1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:16,560
 It's 5.33. We'll call this meeting to order. We have Larry Beck and Dawn Cartwright,

2
00:00:16,560 --> 00:00:21,760
 Becker Cosmo, Annette Ramsey, Laura Tomlin, myself, the Chair, Ronnie Mohair, Robert Swanbeck

3
00:00:21,760 --> 00:00:26,700
 and Ron Johnson here. Sharla Bradshaw is absent due to work reasons.

4
00:00:26,700 --> 00:00:29,200
 She may be late. I think she's absent.

5
00:00:29,200 --> 00:00:32,200
 She may be late, maybe absent due to work reasons.

6
00:00:32,200 --> 00:00:38,200
 Are there any other absences we need to put on for the meeting? Okay.

7
00:00:38,200 --> 00:00:46,200
 Alright, so we'll move to the first agenda item, and item A, consider approval of the minutes for October 23rd, 2019.

8
00:00:46,200 --> 00:00:54,200
 Does anybody have any suggestions or edits for that or a motion to accept them?

9
00:00:54,200 --> 00:01:01,200
 I'll second the motion. Alright, Annette, motion to approve. Dawn Cartwright, second the motion.

10
00:01:01,200 --> 00:01:08,200
 All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes. The minutes are accepted.

11
00:01:08,200 --> 00:01:16,200
 Moving to agenda item B, receive a report and hold a discussion regarding board attendance and reporting of absences.

12
00:01:16,200 --> 00:01:24,200
 Since everybody read that, all the time we spent talking about absences as if the next meeting was a waste of time.

13
00:01:24,200 --> 00:01:27,200
 Do you want to talk about it or do you want me to?

14
00:01:27,200 --> 00:01:31,200
 Omesh is going to do a presentation.

15
00:01:31,200 --> 00:01:42,200
 Well, if you don't want to talk about it then.

16
00:01:42,200 --> 00:01:48,200
 My name is Omesh Talal. I'm a city auditor.

17
00:01:48,200 --> 00:02:05,200
 Recently the city council passed an ordinance which amended the requirement for absenteeism on the boards and commission.

18
00:02:05,200 --> 00:02:23,200
 Now previously, as you recall, this board opted to include vacation as two days of vacation as excused absence.

19
00:02:23,200 --> 00:02:32,200
 After that, city council changed that and they removed that language that board cannot decide that.

20
00:02:32,200 --> 00:02:37,200
 So now we are back to the excused versus non-excused.

21
00:02:37,200 --> 00:02:49,200
 And it defines, basically, remaining part of the requirement status act.

22
00:02:49,200 --> 00:03:06,200
 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.

23
00:03:06,200 --> 00:03:25,200
 And if you notify her or excuse absence, which is listed in the requirement, then that suffices your action.

24
00:03:25,200 --> 00:03:36,200
 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.

25
00:03:36,200 --> 00:04:00,200
 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.

26
00:04:00,200 --> 00:04:10,200
 And city secretary will put on city council's agenda to have them talk about it and excuse it.

27
00:04:10,200 --> 00:04:19,200
 So that's the new process. Any questions?

28
00:04:19,200 --> 00:04:36,200
 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?

29
00:04:36,200 --> 00:04:58,200
 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.

30
00:04:58,200 --> 00:05:11,200
 So if I have not requested alternate to participate on the board, then it doesn't apply to you.

31
00:05:11,200 --> 00:05:19,200
 But if I request the alternate to participate on the board, and then there is absenteeism, that applies to me.

32
00:05:19,200 --> 00:05:30,200
 Sort of. But like tonight, there's some folks missing. How would you have known that in order to request?

33
00:05:30,200 --> 00:05:45,200
 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.

34
00:05:45,200 --> 00:06:02,200
 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.

35
00:06:02,200 --> 00:06:10,200
 And if we're out of town, then is that an unexcused absence for the alternate if you requested?

36
00:06:10,200 --> 00:06:23,200
 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.

37
00:06:23,200 --> 00:06:24,200
 Very clear.

38
00:06:24,200 --> 00:06:26,200
 So then it doesn't complicate you.

39
00:06:26,200 --> 00:06:31,200
 So where we had discussed vacations, that's completely eliminated now.

40
00:06:31,200 --> 00:06:41,200
 There it is. Does that make sense?

41
00:06:41,200 --> 00:06:46,200
 It's clear as mud as far as the alternate is.

42
00:06:46,200 --> 00:06:48,200
 It just sounds cumbersome to me.

43
00:06:48,200 --> 00:07:02,200
 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.

44
00:07:02,200 --> 00:07:05,200
 You don't have to put it back up there. It's my question.

45
00:07:05,200 --> 00:07:09,200
 Oh, okay.

46
00:07:09,200 --> 00:07:21,200
 So under the normal course of joining judges, vacations are not excusable absences.

47
00:07:21,200 --> 00:07:28,200
 However, can you appeal a vacation to the council after the fact?

48
00:07:28,200 --> 00:07:41,200
 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.

49
00:07:41,200 --> 00:07:44,200
 So then it's up to them to either make an exception or not?

50
00:07:44,200 --> 00:07:45,200
 Yes.

51
00:07:45,200 --> 00:07:49,200
 Okay.

52
00:07:49,200 --> 00:08:00,200
 All right, three unexcused absences in a row means you could be dismissed from the board. Is that correct?

53
00:08:00,200 --> 00:08:01,200
 It's not in a row.

54
00:08:01,200 --> 00:08:02,200
 Not in a row?

55
00:08:02,200 --> 00:08:03,200
 It's within a year.

56
00:08:03,200 --> 00:08:11,200
 Within a year, okay.

57
00:08:11,200 --> 00:08:12,200
 All right, any more questions?

58
00:08:12,200 --> 00:08:14,200
 Any more questions?

59
00:08:14,200 --> 00:08:36,200
 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.

60
00:08:36,200 --> 00:08:52,200
 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.

61
00:08:52,200 --> 00:09:19,200
 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.

62
00:09:19,200 --> 00:09:27,200
 This term does not apply to general votes on a board, comprehensive or on-the-bus motion, such as approval of the city budget.

63
00:09:27,200 --> 00:09:42,200
 And Council Member Davis wants to add more polling places to make it where polling places can be voted on no matter the circumstances.

64
00:09:42,200 --> 00:09:45,200
 All right, I'll start by just saying my thoughts on it.

65
00:09:45,200 --> 00:09:54,200
 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.

66
00:09:54,200 --> 00:10:04,200
 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.

67
00:10:04,200 --> 00:10:16,200
 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.

68
00:10:16,200 --> 00:10:27,200
 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.

69
00:10:27,200 --> 00:10:32,200
 So I'll start the conversation there and we can discuss.

70
00:10:32,200 --> 00:10:47,200
 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.

71
00:10:47,200 --> 00:11:01,200
 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.

72
00:11:01,200 --> 00:11:03,200
 There's money involved.

73
00:11:03,200 --> 00:11:13,200
 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.

74
00:11:13,200 --> 00:11:29,200
 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

75
00:11:29,200 --> 00:11:34,200
 find a place where you're really not going to want them to vote on a polling place.

76
00:11:34,200 --> 00:11:38,200
 So, I mean, yeah, the risk is just as low.

77
00:11:38,200 --> 00:11:40,200
 Other thoughts?

78
00:11:40,200 --> 00:11:43,200
 I think there are deeper problems with this.

79
00:11:43,200 --> 00:11:49,200
 And I kind of get into it with the document that I get, but I wouldn't take the polling places at all.

80
00:11:49,200 --> 00:11:53,200
 Wait, I'm sorry, polling, like not put it into deliberations or?

81
00:11:53,200 --> 00:11:55,200
 I would not put it into deliberations.

82
00:11:55,200 --> 00:11:59,200
 And, in fact, that whole deliberations definition is really weird.

83
00:11:59,200 --> 00:12:01,200
 But I'll get into that later.

84
00:12:01,200 --> 00:12:03,200
 All right.

85
00:12:03,200 --> 00:12:06,200
 Well, I've got a question.

86
00:12:06,200 --> 00:12:08,200
 I just, I don't understand.

87
00:12:08,200 --> 00:12:10,200
 Hold on.

88
00:12:10,200 --> 00:12:11,200
 Okay.

89
00:12:11,200 --> 00:12:15,200
 So, my understanding, I'm sorry, Rob.

90
00:12:15,200 --> 00:12:23,200
 I announced she was here, but I guess we had one alternate that needs to join and it was Debra that was asked.

91
00:12:23,200 --> 00:12:24,200
 Oh, okay.

92
00:12:24,200 --> 00:12:27,200
 And then I think you can't participate.

93
00:12:27,200 --> 00:12:29,200
 Is that, am I, is that right, Trey?

94
00:12:29,200 --> 00:12:31,200
 Well, if you've got a full board, right.

95
00:12:31,200 --> 00:12:32,200
 Okay.

96
00:12:32,200 --> 00:12:34,200
 So, one, two, three, four, wait, one, two, three, four, five.

97
00:12:34,200 --> 00:12:35,200
 Yeah.

98
00:12:35,200 --> 00:12:36,200
 So, then we have seven with Debra.

99
00:12:36,200 --> 00:12:38,200
 So, I'm, I'm sorry.

100
00:12:38,200 --> 00:12:39,200
 That's embarrassing.

101
00:12:39,200 --> 00:12:40,200
 I'm sorry.

102
00:12:40,200 --> 00:12:42,200
 We should have dealt with that before we started.

103
00:12:42,200 --> 00:12:44,200
 So, my apologies.

104
00:12:44,200 --> 00:12:46,200
 And you'll have to just, you know.

105
00:12:46,200 --> 00:12:48,200
 Sorry.

106
00:12:48,200 --> 00:12:53,200
 Anybody else, unfortunately not Rob, that has more to add to that?

107
00:12:53,200 --> 00:13:04,200
 I know that we have been asked to kind of determine, I guess, by vote whether we are in support of that or not.

108
00:13:04,200 --> 00:13:12,200
 So, do we want to have more discussion or just vote, go around and say whether we support it or vote?

109
00:13:12,200 --> 00:13:16,200
 What does everybody think?

110
00:13:16,200 --> 00:13:27,200
 My question is how often is a, for discussion, how often is a Millennium Exchange polling place going to come into it?

