WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.400 >> All right. 00:00:03.400 --> 00:00:05.440 Let's call this meeting to order. 00:00:05.440 --> 00:00:06.800 It's 540. 00:00:06.800 --> 00:00:08.800 There was a little bit of traffic and then we're setting 00:00:08.800 --> 00:00:11.500 up the video for the first time so we're a little late today. 00:00:11.500 --> 00:00:13.200 But we'll go ahead and get started. 00:00:13.200 --> 00:00:19.680 The items for consideration, number ABOE19-047, 00:00:19.680 --> 00:00:24.060 consider approval of the minutes for September 11, 2019 meeting. 00:00:24.060 --> 00:00:33.500 I believe under absent it says Ronnie Mohair 00:00:33.500 --> 00:00:35.740 and it doesn't have excuser, not unexcused. 00:00:35.740 --> 00:00:36.840 Betsy, do we know? 00:00:36.840 --> 00:00:37.840 >> It was excused. 00:00:37.840 --> 00:00:39.040 >> It was excused. 00:00:39.040 --> 00:00:41.240 So we'll change the minutes to show excused there. 00:00:41.240 --> 00:00:47.120 Did anybody see anything else on the minutes that need to be changed? 00:00:47.120 --> 00:00:49.820 Do I have a motion to accept these minutes? 00:00:49.820 --> 00:00:51.120 >> So moved. 00:00:51.120 --> 00:00:53.720 >> Moved by Annetta Ramsey and is there a second? 00:00:53.720 --> 00:00:54.600 >> Second. 00:00:54.600 --> 00:00:58.520 >> Second by Don Cartwright and all in favor say aye. 00:00:58.520 --> 00:00:59.660 >> Aye. 00:00:59.660 --> 00:01:05.740 >> So motion passes to accept with adding Ronnie Mohair is excused. 00:01:05.740 --> 00:01:10.940 The next item on the agenda is B, BOE19-048. 00:01:10.940 --> 00:01:17.220 Oh, and actually just a side note, the full board is here 00:01:17.220 --> 00:01:20.120 and there are alternates here. 00:01:20.120 --> 00:01:27.060 The alternates are Debra, Rob, and Bob and they can be here 00:01:27.060 --> 00:01:29.200 but they can't deliberate or vote. 00:01:29.200 --> 00:01:31.760 Debra is on the agenda so she can obviously speak 00:01:31.760 --> 00:01:34.360 where she's on the agenda and we can converse then. 00:01:34.360 --> 00:01:37.940 But just want to make that clear for the video. 00:01:37.940 --> 00:01:41.200 I've already told the board that. 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 00:01:45.240 --> 00:01:47.040 and who's excused, I guess everyone's here today? 00:01:47.040 --> 00:01:48.040 >> Everyone's here. 00:01:48.040 --> 00:01:53.520 >> Okay, so everyone's here today so we don't have to go over excused, absences. 00:01:53.520 --> 00:01:58.880 Yeah, so we'll go to B, BOE19-048, hold a discussion on updates 00:01:58.880 --> 00:02:01.520 to the current membership of the ethics board. 00:02:01.520 --> 00:02:14.340 >> Mr. Hall, city auditor. 00:02:14.340 --> 00:02:21.000 We have a new member, Larry Beck, that is joining us. 00:02:21.000 --> 00:02:26.940 I am not sure whether we welcome Annette Ramsey 00:02:26.940 --> 00:02:29.860 and she's also a new member joining us. 00:02:29.860 --> 00:02:32.080 >> Okay, yeah, so Annette was at the last meeting. 00:02:32.080 --> 00:02:35.660 It wasn't videoed and I don't think everybody was here. 00:02:35.660 --> 00:02:40.960 So I guess anything more than that for that agenda item? 00:02:40.960 --> 00:02:41.960 >> No. 00:02:41.960 --> 00:02:43.500 >> Just welcome Larry. 00:02:43.500 --> 00:02:44.500 >> Larry. 00:02:44.500 --> 00:02:48.900 All right, so ready to move to item C or? 00:02:48.900 --> 00:02:49.900 >> Quick question. 00:02:49.900 --> 00:02:50.900 >> Go ahead. 00:02:50.900 --> 00:02:54.980 >> I'm used to, if you had a question you would be recognized by the chair 00:02:54.980 --> 00:02:56.440 if it didn't apply and you're doing it. 00:02:56.440 --> 00:02:57.840 How do you work with it? 00:02:57.840 --> 00:03:00.780 >> I mean, it's pretty, today it's pretty full. 00:03:00.780 --> 00:03:01.780 Usually it's pretty relaxed. 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. 00:03:05.580 --> 00:03:09.720 But sometimes we just kind of discuss without needing to do that. 00:03:09.720 --> 00:03:20.040 >> All right, agenda item C, BOE 19-049, receive a report, hold a discussion, 00:03:20.040 --> 00:03:25.040 and take necessary action regarding board attendance, record of absences, 00:03:25.040 --> 00:03:32.680 ethics training deadlines, and meeting dates for November and December 29, 2019. 00:03:32.680 --> 00:03:39.560 As far as the attendance and recording of absences, Betsy has mentioned to me 00:03:39.560 --> 00:03:41.960 that if you're not going to be able to make a meeting, 00:03:41.960 --> 00:03:46.920 to please let her know beforehand, as soon as possible, and make sure to give, 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 00:03:50.500 --> 00:03:54.640 when we kind of take attendance and take absences. 00:03:54.640 --> 00:04:01.080 And there was also, we also talked about whether absences would, 00:04:01.080 --> 00:04:05.880 whether vacations would be excused absences. 00:04:05.880 --> 00:04:10.480 >> This actually, we have an old version. 00:04:10.480 --> 00:04:16.460 >> All right, I have an old version of the agenda. 00:04:16.460 --> 00:04:23.900 So, all right, so C is BOE 19-049, receive a report and hold a discussion 00:04:23.900 --> 00:04:27.000 regarding board attendance and ethics training deadlines. 00:04:27.000 --> 00:04:30.100 So attendance, was I on the right track that we were talking about? 00:04:30.100 --> 00:04:32.640 You wanted us to speak about letting Betsy know about? 00:04:32.640 --> 00:04:41.320 >> Sure. As you all know, city auditor's office provide administrative support. 00:04:41.320 --> 00:04:47.820 Also city auditor's office is responsible for providing training to this board, 00:04:47.820 --> 00:04:52.660 city council members, and several other board members 00:04:52.660 --> 00:04:59.960 that require this training under the ethics ordinance. 00:04:59.960 --> 00:05:06.100 Again, since we are tracking training for so many people, 00:05:06.100 --> 00:05:12.320 tracking them separately becomes an administrative burden. 00:05:12.320 --> 00:05:17.880 So we are planning to have a training in January, 00:05:17.880 --> 00:05:24.760 and we may hire someone to provide that training. 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, 00:05:32.700 --> 00:05:40.440 January 1st, then you are excused from that training and you take training the next year. 00:05:40.440 --> 00:05:49.180 And, but if you have not taken training 60 days before January, January 1st, 00:05:49.180 --> 00:05:52.620 then you will have to take that training. 00:05:52.620 --> 00:05:58.360 That training would be useful because we are going to be hiring someone to provide that. 00:05:58.360 --> 00:06:04.100 So even if you have taken training within 60 days prior, 00:06:04.100 --> 00:06:06.960 it may be a good idea to attend that training. 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? 00:06:14.380 --> 00:06:18.880 >> As I said, we are going to be hiring someone to provide that training. 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, 00:06:24.380 --> 00:06:28.120 it would be the same training if we don't wait until January? 00:06:28.120 --> 00:06:29.020 >> The same video. 00:06:29.020 --> 00:06:31.360 >> The same video we've already watched? 00:06:31.360 --> 00:06:34.160 >> If that is the choice that you want. 00:06:34.160 --> 00:06:35.300 >> Oh, no, that's not the choice. 00:06:35.300 --> 00:06:37.840 I'm just saying, like, there's not a new one until January. 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. 00:06:42.640 --> 00:06:43.440 >> Yeah. 00:06:43.440 --> 00:06:45.280 >> Okay. 00:06:45.280 --> 00:06:48.780 >> Laura, does that apply to alternates as well as members? 00:06:48.780 --> 00:06:50.540 >> Yes, I believe so. 00:06:50.540 --> 00:06:50.840 >> Okay. 00:06:50.840 --> 00:06:52.780 >> It's all members and alternates. 00:06:52.780 --> 00:06:58.320 You'll see on this board, many, most meetings, alternates do participate. 00:06:58.320 --> 00:07:02.620 I think this is the first one we alternates, no alternates have participated. 00:07:02.620 --> 00:07:05.600 >> Yeah, today is unprecedented. 00:07:05.600 --> 00:07:10.360 >> No alternates have participated thus far? 00:07:10.360 --> 00:07:11.440 >> Oh, no, no. 00:07:11.440 --> 00:07:15.200 This is the first meeting where an alternate isn't participating. 00:07:15.200 --> 00:07:22.700 Thus far, every meeting, we've had to have an alternate, so. 00:07:22.700 --> 00:07:28.420 So is there anything else to discuss on that topic or? 00:07:28.420 --> 00:07:31.080 >> Well, again, on the absences. 00:07:31.080 --> 00:07:32.080 >> Okay. 00:07:32.080 --> 00:07:38.420 >> We would like to know in advance whether the absences are excused or unexcused so 00:07:38.420 --> 00:07:45.560 that we can record accordingly, and let the chair know. 00:07:45.560 --> 00:07:49.600 And that helps us in keeping everything straight. 00:07:49.600 --> 00:07:53.780 So we'll appreciate it if you let us know in advance. 00:07:53.780 --> 00:07:59.140 >> What cause is an excuse? 00:07:59.140 --> 00:08:03.040 >> I think we're actually going to go over that in agenda item B. 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. 00:08:19.260 --> 00:08:22.900 Hold the discussion and take necessary action regarding the classification of absences for 00:08:22.900 --> 00:08:29.000 vacations and surrounding circumstances pursuant to Dent and Code of Ordinances 2-83C. 00:08:29.000 --> 00:08:33.360 I know now, if you're sick or if it's work-related, it's excused. 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? 00:08:39.260 --> 00:08:40.260 >> Yes. 00:08:40.260 --> 00:08:48.740 That particular section allows the board to decide what is going to be the excused absences, 00:08:48.740 --> 00:08:54.300 and this board needs to decide. 00:08:54.300 --> 00:09:02.420 The issue has come up whether the vacations are excused absences, and this board needs 00:09:02.420 --> 00:09:03.740 to decide. 00:09:03.740 --> 00:09:11.140 So this particular item is to vote to consider and vote on that item. 00:09:11.140 --> 00:09:16.660 >> I'll say my opinion is, you know, I can leave work for a vacation. 00:09:16.660 --> 00:09:21.660 I feel like we should be excused for planned vacations on this board, too. 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 00:09:26.780 --> 00:09:27.780 that. 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, 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. 00:09:43.140 --> 00:09:44.140 >> Can we do that, you guys? 00:09:44.140 --> 00:09:45.140 Sure. 00:09:45.140 --> 00:09:46.140 >> I think so. 00:09:46.140 --> 00:09:47.140 That is your rule. 00:09:47.140 --> 00:09:48.140 >> Okay. 00:09:48.140 --> 00:09:49.140 So, I mean, I'd be okay with that. 00:09:49.140 --> 00:09:52.740 But how many days do you think, or how many times? 00:09:52.740 --> 00:09:57.540 >> I think maybe three meetings, or two meetings, or I'd miss no more than that. 00:09:57.540 --> 00:10:00.180 >> No more than that is an excuse. 00:10:00.180 --> 00:10:01.180 >> For vacation. 