Apr 14, 2025 Board of Ethics on 2025-04-14 5:30 PM

Okay. Good evening. It is Monday, April 14, 2025. It's 5.30 p.m. and this is the board of ethics meeting. We do not have any presentations from members of the public, so we will move on to item two on our agenda. Item A, BOE 25-017. Consider approval of meeting minutes for March 10, 2025. Are there any changes? Is there a discussion now? Or are you going to? Can I discuss now? I don't want to get out of order, so don't get me in trouble. I listened to the presentation twice, on video. And I was very moved about your comments. It was obvious to me that you had a lot of pain in you. But I'm going to say some things, and please don't take it personal. And that's the first thing. You can't take it personal. Because the committee is protecting themselves, and they're always, they're people. And they're always going to protect themselves. So, you know, we say A, they say B, but the point being is they have an agenda, and we have an agenda. Okay. So that's the first thing I want to tell you. Do you have any recommendations for the minutes? Do you have any recommendations for changes to the minutes? Yeah, I do. So let me get through my list. I have a list. I just want to tell you what I think first, and then I have, I do have an agenda. They want us to be the watchdog, but they don't want the dog to be too big. Okay. And for years following you, even though I wasn't on the committee, and I tried to get on the committee, and then I was asked to get on the committee, and I was on too many committees, and I said no. I always felt like you guys were trying so hard to keep them under wraps so much. Okay. So this is my personal opinion, from my experience. I do think, I could give you a story, but I won't about somebody holding on to somebody too tight, and I think that that's where they are with us. They think that we're trying to hold on to their success too tight, and they want it the way they want it. But I will say to you all, to follow your conscience, if we know something to be right, then by then, we put the number out there, and we live by it. And if they want to battle us, or they don't want us as members, they have a choice. But we've got to stick to our guns. Now, it doesn't matter if the number is 500, 5,000, or 50,000, it doesn't, it doesn't matter. Huh? Yeah, we're off topic. Oh, well, yeah, I asked you if I could do, talk to the, to the meeting, to the minutes, that's what I'm talking to you. Just trying to approve the minutes from last time. I, I, that's what I'm talking to you until we can then vote on it. Am I out of the way? Um, yeah, I think you are. We just need to. Okay, well go ahead and go for the minutes, and then we'll have discussion. At the very end. At the end of this whole thing? Right. Of the whole meeting? When we have that, when we talk about topics for future, we, that's when we can be a little bit more, we can talk about future agenda items at that time. Yeah. Well, unless she's leading up to some recommendation to amend the minutes. That's right. So I am leading up to that, okay. I don't think it's going to help this conversation to leave it at the end. If I'm out of the line, then just let me know. But I, I just really am passionate about what I'm getting ready to say. And it does lead up to the council, okay. That's not the, sorry, that's not this item. This item is, the item is, and there hasn't been a motion. There hasn't been a motion yet, so there's really not anything to discuss. Well, that's why I asked that we need a motion. So the motion. The minutes. And she said go ahead. So would you move to accept the minutes as, as they have been given to us? No. Okay. What do you want to? What would you change? A lot of things. I'm talking about it right now. The minutes are what already happened in the last meeting. Well, I'm challenging the fact, I mean, I listen to the whole conversation. And you were talking about things that weren't really on the minutes either. You were talking about trust, and people, and council, and you're frustrated with them. I didn't think that was part of the minutes either. That was when we were talking about the agenda item of the, of what we had taken to the council. Maybe it was on the top. Well, that doesn't matter. The point is, are you, this, I mean. So, so unless you have some specific motion to change something on the minutes, either a motion to approve as written, or. Okay, then I'm going to motion. We were, in the minutes, we were discussing meeting with the council. Can I address that? Yeah, you, so you want to address what you want to add to the minutes that wasn't in there. Yes. I want to make a motion that we ask the council what their ask is. What do they want? Is that legal for me to do? That's a question for legal. Legal? You can make that motion. I mean, the question ultimately will be, is that reflective of what happened at the meeting? Did this board do that? Did they make the ask at the meeting before? That's what this item is. This item is, there were, there was a meeting that happened before. Things were discussed. Minutes were drafted by staff to reflect what happened in that meeting. Do we, do y'all want to, do y'all accept those minutes as being accurate of what happened in that meeting? Or is there some mistake in those minutes that you need to correct? Well, I'm trying to correct the idea that, that we were talking about meeting with council, communicating together. And I was trying to address the fact that have we ever asked them what they want? What is their ask? What is their business ask? What do they want from us? I think I understand what you're, so you're wanting to make a motion that we ask them what's going on. So that will come up in new business. So once we reach new business, then you'll make your motion. Okay. Then we can debate it and that's when we can vote yes or no to, I think that's right. I'll just shut down until I get there. No, I don't- Just tell me when I'm there. No, I don't want you to shut down. I'm trying to- I want to hear what you have to say. It just, it has to be at the end or we're off topic. So the city a few years ago decided not to have narrative minutes and just to have more of an overview. And so the time that we can talk about this until we get there again. I apologize, I just am a little bit tad frustrated with some things. And I want to express my opinion. So whenever I can do that, you let me do that. Diane, we want to hear what you have to say. Well, I- no, we're key players. It has nothing to do with you. It has my frustration with what's some of the stuff that's going on. We'll talk about that at the end underneath business. Bam? We'll talk about that. Yeah, let me know when I can. New items and- Yeah, whatever. I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion to accept the minutes as you will present it. Okay, do I hear a second? Second. Okay, Andrea made the motion, Zeltner seconded. Okay, all in favor? Aye. So it's- are you extending, Diane? I'm extending because I want to hear. That's fine, I'll- that's fair. Okay, it passes. So the minutes stand as written. So item B is DOE 25-016. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding ex parte communication as it relates to the city of Denton. Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics. All right, so this discussion was approved as part of a previous feature agenda items item. And so the information from the current ethics ordinance is presented on the screen regarding ex parte communications. Just very briefly, that is about essentially one party communicating with either the board of ethics, or the board of ethics communicating to somebody outside of the board about a pending complaint. So that's the definition of the current ex parte communications. There's more detail, of course, on the screen, but I'll let y'all discuss anything that you would like to as far as this. As long as it's within the scope of the item. My first thing, I would like to change the word "pendency" or "during the pendency," which of course means ongoing or not concluded. I would say after a complaint has been filed and these are heard by the board or acted on by the board, whatever language, I just want to make it super clear because "pendency" is a legal term and people are going to have to follow this code are not lawyers. So what do you guys think? Then I would like to ask the lawyers in the room if there's a specific meaning attached to "pendency" in the realm of the law. I looked it up today and it means ongoing or not concluded. And I do understand the dictionary definition, but sometimes when we're talking specific terms, right, they have, there's a specific connotation that goes along with that term depending on what field of expertise we're talking about. So that's the only reason. And what about, instead of saying "during the pendency," just say "pending." Just the word "pending," would that be more clear? Yeah, that would be clear. Everybody understands that. You hear that "pending" word more often than "pendency." So after a complaint has been filed and is pending before the Board of Ethics. Yeah, I think that would be a lot more clear. I'm concerned that if your concern is that "pendency" is not clear when the official date that it's no longer pending or in the pendency, that just changing it to say "enduring" and "while it's pending" does not necessarily clear it. Once it's been heard and acted on, how do you want to say that? After a complaint has been filed and until the complaint has been resolved by the Board of Ethics or something like that, because then you skip the "pendency." I would agree. If we're changing it, then let's change it to something that is definitely more descriptive. And what actually produces the conclusion of that matter. So any discussion on this? I guess we don't need to vote on this because it'll come back next month and we'll look at it at that point. Yeah, so I guess you can give direction for me to simply create a proposal, ultimately. So including red lines to change it to say something along the lines of what you propose. It seems like there's consensus for that. The other thing that I would suggest, item two, why is it just the Board of Ethics? Why isn't it also PNZ and whatever other groups are so much of it? Because the Board of Ethics is acting in place of the judge or the jury, essentially. And so the intention is that the Board should not be communicating on only one side about a pending ethics complaint. Could we add a third area because those other groups also make decisions that have pretty serious ramifications? I don't know that, because this is talking about specifically it's a violation to have ex parte communications when an ethics complaint is occurring. And those other boards do not have any authority over ethics complaints. Their decision-making bodies in other respects, some of them. And they may have a similar rule in those capacities. We would have to make a decision. And in theory, if your concern is improper influence, the ethics ordinance covers that in the complex of interest section. So this is just really speaking to during an ethics complaint, trying to cover the Board of Ethics as the body acting in a judicial judge/jury capacity. And then the complainant and the respondent who are also involved in that complaint and their representation. Any other suggestions? I know that you wanted to discuss this, so I just want to make sure we got any concerns. Well, I was concerned that we would think back about the three of us being on that complaint. I really felt strongly that we should have been in closed doors for us discussing everything and going through things before we took our laundry and put it out here. We didn't even know if we'd agreed to the complaint or not agree to the complaint. And yet, you know, we have them back behind us, you know, not that I personally cared. But the point is, I just think there's some times that we have to, we have to have closed sessions and we have to talk amongst ourselves. And the other thing I didn't understand during that time is we had three people on the committee, but our whole board was here. And I wondered what was the significance of the three committee when the whole board was here. Why weren't we all involved? You know, because it was open door. And I really felt strongly that most people always have closed door communication before they get to the main, main deal. So our research about if a preliminary panel can be in closed session is the next item. I apologize. And then and just so that logistically, the panel was scheduled before the regular meeting because it's easier for staff to do it that way for me. That's easier for me to schedule it before because it's only one night, but they don't have to be scheduled on the same night. I'm used to different committees, you know, federal committees and state committees where they just don't allow the ethics committee or anybody to discuss the business. Why don't we hold that until the next item? Yeah, well, I was thinking I was directing it to this. I was agreeing. I apologize, yeah. The ex parte communication is not about what occurs during, it is about what occurs outside of meetings. Right. Yeah. Are there any other suggestions anybody has about ex parte? So is everybody comfortable moving on because we'll get to look at it again next month. So I see head nods, so we're moving on. Item C. VOE 25-018, receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding future meeting topics. Oh, no, we're on. Oh, oh. Sounds positive, but if you want to, you could. We'll skip to item D and then we'll come back and get C. So item D is VOE 25-019, receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding the process for holding preliminary assessment panels for the City of Denton Court of Audiences, Chapter 2, Article 11 as ethics. So this is about the preliminary panel. So we did, I discussed this with the city attorney's office. The Open Meetings Act does permit a governing body to meet in closed session to deliberate the employment, I'm sorry, employment evaluation, et cetera, of a public officer or employee. Most people covered under the ethics ordinance are not employees, but some of them are public officers. So there might be some limitations to the way that the board could keep a