WEBVTT 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. 00:00:11.520 --> 00:00:18.480 And the first item on our agenda is presentation from members of the public 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. 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 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 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 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 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. 00:01:06.480 --> 00:01:14.320 Okay. So we'll make those corrections. Other than those things, are there any changes? 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. 00:01:21.760 --> 00:01:29.920 First by Diane. Can you state the amendment? Sorry. The amendment will be changing so that 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, 00:01:40.160 --> 00:01:48.160 indicating that Andrea could not possibly be both absent and say yes. 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, 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 00:02:11.680 --> 00:02:17.040 listed under the ayes. Okay. And I shall be listed under absent. Okay. So just replacing 00:02:19.040 --> 00:02:26.080 Andrea Everhard with Dustin. Was I truly absent? Now you're making me think. 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 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, 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, 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 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 00:03:09.120 --> 00:03:17.280 ayes, Andrea Everhard be replaced with Dustin Publick. Correct. Okay. So that's the motion. 00:03:17.280 --> 00:03:25.440 Okay. I'll second the motion. Okay. Dustin Publick seconded. So all in favor, I will 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 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 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, 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 00:04:00.640 --> 00:04:15.920 credit ordinances, Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics, Section 2-282C, frivolous. Yeah. So the last time 00:04:15.920 --> 00:04:21.280 in July, you give direction to bring back information on any sanctions that were 00:04:21.280 --> 00:04:27.440 available in other jurisdictions that we generally look at for frivolous complaints. That's what's 00:04:27.440 --> 00:04:33.440 presented here in this table. Just for your kind of consideration, because we had discussed 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 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 00:04:52.960 --> 00:04:58.000 complainants from submitting a complaint for one year after they submit a frivolous complaint. 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. 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 00:05:14.000 --> 00:05:29.680 definition section. Let me just double check. And then can you pull up the definition of 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 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 00:06:04.320 --> 00:06:10.160 we should reconcile the definitions of baseless and frivolous. Because they're two very different 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 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 00:06:22.400 --> 00:06:29.600 the prerequisite for frivolous. And so we're, I think we have conflicting definitions here, 00:06:29.600 --> 00:06:33.840 or not not necessarily conflicting, but confusing. What I would say, I would, 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 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. 00:06:47.680 --> 00:06:59.120 Exactly. Yeah. So I would recommend that we amend frivolous to a sworn complaint. 00:06:59.120 --> 00:07:08.640 Would you substitute the word baseless for groundless? For the purpose of harassment. 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 00:07:18.800 --> 00:07:24.400 they were trying to harass, harass the person. Whichever way you want to say that word. 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 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. 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. 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 00:08:03.040 --> 00:08:09.440 thing to prove. But in the one case we did, it was provable. 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 00:08:27.360 --> 00:08:35.360 baseless complaint and turn it into non-actionable? You know, baseless just has a negative connotation 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. 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 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. 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 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, 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 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, 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 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 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. 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 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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. 00:11:35.520 --> 00:11:39.200 We have to make sure that our predecessors understand this stuff as well. 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. 00:11:52.240 --> 00:12:03.120 Okay, so those are the recommendations. So now we're moving on to talking about 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, 00:12:11.440 --> 00:12:14.320 this I can obviously bring back as red lines to what we just discussed. 00:12:14.320 --> 00:12:22.640 Is any concerns or questions about? I think that will dictate the language in here. 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 00:12:30.640 --> 00:12:42.000 rewriting our sections, just personally. I agree. I think those are great suggestions, Ken, so I 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. 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:14:09.760 --> 00:14:15.920 limitation for somebody that's submitted a criminal complaint. I have a question and 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. 00:14:23.680 --> 00:14:30.080 Do they oversee themselves with sanctions by any chance? No. So, they have no written 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. 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 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? 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 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 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 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 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, 00:15:31.360 --> 00:15:38.320 seems like we're conflicting a little bit that they should be on the same page. 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 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. 