WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:01.880
 >> Because we have everybody but Diane.

00:00:01.880 --> 00:00:02.480
 >> Correct.

00:00:02.480 --> 00:00:09.080
 >> Okay. So, good evening.

00:00:09.080 --> 00:00:14.520
 It's Monday, March 10th, 2025, 530 p.m. This is the Board

00:00:14.520 --> 00:00:17.460
 of Ethics meeting and I don't --

00:00:17.460 --> 00:00:20.120
 do we have any presentations from the public?

00:00:20.120 --> 00:00:22.160
 I don't see any.

00:00:22.160 --> 00:00:25.940
 Okay. We're going to move on to items for consideration.

00:00:25.940 --> 00:00:32.840
 Item A, BOE25-011, consider approval of minutes

00:00:32.840 --> 00:00:35.920
 for February 10th, 2025.

00:00:35.920 --> 00:00:36.940
 Does anybody have any?

00:00:36.940 --> 00:00:39.520
 >> I move that we approve the minutes from February 8th.

00:00:39.520 --> 00:00:40.280
 >> Second.

00:00:40.280 --> 00:00:43.080
 >> Patricia made the motion.

00:00:43.080 --> 00:00:46.520
 Ann Zoltner seconded.

00:00:46.520 --> 00:00:48.560
 All in favor?

00:00:48.560 --> 00:00:49.360
 >> Aye.

00:00:49.360 --> 00:00:53.060
 >> Aye. Passes unanimously.

00:00:53.060 --> 00:00:57.900
 Item B, BOE25-012, management reports.

00:00:57.900 --> 00:01:03.400
 Update on 2025 packet and proposed amendments.

00:01:03.400 --> 00:01:05.080
 Take it away, Madison.

00:01:05.080 --> 00:01:06.080
 >> All right.

00:01:06.080 --> 00:01:11.020
 So, on March 4th, so last Tuesday, I presented

00:01:11.020 --> 00:01:15.480
 to the City Council the proposed -- two proposed amendments.

00:01:15.480 --> 00:01:22.200
 The council gave direction to adopt almost all of it,

00:01:22.200 --> 00:01:23.960
 including restructuring the definition

00:01:23.960 --> 00:01:25.900
 of conflicting interests and conflict of interest,

00:01:25.900 --> 00:01:29.700
 as we have kind of discussed, setting a 30-day deadline

00:01:29.700 --> 00:01:31.940
 by which recusals must be filed,

00:01:31.940 --> 00:01:33.540
 allowing those who remain valid for a year.

00:01:33.540 --> 00:01:38.180
 They did give direction to also add a note about Chapter 171

00:01:38.180 --> 00:01:41.680
 of the Texas Government Code, or Texas Local Government Code,

00:01:41.680 --> 00:01:45.820
 just because there's also an accusal requirement

00:01:45.820 --> 00:01:47.320
 in there as well.

00:01:47.320 --> 00:01:53.360
 They gave direction to adopt most of the red lines

00:01:53.360 --> 00:01:55.960
 in the burden of proof section, except that they wanted

00:01:55.960 --> 00:01:59.640
 to change where you all had used facts that weren't the evidence.

00:01:59.640 --> 00:02:06.780
 And then they also -- this last point was actually a cleanup item.

00:02:06.780 --> 00:02:09.320
 We had made a change in the rules and procedure

00:02:09.320 --> 00:02:12.240
 that we were just going to clean up in the ordinance,

00:02:12.240 --> 00:02:14.140
 but they decided they didn't like that.

00:02:14.140 --> 00:02:18.820
 So now we're taking out the complainant and responding.

00:02:18.820 --> 00:02:21.360
 They still have a right to be represented by legal counsel,

00:02:21.360 --> 00:02:24.020
 but they removed another representative.

00:02:24.020 --> 00:02:27.760
 So that's a very brief summary of what happened,

00:02:27.760 --> 00:02:30.300
 but that's the direction that they gave.

00:02:30.300 --> 00:02:34.260
 Answer questions or pull up -- I don't know, whatever you want,

00:02:34.260 --> 00:02:37.340
 but I'll let you take it from here.

00:02:37.340 --> 00:02:39.240
 >> What section of the government code?

00:02:39.240 --> 00:02:42.280
 >> 171. I think it's the local government code,

00:02:42.280 --> 00:02:44.080
 the Texas local government code.

00:02:44.080 --> 00:02:45.480
 It's got --

00:02:45.480 --> 00:02:46.720
 >> I have to double-check again.

00:02:46.720 --> 00:02:50.160
 >> I believe the code is still, as they mentioned,

00:02:50.160 --> 00:02:54.420
 weaker than state law, and so they want to make sure that --

00:02:54.420 --> 00:02:56.060
 >> Yeah, they were talking

00:02:56.060 --> 00:02:58.800
 about how state law has its own kind of ethics,

00:02:58.800 --> 00:03:03.060
 accusal requirements, the complex of interest.

00:03:03.060 --> 00:03:06.800
 It has larger limits, essentially,

00:03:06.800 --> 00:03:09.340
 than what the city's does.

00:03:09.340 --> 00:03:14.080
 So they just were -- they wanted to make sure that,

00:03:14.080 --> 00:03:17.680
 if for some reason, the 30-day time period, that code,

00:03:17.680 --> 00:03:21.520
 to my understanding, requires you to basically file before you

00:03:21.520 --> 00:03:24.020
 vote on an item, if you're going to recuse from it.

00:03:24.020 --> 00:03:25.380
 So they didn't want people to be confused

00:03:25.380 --> 00:03:30.600
 about the 30-day deadline, essentially, if that makes sense.

00:03:30.600 --> 00:03:31.660
 >> What was their reasoning

00:03:31.660 --> 00:03:36.900
 on not letting someone have a representative help them out?

00:03:36.900 --> 00:03:38.440
 Did they say?

00:03:38.440 --> 00:03:41.040
 >> My understanding was that they were concerned

00:03:41.040 --> 00:03:47.680
 that essentially that a representative could be a bad --

00:03:47.680 --> 00:03:49.480
 a bad-faith actor, basically,

00:03:49.480 --> 00:03:54.540
 so they could be soliciting people to submit complaints,

00:03:54.540 --> 00:03:57.520
 only to represent them at the hearing, and then do that over

00:03:57.520 --> 00:04:01.620
 and over again, was what the reasoning was.

00:04:01.620 --> 00:04:05.100
 They did discuss kind of the cost burden

00:04:05.100 --> 00:04:08.660
 of having a legal counsel, but ultimately,

00:04:08.660 --> 00:04:10.060
 they decided this direction.

00:04:10.060 --> 00:04:15.500
 So when we present these red lines, we'll take forward a

00:04:15.500 --> 00:04:22.640
 change to the rules of procedure as well, sort of like that.

00:04:22.640 --> 00:04:23.940
 >> Dustin?

00:04:23.940 --> 00:04:26.280
 >> You mentioned the cost burden of having a legal counsel

00:04:26.280 --> 00:04:29.120
 for the complainant or the respondent.

00:04:29.120 --> 00:04:31.760
 There is some discussion about the cost

00:04:31.760 --> 00:04:38.360
 of the third-party law firm reviewing our changes,

00:04:38.360 --> 00:04:40.760
 and I was unclear on that.

00:04:40.760 --> 00:04:43.900
 I mean, as a viewer of the work session, it sounded

00:04:43.900 --> 00:04:50.100
 like they wanted some clarity on how much we as a board spent,

00:04:50.100 --> 00:04:55.580
 and I have no idea -- the only interaction I've had

00:04:55.580 --> 00:05:00.520
 with the outside firm is at the panel meetings

00:05:00.520 --> 00:05:03.320
 when there's a representative of the firm here,

00:05:03.320 --> 00:05:05.260
 which I thought was a requirement

00:05:05.260 --> 00:05:11.400
 in our rules of procedure, and I don't know what --

00:05:11.400 --> 00:05:16.900
 I don't know if we had any -- it appeared that there was concern

00:05:16.900 --> 00:05:21.440
 over some cost to the city that we, as a board, had incurred,

00:05:21.440 --> 00:05:23.600
 and I'm not aware of any cost that we are required.

00:05:23.600 --> 00:05:27.940
 >> The way I heard it was that they were mad

00:05:27.940 --> 00:05:31.080
 because they thought we had never consulted

00:05:31.080 --> 00:05:34.460
 with an attorney, which is absolutely not true.

00:05:34.460 --> 00:05:40.320
 There was pretty extensive conversation

00:05:40.320 --> 00:05:42.760
 with a law firm called Borquist,

00:05:42.760 --> 00:05:50.440
 which Madison spelled out his name, and he was assuming

00:05:50.440 --> 00:05:53.340
 that citizens would be involved in it

00:05:53.340 --> 00:05:57.080
 and that they would need legal help,

00:05:57.080 --> 00:06:00.380
 but the council decided not to consult citizens,

00:06:00.380 --> 00:06:05.880
 and a city council member wrote the code with Borquist himself.

00:06:05.880 --> 00:06:09.360
 So, yes, there were, in fact, five hours

00:06:09.360 --> 00:06:11.500
 for which the city paid $3,000.

00:06:11.500 --> 00:06:20.460
 Remember, this was 2018, maybe, 2018, so it would cost more now.

00:06:20.460 --> 00:06:24.400
 But, yes, a law firm was consulted.

00:06:24.400 --> 00:06:26.480
 >> I guess in the revisions, though,

00:06:26.480 --> 00:06:28.780
 that I think that was the question.

00:06:28.780 --> 00:06:29.900
 >> Right.

00:06:29.900 --> 00:06:34.920
 >> What did we spend on outside consultation from the law firm

00:06:34.920 --> 00:06:40.420
 on advising or reviewing the amendments between the codes?

00:06:40.420 --> 00:06:43.680
 >> Right. I haven't received the invoice for that yet,

00:06:43.680 --> 00:06:45.520
 so I haven't provided that information,

00:06:45.520 --> 00:06:48.400
 but I can provide counsel as well as y'all.

00:06:48.400 --> 00:06:52.660
 We did have the Borquist law firm review the revisions before we

00:06:52.660 --> 00:06:55.600
 brought it to council, but after y'all had kind of finished

00:06:55.600 --> 00:06:58.200
 with it, they didn't have any concerns, really.

