Okay. Welcome everybody to the Board of Ethics meeting for today, June 25th. We're doing
this on Zoom, obviously. I think in the foreseeable future we'll be doing Zoom meetings if and
when we have them. I think that's what the city's mandate and I think it's most healthy
for all of us. And I think before we got on, I think everybody can hear and we can hear
everybody, all the members. So we'll first take attendance. Let's see. Ronnie, Mohair
is not here. Me, Laura Tomlin, I'm here. Dawn Cartwright. Charlotte Bradshaw is not here
and she had a work conflict, so it's excused. Annetta Ramsey is here. Our new member Patricia
Renke is here. Ron Johnson is not on the Zoom. Deborah Cosmo, Rob Brainer and Bob Swanbeck
are on the call and they're alternatives that will be taking the place of members today.
So let's move to agenda item 1A, consider approval of the minutes for February 13, 2020
and the minutes were sent out to everyone. Does anyone have any problems with the minutes?
And if I could have a motion to approve the minutes for February 13. Motion by Dawn Cartwright.
Is there a second? By Rob Brainer. And if there's no discussion, all in favor of approving
the February 13, 2020 minutes? Aye. All right. So we'll approve those minutes. It seems like
a million years ago we had that meeting, but okay. So item 1B. Sorry, Laura. Laura. Sorry,
I'm going to have to cut in the way that council has been doing this, especially because we
still have one of our members now on the phone and not on the video. So we can't see his
vote. And if everybody says aye at the same time, we can't record it properly. You'll
just have to do it by roll call. Sorry. Okay, that's fine. All right. So I'm in favor. Dawn.
And Annetta? Aye. I guess Patricia, I don't know. Actually, no, you don't abstain under
our rules. You don't have a conflict. Basically, you're approving it because you don't see
any errors with it. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you, Trey. Thank you. Okay. And Debra?
I think you're muted, Debra. Yes. Okay. Rob Rayner? Yes. And on the phone, Bob Swambat?
Aye. Okay. All right. So are we all good, Trey? Yes, ma'am. Good to go. Okay. All right.
Moving to item 1B, hold a discussion of current membership of the Board of Ethics. And let's
see here. And let's see it up on page. Good to go. Okay. So on May 23rd, 2020, Larry Beck
resigned from the board. He wasn't on too long, but he gave good, he gave good discussions
while he was on the board, and we wish him well. And our newest board member is Patricia
Renke, nominated by council member Maltzer. So welcome, Patricia. And Madison Rorschach?
I'm sorry. It's Rorschach. Okay, Rorschach. She is our, she's with the auditor's office
and who we're working with right now. The city council has not filled Umesh's position.
And then Betsy has also left the city. So Madison is who I've been dealing with to set
up the meeting and who we'll be dealing with until, I guess, until Umesh's place is filled.
Okay. So if there's no other discussion on new membership, we'll move to 1C. Receive
a report and hold discussion regarding the May 19th, 2020 city council work session presentation
and subsequent action items on June 2nd, 2020 city council agenda regarding changes to the
ethics ordinance and rules of procedure. So via Zoom, well, I was on the phone, but city
council was on Zoom. I presented our ordinance changes and our rules of procedure changes
on May 19th. Madison actually put in a hyperlink for everybody. If you were able to go and
watch that, it was a PowerPoint of everything we've pretty much talked about for two years.
And there weren't really any questions. There was a question on conflict of interest and
whether we are going to ask them to make an amendment on conflict of interest. And that's
actually in our agenda item D. So not to start a discussion on that now, but they want us
to report to them whether we are in an impasse as far as changing the conflict of interest
or if we still want to work on that. But let's not discuss, let's save that discussion for
agenda item D. Other than that, there really weren't a lot of questions. And on June 2nd,
they approved the ordinance and the rules of procedure. The rules of procedure, it was
just kind of house cleaning, nothing like substantive. And the ordinance now going quickly through
what was approved, special council will be called when we have hearings that deal with
the city council member because the city attorney has a conflict. Accused in the ordinance has
been changed to respondent. Now the respondent gets a copy of complaint. And in the past
they didn't. Retaliation is now a violation of the ethics ordinance. What a relative is
in the relative, a reference to the government code definition of relative is now in the
government and department supervisor has been removed out of one section because the ethics
ordinance is not applicable to the department supervisor. That's pretty much what I have
there. Are there any questions or discussions about that? Not seeing any. So we'll move
straight into agenda item 1D. Receive a report, hold a discussion and take necessary action
regarding potential changes to chapter 2 article 11 section 2-273A. And that is the section
on conflict of interest. And I'll pull up the agenda information sheet to show what
exactly we need to be deciding. All right. Okay. So as we know, we can recommend amendments
to the city, to the ordinance to the city council. And on May 19th, when I presented
the city council directed the board of ethics to report back if the board had reached an
impasse regarding the conflict of interest section of the ethics ordinance. And oh, actually
clear that again, hold on. And Madison had gone back and we had talked about conflict
of interest at several meetings, January, a couple of times in February, August, September
and October of 2019. And then most recently, February 2020 of this year. I believe back
at one of the some of the 2019 meetings, we had former member David Zoltner give some
suggestions for amendments on the conflict of interest. Deborah Cosmo has also presented
on that. And most recently, Annetta has brought four possible amendments to the conflict of
interest. And we've never come to a consensus or majority as far as wanting to change it.