111
00:13:27,200 --> 00:13:43,200
 Because the polling places that they choose are not and never have been facilities that require a payment to use those places for voting.

112
00:13:43,200 --> 00:13:51,200
 And I don't, I don't think anybody does that really, but I know Denny has never done that before.

113
00:13:51,200 --> 00:13:56,200
 I've been voting for the last 40 years, almost, but I don't think, I've never remembered that ever happening.

114
00:13:56,200 --> 00:14:09,200
 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...

115
00:14:09,200 --> 00:14:18,200
 There would be another fix here, and that would be to take the university language out of the business partner definition.

116
00:14:18,200 --> 00:14:24,200
 Well, it would, unless city council person worked for the county.

117
00:14:24,200 --> 00:14:29,200
 And it's a contract with the county, which is kind of a back door.

118
00:14:29,200 --> 00:14:36,200
 There are other groups that worry me more than the universities, for sure.

119
00:14:36,200 --> 00:14:44,200
 So, like I said, I think the chances are slim to zero that that would ever come into play.

120
00:14:44,200 --> 00:14:57,200
 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?

121
00:14:57,200 --> 00:15:00,200
 What's going to be the overall difference?

122
00:15:00,200 --> 00:15:08,200
 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.

123
00:15:08,200 --> 00:15:15,200
 And I can see, like, you know, you want to be able to vote for where your constituents can go vote.

124
00:15:15,200 --> 00:15:18,200
 If we don't let it in, then it stays as is.

125
00:15:18,200 --> 00:15:27,200
 And people like council member Davis and Arbitore and Metzler, it's against the code for them to vote on polling places.

126
00:15:27,200 --> 00:15:35,200
 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,

127
00:15:35,200 --> 00:15:39,200
 but I don't really see a problem with it with adding polling places.

128
00:15:39,200 --> 00:15:47,200
 Like, it's not going to, I don't think it's going to create a real conflict.

129
00:15:47,200 --> 00:15:52,200
 I don't think it is either, but I, like I say, I think.

130
00:15:52,200 --> 00:16:06,200
 Well, since educational institutions are frequently used at polling places, and we've got two major ones here,

131
00:16:06,200 --> 00:16:15,200
 putting it in and not needing it is probably better than not putting it in and needing it, so.

132
00:16:15,200 --> 00:16:19,200
 So, is there any more discussion, or do we want to just take?

133
00:16:19,200 --> 00:16:23,200
 Just so I'm clear, though, this is saying that they can,

134
00:16:23,200 --> 00:16:30,200
 because it's coming under the definition of deliberations, that they can discuss it and vote on it?

135
00:16:30,200 --> 00:16:36,200
 Yes, I would think so, and it says polling places, so I would think that's just the polling place.

136
00:16:36,200 --> 00:16:50,200
 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,

137
00:16:50,200 --> 00:16:54,200
 but to me it just says polling places, so where the polling places are.

138
00:16:54,200 --> 00:17:00,200
 If there's any possibility that the money's going to change and somebody's going to benefit financially,

139
00:17:00,200 --> 00:17:07,200
 that would be a red flag and we could come in on that ethical problem, but.

140
00:17:07,200 --> 00:17:11,200
 I'm not sure, I mean, if this stays, well, first of all, I think Ronnie's right.

141
00:17:11,200 --> 00:17:14,200
 I can't think of, I mean, it's usually, you know.

142
00:17:14,200 --> 00:17:15,200
 I can't either.

143
00:17:15,200 --> 00:17:20,200
 Libraries, churches, schools, probably places where money is a change of hands,

144
00:17:20,200 --> 00:17:27,200
 but say for some reason Denton County paid some building to have a polling place there.

145
00:17:27,200 --> 00:17:33,200
 I think that they could definitely still vote and deliberate if polling places isn't there,

146
00:17:33,200 --> 00:17:40,200
 but I think the chances of that happening are slim to none, like Ronnie said, so I don't.

147
00:17:40,200 --> 00:17:47,200
 And I agree with what Ron said, it's better to have it in if needed than not have it in,

148
00:17:47,200 --> 00:17:54,200
 and then far are you coming down here lately trying to deal with it, so.

149
00:17:54,200 --> 00:17:57,200
 Good point.

150
00:17:57,200 --> 00:18:02,200
 So it's been difficult to make any changes to the code along the way.

151
00:18:02,200 --> 00:18:11,200
 How agile is it if a problem does arise?

152
00:18:11,200 --> 00:18:14,200
 What you're saying, I don't know if this is exactly what you're meaning,

153
00:18:14,200 --> 00:18:20,200
 but it reminded me of something how we were kind of told at the last meeting we want everything together,

154
00:18:20,200 --> 00:18:24,200
 and then it's like, well, here's one thing we want to change.

155
00:18:24,200 --> 00:18:32,200
 So maybe we can discuss that as we go into our next section as far as if we want to just be like,

156
00:18:32,200 --> 00:18:34,200
 well, this is what we have now.

157
00:18:34,200 --> 00:18:39,200
 Since they're saying that they want to, you know, they're looking at changing one thing now.

158
00:18:39,200 --> 00:18:43,200
 It's like, okay, well, we've already given you like five things we've all agreed on,

159
00:18:43,200 --> 00:18:49,200
 and nothing's been changed yet, but I don't, sorry, that's sidetracked me, but is there more?

160
00:18:49,200 --> 00:18:53,200
 Okay.

161
00:18:53,200 --> 00:19:08,200
 Your Honor, I move that we adopt exhibit one of item C.

162
00:19:08,200 --> 00:19:10,200
 Okay, I see what you're saying.

163
00:19:10,200 --> 00:19:13,200
 So are you making a motion that we.

164
00:19:13,200 --> 00:19:14,200
 We adopt.

165
00:19:14,200 --> 00:19:17,200
 Support the adding polling places to deliberation.

166
00:19:17,200 --> 00:19:19,200
 Is there a second on that motion?

167
00:19:19,200 --> 00:19:21,200
 Second.

168
00:19:21,200 --> 00:19:24,200
 Okay, we'll have her on second.

169
00:19:24,200 --> 00:19:29,200
 And any more discussion?

170
00:19:29,200 --> 00:19:33,200
 All in favor of accepting that, say aye.

171
00:19:33,200 --> 00:19:34,200
 Aye.

172
00:19:34,200 --> 00:19:36,200
 And all opposed?

173
00:19:36,200 --> 00:19:38,200
 And we have two opposed.

174
00:19:38,200 --> 00:19:41,200
 Do we need to like call out who's opposed right now?

175
00:19:41,200 --> 00:19:42,200
 Aye.

176
00:19:42,200 --> 00:19:47,200
 Okay, so I think we, I mean, I guess it's no secret we're on video,

177
00:19:47,200 --> 00:19:54,200
 but Larry, Don, myself, Ronnie, and Ron have voted for the polling places for the motion,

178
00:19:54,200 --> 00:19:57,200
 and Deborah and Annetta have voted against it.

179
00:19:57,200 --> 00:20:00,200
 So five to two, I guess the motion carries.

180
00:20:00,200 --> 00:20:05,200
 And I assume we should write a letter.

181
00:20:05,200 --> 00:20:07,200
 Is that how they want this?

182
00:20:07,200 --> 00:20:13,200
 Do they want us to write a letter or is this enough as far as how we feel about that motion?

183
00:20:13,200 --> 00:20:18,200
 It'll probably be taken back to council in a work session.

184
00:20:18,200 --> 00:20:21,200
 Okay, so write a letter like we have in the past?

185
00:20:21,200 --> 00:20:29,200
 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.

186
00:20:29,200 --> 00:20:40,200
 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,

187
00:20:40,200 --> 00:20:43,200
 what Councilmember Davis has said.

188
00:20:43,200 --> 00:20:49,200
 And I think maybe once we get into D and if we have agreements we can add more to that letter.

189
00:20:49,200 --> 00:20:51,200
 Does that sound like a plan?

190
00:20:51,200 --> 00:20:52,200
 Yes.

191
00:20:52,200 --> 00:20:57,200
 Okay, so we've covered everything in C.

192
00:20:57,200 --> 00:21:08,200
 All right, D, item D, receive a report, hold a discussion and take necessary action regarding the confirmation of potential recommendations

193
00:21:08,200 --> 00:21:18,200
 to City Council for amendments to the ethics ordinance 18-757 pursuant to Denton Ethics Ordinance Division 3, Section 2-277i,

194
00:21:18,200 --> 00:21:22,200
 including council notification options of the board's decision.

195
00:21:22,200 --> 00:21:25,200
 So we have four exhibits here.

196
00:21:25,200 --> 00:21:33,200
 I would propose we just kind of start exhibit one and make our way through them.

197
00:21:33,200 --> 00:21:44,200
 So exhibit one, we're just, I think that was actually, was it sent by Rob or Larry?

198
00:21:44,200 --> 00:21:47,200
 Rob, okay.

199
00:21:47,200 --> 00:21:50,200
 But Rob is not part of the meeting, so.

200
00:21:50,200 --> 00:21:53,200
 I think we're, didn't you send exhibit one?

201
00:21:53,200 --> 00:21:55,200
 Yeah, exhibit one.

202
00:21:55,200 --> 00:21:59,200
 I think it was his email, just some of his thoughts of what we should discuss.

203
00:21:59,200 --> 00:22:02,200
 Oh yeah, that was just for the agenda.

204
00:22:02,200 --> 00:22:04,200
 Yeah.

205
00:22:04,200 --> 00:22:07,200
 That was just off the top of the head.

206
00:22:07,200 --> 00:22:09,200
 Okay, so.

207
00:22:09,200 --> 00:22:12,200
 Let it go.

208
00:22:12,200 --> 00:22:16,200
 Yeah, I think, I mean my notes on it were, yeah.

209
00:22:16,200 --> 00:22:27,200
 So unless anybody has any thoughts on that one, we can just, we can move on.

210
00:22:27,200 --> 00:22:33,200
 For instance, it talks about, the panels are being videotaped, by the way.

211
00:22:33,200 --> 00:22:40,200
 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.

212
00:22:40,200 --> 00:22:43,200
 Some of the things you suggested are in some of the other exhibits.

213
00:22:43,200 --> 00:22:48,200
 So we'll just, we'll go on from exhibit one, unless anybody opposes that.

214
00:22:48,200 --> 00:22:55,200
 All right, exhibit two, it was submitted 11620, and that's the one from Deborah, I believe.

