Feb 13, 2020 Board of Ethics on 2020-02-13 5:30 PM

It's 5.33. We'll call this meeting to order. We have Larry Beck and Dawn Cartwright, Becker Cosmo, Annette Ramsey, Laura Tomlin, myself, the Chair, Ronnie Mohair, Robert Swanbeck and Ron Johnson here. Sharla Bradshaw is absent due to work reasons. She may be late. I think she's absent. She may be late, maybe absent due to work reasons. Are there any other absences we need to put on for the meeting? Okay. Alright, so we'll move to the first agenda item, and item A, consider approval of the minutes for October 23rd, 2019. Does anybody have any suggestions or edits for that or a motion to accept them? I'll second the motion. Alright, Annette, motion to approve. Dawn Cartwright, second the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes. The minutes are accepted. Moving to agenda item B, receive a report and hold a discussion regarding board attendance and reporting of absences. Since everybody read that, all the time we spent talking about absences as if the next meeting was a waste of time. Do you want to talk about it or do you want me to? Omesh is going to do a presentation. Well, if you don't want to talk about it then. My name is Omesh Talal. I'm a city auditor. Recently the city council passed an ordinance which amended the requirement for absenteeism on the boards and commission. Now previously, as you recall, this board opted to include vacation as two days of vacation as excused absence. After that, city council changed that and they removed that language that board cannot decide that. So now we are back to the excused versus non-excused. And it defines, basically, remaining part of the requirement status act. Now, a member who's absent is either in advance, if you know in advance, or subsequently to your absence, have to notify city secretary's office. And if you notify her or excuse absence, which is listed in the requirement, then that suffices your action. So now we need to talk to city secretary, not Yale's office. So you can know who's there so that she has our excused absence. Both because we tracked the extra exodus. But if an absence is not listed out in the requirement, even then, within 10 days, you can ask city secretary to excuse their absence. And city secretary will put on city council's agenda to have them talk about it and excuse it. So that's the new process. Any questions? I've got a question. I guess I've gotten a couple of responses. I'm an alter. And my question is, do the rules apply directly to the alter also? Okay, alternates are not required in normal circumstances to attend. But if in a meeting, and city auditor has responsibility to request alternate to participate on the board. So if I have not requested alternate to participate on the board, then it doesn't apply to you. But if I request the alternate to participate on the board, and then there is absenteeism, that applies to me. Sort of. But like tonight, there's some folks missing. How would you have known that in order to request? I had one, but we knew in advance that Sharla is not going to be here. So then we requested Deborah to participate on the board. So in event that we know in advance, we will request one of you, or all of you, as the case may be, to participate on the board. And if we're out of town, then is that an unexcused absence for the alternate if you requested? In normal circumstances, we will go to the next alternate and request that person. So you have three alternates, so the chances are one of you are here. Very clear. So then it doesn't complicate you. So where we had discussed vacations, that's completely eliminated now. There it is. Does that make sense? It's clear as mud as far as the alternate is. It just sounds cumbersome to me. Yeah, and the fact that now counsel is going to be talking about why you're absent from the meeting. Whatever, that's what they want. That's what we'll do. You don't have to put it back up there. It's my question. Oh, okay. So under the normal course of joining judges, vacations are not excusable absences. However, can you appeal a vacation to the council after the fact? Yes, you can. That's what I was going through, that you can approach the city secretary's office who would put on the city council subject, discuss that. So then it's up to them to either make an exception or not? Yes. Okay. All right, three unexcused absences in a row means you could be dismissed from the board. Is that correct? It's not in a row. Not in a row? It's within a year. Within a year, okay. All right, any more questions? Any more questions? Okay, so just move on. Agenda item C, receive a report, hold a discussion, and take necessary action regarding potential changes to Chapter 2, Article 11, Ethics, Section 2-269, including language proposed by Council Member Davis on January 7th, 2020. And I think everybody was sent or you were given tonight the agenda sheet that has highlighted what Council Member Davis proposed and then also kind of a copy of just the definitions section of the current code. So the current code, I think we're pretty familiar with a lot of it. So under deliberations, it has deliberations as defined as discussion at the dais, voting as a member of the board or commission, or presentations as a member of the audience before the city board or commission, conversing or corresponding with other city officials or staff. This term does not apply to general votes on a board, comprehensive or on-the-bus motion, such as approval of the city budget. And Council Member Davis wants to add more polling places to make it where polling places can be voted on no matter the circumstances. All right, I'll start by just saying my thoughts on it. I think as far as adding polling places, I don't think there's a lot of risk of people that are going to enrich themselves by voting on a polling place. And it could be an ongoing problem because there's two universities here and it's the county seat, so the city of Denton is going to have a lot of people that would be conflicted out. So it's probably harmless, but my concerns would be that there could be a situation where money would be changing hands and somebody would be voting on a polling place, and then now they can definitely vote on it. And I don't want to set a precedent that we just carve out exceptions for people on council when they were found in violation of the ethics. So I'll start the conversation there and we can discuss. Well, I, and I'm visiting with Council Member Davis on this and I understand what he's saying, but just the idea of being for a polling place on the campus, it's been another self-acquaintance. I don't see where that can create a risk, a conflict of interest, but the fact that any money could be exchanged, I'm not sure how that happened, but that by itself, if that became apparent, that automatically makes the conflict even worse. There's money involved. But the fact that a council member or anybody was in favor of a polling place on the university campus, I have our time with that, too. Well, I think, I mean, maybe if somebody is on council and is, you know, some part of, maybe commercial developer of like a new subdivision and like wants a polling place, you know, it's just tenuous at best that you can really find a place where you're really not going to want them to vote on a polling place. So, I mean, yeah, the risk is just as low. Other thoughts? I think there are deeper problems with this. And I kind of get into it with the document that I get, but I wouldn't take the polling places at all. Wait, I'm sorry, polling, like not put it into deliberations or? I would not put it into deliberations. And, in fact, that whole deliberations definition is really weird. But I'll get into that later. All right. Well, I've got a question. I just, I don't understand. Hold on. Okay. So, my understanding, I'm sorry, Rob. I announced she was here, but I guess we had one alternate that needs to join and it was Debra that was asked. Oh, okay. And then I think you can't participate. Is that, am I, is that right, Trey? Well, if you've got a full board, right. Okay. So, one, two, three, four, wait, one, two, three, four, five. Yeah. So, then we have seven with Debra. So, I'm, I'm sorry. That's embarrassing. I'm sorry. We should have dealt with that before we started. So, my apologies. And you'll have to just, you know. Sorry. Anybody else, unfortunately not Rob, that has more to add to that? I know that we have been asked to kind of determine, I guess, by vote whether we are in support of that or not. So, do we want to have more discussion or just vote, go around and say whether we support it or vote? What does everybody think? My question is how often is a, for discussion, how often is a Millennium Exchange polling place going to come into it? Because the polling places that they choose are not and never have been facilities that require a payment to use those places for voting. And I don't, I don't think anybody does that really, but I know Denny has never done that before. I've been voting for the last 40 years, almost, but I don't think, I've never remembered that ever happening. So, my question is, is since they don't go for those type of facilities, why is it, does it really need to be, or is this... There would be another fix here, and that would be to take the university language out of the business partner definition. Well, it would, unless city council person worked for the county. And it's a contract with the county, which is kind of a back door. There are other