize it against anyone who dared to file a complaint.

495
00:59:40,400 --> 00:59:42,400
 But it's not that way now.

496
00:59:42,400 --> 00:59:45,400
 Well, yes, it is. That's the way it still reads.

497
00:59:45,400 --> 00:59:46,400
 It is that way now.

498
00:59:46,400 --> 00:59:53,400
 And I will say I've read many codes and I have never seen the burden of proof placed on the complaint.

499
00:59:53,400 --> 01:00:00,400
 I've only seen one city that mentioned burden of proof, and that's the city of Dallas, but they place it on the board.

500
01:00:00,400 --> 01:00:02,400
 I'm fine if they're mandated to.

501
01:00:02,400 --> 01:00:06,400
 I mean, even in similar cities and work organizations, they don't even have to appear.

502
01:00:06,400 --> 01:00:13,400
 If the complaint is completed and testified and signed off, sometimes they don't even have --

503
01:00:13,400 --> 01:00:18,400
 I have no problem at all requiring a dentin complainant to attend a hearing

504
01:00:18,400 --> 01:00:26,400
 and even answer a question if there's something that is unclear that needs to be substantiated or verified in the complaint.

505
01:00:26,400 --> 01:00:29,400
 But other than that --

506
01:00:29,400 --> 01:00:31,400
 So how do we fix this?

507
01:00:31,400 --> 01:00:40,400
 Well, it's redlined out, and I would like to see it stay out because I don't think the burden of proof should be --

508
01:00:40,400 --> 01:00:48,400
 You can fix this if you just replace the word "complaint" with "BOE" in this red line here.

509
01:00:48,400 --> 01:00:50,400
 The board --

510
01:00:50,400 --> 01:00:54,400
 Who would the board then be presenting the facts to? Themselves?

511
01:00:54,400 --> 01:00:56,400
 I'm sorry.

512
01:00:56,400 --> 01:01:02,400
 If you replace the complaint with the board, then the board shall present sufficient facts

513
01:01:02,400 --> 01:01:06,400
 to establish the violation of the article occurred to themselves?

514
01:01:06,400 --> 01:01:08,400
 Yes. Yeah. The board.

515
01:01:08,400 --> 01:01:10,400
 How is that -- that's not --

516
01:01:10,400 --> 01:01:15,400
 I just like to at least take it out. That's my -- yeah, that's the part.

517
01:01:15,400 --> 01:01:18,400
 But then there's no -- but then there's no burden.

518
01:01:18,400 --> 01:01:25,400
 So whenever the complainant or the person complained on -- we're going to call them the defendant --

519
01:01:25,400 --> 01:01:27,400
 when the defendant --

520
01:01:27,400 --> 01:01:28,400
 Respondent.

521
01:01:28,400 --> 01:01:31,400
 Respondent, there we go, is someone that maybe the board doesn't like.

522
01:01:31,400 --> 01:01:33,400
 Well, now the burden's on them.

523
01:01:33,400 --> 01:01:38,400
 But if it's somebody that the board likes, well, the burden is on this guy.

524
01:01:38,400 --> 01:01:44,400
 And so the burden has to be specified of who's going to bear this burden.

525
01:01:44,400 --> 01:01:48,400
 We're potentially taking somebody's livelihood away from them.

526
01:01:48,400 --> 01:01:52,400
 I think it needs to be a very high, clear and convincing -- not beyond a reasonable doubt --

527
01:01:52,400 --> 01:01:58,400
 but a very high burden on the complainant to -- however -- I don't care how they want to prove it.

528
01:01:58,400 --> 01:02:01,400
 If they just want to write an affidavit and not show up, that's fine.

529
01:02:01,400 --> 01:02:03,400
 Did you meet your burden in that affidavit?

530
01:02:03,400 --> 01:02:07,400
 Maybe. I've met my burden plenty of times in court with an affidavit.

531
01:02:07,400 --> 01:02:10,400
 So it's on them to establish that.

532
01:02:10,400 --> 01:02:12,400
 It has to be on them.

533
01:02:12,400 --> 01:02:14,400
 We can't place it on the respondent.