215
00:22:55,200 --> 00:22:59,200
 Okay, all right, so we're on the right one.

216
00:22:59,200 --> 00:23:07,200
 And it's proposed revisions to the conflict of interest.

217
00:23:07,200 --> 00:23:16,200
 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.

218
00:23:16,200 --> 00:23:22,200
 Or redefined pending matter to be consistent with chapter 171.

219
00:23:22,200 --> 00:23:36,200
 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.

220
00:23:36,200 --> 00:23:41,200
 I'll start with my thoughts about matter, pending matter.

221
00:23:41,200 --> 00:23:47,200
 I mean, my first thought is what does matter include that pending matter does it based on our definition.

222
00:23:47,200 --> 00:23:49,200
 I don't really see what that is.

223
00:23:49,200 --> 00:23:58,200
 And as far as matter is not defined in chapter 171, and I actually went through chapter 171 of the local government code.

224
00:23:58,200 --> 00:24:05,200
 And matter is used several times, but it's action on a matter, participation on a matter, voting on a matter.

225
00:24:05,200 --> 00:24:10,200
 So it's always like, it is always voting for participation and discussion.

226
00:24:10,200 --> 00:24:23,200
 And it's not, in the context of 171, matter is connected to substantial interest in a business entity.

227
00:24:23,200 --> 00:24:28,200
 So chapter 171 of the local government code has substantial interest in a business entity.

228
00:24:28,200 --> 00:24:36,200
 And it's actually, our code is more strict as far as conflict of interest and whether you have an interest.

229
00:24:36,200 --> 00:24:40,200
 But then there also has to be an economic effect under 171.

230
00:24:40,200 --> 00:24:46,200
 So our code is you own 5% of this, there's a conflict, you can't vote.

231
00:24:46,200 --> 00:24:53,200
 171 is you own 10% of a business plus you have an economic effect, then you can't vote.

232
00:24:53,200 --> 00:24:58,200
 So I think our code is still more strict than chapter 171.

233
00:24:58,200 --> 00:25:04,200
 And moving, and I think moving to just matter instead of penny matter is making it less strict.

234
00:25:04,200 --> 00:25:19,200
 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.

235
00:25:19,200 --> 00:25:26,200
 And he talked several times about how our ordinance was written to be more strict than chapter 171.

236
00:25:26,200 --> 00:25:33,200
 So I would say I think we should leave penny matter.

237
00:25:33,200 --> 00:25:37,200
 Other thoughts?

238
00:25:37,200 --> 00:25:38,200
 Go ahead.

239
00:25:38,200 --> 00:25:39,200
 No.

240
00:25:39,200 --> 00:25:41,200
 Listening.

241
00:25:41,200 --> 00:25:43,200
 I disagree.

242
00:25:43,200 --> 00:25:46,200
 And I'll get into this later on.

243
00:25:46,200 --> 00:25:49,200
 I couldn't find the word matter.

244
00:25:49,200 --> 00:25:54,200
 I only found matter in one other ethical code and that was the city of Austin.

245
00:25:54,200 --> 00:25:57,200
 And they have a very weird code.

246
00:25:57,200 --> 00:26:00,200
 They also refer to people as individual kingdoms.

247
00:26:00,200 --> 00:26:08,200
 But penny matter makes it more narrow and matter is something that is hard to understand.

248
00:26:08,200 --> 00:26:16,200
 The correct definition of conflict of interest is anything that brings you gain, basically.

249
00:26:16,200 --> 00:26:23,200
 And when you say matter, it kind of narrows it to a specific event, at least in my interpretation.

250
00:26:23,200 --> 00:26:31,200
 So what is penny matter not covering that taking out the word pending would make it cover?

251
00:26:31,200 --> 00:26:40,200
 The way I interpret it is if you wanted to do some, let's say a dirty real estate deal maybe,

252
00:26:40,200 --> 00:26:46,200
 you could vote on the thing and then close your deal the next day.

253
00:26:46,200 --> 00:26:50,200
 Say that again. I didn't understand that. I'm sorry.

254
00:26:50,200 --> 00:26:53,200
 That's my, I mean that's how I interpret it.

255
00:26:53,200 --> 00:26:57,200
 Could you repeat it please? I didn't.

256
00:26:57,200 --> 00:27:02,200
 With a pending matter, if you wanted to do something that you probably shouldn't be doing,

257
00:27:02,200 --> 00:27:08,200
 you could go ahead and vote, but then close your deal the next day or the next week.

258
00:27:08,200 --> 00:27:17,200
 Couldn't you describe that with the word matter, too?

259
00:27:17,200 --> 00:27:20,200
 Honestly, I have a problem with the whole term.

260
00:27:20,200 --> 00:27:26,200
 I mean, I think it should be anything, just anything, before or after.

261
00:27:26,200 --> 00:27:31,200
 I mean, if you're voting and you're about to do something, it should just be anything.

262
00:27:31,200 --> 00:27:35,200
 And that's the language used in other codes.

263
00:27:35,200 --> 00:27:38,200
 Well, I would say I just, I don't think that's really workable.

264
00:27:38,200 --> 00:27:44,200
 There's no way to just say if you're ever going to do anything, it's against the code.

265
00:27:44,200 --> 00:27:50,200
 I mean, that's just not, the council people and board members need to be on notice.

266
00:27:50,200 --> 00:27:56,200
 And we have to be able to interpret the code.

267
00:27:56,200 --> 00:28:01,200
 And I believe pending matter, the way it's written,

268
00:28:01,200 --> 00:28:06,200
 I don't think changing it to anything or matter improves this code.

269
00:28:06,200 --> 00:28:09,200
 Can I read from Weschler? Sure.

270
00:28:09,200 --> 00:28:14,200
 The most common way to define conflict of interest is no person subject to this code

271
00:28:14,200 --> 00:28:20,200
 shall have any interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect,

272
00:28:20,200 --> 00:28:24,200
 or engage in any business, employment, transaction, or professional activity,

273
00:28:24,200 --> 00:28:29,200
 or incur any obligation of any nature that substantially conflicts

274
00:28:29,200 --> 00:28:33,200
 with the proper discharge of their public duties or employment.

275
00:28:33,200 --> 00:28:37,200
 And that's what we see in the other cities except Austin.

276
00:28:37,200 --> 00:28:40,200
 Weschler also, in the training we did on Chapter 17,

277
00:28:40,200 --> 00:28:45,200
 said a conflict of interest code should be clear and comprehensive and able to read

278
00:28:45,200 --> 00:28:50,200
 and for people to be able to know what is and isn't against the conflict of interest.

279
00:28:50,200 --> 00:28:54,200
 So I think we can't just say, well, anything,

280
00:28:54,200 --> 00:29:00,200
 because then we could sit here and we have total subjective,

281
00:29:00,200 --> 00:29:03,200
 look at everything subjectively, but now we have pending matter.

282
00:29:03,200 --> 00:29:07,200
 If there's something before council, whether it be a permit or authorization,

283
00:29:07,200 --> 00:29:11,200
 a proposal to enter contract, it lists out everything.

284
00:29:11,200 --> 00:29:13,200
 It lists out real property.

285
00:29:13,200 --> 00:29:16,200
 So if you have an interest in real property, you can't vote on that.

286
00:29:16,200 --> 00:29:20,200
 I just think pending matter makes it way more narrow.

287
00:29:20,200 --> 00:29:22,200
 I think it does as well.

288
00:29:22,200 --> 00:29:28,200
 And I think, and this may be getting to it,

289
00:29:28,200 --> 00:29:34,200
 you're talking about, Annette, is that it's distinguishable from the effect on the public.

290
00:29:34,200 --> 00:29:36,200
 And that's what differentiates it.

291
00:29:36,200 --> 00:29:41,200
 Our economic definition of conflict of interest is more stringent.

292
00:29:41,200 --> 00:29:47,200
 But by putting pending matter in there, it means that city council people can deliberate,

293
00:29:47,200 --> 00:29:53,200
 and others, other boards, can deliberate on issues where they would benefit

294
00:29:53,200 --> 00:29:58,200
 in a way that's distinguishable from everybody else,

295
00:29:58,200 --> 00:30:06,200
 but because it's not a contract or an arrangement of pending matter,

296
00:30:06,200 --> 00:30:09,200
 then it's okay for them to deliberate on it.

297
00:30:09,200 --> 00:30:14,200
 So what, can you give an example of something that wouldn't fall under pending matter,

298
00:30:14,200 --> 00:30:18,200
 but that's not covered under pending matter,

299
00:30:18,200 --> 00:30:21,200
 but would be covered if we just changed it to matter?

300
00:30:21,200 --> 00:30:34,200
 I think that discussion over the...

301
00:30:34,200 --> 00:30:40,200
 If you're going to change it, I think that the word "matter" ought to be taken out also.

302
00:30:40,200 --> 00:30:41,200
 I would agree.

303
00:30:41,200 --> 00:30:44,200
 Eliminate pending matter if we're going to change it.

304
00:30:44,200 --> 00:30:56,200
 And we would just say that regarding a...

305
00:30:56,200 --> 00:31:02,200
 For deliberation regarding a matter is the way that we're going to have it now

306
00:31:02,200 --> 00:31:07,200
 if we took out the word "pending."

307
00:31:07,200 --> 00:31:14,200
 Are you going to substitute for it?

308
00:31:14,200 --> 00:31:15,200
 Nothing.

309
00:31:15,200 --> 00:31:26,200
 The example was that OGSAP, what's that central, the Oak Gateway Small Area Plan,

310
00:31:26,200 --> 00:31:29,200
 wasn't a pending matter under our ethics code,

311
00:31:29,200 --> 00:31:34,200
 but potentially could be a conflict of interest if city council persons owned property

312
00:31:34,200 --> 00:31:40,200
 in that area that could be affected by that plan to their benefit.

313
00:31:40,200 --> 00:31:45,200
 The way I kind of look at it is, and to use your example,

314
00:31:45,200 --> 00:31:53,200
 yeah, a member of council may own a piece of property that might have potential for city use.

315
00:31:53,200 --> 00:31:55,200
 Is that more or less what you just said?

316
00:31:55,200 --> 00:31:59,200
 For personal gain.

317
00:31:59,200 --> 00:32:04,200
 Well, okay, a city council person might have an interest in a property,

318
00:32:04,200 --> 00:32:07,200
 and it might come under consideration.

