WEBVTT 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 00:00:09.180 --> 00:00:16.440 and we are going to look at item one on the agenda presentation from members of 00:00:16.440 --> 00:00:22.440 the public and we have one presentation from Charles Lee. 00:00:27.920 --> 00:00:36.560 So I believe you have three minutes so if you will state your name and address. 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 00:00:42.640 --> 00:00:48.320 the last time I was here I heard a lot of disturbing things about 00:00:48.320 --> 00:00:55.360 process and I just want to understand that even though this might be just a 00:00:55.360 --> 00:01:01.360 judicial board and I think Board of Ethics, the Constitution is still full 00:01:01.360 --> 00:01:05.080 force of effect. I had a little discussion with you people before that 00:01:05.080 --> 00:01:11.440 you all took up to the Constitution and I heard statements about and I think you 00:01:11.440 --> 00:01:15.720 have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. This system is a 00:01:15.720 --> 00:01:20.720 supremacy clause. It's the law of the land so anywhere you go in this country 00:01:20.720 --> 00:01:25.920 you see the flag outside it's you know the Constitution is in effect and when 00:01:25.920 --> 00:01:29.440 you have these own complaintants following these complaints and then you 00:01:29.440 --> 00:01:35.000 have the accused, the defendant. I just want to say that the defendant has the 00:01:35.000 --> 00:01:41.280 presumption of innocence. That person is innocent until the complaintant actually 00:01:41.280 --> 00:01:46.200 has actual evidence that they have the burden to prove to prove their case. They 00:01:46.200 --> 00:01:52.920 have to prove that whoever they're accusing actually is guilty and there is 00:01:52.920 --> 00:01:58.120 a, I'm not an entity, I understand that, but eventually at a certain point they 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 00:02:02.560 --> 00:02:06.440 accused or the defendant or whoever they're accusing did any kind of wrongdoing. 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 00:02:11.680 --> 00:02:17.480 constitutional system. It hasn't changed and if you start deviating that process 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 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 00:02:28.440 --> 00:02:33.800 changed and I highly suggest that people start looking into their fourth, fifth, and 00:02:33.800 --> 00:02:37.960 sixth amendments because they haven't changed. It's been going off for this 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 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. 00:02:48.280 --> 00:02:58.720 Okay, item two, items for consideration. Item A, BOE 25-002. Receive 00:02:58.720 --> 00:03:03.960 nominations and hold an election of a chair and vice chair. 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 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 00:03:23.280 --> 00:03:29.800 experience and so I would recommend that you be chairing it. 00:03:29.800 --> 00:03:37.880 I'll second that. Do I hear any other nominations? Make sure we're being fair. 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 00:03:50.120 --> 00:03:56.920 nominations for vice chair. I'd like to nominate Dustin for vice chair. I would 00:03:56.920 --> 00:04:02.320 second that. Okay any other nominations for Dustin? 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? 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 00:04:21.240 --> 00:04:31.040 someone need a vice chair? Yes. Yeah I abstain from the vice chair. Okay we have 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 00:04:43.760 --> 00:04:50.240 discussion and consider an adoption of the 2025 meeting schedule. May I first 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 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 00:05:03.400 --> 00:05:09.240 long career but I was a college coach. I was also the assistant athletic 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 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. 00:05:24.720 --> 00:05:29.680 And I currently am the national promotions director for three and two 00:05:29.680 --> 00:05:38.600 which is a clothing line and in baseball and softball and I was the national 00:05:38.600 --> 00:05:44.680 promotions director for the Shutt Sports if you like football. Most of the 00:05:44.680 --> 00:05:49.000 football helmets were made by Shutt Sports and I was also in the baseball 00:05:49.000 --> 00:05:53.920 softball. During my time which is the most important thing for me to tell you 00:05:53.920 --> 00:06:00.240 during my time with my organization I was the author of the ethics code that 00:06:00.240 --> 00:06:05.640 has 9,000 members. I loved ethics. I wanted to be on this committee for a 00:06:05.640 --> 00:06:11.160 long time. It's very important for me that the standards are upheld and that 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:06:47.040 --> 00:06:52.760 introductions that we made to each other. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Good. Yeah. 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. 00:06:58.160 --> 00:07:02.320 You have an impressive background. Thank you. Thank you. 00:07:02.320 --> 00:07:09.120 So we'll move on to item B-BOE25-03, hold a discussion and consider 00:07:09.120 --> 00:07:17.000 adoption of the 2025 meeting schedule. So there's two possibilities. Yeah, so 00:07:17.000 --> 00:07:21.280 historically we met on the first Monday of each month. Some members have raised 00:07:21.280 --> 00:07:25.800 concerns that that doesn't, that could be easier if we just change to the second 00:07:25.800 --> 00:07:31.600 Monday. So I presented both the options. That would also allow us to meet during 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 00:07:37.520 --> 00:07:41.360 right side of the screen is the second Monday of every month. On the left side 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 00:07:46.800 --> 00:07:52.440 530 if possible. That still works for everybody, but it's really up to y'all. 