WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:13.800 Okay. Good evening. This is the Board of Ethics. It is Monday, February 10, 2025 at 5.30 p.m. 00:00:13.800 --> 00:00:21.000 We're going to start our meeting with item number one, and it's supposed to be presentation 00:00:21.000 --> 00:00:27.000 for members of the public, and no one has signed up. So we will move on to item two, 00:00:27.000 --> 00:00:37.000 items for consideration. Item A, DOE 2025-007, consider approval of the regular meeting 00:00:37.000 --> 00:00:44.000 and the special call meeting minutes for January 6th. So exhibit one is the regular meeting. 00:00:44.000 --> 00:00:48.000 Do I hear a motion for approval or any... 00:00:48.000 --> 00:00:49.000 I have a question. 00:00:49.000 --> 00:00:51.000 Yes, Dustin. 00:00:51.000 --> 00:01:00.000 On the first item on there, for the vote for Vice Chair, I abstain from the vote. 00:01:00.000 --> 00:01:01.000 Oh. 00:01:01.000 --> 00:01:08.000 This means absent. I don't know if that's how it's supposed to be noted on there or not. 00:01:08.000 --> 00:01:13.000 I can't pull it up because it's not in there. 00:01:13.000 --> 00:01:16.000 The special call meeting minutes for January 6th. 00:01:16.000 --> 00:01:28.000 Should probably say abstain instead of absent. 00:01:28.000 --> 00:01:30.000 Oh yeah. We can fix that. 00:01:30.000 --> 00:01:31.000 Okay. 00:01:31.000 --> 00:01:33.000 We'll just approve them as amended. 00:01:33.000 --> 00:01:34.000 Sounds great. 00:01:34.000 --> 00:01:35.000 So do I... 00:01:35.000 --> 00:01:38.000 I'll move that we approve them as amended. 00:01:38.000 --> 00:01:40.000 Okay. Is there a second to that? 00:01:40.000 --> 00:01:42.000 With an amendment to... 00:01:42.000 --> 00:01:43.000 To change. 00:01:43.000 --> 00:01:46.000 Maybe abstain instead of absent. 00:01:46.000 --> 00:01:49.000 That's correct. On item... 00:01:49.000 --> 00:02:00.000 On item A, like the third little paragraph. 00:02:00.000 --> 00:02:02.000 Is that what your motion has been agreed to? 00:02:02.000 --> 00:02:09.000 Yeah. My motion is that we approve them with the amendment to the... 00:02:09.000 --> 00:02:16.000 That I was absent from the vote and that should be changed to abstain from the vote. 00:02:16.000 --> 00:02:17.000 Okay. 00:02:17.000 --> 00:02:18.000 That's it? 00:02:18.000 --> 00:02:19.000 Yeah. 00:02:19.000 --> 00:02:20.000 Great. 00:02:20.000 --> 00:02:21.000 All right. 00:02:21.000 --> 00:02:22.000 I would second. 00:02:22.000 --> 00:02:23.000 I'll second. 00:02:23.000 --> 00:02:24.000 Diane seconded. 00:02:24.000 --> 00:02:27.000 So all in favor of approving the minutes as... 00:02:27.000 --> 00:02:28.000 As amended. 00:02:28.000 --> 00:02:29.000 As amended. 00:02:29.000 --> 00:02:30.000 Okay. 00:02:30.000 --> 00:02:33.000 So item two is the special call meeting. 00:02:33.000 --> 00:02:40.000 So do I hear a motion to approve it or any changes that have been made? 00:02:40.000 --> 00:02:45.000 In our closed meeting, this is a closed meeting. 00:02:45.000 --> 00:02:47.000 I mean the... 00:02:47.000 --> 00:02:48.000 That was the panel meeting. 00:02:48.000 --> 00:02:49.000 The panel meeting. 00:02:49.000 --> 00:02:50.000 Right. 00:02:50.000 --> 00:02:51.000 Okay. 00:02:51.000 --> 00:02:52.000 Okay. 00:02:52.000 --> 00:02:53.000 I'll second. 00:02:53.000 --> 00:02:54.000 Okay. 00:02:54.000 --> 00:02:56.000 So all in favor? 00:02:56.000 --> 00:02:57.000 Thank you. 00:02:57.000 --> 00:02:58.000 Thank you. 00:02:58.000 --> 00:03:02.000 And Kenneth, I'll just remind you that you need to sign before you leave. 00:03:02.000 --> 00:03:03.000 Since you're the chair. 00:03:03.000 --> 00:03:04.000 Oh. 00:03:04.000 --> 00:03:05.000 All right. 00:03:05.000 --> 00:03:06.000 Let me sign this. 00:03:06.000 --> 00:03:07.000 I'll send it back to you. 00:03:07.000 --> 00:03:08.000 That doesn't matter. 00:03:08.000 --> 00:03:09.000 This is the next. 00:03:09.000 --> 00:03:10.000 All right. 00:03:10.000 --> 00:03:11.000 Thank you. 00:03:11.000 --> 00:03:12.000 Okay. 00:03:12.000 --> 00:03:13.000 All right. 00:03:13.000 --> 00:03:24.000 So moving on to item B, BOE 25-00A, Receiver Report, Hold the Discussion, and Give Staff 00:03:24.000 --> 00:03:29.000 Direction Regarding Potential Changes to the City of Denton Photo Ordinances, Chapter 00:03:29.000 --> 00:03:43.000 2, Article 11, Ethics, Section 2-269, Definitions, Section 2-273, Prohibitions, and Section 2-281, 00:03:43.000 --> 00:03:44.000 Hearings. 00:03:44.000 --> 00:03:45.000 Okay. 00:03:45.000 --> 00:03:54.000 So based on our discussion last time, we prepared new red lines. 00:03:54.000 --> 00:04:01.000 I believe you got copies of them and you already mailed them from Joey, but this is not part 00:04:01.000 --> 00:04:02.000 of it. 00:04:02.000 --> 00:04:08.000 So we've kind of discussed all this stuff a couple times, right? 00:04:08.000 --> 00:04:17.000 So I guess we'll start with this conflict of interest part. 00:04:17.000 --> 00:04:25.000 Any discussion? 00:04:25.000 --> 00:04:40.000 And tonight we're going to be voting, unless there's some reason that we decide not to. 00:04:40.000 --> 00:04:48.000 So anybody have questions about that? 00:04:48.000 --> 00:05:04.000 Any words of anything we need to do? 00:05:04.000 --> 00:05:12.000 Okay, so I'm going to ask you to put your third line on one, or are reasonably certain 00:05:12.000 --> 00:05:13.000 two hyphen comma inputs? 00:05:13.000 --> 00:05:14.000 Or is that? 00:05:14.000 --> 00:05:15.000 That's a red line. 00:05:15.000 --> 00:05:16.000 Okay. 00:05:16.000 --> 00:05:17.000 I figured it was, but it popped up in here as a hyphen. 00:05:17.000 --> 00:05:18.000 Yeah, it should be. 00:05:18.000 --> 00:05:19.000 Just checking. 00:05:19.000 --> 00:05:20.000 Yeah, it's deleting that comma. 00:05:20.000 --> 00:05:21.000 Okay. 00:05:21.000 --> 00:05:22.000 Okay. 00:05:22.000 --> 00:05:45.000 I'm not hearing any discussion, so are we ready to vote on this? 00:05:45.000 --> 00:05:53.000 Okay. 00:05:53.000 --> 00:06:21.000 Okay, then let's move on to the next red line. 00:06:21.000 --> 00:06:40.000 I have a question. 00:06:40.000 --> 00:06:42.000 I'm just out of curiosity. 00:06:42.000 --> 00:06:46.000 Where, the figure, $600, where was that grabbed at? 00:06:46.000 --> 00:06:47.000 I mean -- 00:06:47.000 --> 00:06:48.000 That's from the current ordinance. 00:06:48.000 --> 00:06:49.000 Okay. 00:06:49.000 --> 00:06:56.000 That's something, like I said, that's from the current ordinance, we incorporated these 00:06:56.000 --> 00:07:05.000 in here to try to give guidelines on what amount gives ownership of our business entity. 00:07:05.000 --> 00:07:09.000 If that is something that you all would like to discuss or change, we can. 00:07:09.000 --> 00:07:15.000 But I don't have any backup on why $600, if that makes sense. 00:07:15.000 --> 00:07:20.000 I wasn't here when you discussed that, I hadn't been on the board yet, but -- 00:07:20.000 --> 00:07:22.000 I wasn't here either. 00:07:22.000 --> 00:07:30.000 What I want to make sure is that the people on the city council have the ability to still 00:07:30.000 --> 00:07:36.000 work and be on the council and not break the code of ethics. 00:07:36.000 --> 00:07:42.000 And so I was wondering where that figure came from, because, you know, I understand what 00:07:42.000 --> 00:07:48.000 we're trying to do, completely understand, but it's almost impossible, I would think. 