319
00:32:07,200 --> 00:32:10,200
 If it's not under consideration, it's not a pending matter,

320
00:32:10,200 --> 00:32:18,200
 and it doesn't trigger a responsibility to reveal your interest.

321
00:32:18,200 --> 00:32:22,200
 But if it's going to come under consideration, it is pending,

322
00:32:22,200 --> 00:32:24,200
 and that does trigger the responsibility.

323
00:32:24,200 --> 00:32:31,200
 Just like the example that we had with the university and the polling places,

324
00:32:31,200 --> 00:32:39,200
 what triggered them to come forward and to indicate their affiliation with the university

325
00:32:39,200 --> 00:32:44,200
 was the fact that it was going to be considered.

326
00:32:44,200 --> 00:32:49,200
 So that made it pending, and that triggered their response.

327
00:32:49,200 --> 00:32:58,200
 But if it ever came before the council, if it were a done deal before the council got involved,

328
00:32:58,200 --> 00:33:02,200
 then it was just a matter. It wasn't a pending matter.

329
00:33:02,200 --> 00:33:07,200
 So I think pending is the element of that definition

330
00:33:07,200 --> 00:33:12,200
 that triggers someone to know that they either should or should not reveal their interest.

331
00:33:12,200 --> 00:33:15,200
 But ethics needs to be a lot more broad,

332
00:33:15,200 --> 00:33:19,200
 and it needs to be a much higher standard than just that.

333
00:33:19,200 --> 00:33:25,200
 But to go back to the Okickre District, it would be anything you do

334
00:33:25,200 --> 00:33:29,200
 that would be making sure that you benefit from that personally

335
00:33:29,200 --> 00:33:31,200
 because you happen to own property.

336
00:33:31,200 --> 00:33:36,200
 That would be unethical, and it may not be actually a pending matter,

337
00:33:36,200 --> 00:33:41,200
 because you might be able to keep it from even coming up.

338
00:33:41,200 --> 00:33:45,200
 So if you have a piece of property and the city might have an interest in it,

339
00:33:45,200 --> 00:33:47,200
 you have to say that you have this piece of property,

340
00:33:47,200 --> 00:33:51,200
 even though the city hasn't expressed an interest in it.

341
00:33:51,200 --> 00:33:58,200
 You can't be voting or doing anything that is going to be benefiting you personally.

342
00:33:58,200 --> 00:34:01,200
 If you're going to make money off of this,

343
00:34:01,200 --> 00:34:05,200
 and that's really the financial standard is what's important.

344
00:34:05,200 --> 00:34:07,200
 But what triggered that?

345
00:34:07,200 --> 00:34:12,200
 It wouldn't be a pending matter. I think if you were smart and were really clever,

346
00:34:12,200 --> 00:34:17,200
 you'd make sure that it didn't become that, or a matter.

347
00:34:17,200 --> 00:34:21,200
 I'm not sure if I'm understanding your example now.

348
00:34:21,200 --> 00:34:23,200
 You might be able to work behind the scenes.

349
00:34:23,200 --> 00:34:29,200
 You might be able to make sure that that didn't even become an agenda item anywhere.

350
00:34:29,200 --> 00:34:35,200
 I think on this example you're giving, I think Ron's right.

351
00:34:35,200 --> 00:34:41,200
 There's no matter that you're voting on yet that would trigger anything.

352
00:34:41,200 --> 00:34:44,200
 If it's that you're working behind the scenes doing something,

353
00:34:44,200 --> 00:34:54,200
 I think it would be really hard for any board to make a determination on that.

354
00:34:54,200 --> 00:34:58,200
 Nothing's been done yet, and if somebody's working behind the scenes,

355
00:34:58,200 --> 00:35:03,200
 there's not really a way to figure that out.

356
00:35:03,200 --> 00:35:06,200
 So I'm not really sure what you would want to add.

357
00:35:06,200 --> 00:35:08,200
 The way our code is written now,

358
00:35:08,200 --> 00:35:12,200
 there wouldn't be anything that would trigger that, and that's the problem.

359
00:35:12,200 --> 00:35:15,200
 Because there's nothing being voted on yet.

360
00:35:15,200 --> 00:35:21,200
 Right. But there could be a lot of things going on behind the scenes,

361
00:35:21,200 --> 00:35:27,200
 and that's really where, I think that's really where most unethical behavior happens.

362
00:35:27,200 --> 00:35:34,200
 I don't think it happens usually on the dais.

363
00:35:34,200 --> 00:35:41,200
 I also think it contradicts the administrative code,

364
00:35:41,200 --> 00:35:50,200
 where city officials take note to uphold 171.

365
00:35:50,200 --> 00:35:58,200
 They'll abide by 171, and 171 is referenced in there.

366
00:35:58,200 --> 00:36:02,200
 So on the one hand, they're going to abide by 171,

367
00:36:02,200 --> 00:36:08,200
 but the ethics code says it's okay to do it, as I see it,

368
00:36:08,200 --> 00:36:14,200
 because pending matter is part of the matter of 171.

369
00:36:14,200 --> 00:36:18,200
 Well, I mean, first of all, if you take the oath to uphold 171,

370
00:36:18,200 --> 00:36:21,200
 you have to uphold 171 and the city code,

371
00:36:21,200 --> 00:36:25,200
 like whatever stricter is the strictest you're going to have to uphold.

372
00:36:25,200 --> 00:36:28,200
 So it's not really conflicting.

373
00:36:28,200 --> 00:36:31,200
 And I go back to 171, they use matter,

374
00:36:31,200 --> 00:36:35,200
 but in 171 you have a substantial interest and there's an economic effect.

375
00:36:35,200 --> 00:36:40,200
 With us, it's just you have the conflicting interest,

376
00:36:40,200 --> 00:36:42,200
 and then you're just out, you can't vote.

377
00:36:42,200 --> 00:36:46,200
 So you don't have to figure out whether there's an economic effect or not.

378
00:36:46,200 --> 00:36:49,200
 I know that's number two that we're about to get to,

379
00:36:49,200 --> 00:36:56,200
 but matter is used differently in 171.

380
00:36:56,200 --> 00:36:58,200
 It's not defined.

381
00:36:58,200 --> 00:37:01,200
 They're just saying if you take any action or vote on anything,

382
00:37:01,200 --> 00:37:03,200
 that you have a substantial economic effect,

383
00:37:03,200 --> 00:37:06,200
 which is just different from our code, because our code is more strict.

384
00:37:06,200 --> 00:37:11,200
 If you have this conflict, if you own 5%, you can't vote.

385
00:37:11,200 --> 00:37:15,200
 So I don't think that's a great comparison.

386
00:37:15,200 --> 00:37:19,200
 But under ordinance section two, it's the first footnote.

387
00:37:19,200 --> 00:37:24,200
 The phrase financial interest in our code says when used herein,

388
00:37:24,200 --> 00:37:28,200
 she'll have the same meaning as substantial interest in a business entity

389
00:37:28,200 --> 00:37:29,200
 as that phrase is defined.

390
00:37:29,200 --> 00:37:33,200
 So by reference, we have financial interest defined

391
00:37:33,200 --> 00:37:36,200
 as substantial interest in the business entity.

392
00:37:36,200 --> 00:37:41,200
 Yeah, and 171 defines substantial business entity of owning 10%

393
00:37:41,200 --> 00:37:45,200
 or more voting stock of shares.

394
00:37:45,200 --> 00:37:50,200
 I won't go through it all, but it defines what substantial business interest is.

395
00:37:50,200 --> 00:37:51,200
 So that means that.

396
00:37:51,200 --> 00:37:57,200
 But 171 also has -- you have to have an economic effect to violate 171,

397
00:37:57,200 --> 00:37:59,200
 which isn't in our code.

398
00:37:59,200 --> 00:38:04,200
 So I think it's sort of not comparing the same thing to say,

399
00:38:04,200 --> 00:38:08,200
 since there's matter in 171, we just need matter in our code,

400
00:38:08,200 --> 00:38:10,200
 where our code is written.

401
00:38:10,200 --> 00:38:13,200
 But I think it's more than just matter.

402
00:38:13,200 --> 00:38:18,200
 It's that, again, that distinguishable -- an effect that's distinguishable

403
00:38:18,200 --> 00:38:21,200
 from the effect on the public.

404
00:38:21,200 --> 00:38:23,200
 And that's what's missing in this.

405
00:38:23,200 --> 00:38:25,200
 I think it's supposed to be a higher standard.

406
00:38:25,200 --> 00:38:28,200
 And that's what the debt in code is compared to --

407
00:38:28,200 --> 00:38:30,200
 Economically, it is.

408
00:38:30,200 --> 00:38:35,200
 Under conflicting interest, that's -- financial?

409
00:38:35,200 --> 00:38:38,200
 Yes, that's an economic --

410
00:38:38,200 --> 00:38:40,200
 Yeah, we don't even look if there's an economic effect.

411
00:38:40,200 --> 00:38:43,200
 If you have that interest, you can't vote.

412
00:38:43,200 --> 00:38:46,200
 Versus figuring out if there's an economic effect.

413
00:38:46,200 --> 00:38:49,200
 Versus having the interest, and is there an economic effect, then you can't vote.

414
00:38:49,200 --> 00:38:53,200
 But ours is, there's an interest, you can't vote.

415
00:38:53,200 --> 00:38:55,200
 So ours is more strict.

416
00:38:55,200 --> 00:38:57,200
 Financially, it is.

417
00:38:57,200 --> 00:38:59,200
 In reference to finances.

418
00:38:59,200 --> 00:39:05,200
 But not in other matters, where you may benefit.

419
00:39:05,200 --> 00:39:08,200
 And what's the other matter?

420
00:39:08,200 --> 00:39:10,200
 In what ways would there have been other than that?

421
00:39:10,200 --> 00:39:17,200
 You could promote a policy -- and I think even just --

422
00:39:17,200 --> 00:39:24,200
 You could promote a policy that would ultimately benefit you or, you know, your consinquency.

423
00:39:24,200 --> 00:39:32,200
 And, like, can you provide an example of that?

424
00:39:32,200 --> 00:39:42,200
 I think this Oking Creek district is probably a good example where there are lots of developers who want to come in

425
00:39:42,200 --> 00:39:46,200
 and make sure that houses get knocked down.