groups that worry me more than the universities, for sure. So, like I said, I think the chances are slim to zero that that would ever come into play. So, what would be the major effect to leave it in versus to say we don't agree with it and take that wording out? What's going to be the overall difference? Well, I mean, if we are like, yeah, we're in support of it, I guess polling places may be at it, and anybody can vote on polling places. And I can see, like, you know, you want to be able to vote for where your constituents can go vote. If we don't let it in, then it stays as is. And people like council member Davis and Arbitore and Metzler, it's against the code for them to vote on polling places. So, I don't know, I mean, like I said, I kind of don't want to set a precedent that we carve out exceptions, but I don't really see a problem with it with adding polling places. Like, it's not going to, I don't think it's going to create a real conflict. I don't think it is either, but I, like I say, I think. Well, since educational institutions are frequently used at polling places, and we've got two major ones here, putting it in and not needing it is probably better than not putting it in and needing it, so. So, is there any more discussion, or do we want to just take? Just so I'm clear, though, this is saying that they can, because it's coming under the definition of deliberations, that they can discuss it and vote on it? Yes, I would think so, and it says polling places, so I would think that's just the polling place. I think there might be other contracts that have to do with voting that, I mean, could possibly, you know, be contracts for, you know, buying or selling polling or election equipment, but to me it just says polling places, so where the polling places are. If there's any possibility that the money's going to change and somebody's going to benefit financially, that would be a red flag and we could come in on that ethical problem, but. I'm not sure, I mean, if this stays, well, first of all, I think Ronnie's right. I can't think of, I mean, it's usually, you know. I can't either. Libraries, churches, schools, probably places where money is a change of hands, but say for some reason Denton County paid some building to have a polling place there. I think that they could definitely still vote and deliberate if polling places isn't there, but I think the chances of that happening are slim to none, like Ronnie said, so I don't. And I agree with what Ron said, it's better to have it in if needed than not have it in, and then far are you coming down here lately trying to deal with it, so. Good point. So it's been difficult to make any changes to the code along the way. How agile is it if a problem does arise? What you're saying, I don't know if this is exactly what you're meaning, but it reminded me of something how we were kind of told at the last meeting we want everything together, and then it's like, well, here's one thing we want to change. So maybe we can discuss that as we go into our next section as far as if we want to just be like, well, this is what we have now. Since they're saying that they want to, you know, they're looking at changing one thing now. It's like, okay, well, we've already given you like five things we've all agreed on, and nothing's been changed yet, but I don't, sorry, that's sidetracked me, but is there more? Okay. Your Honor, I move that we adopt exhibit one of item C. Okay, I see what you're saying. So are you making a motion that we. We adopt. Support the adding polling places to deliberation. Is there a second on that motion? Second. Okay, we'll have her on second. And any more discussion? All in favor of accepting that, say aye. Aye. And all opposed? And we have two opposed. Do we need to like call out who's opposed right now? Aye. Okay, so I think we, I mean, I guess it's no secret we're on video, but Larry, Don, myself, Ronnie, and Ron have voted for the polling places for the motion, and Deborah and Annetta have voted against it. So five to two, I guess the motion carries. And I assume we should write a letter. Is that how they want this? Do they want us to write a letter or is this enough as far as how we feel about that motion? It'll probably be taken back to council in a work session. Okay, so write a letter like we have in the past? You can do that and then probably you or somebody from the board would be there to discuss the discussion that y'all had in the work session. Okay, so well, I'll start with we will write them a letter and get into one of the work sessions that we have adopted, what Councilmember Davis has said. And I think maybe once we get into D and if we have agreements we can add more to that letter. Does that sound like a plan? Yes. Okay, so we've covered everything in C. All right, D, item D, receive a report, hold a discussion and take necessary action regarding the confirmation of potential recommendations to City Council for amendments to the ethics ordinance 18-757 pursuant to Denton Ethics Ordinance Division 3, Section 2-277i, including council notification options of the board's decision. So we have four exhibits here. I would propose we just kind of start exhibit one and make our way through them. So exhibit one, we're just, I think that was actually, was it sent by Rob or Larry? Rob, okay. But Rob is not part of the meeting, so. I think we're, didn't you send exhibit one? Yeah, exhibit one. I think it was his email, just some of his thoughts of what we should discuss. Oh yeah, that was just for the agenda. Yeah. That was just off the top of the head. Okay, so. Let it go. Yeah, I think, I mean my notes on it were, yeah. So unless anybody has any thoughts on that one, we can just, we can move on. For instance, it talks about, the panels are being videotaped, by the way. And as far as the other things, I think we're about to get into some of those things from the other exhibits that you suggested. Some of the things you suggested are in some of the other exhibits. So we'll just, we'll go on from exhibit one, unless anybody opposes that. All right, exhibit two, it was submitted 11620, and that's the one from Deborah, I believe. Okay, all right, so we're on the right one. And it's proposed revisions to the conflict of interest. All right, so number one has used the term matter from the local government code chapter 171 and removed the term pending matter from the ordinance. Or redefined pending matter to be consistent with chapter 171. And as per city charter section 1404, conflicts of interest standards should be the same or more stringent than the law as defined in the ethics code of pending matter is limited to specific matters and the standard is less stringent. I'll start with my thoughts about matter, pending matter. I mean, my first thought is what does matter include that pending matter does it based on our definition. I don't really see what that is. And as far as matter is not defined in chapter 171, and I actually went through chapter 171 of the local government code. And matter is used several times, but it's action on a matter, participation on a matter, voting on a matter. So it's always like, it is always voting for participation and discussion. And it's not, in the context of 171, matter is connected to substantial interest in a business entity. So chapter 171 of the local government code has substantial interest in a business entity. And it's actually, our code is more strict as far as conflict of interest and whether you have an interest. But then there also has to be an economic effect under 171. So our code is you own 5% of this, there's a conflict, you can't vote. 171 is you own 10% of a business plus you have an economic effect, then you can't vote. So I think our code is still more strict than chapter 171. And moving, and I think moving to just matter instead of penny matter is making it less strict. And in the yearly training we had with you, Alan talked about how, you know, why we have an ordinance has to be more strict than 171 or it's useless. And he talked several times about how our ordinance was written to be more strict than chapter 171. So I would say I think we should leave penny matter. Other thoughts? Go ahead. No. Listening. I disagree. And I'll get into this later on. I couldn't find the word matter. I only found matter in one other ethical code and that was the city of Austin. And they have a very weird code. They also refer to people as individual kingdoms. But penny matter makes it more narrow and matter is something that is hard to understand. The correct definition of conflict of interest is anything that brings you gain, basically. And when you say matter, it kind of narrows it to a specific event, at least in my interpretation. So what is penny matter not covering that taking out the word pending would make it cover? The way I interpret it is if you wanted to do some, let's say a dirty real estate deal maybe, you could vote on the thing and then close your deal the next day. Say that again. I didn't understand that. I'm sorry. That's my, I mean that's how I interpret it. Could you repeat it please? I didn't. With a pending matter, if you wanted to do something that you probably shouldn't be doing, you could go ahead and vote, but then close your deal the next day or the next week. Couldn't you describe that with the word matter, too? Honestly, I have a problem with the whole term. I mean, I think it should be anything, just anything, before or after. I mean, if you're voting and you're about