534
01:02:14,400 --> 01:02:19,400
 They did nothing to incur a burden, so it's definitely not on them.

535
01:02:19,400 --> 01:02:27,400
 We can't place it on ourselves because the judge and jury do not have to present any evidence.

536
01:02:27,400 --> 01:02:28,400
 We just listen to the evidence.

537
01:02:28,400 --> 01:02:31,400
 We're the finders of fact here.

538
01:02:31,400 --> 01:02:36,400
 And so that leaves only one person unless you've got rid of the burden.

539
01:02:36,400 --> 01:02:42,400
 I hear what you're saying, but why is it not mentioned in any other code?

540
01:02:42,400 --> 01:02:45,400
 I've never --

541
01:02:45,400 --> 01:02:51,400
 You have the responsibility of the Board of Ethics to investigate complaints,

542
01:02:51,400 --> 01:02:55,400
 not just sit back and say, "Okay, complainant, tell me what you know."

543
01:02:55,400 --> 01:02:57,400
 That's not what a Board of Ethics does.

544
01:02:57,400 --> 01:03:05,400
 So then we need to draft the Board of Ethics procedures and our mandate of --

545
01:03:05,400 --> 01:03:10,400
 if the complaint is actionable and has been brought to the board

546
01:03:10,400 --> 01:03:16,400
 and there's grounds to issue subpoena, then the board should issue the subpoena.

547
01:03:16,400 --> 01:03:19,400
 Then we help gather the facts, but it's not our burden.

548
01:03:19,400 --> 01:03:24,400
 But if we need to be mandated to issue the subpoenas for whatever it is, okay.

549
01:03:24,400 --> 01:03:27,400
 But we can't have the burden.

550
01:03:27,400 --> 01:03:28,400
 We're the fact finders.

551
01:03:28,400 --> 01:03:30,400
 We just listen.

552
01:03:30,400 --> 01:03:40,400
 So in some jurisdictions, there is a separate investigative function that is like an inspector general

553
01:03:40,400 --> 01:03:47,400
 or something that is separate from the board that is not the complainant

554
01:03:47,400 --> 01:03:51,400
 and basically receives complaints and says, "Okay, I'm going to look into this for you,"

555
01:03:51,400 --> 01:03:53,400
 and then presents it to the board.

556
01:03:53,400 --> 01:03:58,400
 We don't have that here because we don't have the resources for it.

557
01:03:58,400 --> 01:04:04,400
 And I'm going to -- just because we're not using the word prosecutor,

558
01:04:04,400 --> 01:04:07,400
 we're not using the word defendant, right.

559
01:04:07,400 --> 01:04:11,400
 We're not -- we are using a complainant and we're having a respondent.

560
01:04:11,400 --> 01:04:19,400
 So I also don't think that we should be using the word to investigate

561
01:04:19,400 --> 01:04:24,400
 because I don't think that it is accurate to say that we are --

562
01:04:24,400 --> 01:04:27,400
 that as a Board of Ethics that we are here to investigate.

563
01:04:27,400 --> 01:04:30,400
 We're establishing a code, right.

564
01:04:30,400 --> 01:04:34,400
 We are overseeing the code that is implemented

565
01:04:34,400 --> 01:04:43,400
 rather than going out and investigating if somebody did not act ethically.

566
01:04:43,400 --> 01:04:47,400
 Well, I'm just referring to the universal code.

567
01:04:47,400 --> 01:04:49,400
 The word investigate is in there from top to bottom.

568
01:04:49,400 --> 01:04:53,400
 This is what the boards do when they have a hearing.

569
01:04:53,400 --> 01:05:01,400
 So once we, as a board, or we find out that somebody has been a bad boy, bad girl,

570
01:05:01,400 --> 01:05:03,400
 do we then send that to the city council?

571
01:05:03,400 --> 01:05:05,400
 Is that what happens right now?

572
01:05:05,400 --> 01:05:06,400
 No, we just make it.

573
01:05:06,400 --> 01:05:07,400
 Okay.