00:07:48.000 --> 00:07:52.000 I'd like to -- Ken, I'd like to respond to you. 00:07:52.000 --> 00:07:56.000 I mean, is that a figure that -- you're a lawyer, right? 00:07:56.000 --> 00:08:03.000 And is that a figure that it will ever cross your line that, in your opinion, is not fair 00:08:03.000 --> 00:08:05.000 for them to be on the city council? 00:08:05.000 --> 00:08:12.000 And -- can I just interrupt? 00:08:12.000 --> 00:08:18.000 Just because it is part of the existing ordinance that none of us discuss, in order to give 00:08:18.000 --> 00:08:24.000 you a little bit of history, we spend, as a board, we spend quite a bit of time trying 00:08:24.000 --> 00:08:28.000 to answer exactly the question that you're bringing up. 00:08:28.000 --> 00:08:30.000 Is this a fair amount? 00:08:30.000 --> 00:08:32.000 Is this an amount that makes sense? 00:08:32.000 --> 00:08:35.000 Should we amend -- and we painstakingly went through it. 00:08:35.000 --> 00:08:46.000 We sent a bunch of proposals to city council for approval, and they were not accepted or 00:08:46.000 --> 00:08:50.000 taken into consideration, and they were -- 00:08:50.000 --> 00:08:52.000 They were loudly not. 00:08:52.000 --> 00:08:53.000 Yeah. 00:08:53.000 --> 00:08:55.000 They did not accept an amount of money. 00:08:55.000 --> 00:08:56.000 Is that what you're saying? 00:08:56.000 --> 00:09:01.000 They did not accept any kind of changes or amendments that we tried to make to exactly 00:09:01.000 --> 00:09:06.000 these dollar amounts that are in the current ordinance. 00:09:06.000 --> 00:09:12.000 And this section here defines -- essentially defines how you would determine if a city 00:09:12.000 --> 00:09:15.000 official owns a business entity. 00:09:15.000 --> 00:09:16.000 Right. 00:09:16.000 --> 00:09:21.000 So it would be if they own more than $600 of the fair market value or 5% or more of 00:09:21.000 --> 00:09:23.000 the stock. 00:09:23.000 --> 00:09:31.000 And then that would just preclude them from -- that creates the conflicting interest, 00:09:31.000 --> 00:09:32.000 basically. 00:09:32.000 --> 00:09:37.000 So if their business entity that they own comes up at a council meeting or in deliberations, 00:09:37.000 --> 00:09:42.000 they are required to recuse from that discussion wherever it is and file an affidavit. 00:09:42.000 --> 00:09:46.000 So it doesn't preclude them from owning a business entity. 00:09:46.000 --> 00:09:51.000 Just if in their official capacity, their business entity that they own, through one 00:09:51.000 --> 00:09:56.000 of these two methods, comes up, they're supposed to recuse from that discussion. 00:09:56.000 --> 00:09:58.000 Does that help with what it does? 00:09:58.000 --> 00:09:59.000 Yeah. 00:09:59.000 --> 00:10:00.000 Okay. 00:10:00.000 --> 00:10:04.000 I just want to make sure that we're treating people that are working for our city fairly. 00:10:04.000 --> 00:10:05.000 Yes. 00:10:05.000 --> 00:10:09.000 And, you know, I don't -- I mean, I thought about this when I first got on the committee. 00:10:09.000 --> 00:10:16.000 I thought, well, what if the city had a -- I put myself in a softball -- decided to have 00:10:16.000 --> 00:10:17.000 a softball team. 00:10:17.000 --> 00:10:23.000 And they called me up, and I was on the city council, and they called me up to coach it. 00:10:23.000 --> 00:10:29.000 And I know this far out, but it's relative. 00:10:29.000 --> 00:10:32.000 And I said, okay, yeah, I'll coach it, but I want to be paid. 00:10:32.000 --> 00:10:36.000 But I want to be paid $800 over a three-month period. 00:10:36.000 --> 00:10:38.000 Let's make the leap. 00:10:38.000 --> 00:10:40.000 Well, would that -- something like that. 00:10:40.000 --> 00:10:47.000 That would still only be an issue if the softball team came up before city council. 00:10:47.000 --> 00:10:49.000 And you were on city council. 00:10:49.000 --> 00:10:50.000 Yeah. 00:10:50.000 --> 00:10:51.000 Okay. 00:10:51.000 --> 00:10:52.000 That's what I'm saying. 00:10:52.000 --> 00:10:56.000 If I was a city council member, and I was a softball coach, and they said, hey, Sally 00:10:56.000 --> 00:10:59.000 Sue, we'd love for you to -- I'll use this as an example. 00:10:59.000 --> 00:11:00.000 Yeah. 00:11:00.000 --> 00:11:03.000 I would love for you to -- we want you to coach our team, because we want to represent 00:11:03.000 --> 00:11:04.000 that well. 00:11:04.000 --> 00:11:08.000 And Sally said, yeah, I'll be more than happy, but I'm not doing it for free. 00:11:08.000 --> 00:11:13.000 And she wanted, let's say, $800 to pay expenses and stuff. 00:11:13.000 --> 00:11:16.000 She could not do that under this rule, right? 00:11:16.000 --> 00:11:17.000 She could. 00:11:17.000 --> 00:11:18.000 She could. 00:11:18.000 --> 00:11:22.000 She would just have to recuse, and for some reason the softball team came before city 00:11:22.000 --> 00:11:24.000 council and asked for something. 00:11:24.000 --> 00:11:25.000 Okay. 00:11:25.000 --> 00:11:29.000 Let's say the city council was mad at them for losing games, and they wanted to talk 00:11:29.000 --> 00:11:30.000 about them. 00:11:30.000 --> 00:11:32.000 You probably should recuse yourself. 00:11:32.000 --> 00:11:33.000 Yeah. 00:11:33.000 --> 00:11:34.000 I'm just saying. 00:11:34.000 --> 00:11:35.000 I can't imagine. 00:11:35.000 --> 00:11:38.000 I mean, I'm just saying I'm using this as an example. 00:11:38.000 --> 00:11:41.000 I think it's usually a larger issue. 00:11:41.000 --> 00:11:45.000 And I do -- so this issue that you're talking about, I believe, would fall under the definition 00:11:45.000 --> 00:11:48.000 of client, which actually isn't in the current ordinance. 00:11:48.000 --> 00:11:53.000 So I do want to discuss that. 00:11:53.000 --> 00:11:58.000 So we did define it this way. 00:11:58.000 --> 00:12:00.000 So this would actually be new. 00:12:00.000 --> 00:12:03.000 This would be creating a new relationship that would create a conflict of interest. 00:12:03.000 --> 00:12:08.000 We've discussed in the past proposing this type of relationship to council. 00:12:08.000 --> 00:12:11.000 You approved the language, but when Scott and I discussed it, we decided it would be 00:12:11.000 --> 00:12:15.000 best to have a definition instead of just an open language. 00:12:15.000 --> 00:12:19.000 This is what we came up with based on previous discussions, or what I came up with. 00:12:19.000 --> 00:12:22.000 Scott was around, but not providing -- but -- 00:12:22.000 --> 00:12:30.000 And I think we've established that it wouldn't be because you patronize a certain grocery 00:12:30.000 --> 00:12:33.000 store. 00:12:33.000 --> 00:12:36.000 It would just be more about businesses. 00:12:36.000 --> 00:12:37.000 Right. 00:12:37.000 --> 00:12:44.000 It would be people paying you or who you owe fiduciary duty to. 00:12:44.000 --> 00:12:48.000 And this amount is taken from the model code. 00:12:48.000 --> 00:12:52.000 And they -- I will say when we discussed this a little bit with council, they had concerns, 00:12:52.000 --> 00:12:55.000 like you were talking about, about this amount. 00:12:55.000 --> 00:13:02.000 So I think we should -- it might be good to have discussions about is this $1,000 -- do 00:13:02.000 --> 00:13:14.000 we believe that that would create a conflicting interest over 24 months? 00:13:14.000 --> 00:13:16.000 If that makes sense. 00:13:16.000 --> 00:13:17.000 It's not an employer. 