426
00:39:46,200 --> 00:39:51,200
 We lost seven in December.

427
00:39:51,200 --> 00:39:59,200
 And if you somehow had some connection with that, you could kind of make sure that all that happened.

428
00:39:59,200 --> 00:40:05,200
 So, I mean, taking your wording there, if you some kind had -- if you some kind of had a connection to that,

429
00:40:05,200 --> 00:40:08,200
 you could somehow make something matter.

430
00:40:08,200 --> 00:40:14,200
 I don't think that that's -- I mean, I think that's too vague.

431
00:40:14,200 --> 00:40:22,200
 I think that example's very vague and doesn't show me that we need to change just pending matter to matters.

432
00:40:22,200 --> 00:40:23,200
 Don?

433
00:40:23,200 --> 00:40:29,200
 On two, again, I think pending matter both ought to be taken out if we're going to take one of them out.

434
00:40:29,200 --> 00:40:39,200
 And pending matter, I think, makes it more restrictive than what you're suggesting.

435
00:40:39,200 --> 00:40:49,200
 And I think part of it is maybe how do you interpret matter and how do you interpret pending matter?

436
00:40:49,200 --> 00:40:51,200
 I'm not really clear on that.

437
00:40:51,200 --> 00:40:53,200
 Let me just read that.

438
00:40:53,200 --> 00:40:55,200
 It says, "Disclosure required.

439
00:40:55,200 --> 00:41:01,200
 If a city official has a conflicted interest, the city official shall disclose the nature."

440
00:41:01,200 --> 00:41:08,200
 That's the way it reads if we took out pending matter, took out both of them on two.

441
00:41:08,200 --> 00:41:18,200
 I think we have to leave matter in if we did anything on the 273 just because the way it's written,

442
00:41:18,200 --> 00:41:22,200
 the word "matter" needs to be there.

443
00:41:22,200 --> 00:41:29,200
 But I don't see a problem that we really have with pending matter.

444
00:41:29,200 --> 00:41:32,200
 I mean, to me, it's --

445
00:41:32,200 --> 00:41:37,200
 I would just say I only found it in one other code, and I did not find pending matter.

446
00:41:37,200 --> 00:41:39,200
 I found matter.

447
00:41:39,200 --> 00:41:46,200
 I was looking at what Robert had provided for us, and I think it shows Austin also has pending matter on it.

448
00:41:46,200 --> 00:41:47,200
 Yeah, that's me.

449
00:41:47,200 --> 00:41:49,200
 I think that's in that -- that's me.

450
00:41:49,200 --> 00:41:51,200
 Did you do that?

451
00:41:51,200 --> 00:41:52,200
 Yeah, Austin has matter.

452
00:41:52,200 --> 00:41:53,200
 They don't have pending matter.

453
00:41:53,200 --> 00:41:56,200
 I was giving you credit for it, Robert.

454
00:41:56,200 --> 00:41:58,200
 Let me ask you a question.

455
00:41:58,200 --> 00:42:16,200
 On the example that you just gave where you said that someone could nine scenes steer a developer to business, right?

456
00:42:16,200 --> 00:42:17,200
 Mm-hmm.

457
00:42:17,200 --> 00:42:20,200
 Okay.

458
00:42:20,200 --> 00:42:28,200
 What, if anything, does that have to do with the disclosure of a conflict of interest?

459
00:42:28,200 --> 00:42:30,200
 What does it have with a disclosure of a conflict of interest?

460
00:42:30,200 --> 00:42:43,200
 What does it have to do with disclosure of a conflict of interest?

461
00:42:43,200 --> 00:42:47,200
 Are you guys familiar with the case of the mayor in Irving?

462
00:42:47,200 --> 00:42:59,200
 Is it Irving that just got -- I think she's going to jail because she was sleeping with a developer, basically.

463
00:42:59,200 --> 00:43:20,200
 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.

464
00:43:20,200 --> 00:43:31,200
 There were some votes taken, but it wasn't necessarily pending matters, but she was definitely -- the FBI came in.

465
00:43:31,200 --> 00:43:33,200
 Are you guys familiar with this case?

466
00:43:33,200 --> 00:43:40,200
 But are you saying that the minute she started doing that, she had an obligation to disclose?

467
00:43:40,200 --> 00:43:41,200
 Yeah.

468
00:43:41,200 --> 00:43:42,200
 Is that your point?

469
00:43:42,200 --> 00:43:45,200
 Yeah.

470
00:43:45,200 --> 00:43:50,200
 So she made a failure to do so and convicted her.

471
00:43:50,200 --> 00:43:51,200
 Right.

472
00:43:51,200 --> 00:43:54,200
 And the FBI was actually -- the county did prosecute it.

473
00:43:54,200 --> 00:43:57,200
 The FBI came in and prosecuted it.

474
00:43:57,200 --> 00:44:04,200
 So yeah, she should have disclosed, and she should have recused herself, and she should have --

475
00:44:04,200 --> 00:44:10,200
 Wait, so she should have recused herself because she was sleeping with a developer but had no financial interest?

476
00:44:10,200 --> 00:44:11,200
 Right.

477
00:44:11,200 --> 00:44:13,200
 Because she made things happen.

478
00:44:13,200 --> 00:44:18,200
 Yeah.

479
00:44:18,200 --> 00:44:37,200
 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?

480
00:44:37,200 --> 00:44:42,200
 I don't think so.

481
00:44:42,200 --> 00:44:43,200
 I would think it does.

482
00:44:43,200 --> 00:44:45,200
 That would have the appearance of the company.

483
00:44:45,200 --> 00:44:47,200
 Was she receiving a benefit?

484
00:44:47,200 --> 00:44:55,200
 I think it's vague enough that she might not have known that.

485
00:44:55,200 --> 00:45:03,200
 And I think my issue with our code in general is that it is very hard to interpret and it's vague.

486
00:45:03,200 --> 00:45:05,200
 You look at some of the other codes.

487
00:45:05,200 --> 00:45:09,200
 If you look at San Marcos, there is no question what they're meaning.

488
00:45:09,200 --> 00:45:18,200
 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 --

489
00:45:18,200 --> 00:45:20,200
 Financially.

490
00:45:20,200 --> 00:45:27,200
 But what you're saying is, well, if you could possibly work behind the scenes and possibly make something happen, that is not clear.

491
00:45:27,200 --> 00:45:46,200
 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.

492
00:45:46,200 --> 00:46:06,200
 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.

493
00:46:06,200 --> 00:46:17,200
 It would be okay for them to do all of that, that public work and neighborhood meetings and whatever goes into making the plan.

494
00:46:17,200 --> 00:46:21,200
 And it's not a conflict of interest if they own substantial property there?

495
00:46:21,200 --> 00:46:26,200
 Is that -- is that the one that we had -- we already rule on this as an ethics force?

496
00:46:26,200 --> 00:46:27,200
 Yes.

497
00:46:27,200 --> 00:46:42,200
 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?

498
00:46:42,200 --> 00:47:01,200
 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.

499
00:47:01,200 --> 00:47:18,200
 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.

500
00:47:18,200 --> 00:47:25,200
 But that's okay until it's voted on, until it comes to a vote.

501
00:47:25,200 --> 00:47:45,200
 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.

502
00:47:45,200 --> 00:48:04,200
 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?

503
00:48:04,200 --> 00:48:05,200
 Right.

504
00:48:05,200 --> 00:48:18,200
 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.

505
00:48:18,200 --> 00:48:31,200
 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?

506
00:48:31,200 --> 00:48:42,200
 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.

507
00:48:42,200 --> 00:48:44,200
 When it came to voting.

508
00:48:44,200 --> 00:48:45,200
 When it came to voting.

509
00:48:45,200 --> 00:49:00,200
 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?

510
00:49:00,200 --> 00:49:12,200
 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.

511
00:49:12,200 --> 00:49:18,200
 But it's still in their role -- they're still participating in their role as city council person.

512
00:49:18,200 --> 00:49:19,200
 Right.

513
00:49:19,200 --> 00:49:22,200
 In the processes, in the neighborhood meetings, and --

514
00:49:22,200 --> 00:49:23,200
 Right.

515
00:49:23,200 --> 00:49:25,200
 Especially if they're able to engineer a go-around.

516
00:49:25,200 --> 00:49:54,200
 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.

517
00:49:54,200 --> 00:49:55,200
 Yeah.

518
00:49:55,200 --> 00:49:59,200
 Because you are ensuring that you're benefiting. So to me --

519
00:49:59,200 --> 00:50:03,200
 But that sounds like a pending matter. If it's going to a vote --

520
00:50:03,200 --> 00:50:23,200
 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.

521
00:50:23,200 --> 00:50:38,200
 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.

522
00:50:38,200 --> 00:50:55,200
 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.

523
00:50:55,200 --> 00:50:56,200
 Yeah.

524
00:50:56,200 --> 00:50:59,200
 Because you're doing something that's going to benefit you.

525
00:50:59,200 --> 00:51:06,200
 But those small area plans, those aren't developers that are -- that's not a deal with the developer.

526
00:51:06,200 --> 00:51:09,200
 Could be, may not be, could be, depending on what you're doing.

527
00:51:09,200 --> 00:51:21,200
 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.

528
00:51:21,200 --> 00:51:41,200
 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.

529
00:51:41,200 --> 00:51:48,200
 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?

530
00:51:48,200 --> 00:51:52,200
 I think he should start at the beginning when he finds out that it's going to benefit his area, that disclosure.

531
00:51:52,200 --> 00:51:55,200
 But don't you want to do things that benefit your area?

532
00:51:55,200 --> 00:51:57,200
 Yeah, like if you just own a ball.

533
00:51:57,200 --> 00:52:00,200
 I mean, isn't that one of the responsibilities of the city councilman?

534
00:52:00,200 --> 00:52:17,200
 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 --

535
00:52:17,200 --> 00:52:34,200
 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 --

536
00:52:34,200 --> 00:52:51,200
 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.

537
00:52:51,200 --> 00:53:07,200
 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.

538
00:53:07,200 --> 00:53:11,200
 Now, who does he disclose it to? The council?

539
00:53:11,200 --> 00:53:14,200
 No, you disclose it to the auditor, actually.

540
00:53:14,200 --> 00:53:31,200
 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.

541
00:53:31,200 --> 00:53:43,200
 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.

