1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:08,640 >> All right. Good afternoon, everyone. It's the virtual board of -- monthly board of ethics 2 00:00:08,640 --> 00:00:15,440 meeting for August 27th. Thursday, August 27th. It's 3.02. We waited a couple minutes 3 00:00:15,440 --> 00:00:21,880 to give everybody time to jump on the Zoom. We have today our normal members myself, Don 4 00:00:21,880 --> 00:00:32,840 Cartwright, Ron Johnson, and we have a couple of alternates to hit the quorum. We have Rob 5 00:00:32,840 --> 00:00:38,760 Rayner and Bob Wombeck. And Madison, I don't know, do we need to, like, say whose excused 6 00:00:38,760 --> 00:00:43,320 absences are on that -- in the actual meeting, or can we just deal with that as far as getting 7 00:00:43,320 --> 00:00:48,080 it to the city secretary? >> I'm not sure, Trey, do you -- do we need 8 00:00:48,080 --> 00:00:53,680 to say that in the meeting? >> Well, I mean, do -- I don't know. Do we 9 00:00:53,680 --> 00:00:59,160 have the information for why they missed? I mean, I don't know if there's information 10 00:00:59,160 --> 00:01:01,920 right now to determine whether that's excused or unexcused, but -- 11 00:01:01,920 --> 00:01:07,200 >> Well, I know Madison said -- >> You can just say they're absent for now, 12 00:01:07,200 --> 00:01:13,840 and we can deal with excused or unexcused later. >> Okay. So I guess Sharla Bradshaw is absent. 13 00:01:13,840 --> 00:01:20,840 I know she has an excused absence. Ronnie Mohair is currently absent. And I guess that's 14 00:01:20,840 --> 00:01:28,080 -- is that it, Madison? Okay. All right. Well, then we'll jump into it. The first item for 15 00:01:28,080 --> 00:01:34,720 consideration is approval of the draft minutes of July 30th, 2020, our last month's meeting. 16 00:01:34,720 --> 00:01:41,240 I didn't see any issues with it. I don't know if anybody else did. They can voice them. 17 00:01:41,240 --> 00:01:47,760 >> I move approval of the minutes. >> Is there a second? 18 00:01:47,760 --> 00:01:52,920 >> Second. >> Second by Rob. And all in favor -- well, 19 00:01:52,920 --> 00:01:59,400 I guess I'll have to go one by one. I forget that. Okay. Bob, do you vote in favor of approving 20 00:01:59,400 --> 00:02:01,360 the minutes? >> Aye. 21 00:02:01,360 --> 00:02:03,360 >> Don? >> Yes. 22 00:02:03,360 --> 00:02:05,560 >> Annetta? >> Yes. 23 00:02:05,560 --> 00:02:07,560 >> Rob? >> Yes. 24 00:02:07,560 --> 00:02:13,680 >> Patricia? I think I saw her say yes. Ron? 25 00:02:13,680 --> 00:02:22,160 >> Hello. >> And so I think we have approval then. 26 00:02:22,160 --> 00:02:28,520 Madison, Ronnie has jumped on. So -- or maybe it more be a question for Trey. Do we have 27 00:02:28,520 --> 00:02:35,680 too many people now and we need to get rid of another alternate? Okay. Well, I think 28 00:02:35,680 --> 00:02:41,640 since Bob got to be on the last panel, he was the last alternate to participate. Sorry, 29 00:02:41,640 --> 00:02:46,720 he came up to the city bump. I guess you could probably stay on the Zoom call, but you can't 30 00:02:46,720 --> 00:02:51,880 participate in the discussion. >> I will mute myself. 31 00:02:51,880 --> 00:02:58,040 >> Thank you. >> I've had some teachers and supervisors 32 00:02:58,040 --> 00:03:05,400 that wish they had that button. >> And Ronnie, we just had Annetta move and 33 00:03:05,400 --> 00:03:10,840 Rob second to accept the meeting from the July 30th meeting. Are you in favor of that? 34 00:03:10,840 --> 00:03:15,920 >> Say that again. >> The meeting minutes from last month, approval 35 00:03:15,920 --> 00:03:16,920 -- >> Aye. 36 00:03:16,920 --> 00:03:23,640 >> All right. Okay. So I think that's unanimous approval. The minutes are approved. Moving 37 00:03:23,640 --> 00:03:29,760 to the second item, receiver report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding 38 00:03:29,760 --> 00:03:37,640 a professional services agreement with Borges law firm for the Board of Ethics legal services. 