Feb 10, 2025 Board of Ethics on 2025-02-10 6:00 PM

Okay. Good evening. This is the Board of Ethics. It is Monday, February 10, 2025 at 5.30 p.m. We're going to start our meeting with item number one, and it's supposed to be presentation for members of the public, and no one has signed up. So we will move on to item two, items for consideration. Item A, DOE 2025-007, consider approval of the regular meeting and the special call meeting minutes for January 6th. So exhibit one is the regular meeting. Do I hear a motion for approval or any... I have a question. Yes, Dustin. On the first item on there, for the vote for Vice Chair, I abstain from the vote. Oh. This means absent. I don't know if that's how it's supposed to be noted on there or not. I can't pull it up because it's not in there. The special call meeting minutes for January 6th. Should probably say abstain instead of absent. Oh yeah. We can fix that. Okay. We'll just approve them as amended. Sounds great. So do I... I'll move that we approve them as amended. Okay. Is there a second to that? With an amendment to... To change. Maybe abstain instead of absent. That's correct. On item... On item A, like the third little paragraph. Is that what your motion has been agreed to? Yeah. My motion is that we approve them with the amendment to the... That I was absent from the vote and that should be changed to abstain from the vote. Okay. That's it? Yeah. Great. All right. I would second. I'll second. Diane seconded. So all in favor of approving the minutes as... As amended. As amended. Okay. So item two is the special call meeting. So do I hear a motion to approve it or any changes that have been made? In our closed meeting, this is a closed meeting. I mean the... That was the panel meeting. The panel meeting. Right. Okay. Okay. I'll second. Okay. So all in favor? Thank you. Thank you. And Kenneth, I'll just remind you that you need to sign before you leave. Since you're the chair. Oh. All right. Let me sign this. I'll send it back to you. That doesn't matter. This is the next. All right. Thank you. Okay. All right. So moving on to item B, BOE 25-00A, Receiver Report, Hold the Discussion, and Give Staff Direction Regarding Potential Changes to the City of Denton Photo Ordinances, Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics, Section 2-269, Definitions, Section 2-273, Prohibitions, and Section 2-281, Hearings. Okay. So based on our discussion last time, we prepared new red lines. I believe you got copies of them and you already mailed them from Joey, but this is not part of it. So we've kind of discussed all this stuff a couple times, right? So I guess we'll start with this conflict of interest part. Any discussion? And tonight we're going to be voting, unless there's some reason that we decide not to. So anybody have questions about that? Any words of anything we need to do? Okay, so I'm going to ask you to put your third line on one, or are reasonably certain two hyphen comma inputs? Or is that? That's a red line. Okay. I figured it was, but it popped up in here as a hyphen. Yeah, it should be. Just checking. Yeah, it's deleting that comma. Okay. Okay. I'm not hearing any discussion, so are we ready to vote on this? Okay. Okay, then let's move on to the next red line. I have a question. I'm just out of curiosity. Where, the figure, $600, where was that grabbed at? I mean -- That's from the current ordinance. Okay. That's something, like I said, that's from the current ordinance, we incorporated these in here to try to give guidelines on what amount gives ownership of our business entity. If that is something that you all would like to discuss or change, we can. But I don't have any backup on why $600, if that makes sense. I wasn't here when you discussed that, I hadn't been on the board yet, but -- I wasn't here either. What I want to make sure is that the people on the city council have the ability to still work and be on the council and not break the code of ethics. And so I was wondering where that figure came from, because, you know, I understand what we're trying to do, completely understand, but it's almost impossible, I would think. I'd like to -- Ken, I'd like to respond to you. I mean, is that a figure that -- you're a lawyer, right? And is that a figure that it will ever cross your line that, in your opinion, is not fair for them to be on the city council? And -- can I just interrupt? Just because it is part of the existing ordinance that none of us discuss, in order to give you a little bit of history, we spend, as a board, we spend quite a bit of time trying to answer exactly the question that you're bringing up. Is this a fair amount? Is this an amount that makes sense? Should we amend -- and we painstakingly went through it. We sent a bunch of proposals to city council for approval, and they were not accepted or taken into consideration, and they were -- They were loudly not. Yeah. They did not accept an amount of money. Is that what you're saying? They did not accept any kind of changes or amendments that we tried to make to exactly these dollar amounts that are in the current ordinance. And this section here defines -- essentially defines how you would determine if a city official owns a business entity. Right. So it would be if they own more than $600 of the fair market value or 5% or more of the stock. And then that would just preclude them from -- that creates the conflicting interest, basically. So if their business entity that they own comes up at a council meeting or in deliberations, they are required to recuse from that discussion wherever it is and file an affidavit. So it doesn't preclude them from owning a business entity. Just if in their official capacity, their business entity that they own, through one of these two methods, comes up, they're supposed to recuse from that discussion. Does that help with what it does? Yeah. Okay. I just want to make sure that we're treating people that are working for our city fairly. Yes. And, you know, I don't -- I mean, I thought about this when I first got on the committee. I thought, well, what if the city had a -- I put myself in a softball -- decided to have a softball team. And they called me up, and I was on the city council, and they called me up to coach it. And I know this far out, but it's relative. And I said, okay, yeah, I'll coach it, but I want to be paid. But I want to be paid $800 over a three-month period. Let's make the leap. Well, would that -- something like that. That would still only be an issue if the softball team came up before city council. And you were on city council. Yeah. Okay. That's what I'm saying. If I was a city council member, and I was a softball coach, and they said, hey, Sally Sue, we'd love for you to -- I'll use this as an example. Yeah. I would love for you to -- we want you to coach our team, because we want to represent that well. And Sally said, yeah, I'll be more than happy, but I'm not doing it for free. And she wanted, let's say, $800 to pay expenses and stuff. She could not do that under this rule, right? She could. She could. She would just have to recuse, and for some reason the softball team came before city council and asked for something. Okay. Let's say the city council was mad at them for losing games, and they wanted to talk about them. You probably should recuse yourself. Yeah. I'm just saying. I can't imagine. I mean, I'm just saying I'm using this as an example. I think it's usually a larger issue. And I do -- so this issue that you're talking about, I believe, would fall under the definition of client, which actually isn't in the current ordinance. So I do want to discuss that. So we did define it this way. So this would actually be new. This would be creating a new relationship that would create a conflict of interest. We've discussed in the past proposing this type of relationship to council. You approved the language, but when Scott and I discussed it, we decided it would be best to have a definition instead of just an open language. This is what we came up with based on previous discussions, or what I came up with. Scott was around, but not providing -- but -- And I think we've established that it wouldn't be because you patronize a certain grocery store. It would just be more about businesses. Right. It would be people paying you or who you owe fiduciary duty to. And this amount is taken from the model code. And they -- I will say when we discussed this a little bit with council, they had concerns, like you were talking about, about this amount. So I think we should -- it might be good to have discussions about is this $1,000 -- do we believe that that would create a conflicting interest over 24 months? If that makes sense. It's not an employer. It's not a business entity that you own, but it's a client, somebody who you're supplying services such as coaching a softball team for. Well, you know, again, I'm going to go back to another example. Me, myself, I'm not on the committee, but let's say I was on the committee. Or city council, excuse me. I'm a national promotions writer. And I give discounted prices to everybody across the country. Okay. And a lot of times they'll go over that value. Okay, so based on that value, I would have to stop at $1,000 to give to the city council or not? No, you just -- you cannot vote on the issue before city council that involves that cost as an attorney. Okay, that's it. That doesn't stop them from getting the same thing anybody else would get. Exactly. It just stops you from voting on an issue if they come before you. Thanks, guys. I just want to make sure -- No, I think this is a really good discussion about what this does because it's new. I've got to say I do think $1,000 is kind of low. That's just my opinion. Right. I have no stake in $1,000. Yeah, I know. That's just what was in the Holocaust, which was pretty old. It was about 20 years old, I think. Do I think $1,000 is long term? I don't know. What would you guys suggest? This is exactly the time to discuss what you would propose -- prefer to propose if so. I'd be more apt to say something like $2,500. $5,000. I was thinking $5,000, actually. Inflation? Yeah, inflation. That's true. Because the thing I hate about putting numbers into this code is they're going to have to constantly be readjusted. So I could go for $2,500 or $5,000. Yeah. I think we have to have a number that was one of the -- part of the feedback from council was that they wanted some threshold where they could define this. I think it makes sense. I mean, $1,000 is a lot to me. But I guess it depends on the business you're in. And I think it probably doesn't matter if it's $1,000 or $2,500. I think if someone has some significant business with an entity and they're on council -- You know, one