00:06:58.200 --> 00:07:03.000
 They had a couple, but they weren't substantive.

00:07:03.000 --> 00:07:05.140
 So, that was the information that we gave to council

00:07:05.140 --> 00:07:07.140
 about that at that time.

00:07:07.140 --> 00:07:09.180
 Does that answer your question?

00:07:09.180 --> 00:07:09.980
 >> Yes.

00:07:09.980 --> 00:07:15.920
 I mean, that wasn't a -- I guess -- I don't --

00:07:15.920 --> 00:07:20.120
 it was a question because I didn't know that that occurred.

00:07:20.120 --> 00:07:21.420
 >> Yeah.

00:07:21.420 --> 00:07:24.960
 >> And I just wanted to make sure I understood

00:07:24.960 --> 00:07:27.400
 that because in the meeting, in the work session,

00:07:27.400 --> 00:07:30.240
 it sounded like they were questioning, you know,

00:07:30.240 --> 00:07:34.840
 were we being prudent with the city's funds

00:07:34.840 --> 00:07:37.240
 on using you in an outside firm?

00:07:37.240 --> 00:07:38.500
 >> Yeah.

00:07:38.500 --> 00:07:40.540
 >> And I hadn't -- if I was there,

00:07:40.540 --> 00:07:42.520
 I couldn't have answered that at the time.

00:07:42.520 --> 00:07:44.820
 So, thank you.

00:07:44.820 --> 00:07:46.820
 >> David, did you still have that?

00:07:46.820 --> 00:07:48.020
 >> Yes, I did.

00:07:48.020 --> 00:07:53.060
 Madison, I just have one question to clarify.

00:07:53.060 --> 00:07:57.820
 There was some confusion at the end of that work session.

00:07:57.820 --> 00:08:00.060
 Brian Beck had a question that I also had,

00:08:00.060 --> 00:08:04.240
 and a couple of citizens had called me since then.

00:08:04.240 --> 00:08:06.700
 Proposal two, as you presented it,

00:08:06.700 --> 00:08:09.900
 the very last sentence there, and I'm trying to compare

00:08:09.900 --> 00:08:12.440
 that with what I'm looking up here.

00:08:12.440 --> 00:08:15.720
 A complainant's failure to testify at a hearing,

00:08:15.720 --> 00:08:19.040
 other than a hearing held to determine frivolity,

00:08:19.040 --> 00:08:22.320
 shall be grounds for dismissal of a complaint.

00:08:22.320 --> 00:08:25.520
 Does that still stand, or not?

00:08:25.520 --> 00:08:28.320
 >> Yes, it does.

00:08:28.320 --> 00:08:33.560
 That wasn't -- removing that wasn't a part of proposal two.

00:08:33.560 --> 00:08:39.000
 >> So, the complainant must testify, or it's all over?

00:08:39.000 --> 00:08:40.800
 >> Correct.

00:08:40.800 --> 00:08:42.000
 >> Okay.

00:08:42.000 --> 00:08:44.880
 >> But that was -- a change to that wasn't presented

00:08:44.880 --> 00:08:47.080
 to the city council, that was not included

00:08:47.080 --> 00:08:51.880
 in the proposal from the board to change.

00:08:51.880 --> 00:08:53.320
 >> Okay.

00:08:53.320 --> 00:08:58.420
 >> I still think that the two things we got

00:08:58.420 --> 00:09:01.260
 through were a win.

00:09:01.260 --> 00:09:07.100
 I was troubled by the very adversarial tone

00:09:07.100 --> 00:09:12.140
 that council took, particularly toward the board.

00:09:12.140 --> 00:09:17.680
 I don't know where that's coming from, but it was hard for me

00:09:17.680 --> 00:09:18.940
 to sit in the room.

00:09:18.940 --> 00:09:22.780
 I left about halfway through and just was afraid I was going

00:09:22.780 --> 00:09:25.080
 to blow up.

00:09:25.080 --> 00:09:34.580
 So, I have calmed down, and I think it was --

00:09:34.580 --> 00:09:36.500
 just getting the conflict of interest,

00:09:36.500 --> 00:09:40.200
 that getting that pending matter wording out of this,

00:09:40.200 --> 00:09:41.860
 is such a game changer.

00:09:41.860 --> 00:09:45.160
 It means that we won't be just grappling

00:09:45.160 --> 00:09:49.200
 with little tiny things about recusal and whether

00:09:49.200 --> 00:09:53.280
 or not somebody's -- I mean, pretty much all

00:09:53.280 --> 00:09:55.680
 of the cases we've had have been

00:09:55.680 --> 00:09:59.440
 because somebody did something wrong before they voted,

00:09:59.440 --> 00:10:02.960
 and this broadens it so that we're not just looking

00:10:02.960 --> 00:10:04.360
 at that tight timeline.

00:10:04.360 --> 00:10:08.460
 The way it was written, you could vote,

00:10:08.460 --> 00:10:10.720
 and then you could do whatever you were going to do,

00:10:10.720 --> 00:10:13.400
 because it would no longer be a pending matter.

00:10:13.400 --> 00:10:17.960
 And that -- so, that's huge.

00:10:17.960 --> 00:10:22.600
 That will change, in my view, in a very positive way,

00:10:22.600 --> 00:10:26.540
 and I hope we'll get rid of some of these nitpicky --

00:10:26.540 --> 00:10:32.520
 you know, my hope is that hearings will be a rare thing,

00:10:32.520 --> 00:10:37.520
 and I'm tired of these little things about solar panels

00:10:37.520 --> 00:10:38.960
 and whether or not you're affiliated

00:10:38.960 --> 00:10:44.260
 with a university or -- that's -- yeah.

00:10:44.260 --> 00:10:49.360
 So, I was very frustrated and discouraged just hearing what

00:10:49.360 --> 00:10:56.780
 the council members had to say about the board, but in light

00:10:56.780 --> 00:11:00.480
 of the fact that a couple of major things happened,

00:11:00.480 --> 00:11:04.520
 I felt hopeful, and I think we need to roll our sleeves up

00:11:04.520 --> 00:11:08.420
 and start looking at the other things that need to change.

00:11:08.420 --> 00:11:11.120
 So, we'll have a time at the end,

00:11:11.120 --> 00:11:15.100
 and then we start talking about some of that.

00:11:15.100 --> 00:11:21.540
 But if you haven't watched the work session, I would --

00:11:21.540 --> 00:11:24.500
 it's a public record, you can watch it.

00:11:24.500 --> 00:11:31.200
 Unless you enjoy watching a couple of hours of negativity,

00:11:31.200 --> 00:11:33.520
 I would advise against it.

00:11:33.520 --> 00:11:35.780
 I want to stay positive, and I want to stay focused

00:11:35.780 --> 00:11:38.220
 and move forward.

00:11:38.220 --> 00:11:42.120
 So, that's it.

00:11:42.120 --> 00:11:45.620
 >> I think that there -- in the discussion, there still seems

00:11:45.620 --> 00:11:55.200
 to be some disconnect between our definitions of a client

00:11:55.200 --> 00:11:59.240
 and a household member.

00:11:59.240 --> 00:12:01.540
 I mean, there was a bunch of discussion around that

00:12:01.540 --> 00:12:09.280
 and how we set thresholds, so we intentionally put

00:12:09.280 --> 00:12:15.020
 in a threshold for a client at $2,500 after some discussion,

00:12:15.020 --> 00:12:20.820
 and that was based on -- in my memory, it was based

00:12:20.820 --> 00:12:24.700
 on the last time we made an amendment proposal

00:12:24.700 --> 00:12:26.540
 that had something to do with that,

00:12:26.540 --> 00:12:28.200
 where there was some concern from some

00:12:28.200 --> 00:12:34.200
 of the council members that if we did not have some kind

00:12:34.200 --> 00:12:39.720
 of threshold that was substantial or at least defined,

00:12:39.720 --> 00:12:43.340
 that it would be possible for someone

00:12:43.340 --> 00:12:46.720
 to engage a council member just

00:12:46.720 --> 00:12:51.820
 to intentionally create a conflict and force them to recuse.

00:12:51.820 --> 00:12:53.100
 So, that's why we put that in.

00:12:53.100 --> 00:12:56.960
 One of the things that they discussed with having us change

00:12:56.960 --> 00:12:59.700
 that -- remove that threshold value

00:12:59.700 --> 00:13:03.640
 and make it substantial, use some kind of language that --

00:13:03.640 --> 00:13:06.500
 >> That's what we went back and forth on and trying

00:13:06.500 --> 00:13:07.940
 to decide what to put in there.

00:13:07.940 --> 00:13:08.880
 >> Yeah.

00:13:08.880 --> 00:13:10.480
 >> And we thought substantial was too vague.

00:13:10.480 --> 00:13:11.680
 >> We were actually referring to something in CREEMS, but --

00:13:11.680 --> 00:13:18.280
 >> Yeah, I mean, I guess that's something we can figure out.

00:13:18.280 --> 00:13:19.680
 How do we address that?

00:13:19.680 --> 00:13:25.020
 I guess the other thing is that there's a lot of discussion

00:13:25.020 --> 00:13:29.460
 about our -- the intent of these changes and definitions

00:13:29.460 --> 00:13:34.160
 of relationship status and that sort of thing.

00:13:34.160 --> 00:13:37.200
 I hope -- I think from our discussion,

00:13:37.200 --> 00:13:41.640
 our intent here has always been to make this pretty clear

00:13:41.640 --> 00:13:48.940
 and something we can apply, but also, I have no intention

00:13:48.940 --> 00:13:52.560
 of putting in some kind of gotcha thing here.

00:13:52.560 --> 00:13:56.220
 That term was used in the work session.

00:13:56.220 --> 00:13:57.280
 I have no intention of that.

00:13:57.280 --> 00:14:02.600
 I don't really care to create this.

00:14:02.600 --> 00:14:05.700
 I mean, it doesn't serve any purpose for the citizens

00:14:05.700 --> 00:14:07.940
 or the board or the council members.

00:14:07.940 --> 00:14:11.040
 I think our intention here is to try and clean up some

00:14:11.040 --> 00:14:14.100
 of the language that's there, make it so it's workable,

00:14:14.100 --> 00:14:19.140
 and I would hope that's everyone's intention.

00:14:19.140 --> 00:14:25.040
 That's my view from sitting up here discussing this board.