00:10:01.180 --> 00:10:02.180 >> For vacation. 00:10:02.180 --> 00:10:09.300 >> And I was going to ask on the same lines, because, again, in the other organizations, 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. 00:10:15.220 --> 00:10:17.220 Is that applicable here? 00:10:17.220 --> 00:10:20.900 >> Again, that is your rule. 00:10:20.900 --> 00:10:23.900 >> Oh, that's our rule. 00:10:23.900 --> 00:10:24.900 Okay. 00:10:24.900 --> 00:10:25.900 Well, okay. 00:10:25.900 --> 00:10:29.340 So, absences for vacations and surrounding circumstances, I don't -- with that agenda, 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 00:10:35.940 --> 00:10:44.620 missing, like, consecutive meetings, can we vote on that under that agenda item or not? 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, 00:10:56.580 --> 00:11:00.220 you could put the circumstances surrounding that vacation like it's something planned, 00:11:00.220 --> 00:11:03.500 or it's no more than two in a row, something like that. 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 00:11:11.820 --> 00:11:15.860 alternative methods of deciding what is and is -- would not be appropriate, generally 00:11:15.860 --> 00:11:20.340 under attendance, because those would typically be handled by the boards and commission handbook. 00:11:20.340 --> 00:11:21.340 >> Okay. 00:11:21.340 --> 00:11:22.340 All right. 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 00:11:28.460 --> 00:11:29.460 days. 00:11:29.460 --> 00:11:35.500 Do we want to make any rules about consecutive meetings missed for vacation days? 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 00:11:40.380 --> 00:11:44.460 like that, that probably should be -- or else, take a look at it. 00:11:44.460 --> 00:11:50.140 >> And as Trey just mentioned, there -- the boards and commissions have rules as far as 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. 00:11:56.220 --> 00:11:58.540 More than -- okay, more than three, you can be removed. 00:11:58.540 --> 00:11:59.540 So that's already in place. 00:11:59.540 --> 00:12:00.540 >> Okay. 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 00:12:06.060 --> 00:12:10.620 and commission rules is that people can have excused absences for vacations. 00:12:10.620 --> 00:12:16.620 And it says, "An excused absence shall include personal or family illness, death of a family 00:12:16.620 --> 00:12:20.460 member, jury duty, service in the armed forces, testifying before legislature, attending a 00:12:20.460 --> 00:12:24.620 seminar involving municipal matters of importance to the member's duties, absence necessaries 00:12:24.620 --> 00:12:28.380 for the member's business or employment, any related emergencies or matters which the board, 00:12:28.380 --> 00:12:31.380 commission or committee finds qualify as an excused absence." 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. 00:12:36.660 --> 00:12:39.940 So we have a little bit of discretion there as far as vacations. 00:12:39.940 --> 00:12:47.740 >> Just as a point of clarification, the alternates don't have to worry about absences? 00:12:47.740 --> 00:12:48.740 >> I think -- 00:12:48.740 --> 00:12:49.740 >> Well -- 00:12:49.740 --> 00:12:50.740 >> If -- 00:12:50.740 --> 00:12:51.740 >> I can answer that. 00:12:51.740 --> 00:12:52.740 >> Yes, please. 00:12:52.740 --> 00:13:01.100 >> Alternates are required to attend in case the regular members are absent. 00:13:01.100 --> 00:13:02.100 So -- 00:13:02.100 --> 00:13:03.100 >> But they don't -- 00:13:03.100 --> 00:13:07.340 >> They don't have a mandate to attend every meeting. 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 00:13:14.220 --> 00:13:22.740 a meeting, then alternates may -- attendance is not even required. 00:13:22.740 --> 00:13:36.120 So it doesn't count against them. 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 00:13:42.220 --> 00:13:43.220 these rules are? 00:13:43.220 --> 00:13:44.220 Or is it for your -- 00:13:44.220 --> 00:14:00.740 >> I think that this is -- it doesn't say any time limit. 00:14:00.740 --> 00:14:06.300 >> Less than a minute to say that. 00:14:06.300 --> 00:14:11.700 >> Yeah, under our rule of procedure is that it's a calendar year. 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 00:14:17.300 --> 00:14:21.420 of the meetings within a regular -- within a year. 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 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 00:14:32.020 --> 00:14:36.420 short-call complaint meeting, or is it? 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. 00:14:41.020 --> 00:14:46.300 So I think those would be special-call meetings, which would provide an exception. 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 00:14:52.780 --> 00:14:55.580 per calendar year for board members. 00:14:55.580 --> 00:14:57.860 >> I so move. 00:14:57.860 --> 00:14:58.860 >> Okay. 00:14:58.860 --> 00:14:59.860 Larry has moved. 00:14:59.860 --> 00:15:00.860 Is there a second? 00:15:00.860 --> 00:15:01.860 >> I second. 00:15:01.860 --> 00:15:02.860 >> Second by Sharla. 00:15:02.860 --> 00:15:03.860 Everyone in favor say aye. 00:15:03.860 --> 00:15:04.860 >> Aye. 00:15:04.860 --> 00:15:05.860 >> All right. 00:15:05.860 --> 00:15:06.860 Motion passes. 00:15:06.860 --> 00:15:11.220 And we'll have two excused absences for vacations per year. 00:15:11.220 --> 00:15:12.220 Agenda item E -- 00:15:12.220 --> 00:15:13.220 >> I do have a question. 00:15:13.220 --> 00:15:14.220 >> Oh, yes. 00:15:14.220 --> 00:15:15.220 >> Is that right? 00:15:15.220 --> 00:15:16.220 Go ahead. 00:15:16.220 --> 00:15:22.340 >> Are we going to -- can we -- can we make it right for that? 00:15:22.340 --> 00:15:25.340 >> I don't think so. 00:15:25.340 --> 00:15:26.340 >> I'm sorry. 00:15:26.340 --> 00:15:30.340 I guess you can take more vacations from here on out and be okay. 00:15:30.340 --> 00:15:31.340 All right. 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 00:15:39.500 --> 00:15:43.820 city council work session presentation outlining the board of ethics recommended changes to 00:15:43.820 --> 00:15:46.100 the ethics boards and rules of procedure. 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 00:15:52.380 --> 00:15:56.740 agenda item. 00:15:56.740 --> 00:16:04.420 I presented -- I made two presentations to the city council. 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 00:16:12.940 --> 00:16:17.260 and procedure for the board. 00:16:17.260 --> 00:16:23.940 So during the meeting, mayor stated that all the recommendations will be considered and 00:16:23.940 --> 00:16:30.700 discussed in work session, but the ordinance will not be changed on a piecemeal basis. 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 00:16:39.420 --> 00:16:46.300 all the changes when you are done. 00:16:46.300 --> 00:16:51.860 The revision to the ordinance will be comprehensive. 00:16:51.860 --> 00:16:56.420 That's why they want to do that. 00:16:56.420 --> 00:17:04.020 Councilmember Meltzer and the mayor also stated that city council can make recommendations 00:17:04.020 --> 00:17:11.460 as well to change the ethics ordinance. 00:17:11.460 --> 00:17:16.700 Mayor stated that, I mean, the ethics board should not be concerned about whether they 00:17:16.700 --> 00:17:24.000 are going to accept or reject any of your recommendations. 00:17:24.000 --> 00:17:34.740 The board should go ahead and make recommendations of whatever they deem fit. 00:17:34.740 --> 00:17:35.740 I have a question. 00:17:35.740 --> 00:17:36.740 Sure. 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 00:17:40.940 --> 00:17:41.940 they come. 00:17:41.940 --> 00:17:42.940 So I guess that has changed. 00:17:42.940 --> 00:17:43.940 That has changed. 00:17:43.940 --> 00:17:44.940 Okay. 00:17:44.940 --> 00:17:55.460 Well, you can bring the recommendations, but they are not going to change the ordinance 00:17:55.460 --> 00:18:00.260 until it is comprehensive and then you are done. 00:18:00.260 --> 00:18:07.380 Did they, I mean, did they give any definition of what they consider the comprehensive and 00:18:07.380 --> 00:18:10.820 how many changes they want to get there? 00:18:10.820 --> 00:18:11.820 No, they did not. 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 00:18:22.200 --> 00:18:30.820 take it to them and they will consider all the changes at one time. 00:18:30.820 --> 00:18:44.300 Okay, so regarding whether we should use outside council or whether the city attorney is going 00:18:44.300 --> 00:18:56.380 to provide us some assistance, and I had a couple of questions. 00:18:56.380 --> 00:19:02.860 Miss Armenter requested that, she wanted to know how much we are spending on external 00:19:02.860 --> 00:19:15.140 council, and she also asked what other cities do in similar circumstances, and the city 00:19:15.140 --> 00:19:23.660 attorney answered that the other cities also hire outside council when the city attorney 00:19:23.660 --> 00:19:26.460 has a conflict. 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 00:19:37.300 --> 00:19:45.700 not have conflict, and the city attorney also agreed with that, so that's fine. 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 00:19:50.060 --> 00:19:54.420 to get a push back to using outside attorneys? 00:19:54.420 --> 00:19:55.420 No. 00:19:55.420 --> 00:19:56.420 Okay. 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 00:20:09.860 --> 00:20:15.140 it doesn't conflict with the city attorney's duties. 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 00:20:24.260 --> 00:20:32.380 has been for a code violation, that the city attorney should sit down, because he sits 00:20:32.380 --> 00:20:33.380 on that council. 00:20:33.380 --> 00:20:34.380 Exactly. 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 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, 00:20:41.420 --> 00:20:43.700 the city council is going to conflict themselves out. 00:20:43.700 --> 00:20:45.300 That's exactly what it is. 00:20:45.300 --> 00:20:52.980 So during my presentation, I said that whenever the complaint is made by the city council 00:20:52.980 --> 00:20:58.580 member, or the complaint is made against the city council member, the city attorney definitely 00:20:58.580 --> 00:21:06.860 has a conflict, and he cannot rule on those issues. 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? 00:21:17.300 --> 00:21:20.340 Usually, maybe two or three days. 00:21:20.340 --> 00:21:21.340 Okay. 00:21:21.340 --> 00:21:24.340 Thank you. 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, 00:21:37.500 --> 00:21:45.060 or could we have a panel of, say, three that we can select one or another? 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. 00:21:53.500 --> 00:21:56.620 There is no rule that we have to use that from. 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 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? 00:22:06.540 --> 00:22:07.540 Yes. 00:22:07.540 --> 00:22:08.540 Prouty, Mr. Prouty. 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 00:22:15.340 --> 00:22:16.340 from Berkowitz. 