thing -- I'm fine with leaving it $1,000 or raising it to $5,000 or whatever you want. I don't think I would be upset either way. Here's what makes me nervous. They threw the whole thing out last time over one number, basically. So I would like to point out, this is what we thought, but you have the right to say that it should be a different number. Please don't throw the whole thing out that we spent hours and hours on. I'll try to communicate that. I did try last time. You did great. You did. It was -- yeah. You should go back and watch that movie. It was very fun. So I think there's two things to consider on both sides. So first is the purpose of it. The purpose is to prevent preferential treatment to issues before the city council. Well, before anybody, right? Because this is conflict of interest with us as well. And so it's to prevent somebody from getting preferential treatment. So if there's any stake, if you owe any fiduciary duty to somebody, then there is a chance -- That makes you vulnerable. Yeah, there's a chance of preferential treatment. But then the other side, what stops somebody from getting a complaint, for instance here, getting a complaint and then running to me for a consult real quick? I don't know that the complaint has been filed yet, and now I'm conflicted out. So there's two sides of it. So Jill Jester, for instance, is an attorney. So what if there's an issue that she may be the swing vote on and that person goes and gets a consult with her intentionally to conflict her out? I'm not saying it will happen. It has happened, not with her. Maybe not in Denton, but it definitely has happened before. Yeah, sure. And so that's something we have to consider as well is are we putting our board members in a position to get intentionally conflicted out? And I don't know how you address that. In that case, if you raise that value, then maybe you lower it. Say that again. Lower it. You lower that chance of an intentional -- Somebody's not going to come and pay me five grand just to conflict me out. Well, they may, but it's unlikely. The chances are low. But if you raise it to five grand, now there's more likely to be a chance of me giving preferential treatment to somebody because I'm not conflicted out. This is kind of a double-edged sword. I guess I'm thinking of it from -- if someone is trying to abuse this clause by hiring you, for instance, to create a conflict of interest, if that value is higher, then there's a bigger barrier to them doing that. That was actually part of the discussion that came up before was this. So what would you recommend? Well, the first clause of the sentence is followed by an "or," which means it's an "and/or," so they can either create the fiduciary relationship and as an attorney that would be simply scheduling a consult would create that fiduciary, which would conflict me out. Or they could pay me $1,000 or more, and that would conflict me out. Does that make sense? So technically they could conflict you out just by creating the fiduciary relationship. I don't know what other fiduciary relationships exist besides attorneys. We kind of get -- ours are just -- the attorney-client relationship is one of the strongest relationships in the country. A trustee executor. A trustee executor, so if you hired a trustee, yeah. I think -- maybe I don't understand the third court language completely. You're saying that if you have some fiduciary duty to a client, that you would be conflicted out. But when I read this, I think that value has to be greater than $1,000. Because it says "or," a person or business entity gives me $1,000 or more, right? So it's an "or." If it was an "and," then it would be I have a fiduciary obligation and I received money. I'd get free consultations, so somebody could schedule a free consultation, and now I have a fiduciary obligation, even though they're not a client. So maybe change the "or" to an "and." Do you think RPC will still be conflicted? Yeah, I mean, you're conflicted. If they just counsel with me, I'm conflicted. They don't pay me. So the way it's written, there is no hard threshold in dollar amount, is what you're saying? For attorneys, for anybody who has a fiduciary obligation. If I hire, let's say the mayor owns a roofing company, and I hire him to put a roof on my house for $500, there's no fiduciary obligation or fiduciary relationship between a roofer and his client or customer. And I'm only paying $500, so now the mayor would not be conflicted out and would be okay to vote. If I pay him $1,500, now he's conflicted out. You know what I'm saying? Yeah, but today's economy and everything else, I just think we're living in a price that's way back when. Yeah, $1,000 is nothing. I mean, that's just, we're actually allowing them not to do anything at all at that price. If you can do it, you just can't vote on an item if it's a person that you have a conflicting interest with, comes before your board, your body, because it's preventing you. Unless you're serving every, unless every person in business and debt is in business with you for more than $1,000, you could still do business and still be on council. I've Googled with the value of $1,000 20 years ago versus now, and it would be about $2,000, according to Google. I kind of like the $2,500 number. And to your point, this definition creates two ways that you would become a client, right? Either