574
01:05:07,400 --> 01:05:11,400
 And I guess I'm going to ask a stupid question.

575
01:05:11,400 --> 01:05:15,400
 But why don't we put the burden on the city council?

576
01:05:15,400 --> 01:05:17,400
 Because most of the complaints were against the city council.

577
01:05:17,400 --> 01:05:20,400
 Yeah, let's not do that one.

578
01:05:20,400 --> 01:05:23,400
 I guess I think --

579
01:05:23,400 --> 01:05:27,400
 We're trying to -- we're sort of trying to take the city council out of the equation

580
01:05:27,400 --> 01:05:30,400
 so that it doesn't become weaponized.

581
01:05:30,400 --> 01:05:33,400
 We're not sending anybody to prison.

582
01:05:33,400 --> 01:05:37,400
 The worst that can happen is a sanction and read the debt code.

583
01:05:37,400 --> 01:05:43,400
 It's the weakest penalty that you can find anywhere.

584
01:05:43,400 --> 01:05:48,400
 Some cities even attach financial broker.

585
01:05:48,400 --> 01:05:56,400
 I think I got a little lost on -- this section has been redlined and it's up there.

586
01:05:56,400 --> 01:06:02,400
 And when I read that and just don't read the part that has the strike through,

587
01:06:02,400 --> 01:06:06,400
 I'm not sure I understand where a lot of the concerns are

588
01:06:06,400 --> 01:06:10,400
 because we're saying the complainant shall present sufficient facts

589
01:06:10,400 --> 01:06:13,400
 to establish that a violation of this article has occurred.

590
01:06:13,400 --> 01:06:18,400
 That's nothing new. That is a requirement for the ethics complaint form.

591
01:06:18,400 --> 01:06:22,400
 For it to even get to a panel, their name has to be on the form.

592
01:06:22,400 --> 01:06:23,400
 Exactly.

593
01:06:23,400 --> 01:06:27,400
 If it's not on the form, then it's deemed incomplete by a city auditor

594
01:06:27,400 --> 01:06:30,400
 and then nothing happens through the panel.

595
01:06:30,400 --> 01:06:33,400
 So that they have to put their name on the form.

596
01:06:33,400 --> 01:06:38,400
 They have to have enough facts in there so that the panel, like what happened today,

597
01:06:38,400 --> 01:06:41,400
 whoever's on the panel makes a determination.

598
01:06:41,400 --> 01:06:45,400
 This says that there is a violation or if all this is correct,

599
01:06:45,400 --> 01:06:52,400
 it looks like there is a violation and this should go to a full Board of Ethics Committee review.

600
01:06:52,400 --> 01:06:58,400
 I like the way it's written there. I kind of think that's what I'm hearing.

601
01:06:58,400 --> 01:07:01,400
 Isn't that the way you decided this last time?

602
01:07:01,400 --> 01:07:06,400
 Well, I think this is the language that was discussed last time.

603
01:07:06,400 --> 01:07:13,400
 We heard discussion today about being able to face your accuser and that sort of thing.

604
01:07:13,400 --> 01:07:17,400
 That's what's written right here.

605
01:07:17,400 --> 01:07:22,400
 If the complainant does not show up at the hearing...

606
01:07:22,400 --> 01:07:25,400
 But the accuser in today's hearing didn't show up.

607
01:07:25,400 --> 01:07:27,400
 That wasn't the hearing. That was the panel.

608
01:07:27,400 --> 01:07:30,400
 Oh, the panel. So they don't have to show up for the panel.

609
01:07:30,400 --> 01:07:35,400
 Right. Hypothetically, if that complaint today went forward to...

610
01:07:35,400 --> 01:07:37,400
 Oh, then he would have to.

611
01:07:37,400 --> 01:07:45,400
 Ethics were hearing and that complainant did not show up, then there's no hearing.

612
01:07:45,400 --> 01:07:48,400
 A lot of people don't understand that we have it too hard.

613
01:07:48,400 --> 01:07:51,400
 I might have slept since last week. I think I did.

