Jul 14, 2025 Board of Ethics on 2025-07-14 5:30 PM

So is the recording on? I'm sorry, what? The recording's on right? I believe so. Okay. It is Monday, July 14, 2025. It's 530 p.m. and this is the Board of Ethics meeting and we do not have any presentations from members of the public. So I will move on to item two on our agenda, items for consideration. Item A, BOE 25, 025, consider approval of the minutes for June 2nd and 9th. So exhibit one, we'll just vote on them separately. So we'll vote on these things and then we have an update about the advisory opinion later in this meeting. So exhibit one is the draft advisory opinion 25-001. So do I hear a motion to approve that? This is for the advisory? Yeah. Yeah, I'll approve the minutes. Okay. I second that. Patricia seconded it. So is there any discussion? I would just like to say, you know, I was on the housing authority for three years prior to coming here as a Vice President, so I don't feel comfortable. I want them to know I don't feel comfortable with voting for this because I want to keep interest, especially just separate. So I'll abstain from it. So any comments about it? I think we lose quorum if you recuse. So we can just push them to the next meeting. Yeah, can we do that? Okay, I forgot on the quorum issue. Okay. Okay. So we're going to postpone this until the minutes meet. We don't have to vote on that though, right? On postponing it? On approving the minutes? Well, on postponing the minutes. You can take it. I mean, you can say it. If you don't get an objection, then it's fine. Can I have some clarification so I don't delay everybody? The only reason I wanted to not vote on it was because I was part of that long-term thing that I was appointed by the mayor. If you don't perceive that I'm at a line, I'll vote for it. But I just don't want to mix apples in their apples. All we're saying is that it's an accurate account. This is just for the minutes, not for the... Yeah, but the minutes have to do with the day, which I was on her committee for three years. And that's the reason that I'm booking you a little bit. It has nothing to do with the minutes or what you're doing. Okay, so do you want to postpone it or do you have to postpone it? Well, I'd like to get some advice. Can you give me advice if I go ahead and vote yay for the minutes that I'm not doing anything that I should not do since I've worked for her for three years? I don't think we can. It's not been a year that I've been on that committee either. Yeah, it's sort of like giving you an ethics opinion on whether or not... Yeah. It's sort of like giving you an ethics opinion. If you don't vote for the votes, I'll just postpone it. Exercise your judgment. And it's either of your judgment. Let's just postpone it. Okay, let's just do this. Yeah. So, Exhibit 2 is a draft of the regular meeting minutes. Any changes or anything that needs to... Okay. So, is there a motion to approve it? I'll move it to be approved. Okay. I second. Patricia seconded. Okay. So, any discussion on that? Okay. So, all in favor of the meeting minutes, it's unanimous. Okay. We're moving on to the OE 25-26 Receiver Report. Hold the discussion and give staff direction regarding the City of Benton County Ordinances Chapter 2, Article 11, Section 2-2A2, Sanctions. So, yeah. So, based on the discussion last time, I prepared the red lines that are blue on the slide. So, this is just based on the discussion we had and the research that we did. So, as just kind of a draft, the next steps would be if this kind of meets what you wanted to have both of these two options, essentially. The mechanism for voting for those things, we would move forward by talking to outside counsel about it. We did want to bring up on the one-year subscription, just like checking back in if we think that that's appropriate for whatever, for all the criminalists' complaint. And then on the attorney's fee imposition, we wanted to make sure that it was clear that y'all don't have the authority to actually collect money or make somebody pay something. So, our understanding at this time is that we'd have to create essentially a civil cause of action so that the respondent could go to court and sue the complainant based on your determination for those fees. So, there we'd have to take another step. So, we want to make sure that that process, if it got, if we drafted the red lines, went to counsel and they approved it, the respondent would still have to go to a different court to actually try to get that money back. That all makes sense. So, discussion. So, we just, we're not going to vote on this today? Right, you would just give direction on do we want to move forward with kind of talking to the outside counsel about these issues so that they would give us a legal opinion on how they would work and actually drop that language. Do we have a, if you don't mind me asking, do we have a list of sanctions in our Code of Ethics that if they do the minimum, we do this, if they do the maximum, we do that? We have several things that we can do. I think what was a little different about this is I think for frivolous complaints, there weren't really any sanctions. All that was in the code was basically a letter from the board, a letter of reprimand or a letter of admonishment were the two options. So it's basically like we tell you, you should not have done this. But there was no real consequence. And so part of the concern I think initially was that if there was someone who chose to use the Code of Ethics in the complaint process to just submit a bunch of frivolous complaints, then that takes time from the city staff, from the board for review, and then it can affect whoever the respondent is