you owe a fiduciary duty, there's a number of ways you can do that, or you've done business greater than $1,000 under the current definition within the last 24 months. You can also satisfy that both ways, right? If you did and, if you would have to be both, so anybody who didn't know a fiduciary duty to, no matter how much you paid them, would not be, would not get this definition. I would prefer an and. There is, I'm going to get backlash for this one, but I think there is a smaller chance of one of our city officials not recusing themselves than there is somebody intentionally causing a conflict. I would like to think all of our city officials will recuse themselves and stay far away from that gray line. And so I think the and is better because it makes it harder to intentionally conflict out our city officials. I like the and. I like the and. So you have to have the fiduciary relationship, oh, fiduciary relationship, and $1,000 though. A roofer would never owe a fiduciary relationship, so. If you did an exception for a person who formed one through a consul or something like that. You could put, you could have this and add to here and did business greater than whatever number you find. Yeah. So then you cash in both. That's what. Or. Yeah. Or. Right. So you wouldn't say. So we're just putting, we're putting the value on both. On both sides. On both sides of the order. Oh, I like that. I like that better too. And then you can have different numbers if you want. That's what you. I really don't care how we resolve this. I do know that city council members have a history of feeling very strongly about some of these issues. I guess I want them to know you can, you can change something. Right. Don't do what you did before. Well, I think there's. I'm not going to talk on behalf of them, but I am. I think when people spend their time and energy to try to help their city. And not everybody on there has conflict of interest. Nobody's, you know, trying to do something. And you get hit with these, what I call, things that you feel like you can't breathe. I can see why they're resentful. I mean, I understand that. We're sitting there almost as police people trying to keep them in line. And, you know, so I understand that. Because I've been in that thing for a long time. I get that. But I also think there's some really quality people that do work in Denton, Texas. That want to feel like they can continue to do their work in Denton, Texas. And feel like they're not on the board and are in conflict of our rules. Yeah, I just would say that the way this code is written. They focus on very little tiny things, rather than the bigger things that are more of a concern. Like, I don't think recusal should be a huge fight. Some of the definitions in the glossary are pretty tight, pretty stringent. And so, yeah, I know these are rules. But I think if everybody has the rules, you know, we're not doing it to be mean to people. We're just saying, these are the parameters. I don't think the City Council thinks that we're trying to just stick it to them. I think they're concerned with what it could mean. Again, just speaking as an attorney, it's so easy to create that fiduciary relationship with an attorney. That, I mean, Jill could get conflicted out of every single vote there ever was. And then she would be like, okay, well, I guess I'll just sit here and not collect a paycheck. I could waste my time because I can't vote on anything. And so we don't want that to happen. I would say I like the way we just changed it, maybe leave the $1,000 alone. Or change it to $2,000. And it is also within the last two years. I just want to point that out, too, for discussion. Opinions? Because hopefully this is something we're going to vote on in the next thing. Will you add duty behind fiduciary? Oh, yes. The top one? Yeah. So you would look at you if you had it still in there. So are you ready to move on? We didn't change that value. I heard some discussion of $5,000, $2,500, $2,000, but I didn't get clear direction. This is not, this $1,000 we haven't really gotten clear direction on either. That was just something that I put in there based on the law. I didn't get clear direction on what number you would like to propose. I personally like the $2,500. I like $2,000 because it's all zeros. That would be $1,000 a year because it covers 24 months, right? $1,000 a year. $2,000 sounds, what do you think? I'd like to say $2,500 because I have that in my brain. You know. Yeah, I think $2,500 is fine. I don't feel strongly about any one of those numbers. A different $2,500, $2,000. Let's go with $2,500. It kind of seems like it's splitting the difference. It's not $5,000. Yeah. I mean, we've given a little, but. Yeah. I think if someone. But I do like all zeros. I think if a city official has done $2,500 worth of work for someone, then they do have a conflict of interest. Yeah. And they shouldn't recuse themselves. Yeah. True. So whether or not that work was commissioned in good faith or not, they have a conflict. Do we even need the fiduciary duty part? I didn't understand what you were asking. I would take it out. I don't know that we need the fiduciary duty part if they're exactly the same. Yeah. Right, because it's inclusive. Right. Necessarily. Right. I would take it out. So it just owes money? Yeah, just that there's money. Yeah. Or clear. Yeah. Just that relationship