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 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 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 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, 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 00:16:41.040 --> 00:16:51.360 a type of sanction that the mayor sometimes has in the past silenced some council people 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 00:17:55.600 --> 00:18:05.600 frivolity. And there's already a sanctions section somewhere governing some panel for the 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 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 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 00:18:24.720 --> 00:18:29.520 ethics codes for Dallas and San Antonio. It doesn't have anything about our council. 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. 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. 00:18:43.760 --> 00:18:49.360 I know that years ago one of the council members was upset with another council member 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 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 00:19:02.720 --> 00:19:11.280 think they have any sanctions. And what they did have was pretty much 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 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, 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 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. 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. 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 00:19:59.600 --> 00:20:09.760 the board determined to be frivolous, we didn't feel like the sanctions were 00:20:12.560 --> 00:20:16.720 severe enough or strong enough to discourage them from doing that again. 00:20:16.720 --> 00:20:22.960 Because it very well may have impacted the outcome of an election because it was days 00:20:22.960 --> 00:20:28.880 before the election. I mean there's a whole lot, it was fairly frivolous. Somebody just 00:20:28.880 --> 00:20:33.760 said that part. They were doing it to harm another candidate. 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 00:20:46.720 --> 00:20:55.200 city encouraged for hiring for attorney's fees and allowing the board of ethics to 00:20:55.200 --> 00:21:04.240 require the person that submitted that frivolous complaint to reimburse the city for that cost. 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:21:41.200 --> 00:21:49.680 on a complaint that in the three-member panel is determined to potentially be frivolous. 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 00:21:55.760 --> 00:22:01.360 determination by the whole board, is this a frivolous complaint? And that whole process 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 00:22:08.880 --> 00:22:14.240 complaint was on the ballot. There were articles in the paper about it. There were 00:22:14.240 --> 00:22:27.200 that the board or that the paper published prior to that complaint becoming public record because 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:23:18.160 --> 00:23:28.160 to try to discourage someone, anyone from submitting a frivolous complaint which is very different from 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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? 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, 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 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 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 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 00:26:16.240 --> 00:26:25.280 rage, which was certainly the case with this. Which shouldn't be happening. I have zero, 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. 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 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 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, 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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 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 00:28:05.600 --> 00:28:08.400 I have none now. 00:28:16.000 --> 00:28:17.120 Have we looked at 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 00:28:34.080 --> 00:28:41.040 when we talk size-wise. I mean, Dallas is like the biggest metropolitan in the country, 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 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 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 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, 00:29:10.400 --> 00:29:14.640 I don't believe, have a frivolous complaint, so they don't have frivolous complaint sanctions. 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 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 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, 00:29:43.680 --> 00:29:52.160 and in our discussions we felt like our ability to respond to that was 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 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. 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 00:32:00.080 --> 00:32:06.800 right now, but, but we have remedies for this stuff, right? So the Texas Citizens Participation 00:32:06.800 --> 00:32:13.040 Act, someone files a lawsuit, you know, for political gain, you know, we have these motions 00:32:13.040 --> 00:32:20.800 that allow for expedited summary disposition of cases like that. And while those motions carry 00:32:20.800 --> 00:32:34.080 with it some sanctions, it seems more important to rectify or solve the underlying issue of, 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 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 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, 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 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. 00:33:12.160 --> 00:33:17.680 That is exactly what, that is exactly the conclusion we came to. Right. And not only, 00:33:17.680 --> 00:33:24.080 and not only was, was the timing such that the decision would be after the election, 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 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 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 00:33:48.480 --> 00:33:57.840 complaint. No. Filing a frivolous complaint. Yeah. If I wanted to file a frivolous complaint, 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:34:49.520 --> 00:34:57.040 requiring the complainant to pay the city's fees, but not necessarily the respondent's fees. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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. 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 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? 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 00:37:53.120 --> 00:37:58.960 talk about not allowing any other complaints within a certain time period before the election? 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 00:38:06.720 --> 00:38:14.720 other board. Somebody that wanted to do a frivolous complaint against somebody writing for office 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. 