00:14:25.040 --> 00:14:31.920
 >> I don't think they trust us, and I really would

00:14:31.920 --> 00:14:35.160
 like to consider having a meeting between the board

00:14:35.160 --> 00:14:40.600
 and the council just to try to help them understand

00:14:40.600 --> 00:14:43.200
 that we're not trying to hurt them.

00:14:43.200 --> 00:14:47.940
 We're actually, I think, trying to make things better

00:14:47.940 --> 00:14:52.580
 and more easy to follow.

00:14:52.580 --> 00:15:00.640
 I mean, the whole listing out the relations was trying

00:15:00.640 --> 00:15:03.320
 to get away from consanguinity,

00:15:03.320 --> 00:15:06.160
 which was what was in the original code,

00:15:06.160 --> 00:15:09.520
 and consanguinity is a legal code

00:15:09.520 --> 00:15:12.520
 that most people wouldn't understand.

00:15:12.520 --> 00:15:16.360
 I guess it would if they looked it up, but there are so many things

00:15:16.360 --> 00:15:18.260
 in that code that don't make sense,

00:15:18.260 --> 00:15:21.060
 and then if you don't understand

00:15:21.060 --> 00:15:23.840
 that the little underline means you need to flip back

00:15:23.840 --> 00:15:30.480
 to the glossary and see how they're defining it

00:15:30.480 --> 00:15:32.880
 in the glossary, it's confusing.

00:15:32.880 --> 00:15:37.040
 So I would like the whole thing to be more clear

00:15:37.040 --> 00:15:41.960
 so that the average person can just read it and say, "Oh, okay.

00:15:41.960 --> 00:15:45.060
 I understand this."

00:15:45.060 --> 00:15:47.400
 >> Yeah, so just to be clear, the one change

00:15:47.400 --> 00:15:51.160
 that they didn't give direction to that Dustin was referencing was

00:15:51.160 --> 00:15:54.540
 the change to the way the relationships were structured.

00:15:54.540 --> 00:15:57.340
 So we had made some changes, including --

00:15:57.340 --> 00:16:01.080
 or you all had recommended some changes, including kind

00:16:01.080 --> 00:16:05.340
 of adjusting the way -- how the relationships definition

00:16:05.340 --> 00:16:09.340
 to include domestic partner, household member --

00:16:09.340 --> 00:16:12.280
 adding the definition of household member.

00:16:12.280 --> 00:16:16.060
 There was also the addition of the client relationship,

00:16:16.060 --> 00:16:18.720
 and then there was kind of changing

00:16:18.720 --> 00:16:22.700
 when a conflict automatically arises so that as you get closer

00:16:22.700 --> 00:16:26.400
 to the city official in relation, it is automatic,

00:16:26.400 --> 00:16:28.040
 and as you kind of go out, it's more

00:16:28.040 --> 00:16:32.680
 of a judgment decision essentially of like, "Okay.

00:16:32.680 --> 00:16:39.380
 Is my great-grandson's nonprofit something that I should refuse

00:16:39.380 --> 00:16:42.840
 from or not automatically -- under the current code,

00:16:42.840 --> 00:16:45.260
 automatically you're supposed to recuse from that.

00:16:45.260 --> 00:16:47.620
 Under the proposal, that wouldn't be an automatic

00:16:47.620 --> 00:16:49.020
 recusal requirement."

00:16:49.020 --> 00:16:51.520
 But those things, they gave direction not to move forward,

00:16:51.520 --> 00:16:53.520
 but they did give direction to the board to kind

00:16:53.520 --> 00:16:57.160
 of revisit them and bring them back.

00:16:57.160 --> 00:17:00.440
 >> Could you expand a little bit on what their concerns were

00:17:00.440 --> 00:17:06.000
 with what we proposed?

00:17:06.000 --> 00:17:10.180
 >> So I think there was -- I would say most

00:17:10.180 --> 00:17:12.440
 of it they really didn't have big concerns about.

00:17:12.440 --> 00:17:14.420
 I think the biggest concerns they had were

00:17:14.420 --> 00:17:19.180
 about the definition of client and kind

00:17:19.180 --> 00:17:23.060
 of that $2,500 threshold being too small.

00:17:23.060 --> 00:17:25.360
 They did just give out some options

00:17:25.360 --> 00:17:28.020
 around materially significant, I believe.

00:17:28.020 --> 00:17:30.160
 I can't remember exactly what they said, but kind

00:17:30.160 --> 00:17:33.540
 of a less clear -- or I'm sorry.

00:17:33.540 --> 00:17:36.200
 Kind of like without a financial threshold in it,

00:17:36.200 --> 00:17:39.300
 but they also talked about having a percentage as well.

00:17:39.300 --> 00:17:43.320
 They didn't give specific direction, but they wanted the

00:17:43.320 --> 00:17:47.680
 board to consider kind of some of those options as far as that.

00:17:47.680 --> 00:17:50.160
 >> So in the past our language was too vague

00:17:50.160 --> 00:17:51.880
 and now it was too specific?

00:17:51.880 --> 00:17:55.280
 >> I think they were more concerned about --

00:17:55.280 --> 00:17:58.400
 they thought it was too low is kind of the bigger --

00:17:58.400 --> 00:17:59.400
 they were like --

00:17:59.400 --> 00:18:02.260
 >> So $2,500 was too low of a threshold for them?

00:18:02.260 --> 00:18:05.200
 >> Didn't we more than double it what it was before or something?

00:18:05.200 --> 00:18:06.240
 >> That was their concern.

00:18:06.240 --> 00:18:07.440
 I don't want to get too far into it.

00:18:07.440 --> 00:18:11.840
 I think that was their concern about that definition specifically.

00:18:11.840 --> 00:18:19.920
 They were concerned about the definition of domestic partner,

00:18:19.920 --> 00:18:23.220
 mostly because they -- I don't know exactly,

00:18:23.220 --> 00:18:26.920
 but I think there was some concern about --

00:18:26.920 --> 00:18:29.160
 >> I think the person who had that concern thought

00:18:29.160 --> 00:18:32.800
 that domestic partner was a sexual orientation

00:18:32.800 --> 00:18:36.400
 and that's an old -- domestic partner is just an old term

00:18:36.400 --> 00:18:41.100
 that means common law marriage basically, which is --

00:18:41.100 --> 00:18:42.780
 >> Well, they were concerned about the definition of it,

00:18:42.780 --> 00:18:44.940
 which we can revisit that as well.

00:18:44.940 --> 00:18:47.640
 And then there was a discussion about kind of when I talked

00:18:47.640 --> 00:18:51.340
 about the kind of -- maybe the hardest thing to describe,

00:18:51.340 --> 00:18:55.320
 but the -- currently, if you're a relative,

00:18:55.320 --> 00:18:58.220
 you create a conflict of interest with the city initial.

00:18:58.220 --> 00:19:05.160
 No matter where you are, within the consanguinity degrees, right,

00:19:05.160 --> 00:19:10.640
 the proposal would change that to make it not automatic, right?

00:19:10.640 --> 00:19:12.300
 There was some discussion about, well,

00:19:12.300 --> 00:19:15.400
 why would we remove conflicts basically?

00:19:15.400 --> 00:19:18.480
 But I think it made sense to them, like, because it's really hard

00:19:18.480 --> 00:19:23.340
 to keep track of what your great-grandson's doing,

00:19:23.340 --> 00:19:24.620
 like if they're before you.

00:19:24.620 --> 00:19:29.180
 So I think that kind of was -- we got explained during that part,

00:19:29.180 --> 00:19:32.920
 but there was some discussion about that as well.

00:19:32.920 --> 00:19:35.200
 >> Do we have a mission statement?

00:19:35.200 --> 00:19:37.860
 >> The Board of Ethics kind of?

00:19:37.860 --> 00:19:40.060
 I don't believe so.

00:19:40.060 --> 00:19:42.500
 I mean, maybe in the ordinance --

00:19:42.500 --> 00:19:49.140
 I mean, it says in the ordinance kind of the purpose of the board.

00:19:49.140 --> 00:19:55.240
 [ Inaudible ]

00:19:55.240 --> 00:19:58.680
 >> Well, it says that we are supposed to --

00:19:58.680 --> 00:20:02.080
 we do have the right to recommend changes and --

00:20:02.080 --> 00:20:11.320
 [ Inaudible ]

00:20:11.320 --> 00:20:13.460
 >> The scope of authority.

00:20:13.460 --> 00:20:17.460
 I would say this is your mission statement.

00:20:17.460 --> 00:20:20.460
 Is that -- I think I'm doing that a little further.

00:20:20.460 --> 00:20:37.480
 [ Inaudible ]

00:20:37.480 --> 00:20:39.180
 >> Oh, it does -- and then here's where it allows for you

00:20:39.180 --> 00:20:40.480
 to recommend.

00:20:40.480 --> 00:20:43.780
 [ Inaudible ]

00:20:43.780 --> 00:20:45.520
 >> The only reason I asked is if there's some way

00:20:45.520 --> 00:20:49.120
 to express some sort of mission statement

00:20:49.120 --> 00:20:53.500
 that says our efforts here are to provide --

00:20:53.500 --> 00:20:55.600
 >> That we're following the code?

00:20:55.600 --> 00:21:00.500
 >> We're trying to have the code be understandable

00:21:00.500 --> 00:21:05.140
 to the general public and to provide transparency

00:21:05.140 --> 00:21:10.740
 of government for the citizens, or something to that effect.

00:21:10.740 --> 00:21:12.040
 I don't know what it would actually say.

00:21:12.040 --> 00:21:16.780
 But maybe what you're talking about reducing the mistrust,

00:21:16.780 --> 00:21:20.960
 maybe having a mission statement that would say our efforts here

00:21:20.960 --> 00:21:24.760
 are not just to drive you crazy, but we're just trying

00:21:24.760 --> 00:21:28.000
 to make things clearer and more transparent

00:21:28.000 --> 00:21:30.360
 and more user-friendly.

00:21:30.360 --> 00:21:34.040
 >> David?

00:21:34.040 --> 00:21:38.600
 >> Yes. And then he brought up something just a few minutes ago

00:21:38.600 --> 00:21:43.480
 that has actually been on kind of my agenda for some time.

00:21:43.480 --> 00:21:46.220
 It's not part of our agenda tonight,

00:21:46.220 --> 00:21:47.880
 so I know we can't really discuss it.

