1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:11,520
 All right. This is the Board of Ethics meeting. It is 5 30 p.m. on Monday, November 10, 2025.

2
00:00:11,520 --> 00:00:18,480
 And the first item on our agenda is presentation from members of the public

3
00:00:18,480 --> 00:00:24,000
 and I don't know what will happen. So we're going to move to item two, items for consideration.

4
00:00:24,640 --> 00:00:34,880
 First one is BOE 25-33, consider approval of minutes for July 14, 2025. And I would like to

5
00:00:34,880 --> 00:00:44,080
 suggest that there are two places where there are initials and that they just be amended to write

6
00:00:44,080 --> 00:00:53,760
 out the person's full name. I think it's Dustin and Patricia. So with those amendments, I didn't

7
00:00:53,760 --> 00:01:01,040
 see anything else. My name appears twice, once is a yay and once is an absent. Wow. Yeah, my name

8
00:01:01,040 --> 00:01:06,480
 doesn't appear in that. All right. Okay. We'll come back with these. All right. Okay. I apologize.

9
00:01:06,480 --> 00:01:14,320
 Okay. So we'll make those corrections. Other than those things, are there any changes?

10
00:01:14,320 --> 00:01:21,760
 So do I hear a motion to approve it as amended? I motion to approve it as amended.

11
00:01:21,760 --> 00:01:29,920
 First by Diane. Can you state the amendment? Sorry. The amendment will be changing so that

12
00:01:29,920 --> 00:01:40,160
 BOE 25-33. Yes. The amendment would be writing out Patricia Winkie's name, Dustin Publick's name,

13
00:01:40,160 --> 00:01:48,160
 indicating that Andrea could not possibly be both absent and say yes.

14
00:01:50,800 --> 00:02:03,920
 What else? Yeah. And I should be listed under the ayes. Okay. Is that clear enough? On 25-425,

15
00:02:03,920 --> 00:02:11,680
 who should be the ayes there and who should be the nays and who should be absent? I should be

16
00:02:11,680 --> 00:02:17,040
 listed under the ayes. Okay. And I shall be listed under absent. Okay. So just replacing

17
00:02:19,040 --> 00:02:26,080
 Andrea Everhard with Dustin. Was I truly absent? Now you're making me think.

18
00:02:26,080 --> 00:02:32,640
 It looks like you were absent the other ones. I think I was absent in July. Yeah, but I don't

19
00:02:32,640 --> 00:02:38,720
 think I was absent in June. I think I was here in June. This is the July minutes. Then yes,

20
00:02:38,720 --> 00:02:45,680
 I was absent. So she couldn't possibly have said aye. Okay. So I guess to just for the record,

21
00:02:45,680 --> 00:02:54,560
 to get, so the motion on the table is to approve with the following amendment that in item under

22
00:02:54,560 --> 00:03:09,120
 item BOE 25-025, DP be replaced with Dustin Publick. PR with Patricia Winkie. And under the

23
00:03:09,120 --> 00:03:17,280
 ayes, Andrea Everhard be replaced with Dustin Publick. Correct. Okay. So that's the motion.

24
00:03:17,280 --> 00:03:25,440
 Okay. I'll second the motion. Okay. Dustin Publick seconded. So all in favor, I will

25
00:03:25,440 --> 00:03:38,800
 approve in the minutes. It's unanimous. Anybody opposed? Okay. All right. So do we need to

26
00:03:39,120 --> 00:03:44,320
 go back to the June minutes? I did not present them because I forgot that they were supposed

27
00:03:44,320 --> 00:03:51,840
 to be on this agenda. So we'll look at them. We will do that in December. So items for consideration,

28
00:03:51,840 --> 00:04:00,640
 BOE 25-034, receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding City of Denton

29
00:04:00,640 --> 00:04:15,920
 credit ordinances, Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics, Section 2-282C, frivolous. Yeah. So the last time

30
00:04:15,920 --> 00:04:21,280
 in July, you give direction to bring back information on any sanctions that were

31
00:04:21,280 --> 00:04:27,440
 available in other jurisdictions that we generally look at for frivolous complaints. That's what's

32
00:04:27,440 --> 00:04:33,440
 presented here in this table. Just for your kind of consideration, because we had discussed

33
00:04:33,440 --> 00:04:44,800
 requiring frivolous complainants to try and to pay the city's legal fees essentially. We did not

34
00:04:44,800 --> 00:04:52,960
 find that there that is a sanction imposed by any other jurisdiction. But we did also discuss barring

35
00:04:52,960 --> 00:04:58,000
 complainants from submitting a complaint for one year after they submit a frivolous complaint.

36
00:04:58,000 --> 00:05:04,880
 And so that red line is presented here for y'all to consider as well. Okay. Discussion.

37
00:05:04,880 --> 00:05:14,000
 Pull up a definition of frivolous. I don't believe there's a definition in like the

38
00:05:14,000 --> 00:05:29,680
 definition section. Let me just double check. And then can you pull up the definition of

39
00:05:33,040 --> 00:05:53,520
 what's our baseless? I think is the is what we use. I've kind of thought about this

40
00:05:57,040 --> 00:06:04,320
 quite a bit. And I think before we get into the sanctions or anything like that, I think

41
00:06:04,320 --> 00:06:10,160
 we should reconcile the definitions of baseless and frivolous. Because they're two very different

42
00:06:10,160 --> 00:06:16,240
 things. They are two different things. But if we look at baseless, it almost does not provide the

43
00:06:16,240 --> 00:06:21,520
 evidence that it drew in support of it. It's almost the same as saying groundless, which is

44
00:06:22,400 --> 00:06:29,600
 the prerequisite for frivolous. And so we're, I think we have conflicting definitions here,

45
00:06:29,600 --> 00:06:33,840
 or not not necessarily conflicting, but confusing. What I would say, I would,

46
00:06:33,840 --> 00:06:40,400
 what I would say about that is, yeah, I think the groundless should be taken out of the frivolous

47
00:06:40,400 --> 00:06:47,680
 thing. And when it's clear that it's brought for purpose of harassment, that's what concerns me.

48
00:06:47,680 --> 00:06:59,120
 Exactly. Yeah. So I would recommend that we amend frivolous to a sworn complaint.

49
00:06:59,120 --> 00:07:08,640
 Would you substitute the word baseless for groundless? For the purpose of harassment.

50
00:07:08,640 --> 00:07:18,800
 We make it simple. The one case where we did find a frivolous thing, it was very clear that

51
00:07:18,800 --> 00:07:24,400
 they were trying to harass, harass the person. Whichever way you want to say that word.

52
00:07:24,400 --> 00:07:32,080
 What if we just eliminate the word groundless out? Yeah. The two words. Because if it's a

53
00:07:32,080 --> 00:07:38,480
 complaint that is brought in bad faith, or for the purpose of harassment. Cut some words out.

54
00:07:38,480 --> 00:07:51,040
 Because I think it would, I think it can't just be harassment. I think bad faith is also important.

55
00:07:51,040 --> 00:07:59,760
 That's true. I like that. Just make it super clear. And that's, that's going to be a hard

56
00:08:03,040 --> 00:08:09,440
 thing to prove. But in the one case we did, it was provable.

57
00:08:09,440 --> 00:08:27,360
 And then on baseless, the, so we use the word actionable complaint. Can we get rid of the word

58
00:08:27,360 --> 00:08:35,360
 baseless complaint and turn it into non-actionable? You know, baseless just has a negative connotation

59
00:08:35,360 --> 00:08:44,000
 to it. So actionable and non-actionable makes more sense than actionable and baseless. I like that.

60
00:08:44,000 --> 00:08:50,720
 I know these are like little minute things. No, but they're important. I've always kind of

61
00:08:50,720 --> 00:08:57,680
 reacted to baseless like, what does that mean? Yeah. You know, it's just a chemistry class. Sorry.

62
00:08:57,680 --> 00:09:03,840
 I didn't even think of that. Yeah. I'm hearing three people but I was, I wanted to make sure we

63
00:09:03,840 --> 00:09:11,920
 have consensus. That sounds good. Steve? I don't have a strong opinion about this. I mean that,

64
00:09:11,920 --> 00:09:19,040
 I think we've talked about this enough that I know what those terms mean. And I've, I've never had an

65
00:09:19,040 --> 00:09:29,360
 issue with them, the way they're written. But if it... I want to get with her. Diane, what? Well I,

66
00:09:29,360 --> 00:09:40,320
 you know, I think baseless is a, what I call a soft term. Yeah. Than the other. And I, I think

67
00:09:40,320 --> 00:09:51,360
 probably the same thing, but my feeling would be, I hate to use this analogy, but do we want to play

68
00:09:51,360 --> 00:09:58,480
 hardball or do we want to play softball? And you know, one is a softer hit than the other.