00:13:17.000 --> 00:13:21.000 It's not a business entity that you own, but it's a client, somebody who you're supplying 00:13:21.000 --> 00:13:25.000 services such as coaching a softball team for. 00:13:25.000 --> 00:13:29.000 Well, you know, again, I'm going to go back to another example. 00:13:29.000 --> 00:13:34.000 Me, myself, I'm not on the committee, but let's say I was on the committee. 00:13:34.000 --> 00:13:36.000 Or city council, excuse me. 00:13:36.000 --> 00:13:39.000 I'm a national promotions writer. 00:13:39.000 --> 00:13:44.000 And I give discounted prices to everybody across the country. 00:13:44.000 --> 00:13:45.000 Okay. 00:13:45.000 --> 00:13:49.000 And a lot of times they'll go over that value. 00:13:49.000 --> 00:13:57.000 Okay, so based on that value, I would have to stop at $1,000 to give to the city council 00:13:57.000 --> 00:13:58.000 or not? 00:13:58.000 --> 00:14:03.000 No, you just -- you cannot vote on the issue before city council that involves that cost 00:14:03.000 --> 00:14:04.000 as an attorney. 00:14:04.000 --> 00:14:05.000 Okay, that's it. 00:14:05.000 --> 00:14:08.000 That doesn't stop them from getting the same thing anybody else would get. 00:14:08.000 --> 00:14:09.000 Exactly. 00:14:09.000 --> 00:14:13.000 It just stops you from voting on an issue if they come before you. 00:14:13.000 --> 00:14:14.000 Thanks, guys. 00:14:14.000 --> 00:14:15.000 I just want to make sure -- 00:14:15.000 --> 00:14:19.000 No, I think this is a really good discussion about what this does because it's new. 00:14:19.000 --> 00:14:22.000 I've got to say I do think $1,000 is kind of low. 00:14:22.000 --> 00:14:23.000 That's just my opinion. 00:14:23.000 --> 00:14:24.000 Right. 00:14:24.000 --> 00:14:26.000 I have no stake in $1,000. 00:14:26.000 --> 00:14:27.000 Yeah, I know. 00:14:27.000 --> 00:14:29.000 That's just what was in the Holocaust, which was pretty old. 00:14:29.000 --> 00:14:34.000 It was about 20 years old, I think. 00:14:34.000 --> 00:14:37.000 Do I think $1,000 is long term? 00:14:37.000 --> 00:14:38.000 I don't know. 00:14:38.000 --> 00:14:39.000 What would you guys suggest? 00:14:39.000 --> 00:14:44.000 This is exactly the time to discuss what you would propose -- prefer to propose if so. 00:14:44.000 --> 00:14:48.000 I'd be more apt to say something like $2,500. 00:14:48.000 --> 00:14:49.000 $5,000. 00:14:49.000 --> 00:14:51.000 I was thinking $5,000, actually. 00:14:51.000 --> 00:14:52.000 Inflation? 00:14:52.000 --> 00:14:53.000 Yeah, inflation. 00:14:53.000 --> 00:14:54.000 That's true. 00:14:54.000 --> 00:14:59.000 Because the thing I hate about putting numbers into this code is they're going to have to 00:14:59.000 --> 00:15:01.000 constantly be readjusted. 00:15:01.000 --> 00:15:05.000 So I could go for $2,500 or $5,000. 00:15:05.000 --> 00:15:06.000 Yeah. 00:15:06.000 --> 00:15:17.000 I think we have to have a number that was one of the -- part of the feedback from council 00:15:17.000 --> 00:15:22.000 was that they wanted some threshold where they could define this. 00:15:22.000 --> 00:15:24.000 I think it makes sense. 00:15:24.000 --> 00:15:28.000 I mean, $1,000 is a lot to me. 00:15:28.000 --> 00:15:32.000 But I guess it depends on the business you're in. 00:15:32.000 --> 00:15:40.000 And I think it probably doesn't matter if it's $1,000 or $2,500. 00:15:40.000 --> 00:15:49.000 I think if someone has some significant business with an entity and they're on council -- 00:15:49.000 --> 00:15:52.000 You know, one thing -- 00:15:52.000 --> 00:15:58.000 I'm fine with leaving it $1,000 or raising it to $5,000 or whatever you want. 00:15:58.000 --> 00:16:02.000 I don't think I would be upset either way. 00:16:02.000 --> 00:16:04.000 Here's what makes me nervous. 00:16:04.000 --> 00:16:10.000 They threw the whole thing out last time over one number, basically. 00:16:10.000 --> 00:16:17.000 So I would like to point out, this is what we thought, but you have the right to say 00:16:17.000 --> 00:16:19.000 that it should be a different number. 00:16:19.000 --> 00:16:25.000 Please don't throw the whole thing out that we spent hours and hours on. 00:16:25.000 --> 00:16:27.000 I'll try to communicate that. 00:16:27.000 --> 00:16:30.000 I did try last time. 00:16:30.000 --> 00:16:31.000 You did great. 00:16:31.000 --> 00:16:32.000 You did. 00:16:32.000 --> 00:16:36.000 It was -- yeah. 00:16:36.000 --> 00:16:38.000 You should go back and watch that movie. 00:16:38.000 --> 00:16:43.000 It was very fun. 00:16:43.000 --> 00:16:49.000 So I think there's two things to consider on both sides. 00:16:49.000 --> 00:16:53.000 So first is the purpose of it. 00:16:53.000 --> 00:17:02.000 The purpose is to prevent preferential treatment to issues before the city council. 00:17:02.000 --> 00:17:04.000 Well, before anybody, right? 00:17:04.000 --> 00:17:08.000 Because this is conflict of interest with us as well. 00:17:08.000 --> 00:17:13.000 And so it's to prevent somebody from getting preferential treatment. 00:17:13.000 --> 00:17:21.000 So if there's any stake, if you owe any fiduciary duty to somebody, then there is a chance -- 00:17:21.000 --> 00:17:23.000 That makes you vulnerable. 00:17:23.000 --> 00:17:25.000 Yeah, there's a chance of preferential treatment. 00:17:25.000 --> 00:17:35.000 But then the other side, what stops somebody from getting a complaint, for instance here, 00:17:35.000 --> 00:17:40.000 getting a complaint and then running to me for a consult real quick? 00:17:40.000 --> 00:17:46.000 I don't know that the complaint has been filed yet, and now I'm conflicted out. 00:17:46.000 --> 00:17:49.000 So there's two sides of it. 00:17:49.000 --> 00:17:52.000 So Jill Jester, for instance, is an attorney. 00:17:52.000 --> 00:17:58.000 So what if there's an issue that she may be the swing vote on and that person goes 00:17:58.000 --> 00:18:02.000 and gets a consult with her intentionally to conflict her out? 00:18:02.000 --> 00:18:04.000 I'm not saying it will happen. 00:18:04.000 --> 00:18:06.000 It has happened, not with her. 00:18:06.000 --> 00:18:09.000 Maybe not in Denton, but it definitely has happened before. 00:18:09.000 --> 00:18:11.000 Yeah, sure. 00:18:11.000 --> 00:18:18.000 And so that's something we have to consider as well is are we putting our board members 00:18:18.000 --> 00:18:23.000 in a position to get intentionally conflicted out? 00:18:23.000 --> 00:18:25.000 And I don't know how you address that. 00:18:25.000 --> 00:18:30.000 In that case, if you raise that value, then maybe you lower it. 00:18:30.000 --> 00:18:31.000 Say that again. 00:18:31.000 --> 00:18:32.000 Lower it. 00:18:32.000 --> 00:18:34.000 You lower that chance of an intentional -- 00:18:34.000 --> 00:18:37.000 Somebody's not going to come and pay me five grand just to conflict me out. 00:18:37.000 --> 00:18:39.000 Well, they may, but it's unlikely. 00:18:39.000 --> 00:18:41.000 The chances are low. 00:18:41.000 --> 00:18:47.000 But if you raise it to five grand, now there's more likely to be a chance 00:18:47.000 --> 00:18:52.000 of me giving preferential treatment to somebody because I'm not conflicted out. 00:18:52.000 --> 00:18:56.000 This is kind of a double-edged sword. 00:18:56.000 --> 00:19:02.000 I guess I'm thinking of it from -- if someone is trying to abuse this clause 00:19:02.000 --> 00:19:07.000 by hiring you, for instance, to create a conflict of interest, 00:19:07.000 --> 00:19:14.000 if that value is higher, then there's a bigger barrier to them doing that. 00:19:14.000 --> 00:19:20.000 That was actually part of the discussion that came up before was this. 00:19:20.000 --> 00:19:26.000 So what would you recommend? 