1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:01,880
 >> Because we have everybody but Diane.

2
00:00:01,880 --> 00:00:02,480
 >> Correct.

3
00:00:02,480 --> 00:00:09,080
 >> Okay. So, good evening.

4
00:00:09,080 --> 00:00:14,520
 It's Monday, March 10th, 2025, 530 p.m. This is the Board

5
00:00:14,520 --> 00:00:17,460
 of Ethics meeting and I don't --

6
00:00:17,460 --> 00:00:20,120
 do we have any presentations from the public?

7
00:00:20,120 --> 00:00:22,160
 I don't see any.

8
00:00:22,160 --> 00:00:25,940
 Okay. We're going to move on to items for consideration.

9
00:00:25,940 --> 00:00:32,840
 Item A, BOE25-011, consider approval of minutes

10
00:00:32,840 --> 00:00:35,920
 for February 10th, 2025.

11
00:00:35,920 --> 00:00:36,940
 Does anybody have any?

12
00:00:36,940 --> 00:00:39,520
 >> I move that we approve the minutes from February 8th.

13
00:00:39,520 --> 00:00:40,280
 >> Second.

14
00:00:40,280 --> 00:00:43,080
 >> Patricia made the motion.

15
00:00:43,080 --> 00:00:46,520
 Ann Zoltner seconded.

16
00:00:46,520 --> 00:00:48,560
 All in favor?

17
00:00:48,560 --> 00:00:49,360
 >> Aye.

18
00:00:49,360 --> 00:00:53,060
 >> Aye. Passes unanimously.

19
00:00:53,060 --> 00:00:57,900
 Item B, BOE25-012, management reports.

20
00:00:57,900 --> 00:01:03,400
 Update on 2025 packet and proposed amendments.

21
00:01:03,400 --> 00:01:05,080
 Take it away, Madison.

22
00:01:05,080 --> 00:01:06,080
 >> All right.

23
00:01:06,080 --> 00:01:11,020
 So, on March 4th, so last Tuesday, I presented

24
00:01:11,020 --> 00:01:15,480
 to the City Council the proposed -- two proposed amendments.

25
00:01:15,480 --> 00:01:22,200
 The council gave direction to adopt almost all of it,

26
00:01:22,200 --> 00:01:23,960
 including restructuring the definition

27
00:01:23,960 --> 00:01:25,900
 of conflicting interests and conflict of interest,

28
00:01:25,900 --> 00:01:29,700
 as we have kind of discussed, setting a 30-day deadline

29
00:01:29,700 --> 00:01:31,940
 by which recusals must be filed,

30
00:01:31,940 --> 00:01:33,540
 allowing those who remain valid for a year.

31
00:01:33,540 --> 00:01:38,180
 They did give direction to also add a note about Chapter 171

32
00:01:38,180 --> 00:01:41,680
 of the Texas Government Code, or Texas Local Government Code,

33
00:01:41,680 --> 00:01:45,820
 just because there's also an accusal requirement

34
00:01:45,820 --> 00:01:47,320
 in there as well.

35
00:01:47,320 --> 00:01:53,360
 They gave direction to adopt most of the red lines

36
00:01:53,360 --> 00:01:55,960
 in the burden of proof section, except that they wanted

37
00:01:55,960 --> 00:01:59,640
 to change where you all had used facts that weren't the evidence.

38
00:01:59,640 --> 00:02:06,780
 And then they also -- this last point was actually a cleanup item.

39
00:02:06,780 --> 00:02:09,320
 We had made a change in the rules and procedure

40
00:02:09,320 --> 00:02:12,240
 that we were just going to clean up in the ordinance,

41
00:02:12,240 --> 00:02:14,140
 but they decided they didn't like that.

42
00:02:14,140 --> 00:02:18,820
 So now we're taking out the complainant and responding.

43
00:02:18,820 --> 00:02:21,360
 They still have a right to be represented by legal counsel,

44
00:02:21,360 --> 00:02:24,020
 but they removed another representative.

45
00:02:24,020 --> 00:02:27,760
 So that's a very brief summary of what happened,

46
00:02:27,760 --> 00:02:30,300
 but that's the direction that they gave.

47
00:02:30,300 --> 00:02:34,260
 Answer questions or pull up -- I don't know, whatever you want,

48
00:02:34,260 --> 00:02:37,340
 but I'll let you take it from here.

49
00:02:37,340 --> 00:02:39,240
 >> What section of the government code?

50
00:02:39,240 --> 00:02:42,280
 >> 171. I think it's the local government code,

51
00:02:42,280 --> 00:02:44,080
 the Texas local government code.

52
00:02:44,080 --> 00:02:45,480
 It's got --

53
00:02:45,480 --> 00:02:46,720
 >> I have to double-check again.

54
00:02:46,720 --> 00:02:50,160
 >> I believe the code is still, as they mentioned,

55
00:02:50,160 --> 00:02:54,420
 weaker than state law, and so they want to make sure that --

56
00:02:54,420 --> 00:02:56,060
 >> Yeah, they were talking

57
00:02:56,060 --> 00:02:58,800
 about how state law has its own kind of ethics,

58
00:02:58,800 --> 00:03:03,060
 accusal requirements, the complex of interest.

59
00:03:03,060 --> 00:03:06,800
 It has larger limits, essentially,

60
00:03:06,800 --> 00:03:09,340
 than what the city's does.

61
00:03:09,340 --> 00:03:14,080
 So they just were -- they wanted to make sure that,

62
00:03:14,080 --> 00:03:17,680
 if for some reason, the 30-day time period, that code,

63
00:03:17,680 --> 00:03:21,520
 to my understanding, requires you to basically file before you

64
00:03:21,520 --> 00:03:24,020
 vote on an item, if you're going to recuse from it.

65
00:03:24,020 --> 00:03:25,380
 So they didn't want people to be confused

66
00:03:25,380 --> 00:03:30,600
 about the 30-day deadline, essentially, if that makes sense.

67
00:03:30,600 --> 00:03:31,660
 >> What was their reasoning

68
00:03:31,660 --> 00:03:36,900
 on not letting someone have a representative help them out?

69
00:03:36,900 --> 00:03:38,440
 Did they say?

70
00:03:38,440 --> 00:03:41,040
 >> My understanding was that they were concerned

71
00:03:41,040 --> 00:03:47,680
 that essentially that a representative could be a bad --

72
00:03:47,680 --> 00:03:49,480
 a bad-faith actor, basically,

73
00:03:49,480 --> 00:03:54,540
 so they could be soliciting people to submit complaints,

74
00:03:54,540 --> 00:03:57,520
 only to represent them at the hearing, and then do that over

75
00:03:57,520 --> 00:04:01,620
 and over again, was what the reasoning was.

76
00:04:01,620 --> 00:04:05,100
 They did discuss kind of the cost burden

77
00:04:05,100 --> 00:04:08,660
 of having a legal counsel, but ultimately,

78
00:04:08,660 --> 00:04:10,060
 they decided this direction.

79
00:04:10,060 --> 00:04:15,500
 So when we present these red lines, we'll take forward a

80
00:04:15,500 --> 00:04:22,640
 change to the rules of procedure as well, sort of like that.

81
00:04:22,640 --> 00:04:23,940
 >> Dustin?

82
00:04:23,940 --> 00:04:26,280
 >> You mentioned the cost burden of having a legal counsel

83
00:04:26,280 --> 00:04:29,120
 for the complainant or the respondent.

84
00:04:29,120 --> 00:04:31,760
 There is some discussion about the cost

85
00:04:31,760 --> 00:04:38,360
 of the third-party law firm reviewing our changes,

86
00:04:38,360 --> 00:04:40,760
 and I was unclear on that.

87
00:04:40,760 --> 00:04:43,900
 I mean, as a viewer of the work session, it sounded

88
00:04:43,900 --> 00:04:50,100
 like they wanted some clarity on how much we as a board spent,

89
00:04:50,100 --> 00:04:55,580
 and I have no idea -- the only interaction I've had

90
00:04:55,580 --> 00:05:00,520
 with the outside firm is at the panel meetings

91
00:05:00,520 --> 00:05:03,320
 when there's a representative of the firm here,

92
00:05:03,320 --> 00:05:05,260
 which I thought was a requirement

93
00:05:05,260 --> 00:05:11,400
 in our rules of procedure, and I don't know what --

94
00:05:11,400 --> 00:05:16,900
 I don't know if we had any -- it appeared that there was concern

95
00:05:16,900 --> 00:05:21,440
 over some cost to the city that we, as a board, had incurred,

96
00:05:21,440 --> 00:05:23,600
 and I'm not aware of any cost that we are required.

97
00:05:23,600 --> 00:05:27,940
 >> The way I heard it was that they were mad

98
00:05:27,940 --> 00:05:31,080
 because they thought we had never consulted

99
00:05:31,080 --> 00:05:34,460
 with an attorney, which is absolutely not true.

100
00:05:34,460 --> 00:05:40,320
 There was pretty extensive conversation

101
00:05:40,320 --> 00:05:42,760
 with a law firm called Borquist,

102
00:05:42,760 --> 00:05:50,440
 which Madison spelled out his name, and he was assuming

103
00:05:50,440 --> 00:05:53,340
 that citizens would be involved in it

104
00:05:53,340 --> 00:05:57,080
 and that they would need legal help,

105
00:05:57,080 --> 00:06:00,380
 but the council decided not to consult citizens,

106
00:06:00,380 --> 00:06:05,880
 and a city council member wrote the code with Borquist himself.

107
00:06:05,880 --> 00:06:09,360
 So, yes, there were, in fact, five hours

108
00:06:09,360 --> 00:06:11,500
 for which the city paid $3,000.

109
00:06:11,500 --> 00:06:20,460
 Remember, this was 2018, maybe, 2018, so it would cost more now.

110
00:06:20,460 --> 00:06:24,400
 But, yes, a law firm was consulted.

111
00:06:24,400 --> 00:06:26,480
 >> I guess in the revisions, though,

112
00:06:26,480 --> 00:06:28,780
 that I think that was the question.

113
00:06:28,780 --> 00:06:29,900
 >> Right.

114
00:06:29,900 --> 00:06:34,920
 >> What did we spend on outside consultation from the law firm

115
00:06:34,920 --> 00:06:40,420
 on advising or reviewing the amendments between the codes?

116
00:06:40,420 --> 00:06:43,680
 >> Right. I haven't received the invoice for that yet,

117
00:06:43,680 --> 00:06:45,520
 so I haven't provided that information,

118
00:06:45,520 --> 00:06:48,400
 but I can provide counsel as well as y'all.

119
00:06:48,400 --> 00:06:52,660
 We did have the Borquist law firm review the revisions before we

120
00:06:52,660 --> 00:06:55,600
 brought it to council, but after y'all had kind of finished

121
00:06:55,600 --> 00:06:58,200
 with it, they didn't have any concerns, really.

122
00:06:58,200 --> 00:07:03,000
 They had a couple, but they weren't substantive.

123
00:07:03,000 --> 00:07:05,140
 So, that was the information that we gave to council

124
00:07:05,140 --> 00:07:07,140
 about that at that time.

125
00:07:07,140 --> 00:07:09,180
 Does that answer your question?

126
00:07:09,180 --> 00:07:09,980
 >> Yes.

127
00:07:09,980 --> 00:07:15,920
 I mean, that wasn't a -- I guess -- I don't --

128
00:07:15,920 --> 00:07:20,120
 it was a question because I didn't know that that occurred.

129
00:07:20,120 --> 00:07:21,420
 >> Yeah.

130
00:07:21,420 --> 00:07:24,960
 >> And I just wanted to make sure I understood

131
00:07:24,960 --> 00:07:27,400
 that because in the meeting, in the work session,

132
00:07:27,400 --> 00:07:30,240
 it sounded like they were questioning, you know,

133
00:07:30,240 --> 00:07:34,840
 were we being prudent with the city's funds

134
00:07:34,840 --> 00:07:37,240
 on using you in an outside firm?

135
00:07:37,240 --> 00:07:38,500
 >> Yeah.

136
00:07:38,500 --> 00:07:40,540
 >> And I hadn't -- if I was there,

137
00:07:40,540 --> 00:07:42,520
 I couldn't have answered that at the time.

138
00:07:42,520 --> 00:07:44,820
 So, thank you.

139
00:07:44,820 --> 00:07:46,820
 >> David, did you still have that?

140
00:07:46,820 --> 00:07:48,020
 >> Yes, I did.

141
00:07:48,020 --> 00:07:53,060
 Madison, I just have one question to clarify.

142
00:07:53,060 --> 00:07:57,820
 There was some confusion at the end of that work session.

143
00:07:57,820 --> 00:08:00,060
 Brian Beck had a question that I also had,

144
00:08:00,060 --> 00:08:04,240
 and a couple of citizens had called me since then.