69
00:10:01,040 --> 00:10:12,960
 Well, I think when we're talking a complaint that is just simply not actionable, right? So they filed

70
00:10:12,960 --> 00:10:18,960
 a complaint, Kenneth Ferguson wore a green sweater and he should be sanctioned because that's a

71
00:10:18,960 --> 00:10:25,360
 violation. Well, okay. That's just not actionable. That's not a complaint, you know? So, but baseless,

72
00:10:25,360 --> 00:10:34,640
 while that is an extreme, you know, probably some negative feelings there, but baseless means it just,

73
00:10:34,640 --> 00:10:43,120
 it's like, that is baseless. Like that is like a, it's a accusatory in my ears anyway, versus

74
00:10:43,120 --> 00:10:47,840
 non-actual. It's like, yes, like thank you for your complaint, but unfortunately that doesn't

75
00:10:47,840 --> 00:10:55,840
 violate, that's not a violation. Now frivolous, right, that needs the sting, that needs it. Yeah, that's

76
00:10:55,840 --> 00:11:02,240
 what I was trying to say. You need it. The other one is, I'm not going to move forward because

77
00:11:02,240 --> 00:11:07,280
 there's nothing here really that I have to move forward on if it's baseless, per se. I think

78
00:11:07,280 --> 00:11:13,680
 actionable is also just very much, it's just more objective rather than, you know, because if I don't

79
00:11:13,680 --> 00:11:19,200
 like green charts, I might just say that's a very good basement out there. Yeah. I think it makes it

80
00:11:19,200 --> 00:11:24,480
 easier to understand and do, as long as we have actionable to have non-actual, it makes it easier

81
00:11:24,480 --> 00:11:30,480
 for the person to understand. Yeah. And I get, well, we all understand it because, you know,

82
00:11:30,480 --> 00:11:35,520
 we've been part of it now for so long, you know, we have to make sure the public understands it.

83
00:11:35,520 --> 00:11:39,200
 We have to make sure that our predecessors understand this stuff as well.

84
00:11:44,560 --> 00:11:52,240
 So, I'm worried, are you okay with that suggestion? Yeah. I guess that's what's okay with it.

85
00:11:52,240 --> 00:12:03,120
 Okay, so those are the recommendations. So now we're moving on to talking about

86
00:12:03,120 --> 00:12:11,440
 what to do. Oh yeah, sorry. Was there anything about the red lines that we presented? I mean,

87
00:12:11,440 --> 00:12:14,320
 this I can obviously bring back as red lines to what we just discussed.

88
00:12:14,320 --> 00:12:22,640
 Is any concerns or questions about? I think that will dictate the language in here.

89
00:12:22,640 --> 00:12:30,640
 Yeah, I think we've got to clarify the definitions and our terms before we get into writing or

90
00:12:30,640 --> 00:12:42,000
 rewriting our sections, just personally. I agree. I think those are great suggestions, Ken, so I

91
00:12:42,000 --> 00:12:51,440
 appreciate them. So, we'll bring back that red line and then we'll have this discussion at that point.

92
00:12:51,440 --> 00:12:59,120
 Does that sound okay? I mean, I don't know that there's something. There's no language,

93
00:12:59,120 --> 00:13:05,520
 there's no change in language here. I thought that the main part, the main thing we were trying to

94
00:13:05,520 --> 00:13:16,320
 get to here was some sort of sanction for a frivolous complaint. And I mean, the way it's

95
00:13:16,320 --> 00:13:22,480
 written there is barred from submitting a new complaint for a period of one year from the date

96
00:13:23,200 --> 00:13:32,000
 the frivolous determination is made. So, comparing that to what's in the Dallas and the San Antonio

97
00:13:32,000 --> 00:13:43,360
 codes, the Dallas code says that they'd be barred for two years unless they had previously done the

98
00:13:43,360 --> 00:13:54,960
 same thing and then they're barred for four years. So, whether it's one year is the way it's written

99
00:13:54,960 --> 00:14:01,200
 now on the red line or if we change that to two years since one of the benchmark codes has that as

100
00:14:01,200 --> 00:14:07,600
 the sanction, I don't have a strong opinion. I think there needs to be some sort of

101
00:14:09,760 --> 00:14:15,920
 limitation for somebody that's submitted a criminal complaint. I have a question and

102
00:14:15,920 --> 00:14:23,680
 for clarification, if I'm out of order, please let me know. But we kind of oversee the city council.

103
00:14:23,680 --> 00:14:30,080
 Do they oversee themselves with sanctions by any chance? No. So, they have no written

104
00:14:30,080 --> 00:14:38,720
 sanction. I know they have sanctions because I've seen it in their body, their rules. I do not know.

105
00:14:39,280 --> 00:14:45,840
 I've never seen them. They do have those because I have a question at the end about

106
00:14:45,840 --> 00:14:54,640
 next meeting. So, I had to look that up but do they govern themselves in that area? Does anybody know?

107
00:14:54,640 --> 00:15:00,960
 I don't think they would for anything that's ethics related because that would be brought

108
00:15:00,960 --> 00:15:09,440
 before this. Okay, I was just curious because, you know, they have sanctions because I've seen them and

109
00:15:09,440 --> 00:15:19,280
 we have sanctions. And I was thinking about how important it was that we all kind of try to get on

110
00:15:19,280 --> 00:15:25,120
 the same page with sanctions so that we can support each other. But if they don't have sanctions

111
00:15:25,840 --> 00:15:31,360
 and we're making our sanctions, that's fine. But if they have sanctions and we have sanctions,

112
00:15:31,360 --> 00:15:38,320
 seems like we're conflicting a little bit that they should be on the same page.

113
00:15:38,320 --> 00:15:44,880
 So, I was wondering, should we see if they have sanctions before we do this? I mean, before we

114
00:15:44,880 --> 00:15:51,840
 write this up or is it not important? I don't know what the council would have sanctions for.

115
00:15:53,040 --> 00:16:06,160
 I know they have sanctions. Sanction power or sanctions over what I call their their own city

116
00:16:06,160 --> 00:16:18,240
 body. They develop stuff in their minutes. I'm going to go on the record to say I'm not sure

117
00:16:18,240 --> 00:16:25,680
 it was, I've read through it. I'm not sure it was our council. Well, I was reading it off another

118
00:16:25,680 --> 00:16:32,960
 council. But they had sanctions also. I'm not aware of anything like that. And if they do have that,

119
00:16:32,960 --> 00:16:41,040
 use them. There are plenty of chances. Well, it's just a question I have. I think there's sort of

120
00:16:41,040 --> 00:16:51,360
 a type of sanction that the mayor sometimes has in the past silenced some council people

121
00:16:51,360 --> 00:16:59,040
 that he thought were out of line. I don't think that had the power to do that. But I don't know

122
00:16:59,040 --> 00:17:06,240
 if that's considered a sanction or just a reprimand for bad behavior or misconduct. I don't know what

123
00:17:06,240 --> 00:17:16,320
 that is. I know that there are some ethics codes where this this council essentially does it

124
00:17:16,320 --> 00:17:21,520
 themselves and might sanction themselves. And we don't have that. That's not in our ethics code.

125
00:17:21,520 --> 00:17:29,360
 I'm not certain if that council's rules of procedure have some other type of sanction or

126
00:17:29,360 --> 00:17:37,200
 rules violation process. We can certainly look at that and ask the city secretary's office. I'm sure

127
00:17:37,200 --> 00:17:42,720
 they would know if something like that existed and bring that information back to y'all if you're

128
00:17:42,720 --> 00:17:48,560
 interested in that. Are we still thinking of frivolity? Yeah. I don't think we are. I think

129
00:17:48,560 --> 00:17:54,720
 we're on the topic. Yeah. Well, I don't think so because we're talking about sanctions for

130
00:17:55,600 --> 00:18:05,600
 frivolity. And there's already a sanctions section somewhere governing some panel for the

131
00:18:05,600 --> 00:18:10,960
 city of Denton. We need to make sure that we're not conflicting with that. I don't know that it

132
00:18:10,960 --> 00:18:15,520
 would and I don't know that it won't exist. Is there a question of whether there's a frivolity

133
00:18:15,520 --> 00:18:23,680
 sanction for other things? I have no idea. So that's in the agenda information sheet for the other

134
00:18:24,720 --> 00:18:29,520
 ethics codes for Dallas and San Antonio. It doesn't have anything about our council.