00:19:26.000 --> 00:19:32.000 Well, the first clause of the sentence is followed by an "or," 00:19:32.000 --> 00:19:39.000 which means it's an "and/or," so they can either create the fiduciary relationship 00:19:39.000 --> 00:19:44.000 and as an attorney that would be simply scheduling a consult would create that fiduciary, 00:19:44.000 --> 00:19:47.000 which would conflict me out. 00:19:47.000 --> 00:19:54.000 Or they could pay me $1,000 or more, and that would conflict me out. 00:19:54.000 --> 00:19:56.000 Does that make sense? 00:19:56.000 --> 00:20:03.000 So technically they could conflict you out just by creating the fiduciary relationship. 00:20:03.000 --> 00:20:07.000 I don't know what other fiduciary relationships exist besides attorneys. 00:20:07.000 --> 00:20:12.000 We kind of get -- ours are just -- the attorney-client relationship 00:20:12.000 --> 00:20:15.000 is one of the strongest relationships in the country. 00:20:15.000 --> 00:20:17.000 A trustee executor. 00:20:17.000 --> 00:20:20.000 A trustee executor, so if you hired a trustee, yeah. 00:20:20.000 --> 00:20:26.000 I think -- maybe I don't understand the third court language completely. 00:20:26.000 --> 00:20:34.000 You're saying that if you have some fiduciary duty to a client, 00:20:34.000 --> 00:20:36.000 that you would be conflicted out. 00:20:36.000 --> 00:20:41.000 But when I read this, I think that value has to be greater than $1,000. 00:20:41.000 --> 00:20:49.000 Because it says "or," a person or business entity gives me $1,000 or more, right? 00:20:49.000 --> 00:20:50.000 So it's an "or." 00:20:50.000 --> 00:20:56.000 If it was an "and," then it would be I have a fiduciary obligation and I received money. 00:20:56.000 --> 00:21:00.000 I'd get free consultations, so somebody could schedule a free consultation, 00:21:00.000 --> 00:21:03.000 and now I have a fiduciary obligation, even though they're not a client. 00:21:03.000 --> 00:21:07.000 So maybe change the "or" to an "and." 00:21:07.000 --> 00:21:12.000 Do you think RPC will still be conflicted? 00:21:12.000 --> 00:21:14.000 Yeah, I mean, you're conflicted. 00:21:14.000 --> 00:21:17.000 If they just counsel with me, I'm conflicted. 00:21:17.000 --> 00:21:20.000 They don't pay me. 00:21:20.000 --> 00:21:28.000 So the way it's written, there is no hard threshold in dollar amount, is what you're saying? 00:21:28.000 --> 00:21:33.000 For attorneys, for anybody who has a fiduciary obligation. 00:21:33.000 --> 00:21:36.000 If I hire, let's say the mayor owns a roofing company, 00:21:36.000 --> 00:21:40.000 and I hire him to put a roof on my house for $500, 00:21:40.000 --> 00:21:46.000 there's no fiduciary obligation or fiduciary relationship between a roofer and his client or customer. 00:21:46.000 --> 00:21:52.000 And I'm only paying $500, so now the mayor would not be conflicted out and would be okay to vote. 00:21:52.000 --> 00:21:58.000 If I pay him $1,500, now he's conflicted out. You know what I'm saying? 00:21:58.000 --> 00:22:06.000 Yeah, but today's economy and everything else, I just think we're living in a price that's way back when. 00:22:06.000 --> 00:22:08.000 Yeah, $1,000 is nothing. 00:22:08.000 --> 00:22:16.000 I mean, that's just, we're actually allowing them not to do anything at all at that price. 00:22:16.000 --> 00:22:23.000 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, 00:22:23.000 --> 00:22:29.000 comes before your board, your body, because it's preventing you. 00:22:29.000 --> 00:22:36.000 Unless you're serving every, unless every person in business and debt is in business with you for more than $1,000, 00:22:36.000 --> 00:22:40.000 you could still do business and still be on council. 00:22:40.000 --> 00:22:50.000 I've Googled with the value of $1,000 20 years ago versus now, and it would be about $2,000, according to Google. 00:22:50.000 --> 00:22:54.000 I kind of like the $2,500 number. 00:22:54.000 --> 00:23:01.000 And to your point, this definition creates two ways that you would become a client, right? 00:23:01.000 --> 00:23:06.000 Either you owe a fiduciary duty, there's a number of ways you can do that, 00:23:06.000 --> 00:23:13.000 or you've done business greater than $1,000 under the current definition within the last 24 months. 00:23:13.000 --> 00:23:16.000 You can also satisfy that both ways, right? 00:23:16.000 --> 00:23:22.000 If you did and, if you would have to be both, so anybody who didn't know a fiduciary duty to, 00:23:22.000 --> 00:23:26.000 no matter how much you paid them, would not be, would not get this definition. 00:23:26.000 --> 00:23:28.000 I would prefer an and. 00:23:28.000 --> 00:23:40.000 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 00:23:40.000 --> 00:23:49.000 not recusing themselves than there is somebody intentionally causing a conflict. 00:23:49.000 --> 00:23:58.000 I would like to think all of our city officials will recuse themselves and stay far away from that gray line. 00:23:58.000 --> 00:24:05.000 And so I think the and is better because it makes it harder to intentionally conflict out our city officials. 00:24:05.000 --> 00:24:07.000 I like the and. 00:24:07.000 --> 00:24:08.000 I like the and. 00:24:08.000 --> 00:24:13.000 So you have to have the fiduciary relationship, oh, fiduciary relationship, and $1,000 though. 00:24:13.000 --> 00:24:18.000 A roofer would never owe a fiduciary relationship, so. 00:24:18.000 --> 00:24:27.000 If you did an exception for a person who formed one through a consul or something like that. 00:24:27.000 --> 00:24:36.000 You could put, you could have this and add to here and did business greater than whatever number you find. 00:24:36.000 --> 00:24:37.000 Yeah. 00:24:37.000 --> 00:24:38.000 So then you cash in both. 00:24:38.000 --> 00:24:39.000 That's what. 00:24:39.000 --> 00:24:40.000 Or. 00:24:40.000 --> 00:24:41.000 Yeah. 00:24:41.000 --> 00:24:42.000 Or. 00:24:42.000 --> 00:24:43.000 Right. 00:24:43.000 --> 00:24:44.000 So you wouldn't say. 00:24:44.000 --> 00:24:46.000 So we're just putting, we're putting the value on both. 00:24:46.000 --> 00:24:47.000 On both sides. 00:24:47.000 --> 00:24:49.000 On both sides of the order. 00:24:49.000 --> 00:24:50.000 Oh, I like that. 00:24:50.000 --> 00:24:51.000 I like that better too. 00:24:51.000 --> 00:24:56.000 And then you can have different numbers if you want. 00:24:56.000 --> 00:25:01.000 That's what you. 00:25:01.000 --> 00:25:05.000 I really don't care how we resolve this. 00:25:05.000 --> 00:25:13.000 I do know that city council members have a history of feeling very strongly about some of these issues. 00:25:13.000 --> 00:25:18.000 I guess I want them to know you can, you can change something. 00:25:18.000 --> 00:25:19.000 Right. 00:25:19.000 --> 00:25:22.000 Don't do what you did before. 00:25:22.000 --> 00:25:24.000 Well, I think there's. 00:25:24.000 --> 00:25:27.000 I'm not going to talk on behalf of them, but I am. 00:25:27.000 --> 00:25:32.000 I think when people spend their time and energy to try to help their city. 00:25:32.000 --> 00:25:35.000 And not everybody on there has conflict of interest. 00:25:35.000 --> 00:25:38.000 Nobody's, you know, trying to do something. 