1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:03,400
 >> All right.

2
00:00:03,400 --> 00:00:05,440
 Let's call this meeting to order.

3
00:00:05,440 --> 00:00:06,800
 It's 540.

4
00:00:06,800 --> 00:00:08,800
 There was a little bit of traffic and then we're setting

5
00:00:08,800 --> 00:00:11,500
 up the video for the first time so we're a little late today.

6
00:00:11,500 --> 00:00:13,200
 But we'll go ahead and get started.

7
00:00:13,200 --> 00:00:19,680
 The items for consideration, number ABOE19-047,

8
00:00:19,680 --> 00:00:24,060
 consider approval of the minutes for September 11, 2019 meeting.

9
00:00:24,060 --> 00:00:33,500
 I believe under absent it says Ronnie Mohair

10
00:00:33,500 --> 00:00:35,740
 and it doesn't have excuser, not unexcused.

11
00:00:35,740 --> 00:00:36,840
 Betsy, do we know?

12
00:00:36,840 --> 00:00:37,840
 >> It was excused.

13
00:00:37,840 --> 00:00:39,040
 >> It was excused.

14
00:00:39,040 --> 00:00:41,240
 So we'll change the minutes to show excused there.

15
00:00:41,240 --> 00:00:47,120
 Did anybody see anything else on the minutes that need to be changed?

16
00:00:47,120 --> 00:00:49,820
 Do I have a motion to accept these minutes?

17
00:00:49,820 --> 00:00:51,120
 >> So moved.

18
00:00:51,120 --> 00:00:53,720
 >> Moved by Annetta Ramsey and is there a second?

19
00:00:53,720 --> 00:00:54,600
 >> Second.

20
00:00:54,600 --> 00:00:58,520
 >> Second by Don Cartwright and all in favor say aye.

21
00:00:58,520 --> 00:00:59,660
 >> Aye.

22
00:00:59,660 --> 00:01:05,740
 >> So motion passes to accept with adding Ronnie Mohair is excused.

23
00:01:05,740 --> 00:01:10,940
 The next item on the agenda is B, BOE19-048.

24
00:01:10,940 --> 00:01:17,220
 Oh, and actually just a side note, the full board is here

25
00:01:17,220 --> 00:01:20,120
 and there are alternates here.

26
00:01:20,120 --> 00:01:27,060
 The alternates are Debra, Rob, and Bob and they can be here

27
00:01:27,060 --> 00:01:29,200
 but they can't deliberate or vote.

28
00:01:29,200 --> 00:01:31,760
 Debra is on the agenda so she can obviously speak

29
00:01:31,760 --> 00:01:34,360
 where she's on the agenda and we can converse then.

30
00:01:34,360 --> 00:01:37,940
 But just want to make that clear for the video.

31
00:01:37,940 --> 00:01:41,200
 I've already told the board that.

32
00:01:41,200 --> 00:01:45,240
 So after saying that, oh and then also do we need to go over who's here today

33
00:01:45,240 --> 00:01:47,040
 and who's excused, I guess everyone's here today?

34
00:01:47,040 --> 00:01:48,040
 >> Everyone's here.

35
00:01:48,040 --> 00:01:53,520
 >> Okay, so everyone's here today so we don't have to go over excused, absences.

36
00:01:53,520 --> 00:01:58,880
 Yeah, so we'll go to B, BOE19-048, hold a discussion on updates

37
00:01:58,880 --> 00:02:01,520
 to the current membership of the ethics board.

38
00:02:01,520 --> 00:02:14,340
 >> Mr. Hall, city auditor.

39
00:02:14,340 --> 00:02:21,000
 We have a new member, Larry Beck, that is joining us.

40
00:02:21,000 --> 00:02:26,940
 I am not sure whether we welcome Annette Ramsey

41
00:02:26,940 --> 00:02:29,860
 and she's also a new member joining us.

42
00:02:29,860 --> 00:02:32,080
 >> Okay, yeah, so Annette was at the last meeting.

43
00:02:32,080 --> 00:02:35,660
 It wasn't videoed and I don't think everybody was here.

44
00:02:35,660 --> 00:02:40,960
 So I guess anything more than that for that agenda item?

45
00:02:40,960 --> 00:02:41,960
 >> No.

46
00:02:41,960 --> 00:02:43,500
 >> Just welcome Larry.

47
00:02:43,500 --> 00:02:44,500
 >> Larry.

48
00:02:44,500 --> 00:02:48,900
 All right, so ready to move to item C or?

49
00:02:48,900 --> 00:02:49,900
 >> Quick question.

50
00:02:49,900 --> 00:02:50,900
 >> Go ahead.

51
00:02:50,900 --> 00:02:54,980
 >> I'm used to, if you had a question you would be recognized by the chair

52
00:02:54,980 --> 00:02:56,440
 if it didn't apply and you're doing it.

53
00:02:56,440 --> 00:02:57,840
 How do you work with it?

54
00:02:57,840 --> 00:03:00,780
 >> I mean, it's pretty, today it's pretty full.

55
00:03:00,780 --> 00:03:01,780
 Usually it's pretty relaxed.

56
00:03:01,780 --> 00:03:05,580
 I would say if there's a lot going on, just you know, maybe get my attention.

57
00:03:05,580 --> 00:03:09,720
 But sometimes we just kind of discuss without needing to do that.

58
00:03:09,720 --> 00:03:20,040
 >> All right, agenda item C, BOE 19-049, receive a report, hold a discussion,

59
00:03:20,040 --> 00:03:25,040
 and take necessary action regarding board attendance, record of absences,

60
00:03:25,040 --> 00:03:32,680
 ethics training deadlines, and meeting dates for November and December 29, 2019.

61
00:03:32,680 --> 00:03:39,560
 As far as the attendance and recording of absences, Betsy has mentioned to me

62
00:03:39,560 --> 00:03:41,960
 that if you're not going to be able to make a meeting,

63
00:03:41,960 --> 00:03:46,920
 to please let her know beforehand, as soon as possible, and make sure to give,

64
00:03:46,920 --> 00:03:50,500
 even if it's the day of, to give her some notice so that we can be on notice

65
00:03:50,500 --> 00:03:54,640
 when we kind of take attendance and take absences.

66
00:03:54,640 --> 00:04:01,080
 And there was also, we also talked about whether absences would,

67
00:04:01,080 --> 00:04:05,880
 whether vacations would be excused absences.

68
00:04:05,880 --> 00:04:10,480
 >> This actually, we have an old version.

69
00:04:10,480 --> 00:04:16,460
 >> All right, I have an old version of the agenda.

70
00:04:16,460 --> 00:04:23,900
 So, all right, so C is BOE 19-049, receive a report and hold a discussion

71
00:04:23,900 --> 00:04:27,000
 regarding board attendance and ethics training deadlines.

72
00:04:27,000 --> 00:04:30,100
 So attendance, was I on the right track that we were talking about?

73
00:04:30,100 --> 00:04:32,640
 You wanted us to speak about letting Betsy know about?

74
00:04:32,640 --> 00:04:41,320
 >> Sure. As you all know, city auditor's office provide administrative support.

75
00:04:41,320 --> 00:04:47,820
 Also city auditor's office is responsible for providing training to this board,

76
00:04:47,820 --> 00:04:52,660
 city council members, and several other board members

77
00:04:52,660 --> 00:04:59,960
 that require this training under the ethics ordinance.

78
00:04:59,960 --> 00:05:06,100
 Again, since we are tracking training for so many people,

79
00:05:06,100 --> 00:05:12,320
 tracking them separately becomes an administrative burden.

80
00:05:12,320 --> 00:05:17,880
 So we are planning to have a training in January,

81
00:05:17,880 --> 00:05:24,760
 and we may hire someone to provide that training.

82
00:05:24,760 --> 00:05:32,700
 And what will happen is, if you have taken the training 60 days before that January date,

83
00:05:32,700 --> 00:05:40,440
 January 1st, then you are excused from that training and you take training the next year.

84
00:05:40,440 --> 00:05:49,180
 And, but if you have not taken training 60 days before January, January 1st,

85
00:05:49,180 --> 00:05:52,620
 then you will have to take that training.

86
00:05:52,620 --> 00:05:58,360
 That training would be useful because we are going to be hiring someone to provide that.

87
00:05:58,360 --> 00:06:04,100
 So even if you have taken training within 60 days prior,

88
00:06:04,100 --> 00:06:06,960
 it may be a good idea to attend that training.

89
00:06:06,960 --> 00:06:14,380
 >> So if you take it prior to January, it's going to be the same one we've already taken?

90
00:06:14,380 --> 00:06:18,880
 >> As I said, we are going to be hiring someone to provide that training.

91
00:06:18,880 --> 00:06:24,380
 >> For those of us that have already taken a training, because we've been on the board for almost two years,

92
00:06:24,380 --> 00:06:28,120
 it would be the same training if we don't wait until January?

93
00:06:28,120 --> 00:06:29,020
 >> The same video.

94
00:06:29,020 --> 00:06:31,360
 >> The same video we've already watched?

95
00:06:31,360 --> 00:06:34,160
 >> If that is the choice that you want.

96
00:06:34,160 --> 00:06:35,300
 >> Oh, no, that's not the choice.

97
00:06:35,300 --> 00:06:37,840
 I'm just saying, like, there's not a new one until January.

98
00:06:37,840 --> 00:06:42,640
 So I feel like if we were to take one, it's probably a good idea to just wait until January.

99
00:06:42,640 --> 00:06:43,440
 >> Yeah.

100
00:06:43,440 --> 00:06:45,280
 >> Okay.

101
00:06:45,280 --> 00:06:48,780
 >> Laura, does that apply to alternates as well as members?

102
00:06:48,780 --> 00:06:50,540
 >> Yes, I believe so.

103
00:06:50,540 --> 00:06:50,840
 >> Okay.

104
00:06:50,840 --> 00:06:52,780
 >> It's all members and alternates.

105
00:06:52,780 --> 00:06:58,320
 You'll see on this board, many, most meetings, alternates do participate.

106
00:06:58,320 --> 00:07:02,620
 I think this is the first one we alternates, no alternates have participated.

107
00:07:02,620 --> 00:07:05,600
 >> Yeah, today is unprecedented.

108
00:07:05,600 --> 00:07:10,360
 >> No alternates have participated thus far?

109
00:07:10,360 --> 00:07:11,440
 >> Oh, no, no.

110
00:07:11,440 --> 00:07:15,200
 This is the first meeting where an alternate isn't participating.

111
00:07:15,200 --> 00:07:22,700
 Thus far, every meeting, we've had to have an alternate, so.

112
00:07:22,700 --> 00:07:28,420
 So is there anything else to discuss on that topic or?

113
00:07:28,420 --> 00:07:31,080
 >> Well, again, on the absences.

114
00:07:31,080 --> 00:07:32,080
 >> Okay.

115
00:07:32,080 --> 00:07:38,420
 >> We would like to know in advance whether the absences are excused or unexcused so

116
00:07:38,420 --> 00:07:45,560
 that we can record accordingly, and let the chair know.

117
00:07:45,560 --> 00:07:49,600
 And that helps us in keeping everything straight.

118
00:07:49,600 --> 00:07:53,780
 So we'll appreciate it if you let us know in advance.

119
00:07:53,780 --> 00:07:59,140
 >> What cause is an excuse?

120
00:07:59,140 --> 00:08:03,040
 >> I think we're actually going to go over that in agenda item B.

121
00:08:03,040 --> 00:08:19,260
 Let's just, on that note, we'll move up to agenda item D, BOE 19-053.

122
00:08:19,260 --> 00:08:22,900
 Hold the discussion and take necessary action regarding the classification of absences for

123
00:08:22,900 --> 00:08:29,000
 vacations and surrounding circumstances pursuant to Dent and Code of Ordinances 2-83C.

124
00:08:29,000 --> 00:08:33,360
 I know now, if you're sick or if it's work-related, it's excused.

125
00:08:33,360 --> 00:08:39,260
 Are there, and then I guess it's discretionary to the board as far as other reasons for excuses?

126
00:08:39,260 --> 00:08:40,260
 >> Yes.

127
00:08:40,260 --> 00:08:48,740
 That particular section allows the board to decide what is going to be the excused absences,

128
00:08:48,740 --> 00:08:54,300
 and this board needs to decide.

129
00:08:54,300 --> 00:09:02,420
 The issue has come up whether the vacations are excused absences, and this board needs

130
00:09:02,420 --> 00:09:03,740
 to decide.

131
00:09:03,740 --> 00:09:11,140
 So this particular item is to vote to consider and vote on that item.

132
00:09:11,140 --> 00:09:16,660
 >> I'll say my opinion is, you know, I can leave work for a vacation.

133
00:09:16,660 --> 00:09:21,660
 I feel like we should be excused for planned vacations on this board, too.

134
00:09:21,660 --> 00:09:26,780
 I don't know, I'm not seeing any heads shaking, so if there's any kind of motion, we can entertain

135
00:09:26,780 --> 00:09:27,780
 that.

136
00:09:27,780 --> 00:09:35,660
 >> I think maybe there ought to be a number of meetings that you could miss for a vacation,

137
00:09:35,660 --> 00:09:43,140
 not just a blank, because I am now retired, so I'm almost on vacation all the time.

138
00:09:43,140 --> 00:09:44,140
 >> Can we do that, you guys?

139
00:09:44,140 --> 00:09:45,140
 Sure.

140
00:09:45,140 --> 00:09:46,140
 >> I think so.

141
00:09:46,140 --> 00:09:47,140
 That is your rule.

142
00:09:47,140 --> 00:09:48,140
 >> Okay.

143
00:09:48,140 --> 00:09:49,140
 So, I mean, I'd be okay with that.

144
00:09:49,140 --> 00:09:52,740
 But how many days do you think, or how many times?

145
00:09:52,740 --> 00:09:57,540
 >> I think maybe three meetings, or two meetings, or I'd miss no more than that.

146
00:09:57,540 --> 00:10:00,180
 >> No more than that is an excuse.

147
00:10:00,180 --> 00:10:01,180
 >> For vacation.

148
00:10:01,180 --> 00:10:02,180
 >> For vacation.

149
00:10:02,180 --> 00:10:09,300
 >> And I was going to ask on the same lines, because, again, in the other organizations,

150
00:10:09,300 --> 00:10:15,220
 that you're limited to so many absences, too, either in a row or in a year.

151
00:10:15,220 --> 00:10:17,220
 Is that applicable here?

152
00:10:17,220 --> 00:10:20,900
 >> Again, that is your rule.

153
00:10:20,900 --> 00:10:23,900
 >> Oh, that's our rule.

154
00:10:23,900 --> 00:10:24,900
 Okay.

155
00:10:24,900 --> 00:10:25,900
 Well, okay.

156
00:10:25,900 --> 00:10:29,340
 So, absences for vacations and surrounding circumstances, I don't -- with that agenda,

157
00:10:29,340 --> 00:10:35,940
 I didn't include voting on the agenda item D. We can vote on vacations, but as far as

158
00:10:35,940 --> 00:10:44,620
 missing, like, consecutive meetings, can we vote on that under that agenda item or not?

159
00:10:44,620 --> 00:10:56,580
 >> Deputy City Attorney, it's set up to basically where, if you were going to talk about vacations,

160
00:10:56,580 --> 00:11:00,220
 you could put the circumstances surrounding that vacation like it's something planned,

161
00:11:00,220 --> 00:11:03,500
 or it's no more than two in a row, something like that.

162
00:11:03,500 --> 00:11:11,820
 Generally, I don't think the agenda caption would be for you all to just go into other

163
00:11:11,820 --> 00:11:15,860
 alternative methods of deciding what is and is -- would not be appropriate, generally

164
00:11:15,860 --> 00:11:20,340
 under attendance, because those would typically be handled by the boards and commission handbook.

165
00:11:20,340 --> 00:11:21,340
 >> Okay.

166
00:11:21,340 --> 00:11:22,340
 All right.

167
00:11:22,340 --> 00:11:28,460
 So, I think we're all in agreement that they -- you should be allowed two or three vacation

168
00:11:28,460 --> 00:11:29,460
 days.

169
00:11:29,460 --> 00:11:35,500
 Do we want to make any rules about consecutive meetings missed for vacation days?

170
00:11:35,500 --> 00:11:40,380
 >> If they're unexcused, if they don't call in or anything, if there's three in a row

171
00:11:40,380 --> 00:11:44,460
 like that, that probably should be -- or else, take a look at it.

172
00:11:44,460 --> 00:11:50,140
 >> And as Trey just mentioned, there -- the boards and commissions have rules as far as

173
00:11:50,140 --> 00:11:56,220
 -- and I think it's three -- that if you miss three unexcused, then you can be removed.