complaint confidential based on those things. So even if the complaint was not publicly posted, it would still be open to subject, it would be subject to open records requests. We could, if we had a preliminary assessment panel, somebody could request, hey, I want to see the complaint, even if it was not just made publicly available. And we don't believe that there is an exception that would prevent us from having to provide that. That's my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong, Scott. You're right. Okay, and then the preliminary assessment panel could potentially have discussions in closed meeting, but they would have to take any action in open meeting. You could have your discussion, but then you'd have to come out and be an open meeting, basically, and then say yes or no, it's actionable or baseless. That's important. Yeah, and then, but there is one caveat, like I said, not all people subject to the ethics ordinance are considered public officials or public officers. So some city officials, you would be able to have that discussion in closed session, and some city officials, it doesn't seem like you would be able to. So that might create a dichotomy. We have not had very many complaints submitted against people who would probably not, who wouldn't, you wouldn't be able to do that, but it's always possible. Does that answer some of the other questions? So are you saying we can go into closed session, and then after closed session, we can come out and open it up to, I mean, that's what most meetings do. I mean, universities or anybody else, they have a closed session to discuss the staff or whatever the issue is. And so I really felt like it would be beneficial to us that day to have that, and then, you know, to me, after that's discussed, you know, I'm all for opening it up. I mean, I have no problem with that. So yeah, so our research indicates that we could do that likely for the four appointed city officials who are actually employees in the city. So we, the municipal judge, the city manager, and the city attorney. If a complaint was submitted against them, yes, you could have a closed session. It's likely that city council members, you could have a closed session. It's likely that P&Z, you could have a closed session. I believe the historic landmark committee, but there might be some boards who are members of a board who are subject to the ordinance where you would not be able to, because they're not considered a public officer. I think one that we talked about maybe is public utilities board, but I don't know for sure. We're just concerned that there might be issues for all. We're not certain that every body subject to the ordinance, you could do that for them. I just want to be clear about that. It's not saying you can't do it, it's just about raising that as an issue. I will say I came to the very first complaint, and that's how they did it. They asked everybody to leave the room, and they had the discussion. They brought everybody back in, and each person on the board said, this is why I made this decision. I did not like it. It was, it didn't feel very transparent. I had really no idea what they were hinting their decisions on. I think there's a fine line between that and transparency, which is also an ethical concept. But we're talking about somebody that we don't even know has been found guilty. In other words, we're talking about somebody's life in front of people that we haven't even had a chance to discuss some of the things that are going on so that we can think through it. We haven't had a chance to even get together until the meeting. I'm all for transparency. I am. I want people to know, but there's got to be a time that this committee can talk privately. And then, you know, let everybody know what we said, but at least we can think. You know, I might have been asked Ken something that I didn't think about, you know. I thought, oh man, I didn't realize. I asked her, oh, you know, you guys are right on that. Maybe I need to maybe adjust what I'm saying here. But personally, I believe that that's the benefit of an open session. Because that is exactly what will create understanding in the people how people got to. I have no problem. I have done this many times where I said I have changed my mind based on the discussion that we've had. Because the things that other members have brought to the topic have, you know, broadened my view of it and have, you know, really led me to change my mind. And I think that is the power of having people watch how we come to a conclusion. I think it's more uncomfortable for the board, for sure. It is. You're absolutely right. Because you're putting yourself out there more, right? Is this for clarity only or has there been a situation that's led to this question? Well, the other day, well, the first meeting we were at, the three of us were picked. And I really, because I have never, ever been on any board or any big time board that we didn't have closed meetings before we went into, you know, into the situation. So when I walked in, I asked them, I said, is it this meeting closed? And I mean, because I was thinking the three of us were going to discuss things. And he said, no, it's an open meeting. And well, here were the people right behind us discussing it with their buddies within ear length of me. And I'm thinking this is not right. I'm thinking this is not right at all. And it made me feel very uncomfortable because I wasn't used to it. Because I, you know, I, and I look after, I always look after when you guys tell me something. Baker, my nickname is Baker, are you wrong? Do you think you're wrong about this? Blah, blah, blah. And I couldn't find anything that people didn't understand closed meetings. You know, and then they're over, the meeting's over, we told our stuff, they're out, they're right here, they're right here talking about everything, the meeting and how we discussed it. It just went all over me. It did. I just, that wasn't, that wasn't clarification. That was control. He was trying to control the situation. And he did. That's how I felt about it. I was aware as the one who picked that panel, I wanted the people who knew the least about what had gone on before, just for fairness. And I know that that threw all of you under the bus. But I think you made a very good decision. Then let me ask you this, Diana. Did you feel pressure? Me, I never feel pressure. But I think most people do. Yes ma'am. I think it's an intimidation factor. But me, I don't give a damn. You know, I don't mean to be ugly, but I don't need this. I love this committee. And I'm going to love you guys. And I'm going to support you. But for me, not. But for me as an ethical human being, absolutely. It was intimidating. Pressure from who, the public or the rest of this board? Oh, not from this board. The people right here talking about how we wrote it and what's going on and what we're doing. And they didn't get out of the room. Scott, and this is a legal thing, would us holding an open, since we are acting on the city's behalf, holding an open meeting regarding a complaint against another city employee violate any type of an employment