So that's where we are now. I think if we were to go back to them and say we're at an
impasse, it would the ball would be in city council court, as far as if they want to make
any changes to conflict of interest, if it stays with us. I guess we would just keep
going the way we've been going, as far as people sending recommendations and having
presentations of different recommendations to the city council. When I presented councilmember
armature was the one that was asking. She was who I remember asking about the conflict
of interest. And she had asked if we had gone over the model code. And I think she had brought
up the San Marcos ordinance is the one that she had brought up. And she asked if we discussed
that. And I told her, yeah, we, we had because I think that's what Annetta brought to us
from what I remember, and on February 13, 2020. And we did not come to a majority or
consensus on that. So I guess what I would like to do is just everybody to kind of give
her opinion. And I guess whatever the majority wants to do, whether we keep on working on
this, or we say we're an impasse, which I think if we're at an impasse, I mean, it doesn't
mean we have to stay at an impasse forever. But based on our last meeting, sometimes I
felt like we were kind of arguing in circles and not getting anywhere. So I don't want
us to waste our time. But if we think we could actually make movement and change something,
then you know, we should, we can keep having meetings about it. So I'll stop talking now
and let everybody else give their word. I think I didn't want to say that. I didn't
really think that the San Marcos code was the best. I thought the model code was the
best. Can you hear me? Yeah, I had to turn up my, my earphones. Very quiet. Okay. I think
that West first code is the best. And I would love to see his definition, because I think
it is a lot more broad than the code that we have. And I guess not, not to cut you off,
if you have more to say, but I guess I don't want to get into discussion today of what,
what are we going to change it to? We just needed to, do we want to keep on working on
it? Or do we want to tell, tell city council at this point, we're at an impasse and we're
not going to keep having meetings about it unless I guess something new happens maybe.
So I'm guessing since I know you want, you like Westler's code, so I'm guessing you want
to keep working on it. Let me take a tally so I can remember at the end. All right. Rob
Rainer. If we thank you, if we state that it's an impasse and we take it to the city
council, are you saying then they have the option to make the decision for us and then
we adopt that and move on? And Trey can jump in if I'm getting this wrong, but I think
under the ordinance, we can recommend changes and they can take them or leave them. They
can vote for them or vote against them. But I think they have the power at any point to
change the ordinance. So if we went to an impasse, they could change it or they could
not change it. I think it would be up to them. Thank you. Right. I'll chime in just quickly.
The difference here is the changes to the ethics ordinance, which is where conflict
of interest is versus changes to the board of ethics rules of procedure, where the rules
of procedure y'all can come up with and they're subject to ratification of council. Council
can always change the ethics ordinance itself, but can look to you for recommendations. So
if the board of ethics as a body does not have a recommendation as to a change for the
conflict of interest definition, council can still move ahead with a potential change to
that without such a recommendation by the board. Does that help? Thank you. Yes, sir.
All right. Rob, do you have feelings about whether we want to keep on meeting about the
conflict of interest or tell them that we're at an, and I keep saying impasse for now because
I don't want this to be like a cutoff forever. Things could change. But do you have a feeling
about that, Rob? I am, I'd like to hear from the other members if I could before I'm leaning
either way. But I think it's, if I know that the council can make the decision themselves,
I'm just wondering if that may be the best way to move on this right now, but I'd like
to hear what others think. All right. Who else? Deborah? Yes. If we, if we sent it back
to council for clarification, I think there are several things that need to be clarified
and perhaps they might be the best body to do that. Because I think part of our discussion
is that we're really not clear about some of the terms. That's my opinion. One is that
in code of ordinances, chapter two, section two dash 83, which is the rules and procedure,
it references matter, but in the ethics code, it's pending matter. Are those the same thing
or are they two different things? Another is that financial interest in that particular
ordinance is the same as substantial interest in the Texas government code 171. So in trying
to map out what means what, does conflicting interest equal financial interest? Does conflicting
interest equal financial interest, which equals substantial interest according to this ordinance?
And then in the charter, we have another, we have that it's required a definition of
potential economic interest. So is economic potential economic interest the same as a
pending matter of financial interest? So I think it would be very, very helpful to have
a clarification of terms so we know what we're talking about and make recommendations. So
are you saying like have city council decide on those clarifications or have us have meetings
about those clarifications? I think if we decide to throw it back to them, that we should
say not that we're at an impasse, but we would like clarification of these terms and throw
that back to them. Because if we're talking about apples and oranges, we're never going
to get to an agreement except fruit basket. Yeah, I think you might be right as far as
the conversations we've had about this thus far. It seems like people are just on or speaking
different languages. Yeah, we are. And anyone that lives in Dunn should be able to pull
this up and understand what it says. Your honor, one of the problems I believe we have
and Deborah, you did a great presentation a couple of meetings ago, but it depends on
the situation that is presented to us. And each situation has been and I've said on most
of the panels that have been presented to us. I think it's pretty self explanatory. And
I'm not sure that we need any changes now. And we can change and change and change. But
unless there's some specific problem that we have, I don't think that we have a problem.