00:22:16.340 --> 00:22:17.780 Yeah, I remember that. 00:22:17.780 --> 00:22:18.780 Okay. 00:22:18.780 --> 00:22:19.780 Okay. 00:22:19.780 --> 00:22:29.260 On the issue of whether replacing the word accused with a respondent, there was general 00:22:29.260 --> 00:22:31.260 agreement with the council. 00:22:31.260 --> 00:22:37.180 There was no comment, no objections. 00:22:37.180 --> 00:22:47.060 Same thing with the issue of availability of copy of complaint to the respondent, because 00:22:47.060 --> 00:22:54.980 what happens, we have, as we have, this board has experienced, the complainant, I mean, 00:22:54.980 --> 00:23:00.300 the complainant and everybody else, I mean, complainant knows about what the complaint 00:23:00.300 --> 00:23:01.540 is. 00:23:01.540 --> 00:23:05.500 The board knows about what the complaint is, but the respondent doesn't. 00:23:05.500 --> 00:23:12.200 And by the time the complaint is heard, there is enough publicity, so that puts respondent 00:23:12.200 --> 00:23:14.700 at a really bad situation. 00:23:14.700 --> 00:23:19.940 So they agree that that needs to happen. 00:23:19.940 --> 00:23:25.220 I mean, the complaint should be available to the respondent. 00:23:25.220 --> 00:23:34.260 There was a lot of discussion on whistleblower's protection, and the whistleblower's protection 00:23:34.260 --> 00:23:44.940 discussion revolved around that two things, that they wanted more, I mean, they wanted 00:23:44.940 --> 00:23:53.220 that provision expanded a little bit, and because Mr. Hutzpah, council member Hutzpah 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 00:24:02.300 --> 00:24:07.060 if you violate, I mean, it's not defined in the ordinance. 00:24:07.060 --> 00:24:13.020 And I agree that it was not defined. 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 00:24:22.380 --> 00:24:30.340 the presentation about the possible consequences. 00:24:30.340 --> 00:24:33.900 So they get okay with that. 00:24:33.900 --> 00:24:37.020 So they want us to bring it back. 00:24:37.020 --> 00:24:38.020 Sorry. 00:24:38.020 --> 00:24:47.740 The whistleblower, are the sanctions not the same as any violation under the ordinance? 00:24:47.740 --> 00:24:49.500 That's up to you to say that. 00:24:49.500 --> 00:24:50.500 Okay, and it's not in there? 00:24:50.500 --> 00:24:51.500 It's not in there. 00:24:51.500 --> 00:24:52.500 Okay. 00:24:52.500 --> 00:25:00.260 Is there a clear definition in the ordinance of what the whistleblower is, going to councilman 00:25:00.260 --> 00:25:01.260 Hutz was concerned? 00:25:01.260 --> 00:25:05.220 Was that what he was trying to get as a definition of whistleblower? 00:25:05.220 --> 00:25:06.220 So there's not. 00:25:06.220 --> 00:25:10.180 That was actually, that's something that we worked on as the board previously. 00:25:10.180 --> 00:25:15.520 And so we sent that, we want whistleblower, excuse me, in there. 00:25:15.520 --> 00:25:23.300 There are like, government codes about whistleblowers, as far as like, the department heads employees. 00:25:23.300 --> 00:25:29.220 But the whistleblower that we were talking about is, for instance, if a citizen accused 00:25:29.220 --> 00:25:35.660 a council member, this council member kind of retaliating against like that citizen, 00:25:35.660 --> 00:25:39.620 it was broader than just employee, employer, whistleblower protection. 00:25:39.620 --> 00:25:41.580 Am I describing that correctly? 00:25:41.580 --> 00:25:42.700 It's beyond that. 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 00:25:55.180 --> 00:26:03.380 felt like that the existing language that we proposed was broad, too broad. 00:26:03.380 --> 00:26:09.980 But again, I mean, it's just an opportunity to revisit that. 00:26:09.980 --> 00:26:18.860 And the mayor also felt that without the recommendation of what the consequences are, this provision 00:26:18.860 --> 00:26:25.540 is not complete. 00:26:25.540 --> 00:26:37.700 As far as providing reference to Texas government code for third degree of affinity and consensuality, 00:26:37.700 --> 00:26:41.940 there was no objection. 00:26:41.940 --> 00:26:48.820 I'm going to say that word one more time. 00:26:48.820 --> 00:26:57.060 They also agreed with removing section 2-284(b) as it relates to department supervisors. 00:26:57.060 --> 00:27:00.100 That was the nepotism? 00:27:00.100 --> 00:27:02.700 Yeah, nepotism, yeah. 00:27:02.700 --> 00:27:13.140 But that clearly did not belong in the ordinance. 00:27:13.140 --> 00:27:24.380 Council member Arbender, Melzer and Melzer would like items on candidates for the public 00:27:24.380 --> 00:27:32.860 office serving on the board be reconsidered. 00:27:32.860 --> 00:27:44.580 Similarly, Ms. Arbender and Melzer expressed concern that right-of-way contractors were 00:27:44.580 --> 00:27:48.100 excluded from the definition of vendor. 00:27:48.100 --> 00:27:49.700 That what contractor? 00:27:49.700 --> 00:27:50.700 Yeah. 00:27:50.700 --> 00:27:52.940 What kind of contractor? 00:27:52.940 --> 00:27:53.940 Right-of-way contractor. 00:27:53.940 --> 00:27:54.940 Right-of-way. 00:27:54.940 --> 00:28:11.080 And Council member Arbender and Melzer would like to remove universities from the definition 00:28:11.080 --> 00:28:13.340 of business entity. 00:28:13.340 --> 00:28:20.060 The mayor disagreed with this suggestion. 00:28:20.060 --> 00:28:22.140 Would you like to say why he said that? 00:28:22.140 --> 00:28:23.140 I'm sorry? 00:28:23.140 --> 00:28:27.580 Would you mind saying why he disagreed? 00:28:27.580 --> 00:28:29.260 Yes. 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 00:28:39.420 --> 00:28:46.740 business with the universities and therefore removing university from business entity definition 00:28:46.740 --> 00:28:47.740 would not be appropriate. 00:28:47.740 --> 00:29:04.780 Okay, so that's it on ordinance and what about the procedure? 00:29:04.780 --> 00:29:21.180 Okay, so on the rules and procedures basically there was no objection. 00:29:21.180 --> 00:29:28.860 They accepted all the changes that we recommended. 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 00:29:34.060 --> 00:29:39.700 because some of those procedure changes depended on the ordinance changes being accepted or 00:29:39.700 --> 00:29:42.700 being voted on. 00:29:42.700 --> 00:29:43.700 Right. 00:29:43.700 --> 00:29:58.180 Only thing that is going to be dependent on the accused versus responded but other changes 00:29:58.180 --> 00:30:08.940 for example moving out amendments and alternate members subsections out of sections related 00:30:08.940 --> 00:30:09.940 to hearing. 00:30:09.940 --> 00:30:12.940 It's just reorganization. 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 00:30:17.940 --> 00:30:19.940 rules and procedure? 00:30:19.940 --> 00:30:28.380 They did not say that. 00:30:28.380 --> 00:30:36.100 Other changes we suggest, I mean the board suggested is fixed pagination or at sites 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 00:30:45.740 --> 00:30:48.300 of legal representation. 00:30:48.300 --> 00:30:55.460 Because the body of the rules and procedure only address representation. 00:30:55.460 --> 00:31:02.300 So those are the other changes but there was no objection. 00:31:02.300 --> 00:31:08.300 All right, yes your honor. 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. 00:31:21.820 --> 00:31:39.140 The ordinance changes are not in the ordinance changes but in the ordinance changes. 00:31:39.140 --> 00:31:52.700 They cannot serve on this board but does the handbook for boards and commissions over all 00:31:52.700 --> 00:31:56.020 speak to that particular point? 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 00:32:06.860 --> 00:32:14.780 for an office and serve on the board at the same time? 00:32:14.780 --> 00:32:19.660 The only restriction that I'm aware of is the two offices of annulment restriction that 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 00:32:26.540 --> 00:32:30.820 their service now they would have to resign for that position to run for another position 00:32:30.820 --> 00:32:31.980 that they would be paid for. 00:32:31.980 --> 00:32:33.340 That's the only restriction I know of. 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 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 00:32:45.140 --> 00:32:47.660 member of one of the other boards. 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 00:32:53.180 --> 00:32:54.180 need to be consistent. 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. 00:33:02.740 --> 00:33:08.140 When I presented to council several months ago there was, I don't remember how many, 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 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 00:33:18.700 --> 00:33:25.260 shouldn't have a special rule for that so I'm in agreement with you. 00:33:25.260 --> 00:33:33.560 It is still this board's discretion whether to consider or not consider that item. 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 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 00:33:49.020 --> 00:33:54.740 but as far as questions about or discussion about the presentation do we have anything 00:33:54.740 --> 00:33:58.420 else we want to talk about? 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 00:34:04.820 --> 00:34:08.340 I appreciate your help. 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 00:34:18.060 --> 00:34:22.620 necessary action confirming potential recommendations to the city council for amendments ethics 00:34:22.620 --> 00:34:30.220 ordinance 18757 pursuant to Denton ethics ordinance division 3 section 2-277i including 00:34:30.220 --> 00:34:36.020 presentation of possible changes by Deborah Cosmo and I have gone over all these materials 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 00:34:43.180 --> 00:34:56.460 whether Alan Berkowitz referred to the charter when the ordinance was written if you don't 00:34:56.460 --> 00:34:57.460 mind. 00:34:57.460 --> 00:35:04.300 Madam Chair just to your I guess commoner question when the ethics ordinance was crafted 00:35:04.300 --> 00:35:10.300 the city brought in Alan Borquez as the outside legal counsel and consultant and crafting 00:35:10.300 --> 00:35:14.940 the ethics ordinance as it related to the charter amendment so there were specific things 00:35:14.940 --> 00:35:20.260 that were taken up by him as he worked with council through crafting the ordinance that 00:35:20.260 --> 00:35:23.700 were specifically tied to the charter amendment is that what you're asking? 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 00:35:28.900 --> 00:35:32.540 the charter to put it in the ordinance is that the understanding? 00:35:32.540 --> 00:35:36.900 Right right there were even specifically some things that they were taken up that he went 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 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 00:35:44.580 --> 00:35:46.860 it and you have to put it in there to some extent. 