negatively. And they could just do that as much as they want. And so we, when this happened, it's probably been two years ago that there was one during the last, during an election cycle, there was nothing that came out of it other than it was found to be frivolous, and then the board issued a letter to the complainant and said this was a frivolous complaint. And we realized, well this person could just do that whenever they want. And I think that's what was a little bit separate. There was a lot more that made it frivolous too. But because it was a frivolous complaint, there's nothing up until, you know, without this change, there's nothing in the Code now that would, I don't know what the right, like penalize, we couldn't do anything about someone submitting a frivolous complaint. There's stuff in there for a respondent, someone that has a complaint submitted against them for whatever their actions are, if they're found to be in violation, but not for submitting frivolous complaints, and that's what we're trying to do something about other than the letters that are up there. Just to be clear, so the frivolous sanctions are the same as the sanctions for the respondent. It's just that most of the sanctions that are applicable are letters. Right. And I think part of our concern was that there's, the sanctions for someone that has an ethics complaint that is submitted against them and found to be in violation of the Code of Ethics, they still have to continue in their role as a, you know, a board member, a council member, whatever. So there is some inherent repercussions, I guess, from that. Like, they may not be elected, they may not be reappointed to a board or whatever that is, but for someone that submits it, they don't, they just get a letter and, yeah, and they're, it is... And I think that's my concern, and that's why I'm going to challenge us as a group, as we get the whole group, to think about more sanctions, a list of sanctions. I tried to study as much as I could from other cities, our size, and blah, blah, blah, and a lot of them have sanctions from the minimum to the maximum, and, you know, it becomes very objective versus subjective. And if they do this, they get this, and if they do this, they get this, and they do this, they get this, all the way down to losing their position on committees, to losing their position on the council. Now, I feel like we're trying to take care of a problem that we have a little bit of time instead of putting it all together and saying this is our sanctions, because as I've heard you guys talk about, you feel like sometimes you don't have any power. You know, you may want to make something happen, and I don't mean to get away from this, but I think if we're going to have power, then we have to be able to hold them accountable. And so even if we do this, then I think this doesn't have to be part of that whole list of sanctions that, hey, if they've done this, this is the part of the sanction that's going to play into that. But I think we've got to focus my opinion on, we've got to focus on a whole list of what wasted our time and energy if they're not going to be held accountable for their actions. So I'm not trying to get away from this, I just think this is going to be part of that full story that you tell, you know, and I do think that we need to make this part of a bigger picture. So that's just my opinion. I agree with you. I think the problem has been that getting changes through has been difficult, and it's, we've only gotten little things one at a time, but I think this is one that they're not going to be very excited about. But I totally agree. I would hope that they would be fully in support of trying to discourage frivolous ethics complaints. That seems like a no-brainer to me. I think for what you're describing, the number four that sits at the bottom of the screen there, that recommendation of suspension, that's one that does apply to someone that has a complaint entered against them, but not for someone that, if it's someone that's not, if someone submits a complaint that is found to be frivolous, and they are not a member of a board or a member of council, they're not subjected to the Board of Ethics, so we can't suspend them. But aren't they accountable for, if it's somebody on the board that made this account, aren't they accountable to one or two years because they made that complaint, and aren't they held accountable to us because they made that, now somebody's out there in the public. But the problem was just, it was a public person. And it was very, pretty publicized. It was not a member of the board or council, it was a member of the public that made the frivolous complaint, is what we're talking about. Then I would probably love to have, and I'm just talking please, I'd like to know if we really have an opportunity or accountability to really challenge public people that made a complaint, it comes hearsay, and becomes a court issue. And then my question would, would we be accountable to holding a public person and ruining their career in court? Some of that stuff, that's not what we're talking about. All we would be saying is you can't file another complaint for you. This public person can't. Right. That's it. And it's, it's for, I mean this would be anyone that makes a complaint that's found to be frivolous, so they might also, if it was a member of our board or any board that submitted the complaint that was found to be frivolous, they also would not be allowed to make another complaint for one year. But the problem I think that we're trying to address is for someone who is not, not, not subjected to the requirements of our code of ethics submitting a frivolous complaint, either