135
00:18:29,520 --> 00:18:37,360
 And I'm not aware of our council being able to sanction anyone for anything and they wouldn't.

136
00:18:37,360 --> 00:18:43,760
 And we're only talking about an ethics complaint that's determined by this board to be frivolous.

137
00:18:43,760 --> 00:18:49,360
 I know that years ago one of the council members was upset with another council member

138
00:18:49,360 --> 00:18:54,560
 and they realized they didn't have an ethics code and that was when the push began. This

139
00:18:54,560 --> 00:19:02,720
 was prior to 2016. So that's when they started talking about needing an ethics code. So I don't

140
00:19:02,720 --> 00:19:11,280
 think they have any sanctions. And what they did have was pretty much

141
00:19:11,280 --> 00:19:20,000
 play nicely with each other. It was behave well, which nothing was defined. So that was when the

142
00:19:20,000 --> 00:19:27,760
 big push began that we needed an ethics code. And it's about at the time, historically,

143
00:19:27,760 --> 00:19:35,600
 when Denton reached the population that it did in 2016, that city started to think okay we probably

144
00:19:35,600 --> 00:19:42,720
 didn't have an ethics code. So that's the history on it. But I am not aware of the sanctions.

145
00:19:44,800 --> 00:19:52,080
 We do have sanctions in the code right now in the ethics ordinance and that's what's listed there.

146
00:19:52,080 --> 00:19:59,600
 And the whole point of this discussion, I think, was we felt like after we received a complaint that

147
00:19:59,600 --> 00:20:09,760
 the board determined to be frivolous, we didn't feel like the sanctions were

148
00:20:12,560 --> 00:20:16,720
 severe enough or strong enough to discourage them from doing that again.

149
00:20:16,720 --> 00:20:22,960
 Because it very well may have impacted the outcome of an election because it was days

150
00:20:22,960 --> 00:20:28,880
 before the election. I mean there's a whole lot, it was fairly frivolous. Somebody just

151
00:20:28,880 --> 00:20:33,760
 said that part. They were doing it to harm another candidate.

152
00:20:39,680 --> 00:20:46,720
 So I mean there were two parts to this. One was some discussion about the cost that the

153
00:20:46,720 --> 00:20:55,200
 city encouraged for hiring for attorney's fees and allowing the board of ethics to

154
00:20:55,200 --> 00:21:04,240
 require the person that submitted that frivolous complaint to reimburse the city for that cost.

155
00:21:04,240 --> 00:21:08,960
 That was one thing. And then the other thing that we talked about was barring them from submitting

156
00:21:08,960 --> 00:21:15,440
 another complaint because it was frivolous. So there's like two levels to this. One is the baseless

157
00:21:15,440 --> 00:21:21,200
 or non-actionable complaint that we talked about, which that's just they submitted a complaint. It's

158
00:21:21,200 --> 00:21:27,680
 not an ethics violation. I can't prove it. Yeah, and it wasn't made in bad faith. It was done

159
00:21:27,680 --> 00:21:33,280
 correctly. They've done all the things right. It's just not an ethics violation. And we've seen those

160
00:21:33,280 --> 00:21:41,200
 happen before and that's just the end of it. And there's a very different level of scrutiny

161
00:21:41,200 --> 00:21:49,680
 on a complaint that in the three-member panel is determined to potentially be frivolous.

162
00:21:49,680 --> 00:21:55,760
 And then there's a hearing by the entire board to look at that complaint and then make the

163
00:21:55,760 --> 00:22:01,360
 determination by the whole board, is this a frivolous complaint? And that whole process

164
00:22:01,360 --> 00:22:08,880
 was carried out and this was a month or two before election. One of the, what the respondent for that

165
00:22:08,880 --> 00:22:14,240
 complaint was on the ballot. There were articles in the paper about it. There were

166
00:22:14,240 --> 00:22:27,200
 that the board or that the paper published prior to that complaint becoming public record because

167
00:22:27,200 --> 00:22:34,560
 it did not yet reach the three-member panel. So there were a bunch of things that led up to that

168
00:22:34,560 --> 00:22:39,840
 and at the end of all of that, after there was the preliminary hearing and then the full board

169
00:22:39,840 --> 00:22:46,800
 hearing, it was determined to be frivolous. The respondent had to hire an attorney. The city had

170
00:22:46,800 --> 00:22:53,920
 to hire an attorney to be here for the panel discussion and for the full board, the frivolity

171
00:22:53,920 --> 00:23:02,400
 hearing. So there's costs there and at the end of it all that happened was we sent them a letter and

172
00:23:02,400 --> 00:23:10,880
 said this is a frivolous complaint and that's it. There was no, we couldn't even really say

173
00:23:10,880 --> 00:23:18,160
 don't do this again because they could do it the very next day. And so I think the point of this is

174
00:23:18,160 --> 00:23:28,160
 to try to discourage someone, anyone from submitting a frivolous complaint which is very different from

175
00:23:28,160 --> 00:23:35,200
 a non-actionable or a baseless complaint. I think that's where it's, the first time we went through

176
00:23:35,200 --> 00:23:41,280
 this I had a hard time like figuring out what's the difference here and like the, I guess this

177
00:23:41,280 --> 00:23:46,160
 makes sense to change it to non-actionable. So then you have like these two types of things, it's

178
00:23:46,160 --> 00:23:52,320
 actionable or it's non-actionable. And then there's the frivolous thing which is very different. I mean

179
00:23:52,320 --> 00:23:59,600
 that's, we're trying to take that stuff out of this whole process so that the city doesn't

180
00:23:59,600 --> 00:24:08,880
 have a cost to this. We're not creating a scenario where someone could choose to like weaponize the

181
00:24:08,880 --> 00:24:14,080
 ethics ordinance against someone either because they don't like them or because there's an election

182
00:24:14,080 --> 00:24:20,880
 coming up or something like that. And right now there's, other than giving a letter in the mail

183
00:24:20,880 --> 00:24:26,960
 from the city that says you should not have done this, it's frivolous. There's nothing, like if I got

184
00:24:26,960 --> 00:24:33,680
 that I would be, I would never want to go through that again. But I think if you're someone that

185
00:24:33,680 --> 00:24:38,320
 has already done that and submitted a frivolous complaint, you don't really care if you get a

186
00:24:38,320 --> 00:24:45,680
 letter. So we're just trying to make it so that we have a way to not just discourage them or make

187
00:24:45,680 --> 00:24:51,760
 them feel bad about what they did but to prevent them from doing that again. And that's kind of how

188
00:24:51,760 --> 00:24:59,040
 we got to this discussion. And I'm a hundred percent in favor of barring them from submitting

189
00:24:59,040 --> 00:25:04,960
 another complaint for some period of time. I think we came up with one year, it sounds like

190
00:25:05,680 --> 00:25:11,840
 Dallas uses two years for the first offense, which I would be fine with changing it to two years.

191
00:25:11,840 --> 00:25:22,800
 Because that would be an election cycle basically. The two years, yeah. So I mean as far as like

192
00:25:22,800 --> 00:25:32,800
 what's posted on our agenda, it's, it's this part of the sanctions I think. Am I right?

193
00:25:36,320 --> 00:25:43,120
 I guess it's that whole section of the order. You know there is another cost. We're all professionals,

194
00:25:43,120 --> 00:25:50,160
 we charge for our time. If you really added up the amount of money that we're not able to make

195
00:25:50,160 --> 00:25:59,680
 because we're here for a hearing, it asks a lot to the lawyer fees. So I think barring people is a

196
00:25:59,680 --> 00:26:06,640
 very minor thing to do compared to thinking about what it costs everyone. But I think there should

197
00:26:06,640 --> 00:26:16,240
 be some kind of thing that will make people think twice before they go off in kind of an emotional

198
00:26:16,240 --> 00:26:25,280
 rage, which was certainly the case with this. Which shouldn't be happening. I have zero,

199
00:26:28,800 --> 00:26:36,000
 I trust us. I trust this. I think we went south a little bit on what my question was.