174
00:11:56,220 --> 00:11:58,540
 More than -- okay, more than three, you can be removed.

175
00:11:58,540 --> 00:11:59,540
 So that's already in place.

176
00:11:59,540 --> 00:12:00,540
 >> Okay.

177
00:12:00,540 --> 00:12:06,060
 >> What we just need to consider is what -- like, what we can decide that isn't in the board

178
00:12:06,060 --> 00:12:10,620
 and commission rules is that people can have excused absences for vacations.

179
00:12:10,620 --> 00:12:16,620
 And it says, "An excused absence shall include personal or family illness, death of a family

180
00:12:16,620 --> 00:12:20,460
 member, jury duty, service in the armed forces, testifying before legislature, attending a

181
00:12:20,460 --> 00:12:24,620
 seminar involving municipal matters of importance to the member's duties, absence necessaries

182
00:12:24,620 --> 00:12:28,380
 for the member's business or employment, any related emergencies or matters which the board,

183
00:12:28,380 --> 00:12:31,380
 commission or committee finds qualify as an excused absence."

184
00:12:31,380 --> 00:12:36,660
 So I think this would fall under other matters that we would qualify as an excused absence.

185
00:12:36,660 --> 00:12:39,940
 So we have a little bit of discretion there as far as vacations.

186
00:12:39,940 --> 00:12:47,740
 >> Just as a point of clarification, the alternates don't have to worry about absences?

187
00:12:47,740 --> 00:12:48,740
 >> I think --

188
00:12:48,740 --> 00:12:49,740
 >> Well --

189
00:12:49,740 --> 00:12:50,740
 >> If --

190
00:12:50,740 --> 00:12:51,740
 >> I can answer that.

191
00:12:51,740 --> 00:12:52,740
 >> Yes, please.

192
00:12:52,740 --> 00:13:01,100
 >> Alternates are required to attend in case the regular members are absent.

193
00:13:01,100 --> 00:13:02,100
 So --

194
00:13:02,100 --> 00:13:03,100
 >> But they don't --

195
00:13:03,100 --> 00:13:07,340
 >> They don't have a mandate to attend every meeting.

196
00:13:07,340 --> 00:13:14,220
 So if the membership is going to be -- I mean, there's going to be a full membership for

197
00:13:14,220 --> 00:13:22,740
 a meeting, then alternates may -- attendance is not even required.

198
00:13:22,740 --> 00:13:36,120
 So it doesn't count against them.

199
00:13:36,120 --> 00:13:42,220
 >> Wouldn't we want to make a rule that you can have -- and I guess it's per year that

200
00:13:42,220 --> 00:13:43,220
 these rules are?

201
00:13:43,220 --> 00:13:44,220
 Or is it for your --

202
00:13:44,220 --> 00:14:00,740
 >> I think that this is -- it doesn't say any time limit.

203
00:14:00,740 --> 00:14:06,300
 >> Less than a minute to say that.

204
00:14:06,300 --> 00:14:11,700
 >> Yeah, under our rule of procedure is that it's a calendar year.

205
00:14:11,700 --> 00:14:17,300
 So it's -- the board's and commission's handbook will control if you miss more than 50 percent

206
00:14:17,300 --> 00:14:21,420
 of the meetings within a regular -- within a year.

207
00:14:21,420 --> 00:14:26,300
 >> And is there -- so on this board, sometimes when there's a complaint, you don't get a

208
00:14:26,300 --> 00:14:32,020
 lot of notice as far as -- so that's not counted against people if they can't make it for a

209
00:14:32,020 --> 00:14:36,420
 short-call complaint meeting, or is it?

210
00:14:36,420 --> 00:14:41,020
 >> The way that the board's and commission's handbook is set up is it says regular meetings.

211
00:14:41,020 --> 00:14:46,300
 So I think those would be special-call meetings, which would provide an exception.

212
00:14:46,300 --> 00:14:52,780
 >> I guess I would ask the board for a motion for us to allow two absences due to vacation

213
00:14:52,780 --> 00:14:55,580
 per calendar year for board members.

214
00:14:55,580 --> 00:14:57,860
 >> I so move.

215
00:14:57,860 --> 00:14:58,860
 >> Okay.

216
00:14:58,860 --> 00:14:59,860
 Larry has moved.

217
00:14:59,860 --> 00:15:00,860
 Is there a second?

218
00:15:00,860 --> 00:15:01,860
 >> I second.

219
00:15:01,860 --> 00:15:02,860
 >> Second by Sharla.

220
00:15:02,860 --> 00:15:03,860
 Everyone in favor say aye.

221
00:15:03,860 --> 00:15:04,860
 >> Aye.

222
00:15:04,860 --> 00:15:05,860
 >> All right.

223
00:15:05,860 --> 00:15:06,860
 Motion passes.

224
00:15:06,860 --> 00:15:11,220
 And we'll have two excused absences for vacations per year.

225
00:15:11,220 --> 00:15:12,220
 Agenda item E --

226
00:15:12,220 --> 00:15:13,220
 >> I do have a question.

227
00:15:13,220 --> 00:15:14,220
 >> Oh, yes.

228
00:15:14,220 --> 00:15:15,220
 >> Is that right?

229
00:15:15,220 --> 00:15:16,220
 Go ahead.

230
00:15:16,220 --> 00:15:22,340
 >> Are we going to -- can we -- can we make it right for that?

231
00:15:22,340 --> 00:15:25,340
 >> I don't think so.

232
00:15:25,340 --> 00:15:26,340
 >> I'm sorry.

233
00:15:26,340 --> 00:15:30,340
 I guess you can take more vacations from here on out and be okay.

234
00:15:30,340 --> 00:15:31,340
 All right.

235
00:15:31,340 --> 00:15:39,500
 Item E, BOE 19-050, receive a report and hold a discussion regarding the October 22, 2019

236
00:15:39,500 --> 00:15:43,820
 city council work session presentation outlining the board of ethics recommended changes to

237
00:15:43,820 --> 00:15:46,100
 the ethics boards and rules of procedure.

238
00:15:46,100 --> 00:15:52,380
 I had a hearing at work, so I couldn't make it, so Umesh presented, so he'll present this

239
00:15:52,380 --> 00:15:56,740
 agenda item.

240
00:15:56,740 --> 00:16:04,420
 I presented -- I made two presentations to the city council.

241
00:16:04,420 --> 00:16:12,940
 One was on changes to the ethics ordinance, and the other one was changes to the rules

242
00:16:12,940 --> 00:16:17,260
 and procedure for the board.

243
00:16:17,260 --> 00:16:23,940
 So during the meeting, mayor stated that all the recommendations will be considered and

244
00:16:23,940 --> 00:16:30,700
 discussed in work session, but the ordinance will not be changed on a piecemeal basis.

245
00:16:30,700 --> 00:16:39,420
 So what they expect is they want all the changes at one time, and then they are going to consider

246
00:16:39,420 --> 00:16:46,300
 all the changes when you are done.

247
00:16:46,300 --> 00:16:51,860
 The revision to the ordinance will be comprehensive.

248
00:16:51,860 --> 00:16:56,420
 That's why they want to do that.

249
00:16:56,420 --> 00:17:04,020
 Councilmember Meltzer and the mayor also stated that city council can make recommendations

250
00:17:04,020 --> 00:17:11,460
 as well to change the ethics ordinance.

251
00:17:11,460 --> 00:17:16,700
 Mayor stated that, I mean, the ethics board should not be concerned about whether they

252
00:17:16,700 --> 00:17:24,000
 are going to accept or reject any of your recommendations.

253
00:17:24,000 --> 00:17:34,740
 The board should go ahead and make recommendations of whatever they deem fit.

254
00:17:34,740 --> 00:17:35,740
 I have a question.

255
00:17:35,740 --> 00:17:36,740
 Sure.

256
00:17:36,740 --> 00:17:40,940
 When I went up there, they had told me that they wanted us to bring recommendations as

257
00:17:40,940 --> 00:17:41,940
 they come.

258
00:17:41,940 --> 00:17:42,940
 So I guess that has changed.

259
00:17:42,940 --> 00:17:43,940
 That has changed.

260
00:17:43,940 --> 00:17:44,940
 Okay.

261
00:17:44,940 --> 00:17:55,460
 Well, you can bring the recommendations, but they are not going to change the ordinance

262
00:17:55,460 --> 00:18:00,260
 until it is comprehensive and then you are done.

263
00:18:00,260 --> 00:18:07,380
 Did they, I mean, did they give any definition of what they consider the comprehensive and

264
00:18:07,380 --> 00:18:10,820
 how many changes they want to get there?

265
00:18:10,820 --> 00:18:11,820
 No, they did not.

266
00:18:11,820 --> 00:18:22,200
 I mean, they said that any and all changes that the board wishes to make, we have to

267
00:18:22,200 --> 00:18:30,820
 take it to them and they will consider all the changes at one time.

268
00:18:30,820 --> 00:18:44,300
 Okay, so regarding whether we should use outside council or whether the city attorney is going

269
00:18:44,300 --> 00:18:56,380
 to provide us some assistance, and I had a couple of questions.

270
00:18:56,380 --> 00:19:02,860
 Miss Armenter requested that, she wanted to know how much we are spending on external

271
00:19:02,860 --> 00:19:15,140
 council, and she also asked what other cities do in similar circumstances, and the city

272
00:19:15,140 --> 00:19:23,660
 attorney answered that the other cities also hire outside council when the city attorney

273
00:19:23,660 --> 00:19:26,460
 has a conflict.

274
00:19:26,460 --> 00:19:37,300
 Other than that, I mean, there was no objection to using city attorney's help where he does

275
00:19:37,300 --> 00:19:45,700
 not have conflict, and the city attorney also agreed with that, so that's fine.

276
00:19:45,700 --> 00:19:50,060
 So with that saying, does that mean that when we do have an issue that we are not going

277
00:19:50,060 --> 00:19:54,420
 to get a push back to using outside attorneys?

278
00:19:54,420 --> 00:19:55,420
 No.

279
00:19:55,420 --> 00:19:56,420
 Okay.

280
00:19:56,420 --> 00:20:09,860
 Again, using the outside council, again, it's based on the board's need, and as long as

281
00:20:09,860 --> 00:20:15,140
 it doesn't conflict with the city attorney's duties.

282
00:20:15,140 --> 00:20:24,260
 I was there at the presentation, and my sense was any time a member of the city council

283
00:20:24,260 --> 00:20:32,380
 has been for a code violation, that the city attorney should sit down, because he sits

284
00:20:32,380 --> 00:20:33,380
 on that council.

285
00:20:33,380 --> 00:20:34,380
 Exactly.

286
00:20:34,380 --> 00:20:37,300
 And that's what we spoke about, and that's the change we wanted to make, and I think

287
00:20:37,300 --> 00:20:41,420
 we can go ahead with that even though it's not in the ordinance yet, because honestly,

288
00:20:41,420 --> 00:20:43,700
 the city council is going to conflict themselves out.

289
00:20:43,700 --> 00:20:45,300
 That's exactly what it is.

290
00:20:45,300 --> 00:20:52,980
 So during my presentation, I said that whenever the complaint is made by the city council

291
00:20:52,980 --> 00:20:58,580
 member, or the complaint is made against the city council member, the city attorney definitely

292
00:20:58,580 --> 00:21:06,860
 has a conflict, and he cannot rule on those issues.

293
00:21:06,860 --> 00:21:17,300
 Okay, if we do need a special council, how much lead time will we have to establish that?

294
00:21:17,300 --> 00:21:20,340
 Usually, maybe two or three days.

295
00:21:20,340 --> 00:21:21,340
 Okay.

296
00:21:21,340 --> 00:21:24,340
 Thank you.

297
00:21:24,340 --> 00:21:37,500
 If we do need the outside council, is it always going to be the government work with SCRM,

298
00:21:37,500 --> 00:21:45,060
 or could we have a panel of, say, three that we can select one or another?

299
00:21:45,060 --> 00:21:53,500
 Yeah, if we do not want to use Miss Corp versus SCRM, then we can always get another attorney.

300
00:21:53,500 --> 00:21:56,620
 There is no rule that we have to use that from.

301
00:21:56,620 --> 00:22:01,140
 And we actually, we talked about, I don't know if you're here, Ron, we talked about

302
00:22:01,140 --> 00:22:06,540
 Berkowitz's firm, and we talked about, what was the gentleman that came to a couple meetings?

303
00:22:06,540 --> 00:22:07,540
 Yes.

304
00:22:07,540 --> 00:22:08,540
 Prouty, Mr. Prouty.

305
00:22:08,540 --> 00:22:15,340
 Mr. Prouty, that we were going to, we were going to request to have somebody else sent

306
00:22:15,340 --> 00:22:16,340
 from Berkowitz.

307
00:22:16,340 --> 00:22:17,780
 Yeah, I remember that.

308
00:22:17,780 --> 00:22:18,780
 Okay.

309
00:22:18,780 --> 00:22:19,780
 Okay.

310
00:22:19,780 --> 00:22:29,260
 On the issue of whether replacing the word accused with a respondent, there was general

311
00:22:29,260 --> 00:22:31,260
 agreement with the council.

312
00:22:31,260 --> 00:22:37,180
 There was no comment, no objections.

313
00:22:37,180 --> 00:22:47,060
 Same thing with the issue of availability of copy of complaint to the respondent, because

314
00:22:47,060 --> 00:22:54,980
 what happens, we have, as we have, this board has experienced, the complainant, I mean,

315
00:22:54,980 --> 00:23:00,300
 the complainant and everybody else, I mean, complainant knows about what the complaint

316
00:23:00,300 --> 00:23:01,540
 is.

317
00:23:01,540 --> 00:23:05,500
 The board knows about what the complaint is, but the respondent doesn't.

318
00:23:05,500 --> 00:23:12,200
 And by the time the complaint is heard, there is enough publicity, so that puts respondent

319
00:23:12,200 --> 00:23:14,700
 at a really bad situation.

320
00:23:14,700 --> 00:23:19,940
 So they agree that that needs to happen.

321
00:23:19,940 --> 00:23:25,220
 I mean, the complaint should be available to the respondent.

322
00:23:25,220 --> 00:23:34,260
 There was a lot of discussion on whistleblower's protection, and the whistleblower's protection

323
00:23:34,260 --> 00:23:44,940
 discussion revolved around that two things, that they wanted more, I mean, they wanted

324
00:23:44,940 --> 00:23:53,220
 that provision expanded a little bit, and because Mr. Hutzpah, council member Hutzpah

325
00:23:53,220 --> 00:24:02,300
 didn't think that that is specific enough, and he also said that there are no consequences

326
00:24:02,300 --> 00:24:07,060
 if you violate, I mean, it's not defined in the ordinance.

327
00:24:07,060 --> 00:24:13,020
 And I agree that it was not defined.

328
00:24:13,020 --> 00:24:22,380
 But I did say that the board is going to consider it as a part of the changes, because it wasn't

329
00:24:22,380 --> 00:24:30,340
 the presentation about the possible consequences.

330
00:24:30,340 --> 00:24:33,900
 So they get okay with that.

331
00:24:33,900 --> 00:24:37,020
 So they want us to bring it back.

332
00:24:37,020 --> 00:24:38,020
 Sorry.

333
00:24:38,020 --> 00:24:47,740
 The whistleblower, are the sanctions not the same as any violation under the ordinance?

334
00:24:47,740 --> 00:24:49,500
 That's up to you to say that.

335
00:24:49,500 --> 00:24:50,500
 Okay, and it's not in there?

336
00:24:50,500 --> 00:24:51,500
 It's not in there.

337
00:24:51,500 --> 00:24:52,500
 Okay.

338
00:24:52,500 --> 00:25:00,260
 Is there a clear definition in the ordinance of what the whistleblower is, going to councilman

339
00:25:00,260 --> 00:25:01,260
 Hutz was concerned?

340
00:25:01,260 --> 00:25:05,220
 Was that what he was trying to get as a definition of whistleblower?

341
00:25:05,220 --> 00:25:06,220
 So there's not.

342
00:25:06,220 --> 00:25:10,180
 That was actually, that's something that we worked on as the board previously.

343
00:25:10,180 --> 00:25:15,520
 And so we sent that, we want whistleblower, excuse me, in there.

344
00:25:15,520 --> 00:25:23,300
 There are like, government codes about whistleblowers, as far as like, the department heads employees.