00:25:38.000 --> 00:25:43.000 And you get hit with these, what I call, things that you feel like you can't breathe. 00:25:43.000 --> 00:25:45.000 I can see why they're resentful. 00:25:45.000 --> 00:25:46.000 I mean, I understand that. 00:25:46.000 --> 00:25:50.000 We're sitting there almost as police people trying to keep them in line. 00:25:50.000 --> 00:25:52.000 And, you know, so I understand that. 00:25:52.000 --> 00:25:54.000 Because I've been in that thing for a long time. 00:25:54.000 --> 00:25:55.000 I get that. 00:25:55.000 --> 00:25:59.000 But I also think there's some really quality people that do work in Denton, Texas. 00:25:59.000 --> 00:26:04.000 That want to feel like they can continue to do their work in Denton, Texas. 00:26:04.000 --> 00:26:10.000 And feel like they're not on the board and are in conflict of our rules. 00:26:10.000 --> 00:26:16.000 Yeah, I just would say that the way this code is written. 00:26:16.000 --> 00:26:24.000 They focus on very little tiny things, rather than the bigger things that are more of a concern. 00:26:24.000 --> 00:26:29.000 Like, I don't think recusal should be a huge fight. 00:26:29.000 --> 00:26:37.000 Some of the definitions in the glossary are pretty tight, pretty stringent. 00:26:37.000 --> 00:26:39.000 And so, yeah, I know these are rules. 00:26:39.000 --> 00:26:46.000 But I think if everybody has the rules, you know, we're not doing it to be mean to people. 00:26:46.000 --> 00:26:49.000 We're just saying, these are the parameters. 00:26:49.000 --> 00:26:59.000 I don't think the City Council thinks that we're trying to just stick it to them. 00:26:59.000 --> 00:27:04.000 I think they're concerned with what it could mean. 00:27:04.000 --> 00:27:11.000 Again, just speaking as an attorney, it's so easy to create that fiduciary relationship with an attorney. 00:27:11.000 --> 00:27:19.000 That, I mean, Jill could get conflicted out of every single vote there ever was. 00:27:19.000 --> 00:27:23.000 And then she would be like, okay, well, I guess I'll just sit here and not collect a paycheck. 00:27:23.000 --> 00:27:27.000 I could waste my time because I can't vote on anything. 00:27:27.000 --> 00:27:35.000 And so we don't want that to happen. 00:27:35.000 --> 00:27:44.000 I would say I like the way we just changed it, maybe leave the $1,000 alone. 00:27:44.000 --> 00:27:52.000 Or change it to $2,000. 00:27:52.000 --> 00:27:55.000 And it is also within the last two years. 00:27:55.000 --> 00:28:03.000 I just want to point that out, too, for discussion. 00:28:03.000 --> 00:28:07.000 Opinions? 00:28:07.000 --> 00:28:15.000 Because hopefully this is something we're going to vote on in the next thing. 00:28:15.000 --> 00:28:19.000 Will you add duty behind fiduciary? 00:28:19.000 --> 00:28:22.000 Oh, yes. 00:28:22.000 --> 00:28:23.000 The top one? 00:28:23.000 --> 00:28:27.000 Yeah. 00:28:27.000 --> 00:28:38.000 So you would look at you if you had it still in there. 00:28:38.000 --> 00:28:40.000 So are you ready to move on? 00:28:40.000 --> 00:28:42.000 We didn't change that value. 00:28:42.000 --> 00:28:49.000 I heard some discussion of $5,000, $2,500, $2,000, but I didn't get clear direction. 00:28:49.000 --> 00:28:53.000 This is not, this $1,000 we haven't really gotten clear direction on either. 00:28:53.000 --> 00:28:56.000 That was just something that I put in there based on the law. 00:28:56.000 --> 00:29:02.000 I didn't get clear direction on what number you would like to propose. 00:29:02.000 --> 00:29:05.000 I personally like the $2,500. 00:29:05.000 --> 00:29:11.000 I like $2,000 because it's all zeros. 00:29:11.000 --> 00:29:14.000 That would be $1,000 a year because it covers 24 months, right? 00:29:14.000 --> 00:29:16.000 $1,000 a year. 00:29:16.000 --> 00:29:18.000 $2,000 sounds, what do you think? 00:29:18.000 --> 00:29:21.000 I'd like to say $2,500 because I have that in my brain. 00:29:21.000 --> 00:29:26.000 You know. 00:29:26.000 --> 00:29:28.000 Yeah, I think $2,500 is fine. 00:29:28.000 --> 00:29:31.000 I don't feel strongly about any one of those numbers. 00:29:31.000 --> 00:29:34.000 A different $2,500, $2,000. 00:29:34.000 --> 00:29:36.000 Let's go with $2,500. 00:29:36.000 --> 00:29:40.000 It kind of seems like it's splitting the difference. 00:29:40.000 --> 00:29:42.000 It's not $5,000. 00:29:42.000 --> 00:29:43.000 Yeah. 00:29:43.000 --> 00:29:45.000 I mean, we've given a little, but. 00:29:45.000 --> 00:29:46.000 Yeah. 00:29:46.000 --> 00:29:48.000 I think if someone. 00:29:48.000 --> 00:29:50.000 But I do like all zeros. 00:29:50.000 --> 00:29:54.000 I think if a city official has done $2,500 worth of work for someone, 00:29:54.000 --> 00:29:56.000 then they do have a conflict of interest. 00:29:56.000 --> 00:29:57.000 Yeah. 00:29:57.000 --> 00:29:58.000 And they shouldn't recuse themselves. 00:29:58.000 --> 00:30:00.000 Yeah. 00:30:00.000 --> 00:30:01.000 True. 00:30:01.000 --> 00:30:07.000 So whether or not that work was commissioned in good faith or not, 00:30:07.000 --> 00:30:13.000 they have a conflict. 00:30:13.000 --> 00:30:21.000 Do we even need the fiduciary duty part? 00:30:21.000 --> 00:30:24.000 I didn't understand what you were asking. 00:30:24.000 --> 00:30:26.000 I would take it out. 00:30:26.000 --> 00:30:30.000 I don't know that we need the fiduciary duty part if they're exactly the same. 00:30:30.000 --> 00:30:31.000 Yeah. 00:30:31.000 --> 00:30:32.000 Right, because it's inclusive. 00:30:32.000 --> 00:30:33.000 Right. 00:30:33.000 --> 00:30:34.000 Necessarily. 00:30:34.000 --> 00:30:37.000 Right. 00:30:37.000 --> 00:30:43.000 I would take it out. 00:30:43.000 --> 00:30:45.000 So it just owes money? 00:30:45.000 --> 00:30:47.000 Yeah, just that there's money. 00:30:47.000 --> 00:30:48.000 Yeah. 00:30:48.000 --> 00:30:54.000 Or clear. 00:30:54.000 --> 00:30:55.000 Yeah. 00:30:55.000 --> 00:31:02.000 Just that relationship doesn't serve us. 00:31:02.000 --> 00:31:04.000 Okay. 00:31:04.000 --> 00:31:07.000 Are we ready to move on? 00:31:07.000 --> 00:31:08.000 Yes. 00:31:08.000 --> 00:31:09.000 Okay. 00:31:09.000 --> 00:31:21.000 Next for a blank note. 00:31:21.000 --> 00:31:25.000 This part we kind of -- this part we discussed last time, 00:31:25.000 --> 00:31:34.000 and then this is just adding the kind of timelines around disclosure requirements 00:31:34.000 --> 00:31:38.000 that we discussed last time as well. 00:31:38.000 --> 00:31:56.000 We'll just write and see how things look, and we don't even have it now. 00:31:56.000 --> 00:32:01.000 I like it. 00:32:01.000 --> 00:32:03.000 Any other slides? 00:32:03.000 --> 00:32:05.000 You're fine? 00:32:05.000 --> 00:32:07.000 I'm fine, but I think we worked hard on this last week. 00:32:07.000 --> 00:32:08.000 Yeah, we did. 00:32:08.000 --> 00:32:09.000 We did. 00:32:09.000 --> 00:32:11.000 Just so you can see it. 00:32:11.000 --> 00:32:16.000 Okay, and that's all really of what I'm calling proposal one, 00:32:16.000 --> 00:32:20.000 which is to kind of restructure and adjust the conflict of interest. 00:32:20.000 --> 00:32:21.000 Okay. 00:32:21.000 --> 00:32:29.000 Proposal two is what previously would have been known as the burden of proof. 00:32:29.000 --> 00:32:37.000 But really what it's doing is clarifying the evidentiary standard anyway, 00:32:37.000 --> 00:32:41.000 so now it's called the responsibility to establish price. 00:32:41.000 --> 00:32:44.000 This is a language that we've discussed previously. 