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 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 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 00:08:16.080 --> 00:08:20.240 later, but that's the only day that's conflicting with me. Rest of the year 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 00:08:25.600 --> 00:08:32.120 the meetings if you can agree that. So if you have to miss a meeting, you 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 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 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 00:08:50.880 --> 00:08:55.120 something is excused and that doesn't count towards that. Yeah, vacation does 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 00:09:04.680 --> 00:09:09.720 would be my preference because I hated it last summer when we weren't able to 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 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 00:09:20.680 --> 00:09:25.160 responsibilities that are on the first Monday that I have no, I have absolutely 00:09:25.160 --> 00:09:30.120 no control over when those meetings are happening. So it would make it a little 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 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 00:09:39.680 --> 00:09:44.040 going to run into all of those holidays that have prevented us from meeting. So if 00:09:44.040 --> 00:09:50.400 there are things to be discussed, we can. So is there anybody really wanting the 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? 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 00:10:07.240 --> 00:10:10.800 remember, Baker's plan, if we wanted to change the March date, we could do that 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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? 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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? 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? 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. 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 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 00:22:30.320 --> 00:22:36.400 Potentially, yeah. Yeah, yeah, just something that... 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. 00:22:45.680 --> 00:22:56.080 Makes sense. 00:22:56.080 --> 00:22:57.760 Okay, I've noted that down. 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... 00:23:05.680 --> 00:23:06.880 Working through the language. 00:23:06.880 --> 00:23:09.200 Hammering, okay. 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. 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. 00:23:26.800 --> 00:23:28.160 Oh, okay. 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. 00:23:40.880 --> 00:23:54.240 And then under the last sentence of the business disclosure paragraph, it says... 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. 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. 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. 00:24:26.640 --> 00:24:35.680 Thanks, Justin, that's the whole thing is you want to catch. 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... 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. 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. 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? 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... 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. 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. 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. 00:27:04.400 --> 00:27:12.400 I think less words are less things to get hung up on, too. 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. 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. 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? 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? 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? 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 00:32:25.400 --> 00:32:45.400 Yeah, I like that too. 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. 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. 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. 00:33:36.400 --> 00:33:41.400 I'm curious on why we're giving them that time limit. 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. 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. 00:34:19.400 --> 00:34:24.400 I see your point. 00:34:24.400 --> 00:34:30.400 Well, that's an easy fix, I mean, just put a time limit in there. 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. 00:34:37.400 --> 00:34:39.400 90 days. 00:34:39.400 --> 00:34:42.400 90 days, whatever. 00:34:42.400 --> 00:34:48.400 My only concern is that some disclosures do not become immediately available, I mean apparent. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 00:35:48.400 --> 00:35:53.400 What would happen if we just took that out, took that sentence out? 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. 00:36:05.400 --> 00:36:09.400 That's kind of how I'm reading it. 00:36:09.400 --> 00:36:11.400 That just needs to be said more clearly. 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. 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. 00:36:31.400 --> 00:36:37.400 I think a disclosure is good for one calendar year from the date of disclosure. 00:36:37.400 --> 00:36:39.400 Yeah, that's nice. 00:36:39.400 --> 00:36:41.400 But that doesn't answer the question. 00:36:41.400 --> 00:36:42.400 Right. 00:36:42.400 --> 00:36:43.400 They're being adaptive. 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. 00:36:47.400 --> 00:36:52.400 So it wasn't clear enough, so number one. 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? 00:36:59.400 --> 00:37:05.400 I mean, I think a year is a little long, but that's just me. 00:37:05.400 --> 00:37:09.400 Six months, maybe? 00:37:09.400 --> 00:37:12.400 It's not something that's going to be long. 00:37:12.400 --> 00:37:15.400 But I'm just saying, I think it's too long. 00:37:15.400 --> 00:37:19.400 I do know that sometimes in council, they revisit things. 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. 00:37:33.400 --> 00:37:34.400 Yeah. 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. 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... 00:37:53.400 --> 00:37:56.400 And then you'd have to recuse. 00:37:56.400 --> 00:38:04.400 Yeah, the previous paragraph would require them to recuse themselves from any deliberation. 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." 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 00:39:46.400 --> 00:39:52.400 A calendar year is January to December. 00:39:52.400 --> 00:39:56.400 Physical year, right? Physical year is date to date. 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. 00:40:03.400 --> 00:40:05.400 12 months, one year, one date. 00:40:05.400 --> 00:40:08.400 Just to clarify, a calendar year is specifically... 00:40:08.400 --> 00:40:13.400 So we go with the language of 12 months? 00:40:13.400 --> 00:40:16.400 So everybody's in agreement about that? 00:40:16.400 --> 00:40:17.400 Yes. 00:40:17.400 --> 00:40:21.400 Good morning. At least we all know what it's saying. 00:40:21.400 --> 00:40:42.400 That's a good thing. 