law? City employees have their own code of ethics. Well, so talking about the employees that are subject to this code, what y'all are discussing is the subject of an ethics complaint. So if it were a, I mean, there should never be a situation where y'all would be discussing an HR matter in this meeting. It's just going to be did the person violate this code of ordinances? So that situation shouldn't arise. And I love the, I love the code that the city employees have. I think it's very well written. It's extremely clear. I really tried hard to figure out how we could take it on, but there's too much stuff in it that was just specifically for employees. So it wasn't practical. Yeah, they have their own stuff and under that, I think things have gotten a lot better in the city. Well, what kind of prompted the question was we could hold an executive session to discuss anything regarding employment. Well, in employment, the way that this would work is somebody has filed a complaint against an employee violation, which would then could affect employment, which is what would allow us to do the executive session. But an employee, unless it's those four employees that Madison mentioned, that would be handled by the, I guess, the city manager. Well, we could, we should probably narrow this excerpt from the statute because the only word in there think that is relevant to y'all is discipline. Because you're not, y'all don't have the power to make employment decisions. You don't have the power to make an appointment. Maybe, I guess, you can recommend withdrawal of a person on the board, but even that has to be approved by city council. So the only thing you can do is discipline a public officer and discipline big scare quotes, you know, on that one too. So that's really all we're talking about. Another question I have for you, who are you trying to protect? She asked me who I'm trying to protect. I'm going to ask you, who are you trying to protect in this scenario? Are you trying to protect the, well, let me, let you answer that question. Don't put it in your mouth. Who are you trying to protect by not having a closed meeting in the early parts of this? I'm not saying not open it to the people, but. The citizens right to a transparent proceeding. They're going to have it right after the closed meeting. Bring that out. It did not feel that way in that one hearing that I attended. It did not feel that way at all. I think we get in trouble because we're trying so hard to be. This is going to sound bad, but we're trying so hard to make it so right all the time. And it just, I'd rather have our ducks in a row, our understanding of what's going on before we present it to the public as we should. But everything that comes out of our mouth early, where does it go? It goes to the paper. We don't even have our act together. It goes to the paper. It goes to the TV. It goes to the radio. Yet we have not had even a together vision of where that committee is going. So we're not protecting ourselves. We're not in any control of that. And so that's how rumors start. That's how falsehood starts. And that's what I'm pushing for. I'm not pushing against the open law act. I'm pushing for us to have the same message. As we walk out, even if it's two to one or one to three, at least we have a message and we can identify why we said that. And whatever they get, they get. It was ugly back here. I was really not happy back then. Because I just wasn't used to it. It was just like you're not comfortable with this. I was like, really? We're in here talking about all this stuff. And we're a committee, an ethics committee, and everybody has control. It seems well done for us. Is there a way to make sure that that kind of talk does not happen in your shot of the committee? Can people in the audience need to be quiet? Not in a private conversation during the hearing? Well, yeah. I think that the chair has the right to tell them that they can't be making this comment. Or that they need to be quiet or leave. Right. But after the meeting is over, the chair doesn't have to. They can say anything they want to. But yes, during the meeting, whoever is the chair of the panel can pass some authority over. You can't say that or please be quiet. Why do you think -- oh, this is one more question. I'll be quiet. I'm Yankee, so you guys don't have to forgive me. Okay? I'm from New Jersey. Why do you think this person had all their buddies in here? I can't imagine. To influence? Or just because they love that person and they just wanted to be in here and have a chit chat with them? I think that's always going to happen. I know in that one, there must have been 30 people watching this hearing, and I would say it was awful being outside the room because the factions were, you know -- I'm just saying. Again, I'm saying, I just can't comprehend you guys not wanting a short, closed meeting before you open it to the public. And the other thing, and this is another thing, is you have three people on the committee, and I kept thinking, why are three people on the committee? They're sitting after -- they're sitting right here. That is just part of the process. I'm just saying, why not have all of us? It was a preliminary panel, and if it had gone forward, it wouldn't have been the full board. So I know that put all of you in a tough space. Kenneth, I want to hear from you because you were here. I mean, what was your experience? Well, I've got to apologize to Member Baker for not controlling them as the chair. I don't intimidate easy, so -- You're a lawyer. Yeah, lawyer and former Marine, so it takes quite a bit to intimidate. And so that's my fault for not feeling the intimidation. I didn't feel any pressure for you. It's more of a business thing for me. Everything I do in here is business. I think those things are going to happen. And I will say, that said, you guys made a very good decision. I'm happy with how it came out. I felt it was really important to have it hit you cold and not have anybody be able to say that you knew too much about it. And I know, I knew I was putting you in a rough position, but -- But I think it was a very productive conversation. I think it was a very productive and collaborative decision. I personally -- We had one person who knew some of the background, but, you know, so I don't know any way around it. I will say, after that hearing I attended, I think two panelists quit. I know one of them for sure did, so -- What? Do we have a moat so it's on record? So who quit? I don't even remember. Are you a board of ethics? Yeah. Who? I never saw them again, let me just say that. But this was several years ago. Oh, you're talking at a different time. Yeah, this was several years ago. I was like, wait, hold on, hold on. Yeah, that's not quite -- No, I do think that that was equally awful for those board members. I do, no, I never saw them again, because I've watched this board. So the point of order is whoever's in charge of running the panel should keep the people to not be talking during the discussion. And then when the pipe down, you know, once the meeting's over, I would just say exit as quickly as possible. Right. You know? Yeah, I