345
00:25:23,300 --> 00:25:29,220
 But the whistleblower that we were talking about is, for instance, if a citizen accused

346
00:25:29,220 --> 00:25:35,660
 a council member, this council member kind of retaliating against like that citizen,

347
00:25:35,660 --> 00:25:39,620
 it was broader than just employee, employer, whistleblower protection.

348
00:25:39,620 --> 00:25:41,580
 Am I describing that correctly?

349
00:25:41,580 --> 00:25:42,700
 It's beyond that.

350
00:25:42,700 --> 00:25:55,180
 I mean, that it's not about employee, employer, but it was also, I mean, council member Hutz

351
00:25:55,180 --> 00:26:03,380
 felt like that the existing language that we proposed was broad, too broad.

352
00:26:03,380 --> 00:26:09,980
 But again, I mean, it's just an opportunity to revisit that.

353
00:26:09,980 --> 00:26:18,860
 And the mayor also felt that without the recommendation of what the consequences are, this provision

354
00:26:18,860 --> 00:26:25,540
 is not complete.

355
00:26:25,540 --> 00:26:37,700
 As far as providing reference to Texas government code for third degree of affinity and consensuality,

356
00:26:37,700 --> 00:26:41,940
 there was no objection.

357
00:26:41,940 --> 00:26:48,820
 I'm going to say that word one more time.

358
00:26:48,820 --> 00:26:57,060
 They also agreed with removing section 2-284(b) as it relates to department supervisors.

359
00:26:57,060 --> 00:27:00,100
 That was the nepotism?

360
00:27:00,100 --> 00:27:02,700
 Yeah, nepotism, yeah.

361
00:27:02,700 --> 00:27:13,140
 But that clearly did not belong in the ordinance.

362
00:27:13,140 --> 00:27:24,380
 Council member Arbender, Melzer and Melzer would like items on candidates for the public

363
00:27:24,380 --> 00:27:32,860
 office serving on the board be reconsidered.

364
00:27:32,860 --> 00:27:44,580
 Similarly, Ms. Arbender and Melzer expressed concern that right-of-way contractors were

365
00:27:44,580 --> 00:27:48,100
 excluded from the definition of vendor.

366
00:27:48,100 --> 00:27:49,700
 That what contractor?

367
00:27:49,700 --> 00:27:50,700
 Yeah.

368
00:27:50,700 --> 00:27:52,940
 What kind of contractor?

369
00:27:52,940 --> 00:27:53,940
 Right-of-way contractor.

370
00:27:53,940 --> 00:27:54,940
 Right-of-way.

371
00:27:54,940 --> 00:28:11,080
 And Council member Arbender and Melzer would like to remove universities from the definition

372
00:28:11,080 --> 00:28:13,340
 of business entity.

373
00:28:13,340 --> 00:28:20,060
 The mayor disagreed with this suggestion.

374
00:28:20,060 --> 00:28:22,140
 Would you like to say why he said that?

375
00:28:22,140 --> 00:28:23,140
 I'm sorry?

376
00:28:23,140 --> 00:28:27,580
 Would you mind saying why he disagreed?

377
00:28:27,580 --> 00:28:29,260
 Yes.

378
00:28:29,260 --> 00:28:39,420
 He said that university has got a very significant presence in Denton and we do quite a bit of

379
00:28:39,420 --> 00:28:46,740
 business with the universities and therefore removing university from business entity definition

380
00:28:46,740 --> 00:28:47,740
 would not be appropriate.

381
00:28:47,740 --> 00:29:04,780
 Okay, so that's it on ordinance and what about the procedure?

382
00:29:04,780 --> 00:29:21,180
 Okay, so on the rules and procedures basically there was no objection.

383
00:29:21,180 --> 00:29:28,860
 They accepted all the changes that we recommended.

384
00:29:28,860 --> 00:29:34,060
 And I guess do they want to change that after we would do the comprehensive ordinance changes

385
00:29:34,060 --> 00:29:39,700
 because some of those procedure changes depended on the ordinance changes being accepted or

386
00:29:39,700 --> 00:29:42,700
 being voted on.

387
00:29:42,700 --> 00:29:43,700
 Right.

388
00:29:43,700 --> 00:29:58,180
 Only thing that is going to be dependent on the accused versus responded but other changes

389
00:29:58,180 --> 00:30:08,940
 for example moving out amendments and alternate members subsections out of sections related

390
00:30:08,940 --> 00:30:09,940
 to hearing.

391
00:30:09,940 --> 00:30:12,940
 It's just reorganization.

392
00:30:12,940 --> 00:30:17,940
 So will they agree to vote on that before any ordinance changes just to clear up our

393
00:30:17,940 --> 00:30:19,940
 rules and procedure?

394
00:30:19,940 --> 00:30:28,380
 They did not say that.

395
00:30:28,380 --> 00:30:36,100
 Other changes we suggest, I mean the board suggested is fixed pagination or at sites

396
00:30:36,100 --> 00:30:45,740
 of the ordinance where it is missing and change table of contents to remove word legal out

397
00:30:45,740 --> 00:30:48,300
 of legal representation.

398
00:30:48,300 --> 00:30:55,460
 Because the body of the rules and procedure only address representation.

399
00:30:55,460 --> 00:31:02,300
 So those are the other changes but there was no objection.

400
00:31:02,300 --> 00:31:08,300
 All right, yes your honor.

401
00:31:08,300 --> 00:31:21,820
 I just wanted to ask you about the other changes that we have made in the ordinance changes.

402
00:31:21,820 --> 00:31:39,140
 The ordinance changes are not in the ordinance changes but in the ordinance changes.

403
00:31:39,140 --> 00:31:52,700
 They cannot serve on this board but does the handbook for boards and commissions over all

404
00:31:52,700 --> 00:31:56,020
 speak to that particular point?

405
00:31:56,020 --> 00:32:06,860
 Can candidates be on any board or commission or is there a restriction for them to run

406
00:32:06,860 --> 00:32:14,780
 for an office and serve on the board at the same time?

407
00:32:14,780 --> 00:32:19,660
 The only restriction that I'm aware of is the two offices of annulment restriction that

408
00:32:19,660 --> 00:32:26,540
 a candidate could not basically like if they're in a position where they're being paid for

409
00:32:26,540 --> 00:32:30,820
 their service now they would have to resign for that position to run for another position

410
00:32:30,820 --> 00:32:31,980
 that they would be paid for.

411
00:32:31,980 --> 00:32:33,340
 That's the only restriction I know of.

412
00:32:33,340 --> 00:32:39,100
 I don't know of a restriction that we have at the city currently that would prohibit

413
00:32:39,100 --> 00:32:45,140
 a candidate that is running for one of like the council seats from being a current board

414
00:32:45,140 --> 00:32:47,660
 member of one of the other boards.

415
00:32:47,660 --> 00:32:53,180
 I would say that we need to see that the board of ed. is not unique in that respect and we

416
00:32:53,180 --> 00:32:54,180
 need to be consistent.

417
00:32:54,180 --> 00:33:02,740
 If candidates can be on other boards and commissions then they should be able to be on this board.

418
00:33:02,740 --> 00:33:08,140
 When I presented to council several months ago there was, I don't remember how many,

419
00:33:08,140 --> 00:33:14,220
 at least a couple of members of council expressed that this board should be like any other board

420
00:33:14,220 --> 00:33:18,700
 and unless the board of commissions handbook says that you can't then you can't but we

421
00:33:18,700 --> 00:33:25,260
 shouldn't have a special rule for that so I'm in agreement with you.

422
00:33:25,260 --> 00:33:33,560
 It is still this board's discretion whether to consider or not consider that item.

423
00:33:33,560 --> 00:33:42,860
 As far as getting into the nitty-gritty of things we want to change that the council

424
00:33:42,860 --> 00:33:49,020
 talked about or new issues I think that's probably going to be left for a future meeting

425
00:33:49,020 --> 00:33:54,740
 but as far as questions about or discussion about the presentation do we have anything

426
00:33:54,740 --> 00:33:58,420
 else we want to talk about?

427
00:33:58,420 --> 00:34:04,820
 All right thank you thank you for presenting and my I was an emotional press hearing and

428
00:34:04,820 --> 00:34:08,340
 I appreciate your help.

429
00:34:08,340 --> 00:34:18,060
 Moving on to item F board of ed BoE 19-051 receive a report hold the discussion and take

430
00:34:18,060 --> 00:34:22,620
 necessary action confirming potential recommendations to the city council for amendments ethics

431
00:34:22,620 --> 00:34:30,220
 ordinance 18757 pursuant to Denton ethics ordinance division 3 section 2-277i including

432
00:34:30,220 --> 00:34:36,020
 presentation of possible changes by Deborah Cosmo and I have gone over all these materials

433
00:34:36,020 --> 00:34:43,180
 and I actually would like this the representative from the city attorney's office to speak to

434
00:34:43,180 --> 00:34:56,460
 whether Alan Berkowitz referred to the charter when the ordinance was written if you don't

435
00:34:56,460 --> 00:34:57,460
 mind.

436
00:34:57,460 --> 00:35:04,300
 Madam Chair just to your I guess commoner question when the ethics ordinance was crafted

437
00:35:04,300 --> 00:35:10,300
 the city brought in Alan Borquez as the outside legal counsel and consultant and crafting

438
00:35:10,300 --> 00:35:14,940
 the ethics ordinance as it related to the charter amendment so there were specific things

439
00:35:14,940 --> 00:35:20,260
 that were taken up by him as he worked with council through crafting the ordinance that

440
00:35:20,260 --> 00:35:23,700
 were specifically tied to the charter amendment is that what you're asking?

441
00:35:23,700 --> 00:35:28,900
 Yes and so when he was helping with the ordinance he was aware of the charter and worked with

442
00:35:28,900 --> 00:35:32,540
 the charter to put it in the ordinance is that the understanding?

443
00:35:32,540 --> 00:35:36,900
 Right right there were even specifically some things that they were taken up that he went

444
00:35:36,900 --> 00:35:41,020
 through saying that you know typically I don't know that we would go through all this at

445
00:35:41,020 --> 00:35:44,580
 just my recommendation but because it's part of the charter amendment we have to talk about

446
00:35:44,580 --> 00:35:46,860
 it and you have to put it in there to some extent.

447
00:35:46,860 --> 00:35:53,300
 And there was a consultant during the citizen charter committee was that was there a different

448
00:35:53,300 --> 00:36:12,620
 consultant during the city charter committee and then Alan came in later?

449
00:36:12,620 --> 00:36:13,620
 I think that's all I need.

450
00:36:13,620 --> 00:36:17,940
 I just wanted the board to be aware that Alan was aware of the charter when he wrote the

451
00:36:17,940 --> 00:36:18,940
 ordinance.

452
00:36:18,940 --> 00:36:19,940
 Okay.

453
00:36:19,940 --> 00:36:20,940
 Thank you.

454
00:36:20,940 --> 00:36:36,300
 So what we're passing around is the charter language and this is also I'm not quite sure

455
00:36:36,300 --> 00:36:48,140
 what the title is but it's information about the charter review committee and their recommendations.

456
00:36:48,140 --> 00:36:59,100
 Okay so I'm not an attorney I want to put that disclaimer out there I'm a research analyst

457
00:36:59,100 --> 00:37:09,740
 and so I did this comparison between the charter and the ethics ordinance as an analyst.

458
00:37:09,740 --> 00:37:18,220
 So on July 17, 2019 some of the city council members recommended that the board of ethics

459
00:37:18,220 --> 00:37:23,260
 review the charter recommendations as it examines the current ordinance and I guess I should

460
00:37:23,260 --> 00:37:30,340
 start with my name Deborah Cosimo I'm an alternate on the board of ethics.

461
00:37:30,340 --> 00:37:37,260
 So after some discussion with Umesh I decided I would review the charter and compare the

462
00:37:37,260 --> 00:37:44,100
 requirements, the "shows" quote unquote, to the current ordinance and so this is my

463
00:37:44,100 --> 00:37:51,020
 research and so in this presentation I will provide a brief overview of the ethics ordinance

464
00:37:51,020 --> 00:37:56,620
 requirements which has just gone around section 1404 of the charter.

465
00:37:56,620 --> 00:38:02,580
 I will present the findings, I will present recommendations and then I'll discuss the

466
00:38:02,580 --> 00:38:08,660
 background and the background analysis and the observations that I made, questions that

467
00:38:08,660 --> 00:38:12,700
 led to my findings and recommendation.

468
00:38:12,700 --> 00:38:16,660
 So this is the ethics ordinance requirement which you have in front of you as well and

469
00:38:16,660 --> 00:38:21,260
 you'll notice there are a number of "shall" the city council shall adopt the ethics ordinance.

470
00:38:21,260 --> 00:38:24,700
 Shall prohibits the use of public office for private gain.

471
00:38:24,700 --> 00:38:29,660
 Shall incorporate the conflict of interest standards that appear in local government

472
00:38:29,660 --> 00:38:36,420
 code chapter 171 and the council may have dropped more stringent standards than those

473
00:38:36,420 --> 00:38:42,860
 that appear in state law but the ethics ordinance shall at a minimum include the following components.

474
00:38:42,860 --> 00:38:47,260
 Definition of a prohibited improper economic interest and personal gain.

475
00:38:47,260 --> 00:38:52,780
 Definition of recusal and improper participation when there is a potential conflict of interest.

476
00:38:52,780 --> 00:38:56,380
 Avoidance of appearance of conflict of interest and administration and enforcement of the

477
00:38:56,380 --> 00:38:57,380
 ethics ordinance.

478
00:38:57,380 --> 00:39:04,300
 I'm going to talk about each one of them, it presented a nice checklist.

479
00:39:04,300 --> 00:39:08,820
 So my finding was that unless the charter requirements are included in the ordinance

480
00:39:08,820 --> 00:39:14,500
 but couched in completely different terms, the ordinance does not include all the requirements.

481
00:39:14,500 --> 00:39:22,020
 So I would be very interested to see how Mr. Berkowitz cross referenced his work on the

482
00:39:22,020 --> 00:39:23,700
 ordinance with the charter.

483
00:39:23,700 --> 00:39:28,740
 But barring that, before moving forward to amend the ordinance I think it would be helpful

484
00:39:28,740 --> 00:39:35,340
 to have an outside legal council, maybe not Mr. Berkowitz, review both the charter and

485
00:39:35,340 --> 00:39:39,820
 the ordinance to ensure that first that the current ordinance meets all the requirements

486
00:39:39,820 --> 00:39:44,220
 that are in the charter and second to cross reference the ordinance to the charter.

487
00:39:44,220 --> 00:39:48,380
 And I make the second recommendation because we wanted to be very, we've talked about being

488
00:39:48,380 --> 00:39:53,500
 very clear, common understanding so that citizens can look at this ordinance and understand

489
00:39:53,500 --> 00:39:54,860
 what's going on.

490
00:39:54,860 --> 00:40:02,420
 And so with my analyst brain looking at this I had some questions about what's going on.

491
00:40:02,420 --> 00:40:07,260
 So the first checkbox was to prohibit the use of public office for private gain.

492
00:40:07,260 --> 00:40:10,780
 There is no prohibition statement that appears in the ordinance.

493
00:40:10,780 --> 00:40:15,660
 However in the expectations, officials shall place the municipality's interest in the concerns

494
00:40:15,660 --> 00:40:19,460
 of those the city serves about private and personal interests.

495
00:40:19,460 --> 00:40:25,620
 However in the expectations these cannot be the basis for a complaint.

496
00:40:25,620 --> 00:40:32,700
 So it's an aspiration, it is not necessarily a requirement.

497
00:40:32,700 --> 00:40:37,580
 The only reference to personal private gain as the basis of the complaint applies to former

498
00:40:37,580 --> 00:40:43,520
 city officials in section 2-273, misuse of information and personal gain.

499
00:40:43,520 --> 00:40:47,540
 So on this one, the prohibitive public office for private gain, when I look at the ordinance

500
00:40:47,540 --> 00:40:55,220
 2-273 prohibitions, it has the conflict of interest and it has what defines conflict

501
00:40:55,220 --> 00:41:02,940
 of interest as far as when a council member owns part of a business or you know, we've

502
00:41:02,940 --> 00:41:03,940
 been over that.

503
00:41:03,940 --> 00:41:10,220
 And it has gifts, an improper influence, misuse of information, abuse of resources, I mean

504
00:41:10,220 --> 00:41:11,220
 it goes on and on.

505
00:41:11,220 --> 00:41:15,980
 I feel like 2-273 is prohibition for private gain.

506
00:41:15,980 --> 00:41:20,540
 But it only applies to former city officials.