00:40:42.400 --> 00:40:47.400 Are we ready for the next thing? 00:40:47.400 --> 00:40:50.400 And it's up to y'all. 00:40:50.400 --> 00:40:52.400 I'm ready. Are you? 00:40:52.400 --> 00:40:53.400 Yes. 00:40:53.400 --> 00:40:56.400 Yes. You okay? 00:40:56.400 --> 00:40:57.400 Do y'all want to... 00:40:57.400 --> 00:40:58.400 That's okay. 00:40:58.400 --> 00:41:04.400 Go... I rewrote that last, that definition of conflict of interest. 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? 00:41:08.400 --> 00:41:09.400 Yeah. 00:41:09.400 --> 00:41:11.400 Okay. 00:41:11.400 --> 00:41:18.400 So how I have it written, I think, reads, "The conflict of interest arises when personal 00:41:18.400 --> 00:41:25.400 or financial considerations influence or have the potential to influence the judgment 00:41:25.400 --> 00:41:31.400 or actions of a city official in their official capacity, period. 00:41:31.400 --> 00:41:38.400 City officials shall avoid actions or conduct in their official capacity that they know 00:41:38.400 --> 00:41:44.400 or should know are likely to impact the personal or financial interests of any 00:41:44.400 --> 00:41:49.400 of the following in a way that is not shared with a substantial segment 00:41:49.400 --> 00:41:54.400 of the city's population, A through G." 00:41:54.400 --> 00:41:57.400 And that basically is combining one and two? 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. 00:42:04.400 --> 00:42:12.400 City officials shall be proactive and transparent, and then we can take out that second sentence 00:42:12.400 --> 00:42:16.400 in paragraph one. 00:42:16.400 --> 00:42:17.400 Remove this. 00:42:17.400 --> 00:42:20.400 Yeah. You can throw that into two if we want it. 00:42:20.400 --> 00:42:21.400 I think that should be taken out. 00:42:21.400 --> 00:42:22.400 I think it should be taken out. 00:42:22.400 --> 00:42:23.400 Yeah. 00:42:23.400 --> 00:42:26.400 Just remove this. 00:42:26.400 --> 00:42:27.400 This is still here. 00:42:27.400 --> 00:42:29.400 Did that mess list go back up here? 00:42:29.400 --> 00:42:30.400 Correct. 00:42:30.400 --> 00:42:35.400 Second and third sentence in paragraph one. 00:42:35.400 --> 00:42:39.400 Starting a conflict of interest or challenging organization. 00:42:39.400 --> 00:42:45.400 I don't think anybody cares. 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 00:42:53.400 --> 00:42:56.400 is already in the general rules. 00:42:56.400 --> 00:43:03.400 This sentence will be removed. These two sentences will be removed. 00:43:03.400 --> 00:43:08.400 This will be reworded to what you just said. 00:43:08.400 --> 00:43:11.400 This list will move up. 00:43:11.400 --> 00:43:12.400 Move up under there. 00:43:12.400 --> 00:43:18.400 And then this states? 00:43:18.400 --> 00:43:21.400 It sounded like you removed that as well. 00:43:21.400 --> 00:43:25.400 Which were the first sentence of two? 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 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 00:43:39.400 --> 00:43:41.400 looking at it. 00:43:41.400 --> 00:43:42.400 I got it. 00:43:42.400 --> 00:43:47.400 I think you moved part of paragraph two up to paragraph one under the definition. 00:43:47.400 --> 00:43:48.400 Yes. 00:43:48.400 --> 00:43:51.400 I don't know that those needed to be two separate paragraphs. 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 00:43:57.400 --> 00:43:58.400 and transparent. 00:43:58.400 --> 00:44:06.400 I think that needs to be incorporated under number one. 00:44:06.400 --> 00:44:10.400 Yeah, definitely believe in transparency. 00:44:10.400 --> 00:44:18.400 That's a big ethical concept. 00:44:18.400 --> 00:44:21.400 Have we thoroughly confused you? 00:44:21.400 --> 00:44:24.400 I thought that could be the opening sentence though. 00:44:24.400 --> 00:44:27.400 Couldn't that be the first sentence? 00:44:27.400 --> 00:44:29.400 Officials shall be proactive and transparent. 00:44:29.400 --> 00:44:33.400 Like this is the expectation and then get into the specifics. 00:44:33.400 --> 00:44:38.400 I like that. 00:44:38.400 --> 00:44:42.400 And I don't think you need based on perception. 00:44:42.400 --> 00:44:44.400 That's opinion. 00:44:44.400 --> 00:44:47.400 That is subjective opinion. 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 00:44:55.400 --> 00:44:56.400 opinion. 00:44:56.400 --> 00:44:57.400 It should be objective. 00:44:57.400 --> 00:45:00.400 So that's just a waste of words in my opinion. 00:45:00.400 --> 00:45:04.400 And a potential place for confusion. 00:45:04.400 --> 00:45:06.400 I know what you're trying to do. 00:45:06.400 --> 00:45:08.400 Remove all of this basically. 00:45:08.400 --> 00:45:10.400 Yeah, definitely remove that. 00:45:10.400 --> 00:45:19.400 I think that came out of the city staff code of ethics. 00:45:19.400 --> 00:45:22.400 I don't think it needs to be. 00:45:22.400 --> 00:45:24.400 Can you email whatever you want to? 00:45:24.400 --> 00:45:26.400 Am I allowed to? 00:45:26.400 --> 00:45:29.400 Yeah, you can email us. 00:45:29.400 --> 00:45:36.400 That would be easier than coming back and trying to listen to the tape. 00:45:36.400 --> 00:45:37.400 If possible. 00:45:37.400 --> 00:45:39.400 Perfect. 00:45:39.400 --> 00:45:41.400 Thank you very much, Charles. 00:45:41.400 --> 00:45:49.400 Those are good suggestions. 00:45:49.400 --> 00:45:51.400 Yeah, I think it makes it a lot more clear. 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. 00:46:09.400 --> 00:46:34.400 So we're ready to go on to the next thing? 00:46:34.400 --> 00:46:41.400 So I wanted to discuss the burden of proof section. 00:46:41.400 --> 00:46:47.400 The red lines, I changed them to how we discussed last time. 00:46:47.400 --> 00:46:52.400 I did want to give just a quick overview of burden of proof. 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. 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. 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. 00:47:15.400 --> 00:47:22.400 A very, very brief summary of what that looks like in civil and criminal courts. 00:47:22.400 --> 00:47:30.400 And the burden of proof is the amount that has to be proven. 00:47:30.400 --> 00:47:35.400 So in criminal, it's got a reasonable doubt. 00:47:35.400 --> 00:47:39.400 In civil, it's generally imponderance, which means more likely than not. 00:47:39.400 --> 00:47:44.400 Our current code doesn't actually say which burden of proof we're using. 00:47:44.400 --> 00:47:51.400 It just says the plaintiff has to do it, which is typical. 00:47:51.400 --> 00:48:00.400 So does that help set this conversation up a little better? 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. 00:48:11.400 --> 00:48:12.400 Yes. 