on their own behalf or potentially by someone who is a public figure in our city that they encourage them to make a complaint against someone else. Things like that that could potentially happen or may have happened in the past that we're trying to avoid. So if, without doing something here, then there could be someone that is just the person that, for example, if there is a candidate for city council and they are, they want to discourage voters for voting for their opponent. And one way to do that would be to submit an ethics complaint and then that lines up in the paper, either because they investigate or in the last case where the person that made the complaint violated what is in the ethics ordinance, but they're not subjected to by notifying the paper that there is a complaint against this person who is a current candidate for city council. Which everybody in this country honestly does all the time. Right. And we don't have to, we don't have to let that happen here. I am concerned a little bit about sanctioning public people. I feel like I don't want to go down the rabbit hole. Well, I think that there's going to be more to it if some Joe comes up and challenges somebody on the committee or tries to spread a lie towards somebody else and we're trying to sanction them. My cousin is just telling me there might be more to this than meets the eye. You know, I'm all over sanctioning anybody on the committee. I mean, I understand if somebody is trying not to get elected by my mom, they ought to be shot and sank into whatever. But when we start sanctioning the public, I don't, I need for somebody to talk to me about we're not going to meet different things along the way. There is a requirement that they have to not go to the paper about it. And I think that's been there anyway and it happened. And I guess they're, so we're talking about a pretty narrow type of complaint, not if someone just, someone that lives in didn't thinks that someone did something and they are incorrect about it or the facts show that it's not a violation of ethics ordinance. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's frivolous. There are certain requirements in our code that have to be met for the board, this board to determine this is a frivolous complaint. The board doesn't even think about frivolous in most studies. I understand. I really do understand. Are we setting presidents? I mean, is this happening? Have we checked with any other city's ethics committee? It happened and didn't. We had a complaint during an election cycle where a person submitted a complaint that was found to be frivolous and nothing could be done. The board could do nothing other than write a letter and then send it to that person and say this is a frivolous complaint. That person could have just said okay and then they write another complaint right after that against another candidate they disagree with. But we're taking that case right there and we're putting it on our shoulders and saying the board couldn't do anything. So are you talking about the board of ethics or are you calling... What happens in a situation like that is then in the campaign literature that goes out then the opponent of the person that got maybe smeared with a frivolous complaint, they say this candidate was brought up on an ethics charge. Well they were but they were found to be frivolous but they don't put that information on the campaign literature. All they want is to be able to put something on the campaign literature that says the other candidate was brought up on an ethics charge, which makes you believe that candidate might have been unethical in some way. So it's just a way of trying to spin information in a negative way towards the opposing candidate. Well I've been part of that part of my life. I mean I understand setting up people. Trust me. So if that person could be sanctioned to not do another frivolous complaint for a year, it's a little more than just writing a letter. Like maybe to discourage that type of thing from happening. Alright, what's going to stop them from, they've gotten our letter, they can't do up something to another year. What's going to stop them from going to the paper and giving them a fake story anyway? That's the paper's concern. The paper is responsible for fact-reading and if they can't find facts then they're not even going to report it. Journalism has pretty strict standards about that. So if we're not stopping them and we're not really holding them accountable, then why are we even doing it? If they could go to the paper anyway. The example I gave is from an actual ethics complaint where the person submitted the complaint to Madison's office and almost immediately went to the paper and said there is an ethics complaint about this candidate. Before there was ever a panel, three-person panel, reviewed by the committee, before I think before the complaint itself was reviewed for completeness by Madison's office, the entire effort was to submit a complaint and then go to the paper and say there is a complaint against this candidate. And that was right before the election. So we can't stop someone from going to the paper or writing a letter and saying this person, this candidate is unethical. What we can do is put some safeguards in place so there's not people, bad actors in the community or in office or running for office that just submit complaints for that purpose. It costs the city money to have a hearing and it costs us, we're all professionals and in charge for our time. And that's a waste of our resources. I mean, yeah, if somebody submits something and they're mistaken, that's totally different from doing it. To be frivolous, there has to be a degree