39 00:03:37,640 --> 00:03:51,320 And I'll go ahead and put it on the screen. What -- okay. All right. So he -- it's the 40 00:03:51,320 --> 00:04:00,680 proposal is Annetta -- it's pretty much that they'll continue to honor the rate of $245 41 00:04:00,680 --> 00:04:10,840 an hour for legal services as needed. The agenda information sheet listed out when we 42 00:04:10,840 --> 00:04:17,800 needed them, usually just when there's a council person that's part of an advisory opinion 43 00:04:17,800 --> 00:04:24,960 or complaint is usually when we need them. So I'm going to stop share so I can say everybody 44 00:04:24,960 --> 00:04:36,560 again. All right. So what we need to decide is either stick with this firm or get proposals. 45 00:04:36,560 --> 00:04:43,720 We've been with this firm since the beginning. And I guess I'll just -- does anybody have 46 00:04:43,720 --> 00:04:48,120 a feeling? Annetta? >> Does someone need to put it on the table 47 00:04:48,120 --> 00:04:53,680 for approval? Move approval so that we can discuss it? 48 00:04:53,680 --> 00:05:02,400 >> Trey, do we need to have it moved for that? >> Technically under Robert's rules of order, 49 00:05:02,400 --> 00:05:07,480 that's the way that it's supposed to happen according to the book. The City of Denton 50 00:05:07,480 --> 00:05:13,000 has never actually followed it that way under their own kind of rules. Especially the council, 51 00:05:13,000 --> 00:05:19,480 they'll discuss an item and then have the motion. We haven't -- because council does 52 00:05:19,480 --> 00:05:26,880 it that way, that particular Robert's rule hasn't been enforced in the committee meetings, 53 00:05:26,880 --> 00:05:34,200 but she is right. That's the way Robert's rules would do it. That's helpful, but that's 54 00:05:34,200 --> 00:05:43,440 the answer. >> May I just lay it on the table? I mean, 55 00:05:43,440 --> 00:05:46,920 is that way being proper? >> Sure. 56 00:05:46,920 --> 00:05:51,760 >> Well, except, I mean, here it's more of a work session in that we're not looking for 57 00:05:51,760 --> 00:05:56,140 action from -- we're not looking for you all to actually adopt something here. We're not 58 00:05:56,140 --> 00:06:01,240 looking for a voted recommendation on something. It's more of a -- this action is more of a 59 00:06:01,240 --> 00:06:09,280 work session for that. Now, if we were bringing something to you, whereas, like, the items 60 00:06:09,280 --> 00:06:16,560 wherein we have what the new draft is, when we took those and we wanted the vote up or 61 00:06:16,560 --> 00:06:21,160 down from y'all, that's where it would take place. Because this one's a work session, 62 00:06:21,160 --> 00:06:28,640 we're not looking for a final vote on this one. >> Yeah, the agenda item is to give staff 63 00:06:28,640 --> 00:06:35,520 direction as far as -- >> I think we should just go with the way 64 00:06:35,520 --> 00:06:40,040 the council does it. >> No. I mean, we're not going to be looking 65 00:06:40,040 --> 00:06:44,740 for a motion or a second and a vote at the end of this item. It's more just direction 66 00:06:44,740 --> 00:06:54,440 from and guidance from the board as to what you would like staff to consider pursuing. 