And I think I've reiterated that each meeting we've had. Yeah, honestly, I tend to agree
with you, Don, on that one that I mean, the panels we've had, it seems like we've all
been able to come to an agreement or the vast majority have been able to come to an agreement
on those. Also, David's letter we got was very, very interesting and very good. But
I'm not sure that it would make either, either one of them we could work with and do. But
I don't see a problem with ours. So and again, I don't like the word like the word impasse,
but Don, I'm getting that you just don't think we need to make changes right now. I don't
I don't see where it's I think it's more confusing as trying to make all these little changes
in working with what we have right now. Because I haven't seen a problem with what we have
right now.
I actually tend to agree with you on that one.
This is Bob, let me ask you a couple of questions. In past meetings, I got the impression that
the council itself was not fully focused, so to speak on what the code and what the
languages and so forth should be. And if they're not focused, I'm not sure we can do anything
besides make some recommendations. But furthermore, the elections are going to change the or potentially
change the nature of the of the council. So my general idea or feeling is that we we continue
to try to come up with some things that the group itself can can recommend, but also look
at things that are happening or not happening relative to the ordinance itself, what kind
of experiences are we getting or not getting that that says we need to tinker with something
further, particularly since we're looking at a delayed election. I think once the new
council gets seated, then we may be able to maybe able to get some more guidance from
them as to where they think or excuse me, let me change that. What they would probably
accept from the group, because I didn't get the impression that that they were ready to
make any kind of significant changes.
Yeah, Bob, I, I, so I when I had presented to council before and brought back what they
had said, I remember it being not exactly clear what they want it. And we discussed
that. So I believe some members have talked about, you know, we need to bring forth whatever
minute we have, no matter what the council does. But yeah, I don't think we've gotten
a clear direction on what exactly they would they would want. I guess it's though.
We as a group don't have a clear picture in our mind of what what the code ought to be.
And as was stated a second ago, if it's pulled up by a citizen, what it's supposed to look
like and read like.
So I guess Bob, do you would you like to keep having media? Okay, I think somebody might
have I hear an echo. Would you like to keep having meetings about the conflict of interest
or say that we've come to an impasse for for now?
Is what I see the language being. But I also, as you stated, I think we need to have some
focus with our own discussions and what we're trying to achieve before we start looking
at three or four different kind of options. So keep working on it. Yeah. And there's the
old line, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. There's a flip side to that coin. If it ain't
broke, make it better. So I would say that we keep working on it, unless there's something
else that's supposed to be done that I haven't heard about. But I think that just going belly
up is not the way for the group to go.
Okay. And, Patricia, I know you're brand new. Do you have feelings about this either way?
I imagine it's probably hard for you because you haven't been to the, you know, previous,
I don't know, seven or eight meetings that we've talked about this.
Talking about it. Oh, wait a minute. Yeah, I'm unmuted. You've been talking about it
for how long?
Let me bring this back up on, it was on the agenda. All right, we have, it started in
January of 2019. We met January twice in February, August, September and October of last year,
and then once February of this year. I wouldn't say that all the meetings were all conflict
of interest because many of them touched on different subjects. I think at least a few
of them were all conflict of interest. And I would say we've put several hours into discussing
this and haven't come to a consensus or majority. And if anybody thinks differently, they can
chime in, but I think that's where we are.
Oh, gosh, I don't know. I mean, I wish I could give you an opinion, but I don't feel like
I have enough information to give you an opinion.
Yeah, it's completely understandable. I just want to make sure you could have a say if
you want it. Let's see. And Deborah, you had spoken, but I assume you probably still want
to keep working on it, or are you saying we should go back and keep working on it? Okay.
Well, I guess, so my thoughts on this, I've already said I don't really like the word
in-pass because I don't want it to be like we're never going to look at conflicts of
interest again. I don't think we've really gotten anywhere in our meetings in over the
past year and a half. I think that we kind of have similar suggestions keep coming up
and similar arguments, not similar discussions, and we come out with nothing. So I'm, I don't
know, I guess I'm kind of like a few of you of being on the fence. I think that I don't
want to keep having meetings that are not productive, but I don't want to say we're
never going to change conflict of interest. I think things could change. Somebody could
think up a brilliant idea that we haven't talked about yet that would really explain
it better and everybody would agree to. So I guess I'm kind of in the middle of, I don't
want to meet every month and discuss things for three hours and not really make any progress,
but I don't want to just say we're at an impasse. We're never going to talk to it again. So
I guess I would want to tell council, it's a work in progress and we don't have anything
for you right now. We'll see how things go. I don't know. So that's where I'm at. I guess
I'm putting a question mark next to my name, as well as Patricia and Rob, unless anybody
changes their mind. And Rob, you said you wanted to hear from everybody. Do you have
an opinion?
