1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:25,000
 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.

2
00:00:25,000 --> 00:00:46,000
 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.

3
00:00:46,000 --> 00:01:12,000
 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?

4
00:01:12,000 --> 00:01:31,000
 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.

5
00:01:31,000 --> 00:01:57,000
 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.

6
00:01:57,000 --> 00:02:16,000
 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.

7
00:02:16,000 --> 00:02:38,000
 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.

8
00:02:38,000 --> 00:02:55,000
 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.

9
00:02:55,000 --> 00:03:14,000
 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.

10
00:03:14,000 --> 00:03:28,000
 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.

11
00:03:28,000 --> 00:03:54,000
 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.

12
00:03:54,000 --> 00:04:20,000
 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.

13
00:04:20,000 --> 00:04:47,000
 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.

14
00:04:47,000 --> 00:05:03,000
 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.

15
00:05:03,000 --> 00:05:30,000
 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.

16
00:05:30,000 --> 00:05:48,000
 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.

17
00:05:48,000 --> 00:06:09,000
 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.

18
00:06:09,000 --> 00:06:22,000
 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?

19
00:06:22,000 --> 00:06:51,000
 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.

20
00:06:51,000 --> 00:07:17,000
 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,

21
00:07:17,000 --> 00:07:35,000
 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.

22
00:07:35,000 --> 00:08:00,000
 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.

23
00:08:00,000 --> 00:08:10,000
 And we realized, well this person could just do that whenever they want. And I think that's what was a little bit separate.

24
00:08:10,000 --> 00:08:14,000
 There was a lot more that made it frivolous too.

25
00:08:14,000 --> 00:08:36,000
 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.

26
00:08:36,000 --> 00:08:56,000
 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.

27
00:08:56,000 --> 00:09:08,000
 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.

28
00:09:08,000 --> 00:09:28,000
 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.

29
00:09:28,000 --> 00:09:48,000
 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...

30
00:09:48,000 --> 00:10:17,000
 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.

31
00:10:17,000 --> 00:10:29,000
 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.

32
00:10:29,000 --> 00:10:49,000
 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.

33
00:10:49,000 --> 00:10:59,000
 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.

34
00:10:59,000 --> 00:11:14,000
 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.

35
00:11:14,000 --> 00:11:29,000
 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.

36
00:11:29,000 --> 00:11:41,000
 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.

37
00:11:41,000 --> 00:11:43,000
 So that's just my opinion.

38
00:11:43,000 --> 00:12:02,000
 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.

39
00:12:02,000 --> 00:12:17,000
 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.

40
00:12:17,000 --> 00:12:34,000
 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,

41
00:12:34,000 --> 00:12:55,000
 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.

42
00:12:55,000 --> 00:13:17,000
 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.

43
00:13:17,000 --> 00:13:26,000
 But the problem was just, it was a public person. And it was very, pretty publicized.

44
00:13:26,000 --> 00:13:34,000
 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.

45
00:13:34,000 --> 00:13:52,000
 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.

46
00:13:52,000 --> 00:14:05,000
 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.

47
00:14:05,000 --> 00:14:10,000
 All we would be saying is you can't file another complaint for you.

48
00:14:10,000 --> 00:14:12,000
 This public person can't.

49
00:14:12,000 --> 00:14:13,000
 Right.

50
00:14:13,000 --> 00:14:14,000
 That's it.

51
00:14:14,000 --> 00:14:34,000
 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.

52
00:14:34,000 --> 00:14:48,000
 But the problem I think that we're trying to address is for someone who is not, not,

53
00:14:48,000 --> 00:15:07,000
 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.

54
00:15:07,000 --> 00:15:28,000
 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,

55
00:15:28,000 --> 00:15:41,000
 for example, if there is a candidate for city council and they are, they want to discourage voters for voting for their opponent.

56
00:15:41,000 --> 00:16:07,000
 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.

57
00:16:07,000 --> 00:16:14,000
 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.

58
00:16:14,000 --> 00:16:25,000
 I am concerned a little bit about sanctioning public people. I feel like I don't want to go down the rabbit hole.

59
00:16:25,000 --> 00:16:42,000
 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.

60
00:16:42,000 --> 00:16:58,000
 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.

61
00:16:58,000 --> 00:17:07,000
 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.

62
00:17:07,000 --> 00:17:19,000
 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.