614
01:07:51,400 --> 01:07:56,400
 But I could have sworn that when I was listening to you, and this is why this came up,

615
01:07:56,400 --> 01:08:02,400
 I could have sworn last week, I mean last meeting that you guys were discussing,

616
01:08:02,400 --> 01:08:07,400
 taking the complaint without the name of the complainant being on that form.

617
01:08:07,400 --> 01:08:09,400
 And we did, and we did.

618
01:08:09,400 --> 01:08:14,400
 But that was directly related to the anonymous hotline.

619
01:08:14,400 --> 01:08:17,400
 Because we had an agenda item that said...

620
01:08:17,400 --> 01:08:18,400
 But that's gone away.

621
01:08:18,400 --> 01:08:20,400
 Because Madison was...

622
01:08:20,400 --> 01:08:24,400
 Right, essentially it was in the code and it occurred, but it had never occurred before.

623
01:08:24,400 --> 01:08:26,400
 So I just wanted to check with the board.

624
01:08:26,400 --> 01:08:30,400
 So what you're saying is really what we have and what we want.

625
01:08:30,400 --> 01:08:34,400
 What we have today, this would be what we're going to go to...

626
01:08:34,400 --> 01:08:37,400
 If we can approve all these red lines that are on this,

627
01:08:37,400 --> 01:08:41,400
 we're going to go to city council and say, "Hey, this is what we think you should do.

628
01:08:41,400 --> 01:08:46,400
 We think you should approve this, that we've spent hours and hours trying to rewrite."

629
01:08:46,400 --> 01:08:54,400
 And hopefully they'll actually approve our recommendations, which has not happened.

630
01:08:54,400 --> 01:09:02,400
 I do want to clarify that I'm not against this language, because this is exactly what we discussed last week.

631
01:09:02,400 --> 01:09:05,400
 You're saying that we can get rid of the word burden of proof.

632
01:09:05,400 --> 01:09:08,400
 I don't really...

633
01:09:08,400 --> 01:09:14,400
 We can get rid of the word burden of proof as long as we're not taking away the actual effect of it,

634
01:09:14,400 --> 01:09:16,400
 which is exactly what we discussed and came to.

635
01:09:16,400 --> 01:09:20,400
 I think this kind of softens it without changing the name.

636
01:09:20,400 --> 01:09:23,400
 And that is exactly what we discussed last time, right?

637
01:09:23,400 --> 01:09:32,400
 Yeah. And that word has been, that term has had a chilling effect for potential complainants.

638
01:09:32,400 --> 01:09:41,400
 I think for some background, like the concept of being anonymous on the complaint,

639
01:09:41,400 --> 01:09:47,400
 there's no mechanism right now for there to be ever any kind of panel

640
01:09:47,400 --> 01:09:54,400
 or like a panel, a three-person panel that meets for a hearing if their name is not on it.

641
01:09:54,400 --> 01:10:00,400
 The only, it's not really anonymity, it's just a confidentiality thing,

642
01:10:00,400 --> 01:10:05,400
 is that up until that panel hearing that happened today is scheduled,

643
01:10:05,400 --> 01:10:08,400
 then the complaint is considered confidential.

644
01:10:08,400 --> 01:10:18,400
 And in practice, I think, that is so that someone can't submit a complaint

645
01:10:18,400 --> 01:10:22,400
 knowing that it's going to be either baseless or it's frivolous,

646
01:10:22,400 --> 01:10:28,400
 and then go and promote the fact that there is an ethics complaint against someone.

647
01:10:28,400 --> 01:10:31,400
 In the past, that has happened during an election cycle.

648
01:10:31,400 --> 01:10:32,400
 During election.

649
01:10:32,400 --> 01:10:34,400
 And the person that submitted the complaint

650
01:10:34,400 --> 01:10:40,400
 immediately went to the dental record chronicle and said there is an ethics complaint against this candidate.

651
01:10:40,400 --> 01:10:46,400
 But I apologize, because that goes for what you said is what you said, but I got it now.

652
01:10:46,400 --> 01:10:49,400
 Yeah, I think we were surprised that, we didn't know what to do with it.