know. Why can't you kill them first, well, and then -- I don't understand why you can't tell them in a second. You have control of your committee. And they're coming into your private world, and they need to be quiet. It's not private. So need and what's something that we can enforce are two different things, you know? And that is -- the city council meetings of late have been fairly chaotic. I would say the last time we came up, that was actually the best. And then there were still a lot of really pretty needs there. You know, like, do they know how to read? That was a not nice comment. You know, it's just how things are right now. And I -- not just in this city, but in a lot of places. You know, it's -- I really wish people could go learn how to debate, because in debate you argue very difficult points, and you -- but you're always civil, and that's the biggest thing that gets thrown at you if you're in debate. But that's not how politics is done. I can't change that. Well, I'll be quiet. But I don't buy that's how politics is today. I mean, I'm sorry, but I'm not buying into that crap. It's part of my language, whoever's listening. You know, I'm just not. People can be civil. I'm with you. And people can be kind. Yeah. And people can be respectful. And if they can't be, they have no business where they are. So they knew me when they put me on this committee, and I would fight for what I believed in, and I'm fighting for this. I vote for that. I don't know if it's something that we vote on. I'm going to be outlawed in five and one, probably, but the point being is I'd like to be on record. You are allowed to make a motion. Sir? You can make a motion, and if it gets seconded, then there will be a vote. Okay. I motion -- what am I motioning? I'm motioning that we have closed meetings prior to our open public meeting on complaints. Can I say it like that? Yeah, you get that. One more time. Well, if she moves that we have closed meetings -- We have a closed meeting with the -- Before we hear the complaint. During the preliminary assessment. Right. And before we open the open meeting. Right. Okay. So the motion is on the table. Is there a second? Can we vote on this? Preliminary only? Yes. Just preliminary only. Okay. To the extent that we are able to. Yeah, I think, yeah, there's going to be some major restrictions on, you know, because this will probably come back as a draft of a change to the ordinance and rule of procedure. So I think, just to clarify, that the -- effectively, what your motion will be is a motion to direct, Matt, to draft changes to the rules of procedure and that code of ordinances to allow preliminary hearings to occur at closed session. Is it? That's my answer. Does that sound -- Does that sound like -- Appropriate? Perfect. Okay. Is there a second in this motion? I'll second that. Can it be seconded? So now we have discussion. It seems like it's already -- number two says we can't have a closed session in certain circumstances. It's already listed as a possibility. Well, so this is a description of the Texas Open Meetings Act, which that doesn't govern -- I mean, that is the big umbrella. What are we allowed to allow? But our code of ordinances doesn't specifically allow closed meetings. This slide is really just saying here are the boundaries of what y'all can change the ordinance to be. That's not -- that doesn't reflect what the ordinance is now. Okay. David, I have a card for you. Well, no, I'm still processing. I kind of agree with where we're going with that second there. So I'm okay. But is the motion saying that we always have to have a closed meeting before we have an open meeting on the preliminary? Could. Or is it just could, like where it says in number two? No. I'm concerned about the complaints, you know? Okay. So the motion, if it was approved, what would occur is I would work with Scott to draft changes, red lines, like you sent to council the other day, and present those to y'all. And I clarify what the process would look like, right? So that for preliminary assessments, to the extent possible, because there might be some city officials that we are not allowed to have closed meetings, a closed meeting could occur during the preliminary assessment. So that would -- basically we would post for the -- we would post the meeting on the agenda. There would be an item that was in closed session. And then there would be an item -- there would also be an open session item, basically. And that way, y'all could move into closed if you wanted to or not. Does that make sense? That's how it would likely work. But we would have to get it vetted through the city attorney's office. And then ultimately, that change would have to go to the council before it's implemented, and they would have to adopt it. So that's the process we're looking at. That's the process we do for all of our -- any amendments to the code that we're looking at. So does that clarify a little better for everybody what we're voting on right now? Is that kind of kicking off that process to make that change happen? I will say that while I totally and completely understand what Titan is saying, I think if there had been a closed session, it would have opened the board up to problems. You know, I guess I believe that you guys were being unfair. What kind of -- can you answer what kind of problem? Like what you heard, you know, except in a more formal -- But if it was closed, they wouldn't even be here. I think if things did not go their way because of something that got said in a closed session, it would be -- I can't even imagine what would. So they're getting their way because you're concerned that what they would have said, if they didn't have an open -- I'm not trying to hurt them. I'm not trying to hurt us. No, we've said that a lot, and I totally -- I'm trying to get our ducks in a row so that our committee knows where they're heading. That's all. I totally -- believe me, more than you probably know, I understand what you're saying, but I -- in this environment, I don't think that would fly. But that's just my opinion. I want to play devil's advocate for preliminary meaning vehicles. I think it could -- depending on the makeup of the board, not that I feel intimidated by any person at the table right now. But there's a possibility for members being strong-armed in a closed session without oversight. I'm sorry, I can't hear you. In a way, it's almost like verbal ex parte communication. It feels like we need -- What I said is I would be potentially concerned for intimidation within the closed session. Just to be clear, it's not ex parte communication because it would only be within the board, which the board is allowed to do under the ordinance. Right. So it's hard for me. It's really difficult for me to -- I did not hear any of the comments. I'm not even 100% sure that I realize which party potentially was intimidating. So it's a little bit difficult for me to kind of -- You know, I really wish there was more separation because I sat in one of those chairs each time I come and the sidebar conversations were what may be miserable. And I know that you could hear some of them on camera, but it was not