63
00:17:19,000 --> 00:17:40,000
 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.

64
00:17:40,000 --> 00:17:51,000
 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.

65
00:17:51,000 --> 00:17:55,000
 The board doesn't even think about frivolous in most studies.

66
00:17:55,000 --> 00:18:10,000
 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.

67
00:18:10,000 --> 00:18:22,000
 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.

68
00:18:22,000 --> 00:18:27,000
 The board could do nothing other than write a letter and then send it to that person and say this is a frivolous complaint.

69
00:18:27,000 --> 00:18:35,000
 That person could have just said okay and then they write another complaint right after that against another candidate they disagree with.

70
00:18:35,000 --> 00:18:44,000
 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...

71
00:18:44,000 --> 00:18:59,000
 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,

72
00:18:59,000 --> 00:19:08,000
 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.

73
00:19:08,000 --> 00:19:14,000
 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,

74
00:19:14,000 --> 00:19:23,000
 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.

75
00:19:23,000 --> 00:19:29,000
 Well I've been part of that part of my life. I mean I understand setting up people. Trust me.

76
00:19:29,000 --> 00:19:37,000
 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.

77
00:19:37,000 --> 00:19:41,000
 Like maybe to discourage that type of thing from happening.

78
00:19:41,000 --> 00:19:48,000
 Alright, what's going to stop them from, they've gotten our letter, they can't do up something to another year.

79
00:19:48,000 --> 00:19:53,000
 What's going to stop them from going to the paper and giving them a fake story anyway?

80
00:19:53,000 --> 00:20:08,000
 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.

81
00:20:08,000 --> 00:20:14,000
 Journalism has pretty strict standards about that.

82
00:20:14,000 --> 00:20:24,000
 So if we're not stopping them and we're not really holding them accountable, then why are we even doing it?

83
00:20:24,000 --> 00:20:28,000
 If they could go to the paper anyway.

84
00:20:28,000 --> 00:20:37,000
 The example I gave is from an actual ethics complaint where the person submitted the complaint to Madison's office

85
00:20:37,000 --> 00:20:44,000
 and almost immediately went to the paper and said there is an ethics complaint about this candidate.

86
00:20:44,000 --> 00:20:50,000
 Before there was ever a panel, three-person panel, reviewed by the committee,

87
00:20:50,000 --> 00:20:57,000
 before I think before the complaint itself was reviewed for completeness by Madison's office,

88
00:20:57,000 --> 00:21:05,000
 the entire effort was to submit a complaint and then go to the paper and say there is a complaint against this candidate.

89
00:21:05,000 --> 00:21:11,000
 And that was right before the election.

90
00:21:11,000 --> 00:21:19,000
 So we can't stop someone from going to the paper or writing a letter and saying this person, this candidate is unethical.

91
00:21:19,000 --> 00:21:28,000
 What we can do is put some safeguards in place so there's not people, bad actors in the community or in office

92
00:21:28,000 --> 00:21:33,000
 or running for office that just submit complaints for that purpose.

93
00:21:33,000 --> 00:21:42,000
 It costs the city money to have a hearing and it costs us, we're all professionals and in charge for our time.

94
00:21:42,000 --> 00:21:46,000
 And that's a waste of our resources.

95
00:21:46,000 --> 00:21:54,000
 I mean, yeah, if somebody submits something and they're mistaken, that's totally different from doing it.

96
00:21:54,000 --> 00:22:03,000
 To be frivolous, there has to be a degree of, it has to rise to a higher level.

97
00:22:03,000 --> 00:22:08,000
 Yeah, and it's outlined in the code for what can make something frivolous.

98
00:22:08,000 --> 00:22:15,000
 There are specific definitions of what has to be reviewed by the committee.

99
00:22:15,000 --> 00:22:21,000
 Okay, so first of all, I absolutely despise anybody that causes people problems.

100
00:22:21,000 --> 00:22:26,000
 I don't want to put them on the table. I'm talking against this because I'm challenging us.

101
00:22:26,000 --> 00:22:30,000
 You tell me, then I feel more comfortable about it.

102
00:22:30,000 --> 00:22:38,000
 So the penalty that you're going to put on them, is that, can you go back to that?

103
00:22:38,000 --> 00:22:44,000
 Is that like a no-cash penalty? Is that correct?

104
00:22:44,000 --> 00:22:55,000
 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.

