WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:14.180 It is now 5.30 p.m. on Monday, July 9th and this is the Board of Ethics regular meeting and I don't 00:00:14.180 --> 00:00:20.260 think we have any presentations from the public so we'll go to item two items for 00:00:20.260 --> 00:00:28.060 consideration. The first one is item A BOE 25-020 consider approval of meeting 00:00:28.060 --> 00:00:37.120 minutes for April 14 2025. I move that we approve the minutes as written. I second. 00:00:37.120 --> 00:00:49.360 Patricia Rieke moved and Andrea seconded. So all in favor? So item B I would like 00:00:49.360 --> 00:00:54.200 to move to the end so that we can talk about the future items at the end of the 00:00:54.200 --> 00:01:04.260 meeting. So we'll move on if that's okay we'll move on to item C. BOE 25-022 00:01:04.260 --> 00:01:08.460 receive a report hold the discussion and give staff direction regarding 00:01:08.460 --> 00:01:14.600 communication between Board of Ethics members and City Council members. 00:01:14.600 --> 00:01:19.080 I don't have this was a request from y'all based on last time I mean there 00:01:19.080 --> 00:01:26.560 isn't much legal or existing guidance around any of that. Council members 00:01:26.560 --> 00:01:34.880 nominate Board of Ethics members and then approve them as a whole and there is 00:01:34.880 --> 00:01:39.420 the ex parte communication provision within the ethics ordinance itself but 00:01:39.420 --> 00:01:46.160 other than that there isn't necessarily any existing restrictions on discussion 00:01:46.160 --> 00:01:53.360 between board or council members and council nominees or appointees. 00:01:53.360 --> 00:02:01.800 So I'd like to hear any comments before we open for discussion. 00:02:01.800 --> 00:02:15.040 Is there a way we can get an opinion letter from our City Attorney? 00:02:15.040 --> 00:02:21.440 On what? On what our right and left lateral limits are for communicating with City 00:02:21.440 --> 00:02:26.880 Council members? No because I think it would be that would kind of come back on 00:02:26.880 --> 00:02:35.280 y'all to say ask for an advisory opinion from the board. What what would be an 00:02:35.280 --> 00:02:40.760 example with particulars of what type of communication you're asking about but 00:02:40.760 --> 00:02:46.460 like Madison said the ordinance has an ex parte provision to talk about if there 00:02:46.460 --> 00:02:49.560 were a complaint pending their limitations and then you can talk to a City Council 00:02:49.560 --> 00:02:54.800 member about the complaint that they filed or the complaint against them but other 00:02:54.800 --> 00:03:08.640 than that it's going to come down to asking for an opinion letter. So one of the I'm going back to what our reasoning is to 00:03:08.640 --> 00:03:13.160 wanting to have conversation with City Council, right, and those are typically 00:03:13.160 --> 00:03:20.000 when we are making recommendations, right. We we ask though that's every time it 00:03:20.000 --> 00:03:27.560 comes up every time it goes both ways. Yes and that is why that is why can we 00:03:27.560 --> 00:03:33.880 explore in like because I get what you're saying it's too broad, right. Just 00:03:33.880 --> 00:03:40.640 communicating it's too broad. So the next time we have a set of recommendations 00:03:40.640 --> 00:03:48.920 that we're ready to package, right, for for City Council can we at that point 00:03:48.920 --> 00:03:56.240 prior to can we be can we see if there is a way for us to be part of the work 00:03:56.240 --> 00:04:03.120 session or for them to come to the to our board meeting to discuss why because 00:04:03.120 --> 00:04:07.280 that's really where I think the miscommunication comes in is the why are 00:04:07.280 --> 00:04:13.160 we recommending this and then there is interpretation at City Council that 00:04:13.160 --> 00:04:19.600 doesn't really match necessarily why we intended the changes and so when we have 00:04:19.600 --> 00:04:23.400 that when we're in that situation when we have something that we're going to 00:04:23.400 --> 00:04:33.040 recommend can we then ask for a joint session a work session a meeting for them 00:04:33.040 --> 00:04:42.400 to come to our meeting or whatever it would be if you have a joint meeting 00:04:42.400 --> 00:04:46.040 there would be no issue with the meetings act but the mayor would be 00:04:46.040 --> 00:04:54.240 would share that meeting. Okay. So if you wanted to ask basically if we have a joint session the next time you have a package of 00:04:54.240 --> 00:04:58.000 recommendations we can do that I don't know what council would say that right 00:04:58.000 --> 00:05:06.640 but I don't know why we wouldn't be able to do that. Do you know when this got put on the 00:05:06.640 --> 00:05:12.000 why this got put on the agenda there was a specific was that the reason or was it 00:05:12.000 --> 00:05:19.720 something else about it? I thought that this item was about kind of outside of 00:05:19.720 --> 00:05:27.160 meeting communication between board members and council members but to address your 00:05:27.160 --> 00:05:31.440 question I think that that's an option I just don't you know there's not like we 00:05:31.440 --> 00:05:36.920 can we don't have a package right yes exactly but I do believe that this was 00:05:36.920 --> 00:05:45.720 Laura Bass calling up a board member and saying why are you doing this? Yes yes 00:05:45.720 --> 00:05:48.720 which is 00:05:48.720 --> 00:06:02.880 can be intimidating it can be people get caught up or anybody want to elaborate? 