542
00:53:43,200 --> 00:53:49,200
 To refresh our memories, weren't those groups that were working, the groups of citizens?

543
00:53:49,200 --> 00:53:56,200
 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.

544
00:53:56,200 --> 00:54:09,200
 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?

545
00:54:09,200 --> 00:54:18,200
 But the day before, there was a work session where they spent time discussing that. And if there were any city council person --

546
00:54:18,200 --> 00:54:19,200
 What was that?

547
00:54:19,200 --> 00:54:33,200
 The small area plan. Yeah. Before they submitted that advisory opinion request, there was a lot of discussion.

548
00:54:33,200 --> 00:54:43,200
 And if any city council person owned property, they were still participating in a work session with city council.

549
00:54:43,200 --> 00:54:53,200
 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,

550
00:54:53,200 --> 00:55:01,200
 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?

551
00:55:01,200 --> 00:55:03,200
 Like, where does that --

552
00:55:03,200 --> 00:55:07,200
 No, it's not talking about making changes that will enhance the value --

553
00:55:07,200 --> 00:55:19,200
 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?

554
00:55:19,200 --> 00:55:35,200
 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,

555
00:55:35,200 --> 00:55:54,200
 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.

556
00:55:54,200 --> 00:56:05,200
 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.

557
00:56:05,200 --> 00:56:08,200
 I think they're both.

558
00:56:08,200 --> 00:56:25,200
 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.

559
00:56:25,200 --> 00:56:36,200
 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?

560
00:56:36,200 --> 00:56:41,200
 Sure. I don't think anybody would have a problem with that.

561
00:56:41,200 --> 00:57:06,200
 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?

562
00:57:06,200 --> 00:57:32,200
 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.

563
00:57:32,200 --> 00:57:49,200
 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.

564
00:57:49,200 --> 00:57:51,200
 That is not an ethical problem.

565
00:57:51,200 --> 00:58:13,200
 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.

566
00:58:13,200 --> 00:58:25,200
 But I think there's a line that a city official could step over that becomes obvious and becomes an obvious conflict of interest.

567
00:58:25,200 --> 00:58:37,200
 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.

568
00:58:37,200 --> 00:58:46,200
 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.

569
00:58:46,200 --> 00:58:53,200
 If they go beyond that and work underhanded, that becomes an apparent conflict of interest and the duty of anybody reporting.

570
00:58:53,200 --> 00:59:11,200
 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.

571
00:59:11,200 --> 00:59:16,200
 Where did we have that in place? Can you show me?

572
00:59:16,200 --> 00:59:20,200
 Because I've read the code pretty closely and I can't find it.

573
00:59:20,200 --> 00:59:41,200
 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.

574
00:59:41,200 --> 00:59:53,200
 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.

575
00:59:53,200 --> 00:59:57,200
 So that might be under improper influence.

576
00:59:57,200 --> 01:00:02,200
 So just hypothetically, what?

577
01:00:02,200 --> 01:00:10,200
 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,

578
01:00:10,200 --> 01:00:14,200
 do this, do that, before you get there.

579
01:00:14,200 --> 01:00:22,200
 The only way that developer may know that was because he had a city official helping him behind the scenes.

580
01:00:22,200 --> 01:00:33,200
 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.

581
01:00:33,200 --> 01:00:39,200
 We don't have to worry about that because it fits within the guidelines of what the city wants.

582
01:00:39,200 --> 01:00:52,200
 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.

583
01:00:52,200 --> 01:01:04,200
 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.

584
01:01:04,200 --> 01:01:15,200
 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.

585
01:01:15,200 --> 01:01:16,200
 Correct.

586
01:01:16,200 --> 01:01:30,200
 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.

587
01:01:30,200 --> 01:01:35,200
 It's already a matter because it's something that's going to be worked with.

588
01:01:35,200 --> 01:01:38,200
 It is something that's going to be worked on in one fashion or another.

589
01:01:38,200 --> 01:01:40,200
 It becomes a matter.

590
01:01:40,200 --> 01:01:55,200
 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.

591
01:01:55,200 --> 01:02:17,200
 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.

592
01:02:17,200 --> 01:02:24,200
 And he's giving out information that only is being provided through his position.

593
01:02:24,200 --> 01:02:29,200
 He shouldn't be giving out any information that any citizen couldn't get if they went that way.

594
01:02:29,200 --> 01:02:30,200
 That's what I'm saying.

595
01:02:30,200 --> 01:02:32,200
 If he's going to be on that, then I agree with you.

596
01:02:32,200 --> 01:02:35,200
 But if he's just merely saying, hey, here's the protocol.

597
01:02:35,200 --> 01:02:36,200
 Here's what you've got to do.

598
01:02:36,200 --> 01:02:37,200
 Not how.

599
01:02:37,200 --> 01:02:38,200
 Here's how you can get past that.

600
01:02:38,200 --> 01:02:40,200
 But this is the process.

601
01:02:40,200 --> 01:02:42,200
 You and every other.

602
01:02:42,200 --> 01:02:58,200
 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.

603
01:02:58,200 --> 01:03:11,200
 To me, as a city councilman, let's just say, for example, to me, that becomes conflict ventures because he has created that.

604
01:03:11,200 --> 01:03:18,200
 Kevin, I have a problem with the small group example.

605
01:03:18,200 --> 01:03:24,200
 Probably the main thing that started the conversation.

606
01:03:24,200 --> 01:03:37,200
 My understanding was that the small group process was started in order to enhance city services and city benefits to the citizens.

607
01:03:37,200 --> 01:03:43,200
 It wasn't started as a city initiative to increase property values.

608
01:03:43,200 --> 01:04:12,200
 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,

609
01:04:12,200 --> 01:04:33,200
 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.

610
01:04:33,200 --> 01:04:43,200
 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.

611
01:04:43,200 --> 01:04:49,200
 It was to increase the enjoyment of the city resources to the citizens.

612
01:04:49,200 --> 01:05:04,200
 Okay, so I want to keep this conversation moving because this is still Exhibit 1 and it's like 637.

613
01:05:04,200 --> 01:05:10,200
 Number two is incorporate economic effects from the local government code.

614
01:05:10,200 --> 01:05:24,200
 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.

615
01:05:24,200 --> 01:05:44,200
 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.

616
01:05:44,200 --> 01:05:58,200
 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.

617
01:05:58,200 --> 01:06:17,200
 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.

618
01:06:17,200 --> 01:06:35,200
 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.

619
01:06:35,200 --> 01:06:43,200
 So we can discuss that and then kind of at some point come to a resolution about what's in Exhibit 1.

620
01:06:43,200 --> 01:06:56,200
 So thoughts on the economic interest or economic effect in Exhibit 1.

621
01:06:56,200 --> 01:07:00,200
 Can I just mention that in the glossary there is a definition of the remover?

622
01:07:00,200 --> 01:07:02,200
 Well yeah in the ordinance.

623
01:07:02,200 --> 01:07:10,200
 Right but it is very specific.

624
01:07:10,200 --> 01:07:33,200
 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.

625
01:07:33,200 --> 01:07:40,200
 So my thought is that we would not change pending matter and we would not change economic effect.

626
01:07:40,200 --> 01:07:56,200
 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.

627
01:07:56,200 --> 01:08:00,200
 I don't see a benefit.

628
01:08:00,200 --> 01:08:06,200
 Anyone else?

629
01:08:06,200 --> 01:08:10,200
 I believe Debra presented it so I'm sure she's for it.

630
01:08:10,200 --> 01:08:32,200
 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.

631
01:08:32,200 --> 01:08:37,200
 I see what you're saying and I feel like we know that in depth at the last meeting.

632
01:08:37,200 --> 01:08:40,200
 I know, I know, I know.

633
01:08:40,200 --> 01:08:50,200
 But what this is doing is just pulling out of 171 what that economic interest and personal effect is.

634
01:08:50,200 --> 01:09:02,200
 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.

635
01:09:02,200 --> 01:09:08,200
 So this is a reminder of what that matter would be.

636
01:09:08,200 --> 01:09:13,200
 And so Annette, are you wanting to accept Exhibit 1 or?

637
01:09:13,200 --> 01:09:15,200
 No.

638
01:09:15,200 --> 01:09:17,200
 I'm sorry, yes I am.

639
01:09:17,200 --> 01:09:18,200
 Oh, you do want to accept Exhibit 1.

640
01:09:18,200 --> 01:09:21,200
 Ronnie, would you want to accept Exhibit 1?

641
01:09:21,200 --> 01:09:28,200
 Yeah, I don't see a real big difference in changing the word.

642
01:09:28,200 --> 01:09:36,200
 And Ron, would you like to accept Exhibit 1 as something that we would send to city council for an amendment?

643
01:09:36,200 --> 01:09:39,200
 I've already said that I didn't see anything.

644
01:09:39,200 --> 01:09:44,200
 Oh, I'm sorry, I think you did. Was it Larry that I didn't talk to?

645
01:09:44,200 --> 01:09:58,200
 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.

646
01:09:58,200 --> 01:10:07,200
 If I got into a specific example of something, it would give me a better idea, but it's been speculative.

647
01:10:07,200 --> 01:10:18,200
 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.

648
01:10:18,200 --> 01:10:22,200
 All right, well I think, I just don't want to waste everyone's time.

649
01:10:22,200 --> 01:10:23,200
 I want to thank everyone.

650
01:10:23,200 --> 01:10:26,200
 For the purpose of the record, this is Exhibit 2.

651
01:10:26,200 --> 01:10:32,200
 Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't say Exhibit 1, but Exhibit 1 was what Robert sent us, but yeah, Exhibit 2.

652
01:10:32,200 --> 01:10:36,200
 So I think we're all on the same page. Everyone knew I was talking about Exhibit 2.

653
01:10:36,200 --> 01:10:43,200
 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.

654
01:10:43,200 --> 01:10:52,200
 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.

655
01:10:52,200 --> 01:10:59,200
 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.

656
01:10:59,200 --> 01:11:08,200
 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.

657
01:11:08,200 --> 01:11:12,200
 Okay, so Exhibit 3, who presented that?

658
01:11:12,200 --> 01:11:13,200
 That was me.

659
01:11:13,200 --> 01:11:14,200
 Okay, all right.

660
01:11:14,200 --> 01:11:31,200
 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.

661
01:11:31,200 --> 01:11:45,200
 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.