145
00:08:04,240 --> 00:08:06,700
 Proposal two, as you presented it,

146
00:08:06,700 --> 00:08:09,900
 the very last sentence there, and I'm trying to compare

147
00:08:09,900 --> 00:08:12,440
 that with what I'm looking up here.

148
00:08:12,440 --> 00:08:15,720
 A complainant's failure to testify at a hearing,

149
00:08:15,720 --> 00:08:19,040
 other than a hearing held to determine frivolity,

150
00:08:19,040 --> 00:08:22,320
 shall be grounds for dismissal of a complaint.

151
00:08:22,320 --> 00:08:25,520
 Does that still stand, or not?

152
00:08:25,520 --> 00:08:28,320
 >> Yes, it does.

153
00:08:28,320 --> 00:08:33,560
 That wasn't -- removing that wasn't a part of proposal two.

154
00:08:33,560 --> 00:08:39,000
 >> So, the complainant must testify, or it's all over?

155
00:08:39,000 --> 00:08:40,800
 >> Correct.

156
00:08:40,800 --> 00:08:42,000
 >> Okay.

157
00:08:42,000 --> 00:08:44,880
 >> But that was -- a change to that wasn't presented

158
00:08:44,880 --> 00:08:47,080
 to the city council, that was not included

159
00:08:47,080 --> 00:08:51,880
 in the proposal from the board to change.

160
00:08:51,880 --> 00:08:53,320
 >> Okay.

161
00:08:53,320 --> 00:08:58,420
 >> I still think that the two things we got

162
00:08:58,420 --> 00:09:01,260
 through were a win.

163
00:09:01,260 --> 00:09:07,100
 I was troubled by the very adversarial tone

164
00:09:07,100 --> 00:09:12,140
 that council took, particularly toward the board.

165
00:09:12,140 --> 00:09:17,680
 I don't know where that's coming from, but it was hard for me

166
00:09:17,680 --> 00:09:18,940
 to sit in the room.

167
00:09:18,940 --> 00:09:22,780
 I left about halfway through and just was afraid I was going

168
00:09:22,780 --> 00:09:25,080
 to blow up.

169
00:09:25,080 --> 00:09:34,580
 So, I have calmed down, and I think it was --

170
00:09:34,580 --> 00:09:36,500
 just getting the conflict of interest,

171
00:09:36,500 --> 00:09:40,200
 that getting that pending matter wording out of this,

172
00:09:40,200 --> 00:09:41,860
 is such a game changer.

173
00:09:41,860 --> 00:09:45,160
 It means that we won't be just grappling

174
00:09:45,160 --> 00:09:49,200
 with little tiny things about recusal and whether

175
00:09:49,200 --> 00:09:53,280
 or not somebody's -- I mean, pretty much all

176
00:09:53,280 --> 00:09:55,680
 of the cases we've had have been

177
00:09:55,680 --> 00:09:59,440
 because somebody did something wrong before they voted,

178
00:09:59,440 --> 00:10:02,960
 and this broadens it so that we're not just looking

179
00:10:02,960 --> 00:10:04,360
 at that tight timeline.

180
00:10:04,360 --> 00:10:08,460
 The way it was written, you could vote,

181
00:10:08,460 --> 00:10:10,720
 and then you could do whatever you were going to do,

182
00:10:10,720 --> 00:10:13,400
 because it would no longer be a pending matter.

183
00:10:13,400 --> 00:10:17,960
 And that -- so, that's huge.

184
00:10:17,960 --> 00:10:22,600
 That will change, in my view, in a very positive way,

185
00:10:22,600 --> 00:10:26,540
 and I hope we'll get rid of some of these nitpicky --

186
00:10:26,540 --> 00:10:32,520
 you know, my hope is that hearings will be a rare thing,

187
00:10:32,520 --> 00:10:37,520
 and I'm tired of these little things about solar panels

188
00:10:37,520 --> 00:10:38,960
 and whether or not you're affiliated

189
00:10:38,960 --> 00:10:44,260
 with a university or -- that's -- yeah.

190
00:10:44,260 --> 00:10:49,360
 So, I was very frustrated and discouraged just hearing what

191
00:10:49,360 --> 00:10:56,780
 the council members had to say about the board, but in light

192
00:10:56,780 --> 00:11:00,480
 of the fact that a couple of major things happened,

193
00:11:00,480 --> 00:11:04,520
 I felt hopeful, and I think we need to roll our sleeves up

194
00:11:04,520 --> 00:11:08,420
 and start looking at the other things that need to change.

195
00:11:08,420 --> 00:11:11,120
 So, we'll have a time at the end,

196
00:11:11,120 --> 00:11:15,100
 and then we start talking about some of that.

197
00:11:15,100 --> 00:11:21,540
 But if you haven't watched the work session, I would --

198
00:11:21,540 --> 00:11:24,500
 it's a public record, you can watch it.

199
00:11:24,500 --> 00:11:31,200
 Unless you enjoy watching a couple of hours of negativity,

200
00:11:31,200 --> 00:11:33,520
 I would advise against it.

201
00:11:33,520 --> 00:11:35,780
 I want to stay positive, and I want to stay focused

202
00:11:35,780 --> 00:11:38,220
 and move forward.

203
00:11:38,220 --> 00:11:42,120
 So, that's it.

204
00:11:42,120 --> 00:11:45,620
 >> I think that there -- in the discussion, there still seems

205
00:11:45,620 --> 00:11:55,200
 to be some disconnect between our definitions of a client

206
00:11:55,200 --> 00:11:59,240
 and a household member.

207
00:11:59,240 --> 00:12:01,540
 I mean, there was a bunch of discussion around that

208
00:12:01,540 --> 00:12:09,280
 and how we set thresholds, so we intentionally put

209
00:12:09,280 --> 00:12:15,020
 in a threshold for a client at $2,500 after some discussion,

210
00:12:15,020 --> 00:12:20,820
 and that was based on -- in my memory, it was based

211
00:12:20,820 --> 00:12:24,700
 on the last time we made an amendment proposal

212
00:12:24,700 --> 00:12:26,540
 that had something to do with that,

213
00:12:26,540 --> 00:12:28,200
 where there was some concern from some

214
00:12:28,200 --> 00:12:34,200
 of the council members that if we did not have some kind

215
00:12:34,200 --> 00:12:39,720
 of threshold that was substantial or at least defined,

216
00:12:39,720 --> 00:12:43,340
 that it would be possible for someone

217
00:12:43,340 --> 00:12:46,720
 to engage a council member just

218
00:12:46,720 --> 00:12:51,820
 to intentionally create a conflict and force them to recuse.

219
00:12:51,820 --> 00:12:53,100
 So, that's why we put that in.

220
00:12:53,100 --> 00:12:56,960
 One of the things that they discussed with having us change

221
00:12:56,960 --> 00:12:59,700
 that -- remove that threshold value

222
00:12:59,700 --> 00:13:03,640
 and make it substantial, use some kind of language that --

223
00:13:03,640 --> 00:13:06,500
 >> That's what we went back and forth on and trying

224
00:13:06,500 --> 00:13:07,940
 to decide what to put in there.

225
00:13:07,940 --> 00:13:08,880
 >> Yeah.

226
00:13:08,880 --> 00:13:10,480
 >> And we thought substantial was too vague.

227
00:13:10,480 --> 00:13:11,680
 >> We were actually referring to something in CREEMS, but --

228
00:13:11,680 --> 00:13:18,280
 >> Yeah, I mean, I guess that's something we can figure out.

229
00:13:18,280 --> 00:13:19,680
 How do we address that?

230
00:13:19,680 --> 00:13:25,020
 I guess the other thing is that there's a lot of discussion

231
00:13:25,020 --> 00:13:29,460
 about our -- the intent of these changes and definitions

232
00:13:29,460 --> 00:13:34,160
 of relationship status and that sort of thing.

233
00:13:34,160 --> 00:13:37,200
 I hope -- I think from our discussion,

234
00:13:37,200 --> 00:13:41,640
 our intent here has always been to make this pretty clear

235
00:13:41,640 --> 00:13:48,940
 and something we can apply, but also, I have no intention

236
00:13:48,940 --> 00:13:52,560
 of putting in some kind of gotcha thing here.

237
00:13:52,560 --> 00:13:56,220
 That term was used in the work session.

238
00:13:56,220 --> 00:13:57,280
 I have no intention of that.

239
00:13:57,280 --> 00:14:02,600
 I don't really care to create this.

240
00:14:02,600 --> 00:14:05,700
 I mean, it doesn't serve any purpose for the citizens

241
00:14:05,700 --> 00:14:07,940
 or the board or the council members.

242
00:14:07,940 --> 00:14:11,040
 I think our intention here is to try and clean up some

243
00:14:11,040 --> 00:14:14,100
 of the language that's there, make it so it's workable,

244
00:14:14,100 --> 00:14:19,140
 and I would hope that's everyone's intention.

245
00:14:19,140 --> 00:14:25,040
 That's my view from sitting up here discussing this board.

246
00:14:25,040 --> 00:14:31,920
 >> I don't think they trust us, and I really would

247
00:14:31,920 --> 00:14:35,160
 like to consider having a meeting between the board

248
00:14:35,160 --> 00:14:40,600
 and the council just to try to help them understand

249
00:14:40,600 --> 00:14:43,200
 that we're not trying to hurt them.

250
00:14:43,200 --> 00:14:47,940
 We're actually, I think, trying to make things better

251
00:14:47,940 --> 00:14:52,580
 and more easy to follow.

252
00:14:52,580 --> 00:15:00,640
 I mean, the whole listing out the relations was trying

253
00:15:00,640 --> 00:15:03,320
 to get away from consanguinity,

254
00:15:03,320 --> 00:15:06,160
 which was what was in the original code,

255
00:15:06,160 --> 00:15:09,520
 and consanguinity is a legal code

256
00:15:09,520 --> 00:15:12,520
 that most people wouldn't understand.

257
00:15:12,520 --> 00:15:16,360
 I guess it would if they looked it up, but there are so many things

258
00:15:16,360 --> 00:15:18,260
 in that code that don't make sense,

259
00:15:18,260 --> 00:15:21,060
 and then if you don't understand

260
00:15:21,060 --> 00:15:23,840
 that the little underline means you need to flip back

261
00:15:23,840 --> 00:15:30,480
 to the glossary and see how they're defining it

262
00:15:30,480 --> 00:15:32,880
 in the glossary, it's confusing.

263
00:15:32,880 --> 00:15:37,040
 So I would like the whole thing to be more clear

264
00:15:37,040 --> 00:15:41,960
 so that the average person can just read it and say, "Oh, okay.

265
00:15:41,960 --> 00:15:45,060
 I understand this."

266
00:15:45,060 --> 00:15:47,400
 >> Yeah, so just to be clear, the one change

267
00:15:47,400 --> 00:15:51,160
 that they didn't give direction to that Dustin was referencing was

268
00:15:51,160 --> 00:15:54,540
 the change to the way the relationships were structured.

269
00:15:54,540 --> 00:15:57,340
 So we had made some changes, including --

270
00:15:57,340 --> 00:16:01,080
 or you all had recommended some changes, including kind

271
00:16:01,080 --> 00:16:05,340
 of adjusting the way -- how the relationships definition

272
00:16:05,340 --> 00:16:09,340
 to include domestic partner, household member --

273
00:16:09,340 --> 00:16:12,280
 adding the definition of household member.

274
00:16:12,280 --> 00:16:16,060
 There was also the addition of the client relationship,

275
00:16:16,060 --> 00:16:18,720
 and then there was kind of changing

276
00:16:18,720 --> 00:16:22,700
 when a conflict automatically arises so that as you get closer

277
00:16:22,700 --> 00:16:26,400
 to the city official in relation, it is automatic,

278
00:16:26,400 --> 00:16:28,040
 and as you kind of go out, it's more

279
00:16:28,040 --> 00:16:32,680
 of a judgment decision essentially of like, "Okay.

280
00:16:32,680 --> 00:16:39,380
 Is my great-grandson's nonprofit something that I should refuse

281
00:16:39,380 --> 00:16:42,840
 from or not automatically -- under the current code,

282
00:16:42,840 --> 00:16:45,260
 automatically you're supposed to recuse from that.

283
00:16:45,260 --> 00:16:47,620
 Under the proposal, that wouldn't be an automatic

284
00:16:47,620 --> 00:16:49,020
 recusal requirement."

285
00:16:49,020 --> 00:16:51,520
 But those things, they gave direction not to move forward,

286
00:16:51,520 --> 00:16:53,520
 but they did give direction to the board to kind

287
00:16:53,520 --> 00:16:57,160
 of revisit them and bring them back.