00:21:47.880 --> 00:21:54.720
 But other people and yourself, and we have discussed what the

00:21:54.720 --> 00:21:57.120
 value might be of having a joint meeting

00:21:57.120 --> 00:22:00.900
 with the city council at this juncture.

00:22:00.900 --> 00:22:04.200
 Because we still have, by my count, at least a half

00:22:04.200 --> 00:22:09.040
 of a dozen items that have to be addressed, and, you know,

00:22:09.040 --> 00:22:11.380
 the way we're doing it now, you know, we have a meeting,

00:22:11.380 --> 00:22:15.340
 they have a meeting, and the ships somehow pass in the ocean,

00:22:15.340 --> 00:22:20.220
 and I don't know how many more years we have to knock these out.

00:22:20.220 --> 00:22:23.720
 But I really would like it to be an agenda item.

00:22:23.720 --> 00:22:25.560
 I know we can't discuss it tonight,

00:22:25.560 --> 00:22:29.360
 but maybe have an agenda item to discuss the value

00:22:29.360 --> 00:22:32.400
 of having the council and this board on opposite sides

00:22:32.400 --> 00:22:35.560
 of the table, and kind of clean up this stuff and see

00:22:35.560 --> 00:22:38.740
 if we can save another year or two

00:22:38.740 --> 00:22:43.100
 of taking these items one at a time.

00:22:43.100 --> 00:22:45.980
 It seems to me that the way the past meetings have gone,

00:22:45.980 --> 00:22:48.840
 it would be extremely valuable if we can kind of get

00:22:48.840 --> 00:22:52.480
 on the same page a little bit more, rather than one

00:22:52.480 --> 00:22:54.620
 or the other of us getting frustrated

00:22:54.620 --> 00:22:57.680
 after the most recent meeting.

00:22:57.680 --> 00:22:59.860
 >> I would add, too, that we might want to do

00:22:59.860 --> 00:23:04.760
 that right before we take some stuff to the City Council,

00:23:04.760 --> 00:23:07.360
 that we time it carefully, because I think

00:23:07.360 --> 00:23:10.600
 if we had it now, it would not be.

00:23:10.600 --> 00:23:14.240
 >> Well, if I remember correctly, that is exactly one

00:23:14.240 --> 00:23:16.980
 of the things that we discussed the last time we got shut down,

00:23:16.980 --> 00:23:20.540
 and then when I pushed on it the following meeting

00:23:20.540 --> 00:23:25.940
 on moving forward with that, there was a lot of conversation

00:23:25.940 --> 00:23:29.780
 about not doing it, and I think there was certain concern

00:23:29.780 --> 00:23:35.120
 about quorum and council, but I don't remember the exact date.

00:23:35.120 --> 00:23:37.220
 So --

00:23:37.220 --> 00:23:41.260
 >> Yeah, we certainly don't want to violate quorum.

00:23:41.260 --> 00:23:44.360
 >> Yeah, we have to be close to each other.

00:23:44.360 --> 00:23:49.340
 >> Yeah. But I definitely have done a lot of thinking

00:23:49.340 --> 00:23:52.780
 in the last week, and I'll not lie,

00:23:52.780 --> 00:23:58.480
 I seriously considered resigning, and I just decided that.

00:23:58.480 --> 00:24:03.480
 I mean, we came -- I mean, this is the best it's been, actually.

00:24:03.480 --> 00:24:08.860
 So, yay. I just would like to try to figure

00:24:08.860 --> 00:24:16.900
 out where this paranoia is coming from, because I don't --

00:24:16.900 --> 00:24:19.900
 >> Another way to save time would also sort

00:24:19.900 --> 00:24:22.840
 of just giving them, like, an option where they say yes

00:24:22.840 --> 00:24:26.040
 or no, maybe we could offer two or three options,

00:24:26.040 --> 00:24:30.180
 like that thing with substantial versus 2,500, or, you know,

00:24:30.180 --> 00:24:35.020
 maybe give them two or three that we think would be okay,

00:24:35.020 --> 00:24:38.520
 but, you know, then they would actually choose one.

00:24:38.520 --> 00:24:39.760
 >> I --

00:24:39.760 --> 00:24:41.620
 >> I mean, they could choose none of them, but --

00:24:41.620 --> 00:24:42.960
 >> I was just going to make a comment

00:24:42.960 --> 00:24:48.300
 that I haven't seen numbers in many ethical codes,

00:24:48.300 --> 00:24:49.960
 and I know David's wrote a bunch.

00:24:49.960 --> 00:24:52.600
 Have you seen a lot of numbers, because it's more

00:24:52.600 --> 00:24:56.600
 about don't do this?

00:24:56.600 --> 00:24:57.980
 >> We had long conversation.

00:24:57.980 --> 00:25:03.580
 We had long conversation when we decided on limits,

00:25:03.580 --> 00:25:05.380
 the very first proposal that we sent --

00:25:05.380 --> 00:25:07.340
 I mean, that I was part of the board.

00:25:07.340 --> 00:25:11.360
 We had long, long conversations about the numbers

00:25:11.360 --> 00:25:13.720
 and what would make sense.

00:25:13.720 --> 00:25:17.700
 And I'm going to have to go back, because you were one

00:25:17.700 --> 00:25:23.260
 that actually -- because I had always felt

00:25:23.260 --> 00:25:26.000
 that actual number limits

00:25:26.000 --> 00:25:30.100
 and thresholds would be more useful than broad language.

00:25:30.100 --> 00:25:35.640
 But then council made the argument that that ambiguity

00:25:35.640 --> 00:25:40.220
 in the law is designed to be there to be flexible.

00:25:40.220 --> 00:25:45.120
 And that made the most sense to me, because, I mean,

00:25:45.120 --> 00:25:50.620
 we have to be real, $500, $2,500 do not mean the same thing

00:25:50.620 --> 00:25:55.760
 to all of our citizens and all of our council members.

00:25:55.760 --> 00:25:59.700
 So that's very -- it's a very frustrating thing for me

00:25:59.700 --> 00:26:02.700
 to hear that, on the one hand,

00:26:02.700 --> 00:26:04.800
 the limits we proposed were not accepted.

00:26:04.800 --> 00:26:07.680
 Then we went to no limits, and that was not accepted.

00:26:07.680 --> 00:26:11.040
 And then -- and now our limits are not high enough.

00:26:11.040 --> 00:26:14.520
 So I'm kind of questioning, you know --

00:26:14.520 --> 00:26:17.560
 >> I mean, to me, I think there's a larger issue.

00:26:17.560 --> 00:26:18.980
 And it's a trust issue.

00:26:18.980 --> 00:26:20.060
 >> Yes.

00:26:20.060 --> 00:26:24.420
 >> And so that's -- we'll never have anything that's perfect,

00:26:24.420 --> 00:26:31.960
 ever, but when the trust is so fragile, that's the part

00:26:31.960 --> 00:26:33.660
 that I've been struggling with.

00:26:33.660 --> 00:26:36.040
 So that's --

00:26:36.040 --> 00:26:37.840
 >> There was -- part of the discussion

00:26:37.840 --> 00:26:42.540
 in the network session around the numbers was some concern

00:26:42.540 --> 00:26:46.720
 that establishing a threshold that was low

00:26:46.720 --> 00:26:52.020
 for the client relationship would preclude small business

00:26:52.020 --> 00:26:54.660
 owners from serving on council.

00:26:54.660 --> 00:26:58.760
 That was brought up, and I think it was basically, like,

00:26:58.760 --> 00:27:02.200
 if we do this, then we're taking out a big segment

00:27:02.200 --> 00:27:04.600
 of the population that might serve.

00:27:04.600 --> 00:27:08.200
 And I understand that concern.

00:27:08.200 --> 00:27:12.840
 I guess I would also say that we're not --

00:27:12.840 --> 00:27:16.220
 there's nothing in this that says you cannot serve

00:27:16.220 --> 00:27:19.740
 on council if this occurs, if you have a client

00:27:19.740 --> 00:27:21.940
 that has business before the city

00:27:21.940 --> 00:27:26.620
 that exceeds this $2,500 threshold that we propose.

00:27:26.620 --> 00:27:29.760
 It does, by that definition of what we propose,

00:27:29.760 --> 00:27:33.120
 create a conflict of interest, and you cannot deliberate

00:27:33.120 --> 00:27:38.360
 or can you vote on that particular thing

00:27:38.360 --> 00:27:41.800
 if that client comes before council.

00:27:41.800 --> 00:27:47.180
 And I -- in the discussion, it sounds

00:27:47.180 --> 00:27:54.820
 like there may be some confusion on the scope of this.

00:27:54.820 --> 00:27:57.020
 If you have a conflict of interest

00:27:57.020 --> 00:27:59.920
 because you have a client that has --

00:27:59.920 --> 00:28:03.920
 that exceeds that threshold, then you can still be

00:28:03.920 --> 00:28:05.160
 a council person.

00:28:05.160 --> 00:28:05.960
 You can still run.

00:28:05.960 --> 00:28:08.200
 You can still serve the city.

00:28:08.200 --> 00:28:10.900
 You just can't vote on that one particular item.

00:28:10.900 --> 00:28:14.660
 It's not -- I mean, I don't --

00:28:14.660 --> 00:28:18.140
 I want to take their feedback, and I want to make all this work,

00:28:18.140 --> 00:28:20.800
 but if you have a conflict of interest,

00:28:20.800 --> 00:28:23.280
 you should not be voting on something.

00:28:23.280 --> 00:28:26.140
 Like, that's all that we're trying to do here is define

00:28:26.140 --> 00:28:29.080
 that and say, when you have this conflict of interest,

00:28:29.080 --> 00:28:32.680
 by some definition, if it's a substantial client,

00:28:32.680 --> 00:28:36.720
 if it's $2,500, if it's $10,000, whatever it is,

00:28:36.720 --> 00:28:38.820
 if you have a conflict of interest,

00:28:38.820 --> 00:28:41.860
 you should not vote on their business before the city.

00:28:41.860 --> 00:28:42.860
 That's all this is.

00:28:42.860 --> 00:28:43.960
 That's all this is.

00:28:43.960 --> 00:28:45.300
 >> And that's the thing is, as a teacher,

00:28:45.300 --> 00:28:47.100
 I cannot be on the school board.