nice. And it was -- you know, I wish that we could be in maybe -- I just think we're missing the point. Again, the point is not intimidation. The point is that I didn't feel like the three of us had even breathing time to look at the complaint, discuss what the movement was to it or what takes place or whatever. We were just thrown in. We had these people behind us. They were chit-chatting like I felt. But if it wasn't me or David, somebody sitting here might have been intimidated because it was all their buddies. But the point being, that's not why I'm fighting for that. I'm fighting for this committee to have our -- I hate to say ducks in a row, but to really know where we're going and be consistent about where we're going versus -- like I said, I've never known anybody not to have a closed session before they discuss complaints or staff or firing or hiring. I've just never even known that and never even heard of that. So to me, it's just common sense. And then you open it up to the public and they turn their little radios on or whatever and they go on about what they're doing and everybody hears what they've talked about. And it's not like we're hiding things from them. We're trying to get our craft together. Well, I'm going to -- I'm going to speak against that because really and truly -- I mean, maybe that is because me as a teacher, for me the process of how we got to that decision is just as important to the public as the final decision. And that is where I -- that's where I stand. I understand the potential for there being, you know, interference or potential intimidation or just inappropriate comments or whatever it may be, right? But at the end of the day, the process of how we're getting to a decision is what provides the transparency for the public. It is not the decision itself. The decision is just that, a decision. But the process is where -- and I don't have a problem -- I don't have a problem with the public seeing a messy conversation that is respectful and that addresses different points and values everybody's opinion at the same time, right? Those are very, very valuable things. And that is one of the reasons I've always said is like we're not hearing about how city council operates versus how we operate because we know we have different opinions at this table. We have different perspectives at this table. But we have been nothing but respectful to each other and each other's opinions. And I think -- and that is exactly where I think even in an open meeting, regardless if we agree or disagree, I'm going to have your back in that sense because our communication with each other is respectful and we get to a point of consensus when we're done. And that's what's important. You talk about trust, though, because I listen to the radio and this has got to -- on this thing. Talk about the trust of the committee with us and they don't trust us and, you know, blah, blah, blah. Well, we had finished our conversation. We decided what we were deciding. And all the mighty people came up and they walked out like done. We accomplished what we wanted. Now, wait a minute. Just a second. We have the city council watching the video because we did the right decision we thought and we would have probably made the same decision. But talk about trust. The person that turned it in felt like they did the right thing. Oh, my gosh. You know, all you have to do is bring a bunch of people in here and boom, they all won. So that affects your trust a little bit. But I do respect your opinion. And I think that -- I can't say anything else more that is going to make you understand how I feel. And so we're holding up this and, you know, I just think that we just -- we have a motion on the floor. I think we just need to vote on it because I would like it to be in a record for future. And I just think it's the better way for us to go. And I'll respect this committee on what they're doing. Like you said, I'll have your back too. I told my people when they got me, you know me. If I don't agree, I'm not voting that way. So you need to make sure that you know what you're getting. So I just assume go on. I can't say anything else. For the vote, I will say that I am for transparency. And I think that's more important than having a closed meeting in this situation. Because I think, as Andrea said, the process needs to be transparent how to make this decision. Okay. But I have a suggestion that might help. What if we set -- what is the preliminary? I'm serious. The two times that I have been here representing the board, I was sitting right behind council members who were saying horrible things. And I couldn't even hear what Madison was saying in her presentation. I finally got up and walked out because I was so frustrated. But I think if we -- I do believe whoever was saying what they were saying knew exactly what they were saying and that you would hear it. And so I would suggest, I mean, if I'm here for a preliminary panel, I'm going to hurt everybody down to that end of the room. Okay, then I have one more question. Okay. Before we vote. And maybe it's -- let's follow this. Because I have one more question on why there's only three people on the panel. If we're going to leave it -- if you vote to leave it open, then why -- because you're going to be in the room anyway, right? Not always. Well, you're coming in for your meeting. And we have it 15 minutes before your meeting. We don't always do it that way. That has -- Okay. I just wanted to know why we're doing three instead of the whole group. Well, the preliminary panel is just to decide -- If it has any error, if the complaint has error. So there really are no decisions other than whether or not you move forward or just dismiss it. So I think you're getting a little bit deep right now on the actual function of the preliminary panel. That's my dilemma. It could also be done by one person, and I think it's far better to have three do it than just one. But if we had voted the other way, we had voted -- it was a complaint and it was rightfully -- Then the whole board would have met about it. They would have stayed in here and met about it, or would they have stayed -- No, we would have stayed at a different date. We were scheduled for a full -- Yeah, if you had voted that the complaint was actionable, you would not have been disgusted at that next meeting. We would have had to schedule another whole hearing, basically -- With the full board. With the full board and the defendant -- I'm sorry, the respondent and the complainant would have provided evidence, and then that would have been considered at that hearing at that time. And the respondent would have been allowed to basically provide a response to the complaint so that the board could consider that in full. The preliminary assessment panel, like members Oltner was discussing, is about deciding if on the complaint, on its face, if it is a violation of the ordinance, or if it would be a violation of the ordinance. So could it even possibly be considered a violation at that time? If the answer is yes, then we send it to the whole board. That's cool. I just wanted to hear your thoughts. Our motion is about the closed session. Yes, ma'am. Can we go ahead -- if we're finished with the discussion about the closed session, can we vote? Are we ready to vote? Okay. All in favor, raise your hand. Yes. The motion is to -- The motion is to direct staff to draft a proposal to allow ethics complaints to be discussed in closed session during a preliminary assessment panel to the extent possible. Okay. Everybody clear on that? During the preliminary panel. Yes. So all in favor, raise your hand. So Diane and Kenneth. And all opposed, raise your hand. It's two to four. And it fails. It fails. It fails. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I was just trying to help get that motion cleared. I think you all were discussing a number of people on a panel. And if you all want to go back and talk about that, you can. He cleared it up for me. I'm fine with that. I was just curious on why there -- if it was open, why on that particular day, everybody was here. So I'm thinking, why isn't all of our members taking part in this? It does take a while to learn how everything works. I had no idea when I came on the board how these things work, and it does take time. And nobody would explain to you upfront how things work. Well, I'm going to be nice here, but I don't want to know how it had worked on the board. I want to come in here with a fresh two ears and look at what you have and say, yeah, you're the smartest people in the world. What about this? I don't want to. I could care less what happened two years ago because we have different counsel up there. We have different board members here. All I've heard was how bad everybody was, and I just don't want to go there. Thank you, though. I wasn't trying to be disrespectful. So can we move -- let's move on to the last, which is items for future meetings. So we'll go back to CBOE 25-01A, receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding future meeting topics. I believe the only thing we have currently scheduled for May is the return of the sanctions discussion from last time. Do you want me to advise you? Yes. I believe this is what we have for next time, but obviously you all can give direction to discuss any other things that you would like. Do you want to make a proposal? What am I proposing? The number of people on the board is a preliminary panel. This is the item where we discuss future meeting topics, so if there's other topics -- because you had that -- you wanted to make a motion to ask counsel what they would like from you all. I think that this is the time you could do something like that. I'm kind of lost. I'm looking at my notes. I wanted to talk about that, which we just did, and we talked about why everybody wasn't on it, what we did. Well, at first you had mentioned giving direction for us to talk to counsel about what they want. I think that's a really good question. Do I have the freedom to -- Yes. Okay. I just think that we're going round and round and round with counsel, and we've discussed that. They don't trust us, or we don't trust them. They don't trust each other. I mean, I don't know how we expect them to trust us when they don't trust each other. And it's like they want $500,000, $5,000, $50,000. It doesn't matter if we give them $50,000. There's always going to be somebody on there that's unhappy, because it's self-serving. And I don't mean to be respectful to the counsel. You know, they give it up their time and their effort and this and that. They're just people. But if we're going to have this problem over and over again, like I heard through your meetings, they've been dealing with it for three years, this non-trust. My question is, to keep it simple, they put us on the board. Somebody elected you and you and you, and they put us on the board for a reason. Have we just -- and you might have done this already. But have we just sat down with one or two or all of them and just said, what is your ask? What do you want from us? We will maybe meet you halfway, but we can't meet you all the way. Therefore, we want to know -- the only way we can get to a solution is, what is your ask? What do you want out of us? Don't be afraid, because they think that we're not tough women and men in here. And I believe we are. I know we are. Didn't I hear that they wanted some clarification about approaching us? About what? We discussed that, yes. I think there has been some discussion about maybe having a joint meeting. It seems like there's been some interest from some people and from y'all as well as from them. I don't think we've figured out when that could occur yet, but we can look into that further. I would very much like to do that. I think it would be great. Because everybody keeps saying no to us. No to everything we put forward until we put them and say to them, what is your ask? What do you want us to do? And okay, we'll agree to this, we'll not agree to this, but we're not going any more than this. For instance, I don't really -- I don't even understand the money, why that's such a big thing to anybody. But the point being, if we said to them, just an example, we'll give you the $5,000, make believe. But we're not budgeting one more cent over that. It's not happening. And you can do without us as members, but you put us on here. And what do you want? You want, is this the number you're wanting? Is this number important to you because of -- and just be straight with them and just say blah. Because that's how they deal. Well, we did say blah, and they just said we were stupid for saying blah. And so I -- well, I have no problem if they say no, we don't like that number. We want another one. But that's not what they did. I just want to know why they're picking that number. You know, and put it in their court. You know, we're the ones coming -- they perceive we're the ones that are trying to control them. That's what they think. But they have tried from the very start for this whole board, this entire concept of an ethics code, to just go away. I think what they want is they don't want us. Well, even the current members that sit here, you know, the very first meeting, there was a motion to try and just kill this whole thing and get rid of the ethics code from the get-go. Well, that failed. So we've been limping along back and forth. Madison, do you have any idea when the next time this council is going to deal with this, schedule-wise? I mean, you haven't forwarded any proposals to them at this time, so -- So is the ball in our court now to forward something to them again? Yes. I mean, the proposals that you have that we presented in March are being -- are on the agenda tomorrow for adoption. But that'll just solidify what y'all have already done. And then there won't be any new proposals at this time that y'all have forwarded then. So just for my -- so this whole burden, in your mind, is this whole burden a proof of history in -- No, we did get that changed. There was a change that was -- At least the wording is not burdened. So that's all over with. That's as far as we're going to get with the burden of proof. The burden of proof? I can show you what is on the agenda for tomorrow. Oh, I didn't see that. That's tomorrow? Yes. So this