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, 00:48:22.400 --> 00:48:27.400 they should say their name or we should not take it up. 00:48:27.400 --> 00:48:34.400 We have a right as a human being to be innocent until proven guilty, 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, 00:48:41.400 --> 00:48:43.400 we should not take it up. 00:48:43.400 --> 00:48:50.400 We have no business taking it up, and I'm just really strong about that. 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. 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 00:49:06.400 --> 00:49:11.400 until a time in which that name has to come forward. 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, 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. 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, 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. 00:49:36.400 --> 00:49:39.400 Did somebody blame you for something you didn't do? 00:49:39.400 --> 00:49:43.400 It can ruin a person's life. 00:49:43.400 --> 00:49:46.400 Or you didn't know who was making that complaint. 00:49:46.400 --> 00:49:47.400 Ma'am? 00:49:47.400 --> 00:49:50.400 Or you didn't know who was making that complaint. 00:49:50.400 --> 00:49:51.400 I'm sorry? 00:49:51.400 --> 00:49:53.400 You didn't know who was making that complaint. 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. 00:49:59.400 --> 00:50:04.400 Who's going to make that burden of proof? 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, 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, 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. 00:50:24.400 --> 00:50:28.400 Well, they've got to be brave enough to say it. 00:50:28.400 --> 00:50:30.400 It was me that said it. 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 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. 00:50:43.400 --> 00:50:46.400 Maybe that's okay from a staff standpoint, 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. 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 00:51:01.400 --> 00:51:04.400 that there might be a hearing. 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, 00:51:10.400 --> 00:51:15.400 I keep coming back to the fact that complainants have no legal resources. 00:51:15.400 --> 00:51:20.400 They are not able to, you know, we're sitting here assuming that a complainant can -- 00:51:20.400 --> 00:51:29.400 they have all the resources to investigate and put all this together and present this. 00:51:29.400 --> 00:51:33.400 This is why a lot of citizens don't want to mess with it. 00:51:33.400 --> 00:51:38.400 They may have violent or vehement complaints, 00:51:38.400 --> 00:51:44.400 but they're just not willing to step aside and file what's necessary. 00:51:44.400 --> 00:51:48.400 So I'm not suggesting their name be protected in any way. 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, 00:51:53.400 --> 00:51:58.400 you know, complainants on the staff side being protected from citizens. 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. 00:52:08.400 --> 00:52:10.400 Bias isn't with the name. 00:52:10.400 --> 00:52:12.400 The name should be a matter of record. 00:52:12.400 --> 00:52:14.400 But we're holding them to standards. 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. 00:52:20.400 --> 00:52:23.400 And that's why a lot of them just say, "What the heck with it. 00:52:23.400 --> 00:52:25.400 I want nothing to do with this." 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, 00:52:34.400 --> 00:52:38.400 an ethics complaint, through the hotline thing. 00:52:38.400 --> 00:52:41.400 I've been on this board for a long time. 00:52:41.400 --> 00:52:45.400 I didn't even know that was an option to do. 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. 00:52:50.400 --> 00:52:57.400 They can use the anonymous hotline to report what they believe to have been a violation. 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." 00:53:02.400 --> 00:53:06.400 They can then say, "Well, I did," through the anonymous hotline. 00:53:06.400 --> 00:53:08.400 And then there's a record of that. 00:53:08.400 --> 00:53:13.400 But when we received that, we processed it as though they hadn't completed the form, 00:53:13.400 --> 00:53:16.400 that it wasn't administratively complete, because it wasn't. 00:53:16.400 --> 00:53:19.400 They didn't submit their name. It wasn't notarized. 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? 00:53:23.400 --> 00:53:25.400 Is there some other method we want to do that?" 00:53:25.400 --> 00:53:27.400 Because it never happened before. 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, 00:53:35.400 --> 00:53:38.400 but we're still looking into that still. 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. 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." 00:53:50.400 --> 00:53:57.400 So I put this together to try to give us a little more context for legally, 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. 00:54:03.400 --> 00:54:07.400 We're not in either of those courts, because this is quasi judicial, 00:54:07.400 --> 00:54:11.400 but when we're talking about burden of proof, this is what we're talking about. 00:54:11.400 --> 00:54:18.400 And the ordinance actually doesn't even set a burden of proof standard, which is confusing. 00:54:18.400 --> 00:54:25.400 But it does require the complainant to meet the burden of proof. 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. 00:54:36.400 --> 00:54:38.400 So I want to make that clear. 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? 00:54:43.400 --> 00:54:44.400 We do require their name. 00:54:44.400 --> 00:54:51.400 Okay, so when they report a violation, they have to give their name at that point. 00:54:51.400 --> 00:54:52.400 Correct. 00:54:52.400 --> 00:54:55.400 And it's our job to protect them. 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. 00:55:04.400 --> 00:55:05.400 Is that correct? 00:55:05.400 --> 00:55:06.400 Right. 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, 00:55:14.400 --> 00:55:20.400 that they have no ability, they have no subpoena power, they have no power to investigate, 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. 00:55:29.400 --> 00:55:31.400 But that's not their job, is it David? 00:55:31.400 --> 00:55:34.400 I mean, isn't that our job after they put the complaint in? 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. 00:55:39.400 --> 00:55:42.400 But it says in the code that the burden rests on the complainant. 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. 00:55:50.400 --> 00:55:52.400 This is the red line. 00:55:52.400 --> 00:55:58.400 The complainant shall present sufficient facts to establish that a violation of this article has occurred. 