507
00:41:20,540 --> 00:41:26,420
 I mean 2-273, the A, conflict of interest, that's what we've had in every complaint

508
00:41:26,420 --> 00:41:28,980
 we've had is about conflict of interest.

509
00:41:28,980 --> 00:41:35,460
 So I think while it doesn't say for private gain, the conflict of interest of voting on

510
00:41:35,460 --> 00:41:42,180
 something where you own part of the business entity or you receive $600 more gross income

511
00:41:42,180 --> 00:41:47,400
 from a business entity, that is a prohibition from being able to vote and then privately

512
00:41:47,400 --> 00:41:55,620
 gain from the business you own or the property you own or the business you work for.

513
00:41:55,620 --> 00:42:01,180
 So I mean that's how I see it, that I mean all of 2-273 are, I mean it's titled prohibitions,

514
00:42:01,180 --> 00:42:06,100
 the whole thing is prohibitions for public office for public gain.

515
00:42:06,100 --> 00:42:13,220
 Yes, when we're looking at the, I'll get there, okay.

516
00:42:13,220 --> 00:42:18,220
 I would like to know if the rest of the board look over this and have opinions on that?

517
00:42:18,220 --> 00:42:22,260
 I think it's implicit as you're indicating.

518
00:42:22,260 --> 00:42:29,940
 And it's four pages of things that they can't do, I mean how many more?

519
00:42:29,940 --> 00:42:35,700
 I think maybe it's just semantics, it doesn't say private gain, but as Ron said it's implicit

520
00:42:35,700 --> 00:42:40,660
 that it is private gain because it's about voting on things that you're an owner of or

521
00:42:40,660 --> 00:42:47,180
 you work for or you get gifts from or improper influence, misuse of information, everything

522
00:42:47,180 --> 00:42:50,500
 that's listed in the four pages of prohibitions.

523
00:42:50,500 --> 00:42:57,460
 Okay, I'm not necessarily agreeing with you, I'm just saying that as a person who is not

524
00:42:57,460 --> 00:43:00,620
 an attorney, an attorney, looking at this, this is what I see.

525
00:43:00,620 --> 00:43:05,940
 Let me ask you this, Deborah, in your position on this, are you thinking that maybe there's

526
00:43:05,940 --> 00:43:10,900
 some wiggle room for somebody to dance around what is there and that's why you wanted to

527
00:43:10,900 --> 00:43:12,540
 be more explicit?

528
00:43:12,540 --> 00:43:20,540
 I would like to know what actually is there and I think it would be a benefit to residents

529
00:43:20,540 --> 00:43:26,140
 of Denton to know exactly what is there and so that's why that cross-reference would be

530
00:43:26,140 --> 00:43:27,140
 very, very helpful.

531
00:43:27,140 --> 00:43:31,340
 Okay, if this is what it says in the charter, tell me where does it need it because I'm

532
00:43:31,340 --> 00:43:32,740
 not seeing it.

533
00:43:32,740 --> 00:43:37,340
 And maybe it does, maybe it does take a different kind of understanding, but I think it should

534
00:43:37,340 --> 00:43:38,340
 be clear.

535
00:43:38,340 --> 00:43:46,060
 Well, I mean, I'm sorry, but I mean the title is prohibitions and it goes on for four pages

536
00:43:46,060 --> 00:43:50,460
 of what, five pages of what counsel people can't do.

537
00:43:50,460 --> 00:43:56,780
 So I mean, I think it is clear that it's a prohibition for private gain.

538
00:43:56,780 --> 00:44:03,300
 It's not clear to me and I don't think it's clear to others, that I can't really speak

539
00:44:03,300 --> 00:44:04,300
 to others.

540
00:44:04,300 --> 00:44:11,220
 And if it is clear to you, then it would be helpful to have that cross-reference.

541
00:44:11,220 --> 00:44:12,220
 What would you recommend?

542
00:44:12,220 --> 00:44:16,060
 Using the same language would be very, very useful.

543
00:44:16,060 --> 00:44:21,220
 If the language is in, and I disagree that it's just semantics.

544
00:44:21,220 --> 00:44:25,600
 If the language is clear in the charter, this is what shall be done and the language is

545
00:44:25,600 --> 00:44:28,500
 clear in the ordinance, this is how we do it.

546
00:44:28,500 --> 00:44:32,180
 And using the same language, that would be very, very helpful.

547
00:44:32,180 --> 00:44:35,800
 Because when I look at it, it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing.

548
00:44:35,800 --> 00:44:40,820
 And when I did my analysis, I looked for all of these terms throughout the entire city

549
00:44:40,820 --> 00:44:44,380
 ordinance to see, is it talked about anywhere else?

550
00:44:44,380 --> 00:44:48,260
 Is there some way, somewhere else where it's defined, where it applies to this and maybe

551
00:44:48,260 --> 00:44:50,860
 I'm just missing it?

552
00:44:50,860 --> 00:44:58,140
 And I didn't find it.

553
00:44:58,140 --> 00:45:00,180
 To the next check box.

554
00:45:00,180 --> 00:45:04,580
 Incorporate the conflict of interest standards that appear in local government chapter 171.

555
00:45:04,580 --> 00:45:12,340
 So I'm not going necessarily with my questions, we have a copy of those in the memo, but I

556
00:45:12,340 --> 00:45:14,980
 just wanted to give you the information.

557
00:45:14,980 --> 00:45:15,980
 My observations.

558
00:45:15,980 --> 00:45:20,780
 So chapter 171 uses the term matter and describes when an official shall abstain from voting

559
00:45:20,780 --> 00:45:21,780
 in a matter.

560
00:45:21,780 --> 00:45:26,260
 For example, if a local public official has a substantial interest in a business entity

561
00:45:26,260 --> 00:45:31,780
 or a real property, the official shall abstain from further participation in the matter if,

562
00:45:31,780 --> 00:45:35,780
 first, the action on the matter will have a special economic effect on the business

563
00:45:35,780 --> 00:45:41,180
 entity that's distinguishable from the effect on the public, or secondly, it's reasonably

564
00:45:41,180 --> 00:45:46,620
 foreseeable that an action on the matter will have a special economic effect on the value

565
00:45:46,620 --> 00:45:49,900
 of the property distinguishable from its effect on the public.

566
00:45:49,900 --> 00:45:55,020
 Well, and I think 171, my understanding is that we want it stricter than 171, and when

567
00:45:55,020 --> 00:45:57,220
 I present it to council, they want it stricter.

568
00:45:57,220 --> 00:45:58,540
 They want it stricter.

569
00:45:58,540 --> 00:46:00,180
 We put our conflict into stricter.

570
00:46:00,180 --> 00:46:09,500
 For instance, in the last hearing we had with council members Arbitor and Meltzer, their

571
00:46:09,500 --> 00:46:15,380
 whole argument was that they didn't have a conflict, but because we want it stricter

572
00:46:15,380 --> 00:46:21,420
 than 171, they did under our code, because our code goes further than chapter 171.

573
00:46:21,420 --> 00:46:30,660
 Our code does if conflicting interest is the same as substantial interest, but as I looked

574
00:46:30,660 --> 00:46:34,660
 at it, I think pending matter actually restricts it even more.

575
00:46:34,660 --> 00:46:41,100
 By being restrictive and more narrow, it's not necessarily stronger.

576
00:46:41,100 --> 00:46:45,500
 So the ordinance uses pending matter, which is defined as an application seeking approval

577
00:46:45,500 --> 00:46:53,220
 of a permit, contract or arrangement of the city, or a case involving the city.

578
00:46:53,220 --> 00:46:58,740
 Prohibited, it should also include a definition of prohibited, improper economic interest

579
00:46:58,740 --> 00:47:05,540
 in personal gain, and prohibited, improper interest is not defined in the ordinance.

580
00:47:05,540 --> 00:47:08,020
 Economic interest is not defined in the ordinance.

581
00:47:08,020 --> 00:47:14,260
 Well, and I think what's prohibited is going against, for instance, conflict of interest.

582
00:47:14,260 --> 00:47:23,280
 Again, I think it's just a matter of semantics and the charter that's just half a page and

583
00:47:23,280 --> 00:47:28,140
 just lists these things versus our prohibitions are four pages long, and we go into detail

584
00:47:28,140 --> 00:47:37,580
 on what is conflict of interest, when are you prohibited from voting when you have a

585
00:47:37,580 --> 00:47:38,580
 vote.

586
00:47:38,580 --> 00:47:45,780
 So total board, and this is division three rules and procedures, this was incorrect in

587
00:47:45,780 --> 00:47:54,020
 your handouts of the slides, so what's in red is what's correct, the general rules.

588
00:47:54,020 --> 00:47:58,100
 The member shall be considered to have a personal interest in a matter.

589
00:47:58,100 --> 00:48:02,900
 Whenever a matter before the board could or does affect a member's financial interest.

590
00:48:02,900 --> 00:48:06,780
 The phrase financial interest when used here and shall have the same meaning as substantial

591
00:48:06,780 --> 00:48:21,620
 interest in a business entity, as that phrase is defined in code 171.002.

592
00:48:21,620 --> 00:48:31,980
 So within that check box, include a definition of recusal, etc.

593
00:48:31,980 --> 00:48:37,900
 According to section 2-273A1, recusal is required when an official has a conflicting matter

594
00:48:37,900 --> 00:48:43,180
 and conflicting interest in a pending matter.

595
00:48:43,180 --> 00:48:50,880
 So according to section 2-29, no member shall be excused from voting except for a lack of

596
00:48:50,880 --> 00:48:55,900
 information except on matters involving the consideration of his or her own official business

597
00:48:55,900 --> 00:49:02,620
 or where his or her personal interests are involved with Chapter 171, and in these instances

598
00:49:02,620 --> 00:49:04,740
 he or she shall abstain.

599
00:49:04,740 --> 00:49:11,640
 It says 2-273 is the ordinance, what's 2-29?

600
00:49:11,640 --> 00:49:16,480
 That's also an ordinance, but that's administration and conduct.

601
00:49:16,480 --> 00:49:19,180
 A separate city ordinance, not the ethics.

602
00:49:19,180 --> 00:49:25,700
 Yes, so we have matters in one city ordinance that refers to Chapter 171, and then we have

603
00:49:25,700 --> 00:49:30,880
 pending matters as it applies to our code of ethics.

604
00:49:30,880 --> 00:49:37,340
 I think that really puts city council members in a difficult position, and this is why.

605
00:49:37,340 --> 00:49:48,740
 I think Laura and Ron and Don, you three were on this, advisory opinion request on December

606
00:49:48,740 --> 00:49:52,940
 12, 2018.

607
00:49:52,940 --> 00:49:58,260
 So on the same day that, the city council held a work session and discussed the gateway

608
00:49:58,260 --> 00:49:59,260
 to-

609
00:49:59,260 --> 00:50:08,020
 Oh, well, before moving on, I wanted to say the 2-273 and the 2-29, I think under 2-273,

610
00:50:08,020 --> 00:50:11,600
 it's saying pending matter, you can't have a conflicting interest on a pending matter

611
00:50:11,600 --> 00:50:19,460
 under the provisions of 2-273, but on 2-29, it's when you have a lack of information.

612
00:50:19,460 --> 00:50:23,780
 I think it's just too separate, it says pending matters and matters because it's over two

613
00:50:23,780 --> 00:50:24,780
 separate things.

614
00:50:24,780 --> 00:50:30,980
 It's over violation of the ethics ordinance as far as having a conflict of interest, and

615
00:50:30,980 --> 00:50:38,100
 then it's about whether you recuse yourself because you have, well, I guess you have a

616
00:50:38,100 --> 00:50:41,900
 conflict under the text code 171.

617
00:50:41,900 --> 00:50:47,580
 City council people have to follow both, and that's why it's separate, so it is covering

618
00:50:47,580 --> 00:50:48,580
 separate things.

619
00:50:48,580 --> 00:50:54,940
 Yes, it is, but technically, it really isn't.

620
00:50:54,940 --> 00:51:02,140
 We have the proposed Oak Gateway small area plan for the city of Denton, and the question

621
00:51:02,140 --> 00:51:06,300
 for the advisory opinion was, "Was it considered a pending matter?"

622
00:51:06,300 --> 00:51:12,940
 So question, considered a pending matter, the board of ethics response was that the

623
00:51:12,940 --> 00:51:18,380
 SAP is not an application contract proposal or legal case, and the panel finds that the

624
00:51:18,380 --> 00:51:21,140
 SAP is not a pending matter.

625
00:51:21,140 --> 00:51:28,420
 Is a city official required to file an affidavit of conflict of interest and abstain if the

626
00:51:28,420 --> 00:51:33,020
 official owns a substantial interest in real property or business within the proposed boundaries

627
00:51:33,020 --> 00:51:34,820
 of the SAP?

628
00:51:34,820 --> 00:51:41,820
 And the board of ethics response was substantial interest is not used in the ethics ordinance.

629
00:51:41,820 --> 00:51:47,860
 The panel assumes the request refers to conflicting interests, and because the SAP is not a pending

630
00:51:47,860 --> 00:51:53,940
 matter, the city official is not required to file an affidavit of conflict before deliberating

631
00:51:53,940 --> 00:51:56,140
 or voting on the SAP.

632
00:51:56,140 --> 00:51:57,620
 And then the third question could be...

633
00:51:57,620 --> 00:51:58,620
 I think Don...

634
00:51:58,620 --> 00:51:59,620
 That's fine.

635
00:51:59,620 --> 00:52:00,620
 Can I please...

636
00:52:00,620 --> 00:52:06,700
 I believe the reason that we didn't find that it was a pending matter is because the area

637
00:52:06,700 --> 00:52:12,820
 was so large and included, and it wasn't something that was going to come up specifically before

638
00:52:12,820 --> 00:52:13,820
 the council.

639
00:52:13,820 --> 00:52:18,100
 I'm not questioning...I'm using it as an example.

640
00:52:18,100 --> 00:52:22,740
 Well, I think it's just somewhat of a misrepresentation of what we found on that panel.

641
00:52:22,740 --> 00:52:26,140
 Can you hold and let me go on, please?

642
00:52:26,140 --> 00:52:27,140
 I'm sorry.

643
00:52:27,140 --> 00:52:28,140
 No, I'm glad you're doing this, please.

644
00:52:28,140 --> 00:52:31,540
 Let me get to the end of this section, okay?

645
00:52:31,540 --> 00:52:36,500
 Is a city official required to file an affidavit of conflict of interest and abstain from deliberating

646
00:52:36,500 --> 00:52:44,460
 or voting on a pending matter pertaining to OEP, SAP, if four or more officials are on

647
00:52:44,460 --> 00:52:45,460
 real property?

648
00:52:45,460 --> 00:52:49,460
 And the board of ethics response was the same.

649
00:52:49,460 --> 00:52:55,180
 But this is what I find really intriguing, that there is a caveat on each finding in

650
00:52:55,180 --> 00:52:57,060
 its wisdom.

651
00:52:57,060 --> 00:53:00,860
 This opinion pertains only to the relevant sections of the city of Denton ethics ordinance,

652
00:53:00,860 --> 00:53:05,500
 it is not intended as legal advice, and does not involve any party obligations that may

653
00:53:05,500 --> 00:53:10,300
 exist under applicable law, which is chapter 171 and others.

654
00:53:10,300 --> 00:53:14,700
 So all parties are encouraged to consult competent legal counsel concerning their obligations

655
00:53:14,700 --> 00:53:15,700
 under the law.

656
00:53:15,700 --> 00:53:21,100
 And why we put that is because we are not, like I don't know if you remember, Don, you

657
00:53:21,100 --> 00:53:22,100
 were on the panel.

658
00:53:22,100 --> 00:53:23,100
 You can get a second opinion.

659
00:53:23,100 --> 00:53:28,940
 Yeah, and we are not the lawyers for the people that ask for the opinion.

660
00:53:28,940 --> 00:53:32,460
 So we wanted to make clear that, because we were all lawyers on the panel, we wanted to

661
00:53:32,460 --> 00:53:35,460
 make clear that we were not their attorneys under 171.

662
00:53:35,460 --> 00:53:37,900
 This was just before the Denton code of ethics.

663
00:53:37,900 --> 00:53:43,380
 We didn't want them to perceive that our opinion was our legal opinion to them as far as a

664
00:53:43,380 --> 00:53:48,980
 legal matter if they were, I don't know if it's criminal under 171, but for like any

665
00:53:48,980 --> 00:53:54,340
 kind of case under 171, they should not take our advice because that would put us in bad

666
00:53:54,340 --> 00:53:59,340
 positions as attorneys to be giving legal advice to someone who is not our attorney.