653
01:10:49,400 --> 01:10:57,400
 There was no way to address that kind of complaint because there's no,

654
01:10:57,400 --> 01:11:00,400
 like it just doesn't meet the requirements.

655
01:11:00,400 --> 01:11:08,400
 So, and I mean, when I read this, we're taking out the literal, like here is the burden of proof,

656
01:11:08,400 --> 01:11:12,400
 but we are requiring the complainant to present the facts,

657
01:11:12,400 --> 01:11:19,400
 which is nothing different than what happens now because they have to present the facts on the complaint form.

658
01:11:19,400 --> 01:11:21,400
 And they have to show up at the hearing.

659
01:11:21,400 --> 01:11:26,400
 Not the panel thing to just kind of review is this possibly a complaint,

660
01:11:26,400 --> 01:11:31,400
 but if there's actually a hearing where we're trying to decide that this person actually violated this code,

661
01:11:31,400 --> 01:11:36,400
 the complainant has to be there and they have to testify.

662
01:11:36,400 --> 01:11:43,400
 There's nothing in here that says they have to present evidence other than what they've already submitted.

663
01:11:43,400 --> 01:11:48,400
 They don't have to have an attorney, but I think they're allowed based on our own procedure.

664
01:11:48,400 --> 01:12:01,400
 But they don't have to show up as the prosecutor, which I think stating the burden of proof is on the complainant makes it sound like that very clearly.

665
01:12:01,400 --> 01:12:08,400
 The way it's written in this version is that they have to provide the facts that there was a potential violation.

666
01:12:08,400 --> 01:12:11,400
 That has to all be complete on the form.

667
01:12:11,400 --> 01:12:19,400
 And then as far as the due process part comes into play, if it gets to the point of a hearing, they have to show up,

668
01:12:19,400 --> 01:12:26,400
 they have to face the person they're accusing in person, and they have to agree to testify.

669
01:12:26,400 --> 01:12:30,400
 Which doesn't happen in some cities, but we're good with that part.

670
01:12:30,400 --> 01:12:34,400
 I just don't like, I want the language softer.

671
01:12:34,400 --> 01:12:38,400
 Yeah, the only caveat to that is the part about frivolity.

672
01:12:38,400 --> 01:12:48,400
 So like today, the complaint you guys reviewed in that panel, if you would deem that as a potentially frivolous complaint,

673
01:12:48,400 --> 01:13:02,400
 and then there is a full board hearing, then the respondent does not have to show up to that.

674
01:13:02,400 --> 01:13:10,400
 The complainant who, so in a frivolous complaint, the complainant has submitted something that the board is then deciding if it's frivolous,

675
01:13:10,400 --> 01:13:17,400
 if they just didn't have to show up and it got dismissed, because they're still the complainant in that sense.

676
01:13:17,400 --> 01:13:25,400
 Some of it isn't the wording stuff, so just trying to make clear that if who the board thinks maybe submitted a frivolous complaint doesn't show up,

677
01:13:25,400 --> 01:13:28,400
 that doesn't mean it just gets dismissed basically.

678
01:13:28,400 --> 01:13:30,400
 I think I said that wrong.

679
01:13:30,400 --> 01:13:33,400
 You said the respondent, so it's fine to clarify.

680
01:13:33,400 --> 01:13:34,400
 Thank you, Josh.

681
01:13:34,400 --> 01:13:35,400
 I'm going to say that all.

682
01:13:35,400 --> 01:13:37,400
 I think we're all on the same page.

683
01:13:37,400 --> 01:13:43,400
 I think we're all on the same page, so you get the way it's written up there with the words taken out.

684
01:13:43,400 --> 01:13:47,400
 I think the way it is read is very good at addressing this.

685
01:13:47,400 --> 01:13:51,400
 I mean, it worked really good for me.

686
01:13:51,400 --> 01:13:59,400
 I have a question about the complainant shall present sufficient facts as a mandate.

687
01:13:59,400 --> 01:14:03,400
 What happens if they don't?

688
01:14:03,400 --> 01:14:06,400
 Then they don't meet?

689
01:14:06,400 --> 01:14:07,400
 We all move forward.