00:55:58.400 --> 00:56:00.400 And then it goes into the red line of burden approved. 00:56:00.400 --> 00:56:07.400 No, it's the board of ethics that shall present the sufficient facts, not the complainant. 00:56:07.400 --> 00:56:09.400 I agree with that. 00:56:09.400 --> 00:56:12.400 But in these red lines, that is exactly what we're eliminating. 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. 00:56:19.400 --> 00:56:23.400 Responsibility to establish facts the complainant shall present. 00:56:23.400 --> 00:56:27.400 That stays, but the burden of proof language is taken out. 00:56:27.400 --> 00:56:29.400 That's what the red line shows. 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, 00:56:34.400 --> 00:56:39.400 but this just jumped out initially to the folks on the ethics committee. 00:56:39.400 --> 00:56:41.400 No, wait a minute. 00:56:41.400 --> 00:56:47.400 This is calling on citizens to take on the task of the board of ethics. 00:56:47.400 --> 00:56:49.400 What's this all about? 00:56:49.400 --> 00:56:55.400 The board has subpoena power, that's true. 00:56:55.400 --> 00:57:01.400 But the board cannot be the prosecutor because you're essentially the jury. 00:57:01.400 --> 00:57:04.400 Well, prosecute's a bad word right there. 00:57:04.400 --> 00:57:06.400 It's a law. 00:57:06.400 --> 00:57:09.400 If you're trying to investigate, you can't decide if you've read enough evidence. 00:57:09.400 --> 00:57:12.400 That's not how the legal system works. 00:57:12.400 --> 00:57:14.400 This is a law. 00:57:14.400 --> 00:57:16.400 Yes. 00:57:16.400 --> 00:57:18.400 That's true. 00:57:18.400 --> 00:57:23.400 So we have to make sure that we're complying with the Constitution. 00:57:23.400 --> 00:57:29.400 You are acting as the judge and the jury as part of this legal system. 00:57:29.400 --> 00:57:35.400 So you cannot be the person who's prosecuting the respondent. 00:57:35.400 --> 00:57:39.400 I'm totally fine with the complainant's name being part of the record. 00:57:39.400 --> 00:57:44.400 I'm totally fine with that. 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. 00:57:50.400 --> 00:57:56.400 Even in our code, who's responsible? 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? 00:58:05.400 --> 00:58:10.400 He presents those facts in writing to the board of ethics. 00:58:10.400 --> 00:58:12.400 So you do not object to that language? 00:58:12.400 --> 00:58:14.400 No, not at all. 00:58:14.400 --> 00:58:19.400 In this red line, the burden of proof is eliminated. 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. 00:58:28.400 --> 00:58:30.400 It's sort of like we did today. 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. 00:58:38.400 --> 00:58:40.400 That person gave it their name. 00:58:40.400 --> 00:58:45.400 And so that's what you want, and that's kind of what we did. 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. 00:58:55.400 --> 00:58:59.400 I mean, you know, but I don't think in your writing you're doing that. 00:58:59.400 --> 00:59:01.400 I mean, I think you've taken that out. 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. 00:59:12.400 --> 00:59:16.400 And, you know, and we voted on against it. 00:59:16.400 --> 00:59:20.400 But I don't think the complaint has to go three steps up. 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. 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. 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. 00:59:40.400 --> 00:59:42.400 But it's not that way now. 00:59:42.400 --> 00:59:45.400 Well, yes, it is. That's the way it still reads. 00:59:45.400 --> 00:59:46.400 It is that way now. 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. 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. 01:00:00.400 --> 01:00:02.400 I'm fine if they're mandated to. 01:00:02.400 --> 01:00:06.400 I mean, even in similar cities and work organizations, they don't even have to appear. 01:00:06.400 --> 01:00:13.400 If the complaint is completed and testified and signed off, sometimes they don't even have -- 01:00:13.400 --> 01:00:18.400 I have no problem at all requiring a dentin complainant to attend a hearing 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. 01:00:26.400 --> 01:00:29.400 But other than that -- 01:00:29.400 --> 01:00:31.400 So how do we fix this? 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 -- 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. 01:00:48.400 --> 01:00:50.400 The board -- 01:00:50.400 --> 01:00:54.400 Who would the board then be presenting the facts to? Themselves? 01:00:54.400 --> 01:00:56.400 I'm sorry. 01:00:56.400 --> 01:01:02.400 If you replace the complaint with the board, then the board shall present sufficient facts 01:01:02.400 --> 01:01:06.400 to establish the violation of the article occurred to themselves? 01:01:06.400 --> 01:01:08.400 Yes. Yeah. The board. 01:01:08.400 --> 01:01:10.400 How is that -- that's not -- 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. 01:01:15.400 --> 01:01:18.400 But then there's no -- but then there's no burden. 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 -- 01:01:25.400 --> 01:01:27.400 when the defendant -- 01:01:27.400 --> 01:01:28.400 Respondent. 01:01:28.400 --> 01:01:31.400 Respondent, there we go, is someone that maybe the board doesn't like. 01:01:31.400 --> 01:01:33.400 Well, now the burden's on them. 01:01:33.400 --> 01:01:38.400 But if it's somebody that the board likes, well, the burden is on this guy. 01:01:38.400 --> 01:01:44.400 And so the burden has to be specified of who's going to bear this burden. 01:01:44.400 --> 01:01:48.400 We're potentially taking somebody's livelihood away from them. 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 -- 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. 01:01:58.400 --> 01:02:01.400 If they just want to write an affidavit and not show up, that's fine. 01:02:01.400 --> 01:02:03.400 Did you meet your burden in that affidavit? 01:02:03.400 --> 01:02:07.400 Maybe. I've met my burden plenty of times in court with an affidavit. 01:02:07.400 --> 01:02:10.400 So it's on them to establish that. 01:02:10.400 --> 01:02:12.400 It has to be on them. 01:02:12.400 --> 01:02:14.400 We can't place it on the respondent. 01:02:14.400 --> 01:02:19.400 They did nothing to incur a burden, so it's definitely not on them. 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. 01:02:27.400 --> 01:02:28.400 We just listen to the evidence. 01:02:28.400 --> 01:02:31.400 We're the finders of fact here. 01:02:31.400 --> 01:02:36.400 And so that leaves only one person unless you've got rid of the burden. 