667
00:53:59,340 --> 00:54:00,340
 Am I right about that?

668
00:54:00,340 --> 00:54:01,340
 That's why we put that.

669
00:54:01,340 --> 00:54:05,980
 That's exactly my point, because it put the Board of Ethics, because of the discrepancy

670
00:54:05,980 --> 00:54:09,460
 in the language, it put the Board of Ethics in a difficult position when they were coming

671
00:54:09,460 --> 00:54:11,140
 to their determination.

672
00:54:11,140 --> 00:54:12,580
 And it also put City Council.

673
00:54:12,580 --> 00:54:13,580
 Which ones do they follow?

674
00:54:13,580 --> 00:54:15,580
 Well, they have to follow both.

675
00:54:15,580 --> 00:54:16,580
 Yes.

676
00:54:16,580 --> 00:54:17,580
 Yes.

677
00:54:17,580 --> 00:54:18,580
 So let's be clear.

678
00:54:18,580 --> 00:54:23,580
 So we are talking about the different…

679
00:54:23,580 --> 00:54:29,860
 Yeah, the thing is, with our advisory opinion, and they do vote, and there's a problem

680
00:54:29,860 --> 00:54:35,300
 later, it gives them, if someone complains about it, it gives them, I won't say an

681
00:54:35,300 --> 00:54:39,820
 excuse, but it gives them a viable reason to say, well, the advisory committee said,

682
00:54:39,820 --> 00:54:43,460
 yes, you can do it, you know, the advisory opinion.

683
00:54:43,460 --> 00:54:45,460
 They can use that as a defense.

684
00:54:45,460 --> 00:54:46,460
 Right.

685
00:54:46,460 --> 00:54:47,460
 Right.

686
00:54:47,460 --> 00:55:02,620
 So I think it should be clear.

687
00:55:02,620 --> 00:55:06,980
 Avoidance of appearance of conflict is the next checkbox, and the ordinance does not

688
00:55:06,980 --> 00:55:11,060
 specifically state that officials shall avoid the avoidance of appearance of conflict of

689
00:55:11,060 --> 00:55:12,060
 interest.

690
00:55:12,060 --> 00:55:16,060
 And I think on this one, I would say that the whole code is about avoiding the appearance

691
00:55:16,060 --> 00:55:17,060
 of conflict of interest.

692
00:55:17,060 --> 00:55:25,820
 But going back to our last hearings on Councilmember Metzler and Councilmember Armator, the fact

693
00:55:25,820 --> 00:55:30,340
 that their whole defense was we didn't make any financial gain, I think that the ordinance

694
00:55:30,340 --> 00:55:35,140
 does cover appearance, and there it was an appearance because they worked for the business

695
00:55:35,140 --> 00:55:36,940
 entity that was being voted on.

696
00:55:36,940 --> 00:55:44,500
 So I think it might be an aspirations point, but I think that since our ordinance is pretty

697
00:55:44,500 --> 00:55:52,140
 broad in a lot of places, I think it does strive to avoid the appearance of conflict.

698
00:55:52,140 --> 00:55:53,140
 It's not clear.

699
00:55:53,140 --> 00:55:54,140
 And it can't.

700
00:55:54,140 --> 00:55:55,140
 If it's in the aspirations, if it's in the expectations, it cannot be the basis of a

701
00:55:55,140 --> 00:55:56,140
 complaint.

702
00:55:56,140 --> 00:55:57,140
 So the last one is administration and enforcement.

703
00:55:57,140 --> 00:56:20,140
 So according to Section 2-277, scope of authority, the issuance and enforcement of the ordinance

704
00:56:20,140 --> 00:56:33,660
 shall be only upon majority vote of the Board of Ethics in accordance with the rules of

705
00:56:33,660 --> 00:56:39,420
 procedure and enforcement shall be through any of the sanction options listed therein.

706
00:56:39,420 --> 00:56:47,540
 I could not find anything that talked about sanction options for someone who violates

707
00:56:47,540 --> 00:56:48,540
 a subpoena.

708
00:56:48,540 --> 00:56:55,060
 The issue in that is we have no enforcement power, and Alan Borkiewicz talked about this

709
00:56:55,060 --> 00:56:57,740
 and we talked about this in a previous meeting.

710
00:56:57,740 --> 00:57:00,580
 Me in a criminal case, I filed a subpoena for a hearing Monday.

711
00:57:00,580 --> 00:57:04,860
 If that witness doesn't show up, I send a cop to go arrest that witness.

712
00:57:04,860 --> 00:57:06,940
 We were given the power to subpoena.

713
00:57:06,940 --> 00:57:09,060
 We have no enforcement under the law.

714
00:57:09,060 --> 00:57:11,180
 We are not able to enforce a subpoena.

715
00:57:11,180 --> 00:57:14,860
 So I think that that is why we have talked about this before at previous meetings.

716
00:57:14,860 --> 00:57:19,900
 So there's nothing that can be done unless you ask the Texas Legislature to give citizen

717
00:57:19,900 --> 00:57:23,980
 committees the power to subpoena through law enforcement or something along those lines.

718
00:57:23,980 --> 00:57:25,980
 So that's the problem we have.

719
00:57:25,980 --> 00:57:32,180
 We were told we have to have a subpoena, but we don't have any way to enforce it.

720
00:57:32,180 --> 00:57:36,660
 So why do we have sanction options even listed in the Code?

721
00:57:36,660 --> 00:57:42,740
 I believe, and I spoke with Trey about this before the meeting, Alan Borkiewicz, when

722
00:57:42,740 --> 00:57:47,100
 he made the ordinance, he's like, "I have to put everything in the charter in the ordinance."

723
00:57:47,100 --> 00:57:50,740
 The charter says subpoena power, I have to put subpoena power in the ordinance.

724
00:57:50,740 --> 00:57:56,820
 Unfortunately, there's nothing you can really do as a citizen committee if they violate

725
00:57:56,820 --> 00:57:57,820
 a subpoena.

726
00:57:57,820 --> 00:58:02,260
 And I'm not sure, I mean, I don't know how you really correct that, but it's just, I

727
00:58:02,260 --> 00:58:03,260
 guess the way it is.

728
00:58:03,260 --> 00:58:07,380
 Well, it does say in the procedure manual that it could be considered.

729
00:58:07,380 --> 00:58:13,020
 I believe to respond to a subpoena could be considered a determination.

730
00:58:13,020 --> 00:58:17,380
 And I think when we made the rules of procedure, we discussed that that's the only sanction

731
00:58:17,380 --> 00:58:21,980
 we really have is that they didn't comply with our subpoena.

732
00:58:21,980 --> 00:58:29,180
 Yeah, but one of the things I found, the subpoenas sometimes give them the opportunity to show

733
00:58:29,180 --> 00:58:36,100
 it to their boss, their employer, it gives them an excuse to be able to come or to be

734
00:58:36,100 --> 00:58:38,940
 able to even get paid when they come.

735
00:58:38,940 --> 00:58:48,300
 But even as a criminal defense lawyer, it's impossible almost for us to enforce the subpoena.

736
00:58:48,300 --> 00:59:01,580
 So I know we had discussions on it, it is a challenging issue, but it is there in the

737
00:59:01,580 --> 00:59:02,580
 charter.

738
00:59:02,580 --> 00:59:04,580
 So how do we address it?

739
00:59:04,580 --> 00:59:13,380
 And according to the board of section 2-282, the board may impose the following sanctions.

740
00:59:13,380 --> 00:59:19,180
 Letter of application, letter of admission, letter of recommend may recommend to the city

741
00:59:19,180 --> 00:59:26,140
 the suspension of the official or the vendor may be deemed ineligible.

742
00:59:26,140 --> 00:59:30,020
 So are these strong and meaningful remedies?

743
00:59:30,020 --> 00:59:33,300
 I know we've had a lot of discussion about this as well.

744
00:59:33,300 --> 00:59:39,940
 So just to reiterate my finding and my conclusion, once the requirements are included in the

745
00:59:39,940 --> 00:59:42,940
 ordinance, they're couched in completely different terms.

746
00:59:42,940 --> 00:59:49,340
 And some of what you said Laura, perhaps they are there, but it needs to be clear.

747
00:59:49,340 --> 00:59:53,780
 The ordinance does not include all the requirements of the charter, and before moving forward

748
00:59:53,780 --> 01:00:00,260
 to make any additional recommendations to that amendment ordinance, I do think it would

749
01:00:00,260 --> 01:00:05,620
 be very, very helpful that we have an outside legal counsel to review both the charter and

750
01:00:05,620 --> 01:00:09,940
 the ordinance to ensure that the current ordinance meets all the requirements in the charter

751
01:00:09,940 --> 01:00:18,180
 and to provide a cross reference so that we know what we're referring to.

752
01:00:18,180 --> 01:00:19,180
 All right, thank you.

753
01:00:19,180 --> 01:00:25,220
 I'm not, I promise I'm not trying to beat up in you, and I'm not like a specific champion

754
01:00:25,220 --> 01:00:30,460
 of the ordinance as written, but I am a champion of not spending too much money, not wasting

755
01:00:30,460 --> 01:00:37,540
 time and not changing the ordinance to make it worse than it is currently.

756
01:00:37,540 --> 01:00:38,540
 I only want to prove it.

757
01:00:38,540 --> 01:00:42,020
 I don't want to add anything where we don't know what it covers or counsel.

758
01:00:42,020 --> 01:00:44,980
 So that's where my opinion is coming from.

759
01:00:44,980 --> 01:00:50,540
 My thoughts are, my understanding is that Alan Berkowitz worked with the charter and

760
01:00:50,540 --> 01:00:56,620
 then drafted the ordinance, and so we've already had a legal counsel do that, and my honest

761
01:00:56,620 --> 01:01:03,260
 thoughts about your presentation as I voiced during it is that I think all of this is covered

762
01:01:03,260 --> 01:01:05,620
 by the ordinance.

763
01:01:05,620 --> 01:01:11,420
 So I would think that this would not be the route to take and we shouldn't, I'm not saying

764
01:01:11,420 --> 01:01:12,780
 we shouldn't change anything.

765
01:01:12,780 --> 01:01:17,300
 We actually got some advice from counsel yesterday about other things that they want to change

766
01:01:17,300 --> 01:01:21,620
 or want us to look at, to change the ordinance, but I don't think that it would be necessary

767
01:01:21,620 --> 01:01:26,980
 to hire an outside counsel to look at the charter versus the ordinance.

768
01:01:26,980 --> 01:01:31,660
 But I would like to open it up to discussion and see what the rest of the board thinks.

769
01:01:31,660 --> 01:01:41,140
 First I want to say thank you because I know that she put a lot of time into that.

770
01:01:41,140 --> 01:01:47,700
 I also think that there's a step here that we're not talking about, charter review made

771
01:01:47,700 --> 01:01:55,020
 recommendations, Alan Berkowitz worked with it, and then it went to counsel.

772
01:01:55,020 --> 01:02:04,020
 Have you ever watched that tape on that January morning in 2017 when they made the final amendments

773
01:02:04,020 --> 01:02:05,020
 to the document?

774
01:02:05,020 --> 01:02:06,020
 Are you asking me?

775
01:02:06,020 --> 01:02:07,020
 No, I have not.

776
01:02:07,020 --> 01:02:08,020
 You should watch it.

777
01:02:08,020 --> 01:02:19,820
 Because they got in the weeds, they chopped things around, it changed a bit.

778
01:02:19,820 --> 01:02:28,180
 So, I have a hard time blaming Berkowitz for what ended up happening because they just

779
01:02:28,180 --> 01:02:33,180
 kind of went too, it changed a lot at that point.

780
01:02:33,180 --> 01:02:36,180
 So that's when it made changes.

781
01:02:36,180 --> 01:02:41,580
 And at that point, some of the definitions became, I think, too narrow to be enforced.

782
01:02:41,580 --> 01:02:46,580
 This pending matter deal, that's one of them.

783
01:02:46,580 --> 01:02:52,300
 So, that's what others have to say.

784
01:02:52,300 --> 01:02:55,260
 I'm curious about the enforcement power.

785
01:02:55,260 --> 01:02:59,140
 I don't want this to be a bully pulpit or anything like that, but-

786
01:02:59,140 --> 01:03:01,140
 I'm sorry, you don't want it to be a public-

787
01:03:01,140 --> 01:03:02,140
 A bully pulpit.

788
01:03:02,140 --> 01:03:03,140
 A pulpit.

789
01:03:03,140 --> 01:03:09,140
 I would say it's essentially shaming them, though, and that wouldn't affect a lot of

790
01:03:09,140 --> 01:03:10,140
 people.

791
01:03:10,140 --> 01:03:15,140
 I'd be curious to see what everybody else is thinking about, maybe, how far, how much

792
01:03:15,140 --> 01:03:16,140
 further should we go?

793
01:03:16,140 --> 01:03:21,140
 Should we attempt to have some enforcement power and then just shame them?

794
01:03:21,140 --> 01:03:25,140
 Yeah, and that's why I wonder if we can have that much power.

795
01:03:25,140 --> 01:03:32,140
 They are elected city officials, the majority of the city, or their precinct, elected them.

796
01:03:32,140 --> 01:03:36,140
 But in Spain, it's just to bring them in to talk to us, right?

797
01:03:36,140 --> 01:03:39,140
 Okay, so the subpoena is actually for, like, documents.

798
01:03:39,140 --> 01:03:46,140
 Yeah, so the subpoena power under the ordinance was for us to get, like, documents, for instance,

799
01:03:46,140 --> 01:03:50,140
 you know, tax records or bank records or things like that.

800
01:03:50,140 --> 01:03:51,140
 Okay.

801
01:03:51,140 --> 01:03:52,140
 And that's what we had talked about that-

802
01:03:52,140 --> 01:03:59,140
 So we're not talking about affecting anybody personally to come in who's refusing to justify-

803
01:03:59,140 --> 01:04:04,140
 No, well, actually, I'd have to read back over, honestly, to see if it would also cover

804
01:04:04,140 --> 01:04:10,140
 that, but the main thing is, whether it's documents or people, it's kind of more, it's

805
01:04:10,140 --> 01:04:15,140
 kind of a suggestion, really, because there's not a lot we can do to enforce it.

806
01:04:15,140 --> 01:04:16,140
 Right.

807
01:04:16,140 --> 01:04:22,140
 And then as far as the, like, the public shaming, the sanctions that we have when there's a

808
01:04:22,140 --> 01:04:27,140
 violation of the ordinance, so that's what you're asking for, asking if there's anything

809
01:04:27,140 --> 01:04:30,140
 else that could be done.

810
01:04:30,140 --> 01:04:31,140
 Yes.

811
01:04:31,140 --> 01:04:32,140
 And I'm-

812
01:04:32,140 --> 01:04:35,140
 I realize we don't have police power or anything like that.

813
01:04:35,140 --> 01:04:36,140
 Yeah.

814
01:04:36,140 --> 01:04:39,140
 We just have newspapers.

815
01:04:39,140 --> 01:04:48,140
 But do we dare go that extra mile and see if we can have that power?

816
01:04:48,140 --> 01:04:51,140
 That's all I mean, it's open to discussion.

817
01:04:51,140 --> 01:04:56,140
 Is that going to, Troy?

818
01:04:56,140 --> 01:05:01,140
 I'm sorry, Robert, you're an alternate.

819
01:05:01,140 --> 01:05:02,140
 I'm not sure-

820
01:05:02,140 --> 01:05:03,140
 Don't call him Robert.

821
01:05:03,140 --> 01:05:04,140
 Ron?

822
01:05:04,140 --> 01:05:14,140
 I'm not sure if- I think we're trying to solve a problem before it happens.

823
01:05:14,140 --> 01:05:20,140
 I think we need a little bit more experience with what happens when we do sustain a city

824
01:05:20,140 --> 01:05:29,140
 official or a city employee or records and be guided by the results of what happens and

825
01:05:29,140 --> 01:05:30,140
 what doesn't happen.

826
01:05:30,140 --> 01:05:36,140
 But right now, I think we're trying to craft this movement into something that's not really

827
01:05:36,140 --> 01:05:38,140
 a problem yet.

828
01:05:38,140 --> 01:05:45,140
 Also, on a different note, I think that when we put together all of the changes and are

829
01:05:45,140 --> 01:05:54,140
 ready to submit those changes to council, a different law firm other than the work with

830
01:05:54,140 --> 01:06:09,140
 firms to review it entirely before it goes to council.

831
01:06:09,140 --> 01:06:12,140
 Any other thoughts on this?

832
01:06:12,140 --> 01:06:17,140
 But if we make changes and it goes to council, is the same thing going to happen again?