00:35:46.860 --> 00:35:53.300 And there was a consultant during the citizen charter committee was that was there a different 00:35:53.300 --> 00:36:12.620 consultant during the city charter committee and then Alan came in later? 00:36:12.620 --> 00:36:13.620 I think that's all I need. 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 00:36:17.940 --> 00:36:18.940 ordinance. 00:36:18.940 --> 00:36:19.940 Okay. 00:36:19.940 --> 00:36:20.940 Thank you. 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 00:36:36.300 --> 00:36:48.140 what the title is but it's information about the charter review committee and their recommendations. 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 00:36:59.100 --> 00:37:09.740 and so I did this comparison between the charter and the ethics ordinance as an analyst. 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 00:37:18.220 --> 00:37:23.260 review the charter recommendations as it examines the current ordinance and I guess I should 00:37:23.260 --> 00:37:30.340 start with my name Deborah Cosimo I'm an alternate on the board of ethics. 00:37:30.340 --> 00:37:37.260 So after some discussion with Umesh I decided I would review the charter and compare the 00:37:37.260 --> 00:37:44.100 requirements, the "shows" quote unquote, to the current ordinance and so this is my 00:37:44.100 --> 00:37:51.020 research and so in this presentation I will provide a brief overview of the ethics ordinance 00:37:51.020 --> 00:37:56.620 requirements which has just gone around section 1404 of the charter. 00:37:56.620 --> 00:38:02.580 I will present the findings, I will present recommendations and then I'll discuss the 00:38:02.580 --> 00:38:08.660 background and the background analysis and the observations that I made, questions that 00:38:08.660 --> 00:38:12.700 led to my findings and recommendation. 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 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. 00:38:21.260 --> 00:38:24.700 Shall prohibits the use of public office for private gain. 00:38:24.700 --> 00:38:29.660 Shall incorporate the conflict of interest standards that appear in local government 00:38:29.660 --> 00:38:36.420 code chapter 171 and the council may have dropped more stringent standards than those 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. 00:38:42.860 --> 00:38:47.260 Definition of a prohibited improper economic interest and personal gain. 00:38:47.260 --> 00:38:52.780 Definition of recusal and improper participation when there is a potential conflict of interest. 00:38:52.780 --> 00:38:56.380 Avoidance of appearance of conflict of interest and administration and enforcement of the 00:38:56.380 --> 00:38:57.380 ethics ordinance. 00:38:57.380 --> 00:39:04.300 I'm going to talk about each one of them, it presented a nice checklist. 00:39:04.300 --> 00:39:08.820 So my finding was that unless the charter requirements are included in the ordinance 00:39:08.820 --> 00:39:14.500 but couched in completely different terms, the ordinance does not include all the requirements. 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 00:39:22.020 --> 00:39:23.700 ordinance with the charter. 00:39:23.700 --> 00:39:28.740 But barring that, before moving forward to amend the ordinance I think it would be helpful 00:39:28.740 --> 00:39:35.340 to have an outside legal council, maybe not Mr. Berkowitz, review both the charter and 00:39:35.340 --> 00:39:39.820 the ordinance to ensure that first that the current ordinance meets all the requirements 00:39:39.820 --> 00:39:44.220 that are in the charter and second to cross reference the ordinance to the charter. 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 00:39:48.380 --> 00:39:53.500 very clear, common understanding so that citizens can look at this ordinance and understand 00:39:53.500 --> 00:39:54.860 what's going on. 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. 00:40:02.420 --> 00:40:07.260 So the first checkbox was to prohibit the use of public office for private gain. 00:40:07.260 --> 00:40:10.780 There is no prohibition statement that appears in the ordinance. 00:40:10.780 --> 00:40:15.660 However in the expectations, officials shall place the municipality's interest in the concerns 00:40:15.660 --> 00:40:19.460 of those the city serves about private and personal interests. 00:40:19.460 --> 00:40:25.620 However in the expectations these cannot be the basis for a complaint. 00:40:25.620 --> 00:40:32.700 So it's an aspiration, it is not necessarily a requirement. 00:40:32.700 --> 00:40:37.580 The only reference to personal private gain as the basis of the complaint applies to former 00:40:37.580 --> 00:40:43.520 city officials in section 2-273, misuse of information and personal gain. 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 00:40:47.540 --> 00:40:55.220 2-273 prohibitions, it has the conflict of interest and it has what defines conflict 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 00:41:02.940 --> 00:41:03.940 been over that. 00:41:03.940 --> 00:41:10.220 And it has gifts, an improper influence, misuse of information, abuse of resources, I mean 00:41:10.220 --> 00:41:11.220 it goes on and on. 00:41:11.220 --> 00:41:15.980 I feel like 2-273 is prohibition for private gain. 00:41:15.980 --> 00:41:20.540 But it only applies to former city officials. 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 00:41:26.420 --> 00:41:28.980 we've had is about conflict of interest. 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 00:41:35.460 --> 00:41:42.180 something where you own part of the business entity or you receive $600 more gross income 00:41:42.180 --> 00:41:47.400 from a business entity, that is a prohibition from being able to vote and then privately 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. 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, 00:42:01.180 --> 00:42:06.100 the whole thing is prohibitions for public office for public gain. 00:42:06.100 --> 00:42:13.220 Yes, when we're looking at the, I'll get there, okay. 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? 00:42:18.220 --> 00:42:22.260 I think it's implicit as you're indicating. 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? 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 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 00:42:40.660 --> 00:42:47.180 you work for or you get gifts from or improper influence, misuse of information, everything 00:42:47.180 --> 00:42:50.500 that's listed in the four pages of prohibitions. 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 00:42:57.460 --> 00:43:00.620 an attorney, an attorney, looking at this, this is what I see. 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 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 00:43:10.900 --> 00:43:12.540 be more explicit? 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 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 00:43:26.140 --> 00:43:27.140 very, very helpful. 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 00:43:31.340 --> 00:43:32.740 not seeing it. 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 00:43:37.340 --> 00:43:38.340 be clear. 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 00:43:46.060 --> 00:43:50.460 of what, five pages of what counsel people can't do. 00:43:50.460 --> 00:43:56.780 So I mean, I think it is clear that it's a prohibition for private gain. 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 00:44:03.300 --> 00:44:04.300 to others. 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. 00:44:11.220 --> 00:44:12.220 What would you recommend? 00:44:12.220 --> 00:44:16.060 Using the same language would be very, very useful. 00:44:16.060 --> 00:44:21.220 If the language is in, and I disagree that it's just semantics. 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 00:44:25.600 --> 00:44:28.500 clear in the ordinance, this is how we do it. 00:44:28.500 --> 00:44:32.180 And using the same language, that would be very, very helpful. 00:44:32.180 --> 00:44:35.800 Because when I look at it, it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing. 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 00:44:40.820 --> 00:44:44.380 ordinance to see, is it talked about anywhere else? 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 00:44:48.260 --> 00:44:50.860 I'm just missing it? 00:44:50.860 --> 00:44:58.140 And I didn't find it. 00:44:58.140 --> 00:45:00.180 To the next check box. 00:45:00.180 --> 00:45:04.580 Incorporate the conflict of interest standards that appear in local government chapter 171. 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 00:45:12.340 --> 00:45:14.980 just wanted to give you the information. 00:45:14.980 --> 00:45:15.980 My observations. 00:45:15.980 --> 00:45:20.780 So chapter 171 uses the term matter and describes when an official shall abstain from voting 00:45:20.780 --> 00:45:21.780 in a matter. 00:45:21.780 --> 00:45:26.260 For example, if a local public official has a substantial interest in a business entity 00:45:26.260 --> 00:45:31.780 or a real property, the official shall abstain from further participation in the matter if, 00:45:31.780 --> 00:45:35.780 first, the action on the matter will have a special economic effect on the business 00:45:35.780 --> 00:45:41.180 entity that's distinguishable from the effect on the public, or secondly, it's reasonably 00:45:41.180 --> 00:45:46.620 foreseeable that an action on the matter will have a special economic effect on the value 00:45:46.620 --> 00:45:49.900 of the property distinguishable from its effect on the public. 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 00:45:55.020 --> 00:45:57.220 I present it to council, they want it stricter. 00:45:57.220 --> 00:45:58.540 They want it stricter. 00:45:58.540 --> 00:46:00.180 We put our conflict into stricter. 00:46:00.180 --> 00:46:09.500 For instance, in the last hearing we had with council members Arbitor and Meltzer, their 00:46:09.500 --> 00:46:15.380 whole argument was that they didn't have a conflict, but because we want it stricter 00:46:15.380 --> 00:46:21.420 than 171, they did under our code, because our code goes further than chapter 171. 00:46:21.420 --> 00:46:30.660 Our code does if conflicting interest is the same as substantial interest, but as I looked 00:46:30.660 --> 00:46:34.660 at it, I think pending matter actually restricts it even more. 00:46:34.660 --> 00:46:41.100 By being restrictive and more narrow, it's not necessarily stronger. 00:46:41.100 --> 00:46:45.500 So the ordinance uses pending matter, which is defined as an application seeking approval 00:46:45.500 --> 00:46:53.220 of a permit, contract or arrangement of the city, or a case involving the city. 00:46:53.220 --> 00:46:58.740 Prohibited, it should also include a definition of prohibited, improper economic interest 00:46:58.740 --> 00:47:05.540 in personal gain, and prohibited, improper interest is not defined in the ordinance. 00:47:05.540 --> 00:47:08.020 Economic interest is not defined in the ordinance. 