01:02:36.400 --> 01:02:42.400 I hear what you're saying, but why is it not mentioned in any other code? 01:02:42.400 --> 01:02:45.400 I've never -- 01:02:45.400 --> 01:02:51.400 You have the responsibility of the Board of Ethics to investigate complaints, 01:02:51.400 --> 01:02:55.400 not just sit back and say, "Okay, complainant, tell me what you know." 01:02:55.400 --> 01:02:57.400 That's not what a Board of Ethics does. 01:02:57.400 --> 01:03:05.400 So then we need to draft the Board of Ethics procedures and our mandate of -- 01:03:05.400 --> 01:03:10.400 if the complaint is actionable and has been brought to the board 01:03:10.400 --> 01:03:16.400 and there's grounds to issue subpoena, then the board should issue the subpoena. 01:03:16.400 --> 01:03:19.400 Then we help gather the facts, but it's not our burden. 01:03:19.400 --> 01:03:24.400 But if we need to be mandated to issue the subpoenas for whatever it is, okay. 01:03:24.400 --> 01:03:27.400 But we can't have the burden. 01:03:27.400 --> 01:03:28.400 We're the fact finders. 01:03:28.400 --> 01:03:30.400 We just listen. 01:03:30.400 --> 01:03:40.400 So in some jurisdictions, there is a separate investigative function that is like an inspector general 01:03:40.400 --> 01:03:47.400 or something that is separate from the board that is not the complainant 01:03:47.400 --> 01:03:51.400 and basically receives complaints and says, "Okay, I'm going to look into this for you," 01:03:51.400 --> 01:03:53.400 and then presents it to the board. 01:03:53.400 --> 01:03:58.400 We don't have that here because we don't have the resources for it. 01:03:58.400 --> 01:04:04.400 And I'm going to -- just because we're not using the word prosecutor, 01:04:04.400 --> 01:04:07.400 we're not using the word defendant, right. 01:04:07.400 --> 01:04:11.400 We're not -- we are using a complainant and we're having a respondent. 01:04:11.400 --> 01:04:19.400 So I also don't think that we should be using the word to investigate 01:04:19.400 --> 01:04:24.400 because I don't think that it is accurate to say that we are -- 01:04:24.400 --> 01:04:27.400 that as a Board of Ethics that we are here to investigate. 01:04:27.400 --> 01:04:30.400 We're establishing a code, right. 01:04:30.400 --> 01:04:34.400 We are overseeing the code that is implemented 01:04:34.400 --> 01:04:43.400 rather than going out and investigating if somebody did not act ethically. 01:04:43.400 --> 01:04:47.400 Well, I'm just referring to the universal code. 01:04:47.400 --> 01:04:49.400 The word investigate is in there from top to bottom. 01:04:49.400 --> 01:04:53.400 This is what the boards do when they have a hearing. 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, 01:05:01.400 --> 01:05:03.400 do we then send that to the city council? 01:05:03.400 --> 01:05:05.400 Is that what happens right now? 01:05:05.400 --> 01:05:06.400 No, we just make it. 01:05:06.400 --> 01:05:07.400 Okay. 01:05:07.400 --> 01:05:11.400 And I guess I'm going to ask a stupid question. 01:05:11.400 --> 01:05:15.400 But why don't we put the burden on the city council? 01:05:15.400 --> 01:05:17.400 Because most of the complaints were against the city council. 01:05:17.400 --> 01:05:20.400 Yeah, let's not do that one. 01:05:20.400 --> 01:05:23.400 I guess I think -- 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 01:05:27.400 --> 01:05:30.400 so that it doesn't become weaponized. 01:05:30.400 --> 01:05:33.400 We're not sending anybody to prison. 01:05:33.400 --> 01:05:37.400 The worst that can happen is a sanction and read the debt code. 01:05:37.400 --> 01:05:43.400 It's the weakest penalty that you can find anywhere. 01:05:43.400 --> 01:05:48.400 Some cities even attach financial broker. 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. 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, 01:06:02.400 --> 01:06:06.400 I'm not sure I understand where a lot of the concerns are 01:06:06.400 --> 01:06:10.400 because we're saying the complainant shall present sufficient facts 01:06:10.400 --> 01:06:13.400 to establish that a violation of this article has occurred. 01:06:13.400 --> 01:06:18.400 That's nothing new. That is a requirement for the ethics complaint form. 01:06:18.400 --> 01:06:22.400 For it to even get to a panel, their name has to be on the form. 01:06:22.400 --> 01:06:23.400 Exactly. 01:06:23.400 --> 01:06:27.400 If it's not on the form, then it's deemed incomplete by a city auditor 01:06:27.400 --> 01:06:30.400 and then nothing happens through the panel. 01:06:30.400 --> 01:06:33.400 So that they have to put their name on the form. 01:06:33.400 --> 01:06:38.400 They have to have enough facts in there so that the panel, like what happened today, 01:06:38.400 --> 01:06:41.400 whoever's on the panel makes a determination. 01:06:41.400 --> 01:06:45.400 This says that there is a violation or if all this is correct, 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. 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. 01:06:58.400 --> 01:07:01.400 Isn't that the way you decided this last time? 01:07:01.400 --> 01:07:06.400 Well, I think this is the language that was discussed last time. 01:07:06.400 --> 01:07:13.400 We heard discussion today about being able to face your accuser and that sort of thing. 01:07:13.400 --> 01:07:17.400 That's what's written right here. 01:07:17.400 --> 01:07:22.400 If the complainant does not show up at the hearing... 01:07:22.400 --> 01:07:25.400 But the accuser in today's hearing didn't show up. 01:07:25.400 --> 01:07:27.400 That wasn't the hearing. That was the panel. 01:07:27.400 --> 01:07:30.400 Oh, the panel. So they don't have to show up for the panel. 01:07:30.400 --> 01:07:35.400 Right. Hypothetically, if that complaint today went forward to... 01:07:35.400 --> 01:07:37.400 Oh, then he would have to. 01:07:37.400 --> 01:07:45.400 Ethics were hearing and that complainant did not show up, then there's no hearing. 01:07:45.400 --> 01:07:48.400 A lot of people don't understand that we have it too hard. 01:07:48.400 --> 01:07:51.400 I might have slept since last week. I think I did. 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, 01:07:56.400 --> 01:08:02.400 I could have sworn last week, I mean last meeting that you guys were discussing, 01:08:02.400 --> 01:08:07.400 taking the complaint without the name of the complainant being on that form. 01:08:07.400 --> 01:08:09.400 And we did, and we did. 01:08:09.400 --> 01:08:14.400 But that was directly related to the anonymous hotline. 01:08:14.400 --> 01:08:17.400 Because we had an agenda item that said... 01:08:17.400 --> 01:08:18.400 But that's gone away. 01:08:18.400 --> 01:08:20.400 Because Madison was... 01:08:20.400 --> 01:08:24.400 Right, essentially it was in the code and it occurred, but it had never occurred before. 