00:28:47.100 --> 00:28:49.300
 I can't be my own -- you know, that's just --

00:28:49.300 --> 00:28:51.700
 that's just the way it goes.

00:28:51.700 --> 00:28:54.540
 >> Yeah. And I think from what I --

00:28:54.540 --> 00:28:58.180
 I gotta agree with that discussion, there was some --

00:28:58.180 --> 00:29:00.440
 there was some concern about specifically

00:29:00.440 --> 00:29:04.880
 with the client definition about the way that it, I guess,

00:29:04.880 --> 00:29:08.960
 interacted with the definition of a business entity,

00:29:08.960 --> 00:29:12.320
 and I -- it was difficult during that,

00:29:12.320 --> 00:29:14.260
 because I understood how you could read it that way,

00:29:14.260 --> 00:29:15.920
 but I don't think that was the intention

00:29:15.920 --> 00:29:17.600
 of the ordinance, essentially.

00:29:17.600 --> 00:29:20.500
 Like, so there was basically some discussion about, like,

00:29:20.500 --> 00:29:25.440
 well, if I own a business entity, am I now conflicted

00:29:25.440 --> 00:29:28.380
 with the clients of the -- or all my clients of that business

00:29:28.380 --> 00:29:32.540
 entity conflicted, and so I was trying --

00:29:32.540 --> 00:29:34.240
 I was -- I tried to explain that, like,

00:29:34.240 --> 00:29:35.780
 I don't think that's the intention,

00:29:35.780 --> 00:29:38.580
 but I can see how you could get there with reading it.

00:29:38.580 --> 00:29:41.420
 >> I think that brings up a good point.

00:29:41.420 --> 00:29:43.420
 Your client does not have a conflict

00:29:43.420 --> 00:29:45.320
 of interest with the city.

00:29:45.320 --> 00:29:47.820
 You, as a council member, would have a conflict

00:29:47.820 --> 00:29:50.460
 of interest with your client.

00:29:50.460 --> 00:29:53.060
 And that -- that is part of the discussion

00:29:53.060 --> 00:29:54.360
 that made no sense to me.

00:29:54.360 --> 00:30:00.440
 The viewer, they were saying, if I, as a council member,

00:30:00.440 --> 00:30:07.580
 had this client, and they spend more than $2,500 with me,

00:30:07.580 --> 00:30:11.220
 then they can't do business with the city, or they can't --

00:30:11.220 --> 00:30:16.120
 like, that's -- this code does not apply to their clients.

00:30:16.120 --> 00:30:18.220
 It applies to them, it applies to us,

00:30:18.220 --> 00:30:20.360
 it applies to other board members.

00:30:20.360 --> 00:30:23.500
 It has nothing to do with a small business owner

00:30:23.500 --> 00:30:25.660
 that is not on a board or on the council.

00:30:25.660 --> 00:30:29.540
 And that discussion, I didn't understand that, and, you know,

00:30:29.540 --> 00:30:31.040
 couldn't --

00:30:31.040 --> 00:30:32.040
 >> There were a lot of things that got off on that.

00:30:32.040 --> 00:30:35.500
 I was kind of like, where are they coming from here?

00:30:35.500 --> 00:30:45.720
 But the larger issue is public trust, and the appearance

00:30:45.720 --> 00:30:49.880
 of wrong, which is an ethical concept that is

00:30:49.880 --> 00:30:53.360
 in the city charter that isn't even mentioned.

00:30:53.360 --> 00:30:56.460
 And our code, because of the way it got written.

00:30:56.460 --> 00:31:04.900
 So you want to be above anybody questioning your motives.

00:31:04.900 --> 00:31:07.340
 That's what ethics is about.

00:31:07.340 --> 00:31:11.800
 And I don't think there was understanding of that.

00:31:11.800 --> 00:31:13.780
 And that's --

00:31:13.780 --> 00:31:17.780
 >> But what you're describing is exactly

00:31:17.780 --> 00:31:20.540
 that there's not a clear understanding

00:31:20.540 --> 00:31:22.220
 of what it actually means.

00:31:22.220 --> 00:31:24.080
 >> This code is not for us.

00:31:24.080 --> 00:31:25.680
 It's not for the city council.

00:31:25.680 --> 00:31:30.700
 It's for the citizens who need to feel trusting

00:31:30.700 --> 00:31:34.560
 that we are all doing right by them.

00:31:34.560 --> 00:31:41.440
 And I -- that's the part that troubles me.

00:31:41.440 --> 00:31:43.340
 >> And sure.

00:31:43.340 --> 00:31:48.400
 >> I'll just add to one of the things that was discussed

00:31:48.400 --> 00:31:51.580
 that kind of ties into having a meeting with them.

00:31:51.580 --> 00:31:56.080
 There was concern that we did not either individually,

00:31:56.080 --> 00:31:58.460
 as members of this board, go to them individually,

00:31:58.460 --> 00:32:00.420
 or as a body, one way or the other.

00:32:00.420 --> 00:32:02.460
 We didn't go and have a discussion

00:32:02.460 --> 00:32:05.320
 with them before we made these proposals.

00:32:05.320 --> 00:32:08.660
 And so that maybe we can somehow --

00:32:08.660 --> 00:32:11.540
 I would have questions on how we actually do

00:32:11.540 --> 00:32:14.600
 that without getting in trouble with Open Meetings Act.

00:32:14.600 --> 00:32:18.740
 But if we are -- if we, in a meeting, come up with some kind

00:32:18.740 --> 00:32:21.980
 of amendment, if we can have a representative,

00:32:21.980 --> 00:32:25.740
 whoever that may be, go to a council member

00:32:25.740 --> 00:32:31.320
 or multiple council members and ask them for input into that.

00:32:31.320 --> 00:32:35.380
 It sounds like we might avoid the back and forth

00:32:35.380 --> 00:32:39.300
 that spans an entire year of this whole process

00:32:39.300 --> 00:32:43.960
 and get their input, and not necessarily get their direction

00:32:43.960 --> 00:32:47.400
 from that one-on-one meeting, but we can get some input

00:32:47.400 --> 00:32:49.500
 about maybe some concerns that might come

00:32:49.500 --> 00:32:51.600
 up in the next work session.

00:32:51.600 --> 00:32:55.040
 So we can at least try and answer that in the text,

00:32:55.040 --> 00:32:59.120
 or be ready to answer that in the presentation, or however,

00:32:59.120 --> 00:33:03.080
 so that we can be clear with them if this is the intent

00:33:03.080 --> 00:33:07.120
 of this, or maybe when we sit here and discuss this for,

00:33:07.120 --> 00:33:10.120
 you know, an hour, two hours at a time every month,

00:33:10.120 --> 00:33:13.160
 and it's obvious to us what we're trying to do

00:33:13.160 --> 00:33:16.660
 and like how we word things to get to that end.

00:33:16.660 --> 00:33:18.360
 It may not be obvious.

00:33:18.360 --> 00:33:22.760
 I mean, it's apparently not obvious after watching

00:33:22.760 --> 00:33:25.800
 that discussion what we're trying to do.

00:33:25.800 --> 00:33:29.140
 So if we can, if we are allowed to do that, I mean,

00:33:29.140 --> 00:33:33.140
 I don't know what the rules are, if we can make

00:33:33.140 --> 00:33:36.720
 that something we decide on, if we get to a point where we want

00:33:36.720 --> 00:33:39.520
 to put something in a proposed amendment, if we can go

00:33:39.520 --> 00:33:44.360
 to a member or multiple members of council individually

00:33:44.360 --> 00:33:53.200
 and get their input, I think that may make us more effective.

00:33:53.200 --> 00:33:57.400
 >> Unless you were about to say something that we are supposed

00:33:57.400 --> 00:33:58.840
 to be discussing, I guess,

00:33:58.840 --> 00:34:00.800
 right now we're calling it next part day communication,

00:34:00.800 --> 00:34:04.840
 but kind of the board's communication methods

00:34:04.840 --> 00:34:07.720
 at the next meeting, so that I can kind of check

00:34:07.720 --> 00:34:12.280
 with the city attorney's office and see if we can kind

00:34:12.280 --> 00:34:14.860
 of outline what you're talking about some parameters

00:34:14.860 --> 00:34:18.320
 around like what does that look like, what is, you know,

00:34:18.320 --> 00:34:21.660
 where are you going to get too far out of the open meetings act

00:34:21.660 --> 00:34:25.060
 versus, I think, like my understanding is like you can talk

00:34:25.060 --> 00:34:27.700
 to whoever appointed you, but you probably can't go to talk

00:34:27.700 --> 00:34:29.500
 to every single council member about the same thing

00:34:29.500 --> 00:34:31.940
 because that would create the forum issues.

00:34:31.940 --> 00:34:33.440
 But I'll double check with the city attorney.

00:34:33.440 --> 00:34:36.380
 >> That would be very helpful for us to understand.

00:34:36.380 --> 00:34:41.020
 I mean, I don't want to, the point of this is not

00:34:41.020 --> 00:34:42.960
 like battling against council.

00:34:42.960 --> 00:34:46.560
 I mean, they have to approve the amendments that we write

00:34:46.560 --> 00:34:49.320
 and there will be disagreement on the wording,

00:34:49.320 --> 00:34:55.100
 but if we can understand their concerns better before we put it

00:34:55.100 --> 00:34:57.000
 to their vote, I mean,

00:34:57.000 --> 00:35:00.040
 maybe we can actually give them a little more time.

00:35:00.040 --> 00:35:03.040
 >> And I think Patricia's idea about having options,

00:35:03.040 --> 00:35:04.740
 I think that helps the discussion

00:35:04.740 --> 00:35:07.580
 because it's difficult, I think, sometimes for them to,

00:35:07.580 --> 00:35:09.780
 I tried to make it clear to them at presentation,

00:35:09.780 --> 00:35:13.720
 but it's easier, I think, when it's like here's two, one, two,

00:35:13.720 --> 00:35:17.620
 three option for what they're trying to do

00:35:17.620 --> 00:35:19.320
 that they think would be satisfied.

00:35:19.320 --> 00:35:20.460
 They're recommending this one,

00:35:20.460 --> 00:35:24.020
 but you could also do it this way because that's a little bit

00:35:24.020 --> 00:35:26.100
 broader scope while still getting, like,

00:35:26.100 --> 00:35:30.000
 this is what we're trying to do with the proposal.