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. 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, 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 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, 00:38:39.760 --> 00:38:44.320 everything was, everything was in the newspaper before we ever heard about it. So therefore. It 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 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 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, 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 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 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, 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, 00:39:34.800 --> 00:39:39.280 would that have done anything? Because the means were already accomplished. Yes. That person 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:40:24.400 --> 00:40:30.880 in social media or the newspaper, that will be considered a purposeful complaint. Well, I mean, 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, 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 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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 00:41:44.160 --> 00:41:52.480 what if there is an actual ethics violation committed 30 days before the election? That is 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. 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. 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. 00:42:16.640 --> 00:42:24.000 In this particular instance, it was identified as frivolous through the process that already exists. 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. 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 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 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 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 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 00:43:10.720 --> 00:43:17.600 this or at least discourage it or limit it, limit a single person from weaponizing this. 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 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 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 00:43:46.080 --> 00:43:52.560 some sort of monetary sanction, which to me, it would seem logical to have them 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 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. 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 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 00:44:21.840 --> 00:44:28.960 complaints, not a baseless complaint where they just, this is not an ethics violation, but something 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:45:22.240 --> 00:45:30.960 table this and bring it back. I like the definitions that Kenneth proposed. 00:45:30.960 --> 00:45:35.280 I would like to consider the sanction or some kind of a freeze period. 00:45:35.280 --> 00:45:44.880 So mull it over in your hearts until our December meeting and bring it back. 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 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 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. 00:46:05.200 --> 00:46:10.560 That makes me mad. And that might also help prevent a complaint because they'll say, 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 00:46:58.960 --> 00:47:09.920 things that play into that fact. Lawsuits, challenges you can't pay it, timing, ugly things. 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. 00:47:17.120 --> 00:47:20.960 We would lock ourselves out behind these doors and never be able to get anywhere. 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 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 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, 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 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, 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, 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, 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, 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 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 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. 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 00:48:49.920 --> 00:48:58.480 to the city of Denton than the potential of reading an election based on false accusations 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, 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 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 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 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, 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 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 00:49:47.520 --> 00:49:52.480 monitoring. So I really agree. I agree to your point on that. It's just that 00:49:52.480 --> 00:49:59.840 there are some real costs. Yeah, there's some real costs, especially for the, 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 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 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 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 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? 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, 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 00:50:40.560 --> 00:50:45.760 you went through that. So we're coming from a completely different mindset. And you know, 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. 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? 00:51:00.240 --> 00:51:05.360 I was just disappointed that... 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, 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, 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. 00:51:31.600 --> 00:51:39.840 There was some direction to look at the freeze period on complaint submissions or 00:51:40.480 --> 00:51:47.040 something along those lines. And then there was some discussion about what are, would be monetary 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 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 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 00:52:06.720 --> 00:52:13.040 definitely look again at monetary sanctions, especially for the cost of the respondent. 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 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 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 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 00:52:55.360 --> 00:53:01.440 city hire an attorney to review some of the recommended changes to our ethics ordinance. And 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 00:53:52.400 --> 00:54:01.440 We never submitted anything to the council for sanctioning someone for a frivolous complaint. 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. 