to do something, it should just be anything. And that's the language used in other codes. Well, I would say I just, I don't think that's really workable. There's no way to just say if you're ever going to do anything, it's against the code. I mean, that's just not, the council people and board members need to be on notice. And we have to be able to interpret the code. And I believe pending matter, the way it's written, I don't think changing it to anything or matter improves this code. Can I read from Weschler? Sure. The most common way to define conflict of interest is no person subject to this code shall have any interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect, or engage in any business, employment, transaction, or professional activity, or incur any obligation of any nature that substantially conflicts with the proper discharge of their public duties or employment. And that's what we see in the other cities except Austin. Weschler also, in the training we did on Chapter 17, said a conflict of interest code should be clear and comprehensive and able to read and for people to be able to know what is and isn't against the conflict of interest. So I think we can't just say, well, anything, because then we could sit here and we have total subjective, look at everything subjectively, but now we have pending matter. If there's something before council, whether it be a permit or authorization, a proposal to enter contract, it lists out everything. It lists out real property. So if you have an interest in real property, you can't vote on that. I just think pending matter makes it way more narrow. I think it does as well. And I think, and this may be getting to it, you're talking about, Annette, is that it's distinguishable from the effect on the public. And that's what differentiates it. Our economic definition of conflict of interest is more stringent. But by putting pending matter in there, it means that city council people can deliberate, and others, other boards, can deliberate on issues where they would benefit in a way that's distinguishable from everybody else, but because it's not a contract or an arrangement of pending matter, then it's okay for them to deliberate on it. So what, can you give an example of something that wouldn't fall under pending matter, but that's not covered under pending matter, but would be covered if we just changed it to matter? I think that discussion over the... If you're going to change it, I think that the word "matter" ought to be taken out also. I would agree. Eliminate pending matter if we're going to change it. And we would just say that regarding a... For deliberation regarding a matter is the way that we're going to have it now if we took out the word "pending." Are you going to substitute for it? Nothing. The example was that OGSAP, what's that central, the Oak Gateway Small Area Plan, wasn't a pending matter under our ethics code, but potentially could be a conflict of interest if city council persons owned property in that area that could be affected by that plan to their benefit. The way I kind of look at it is, and to use your example, yeah, a member of council may own a piece of property that might have potential for city use. Is that more or less what you just said? For personal gain. Well, okay, a city council person might have an interest in a property, and it might come under consideration. If it's not under consideration, it's not a pending matter, and it doesn't trigger a responsibility to reveal your interest. But if it's going to come under consideration, it is pending, and that does trigger the responsibility. Just like the example that we had with the university and the polling places, what triggered them to come forward and to indicate their affiliation with the university was the fact that it was going to be considered. So that made it pending, and that triggered their response. But if it ever came before the council, if it were a done deal before the council got involved, then it was just a matter. It wasn't a pending matter. So I think pending is the element of that definition that triggers someone to know that they either should or should not reveal their interest. But ethics needs to be a lot more broad, and it needs to be a much higher standard than just that. But to go back to the Okickre District, it would be anything you do that would be making sure that you benefit from that personally because you happen to own property. That would be unethical, and it may not be actually a pending matter, because you might be able to keep it from even coming up. So if you have a piece of property and the city might have an interest in it, you have to say that you have this piece of property, even though the city hasn't expressed an interest in it. You can't be voting or doing anything that is going to be benefiting you personally. If you're going to make money off of this, and that's really the financial standard is what's important. But what triggered that? It wouldn't be a pending matter. I think if you were smart and were really clever, you'd make sure that it didn't become that, or a matter. I'm not sure if I'm understanding your example now. You might be able to work behind the scenes. You might be able to make sure that that didn't even become an agenda item anywhere. I think on this example you're giving, I think Ron's right. There's no matter that you're voting on yet that would trigger anything. If it's that you're working behind the scenes doing something, I think it would be really hard for any board to make a determination on that. Nothing's been done yet, and if somebody's working behind the scenes, there's not really a way to figure that out. So I'm not really sure what you would want to add. The way our code is written now, there wouldn't be anything that would trigger that, and that's the problem. Because there's nothing being voted on yet. Right. But there could be a lot of things going on behind the scenes, and that's really where, I think that's really where most unethical behavior happens. I don't think it happens usually on the dais. I also think it contradicts the administrative code, where city officials take note to uphold 171. They'll abide by 171, and 171 is referenced in there. So on the one hand, they're going to abide by 171, but the ethics code says it's okay to do it, as I see it, because pending matter is part of the matter of 171. Well, I mean, first of all, if you take the oath to uphold 171, you have to uphold 171 and the city code, like whatever stricter is the strictest you're going to have to uphold. So it's not really conflicting. And I go back to 171, they use matter, but in 171 you have a substantial interest and there's an economic effect. With us, it's just you have the conflicting interest, and then you're just out, you can't vote. So you don't have to figure out whether there's an economic effect or not. I know that's number two that we're about to get to, but matter is used differently in 171. It's not defined. They're just saying if you take any action or vote on anything, that you have a substantial economic effect, which is just different from our code, because our code is more strict. If you have this conflict, if you own 5%, you can't vote. So I don't think that's a great comparison. But under ordinance section two, it's the first footnote. The phrase financial interest in our code says when used herein, she'll have the same meaning as substantial interest in a business entity as that phrase is defined. So by reference, we have financial interest defined as substantial interest in the business entity. Yeah, and 171 defines substantial business entity of owning 10% or more voting stock of shares. I won't go through it all, but it defines what substantial business interest is. So that means that. But 171 also has -- you have to have an economic effect to violate 171, which isn't in our code. So I think it's sort of not comparing the same thing to say, since there's matter in 171, we just need matter in our code, where our code is written. But I think it's more than just matter. It's that, again, that distinguishable -- an effect that's distinguishable from the effect on the public. And that's what's missing in this. I think it's supposed to be a higher standard. And that's what the debt in code is compared to -- Economically, it is. Under conflicting interest, that's -- financial? Yes, that's an economic -- Yeah, we don't even look if there's an economic effect. If you have that interest, you can't vote. Versus figuring out if there's an economic effect. Versus having the interest, and is there an economic effect, then you can't vote. But ours is, there's an interest, you can't vote. So ours is more strict. Financially, it is. In reference to finances. But not in other matters, where you may benefit. And what's the other matter? In what ways would there have been other than that? You could promote a policy -- and I think even just -- You could promote a policy that would ultimately benefit you or, you know, your consinquency. And, like, can you provide an example of that? I think this Oking Creek district is probably a good example where there are lots of developers who want to come in and make sure that houses get knocked down. We lost seven in December. And if you somehow had some connection with that, you could kind of make sure that all that happened. So, I mean, taking your wording there, if you some kind had -- if you some kind of had a connection to that, you could somehow make something