00:35:30.000 --> 00:35:33.300
 >> I think it's clear, I mean, you can, yeah, you can talk

00:35:33.300 --> 00:35:36.280
 to the person who appointed you, the council member,

00:35:36.280 --> 00:35:39.580
 and I think as long as there's not a, I mean,

00:35:39.580 --> 00:35:42.420
 as long as there's not a pending complaint involving

00:35:42.420 --> 00:35:44.980
 that council member, in which case you might have a

00:35:44.980 --> 00:35:50.380
 ex parte communication problem, the important thing is

00:35:50.380 --> 00:35:52.820
 to avoid that walking quorum.

00:35:52.820 --> 00:35:59.100
 So you can't go from, you wouldn't want to talk to every,

00:35:59.100 --> 00:36:02.760
 or a quorum of council because they might be seeing

00:36:02.760 --> 00:36:07.300
 that you're serving as a way for the council to communicate

00:36:07.300 --> 00:36:09.980
 with each other in a quorum, does that make sense?

00:36:09.980 --> 00:36:12.180
 Even if that's not what's happening, but it could look

00:36:12.180 --> 00:36:14.480
 like they're handing you a message saying,

00:36:14.480 --> 00:36:15.780
 you know, you can go communicate.

00:36:15.780 --> 00:36:18.220
 And same thing in the other direction, right,

00:36:18.220 --> 00:36:23.620
 where if a quorum of y'all are all having the same

00:36:23.620 --> 00:36:25.120
 conversations at the same time.

00:36:25.120 --> 00:36:26.720
 So that's really where it gets tricky

00:36:26.720 --> 00:36:29.160
 because if you don't know what the other people are doing,

00:36:29.160 --> 00:36:33.000
 you're all trying to not talk to each other to avoid quorum,

00:36:33.000 --> 00:36:35.900
 but you're all talking, you know, a quorum of you have all come

00:36:35.900 --> 00:36:39.400
 and talked to the same, then that also creates a potential.

00:36:39.400 --> 00:36:42.000
 >> But if we did that individually with our appoint.

00:36:42.000 --> 00:36:44.380
 >> Just your own person, and you stick with that,

00:36:44.380 --> 00:36:47.280
 then that's a way to avoid that problem.

00:36:47.280 --> 00:36:51.580
 And then I think in a grander scale, there's the joint meeting

00:36:51.580 --> 00:36:55.520
 which requires getting council on board and posting it

00:36:55.520 --> 00:37:00.760
 for both of you and all that stuff and then, yeah, so.

00:37:00.760 --> 00:37:03.060
 >> Okay, so what I'm hearing is our best bet is

00:37:03.060 --> 00:37:08.540
 that each individual board member talks to their person,

00:37:08.540 --> 00:37:14.140
 council member that appoint them to avoid any kind of issues.

00:37:14.140 --> 00:37:17.640
 >> Yeah, in the absence of a formal meeting.

00:37:17.640 --> 00:37:23.120
 >> I just want to make sure we're listening

00:37:23.120 --> 00:37:25.540
 to anything you have to say.

00:37:25.540 --> 00:37:27.880
 >> No, after hearing that, I was like, okay,

00:37:27.880 --> 00:37:32.060
 I'm going to stop calling on the way home and just see kind

00:37:32.060 --> 00:37:38.200
 of what, you know, his colleagues' thoughts are.

00:37:38.200 --> 00:37:39.660
 Go from theirs.

00:37:39.660 --> 00:37:42.960
 Yeah, I think we need to be on a unified front

00:37:42.960 --> 00:37:46.040
 with the city council because it's not us against them.

00:37:46.040 --> 00:37:47.540
 >> Yeah.

00:37:47.540 --> 00:37:50.060
 >> It's us all working together to serve the

00:37:50.060 --> 00:37:52.900
 [inaudible] constituents, so.

00:37:52.900 --> 00:37:55.980
 >> And what I, I mean, we're all appointed by different people

00:37:55.980 --> 00:37:59.840
 and we, as a, we agreed on each, you know,

00:37:59.840 --> 00:38:03.780
 every single one of us agreed on what we proposed.

00:38:03.780 --> 00:38:10.820
 So it's not like, you know, one council member's appointee was

00:38:10.820 --> 00:38:13.460
 left out of the conversation or did not agree

00:38:13.460 --> 00:38:15.920
 with the conversation or anything.

00:38:15.920 --> 00:38:18.640
 Which I find that, that is what I find the most difficult

00:38:18.640 --> 00:38:25.200
 to understand is why that would create such distrust.

00:38:29.880 --> 00:38:31.780
 >> I guess we've probably talked about this enough,

00:38:31.780 --> 00:38:36.140
 so maybe do we need to, are we ready to move on?

00:38:36.140 --> 00:38:38.620
 >> This is just for you to be aware of.

00:38:38.620 --> 00:38:39.960
 Still trying to figure out exactly

00:38:39.960 --> 00:38:45.920
 when the actual change will go before council for the vote.

00:38:45.920 --> 00:38:47.320
 >> Okay.

00:38:47.320 --> 00:38:50.660
 >> I would like to do it before the new council,

00:38:50.660 --> 00:38:52.560
 just so that, you know, continuity.

00:38:52.560 --> 00:38:53.800
 >> Yeah.

00:38:53.800 --> 00:38:54.860
 >> Not trying to explain it to new people.

00:38:54.860 --> 00:38:55.900
 I don't have to.

00:38:55.900 --> 00:38:58.440
 And then it makes it easier for the training,

00:38:58.440 --> 00:39:00.600
 which typically for the city council I do their training

00:39:00.600 --> 00:39:04.540
 at the council retreat in June is what normally occurs, so.

00:39:04.540 --> 00:39:07.840
 >> On this last point, I do think that's going

00:39:07.840 --> 00:39:12.720
 to have a chilling effect for potential complainants.

00:39:12.720 --> 00:39:16.460
 But I think it could be reasonable to expect

00:39:16.460 --> 00:39:19.860
 that they could bring someone who could be with them

00:39:19.860 --> 00:39:23.260
 and be supporting them.

00:39:23.260 --> 00:39:25.360
 >> All right, so they're always a public meeting, right?

00:39:25.360 --> 00:39:26.460
 >> Yeah.

00:39:26.460 --> 00:39:31.440
 >> I just think that's going to put out a breach

00:39:31.440 --> 00:39:33.740
 for a lot of citizens.

00:39:33.740 --> 00:39:41.240
 But I also think they don't understand

00:39:41.240 --> 00:39:44.120
 that ethics is not purely law.

00:39:44.120 --> 00:39:46.980
 It is also aspirational.

00:39:46.980 --> 00:39:57.500
 And I'll leave it at that.

00:39:57.500 --> 00:40:02.660
 So, are we ready to move on to item C?

00:40:02.660 --> 00:40:06.400
 BOE 25-13, Receiver Report.

00:40:06.400 --> 00:40:09.540
 Hold the discussion and give staff direction regarding the

00:40:09.540 --> 00:40:12.540
 definition of complainant as it relates to the city

00:40:12.540 --> 00:40:18.080
 and code of ordinances, chapter 2, article 11, ethics.

00:40:18.080 --> 00:40:21.480
 >> I now have a presentation

00:40:21.480 --> 00:40:25.160
 that on the slide is the current definition of complainant.

00:40:25.160 --> 00:40:28.400
 We can discuss that or what concerns the board might have.

00:40:28.400 --> 00:40:31.160
 You can give direction for me to do some research.

00:40:31.160 --> 00:40:33.160
 I just need to know what you would like me to do,

00:40:33.160 --> 00:40:36.660
 if you would like that, but just kind of a start

00:40:36.660 --> 00:40:43.540
 to the conversation based on the board's direction last time.

00:40:43.540 --> 00:40:46.080
 >> Could we just take out the word "human"?

00:40:46.080 --> 00:40:53.120
 >> I can't remember exactly how we got this on our agenda,

00:40:53.120 --> 00:40:58.020
 but I think some of it had to do with getting a complaint

00:40:58.020 --> 00:41:01.820
 that was submitted through the anonymous hotline.

00:41:01.820 --> 00:41:03.260
 >> Yeah.

00:41:03.260 --> 00:41:05.000
 >> So, we needed to have some --

00:41:05.000 --> 00:41:13.000
 we didn't have a way to process that because in our code,

00:41:13.000 --> 00:41:18.300
 it has to be a person and we can't have an anonymous complaint.

00:41:18.300 --> 00:41:23.120
 There's some discussion in one of our meetings

00:41:23.120 --> 00:41:28.120
 and from the speaker in one of our meetings about there has

00:41:28.120 --> 00:41:34.120
 to be a person that accuses someone of an ethics violation.

00:41:34.120 --> 00:41:38.160
 So, this is probably a legal question,

00:41:38.160 --> 00:41:42.460
 like how do we make this definition say there has

00:41:42.460 --> 00:41:45.240
 to be a person tied to the complaint.

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.

00:41:52.480 --> 00:41:54.920
 >> I don't know the motive of the person who wrote this,

00:41:54.920 --> 00:41:57.620
 but do you think they were trying not

00:41:57.620 --> 00:42:02.660
 to have a corporation file a complaint?

00:42:02.660 --> 00:42:06.820
 That entity, another kind of entity?

00:42:06.820 --> 00:42:10.700
 >> Most other codes that I'm familiar with will use the word

00:42:10.700 --> 00:42:13.200
 entity and an individual.

00:42:13.200 --> 00:42:17.500
 This is too narrow in my opinion.

00:42:17.500 --> 00:42:23.440
 >> Could we say to the individual who submitted a complaint

00:42:23.440 --> 00:42:31.380
 to the city must be presented in person or with a name or something?

00:42:31.380 --> 00:42:33.520
 That's probably a better way to say that.

00:42:33.520 --> 00:42:37.120
 >> The word that comes to my mind is identifiable.

00:42:37.120 --> 00:42:38.820
 >> Identifiable individual.

00:42:38.820 --> 00:42:44.060
 >> Yeah, just pick up human and put identifiable.

00:42:44.060 --> 00:42:49.700
 >> Is there some reason why human is in there that I don't get?

00:42:49.700 --> 00:42:55.700
 >> The only thing that makes sense to me is like a corporation.