00:32:44.000 --> 00:32:45.000 I really like that wording. 00:32:45.000 --> 00:32:47.000 I think that's a lot more -- you know, 00:32:47.000 --> 00:32:52.000 because I think it's going to keep people from, you know, 00:32:52.000 --> 00:32:59.000 getting really emotional and finding a complaint where there are no facts, 00:32:59.000 --> 00:33:09.000 which happens. 00:33:09.000 --> 00:33:13.000 So any questions or comments? 00:33:13.000 --> 00:33:22.000 Also, we think you know that we're seeing it on the screen. 00:33:22.000 --> 00:33:24.000 I like it. 00:33:24.000 --> 00:33:27.000 Yep. 00:33:27.000 --> 00:33:32.000 Are we ready to move on? 00:33:32.000 --> 00:33:33.000 The two babies? 00:33:33.000 --> 00:33:34.000 Yeah. 00:33:34.000 --> 00:33:40.000 Okay. 00:33:40.000 --> 00:33:44.000 I think they're nice and clean. 00:33:44.000 --> 00:33:49.000 There's no surprising fluff. 00:33:49.000 --> 00:33:52.000 So then I guess that would be the end of this item. 00:33:52.000 --> 00:33:55.000 The next one will be the letter, and I can pull that up. 00:33:55.000 --> 00:33:56.000 Okay. 00:33:56.000 --> 00:33:59.000 This is the language we're going for. 00:33:59.000 --> 00:34:05.000 So are we ready to move on to item C? 00:34:05.000 --> 00:34:11.000 Item C, BOE25-009. 00:34:11.000 --> 00:34:14.000 Item C, BOE25-009. 00:34:14.000 --> 00:34:16.000 Receive a report, hold a discussion, 00:34:16.000 --> 00:34:19.000 and take necessary action regarding forwarding proposals 00:34:19.000 --> 00:34:22.000 to amend the City of Denton Code of Ordinances, 00:34:22.000 --> 00:34:31.000 Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics to the City Council. 00:34:31.000 --> 00:34:39.000 Here's the draft letter for the proposals. 00:34:39.000 --> 00:34:41.000 Just kind of trying to briefly summarize the changes. 00:34:41.000 --> 00:34:46.000 We'll also do a presentation as part of the work session 00:34:46.000 --> 00:35:11.000 discussion with the City Council. 00:35:11.000 --> 00:35:17.000 It looks good to me. 00:35:17.000 --> 00:35:22.000 I wonder if we could put our City Council member lens on 00:35:22.000 --> 00:35:38.000 to see if there's anything that's going to draw fireworks. 00:35:38.000 --> 00:35:42.000 Why don't you make it yourself? 00:35:42.000 --> 00:35:43.000 How's that? 00:35:43.000 --> 00:36:03.000 Yes. 00:36:03.000 --> 00:36:07.000 The fourth column, the summary of change title, 00:36:07.000 --> 00:36:12.000 is it truly a summary or is it more a rationale 00:36:12.000 --> 00:36:17.000 for the change or an explanation of the change? 00:36:17.000 --> 00:36:19.000 I tried to summarize my understanding 00:36:19.000 --> 00:36:21.000 of what the change was doing. 00:36:21.000 --> 00:36:42.000 You can change that if you would like to. 00:36:42.000 --> 00:37:07.000 Any concerns you see with that first? 00:37:07.000 --> 00:37:11.000 I like the proposal a heck of a lot better than the other one. 00:37:11.000 --> 00:37:15.000 I think it spelled it out a little bit better. 00:37:15.000 --> 00:37:21.000 Yeah, I think we're just trying to be more clear, mostly. 00:37:21.000 --> 00:37:25.000 I think it creates a different test, 00:37:25.000 --> 00:37:29.000 but it expands what is included, what would be included in there. 00:37:29.000 --> 00:37:32.000 Currently, I've been trying to think through this, 00:37:32.000 --> 00:37:34.000 but I haven't all the way. 00:37:34.000 --> 00:37:36.000 Currently, when you're trying to determine 00:37:36.000 --> 00:37:39.000 how points of interest you say is, 00:37:39.000 --> 00:37:44.000 do I meet one of these conflicting interest standards, 00:37:44.000 --> 00:37:48.000 all of which are incorporated into the ordinance still? 00:37:48.000 --> 00:37:54.000 Do they own $16 of fair market value in the business? 00:37:54.000 --> 00:37:58.000 Did they vote on a pending matter involving that person? 00:37:58.000 --> 00:38:02.000 That's the current test. 00:38:02.000 --> 00:38:06.000 This test still asks, was there that relationship 00:38:06.000 --> 00:38:08.000 that creates a conflict of interest? 00:38:08.000 --> 00:38:16.000 Did they act or fail to act in their city official responsibilities? 00:38:16.000 --> 00:38:18.000 It does broaden it, in a way. 00:38:18.000 --> 00:38:24.000 Yes, it absolutely broadens it. 00:38:24.000 --> 00:38:29.000 I can try to think through explaining that a little better. 00:38:29.000 --> 00:38:34.000 The other one was so narrow that once you vote it, you're good. 00:38:34.000 --> 00:38:40.000 You can do whatever you want to, basically, technically. 00:38:40.000 --> 00:38:42.000 That's the concern. 00:38:42.000 --> 00:38:50.000 The old one, the conflicting, it arose when you were voting on a pending matter. 00:38:50.000 --> 00:38:54.000 Under the proposal, it would arise when you were deliberating, 00:38:54.000 --> 00:38:59.000 which is a broader scope. 00:38:59.000 --> 00:39:04.000 Also, after you vote. 00:39:04.000 --> 00:39:09.000 Deliberation includes a lot of things that a pending matter didn't. 00:39:09.000 --> 00:39:14.000 The pending matter didn't require you to recuse from deliberations. 00:39:14.000 --> 00:39:25.000 We're just taking away a step, essentially. 00:39:25.000 --> 00:39:29.000 All of the relationships are really very similar that create a conflicting interest, 00:39:29.000 --> 00:39:32.000 except we're creating the client relationship that's being added, 00:39:32.000 --> 00:39:40.000 and there's a little bit of difference in the familial relationships. 00:39:40.000 --> 00:39:44.000 Do we need to vote on each one of these things as we look at them, 00:39:44.000 --> 00:39:47.000 or do we need to vote on the whole thing? 00:39:47.000 --> 00:39:56.000 We voted on each proposal separately previously. 00:39:56.000 --> 00:39:58.000 It's easy for me. 00:39:58.000 --> 00:40:04.000 This is part of the first proposal's explanation. 00:40:04.000 --> 00:40:06.000 It has three pieces. 00:40:06.000 --> 00:40:09.000 It expands the definition, or expands when a conflict arises. 00:40:09.000 --> 00:40:13.000 That's what's summarized here. 00:40:13.000 --> 00:40:17.000 It eliminates the timelines for disclosure, 00:40:17.000 --> 00:40:22.000 and then it adjusts the conflicting interests, 00:40:22.000 --> 00:40:29.000 the relationships that create conflict. 00:40:29.000 --> 00:40:30.000 That's the first proposal. 00:40:30.000 --> 00:40:35.000 It does all three of those things. 00:40:35.000 --> 00:40:40.000 Then the second proposal is the one that clarifies evidentiary standards, 00:40:40.000 --> 00:40:47.000 the other is the approved section, changing that to what we're calling it now. 00:40:47.000 --> 00:40:50.000 Supplying information, basically. 00:40:50.000 --> 00:40:52.000 It's facts. 00:40:52.000 --> 00:40:56.000 It's responsibility to establish facts. 00:40:56.000 --> 00:40:58.000 I really do like that term. 00:40:58.000 --> 00:41:02.000 Enter into. 00:41:02.000 --> 00:41:05.000 We have one underlined that says "entered into." 00:41:05.000 --> 00:41:10.000 I want to see if you've added that in or you're trying to take that out. 00:41:10.000 --> 00:41:13.000 I want to back it up just a little bit. 00:41:13.000 --> 00:41:15.000 There you go. 00:41:15.000 --> 00:41:16.000 There it is. 00:41:16.000 --> 00:41:18.000 Pending matters. 00:41:18.000 --> 00:41:25.000 Are you trying to enter into, are you trying to take that out or keep that in? 00:41:25.000 --> 00:41:28.000 The change would remove pending matter. 