00:47:08.020 --> 00:47:14.260 Well, and I think what's prohibited is going against, for instance, conflict of interest. 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 00:47:23.280 --> 00:47:28.140 just lists these things versus our prohibitions are four pages long, and we go into detail 00:47:28.140 --> 00:47:37.580 on what is conflict of interest, when are you prohibited from voting when you have a 00:47:37.580 --> 00:47:38.580 vote. 00:47:38.580 --> 00:47:45.780 So total board, and this is division three rules and procedures, this was incorrect in 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. 00:47:54.020 --> 00:47:58.100 The member shall be considered to have a personal interest in a matter. 00:47:58.100 --> 00:48:02.900 Whenever a matter before the board could or does affect a member's financial interest. 00:48:02.900 --> 00:48:06.780 The phrase financial interest when used here and shall have the same meaning as substantial 00:48:06.780 --> 00:48:21.620 interest in a business entity, as that phrase is defined in code 171.002. 00:48:21.620 --> 00:48:31.980 So within that check box, include a definition of recusal, etc. 00:48:31.980 --> 00:48:37.900 According to section 2-273A1, recusal is required when an official has a conflicting matter 00:48:37.900 --> 00:48:43.180 and conflicting interest in a pending matter. 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 00:48:50.880 --> 00:48:55.900 information except on matters involving the consideration of his or her own official business 00:48:55.900 --> 00:49:02.620 or where his or her personal interests are involved with Chapter 171, and in these instances 00:49:02.620 --> 00:49:04.740 he or she shall abstain. 00:49:04.740 --> 00:49:11.640 It says 2-273 is the ordinance, what's 2-29? 00:49:11.640 --> 00:49:16.480 That's also an ordinance, but that's administration and conduct. 00:49:16.480 --> 00:49:19.180 A separate city ordinance, not the ethics. 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 00:49:25.700 --> 00:49:30.880 pending matters as it applies to our code of ethics. 00:49:30.880 --> 00:49:37.340 I think that really puts city council members in a difficult position, and this is why. 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 00:49:48.740 --> 00:49:52.940 12, 2018. 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 00:49:58.260 --> 00:49:59.260 to- 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, 00:50:08.020 --> 00:50:11.600 it's saying pending matter, you can't have a conflicting interest on a pending matter 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. 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 00:50:23.780 --> 00:50:24.780 separate things. 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 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 00:50:38.100 --> 00:50:41.900 conflict under the text code 171. 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 00:50:47.580 --> 00:50:48.580 separate things. 00:50:48.580 --> 00:50:54.940 Yes, it is, but technically, it really isn't. 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 00:51:02.140 --> 00:51:06.300 for the advisory opinion was, "Was it considered a pending matter?" 00:51:06.300 --> 00:51:12.940 So question, considered a pending matter, the board of ethics response was that the 00:51:12.940 --> 00:51:18.380 SAP is not an application contract proposal or legal case, and the panel finds that the 00:51:18.380 --> 00:51:21.140 SAP is not a pending matter. 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 00:51:28.420 --> 00:51:33.020 official owns a substantial interest in real property or business within the proposed boundaries 00:51:33.020 --> 00:51:34.820 of the SAP? 00:51:34.820 --> 00:51:41.820 And the board of ethics response was substantial interest is not used in the ethics ordinance. 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 00:51:47.860 --> 00:51:53.940 matter, the city official is not required to file an affidavit of conflict before deliberating 00:51:53.940 --> 00:51:56.140 or voting on the SAP. 00:51:56.140 --> 00:51:57.620 And then the third question could be... 00:51:57.620 --> 00:51:58.620 I think Don... 00:51:58.620 --> 00:51:59.620 That's fine. 00:51:59.620 --> 00:52:00.620 Can I please... 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 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 00:52:12.820 --> 00:52:13.820 the council. 00:52:13.820 --> 00:52:18.100 I'm not questioning...I'm using it as an example. 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. 00:52:22.740 --> 00:52:26.140 Can you hold and let me go on, please? 00:52:26.140 --> 00:52:27.140 I'm sorry. 00:52:27.140 --> 00:52:28.140 No, I'm glad you're doing this, please. 00:52:28.140 --> 00:52:31.540 Let me get to the end of this section, okay? 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 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 00:52:44.460 --> 00:52:45.460 real property? 00:52:45.460 --> 00:52:49.460 And the board of ethics response was the same. 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 00:52:55.180 --> 00:52:57.060 its wisdom. 00:52:57.060 --> 00:53:00.860 This opinion pertains only to the relevant sections of the city of Denton ethics ordinance, 00:53:00.860 --> 00:53:05.500 it is not intended as legal advice, and does not involve any party obligations that may 00:53:05.500 --> 00:53:10.300 exist under applicable law, which is chapter 171 and others. 00:53:10.300 --> 00:53:14.700 So all parties are encouraged to consult competent legal counsel concerning their obligations 00:53:14.700 --> 00:53:15.700 under the law. 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 00:53:21.100 --> 00:53:22.100 were on the panel. 00:53:22.100 --> 00:53:23.100 You can get a second opinion. 00:53:23.100 --> 00:53:28.940 Yeah, and we are not the lawyers for the people that ask for the opinion. 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 00:53:32.460 --> 00:53:35.460 make clear that we were not their attorneys under 171. 00:53:35.460 --> 00:53:37.900 This was just before the Denton code of ethics. 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 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 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 00:53:54.340 --> 00:53:59.340 positions as attorneys to be giving legal advice to someone who is not our attorney. 00:53:59.340 --> 00:54:00.340 Am I right about that? 00:54:00.340 --> 00:54:01.340 That's why we put that. 00:54:01.340 --> 00:54:05.980 That's exactly my point, because it put the Board of Ethics, because of the discrepancy 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 00:54:09.460 --> 00:54:11.140 to their determination. 00:54:11.140 --> 00:54:12.580 And it also put City Council. 00:54:12.580 --> 00:54:13.580 Which ones do they follow? 00:54:13.580 --> 00:54:15.580 Well, they have to follow both. 00:54:15.580 --> 00:54:16.580 Yes. 00:54:16.580 --> 00:54:17.580 Yes. 00:54:17.580 --> 00:54:18.580 So let's be clear. 00:54:18.580 --> 00:54:23.580 So we are talking about the different… 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 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 00:54:35.300 --> 00:54:39.820 excuse, but it gives them a viable reason to say, well, the advisory committee said, 00:54:39.820 --> 00:54:43.460 yes, you can do it, you know, the advisory opinion. 00:54:43.460 --> 00:54:45.460 They can use that as a defense. 00:54:45.460 --> 00:54:46.460 Right. 00:54:46.460 --> 00:54:47.460 Right. 00:54:47.460 --> 00:55:02.620 So I think it should be clear. 00:55:02.620 --> 00:55:06.980 Avoidance of appearance of conflict is the next checkbox, and the ordinance does not 00:55:06.980 --> 00:55:11.060 specifically state that officials shall avoid the avoidance of appearance of conflict of 00:55:11.060 --> 00:55:12.060 interest. 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 00:55:16.060 --> 00:55:17.060 of conflict of interest. 00:55:17.060 --> 00:55:25.820 But going back to our last hearings on Councilmember Metzler and Councilmember Armator, the fact 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 00:55:30.340 --> 00:55:35.140 does cover appearance, and there it was an appearance because they worked for the business 00:55:35.140 --> 00:55:36.940 entity that was being voted on. 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 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. 00:55:52.140 --> 00:55:53.140 It's not clear. 00:55:53.140 --> 00:55:54.140 And it can't. 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 00:55:55.140 --> 00:55:56.140 complaint. 00:55:56.140 --> 00:55:57.140 So the last one is administration and enforcement. 00:55:57.140 --> 00:56:20.140 So according to Section 2-277, scope of authority, the issuance and enforcement of the ordinance 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 00:56:33.660 --> 00:56:39.420 procedure and enforcement shall be through any of the sanction options listed therein. 00:56:39.420 --> 00:56:47.540 I could not find anything that talked about sanction options for someone who violates 00:56:47.540 --> 00:56:48.540 a subpoena. 00:56:48.540 --> 00:56:55.060 The issue in that is we have no enforcement power, and Alan Borkiewicz talked about this 00:56:55.060 --> 00:56:57.740 and we talked about this in a previous meeting. 00:56:57.740 --> 00:57:00.580 Me in a criminal case, I filed a subpoena for a hearing Monday. 00:57:00.580 --> 00:57:04.860 If that witness doesn't show up, I send a cop to go arrest that witness. 00:57:04.860 --> 00:57:06.940 We were given the power to subpoena. 00:57:06.940 --> 00:57:09.060 We have no enforcement under the law. 00:57:09.060 --> 00:57:11.180 We are not able to enforce a subpoena. 00:57:11.180 --> 00:57:14.860 So I think that that is why we have talked about this before at previous meetings. 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 00:57:19.900 --> 00:57:23.980 committees the power to subpoena through law enforcement or something along those lines. 00:57:23.980 --> 00:57:25.980 So that's the problem we have. 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. 00:57:32.180 --> 00:57:36.660 So why do we have sanction options even listed in the Code? 00:57:36.660 --> 00:57:42.740 I believe, and I spoke with Trey about this before the meeting, Alan Borkiewicz, when 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." 00:57:47.100 --> 00:57:50.740 The charter says subpoena power, I have to put subpoena power in the ordinance. 00:57:50.740 --> 00:57:56.820 Unfortunately, there's nothing you can really do as a citizen committee if they violate 00:57:56.820 --> 00:57:57.820 a subpoena. 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 00:58:02.260 --> 00:58:03.260 guess the way it is. 00:58:03.260 --> 00:58:07.380 Well, it does say in the procedure manual that it could be considered. 00:58:07.380 --> 00:58:13.020 I believe to respond to a subpoena could be considered a determination. 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 00:58:17.380 --> 00:58:21.980 we really have is that they didn't comply with our subpoena. 