00:06:02.880 --> 00:06:09.600 Well I would definitely think we shouldn't talk to council people about a 00:06:09.600 --> 00:06:14.840 matter if they're involved in a complaint but the council person that 00:06:14.840 --> 00:06:21.200 appointed or asked for me to be on board asked me and I haven't done it really but 00:06:21.200 --> 00:06:26.760 has asked me to keep them up to date when you know what's going on with the 00:06:26.760 --> 00:06:33.080 Board of Ethics but I don't know if that's allowed or not but in a way it 00:06:33.080 --> 00:06:36.360 doesn't seem like there would be a big problem about that unless they were 00:06:36.360 --> 00:06:41.600 actually involved in a complaint of some sort. Well but I mean they can watch the 00:06:41.600 --> 00:06:46.280 video. I was about to say that I mean that kind of like right there that gets 00:06:46.280 --> 00:06:49.720 my spidey senses up because I'm like thinking it's okay why is the city 00:06:49.720 --> 00:06:54.600 council member asking you to keep them up to date? He doesn't want to watch the video he just 00:06:54.600 --> 00:07:00.000 wants the clip notes. Yeah because I've never had any kind of communication like 00:07:00.000 --> 00:07:07.600 that. Yeah I have on several occasions and it's been 00:07:07.600 --> 00:07:19.040 got very heated and very fast and I mean I was pretty caught off guard as I 00:07:19.040 --> 00:07:24.400 really had no idea the first time it happened it was one little thing that 00:07:24.400 --> 00:07:30.920 they were latched on to and they were all latched on to it when the hearing 00:07:30.920 --> 00:07:36.320 happened and it was such a minor thing all they could have said would have been 00:07:36.320 --> 00:07:43.520 strike that part we don't want to talk about that. I don't think we would have had a problem with it. 00:07:43.520 --> 00:07:51.400 But that was the first time and there had been others so I think it's the chair 00:07:52.640 --> 00:07:57.560 you're more of a target so anybody who serves in this capacity needs to know 00:07:57.560 --> 00:08:06.760 because my term's up in a couple of months so don't mind talking I'm just I think the 00:08:06.760 --> 00:08:10.480 frustration for me was just kind of being caught off guard and not 00:08:10.480 --> 00:08:15.360 understanding why they were so upset about it and then coming to the council 00:08:15.360 --> 00:08:24.240 meeting and it was pretty clear they talked about it. I've had when I first 00:08:24.240 --> 00:08:35.800 got on had a you know a person call me or two and call me and I basically told 00:08:35.800 --> 00:08:41.520 them very kindly that you know there's a video and though I respect their 00:08:41.520 --> 00:08:46.200 position in that that they needed to understand why I stood in my life that I 00:08:46.200 --> 00:08:52.200 would vote my conscience and I would not allow anybody to influence me regardless 00:08:52.200 --> 00:08:57.240 if they were friends outside or whatever and you know they responded with hey we 00:08:57.240 --> 00:09:01.160 don't want you to do that that's why we picked you as we know that you will not 00:09:01.160 --> 00:09:07.120 you will be fair in your conscience and this and that and you know I you know 00:09:07.120 --> 00:09:10.720 I've talked a little bit of time I've been on here about what I call the non 00:09:10.720 --> 00:09:17.760 trust between council and us and why can't we break that you know why is it 00:09:17.760 --> 00:09:22.200 so difficult to get people together and I've even you know talked to other 00:09:22.200 --> 00:09:26.840 people outside of this about their own council and what are they doing this and 00:09:26.840 --> 00:09:32.480 that you know basically they said listen ethics committee without any power you're 00:09:32.480 --> 00:09:37.160 wasting your time you're wasting your time if you have no power and you're 00:09:37.160 --> 00:09:39.880 taking to the council and they're not doing anything with it because they're 00:09:39.880 --> 00:09:43.720 not getting the vote they want you guys need to go do something else in your 00:09:43.720 --> 00:09:50.280 lives but I do think there's a I've always believed with communication that 00:09:50.280 --> 00:09:55.880 it takes two people sitting down looking eye to eye and discussing what their 00:09:55.880 --> 00:10:00.440 issues are you know and I've said that the last time I was here why don't we 00:10:00.440 --> 00:10:06.560 ask them what they want have we ever said what is the problem what do you want 00:10:06.560 --> 00:10:11.960 well okay but this is where we stand and we want you to understand that we might 00:10:11.960 --> 00:10:15.840 be able to meet you halfway because we both give a little bit because that's 00:10:15.840 --> 00:10:20.680 politics but we will won't go over this deal you know in conflict of interest or 00:10:20.680 --> 00:10:25.920 anything like that we're not we're not going on that but it's I guess that's 00:10:25.920 --> 00:10:31.480 probably the solution is that we just need to say not talking there is a video 00:10:31.480 --> 00:10:36.760 that the second time it happened swearing happened and it happened very 00:10:36.760 --> 00:10:46.440 quickly. Can I get clarification on is this the person that appointed you or is 00:10:46.440 --> 00:10:52.280 this just a random city council person? That wasn't the person. Y'all have very 00:10:52.280 --> 00:10:56.040 different conversations I have been approached by