200
00:26:36,000 --> 00:26:41,760
 I was trying to get, as I have since I've been on the committee, a little bit more consistency

201
00:26:41,760 --> 00:26:49,600
 between the city council and us so that we could go, go down the same path and we don't have to

202
00:26:49,600 --> 00:26:54,480
 fight each other. That was my goal and when I first started looking at this and researching,

203
00:26:54,480 --> 00:27:01,360
 I came across some sanctions from the city council. Like I said, I cannot remember if it was our city

204
00:27:01,360 --> 00:27:06,240
 council or somebody else's. It's been a long time and I just wanted to make, because it wasn't

205
00:27:06,240 --> 00:27:11,760
 consistent, and I wanted to make sure that it wasn't consistent, that my question was why.

206
00:27:11,760 --> 00:27:19,440
 That was all. I have nothing against this at all. I totally support this. If you read ethics codes

207
00:27:19,440 --> 00:27:28,880
 across the state, they are all over the map. The city of San Marcos used to have almost a draconian

208
00:27:28,880 --> 00:27:36,240
 one and it basically said, if you're in business, you shouldn't even think about running for city

209
00:27:36,240 --> 00:27:45,680
 council, which would eliminate a lot of people, a lot of candidates. They said it that directly.

210
00:27:45,680 --> 00:27:51,360
 They don't anymore. I looked it up about a year ago and they've softened that language, but

211
00:27:51,360 --> 00:28:05,600
 yeah. It's all over the place, but now I do not think we have sanctions. I'd like to check that out, but

212
00:28:05,600 --> 00:28:08,400
 I have none now.

213
00:28:16,000 --> 00:28:17,120
 Have we looked at

214
00:28:17,120 --> 00:28:34,080
 what Colleen or Waco or Mesquite has for theirs? I mean, they're obviously much, much, much closer

215
00:28:34,080 --> 00:28:41,040
 when we talk size-wise. I mean, Dallas is like the biggest metropolitan in the country,

216
00:28:41,840 --> 00:28:48,320
 or one of, and so I don't really want to compare ourselves to Dallas. San Antonio is probably not

217
00:28:48,320 --> 00:28:55,440
 too far behind Dallas. So when we look at benchmarking for this, we definitely do include Waco. I can't

218
00:28:55,440 --> 00:29:01,680
 remember 100% if we include Colleen, but I think we do. These are the only two cities of the kind of

219
00:29:01,680 --> 00:29:10,400
 10 or so that we generally look at that have a frivolous complaint process. So Waco and Colleen,

220
00:29:10,400 --> 00:29:14,640
 I don't believe, have a frivolous complaint, so they don't have frivolous complaint sanctions.

221
00:29:14,640 --> 00:29:24,160
 That makes sense. It makes sense, but I guess it's kind of telling, right? So if our fellow

222
00:29:24,160 --> 00:29:33,600
 cities that are our size are not doing this, we should be asking ourselves why, and should we be

223
00:29:33,600 --> 00:29:43,680
 the pioneers to do it? We have, we have a history now of at least one complaint that was frivolous,

224
00:29:43,680 --> 00:29:52,160
 and in our discussions we felt like our ability to respond to that was

225
00:29:52,160 --> 00:30:01,280
 inadequate. So whether it's, whether it's Dallas or San Antonio or Plain or whoever they were

226
00:30:01,280 --> 00:30:11,120
 comparing to, I'm more interested in our experience and what to me felt like a huge disappointment.

227
00:30:11,120 --> 00:30:18,720
 What if we could do nothing? I mean it was, it literally just kind of disappeared and no one,

228
00:30:18,720 --> 00:30:29,040
 it, I was left thinking this, this person could come back and do the exact same thing

229
00:30:29,040 --> 00:30:38,560
 tomorrow or the next day. They can do it over and over again just for fun, and I, I don't want

230
00:30:38,560 --> 00:30:46,880
 to waste anyone's time, and in that case it was extreme because it's really easy to argue that

231
00:30:46,880 --> 00:30:58,000
 that had an impact on the election results. I get it. And I, and we're not, so we are, to me that

232
00:30:58,000 --> 00:31:06,480
 this is not, we talked a lot about the language in our ordinance on how things are worded to

233
00:31:06,480 --> 00:31:11,200
 make sure that we're not discouraging people from submitting complaints, which I'm a hundred percent

234
00:31:11,200 --> 00:31:17,760
 in favor of, and clearing up things that are, that are not clear in our ordinance, but this is not

235
00:31:17,760 --> 00:31:28,400
 that. This is only for frivolous complaints. And I, I get it. I deal with this daily with frivolous

236
00:31:28,400 --> 00:31:36,240
 wall suits. We're talking hundreds of thousands in attorney's fees because someone wants to win an

237
00:31:36,240 --> 00:31:41,360
 election, or you know, maybe they don't like the color of the doorknob that got installed. I mean,

238
00:31:41,360 --> 00:31:49,840
 it gets that petty. And in the state of Texas, it's like seven, it's like file seven frivolous

239
00:31:49,840 --> 00:31:56,320
 lawsuits before you can be declared a fixations litigant, and I mean, so, and we're talking

240
00:31:56,320 --> 00:32:00,080
 obviously the judicial branch is a little bit different than the branch that we're sitting in

241
00:32:00,080 --> 00:32:06,800
 right now, but, but we have remedies for this stuff, right? So the Texas Citizens Participation

242
00:32:06,800 --> 00:32:13,040
 Act, someone files a lawsuit, you know, for political gain, you know, we have these motions

243
00:32:13,040 --> 00:32:20,800
 that allow for expedited summary disposition of cases like that. And while those motions carry

244
00:32:20,800 --> 00:32:34,080
 with it some sanctions, it seems more important to rectify or solve the underlying issue of,

245
00:32:34,880 --> 00:32:38,800
 but it's fine. Submit the frivolous complaint. We're going to have it heard and decided in

246
00:32:38,800 --> 00:32:44,320
 16 days. Go for it. Like, unless you do it five days before the election, then it's not a great

247
00:32:44,320 --> 00:32:55,120
 difference. But it does make it, like in this case, I don't know for sure if this was completely,

248
00:32:55,120 --> 00:33:03,360
 if this was heard by the entire board, and if there was a frivolity hearing before or after the

249
00:33:03,360 --> 00:33:12,160
 election, but it was that the, in my opinion, as a citizen, the damage was already done.

250
00:33:12,160 --> 00:33:17,680
 That is exactly what, that is exactly the conclusion we came to. Right. And not only,

251
00:33:17,680 --> 00:33:24,080
 and not only was, was the timing such that the decision would be after the election,

252
00:33:24,080 --> 00:33:31,200
 it was also in the newspaper before we ever saw it, which also means that there was, there was

253
00:33:32,560 --> 00:33:41,040
 ex parte communication, which is directly barred under the ethics code. But so the, if the goal is

254
00:33:41,040 --> 00:33:48,480
 to, it sounds like the goal is to prevent that from happening, or to deter people from filing a

255
00:33:48,480 --> 00:33:57,840
 complaint. No. Filing a frivolous complaint. Yeah. If I wanted to file a frivolous complaint,

256
00:33:57,840 --> 00:34:04,400
 why not just say, hey, wife, friend, a homeless guy that I'll give a hundred dollars to,

257
00:34:04,400 --> 00:34:09,280
 go file the complaint for me. Of course. That doesn't, that doesn't do anything except now it

258
00:34:09,280 --> 00:34:14,960
 just says, here, you go do the dirty work for me. So that's, that's part of it, barring them from

259
00:34:14,960 --> 00:34:21,440
 submitting it is part of it. That was why we had some discussion about requiring them to pay the

260
00:34:21,440 --> 00:34:29,280
 city's legal fees. Because now there is something that is monetary that maybe they only want to do

261
00:34:29,280 --> 00:34:34,560
 this once. They only have one candidate, this one election that they want to influence. But if they

262
00:34:34,560 --> 00:34:42,000
 have to pay attorney's fees, that changes. And it looks like San Antonio allows for civil penalty

263
00:34:42,000 --> 00:34:48,800
 and attorney's fees for the respondent, which I don't think that we have discussed. We did discuss

264
00:34:49,520 --> 00:34:57,040
 requiring the complainant to pay the city's fees, but not necessarily the respondent's fees.