matter. I don't think that that's -- I mean, I think that's too vague. I think that example's very vague and doesn't show me that we need to change just pending matter to matters. Don? On two, again, I think pending matter both ought to be taken out if we're going to take one of them out. And pending matter, I think, makes it more restrictive than what you're suggesting. And I think part of it is maybe how do you interpret matter and how do you interpret pending matter? I'm not really clear on that. Let me just read that. It says, "Disclosure required. If a city official has a conflicted interest, the city official shall disclose the nature." That's the way it reads if we took out pending matter, took out both of them on two. I think we have to leave matter in if we did anything on the 273 just because the way it's written, the word "matter" needs to be there. But I don't see a problem that we really have with pending matter. I mean, to me, it's -- I would just say I only found it in one other code, and I did not find pending matter. I found matter. I was looking at what Robert had provided for us, and I think it shows Austin also has pending matter on it. Yeah, that's me. I think that's in that -- that's me. Did you do that? Yeah, Austin has matter. They don't have pending matter. I was giving you credit for it, Robert. Let me ask you a question. On the example that you just gave where you said that someone could nine scenes steer a developer to business, right? Mm-hmm. Okay. What, if anything, does that have to do with the disclosure of a conflict of interest? What does it have with a disclosure of a conflict of interest? What does it have to do with disclosure of a conflict of interest? Are you guys familiar with the case of the mayor in Irving? Is it Irving that just got -- I think she's going to jail because she was sleeping with a developer, basically. And during the time that she was making sure this developer got advancements and got everything he needed with the city, a lot of money changed hands, both for her and for him. There were some votes taken, but it wasn't necessarily pending matters, but she was definitely -- the FBI came in. Are you guys familiar with this case? But are you saying that the minute she started doing that, she had an obligation to disclose? Yeah. Is that your point? Yeah. So she made a failure to do so and convicted her. Right. And the FBI was actually -- the county did prosecute it. The FBI came in and prosecuted it. So yeah, she should have disclosed, and she should have recused herself, and she should have -- Wait, so she should have recused herself because she was sleeping with a developer but had no financial interest? Right. Because she made things happen. Yeah. Well, our current code, the way it's written, irrespective of the language of pending matter or not, does our current code require that woman to disclose what she was doing? I don't think so. I would think it does. That would have the appearance of the company. Was she receiving a benefit? I think it's vague enough that she might not have known that. And I think my issue with our code in general is that it is very hard to interpret and it's vague. You look at some of the other codes. If you look at San Marcos, there is no question what they're meaning. Well, I think here, there's -- I mean, there's no question if you own -- if you are a conflict of interest under 2, 1073-3 -- Financially. But what you're saying is, well, if you could possibly work behind the scenes and possibly make something happen, that is not clear. So that's -- I haven't seen anything written down that would cover that, that would be clear enough for counsel and board people to understand what is a conflict and for us to understand what is a conflict. A city council person could work on a project like the small -- a small area plan and participate in discussions and influence how that's going to be done, up to the point that it becomes an application, a proposal, or a contract. It would be okay for them to do all of that, that public work and neighborhood meetings and whatever goes into making the plan. And it's not a conflict of interest if they own substantial property there? Is that -- is that the one that we had -- we already rule on this as an ethics force? Yes. Okay. I mean, I -- I mean, I think that -- I mean, is it affecting -- I mean, do they own a substantial interest and is it a pending matter? There's been -- I mean, it's kind of a -- I'm not sure exactly -- like, are you saying they're voting on something to change something? No, I'm saying that they are working to improve the area through public meetings, through whatever process goes into making a small area plan. But nothing has been voted on as far as, like, money changing hands or -- Nothing has been voted on, but they're still working to improve the value and push things through into the plan that will benefit them because they already have a substantial interest in the area. But that's okay until it's voted on, until it comes to a vote. And that's what -- Well, is there -- is it -- let's see, is it a deliberate -- I mean, is it -- I don't know. I'd have to -- I'm not really sure the specific situation you're talking about, but I mean, if somebody just owned -- oh, go ahead. So, in your example, are you saying that if somebody worked with a developer on an area before it became a -- before it became for the city council, let's say, but they helped work to get things in order? Right. In whatever fashion that may be, in order to get it ordered. Or maybe they were able to make it bypass some typical city procedures. So, you're saying that if they did that before it became -- came to the city council for voting purposes, would -- you're saying would that be a -- is that a conflict that they worked over here for something? And discussed it during work sessions and -- But there was a non-voting issue, but then when it came to voting, they did not -- they would have to disclose their interest. When it came to voting. When it came to voting. So, you're saying that if they set it up for, let's just say, approval, if you will, before it came a point of disclosure, is that -- you're saying is that the conflict? Am I getting that right? You're saying is that conflict that they -- If I understand -- They set it up right to be approval, and when it came to voting time, now they disclosed that they have an interest of some kind. But it's still in their role -- they're still participating in their role as city council person. Right. In the processes, in the neighborhood meetings, and -- Right. Especially if they're able to engineer a go-around. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. To me, personally, if you were a council person and you helped a developer get things in order, knowing that the area that you're working with is going to, at some point, involve something that you are a part of, financially or not financially, either way, to me personally, I would say it's a conflict from the beginning. Yeah. Because you are ensuring that you're benefiting. So to me -- But that sounds like a pending matter. If it's going to a vote -- But see, that's -- what she's saying is before you get to the matter, because it hasn't come to them, what that point is, to me, I think it's a conflict because you're setting that up for potential approval because you have -- it was a -- at that point, to me, it was a matter because you were dealing with it. But when it came before the city council, it becomes a pending matter for their discussion and deliberations. So I think it'd be a -- to me, it'd be a conflict of that city person that helped because they just basically just guaranteed its approval. So I think that it was a matter before, even though they were within their rights to, as their job, I think that's something that -- because if you didn't disclose your ownership or whatever it may be of something in that area, to me, that's a conflict from the beginning. Yeah. Because you're doing something that's going to benefit you. But those small area plans, those aren't developers that are -- that's not a deal with the developer. Could be, may not be, could be, depending on what you're doing. But I'm just saying, anything where you work beforehand to set up something for approval later on and you don't disclose that you have some interest in what you are working with, to me, it's a conflict of interest. And more importantly, it benefits you because you have access to information and sort of behind-the-scenes decision-making that the general public would not have, and that is textbook conflict of interest. Where should he stop, though? Where should that city council person stop if it's going to benefit him and his area and everything else? I think he should start at the beginning when he finds out that it's going to benefit his area, that disclosure. But don't you want to do things that benefit your area? Yeah, like if you just own a ball. I mean, isn't that one of the responsibilities of the city councilman? But if you're doing something to change something that's going to become before a voting matter that the council is going to have to vote on to make that happen, to me, I think -- to me, I think that's disclosure of your interest because you have just -- in the duty of your job, you have used information to benefit you before it became a voting issue, whereas the general public, who may have some differing opinion, never had that information because you're the only one -- The only thing