is what is up for adoption tomorrow. I think it's a huge improvement. You know, it was -- the two things we wanted most, we got, they will approve it tomorrow. It was just served up with a side order of nasty. But -- That's what? Let's stay on this topic. Try not to debate. So we got what was important, and I'm pretty happy about that. Well, you've got to negotiate. I mean, if we don't negotiate and meet somewhere in the middle, nothing's going to change. You're going to go around this for another three years. You know, I mean, they want something. I don't think they particularly changed these two things either. I mean, there was a lot of discussion about other things, but these two things went through kind of the way we asked them to go. Don't you think that -- They changed a little bit about -- The monetary limits were not approved, correct? Those are the ones where they said they didn't like the numbers. But they redirected us. We could look at those numbers again, right? Can I ask what topic? So what future agenda -- what potential future agenda item are we discussing right now? I would like for us to discuss the fact that we would like a set meeting with them to talk over and communicate how we can coexist because they're good people and we're good people. And there's got to become some kind of a meet in the middle. They want something from us, obviously, or they wouldn't keep saying no to us. At least that's what I'm hearing. Have we gotten a yes from them at any point? No, we did. We got a couple of misses this last time, a couple of really important ones. Well, I fell off of you the other day. I have to admit how distressed you felt. And I did. I fell off of you and protected my team. I would like to be more clear under what circumstances city council members contact members of the Board of Ethics. For a future topic? Yeah. Explain that again. I think there should be some ground rules about how council members approach Board of Ethics members. There should be ground rules on how they approach each other. About just general topics or complaints? This is for a future topic for next meeting to talk about how council members approach Board of Ethics members. That was one, and the other was setting up a meeting with both groups. That's two future topics. Are there any other future topics? No. That seems like enough to talk about next time. Those would be good things to talk about. Well, I also think we should add this money thing. Possibly talk about the money thing. We went above where they were. We went way above where they were to help. So now they're frustrated with that. So I don't feel like they're trying to meet us halfway. So what is their number? Does that make sense to you? What is their number? I'm sorry. My face is I'm still hung up on a completely different topic, future topic. So I'm sorry. I was not responding to what you were just saying. It was in my own head. That's okay. Those three things. Yeah, I think those three things will be enough to talk about. So my understanding was in May you wanted to talk about sanctions, I believe, from last time. So I think that it will take -- I mean, we can meet for two hours if you really want to. But I just think if you want to still do that, we might not be able to do all three of these things next time. I think we need to distribute them over May and June. I agree. So how would you prioritize with the discussion of sanctions next time and then one of these other ones? I really would love to have a joint meeting. But I don't know that we need to have that -- if the direction is everybody's interested in having a joint meeting, I can just work on trying to figure out the logistics of that and try to come back with a management report or something. I don't know. We need that meeting to be a topic on that. We don't want to get into what I call a war with them. It would be even easier to have a couple of them on either -- a Democrat, Republican, and a few of you guys. I mean, I don't know if we need all the munition in the room to figure out where we want to go. I think we're about to give them a hard time. Yeah, we have to have all -- what we're discussing would be a meeting of the City Council and a meeting of the Board of Ethics at the same time. The mayor would share that meeting. We would come up with -- staff would come up with topics. Like one -- or at least probably one or two agenda items for you all to discuss, at least, right? So it would -- it will not happen next month. No. It's something that would take time to arrange. And just to be clear about what it would look like, right? Yeah. I would suggest maybe after the election. There's no way we could do it before the election. Yeah, well, that's fine. That's fine. Madison, once you pulled up a minute ago on that topic, is that a discussion topic or is that an action item? This here? Yeah. This is on the agenda for City Council to adopt tomorrow. So that is for action? Yes, for City Council to adopt. For final action, so that will permanently adjust this whole -- Yes, to say this tomorrow, if it's approved. That's good, right? I thought we were going to get to discuss that with council again. Isn't that my only? No, that's -- so if we don't -- if we don't need an agenda item for the joint meeting, I would like to -- I would like to discuss next month what you brought up with how City Councilmembers approach the Board of Ethics members. I think that would be my priority for next month. I would really like to have some rules of engagement. Regarding the ordinance itself or specific complaints. I mean, which -- No, Annette said that she would like to discuss how City Councilmembers specifically approach Board of Ethics members. Some kind of procedural. Did they come at you directly to you? Oh, yeah. Did you hear my name and said ugly things to you? Call me up. Other than that one time with -- I -- yeah, but -- oh. Other than that one time with Brian? Twice. They have no right to do that. I'm not the only one who's been -- Yeah, I just want clarification on what the boundaries are, discussions with council. Are there any boundaries? I wish we had the right to say, but we need to have these discussions in public. You need to come to it. It's not personal. It should never be personal. So we -- I will discuss with the city secretary's office if there is any current guidelines for council discussing with any of their nominees to the board -- or to boards and commissions. Just to see if we can get any -- if there is anything existing and we can present any information. I would very much like that because I think it would be helpful to just say, this needs to be a public discussion. Come on. I don't hear you. Yeah. So the direction is, to my understanding, during May we'll have minutes, obviously, future meeting and topics update like normal. If we have any information on the joint meeting, we can all present that in the management risk report and then having the discussion of sanctions and the discussion about council members and board of ethics members interacting. Okay. Is there any further discussion? I think we all have enough time. It's now 646 p.m. and this meeting is adjourned.