265
00:34:57,040 --> 00:35:05,280
 I mean, I think, I get it. We, we bar that, but we bar the filer. So what, what, you know, we're

266
00:35:05,280 --> 00:35:10,480
 going to stop the person that filed it, okay, the homeless guy doesn't care, right, he doesn't look

267
00:35:10,480 --> 00:35:17,440
 at it on a box. But that is exactly, that is exactly why I have, I have always wanted there to be a

268
00:35:17,440 --> 00:35:24,000
 monetary. Because I totally agree with you. I can, I can, I, if I, if I, if I file a firmless

269
00:35:24,000 --> 00:35:29,520
 complaint, next time I'll have, just like you said, I'll have my husband file it, and I have my friend

270
00:35:29,520 --> 00:35:34,400
 file it, and I have my uncle file it, and I have my daughter file it. Not a problem. I can spread

271
00:35:34,400 --> 00:35:42,480
 that all over the record. And that is why I have argued for a monetary, a monetary sanction in order

272
00:35:42,480 --> 00:35:50,000
 that there is immediately something that is, that is a deterrent from somebody to, you know, file a

273
00:35:50,000 --> 00:35:59,920
 firmless complaint up front, rather than at the back end. I don't, I don't think that,

274
00:35:59,920 --> 00:36:05,440
 right, there's sticks and then there's carrots. I don't think we're going to get to where we're

275
00:36:05,440 --> 00:36:10,880
 trying to go with sticks. I don't think we have a big enough stick, nor will the legislature give us

276
00:36:10,880 --> 00:36:16,960
 a big enough stick to prevent it. Or even really deter it. Because if that's the case, then it's

277
00:36:16,960 --> 00:36:21,200
 okay, I'll just go file a lawsuit. I don't care if Serena Boxx will file a lawsuit. Now you're really

278
00:36:21,200 --> 00:36:27,360
 tied up in litigation. And that's even worse. It's so much worse. And so now we're just saying,

279
00:36:27,360 --> 00:36:32,560
 good, don't, don't file your complaint with the toothless ethics committee. Go file with the court,

280
00:36:32,560 --> 00:36:39,040
 and now it's just really public. That's so much worse. And so I would rather than file a firmless

281
00:36:39,040 --> 00:36:43,680
 complaint with us, I would rather us hear the firmless complaint. You know, if they do it five

282
00:36:43,680 --> 00:36:48,720
 days beforehand, they're going to make a difference if we sanction them or not. If, if the motivation

283
00:36:48,720 --> 00:36:56,560
 is to vote, if the motivation is harassment, and the motivation is to, is to discourage people

284
00:36:56,560 --> 00:37:01,280
 from voting for a certain candidate, there's a huge carrot there. So I think that your argument

285
00:37:01,280 --> 00:37:05,760
 that there is, that we don't have, that there is no carrot, is absolutely incorrect. Because

286
00:37:06,800 --> 00:37:16,400
 the, the carrot for a firmless complaint is exactly that, is you, you use that in order to sway public

287
00:37:16,400 --> 00:37:25,200
 opinion about a certain person, so that then you have a better, that you can manage the outcome,

288
00:37:25,200 --> 00:37:33,440
 hopefully, in your favor. No, I agree what you're saying. The carrot is, I'm saying we need to lead

289
00:37:33,440 --> 00:37:41,120
 people away from wanting to file it, not deter them from filing. It's, it's, you know, don't file this.

290
00:37:41,120 --> 00:37:44,960
 There's no reason to file it. It's not going to benefit you because we're going to have it heard

291
00:37:44,960 --> 00:37:49,440
 before the election. It doesn't matter. It's not going to help you at all. So how can we do that?

292
00:37:49,440 --> 00:37:53,120
 I have no idea. That's what we're going to talk about. But I'm saying. Well, we did it. What time

293
00:37:53,120 --> 00:37:58,960
 talk about not allowing any other complaints within a certain time period before the election?

294
00:37:58,960 --> 00:38:06,720
 Exactly. Shut down. Why? I'm not sure why. No, no, why, why? Well, the time frame. Council or

295
00:38:06,720 --> 00:38:14,720
 other board. Somebody that wanted to do a frivolous complaint against somebody writing for office

296
00:38:14,720 --> 00:38:18,560
 couldn't do it within a certain time period before the election was going to be held.

297
00:38:18,560 --> 00:38:24,720
 No, I get it. I like that. But who shut it down? Our group did it, somehow. I think we, our groups.

298
00:38:27,760 --> 00:38:31,120
 I don't know if we can do that. That's why we have an attorney here. I don't know if we should,

299
00:38:31,120 --> 00:38:35,520
 if we can prevent people from filing within 15 days. Maybe that was the problem. Maybe we're

300
00:38:35,520 --> 00:38:39,760
 not allowed to do that. Well, in this particular case, it wouldn't have mattered because the thing,

301
00:38:39,760 --> 00:38:44,320
 everything was, everything was in the newspaper before we ever heard about it. So therefore. It

302
00:38:44,320 --> 00:38:50,800
 was on social media. And it's on social media. So that kind of a, that kind of a, a barring from

303
00:38:50,800 --> 00:38:56,400
 filing the complaint would have not done a thing because, because it was in the papers. And the

304
00:38:56,400 --> 00:39:01,280
 damage was done in the paper and the social media posts. I'm having a hard time, I think,

305
00:39:01,280 --> 00:39:11,440
 understanding why we would not want to have the highest level of sanction we can have to

306
00:39:11,440 --> 00:39:18,800
 prevent frivolous complaints. Like that, this is part of this board. Because we wouldn't have to

307
00:39:18,800 --> 00:39:26,080
 do that. It would just be an option, you know. And I, and I would say in this one case we dealt with,

308
00:39:26,080 --> 00:39:34,800
 barring that person for a year would have been really good. Yeah. I mean it was. But would it,

309
00:39:34,800 --> 00:39:39,280
 would that have done anything? Because the means were already accomplished. Yes. That person

310
00:39:39,280 --> 00:39:44,400
 already took off. Yeah, it would prevent it, but it prevented him from doing it again. If we barred them.

311
00:39:44,400 --> 00:39:48,080
 It worked the first time, so why would it prevent him doing it the second time, two or three or four

312
00:39:48,080 --> 00:39:53,040
 years later at the next term? Exactly. What's it do? You're exactly right. I don't disagree with you

313
00:39:53,040 --> 00:40:01,360
 on that at all. We can make the, the time. Longer. That's correct. I mean, it, it sounds like your

314
00:40:01,360 --> 00:40:07,280
 argument is, is just do nothing. And I completely disagree with that. I disagree with that argument

315
00:40:07,280 --> 00:40:14,480
 too. I'm just saying that I don't know that this is the. I really like the idea of having a dead

316
00:40:14,480 --> 00:40:24,400
 son. I love that. Before a thing where complaints cannot be filed and if someone alleges that stuff

317
00:40:24,400 --> 00:40:30,880
 in social media or the newspaper, that will be considered a purposeful complaint. Well, I mean,

318
00:40:30,880 --> 00:40:35,360
 if it's alleged that, hey, I filed a complaint against this guy 10 days before the election,

319
00:40:35,360 --> 00:40:39,440
 I can't believe that would be kind of defamation. It's like, well, no, you didn't because you're not

320
00:40:39,440 --> 00:40:45,120
 allowed to. We don't accept complaints. So, I'm sorry. It's not how the Ethnic Committee works.

321
00:40:45,120 --> 00:40:54,720
 But, but yeah. I've always thought barring it. And we could hear the complaint after the election.

322
00:40:54,720 --> 00:41:02,320
 Come to think of it. Exactly. If it, if it's an actual complaint, then why not wait 15 days

323
00:41:02,320 --> 00:41:11,120
 and file it after the election. I remember now you shut it down and they're not here anymore, several. So, there's the answer maybe.

324
00:41:11,120 --> 00:41:26,400
 I think we ought to look at that, that no complaints zone. That's a separate one. Yeah. That we, we would not know that a complaint was frivolous unless we went through the hearing process.

325
00:41:26,400 --> 00:41:34,240
 You are correct. So, that, that has to happen. We, it's not like we can just say, you know, 10 days before the election or 30 days or whatever.

326
00:41:34,240 --> 00:41:44,160
 We won't accept frivolous complaints. We would not accept complaints. And part of, I think, the discussion was

327
00:41:44,160 --> 00:41:52,480
 what if there is an actual ethics violation committed 30 days before the election? That is

328
00:41:52,480 --> 00:42:01,280
 very different. And it may be that a complaint has entered in its baseless or it may have merit and it may be an ethics violation.