662
01:11:45,200 --> 01:11:46,200
 All right.

663
01:11:46,200 --> 01:11:47,200
 Does that make sense?

664
01:11:47,200 --> 01:11:55,200
 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.

665
01:11:55,200 --> 01:12:15,200
 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.

666
01:12:15,200 --> 01:12:27,200
 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.

667
01:12:27,200 --> 01:12:33,200
 So you would like to, for and to be replaced with where, comma where.

668
01:12:33,200 --> 01:12:37,200
 Does that make it, does that change it that much?

669
01:12:37,200 --> 01:12:47,200
 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.

670
01:12:47,200 --> 01:12:54,200
 For me it just made more sense, I don't want it to change anything, if the meaning.

671
01:12:54,200 --> 01:12:57,200
 I don't think the meaning changes either way.

672
01:12:57,200 --> 01:13:18,200
 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.

673
01:13:18,200 --> 01:13:20,200
 That's what made it difficult for me.

674
01:13:20,200 --> 01:13:21,200
 Sorry.

675
01:13:21,200 --> 01:13:22,200
 Yeah, I see where you're coming from.

676
01:13:22,200 --> 01:13:28,200
 I, I just, I don't know, I don't know if I see it, for instance, anybody else have thoughts on that?

677
01:13:28,200 --> 01:13:32,200
 I found it confusing, but it wasn't the only part because I found confusing.

678
01:13:32,200 --> 01:13:37,200
 I felt a lot of parts really confusing, so.

679
01:13:37,200 --> 01:13:42,200
 Yeah, I was surprised that we had to actually make a request like this that goes through city councils.

680
01:13:42,200 --> 01:13:53,200
 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.

681
01:13:53,200 --> 01:13:54,200
 I agree with you.

682
01:13:54,200 --> 01:14:01,200
 Yeah, I do too.

683
01:14:01,200 --> 01:14:12,200
 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,

684
01:14:12,200 --> 01:14:15,200
 and it came down later and said, well, yeah, you could under certain conditions.

685
01:14:15,200 --> 01:14:16,200
 That's all I'm saying.

686
01:14:16,200 --> 01:14:26,200
 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.

687
01:14:26,200 --> 01:14:35,200
 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.

688
01:14:35,200 --> 01:14:36,200
 But I mean, as I said.

689
01:14:36,200 --> 01:14:38,200
 Sometimes it's more difficult to understand.

690
01:14:38,200 --> 01:14:44,200
 The cryptic language sometimes is inhibited, I didn't see that in San Antonio as it just goes.

691
01:14:44,200 --> 01:14:50,200
 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.

692
01:14:50,200 --> 01:14:57,200
 I could see where it might read better that way.

693
01:14:57,200 --> 01:14:59,200
 What was that?

694
01:14:59,200 --> 01:15:06,200
 I said I could see where it might read a little bit more clearly with your change.

695
01:15:06,200 --> 01:15:08,200
 Thank you.

696
01:15:08,200 --> 01:15:22,200
 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.

697
01:15:22,200 --> 01:15:28,200
 So I assume Larry's on board, and I guess Ron, you're in agreement with this?

698
01:15:28,200 --> 01:15:30,200
 I am.

699
01:15:30,200 --> 01:15:33,200
 And Debra and Edda are?

700
01:15:33,200 --> 01:15:35,200
 Dawn and Rhonda?

701
01:15:35,200 --> 01:15:43,200
 Okay, so I guess maybe have a motion to add this to, and just going back, because some of our members are newer.

702
01:15:43,200 --> 01:15:48,200
 We've already sent a letter with kind of the low hanging fruit of like changing, accused, respondent.

703
01:15:48,200 --> 01:15:56,200
 We've already sent forth certain proposals, and then, you know, set with UMESH back on October 22nd.

704
01:15:56,200 --> 01:16:02,200
 And they were, I think most of them were in agreement, but then they said we want everything all at once.

705
01:16:02,200 --> 01:16:08,200
 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.

706
01:16:08,200 --> 01:16:10,200
 Again, it's my opinion.

707
01:16:10,200 --> 01:16:15,200
 So I move we accept Exhibit 3 and change and declare.

708
01:16:15,200 --> 01:16:19,200
 All right, so we have a motion to accept Exhibit 3.

709
01:16:19,200 --> 01:16:20,200
 Is there a second?

710
01:16:20,200 --> 01:16:21,200
 I second.

711
01:16:21,200 --> 01:16:22,200
 Seconded by Debra.

712
01:16:22,200 --> 01:16:23,200
 All in favor say aye.

713
01:16:23,200 --> 01:16:24,200
 Aye.

714
01:16:24,200 --> 01:16:25,200
 Aye.

715
01:16:25,200 --> 01:16:35,200
 The motion passes, and we will accept Exhibit 3, and we will add that to our letter that's going to Council.

716
01:16:35,200 --> 01:16:43,200
 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.

717
01:16:43,200 --> 01:16:50,200
 But forth, all these other changes that y'all can make, because we've asked you to.

718
01:16:50,200 --> 01:16:53,200
 So you include the list from the letter?

719
01:16:53,200 --> 01:16:55,200
 That's what I'm thinking, just include.

720
01:16:55,200 --> 01:16:58,200
 And I mean, we can talk about that as board.

721
01:16:58,200 --> 01:17:07,200
 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.

722
01:17:07,200 --> 01:17:12,200
 I'm thinking we send the letter that we agree with.

723
01:17:12,200 --> 01:17:23,200
 Jesse's proposal, our Councilman Davis, I thought we used to say that, and we Exhibit 3 so far.

724
01:17:23,200 --> 01:17:30,200
 And then I think we add the things we have from our October 7th letter, which, you know,

725
01:17:30,200 --> 01:17:46,200
 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.

726
01:17:46,200 --> 01:17:56,200
 As far as relative, adding that relative and affinity and consanguinity in accordance with the Texas Government Code.

727
01:17:56,200 --> 01:18:08,200
 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.

728
01:18:08,200 --> 01:18:10,200
 And what we have agreed upon on that.

729
01:18:10,200 --> 01:18:28,200
 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.

730
01:18:28,200 --> 01:18:34,200
 All right, so that's Annetta.

731
01:18:34,200 --> 01:18:46,200
 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.

732
01:18:46,200 --> 01:18:48,200
 I mean, it's a couple pages.

733
01:18:48,200 --> 01:18:56,200
 The first page is Weschler's Conflict of Interest, which was, hands down, my favorite because it was very clear.

734
01:18:56,200 --> 01:19:05,200
 And then I compared other Conflict of Interest definitions from Austin.

735
01:19:05,200 --> 01:19:09,200
 Well, actually, why don't we take a break?

736
01:19:09,200 --> 01:19:13,200
 I see everybody looking like they need to go to the restroom.

737
01:19:13,200 --> 01:19:15,200
 So let's take a break.

738
01:19:26,200 --> 01:19:41,200
 All right, so we're back on, starting the, well, starting the second half of the meeting, I guess.

739
01:19:41,200 --> 01:19:44,200
 And so we're on Exhibit 4.

740
01:19:44,200 --> 01:19:50,200
 Annetta started to talk about the first page is Weschler's Conflict of Interest.

741
01:19:50,200 --> 01:20:04,200
 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.

742
01:20:04,200 --> 01:20:14,200
 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.

743
01:20:14,200 --> 01:20:16,200
 I have a couple, can I?

744
01:20:16,200 --> 01:20:25,200
 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.

745
01:20:25,200 --> 01:20:35,200
 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.

746
01:20:35,200 --> 01:20:38,200
 So that's like the third whole paragraph.

747
01:20:38,200 --> 01:20:41,200
 I really like that, I also found that in San Antonio.

748
01:20:41,200 --> 01:20:45,200
 I think that is really nice and clear.

749
01:20:45,200 --> 01:20:53,200
 So as far as listing out the employees, I would say we have the family members of city officials.

750
01:20:53,200 --> 01:21:01,200
 We've defined relative, and one of the things we've already told council that relative is defined as consinity and affinity.

751
01:21:01,200 --> 01:21:05,200
 And Cheryl, we've met, she missed this, and she always likes to bring up what that means.

752
01:21:05,200 --> 01:21:14,200
 But we put in that we want to add that it is, let me go directly to it actually.

753
01:21:14,200 --> 01:21:16,200
 Yeah, we can look it up in the other code.

754
01:21:16,200 --> 01:21:22,200
 That is in accordance with Texas Government Code Title 5, Section B, Chapter 573.

755
01:21:22,200 --> 01:21:33,200
 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.

756
01:21:33,200 --> 01:21:41,200
 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.

757
01:21:41,200 --> 01:21:49,200
 And even when you really sit and kind of get into the weeds on some things, it's very confusing.

758
01:21:49,200 --> 01:22:06,200
 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.

759
01:22:06,200 --> 01:22:18,200
 So I mean I really like the tone it does. It's also a very, it's not skewed in one direction, I guess.

760
01:22:18,200 --> 01:22:24,200
 So I love his writing and I love the way he puts everything.

761
01:22:24,200 --> 01:22:32,200
 On the second page what I did was I squished, and one thing that all the codes struggle with was gender pronouns.

762
01:22:32,200 --> 01:22:39,200
 So in Austin they don't talk about the ear, they talk about a natural person.

763
01:22:39,200 --> 01:22:49,200
 Denton kind of struggles, all the other cities struggle. I would, anyway, it's not very 2020, let me put it that way.

764
01:22:49,200 --> 01:22:58,200
 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,

765
01:22:58,200 --> 01:23:03,200
 all those caps mean that you have to look back at the definition of terms.

766
01:23:03,200 --> 01:23:09,200
 And then when you look back at the definition of terms, I was surprised at what a lot of the things meant.

767
01:23:09,200 --> 01:23:19,200
 So for example, pending matter means an application to seek approval of a permit, a proposal to enter into a contract,

768
01:23:19,200 --> 01:23:30,200
 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.

769
01:23:30,200 --> 01:23:41,200
 San Antonio, crystal clear, you don't take any official action that you know is going to affect your economic interests.

770
01:23:41,200 --> 01:23:49,200
 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.

771
01:23:49,200 --> 01:23:57,200
 And I think we've all agreed not to, we all agreed not to accept Exhibit 2 as far as economic interests.

772
01:23:57,200 --> 01:24:03,200
 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.