105
00:22:55,000 --> 00:23:02,000
 Essentially, if I received another complaint from that person, I would just notify all but we wouldn't process it.

106
00:23:02,000 --> 00:23:10,000
 The other one was to impose attorney's fees incurred by the respondent on the complainant.

107
00:23:10,000 --> 00:23:17,000
 So what would ultimately end up happening is that by finding that it was frivolous,

108
00:23:17,000 --> 00:23:28,000
 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.

109
00:23:28,000 --> 00:23:33,000
 The respondent would. So the person who was accused frivolously. Does that make sense?

110
00:23:33,000 --> 00:23:40,000
 Yeah. But what if they refused to pay their money? What if they refused to pay their fine?

111
00:23:40,000 --> 00:23:45,000
 That would be the issue for the civil court.

112
00:23:45,000 --> 00:23:53,000
 We had talked at one point about fees incurred by the city, or the attorney fees incurred by the city,

113
00:23:53,000 --> 00:24:02,000
 because if there is a complaint submitted, then the panel review we have outside counsel for that, the board does.

114
00:24:02,000 --> 00:24:06,000
 And then it would go to a full.

115
00:24:06,000 --> 00:24:12,000
 $1900? I forget the exact amount.

116
00:24:12,000 --> 00:24:13,000
 Of what?

117
00:24:13,000 --> 00:24:15,000
 When we have to hire an attorney.

118
00:24:15,000 --> 00:24:24,000
 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.

119
00:24:24,000 --> 00:24:26,000
 That's not counting our time.

120
00:24:26,000 --> 00:24:42,000
 I think when this first came up, that was discussed, because when there is a frivolous complaint, it's an inconvenience.

121
00:24:42,000 --> 00:24:49,000
 It's part of our role as members of the board to go through the process and review it and get to that determination.

122
00:24:49,000 --> 00:25:02,000
 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.

123
00:25:02,000 --> 00:25:10,000
 There's also a penalty to the city of Denton, because there's an actual financial cost associated with going through the review process.

124
00:25:10,000 --> 00:25:24,000
 I can't imagine the board of ethics itself being involved in the respondent recovering any attorney's fees from that.

125
00:25:24,000 --> 00:25:38,000
 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.

126
00:25:38,000 --> 00:25:50,000
 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.

127
00:25:50,000 --> 00:25:58,000
 That would have to be a very clear case, but I would say this case was clear.

128
00:25:58,000 --> 00:26:04,000
 If it's determined to be frivolous, then it's clear.

129
00:26:04,000 --> 00:26:10,000
 If there could be a range, you could get a letter in the phone room, you could get just a letter.

130
00:26:10,000 --> 00:26:13,000
 But the city would have to be on board.

131
00:26:13,000 --> 00:26:18,000
 The city council would vote for it. The city council would have to vote for that change.

132
00:26:18,000 --> 00:26:20,000
 Yeah, they would have to be on board with this.

133
00:26:20,000 --> 00:26:25,000
 And also, this last question is, it would not come back to us.

134
00:26:25,000 --> 00:26:35,000
 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?

135
00:26:35,000 --> 00:26:37,000
 What do you mean by that?

136
00:26:37,000 --> 00:26:39,000
 Coming after this group. In other words...

137
00:26:39,000 --> 00:26:40,000
 In what way?

138
00:26:40,000 --> 00:26:56,000
 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.

139
00:26:56,000 --> 00:27:01,000
 I'm going to send you to court for $2,000 to pay because I'm going to fine you for that.

140
00:27:01,000 --> 00:27:06,000
 They can then not come back and say, well, I'm going to sue you. You're behind.

141
00:27:06,000 --> 00:27:14,000
 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.

142
00:27:14,000 --> 00:27:18,000
 And then could they come back to us is what I said.

143
00:27:18,000 --> 00:27:31,000
 I understand what you're saying, but all of the information that would be reviewed by this board is based on their complaint.

144
00:27:31,000 --> 00:27:34,000
 And the rules are public records.

145
00:27:34,000 --> 00:27:36,000
 I'm just playing devil advocate.

146
00:27:36,000 --> 00:27:40,000
 No, they should know going in that that could be a consequence.

147
00:27:40,000 --> 00:27:51,000
 I'm very in favor of the letter of the year. I'm not so sure about the figure.

148
00:27:51,000 --> 00:28:05,000
 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.