690
01:14:07,400 --> 01:14:10,400
 Then the complaint gets dismissed?

691
01:14:10,400 --> 01:14:12,400
 Yeah.

692
01:14:12,400 --> 01:14:19,400
 You've got to have the facts to decide if something's been done.

693
01:14:19,400 --> 01:14:20,400
 Right.

694
01:14:20,400 --> 01:14:29,400
 And then my other question is present sufficient facts.

695
01:14:29,400 --> 01:14:36,400
 I'm just curious if you all agree on what presenting facts means,

696
01:14:36,400 --> 01:14:41,400
 because presenting facts could mean alleging facts.

697
01:14:41,400 --> 01:14:43,400
 It could mean putting forth evidence.

698
01:14:43,400 --> 01:14:45,400
 Those are different things.

699
01:14:45,400 --> 01:14:56,400
 I think we're getting too deep into logistics that we're trying to solve every little thing.

700
01:14:56,400 --> 01:14:58,400
 I understand when they say facts.

701
01:14:58,400 --> 01:15:03,400
 Today I mentioned facts because I didn't have facts in front of me to make a judgment,

702
01:15:03,400 --> 01:15:12,400
 but it was based on the complaint, what the complaint said to me that caused me to not have the facts.

703
01:15:12,400 --> 01:15:20,400
 So I think that the statement is going to give the facts in some sense.

704
01:15:20,400 --> 01:15:24,400
 I don't know the right word for that, but maybe a lawyer does.

705
01:15:24,400 --> 01:15:28,400
 Would just putting the word alleged facts solve that problem?

706
01:15:28,400 --> 01:15:30,400
 That would be clearer.

707
01:15:30,400 --> 01:15:32,400
 That's what you all mean.

708
01:15:32,400 --> 01:15:35,400
 That would be the opposite of what we want.

709
01:15:35,400 --> 01:15:38,400
 We don't want it to be conclusory allegations.

710
01:15:38,400 --> 01:15:41,400
 We want it to be actual facts.

711
01:15:41,400 --> 01:15:43,400
 Here is an email that I got.

712
01:15:43,400 --> 01:15:51,400
 Do facts need to be verified?

713
01:15:51,400 --> 01:15:53,400
 Vertifiable facts?

714
01:15:53,400 --> 01:16:02,400
 I think one question that we had at that hearing was,

715
01:16:02,400 --> 01:16:14,400
 the evidence was a video of a council meeting and it was not stated anywhere if that was invisible.

716
01:16:14,400 --> 01:16:20,400
 Oh, we had that issue prior and then we corrected the rules of procedure

717
01:16:20,400 --> 01:16:25,400
 or amended them to make that clear that it was invisible.

718
01:16:25,400 --> 01:16:28,400
 I guess let me rephrase.

719
01:16:28,400 --> 01:16:35,400
 Is the first sentence establishing the standard under which a complaint will be considered?

720
01:16:35,400 --> 01:16:41,400
 Or is it establishing the standard under which a final determination will be made?

721
01:16:41,400 --> 01:16:44,400
 Final determination is my understanding.

722
01:16:44,400 --> 01:16:54,400
 If you present sufficient, which now that you've pointed out is kind of vague, facts to establish the violation.

723
01:16:54,400 --> 01:16:58,400
 Okay, you've won the case. Violation has occurred.

724
01:16:58,400 --> 01:17:02,400
 But now, what is the definition of sufficient under the year?

725
01:17:02,400 --> 01:17:05,400
 I think we ought to take sufficient out.

726
01:17:05,400 --> 01:17:10,400
 Would that be, what do you think about that?

727
01:17:10,400 --> 01:17:21,400
 Sufficient facts to establish that it is highly probable or reasonably certain that a claim is true.

728
01:17:21,400 --> 01:17:23,400
 More likely than not.

729
01:17:23,400 --> 01:17:32,400
 More likely than not puts us on a preponderance of evidence rather than a clear convincing that it's a lower burden.

730
01:17:32,400 --> 01:17:34,400
 Yeah, I just don't know which one you'd go on.