we're saying is that that individual shouldn't vote. He can still do everything that we're talking about them doing, encourage, facilitate, do everything, but not vote or deliberate with the city council members. Well, I think there should be a disclosure at the beginning of that council person helping whatever it is you're doing. I think it should be disclosure that that council person has some kind of interest. Now, who does he disclose it to? The council? No, you disclose it to the auditor, actually. Well, whoever the entity may be. I'm just saying that I think the disclosure should be made at that point because somebody may have construed that as a behind-the-scenes conflict, that you're doing something to benefit you later on when it comes time for approval. You have done something to benefit you through the back door, knowing that you've done all the -- helped get all the T's crossed and the I's dotted that normally may not have happened had you not had the inside story. To refresh our memories, weren't those groups that were working, the groups of citizens? I believe so. That's why I'm kind of lost in this because when we looked at that, I mean, it clearly wasn't a conflict. And also, weren't they looking at large areas that could have musication projects, not to the infrastructure and not to anybody's private business? But the day before, there was a work session where they spent time discussing that. And if there were any city council person -- What was that? The small area plan. Yeah. Before they submitted that advisory opinion request, there was a lot of discussion. And if any city council person owned property, they were still participating in a work session with city council. Well, I would go back to what I said when we had that meeting is that -- or when we had the hearing on that is that, well, I mean, if you live in the city and you're on -- or if you're on city council, there's a good chance you own a house somewhere in the city, so you own property. So what, you can't vote on anything that has to do with the city because you own city property? Like, where does that -- No, it's not talking about making changes that will enhance the value -- To the infrastructure. I mean, if you own a house, I mean, you want to have a road that works in front of you, so you're saying you can't vote on a road that goes by your home because you own that road? So I own four houses. I live in one. But for the other three, if I were on city council or even on board ethics or whatever, and I wanted to work on a plan to enhance the value of those, just by presence as a city official at neighborhood meetings regarding or any other meetings, and then if I was on the city council, and participating in work planning about that, that would enhance the value of my investment properties, not my home, my investment properties. So, well, then you're drawing differentiation between investment property and somebody's home, which, I mean, I don't know if you can draw a difference between that. I think they're both. So, but, I mean, the way you're describing that, it's almost a nexus between what's being proposed by these minority groups and the value of personal property going up. Isn't it more like we might propose a park, and if a park is across the street from a residential property, those properties might increase in value? Sure. I don't think anybody would have a problem with that. I think things are getting a little distorted because they were being used as the things that the small group process was doing with increasing the value of property. It's not increasing the value of property, it's increasing the value of infrastructure that may or may not have an impact on personal property values. Isn't that more like it? I think I'm lobbying, as in my city council robes, to not, I'm not just, I don't want to just focus on small area plans, but on anything that would provide a financial, economic effect on me. And I do that before, as long as it's not a, if I do everything I can using my knowledge, using my connections to enhance the value of it, as long as it's not a contract before the city, what we're saying is that is not a violation. That is not an ethical problem. And indeed, it wouldn't, the way that the current code is written, it would not be a violation of the ethical code because of the wording. But it is an ethical conflict because I am going to be benefiting from all the work that I was able to do in my position, official, to enhance. But I think there's a line that a city official could step over that becomes obvious and becomes an obvious conflict of interest. A city council person or anybody on the board or commission can be a part of these discussions without necessarily influencing the ultimate outcome, because that's what city staff are here for. We've got guidelines for that. And they should be able to say, okay, you want to do this project, here's the process. We have to go through the process. If they go beyond that and work underhanded, that becomes an apparent conflict of interest and the duty of anybody reporting. So I think what we've got now, we covered that. I understand what both of y'all are trying to cover here, but I'm not sure that we haven't got something in place that would prevent an unscrupulous city official from trying to influence a development that we're trying to answer them for the moment. Where did we have that in place? Can you show me? Because I've read the code pretty closely and I can't find it. So you think of, I think the mayor, I like the mayor, but just say the mayor goes in and actually interacts with an individual telling them things to do that actually the staff, that we have staff in place that we have codes and protocols established for. He goes and does stuff beyond that. I think that's in there, clearly. I think he's gone, he's created a conflict of interest by going beyond what his position is as a city official. So that might be under improper influence. So just hypothetically, what? My, my, my, my reason for saying that was because if I was a city official and I told a developer, before you go to the city, do this, do that, before you get there. The only way that developer may know that was because he had a city official helping him behind the scenes. And the developer does that when he gets to city officials to start this process for whatever that development is, and they say, oh, you've already got this done. We don't have to worry about that because it fits within the guidelines of what the city wants. To me, I think it's a conflict because that city council person is going to benefit because he already has done this, and they did this because of. I'm going to ask the people sitting aside to please, I'm going to ask the people sitting on the side to please keep their voices down or take their conversations outside so we can hear what's going on here. I think what you're saying, Ronnie, would fall under improper influence and shall be a violation of the article to use the person's official title position to secure special privileges or benefits for that person. Correct. But when it comes to the, what we're talking about here, the matter, the pending matter, to me, an official, to me that's a matter when he's talking to this developer. It's already a matter because it's something that's going to be worked with. It is something that's going to be worked on in one fashion or another. It becomes a matter. It hasn't come before the council yet as a pending matter for them to discuss or work through, but it's a matter because it's going to come into play for an entity of the city to work with or work through. So to me, the city councilman is, to me, is doing undue influence by giving, to me, he's doing something behind the scenes that anything that they do that the average citizen could not do because they don't have that information to me is a conflict. And he's giving out information that only is being provided through his position. He shouldn't be giving out any information that any citizen couldn't get if they went that way. That's what I'm saying. If he's going to be on that, then I agree with you. But if he's just merely saying, hey, here's the protocol. Here's what you've got to do. Not how. Here's how you can get past that. But this is the process. You and every other. But to me, he's using his position as a city employee, as a councilman, in an undue influence fashion because he's given them information otherwise would not be able to be attained. To me, as a city councilman, let's just say, for example, to me, that becomes conflict ventures because he has created that. Kevin, I have a problem with the small group example. Probably the main thing that started the conversation. My understanding was that the small group process was started in order to enhance city services and city benefits to the citizens. It wasn't started as a city initiative to increase property values. So based upon the fact that the goal was to increase the proximity and the existing city facilities and services, then a tangential byproduct of that would be that if something was put in place as a result of those deliveries, then it might increase property values at the point when that city council person who was charged with going out and helping these big groups kind of quantify their thinking at the point where he or she realizes that a tangible project might increase property values. I think that is when they just start thinking about disclosure, but not going into the process because