00:42:55.700 --> 00:42:59.540
 >> My understanding is that code currently does not allow it.

00:42:59.540 --> 00:43:01.780
 You have to be a singular person.

00:43:01.780 --> 00:43:04.980
 You cannot be an entity, right, to file a complaint.

00:43:04.980 --> 00:43:13.160
 So is the intent to change that, is that the board's direction?

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,

00:43:16.960 --> 00:43:20.420
 like corporate entities, businesses to file complaints?

00:43:20.420 --> 00:43:21.100
 >> No.

00:43:21.100 --> 00:43:23.100
 >> No, I don't want to do that.

00:43:23.100 --> 00:43:25.860
 >> Okay.

00:43:25.860 --> 00:43:29.480
 >> I think it should be a person.

00:43:29.480 --> 00:43:33.740
 And who is willing to identify themselves.

00:43:33.740 --> 00:43:36.820
 >> And then based on our discussion at that previous meeting,

00:43:36.820 --> 00:43:40.720
 I think we have a process now basically to address complaints submitted anonymously,

00:43:40.720 --> 00:43:44.120
 right, we just let them know, hey, unless you submit this,

00:43:44.120 --> 00:43:48.200
 not anonymously basically, right, your complaint will be considered abandoned,

00:43:48.200 --> 00:43:50.960
 but providing that information to them.

00:43:50.960 --> 00:43:59.880
 >> So what if we just put identifiable in the place of human, and call it good.

00:43:59.880 --> 00:44:03.680
 What do you think?

00:44:03.680 --> 00:44:06.780
 It's just that human has always made me like what?

00:44:06.780 --> 00:44:07.880
 >> What?

00:44:07.880 --> 00:44:13.920
 >> We're afraid of donkeys making complaints or anything.

00:44:13.920 --> 00:44:14.860
 >> I don't know.

00:44:14.860 --> 00:44:16.760
 >> Or art bars.

00:44:21.960 --> 00:44:25.300
 >> So my understanding is like process-wise,

00:44:25.300 --> 00:44:28.600
 there's not necessarily a concern, it's just about the language.

00:44:28.600 --> 00:44:32.800
 >> It's kind of interesting because the word human is more

00:44:32.800 --> 00:44:36.000
 relevant nowadays because of AI and robots.

00:44:36.000 --> 00:44:37.240
 >> Oh, wow.

00:44:37.240 --> 00:44:40.520
 >> That's another path you could go down.

00:44:40.520 --> 00:44:47.360
 >> Did we have some discussion

00:44:47.360 --> 00:44:52.600
 about someone outside the city?

00:44:52.600 --> 00:44:56.200
 Do they have to be a citizen of Denton?

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.

00:45:01.960 --> 00:45:03.680
 >> Or a resident.

00:45:03.680 --> 00:45:05.280
 >> Resident, yes.

00:45:05.280 --> 00:45:06.520
 >> Right.

00:45:06.520 --> 00:45:09.280
 >> What would be their harm?

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.

00:45:15.840 --> 00:45:18.880
 >> I don't know.

00:45:18.880 --> 00:45:21.960
 >> But it sounds like it hasn't been a problem.

00:45:21.960 --> 00:45:27.640
 >> Yeah, no one has from outside the city that to my knowledge, has submitted a complaint.

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.

00:45:40.680 --> 00:45:42.240
 >> Or a government entity.

00:45:42.240 --> 00:45:50.360
 >> And they have to be identifiable so that we can go through the process of reviewing.

00:45:50.360 --> 00:45:56.800
 >> Well, the identifiable part is already required under our anonymous complaint thing, right?

00:45:56.800 --> 00:45:57.560
 >> Yeah.

00:45:57.560 --> 00:45:58.000
 >> Okay.

00:45:58.000 --> 00:46:03.520
 >> And so if we put the, sorry, now we're just defining the complaint.

00:46:03.520 --> 00:46:07.960
 Even if you're unidentified, you're still a complaint.

00:46:07.960 --> 00:46:11.160
 Your complaint's just not going to go anywhere, so too bad.

00:46:11.160 --> 00:46:15.600
 So, but they're still the complaint.

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.

00:46:23.200 --> 00:46:25.040
 So what do they fall under?

00:46:25.040 --> 00:46:29.320
 Do we include a new definition for Joe Schmoe?

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.

00:46:35.320 --> 00:46:37.480
 >> So what would you recommend?

00:46:37.480 --> 00:46:39.320
 >> Leave it the way it is.

00:46:39.320 --> 00:46:43.560
 I mean, we don't want entities, so we want humans.

00:46:43.560 --> 00:46:44.920
 You know, it's got to be an individual.

00:46:44.920 --> 00:46:47.960
 Also, it indicates it can't be an entity.

00:46:47.960 --> 00:46:50.520
 I mean, I think it looks okay.

00:46:50.520 --> 00:46:54.880
 Have we run into a problem with it, as worded?

00:46:54.880 --> 00:46:58.960
 >> The issue was the anonymous complaint that you brought to us.

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.

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.

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.

00:47:19.040 --> 00:47:24.000
 But I don't know that the definition of complainant presented an issue for that process.

00:47:24.000 --> 00:47:26.000
 It was more of like.

00:47:26.000 --> 00:47:28.880
 >> This is more of a process question than a definition question.

00:47:28.880 --> 00:47:33.120
 >> That was, so this is the definition.

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.

00:47:42.080 --> 00:47:46.000
 Then you can, you know, add complainant is the identifiable human.

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.

00:47:56.880 --> 00:48:02.560
 Whoever it is, they're unidentified, we don't know, who submitted a complaint.

00:48:02.560 --> 00:48:04.560
 >> Well, here's another take on it.

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.

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.

00:48:21.280 --> 00:48:22.320
 >> But that's what I'm saying.

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.

00:48:30.080 --> 00:48:32.000
 So you don't need to add anything else.

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.

00:48:42.000 --> 00:48:46.720
 >> Oh, really, okay, you have to have a definition for both.

00:48:46.720 --> 00:48:49.440
 Whereas this, there are only human individuals.

00:48:49.440 --> 00:48:50.240
 >> Exactly.

00:48:50.240 --> 00:48:52.720
 >> Okay, that makes a lot of sense, okay.

00:48:52.720 --> 00:48:57.920
 >> I think you've got to leave the human in there.

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.

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.

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.

00:49:22.080 --> 00:49:24.800
 Walmart can't file a complaint, that's all we're saying.

00:49:24.800 --> 00:49:28.240
 If you want to identify as whatever you want, you're still an individual.

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.

00:49:34.320 --> 00:49:37.520
 >> I think what I'm hearing is that as it is.

00:49:37.520 --> 00:49:39.040
 >> No, just take the word human out.

00:49:39.040 --> 00:49:40.800
 We don't need the word human in there.

00:49:40.800 --> 00:49:42.320
 >> That's going to open it up to debate.

00:49:42.320 --> 00:49:42.640
 >> Yeah.

00:49:42.640 --> 00:49:45.360
 >> And they're going to say what if I don't identify as a human.

00:49:45.360 --> 00:49:46.080
 >> So I hear two.

00:49:46.080 --> 00:49:47.040
 >> What would you identify as?

00:49:47.040 --> 00:49:51.600
 >> Yeah, then you're saying individual, yeah, so that would get rid of that definition.

00:49:51.600 --> 00:49:54.400
 >> What would you identify as if you're not an individual?

00:49:54.960 --> 00:49:55.600
 >> A furry.

00:49:55.600 --> 00:49:57.760
 >> Don't ask me that question.

00:49:57.760 --> 00:49:59.440
 >> There's lots of things, lots and lots of things.

00:49:59.440 --> 00:50:01.440
 >> It can be an individual entity, right?

00:50:01.440 --> 00:50:03.840
 An individual is singular, right?

00:50:03.840 --> 00:50:04.960
 That's what it means.

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.

00:50:12.880 --> 00:50:18.240
 >> Companies can be individual as far as they're singular, right?

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

00:50:24.000 --> 00:50:29.600
 individual does not necessarily mean humans, right?

00:50:29.600 --> 00:50:30.640
 It just means a single.

00:50:30.640 --> 00:50:36.720
 >> Well, I will say then the individual person sounds a little more normal.

00:50:36.720 --> 00:50:39.280
 The individual person rather than the human individual.

00:50:39.280 --> 00:50:45.440
 >> I'm just going to disagree that it sounds better, the individual person.

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

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,

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

00:51:02.800 --> 00:51:05.760
 their plate because they're the ones going to have to face the public.

00:51:05.760 --> 00:51:07.360
 The public's not in here yelling at us.

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

00:51:11.920 --> 00:51:14.400
 barrier is to say city council, we're here to help you.

00:51:14.400 --> 00:51:16.560
 We're here to support, what can we do?

00:51:16.560 --> 00:51:21.040
 And I bet number one on that list is please stop sending us more work.

00:51:21.040 --> 00:51:22.880
 Like the public sends us enough work.

00:51:22.880 --> 00:51:30.160
 So unless it's something substantial like the ordinance stuff that we just did,

00:51:30.160 --> 00:51:35.520
 I don't know that we should really add to that.

00:51:35.520 --> 00:51:37.920
 >> I tend to agree with you on that.

00:51:37.920 --> 00:51:39.120
 >> Because it ain't really broken.

00:51:39.120 --> 00:51:42.160
 >> I mean, that is the way it is already right now.

00:51:42.160 --> 00:51:42.400
 >> Yes.

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.

00:51:47.600 --> 00:51:50.640
 >> You know, I think it is so far down on the list of priorities.

00:51:50.640 --> 00:51:52.720
 It's not worth troubling over.

00:51:52.720 --> 00:51:55.220
 >> Okay.

00:51:55.220 --> 00:51:59.920
 So would someone make a motion?

00:51:59.920 --> 00:52:01.200
 >> We don't need a motion.

00:52:01.200 --> 00:52:02.400
 >> Okay, okay.

00:52:02.400 --> 00:52:05.840
 So I would say leave it and we move on.

00:52:05.840 --> 00:52:07.200
 >> All right.

00:52:07.200 --> 00:52:08.000
 >> Okay.

00:52:08.000 --> 00:52:13.280
 Item D, BOE 25-014, Receiver Report.