149
00:28:05,000 --> 00:28:19,000
 There was discussion by one council member about the cost incurred for reviewing changes to the proposed changes to the ethics ordinance.

150
00:28:19,000 --> 00:28:32,000
 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.

151
00:28:32,000 --> 00:28:38,000
 This discussion came up and I thought, well, these frivolous complaints also cost the city money.

152
00:28:38,000 --> 00:28:51,000
 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.

153
00:28:51,000 --> 00:28:58,000
 Well, if we had our sanctions in place then something could happen because there could be a penalty.

154
00:28:58,000 --> 00:29:04,000
 That sanction says, you know, you're mama-mama and mama-mama-mama and I think it would be very consistent.

155
00:29:04,000 --> 00:29:13,000
 I feel a little bit comfortable with stopping this as far as this, but I do not feel comfortable with the cash.

156
00:29:13,000 --> 00:29:23,000
 Anytime I've been involved with what I call cash and lawyers and that, people just come back at you.

157
00:29:23,000 --> 00:29:30,000
 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.

158
00:29:30,000 --> 00:29:38,000
 You know, I do think there's got to be sanctions with us and the council that will stand behind us and say,

159
00:29:38,000 --> 00:29:43,000
 if you do this, then this is what happens. Period. And the story.

160
00:29:43,000 --> 00:29:48,000
 And, you know, I agree, the letter's not going to do much. I agree with you.

161
00:29:48,000 --> 00:29:56,000
 But if we have sanctions stronger that are in place and the city council agrees with them and we can work together.

162
00:29:56,000 --> 00:30:05,000
 So I kind of hear different opinions. I hear two of you probably favor the fee.

163
00:30:05,000 --> 00:30:07,000
 I'm kind of on the fence.

164
00:30:07,000 --> 00:30:10,000
 Yeah, I think there's two things that are different here.

165
00:30:10,000 --> 00:30:25,000
 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.

166
00:30:25,000 --> 00:30:31,000
 I don't know why the Board of Ethics would have anything to do with that.

167
00:30:31,000 --> 00:30:36,000
 I don't know why that would be in our ordinance.

168
00:30:36,000 --> 00:30:38,000
 I don't think that would be a good idea.

169
00:30:38,000 --> 00:30:43,000
 Because if, I don't think there's any reason why a respondent could.

170
00:30:43,000 --> 00:30:46,000
 It would have to be like paying court fees when you go to court.

171
00:30:46,000 --> 00:30:51,000
 But I don't know why the Board of Ethics should do that on behalf of the respondent.

172
00:30:51,000 --> 00:30:53,000
 Yeah, that would be a respondent.

173
00:30:53,000 --> 00:31:02,000
 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.

174
00:31:02,000 --> 00:31:06,000
 Like if it's deemed to be frivolous, I would think that they would have some sort of case.

175
00:31:06,000 --> 00:31:20,000
 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.

176
00:31:20,000 --> 00:31:23,000
 I can see that.

177
00:31:23,000 --> 00:31:51,000
 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.

178
00:31:51,000 --> 00:32:08,000
 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.

179
00:32:08,000 --> 00:32:10,000
 I don't think that's our job here.

180
00:32:10,000 --> 00:32:13,000
 I don't think we're all in agreement on that.

181
00:32:13,000 --> 00:32:28,000
 So it sounds like no one is really in favor of the board imposing attorney's fees incurred by the respondent.

182
00:32:28,000 --> 00:32:54,000
 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.

183
00:32:54,000 --> 00:33:09,000
 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.

184
00:33:09,000 --> 00:33:24,000
 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.

185
00:33:24,000 --> 00:33:36,000
 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,

186
00:33:36,000 --> 00:33:45,000
 "Can we get on board with this together?" You know, because nothing's going to happen if we can't get together.

187
00:33:45,000 --> 00:34:07,000
 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.

188
00:34:07,000 --> 00:34:24,000
 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?

189
00:34:24,000 --> 00:34:37,000
 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.

190
00:34:37,000 --> 00:34:48,000
 But again, that would take another step of the city going and doing that. So you would basically be recommending prosecution, or not prosecution.

191
00:34:48,000 --> 00:34:59,000
 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,

192
00:34:59,000 --> 00:35:10,000
 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,

193
00:35:10,000 --> 00:35:21,000
 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.