the goal of the process was not to increase property values. It was to increase the enjoyment of the city resources to the citizens. Okay, so I want to keep this conversation moving because this is still Exhibit 1 and it's like 637. Number two is incorporate economic effects from the local government code. So I also want to cover that before we kind of make a decision on Exhibit 1. So part of it is taking out pending and then also adding A and B that is on Exhibit 1. And my thoughts on that is that it's making, what it's doing is right now the Denton Code is you have a conflicting interest and there's a pending matter and there's a conflict. In 171 there's a substantial business interest which is kind of like our conflict of interest but less strict. There is a matter and they just say matter and then there's also an economic effect. So you also have to go in and see where there's an economic effect versus in Denton it's just there's a conflict of interest, you can't vote. So my thoughts on that is that it's adding those two sections or making it the same as the government code so again like why are we having this if it's the same as 171 and that we should not add the economic effect which we've talked about before in previous meetings as far as economic effects. I think what we need to decide as far as Exhibit 1, would we want to put forth to council a change that would take out pending, out of the code and the pending matter definition out of the code and also add this economic interest to kind of add another level to pending matter. So we can discuss that and then kind of at some point come to a resolution about what's in Exhibit 1. So thoughts on the economic interest or economic effect in Exhibit 1. Can I just mention that in the glossary there is a definition of the remover? Well yeah in the ordinance. Right but it is very specific. My thought is as far as Exhibit 1, my goal on this ethics board is to only improve the ethics code by sending amendments to council and making sure that we know what we're kind of policing and council has notice of what is conflict of interest that they need to not do. So my thought is that we would not change pending matter and we would not change economic effect. I kind of don't want us to sit here for another hour and go around in circles so I'd like to hear everybody else's thought on whether we should change it as presented Exhibit 1 or not. I don't see a benefit. Anyone else? I believe Debra presented it so I'm sure she's for it. I am because in the charter the definition of a prohibited and proper economic interest and personal gain is to be incorporated into the ethics code. I see what you're saying and I feel like we know that in depth at the last meeting. I know, I know, I know. But what this is doing is just pulling out of 171 what that economic interest and personal effect is. And city council has already agreed to this earlier in their, under the administrative code, as part of the administrative code that they are to follow this. So this is a reminder of what that matter would be. And so Annette, are you wanting to accept Exhibit 1 or? No. I'm sorry, yes I am. Oh, you do want to accept Exhibit 1. Ronnie, would you want to accept Exhibit 1? Yeah, I don't see a real big difference in changing the word. And Ron, would you like to accept Exhibit 1 as something that we would send to city council for an amendment? I've already said that I didn't see anything. Oh, I'm sorry, I think you did. Was it Larry that I didn't talk to? I don't see where Annette and everyone was honestly due, but it's just, it's not clear that their concern isn't covered in the existing ethics code. If I got into a specific example of something, it would give me a better idea, but it's been speculative. If something like this has come along that we can say, yeah, there's a need for this, I just, I'm not sure I see it right now, so I would probably not go along with it at this time, I'm sorry. All right, well I think, I just don't want to waste everyone's time. I want to thank everyone. For the purpose of the record, this is Exhibit 2. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't say Exhibit 1, but Exhibit 1 was what Robert sent us, but yeah, Exhibit 2. So I think we're all on the same page. Everyone knew I was talking about Exhibit 2. But we do have, we still have a lot more, so I think we're just, I think we're just going to move on from there. I don't think that we're going to have a motion or votes to accept that as something we're going to do at the moment, but I do thank you for your work. I mean, I know I question people hard, and I am a prosecutor, so sometimes it might be me, but I do appreciate your work. And I think we're all, we all want, we all want cities to be in ethic, otherwise we wouldn't be here, so I mean, so thanks. Okay, so Exhibit 3, who presented that? That was me. Okay, all right. And that was, I'm going to fill out a place here, but the wording sometimes for me is compared to say like the San Antonio Ethics Code, which is easy to read, is a little bit legalese and cryptic, and it sounds conflicting. The reason I wanted to change the grammar is that it kind of, I better understand what it's saying as opposed to what it is right now, because it sounds like it's saying you can't do this, but then you can't do this. All right. Does that make sense? Yeah, so it says it is an exception to this recusal requirement, oh, and so it's under deliberation prohibited when you can't deliberate something. So it's an exception to this recusal requirement if the city official serves on the City Council Planning and Zoning Commission, Board of Ethics, Historic Landmark Commission, Public Utilities Board, or Board of Adjustment, semicolon, and a majority of the members of the body is composed of persons who likewise require to follow and who do file disclosure on the same pending matter. So what it is meaning is that the, a majority of the people on that board also have that same conflict, and it says and. So you would like to, for and to be replaced with where, comma where. Does that make it, does that change it that much? I mean, I guess my question was just how, I don't know if it makes a difference, but I kind of wanted to open up for you, because if anybody. For me it just made more sense, I don't want it to change anything, if the meaning. I don't think the meaning changes either way. If it's not, if that lower part is not actually conflicting with the top part, then okay, but it just, when I add, when I change the grammar the way I did, it makes more sense to me, and I'm the type of person that doesn't have the repertoire that a lawyer or somebody would have. That's what made it difficult for me. Sorry. Yeah, I see where you're coming from. I, I just, I don't know, I don't know if I see it, for instance, anybody else have thoughts on that? I found it confusing, but it wasn't the only part because I found confusing. I felt a lot of parts really confusing, so. Yeah, I was surprised that we had to actually make a request like this that goes through city councils. Tell me the reason I did, I mean I can live with it either way, I just thought it would be easier for a lay person like myself. I agree with you. Yeah, I do too. I mean when I first came in, you know, I had to sit down and read this, and I, you know, it was a boring thing, but I get, I got to that one part, and it sounded like it was saying you couldn't do this, and it came down later and said, well, yeah, you could under certain conditions. That's all I'm saying. I understand it's not now, but when you first read it like that, when the lay person that's out of the loop comes in and reads that, it is, it just kind of throws you for a loop. I think that's something that we keep coming up against, is this is a statute, it's an ordinance, it's like a statute, and so. But I mean, as I said. Sometimes it's more difficult to understand. The cryptic language sometimes is inhibited, I didn't see that in San Antonio as it just goes. It's blank, it's easy to read, and that's all I was trying to get at here, just making this a little bit more easier to read. I could see where it might read better that way. What was that? I said I could see where it might read a little bit more clearly with your change. Thank you. All right, so is there, I mean, I guess we can just go around and decide if we've got a majority that want this change, we can make some sort of motion to go to council. So I assume Larry's on board, and I guess Ron, you're in agreement with this? I am. And Debra and Edda are? Dawn and Rhonda? Okay, so I guess maybe have a motion to add this to, and just going back, because some of our members are newer. We've already sent a letter with kind of the low hanging fruit of like changing, accused, respondent. We've already sent forth certain proposals, and then, you know, set with UMESH back on October 22nd. And they were, I think most of them were in agreement, but then they said we want everything all at once. And so that's what we're working towards, but now they want to amend the polling place, so I almost feel like we just said what we have. Again, it's my opinion. So I move we accept Exhibit 3 and change and declare. All right, so we have a motion to accept Exhibit 3. Is there a second? I second. Seconded by Debra. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. The motion passes, and we will accept Exhibit 3, and we will add that to our letter that's going to Council. And I started talking about the other, because I think when we do send the letter to Council, we'll just say something about like the boarding. But forth, all these other changes that y'all can make, because we've asked you to. So you include the list from the letter? That's what I'm thinking, just include. And I mean, we can talk about that as board. I was kind of thinking we'd wait until the end to see if we have any more, so we could address that quick, like now, so we know we're on the same page. I'm thinking we send the letter that we agree with. Jesse's proposal, our Councilman Davis, I thought we used to say that, and we Exhibit 3 so far. And then I think we add the things we have from our October 7th letter, which, you know, include changing respondents, putting in a huge respondent, taking out the department supervisor part that was not applicable, putting in the whistleblower thing that we all agreed on. As far as relative, adding that relative and affinity and consanguinity in accordance with the Texas Government Code. And the special counsel, what we have already agreed about as far as how the city's attorney can't be our counsel when we're dealing with a city attorney. And what we have agreed upon on that. So that was my thinking, if anybody is against that, we can discuss that, and if not, we'll just move forward to Exhibit 4 and talk about the proposals in Exhibit 4. All right, so that's Annetta. So as far as Exhibit 4, let's see, there's, if you want to go, let's, I guess let's just start with the Conflict of Interest. I mean, it's a couple pages. The first page is Weschler's Conflict of Interest, which was, hands down, my favorite because it was very clear. And then I compared other Conflict of Interest definitions from Austin. Well, actually, why don't we take a break? I see everybody looking like they need to go to the restroom. So let's take a break. All right, so we're back on, starting the, well, starting the second half of the meeting, I guess. And so we're on Exhibit 4. Annetta started to talk about the first page is Weschler's Conflict of Interest. The second page is Other City Code Conflicts, and I guess you made a chart on the third page comparing some different things between four different cities and Weschler's Model Code. I guess we'll kind of just take this as a, just take this as whole, but I don't really know how to break it down completely. I have a couple, can I? By Weschler's Code, I love his Model Code, I think it is by far the best thing I've found next to San Marcos in San Antonio. But one of the things he does, instead of saying the Consequency thing, he lists out all of the possible relatives that could be Conflict of Interest. So that's like the third whole paragraph. I really like that, I also found that in San Antonio. I think that is really nice and clear. So as far as listing out the employees, I would say we have the family members of city officials. We've defined relative, and one of the things we've already told council that relative is defined as consinity and affinity. And Cheryl, we've met, she missed this, and she always likes to bring up what that means. But we put in that we want to add that it is, let me go directly to it actually. Yeah, we can look it up in the other code. That is in accordance with Texas Government Code Title 5, Section B, Chapter 573. So I mean I think by that we've said what relative is, and it's defined, and it's in accordance with like state law. I mean this is just a little point, but in general our code reads like a legal document, and if you're not a lawyer you're not going to understand it. And even when you really sit and kind of get into the weeds on some things, it's very confusing. Whereas Weschler, who is a lawyer with degrees from Harvard and Columbia, his writing is so clear and there's just no legal reason at all, or very little. So I mean I really like the tone it does. It's also a very, it's not skewed in one direction, I guess. So I love his writing and I love the way he puts everything. On the second page what I did was I squished, and one thing that all the codes struggle with was gender pronouns. So in Austin they don't talk about the ear, they talk about a natural person. Denton kind of struggles, all the other cities struggle. I would, anyway, it's not very 2020, let me put it that way. The thing that I really don't like about Denton's Code, like if you look at that conflict of interest, the whole definition there, all those caps mean that you have to look back at the definition of terms. And then when you look back at the definition of terms, I was surprised at what a lot of the things meant. So for example, pending matter means an application to seek approval of a permit, a proposal to enter into a contract, or a case involving a city that is going to be before a civil criminal or administrative argument. So those are very specific things, very narrow. San Antonio, crystal clear, you don't take any official action that you know is going to affect your economic interests. Well, I don't know if that's crystal clear, if they affect economic interests, like all those things do have to be defined elsewhere, otherwise they don't make sense. And I think we've all agreed not to, we all agreed not to accept Exhibit 2 as far as economic interests. I think it goes back to, you either have economic interests, like in the government code, or it's like Denton where it's just black and white. If you have a conflict, you can't vote, it doesn't matter why your economic interest is. I had no trouble when I read San Antonio or San Marcos. Well then how do you define, affect the economic interest? Then they go on to a two page long list of things like Weschler's, so they define it pretty clearly. On two pages? Well, I mean my thoughts on this is like, you know, the training video we watched, Alan Berkowitz, the attorney who helped, who worked with the city in crafting this code, talked about how the city code, I can't remember it exactly, but he said something about, like every provision was written by the council people, city council crafted every provision as far as what Denton had. And in your exhibit you have the most common way to find conflict of interest, as far as you have no person subject to this code shall have any interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect. And I just think that goes back to that's just too vague, you know, what does that mean? I think it's broader, and I think it needs to be broad. I don't think that's a bad thing. And I think Denton has, the way that Denton, we've done it here Denton, is if you have a conflict of interest, you can't vote. It's not broad like that, it's not vague, if you have an interest you can't vote. And as far as the other cities, Austin uses substantial interest, and San Antonio says it affects economic interest, and that's just, I mean it goes back to that's, we would be adding that to the code, which we haven't been presented, or come up with a way to add that that makes sense. And as far as the comparisons on your last page, the things that I noticed were the consanguinity, I already mentioned that, that we already did want to change that. As far as baseless and frivolous complaint, I mean I am totally for leaving that in there, because I don't, you know, that protects people from harassment and people just filing complaints that are baseless and frivolous and just getting away with that. As far as university, I believe universities should be in there because of, compared to these other cities, you have Austin, which is a huge university, or a huge city with huge universities. San Antonio, a huge city with, I don't know how many universities they have, at least a couple, and San Marcos is probably more our size with the university, but in our town at least, you know, it's mid-size and we have two universities, and I think that university should stay, and I think it was put in there for a reason. And as far as later down on there you say conflict of interest focuses on personal benefit and that Denton is the only one that does it, I think it goes back to Denton is, if you have a conflict of interest, you can't vote. So anyway, those are my thoughts on this. We can hear comments from other people. I don't think it's really brought us with like change, change the wording of the code to X, it's more kind of things to think about. So we can discuss that as needed, and then talk more about the letter that we want to send to council. Chair, if you don't mind, could you elaborate on why you think a university should be considered as businesses? Well, and it goes back to me, and if you watch the October 22nd meeting, council person Armator and Mayor Watts talked about it, and Armator is saying a university should be in and Watts is saying it should. And I think it's because the university has a lot of power in this town, especially UNT. I mean look at the imminent domain that's going on. I don't think we should have somebody on council that can also vote on stuff with UNT or somebody on council that can vote for contracts and things with TWU, because that's putting a lot of power into the university. And I think that's as much of a conflict as somebody that's working for a business. And I think she put in here that Austin lists non-profits as business entities, and we also have non-profits covered in our code. So I don't think that you should be able to, I mean, there could, okay, like the polling place issue, we found that was a conflict, under this code it's a conflict. Now we're saying, you