Real quick before we go back to discussion in the round, I just wanted to point out just
because of our technical limitations, we're being asked on the back end if y'all could
mute and unmute yourselves as we go along because of the propensity to have not being
able to keep a clear record of what's going on if we're talking over one of each other
and a delay or anything like that. Just let Laura know that you'd like to speak and she
can recognize you and then you can unmute then and that'll help keep the record clear,
especially for those who can't watch or because of a delay or something like that. Thank you.
Thank you, Trey. Rob, did you have a opinion now after hearing everybody speak? And I recognize
Rob.
Oh, thank you. Well, if I understood Trey, if we submit this to the council, they could
make their decisions, but that wouldn't prevent us from still working on this for anything
that may come up that we weren't ready for and then present that to them for a suggestion
to change. Would that also then free us up a valuable time that we use at our meetings
to discuss something that we have not had much success with for the past seven meetings?
I would prefer running it at the council and then it would free us up to take care of other
issues that could be more pressing. What they are, let's see what they are and then we'll
know if they're pressing.
Deborah, I recognize Deborah.
I have a question for Trey. I think it would be very helpful to have a cross reference
of the ordinance to the charter and that might help in figuring out exactly when we're talking
about conflicting interest, how it ties into the charter. Has a cross reference like that
been done?
I'm sorry, I'm not really sure what you're asking for.
In the charter it says prohibited economic interest. How does that cross reference to
the current ethics ordinance? Is that pending matter or does it cross reference to general
rules, the code of ordinance? I just want to know, is there any document that ties it
all together so that we know that when we're talking about pending matter, it means the
same as matter, financial interest, substantial interest?
We haven't prepared anything like that. I think probably if you go back to when it was
drafted and Alan Borquez's firm was going through putting on all the provisions based
on the charter amendment, there's probably some of that there, but we haven't prepared
something like that, no ma'am.
I would think that the charter came out and then the City Council had their 11 public
meetings and they worked on it and I would think they'd probably have to go back and
look at all that to see maybe how it, when they came up with the language, I guess. So
right now I have that Annetta and Bob and Deborah definitely want to keep having the
meetings about conflict of interest. I have that Don is saying we should just keep it
as is. Rob is saying we should send kind of this issue to council and can keep working
on things, but not necessarily conflict of interest. Patricia is brand new, so she doesn't
really have an opinion yet, this being her first meeting. So I guess it comes to me and
I kind of think that we tell council, we don't have anything right now, and I think that
we should just keep, and this might come up in our next agenda item about future meetings,
I think that we just keep having, if people have ideas of amendments and things that they
want to discuss and work on for an amendment, they send them to me or me and Madison and
then we just, the next time we have a meeting, we discuss those things. And if we don't have
any recommendations, I guess we don't have, we wouldn't meet and we kind of just kind
of play by, just keep going somewhat the way we've been going and maybe we'll discuss conflict
of interest, maybe we'll discuss other things like Rob was saying. How does everybody feel
about that? Is there anybody that wants to speak up or, Annetta, I recognize Annetta.
I really wanted to make a comment about, it seems like everybody's really worried about
what council thinks, and that's an ethical blind spot that Westler talks about. He talks
about how when the governing body itself makes the rules, they never look the same as they
do to the citizens outside. So I think we should definitely make, you know, whatever
recommendations we think as a group our best, and we should all weigh in on that. And they
can take it or leave it. I mean, I don't, the other parties could change a lot with
this election and we don't know when that's going to happen. Right? I mean, I, I think
the election's set for November, but you know, the way the world's going. November 4th? Wow.
And I don't think that we're not afraid to take things to council. I think the bigger
issue is we can't get the majority of us to vote on a change, if that makes sense. I mean,
I don't know if, I mean, I'm not too concerned, you know, whatever, I think that we should
bring forth whatever we all agree on. I think the bigger issue is we haven't been able to
find a, an improvement or conflict of interest that the majority of us can agree on that
is, is, is that we, the majority of us feel is better than the current conflict of interest.
I think that's the bigger issue. So, so what will we be telling council? Will we just tell
them that we're going to, we don't have a conflict of interest for them yet, but we
will continue to work on amendments as we come up with them and as we come up with ideas
of how, how it can be improved. Does that sound like a plan or does anybody have a better
idea of what we should bring to council? And Trey, I guess does that, would that answer
their question? Cause I, I kind of don't, and I don't think I really heard from anybody
that like we're at an impasse. We're never going to talk about it again. Would you think
it would be acceptable to tell council, like we don't have anything for them right now,
but it's a work in progress. And as we come up with new ideas and discuss new things,
we might come up with them in the future. I'm not sure exactly how we should answer that.
Well, I think, I think you answered just where the board is. I mean, again, you're, you're,
you're welcome to keep talking about it or you're welcome to move on to other topics.