doesn't serve us. Okay. Are we ready to move on? Yes. Okay. Next for a blank note. This part we kind of -- this part we discussed last time, and then this is just adding the kind of timelines around disclosure requirements that we discussed last time as well. We'll just write and see how things look, and we don't even have it now. I like it. Any other slides? You're fine? I'm fine, but I think we worked hard on this last week. Yeah, we did. We did. Just so you can see it. Okay, and that's all really of what I'm calling proposal one, which is to kind of restructure and adjust the conflict of interest. Okay. Proposal two is what previously would have been known as the burden of proof. But really what it's doing is clarifying the evidentiary standard anyway, so now it's called the responsibility to establish price. This is a language that we've discussed previously. I really like that wording. I think that's a lot more -- you know, because I think it's going to keep people from, you know, getting really emotional and finding a complaint where there are no facts, which happens. So any questions or comments? Also, we think you know that we're seeing it on the screen. I like it. Yep. Are we ready to move on? The two babies? Yeah. Okay. I think they're nice and clean. There's no surprising fluff. So then I guess that would be the end of this item. The next one will be the letter, and I can pull that up. Okay. This is the language we're going for. So are we ready to move on to item C? Item C, BOE25-009. Item C, BOE25-009. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and take necessary action regarding forwarding proposals to amend the City of Denton Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics to the City Council. Here's the draft letter for the proposals. Just kind of trying to briefly summarize the changes. We'll also do a presentation as part of the work session discussion with the City Council. It looks good to me. I wonder if we could put our City Council member lens on to see if there's anything that's going to draw fireworks. Why don't you make it yourself? How's that? Yes. The fourth column, the summary of change title, is it truly a summary or is it more a rationale for the change or an explanation of the change? I tried to summarize my understanding of what the change was doing. You can change that if you would like to. Any concerns you see with that first? I like the proposal a heck of a lot better than the other one. I think it spelled it out a little bit better. Yeah, I think we're just trying to be more clear, mostly. I think it creates a different test, but it expands what is included, what would be included in there. Currently, I've been trying to think through this, but I haven't all the way. Currently, when you're trying to determine how points of interest you say is, do I meet one of these conflicting interest standards, all of which are incorporated into the ordinance still? Do they own $16 of fair market value in the business? Did they vote on a pending matter involving that person? That's the current test. This test still asks, was there that relationship that creates a conflict of interest? Did they act or fail to act in their city official responsibilities? It does broaden it, in a way. Yes, it absolutely broadens it. I can try to think through explaining that a little better. The other one was so narrow that once you vote it, you're good. You can do whatever you want to, basically, technically. That's the concern. The old one, the conflicting, it arose when you were voting on a pending matter. Under the proposal, it would arise when you were deliberating, which is a broader scope. Also, after you vote. Deliberation includes a lot of things that a pending matter didn't. The pending matter didn't require you to recuse from deliberations. We're just taking away a step, essentially. All of the relationships are really very similar that create a conflicting interest, except we're creating the client relationship that's being added, and there's a little bit of difference in the familial relationships. Do we need to vote on each one of these things as we look at them, or do we need to vote on the whole thing? We voted on each proposal separately previously. It's easy for me. This is part of the first proposal's explanation. It has three pieces. It expands the definition, or expands when a conflict arises. That's what's summarized here. It eliminates the timelines for disclosure, and then it adjusts the conflicting interests, the relationships that create conflict. That's the first proposal. It does all three of those things. Then the second proposal is the one that clarifies evidentiary standards, the other is the approved section, changing that to what we're calling it now. Supplying information, basically. It's facts. It's responsibility to establish facts. I really do like that term. Enter into. We have one underlined that says "entered into." I want to see if you've added that in or you're trying to take that out. I want to back it up just a little bit. There you go. There it is. Pending matters. Are you trying to enter into, are you trying to take that out or keep that in? The change would remove pending matter. Okay, so it's removing that? Yes. That's underlined because of the grammar checker. Oh, yeah. That's not intentional. Okay. Anybody else have any questions on this first three-part