833
01:06:17,140 --> 01:06:23,140
 They're going to put it on the chopping block and take things out and make it- that's really

834
01:06:23,140 --> 01:06:24,140
 where it went awry.

835
01:06:24,140 --> 01:06:28,140
 I think the answer is yes, because they're not going to all agree.

836
01:06:28,140 --> 01:06:31,140
 It's not something we can control, though.

837
01:06:31,140 --> 01:06:34,140
 I think we need to go on record.

838
01:06:34,140 --> 01:06:37,140
 And whatever they do is whatever they do.

839
01:06:37,140 --> 01:06:42,140
 Umesh had said that they wanted us- well, it sounds like they gave a little bit of different

840
01:06:42,140 --> 01:06:46,140
 advice or instruction when I went up there, but it sounds like they don't want a piece

841
01:06:46,140 --> 01:06:47,140
 of mail anymore.

842
01:06:47,140 --> 01:06:48,140
 They want it all at once.

843
01:06:48,140 --> 01:06:50,140
 And that they said just send everything we have.

844
01:06:50,140 --> 01:06:53,140
 So if we send everything we have, I can see they're going to agree with stuff.

845
01:06:53,140 --> 01:06:54,140
 They're not going to agree with stuff.

846
01:06:54,140 --> 01:06:58,140
 So if we send everything we have, then it's on record.

847
01:06:58,140 --> 01:06:59,140
 That's what we've suggested.

848
01:06:59,140 --> 01:07:01,140
 And then, I mean, they would take it from there.

849
01:07:01,140 --> 01:07:05,140
 They're the ones that will be voting.

850
01:07:05,140 --> 01:07:07,140
 I don't think the code is clear.

851
01:07:07,140 --> 01:07:10,140
 I just, having read it, I don't think it's clear.

852
01:07:10,140 --> 01:07:14,140
 I have a hard time understanding what it's saying.

853
01:07:14,140 --> 01:07:16,140
 I think some of the definitions are too narrow.

854
01:07:16,140 --> 01:07:18,140
 Some of them are missing.

855
01:07:18,140 --> 01:07:21,140
 I would like to see a model code.

856
01:07:21,140 --> 01:07:24,140
 And I know there are good ones out there.

857
01:07:24,140 --> 01:07:34,140
 I have a great- I brought an example of Westler's definition of conflict of interest.

858
01:07:34,140 --> 01:07:36,140
 I'm very interested in looking at it.

859
01:07:36,140 --> 01:07:45,140
 He has a whole- Robert Westler is a guy from- he spent his whole life working on city ethics,

860
01:07:45,140 --> 01:07:48,140
 which is a very specific kind of ethics.

861
01:07:48,140 --> 01:07:52,140
 And he had a project where they wrote a model code.

862
01:07:52,140 --> 01:07:56,140
 And so when you go through his code, he has the definitions.

863
01:07:56,140 --> 01:08:02,140
 And then, like, this one's conflict of interest and half the page is the definition.

864
01:08:02,140 --> 01:08:07,140
 And then the bottom part is all his comments about why he did and didn't do things.

865
01:08:07,140 --> 01:08:14,140
 So it's really wonderful to kind of step through and look at all the things that he thinks should be included.

866
01:08:14,140 --> 01:08:16,140
 I'd like to do something like that.

867
01:08:16,140 --> 01:08:17,140
 That would be my preference.

868
01:08:17,140 --> 01:08:19,140
 It wouldn't cost anything.

869
01:08:19,140 --> 01:08:21,140
 You don't have to bring anybody in.

870
01:08:21,140 --> 01:08:25,140
 If council wants to put it on the chopping block, that's what they do.

871
01:08:25,140 --> 01:08:31,140
 But we went on record saying that we think these things should be in there.

872
01:08:31,140 --> 01:08:33,140
 So those things are out there.

873
01:08:33,140 --> 01:08:34,140
 They're easy to find.

874
01:08:34,140 --> 01:08:37,140
 It's not difficult.

875
01:08:37,140 --> 01:08:39,140
 That would be my preference.

876
01:08:39,140 --> 01:08:41,140
 I'd love to see a copy of that.

877
01:08:41,140 --> 01:08:42,140
 Is there a way we could get-

878
01:08:42,140 --> 01:08:50,140
 Yeah, if you just enter into search engine Robert Westler and it's W-E-C-H-O.

879
01:08:50,140 --> 01:08:52,140
 I always spell it wrong and it has to come back and correct me.

880
01:08:52,140 --> 01:08:58,140
 And then you just look online and then he has a blog in the sidebar.

881
01:08:58,140 --> 01:09:05,140
 What I was thinking more of is if maybe Betsy could get that link from you and she could send an email out with it.

882
01:09:05,140 --> 01:09:06,140
 Is that-

883
01:09:06,140 --> 01:09:07,140
 Yeah, I'll send it to her.

884
01:09:07,140 --> 01:09:08,140
 Okay.

885
01:09:08,140 --> 01:09:09,140
 Is that-

886
01:09:09,140 --> 01:09:10,140
 Yeah.

887
01:09:10,140 --> 01:09:11,140
 Is that all right?

888
01:09:11,140 --> 01:09:12,140
 We can do that.

889
01:09:12,140 --> 01:09:13,140
 Okay.

890
01:09:13,140 --> 01:09:15,140
 I would like to kind of narrow what we're doing here tonight.

891
01:09:15,140 --> 01:09:19,140
 We're getting into almost seven here.

892
01:09:19,140 --> 01:09:24,140
 So we talked about some different things.

893
01:09:24,140 --> 01:09:28,140
 Conflict of interest was brought up, we talked about subpoena.

894
01:09:28,140 --> 01:09:31,140
 We talked about, well, actually waiting or not waiting on subpoena.

895
01:09:31,140 --> 01:09:34,140
 Deborah has presented this.

896
01:09:34,140 --> 01:09:42,140
 What are people's thoughts on hiring outside counsel to- and this is the voting members, not alternates,

897
01:09:42,140 --> 01:09:46,140
 because it's part of the liberation of what we're going to act on tonight.

898
01:09:46,140 --> 01:09:52,140
 As far as voting members, what are thoughts on hiring outside counsel to look at the charter versus the ordinance?

899
01:09:52,140 --> 01:09:55,140
 I think it's a waste of money, personally.

900
01:09:55,140 --> 01:10:03,140
 I think we agree on something.

901
01:10:03,140 --> 01:10:05,140
 I'm sorry, what did you say?

902
01:10:05,140 --> 01:10:08,140
 That it would be possibly a waste of money.

903
01:10:08,140 --> 01:10:10,140
 And Deborah, thank you very much.

904
01:10:10,140 --> 01:10:16,140
 You did a lot of work, but just differing opinions.

905
01:10:16,140 --> 01:10:19,140
 And so I think me and Annette are maybe on the same page.

906
01:10:19,140 --> 01:10:25,140
 Is there anybody else who thinks we should hire outside counsel to look at the charter versus the ordinance?

907
01:10:25,140 --> 01:10:28,140
 I'll just reiterate what I said before.

908
01:10:28,140 --> 01:10:33,140
 I think we need outside counsel to look at our final product before it goes to the council,

909
01:10:33,140 --> 01:10:39,140
 but not necessarily just for comparison to the charter versus the ordinance.

910
01:10:39,140 --> 01:10:49,140
 And I can see that. I think doing it now, like preemptively, I feel like that would just cost more money

911
01:10:49,140 --> 01:10:54,140
 versus if we decided after we have everything we want in the ordinance to hire an outside counsel.

912
01:10:54,140 --> 01:11:01,140
 I think that would kind of be more cost prohibitive and maybe more beneficial to have them overlook the whole ordinance, like you were saying.

913
01:11:01,140 --> 01:11:11,140
 So I don't -- unless there's anybody that hasn't spoken, it doesn't seem like we are going to vote on that tonight or there's going to be a motion for that tonight.

914
01:11:11,140 --> 01:11:13,140
 Am I correct?

915
01:11:13,140 --> 01:11:21,140
 So, I mean, she does bring up things that we have talked about a lot as far as things that we want to change.

916
01:11:21,140 --> 01:11:29,140
 Is there anything -- and let me look at the exact to make sure I'm not getting outside of the agenda item.

917
01:11:29,140 --> 01:11:38,140
 I think it's just generally recommendations for changes to the ordinance.

918
01:11:38,140 --> 01:11:43,140
 I know there's been talk about subpoena and Annetta has brought up conflict of interest.

919
01:11:43,140 --> 01:11:47,140
 Is there anything that we want to focus on next?

920
01:11:47,140 --> 01:11:53,140
 Because I think that's the best way we've come up with changes to the ordinance is if we kind of pick something and try to focus on it.

921
01:11:53,140 --> 01:11:56,140
 Conflict of interest we never came to an agreement on.

922
01:11:56,140 --> 01:12:06,140
 Did we want to try to pick that up more or do we want to try to move to subpoena or talk about pending matter or something other than that?

923
01:12:06,140 --> 01:12:09,140
 I know you want conflict of interest.

924
01:12:09,140 --> 01:12:12,140
 Can I just say, I'm going to copy some of this.

925
01:12:12,140 --> 01:12:13,140
 Would you like to pass them out?

926
01:12:13,140 --> 01:12:14,140
 Because it has a link at the top.

927
01:12:14,140 --> 01:12:16,140
 Yeah, sure.

928
01:12:16,140 --> 01:12:20,140
 And I really love the way they define families.

929
01:12:20,140 --> 01:12:43,140
 I would say that we probably might want to put close to the top of the agenda is that the pending matter scenario because that seems to be the basis of a lot of conflict.

930
01:12:43,140 --> 01:12:54,140
 It's based on what is and what's not and that definition of how it really affects things on what is.

931
01:12:54,140 --> 01:12:59,140
 I think it's defined but it's not defined.

932
01:12:59,140 --> 01:13:09,140
 I can see where those have chosen to use one aspect of it as their basis but others differ.

933
01:13:09,140 --> 01:13:19,140
 And I think because to me, there's doors open there that are not completely closed.

934
01:13:19,140 --> 01:13:26,140
 At any time somebody can use that even though we as a group have said certain things, I think there are those.

935
01:13:26,140 --> 01:13:38,140
 I think that needs to be more defined and close to where those loopholes, as you will, are not out there that they can simply use.

936
01:13:38,140 --> 01:13:50,140
 And I think using that, not just my opinion, would lead us into pending matters, would in some form lead us into the conflict.

937
01:13:50,140 --> 01:13:53,140
 I think all of those will tie in together in the end.

938
01:13:53,140 --> 01:14:02,140
 Some will take care of the other because there's some differences but they still will tie into each other at some point or something.

939
01:14:02,140 --> 01:14:09,140
 I think what we should remember in pending matter is we need to be able to give notice to city officials of what is a matter.

940
01:14:09,140 --> 01:14:14,140
 Pending matter, they came up with the definition and it's pretty specific.

941
01:14:14,140 --> 01:14:22,140
 If it was just changed to matter, we'd have to think of does it need to be defined in the definition and how do you define matter?

942
01:14:22,140 --> 01:14:27,140
 Matter could be really broad and so how do they have notice and then how do we determine that?

943
01:14:27,140 --> 01:14:32,140
 So I think that's something we should consider when we talk about changing pending matter.

944
01:14:32,140 --> 01:14:41,140
 Is there any more opinions on what we should maybe tackle next as far as recommendations?

945
01:14:41,140 --> 01:14:56,140
 Conflict of interest has been our biggest impediment to the lack of a term administering the ordinance, so it could be conflict of interest, I think.

946
01:14:56,140 --> 01:15:02,140
 We've had a couple meetings on conflict of interest and a lot of discussion about it.

947
01:15:02,140 --> 01:15:09,140
 I think it comes down to we all have to agree on something, and I kind of feel like a broken record,

948
01:15:09,140 --> 01:15:18,140
 that puts everyone on notice and that we know how that we can also be able to have a hearing about and determine.

949
01:15:18,140 --> 01:15:30,140
 So it can't be kind of too nebulous and I think that's where we kept on hitting, not being able to move forward in the previous meetings where we discussed this.

950
01:15:30,140 --> 01:15:40,140
 So I'm taking it that it's still conflict of interest is big and I think pending matter relates to conflict of interest.

951
01:15:40,140 --> 01:15:51,140
 I guess how do we want to, we've had, I don't know if Debra is going to want to present again.

952
01:15:51,140 --> 01:15:56,140
 I'm sorry. I don't take it personally.

953
01:15:56,140 --> 01:16:05,140
 I guess we need to, I have not looked over what Annette has given us as far as conflict of interest.

954
01:16:05,140 --> 01:16:10,140
 And I think we probably all haven't looked over it as far as preparation for tonight.

955
01:16:10,140 --> 01:16:12,140
 Is that something we want to look over?

956
01:16:12,140 --> 01:16:23,140
 Is there anyone that thinks they might have some concrete recommendations they want to try to bring to the board to start working on this?

957
01:16:23,140 --> 01:16:31,140
 Because I kind of feel like us just talking about it, we just get into the same circular arguments that we've gotten into the last two meetings.

958
01:16:31,140 --> 01:16:37,140
 So I think it's better when we're working off of something, whether we're agreeing on it or not.

959
01:16:37,140 --> 01:16:41,140
 And I see Rob is raising his hand. Are we deliberating right now or is he just...

960
01:16:41,140 --> 01:16:48,140
 I want a point of order.

961
01:16:48,140 --> 01:17:00,140
 Okay. So I think, I'm not trying to be mean, but I think under the rules, since you're an alternate, I don't think you can have a point of order.

962
01:17:00,140 --> 01:17:05,140
 Unless I'm wrong. I don't know, you might know the rules of rough procedure better than me.

963
01:17:05,140 --> 01:17:13,140
 I won't go against counsel, but I would address a point of order for anyone that's permitted here.

964
01:17:13,140 --> 01:17:23,140
 Being an alternate, but appointed by the counsel, point of order could be accepted, but I'll yield to counsel.

965
01:17:23,140 --> 01:17:28,140
 If not, then I'll wait till afterwards.

966
01:17:28,140 --> 01:17:32,140
 I guess we'll just, I think we're going to call counsel. That's okay.

967
01:17:32,140 --> 01:17:33,140
 I didn't hear him say anything.

968
01:17:33,140 --> 01:17:45,140
 Oh, oh. Can you do a point of order or?

969
01:17:45,140 --> 01:17:50,140
 What was the thing with that counsel we needed to refer to?

970
01:17:50,140 --> 01:17:59,140
 It was the counsel retreat in January of 2017, I believe, before the ethics ordinance got enacted.

971
01:17:59,140 --> 01:18:06,140
 And they had the final document. I don't know who wrote it. It's very interesting if you watch it.

972
01:18:06,140 --> 01:18:10,140
 They get into the weeds within about 10 minutes.

973
01:18:10,140 --> 01:18:11,140
 And it's just...

974
01:18:11,140 --> 01:18:12,140
 Jumps like garbage.

975
01:18:12,140 --> 01:18:28,140
 No, I mean, they were, yeah, it was, it's hard to watch actually, but you can see how they start chopping things and cutting people off.

976
01:18:28,140 --> 01:18:34,140
 Yeah, you need to watch it. It's interesting because that was how we got our ordinance.

977
01:18:34,140 --> 01:18:46,140
 That's when they finished writing it.

978
01:18:46,140 --> 01:18:55,140
 It's archived in the, if you look at the city of Denton website, it's archived. It's pretty easy to access.

979
01:18:55,140 --> 01:19:00,140
 I think under Robert's Rules of Orders, it would only be the members that are participating in the deliberation.

980
01:19:00,140 --> 01:19:01,140
 Okay.

981
01:19:01,140 --> 01:19:10,140
 Thank you.

982
01:19:10,140 --> 01:19:25,140
 So I think we need to use our time wisely. What do we all think our next step should be?

983
01:19:25,140 --> 01:19:42,140
 Well, I agree with what you said. It's better for everybody to get something to work off of and either change or modify as opposed to getting seven things to look at and change and modify.

984
01:19:42,140 --> 01:19:53,140
 So what we need is something to look at collectively and then start making changes from there.

985
01:19:53,140 --> 01:20:04,140
 And I had, I had considered, I was going to bring up tonight that we're at the end of October and then we're moving into November and December and holidays.

986
01:20:04,140 --> 01:20:19,140
 I was considering like reconvening in January. So I wonder if there, you know, if, you know, we have, we have this, this fit and that has given us, given us tonight that we may or may not want to use when considering conflict of interest.