329
00:42:01,280 --> 00:42:07,680
 And we would, that's part of the purpose of this board is to hear that and respond to it based on what our ordinance says.

330
00:42:07,680 --> 00:42:15,760
 But for a frivolous complaint, if we, there's no mechanism for us to identify that until it goes through the process.

331
00:42:16,640 --> 00:42:24,000
 In this particular instance, it was identified as frivolous through the process that already exists.

332
00:42:24,000 --> 00:42:32,080
 And the concern was that we, there's nothing that we can do about this other than one of those letters.

333
00:42:32,080 --> 00:42:42,560
 So, I guess I'm struggling a little bit to see what, why we would be resistant to having

334
00:42:43,440 --> 00:42:50,080
 some reasonable sanction that is within the scope of this board and a frivolous ethics complaint, not

335
00:42:50,080 --> 00:42:57,760
 a lawsuit, not all of these other things. We're only an ethics board and we're bound by

336
00:42:57,760 --> 00:43:04,560
 the City of Denton's ethics ordinance. What we can do is we can modify the ethics ordinance or at

337
00:43:04,560 --> 00:43:10,720
 least recommend to the council that we should do something about this to try and maybe not prevent

338
00:43:10,720 --> 00:43:17,600
 this or at least discourage it or limit it, limit a single person from weaponizing this.

339
00:43:17,600 --> 00:43:23,680
 And I realize that that's a single person who might have a friend do it or hire someone to do it

340
00:43:23,680 --> 00:43:34,480
 if there's no monetary sanction and if it's only a, only, and we're only barring them for some period

341
00:43:34,480 --> 00:43:46,080
 of time, but it's something. And right now, there is nothing. There's nothing. So, I was in favor of

342
00:43:46,080 --> 00:43:52,560
 some sort of monetary sanction, which to me, it would seem logical to have them

343
00:43:52,560 --> 00:44:01,280
 reimburse the city for the city's cost because it is, I mean, it's a cost to all of us on this

344
00:44:01,280 --> 00:44:07,840
 board to participate in a panel hearing and in a full frivolity hearing. It's almost $2,000.

345
00:44:07,840 --> 00:44:12,400
 But we volunteered to do that. We're volunteering to do this. I mean, it's a cost to me to be here

346
00:44:12,400 --> 00:44:21,840
 tonight. It's like, we, I'm not here to get paid to do this, but if someone is just filing frivolous

347
00:44:21,840 --> 00:44:28,960
 complaints, not a baseless complaint where they just, this is not an ethics violation, but something

348
00:44:28,960 --> 00:44:35,280
 that has risen to the level of a frivolous complaint. They're wasting your time. They're wasting

349
00:44:35,280 --> 00:44:42,240
 everyone's time. And in our experience on this board, it affected an election. And it's like,

350
00:44:42,240 --> 00:44:50,880
 all of the things that we hear about and the election integrity and all these things that we

351
00:44:50,880 --> 00:44:56,960
 hear about, this was in our city. And it's like, we have the ability here to do something

352
00:44:57,600 --> 00:45:03,680
 that can at least discourage that. They can still go and write a letter to the editor

353
00:45:03,680 --> 00:45:07,840
 of the chronic one, say this person did this thing and they didn't like it. And I feel like

354
00:45:07,840 --> 00:45:14,320
 this is a violation. But until they submit a complaint to the city, we have no ability

355
00:45:14,320 --> 00:45:20,960
 to control that. But this is within our control and we can do something. I would suggest that we

356
00:45:22,240 --> 00:45:30,960
 table this and bring it back. I like the definitions that Kenneth proposed.

357
00:45:30,960 --> 00:45:35,280
 I would like to consider the sanction or some kind of a freeze period.

358
00:45:35,280 --> 00:45:44,880
 So mull it over in your hearts until our December meeting and bring it back.

359
00:45:45,600 --> 00:45:55,280
 Can we look at what is the highest, what are our left and right lateral limits for

360
00:45:55,280 --> 00:46:01,200
 monetary? Monetary is where it's at. Man, that's where it's at. Put a gag in my mouth for the next

361
00:46:01,200 --> 00:46:05,200
 year. I don't care. I already have my office. Take money out of my pocket, I get a problem.

362
00:46:05,200 --> 00:46:10,560
 That makes me mad. And that might also help prevent a complaint because they'll say,

363
00:46:10,560 --> 00:46:17,280
 they'll have to read that now it's just not frivolous. You may be liable to pay this amount

364
00:46:17,280 --> 00:46:21,840
 of money and then they're going, oh, I don't know if I want to risk it. And you know, just the threat

365
00:46:21,840 --> 00:46:31,360
 of that is powerful. I'm about to publish a book and there was something that I didn't have quite

366
00:46:31,360 --> 00:46:36,000
 done. They said you better get it done now because once it goes to copy edits, you have to pay for

367
00:46:36,000 --> 00:46:43,680
 any changes. And let me tell you, I burned the midnight oil until it got done because, so yeah.

368
00:46:43,680 --> 00:46:51,280
 I would not be in favor of monetary. I would not. There's nothing in here that anyone of you can say

369
00:46:51,280 --> 00:46:58,960
 to me that would change my mind. When you go into the money of people, yes, there are all kinds of

370
00:46:58,960 --> 00:47:09,920
 things that play into that fact. Lawsuits, challenges you can't pay it, timing, ugly things.

371
00:47:09,920 --> 00:47:17,120
 I would never want a sanction to be with monetary. We would, we would, we would close ourselves up.

372
00:47:17,120 --> 00:47:20,960
 We would lock ourselves out behind these doors and never be able to get anywhere.

373
00:47:22,000 --> 00:47:29,680
 They would find every way in the world to stop us, in my opinion. And just in general, the person

374
00:47:29,680 --> 00:47:37,040
 that had to complain, the person that, whatever. When you're talking money, there's another whole

375
00:47:37,040 --> 00:47:43,360
 ball game out here. Now, sanctions and what I call, and you asked the question, where is,

376
00:47:43,360 --> 00:47:50,960
 where's the sanctions at? I've always been for what I call tough sanctions to defer people from

377
00:47:50,960 --> 00:47:57,360
 doing stupid things. We're in the business of, you know, dealing with people that, that always,

378
00:47:57,360 --> 00:48:03,360
 don't always make the right decision. That's what we do here. But, but there is, there is that limit,

379
00:48:03,360 --> 00:48:12,160
 good and bad. And I just think that, you know, I could live with a severe sanction. I could,

380
00:48:13,680 --> 00:48:23,040
 because whatever that sanction is, but I would never want us to go monetary. But the city,

381
00:48:23,040 --> 00:48:30,880
 but the city goes and assesses for cost that they incur if a homeowner doesn't trim their trees or a

382
00:48:30,880 --> 00:48:35,520
 homeowner doesn't trim their grass in a certain amount of time, they will, they will go in and

383
00:48:35,520 --> 00:48:40,000
 they will do it. And then you, and then the homeowner has to, and then the homeowner has to cover it.

384
00:48:40,720 --> 00:48:49,920
 So, and I'm sorry, but grass that's like two inches too high is a whole lot less detrimental

385
00:48:49,920 --> 00:48:58,480
 to the city of Denton than the potential of reading an election based on false accusations

386
00:48:58,480 --> 00:49:04,960
 of somebody that is on the ballot. I'm just saying, I'm just telling you that there's nothing,

387
00:49:06,240 --> 00:49:13,280
 you know, I've been so involved in what I call having to deal with money against people for so

388
00:49:13,280 --> 00:49:21,760
 long in my career. And it just gets ugly. It just gets ugly. And you talk about us giving money and

389
00:49:21,760 --> 00:49:28,640
 taking our time and that's our money. You know what? We signed up for it. And I, I agree to that. Wait

390
00:49:28,640 --> 00:49:33,360
 a minute, let me finish. I agree that we give money and this and that. I wish, I wish we got paid,

391
00:49:33,360 --> 00:49:40,720
 but we don't, but that should not move our decision. From an ethics standpoint, I think we

392
00:49:40,720 --> 00:49:47,520
 should be, we should be volunteers because we have nothing to lose or gain from, from being on your

393
00:49:47,520 --> 00:49:52,480
 monitoring. So I really agree. I agree to your point on that. It's just that

394
00:49:52,480 --> 00:49:59,840
 there are some real costs. Yeah, there's some real costs, especially for the,

395
00:49:59,840 --> 00:50:06,000
 especially for the respondent. It's one of those stories that when you walked in by moccasins and

396
00:50:06,000 --> 00:50:10,960
 you can understand my thinking, right? So we all have different opinions. We're all on what I call

397
00:50:10,960 --> 00:50:17,760
 a great committee that want to do the best thing. And we will come to that, to whatever that's going

398
00:50:17,760 --> 00:50:24,800
 to be. I've been listening a lot of the comments from where I wasn't even thinking. You know, it

399
00:50:24,800 --> 00:50:30,640
 was like, now why do these committees not have this? I mean, why do these cities not have this?