288
00:16:57,160 --> 00:17:00,440
 >> Could you expand a little bit on what their concerns were

289
00:17:00,440 --> 00:17:06,000
 with what we proposed?

290
00:17:06,000 --> 00:17:10,180
 >> So I think there was -- I would say most

291
00:17:10,180 --> 00:17:12,440
 of it they really didn't have big concerns about.

292
00:17:12,440 --> 00:17:14,420
 I think the biggest concerns they had were

293
00:17:14,420 --> 00:17:19,180
 about the definition of client and kind

294
00:17:19,180 --> 00:17:23,060
 of that $2,500 threshold being too small.

295
00:17:23,060 --> 00:17:25,360
 They did just give out some options

296
00:17:25,360 --> 00:17:28,020
 around materially significant, I believe.

297
00:17:28,020 --> 00:17:30,160
 I can't remember exactly what they said, but kind

298
00:17:30,160 --> 00:17:33,540
 of a less clear -- or I'm sorry.

299
00:17:33,540 --> 00:17:36,200
 Kind of like without a financial threshold in it,

300
00:17:36,200 --> 00:17:39,300
 but they also talked about having a percentage as well.

301
00:17:39,300 --> 00:17:43,320
 They didn't give specific direction, but they wanted the

302
00:17:43,320 --> 00:17:47,680
 board to consider kind of some of those options as far as that.

303
00:17:47,680 --> 00:17:50,160
 >> So in the past our language was too vague

304
00:17:50,160 --> 00:17:51,880
 and now it was too specific?

305
00:17:51,880 --> 00:17:55,280
 >> I think they were more concerned about --

306
00:17:55,280 --> 00:17:58,400
 they thought it was too low is kind of the bigger --

307
00:17:58,400 --> 00:17:59,400
 they were like --

308
00:17:59,400 --> 00:18:02,260
 >> So $2,500 was too low of a threshold for them?

309
00:18:02,260 --> 00:18:05,200
 >> Didn't we more than double it what it was before or something?

310
00:18:05,200 --> 00:18:06,240
 >> That was their concern.

311
00:18:06,240 --> 00:18:07,440
 I don't want to get too far into it.

312
00:18:07,440 --> 00:18:11,840
 I think that was their concern about that definition specifically.

313
00:18:11,840 --> 00:18:19,920
 They were concerned about the definition of domestic partner,

314
00:18:19,920 --> 00:18:23,220
 mostly because they -- I don't know exactly,

315
00:18:23,220 --> 00:18:26,920
 but I think there was some concern about --

316
00:18:26,920 --> 00:18:29,160
 >> I think the person who had that concern thought

317
00:18:29,160 --> 00:18:32,800
 that domestic partner was a sexual orientation

318
00:18:32,800 --> 00:18:36,400
 and that's an old -- domestic partner is just an old term

319
00:18:36,400 --> 00:18:41,100
 that means common law marriage basically, which is --

320
00:18:41,100 --> 00:18:42,780
 >> Well, they were concerned about the definition of it,

321
00:18:42,780 --> 00:18:44,940
 which we can revisit that as well.

322
00:18:44,940 --> 00:18:47,640
 And then there was a discussion about kind of when I talked

323
00:18:47,640 --> 00:18:51,340
 about the kind of -- maybe the hardest thing to describe,

324
00:18:51,340 --> 00:18:55,320
 but the -- currently, if you're a relative,

325
00:18:55,320 --> 00:18:58,220
 you create a conflict of interest with the city initial.

326
00:18:58,220 --> 00:19:05,160
 No matter where you are, within the consanguinity degrees, right,

327
00:19:05,160 --> 00:19:10,640
 the proposal would change that to make it not automatic, right?

328
00:19:10,640 --> 00:19:12,300
 There was some discussion about, well,

329
00:19:12,300 --> 00:19:15,400
 why would we remove conflicts basically?

330
00:19:15,400 --> 00:19:18,480
 But I think it made sense to them, like, because it's really hard

331
00:19:18,480 --> 00:19:23,340
 to keep track of what your great-grandson's doing,

332
00:19:23,340 --> 00:19:24,620
 like if they're before you.

333
00:19:24,620 --> 00:19:29,180
 So I think that kind of was -- we got explained during that part,

334
00:19:29,180 --> 00:19:32,920
 but there was some discussion about that as well.

335
00:19:32,920 --> 00:19:35,200
 >> Do we have a mission statement?

336
00:19:35,200 --> 00:19:37,860
 >> The Board of Ethics kind of?

337
00:19:37,860 --> 00:19:40,060
 I don't believe so.

338
00:19:40,060 --> 00:19:42,500
 I mean, maybe in the ordinance --

339
00:19:42,500 --> 00:19:49,140
 I mean, it says in the ordinance kind of the purpose of the board.

340
00:19:49,140 --> 00:19:55,240
 [ Inaudible ]

341
00:19:55,240 --> 00:19:58,680
 >> Well, it says that we are supposed to --

342
00:19:58,680 --> 00:20:02,080
 we do have the right to recommend changes and --

343
00:20:02,080 --> 00:20:11,320
 [ Inaudible ]

344
00:20:11,320 --> 00:20:13,460
 >> The scope of authority.

345
00:20:13,460 --> 00:20:17,460
 I would say this is your mission statement.

346
00:20:17,460 --> 00:20:20,460
 Is that -- I think I'm doing that a little further.

347
00:20:20,460 --> 00:20:37,480
 [ Inaudible ]

348
00:20:37,480 --> 00:20:39,180
 >> Oh, it does -- and then here's where it allows for you

349
00:20:39,180 --> 00:20:40,480
 to recommend.

350
00:20:40,480 --> 00:20:43,780
 [ Inaudible ]

351
00:20:43,780 --> 00:20:45,520
 >> The only reason I asked is if there's some way

352
00:20:45,520 --> 00:20:49,120
 to express some sort of mission statement

353
00:20:49,120 --> 00:20:53,500
 that says our efforts here are to provide --

354
00:20:53,500 --> 00:20:55,600
 >> That we're following the code?

355
00:20:55,600 --> 00:21:00,500
 >> We're trying to have the code be understandable

356
00:21:00,500 --> 00:21:05,140
 to the general public and to provide transparency

357
00:21:05,140 --> 00:21:10,740
 of government for the citizens, or something to that effect.

358
00:21:10,740 --> 00:21:12,040
 I don't know what it would actually say.

359
00:21:12,040 --> 00:21:16,780
 But maybe what you're talking about reducing the mistrust,

360
00:21:16,780 --> 00:21:20,960
 maybe having a mission statement that would say our efforts here

361
00:21:20,960 --> 00:21:24,760
 are not just to drive you crazy, but we're just trying

362
00:21:24,760 --> 00:21:28,000
 to make things clearer and more transparent

363
00:21:28,000 --> 00:21:30,360
 and more user-friendly.

364
00:21:30,360 --> 00:21:34,040
 >> David?

365
00:21:34,040 --> 00:21:38,600
 >> Yes. And then he brought up something just a few minutes ago

366
00:21:38,600 --> 00:21:43,480
 that has actually been on kind of my agenda for some time.

367
00:21:43,480 --> 00:21:46,220
 It's not part of our agenda tonight,

368
00:21:46,220 --> 00:21:47,880
 so I know we can't really discuss it.

369
00:21:47,880 --> 00:21:54,720
 But other people and yourself, and we have discussed what the

370
00:21:54,720 --> 00:21:57,120
 value might be of having a joint meeting

371
00:21:57,120 --> 00:22:00,900
 with the city council at this juncture.

372
00:22:00,900 --> 00:22:04,200
 Because we still have, by my count, at least a half

373
00:22:04,200 --> 00:22:09,040
 of a dozen items that have to be addressed, and, you know,

374
00:22:09,040 --> 00:22:11,380
 the way we're doing it now, you know, we have a meeting,

375
00:22:11,380 --> 00:22:15,340
 they have a meeting, and the ships somehow pass in the ocean,

376
00:22:15,340 --> 00:22:20,220
 and I don't know how many more years we have to knock these out.

377
00:22:20,220 --> 00:22:23,720
 But I really would like it to be an agenda item.

378
00:22:23,720 --> 00:22:25,560
 I know we can't discuss it tonight,

379
00:22:25,560 --> 00:22:29,360
 but maybe have an agenda item to discuss the value

380
00:22:29,360 --> 00:22:32,400
 of having the council and this board on opposite sides

381
00:22:32,400 --> 00:22:35,560
 of the table, and kind of clean up this stuff and see

382
00:22:35,560 --> 00:22:38,740
 if we can save another year or two

383
00:22:38,740 --> 00:22:43,100
 of taking these items one at a time.

384
00:22:43,100 --> 00:22:45,980
 It seems to me that the way the past meetings have gone,

385
00:22:45,980 --> 00:22:48,840
 it would be extremely valuable if we can kind of get

386
00:22:48,840 --> 00:22:52,480
 on the same page a little bit more, rather than one

387
00:22:52,480 --> 00:22:54,620
 or the other of us getting frustrated

388
00:22:54,620 --> 00:22:57,680
 after the most recent meeting.

389
00:22:57,680 --> 00:22:59,860
 >> I would add, too, that we might want to do

390
00:22:59,860 --> 00:23:04,760
 that right before we take some stuff to the City Council,

391
00:23:04,760 --> 00:23:07,360
 that we time it carefully, because I think

392
00:23:07,360 --> 00:23:10,600
 if we had it now, it would not be.

393
00:23:10,600 --> 00:23:14,240
 >> Well, if I remember correctly, that is exactly one

394
00:23:14,240 --> 00:23:16,980
 of the things that we discussed the last time we got shut down,

395
00:23:16,980 --> 00:23:20,540
 and then when I pushed on it the following meeting

396
00:23:20,540 --> 00:23:25,940
 on moving forward with that, there was a lot of conversation

397
00:23:25,940 --> 00:23:29,780
 about not doing it, and I think there was certain concern

398
00:23:29,780 --> 00:23:35,120
 about quorum and council, but I don't remember the exact date.

399
00:23:35,120 --> 00:23:37,220
 So --

400
00:23:37,220 --> 00:23:41,260
 >> Yeah, we certainly don't want to violate quorum.

401
00:23:41,260 --> 00:23:44,360
 >> Yeah, we have to be close to each other.

402
00:23:44,360 --> 00:23:49,340
 >> Yeah. But I definitely have done a lot of thinking

403
00:23:49,340 --> 00:23:52,780
 in the last week, and I'll not lie,

404
00:23:52,780 --> 00:23:58,480
 I seriously considered resigning, and I just decided that.

405
00:23:58,480 --> 00:24:03,480
 I mean, we came -- I mean, this is the best it's been, actually.

406
00:24:03,480 --> 00:24:08,860
 So, yay. I just would like to try to figure

407
00:24:08,860 --> 00:24:16,900
 out where this paranoia is coming from, because I don't --

408
00:24:16,900 --> 00:24:19,900
 >> Another way to save time would also sort

409
00:24:19,900 --> 00:24:22,840
 of just giving them, like, an option where they say yes

410
00:24:22,840 --> 00:24:26,040
 or no, maybe we could offer two or three options,

411
00:24:26,040 --> 00:24:30,180
 like that thing with substantial versus 2,500, or, you know,

412
00:24:30,180 --> 00:24:35,020
 maybe give them two or three that we think would be okay,

413
00:24:35,020 --> 00:24:38,520
 but, you know, then they would actually choose one.

414
00:24:38,520 --> 00:24:39,760
 >> I --

415
00:24:39,760 --> 00:24:41,620
 >> I mean, they could choose none of them, but --

416
00:24:41,620 --> 00:24:42,960
 >> I was just going to make a comment

417
00:24:42,960 --> 00:24:48,300
 that I haven't seen numbers in many ethical codes,

418
00:24:48,300 --> 00:24:49,960
 and I know David's wrote a bunch.

419
00:24:49,960 --> 00:24:52,600
 Have you seen a lot of numbers, because it's more

420
00:24:52,600 --> 00:24:56,600
 about don't do this?

421
00:24:56,600 --> 00:24:57,980
 >> We had long conversation.

422
00:24:57,980 --> 00:25:03,580
 We had long conversation when we decided on limits,

423
00:25:03,580 --> 00:25:05,380
 the very first proposal that we sent --

424
00:25:05,380 --> 00:25:07,340
 I mean, that I was part of the board.

425
00:25:07,340 --> 00:25:11,360
 We had long, long conversations about the numbers

426
00:25:11,360 --> 00:25:13,720
 and what would make sense.

427
00:25:13,720 --> 00:25:17,700
 And I'm going to have to go back, because you were one

428
00:25:17,700 --> 00:25:23,260
 that actually -- because I had always felt

429
00:25:23,260 --> 00:25:26,000
 that actual number limits

430
00:25:26,000 --> 00:25:30,100
 and thresholds would be more useful than broad language.