00:41:28.000 --> 00:41:29.000 Okay, so it's removing that? 00:41:29.000 --> 00:41:30.000 Yes. 00:41:30.000 --> 00:41:33.000 That's underlined because of the grammar checker. 00:41:33.000 --> 00:41:35.000 Oh, yeah. 00:41:35.000 --> 00:41:37.000 That's not intentional. 00:41:37.000 --> 00:41:44.000 Okay. 00:41:44.000 --> 00:41:51.000 Anybody else have any questions on this first three-part piece? 00:41:51.000 --> 00:41:55.000 I think that looks good. 00:41:55.000 --> 00:42:05.000 Is there anyone ready to, someone ready to move that we vote? 00:42:05.000 --> 00:42:13.000 I'll make a motion that we doesn't think of. 00:42:13.000 --> 00:42:17.000 Because you're going to make the changes to that client definition. 00:42:17.000 --> 00:42:32.000 So you're going to, does that reflect what you're going to make? 00:42:32.000 --> 00:42:36.000 Yes. 00:42:36.000 --> 00:42:37.000 Okay. 00:42:37.000 --> 00:42:39.000 I'll make your motion. 00:42:39.000 --> 00:42:44.000 So moving that we recommend the changes to the Code of Ordinance to City Council. 00:42:44.000 --> 00:42:48.000 Contained is a letter provided by staff with the following amendments. 00:42:48.000 --> 00:42:55.000 One, in the definition of client located in Section 2-269, strike the clause of business, 00:42:55.000 --> 00:43:02.000 a person or business entity to which the City Council owes a fiduciary in its entirety. 00:43:02.000 --> 00:43:08.000 And two, in the definition of client located in Section 2-269, strike the dollar amount, 00:43:08.000 --> 00:43:15.000 $1,000 and replace it with the dollar amount, $2,500. 00:43:15.000 --> 00:43:17.000 Is that right? 00:43:17.000 --> 00:43:18.000 I'll second that. 00:43:18.000 --> 00:43:19.000 Can I get a second to that? 00:43:19.000 --> 00:43:25.000 Can I get a second that you mess it up to me or Joey? 00:43:25.000 --> 00:43:28.000 Scott will make sure to put that motion back. 00:43:28.000 --> 00:43:30.000 I never would have gotten that right. 00:43:30.000 --> 00:43:31.000 Thank you. 00:43:31.000 --> 00:43:32.000 I wondered what you were typing. 00:43:32.000 --> 00:43:33.000 So thank you. 00:43:33.000 --> 00:43:34.000 That was helpful. 00:43:34.000 --> 00:43:38.000 Okay, so that takes care of -- 00:43:38.000 --> 00:43:40.000 The motion -- 00:43:40.000 --> 00:43:42.000 Now we need to vote. 00:43:42.000 --> 00:43:48.000 Okay, all in favor of the very lengthy motion that we just heard. 00:43:48.000 --> 00:43:50.000 Aye. 00:43:50.000 --> 00:43:52.000 It's unanimous. 00:43:52.000 --> 00:43:55.000 Okay. 00:43:55.000 --> 00:43:58.000 Thank you, Scott. 00:43:58.000 --> 00:44:01.000 So we're ready to move on to -- 00:44:01.000 --> 00:44:06.000 Second proposal. 00:44:06.000 --> 00:44:26.000 So amend Section 2-281 sub C sub 4 to clarify the evidentiary standard of review for Board of Ethics hearings. 00:44:26.000 --> 00:44:52.000 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. 00:44:52.000 --> 00:45:01.000 There is not currently a clearly stated evidentiary standard of review. 00:45:01.000 --> 00:45:03.000 I am very happy with that. 00:45:03.000 --> 00:45:08.000 I just think that is a much better -- what we need to do. 00:45:08.000 --> 00:45:10.000 I have just a question. 00:45:10.000 --> 00:45:11.000 Yes. 00:45:11.000 --> 00:45:12.000 I'm trying to cause trouble, but -- 00:45:12.000 --> 00:45:13.000 Oh, you're such a troublemaker. 00:45:13.000 --> 00:45:15.000 Reasonable, certain. 00:45:15.000 --> 00:45:16.000 Reasonably certain. 00:45:16.000 --> 00:45:19.000 What does that mean to me? 00:45:19.000 --> 00:45:22.000 Is it facts, objective, subjective? 00:45:22.000 --> 00:45:24.000 What does that mean? 00:45:24.000 --> 00:45:28.000 That doesn't sound legal standard, right? 00:45:28.000 --> 00:45:32.000 That is the second highest burden. 00:45:32.000 --> 00:45:37.000 This is the burden beyond a reasonable doubt. 00:45:37.000 --> 00:45:45.000 So reasonably certain. 00:45:45.000 --> 00:45:55.000 I would say the evidence presented to you as part of the hearing makes you reasonably certain that whatever violation was alleged occurred. 00:45:55.000 --> 00:46:01.000 So not like it probably happened or not like it absolutely happened, but I'm pretty sure it probably happened. 00:46:01.000 --> 00:46:03.000 Does that help? 00:46:03.000 --> 00:46:04.000 You're like 75%. 00:46:04.000 --> 00:46:09.000 Don't they kind of use an example of a reasonable person? 00:46:09.000 --> 00:46:15.000 I've not been in law school for that long. 00:46:15.000 --> 00:46:20.000 They do use a reasonable person as a standard. 00:46:20.000 --> 00:46:26.000 I don't know if that is part of this. 00:46:26.000 --> 00:46:29.000 Because you're not -- 00:46:29.000 --> 00:46:35.000 I don't think in any of this you could ever be certain beyond -- 00:46:35.000 --> 00:46:39.000 That's the highest -- that's the criminal standard. 00:46:39.000 --> 00:46:46.000 We're in civil territory, so we're reasonably certain is like we're pretty sure this happened. 00:46:46.000 --> 00:46:48.000 More than -- 00:46:48.000 --> 00:46:52.000 Diane, let me ask you, do you think that's too high of a standard or too low of a standard? 00:46:52.000 --> 00:46:56.000 I don't like the word certain. 00:46:56.000 --> 00:47:09.000 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. 00:47:09.000 --> 00:47:17.000 And so I think that leaves it open to -- I think it's too low of a standard. 00:47:17.000 --> 00:47:18.000 That's what I was asking. 00:47:18.000 --> 00:47:23.000 Yeah, and that's why I asked for clarification if you thought it was too low or too high. 00:47:23.000 --> 00:47:28.000 I think I was trying to close the gate. 00:47:28.000 --> 00:47:29.000 Is it reasonably -- 00:47:29.000 --> 00:47:37.000 This is a pretty high standard legally for civil matters, I believe. 00:47:37.000 --> 00:47:40.000 What would you think would be a better way? 00:47:40.000 --> 00:47:41.000 I don't know. 00:47:41.000 --> 00:47:43.000 It's just somebody needs to help me. 00:47:43.000 --> 00:47:50.000 But reasonably certain is like -- it's almost a guessing that it's happening. 00:47:50.000 --> 00:47:55.000 And I'd rather know it's -- we have made a decision that isn't happening. 00:47:55.000 --> 00:47:59.000 However we say that, I don't know that. 00:47:59.000 --> 00:48:11.000 I personally am at the viewpoint that if it's good enough language for the law and in a court, 00:48:11.000 --> 00:48:20.000 then I think it is good enough to be considered in a civil suit because this is all civil. 00:48:20.000 --> 00:48:26.000 So I'm thinking that in my opinion, if it's good enough for the course, then it's good enough for this code. 00:48:26.000 --> 00:48:32.000 I think the certainty that you're describing is what this is, I believe so. 00:48:32.000 --> 00:48:45.000 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. 00:48:45.000 --> 00:48:50.000 I agree if it's good enough for the court, it's good enough for us. 00:48:50.000 --> 00:49:00.000 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. 00:49:00.000 --> 00:49:06.000 I know they'll try, but I'd like to close the door on whatever we're saying. 00:49:06.000 --> 00:49:15.000 So if the law's saying this is a word we can use, I accept it, absolutely. 00:49:15.000 --> 00:49:28.000 Okay. Are there any other questions or concerns about this second part? 00:49:28.000 --> 00:49:38.000 Are we ready for a motion? 