I mean, it's, it's at the, it's at the pleasure of the board to decide what they want to do
with this particular topic. And I don't think that there's necessarily a wrong answer to
that question. Council just asked where you stood. It's not necessarily that you're at
an impasse. And even, even if you're not at an impasse, that doesn't stop council from
considering themselves. Anyway, it's just, if a majority of council wants to consider
it aside from y'all doing it at the same time, they can also do that. Okay. Well then I mean,
I think we'll just report to council that we don't have anything for them on conflict
of interest and we'll just keep going the way we've been going. I think, like I said,
council member Armator did bring up the, some city codes and the model code. And I did let
her know that we have already discussed those. So I would say in the future and we'll, I
guess we'll talk about that in the next agenda item. When we have future meetings that, I
mean, I would prefer that we, that things that we don't rehash the same discussions
that we've already had and already voted on. So I think we will, let me look back at the
agenda. I think that's how we'll answer them. I don't, I don't know if that's exactly what
they wanted, but I didn't, I don't know if I really liked the question more than I thought
about it of are we at an impasse or not. Does anybody else have any comments about agenda
item one D? Okay. I'm not seeing any hands or anybody speaking. Okay. So let's move on
to, and Laura, since you can't hear the board member that's on the phone, you should probably
ask him just to confirm in case he muted himself and was trying to speak up, but maybe forgot
to unmute himself. You just might not hurt to double check with him. Bob, do you have
anything else? Well, I'm very hard to mute. But I agree with what, with what you're describing.
And I think in the next section, I have a potential suggestion relative to process for
this agenda item and maybe others. Okay. Well, let's give me just a second and we'll get
back to you on that one. Hold on, I was going to bring this up and share my screen. Okay.
So the next agenda item is discussing future board meetings. And Madison listed all the
board meetings that we've had. She put that about a year ago in July of 2019, we unanimously
agreed to schedule a regular meeting for the last Thursday of each month. She also commented
that currently we're doing all board meetings virtually. So it would be another Zoom meeting.
Our rules of procedure say that either the chair or city auditor can call a meeting.
It also says that on the request of three members, you can call a meeting, which I don't
really know if it's a good idea for three or more members to start talking about, we
need a meeting or not. Cause I feel like that might be a rolling quorum. So I don't know
if that's something maybe we should look at in the rules of procedure, but so on the request
of three members, the chair or the city auditor. And like I said, in the past, we have agreed
to schedule the meetings the last Thursday of each month. I think most recently we had
the February meeting. We had a meeting scheduled in March and that's of course when a pandemic
hits the world. So we canceled that in person meeting in April. I think we were waiting
on my presentation at council. Like we don't want to meet again before I present it because
we just kind of didn't have anything new to talk about yet. So April was canceled in May.
The city council meeting I presented on was May 19th. So there wasn't enough time to get
a meeting in before then. So now we're into June. And that's why our next meeting has
been June. I think before that between when we, when we met at the end of last year, we
would have people just send suggestions of what, what we wanted to talk about as far
as amendment to the ordinance. And then we would have meetings on those topics. I would
say that keeping the regular meetings. I think that we, we could have it kind of scheduled
for people like put on their calendar. This is, this might be a meeting. And then we just,
like we just discussed in the last agenda item, as things come up, if people have ideas
of things they think we should discuss, we can have meetings as needed. And I think,
oh, go ahead, Madison. I just wanted to say, I worked with the city secretary's office.
So we do have a meeting scheduled for July 30th, which is the last Thursday of July.
But we do need like a little bit of lead time, right? Because they're virtual now. So we
just need to give it to the city staff a little bit of time before we can't just schedule
one very, very quickly. It's really just what I wanted to throw out. Okay. So how much lead
time do you need? Cause we could do something like if you have any suggestions for this
meeting, get it to us by July 10th or July 15th. And I mean, how long, how much lead
time do you think you need? Right now they're doing it about a month before. Okay. Yeah.
We could just say we have, and I mean, I'll hear from the board. I'm just maybe be proposing
something. We could do an August meeting and have whatever you want to do, get it to us
by the end of July. And then we would talk about it at the August meeting. Cause it sounds
to me like we would need to know pretty quickly here if we want to go forward with that July
meeting or yes. Yeah, I think so. Um, and, uh, actually I think Bob on the phone, uh,
you had an idea as far as meetings. Would you like to share that Bob Swanbeck? Yes.
Can you hear me? Okay. I don't think I ever muted, but, uh, very rarely do. Uh, I think
that we, we should do some ongoing activities and discussions about topics that are of interest.