of, it has to rise to a higher level. Yeah, and it's outlined in the code for what can make something frivolous. There are specific definitions of what has to be reviewed by the committee. Okay, so first of all, I absolutely despise anybody that causes people problems. I don't want to put them on the table. I'm talking against this because I'm challenging us. You tell me, then I feel more comfortable about it. So the penalty that you're going to put on them, is that, can you go back to that? Is that like a no-cash penalty? Is that correct? There were two offers. Essentially, one we discussed was just that they would be barred from submitting another complaint for a year, so that wouldn't require any money. Essentially, if I received another complaint from that person, I would just notify all but we wouldn't process it. The other one was to impose attorney's fees incurred by the respondent on the complainant. So what would ultimately end up happening is that by finding that it was frivolous, the respondent could take that determination to a civil court somewhere and pursue getting those attorney's fees back, but they would have to go to court to do so. The respondent would. So the person who was accused frivolously. Does that make sense? Yeah. But what if they refused to pay their money? What if they refused to pay their fine? That would be the issue for the civil court. We had talked at one point about fees incurred by the city, or the attorney fees incurred by the city, because if there is a complaint submitted, then the panel review we have outside counsel for that, the board does. And then it would go to a full. $1900? I forget the exact amount. Of what? When we have to hire an attorney. There's a certain rate per hour, and I don't want to disclose it here, but it costs a couple thousand dollars to have a panel. That's not counting our time. I think when this first came up, that was discussed, because when there is a frivolous complaint, it's an inconvenience. It's part of our role as members of the board to go through the process and review it and get to that determination. There is kind of a penalty on the respondent, because it could affect the outcome of an election, it could affect their reputation, whatever that is. There's also a penalty to the city of Denton, because there's an actual financial cost associated with going through the review process. I can't imagine the board of ethics itself being involved in the respondent recovering any attorney's fees from that. But I could imagine that the city of Denton can send them an invoice and say, this is the cost the city incurred because of your frivolous complaint. In addition to not being able to submit a new complaint for going here, here is your invoice for attorney's fees that are required by the board. That would have to be a very clear case, but I would say this case was clear. If it's determined to be frivolous, then it's clear. If there could be a range, you could get a letter in the phone room, you could get just a letter. But the city would have to be on board. The city council would vote for it. The city council would have to vote for that change. Yeah, they would have to be on board with this. And also, this last question is, it would not come back to us. You're saying to me that there's no way that a person out there that's been challenged with a $2,000 civil court cannot come after us. Is that what you're saying? What do you mean by that? Coming after this group. In other words... In what way? Let me say, I'll make this up. I'm out there and I'm going to heat in something or another. I don't like something that's happening in the city and I do a privileged situation here and all of a sudden I challenge you. I'm going to send you to court for $2,000 to pay because I'm going to fine you for that. They can then not come back and say, well, I'm going to sue you. You're behind. No, because you have no right to say that about me and then I want all the facts and the figures and I want to know exactly where you got this information. And then could they come back to us is what I said. I understand what you're saying, but all of the information that would be reviewed by this board is based on their complaint. And the rules are public records. I'm just playing devil advocate. No, they should know going in that that could be a consequence. I'm very in favor of the letter of the year. I'm not so sure about the figure. Part of that came up because there was discussion in a council work session and during our last proposal to council on revisions to the ethics ordinance. There was discussion by one council member about the cost incurred for reviewing changes to the proposed changes to the ethics ordinance. And so that is kind of a backdrop where there is concern by council members on how the board board of ethics cost the city money. This discussion came up and I thought, well, these frivolous complaints also cost the city money. We're not doing anything to discourage this other than potentially sending a letter of reprimand or admonishment to the complainant and then nothing happens. Well, if we had our sanctions in place then something could happen because there could be a penalty. That sanction says, you know, you're mama-mama and mama-mama-mama and I think it would be very consistent. I feel a little bit comfortable with stopping this as far as this, but I do not feel comfortable with the cash. Anytime I've been involved with what I call cash and lawyers and that, people just come back at you. And you've got to be proved so much to them and it winds up costing the city more or the people more or the frustration. You know, I do think there's got to be sanctions with us and