431
00:25:30,100 --> 00:25:35,640
 But then council made the argument that that ambiguity

432
00:25:35,640 --> 00:25:40,220
 in the law is designed to be there to be flexible.

433
00:25:40,220 --> 00:25:45,120
 And that made the most sense to me, because, I mean,

434
00:25:45,120 --> 00:25:50,620
 we have to be real, $500, $2,500 do not mean the same thing

435
00:25:50,620 --> 00:25:55,760
 to all of our citizens and all of our council members.

436
00:25:55,760 --> 00:25:59,700
 So that's very -- it's a very frustrating thing for me

437
00:25:59,700 --> 00:26:02,700
 to hear that, on the one hand,

438
00:26:02,700 --> 00:26:04,800
 the limits we proposed were not accepted.

439
00:26:04,800 --> 00:26:07,680
 Then we went to no limits, and that was not accepted.

440
00:26:07,680 --> 00:26:11,040
 And then -- and now our limits are not high enough.

441
00:26:11,040 --> 00:26:14,520
 So I'm kind of questioning, you know --

442
00:26:14,520 --> 00:26:17,560
 >> I mean, to me, I think there's a larger issue.

443
00:26:17,560 --> 00:26:18,980
 And it's a trust issue.

444
00:26:18,980 --> 00:26:20,060
 >> Yes.

445
00:26:20,060 --> 00:26:24,420
 >> And so that's -- we'll never have anything that's perfect,

446
00:26:24,420 --> 00:26:31,960
 ever, but when the trust is so fragile, that's the part

447
00:26:31,960 --> 00:26:33,660
 that I've been struggling with.

448
00:26:33,660 --> 00:26:36,040
 So that's --

449
00:26:36,040 --> 00:26:37,840
 >> There was -- part of the discussion

450
00:26:37,840 --> 00:26:42,540
 in the network session around the numbers was some concern

451
00:26:42,540 --> 00:26:46,720
 that establishing a threshold that was low

452
00:26:46,720 --> 00:26:52,020
 for the client relationship would preclude small business

453
00:26:52,020 --> 00:26:54,660
 owners from serving on council.

454
00:26:54,660 --> 00:26:58,760
 That was brought up, and I think it was basically, like,

455
00:26:58,760 --> 00:27:02,200
 if we do this, then we're taking out a big segment

456
00:27:02,200 --> 00:27:04,600
 of the population that might serve.

457
00:27:04,600 --> 00:27:08,200
 And I understand that concern.

458
00:27:08,200 --> 00:27:12,840
 I guess I would also say that we're not --

459
00:27:12,840 --> 00:27:16,220
 there's nothing in this that says you cannot serve

460
00:27:16,220 --> 00:27:19,740
 on council if this occurs, if you have a client

461
00:27:19,740 --> 00:27:21,940
 that has business before the city

462
00:27:21,940 --> 00:27:26,620
 that exceeds this $2,500 threshold that we propose.

463
00:27:26,620 --> 00:27:29,760
 It does, by that definition of what we propose,

464
00:27:29,760 --> 00:27:33,120
 create a conflict of interest, and you cannot deliberate

465
00:27:33,120 --> 00:27:38,360
 or can you vote on that particular thing

466
00:27:38,360 --> 00:27:41,800
 if that client comes before council.

467
00:27:41,800 --> 00:27:47,180
 And I -- in the discussion, it sounds

468
00:27:47,180 --> 00:27:54,820
 like there may be some confusion on the scope of this.

469
00:27:54,820 --> 00:27:57,020
 If you have a conflict of interest

470
00:27:57,020 --> 00:27:59,920
 because you have a client that has --

471
00:27:59,920 --> 00:28:03,920
 that exceeds that threshold, then you can still be

472
00:28:03,920 --> 00:28:05,160
 a council person.

473
00:28:05,160 --> 00:28:05,960
 You can still run.

474
00:28:05,960 --> 00:28:08,200
 You can still serve the city.

475
00:28:08,200 --> 00:28:10,900
 You just can't vote on that one particular item.

476
00:28:10,900 --> 00:28:14,660
 It's not -- I mean, I don't --

477
00:28:14,660 --> 00:28:18,140
 I want to take their feedback, and I want to make all this work,

478
00:28:18,140 --> 00:28:20,800
 but if you have a conflict of interest,

479
00:28:20,800 --> 00:28:23,280
 you should not be voting on something.

480
00:28:23,280 --> 00:28:26,140
 Like, that's all that we're trying to do here is define

481
00:28:26,140 --> 00:28:29,080
 that and say, when you have this conflict of interest,

482
00:28:29,080 --> 00:28:32,680
 by some definition, if it's a substantial client,

483
00:28:32,680 --> 00:28:36,720
 if it's $2,500, if it's $10,000, whatever it is,

484
00:28:36,720 --> 00:28:38,820
 if you have a conflict of interest,

485
00:28:38,820 --> 00:28:41,860
 you should not vote on their business before the city.

486
00:28:41,860 --> 00:28:42,860
 That's all this is.

487
00:28:42,860 --> 00:28:43,960
 That's all this is.

488
00:28:43,960 --> 00:28:45,300
 >> And that's the thing is, as a teacher,

489
00:28:45,300 --> 00:28:47,100
 I cannot be on the school board.

490
00:28:47,100 --> 00:28:49,300
 I can't be my own -- you know, that's just --

491
00:28:49,300 --> 00:28:51,700
 that's just the way it goes.

492
00:28:51,700 --> 00:28:54,540
 >> Yeah. And I think from what I --

493
00:28:54,540 --> 00:28:58,180
 I gotta agree with that discussion, there was some --

494
00:28:58,180 --> 00:29:00,440
 there was some concern about specifically

495
00:29:00,440 --> 00:29:04,880
 with the client definition about the way that it, I guess,

496
00:29:04,880 --> 00:29:08,960
 interacted with the definition of a business entity,

497
00:29:08,960 --> 00:29:12,320
 and I -- it was difficult during that,

498
00:29:12,320 --> 00:29:14,260
 because I understood how you could read it that way,

499
00:29:14,260 --> 00:29:15,920
 but I don't think that was the intention

500
00:29:15,920 --> 00:29:17,600
 of the ordinance, essentially.

501
00:29:17,600 --> 00:29:20,500
 Like, so there was basically some discussion about, like,

502
00:29:20,500 --> 00:29:25,440
 well, if I own a business entity, am I now conflicted

503
00:29:25,440 --> 00:29:28,380
 with the clients of the -- or all my clients of that business

504
00:29:28,380 --> 00:29:32,540
 entity conflicted, and so I was trying --

505
00:29:32,540 --> 00:29:34,240
 I was -- I tried to explain that, like,

506
00:29:34,240 --> 00:29:35,780
 I don't think that's the intention,

507
00:29:35,780 --> 00:29:38,580
 but I can see how you could get there with reading it.

508
00:29:38,580 --> 00:29:41,420
 >> I think that brings up a good point.

509
00:29:41,420 --> 00:29:43,420
 Your client does not have a conflict

510
00:29:43,420 --> 00:29:45,320
 of interest with the city.

511
00:29:45,320 --> 00:29:47,820
 You, as a council member, would have a conflict

512
00:29:47,820 --> 00:29:50,460
 of interest with your client.

513
00:29:50,460 --> 00:29:53,060
 And that -- that is part of the discussion

514
00:29:53,060 --> 00:29:54,360
 that made no sense to me.

515
00:29:54,360 --> 00:30:00,440
 The viewer, they were saying, if I, as a council member,

516
00:30:00,440 --> 00:30:07,580
 had this client, and they spend more than $2,500 with me,

517
00:30:07,580 --> 00:30:11,220
 then they can't do business with the city, or they can't --

518
00:30:11,220 --> 00:30:16,120
 like, that's -- this code does not apply to their clients.

519
00:30:16,120 --> 00:30:18,220
 It applies to them, it applies to us,

520
00:30:18,220 --> 00:30:20,360
 it applies to other board members.

521
00:30:20,360 --> 00:30:23,500
 It has nothing to do with a small business owner

522
00:30:23,500 --> 00:30:25,660
 that is not on a board or on the council.

523
00:30:25,660 --> 00:30:29,540
 And that discussion, I didn't understand that, and, you know,

524
00:30:29,540 --> 00:30:31,040
 couldn't --

525
00:30:31,040 --> 00:30:32,040
 >> There were a lot of things that got off on that.

526
00:30:32,040 --> 00:30:35,500
 I was kind of like, where are they coming from here?

527
00:30:35,500 --> 00:30:45,720
 But the larger issue is public trust, and the appearance

528
00:30:45,720 --> 00:30:49,880
 of wrong, which is an ethical concept that is

529
00:30:49,880 --> 00:30:53,360
 in the city charter that isn't even mentioned.

530
00:30:53,360 --> 00:30:56,460
 And our code, because of the way it got written.

531
00:30:56,460 --> 00:31:04,900
 So you want to be above anybody questioning your motives.

532
00:31:04,900 --> 00:31:07,340
 That's what ethics is about.

533
00:31:07,340 --> 00:31:11,800
 And I don't think there was understanding of that.

534
00:31:11,800 --> 00:31:13,780
 And that's --

535
00:31:13,780 --> 00:31:17,780
 >> But what you're describing is exactly

536
00:31:17,780 --> 00:31:20,540
 that there's not a clear understanding

537
00:31:20,540 --> 00:31:22,220
 of what it actually means.

538
00:31:22,220 --> 00:31:24,080
 >> This code is not for us.

539
00:31:24,080 --> 00:31:25,680
 It's not for the city council.

540
00:31:25,680 --> 00:31:30,700
 It's for the citizens who need to feel trusting

541
00:31:30,700 --> 00:31:34,560
 that we are all doing right by them.

542
00:31:34,560 --> 00:31:41,440
 And I -- that's the part that troubles me.

543
00:31:41,440 --> 00:31:43,340
 >> And sure.

544
00:31:43,340 --> 00:31:48,400
 >> I'll just add to one of the things that was discussed

545
00:31:48,400 --> 00:31:51,580
 that kind of ties into having a meeting with them.

546
00:31:51,580 --> 00:31:56,080
 There was concern that we did not either individually,

547
00:31:56,080 --> 00:31:58,460
 as members of this board, go to them individually,

548
00:31:58,460 --> 00:32:00,420
 or as a body, one way or the other.

549
00:32:00,420 --> 00:32:02,460
 We didn't go and have a discussion

550
00:32:02,460 --> 00:32:05,320
 with them before we made these proposals.

551
00:32:05,320 --> 00:32:08,660
 And so that maybe we can somehow --

552
00:32:08,660 --> 00:32:11,540
 I would have questions on how we actually do

553
00:32:11,540 --> 00:32:14,600
 that without getting in trouble with Open Meetings Act.

554
00:32:14,600 --> 00:32:18,740
 But if we are -- if we, in a meeting, come up with some kind

555
00:32:18,740 --> 00:32:21,980
 of amendment, if we can have a representative,

556
00:32:21,980 --> 00:32:25,740
 whoever that may be, go to a council member

557
00:32:25,740 --> 00:32:31,320
 or multiple council members and ask them for input into that.

558
00:32:31,320 --> 00:32:35,380
 It sounds like we might avoid the back and forth

559
00:32:35,380 --> 00:32:39,300
 that spans an entire year of this whole process

560
00:32:39,300 --> 00:32:43,960
 and get their input, and not necessarily get their direction

561
00:32:43,960 --> 00:32:47,400
 from that one-on-one meeting, but we can get some input

562
00:32:47,400 --> 00:32:49,500
 about maybe some concerns that might come

563
00:32:49,500 --> 00:32:51,600
 up in the next work session.

564
00:32:51,600 --> 00:32:55,040
 So we can at least try and answer that in the text,

565
00:32:55,040 --> 00:32:59,120
 or be ready to answer that in the presentation, or however,

566
00:32:59,120 --> 00:33:03,080
 so that we can be clear with them if this is the intent

567
00:33:03,080 --> 00:33:07,120
 of this, or maybe when we sit here and discuss this for,

568
00:33:07,120 --> 00:33:10,120
 you know, an hour, two hours at a time every month,

569
00:33:10,120 --> 00:33:13,160
 and it's obvious to us what we're trying to do

570
00:33:13,160 --> 00:33:16,660
 and like how we word things to get to that end.

571
00:33:16,660 --> 00:33:18,360
 It may not be obvious.

572
00:33:18,360 --> 00:33:22,760
 I mean, it's apparently not obvious after watching

573
00:33:22,760 --> 00:33:25,800
 that discussion what we're trying to do.