00:49:38.000 --> 00:49:45.000 I'll make a motion if I can help him, Scott. 00:49:45.000 --> 00:50:00.000 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. 00:50:00.000 --> 00:50:15.000 Do we need to recommend it to the City Council? 00:50:15.000 --> 00:50:30.000 All in favor? All right. It's unanimous. 00:50:30.000 --> 00:50:35.000 So this will be presented to the City Council on March 4th during work session. 00:50:35.000 --> 00:50:41.000 I don't know what item it will be at this point, but we will add it. 00:50:41.000 --> 00:50:45.000 So did you say March 4th? 00:50:45.000 --> 00:50:47.000 And then we'll have our meeting then from one week. 00:50:47.000 --> 00:50:55.000 I will include an update on what occurred during that meeting. 00:50:55.000 --> 00:51:10.000 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. 00:51:10.000 --> 00:51:14.000 I have some. 00:51:14.000 --> 00:51:17.000 Yeah. Okay. So go ahead and -- 00:51:17.000 --> 00:51:18.000 You want me to wait? 00:51:18.000 --> 00:51:19.000 Go ahead. 00:51:19.000 --> 00:51:27.000 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. 00:51:27.000 --> 00:51:36.000 I was taken back the other day when we did not have a closed meeting on the complaint, the first meeting. 00:51:36.000 --> 00:51:42.000 I do believe in rights of human beings, and I do think you have a right to hear your complaint. 00:51:42.000 --> 00:51:55.000 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. 00:51:55.000 --> 00:52:01.000 In other words, we might shoot it down. So why have a sleeping dog wake up? 00:52:01.000 --> 00:52:11.000 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. 00:52:11.000 --> 00:52:15.000 I would like to discuss that at the next meeting, give some people. 00:52:15.000 --> 00:52:36.000 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. 00:52:36.000 --> 00:52:48.000 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. 00:52:48.000 --> 00:53:01.000 I think it may be what I think is a very narrow definition of ex parte communication. 00:53:01.000 --> 00:53:09.000 What we do here is very serious business, in my opinion, and I think there should be a sense of professionalism. 00:53:09.000 --> 00:53:18.000 Again, I agree totally with fairness and complaints, but I do think that we have the higher standards. 00:53:18.000 --> 00:53:27.000 This committee does, and I don't think that we should share information without our whole committee being involved in it. 00:53:27.000 --> 00:53:34.000 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. 00:53:34.000 --> 00:53:35.000 Can I ask a question? 00:53:35.000 --> 00:53:36.000 Sure. 00:53:36.000 --> 00:53:42.000 Well, actually, that would be good. Am I already discussing it or not? 00:53:42.000 --> 00:53:54.000 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? 00:53:54.000 --> 00:54:05.000 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. 00:54:05.000 --> 00:54:07.000 I don't think I should discuss that. 00:54:07.000 --> 00:54:08.000 Okay, okay. 00:54:08.000 --> 00:54:10.000 Do you want to add this to the next meeting? 00:54:10.000 --> 00:54:11.000 Yeah. 00:54:11.000 --> 00:54:13.000 Because we're just supposed to be bringing up things. 00:54:13.000 --> 00:54:14.000 Do what now? 00:54:14.000 --> 00:54:16.000 We're just supposed to be bringing up things, too. 00:54:16.000 --> 00:54:19.000 Okay, well, I'd like to discuss that next time, if I could. 00:54:19.000 --> 00:54:20.000 Okay. 00:54:20.000 --> 00:54:21.000 I'm just trying to answer your question. 00:54:21.000 --> 00:54:26.000 Yeah, and that's why I was questioning myself, that I was already starting to discuss it, rather than- 00:54:26.000 --> 00:54:27.000 Sorry, did we get on- 00:54:27.000 --> 00:54:28.000 No, that's- 00:54:28.000 --> 00:54:30.000 Yeah. 00:54:30.000 --> 00:54:33.000 Would that be okay, if we could discuss that? 00:54:33.000 --> 00:54:39.000 Well, let's look at what's on the next, and those are possibilities. 00:54:39.000 --> 00:54:53.000 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. 00:54:53.000 --> 00:55:07.000 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. 00:55:07.000 --> 00:55:14.000 I would actually like to support that, and especially the closed meeting situation about special meetings. 00:55:14.000 --> 00:55:18.000 That is something I would agree with. 00:55:18.000 --> 00:55:21.000 We definitely need to. 00:55:21.000 --> 00:55:25.000 After I brought this up, I'm not going to be here much. 00:55:25.000 --> 00:55:32.000 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. 00:55:32.000 --> 00:55:35.000 I'm fine, and I can listen, or- 00:55:35.000 --> 00:55:39.000 We can always schedule it for April. 00:55:39.000 --> 00:55:46.000 Yeah, I would definitely like to talk about the definition of a complainant. 00:55:46.000 --> 00:55:57.000 I would think that's an easy thing to discuss. 00:55:57.000 --> 00:56:10.000 As those other things, are there other things you'd want to talk about? 00:56:10.000 --> 00:56:23.000 I think the frivolous sanctions one that should be high enough to discuss. 00:56:23.000 --> 00:56:32.000 Those are the two that I would pick on. What do you guys want to pick on for our next meeting? 00:56:32.000 --> 00:56:34.000 Well, I picked on my two, so- 00:56:34.000 --> 00:56:37.000 We can put those for April. 00:56:37.000 --> 00:56:40.000 Yeah, that's fine. If you want me to hold on, right? 00:56:40.000 --> 00:56:41.000 That way you can be here? 00:56:41.000 --> 00:56:42.000 Yeah, absolutely. 00:56:42.000 --> 00:56:46.000 Okay. 00:56:46.000 --> 00:56:47.000 I trust you guys. 00:56:47.000 --> 00:56:54.000 I would definitely say, man, there's so many other things I'd like to pick on, 00:56:54.000 --> 00:57:11.000 but I think that along with what you're saying for April, the definition of ex parte is very narrow. 00:57:11.000 --> 00:57:16.000 Do you guys see anything else on that list that should be discussed in the next meeting? 00:57:16.000 --> 00:57:20.000 I'm trying to define something, because the definition of complainant, 00:57:20.000 --> 00:57:25.000 and I'm thinking that's not going to take up too much. 00:57:25.000 --> 00:57:32.000 It's a human. That's what the definition is. 00:57:32.000 --> 00:57:44.000 I think the review of the current sanctions and frivolous sanctions, I think that kind of goes hand in hand there. 00:57:44.000 --> 00:57:45.000 Anything else? 00:57:45.000 --> 00:57:50.000 The review of current sanctions, frivolous sanctions, I think is timely. 00:57:50.000 --> 00:57:58.000 We're going to have elections coming up, and we might get frivolous complaints. 00:57:58.000 --> 00:58:08.000 I don't want to touch campaign complaints. 00:58:08.000 --> 00:58:13.000 Okay, so is that pretty clear? 00:58:13.000 --> 00:58:25.000 My understanding is that we might have a discussion in March about the definition of complainant, 00:58:25.000 --> 00:58:31.000 and begin a discussion of frivolous sanctions, 00:58:31.000 --> 00:58:36.000 and then in April have a discussion about ex parte communication 00:58:36.000 --> 00:58:41.000 and potentially making preliminary assessments of those meetings. 00:58:41.000 --> 00:58:46.000 I don't know if that's possible, but we'll find out. 00:58:46.000 --> 00:58:55.000 Okay, any other business? 00:58:55.000 --> 00:59:02.000 I think we are done, so it is now hearing no comments. 00:59:02.000 --> 00:59:07.000 It is 629 PM, and this meeting is adjourned.