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 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, 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 00:54:27.600 --> 00:54:35.200 a monetary sanction or requiring the complainant to pay the city's attorney's fees. 00:54:35.200 --> 00:54:41.280 That's where, that's how this, that's part of how this discussion started. 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 00:54:52.080 --> 00:54:59.520 give from that. Okay. So item BOE 25-035, receiver report, call the discussion 00:54:59.520 --> 00:55:03.600 and give staff direction regarding a potential joint meeting with city council. 00:55:03.600 --> 00:55:11.840 Yeah, so basically I went to the agenda committee, which is the meeting between the mayor 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 00:55:18.960 --> 00:55:25.440 meetings. And I presented the option basically that y'all had discussed about potentially having 00:55:25.440 --> 00:55:33.360 a joint meeting. They were tentatively interested in the idea. They were, there was, they wanted 00:55:33.360 --> 00:55:39.920 some more information essentially about what would be the topics on the agenda at that meeting. 00:55:42.880 --> 00:55:48.480 And they did kind of express a desire to discuss the consistency between 00:55:48.480 --> 00:55:56.240 issued advisory opinions and ethics complaints and how those kind of mesh together based on some 00:55:56.240 --> 00:56:03.280 previous decisions that the board has made. So basically they requested that if you would 00:56:03.280 --> 00:56:09.280 like to move forward with a joint meeting, they would like a letter kind of explaining 00:56:10.000 --> 00:56:14.320 what our proposed agenda is like, what you would like to discuss. 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 00:56:29.520 --> 00:56:34.400 to discuss the red lines with them. I think that's a great idea. 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 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. 00:56:47.600 --> 00:56:52.400 Yeah, kind of like a work session. I like that idea. 00:56:52.400 --> 00:56:57.280 Yeah, because when some of our changes have been proposed at city council meetings, 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 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. 00:57:08.080 --> 00:57:11.200 They focus on the parts of the code that we're not even trying to change. 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 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, 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 00:57:32.320 --> 00:57:44.800 about what constitutes something that needs to be reported. Business entities and stuff like that. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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, 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. 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 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 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 01:00:56.800 --> 01:01:03.120 sanctions for frivolous complaints, but the city council will never ever consider actually changing 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. 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 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 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, 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 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 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 01:02:01.600 --> 01:02:08.000 for everybody. Gotta have communication between you two parties. Yeah, I really would like, 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. 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 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, 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 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, 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 01:02:48.240 --> 01:02:54.720 changes. Sure. Exactly. Right. So. Yeah. It's just, again, setting expectations. No. They, 01:02:54.720 --> 01:03:00.960 I understand what you're saying about, ideally, but they do govern themselves under the current... 01:03:00.960 --> 01:03:07.920 Well, we might find out what closer to together than we think through the communication process. 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. 01:03:13.920 --> 01:03:23.760 Yeah, I really am curious about where all this adversarial stuff came from because 01:03:23.760 --> 01:03:29.360 I don't see that we've done anything harmful or mean or mean-spirited. 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. 01:03:40.080 --> 01:03:43.360 But maybe that question should be asked. 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 01:03:56.160 --> 01:04:01.760 work session with council where I walk them through, here are some of the general ideas 01:04:01.760 --> 01:04:06.880 that the board has had about potential changes. Which of these are you interested in? 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, 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. 01:04:19.280 --> 01:04:24.560 Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Yeah. So I can bring that to the board, to the city council 01:04:27.280 --> 01:04:32.720 in, like I said, January, February. And then in December, the December meeting for us, 01:04:32.720 --> 01:04:39.120 we can maybe kind of refine that list. 01:04:39.120 --> 01:04:45.600 Okay. So are we ready for the next agenda item, the last one? 01:04:50.560 --> 01:04:58.240 Okay. BOE 25-036. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding 01:04:58.240 --> 01:05:06.960 future meeting topics. So for December, general sanctions 01:05:12.240 --> 01:05:21.920 and frivolity, narrow down the frivolity thing and maybe find 01:05:21.920 --> 01:05:29.040 a list of things that we want to ask council about. 01:05:29.040 --> 01:05:38.160 Do we need red lines for the definition section based on our discussion earlier? 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. 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 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. 01:06:04.640 --> 01:06:10.480 Okay. So anything else? 01:06:10.480 --> 01:06:17.280 I would like to discuss potentially. So our next meeting is scheduled for December 8th. 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. 01:06:26.400 --> 01:06:29.200 Would we skip to January? 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? 01:06:35.120 --> 01:06:39.360 That would be awesome. So no December meeting? 01:06:39.360 --> 01:06:42.400 No December meeting. We'll move everything to January. 01:06:42.400 --> 01:06:49.680 Okay. So it will be the second Monday in January. 01:06:51.200 --> 01:07:00.240 Correct. And not the 25th, but the 26th, which would be the 12th. 01:07:00.240 --> 01:07:03.040 Yep. Okay. I think that's a great idea. 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? 01:07:16.800 --> 01:07:27.440 Okay. It is now 6 43 p.m. And this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.