400
00:50:30,640 --> 00:50:35,760
 Do they know something that we don't know? No, maybe they don't. Maybe, see we didn't live,

401
00:50:35,760 --> 00:50:40,560
 me and him did not live through that, that situation. We were new to this committee when

402
00:50:40,560 --> 00:50:45,760
 you went through that. So we're coming from a completely different mindset. And you know,

403
00:50:45,760 --> 00:50:55,280
 so we don't understand that as much. And I still think we have a lot to think about.

404
00:50:55,280 --> 00:51:00,240
 I think we came out with all the things we used, I guess. Would that be accurate?

405
00:51:00,240 --> 00:51:05,360
 I was just disappointed that...

406
00:51:05,360 --> 00:51:12,800
 There was really no room. I would like to table this and just come back and maybe look at,

407
00:51:14,240 --> 00:51:24,080
 have, continue the discussion next week. I guess we need, we're going to bring it back anyway,

408
00:51:24,080 --> 00:51:31,600
 with some options. Yeah, I mean, I can bring back the changes to the definitions that we discussed.

409
00:51:31,600 --> 00:51:39,840
 There was some direction to look at the freeze period on complaint submissions or

410
00:51:40,480 --> 00:51:47,040
 something along those lines. And then there was some discussion about what are, would be monetary

411
00:51:47,040 --> 00:51:54,400
 options. So I mean, we can, if that's the direction during the future agenda item, we can include that

412
00:51:54,400 --> 00:51:59,520
 all on the next agenda. Could we please, because I do know that there was some discussion about

413
00:51:59,520 --> 00:52:06,720
 reimbursing the city. And I think in the July, during the July meeting, but I think we should

414
00:52:06,720 --> 00:52:13,040
 definitely look again at monetary sanctions, especially for the cost of the respondent.

415
00:52:13,040 --> 00:52:18,880
 If we're not willing to, if we're not willing to look at the, you know, cost to the city, then I

416
00:52:18,880 --> 00:52:31,280
 think we should look at the cost to respondents. I'll add one thing that, I think the idea of having

417
00:52:31,280 --> 00:52:43,520
 the complainant reimburse the city came up after some discussion by the council on the cost to the

418
00:52:43,520 --> 00:52:55,360
 city that, from some work that the Board of Ethics did. So there was some discussion about did the

419
00:52:55,360 --> 00:53:01,440
 city hire an attorney to review some of the recommended changes to our ethics ordinance. And

420
00:53:01,440 --> 00:53:12,240
 it sounded like they were concerned that there were, that this board cost the city money by

421
00:53:12,240 --> 00:53:19,120
 having an attorney review something. And I think that's where this came from. That discussion was

422
00:53:19,120 --> 00:53:26,480
 not related to frivolous complaints or anything. It was just did the city pay for someone to review

423
00:53:26,480 --> 00:53:33,280
 these red lines of the ordinance. And so when that discussion was happening, we were also talking

424
00:53:33,280 --> 00:53:40,880
 about frivolous complaints. And we talked about how there is cost to the city to go through this

425
00:53:40,880 --> 00:53:46,960
 process. And so that was proposed as a potential. Did they go forward through with that? I mean, did

426
00:53:47,760 --> 00:53:52,400
 that was never proposed to the city? That's only a discussion. So they threw it back in our face.

427
00:53:52,400 --> 00:54:01,440
 We never submitted anything to the council for sanctioning someone for a frivolous complaint.

428
00:54:01,440 --> 00:54:06,080
 We haven't recommended any changes to that. I think that's what we're trying to get to here.

429
00:54:06,080 --> 00:54:12,480
 Those discussions were only in ethics board meetings that have led up to this where we've

430
00:54:12,480 --> 00:54:19,600
 got something in the red line ordinance. But we have not proposed that. And our discussion was,

431
00:54:19,600 --> 00:54:27,600
 I don't believe there's been any discussion between board members and the council members on

432
00:54:27,600 --> 00:54:35,200
 a monetary sanction or requiring the complainant to pay the city's attorney's fees.

433
00:54:35,200 --> 00:54:41,280
 That's where, that's how this, that's part of how this discussion started.

434
00:54:42,480 --> 00:54:52,080
 So can we move on to the next agenda item? Yeah, I believe I have the direction that I'll

435
00:54:52,080 --> 00:54:59,520
 give from that. Okay. So item BOE 25-035, receiver report, call the discussion

436
00:54:59,520 --> 00:55:03,600
 and give staff direction regarding a potential joint meeting with city council.

437
00:55:03,600 --> 00:55:11,840
 Yeah, so basically I went to the agenda committee, which is the meeting between the mayor

438
00:55:12,640 --> 00:55:18,960
 pro tem and the city manager where they discuss kind of upcoming agenda items for the city council

439
00:55:18,960 --> 00:55:25,440
 meetings. And I presented the option basically that y'all had discussed about potentially having

440
00:55:25,440 --> 00:55:33,360
 a joint meeting. They were tentatively interested in the idea. They were, there was, they wanted

441
00:55:33,360 --> 00:55:39,920
 some more information essentially about what would be the topics on the agenda at that meeting.

442
00:55:42,880 --> 00:55:48,480
 And they did kind of express a desire to discuss the consistency between

443
00:55:48,480 --> 00:55:56,240
 issued advisory opinions and ethics complaints and how those kind of mesh together based on some

444
00:55:56,240 --> 00:56:03,280
 previous decisions that the board has made. So basically they requested that if you would

445
00:56:03,280 --> 00:56:09,280
 like to move forward with a joint meeting, they would like a letter kind of explaining

446
00:56:10,000 --> 00:56:14,320
 what our proposed agenda is like, what you would like to discuss.

447
00:56:14,320 --> 00:56:29,520
 I would like a joint meeting with city council when we are ready to propose a packet of changes

448
00:56:29,520 --> 00:56:34,400
 to discuss the red lines with them. I think that's a great idea.

449
00:56:34,400 --> 00:56:40,480
 That is what I would, that is what I think would make for a much better, you know, because then we

450
00:56:40,480 --> 00:56:47,600
 can hear each other in terms of what it is that we want instead of having this joint conversation of.

451
00:56:47,600 --> 00:56:52,400
 Yeah, kind of like a work session. I like that idea.

452
00:56:52,400 --> 00:56:57,280
 Yeah, because when some of our changes have been proposed at city council meetings,

453
00:56:57,280 --> 00:57:01,760
 it's like they're playing catch up. It's like they don't really know what we're talking about

454
00:57:01,760 --> 00:57:08,080
 and they tend to just shoot things down because they don't quite understand how we got there.

455
00:57:08,080 --> 00:57:11,200
 They focus on the parts of the code that we're not even trying to change.

456
00:57:11,200 --> 00:57:17,040
 Right, and also there was a situation where they felt that our limits were not high enough

457
00:57:17,040 --> 00:57:23,680
 and things like that. So it was like, you know, it's almost like a negotiation, right? It's like,

458
00:57:23,680 --> 00:57:32,320
 just like we had a negotiation on monetary, you know, like, I can't remember, the discussion was

459
00:57:32,320 --> 00:57:44,800
 about what constitutes something that needs to be reported. Business entities and stuff like that.

460
00:57:44,800 --> 00:57:50,000
 So I think if that would have been a conversation, like we had a conversation, I think that there

461
00:57:50,000 --> 00:57:55,360
 could have been a conclusion that could have been found rather than them saying, no, we don't like

462
00:57:55,360 --> 00:58:01,040
 this. And for us to look at it again and then coming back with something that and everything

463
00:58:01,040 --> 00:58:07,120
 takes months, right? I think that's a great suggestion. So once we get to the point where

464
00:58:07,120 --> 00:58:14,880
 we're ready with the packet, having that meeting would probably, I mean, there were phone calls

465
00:58:14,880 --> 00:58:21,920
 flying everywhere in the last two times we've taken things to council and they were just focused on

466
00:58:21,920 --> 00:58:31,360
 things that we weren't even talking about changing. I like the work session part. I think, you know,

467
00:58:31,360 --> 00:58:38,960
 a little bit of when I first got on this committee was this and that, fighting a lot. And I think,

468
00:58:38,960 --> 00:58:45,840
 I've seen, I think, a little bit of them not fighting quite as much amongst themselves.