731
01:17:34,400 --> 01:17:36,400
 I would prefer the higher burden.

732
01:17:36,400 --> 01:17:41,400
 Okay, I get what you're saying.

733
01:17:41,400 --> 01:17:47,400
 To establish beyond the reasonable doubt.

734
01:17:47,400 --> 01:17:48,400
 That's the highest burden.

735
01:17:48,400 --> 01:17:49,400
 Okay, okay.

736
01:17:49,400 --> 01:17:50,400
 Don't want the highest.

737
01:17:50,400 --> 01:17:53,400
 Okay, what would you say then?

738
01:17:53,400 --> 01:17:59,400
 That it's highly probable or reasonably certain that this is happening.

739
01:17:59,400 --> 01:18:03,400
 So it's like, it's more than 50%, right?

740
01:18:03,400 --> 01:18:16,400
 So you have a preponderance of evidence is the scales are equal and all I have to do is beep and it's established versus clear and convincing like this and beyond a reasonable doubt.

741
01:18:16,400 --> 01:18:17,400
 Okay.

742
01:18:19,400 --> 01:18:21,400
 The preponderance is used by Dallas.

743
01:18:21,400 --> 01:18:26,400
 It's up to y'all.

744
01:18:26,400 --> 01:18:27,400
 Yeah.

745
01:18:27,400 --> 01:18:32,400
 It would be great to get a clear direction on which one you would like.

746
01:18:32,400 --> 01:18:40,400
 I would prefer the higher clear and convincing if Dallas is using preponderance.

747
01:18:40,400 --> 01:18:43,400
 Dallas is in a whole different.

748
01:18:43,400 --> 01:18:48,400
 I'm trying to find another one.

749
01:18:48,400 --> 01:18:59,400
 There have been a lot of, there are people sitting in jail right now because of things they did in Dallas.

750
01:18:59,400 --> 01:19:06,400
 Well, let's bring it back to what we talked about with the anonymous complaints.

751
01:19:06,400 --> 01:19:15,400
 So we have a complaint filed and then someone uses just the mere complaint to thwart an election.

752
01:19:15,400 --> 01:19:23,400
 That election costs that candidate something pretty substantial in my opinion, right?

753
01:19:23,400 --> 01:19:25,400
 It's a substantial thing to lose.

754
01:19:25,400 --> 01:19:32,400
 So I think the burden needs to be higher to say, look, you could cost this person their livelihood.

755
01:19:32,400 --> 01:19:39,400
 Whatever it is, there are actual consequences to filing these complaints for the person you're filing against.

756
01:19:39,400 --> 01:19:47,400
 And so you need to be able to meet, you've got to present something to us that establishes that it is more,

757
01:19:47,400 --> 01:19:51,400
 that it is certain that this has happened.

758
01:19:51,400 --> 01:19:57,400
 It would be on a reasonable doubt, but that it's certain or reasonably certain that this has happened.

759
01:19:57,400 --> 01:20:03,400
 I think that's better than just saying, tip the scales in your favor and we'll ruin this person's life.

760
01:20:03,400 --> 01:20:10,400
 I was looking for another word for sufficient, adequate, adequate facts.

761
01:20:10,400 --> 01:20:11,400
 Sufficient is fine.

762
01:20:11,400 --> 01:20:29,400
 Maybe just add in reasonable after that, present sufficient facts to reasonably establish that a violation has occurred.

763
01:20:29,400 --> 01:20:37,400
 Okay, so sufficient facts to establish that it is reasonably certain that a violation occurred.

764
01:20:37,400 --> 01:20:39,400
 Would that be okay?

765
01:20:39,400 --> 01:20:45,400
 To reasonably establish that a violation has occurred.

766
01:20:45,400 --> 01:20:53,400
 My problem with the word reasonably is that it's subjective.

767
01:20:53,400 --> 01:21:02,400
 The word certain is not.

768
01:21:02,400 --> 01:21:07,400
 A likely violation?

769
01:21:07,400 --> 01:21:11,400
 I think Madison can work out the language of it if you all want to just...