00:52:13.280 --> 00:52:18.320
 Hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding City of Denton Code of Ordinances

00:52:18.320 --> 00:52:24.720
 Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics Section 3-282, Being Sanctions.

00:52:24.720 --> 00:52:28.720
 >> It's similar to the previous one.

00:52:28.720 --> 00:52:32.240
 I haven't done, you just gave direction to put this on the agenda.

00:52:32.240 --> 00:52:33.760
 Just kind of a conversation starter.

00:52:33.760 --> 00:52:35.280
 I don't have any research to present.

00:52:35.280 --> 00:52:40.240
 This is a flow chart that's in our current ethics training to kind of show,

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,

00:52:45.840 --> 00:52:48.480
 this is the decision-made flow chart for that.

00:52:48.480 --> 00:52:56.960
 I can also just bring up the language, but this is kind of the existing sanctions.

00:52:56.960 --> 00:52:59.440
 It might be better to just bring up the language.

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.

00:53:16.240 --> 00:53:20.400
 So, I don't know if that's, it's probably too small.

00:53:20.400 --> 00:53:26.400
 So, the first sanction is a letter of notification.

00:53:26.400 --> 00:53:31.600
 It's also a letter of admonition, or I'm sorry, admonition.

00:53:31.600 --> 00:53:32.880
 And then a letter of reprimand.

00:53:32.880 --> 00:53:35.280
 You can also recommend suspension.

00:53:35.280 --> 00:53:37.520
 This is not applicable to City Council.

00:53:37.520 --> 00:53:43.200
 There's recommending ineligibility, which is only applicable to vendors.

00:53:44.240 --> 00:53:46.640
 So, not applicable to City officials.

00:53:46.640 --> 00:53:53.520
 So, those are very brief summary of the current sanctions.

00:53:53.520 --> 00:53:59.040
 I don't know what's most helpful to put on the screen, but.

00:53:59.040 --> 00:54:03.040
 Okay, discussion.

00:54:14.240 --> 00:54:29.680
 I can say that if we recommended anything stronger, we would be walking into a...

00:54:29.680 --> 00:54:39.520
 That's how I think, as things stand now, I would leave that alone.

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.

00:54:47.280 --> 00:54:52.960
 Just because this came up in the work session, if we go through this process,

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.

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

00:55:17.040 --> 00:55:24.800
 an outside law firm to attend both of those, both the panel hearing and the actual...

00:55:24.800 --> 00:55:28.800
 The hearing.

00:55:28.800 --> 00:55:31.120
 Hearing, sorry, the panel review and the hearing.

00:55:31.120 --> 00:55:34.400
 And generally they provide some outside...

00:55:34.400 --> 00:55:37.280
 Yeah, so it's some number of hours.

00:55:37.280 --> 00:55:37.780
 Yeah.

00:55:39.680 --> 00:55:45.360
 It might please some of the council members if we

00:55:45.360 --> 00:55:59.840
 somehow find whoever committed the violation, if it was maybe reached the threshold of a letter

00:55:59.840 --> 00:56:05.360
 of reprimand, where they did it knowingly, intentionally, or in disregard to the article,

00:56:06.800 --> 00:56:11.280
 that person be responsible to cover the City's costs for the outside council.

00:56:11.280 --> 00:56:18.720
 I mean, I think if you're an elected official,

00:56:18.720 --> 00:56:26.480
 a letter of reprimand should matter to you. A letter of admonition should matter to you.

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

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,

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

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

00:57:08.000 --> 00:57:13.680
 to knowingly, intentionally, or in disregard of this article, create some cost to the City.

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

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,

00:57:32.240 --> 00:57:37.680
 but reimburse the City for the cost that it incurred because I knowingly, intentionally,

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,

00:57:45.280 --> 00:57:50.400
 look out for the best interests of the City, and maybe

00:57:53.200 --> 00:57:59.680
 discourage someone from meeting the threshold of free paying there.

00:57:59.680 --> 00:58:06.080
 That would be something I would use as an example of how you could present

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,

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?

00:58:18.080 --> 00:58:24.000
 Because I think that is a City Council thing to really discuss, not just us.

00:58:24.000 --> 00:58:30.560
 Also, what they do in City Council, if they don't like how somebody is acting,

00:58:30.560 --> 00:58:37.120
 they start petitions to have them removed from the Council. So they have their own solutions,

00:58:37.120 --> 00:58:42.160
 their own ways they try to address what they believe are violations of behavior.

00:58:43.360 --> 00:58:49.040
 So they might want to make their own decision about what would be the consequence,

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,

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.

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,

00:59:07.680 --> 00:59:14.880
 that can happen. I think there's already two different types of letters that we're

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,

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

00:59:31.440 --> 00:59:39.360
 under sanctions for a frivolous complaint. Because that seems to keep coming up in the

00:59:39.360 --> 00:59:45.360
 Council members' discussions of concern for frivolous complaints, you know, just to make

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

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?

00:59:59.040 --> 01:00:05.680
 Yes. Well, the frivolous section references back to these sanctions, so yes. Okay, so I mean,

01:00:05.680 --> 01:00:13.760
 then it makes sense to me, because we're not penalizing someone for making a mistake,

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

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,

01:00:26.800 --> 01:00:34.720
 we're talking about, I intentionally, I knowingly disregarded this ethics ordinance. I cost the city

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

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

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,

01:00:54.000 --> 01:00:59.280
 because whatever benefit they're getting out of making that, you know, violating that ordinance,

01:00:59.280 --> 01:01:06.800
 they think outweighs the penalty of a letter of reprimand, so.

01:01:06.800 --> 01:01:14.400
 No, it's going to have something else. Okay.

01:01:14.400 --> 01:01:22.000
 That makes a lot of sense to me, because it is costly to have a

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.

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

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

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.

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,

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,

01:02:16.480 --> 01:02:20.720
 and it sounds more like a consequence. You cost the city money,

01:02:23.760 --> 01:02:28.160
 you need to pay. That makes a lot of sense.

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,

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

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

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,

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.

01:02:59.040 --> 01:03:01.680
 But I think, I think it makes sense.

01:03:01.680 --> 01:03:10.640
 Well, the city, the city does recover the cost from their citizens when there's,

01:03:10.640 --> 01:03:15.280
 the city has to pay for certain, you know, for certain. Right. Yeah. So.

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.

01:03:25.680 --> 01:03:28.320
 So that's, that's a lot of money.

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.

01:03:39.200 --> 01:03:43.920
 I can't act as an attorney on that.

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

01:03:53.120 --> 01:03:58.080
 explore this option, right? We all discussed it with the city attorney.

01:03:58.080 --> 01:04:02.240
 Someone who's found guilty of a firmless complaint, paying the legal costs.

01:04:02.240 --> 01:04:12.400
 Ordinances routinely impose a fine. As for having someone cover legal costs,

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

01:04:18.400 --> 01:04:25.360
 unless authorized by statute. I guess we could make a statute that authorizes it, but

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.

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

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.

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

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?

01:04:57.680 --> 01:05:04.080
 Is there a difference, is there a difference between the city occurring cost of a contractor

01:05:04.080 --> 01:05:11.120
 or city employees and legal? It is part of the budget.

01:05:11.120 --> 01:05:19.600
 That's my, because this is an ordinance, right? Just like the tree limbs. Correct.

01:05:19.600 --> 01:05:26.080
 Are an ordinance. And when the city sends out city employees to cut down trees,

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

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

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,

01:05:48.720 --> 01:05:52.000
 there's all kinds of weird stuff about. Well, here's the good news.

01:05:52.000 --> 01:05:57.920
 With this wording that we got, just got through on conflict of interest,

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.

01:06:08.480 --> 01:06:13.200
 But I think it's worth asking the question.

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

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

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

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.

01:06:44.880 --> 01:06:50.800
 Right. But an ethics code violation because this top section under sanction is for,

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.

01:06:57.360 --> 01:07:03.520
 Yeah. This is anyone's intention. Intentionally. Intentionally is the key word. So the way that.

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

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,

01:07:17.760 --> 01:07:21.600
 either way, right, if we were in a normal hearing where there was a complainant,

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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,

01:08:22.480 --> 01:08:26.720
 hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding future meeting topics.

01:08:36.640 --> 01:08:43.600
 So I don't have a presentation again, but I do. Sorry. Based on last time,

01:08:43.600 --> 01:08:52.800
 we, there was direction to discuss having potentially having learning assessments be

01:08:52.800 --> 01:08:58.480
 closed meetings and then kind of having a discussion about the board's communication,

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,

01:09:05.920 --> 01:09:09.600
 we discussed last meeting and then we can also discuss the main meeting as well.

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

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,

01:09:26.160 --> 01:09:34.560
 since we gave you directions on, on getting some clarification for that discussion on sanctions,

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

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.

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,

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,

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

01:11:14.800 --> 01:11:18.640
 to appoint whoever they would like to, to nominate whoever they would like to that position.

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

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,

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.

01:11:37.760 --> 01:11:48.880
 Elections occur in May, generally terms stop in August. Right. That happened. It was unfair.

01:11:50.400 --> 01:11:58.320
 So whoever, well, for example, the district three, whoever succeeds in district three will own this

01:11:58.320 --> 01:12:05.280
 seat. Correct. Well, yes, they, they have, it's their prerogative to nominate whoever they would

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.

01:12:14.000 --> 01:12:24.240
 Okay. Well, the, after his term is completed? Correct. Yeah. Okay. After his term is completed.

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

01:12:30.560 --> 01:12:36.640
 three successive. I recommend reaching out to the secretary's office and asking them about

01:12:36.640 --> 01:12:40.240
 your question because they'll have, they should have the answer. Yeah.

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

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,

01:12:54.480 --> 01:12:59.280
 which is what I think we're trying to address. So

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

01:13:07.200 --> 01:13:12.320
 things that have been there since day one. Which proceeds all the way.

01:13:12.320 --> 01:13:18.480
 We're talking about future meeting topics right now. Okay.

01:13:18.480 --> 01:13:29.360
 Okay. Any other future meeting topics? I would encourage you guys to think about any and

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.

01:13:38.000 --> 01:13:39.760
 For sure. I think it's a good time. Yeah.

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

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

01:13:54.320 --> 01:14:05.120
 information back. And then we'll talk about May and April. Okay. Any further comments?

01:14:05.120 --> 01:14:11.360
 It is 644 PM and this meeting is adjourned.