987
01:20:19,140 --> 01:20:36,140
 We have some sort of ad hoc committee maybe that looks into conflict of interest and maybe and be able to get everything back to the board in time to review and then in January maybe have a substantive discussion on conflict of interest and see where we are there.

988
01:20:36,140 --> 01:20:54,140
 And we got something from Deborah and I think we've all talked a lot, we talked a lot about what was on that, what we, what our thoughts were on that and, and we can kind of think about what, what we think we could all agree on as far as Deborah's proposals and then look at maybe a new proposal.

989
01:20:54,140 --> 01:20:56,140
 You're shaking your head. Do you have something?

990
01:20:56,140 --> 01:21:13,140
 Who would, do we have volunteers that, and I guess starting an ad hoc committee, is that all, is that okay, is that all good? Okay.

991
01:21:13,140 --> 01:21:22,140
 Is there anybody that is interested in being on an ad hoc committee to develop recommendations for conflict of interest, Annette?

992
01:21:22,140 --> 01:21:34,140
 I'm Rob, Bob. I know I'm chaired but I have two young children. Oh is he, oh he's an alternate. Can you have alternates on ad hoc committees?

993
01:21:34,140 --> 01:21:44,140
 Okay, so alternates can be on ad hoc committees. If we're making one up during this meeting, can we hear from alternates that want to be on it? Or is this something we could do after the meeting?

994
01:21:44,140 --> 01:21:57,140
 I know. I am, I'm not an expert on Robert's rules and I don't claim to be. As a part of order. That's okay.

995
01:21:57,140 --> 01:22:15,140
 So how do you suggest we could make an ad hoc committee issue for it? We wait and like, I email people to email me personally back after the meeting or can you do it at the meeting?

996
01:22:15,140 --> 01:22:19,140
 I mean I think you can form the committee here.

997
01:22:19,140 --> 01:22:36,140
 And you can take volunteers that are not board members? I know they can't deliberate or would I just form the committee with board members and then after the meeting we can allow alternates on ad hoc?

998
01:22:36,140 --> 01:22:48,140
 Well I think you can form the committee with alternates as part of the committee and then if they choose not to serve because they're unavailable to they would have that option to ask to be removed from the ad hoc committee.

999
01:22:48,140 --> 01:22:56,140
 Okay. Alright. So if Bob raises his hand during the meeting when he's not supposed to be deliberating, can I add him to the ad hoc committee?

1000
01:22:56,140 --> 01:23:01,140
 So I can start the deliberation.

1001
01:23:01,140 --> 01:23:19,140
 I should have taken your advice and asked to ask the alternates to sit separately. Well I guess would it be okay if I just say we'll start an ad hoc committee and maybe I'll send an email or Betsy will send an email.

1002
01:23:19,140 --> 01:23:30,140
 That would probably be best especially since we're not posted for it anyway. Okay. I mean that's kind of been brought up as new business but that could be put on a future council agenda or a future board agenda item.

1003
01:23:30,140 --> 01:23:42,140
 Well I guess it doesn't. That the staffing and outline and actual I guess you know what we're asking the goal of that committee to be because I mean we're not posted to establish all of that.

1004
01:23:42,140 --> 01:23:55,140
 Okay so we cannot do that. I think I would recommend against establishing it tonight. I think that's something that y'all can discuss is what you're going forward is how you're going to make changes but if you're going to take official action you're not posted to take official action.

1005
01:23:55,140 --> 01:24:11,140
 Okay. I mean it does say take necessary action. If you're trying to speak into this thing. On F it does say take necessary action confirming potential recommendations council for a minute. So I guess if we're taking action it has to be to confirm recommendations.

1006
01:24:11,140 --> 01:24:37,140
 Right. That's the way it's posted right now. Okay. Alright. Thank you very much. Before you sit down Traca this may raise you. Concerning the alternates what procedures in place or what policy do we have available? Do they have available where they can make commentary? Is there anything at all that allows them to?

1007
01:24:37,140 --> 01:24:53,140
 I would think just as any other citizen. Right. It would be it would be if they're if they're here at the meeting they're basically here unless they're here filling in as part of their role as an alternate if they're if they're but like tonight we have a board. Technically they're here as citizens so they wouldn't have the same opportunities as citizens have.

1008
01:24:53,140 --> 01:25:11,140
 It would also have the opportunity as alternate members of the board to present their comments to the chair ahead of time and that can be presented at the meeting at that time with the discretion of the chair. I know that's the way the council's done in the past like one of the council members is absent they'll send their or know that they're going to be absent they'll send they'll send their comments to the mayor ahead of time.

1009
01:25:11,140 --> 01:25:16,140
 Well the citizen is here then what's the process.

1010
01:25:16,140 --> 01:25:33,140
 Well technically citizens don't necessarily get to participate during work session items. Now sometimes the chair has allowed citizens to speak in some boards and commissions another that's happened in the past on some of the council boards that they've allowed citizens to speak on work session items.

1011
01:25:33,140 --> 01:25:58,140
 But we haven't had that process up here now. So in other words there is nothing in place for that. Right. Thank you. All right so go ahead. One of the things that I've come up in one of our hearings and that's what the burden of proof is on some of the allegations and what it tells us in.

1012
01:25:58,140 --> 01:26:12,140
 And ours it says it accepted is true and I'm not exactly sure what it accepted as true means and does anybody have any thought of what that might be or what it is.

1013
01:26:12,140 --> 01:26:28,140
 I'm at the one of the first meetings I'm not sure if you hear that I brought that up to Alan Berkowitz and I forgot his reasoning for why it was like that but we had a vote on one of our one of our hearing.

1014
01:26:28,140 --> 01:26:48,140
 I think what he said was that that was part of the council trying to make it where average citizens could understand you know because if they put probable cause clear convincing evidence beyond reasonable doubt there's I guess four of us that would understand what that means but not necessarily a citizen.

1015
01:26:48,140 --> 01:27:01,140
 So I remember him saying that but I have the same thought of burden of proof I almost think it's just I think it's kind of clear convincing evidence to be honest because I think it's either you think it happened or you think it didn't happen.

1016
01:27:01,140 --> 01:27:19,140
 But I don't I'm not sure if we would want to put in clear convincing evidence because then we're opening up a whole can of worms of explaining evidence to non lawyers.

1017
01:27:19,140 --> 01:27:47,140
 I'm sorry preponderance of evidence is what I meant to say out there. I was wondering yeah yes sorry I'm a criminal lawyers I never deal with any of that anyway okay so I'm wrong I wanted to correct myself. That's right some of the things that I write sometimes I use the term is more likely that not something happened or didn't happen or something is or something isn't you know so that is pretty clear to the average citizen I think.

1018
01:27:47,140 --> 01:27:57,140
 I hate to sanction someone but more likely than not if it happened. That's kind of what preponderance is right.

1019
01:27:57,140 --> 01:28:12,140
 Well and I don't I don't know what how we explain it to a jury. Yeah I don't know what the other lawyers on the board think but when I read this I almost think it would be a preponderance of the evidence just 51% versus 49% just like if you just think it happened.

1020
01:28:12,140 --> 01:28:19,140
 You don't have to have much more of a burden than that which and I can I can see an issue with with with that.

1021
01:28:19,140 --> 01:28:28,140
 So, like circling back we have the penny matter conflict of interest and any burden proof might be something interesting to discuss as well.

1022
01:28:28,140 --> 01:28:34,140
 I had the great idea of an ad hoc committee but doesn't sound like we can we can start that.

1023
01:28:34,140 --> 01:28:45,140
 I don't. I don't want to keep everybody here forever tonight, and I at seven on nine p.m. I don't think we're going to come to have a.

1024
01:28:45,140 --> 01:28:55,140
 I don't think we're gonna take any necessary action for any more recommendations for the ordinance. So I again I'll go back to the path forward.

1025
01:28:55,140 --> 01:29:10,140
 And you said we have to start an ad hoc committee we have to have it on an agenda or what are the ways could we have members of the board work on potential potential ordinance changes before the next meeting.

1026
01:29:10,140 --> 01:29:17,140
 I'll admit that I'm not prepared for this discussion because this is this is the first that I was hearing about an ad hoc committee.

1027
01:29:17,140 --> 01:29:24,140
 But yeah I mean I I'll be honest I kind of came up with that tonight as a way we could streamline some of these things we want to change.

1028
01:29:24,140 --> 01:29:27,140
 Well we can do it with a motion right.

1029
01:29:27,140 --> 01:29:29,140
 Can we.

1030
01:29:29,140 --> 01:29:37,140
 Well the problem is we're not posted to set up an ad hoc committee or set up to talk about changes that you wanted the board.

1031
01:29:37,140 --> 01:29:41,140
 But at no point was an ad hoc committee previously mentioned.

1032
01:29:41,140 --> 01:29:54,140
 But if an ad hoc committee is one of the mechanisms that we are going to use to change the effective recommendations of the board it's a fine line.

1033
01:29:54,140 --> 01:30:08,140
 It's a fine line I it comes down to how broadly you think the agenda captions posted personally my reading of the agenda captions that you're to talk about the changes you want and to take necessary action regarding those changes.

1034
01:30:08,140 --> 01:30:16,140
 I don't know that there's anything in there that would allow you to create an ad hoc committee by the posting on itself.

1035
01:30:16,140 --> 01:30:19,140
 But conversely is there anything that doesn't allow us to.

1036
01:30:19,140 --> 01:30:30,140
 Conversely it would just be your reading of it and if there if there was someone that would might consider that a violation of the open meetings act.

1037
01:30:30,140 --> 01:30:43,140
 I definitely don't want to violate that that be on my agenda.

1038
01:30:43,140 --> 01:30:53,140
 I mean is it OK if if we have a very interested board member to say that they will work on some recommendations and circulate them to the board for the next meeting.

1039
01:30:53,140 --> 01:30:55,140
 Certainly I think I think all board members can do that.

1040
01:30:55,140 --> 01:31:06,140
 It would necessarily just be one of you. I think I think I think it's almost expected that the board members are working on this in their off time and you all are coming back to discuss as a body at the post meeting.

1041
01:31:06,140 --> 01:31:14,140
 I don't think that it is expected that you all just kind of set this aside completely on your own in between meetings.

1042
01:31:14,140 --> 01:31:18,140
 All right well I have a proposal and I'd like to know if this is violating anything.

1043
01:31:18,140 --> 01:31:26,140
 I know Annette has has has shown a lot of interest in conflict of interest and I was wondering if she wanted to prepare something to circulate to the board.

1044
01:31:26,140 --> 01:31:35,140
 And if there's others that also have that maybe get it to me and Betsy say we have a meeting at the end of January.

1045
01:31:35,140 --> 01:31:45,140
 Get it to us at the beginning of January and then me and me and Betsy and you mesh can come up with an agenda to address what we'll do is conflict of interest.

1046
01:31:45,140 --> 01:31:51,140
 And and any presentation board members or alternates have regarding that maybe we can listen to that.

1047
01:31:51,140 --> 01:31:55,140
 Does that sound like a plan to everyone.

1048
01:31:55,140 --> 01:31:56,140
 So it's every time.

1049
01:31:56,140 --> 01:32:01,140
 Well and I think anyone including citizens could send stuff to us.

1050
01:32:01,140 --> 01:32:05,140
 Right now I would caution against people trying to send the board.

1051
01:32:05,140 --> 01:32:06,140
 Yes yes.

1052
01:32:06,140 --> 01:32:09,140
 As a body something because that opens up more.

1053
01:32:09,140 --> 01:32:10,140
 I guess.

1054
01:32:10,140 --> 01:32:15,140
 Open meeting tax violations but board members or alternates can participate.

1055
01:32:15,140 --> 01:32:16,140
 Certainly.

1056
01:32:16,140 --> 01:32:17,140
 Me the chair.

1057
01:32:17,140 --> 01:32:21,140
 Send them to you the chair and it can be considered as a for the next meeting.

1058
01:32:21,140 --> 01:32:26,140
 What about what about those other areas you identified if we want to take those up too.

1059
01:32:26,140 --> 01:32:33,140
 Well I would suggest we we we take this in steps.

1060
01:32:33,140 --> 01:32:39,140
 Otherwise I feel like we will have long meetings that jump around and don't accomplish much.

1061
01:32:39,140 --> 01:32:41,140
 And that would be my suggestion.

1062
01:32:41,140 --> 01:32:43,140
 If anybody has some different.

1063
01:32:43,140 --> 01:32:47,140
 Or this is offered to be the kind of the intake repository of that stuff.

1064
01:32:47,140 --> 01:32:48,140
 OK.

1065
01:32:48,140 --> 01:32:49,140
 And you mesh.

1066
01:32:49,140 --> 01:32:57,140
 I think we've we've kind of touched on this before that you can send mesh.

1067
01:32:57,140 --> 01:33:02,140
 Proposals and maybe me and you mesh can get together and come up with an agenda based on those.

1068
01:33:02,140 --> 01:33:06,140
 And I would I would think for.

1069
01:33:06,140 --> 01:33:10,140
 I mean we want it by December for that maybe by December for the January meeting.

1070
01:33:10,140 --> 01:33:11,140
 Just so everyone has.

1071
01:33:11,140 --> 01:33:14,140
 So me and you mesh can come up with a plan and agenda.

1072
01:33:14,140 --> 01:33:22,140
 And then we can send it out to the whole board so the whole board can look at what we what kind of proposals and suggestions the board has made.

1073
01:33:22,140 --> 01:33:26,140
 Because because honestly sitting here just all off all of us kind of talking off the hip.

1074
01:33:26,140 --> 01:33:33,140
 Not you know it just isn't very productive.

1075
01:33:33,140 --> 01:33:36,140
 So so what does everybody think about that.

1076
01:33:36,140 --> 01:33:39,140
 I know I think I cut you off Larry.

1077
01:33:39,140 --> 01:33:43,140
 You answered it though in the process.

1078
01:33:43,140 --> 01:33:53,140
 I guess you know let's see Christmas is what the 24th so maybe December calendar.

1079
01:33:53,140 --> 01:33:58,140
 You have to send it on Christmas Day.

1080
01:33:58,140 --> 01:34:03,140
 Citizen Rainer says yes just by December 15.

1081
01:34:03,140 --> 01:34:07,140
 Yeah well December 15th is a Sunday.

1082
01:34:07,140 --> 01:34:19,140
 So 16 by the December 16.

1083
01:34:19,140 --> 01:34:20,140
 Right.

1084
01:34:20,140 --> 01:34:23,140
 And then.

1085
01:34:23,140 --> 01:34:26,140
 We've talked about.

1086
01:34:26,140 --> 01:34:29,140
 And then we'll come up with a date in late January.

1087
01:34:29,140 --> 01:34:32,140
 It's usually been doing the last Thursday of the month.

1088
01:34:32,140 --> 01:34:38,140
 And I think we have in the past sent out email just to make sure there's enough people available.

1089
01:34:38,140 --> 01:34:44,140
 And we'll do something like that in January and send out an agenda and what kind of we're going to go over.

1090
01:34:44,140 --> 01:34:49,140
 I think this is a good solution to hopefully keep us moving forward.

1091
01:34:49,140 --> 01:34:51,140
 Anybody against this.

1092
01:34:51,140 --> 01:34:52,140
 Anybody have any other suggestions.

1093
01:34:52,140 --> 01:34:54,140
 So we're not meeting again until.

1094
01:34:54,140 --> 01:34:56,140
 January.

1095
01:34:56,140 --> 01:35:00,140
 But if you're on your own you'd like to take up proposals and come up with stuff.

1096
01:35:00,140 --> 01:35:05,140
 Send it to me and we'll try to get this conflict of interest improved.

1097
01:35:05,140 --> 01:35:10,140
 And I will say that's that's all I'll accept is a proof improvement.

1098
01:35:10,140 --> 01:35:11,140
 All right.

1099
01:35:11,140 --> 01:35:14,140
 So anything else on these items.

1100
01:35:14,140 --> 01:35:18,140
 When is the orientation going to be in January.

1101
01:35:18,140 --> 01:35:19,140
 Do you have a date on that.

1102
01:35:19,140 --> 01:35:22,140
 We don't have any date yet.

1103
01:35:22,140 --> 01:35:25,140
 Will it be a video or will it be a live.

1104
01:35:25,140 --> 01:35:28,140
 First of all.

1105
01:35:28,140 --> 01:35:34,140
 We thought about this and we'll have to find out how much it's going to cost us.

1106
01:35:34,140 --> 01:35:36,140
 And.

1107
01:35:36,140 --> 01:35:47,140
 For city auditors office can afford it.