773
01:24:03,200 --> 01:24:08,200
 If you have a conflict, you can't vote, it doesn't matter why your economic interest is.

774
01:24:08,200 --> 01:24:13,200
 I had no trouble when I read San Antonio or San Marcos.

775
01:24:13,200 --> 01:24:19,200
 Well then how do you define, affect the economic interest?

776
01:24:19,200 --> 01:24:29,200
 Then they go on to a two page long list of things like Weschler's, so they define it pretty clearly.

777
01:24:29,200 --> 01:24:32,200
 On two pages?

778
01:24:32,200 --> 01:24:45,200
 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,

779
01:24:45,200 --> 01:25:00,200
 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.

780
01:25:00,200 --> 01:25:13,200
 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.

781
01:25:13,200 --> 01:25:20,200
 And I just think that goes back to that's just too vague, you know, what does that mean?

782
01:25:20,200 --> 01:25:26,200
 I think it's broader, and I think it needs to be broad. I don't think that's a bad thing.

783
01:25:26,200 --> 01:25:39,200
 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.

784
01:25:39,200 --> 01:25:55,200
 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,

785
01:25:55,200 --> 01:26:01,200
 which we haven't been presented, or come up with a way to add that that makes sense.

786
01:26:01,200 --> 01:26:12,200
 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.

787
01:26:12,200 --> 01:26:26,200
 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.

788
01:26:26,200 --> 01:26:36,200
 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.

789
01:26:36,200 --> 01:26:49,200
 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,

790
01:26:49,200 --> 01:26:56,200
 and I think that university should stay, and I think it was put in there for a reason.

791
01:26:56,200 --> 01:27:08,200
 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.

792
01:27:08,200 --> 01:27:21,200
 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.

793
01:27:21,200 --> 01:27:28,200
 So we can discuss that as needed, and then talk more about the letter that we want to send to council.

794
01:27:28,200 --> 01:27:35,200
 Chair, if you don't mind, could you elaborate on why you think a university should be considered as businesses?

795
01:27:35,200 --> 01:27:53,200
 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.

796
01:27:53,200 --> 01:28:00,200
 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.

797
01:28:00,200 --> 01:28:12,200
 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.

798
01:28:12,200 --> 01:28:24,200
 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.

799
01:28:24,200 --> 01:28:32,200
 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.

800
01:28:32,200 --> 01:28:38,200
 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.

801
01:28:38,200 --> 01:28:48,200
 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.

802
01:28:48,200 --> 01:28:57,200
 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.

803
01:28:57,200 --> 01:29:12,200
 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.

804
01:29:12,200 --> 01:29:25,200
 May I speak? If university is in there, then I absolutely think Chamber of Commerce and maybe county should be called out as well.

805
01:29:25,200 --> 01:29:34,200
 Because the city, you could easily curry favors with those groups, and they have a lot of power in this city.

806
01:29:34,200 --> 01:29:45,200
 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.

807
01:29:45,200 --> 01:29:56,200
 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.

808
01:29:56,200 --> 01:30:12,200
 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.

809
01:30:12,200 --> 01:30:22,200
 So can we add Chamber of Commerce? Because the city gets the money, a lot of money, and they have a lot of power.

810
01:30:22,200 --> 01:30:31,200
 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.

811
01:30:31,200 --> 01:30:56,200
 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.

812
01:30:56,200 --> 01:31:13,200
 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.

813
01:31:13,200 --> 01:31:32,200
 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.

814
01:31:32,200 --> 01:31:55,200
 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.

815
01:31:55,200 --> 01:32:04,200
 I don't think they have power. I really think they do. I think that they just don't even know.

816
01:32:04,200 --> 01:32:11,200
 I kind of wish they did.

817
01:32:11,200 --> 01:32:18,200
 I just don't think Chamber of Commerce needs to be, I don't see a big overriding Chamber of Commerce.

818
01:32:18,200 --> 01:32:25,200
 The city funds them to the tune of about two and a half million dollars.

819
01:32:25,200 --> 01:32:39,200
 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?

820
01:32:39,200 --> 01:32:49,200
 As I read the part on San Marcos, two of our city council people would have to resign if we adopted that.

821
01:32:49,200 --> 01:33:15,200
 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.

822
01:33:15,200 --> 01:33:28,200
 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.

823
01:33:28,200 --> 01:33:37,200
 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.

824
01:33:37,200 --> 01:33:46,200
 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.

825
01:33:46,200 --> 01:34:02,200
 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?

826
01:34:02,200 --> 01:34:10,200
 I'll take that as a no. Well, there was a citizens committee born to determine whether or not they would have a code.

827
01:34:10,200 --> 01:34:18,200
 Well, yeah, but there wasn't a citizens committee. Well, this is a citizens committee.

828
01:34:18,200 --> 01:34:30,200
 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.

829
01:34:30,200 --> 01:34:42,200
 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.

830
01:34:42,200 --> 01:34:48,200
 And that's where I've been, I guess, more frustrated with it than anything else.

831
01:34:48,200 --> 01:35:00,200
 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?

832
01:35:00,200 --> 01:35:11,200
 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.

833
01:35:11,200 --> 01:35:18,200
 I don't have any difficulty understanding what they're saying, but there were a number of places like that.

834
01:35:18,200 --> 01:35:28,200
 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.

835
01:35:28,200 --> 01:35:42,200
 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.

836
01:35:42,200 --> 01:35:50,200
 It's just like a big bowl of spaghetti that's all tangled up, and I don't think it's fixable.

837
01:35:50,200 --> 01:36:00,200
 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.

838
01:36:00,200 --> 01:36:10,200
 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,

839
01:36:10,200 --> 01:36:17,200
 is there anything inherent in this board, our authority to, within a certain period of time?

840
01:36:17,200 --> 01:36:25,200
 So that's what we're doing right now. We have the authority to propose amendments to the code to City Council.

841
01:36:25,200 --> 01:36:32,200
 But I meant as a whole, just to do a whole review of it in five years, like a five-year plan.

842
01:36:32,200 --> 01:36:40,200
 It's in the code. I can try to find the section about it.

843
01:36:40,200 --> 01:36:49,200
 So I think 2-277 I, amendments, the Board of Ethics may recommend amendments to the article.

844
01:36:49,200 --> 01:36:56,200
 A recommendation from the Board of Ethics is not required for the City Council to exercise its discretion in amending this article.

845
01:36:56,200 --> 01:36:59,200
 So it's a piecemeal type thing?

846
01:36:59,200 --> 01:37:05,200
 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.

847
01:37:05,200 --> 01:37:15,200
 I mean, we could recommend all the amendments we want, that we agree on, and we take to City Council.

848
01:37:15,200 --> 01:37:19,200
 So I think we could look over it as much as we want.

849
01:37:19,200 --> 01:37:22,200
 Okay, just throwing that out there.

850
01:37:22,200 --> 01:37:30,200
 And as far as the piecemeal, so I went in front of Council the first time last summer, and I brought four.

851
01:37:30,200 --> 01:37:35,200
 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?

852
01:37:35,200 --> 01:37:38,200
 And I was told, you know, bring changes as they come.

853
01:37:38,200 --> 01:37:42,200
 Then in October, it was kind of a different, why don't we bring everything at once?

854
01:37:42,200 --> 01:37:51,200
 And then, like I said, now we're looking at changing the polling places, and we were asked to decide on that.

855
01:37:51,200 --> 01:37:56,200
 So we've kind of gotten different direction as far as piecemeal or not.

856
01:37:56,200 --> 01:38:03,200
 So that goes back to what I was saying earlier as far as sending a letter saying we have voted,

857
01:38:03,200 --> 01:38:14,200
 the majority has voted for Council Member Davis's proposal, voted for what you had said as far as changing and to where,

858
01:38:14,200 --> 01:38:21,200
 and then adding what we're, and you know, we've been talking for several meetings about conflict of interest,

859
01:38:21,200 --> 01:38:29,200
 but the first several amendments that we suggest that were all unanimous as far as changing accused respondent,

860
01:38:29,200 --> 01:38:40,200
 adding whistleblower, changing what the city council's, city attorney's role somewhat as far as when a city council person

861
01:38:40,200 --> 01:38:47,200
 has an ethics playing against them and taking out a certain section that was just in a virtual.

862
01:38:47,200 --> 01:38:56,200
 So I would say that we just send that letter again unless we want to discuss more on Exhibit 4

863
01:38:56,200 --> 01:39:02,200
 or if there's any proposed amendments as far as Exhibit 4.

864
01:39:02,200 --> 01:39:08,200
 I'd just like to say why I voted no on polling because it ties into this.

865
01:39:08,200 --> 01:39:14,200
 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?

866
01:39:14,200 --> 01:39:19,200
 Oh, are you saying like if somebody is using it for their gain?

867
01:39:19,200 --> 01:39:20,200
 Right.

868
01:39:20,200 --> 01:39:26,200
 And that's a valid point because it takes a long time to change anything as we've seen.

869
01:39:26,200 --> 01:39:32,200
 But we have a city council person that makes a recommendation and two months later we have a change.

870
01:39:32,200 --> 01:39:35,200
 Yeah.

871
01:39:35,200 --> 01:39:46,200
 So what kind of commitment does city council have to seriously consider the recommendations that we make all the way?

872
01:39:46,200 --> 01:39:54,200
 Well, I'm going to test that because I'd like to give all of our recommendations again.

873
01:39:54,200 --> 01:39:56,200
 Okay, so any more discussion on that?

874
01:39:56,200 --> 01:40:02,200
 Any more amendments or is everybody on board for the letter I've proposed and we just send that to council?

875
01:40:02,200 --> 01:40:14,200
 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.

876
01:40:14,200 --> 01:40:18,200
 All right, I guess that concludes it.

877
01:40:18,200 --> 01:40:24,200
 If there's any more thoughts about the letter or any of the exhibits, speak now or forever hold your peace.

878
01:40:24,200 --> 01:40:32,200
 What's that?

879
01:40:32,200 --> 01:40:34,200
 All right, so I guess we will adjourn.

880
01:40:34,200 --> 01:40:38,200
 Oh no, my watch is out of battery.

881
01:40:38,200 --> 01:40:40,200
 So 723 and we'll adjourn.

882
01:40:40,200 --> 01:40:44,200
 Thank you for everybody for coming and taking their time out and working hard on this.