City Council and they said 00:10:56.040 --> 00:11:00.320 man we're proud of the Board of Ethics and y'all are doing a good job and I'm 00:11:00.320 --> 00:11:07.600 just like cool thank you. Very different conversations. I didn't have any bad 00:11:07.600 --> 00:11:12.320 conversations they just wanted you know thank me and I wanted them to know where 00:11:12.320 --> 00:11:16.400 I stood that I was accepting the job based on where I stood and they said 00:11:16.400 --> 00:11:20.640 thank you we expect that of you and you know I've never got the feeling I was 00:11:20.640 --> 00:11:24.800 pressured to make a decision based on what they were doing right and neither 00:11:24.800 --> 00:11:29.320 have I that is the and that is the point is like I have never I have never feel 00:11:29.320 --> 00:11:38.240 felt felt in that regard. Yeah I just want to make sure that we're clear on what 00:11:38.240 --> 00:11:45.520 the business of this item is because I think before we get into prescriptive 00:11:45.520 --> 00:11:52.280 comments like this isn't a advisory opinion or whatever is said here can't 00:11:52.280 --> 00:11:57.400 be a binding opinion on anybody so if you want to if you come away from this 00:11:57.400 --> 00:12:02.640 conversation thinking that something needs to change then we can that may 00:12:02.640 --> 00:12:06.280 come out as making a recommendation about a change of the ordinance 00:12:06.280 --> 00:12:13.360 potentially or rules procedure but just to keep that clear this any sort of like 00:12:13.360 --> 00:12:17.240 well what should we do or what are the rules of this that that needs to come 00:12:17.240 --> 00:12:22.960 through as a recommendation to change our policy because I would say that it 00:12:22.960 --> 00:12:31.760 probably is a really good idea to just do what Diane did. I will say for me this 00:12:31.760 --> 00:12:38.400 if the person got agitated very quickly and could not be calmed down and it was 00:12:38.400 --> 00:12:53.200 frustrated so. I mean I guess we just need to, I mean should have said this conversation is over, we're not having any more discussion. 00:12:53.200 --> 00:13:00.640 Can this be some simple like part of of our ethics how we treat how they treat 00:13:00.640 --> 00:13:04.200 us and we treat them and what we can say and what we can't I mean something as 00:13:04.200 --> 00:13:09.880 simple as that you cannot talk to an ethics board member about a business 00:13:09.880 --> 00:13:15.240 whatever blank and then on a verse you know I mean it's it's it's respect on 00:13:15.240 --> 00:13:22.120 both sides in my opinion you know and I think you and I want to stay to thing but 00:13:22.120 --> 00:13:29.360 in my opinion you there hasn't I want to individualize this but I think there's 00:13:29.360 --> 00:13:34.640 been times that the respect on both sides have not been there and you know I 00:13:34.640 --> 00:13:39.360 don't know if that's covered by your our ethics rules or code. Is there something 00:13:39.360 --> 00:13:46.520 in the ethics code that tells us how to treat each other? There's an 00:13:46.520 --> 00:13:53.560 aspirational section that is supposed to contain those things but it hasn't. The 00:13:53.560 --> 00:14:00.040 first time I went through the training work was the there's a video that you 00:14:00.040 --> 00:14:04.480 watch you guys have seen that video and he looks at the camera he says this is the 00:14:04.480 --> 00:14:10.000 aspirational section it's where it says you can't slander people and I was like 00:14:10.000 --> 00:14:19.320 cool and I looked at it it doesn't say you can't slander people. It's very general so 00:14:19.320 --> 00:14:23.560 there are going to be limits on what our ethics organs can do to tell people what they 00:14:23.560 --> 00:14:32.960 can't say them to because it's a ordinance and it has to comply with the first amendment rules. 00:14:32.960 --> 00:14:48.520 We are living in a time when discourse isn't very civil and it's not 00:14:48.520 --> 00:14:59.040 just intent so. So it doesn't really say anywhere in there the what I call the 00:14:59.040 --> 00:15:06.160 communication between the ethics committee and the council. Yeah. I mean 00:15:06.160 --> 00:15:09.440 directly to how we. 00:15:09.440 --> 00:15:17.560 Yeah the only section of the ethics ordinance that really directly addresses 00:15:17.560 --> 00:15:22.760 communication between board members and other city officials is the ex parte 00:15:22.760 --> 00:15:29.960 section which says it's a violation or a board member to discuss in process ethics 00:15:29.960 --> 00:15:37.200 complaint with a city official who's a party type complaint and vice versa right. 00:15:44.160 --> 00:15:54.240 Are you looking for that right now? Yeah. That part's clear it's just that there's 00:15:54.240 --> 00:15:59.480 gray on either side of it and I think that's the hard part. 00:16:06.040 --> 00:16:16.440 And it's surprising to me that we wouldn't be discussing this but. 00:16:16.440 --> 00:16:26.160 I mean can we do something like you know the ethics committee and the council 00:16:26.160 --> 00:16:33.240 should have the utmost respect for each other and how they handle. I mean is 00:16:33.240 --> 00:16:40.280 that something that would. What does that mean? I mean I think I know what that 00:16:40.280 --> 00:16:49.400 means. I'm not sure you can control everything and everybody but. Right and 00:16:49.400 --> 00:16:54.520 and there are I mean there are individual differences right what is 00:16:54.520 --> 00:16:57.800 there are there's there's a there's a different perspective on what is 00:16:57.800 --> 00:17:01.800 offensive to one person and not offensive to another. I mean and that is 00:17:01.800 --> 00:17:06.480 just that is just the bottom line. So I. 00:17:06.480 --> 00:17:19.360 I mean I work in the middle school. My perspective on my perspective on what is 00:17:19.360 --> 00:17:23.640 acceptable and what is not acceptable in communication is is very different from 00:17:23.640 --> 00:17:32.320 somebody that is in a courtroom you know I mean it's just yeah right and I I put a 00:17:32.320 --> 00:17:39.520 lot of things I put a lot of things outside of that yeah but that's the 00:17:39.520 --> 00:17:47.760 difference right. While I emphasize or empathize with you in terms of that was 00:17:47.760 --> 00:17:54.360 not an appropriate conversation I'm like maybe it is an individual difference 00:17:54.360 --> 00:17:58.720 maybe it is a generation difference maybe it is just in the heat of the 00:17:58.720 --> 00:18:03.280 moment this came out and the person didn't mean to come across like I mean 00:18:03.280 --> 00:18:09.120 there's a lot of there's a lot of room for. I think when someone is facing an 00:18:09.120 --> 00:18:15.040 ethics complaint and what hasn't been filed they must be that would be a 00:18:15.040 --> 00:18:27.000 horrible feeling yeah and I understand that but don't kill the messenger. I agree with you on that yes. 00:18:27.000 --> 00:18:42.760 Is there a blank somewhere it says what ethics is seriously what is ethics in 00:18:42.760 --> 00:18:56.520 our in our code is there something that says ethics are or is. I would say that the closest that 00:18:56.520 --> 00:19:03.360 you get is probably yes there's this purpose statement or those aspirations 00:19:03.360 --> 00:19:10.240 there's not like a definition of ethics. My favorite definition is that ethical 00:19:10.240 --> 00:19:17.680 behaviors is or unethical behavior is when you get some kind of gain that 00:19:17.680 --> 00:19:24.280 everybody else can get and so if you're voting for something that is going to 00:19:24.280 --> 00:19:29.040 benefit you but it's also going to benefit everybody that's ethical but if 00:19:29.040 --> 00:19:35.760 you're getting something that because of your position that nobody else is going 00:19:35.760 --> 00:19:42.880 to benefit or generally people are not going to benefit from that's unethical and that's kind of the dividing line for me. 00:19:42.880 --> 00:19:53.320 Well are we talking about ethics complaints or are we talking about general how you're treating each other in 00:19:53.320 --> 00:20:04.120 council versus I mean there's two different things yeah that's true that's true yeah I 00:20:04.120 --> 00:20:09.320 think I mean I think that the understanding is that the purpose of this 00:20:09.320 --> 00:20:17.920 code is to provide a framework to whether to be recourse if citizen or resident 00:20:17.920 --> 00:20:23.440 believes something unethical has occurred they can submit an ethics complaint that would 00:20:23.440 --> 00:20:29.200 then go to y'all right the kind of more behavioral stuff that you're talking 00:20:29.200 --> 00:20:38.120 about is not addressed in the law but if there is this aspirational section that 00:20:38.120 --> 00:20:45.440 is meant to provide a framework for this is how you interact ethically right? 00:20:45.440 --> 00:20:53.760 I'm just trying to get where she wants to be in the fact that I think what happens I mean if I 00:20:53.760 --> 00:20:57.840 might speak honestly I you know I think some of us haven't had the same 00:20:57.840 --> 00:21:02.800 experiences that you have had with the committee and so you know I'm trying to 00:21:02.800 --> 00:21:07.440 get to where you want to be at times based on some things that were said along 00:21:07.440 --> 00:21:14.840 the way you've been in your opinion mistreated and or disrespected and not 00:21:14.840 --> 00:21:21.280 treated professionally and but that's different in the complaint thing so yeah I 00:21:21.280 --> 00:21:25.800 think you just want to be treated kindly and with respect for the job that you're 00:21:25.800 --> 00:21:33.320 doing. Yeah and I don't know if there's any way to prescribe that you know it's 00:21:33.320 --> 00:21:39.560 gonna happen. Well there's some idiots in the world you know bad people in the 00:21:39.560 --> 00:21:47.200 world. Yeah I'm sure you've been called everything in the book and I bet you've 00:21:47.200 --> 00:21:54.760 been called everything in the book. Yeah but our our arena is controlled a lot 00:21:54.760 --> 00:22:01.080 That's right. More strict. It's a little bit more difficult for people to be 00:22:01.080 --> 00:22:10.520 or unprofessional in a courtroom. Easy to do on email but courtroom is a little bit more difficult. 00:22:10.520 --> 00:22:16.040 I'm all for putting something in the code that talks about how you can treat 00:22:16.040 --> 00:22:20.800 you know simplify it but treat everybody with respect to this and that. My biggest 00:22:20.800 --> 00:22:26.880 thing about putting anything in the code is how do you enforce it. Yeah and you 00:22:26.880 --> 00:22:31.400 know if you put something in the code that you can't enforce or you won't 00:22:31.400 --> 00:22:37.560 enforce it's a waste of time. The whole thing kind of works for me. And so that's my concern that you know 00:22:37.560 --> 00:22:48.560 So I'm hearing that there's really no remedy and that's that's okay. What do you guys think? 