194
00:35:21,000 --> 00:35:22,000
 Just like the utility bill.

195
00:35:22,000 --> 00:35:33,000
 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,

196
00:35:33,000 --> 00:35:46,000
 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.

197
00:35:46,000 --> 00:36:03,000
 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.

198
00:36:03,000 --> 00:36:21,000
 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.

199
00:36:21,000 --> 00:36:27,000
 So we're clear, we're definitely clear on the one-year suspension.

200
00:36:27,000 --> 00:36:30,000
 I think we are. I don't know if Diane is out.

201
00:36:30,000 --> 00:36:37,000
 What am I agreeing to? Are you okay with the one-year suspension if somebody is bound?

202
00:36:37,000 --> 00:36:41,000
 Yeah, I absolutely agree with that. I have no problem with that.

203
00:36:41,000 --> 00:36:46,000
 I have probably two minutes.

204
00:36:46,000 --> 00:36:51,000
 So I guess it will be discussed at the next meeting.

205
00:36:51,000 --> 00:37:04,000
 But I do agree with what Diane said. I would like to have a clear set of minimums and maximums.

206
00:37:04,000 --> 00:37:08,000
 It would keep it objective and sort of get us in the middle of everything.

207
00:37:08,000 --> 00:37:16,000
 Kind of, but yeah. It would have one objective.

208
00:37:16,000 --> 00:37:21,000
 That would be discussion for next time so you can talk about that at the future agenda.

209
00:37:21,000 --> 00:37:37,000
 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.

210
00:37:37,000 --> 00:37:39,000
 That was my understanding.

211
00:37:39,000 --> 00:37:46,000
 Okay, talking about it at the next meeting. We didn't want, nobody wanted the attorney's fees.

212
00:37:46,000 --> 00:37:55,000
 Oh, okay. It was the city expenses. That's the one that we're still talking about.

213
00:37:55,000 --> 00:38:00,000
 Okay, so there's direction to talk about the city, the fees incurred by the city at the next meeting.

214
00:38:00,000 --> 00:38:20,000
 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?

215
00:38:20,000 --> 00:38:23,000
 Or do we have to send it or less to them?

216
00:38:23,000 --> 00:38:26,000
 They can add anything to the ethics ordinance they want to.

217
00:38:26,000 --> 00:38:30,000
 Okay, so they can do that.

218
00:38:30,000 --> 00:38:42,000
 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.

219
00:38:42,000 --> 00:38:44,000
 They absolutely can make it more strict.

220
00:38:44,000 --> 00:38:50,000
 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.

221
00:38:50,000 --> 00:39:02,000
 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.

222
00:39:02,000 --> 00:39:10,000
 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.

223
00:39:10,000 --> 00:39:19,000
 So there is a responsibility there, when you're acting on behalf of it, as a city board, if that happens.

224
00:39:19,000 --> 00:39:27,000
 So we'll move on to item C.

225
00:39:27,000 --> 00:39:42,000
 Okay, item C, DOE 25-027, receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding timeframes for processing submitted ethics complaints.

226
00:39:42,000 --> 00:39:52,000
 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.

227
00:39:52,000 --> 00:40:01,000
 Four were considered abandoned, meaning there was some issue with their ethics, the form of their submission.

228
00:40:01,000 --> 00:40:10,000
 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.

229
00:40:10,000 --> 00:40:20,000
 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.

230
00:40:20,000 --> 00:40:26,000
 The panel heard them, and three of those moved to a hearing for some reason or another.

231
00:40:26,000 --> 00:40:42,000
 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,

232
00:40:42,000 --> 00:40:57,000
 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.

233
00:40:57,000 --> 00:41:13,000
 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.

234
00:41:13,000 --> 00:41:27,000
 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.

235
00:41:27,000 --> 00:41:45,000
 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,

236
00:41:45,000 --> 00:41:57,000
 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.

237
00:41:57,000 --> 00:42:19,000
 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.

238
00:42:19,000 --> 00:42:34,000
 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.

239
00:42:34,000 --> 00:42:43,000
 But I don't know how we could speed that up.

240
00:42:43,000 --> 00:42:53,000
 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.

241
00:42:53,000 --> 00:43:12,000
 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.

242
00:43:12,000 --> 00:43:23,000
 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.

243
00:43:23,000 --> 00:43:34,000
 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.

244
00:43:34,000 --> 00:43:52,000
 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.