piece? I think that looks good. Is there anyone ready to, someone ready to move that we vote? I'll make a motion that we doesn't think of. Because you're going to make the changes to that client definition. So you're going to, does that reflect what you're going to make? Yes. Okay. I'll make your motion. So moving that we recommend the changes to the Code of Ordinance to City Council. Contained is a letter provided by staff with the following amendments. One, in the definition of client located in Section 2-269, strike the clause of business, a person or business entity to which the City Council owes a fiduciary in its entirety. And two, in the definition of client located in Section 2-269, strike the dollar amount, $1,000 and replace it with the dollar amount, $2,500. Is that right? I'll second that. Can I get a second to that? Can I get a second that you mess it up to me or Joey? Scott will make sure to put that motion back. I never would have gotten that right. Thank you. I wondered what you were typing. So thank you. That was helpful. Okay, so that takes care of -- The motion -- Now we need to vote. Okay, all in favor of the very lengthy motion that we just heard. Aye. It's unanimous. Okay. Thank you, Scott. So we're ready to move on to -- Second proposal. So amend Section 2-281 sub C sub 4 to clarify the evidentiary standard of review for Board of Ethics hearings. I'll just go ahead and read it, this proposal clarifies the evidentiary standard of review to be used during Board of Ethics hearings by requiring the complainant to present sufficient facts to establish that it is reasonably certain that a violation of the ethics ordinance has occurred. There is not currently a clearly stated evidentiary standard of review. I am very happy with that. I just think that is a much better -- what we need to do. I have just a question. Yes. I'm trying to cause trouble, but -- Oh, you're such a troublemaker. Reasonable, certain. Reasonably certain. What does that mean to me? Is it facts, objective, subjective? What does that mean? That doesn't sound legal standard, right? That is the second highest burden. This is the burden beyond a reasonable doubt. So reasonably certain. I would say the evidence presented to you as part of the hearing makes you reasonably certain that whatever violation was alleged occurred. So not like it probably happened or not like it absolutely happened, but I'm pretty sure it probably happened. Does that help? You're like 75%. Don't they kind of use an example of a reasonable person? I've not been in law school for that long. They do use a reasonable person as a standard. I don't know if that is part of this. Because you're not -- I don't think in any of this you could ever be certain beyond -- That's the highest -- that's the criminal standard. We're in civil territory, so we're reasonably certain is like we're pretty sure this happened. More than -- Diane, let me ask you, do you think that's too high of a standard or too low of a standard? I don't like the word certain. Because to me, I work in subjective objective world, and I know people challenge us always if we don't have what I call subjective evaluation of anything. And so I think that leaves it open to -- I think it's too low of a standard. That's what I was asking. Yeah, and that's why I asked for clarification if you thought it was too low or too high. I think I was trying to close the gate. Is it reasonably -- This is a pretty high standard legally for civil matters, I believe. What would you think would be a better way? I don't know. It's just somebody needs to help me. But reasonably certain is like -- it's almost a guessing that it's happening. And I'd rather know it's -- we have made a decision that isn't happening. However we say that, I don't know that. I personally am at the viewpoint that if it's good enough language for the law and in a court, then I think it is good enough to be considered in a civil suit because this is all civil. So I'm thinking that in my opinion, if it's good enough for the course, then it's good enough for this code. I think the certainty that you're describing is what this is, I believe so. And when we're actually having a hearing, we can talk through what that means in a way that maybe is a little more suited to how to instruct y'all and how to view the evidence. I agree if it's good enough for the court, it's good enough for us. So that's kind of why I asked him what he thought because I don't want us to have loopholes that people can wander in. I know they'll try, but I'd like to close the door on whatever we're saying. So if the law's saying this is a word we can use, I accept it, absolutely. Okay. Are there any other questions or concerns about this second part? Are we ready for a motion? I'll make a motion if I can help him, Scott. So I make a motion that we accept the language as proposed for to amend section 2.281(c)(4) to clarify the evidentiary standard to review for the Board of Ethics hearings. Do we need to recommend it to the City Council? All in favor? All right. It's unanimous. So this will be presented to the City Council on March 4th during work session. I don't know what item it will be at this point, but we will add it. So did you say March 4th? And then we'll have our meeting then from one week. I will include an update on what occurred during that meeting. Okay. So we are moving on