00:22:48.560 --> 00:22:55.520 Yeah I think just leave it as it is. But I would say informally I think it's a good idea to say this 00:22:55.520 --> 00:23:02.880 conversation so there's a video. Go figure it out for yourself. 00:23:04.640 --> 00:23:34.240 Okay, ready to move on? Item D. Receive a report. B.O.E. 25021. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding City of Denton Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics, Section 2-282B, Sanctions. 00:23:34.680 --> 00:24:02.640 So I believe that this was intended to have a discussion about ways the sanctions could be modified for them to be as more deep I guess you could say. I think the discussion that occurred last time was if a violation is found, is there a way to charge people for that violation? 00:24:02.640 --> 00:24:26.640 Especially for frivolous complaints, but not just frivolous complaints. We did some research about other cities' ethics codes. So this is kind of the two boxes where, two other places where they have kind of complaints specifically for frivolous complaints or sanctions that are specific to frivolous complaints. 00:24:26.640 --> 00:24:44.640 And this is what they are to summarize. So this is some research that we've done. I don't know exactly what the board would like to do with the sanctions. What would you like to recommend? 00:24:44.640 --> 00:25:13.640 Can I get both of our sanctions as well? Okay. If I'm not mistaken, ours does not allow us to impose sanctions. We can only recommend... So you can impose sanctions, but they're generally letters. And then you can't recommend suspension for any city official that's not a city council. 00:25:13.640 --> 00:25:36.640 Yeah, so I don't want to make it too vague. The board unilaterally can basically issue any of these letters, or it can recommend suspension to the city council. Or it can recommend an eligibility to the city manager, if it's a vendor. 00:25:36.640 --> 00:25:54.640 I kind of like that Dallas provision that says we can prevent for up to two years, I think two years is a little long. But maybe a year says, hey, if you're going to file frivolous stuff, then you're just not allowed to file anymore. 00:25:54.640 --> 00:26:12.640 Not like that. But again, am I willing to put this on city council's docket? When we haven't had any frivolous complaints, at least since I've been on, so three months, four months, whatever it is. 00:26:12.640 --> 00:26:28.640 Is that a frivolous complaint? A frivolous complaint or multiple? Right, so first you have to identify the problem. Is there a problem? And then you identify and recommend solutions. A single frivolous complaint, I don't know that that classifies as a problem. 00:26:28.640 --> 00:26:43.640 See, I like the second part of the Dallas where it says, you know, if there were multiple complaints of frivolous by the same complainant, at least since I read that, that sounds a little better. 00:26:43.640 --> 00:26:57.640 Just because you file a complaint that is deemed frivolous because we have such a broad definition of frivolous, I don't think that should carry with it even the possibility of sanctions. 00:26:57.640 --> 00:27:02.640 Can I give a history or is that against? 00:27:02.640 --> 00:27:16.640 So the issue that I personally had with the frivolous complaint that we had and that we encountered is because of the time frame. 00:27:16.640 --> 00:27:45.640 So yes, whilst I agree with you is that a single complaint does not make a pattern, does not make a problem. In this particular case, the timing of the frivolous complaint during the election cycle created an issue that it could not be resolved and then created a potential for 00:27:45.640 --> 00:27:49.640 damage to the other person. 00:27:49.640 --> 00:27:57.640 Can you pull up the definition of frivolous? 00:27:57.640 --> 00:28:07.640 I don't think, it's not defined in the definition section, but this is kind of what it says. 00:28:07.640 --> 00:28:34.640 I can scroll down to the factors. 00:28:34.640 --> 00:28:37.640 I like the definition. 00:28:37.640 --> 00:28:46.640 I think it's a good definition. 00:28:46.640 --> 00:29:11.640 If I'm not mistaken, when we did our special meeting on that complaint filed a month, two months ago, whatever it was, did we not, what did we deem that was frivolous because we don't have a non-actionable option? Is that right? 00:29:11.640 --> 00:29:19.640 Yeah, it's not actually a direct. Baseless. Yeah, that's what we have to, okay. It was deemed to be baseless. Okay. 00:29:19.640 --> 00:29:36.640 And there isn't a direct path to look at whether or not it's frivolous, so you have to just recall that it might be frivolous and bring that up when you're on the board. So that's happened a couple years ago. 00:29:36.640 --> 00:29:47.640 Maybe it would help to change the decision tree so that the board then has to go, is it baseless or is it frivolous? 00:29:47.640 --> 00:30:08.640 I think we did that after that happened. I created this flow chart. All right, so when we get a complaint, I do my administrative thing, then we have a panel. 00:30:08.640 --> 00:30:25.640 The panel determines if the complaint is actionable. If it could be frivolous, they can recommend a frivolity hearing or they dismiss the complaint as baseless. 00:30:25.640 --> 00:30:39.640 But the panel itself cannot determine frivolity. You can just say, hey, we think this could be frivolous, so we want to have a hearing. Yeah, then you don't have another hearing. Right, and then that goes through this process. 