And when we have a topic like the conflict of interest and we can't seem to come to a
meeting as a large group, let's think about giving it to a subcommittee to come back to
the group with specific recommendations, uh, about what changes, uh, are necessary and,
and what the language should look like, uh, rather than just, uh, you know, going around
and bouncing back and forth as you said, you know, going in circles. Uh, if a group goes
in circles, chances are they don't know where they're going. So, uh, a smaller group may
be able to put some focus to it. Um, I guess I'd like to know Trey, what are the rules
about that? Creating a subcommittee? Um, yes. And I mean, you could do it. We would need
to post it at a meeting and have y'all create it at a meeting. We're not posted to create
a subcommittee today, but I mean, it's something the board could do. Yes. Okay. So I guess
what we, I mean, my thoughts on that is maybe, uh, you come up with what we want a subcommittee
on. I know at one point, um, I believe it was David Soltner and Jesse Davis on at the
very beginning of this ethics board, they were on a subcommittee that, uh, I could,
anybody can correct me if they remember differently, but I think they came up with some of the
recommendations that we just got passed by council. So, um, I mean, that, that would
be something that we can do. And I know, uh, uh, I don't know if Debra and Annetta worked
together on, on some of those presentations now. Okay. I guess it was just, um, maybe
them alone working on it. Um, so I wouldn't be against that, but I guess we would have
to get that on the agenda of, um, the next meeting or one of the next meetings if we
were to do that. Um, other ideas. Oh, go ahead, Bob. Since we don't have a specific, uh, recommendation
about the process, my suggestion is that we put it on the next agenda to talk through
the idea of, uh, using subcommittees and what they need to be doing and what kind of, uh,
legal things we have to go through in terms of posting and getting people together and
all that kind of stuff. Uh, and I don't see any urgency right now in any of the things
we're doing, but I think some of this stuff is important enough to keep working on it.
Uh, Rob, I think Rob raised his hand first. I'll recognize him. If I may. I think subcommittees
are great. My concern is since we are doing zoom and evidently, uh, I'll call it bandwidth
for lack of doing anything else is somewhat restricted. How would those, and we may discuss
it, something we may need to discuss at the next meeting, how would those individuals
get together and would it have to be zoomed? Would it have to be open to the public? Uh,
I'm afraid that we may be, uh, creating a more, um, attention that we don't really have
as far as the energy that the city can give us to get all this together. As far as the
subcommittee, if we can be on a street corner and all three corners and yelled at each other,
that's one thing. But if it has to be public and all, I'm just concerned about the mechanics
of the subcommittee, not the subcommittee itself. Right. If, and if we were to create
a subcommittee, it would be subject to all applicable, like Toma issues, stuff like that.
So we'd have to post it. We'd need to be open to the public, stuff like that. I think what
Laura was talking about related to, uh, uh, now council member Davis and, uh, who was
it? Mr. Beck. Oh, Zoltner, Mr. Zoltner working on some of the initial changes is that there
wasn't ever an actual subcommittee. They just took it upon their themselves in their own time
to pull that together and then present it to the board to try to narrow down some of the issues.
I don't think an actual subcommittee was created back then, but if we create a subcommittee to do
this, it would, we would need to follow all the applicable Toma rules. And I would imagine
right now it would have to be on zoom. I kind of don't want three of you getting together because
of, uh, the skyrocketing cases of coronavirus and our County and our state. Um, okay. So
Annette, I'm sorry. Let's recognize Annette. Uh, go ahead. I would like to suggest that we have,
we schedule a meeting for July 30th and we may just have one agenda item and that is to
decide if we want to have a subcommittee. And by then we can work out whatever the,
whatever we need to do to, to follow OMG. Um, just a kind of a general subcommittee to work on
whatever needs to be changed or just on conflict of interest or whatever. I mean,
I think that should also, what does the subcommittee work on? That's fine.
Um, okay. This is going to sound funny, but have the subcommittee decide on what the subcommittee
is working on or have the meeting and decide the subcommittee and whether or not we have
a subcommittee and what is their charge. Um, anyone else have thoughts they want to share?
Deborah. Well, it's part of the discussion. Um, we could also discuss whether or not we need
additional subcommittees to look at different topics. So, uh, and there may be some cross, um,
membership of that, but I noticed the lobbying, uh, section of the code of ethics has never
been addressed. Is that something that we would want to look at?
Um, Rob. Uh, before we get into too many specifics on how to make subcommittees,
we have in such, I think first of all, let's get the basic guidelines for a subcommittee.
And I think that can be done next month. I agree with them either there, uh, but not specifically
pigeonhole it for, uh, whatever issue we want. Let's first find out what it takes to have that
subcommittee, uh, the time committed, the resources committed. Cause that I think is the first step
before we start doing anything else in my, my thought process. Um, and I guess this might be
a question for either Madison or Trey. So if, if next month we decided to create a subcommittee,
um, I guess we would just post an agenda that we create a subcommittee that and that subcommittee,
um, what else would we need to do?
Well, we would, we would post it for, you know, discuss, deliberate and
take potential action regarding the creation of a subcommittee and the charge there for.
And so that would specifically, you'd come up with the charge of what that committee would do.
Okay. And I guess what that would look like is we would at that meeting, we'd also
say who's on the subcommittee and then they would go and meet and they'd have to have a separate,
uh, you know, posting of their meeting. Right. For them to meet, they would need a separate posting.
Okay. And it'd be through zoom. So I guess as Madison say, we're looking at,
it would probably be another month until that subcommittee can meet.
It wouldn't have to be another month. We would just, you know, have to set it up when
everybody's available to work everything out and then give at least 72 hours notice.