01:08:24.400 --> 01:08:26.400 So I just wanted to check with the board. 01:08:26.400 --> 01:08:30.400 So what you're saying is really what we have and what we want. 01:08:30.400 --> 01:08:34.400 What we have today, this would be what we're going to go to... 01:08:34.400 --> 01:08:37.400 If we can approve all these red lines that are on this, 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. 01:08:41.400 --> 01:08:46.400 We think you should approve this, that we've spent hours and hours trying to rewrite." 01:08:46.400 --> 01:08:54.400 And hopefully they'll actually approve our recommendations, which has not happened. 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. 01:09:02.400 --> 01:09:05.400 You're saying that we can get rid of the word burden of proof. 01:09:05.400 --> 01:09:08.400 I don't really... 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, 01:09:14.400 --> 01:09:16.400 which is exactly what we discussed and came to. 01:09:16.400 --> 01:09:20.400 I think this kind of softens it without changing the name. 01:09:20.400 --> 01:09:23.400 And that is exactly what we discussed last time, right? 01:09:23.400 --> 01:09:32.400 Yeah. And that word has been, that term has had a chilling effect for potential complainants. 01:09:32.400 --> 01:09:41.400 I think for some background, like the concept of being anonymous on the complaint, 01:09:41.400 --> 01:09:47.400 there's no mechanism right now for there to be ever any kind of panel 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. 01:09:54.400 --> 01:10:00.400 The only, it's not really anonymity, it's just a confidentiality thing, 01:10:00.400 --> 01:10:05.400 is that up until that panel hearing that happened today is scheduled, 01:10:05.400 --> 01:10:08.400 then the complaint is considered confidential. 01:10:08.400 --> 01:10:18.400 And in practice, I think, that is so that someone can't submit a complaint 01:10:18.400 --> 01:10:22.400 knowing that it's going to be either baseless or it's frivolous, 01:10:22.400 --> 01:10:28.400 and then go and promote the fact that there is an ethics complaint against someone. 01:10:28.400 --> 01:10:31.400 In the past, that has happened during an election cycle. 01:10:31.400 --> 01:10:32.400 During election. 01:10:32.400 --> 01:10:34.400 And the person that submitted the complaint 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. 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. 01:10:46.400 --> 01:10:49.400 Yeah, I think we were surprised that, we didn't know what to do with it. 01:10:49.400 --> 01:10:57.400 There was no way to address that kind of complaint because there's no, 01:10:57.400 --> 01:11:00.400 like it just doesn't meet the requirements. 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, 01:11:08.400 --> 01:11:12.400 but we are requiring the complainant to present the facts, 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. 01:11:19.400 --> 01:11:21.400 And they have to show up at the hearing. 01:11:21.400 --> 01:11:26.400 Not the panel thing to just kind of review is this possibly a complaint, 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, 01:11:31.400 --> 01:11:36.400 the complainant has to be there and they have to testify. 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. 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. 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. 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. 01:12:08.400 --> 01:12:11.400 That has to all be complete on the form. 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, 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. 01:12:26.400 --> 01:12:30.400 Which doesn't happen in some cities, but we're good with that part. 01:12:30.400 --> 01:12:34.400 I just don't like, I want the language softer. 01:12:34.400 --> 01:12:38.400 Yeah, the only caveat to that is the part about frivolity. 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, 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. 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, 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. 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, 01:13:25.400 --> 01:13:28.400 that doesn't mean it just gets dismissed basically. 01:13:28.400 --> 01:13:30.400 I think I said that wrong. 01:13:30.400 --> 01:13:33.400 You said the respondent, so it's fine to clarify. 01:13:33.400 --> 01:13:34.400 Thank you, Josh. 01:13:34.400 --> 01:13:35.400 I'm going to say that all. 01:13:35.400 --> 01:13:37.400 I think we're all on the same page. 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. 01:13:43.400 --> 01:13:47.400 I think the way it is read is very good at addressing this. 01:13:47.400 --> 01:13:51.400 I mean, it worked really good for me. 01:13:51.400 --> 01:13:59.400 I have a question about the complainant shall present sufficient facts as a mandate. 01:13:59.400 --> 01:14:03.400 What happens if they don't? 01:14:03.400 --> 01:14:06.400 Then they don't meet? 01:14:06.400 --> 01:14:07.400 We all move forward. 01:14:07.400 --> 01:14:10.400 Then the complaint gets dismissed? 01:14:10.400 --> 01:14:12.400 Yeah. 01:14:12.400 --> 01:14:19.400 You've got to have the facts to decide if something's been done. 01:14:19.400 --> 01:14:20.400 Right. 01:14:20.400 --> 01:14:29.400 And then my other question is present sufficient facts. 01:14:29.400 --> 01:14:36.400 I'm just curious if you all agree on what presenting facts means, 01:14:36.400 --> 01:14:41.400 because presenting facts could mean alleging facts. 01:14:41.400 --> 01:14:43.400 It could mean putting forth evidence. 01:14:43.400 --> 01:14:45.400 Those are different things. 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. 01:14:56.400 --> 01:14:58.400 I understand when they say facts. 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, 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. 01:15:12.400 --> 01:15:20.400 So I think that the statement is going to give the facts in some sense. 01:15:20.400 --> 01:15:24.400 I don't know the right word for that, but maybe a lawyer does. 01:15:24.400 --> 01:15:28.400 Would just putting the word alleged facts solve that problem? 01:15:28.400 --> 01:15:30.400 That would be clearer. 01:15:30.400 --> 01:15:32.400 That's what you all mean. 01:15:32.400 --> 01:15:35.400 That would be the opposite of what we want. 01:15:35.400 --> 01:15:38.400 We don't want it to be conclusory allegations. 01:15:38.400 --> 01:15:41.400 We want it to be actual facts. 01:15:41.400 --> 01:15:43.400 Here is an email that I got. 01:15:43.400 --> 01:15:51.400 Do facts need to be verified? 01:15:51.400 --> 01:15:53.400 Vertifiable facts? 01:15:53.400 --> 01:16:02.400 I think one question that we had at that hearing was, 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. 