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 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 00:58:36.100 --> 00:58:38.940 able to even get paid when they come. 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. 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 00:59:01.580 --> 00:59:02.580 charter. 00:59:02.580 --> 00:59:04.580 So how do we address it? 00:59:04.580 --> 00:59:13.380 And according to the board of section 2-282, the board may impose the following sanctions. 00:59:13.380 --> 00:59:19.180 Letter of application, letter of admission, letter of recommend may recommend to the city 00:59:19.180 --> 00:59:26.140 the suspension of the official or the vendor may be deemed ineligible. 00:59:26.140 --> 00:59:30.020 So are these strong and meaningful remedies? 00:59:30.020 --> 00:59:33.300 I know we've had a lot of discussion about this as well. 00:59:33.300 --> 00:59:39.940 So just to reiterate my finding and my conclusion, once the requirements are included in the 00:59:39.940 --> 00:59:42.940 ordinance, they're couched in completely different terms. 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. 00:59:49.340 --> 00:59:53.780 The ordinance does not include all the requirements of the charter, and before moving forward 00:59:53.780 --> 01:00:00.260 to make any additional recommendations to that amendment ordinance, I do think it would 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 01:00:05.620 --> 01:00:09.940 the ordinance to ensure that the current ordinance meets all the requirements in the charter 01:00:09.940 --> 01:00:18.180 and to provide a cross reference so that we know what we're referring to. 01:00:18.180 --> 01:00:19.180 All right, thank you. 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 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 01:00:30.460 --> 01:00:37.540 time and not changing the ordinance to make it worse than it is currently. 01:00:37.540 --> 01:00:38.540 I only want to prove it. 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. 01:00:42.020 --> 01:00:44.980 So that's where my opinion is coming from. 01:00:44.980 --> 01:00:50.540 My thoughts are, my understanding is that Alan Berkowitz worked with the charter and 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 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 01:01:03.260 --> 01:01:05.620 by the ordinance. 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 01:01:11.420 --> 01:01:12.780 we shouldn't change anything. 01:01:12.780 --> 01:01:17.300 We actually got some advice from counsel yesterday about other things that they want to change 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 01:01:21.620 --> 01:01:26.980 to hire an outside counsel to look at the charter versus the ordinance. 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. 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. 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 01:01:47.700 --> 01:01:55.020 recommendations, Alan Berkowitz worked with it, and then it went to counsel. 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 01:02:04.020 --> 01:02:05.020 to the document? 01:02:05.020 --> 01:02:06.020 Are you asking me? 01:02:06.020 --> 01:02:07.020 No, I have not. 01:02:07.020 --> 01:02:08.020 You should watch it. 01:02:08.020 --> 01:02:19.820 Because they got in the weeds, they chopped things around, it changed a bit. 01:02:19.820 --> 01:02:28.180 So, I have a hard time blaming Berkowitz for what ended up happening because they just 01:02:28.180 --> 01:02:33.180 kind of went too, it changed a lot at that point. 01:02:33.180 --> 01:02:36.180 So that's when it made changes. 01:02:36.180 --> 01:02:41.580 And at that point, some of the definitions became, I think, too narrow to be enforced. 01:02:41.580 --> 01:02:46.580 This pending matter deal, that's one of them. 01:02:46.580 --> 01:02:52.300 So, that's what others have to say. 01:02:52.300 --> 01:02:55.260 I'm curious about the enforcement power. 01:02:55.260 --> 01:02:59.140 I don't want this to be a bully pulpit or anything like that, but- 01:02:59.140 --> 01:03:01.140 I'm sorry, you don't want it to be a public- 01:03:01.140 --> 01:03:02.140 A bully pulpit. 01:03:02.140 --> 01:03:03.140 A pulpit. 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 01:03:09.140 --> 01:03:10.140 people. 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 01:03:15.140 --> 01:03:16.140 further should we go? 01:03:16.140 --> 01:03:21.140 Should we attempt to have some enforcement power and then just shame them? 01:03:21.140 --> 01:03:25.140 Yeah, and that's why I wonder if we can have that much power. 01:03:25.140 --> 01:03:32.140 They are elected city officials, the majority of the city, or their precinct, elected them. 01:03:32.140 --> 01:03:36.140 But in Spain, it's just to bring them in to talk to us, right? 01:03:36.140 --> 01:03:39.140 Okay, so the subpoena is actually for, like, documents. 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, 01:03:46.140 --> 01:03:50.140 you know, tax records or bank records or things like that. 01:03:50.140 --> 01:03:51.140 Okay. 01:03:51.140 --> 01:03:52.140 And that's what we had talked about that- 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- 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 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 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. 01:04:15.140 --> 01:04:16.140 Right. 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 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 01:04:27.140 --> 01:04:30.140 else that could be done. 01:04:30.140 --> 01:04:31.140 Yes. 01:04:31.140 --> 01:04:32.140 And I'm- 01:04:32.140 --> 01:04:35.140 I realize we don't have police power or anything like that. 01:04:35.140 --> 01:04:36.140 Yeah. 01:04:36.140 --> 01:04:39.140 We just have newspapers. 01:04:39.140 --> 01:04:48.140 But do we dare go that extra mile and see if we can have that power? 01:04:48.140 --> 01:04:51.140 That's all I mean, it's open to discussion. 01:04:51.140 --> 01:04:56.140 Is that going to, Troy? 01:04:56.140 --> 01:05:01.140 I'm sorry, Robert, you're an alternate. 01:05:01.140 --> 01:05:02.140 I'm not sure- 01:05:02.140 --> 01:05:03.140 Don't call him Robert. 01:05:03.140 --> 01:05:04.140 Ron? 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. 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 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 01:05:29.140 --> 01:05:30.140 what doesn't happen. 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 01:05:36.140 --> 01:05:38.140 a problem yet. 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 01:05:45.140 --> 01:05:54.140 ready to submit those changes to council, a different law firm other than the work with 01:05:54.140 --> 01:06:09.140 firms to review it entirely before it goes to council. 01:06:09.140 --> 01:06:12.140 Any other thoughts on this? 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? 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 01:06:23.140 --> 01:06:24.140 where it went awry. 01:06:24.140 --> 01:06:28.140 I think the answer is yes, because they're not going to all agree. 01:06:28.140 --> 01:06:31.140 It's not something we can control, though. 01:06:31.140 --> 01:06:34.140 I think we need to go on record. 01:06:34.140 --> 01:06:37.140 And whatever they do is whatever they do. 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 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 01:06:46.140 --> 01:06:47.140 of mail anymore. 01:06:47.140 --> 01:06:48.140 They want it all at once. 01:06:48.140 --> 01:06:50.140 And that they said just send everything we have. 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. 01:06:53.140 --> 01:06:54.140 They're not going to agree with stuff. 01:06:54.140 --> 01:06:58.140 So if we send everything we have, then it's on record. 01:06:58.140 --> 01:06:59.140 That's what we've suggested. 01:06:59.140 --> 01:07:01.140 And then, I mean, they would take it from there. 01:07:01.140 --> 01:07:05.140 They're the ones that will be voting. 01:07:05.140 --> 01:07:07.140 I don't think the code is clear. 01:07:07.140 --> 01:07:10.140 I just, having read it, I don't think it's clear. 01:07:10.140 --> 01:07:14.140 I have a hard time understanding what it's saying. 01:07:14.140 --> 01:07:16.140 I think some of the definitions are too narrow. 01:07:16.140 --> 01:07:18.140 Some of them are missing. 01:07:18.140 --> 01:07:21.140 I would like to see a model code. 01:07:21.140 --> 01:07:24.140 And I know there are good ones out there. 01:07:24.140 --> 01:07:34.140 I have a great- I brought an example of Westler's definition of conflict of interest. 01:07:34.140 --> 01:07:36.140 I'm very interested in looking at it. 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, 01:07:45.140 --> 01:07:48.140 which is a very specific kind of ethics. 01:07:48.140 --> 01:07:52.140 And he had a project where they wrote a model code. 01:07:52.140 --> 01:07:56.140 And so when you go through his code, he has the definitions. 01:07:56.140 --> 01:08:02.140 And then, like, this one's conflict of interest and half the page is the definition. 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. 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. 01:08:14.140 --> 01:08:16.140 I'd like to do something like that. 01:08:16.140 --> 01:08:17.140 That would be my preference. 01:08:17.140 --> 01:08:19.140 It wouldn't cost anything. 01:08:19.140 --> 01:08:21.140 You don't have to bring anybody in. 01:08:21.140 --> 01:08:25.140 If council wants to put it on the chopping block, that's what they do. 01:08:25.140 --> 01:08:31.140 But we went on record saying that we think these things should be in there. 01:08:31.140 --> 01:08:33.140 So those things are out there. 01:08:33.140 --> 01:08:34.140 They're easy to find. 01:08:34.140 --> 01:08:37.140 It's not difficult. 01:08:37.140 --> 01:08:39.140 That would be my preference. 01:08:39.140 --> 01:08:41.140 I'd love to see a copy of that. 01:08:41.140 --> 01:08:42.140 Is there a way we could get- 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. 01:08:50.140 --> 01:08:52.140 I always spell it wrong and it has to come back and correct me. 01:08:52.140 --> 01:08:58.140 And then you just look online and then he has a blog in the sidebar. 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. 01:09:05.140 --> 01:09:06.140 Is that- 01:09:06.140 --> 01:09:07.140 Yeah, I'll send it to her. 01:09:07.140 --> 01:09:08.140 Okay. 01:09:08.140 --> 01:09:09.140 Is that- 01:09:09.140 --> 01:09:10.140 Yeah. 01:09:10.140 --> 01:09:11.140 Is that all right? 01:09:11.140 --> 01:09:12.140 We can do that. 01:09:12.140 --> 01:09:13.140 Okay. 01:09:13.140 --> 01:09:15.140 I would like to kind of narrow what we're doing here tonight. 01:09:15.140 --> 01:09:19.140 We're getting into almost seven here. 01:09:19.140 --> 01:09:24.140 So we talked about some different things. 01:09:24.140 --> 01:09:28.140 Conflict of interest was brought up, we talked about subpoena. 