245
00:43:52,000 --> 00:44:05,000
 Especially when there's a complaint that is by one council member against another council member, because that requires two members of the board.

246
00:44:05,000 --> 00:44:22,000
 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.

247
00:44:22,000 --> 00:44:27,000
 I think if we've been doing it in 30 days, that's pretty darn good.

248
00:44:27,000 --> 00:44:35,000
 A little more than 30 days, and that's in calendar days.

249
00:44:35,000 --> 00:44:51,000
 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.

250
00:44:51,000 --> 00:45:00,000
 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.

251
00:45:00,000 --> 00:45:07,000
 There is time that we have to build in because of the posting timelines for meetings.

252
00:45:07,000 --> 00:45:13,000
 Sometimes I pick a board and one of them can't start and then you have to build it some more.

253
00:45:13,000 --> 00:45:24,000
 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.

254
00:45:24,000 --> 00:45:33,000
 Just because we won't be able to have the turnaround quite as quick.

255
00:45:33,000 --> 00:45:43,000
 I think since the length of time is really out of our control, I'd say it's working pretty well.

256
00:45:43,000 --> 00:45:54,000
 I hope the council will continue to put people on the board because that's key to what we're doing.

257
00:45:54,000 --> 00:46:14,000
 It was very hard for us when we were down so low. We kind of got blamed for that.

258
00:46:14,000 --> 00:46:20,000
 Were we asked to review this because of concerns over how long it was taking?

259
00:46:20,000 --> 00:46:32,000
 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.

260
00:46:32,000 --> 00:46:38,000
 I think it was kind of part of the frivolous discussion as well, especially if it is frivolous.

261
00:46:38,000 --> 00:46:47,000
 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.

262
00:46:47,000 --> 00:46:51,000
 But it was all within the board, not by staff.

263
00:46:51,000 --> 00:47:04,000
 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.

264
00:47:04,000 --> 00:47:16,000
 I appreciate that. So I'd say if it ain't broke, don't fix it, maybe.

265
00:47:16,000 --> 00:47:22,000
 The average actual time is significantly shorter than what it could take.

266
00:47:22,000 --> 00:47:33,000
 So I think we've done a good job. I guess we could reduce the allowable time here.

267
00:47:33,000 --> 00:47:48,000
 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.

268
00:47:48,000 --> 00:47:52,000
 And I think that I probably am not the only one doing that.

269
00:47:52,000 --> 00:47:57,000
 Well, we don't meet every week or every other day. That's another thing.

270
00:47:57,000 --> 00:48:10,000
 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.

271
00:48:10,000 --> 00:48:20,000
 But it takes you 30 days to receive the information. The first 30 days is what's done the first 30 days.

272
00:48:20,000 --> 00:48:31,000
 This first bar on each half is how much time I have to determine if the complaint is just administratively complete.

273
00:48:31,000 --> 00:48:37,000
 I have two weeks to do that. I usually do it in two days.

274
00:48:37,000 --> 00:48:47,000
 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.

275
00:48:47,000 --> 00:48:54,000
 We have, I believe, three weeks to do that. We normally do it in two, or about 10 days, actually.

276
00:48:54,000 --> 00:48:56,000
 That's the hardest part.

277
00:48:56,000 --> 00:49:08,000
 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.

278
00:49:08,000 --> 00:49:18,000
 And we normally do that in 25, 21 days, so a couple weeks.

279
00:49:18,000 --> 00:49:25,000
 I think we're being pretty efficient.

280
00:49:25,000 --> 00:49:36,000
 Okay, so are we ready to move on to Item D?

281
00:49:36,000 --> 00:49:41,000
 Item D, BOE 25-OT8 Management Reports.

282
00:49:41,000 --> 00:49:45,000
 So this is for the advisory opinion.

283
00:49:45,000 --> 00:49:50,000
 And I just want to say publicly, I think you guys did a really good job.

284
00:49:50,000 --> 00:49:57,000
 You had some difficult questions to piece through, and you did a really good job.

285
00:49:57,000 --> 00:49:58,000
 Thank you.

286
00:49:58,000 --> 00:50:10,000
 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.

287
00:50:10,000 --> 00:50:21,000
 And it showed how carefully all the different ideas were processed in a very, very fair way.

288
00:50:21,000 --> 00:50:28,000
 It wasn't just slapdash, it was very thought out, and everybody got to say their concerns.