574
00:33:25,800 --> 00:33:29,140
 So if we can, if we are allowed to do that, I mean,

575
00:33:29,140 --> 00:33:33,140
 I don't know what the rules are, if we can make

576
00:33:33,140 --> 00:33:36,720
 that something we decide on, if we get to a point where we want

577
00:33:36,720 --> 00:33:39,520
 to put something in a proposed amendment, if we can go

578
00:33:39,520 --> 00:33:44,360
 to a member or multiple members of council individually

579
00:33:44,360 --> 00:33:53,200
 and get their input, I think that may make us more effective.

580
00:33:53,200 --> 00:33:57,400
 >> Unless you were about to say something that we are supposed

581
00:33:57,400 --> 00:33:58,840
 to be discussing, I guess,

582
00:33:58,840 --> 00:34:00,800
 right now we're calling it next part day communication,

583
00:34:00,800 --> 00:34:04,840
 but kind of the board's communication methods

584
00:34:04,840 --> 00:34:07,720
 at the next meeting, so that I can kind of check

585
00:34:07,720 --> 00:34:12,280
 with the city attorney's office and see if we can kind

586
00:34:12,280 --> 00:34:14,860
 of outline what you're talking about some parameters

587
00:34:14,860 --> 00:34:18,320
 around like what does that look like, what is, you know,

588
00:34:18,320 --> 00:34:21,660
 where are you going to get too far out of the open meetings act

589
00:34:21,660 --> 00:34:25,060
 versus, I think, like my understanding is like you can talk

590
00:34:25,060 --> 00:34:27,700
 to whoever appointed you, but you probably can't go to talk

591
00:34:27,700 --> 00:34:29,500
 to every single council member about the same thing

592
00:34:29,500 --> 00:34:31,940
 because that would create the forum issues.

593
00:34:31,940 --> 00:34:33,440
 But I'll double check with the city attorney.

594
00:34:33,440 --> 00:34:36,380
 >> That would be very helpful for us to understand.

595
00:34:36,380 --> 00:34:41,020
 I mean, I don't want to, the point of this is not

596
00:34:41,020 --> 00:34:42,960
 like battling against council.

597
00:34:42,960 --> 00:34:46,560
 I mean, they have to approve the amendments that we write

598
00:34:46,560 --> 00:34:49,320
 and there will be disagreement on the wording,

599
00:34:49,320 --> 00:34:55,100
 but if we can understand their concerns better before we put it

600
00:34:55,100 --> 00:34:57,000
 to their vote, I mean,

601
00:34:57,000 --> 00:35:00,040
 maybe we can actually give them a little more time.

602
00:35:00,040 --> 00:35:03,040
 >> And I think Patricia's idea about having options,

603
00:35:03,040 --> 00:35:04,740
 I think that helps the discussion

604
00:35:04,740 --> 00:35:07,580
 because it's difficult, I think, sometimes for them to,

605
00:35:07,580 --> 00:35:09,780
 I tried to make it clear to them at presentation,

606
00:35:09,780 --> 00:35:13,720
 but it's easier, I think, when it's like here's two, one, two,

607
00:35:13,720 --> 00:35:17,620
 three option for what they're trying to do

608
00:35:17,620 --> 00:35:19,320
 that they think would be satisfied.

609
00:35:19,320 --> 00:35:20,460
 They're recommending this one,

610
00:35:20,460 --> 00:35:24,020
 but you could also do it this way because that's a little bit

611
00:35:24,020 --> 00:35:26,100
 broader scope while still getting, like,

612
00:35:26,100 --> 00:35:30,000
 this is what we're trying to do with the proposal.

613
00:35:30,000 --> 00:35:33,300
 >> I think it's clear, I mean, you can, yeah, you can talk

614
00:35:33,300 --> 00:35:36,280
 to the person who appointed you, the council member,

615
00:35:36,280 --> 00:35:39,580
 and I think as long as there's not a, I mean,

616
00:35:39,580 --> 00:35:42,420
 as long as there's not a pending complaint involving

617
00:35:42,420 --> 00:35:44,980
 that council member, in which case you might have a

618
00:35:44,980 --> 00:35:50,380
 ex parte communication problem, the important thing is

619
00:35:50,380 --> 00:35:52,820
 to avoid that walking quorum.

620
00:35:52,820 --> 00:35:59,100
 So you can't go from, you wouldn't want to talk to every,

621
00:35:59,100 --> 00:36:02,760
 or a quorum of council because they might be seeing

622
00:36:02,760 --> 00:36:07,300
 that you're serving as a way for the council to communicate

623
00:36:07,300 --> 00:36:09,980
 with each other in a quorum, does that make sense?

624
00:36:09,980 --> 00:36:12,180
 Even if that's not what's happening, but it could look

625
00:36:12,180 --> 00:36:14,480
 like they're handing you a message saying,

626
00:36:14,480 --> 00:36:15,780
 you know, you can go communicate.

627
00:36:15,780 --> 00:36:18,220
 And same thing in the other direction, right,

628
00:36:18,220 --> 00:36:23,620
 where if a quorum of y'all are all having the same

629
00:36:23,620 --> 00:36:25,120
 conversations at the same time.

630
00:36:25,120 --> 00:36:26,720
 So that's really where it gets tricky

631
00:36:26,720 --> 00:36:29,160
 because if you don't know what the other people are doing,

632
00:36:29,160 --> 00:36:33,000
 you're all trying to not talk to each other to avoid quorum,

633
00:36:33,000 --> 00:36:35,900
 but you're all talking, you know, a quorum of you have all come

634
00:36:35,900 --> 00:36:39,400
 and talked to the same, then that also creates a potential.

635
00:36:39,400 --> 00:36:42,000
 >> But if we did that individually with our appoint.

636
00:36:42,000 --> 00:36:44,380
 >> Just your own person, and you stick with that,

637
00:36:44,380 --> 00:36:47,280
 then that's a way to avoid that problem.

638
00:36:47,280 --> 00:36:51,580
 And then I think in a grander scale, there's the joint meeting

639
00:36:51,580 --> 00:36:55,520
 which requires getting council on board and posting it

640
00:36:55,520 --> 00:37:00,760
 for both of you and all that stuff and then, yeah, so.

641
00:37:00,760 --> 00:37:03,060
 >> Okay, so what I'm hearing is our best bet is

642
00:37:03,060 --> 00:37:08,540
 that each individual board member talks to their person,

643
00:37:08,540 --> 00:37:14,140
 council member that appoint them to avoid any kind of issues.

644
00:37:14,140 --> 00:37:17,640
 >> Yeah, in the absence of a formal meeting.

645
00:37:17,640 --> 00:37:23,120
 >> I just want to make sure we're listening

646
00:37:23,120 --> 00:37:25,540
 to anything you have to say.

647
00:37:25,540 --> 00:37:27,880
 >> No, after hearing that, I was like, okay,

648
00:37:27,880 --> 00:37:32,060
 I'm going to stop calling on the way home and just see kind

649
00:37:32,060 --> 00:37:38,200
 of what, you know, his colleagues' thoughts are.

650
00:37:38,200 --> 00:37:39,660
 Go from theirs.

651
00:37:39,660 --> 00:37:42,960
 Yeah, I think we need to be on a unified front

652
00:37:42,960 --> 00:37:46,040
 with the city council because it's not us against them.

653
00:37:46,040 --> 00:37:47,540
 >> Yeah.

654
00:37:47,540 --> 00:37:50,060
 >> It's us all working together to serve the

655
00:37:50,060 --> 00:37:52,900
 [inaudible] constituents, so.

656
00:37:52,900 --> 00:37:55,980
 >> And what I, I mean, we're all appointed by different people

657
00:37:55,980 --> 00:37:59,840
 and we, as a, we agreed on each, you know,

658
00:37:59,840 --> 00:38:03,780
 every single one of us agreed on what we proposed.

659
00:38:03,780 --> 00:38:10,820
 So it's not like, you know, one council member's appointee was

660
00:38:10,820 --> 00:38:13,460
 left out of the conversation or did not agree

661
00:38:13,460 --> 00:38:15,920
 with the conversation or anything.

662
00:38:15,920 --> 00:38:18,640
 Which I find that, that is what I find the most difficult

663
00:38:18,640 --> 00:38:25,200
 to understand is why that would create such distrust.

664
00:38:29,880 --> 00:38:31,780
 >> I guess we've probably talked about this enough,

665
00:38:31,780 --> 00:38:36,140
 so maybe do we need to, are we ready to move on?

666
00:38:36,140 --> 00:38:38,620
 >> This is just for you to be aware of.

667
00:38:38,620 --> 00:38:39,960
 Still trying to figure out exactly

668
00:38:39,960 --> 00:38:45,920
 when the actual change will go before council for the vote.

669
00:38:45,920 --> 00:38:47,320
 >> Okay.

670
00:38:47,320 --> 00:38:50,660
 >> I would like to do it before the new council,

671
00:38:50,660 --> 00:38:52,560
 just so that, you know, continuity.

672
00:38:52,560 --> 00:38:53,800
 >> Yeah.

673
00:38:53,800 --> 00:38:54,860
 >> Not trying to explain it to new people.

674
00:38:54,860 --> 00:38:55,900
 I don't have to.

675
00:38:55,900 --> 00:38:58,440
 And then it makes it easier for the training,

676
00:38:58,440 --> 00:39:00,600
 which typically for the city council I do their training

677
00:39:00,600 --> 00:39:04,540
 at the council retreat in June is what normally occurs, so.

678
00:39:04,540 --> 00:39:07,840
 >> On this last point, I do think that's going

679
00:39:07,840 --> 00:39:12,720
 to have a chilling effect for potential complainants.

680
00:39:12,720 --> 00:39:16,460
 But I think it could be reasonable to expect

681
00:39:16,460 --> 00:39:19,860
 that they could bring someone who could be with them

682
00:39:19,860 --> 00:39:23,260
 and be supporting them.

683
00:39:23,260 --> 00:39:25,360
 >> All right, so they're always a public meeting, right?

684
00:39:25,360 --> 00:39:26,460
 >> Yeah.

685
00:39:26,460 --> 00:39:31,440
 >> I just think that's going to put out a breach

686
00:39:31,440 --> 00:39:33,740
 for a lot of citizens.

687
00:39:33,740 --> 00:39:41,240
 But I also think they don't understand

688
00:39:41,240 --> 00:39:44,120
 that ethics is not purely law.

689
00:39:44,120 --> 00:39:46,980
 It is also aspirational.

690
00:39:46,980 --> 00:39:57,500
 And I'll leave it at that.

691
00:39:57,500 --> 00:40:02,660
 So, are we ready to move on to item C?

692
00:40:02,660 --> 00:40:06,400
 BOE 25-13, Receiver Report.

693
00:40:06,400 --> 00:40:09,540
 Hold the discussion and give staff direction regarding the

694
00:40:09,540 --> 00:40:12,540
 definition of complainant as it relates to the city

695
00:40:12,540 --> 00:40:18,080
 and code of ordinances, chapter 2, article 11, ethics.

696
00:40:18,080 --> 00:40:21,480
 >> I now have a presentation

697
00:40:21,480 --> 00:40:25,160
 that on the slide is the current definition of complainant.

698
00:40:25,160 --> 00:40:28,400
 We can discuss that or what concerns the board might have.

699
00:40:28,400 --> 00:40:31,160
 You can give direction for me to do some research.

700
00:40:31,160 --> 00:40:33,160
 I just need to know what you would like me to do,

701
00:40:33,160 --> 00:40:36,660
 if you would like that, but just kind of a start

702
00:40:36,660 --> 00:40:43,540
 to the conversation based on the board's direction last time.

703
00:40:43,540 --> 00:40:46,080
 >> Could we just take out the word "human"?

704
00:40:46,080 --> 00:40:53,120
 >> I can't remember exactly how we got this on our agenda,

705
00:40:53,120 --> 00:40:58,020
 but I think some of it had to do with getting a complaint

706
00:40:58,020 --> 00:41:01,820
 that was submitted through the anonymous hotline.

707
00:41:01,820 --> 00:41:03,260
 >> Yeah.

708
00:41:03,260 --> 00:41:05,000
 >> So, we needed to have some --

709
00:41:05,000 --> 00:41:13,000
 we didn't have a way to process that because in our code,

710
00:41:13,000 --> 00:41:18,300
 it has to be a person and we can't have an anonymous complaint.

711
00:41:18,300 --> 00:41:23,120
 There's some discussion in one of our meetings

712
00:41:23,120 --> 00:41:28,120
 and from the speaker in one of our meetings about there has

713
00:41:28,120 --> 00:41:34,120
 to be a person that accuses someone of an ethics violation.