01:09:28.140 --> 01:09:31.140 We talked about, well, actually waiting or not waiting on subpoena. 01:09:31.140 --> 01:09:34.140 Deborah has presented this. 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, 01:09:42.140 --> 01:09:46.140 because it's part of the liberation of what we're going to act on tonight. 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? 01:09:52.140 --> 01:09:55.140 I think it's a waste of money, personally. 01:09:55.140 --> 01:10:03.140 I think we agree on something. 01:10:03.140 --> 01:10:05.140 I'm sorry, what did you say? 01:10:05.140 --> 01:10:08.140 That it would be possibly a waste of money. 01:10:08.140 --> 01:10:10.140 And Deborah, thank you very much. 01:10:10.140 --> 01:10:16.140 You did a lot of work, but just differing opinions. 01:10:16.140 --> 01:10:19.140 And so I think me and Annette are maybe on the same page. 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? 01:10:25.140 --> 01:10:28.140 I'll just reiterate what I said before. 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, 01:10:33.140 --> 01:10:39.140 but not necessarily just for comparison to the charter versus the ordinance. 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 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. 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. 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. 01:11:11.140 --> 01:11:13.140 Am I correct? 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. 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. 01:11:29.140 --> 01:11:38.140 I think it's just generally recommendations for changes to the ordinance. 01:11:38.140 --> 01:11:43.140 I know there's been talk about subpoena and Annetta has brought up conflict of interest. 01:11:43.140 --> 01:11:47.140 Is there anything that we want to focus on next? 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. 01:11:53.140 --> 01:11:56.140 Conflict of interest we never came to an agreement on. 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? 01:12:06.140 --> 01:12:09.140 I know you want conflict of interest. 01:12:09.140 --> 01:12:12.140 Can I just say, I'm going to copy some of this. 01:12:12.140 --> 01:12:13.140 Would you like to pass them out? 01:12:13.140 --> 01:12:14.140 Because it has a link at the top. 01:12:14.140 --> 01:12:16.140 Yeah, sure. 01:12:16.140 --> 01:12:20.140 And I really love the way they define families. 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. 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. 01:12:54.140 --> 01:12:59.140 I think it's defined but it's not defined. 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. 01:13:09.140 --> 01:13:19.140 And I think because to me, there's doors open there that are not completely closed. 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. 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. 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. 01:13:50.140 --> 01:13:53.140 I think all of those will tie in together in the end. 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. 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. 01:14:09.140 --> 01:14:14.140 Pending matter, they came up with the definition and it's pretty specific. 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? 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? 01:14:27.140 --> 01:14:32.140 So I think that's something we should consider when we talk about changing pending matter. 01:14:32.140 --> 01:14:41.140 Is there any more opinions on what we should maybe tackle next as far as recommendations? 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 01:15:51.140 --> 01:15:56.140 I'm sorry. I don't take it personally. 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. 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. 01:16:10.140 --> 01:16:12.140 Is that something we want to look over? 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? 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. 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. 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... 01:16:41.140 --> 01:16:48.140 I want a point of order. 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. 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. 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. 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. 01:17:23.140 --> 01:17:28.140 If not, then I'll wait till afterwards. 01:17:28.140 --> 01:17:32.140 I guess we'll just, I think we're going to call counsel. That's okay. 01:17:32.140 --> 01:17:33.140 I didn't hear him say anything. 01:17:33.140 --> 01:17:45.140 Oh, oh. Can you do a point of order or? 01:17:45.140 --> 01:17:50.140 What was the thing with that counsel we needed to refer to? 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. 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. 01:18:06.140 --> 01:18:10.140 They get into the weeds within about 10 minutes. 01:18:10.140 --> 01:18:11.140 And it's just... 01:18:11.140 --> 01:18:12.140 Jumps like garbage. 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. 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. 01:18:34.140 --> 01:18:46.140 That's when they finished writing it. 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. 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. 01:19:00.140 --> 01:19:01.140 Okay. 01:19:01.140 --> 01:19:10.140 Thank you. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 01:20:54.140 --> 01:20:56.140 You're shaking your head. Do you have something? 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. 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? 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? 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? 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. 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? 01:22:15.140 --> 01:22:19.140 I mean I think you can form the committee here. 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? 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. 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? 01:22:56.140 --> 01:23:01.140 So I can start the deliberation. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 01:25:11.140 --> 01:25:16.140 Well the citizen is here then what's the process. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 01:29:24.140 --> 01:29:27.140 Well we can do it with a motion right. 01:29:27.140 --> 01:29:29.140 Can we. 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. 01:29:37.140 --> 01:29:41.140 But at no point was an ad hoc committee previously mentioned. 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. 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. 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. 01:30:16.140 --> 01:30:19.140 But conversely is there anything that doesn't allow us to. 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. 01:30:30.140 --> 01:30:43.140 I definitely don't want to violate that that be on my agenda. 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. 01:30:53.140 --> 01:30:55.140 Certainly I think I think all board members can do that. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 01:31:51.140 --> 01:31:55.140 Does that sound like a plan to everyone. 01:31:55.140 --> 01:31:56.140 So it's every time. 01:31:56.140 --> 01:32:01.140 Well and I think anyone including citizens could send stuff to us. 01:32:01.140 --> 01:32:05.140 Right now I would caution against people trying to send the board. 01:32:05.140 --> 01:32:06.140 Yes yes. 01:32:06.140 --> 01:32:09.140 As a body something because that opens up more. 01:32:09.140 --> 01:32:10.140 I guess. 01:32:10.140 --> 01:32:15.140 Open meeting tax violations but board members or alternates can participate. 01:32:15.140 --> 01:32:16.140 Certainly. 01:32:16.140 --> 01:32:17.140 Me the chair. 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. 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. 01:32:26.140 --> 01:32:33.140 Well I would suggest we we we take this in steps. 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. 01:32:39.140 --> 01:32:41.140 And that would be my suggestion. 01:32:41.140 --> 01:32:43.140 If anybody has some different. 01:32:43.140 --> 01:32:47.140 Or this is offered to be the kind of the intake repository of that stuff. 01:32:47.140 --> 01:32:48.140 OK. 01:32:48.140 --> 01:32:49.140 And you mesh. 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. 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. 01:33:02.140 --> 01:33:06.140 And I would I would think for. 01:33:06.140 --> 01:33:10.140 I mean we want it by December for that maybe by December for the January meeting. 01:33:10.140 --> 01:33:11.140 Just so everyone has. 01:33:11.140 --> 01:33:14.140 So me and you mesh can come up with a plan and agenda. 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. 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. 01:33:26.140 --> 01:33:33.140 Not you know it just isn't very productive. 01:33:33.140 --> 01:33:36.140 So so what does everybody think about that. 01:33:36.140 --> 01:33:39.140 I know I think I cut you off Larry. 01:33:39.140 --> 01:33:43.140 You answered it though in the process. 01:33:43.140 --> 01:33:53.140 I guess you know let's see Christmas is what the 24th so maybe December calendar. 01:33:53.140 --> 01:33:58.140 You have to send it on Christmas Day. 01:33:58.140 --> 01:34:03.140 Citizen Rainer says yes just by December 15. 01:34:03.140 --> 01:34:07.140 Yeah well December 15th is a Sunday. 01:34:07.140 --> 01:34:19.140 So 16 by the December 16. 01:34:19.140 --> 01:34:20.140 Right. 01:34:20.140 --> 01:34:23.140 And then. 01:34:23.140 --> 01:34:26.140 We've talked about. 01:34:26.140 --> 01:34:29.140 And then we'll come up with a date in late January. 01:34:29.140 --> 01:34:32.140 It's usually been doing the last Thursday of the month. 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. 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. 01:34:44.140 --> 01:34:49.140 I think this is a good solution to hopefully keep us moving forward. 01:34:49.140 --> 01:34:51.140 Anybody against this. 01:34:51.140 --> 01:34:52.140 Anybody have any other suggestions. 01:34:52.140 --> 01:34:54.140 So we're not meeting again until. 01:34:54.140 --> 01:34:56.140 January. 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. 01:35:00.140 --> 01:35:05.140 Send it to me and we'll try to get this conflict of interest improved. 01:35:05.140 --> 01:35:10.140 And I will say that's that's all I'll accept is a proof improvement. 01:35:10.140 --> 01:35:11.140 All right. 01:35:11.140 --> 01:35:14.140 So anything else on these items. 01:35:14.140 --> 01:35:18.140 When is the orientation going to be in January. 01:35:18.140 --> 01:35:19.140 Do you have a date on that. 01:35:19.140 --> 01:35:22.140 We don't have any date yet. 01:35:22.140 --> 01:35:25.140 Will it be a video or will it be a live. 01:35:25.140 --> 01:35:28.140 First of all. 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. 