now to item D, BOE 25-010, receive a report, hold discussion, and give staff direction regarding future meeting topics. I have some. Yeah. Okay. So go ahead and -- You want me to wait? Go ahead. I have two, and it's been drilling my head all my life, so I'm struggling. I want you guys to un-drill it. I was taken back the other day when we did not have a closed meeting on the complaint, the first meeting. I do believe in rights of human beings, and I do think you have a right to hear your complaint. But I think it's very important that the three-person committee have a right to discuss it in closed doors first, because it might not come up for debate. In other words, we might shoot it down. So why have a sleeping dog wake up? I do know that when the board very first began, that is how they did it. And at some point before I got on, it became completely open. I would like to discuss that at the next meeting, give some people. The other one, again, has been drilled in my head through all these committees, that we cannot speak about our business without a quorum outside with just regular people. We have to have a quorum to do that. I guess I want to make sure that's not happening, or it's a rule, or it's not a rule. I think it may be what I think is a very narrow definition of ex parte communication. What we do here is very serious business, in my opinion, and I think there should be a sense of professionalism. Again, I agree totally with fairness and complaints, but I do think that we have the higher standards. This committee does, and I don't think that we should share information without our whole committee being involved in it. And I don't think that we should not be able to have closed meetings when we need to discuss something that's very important. Can I ask a question? Sure. Well, actually, that would be good. Am I already discussing it or not? My question is, what kind of communication are you concerned about, like going to the newspaper, giving an interview, or are you talking at home with your spouse about what you discussed at the meeting? I'm talking about maybe these people leave here, they've had a meeting with us, and they go outside, and they catch me by the car, and they want to discuss something that we talked about. I don't think I should discuss that. Okay, okay. Do you want to add this to the next meeting? Yeah. Because we're just supposed to be bringing up things. Do what now? We're just supposed to be bringing up things, too. Okay, well, I'd like to discuss that next time, if I could. Okay. I'm just trying to answer your question. Yeah, and that's why I was questioning myself, that I was already starting to discuss it, rather than- Sorry, did we get on- No, that's- Yeah. Would that be okay, if we could discuss that? Well, let's look at what's on the next, and those are possibilities. The only thing for the next agenda that we have currently scheduled are the minutes, and they'll be, at the very least, a management update about what occurred at the account meeting. So these are things that have previously come up that are listed here, but we're pretty open for the next couple of months, whatever the board wishes to discuss. I would actually like to support that, and especially the closed meeting situation about special meetings. That is something I would agree with. We definitely need to. After I brought this up, I'm not going to be here much. I'm going to be in Florida, so I don't know if I have to, you know, bring it back to another date, or you want to discuss it without me. I'm fine, and I can listen, or- We can always schedule it for April. Yeah, I would definitely like to talk about the definition of a complainant. I would think that's an easy thing to discuss. As those other things, are there other things you'd want to talk about? I think the frivolous sanctions one that should be high enough to discuss. Those are the two that I would pick on. What do you guys want to pick on for our next meeting? Well, I picked on my two, so- We can put those for April. Yeah, that's fine. If you want me to hold on, right? That way you can be here? Yeah, absolutely. Okay. I trust you guys. I would definitely say, man, there's so many other things I'd like to pick on, but I think that along with what you're saying for April, the definition of ex parte is very narrow. Do you guys see anything else on that list that should be discussed in the next meeting? I'm trying to define something, because the definition of complainant, and I'm thinking that's not going to take up too much. It's a human. That's what the definition is. I think the review of the current sanctions and frivolous sanctions, I think that kind of goes hand in hand there. Anything else? The review of current sanctions, frivolous sanctions, I think is timely. We're going to have elections coming up, and we might get frivolous complaints. I don't want to touch campaign complaints. Okay, so is that pretty clear? My understanding is that we might have a discussion in March about the definition of complainant, and begin a discussion of frivolous sanctions, and then in April have a discussion about ex parte communication and potentially making preliminary assessments of those meetings. I don't know if that's possible, but we'll find out. Okay, any other business? I think we are done, so it is now hearing no comments. It is 629 PM, and this meeting is adjourned.