770
01:21:11,400 --> 01:21:18,400
 Do you agree with Mr. Ferguson's recommendation of clear and convincing statements?

771
01:21:18,400 --> 01:21:19,400
 I do.

772
01:21:19,400 --> 01:21:22,400
 Is that a direct burden on Madison?

773
01:21:22,400 --> 01:21:26,400
 I think the language that you said won't make it work.

774
01:21:26,400 --> 01:21:30,400
 I just want to have a discussion about what actual burden of proof you want.

775
01:21:30,400 --> 01:21:32,400
 I think we have that.

776
01:21:32,400 --> 01:21:34,400
 Everybody agrees with clear and convincing.

777
01:21:34,400 --> 01:21:38,400
 So sufficient would become clear and convincing?

778
01:21:38,400 --> 01:21:50,400
 I think we could keep sufficient perhaps if we say that it's reasonably certain that there's a violation.

779
01:21:50,400 --> 01:21:53,400
 But we'll bring that back so that you can see actual language.

780
01:21:53,400 --> 01:21:56,400
 I definitely agree with you.

781
01:21:56,400 --> 01:22:01,400
 Sufficient, enough, adequate.

782
01:22:01,400 --> 01:22:09,400
 Basically I just want to know, do you want it to be 51% certain that a violation occurred or 75%?

783
01:22:09,400 --> 01:22:12,400
 Which would you rather have to be sure of?

784
01:22:12,400 --> 01:22:19,400
 I'd rather have 75%.

785
01:22:19,400 --> 01:22:23,400
 I just like the wording and I like where we're going with it.

786
01:22:23,400 --> 01:22:26,400
 We'll remove the actual words, burden of proof.

787
01:22:26,400 --> 01:22:35,400
 We'll know if there's responsibility to establish facts to be reasonably certain that a violation occurred.

788
01:22:35,400 --> 01:22:44,400
 And then the complainant will still be required to attend to testify because that's part of the evidence that they represent.

789
01:22:44,400 --> 01:22:49,400
 That is the burden of proof section, and then the last item is future.

790
01:22:49,400 --> 01:22:50,400
 Oh, okay.

791
01:22:50,400 --> 01:22:52,400
 Unless we all have more discussion about this.

792
01:22:52,400 --> 01:22:53,400
 No.

793
01:22:53,400 --> 01:22:57,400
 So we're finished with item D. We're moving to item E.

794
01:22:57,400 --> 01:23:01,400
 BOE 25-005, Receiver Report.

795
01:23:01,400 --> 01:23:05,400
 All the discussion in good staff direction regarding future meeting topics.

796
01:23:05,400 --> 01:23:10,400
 Yeah.

797
01:23:10,400 --> 01:23:15,400
 So next time we'll discuss the red lines of this.

798
01:23:15,400 --> 01:23:25,400
 We'll have a book and then in theory we'll be ready to go to the city council in March for discussion.

799
01:23:25,400 --> 01:23:28,400
 And that's all I have on the agenda for right now for next time.

800
01:23:28,400 --> 01:23:31,400
 But you can add something if you would like.

801
01:23:31,400 --> 01:23:34,400
 No, I think that's...

802
01:23:34,400 --> 01:23:35,400
 No, no.

803
01:23:35,400 --> 01:23:36,400
 Okay.

804
01:23:36,400 --> 01:23:44,400
 I don't mean to speak for everybody, but I think these are big things we're talking about.

805
01:23:44,400 --> 01:23:50,400
 I would say in the future I would like to start looking at some of the items in the glossary.

806
01:23:50,400 --> 01:23:52,400
 The definition section?

807
01:23:52,400 --> 01:23:59,400
 Yes, because some of them are really in need of review.

808
01:23:59,400 --> 01:24:06,400
 And obviously we'll talk about March and April next meeting, what we want to discuss.

809
01:24:06,400 --> 01:24:08,400
 That's fine.

810
01:24:08,400 --> 01:24:12,400
 Anything else, guys?

811
01:24:12,400 --> 01:24:21,400
 So it is now 7/24 and this meeting is adjourned.