1108
01:35:47,140 --> 01:35:52,140
 But we'll let you know shortly.

1109
01:35:52,140 --> 01:35:54,140
 All right.

1110
01:35:54,140 --> 01:35:57,140
 So is there anything else under agenda item.

1111
01:35:57,140 --> 01:36:01,140
 That we want to discuss tonight.

1112
01:36:01,140 --> 01:36:03,140
 Without hearing anything.

1113
01:36:03,140 --> 01:36:08,140
 Agenda item G is regarding changes to the rules of procedure.

1114
01:36:08,140 --> 01:36:12,140
 I don't think we have any more changes to the rule of procedure right now.

1115
01:36:12,140 --> 01:36:14,140
 I mean maybe later when we change the ordinance we might.

1116
01:36:14,140 --> 01:36:17,140
 I unless anybody has any suggestions.

1117
01:36:17,140 --> 01:36:20,140
 I don't see anything.

1118
01:36:20,140 --> 01:36:22,140
 That needs to be changed.

1119
01:36:22,140 --> 01:36:24,140
 Any thoughts on that.

1120
01:36:24,140 --> 01:36:26,140
 All right.

1121
01:36:26,140 --> 01:36:27,140
 All right.

1122
01:36:27,140 --> 01:36:34,140
 So we've gone through all the agenda items.

1123
01:36:34,140 --> 01:36:47,140
 As far as the rules of procedure.

1124
01:36:47,140 --> 01:36:52,140
 Reconsideration oh yes that's right.

1125
01:36:52,140 --> 01:36:54,140
 And.

1126
01:36:54,140 --> 01:36:57,140
 Fortunately I think you've been out.

1127
01:36:57,140 --> 01:36:58,140
 And.

1128
01:36:58,140 --> 01:36:59,140
 We brought.

1129
01:36:59,140 --> 01:37:05,140
 Your opinion on that and we decided to table that discussion until you were.

1130
01:37:05,140 --> 01:37:09,140
 You're here at the meeting since.

1131
01:37:09,140 --> 01:37:11,140
 Your suggestion.

1132
01:37:11,140 --> 01:37:14,140
 Let's see so.

1133
01:37:14,140 --> 01:37:17,140
 The reconsideration is.

1134
01:37:17,140 --> 01:37:20,140
 In the rules of procedure number.

1135
01:37:20,140 --> 01:37:24,140
 Under I guess under hearing.

1136
01:37:24,140 --> 01:37:26,140
 Hearing which is.

1137
01:37:26,140 --> 01:37:30,140
 Section a subsection 28.

1138
01:37:30,140 --> 01:37:32,140
 It's page 12 on my rules of procedure.

1139
01:37:32,140 --> 01:37:34,140
 Which I think are the most current.

1140
01:37:34,140 --> 01:37:36,140
 It says request for reconsideration.

1141
01:37:36,140 --> 01:37:40,140
 So I'll follow the procedure established by the.

1142
01:37:40,140 --> 01:37:42,140
 Chapter two article.

1143
01:37:42,140 --> 01:37:45,140
 Eleven section two dash two eight three.

1144
01:37:45,140 --> 01:37:47,140
 And maybe you could kind of explain to the board.

1145
01:37:47,140 --> 01:37:49,140
 Because I don't think you.

1146
01:37:49,140 --> 01:37:51,140
 We've talked about it yet with.

1147
01:37:51,140 --> 01:37:53,140
 The current faces on the board.

1148
01:37:53,140 --> 01:37:56,140
 What you want change about reconsideration.

1149
01:37:56,140 --> 01:37:58,140
 Well for reconsideration.

1150
01:37:58,140 --> 01:38:03,140
 Of any hearing decision.

1151
01:38:03,140 --> 01:38:06,140
 In administrative law it typically requires that.

1152
01:38:06,140 --> 01:38:09,140
 There be a mistake of that.

1153
01:38:09,140 --> 01:38:11,140
 Or a mistake of process.

1154
01:38:11,140 --> 01:38:16,140
 Committed by the body that made the decision or wrote the decision.

1155
01:38:16,140 --> 01:38:20,140
 The hearing officer or the body of the set.

1156
01:38:20,140 --> 01:38:23,140
 It does not typically.

1157
01:38:23,140 --> 01:38:25,140
 Allow for new evidence.

1158
01:38:25,140 --> 01:38:27,140
 To be presented.

1159
01:38:27,140 --> 01:38:31,140
 And that's the way our ordinance is written.

1160
01:38:31,140 --> 01:38:33,140
 And in the way it's written.

1161
01:38:33,140 --> 01:38:37,140
 Only specifying new evidence.

1162
01:38:37,140 --> 01:38:41,140
 It doesn't speak to the fact that.

1163
01:38:41,140 --> 01:38:44,140
 That an error could be made and there's no way to address.

1164
01:38:44,140 --> 01:38:47,140
 For the person to address that error if they receive one.

1165
01:38:47,140 --> 01:38:50,140
 I think it needs to be.

1166
01:38:50,140 --> 01:38:54,140
 The reconsideration article needs to be brought more in line with.

1167
01:38:54,140 --> 01:38:57,140
 The accepted administrative law.

1168
01:38:57,140 --> 01:39:00,140
 And.

1169
01:39:00,140 --> 01:39:01,140
 You know.

1170
01:39:01,140 --> 01:39:05,140
 In terms of new evidence.

1171
01:39:05,140 --> 01:39:08,140
 New evidence.

1172
01:39:08,140 --> 01:39:10,140
 Could be.

1173
01:39:10,140 --> 01:39:12,140
 The subject of a new.

1174
01:39:12,140 --> 01:39:13,140
 A new appeal.

1175
01:39:13,140 --> 01:39:14,140
 At this time.

1176
01:39:14,140 --> 01:39:17,140
 It shouldn't be.

1177
01:39:17,140 --> 01:39:21,140
 The product of reconsideration.

1178
01:39:21,140 --> 01:39:24,140
 I guess.

1179
01:39:24,140 --> 01:39:27,140
 Maybe I'm not correct me if I'm not following you right but.

1180
01:39:27,140 --> 01:39:29,140
 What if there was.

1181
01:39:29,140 --> 01:39:33,140
 New evidence that would.

1182
01:39:33,140 --> 01:39:35,140
 That would show that the person.

1183
01:39:35,140 --> 01:39:37,140
 Like say we found them.

1184
01:39:37,140 --> 01:39:38,140
 We found the sanction.

1185
01:39:38,140 --> 01:39:40,140
 We found them in violation of the code.

1186
01:39:40,140 --> 01:39:42,140
 What if there's new evidence that came up.

1187
01:39:42,140 --> 01:39:45,140
 That they didn't violate the code.

1188
01:39:45,140 --> 01:39:47,140
 Like some evidence.

1189
01:39:47,140 --> 01:39:51,140
 That was a sculpatory toward them.

1190
01:39:51,140 --> 01:39:52,140
 Would.

1191
01:39:52,140 --> 01:39:53,140
 With that.

1192
01:39:53,140 --> 01:39:55,140
 Do you think that should be a reason for.

1193
01:39:55,140 --> 01:39:58,140
 For reconsideration because I see if we find oh there's no violation.

1194
01:39:58,140 --> 01:40:00,140
 They could come back with new evidence to say.

1195
01:40:00,140 --> 01:40:02,140
 Is there a violation under this evidence.

1196
01:40:02,140 --> 01:40:04,140
 But if we found that they were in violation.

1197
01:40:04,140 --> 01:40:08,140
 And then there's new evidence that they actually weren't in violation.

1198
01:40:08,140 --> 01:40:13,140
 I guess that's where I'm like well do we need to keep that in there for that situation.

1199
01:40:13,140 --> 01:40:17,140
 Well I mean in the situation you just described.

1200
01:40:17,140 --> 01:40:24,140
 If somebody alleges that there's new information that would have an impact on the decision.

1201
01:40:24,140 --> 01:40:28,140
 Then one would think that everybody.

1202
01:40:28,140 --> 01:40:32,140
 Should have a shot at determining whether or not that new evidence is valid.

1203
01:40:32,140 --> 01:40:35,140
 In other words.

1204
01:40:35,140 --> 01:40:37,140
 It almost calls for a new hearing.

1205
01:40:37,140 --> 01:40:40,140
 So to make both sides.

1206
01:40:40,140 --> 01:40:42,140
 Available to the information both sides.

1207
01:40:42,140 --> 01:40:44,140
 Be able to comment on it.

1208
01:40:44,140 --> 01:40:45,140
 And another decision.

1209
01:40:45,140 --> 01:40:47,140
 As opposed to.

1210
01:40:47,140 --> 01:40:51,140
 You have to reconsider based upon one side bringing new evidence.

1211
01:40:51,140 --> 01:40:59,140
 That's my homework.

1212
01:40:59,140 --> 01:41:07,140
 And so reconsideration is also in the ordinance section two dash two eighty three.

1213
01:41:07,140 --> 01:41:09,140
 So.

1214
01:41:09,140 --> 01:41:17,140
 Fortunately it hasn't been an issue yet.

1215
01:41:17,140 --> 01:41:29,140
 And you know you allude to something in your question was the new evidence available when the appeal was found.

1216
01:41:29,140 --> 01:41:31,140
 Or was it not.

1217
01:41:31,140 --> 01:41:37,140
 And I don't think that we have the resources to really determine that.

1218
01:41:37,140 --> 01:41:47,140
 Although.

1219
01:41:47,140 --> 01:41:48,140
 Yeah.

1220
01:41:48,140 --> 01:41:51,140
 Well and I think you know in criminal law like yes there's new evidence.

1221
01:41:51,140 --> 01:41:55,140
 But I imagine in civil it's probably not the same as far as administrative.

1222
01:41:55,140 --> 01:41:57,140
 If they're like in administrative law in your experience.

1223
01:41:57,140 --> 01:42:00,140
 I mean is there ever a case where there's appeals on new evidence.

1224
01:42:00,140 --> 01:42:08,140
 Or can there be like rates on on judgments as far as new hearing new evidence or not.

1225
01:42:08,140 --> 01:42:09,140
 Yeah.

1226
01:42:09,140 --> 01:42:10,140
 Yeah.

1227
01:42:10,140 --> 01:42:12,140
 That's probably why I'm coming from a different mindset.

1228
01:42:12,140 --> 01:42:13,140
 Yeah.

1229
01:42:13,140 --> 01:42:18,140
 And mine and you can do a motion for a new trial for newly discovered evidence.

1230
01:42:18,140 --> 01:42:25,140
 But in that case to see the whole party didn't have a shot at that new evidence.

1231
01:42:25,140 --> 01:42:31,140
 OK so and I'm looking at the reconsideration.

1232
01:42:31,140 --> 01:42:42,140
 So you're saying that like when you have a reconsideration is it just.

1233
01:42:42,140 --> 01:42:52,140
 OK so I guess it's in my sole discretion.

1234
01:42:52,140 --> 01:43:09,140
 You can have a new so I so you're saying we've had a panel decide on something and then it comes to me I can just overrule their decision based on based on this new evidence like that is that that's the problem.

1235
01:43:09,140 --> 01:43:22,140
 So what I'm saying is just a hearing to say the hearing say the ultimate decision has a factual error.

1236
01:43:22,140 --> 01:43:33,140
 Or in coming to that decision the board makes a process error and then that's pointed out in the motion for reconsideration.

1237
01:43:33,140 --> 01:43:42,140
 Those are those are the two areas where reconsideration is typically requested but not for new evidence.

1238
01:43:42,140 --> 01:43:45,140
 OK.

1239
01:43:45,140 --> 01:44:05,140
 I mean it's possible to see that that that after the decision is issued a person might find that oh well this is this this is a factual error that the board rule on that would have changed things or the board didn't do this process and it should have.

1240
01:44:05,140 --> 01:44:08,140
 So you mean it should be more broad than new evidence.

1241
01:44:08,140 --> 01:44:17,140
 Well it shouldn't be new evidence it should be either an error of fact or an error of process.

1242
01:44:17,140 --> 01:44:22,140
 Well I think in order to change that on the.

1243
01:44:22,140 --> 01:44:26,140
 The rules of procedure because the rules of procedure.

1244
01:44:26,140 --> 01:44:35,140
 Reference to dash 283 that it's it would be a change to the ordinance.

1245
01:44:35,140 --> 01:44:43,140
 And so I mean I would add it to the list of any matter conflict of interest burden proof reconsideration.

1246
01:44:43,140 --> 01:44:50,140
 And we've already talked about coming back and discussing conflict of interest in January.

1247
01:44:50,140 --> 01:45:02,140
 So would it be OK to put reconsideration with the other things that we will address at a later time because we can't do everything.

1248
01:45:02,140 --> 01:45:05,140
 Once unfortunately.

1249
01:45:05,140 --> 01:45:14,140
 But I haven't I've added to the list of things we need to consider for future meetings for changes.

1250
01:45:14,140 --> 01:45:23,140
 I appreciate it.

1251
01:45:23,140 --> 01:45:27,140
 As far as far as pushing it out past conflict of interest.

1252
01:45:27,140 --> 01:45:30,140
 I thought you were talking about.

1253
01:45:30,140 --> 01:45:33,140
 Oh adding.

1254
01:45:33,140 --> 01:45:37,140
 Well I.

1255
01:45:37,140 --> 01:45:48,140
 I mean I'll tell you about what we've decided I think conflict of interest is the biggest thing is going to take the most time and penny matter probably will play into conflict of interest.

1256
01:45:48,140 --> 01:45:58,140
 I think reconsideration and burden of proof would be would take less time and are going to be easier to decide on and vote on.

1257
01:45:58,140 --> 01:46:04,140
 We were in previously and I don't know if we had decided we'll work on conflict of interest first.

1258
01:46:04,140 --> 01:46:07,140
 I don't know if we can jump back up to that and change that.

1259
01:46:07,140 --> 01:46:19,140
 But my thoughts would be if we're discussing conflict of interest in January we probably won't have time to discuss other stuff based on our previous meeting.

1260
01:46:19,140 --> 01:46:28,140
 If we wanted to tackle reconsideration or burden proof which I think will be quicker things for us to decide on and easier for us up to all agree on.

1261
01:46:28,140 --> 01:46:34,140
 I mean we could and we can maybe start with that and then go into conflict of interest. I guess I'll leave that up to the board.

1262
01:46:34,140 --> 01:46:38,140
 Perhaps reconsideration could be added to the ad hoc committees.

1263
01:46:38,140 --> 01:46:40,140
 We do not have an ad hoc committee.

1264
01:46:40,140 --> 01:46:44,140
 Well.

1265
01:46:44,140 --> 01:46:46,140
 We have ad hoc people.

1266
01:46:46,140 --> 01:46:47,140
 How do I word that?

1267
01:46:47,140 --> 01:46:58,140
 I think conflict of interest first and then burden of proof and reconsideration later.

1268
01:46:58,140 --> 01:47:14,140
 And I think those two we could put together and I think those two are going to be pretty legal because I mean they are legal burden of proof is a legal term and reconsideration is kind of a legal term too.

1269
01:47:14,140 --> 01:47:27,140
 So I say we keep the path we're going as far as conflict of interest and we have the December 16th date to send information to UMESH that you would want to present upon changing conflict of interest.

1270
01:47:27,140 --> 01:47:36,140
 And we will still and then meet in the end of January and then at the end of that January meeting you know we'll see where we are in conflict of interest.

1271
01:47:36,140 --> 01:47:49,140
 And we can decide from there if we want to if we have something we want to bring that we want to put together for council or if we want to maybe address one of the easier issues at the next meeting and then get back to conflict of interest.

1272
01:47:49,140 --> 01:47:52,140
 I say we just wait till January to decide that.

1273
01:47:52,140 --> 01:47:57,140
 I'm not trying to be a dictator though if anybody has any other opinions let me know.

1274
01:47:57,140 --> 01:47:58,140
 Okay.

1275
01:47:58,140 --> 01:48:01,140
 All right.

1276
01:48:01,140 --> 01:48:09,140
 Okay so back to the agenda anything else about the rules of procedure still being on agenda item G.

1277
01:48:09,140 --> 01:48:13,140
 All right so I think we've gotten through the agenda.

1278
01:48:13,140 --> 01:48:17,140
 Do we have to have a motion to close the meeting?

1279
01:48:17,140 --> 01:48:18,140
 No motion?

1280
01:48:18,140 --> 01:48:30,140
 Okay well it is now 729 and I said we'd be done at 730 to respect all of your time and effort and thank you for everybody for coming tonight and we will adjourn at 729.

1281
01:48:30,140 --> 01:48:35,140
 Thank you.