00:30:39.640 --> 00:31:04.640 You have a hearing. I like that. I like the idea of having some teeth, like you're saying, right, some authority to actually enforce the code. 00:31:04.640 --> 00:31:15.640 But is there a problem, right? You don't want to be reactive. You want to be proactive. So you don't want frivolous complaints to come in, and then all of a sudden we say, okay, we need to change it. 00:31:15.640 --> 00:31:29.640 But at the same time, we don't want to change it if it's not needed. But I like the idea of having a little bit more options when it comes to a frivolous complaint. 00:31:29.640 --> 00:31:37.640 And that's exactly that, right? It's a deterrent at that point. Instead of becoming reactive, it becomes a deterrent for the person. 00:31:37.640 --> 00:31:55.640 And I think that is more what I'm looking for, is because otherwise we can be sitting here, you know, once a month and we can talk a lot, aspirational, and at the same time it will not ever make a difference in the conduct. 00:31:55.640 --> 00:32:09.640 So what's our timeline for answering a complaint? 00:32:09.640 --> 00:32:16.640 So once a complaint is submitted, I have five business days to accept it. 00:32:16.640 --> 00:32:28.640 Once I accept it, then I have five business days to notify the Board of Ethics Chair. 00:32:28.640 --> 00:32:40.640 The Board of Ethics Chair has five business days to have to do some math. It's like 30 days-ish, I think. 00:32:40.640 --> 00:32:54.640 I think we have 30 calendar days to set a hearing from the time that the complaint is submitted. 00:32:54.640 --> 00:33:08.640 We have to get a bunch of other steps done in between that time. 00:33:08.640 --> 00:33:14.640 And I think that long period of time is very hard on whoever's being accused. 00:33:14.640 --> 00:33:27.640 That's what I was thinking. And judging off of the definition of frivolous, it seems like our goal is to combat these political strategies, right? Almost like an anti-slap. 00:33:27.640 --> 00:33:29.640 We don't want it to be weaponized. 00:33:29.640 --> 00:33:46.640 Exactly. And so if that's the goal, then we could do maybe an expedited hearing or an expedited panel if it deals with a political election style of complaint. 00:33:46.640 --> 00:33:56.640 Now, you determine whether or not it deals with political or election? I don't know. If it's done within 30 days of an election, I imagine that's probably the goal. 00:33:56.640 --> 00:34:07.640 Or I wonder if you could say that if a complaint cannot be filed within a certain period of time before an election, it must be filed. 00:34:07.640 --> 00:34:16.640 I thought that, but that would be hard because then you almost get free rein to violate the ethics code 30 days prior and there's no remedy. 00:34:16.640 --> 00:34:31.640 I wouldn't say 30 days prior. I would say, yeah, I mean this would happen five days before the election and then they went to the newspaper about it. 00:34:31.640 --> 00:34:48.640 But wasn't that a big part of our, because the complainant technically was barred from making that contact. But that is the problem. 00:34:48.640 --> 00:35:04.640 Okay, we need to just be talking about sanctions right now. I like your idea of expedited hearing if it does seem to be related to an election. 00:35:04.640 --> 00:35:25.640 So let's make a motion to add that potentially to another agenda. Hold that for the next item because I think that's a different topic but a good one. So as far as sanctions, what would you like to? 00:35:25.640 --> 00:35:40.640 I have always been in favor of borrowing from future complaints. If you make a previous complaint, there should be a time frame during which you cannot make any further complaints. 00:35:40.640 --> 00:35:42.640 Maybe a year, not two years. 00:35:42.640 --> 00:35:50.640 I like a year. Anybody else on that one? 00:35:50.640 --> 00:35:55.640 I think that would be an awesome sanction because I hate monetary sanctions. 00:35:55.640 --> 00:35:56.640 They're meaningless. 00:35:56.640 --> 00:36:05.640 They're meaningless. And if you have a lot of money, they're totally meaningless. 00:36:05.640 --> 00:36:14.640 So maybe recommend a year. 00:36:14.640 --> 00:36:21.640 And then we could just follow the Dallas. I'm sorry. 00:36:21.640 --> 00:36:23.640 That's why I'm here. 00:36:23.640 --> 00:36:38.640 I will say Dallas and San Antonio are very different cities than we are in terms of their, I mean San Antonio has an entire office that does nothing but ethical complaints. 00:36:38.640 --> 00:36:50.640 And everybody in Dallas is a jurist. So they're quite different from what we have here. Just the clarification. 00:36:50.640 --> 00:36:59.640 I think that means it would be good to piggyback off of their code. They've got the resources to build a heck of a really good code. 00:36:59.640 --> 00:37:17.640 Now, as long as it doesn't cause us to expend more resources, I mean, I think two years after the date. 00:37:17.640 --> 00:37:28.640 I think tightening up some of those time frames would be helpful too. 00:37:28.640 --> 00:37:42.640 I do know it's really hard to get a board together, particularly when you're down members, which we were referring to a very long time. 00:37:42.640 --> 00:37:48.640 Yeah, I don't want to get, we're talking about the procedure, how do we set up an ethics hearing. 00:37:48.640 --> 00:37:55.640 I think that's an off posting, so I don't want to get too much into that. 00:37:55.640 --> 00:38:05.640 We do it as fast as we can, currently. 