the council that will stand behind us and say, if you do this, then this is what happens. Period. And the story. And, you know, I agree, the letter's not going to do much. I agree with you. But if we have sanctions stronger that are in place and the city council agrees with them and we can work together. So I kind of hear different opinions. I hear two of you probably favor the fee. I'm kind of on the fence. Yeah, I think there's two things that are different here. One is what's written there is that the Board of Ethics may impose attorney's fees incurred by the respondent of the frivolous complaint upon the complaint. I don't know why the Board of Ethics would have anything to do with that. I don't know why that would be in our ordinance. I don't think that would be a good idea. Because if, I don't think there's any reason why a respondent could. It would have to be like paying court fees when you go to court. But I don't know why the Board of Ethics should do that on behalf of the respondent. Yeah, that would be a respondent. A respondent can go do that. They can go and sue the complainant for a frivolous complaint regardless of what we have in the ordinance if they feel like. Like if it's deemed to be frivolous, I would think that they would have some sort of case. I think it's different to say your complaint was frivolous and it rose to this level and therefore you should pay the city's costs for hearing it. I can see that. I can also frame it in a way that the first time they did it, it would just be suspension for a year and if they did it a second time, then they would incur the fees that the city pays because maybe the first time they didn't realize what they were getting into. I don't want to be in the business of deciding who's going to pay, who's not going to pay, who's going to collect us. I don't think that's our job here. I don't think we're all in agreement on that. So it sounds like no one is really in favor of the board imposing attorney's fees incurred by the respondent. I don't know, I wouldn't be comfortable advising anyone on that, but that would be up to the respondent to take some kind of action against the complaint. It is really hard to see how painful it is when somebody gets accused of something and they have to fight it and when they're in the middle, right before an election, that just bothers me a lot. And I do think that it had an impact on me a lot from that particular election because it was a wiser, thin margin. And we've had a semi-courtless complaint more recently. Well, Justin was on vacation. You were afraid that he's well-deserved, but we've talked about meeting with the council and this is something to me to meet with some of the council and some of you guys that said, "Can we get on board with this together?" You know, because nothing's going to happen if we can't get together. We've had a meeting that would have to be the whole board and the whole council and I think we'd be violating the Open Meetings Act. So we're clear on, so the one-year suspension sounds okay and we're a little bit mixed on charging for the city's costs. Is that it? My understanding is that it would require the same thing, right? Essentially, if you all decided it was frivolous, that could create a cause of action for the city to go file a civil suit. But again, that would take another step of the city going and doing that. So you would basically be recommending prosecution, or not prosecution. Yeah, we don't have a civil court. Some cities have civil courts, so when the city issues a civil fine or citation for not mowing your grass or something, they have a municipal court where you can have that heard. We don't have that in debt. So when those get challenged, if we fine someone, like you were saying, we send out an invoice to them and we say you owe the city this much money. If they don't pay it, we send it to collections, just like any private company does when you don't pay your bills. Just like the utility bill. And if we have to go after that person, we pursue that collection at county court. So it is similar where, in both cases, what the board would be doing is creating a debt, where either the respondent has a debt to, or the complainant has a debt to the respondent, or the complainant has a debt to the city. So they're similar in that way. And it's kind of like maybe a lawsuit where someone's bound and they have to pay a certain amount of money, and my understanding is that doesn't always happen. If it goes to collections, it's on their record for seven years. It can ruin their, in some respects, ruin their life for being stupid. So based on what you're saying, what court we have and what we don't, if they go to collections. So we're clear, we're definitely clear on the one-year suspension. I think we are. I don't know if Diane is out. What am I agreeing to? Are you okay with the one-year suspension if somebody is bound? Yeah, I absolutely agree with that. I have no problem with that. I have probably two minutes. So I guess it will be discussed at the next meeting. But I do agree with what Diane said. I would like to have a clear set of minimums and maximums. It would keep it objective and sort of get us in the middle of everything. Kind of, but yeah. It would have one objective. That would be discussion for next time so you can talk about that at the future agenda. But I do have direction on the one-year suspension to proceed with that potential change, potential amendment, and then to not move forward with the potential, the attorney's fees incurred by the respondent change. That was my understanding. Okay, talking about it at the next meeting. We didn't want, nobody wanted the attorney's fees. Oh, okay. It was