289
00:50:28,000 --> 00:50:33,000
 I thought it would be an example of how a board should work.

290
00:50:33,000 --> 00:50:37,000
 I thought you were the goat.

291
00:50:37,000 --> 00:50:41,000
 As good as you can get, I was very proud of you guys.

292
00:50:41,000 --> 00:50:43,000
 Is this recording right now?

293
00:50:43,000 --> 00:50:44,000
 Probably.

294
00:50:44,000 --> 00:50:45,000
 Showing my kids.

295
00:50:45,000 --> 00:50:48,000
 I thought you did an excellent job.

296
00:50:48,000 --> 00:50:53,000
 It was challenging, and there were lots of very specific questions.

297
00:50:53,000 --> 00:51:04,000
 I like the suggestion that they should come back for opinions, no matter how remote the potential conflict was.

298
00:51:04,000 --> 00:51:18,000
 My hope is that is what was heard by anyone that reviewed this or watched the panel meeting, because it's really hard.

299
00:51:18,000 --> 00:51:34,000
 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.

300
00:51:34,000 --> 00:51:44,000
 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.

301
00:51:44,000 --> 00:51:59,000
 We discussed that as best we could, and hopefully we gave her some clarity and something to go forward with.

302
00:51:59,000 --> 00:52:03,000
 She carries out her duties as a commissioner.

303
00:52:03,000 --> 00:52:08,000
 I don't know what else we could have done.

304
00:52:08,000 --> 00:52:10,000
 I think it was a good job.

305
00:52:10,000 --> 00:52:16,000
 So any comments about putting that?

306
00:52:16,000 --> 00:52:20,000
 It makes one easier.

307
00:52:20,000 --> 00:52:23,000
 Okay.

308
00:52:23,000 --> 00:52:33,000
 Item B, BLE 25-029, Receive a Report, Hold a Discussion, and Give Staff Directions Regarding Future Meeting Talks.

309
00:52:33,000 --> 00:52:42,000
 Yeah, so my understanding is we don't currently have anything on the schedule for next meeting, so wide open.

310
00:52:42,000 --> 00:52:46,000
 Well, we discussed the charging.

311
00:52:46,000 --> 00:52:50,000
 Right, previously scheduled.

312
00:52:50,000 --> 00:52:55,000
 Not charging the complainant, but charging for city.

313
00:52:55,000 --> 00:53:03,000
 The city is returning speed. Yes, there is direction to come back with that potentially. That can be at the next meeting, yes.

314
00:53:03,000 --> 00:53:08,000
 Is there anything else you'd like to talk about next time?

315
00:53:08,000 --> 00:53:13,000
 I would like to go back, if you don't mind, with the sanctions.

316
00:53:13,000 --> 00:53:15,000
 Yeah, broader.

317
00:53:15,000 --> 00:53:28,000
 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.

318
00:53:28,000 --> 00:53:30,000
 Right.

319
00:53:30,000 --> 00:53:38,000
 And they're really not in favor of financial ones, but you know, yeah.

320
00:53:38,000 --> 00:53:46,000
 I'm wondering if maybe we should skip August meeting.

321
00:53:46,000 --> 00:53:49,000
 I'd be down for that.

322
00:53:49,000 --> 00:53:53,000
 None of these are that pressing right now.

323
00:53:53,000 --> 00:53:55,000
 Does that make sense?

324
00:53:55,000 --> 00:54:02,000
 I don't want to push for that because I missed the last meeting.

325
00:54:02,000 --> 00:54:03,000
 I won't argue with you.

326
00:54:03,000 --> 00:54:15,000
 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.

327
00:54:15,000 --> 00:54:20,000
 That's the lowest direction we will make, so everybody is aware.

328
00:54:20,000 --> 00:54:21,000
 We can do that, right?

329
00:54:21,000 --> 00:54:41,000
 We can do that, all in favor?

330
00:54:41,000 --> 00:54:44,000
 All right, I say no meeting in August.

331
00:54:44,000 --> 00:54:45,000
 All right.

332
00:54:45,000 --> 00:54:55,000
 And so there's no other business, so it is now 625 p.m., and this meeting is adjourned.

333
00:54:55,000 --> 00:54:57,000
 All right, thank you so much.

334
00:54:57,000 --> 00:54:59,000
 Thank you.