00:38:05.640 --> 00:38:14.640 I like the year, so I guess is there anything else that you would suggest as far as sanctions? 00:38:14.640 --> 00:38:18.640 I think that's a good starting point. 00:38:18.640 --> 00:38:25.640 Okay, so could you bring that back next month? 00:38:25.640 --> 00:38:29.640 I only heard three, is that enough for you to have direction? 00:38:29.640 --> 00:38:33.640 Oh yeah, I like the idea of a year. 00:38:33.640 --> 00:38:37.640 I'm looking at the time frame, I just think it's a little down. 00:38:37.640 --> 00:38:39.640 We'll bring that up. 00:38:39.640 --> 00:38:54.640 Are you okay with recommending that if someone gets found guilty of a frivolous complaint, a sanction could be that they can't file a complaint within a year? 00:38:54.640 --> 00:39:03.640 Okay, so yes for Diane, yes for Andrea, and yes for Kenny. 00:39:03.640 --> 00:39:13.640 One of the things that I would like, I like the part of San Antonio where in the position of attorney's fees incur a better respondent of a frivolous complaint. 00:39:13.640 --> 00:39:25.640 Because not only are you potentially inconveniencing a person, right, and spending the time, but if there are attorney's fees or legal representation. 00:39:25.640 --> 00:39:43.640 I like that too because as Dustin pointed out the last time we discussed this, if you think about all of us are professionals, if you think about the amount of time we're spending and what our fees would be, that's a tremendous, not to mention Madison. 00:39:43.640 --> 00:39:50.640 So yeah, I like the idea of, I mean that would be a potential thing. 00:39:50.640 --> 00:40:13.640 Because I look at it, if there is a frivolous complaint against a city council member, if a city council member has to protect themselves by having a legal representation from a frivolous complaint, then I think as a public servant they deserve to not incur that cost. 00:40:13.640 --> 00:40:14.640 I agree. 00:40:14.640 --> 00:40:18.640 I think that would be a very good deterrent. 00:40:18.640 --> 00:40:20.640 Can you pull up our timeline again? 00:40:20.640 --> 00:40:24.640 Our flow chart? 00:40:24.640 --> 00:40:26.640 You wanted the timeline or the flow chart? 00:40:26.640 --> 00:40:28.640 The flow chart. 00:40:28.640 --> 00:40:32.640 This is the ethics hearing flow chart and this is the before the ethics hearing flow chart. 00:40:32.640 --> 00:40:35.640 Yeah, this one right here. 00:40:35.640 --> 00:40:48.640 So, could, so number seven, if it is frivolous, or could it be, then we would have a hearing on the frivolity, correct? 00:40:48.640 --> 00:40:49.640 Right. 00:40:49.640 --> 00:40:50.640 It's a separate deal. 00:40:50.640 --> 00:41:03.640 So the complaint wouldn't incur, I mean I don't mind attorney's fees, I'm just saying I don't know that they would incur attorney's fees if, because before anything, because nobody is talking at the panel. 00:41:03.640 --> 00:41:06.640 So there's no representation, no fees. 00:41:06.640 --> 00:41:19.640 And then from the panel, if it's frivolous, then it would go to 14 and clearly the complaintant is not there to represent because we're going after the, no, the complainant. 00:41:19.640 --> 00:41:22.640 We're going after the complainant, not the respondent. 00:41:22.640 --> 00:41:23.640 Oh, you're right. 00:41:23.640 --> 00:41:26.640 So I don't think the respondent ever incurs attorney's fees. 00:41:26.640 --> 00:41:36.640 Well, there's a possibility that you could determine after a hearing that it's frivolous without, as well, they have gone through the whole hearing process. 00:41:36.640 --> 00:41:48.640 And that is exactly where I'm coming from is because at the point where we determined that we considered something to be frivolous, all the hearing was already done. 00:41:48.640 --> 00:41:51.640 Okay, yeah, but I don't like attorney's fees too. 00:41:51.640 --> 00:41:57.640 Okay, so Kenneth, Andrea, me, Diane, okay. 00:41:57.640 --> 00:42:00.640 Five yes, we'll move forward with that. 00:42:00.640 --> 00:42:01.640 Okay. 00:42:01.640 --> 00:42:06.640 Any other, I think those are good, good potential sanctions. 00:42:06.640 --> 00:42:09.640 Ready to move on to the next item? 00:42:09.640 --> 00:42:20.640 So we're going to go back to item B, BOE 25-023, receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding future meeting topics. 00:42:20.640 --> 00:42:29.640 Kenneth, do you have anything to suggest? 00:42:29.640 --> 00:42:52.640 I would move that we suggest and add to our list of agenda topics a discussion about expediting a panel if a complaint is filed within a certain number of days before an election. 00:42:52.640 --> 00:42:53.640 You don't need a motion? 00:42:53.640 --> 00:42:54.640 No, you don't need a motion. 00:42:54.640 --> 00:42:55.640 Okay, cool. 00:42:55.640 --> 00:43:00.640 Yeah, just, yeah, I like that tightening up of timeframes thing. 00:43:00.640 --> 00:43:17.640 So this is limit to the time before an election and then, okay, and then we were also talking about tightening up timeframes. 00:43:17.640 --> 00:43:21.640 In general or just for an election? 00:43:21.640 --> 00:43:29.640 For the five day, five day, five day thing. 00:43:29.640 --> 00:43:38.640 Like I know as chair, I think I've always gotten back to you that day or the day after, so that's not, that should be quick. 00:43:38.640 --> 00:43:41.640 I think your processing could be quick. 00:43:41.640 --> 00:43:46.640 I think you need probably ten days to get the work together. 