01:35:34.140 --> 01:35:36.140 And. 01:35:36.140 --> 01:35:47.140 For city auditors office can afford it. 01:35:47.140 --> 01:35:52.140 But we'll let you know shortly. 01:35:52.140 --> 01:35:54.140 All right. 01:35:54.140 --> 01:35:57.140 So is there anything else under agenda item. 01:35:57.140 --> 01:36:01.140 That we want to discuss tonight. 01:36:01.140 --> 01:36:03.140 Without hearing anything. 01:36:03.140 --> 01:36:08.140 Agenda item G is regarding changes to the rules of procedure. 01:36:08.140 --> 01:36:12.140 I don't think we have any more changes to the rule of procedure right now. 01:36:12.140 --> 01:36:14.140 I mean maybe later when we change the ordinance we might. 01:36:14.140 --> 01:36:17.140 I unless anybody has any suggestions. 01:36:17.140 --> 01:36:20.140 I don't see anything. 01:36:20.140 --> 01:36:22.140 That needs to be changed. 01:36:22.140 --> 01:36:24.140 Any thoughts on that. 01:36:24.140 --> 01:36:26.140 All right. 01:36:26.140 --> 01:36:27.140 All right. 01:36:27.140 --> 01:36:34.140 So we've gone through all the agenda items. 01:36:34.140 --> 01:36:47.140 As far as the rules of procedure. 01:36:47.140 --> 01:36:52.140 Reconsideration oh yes that's right. 01:36:52.140 --> 01:36:54.140 And. 01:36:54.140 --> 01:36:57.140 Fortunately I think you've been out. 01:36:57.140 --> 01:36:58.140 And. 01:36:58.140 --> 01:36:59.140 We brought. 01:36:59.140 --> 01:37:05.140 Your opinion on that and we decided to table that discussion until you were. 01:37:05.140 --> 01:37:09.140 You're here at the meeting since. 01:37:09.140 --> 01:37:11.140 Your suggestion. 01:37:11.140 --> 01:37:14.140 Let's see so. 01:37:14.140 --> 01:37:17.140 The reconsideration is. 01:37:17.140 --> 01:37:20.140 In the rules of procedure number. 01:37:20.140 --> 01:37:24.140 Under I guess under hearing. 01:37:24.140 --> 01:37:26.140 Hearing which is. 01:37:26.140 --> 01:37:30.140 Section a subsection 28. 01:37:30.140 --> 01:37:32.140 It's page 12 on my rules of procedure. 01:37:32.140 --> 01:37:34.140 Which I think are the most current. 01:37:34.140 --> 01:37:36.140 It says request for reconsideration. 01:37:36.140 --> 01:37:40.140 So I'll follow the procedure established by the. 01:37:40.140 --> 01:37:42.140 Chapter two article. 01:37:42.140 --> 01:37:45.140 Eleven section two dash two eight three. 01:37:45.140 --> 01:37:47.140 And maybe you could kind of explain to the board. 01:37:47.140 --> 01:37:49.140 Because I don't think you. 01:37:49.140 --> 01:37:51.140 We've talked about it yet with. 01:37:51.140 --> 01:37:53.140 The current faces on the board. 01:37:53.140 --> 01:37:56.140 What you want change about reconsideration. 01:37:56.140 --> 01:37:58.140 Well for reconsideration. 01:37:58.140 --> 01:38:03.140 Of any hearing decision. 01:38:03.140 --> 01:38:06.140 In administrative law it typically requires that. 01:38:06.140 --> 01:38:09.140 There be a mistake of that. 01:38:09.140 --> 01:38:11.140 Or a mistake of process. 01:38:11.140 --> 01:38:16.140 Committed by the body that made the decision or wrote the decision. 01:38:16.140 --> 01:38:20.140 The hearing officer or the body of the set. 01:38:20.140 --> 01:38:23.140 It does not typically. 01:38:23.140 --> 01:38:25.140 Allow for new evidence. 01:38:25.140 --> 01:38:27.140 To be presented. 01:38:27.140 --> 01:38:31.140 And that's the way our ordinance is written. 01:38:31.140 --> 01:38:33.140 And in the way it's written. 01:38:33.140 --> 01:38:37.140 Only specifying new evidence. 01:38:37.140 --> 01:38:41.140 It doesn't speak to the fact that. 01:38:41.140 --> 01:38:44.140 That an error could be made and there's no way to address. 01:38:44.140 --> 01:38:47.140 For the person to address that error if they receive one. 01:38:47.140 --> 01:38:50.140 I think it needs to be. 01:38:50.140 --> 01:38:54.140 The reconsideration article needs to be brought more in line with. 01:38:54.140 --> 01:38:57.140 The accepted administrative law. 01:38:57.140 --> 01:39:00.140 And. 01:39:00.140 --> 01:39:01.140 You know. 01:39:01.140 --> 01:39:05.140 In terms of new evidence. 01:39:05.140 --> 01:39:08.140 New evidence. 01:39:08.140 --> 01:39:10.140 Could be. 01:39:10.140 --> 01:39:12.140 The subject of a new. 01:39:12.140 --> 01:39:13.140 A new appeal. 01:39:13.140 --> 01:39:14.140 At this time. 01:39:14.140 --> 01:39:17.140 It shouldn't be. 01:39:17.140 --> 01:39:21.140 The product of reconsideration. 01:39:21.140 --> 01:39:24.140 I guess. 01:39:24.140 --> 01:39:27.140 Maybe I'm not correct me if I'm not following you right but. 01:39:27.140 --> 01:39:29.140 What if there was. 01:39:29.140 --> 01:39:33.140 New evidence that would. 01:39:33.140 --> 01:39:35.140 That would show that the person. 01:39:35.140 --> 01:39:37.140 Like say we found them. 01:39:37.140 --> 01:39:38.140 We found the sanction. 01:39:38.140 --> 01:39:40.140 We found them in violation of the code. 01:39:40.140 --> 01:39:42.140 What if there's new evidence that came up. 01:39:42.140 --> 01:39:45.140 That they didn't violate the code. 01:39:45.140 --> 01:39:47.140 Like some evidence. 01:39:47.140 --> 01:39:51.140 That was a sculpatory toward them. 01:39:51.140 --> 01:39:52.140 Would. 01:39:52.140 --> 01:39:53.140 With that. 01:39:53.140 --> 01:39:55.140 Do you think that should be a reason for. 01:39:55.140 --> 01:39:58.140 For reconsideration because I see if we find oh there's no violation. 01:39:58.140 --> 01:40:00.140 They could come back with new evidence to say. 01:40:00.140 --> 01:40:02.140 Is there a violation under this evidence. 01:40:02.140 --> 01:40:04.140 But if we found that they were in violation. 01:40:04.140 --> 01:40:08.140 And then there's new evidence that they actually weren't in violation. 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. 01:40:13.140 --> 01:40:17.140 Well I mean in the situation you just described. 01:40:17.140 --> 01:40:24.140 If somebody alleges that there's new information that would have an impact on the decision. 01:40:24.140 --> 01:40:28.140 Then one would think that everybody. 01:40:28.140 --> 01:40:32.140 Should have a shot at determining whether or not that new evidence is valid. 01:40:32.140 --> 01:40:35.140 In other words. 01:40:35.140 --> 01:40:37.140 It almost calls for a new hearing. 01:40:37.140 --> 01:40:40.140 So to make both sides. 01:40:40.140 --> 01:40:42.140 Available to the information both sides. 01:40:42.140 --> 01:40:44.140 Be able to comment on it. 01:40:44.140 --> 01:40:45.140 And another decision. 01:40:45.140 --> 01:40:47.140 As opposed to. 01:40:47.140 --> 01:40:51.140 You have to reconsider based upon one side bringing new evidence. 01:40:51.140 --> 01:40:59.140 That's my homework. 01:40:59.140 --> 01:41:07.140 And so reconsideration is also in the ordinance section two dash two eighty three. 01:41:07.140 --> 01:41:09.140 So. 01:41:09.140 --> 01:41:17.140 Fortunately it hasn't been an issue yet. 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. 01:41:29.140 --> 01:41:31.140 Or was it not. 01:41:31.140 --> 01:41:37.140 And I don't think that we have the resources to really determine that. 01:41:37.140 --> 01:41:47.140 Although. 01:41:47.140 --> 01:41:48.140 Yeah. 01:41:48.140 --> 01:41:51.140 Well and I think you know in criminal law like yes there's new evidence. 01:41:51.140 --> 01:41:55.140 But I imagine in civil it's probably not the same as far as administrative. 01:41:55.140 --> 01:41:57.140 If they're like in administrative law in your experience. 01:41:57.140 --> 01:42:00.140 I mean is there ever a case where there's appeals on new evidence. 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. 01:42:08.140 --> 01:42:09.140 Yeah. 01:42:09.140 --> 01:42:10.140 Yeah. 01:42:10.140 --> 01:42:12.140 That's probably why I'm coming from a different mindset. 01:42:12.140 --> 01:42:13.140 Yeah. 01:42:13.140 --> 01:42:18.140 And mine and you can do a motion for a new trial for newly discovered evidence. 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. 01:42:25.140 --> 01:42:31.140 OK so and I'm looking at the reconsideration. 01:42:31.140 --> 01:42:42.140 So you're saying that like when you have a reconsideration is it just. 01:42:42.140 --> 01:42:52.140 OK so I guess it's in my sole discretion. 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. 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. 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. 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. 01:43:42.140 --> 01:43:45.140 OK. 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. 01:44:05.140 --> 01:44:08.140 So you mean it should be more broad than new evidence. 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. 01:44:17.140 --> 01:44:22.140 Well I think in order to change that on the. 01:44:22.140 --> 01:44:26.140 The rules of procedure because the rules of procedure. 01:44:26.140 --> 01:44:35.140 Reference to dash 283 that it's it would be a change to the ordinance. 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. 01:44:43.140 --> 01:44:50.140 And we've already talked about coming back and discussing conflict of interest in January. 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. 01:45:02.140 --> 01:45:05.140 Once unfortunately. 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. 01:45:14.140 --> 01:45:23.140 I appreciate it. 01:45:23.140 --> 01:45:27.140 As far as far as pushing it out past conflict of interest. 01:45:27.140 --> 01:45:30.140 I thought you were talking about. 01:45:30.140 --> 01:45:33.140 Oh adding. 01:45:33.140 --> 01:45:37.140 Well I. 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. 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. 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. 01:46:04.140 --> 01:46:07.140 I don't know if we can jump back up to that and change that. 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. 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. 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. 01:46:34.140 --> 01:46:38.140 Perhaps reconsideration could be added to the ad hoc committees. 01:46:38.140 --> 01:46:40.140 We do not have an ad hoc committee. 01:46:40.140 --> 01:46:44.140 Well. 01:46:44.140 --> 01:46:46.140 We have ad hoc people. 01:46:46.140 --> 01:46:47.140 How do I word that? 01:46:47.140 --> 01:46:58.140 I think conflict of interest first and then burden of proof and reconsideration later. 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. 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. 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. 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. 01:47:49.140 --> 01:47:52.140 I say we just wait till January to decide that. 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. 01:47:57.140 --> 01:47:58.140 Okay. 01:47:58.140 --> 01:48:01.140 All right. 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. 01:48:09.140 --> 01:48:13.140 All right so I think we've gotten through the agenda. 01:48:13.140 --> 01:48:17.140 Do we have to have a motion to close the meeting? 01:48:17.140 --> 01:48:18.140 No motion? 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. 01:48:30.140 --> 01:48:35.140 Thank you.