01:16:14.400 --> 01:16:20.400 Oh, we had that issue prior and then we corrected the rules of procedure 01:16:20.400 --> 01:16:25.400 or amended them to make that clear that it was invisible. 01:16:25.400 --> 01:16:28.400 I guess let me rephrase. 01:16:28.400 --> 01:16:35.400 Is the first sentence establishing the standard under which a complaint will be considered? 01:16:35.400 --> 01:16:41.400 Or is it establishing the standard under which a final determination will be made? 01:16:41.400 --> 01:16:44.400 Final determination is my understanding. 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. 01:16:54.400 --> 01:16:58.400 Okay, you've won the case. Violation has occurred. 01:16:58.400 --> 01:17:02.400 But now, what is the definition of sufficient under the year? 01:17:02.400 --> 01:17:05.400 I think we ought to take sufficient out. 01:17:05.400 --> 01:17:10.400 Would that be, what do you think about that? 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. 01:17:21.400 --> 01:17:23.400 More likely than not. 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. 01:17:32.400 --> 01:17:34.400 Yeah, I just don't know which one you'd go on. 01:17:34.400 --> 01:17:36.400 I would prefer the higher burden. 01:17:36.400 --> 01:17:41.400 Okay, I get what you're saying. 01:17:41.400 --> 01:17:47.400 To establish beyond the reasonable doubt. 01:17:47.400 --> 01:17:48.400 That's the highest burden. 01:17:48.400 --> 01:17:49.400 Okay, okay. 01:17:49.400 --> 01:17:50.400 Don't want the highest. 01:17:50.400 --> 01:17:53.400 Okay, what would you say then? 01:17:53.400 --> 01:17:59.400 That it's highly probable or reasonably certain that this is happening. 01:17:59.400 --> 01:18:03.400 So it's like, it's more than 50%, right? 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. 01:18:16.400 --> 01:18:17.400 Okay. 01:18:19.400 --> 01:18:21.400 The preponderance is used by Dallas. 01:18:21.400 --> 01:18:26.400 It's up to y'all. 01:18:26.400 --> 01:18:27.400 Yeah. 01:18:27.400 --> 01:18:32.400 It would be great to get a clear direction on which one you would like. 01:18:32.400 --> 01:18:40.400 I would prefer the higher clear and convincing if Dallas is using preponderance. 01:18:40.400 --> 01:18:43.400 Dallas is in a whole different. 01:18:43.400 --> 01:18:48.400 I'm trying to find another one. 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. 01:18:59.400 --> 01:19:06.400 Well, let's bring it back to what we talked about with the anonymous complaints. 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. 01:19:15.400 --> 01:19:23.400 That election costs that candidate something pretty substantial in my opinion, right? 01:19:23.400 --> 01:19:25.400 It's a substantial thing to lose. 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. 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. 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, 01:19:47.400 --> 01:19:51.400 that it is certain that this has happened. 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. 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. 01:20:03.400 --> 01:20:10.400 I was looking for another word for sufficient, adequate, adequate facts. 01:20:10.400 --> 01:20:11.400 Sufficient is fine. 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. 01:20:29.400 --> 01:20:37.400 Okay, so sufficient facts to establish that it is reasonably certain that a violation occurred. 01:20:37.400 --> 01:20:39.400 Would that be okay? 01:20:39.400 --> 01:20:45.400 To reasonably establish that a violation has occurred. 01:20:45.400 --> 01:20:53.400 My problem with the word reasonably is that it's subjective. 01:20:53.400 --> 01:21:02.400 The word certain is not. 01:21:02.400 --> 01:21:07.400 A likely violation? 01:21:07.400 --> 01:21:11.400 I think Madison can work out the language of it if you all want to just... 01:21:11.400 --> 01:21:18.400 Do you agree with Mr. Ferguson's recommendation of clear and convincing statements? 01:21:18.400 --> 01:21:19.400 I do. 01:21:19.400 --> 01:21:22.400 Is that a direct burden on Madison? 01:21:22.400 --> 01:21:26.400 I think the language that you said won't make it work. 01:21:26.400 --> 01:21:30.400 I just want to have a discussion about what actual burden of proof you want. 01:21:30.400 --> 01:21:32.400 I think we have that. 01:21:32.400 --> 01:21:34.400 Everybody agrees with clear and convincing. 01:21:34.400 --> 01:21:38.400 So sufficient would become clear and convincing? 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. 01:21:50.400 --> 01:21:53.400 But we'll bring that back so that you can see actual language. 01:21:53.400 --> 01:21:56.400 I definitely agree with you. 01:21:56.400 --> 01:22:01.400 Sufficient, enough, adequate. 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%? 01:22:09.400 --> 01:22:12.400 Which would you rather have to be sure of? 01:22:12.400 --> 01:22:19.400 I'd rather have 75%. 01:22:19.400 --> 01:22:23.400 I just like the wording and I like where we're going with it. 01:22:23.400 --> 01:22:26.400 We'll remove the actual words, burden of proof. 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. 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. 01:22:44.400 --> 01:22:49.400 That is the burden of proof section, and then the last item is future. 01:22:49.400 --> 01:22:50.400 Oh, okay. 01:22:50.400 --> 01:22:52.400 Unless we all have more discussion about this. 01:22:52.400 --> 01:22:53.400 No. 01:22:53.400 --> 01:22:57.400 So we're finished with item D. We're moving to item E. 01:22:57.400 --> 01:23:01.400 BOE 25-005, Receiver Report. 01:23:01.400 --> 01:23:05.400 All the discussion in good staff direction regarding future meeting topics. 01:23:05.400 --> 01:23:10.400 Yeah. 01:23:10.400 --> 01:23:15.400 So next time we'll discuss the red lines of this. 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. 01:23:25.400 --> 01:23:28.400 And that's all I have on the agenda for right now for next time. 01:23:28.400 --> 01:23:31.400 But you can add something if you would like. 01:23:31.400 --> 01:23:34.400 No, I think that's... 01:23:34.400 --> 01:23:35.400 No, no. 01:23:35.400 --> 01:23:36.400 Okay. 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. 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. 01:23:50.400 --> 01:23:52.400 The definition section? 01:23:52.400 --> 01:23:59.400 Yes, because some of them are really in need of review. 01:23:59.400 --> 01:24:06.400 And obviously we'll talk about March and April next meeting, what we want to discuss. 01:24:06.400 --> 01:24:08.400 That's fine. 01:24:08.400 --> 01:24:12.400 Anything else, guys? 01:24:12.400 --> 01:24:21.400 So it is now 7/24 and this meeting is adjourned.