Okay. Yeah. So, and thinking about it, what I may recommend is that two, actually two agenda items,
one would be the creation of the subcommittee, and then the two would be considered nominations
and appointments to that subcommittee. Um, is that, uh, something that everybody wants to do
for next meeting? Um, so does everybody agree they want to meet on July 30th and I'll,
I'll work with Madison on getting the agenda together from what we've talked. Oh, go ahead, Don.
It seems like that we're making work. We really don't even have a problem.
We're talking about subcommittees when we don't even know what the subcommittee wants to do.
And our group, our, the whole ethics board, you know, is a subcommittee going to be three people,
four people. It just doesn't seem like that it's essential for us to be able to even need
to do that now, not unless we have a problem. And I don't know of a problem that we have.
Um, I, I think that's a good point, Don. And, um, I, I like efficiency and not wasting everybody's,
well, not, I don't want to say wasting everybody's time. That, that sounds like flippant, but, um,
you know, not having good use of our time and resources for us in the city. Um, so I guess, um,
do you have anything else on that, Don? No. Okay. If you could mute yourself, if you wouldn't mind.
Um, all right. Is there anybody else have anything they'd like to share on that issue,
on that, on this matter? And I'll ask Bob to, to, to unmute if you have anything to say.
Okay. Um, I'm unmuted. Uh, no, I think we've talked about it enough. And, uh, I think if,
uh, the attorney and, uh, you folks get together for a nice crisp agenda item,
we can make some progress. Um, Madison, did you really go ahead? Yeah, sorry. Um,
just so that I'm clear on, on y'all's direction, are we continuing to regularly schedule meetings
on the last Thursday of each month, or are we just going to call special meetings at the will
of the board? Um, I guess that's up to the board. Um, I guess I'd like to know from everybody. Maybe
you can just show your hand and we'll ask Rob, um, do you want to continue to have, uh, regularly
scheduled meetings instead of, uh, special meetings? Um, I see Annette's hand and Debra's
hand and Patricia's hand. Uh, Donna, are you raising your hand? Okay. All right. So I guess
that's, uh, I, I, I want it, I would prefer that we do specially called meetings. Um, and I don't
see Rob's hand. So I guess he goes for special. I was a little confused. So where you're asking us,
do we want to have regular meetings or are we raising our hands that we would have the special
meetings? Oh, I'm sorry. Raising your hand that you want regular meetings as in meetings scheduled
each month. Um, and I believe that's what Annette and Debra and Don raised their hand for. And
Patricia, did you raise your hand as well? Okay. Yeah. So they raised that. Um, I would say we do
specially called meetings as needed, which might be every month, but just so that we don't have a
meeting every month when we don't necessarily need one. Um, so, uh, since four wanted, I'll just go
ahead and, uh, uh, just go mute. Okay. And then, uh, Bob, if you have something to say, you can,
I think the, uh, I think the, it's already been decided because the majority has already voted in
favor. Um, okay. So Madison, yes, uh, we will continue the regularly scheduled meetings. Um,
and, uh, I guess since we, since we've just voted to have the meeting for July, um,
we will have the subcommittee, uh, issue, the subcommittee, um, issue on there, uh, whether we
want to start one and then I guess an agenda item of, of who would be on it. If there's anything
else, and of course there'll be like a minute, um, and probably the next meeting. Um, if there's
anything else that somebody wants an agenda, contact me and Madison as soon as possible so we can, um,
get that together. Uh, and there's one other meeting that we need to discuss on July 7th
at 3pm. We're going to have, we're going to have a panel. Um, council member Meltzer has asked for
an advisory opinion, um, on an issue that he had, he had sent to Madison. Um, so, uh, I would say,
Patricia, I'm not going to ask you to be on that panel because he, you are the one that is appointed
by Meltzer. Um, nobody else on the current board has been appointed by Meltzer. So I'd like to know,
um, if, if everyone knows their availability July 7th or could quickly look at their calendar,
if they could say if they're available that day. Um, if you're not, if you know you're not, let us
know. Or if you need to get back to us, you can also let us know. But, um, let's see. So,
do you have a time? Uh, 3pm. Uh, yes, Madison? Oh, I was just pointing out that it was three.
Okay. Sorry. Uh, okay. So Ronnie's not here. Um, I am available and is needed. Don Carray,
do you know, uh, if you're available? Oh, I'm sorry. Let's, can we unmute Don?
Uh, I think, there we go. What time would the meeting be on Tuesday the 7th? Uh, 3pm. 3pm.
Yes. Would you be available? I could be available. Okay. Um,
all right. And Sharla's not here. And if you could mute again, Don, please. Uh, and by the way,
the, the meetings we, in the past, we have had the meetings after hours. But now since we're on
zoom in order to have the city's, uh, IT, we, we've got to do them during business hours,
which I know is not, um, you know, not always convenient when you have to work, but, um,
unfortunately that's the way it is. Um, yes, Rob? I'd be available as well. Okay. Um, all right.
And, um, Annetta, would you be available or not? Yes, I'd be available. Okay. Um,
and Ron is not here. Uh, and Deborah, would you be available? Yes, I'd be available.
And Bob on the phone, um, would you be available July 7th at 3pm? Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am.
All right. Um, let's see.