714
00:41:34,120 --> 00:41:38,160
 So, this is probably a legal question,

715
00:41:38,160 --> 00:41:42,460
 like how do we make this definition say there has

716
00:41:42,460 --> 00:41:45,240
 to be a person tied to the complaint.

717
00:41:45,240 --> 00:41:52,480
 I don't know how to do that and I think that's how this got on here.

718
00:41:52,480 --> 00:41:54,920
 >> I don't know the motive of the person who wrote this,

719
00:41:54,920 --> 00:41:57,620
 but do you think they were trying not

720
00:41:57,620 --> 00:42:02,660
 to have a corporation file a complaint?

721
00:42:02,660 --> 00:42:06,820
 That entity, another kind of entity?

722
00:42:06,820 --> 00:42:10,700
 >> Most other codes that I'm familiar with will use the word

723
00:42:10,700 --> 00:42:13,200
 entity and an individual.

724
00:42:13,200 --> 00:42:17,500
 This is too narrow in my opinion.

725
00:42:17,500 --> 00:42:23,440
 >> Could we say to the individual who submitted a complaint

726
00:42:23,440 --> 00:42:31,380
 to the city must be presented in person or with a name or something?

727
00:42:31,380 --> 00:42:33,520
 That's probably a better way to say that.

728
00:42:33,520 --> 00:42:37,120
 >> The word that comes to my mind is identifiable.

729
00:42:37,120 --> 00:42:38,820
 >> Identifiable individual.

730
00:42:38,820 --> 00:42:44,060
 >> Yeah, just pick up human and put identifiable.

731
00:42:44,060 --> 00:42:49,700
 >> Is there some reason why human is in there that I don't get?

732
00:42:49,700 --> 00:42:55,700
 >> The only thing that makes sense to me is like a corporation.

733
00:42:55,700 --> 00:42:59,540
 >> My understanding is that code currently does not allow it.

734
00:42:59,540 --> 00:43:01,780
 You have to be a singular person.

735
00:43:01,780 --> 00:43:04,980
 You cannot be an entity, right, to file a complaint.

736
00:43:04,980 --> 00:43:13,160
 So is the intent to change that, is that the board's direction?

737
00:43:13,160 --> 00:43:16,960
 To try to go down a path of how would we change it to allow an entity,

738
00:43:16,960 --> 00:43:20,420
 like corporate entities, businesses to file complaints?

739
00:43:20,420 --> 00:43:21,100
 >> No.

740
00:43:21,100 --> 00:43:23,100
 >> No, I don't want to do that.

741
00:43:23,100 --> 00:43:25,860
 >> Okay.

742
00:43:25,860 --> 00:43:29,480
 >> I think it should be a person.

743
00:43:29,480 --> 00:43:33,740
 And who is willing to identify themselves.

744
00:43:33,740 --> 00:43:36,820
 >> And then based on our discussion at that previous meeting,

745
00:43:36,820 --> 00:43:40,720
 I think we have a process now basically to address complaints submitted anonymously,

746
00:43:40,720 --> 00:43:44,120
 right, we just let them know, hey, unless you submit this,

747
00:43:44,120 --> 00:43:48,200
 not anonymously basically, right, your complaint will be considered abandoned,

748
00:43:48,200 --> 00:43:50,960
 but providing that information to them.

749
00:43:50,960 --> 00:43:59,880
 >> So what if we just put identifiable in the place of human, and call it good.

750
00:43:59,880 --> 00:44:03,680
 What do you think?

751
00:44:03,680 --> 00:44:06,780
 It's just that human has always made me like what?

752
00:44:06,780 --> 00:44:07,880
 >> What?

753
00:44:07,880 --> 00:44:13,920
 >> We're afraid of donkeys making complaints or anything.

754
00:44:13,920 --> 00:44:14,860
 >> I don't know.

755
00:44:14,860 --> 00:44:16,760
 >> Or art bars.

756
00:44:21,960 --> 00:44:25,300
 >> So my understanding is like process-wise,

757
00:44:25,300 --> 00:44:28,600
 there's not necessarily a concern, it's just about the language.

758
00:44:28,600 --> 00:44:32,800
 >> It's kind of interesting because the word human is more

759
00:44:32,800 --> 00:44:36,000
 relevant nowadays because of AI and robots.

760
00:44:36,000 --> 00:44:37,240
 >> Oh, wow.

761
00:44:37,240 --> 00:44:40,520
 >> That's another path you could go down.

762
00:44:40,520 --> 00:44:47,360
 >> Did we have some discussion

763
00:44:47,360 --> 00:44:52,600
 about someone outside the city?

764
00:44:52,600 --> 00:44:56,200
 Do they have to be a citizen of Denton?

765
00:44:56,200 --> 00:45:01,960
 >> I don't believe that you have to be a citizen of the city to submit a complaint.

766
00:45:01,960 --> 00:45:03,680
 >> Or a resident.

767
00:45:03,680 --> 00:45:05,280
 >> Resident, yes.

768
00:45:05,280 --> 00:45:06,520
 >> Right.

769
00:45:06,520 --> 00:45:09,280
 >> What would be their harm?

770
00:45:09,280 --> 00:45:15,840
 I guess I don't understand why someone out of San Antonio would be harmed by anything Denton does.

771
00:45:15,840 --> 00:45:18,880
 >> I don't know.

772
00:45:18,880 --> 00:45:21,960
 >> But it sounds like it hasn't been a problem.

773
00:45:21,960 --> 00:45:27,640
 >> Yeah, no one has from outside the city that to my knowledge, has submitted a complaint.

774
00:45:27,640 --> 00:45:40,680
 >> So I guess we want to avoid a group for an organization or a business from submitting a complaint.

775
00:45:40,680 --> 00:45:42,240
 >> Or a government entity.

776
00:45:42,240 --> 00:45:50,360
 >> And they have to be identifiable so that we can go through the process of reviewing.

777
00:45:50,360 --> 00:45:56,800
 >> Well, the identifiable part is already required under our anonymous complaint thing, right?

778
00:45:56,800 --> 00:45:57,560
 >> Yeah.

779
00:45:57,560 --> 00:45:58,000
 >> Okay.

780
00:45:58,000 --> 00:46:03,520
 >> And so if we put the, sorry, now we're just defining the complaint.

781
00:46:03,520 --> 00:46:07,960
 Even if you're unidentified, you're still a complaint.

782
00:46:07,960 --> 00:46:11,160
 Your complaint's just not going to go anywhere, so too bad.

783
00:46:11,160 --> 00:46:15,600
 So, but they're still the complaint.

784
00:46:15,600 --> 00:46:23,200
 And so if you were to put identifiable person, or human, whatever, then you've removed them from the definition.

785
00:46:23,200 --> 00:46:25,040
 So what do they fall under?

786
00:46:25,040 --> 00:46:29,320
 Do we include a new definition for Joe Schmoe?

787
00:46:29,320 --> 00:46:35,320
 So we completely take them out of the definition of the code, they no longer fall under the code at all.

788
00:46:35,320 --> 00:46:37,480
 >> So what would you recommend?

789
00:46:37,480 --> 00:46:39,320
 >> Leave it the way it is.

790
00:46:39,320 --> 00:46:43,560
 I mean, we don't want entities, so we want humans.

791
00:46:43,560 --> 00:46:44,920
 You know, it's got to be an individual.

792
00:46:44,920 --> 00:46:47,960
 Also, it indicates it can't be an entity.

793
00:46:47,960 --> 00:46:50,520
 I mean, I think it looks okay.

794
00:46:50,520 --> 00:46:54,880
 Have we run into a problem with it, as worded?

795
00:46:54,880 --> 00:46:58,960
 >> The issue was the anonymous complaint that you brought to us.

796
00:46:58,960 --> 00:47:04,560
 I think that's exactly how this got on the agenda, is because there was an anonymous.

797
00:47:04,560 --> 00:47:12,440
 And because it matters some question on how to deal with it, we said we would have a look at.

798
00:47:12,440 --> 00:47:19,040
 >> Yeah, I wanted to, when it occurred, it was the first time, so I wanted to make sure that you were aware of the process that we handled that under.

799
00:47:19,040 --> 00:47:24,000
 But I don't know that the definition of complainant presented an issue for that process.

800
00:47:24,000 --> 00:47:26,000
 It was more of like.

801
00:47:26,000 --> 00:47:28,880
 >> This is more of a process question than a definition question.

802
00:47:28,880 --> 00:47:33,120
 >> That was, so this is the definition.

803
00:47:33,120 --> 00:47:42,080
 So you, I'm sorry, you could add, right, so if we want complainant to be the identifiable human.

804
00:47:42,080 --> 00:47:46,000
 Then you can, you know, add complainant is the identifiable human.

805
00:47:46,000 --> 00:47:56,880
 But then you would also have to add, you know, another word, another definition of anonymous complainant is the unidentified human individual slash entity.

806
00:47:56,880 --> 00:48:02,560
 Whoever it is, they're unidentified, we don't know, who submitted a complaint.

807
00:48:02,560 --> 00:48:04,560
 >> Well, here's another take on it.

808
00:48:04,560 --> 00:48:10,960
 If it's just the word individual without the human, and let's say the individual is anonymous.

809
00:48:10,960 --> 00:48:21,280
 And then if they don't come in person to the hearing, the panel, then it isn't heard.

810
00:48:21,280 --> 00:48:22,320
 >> But that's what I'm saying.

811
00:48:22,320 --> 00:48:30,080
 >> So it's kind of like unnecessary to even say anything except individual, the individual complaint to the city.

812
00:48:30,080 --> 00:48:32,000
 So you don't need to add anything else.

813
00:48:32,000 --> 00:48:42,000
 >> And I think, I'm trying to clarify my understanding because that, your clarification is saying that if we're making it an identifiable individual, there also becomes an unidentifiable.

814
00:48:42,000 --> 00:48:46,720
 >> Oh, really, okay, you have to have a definition for both.

815
00:48:46,720 --> 00:48:49,440
 Whereas this, there are only human individuals.

816
00:48:49,440 --> 00:48:50,240
 >> Exactly.

817
00:48:50,240 --> 00:48:52,720
 >> Okay, that makes a lot of sense, okay.

818
00:48:52,720 --> 00:48:57,920
 >> I think you've got to leave the human in there.

819
00:48:57,920 --> 00:49:09,120
 And if this goes to city council, I can already see the public comments and discussion on it of what if I don't identify as human.

820
00:49:09,120 --> 00:49:14,480
 Again, I don't care one way or the other, I don't need to get into that side of things.

821
00:49:14,480 --> 00:49:22,080
 But I don't think city council wants that to deal with something when we're talking, we're just seeing an entity.

822
00:49:22,080 --> 00:49:24,800
 Walmart can't file a complaint, that's all we're saying.

823
00:49:24,800 --> 00:49:28,240
 If you want to identify as whatever you want, you're still an individual.

824
00:49:28,240 --> 00:49:34,320
 So I don't know that it's going to be worth the headache that we put on the city council.

825
00:49:34,320 --> 00:49:37,520
 >> I think what I'm hearing is that as it is.

826
00:49:37,520 --> 00:49:39,040
 >> No, just take the word human out.

827
00:49:39,040 --> 00:49:40,800
 We don't need the word human in there.

828
00:49:40,800 --> 00:49:42,320
 >> That's going to open it up to debate.

829
00:49:42,320 --> 00:49:42,640
 >> Yeah.

830
00:49:42,640 --> 00:49:45,360
 >> And they're going to say what if I don't identify as a human.

831
00:49:45,360 --> 00:49:46,080
 >> So I hear two.

832
00:49:46,080 --> 00:49:47,040
 >> What would you identify as?

833
00:49:47,040 --> 00:49:51,600
 >> Yeah, then you're saying individual, yeah, so that would get rid of that definition.

834
00:49:51,600 --> 00:49:54,400
 >> What would you identify as if you're not an individual?

835
00:49:54,960 --> 00:49:55,600
 >> A furry.

836
00:49:55,600 --> 00:49:57,760
 >> Don't ask me that question.

837
00:49:57,760 --> 00:49:59,440
 >> There's lots of things, lots and lots of things.

838
00:49:59,440 --> 00:50:01,440
 >> It can be an individual entity, right?

839
00:50:01,440 --> 00:50:03,840
 An individual is singular, right?

840
00:50:03,840 --> 00:50:04,960
 That's what it means.

841
00:50:04,960 --> 00:50:12,880
 >> That an individual wouldn't be a company and it wouldn't be more than one thing.

842
00:50:12,880 --> 00:50:18,240
 >> Companies can be individual as far as they're singular, right?

843
00:50:18,240 --> 00:50:24,000
 Individual is singular, it doesn't necessarily, I think the reason human isn't here is because

844
00:50:24,000 --> 00:50:29,600
 individual does not necessarily mean humans, right?