469
00:58:45,840 --> 00:58:53,760
 And so I do think a work session puts it, you know, to where you're not attacking people

470
00:58:53,760 --> 00:59:01,200
 and you're just trying to get to consensus on what we both can give to and meet in the middle

471
00:59:01,200 --> 00:59:09,440
 somewhere. So I like that approach a lot. Okay, so do you want to convey that to

472
00:59:09,440 --> 00:59:17,200
 me and just say we're not ready with a packet, but when we are we'll reach out? Yeah, I think,

473
00:59:17,200 --> 00:59:25,120
 would it be helpful if we had some ideas of what would be in that red line? I guess,

474
00:59:27,200 --> 00:59:34,720
 I think it will, it won't, I think it will be helpful to have y'all able to actually speak to them

475
00:59:34,720 --> 00:59:43,200
 during a work session to discuss those changes to some extent. I guess my concern is us spending a

476
00:59:43,200 --> 00:59:50,960
 lot of time on something that they're just simply not interested in and I don't know how to reconcile

477
00:59:50,960 --> 00:59:59,760
 that. I would also suggest that it probably needs to be after the next election. Sure, I mean because

478
00:59:59,760 --> 01:00:12,400
 this is coming up in May and that's up that farm way. So I have another, I have another idea

479
01:00:12,400 --> 01:00:20,640
 because I, I, I'm trying to hear what you, and I'm going to double check. So we are having on our,

480
01:00:20,640 --> 01:00:33,280
 we have another item here, future meeting topics, right? Yeah. So is it possible to ask city council

481
01:00:33,280 --> 01:00:43,840
 for topics that in the, in the realm of the ethics committee that they would like for us to discuss

482
01:00:43,840 --> 01:00:49,840
 and get guidance from them because I'm with you. If, if we're, if we're sitting here and we're

483
01:00:49,840 --> 01:00:56,800
 trying to discuss definitions and we are, we are coming up with new language and trying to find

484
01:00:56,800 --> 01:01:03,120
 sanctions for frivolous complaints, but the city council will never ever consider actually changing

485
01:01:03,120 --> 01:01:08,320
 that because that's not something that they consider to be an issue, then we are wasting our time.

486
01:01:08,320 --> 01:01:17,360
 But what are the topics that city council would like to? I, I think the thing that worries me

487
01:01:17,360 --> 01:01:28,000
 with that is that it takes away our, they're not supposed to be governing themselves. We're supposed

488
01:01:28,000 --> 01:01:38,400
 to be a kind of separated body. I can, I should, there should be some degrees of separation and,

489
01:01:38,400 --> 01:01:46,560
 and I mean, yeah, I don't, I don't want to be hitting them with things that I know they're not

490
01:01:46,560 --> 01:01:55,120
 going to approve. I think if we ask the question, nothing stops y'all from bringing something

491
01:01:55,120 --> 01:02:01,600
 forward that they didn't say to work on. Yes. It just helps set the expectations a little better

492
01:02:01,600 --> 01:02:08,000
 for everybody. Gotta have communication between you two parties. Yeah, I really would like,

493
01:02:08,000 --> 01:02:13,840
 I would like to hear what they're interested in because I have had a hard time figuring that out.

494
01:02:15,200 --> 01:02:21,600
 So, so, and we're not, I mean, they're not, in the sense they're not governing us, right? It's

495
01:02:21,600 --> 01:02:27,200
 more like a suggestion. It's more like a, this is on my wish list. Yeah. Right? It's not, it's,

496
01:02:27,200 --> 01:02:32,720
 it doesn't, we don't have to, we don't have to adopt it for our agenda if we feel that that is

497
01:02:32,720 --> 01:02:40,800
 not, that is a topic that doesn't need to be addressed. But I think it would open up, you know,

498
01:02:40,800 --> 01:02:48,240
 communication. And I do want to be clear that ultimately they will have the final say on any

499
01:02:48,240 --> 01:02:54,720
 changes. Sure. Exactly. Right. So. Yeah. It's just, again, setting expectations. No. They,

500
01:02:54,720 --> 01:03:00,960
 I understand what you're saying about, ideally, but they do govern themselves under the current...

501
01:03:00,960 --> 01:03:07,920
 Well, we might find out what closer to together than we think through the communication process.

502
01:03:08,880 --> 01:03:13,920
 You know, show me anywhere that if you don't communicate, you get where you want to be. So.

503
01:03:13,920 --> 01:03:23,760
 Yeah, I really am curious about where all this adversarial stuff came from because

504
01:03:23,760 --> 01:03:29,360
 I don't see that we've done anything harmful or mean or mean-spirited.

505
01:03:33,360 --> 01:03:40,080
 Yeah. I'm curious to know where that's coming from. And I don't think we can answer to that.

506
01:03:40,080 --> 01:03:43,360
 But maybe that question should be asked.

507
01:03:43,360 --> 01:03:56,160
 So I can maybe take to the agenda committee the idea of maybe in January or February having a

508
01:03:56,160 --> 01:04:01,760
 work session with council where I walk them through, here are some of the general ideas

509
01:04:01,760 --> 01:04:06,880
 that the board has had about potential changes. Which of these are you interested in?

510
01:04:06,880 --> 01:04:12,560
 Is that something we can do? I would assume so. Getting direction on what to go forward with,

511
01:04:12,560 --> 01:04:19,280
 what for them to work on. That wouldn't be without any specific red lines or anything.

512
01:04:19,280 --> 01:04:24,560
 Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Yeah. So I can bring that to the board, to the city council

513
01:04:27,280 --> 01:04:32,720
 in, like I said, January, February. And then in December, the December meeting for us,

514
01:04:32,720 --> 01:04:39,120
 we can maybe kind of refine that list.

515
01:04:39,120 --> 01:04:45,600
 Okay. So are we ready for the next agenda item, the last one?

516
01:04:50,560 --> 01:04:58,240
 Okay. BOE 25-036. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding

517
01:04:58,240 --> 01:05:06,960
 future meeting topics. So for December, general sanctions

518
01:05:12,240 --> 01:05:21,920
 and frivolity, narrow down the frivolity thing and maybe find

519
01:05:21,920 --> 01:05:29,040
 a list of things that we want to ask council about.

520
01:05:29,040 --> 01:05:38,160
 Do we need red lines for the definition section based on our discussion earlier?

521
01:05:39,920 --> 01:05:45,040
 Yeah, we can include that. I mean, I think I can bring them back. They're not complicated.

522
01:05:45,040 --> 01:05:54,240
 No, I think they're just nicely clear. I can't imagine that anyone would object to that, but

523
01:05:54,240 --> 01:06:00,320
 I've been surprised before. But to me, that seems like it makes it just more clear.

524
01:06:04,640 --> 01:06:10,480
 Okay. So anything else?

525
01:06:10,480 --> 01:06:17,280
 I would like to discuss potentially. So our next meeting is scheduled for December 8th.

526
01:06:17,280 --> 01:06:26,400
 I have a final that day. So if possible, I would request that we move it to the 15th.

527
01:06:26,400 --> 01:06:29,200
 Would we skip to January?

528
01:06:29,840 --> 01:06:35,120
 Or we could do that. It's up to you all. Why don't we just skip to January?

529
01:06:35,120 --> 01:06:39,360
 That would be awesome. So no December meeting?

530
01:06:39,360 --> 01:06:42,400
 No December meeting. We'll move everything to January.

531
01:06:42,400 --> 01:06:49,680
 Okay. So it will be the second Monday in January.

532
01:06:51,200 --> 01:07:00,240
 Correct. And not the 25th, but the 26th, which would be the 12th.

533
01:07:00,240 --> 01:07:03,040
 Yep. Okay. I think that's a great idea.

534
01:07:03,040 --> 01:07:15,040
 So I wish you all a happy holidays. And so it is now, is there anything else we need to talk about?

535
01:07:16,800 --> 01:07:27,440
 Okay. It is now 6 43 p.m. And this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.