the city expenses. That's the one that we're still talking about. Okay, so there's direction to talk about the city, the fees incurred by the city at the next meeting. I have a question, just a learning question. If we agree to the one-year, and the city looks at it, and they said, heck with this, we want to be more strict, and we want to go to the attorney fees or whatever, can that then be added through them to us or no? Or do we have to send it or less to them? They can add anything to the ethics ordinance they want to. Okay, so they can do that. When you say the city council, you all are making recommendations to the city council, so you're advising, you're trying to be giving some advice to the city right now. They absolutely can make it more strict. So if they don't think we're being strict enough, they can come back and say we'd like to revisit this and blah, blah, blah, blah. Just to clarify that, if the city council gives this board a power to do any of these things, that would be delegating to you all the power of the city. And so that is still the city, if it were to happen that way, that would be the city taking action when you all make those determinations. So there is a responsibility there, when you're acting on behalf of it, as a city board, if that happens. So we'll move on to item C. Okay, item C, DOE 25-027, receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding timeframes for processing submitted ethics complaints. So just for some background, I mean y'all just wanted to discuss this, but part of some background, since October 1st of 2020, there have been eight ethics complaints received. Four were considered abandoned, meaning there was some issue with their ethics, the form of their submission. I notified them of that issue and we did not receive a correction essentially, so I think it's 10 business days, it was considered abandoned. Four ethics complaints were accepted by me, meaning that they were administratively complete and timely, and then they were forwarded to the ethics chair, who assigned them to a panel. The panel heard them, and three of those moved to a hearing for some reason or another. So based on those complaints, the average time that an ethics complaint has actually taken to be processed is this a little bit over 30 days, where it takes about two calendar days for me, for my part, a little longer, like a week or two, to have the panel be heard, and then 21-ish days for the hearing to occur. So that's what's actually happened. Then this critical path timeline is essentially like, if there were no deficiencies or appeals or reconsiderations, this is the max time that the ordinance allows. So it's about 14 calendar days for my part, 21 calendar days for the preliminary assessment to occur, and then 30 calendar days for the evidentiary hearing to occur. And then this max time down here includes basically the max time that could occur, and it would still get to some sort of decision at the end. So this down here includes me getting it, taking five business days to review it, sending it back because there was an issue, then taking 10 business days to address the issue, sending it back, me taking five days to send it to the chair, so as long as possible essentially. So this is just kind of to show how long it takes actually, how long it can take at most to process an ethics complaint, but I wanted to provide that background before we had our discussion about potentially changing any of those timelines. Yeah, I think that if it's happening within 30 days, that's reasonable. I think the hardest part is just finding enough people to be on the panel who can come and talk about it. But I don't know how we could speed that up. Are there open seats on the board in this picture right now? There's one. And that was what was slowing us down for a while, was that we were two down. That did make it more difficult. I would say the only thing that I saw that seemed a little redundant was in this administrative piece here, I get five days to determine if it's acceptable, and then after I determine it's accepted, I get another five days to send it to you. That feels a little redundant, but that was the only thing that I thought was like, I don't know. That's why I think that this period is so much longer than this period, if that makes sense. I think since it's working like that, why change it? I mean there might be some reason it would have to take five days, maybe it's right before a holiday. But I think we've been as efficient as we could. The biggest problem has been that when we were down two members, we just couldn't get a voice together. People would be out of town. Especially when there's a complaint that is by one council member against another council member, because that requires two members of the board. There were lots of reasons that people weren't taken out on that equation. It's not our fault. We honestly need more members. I think that would be helpful. I think if we've been doing it in 30 days, that's pretty darn good. A little more than 30 days, and that's in calendar days. We can still technically count. I know you move on it pretty quickly. I've always tried to move back that day or the day after. The administrative time really doesn't take much at all. It's really just trying to get the meetings set up and making sure everybody can be there. There is time that we have to build in because of the posting timelines for meetings. Sometimes I pick a board and one of them can't start and then you have to build it some more. I believe there was some legislation that just passed that requires the posting timeline to extend, so that might impact these average times in the future. Just because we won't