845
00:50:29,600 --> 00:50:30,640
 It just means a single.

846
00:50:30,640 --> 00:50:36,720
 >> Well, I will say then the individual person sounds a little more normal.

847
00:50:36,720 --> 00:50:39,280
 The individual person rather than the human individual.

848
00:50:39,280 --> 00:50:45,440
 >> I'm just going to disagree that it sounds better, the individual person.

849
00:50:45,440 --> 00:50:50,800
 Not disagreeing with you on that, but we're here having a conversation about how do we

850
00:50:51,920 --> 00:50:57,280
 help break this wall down between us and city council and part of that is by not putting,

851
00:50:57,280 --> 00:51:02,800
 I don't want to call it unnecessary, I don't want to minimize, but unnecessary stuff on

852
00:51:02,800 --> 00:51:05,760
 their plate because they're the ones going to have to face the public.

853
00:51:05,760 --> 00:51:07,360
 The public's not in here yelling at us.

854
00:51:07,360 --> 00:51:11,920
 They're going to be in there yelling at city council and so part of getting rid of this

855
00:51:11,920 --> 00:51:14,400
 barrier is to say city council, we're here to help you.

856
00:51:14,400 --> 00:51:16,560
 We're here to support, what can we do?

857
00:51:16,560 --> 00:51:21,040
 And I bet number one on that list is please stop sending us more work.

858
00:51:21,040 --> 00:51:22,880
 Like the public sends us enough work.

859
00:51:22,880 --> 00:51:30,160
 So unless it's something substantial like the ordinance stuff that we just did,

860
00:51:30,160 --> 00:51:35,520
 I don't know that we should really add to that.

861
00:51:35,520 --> 00:51:37,920
 >> I tend to agree with you on that.

862
00:51:37,920 --> 00:51:39,120
 >> Because it ain't really broken.

863
00:51:39,120 --> 00:51:42,160
 >> I mean, that is the way it is already right now.

864
00:51:42,160 --> 00:51:42,400
 >> Yes.

865
00:51:42,400 --> 00:51:47,600
 >> But we could revisit it down the road someday if we want to, but we don't have to do it today.

866
00:51:47,600 --> 00:51:50,640
 >> You know, I think it is so far down on the list of priorities.

867
00:51:50,640 --> 00:51:52,720
 It's not worth troubling over.

868
00:51:52,720 --> 00:51:55,220
 >> Okay.

869
00:51:55,220 --> 00:51:59,920
 So would someone make a motion?

870
00:51:59,920 --> 00:52:01,200
 >> We don't need a motion.

871
00:52:01,200 --> 00:52:02,400
 >> Okay, okay.

872
00:52:02,400 --> 00:52:05,840
 So I would say leave it and we move on.

873
00:52:05,840 --> 00:52:07,200
 >> All right.

874
00:52:07,200 --> 00:52:08,000
 >> Okay.

875
00:52:08,000 --> 00:52:13,280
 Item D, BOE 25-014, Receiver Report.

876
00:52:13,280 --> 00:52:18,320
 Hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding City of Denton Code of Ordinances

877
00:52:18,320 --> 00:52:24,720
 Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics Section 3-282, Being Sanctions.

878
00:52:24,720 --> 00:52:28,720
 >> It's similar to the previous one.

879
00:52:28,720 --> 00:52:32,240
 I haven't done, you just gave direction to put this on the agenda.

880
00:52:32,240 --> 00:52:33,760
 Just kind of a conversation starter.

881
00:52:33,760 --> 00:52:35,280
 I don't have any research to present.

882
00:52:35,280 --> 00:52:40,240
 This is a flow chart that's in our current ethics training to kind of show,

883
00:52:40,240 --> 00:52:45,840
 to summarize kind of how if you were going to impose a sanction currently under the ordinance,

884
00:52:45,840 --> 00:52:48,480
 this is the decision-made flow chart for that.

885
00:52:48,480 --> 00:52:56,960
 I can also just bring up the language, but this is kind of the existing sanctions.

886
00:52:56,960 --> 00:52:59,440
 It might be better to just bring up the language.

887
00:52:59,440 --> 00:53:10,080
 I didn't just put the ordinance, a picture of it, because it's on two separate pages.

888
00:53:16,240 --> 00:53:20,400
 So, I don't know if that's, it's probably too small.

889
00:53:20,400 --> 00:53:26,400
 So, the first sanction is a letter of notification.

890
00:53:26,400 --> 00:53:31,600
 It's also a letter of admonition, or I'm sorry, admonition.

891
00:53:31,600 --> 00:53:32,880
 And then a letter of reprimand.

892
00:53:32,880 --> 00:53:35,280
 You can also recommend suspension.

893
00:53:35,280 --> 00:53:37,520
 This is not applicable to City Council.

894
00:53:37,520 --> 00:53:43,200
 There's recommending ineligibility, which is only applicable to vendors.

895
00:53:44,240 --> 00:53:46,640
 So, not applicable to City officials.

896
00:53:46,640 --> 00:53:53,520
 So, those are very brief summary of the current sanctions.

897
00:53:53,520 --> 00:53:59,040
 I don't know what's most helpful to put on the screen, but.

898
00:53:59,040 --> 00:54:03,040
 Okay, discussion.

899
00:54:14,240 --> 00:54:29,680
 I can say that if we recommended anything stronger, we would be walking into a...

900
00:54:29,680 --> 00:54:39,520
 That's how I think, as things stand now, I would leave that alone.

901
00:54:41,200 --> 00:54:47,280
 But I want to hear what you guys think. I'll tend to agree, but I'll throw something out.

902
00:54:47,280 --> 00:54:52,960
 Just because this came up in the work session, if we go through this process,

903
00:54:52,960 --> 00:55:05,840
 and we actually have a real actionable complaint, we have a panel that reviews that, we have a hearing.

904
00:55:09,120 --> 00:55:17,040
 And it sounds like the City is going to incur some cost, because we have to pay for

905
00:55:17,040 --> 00:55:24,800
 an outside law firm to attend both of those, both the panel hearing and the actual...

906
00:55:24,800 --> 00:55:28,800
 The hearing.

907
00:55:28,800 --> 00:55:31,120
 Hearing, sorry, the panel review and the hearing.

908
00:55:31,120 --> 00:55:34,400
 And generally they provide some outside...

909
00:55:34,400 --> 00:55:37,280
 Yeah, so it's some number of hours.

910
00:55:37,280 --> 00:55:37,780
 Yeah.

911
00:55:39,680 --> 00:55:45,360
 It might please some of the council members if we

912
00:55:45,360 --> 00:55:59,840
 somehow find whoever committed the violation, if it was maybe reached the threshold of a letter

913
00:55:59,840 --> 00:56:05,360
 of reprimand, where they did it knowingly, intentionally, or in disregard to the article,

914
00:56:06,800 --> 00:56:11,280
 that person be responsible to cover the City's costs for the outside council.

915
00:56:11,280 --> 00:56:18,720
 I mean, I think if you're an elected official,

916
00:56:18,720 --> 00:56:26,480
 a letter of reprimand should matter to you. A letter of admonition should matter to you.

917
00:56:30,240 --> 00:56:39,440
 But I think part of our discussion is we're trying to do this in the best interests of

918
00:56:39,440 --> 00:56:47,440
 citizens of Denton and taxpayers. So if there is concern on their behalf, on the council's behalf,

919
00:56:47,440 --> 00:56:57,040
 on costs incurred by having this board and doing the business of this board according to our

920
00:56:57,680 --> 00:57:08,000
 ordinance and our rules of procedure, it might make sense to recover that cost if someone was

921
00:57:08,000 --> 00:57:13,680
 to knowingly, intentionally, or in disregard of this article, create some cost to the City.

922
00:57:13,680 --> 00:57:24,560
 So I understand leaving it the way it is because I think this will get some pushback. I think if you

923
00:57:25,520 --> 00:57:32,240
 were on council and you said, "I don't want to pay a fine or pay, not necessarily a fine,

924
00:57:32,240 --> 00:57:37,680
 but reimburse the City for the cost that it incurred because I knowingly, intentionally,

925
00:57:37,680 --> 00:57:45,280
 violated the ethics ordinance." I think that is a way to put a little teeth to this ordinance,

926
00:57:45,280 --> 00:57:50,400
 look out for the best interests of the City, and maybe

927
00:57:53,200 --> 00:57:59,680
 discourage someone from meeting the threshold of free paying there.

928
00:57:59,680 --> 00:58:06,080
 That would be something I would use as an example of how you could present

929
00:58:06,080 --> 00:58:13,280
 with K-City Council. Would you want that to be in the code where they would pay the legal fees,

930
00:58:13,280 --> 00:58:17,200
 or would you rather just stop at the letter of reprimand and then they would choose A or B?

931
00:58:18,080 --> 00:58:24,000
 Because I think that is a City Council thing to really discuss, not just us.

932
00:58:24,000 --> 00:58:30,560
 Also, what they do in City Council, if they don't like how somebody is acting,

933
00:58:30,560 --> 00:58:37,120
 they start petitions to have them removed from the Council. So they have their own solutions,

934
00:58:37,120 --> 00:58:42,160
 their own ways they try to address what they believe are violations of behavior.

935
00:58:43,360 --> 00:58:49,040
 So they might want to make their own decision about what would be the consequence,

936
00:58:49,040 --> 00:58:53,360
 but since they brought it up about the cost of legal expense, throw that out there. Well,

937
00:58:53,360 --> 00:58:57,600
 you could do that, or you could do this. Which do you choose? None of the above.

938
00:58:57,600 --> 00:59:05,760
 I think because there's already thresholds to this, if it was minor or unintentional or both,

939
00:59:07,680 --> 00:59:14,880
 that can happen. I think there's already two different types of letters that we're

940
00:59:14,880 --> 00:59:22,560
 allowed to send here. I think if it is knowingly, intentionally, or in disregard of the article,

941
00:59:22,560 --> 00:59:30,400
 I think it makes sense. I think it would make sense if we put it there, we put it

942
00:59:31,440 --> 00:59:39,360
 under sanctions for a frivolous complaint. Because that seems to keep coming up in the

943
00:59:39,360 --> 00:59:45,360
 Council members' discussions of concern for frivolous complaints, you know, just to make

944
00:59:45,360 --> 00:59:52,480
 someone look bad. Well, I mean, we have no, we talked about this before, is this allowed

945
00:59:52,480 --> 00:59:59,040
 in this discussion? I think you're still discussing sanctions. It's still on, that's under sanctions?

946
00:59:59,040 --> 01:00:05,680
 Yes. Well, the frivolous section references back to these sanctions, so yes. Okay, so I mean,

947
01:00:05,680 --> 01:00:13,760
 then it makes sense to me, because we're not penalizing someone for making a mistake,

948
01:00:13,760 --> 01:00:19,360
 right? We're not talking about, I had no idea that this occurred, I didn't know that I had this

949
01:00:19,360 --> 01:00:26,800
 conflict of interest, or my, you know, my brother had this ownership in this, like we're taking that,

950
01:00:26,800 --> 01:00:34,720
 we're talking about, I intentionally, I knowingly disregarded this ethics ordinance. I cost the city

951
01:00:34,720 --> 01:00:39,280
 money, we're volunteering our time, which is not going to be recovered, which is, that's why we're

952
01:00:39,280 --> 01:00:47,440
 here, we're volunteering our time to do this. But there's no point in, you know, taking money out

953
01:00:47,440 --> 01:00:54,000
 of the city budget if you go to something useful for someone making a choice to violate this code,

954
01:00:54,000 --> 01:00:59,280
 because whatever benefit they're getting out of making that, you know, violating that ordinance,

955
01:00:59,280 --> 01:01:06,800
 they think outweighs the penalty of a letter of reprimand, so.

956
01:01:06,800 --> 01:01:14,400
 No, it's going to have something else. Okay.

957
01:01:14,400 --> 01:01:22,000
 That makes a lot of sense to me, because it is costly to have a

958
01:01:24,000 --> 01:01:31,840
 frivolous complaint. Yeah, and I don't know what the cost is, it's probably, I don't know.

959
01:01:31,840 --> 01:01:42,080
 I don't know, maybe if it's more than an hour or two, it ends up pretty quick. I would say I budget

960
01:01:42,080 --> 01:01:53,360
 $2,000 for an ethics complaint. Okay. And I think we need to differentiate in this the same way we

961
01:01:53,360 --> 01:01:59,760
 did with what the letters are labeled, even though the contents of the letters may be similar.