00:43:46.640 --> 00:43:53.640 Yeah, I don't want to get too into it, but we can bring back an item to talk about what is the time frame, what is the longest period I can do all that math. 00:43:53.640 --> 00:43:56.640 I could undo it standing here. 00:43:56.640 --> 00:44:05.640 Because that's really hard on a complaint, and it just gives more time for differences to fester. 00:44:05.640 --> 00:44:15.640 Yeah, and like we try to do it as fast as we can, like there's no sort of walking in or whatever. 00:44:15.640 --> 00:44:16.640 Any other? 00:44:16.640 --> 00:44:31.640 I would like to follow up with the idea that we recommend that we have a meeting with the council, you know, every month with a panel, a small panel, and start breaking through that chain of communication. 00:44:31.640 --> 00:44:42.640 I mean we can talk about it all as we want, but until we start putting face on face, we're not going to, you know, I mean surely there's somebody on that council that they would decide to come meet with us. 00:44:42.640 --> 00:44:46.640 Or we can meet with them or whatever about concerns. 00:44:46.640 --> 00:44:55.640 I think we could run into open meetings problems if we just let it be forever. 00:44:55.640 --> 00:45:12.640 You wouldn't want to sort of rotating cast because then you have a walking quorum problem, but I think it would come up before the idea of a joint meeting, which would be posted for both this body and city council for open meetings purposes. 00:45:12.640 --> 00:45:21.640 And then it would be run by the mayor because he runs any meeting that you or she, depending on the time, would run whatever that is. 00:45:21.640 --> 00:45:27.640 So I think, I think that's been discussed and I think we've been looking into it, right? 00:45:27.640 --> 00:45:33.640 Yeah, I think if you're interested in the joint meeting, I can bring that up at the agenda committee the next time that it needs. 00:45:33.640 --> 00:45:39.640 They haven't met the last couple of months because of stuff at the county and the elections and stuff like that. 00:45:39.640 --> 00:45:42.640 So I think their next meeting will be in July. 00:45:42.640 --> 00:45:52.640 I'm not 100% sure, but I can talk to them at that point about wanting to have a joint meeting. 00:45:52.640 --> 00:45:56.640 I'll talk to the city manager. 00:45:56.640 --> 00:46:04.640 We just need to ensure that they understand it's a working meeting, it's not a busy meeting, it's not a griping meeting. 00:46:04.640 --> 00:46:07.640 We don't want that from them and they certainly don't want that from us. 00:46:07.640 --> 00:46:14.640 We want to start coming together on what we're thinking and show that we're all satisfied with what works. 00:46:14.640 --> 00:46:19.640 Could you put that as like a, maybe like a staff report for the meeting after next? 00:46:19.640 --> 00:46:28.640 Because that way if you, it's not really a topic for discussion, but something you can bring to say here's what transpired in the agenda committee. 00:46:28.640 --> 00:46:34.640 Yeah, I'll bring back, here's where we're at in this process when something happens in a management report. 00:46:34.640 --> 00:46:41.640 So that's, you know, there's not really, it's not really a discussion, right, it's like, here's where we're at. 00:46:41.640 --> 00:46:50.640 So, yeah, we're looking into that and so, like I said, it's just been kind of a weird time to set up something like that right now. 00:46:50.640 --> 00:46:59.640 I'm kind of thinking summer might not be a good time anyway, but maybe ask that it be held in September or October. 00:46:59.640 --> 00:47:07.640 I think I can talk to them about potentially having it involved. 00:47:07.640 --> 00:47:10.640 It's unlikely to happen. 00:47:10.640 --> 00:47:14.640 That's what I was thinking. 00:47:14.640 --> 00:47:27.640 Any other suggestions for item B? 00:47:27.640 --> 00:47:47.640 I was trying to pull what we have already talked about for next meeting. 00:47:47.640 --> 00:47:58.640 So it sounds like we're going to have a discussion about processing ethnic complaints during election period. 00:47:58.640 --> 00:48:07.640 Essentially I'll have red lines for the sanctions that you all discussed to look at more in depth. 00:48:07.640 --> 00:48:18.640 Hopefully in July we'll have an update on, we'll have a management report on the joint meeting, potential joint meeting, and then advise your opinion that we just issued. 00:48:18.640 --> 00:48:24.640 That is in the process of being issued right now and anything else that happens. 00:48:24.640 --> 00:48:29.640 So that's what we've got for July right now. 00:48:29.640 --> 00:48:36.640 Is that an error that it said July 8th? 00:48:36.640 --> 00:48:40.640 Is that? 00:48:40.640 --> 00:48:44.640 Oh yes, it should be the 7th, I'm sorry. 00:48:44.640 --> 00:48:47.640 I was looking at the Tuesday when I typed that in. 00:48:47.640 --> 00:48:53.640 Shouldn't it be the 14th? 00:48:53.640 --> 00:48:54.640 It would be. 00:48:54.640 --> 00:48:57.640 You're right, you're right. Thank you Patricia. 00:48:57.640 --> 00:49:00.640 What day is it supposed to be? 00:49:00.640 --> 00:49:01.640 It's the 14th. 00:49:01.640 --> 00:49:07.640 We're still stuck on the first month. 00:49:07.640 --> 00:49:11.640 Is it the 14th? 00:49:11.640 --> 00:49:17.640 It is the 14th. 00:49:17.640 --> 00:49:25.640 I think you guys made some great suggestions tonight. 00:49:25.640 --> 00:49:37.640 So if there's no further business, it is 6/18/19 and this meeting is adjourned.