be able to have the turnaround quite as quick. I think since the length of time is really out of our control, I'd say it's working pretty well. I hope the council will continue to put people on the board because that's key to what we're doing. It was very hard for us when we were down so low. We kind of got blamed for that. Were we asked to review this because of concerns over how long it was taking? No, there was a discussion just last meeting by the board about potentially speeding up the timeline just because it's a difficult process for respondents in particular. I think it was kind of part of the frivolous discussion as well, especially if it is frivolous. There was some discussion about if there's a way to expedite it during election season, but that was just some of why this got brought up. But it was all within the board, not by staff. I do think that as a rule, people have been very dedicated to coming, and that when people come to meetings, they're fully with the background materials. I appreciate that. So I'd say if it ain't broke, don't fix it, maybe. The average actual time is significantly shorter than what it could take. So I think we've done a good job. I guess we could reduce the allowable time here. And I know for me, when I'm on a board, I'll reschedule other commitments that I have because this is important. And that's why frivolous stuff annoys me. And I think that I probably am not the only one doing that. Well, we don't meet every week or every other day. That's another thing. When a hearing happens and may not be convenient, I'll reschedule prior commitments. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who's done that. But it takes you 30 days to receive the information. The first 30 days is what's done the first 30 days. This first bar on each half is how much time I have to determine if the complaint is just administratively complete. I have two weeks to do that. I usually do it in two days. And then the red bar is how much time we have to have an assessment, like a preliminary panel that you've been on before. We have, I believe, three weeks to do that. We normally do it in two, or about 10 days, actually. That's the hardest part. And then we have 30 days once the panel has made its determination to have the hearing. That's the gray bar at the end. And we normally do that in 25, 21 days, so a couple weeks. I think we're being pretty efficient. Okay, so are we ready to move on to Item D? Item D, BOE 25-OT8 Management Reports. So this is for the advisory opinion. And I just want to say publicly, I think you guys did a really good job. You had some difficult questions to piece through, and you did a really good job. Thank you. I was very impressed. It could almost be used as an example to show other people that wonder about how does a board of ethics operate. And it showed how carefully all the different ideas were processed in a very, very fair way. It wasn't just slapdash, it was very thought out, and everybody got to say their concerns. I thought it would be an example of how a board should work. I thought you were the goat. As good as you can get, I was very proud of you guys. Is this recording right now? Probably. Showing my kids. I thought you did an excellent job. It was challenging, and there were lots of very specific questions. I like the suggestion that they should come back for opinions, no matter how remote the potential conflict was. My hope is that is what was heard by anyone that reviewed this or watched the panel meeting, because it's really hard. We talk about hypotheticals like every meeting, like what if this happens, what if that happens, and to try and issue an advisory opinion based on some hypothetical things. I don't want to tie us up in the future to say, you said this was okay or this is not okay, and some of it was, I think, pretty black and white. We discussed that as best we could, and hopefully we gave her some clarity and something to go forward with. She carries out her duties as a commissioner. I don't know what else we could have done. I think it was a good job. So any comments about putting that? It makes one easier. Okay. Item B, BLE 25-029, Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion, and Give Staff Directions Regarding Future Meeting Talks. Yeah, so my understanding is we don't currently have anything on the schedule for next meeting, so wide open. Well, we discussed the charging. Right, previously scheduled. Not charging the complainant, but charging for city. The city is returning speed. Yes, there is direction to come back with that potentially. That can be at the next meeting, yes. Is there anything else you'd like to talk about next time? I would like to go back, if you don't mind, with the sanctions. Yeah, broader. And just start evaluating that to see if we could come up with the sections of sanctions that we would be proud to live with, and hopefully the council would agree that that would be great. Right. And they're really not in favor of financial ones, but you know, yeah. I'm wondering if maybe we should skip August meeting. I'd be down for that. None of these are that pressing right now. Does that make sense? I don't want to push for that because I missed the last meeting. I won't argue with you. Well, in the summertime, people are going on vacations, and yeah, we don't have anything that's burning right now, so the next meeting will be in September. That's the lowest direction we will make, so everybody is aware. We can do that, right? We can do that, all in favor? All right, I say no meeting in August. All right. And so there's no other business, so it is now 625 p.m., and this meeting is adjourned. All right, thank you so much. Thank you.