962
01:01:59,760 --> 01:02:06,400
 If it, if it isn't, like, you can violate the ethics ordinance and it's an honest mistake,

963
01:02:06,400 --> 01:02:16,480
 you just did not know. And, I mean, I don't want to. To me that sounds less punitive,

964
01:02:16,480 --> 01:02:20,720
 and it sounds more like a consequence. You cost the city money,

965
01:02:23,760 --> 01:02:28,160
 you need to pay. That makes a lot of sense.

966
01:02:28,160 --> 01:02:36,480
 And I don't know if that's done elsewhere. We, a lot of times when we talk about these changes,

967
01:02:36,480 --> 01:02:41,920
 we look at other codes and what they do, but this is, I mean, if we're trying to make this

968
01:02:41,920 --> 01:02:48,240
 make sense for us, for the citizens, for the council, and whoever else is subjected to this

969
01:02:48,240 --> 01:02:54,720
 code, I don't know how, I was going to say, I don't know how you would argue against that,

970
01:02:54,720 --> 01:02:59,040
 but someone would find a way. That's why my fear is that we'll do it for fun.

971
01:02:59,040 --> 01:03:01,680
 But I think, I think it makes sense.

972
01:03:01,680 --> 01:03:10,640
 Well, the city, the city does recover the cost from their citizens when there's,

973
01:03:10,640 --> 01:03:15,280
 the city has to pay for certain, you know, for certain. Right. Yeah. So.

974
01:03:17,680 --> 01:03:25,680
 Yeah, $2,000 is a lot of money for, it would be the total taxes for several residents probably.

975
01:03:25,680 --> 01:03:28,320
 So that's, that's a lot of money.

976
01:03:28,320 --> 01:03:39,200
 Maybe my next question is can we do that? Well. I don't know. Maybe. Can you? I mean, well.

977
01:03:39,200 --> 01:03:43,920
 I can't act as an attorney on that.

978
01:03:47,680 --> 01:03:53,120
 Yeah, I guess the recommendation will review it. Right. Yeah, the direction is we would like to

979
01:03:53,120 --> 01:03:58,080
 explore this option, right? We all discussed it with the city attorney.

980
01:03:58,080 --> 01:04:02,240
 Someone who's found guilty of a firmless complaint, paying the legal costs.

981
01:04:02,240 --> 01:04:12,400
 Ordinances routinely impose a fine. As for having someone cover legal costs,

982
01:04:13,040 --> 01:04:18,400
 Texas follows what's known as the American rule and that all litigants must pay their own way

983
01:04:18,400 --> 01:04:25,360
 unless authorized by statute. I guess we could make a statute that authorizes it, but

984
01:04:25,360 --> 01:04:32,480
 it's a gray area. That's what this would be. Yeah. Our home rule means ballot. So this is a law.

985
01:04:32,480 --> 01:04:37,680
 So the city council would adopt it. The city council adopts it. It's just a question of whether

986
01:04:37,680 --> 01:04:44,560
 there's a specific prohibition that would get in the way of covering a city's legal fees.

987
01:04:44,560 --> 01:04:51,600
 There might, I don't know. So we would look into, I would look at it and then I think we would have

988
01:04:51,600 --> 01:04:57,680
 outside council get to to eliminate that potential conflict with my office. So. Can I ask a question?

989
01:04:57,680 --> 01:05:04,080
 Is there a difference, is there a difference between the city occurring cost of a contractor

990
01:05:04,080 --> 01:05:11,120
 or city employees and legal? It is part of the budget.

991
01:05:11,120 --> 01:05:19,600
 That's my, because this is an ordinance, right? Just like the tree limbs. Correct.

992
01:05:19,600 --> 01:05:26,080
 Are an ordinance. And when the city sends out city employees to cut down trees,

993
01:05:26,080 --> 01:05:32,560
 the resident gets a bill. Is it any, is it different? Is it, is there any difference between that

994
01:05:34,240 --> 01:05:42,160
 occurrence of what it cost the city to remove the tree limbs and the cost it cost the city

995
01:05:42,160 --> 01:05:48,720
 to provide legal counsel? Right. Yeah. I think we'd have to look into it. But I think there's,

996
01:05:48,720 --> 01:05:52,000
 there's all kinds of weird stuff about. Well, here's the good news.

997
01:05:52,000 --> 01:05:57,920
 With this wording that we got, just got through on conflict of interest,

998
01:05:59,280 --> 01:06:08,480
 I believe these frivolous things will be much less likely to be presented. So that's my hope, at least.

999
01:06:08,480 --> 01:06:13,200
 But I think it's worth asking the question.

1000
01:06:13,200 --> 01:06:21,440
 We can come back with whatever the answer is. Okay. I just don't know right now. What's the

1001
01:06:21,440 --> 01:06:30,560
 direction, I guess, on that one? To ask if we could ask the person found guilty of a frivolous

1002
01:06:30,560 --> 01:06:37,760
 complaint to have a legal cause. This minor or serious is the way it's read. It says minor

1003
01:06:37,760 --> 01:06:44,880
 complaint or serious. I wanted to, I guess I was saying not, not just a frivolous complaint.

1004
01:06:44,880 --> 01:06:50,800
 Right. But an ethics code violation because this top section under sanction is for,

1005
01:06:50,800 --> 01:06:57,360
 it's not for frivolous. Frivolous is further down. Right. So this would be minor or serious.

1006
01:06:57,360 --> 01:07:03,520
 Yeah. This is anyone's intention. Intentionally. Intentionally is the key word. So the way that.

1007
01:07:03,520 --> 01:07:10,720
 Yes. It's under the letter. It's, it's whatever. Letter of reprimand. Letter of reprimand or the

1008
01:07:10,720 --> 01:07:17,120
 language is not intentionally disregarded. And the, and the way that if we got to a hearing,

1009
01:07:17,760 --> 01:07:21,600
 either way, right, if we were in a normal hearing where there was a complainant,

1010
01:07:21,600 --> 01:07:27,600
 we would get to the hearing, you would decide if you, if you voted by simple majority that there

1011
01:07:27,600 --> 01:07:32,160
 was a violation, then you would move to, okay, what would the sanction be? Right. So there would

1012
01:07:32,160 --> 01:07:37,920
 be two actions taken. For a frivolous complaint, it's the same thing, except you have to vote by

1013
01:07:37,920 --> 01:07:44,080
 super majority to, to find a violation. So that's kind of the two, the difference there.

1014
01:07:44,080 --> 01:07:48,480
 But then you would, if you found a violation, then you would decide on the sanctions. And that

1015
01:07:48,480 --> 01:07:52,080
 would be from this list. Right. And so my, my understanding is the direction is to look into

1016
01:07:52,080 --> 01:08:01,120
 adding to the letter of reprimand level. If you, if you can basically find the person who's found

1017
01:08:01,120 --> 01:08:06,560
 to have violated the ordinance for legal costs. Is that? Yes. That's my answer. That helps, Scott.

1018
01:08:07,280 --> 01:08:22,480
 Yeah, I think so. Okay. So are we ready to move on? Item E, DOE 2525. 015. Receive a report,

1019
01:08:22,480 --> 01:08:26,720
 hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding future meeting topics.

1020
01:08:36,640 --> 01:08:43,600
 So I don't have a presentation again, but I do. Sorry. Based on last time,

1021
01:08:43,600 --> 01:08:52,800
 we, there was direction to discuss having potentially having learning assessments be

1022
01:08:52,800 --> 01:08:58,480
 closed meetings and then kind of having a discussion about the board's communication,

1023
01:08:58,480 --> 01:09:05,920
 ex parte communication, kind of clarifying that. Can change that direction. That's just what we were,

1024
01:09:05,920 --> 01:09:09,600
 we discussed last meeting and then we can also discuss the main meeting as well.

1025
01:09:09,600 --> 01:09:17,360
 That's, I was going to say if we, would it be too quick for you to come back with the

1026
01:09:17,360 --> 01:09:26,160
 discussion of sanctions and, and add that to the April meeting before we move on? Could we,

1027
01:09:26,160 --> 01:09:34,560
 since we gave you directions on, on getting some clarification for that discussion on sanctions,

1028
01:09:34,560 --> 01:09:40,080
 we can do our best to get it, if that's what you would like. I just don't know how long it will

1029
01:09:40,080 --> 01:09:44,800
 take to get the legal opinion back. That's not, that's not research that I can do, so I'm not sure.

1030
01:09:44,800 --> 01:09:48,800
 Okay. Well that, and that's why I'm asking is because I'm just wondering if we're,

1031
01:09:48,800 --> 01:09:53,280
 since we discussed it tonight, is it too quick? If the turnaround is too quick, then I would,

1032
01:09:53,280 --> 01:10:00,880
 then I would just seek to form for us to continue that discussion of sanctions in May then.

1033
01:10:04,720 --> 01:10:15,600
 I have a different topic. Let's go ahead. Okay. I just have a something that I'd like to clarify

1034
01:10:15,600 --> 01:10:25,360
 regarding the terms of office of the, of this board in light of the privilege of the elected.

1035
01:10:25,360 --> 01:10:32,560
 A couple of years ago, Patricia was kind of left in the balance. You were removed or replaced by

1036
01:10:32,560 --> 01:10:39,360
 somebody that had just recently been elected. I believe it was Chris Watts. I'm in a situation

1037
01:10:39,360 --> 01:10:44,960
 right now where the council member that appointed me will be in the election and will not be

1038
01:10:44,960 --> 01:10:53,760
 reelected. So have we cleared up in our minutes or bylaws whether the term of office here takes

1039
01:10:53,760 --> 01:11:02,240
 precedent over the right of the elected to remove, for example, remove someone and be replaced by

1040
01:11:02,240 --> 01:11:07,520
 their favorite? Have we clarified that or? Yeah. So I don't know when your term, I don't know when

1041
01:11:07,520 --> 01:11:14,800
 your term ends, but if your term ends, it is the elected officials prerogative to put whoever,

1042
01:11:14,800 --> 01:11:18,640
 to appoint whoever they would like to, to nominate whoever they would like to that position.

1043
01:11:18,640 --> 01:11:27,520
 But they, they don't get automatically the option to just remove you. It's only when your term

1044
01:11:27,520 --> 01:11:33,760
 in term ends that it comes up. That happened. So the district, it's their prerogative to put,

1045
01:11:33,760 --> 01:11:37,760
 to appoint, to nominate whoever they would like on the board. As soon as they get an election.

1046
01:11:37,760 --> 01:11:48,880
 Elections occur in May, generally terms stop in August. Right. That happened. It was unfair.

1047
01:11:50,400 --> 01:11:58,320
 So whoever, well, for example, the district three, whoever succeeds in district three will own this

1048
01:11:58,320 --> 01:12:05,280
 seat. Correct. Well, yes, they, they have, it's their prerogative to nominate whoever they would

1049
01:12:05,280 --> 01:12:12,000
 like to that seat. And then the whole city council votes to make that appointment. Right. Right.

1050
01:12:14,000 --> 01:12:24,240
 Okay. Well, the, after his term is completed? Correct. Yeah. Okay. After his term is completed.

1051
01:12:24,240 --> 01:12:30,560
 So it was unclear for me as I could have stayed on longer. Well, a completed term would not be

1052
01:12:30,560 --> 01:12:36,640
 three successive. I recommend reaching out to the secretary's office and asking them about

1053
01:12:36,640 --> 01:12:40,240
 your question because they'll have, they should have the answer. Yeah.

1054
01:12:42,320 --> 01:12:48,640
 I did want to comment that there was a comment made by a city council member that there are

1055
01:12:48,640 --> 01:12:54,480
 gotchas in this code and there are gotchas in this code and they have been here since the beginning,

1056
01:12:54,480 --> 01:12:59,280
 which is what I think we're trying to address. So

1057
01:12:59,280 --> 01:13:07,200
 a couple times I think they got off topic during the council meeting and started talking about

1058
01:13:07,200 --> 01:13:12,320
 things that have been there since day one. Which proceeds all the way.

1059
01:13:12,320 --> 01:13:18,480
 We're talking about future meeting topics right now. Okay.

1060
01:13:18,480 --> 01:13:29,360
 Okay. Any other future meeting topics? I would encourage you guys to think about any and

1061
01:13:30,080 --> 01:13:38,000
 bring it to the next meeting. I'd like to keep the X part to a communication topic on the next meeting agenda.

1062
01:13:38,000 --> 01:13:39,760
 For sure. I think it's a good time. Yeah.

1063
01:13:39,760 --> 01:13:48,960
 Okay. Yeah. So the direction I have just to summarize it for this item is to basically keep

1064
01:13:48,960 --> 01:13:54,320
 what we have for April if we can and update about the discussion of sanctions if we have that

1065
01:13:54,320 --> 01:14:05,120
 information back. And then we'll talk about May and April. Okay. Any further comments?

1066
01:14:05,120 --> 01:14:11,360
 It is 644 PM and this meeting is adjourned.