Okay. Um, Madison has also gotten me kind of the stats of, of, of who's been on panels. Um, I,
and cause I don't think the ordinance gives us as far as who, who picks the panels. It's just that
the chair picks the panels. And then I really procedure say that we rotate the panels. Um,
and the ordinance says there has to be a, uh, you know, I think it was at least two or three
attorneys on the board. And I like that for the panels to have an attorney is because some of what
a panel does is interpreting, um, the ordinance, which is pretty much interpreting statutes. Uh,
so based on who's been on them and who has been on them last, uh, I, I would like the panel to be,
as long as everybody is still available, um, Annetta, uh, and, and actually, I guess,
I don't know if this is a question for Madison or Trey. Um, does it matter if people are alternates
or not, or should we try to get non-alternate first, the panels? Oh, I'm sorry, Trey, you're
muted. I don't know that we've ever, um, worried about that for the panels themselves. It's just,
you know, who would be available and who is so picked by the chair. Yeah, I believe that's true.
Oh, and I just wanted to point out, Laura, we will have, um, special counsel at that
meeting as well, just so you're aware. Okay. Right. Related to related to that comment. Um,
we still have a, uh, an agreement with the Borges law firm to be special counsel, um,
specifically going forward. Um, we had, he has, uh, advised that we would, the, the new attorney
assigned to us to help us out with stuff like this would be a, an attorney by the name of Ian
Stoosloff with his law firm. It will no longer be her proud. Um, uh, Mr. Stoos, Stoosloff as the
former general counsel of the Texas ethics commission. So we think it'll, he'll be a good
fit for the group and be helpful to advise when the city attorney's office is conflicted out.
Okay. Thank you very much. Um, okay. So since kind of all, since non-alternate don't matter, um,
Bob, if you're available, you have not been on a panel yet. Uh, so, uh, we'll put you and I was
going to nominate myself to be on that panel. So, um, July 7th, it will be myself, uh, Annetta and
Bob on the panel. And, uh, we, Madison will be sending everybody the agenda and more on that.
Um, is there anything else about, so the July 7th panel meeting and the July 30th, uh,
regular scheduled meeting, is there anything else from anyone about the discussion on future meetings?
And I don't see anybody raising their hand. Oh, go ahead, Rob.
Just for protection sake, if when this July 7th comes, do you have provisions for an alternate
to come in, in case one of you three cannot do it? Do you have to make that declaration now?
Um, and I don't think we've ever done that before. I will say that Bob and Annetta is,
and myself, if anything changes, please let us know because you have to have all three people there.
Um, I think as long as Annetta, Bob, and myself are, um, let me and Madison know if they're not
able to come, we can just switch. I think we can just switch somebody out even, you know, the day
before. Well, I guess, I don't know, if it's on the agenda, I don't know. If it's on the agenda,
people out. Typically, we've, I think we've listed the names of the people on the agenda. So, but I
mean, up to, up to 72 hours in advance. Um, could we put a alternate person on the agenda?
I don't see why not. Um, all right. Well, uh, let me see here.
As far as, let's see, Don's been on a lot of them. Um,
I guess, uh, Rob and Deborah, like y'all both have been on a couple, when y'all have y'all,
who was on the last panel? Do y'all remember or were both, was it both of you?
It was both of us and she threw her shoe at me.
I'll maybe, I'll, oh, go ahead, Madison. I actually have the answer. So the last panel
on August 15th of 2019 was Don Cartwright, Karen McDaniels and Rob Reiner. Okay. Um,
well, I don't, I don't know. I think it had two panels that day.
Oh, uh, I don't think so. Oh, but maybe, maybe was it the same panel?
Like you had two, but it was the same group of people? No, we switched out because
there were different people that were involved in the complaints.
Sorry, one second.
Uh, well, Madison's looking that up. We'll just, we'll keep the panel as myself and
Edda and Bob. If, um, if there's anything changes, let me and Madison know as soon as
possible. And, um, we can just change that beforehand and maybe we can confirm with
everybody, uh, you know, a little bit more than 72 hours in advance to make sure
and Edda, Bob and I can be there. Um, go Madison, do you have the answer?
Yeah. So on, in, on August 15th, there was only one panel. There was a day when we had
two panels in March of 2019, um, for two, for ethics complaints. So unless it's not
in the minutes. So yes. All right. Uh, okay. If there's nothing else, um,
is there anything else about future board meetings? And if Bob has anything to say,
he can unmute as well since I can't see him. So raise his hand. Okay. All right. I
think we've covered everything. Um, oh, do you have something to say, Bob? Is
that good? I want to thank Madison for the paper. It's the best paperwork we've
ever had for any of these meetings. I love Ms. Snodgrass, but you have really
done a good job on this. Thank you. I would like to second that and commend
Madison because she made, uh, life really easy putting the, this together
and the PDF she put on with the hyperlinks was really, uh, a great job.
I've been, it's been a pleasure to work with her. So, um, okay. All right. Well,
I guess I will adjourn the meeting and I'll see some of you July 7th
and everybody July 30th. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.