know, add polling places in to, you can vote on it no matter what. Okay, there's no money changing hands. There are definitely contracts that go on with UNT or TWU where money could change hands, and I don't think we should have a city official or council person that can vote on that. And I haven't heard an argument for why they should be able to vote on something like that. Polling places, I understand and I get. But another kind of, you know, some sort of real estate deal or contract with UNT or TWU that where money's changing hands, I think that person should be recused. May I speak? If university is in there, then I absolutely think Chamber of Commerce and maybe county should be called out as well. Because the city, you could easily curry favors with those groups, and they have a lot of power in this city. And frankly, I think none of them should be in there, but if we're going to call out the universities, then I think we should have it. Well, political subdivision isn't there, so the county isn't there. Well, and I mean, so is the university under that category, why do we call it out separately? Well, political subdivision, I mean, I guess you're not saying city, county. I think it's a government entity, right? I'm reading it right now. Political subdivision, a sole proprietorship, partnership firm, corporation, holding company, joint stock company, receivership trust, political subdivision, government agency, university or any other entity recognized by law. So can we add Chamber of Commerce? Because the city gets the money, a lot of money, and they have a lot of power. I mean, I'd rather have neither in there, honestly, but if you're going to go down one road, then please go down the other road. I thought that there was something about a nonprofit, but maybe not. I thought it was covered under something else. It is under conflict of interest. Okay. Conflict of interest 3F. Serves on the board of directors or officer of a business entity. Oh, wait, okay, that's probably F. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Serves on board of directors or as an officer of a nonprofit corporation or an unincorporated association unless the city official is appointed by the position by city council. So would Chamber of Commerce fit under there? Because, I mean. Fine, and so does a university fit under the nonprofit or the government agency? I don't, I don't think, well, if you look at my student loans, I don't think university or nonprofit. State universities are considered nonprofits. So why are we calling them out separately? I mean, well, what's the harm in keeping it? What's the harm in vetting the Chamber of Commerce? I guess, I mean, I'm just, I guess I'm against the change. I think we should leave the university just in the power that universities have in the city. I don't think they have power. I really think they do. I think that they just don't even know. I kind of wish they did. I just don't think Chamber of Commerce needs to be, I don't see a big overriding Chamber of Commerce. The city funds them to the tune of about two and a half million dollars. Well, and if you are on the Board of Directors or an officer, I don't believe you, I believe you have a conflict of interest, so I think it's covered. Is there any more discussion on Exhibit 4? As I read the part on San Marcos, two of our city council people would have to resign if we adopted that. Yeah, I think that one's very strict as far as voting property. Let me say that when the citizens overwhelmingly voted for a code of ethics, I don't think they were thinking about what they got. I don't think they like it, and I don't think they think it is strict enough or broad enough to cover what is needed. And I think, you know, when you look at other codes, it's an outlier, and it's very skewed toward business and away from people who are non-profit. And I don't think it can be fixed. I mean, I went down so many rabbit holes looking through the code and trying to compare it to others. I think it's really a poorly written code. I think you would have to do a line-by-line edit to get it just even kind of close to the center. And the other part is the citizens were really bucked out, and are we ever going to ask for input from citizens about what they think about this code? I'll take that as a no. Well, there was a citizens committee born to determine whether or not they would have a code. Well, yeah, but there wasn't a citizens committee. Well, this is a citizens committee. What's kind of disappointed me about the code is not the code itself. I'm not upset with the code, but the way that people have applied the code, it's all been political. Almost every one of our things has been a political vendetta against someone else and not to try to help the community or good for the community or anything. And that's where I've been, I guess, more frustrated with it than anything else. And it's political season coming up, and I bet we'll start getting some vendettas again. So, was your purpose in presenting this with food for thought? I was just looking at the other codes, and it is really weird when you start reading our language and you read, especially San Antonio and San Marcos and Westlark. I don't have any difficulty understanding what they're saying, but there were a number of places like that. I'm still not quite sure that I understand that deliberation thing. I think that one word helps a little bit, but I still don't understand it. There's maybe five places in the conflict of interest thing where you have to refer back to the terms, and they're not what I expected them to be. It's just like a big bowl of spaghetti that's all tangled up, and I don't think it's fixable. I think we need to go back to the drawing board and just pull up a model code. That would be more of my hope. Again, coming in later, was there anything enacted that would allow this board, kind of like the VIN 2020 plan, where every five years we review it and update it or something like that, is there anything inherent in this board, our authority to, within a certain period of time? So that's what we're doing right now. We have the authority to propose amendments to the code to City Council. But I meant as a whole, just to do a whole review of it in five years, like a five-year plan. It's in the code. I can try to find the section about it. So I think 2-277 I, amendments, the Board of Ethics may recommend amendments to the article. A recommendation from the Board of Ethics is not required for the City Council to exercise its discretion in amending this article. So it's a piecemeal type thing? Yeah, and that's all it says as far as what we can and can't do. I guess we can take that as we want it. I mean, we could recommend all the amendments we want, that we agree on, and we take to City Council. So I think we could look over it as much as we want. Okay, just throwing that out there. And as far as the piecemeal, so I went in front of Council the first time last summer, and I brought four. I think then we were just kind of asking, like, well, what are we supposed to do as far as amendment, as far as I remember? And I was told, you know, bring changes as they come. Then in October, it was kind of a different, why don't we bring everything at once? And then, like I said, now we're looking at changing the polling places, and we were asked to decide on that. So we've kind of gotten different direction as far as piecemeal or not. So that goes back to what I was saying earlier as far as sending a letter saying we have voted, the majority has voted for Council Member Davis's proposal, voted for what you had said as far as changing and to where, and then adding what we're, and you know, we've been talking for several meetings about conflict of interest, but the first several amendments that we suggest that were all unanimous as far as changing accused respondent, adding whistleblower, changing what the city council's, city attorney's role somewhat as far as when a city council person has an ethics playing against them and taking out a certain section that was just in a virtual. So I would say that we just send that letter again unless we want to discuss more on Exhibit 4 or if there's any proposed amendments as far as Exhibit 4. I'd just like to say why I voted no on polling because it ties into this. And the reason I voted no is because if we do find that it's a problem, how difficult is it going to be to change it? Oh, are you saying like if somebody is using it for their gain? Right. And that's a valid point because it takes a long time to change anything as we've seen. But we have a city council person that makes a recommendation and two months later we have a change. Yeah. So what kind of commitment does city council have to seriously consider the recommendations that we make all the way? Well, I'm going to test that because I'd like to give all of our recommendations again. Okay, so any more discussion on that? Any more amendments or is everybody on board for the letter I've proposed and we just send that to council? I know that y'all are on board for not changing conflict of interest, but on board for sending the letter, the majority is agreed to. All right, I guess that concludes it. If there's any more thoughts about the letter or any of the exhibits, speak now or forever hold your peace. What's that? All right, so I guess we will adjourn. Oh no, my watch is out of battery. So 723 and we'll adjourn. Thank you for everybody for coming and taking their time out and working hard on this.