67 00:06:54,440 --> 00:07:00,000 You know, I can strongly recommend them. They've worked very, very well with us. I don't think 68 00:07:00,000 --> 00:07:06,480 we've had any problem with them. They haven't raised their fee any. I've been very satisfied 69 00:07:06,480 --> 00:07:12,080 with them. >> I think I agree with Don. $2.45 an hour 70 00:07:12,080 --> 00:07:21,040 is a pretty reasonable rate for an attorney. >> I think they've done a great job. I do 71 00:07:21,040 --> 00:07:28,560 want to say that the city should be representing the city's interest and when -- 72 00:07:28,560 --> 00:07:32,000 >> Okay. Well, I'll just cut you off there. We've already discussed that several times 73 00:07:32,000 --> 00:07:36,200 and it's -- >> Okay. I'm just saying it for the record 74 00:07:36,200 --> 00:07:41,680 because I think that -- >> And for the record, as an attorney, you 75 00:07:41,680 --> 00:07:49,320 have certain ethical rules you have to follow. >> It appropriate for -- my speaker just started 76 00:07:49,320 --> 00:07:52,200 to stop working. Can you hear me? >> Yes, but -- 77 00:07:52,200 --> 00:07:59,680 >> Hold on. I can't hear everybody. My speaker is just disconnected. All right. Bear with 78 00:07:59,680 --> 00:08:13,280 me. Okay. Can you hear me? >> Yes. 79 00:08:13,280 --> 00:08:18,720 >> Okay. Now I can hear you. It won't be as clear because I think my headphones ran out 80 00:08:18,720 --> 00:08:27,520 of battery. All right. So are there -- anybody else want to comment on the -- what staff 81 00:08:27,520 --> 00:08:30,440 direction we should go on item 2? >> I was going to say -- 82 00:08:30,440 --> 00:08:38,040 >> No. There's not going to be discussion about whether an outside counsel or the city 83 00:08:38,040 --> 00:08:45,400 is representing us because that's not this agenda item. So I don't think it's appropriate. 84 00:08:45,400 --> 00:08:53,080 Rob, Patricia, Ron or Ronnie, do you all have any discussion on this? 85 00:08:53,080 --> 00:09:01,080 >> I've been happy with the events that I have seen them operate in. Great. And if you 86 00:09:01,080 --> 00:09:07,480 think that's a good prize, great. >> I haven't heard any serious complaints 87 00:09:07,480 --> 00:09:13,040 about this organization and the rate sounds good. So it seems like it would cost more 88 00:09:13,040 --> 00:09:20,400 to start over. So I would be in favor of staying with the same group. 89 00:09:20,400 --> 00:09:31,080 >> I think that the price is good. We haven't had terrible service from them. But I have 90 00:09:31,080 --> 00:09:39,280 to admit that I was curious as to what other firms would bring to the table, especially 91 00:09:39,280 --> 00:09:47,440 since we have a conflict of interest code from the Borowitz law firm that we can't work 92 00:09:47,440 --> 00:09:55,720 with. I would -- I just wonder if another firm could help us out of this dilemma better 93 00:09:55,720 --> 00:10:06,320 than what we've gotten so far from them. But I'm not adverse to continuing with them. 94 00:10:06,320 --> 00:10:14,480 >> All right. Ronnie, any comments? Or we'll just move -- okay. Well, I think based on 95 00:10:14,480 --> 00:10:22,800 what everybody said, we will direct staff to just continue with work, Kez, and not seek 96 00:10:22,800 --> 00:10:27,400 proposals. All right. Do you need anything else on that, Madison? 97 00:10:27,400 --> 00:10:33,680 >> Nope. That's all I need. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. So moving to the third 98 00:10:33,680 --> 00:10:38,880 item on the agenda, receive a report, hold a discussion, and take necessary action regarding 99 00:10:38,880 --> 00:10:56,180 potential changes to Chapter 2, Article 11, Section 2-273A. And 2-273A would be the conflict 100 00:10:56,180 --> 00:11:06,360 of interest portion of the ethics code. And everybody got a copy of what was sent. My 101 00:11:06,360 --> 00:11:12,040 understanding is that it's pretty much -- and I'll share my screen -- is that it is pretty 102 00:11:12,040 --> 00:11:25,960 much what the city of Denton has in their city policy for their employees. The first 103 00:11:25,960 --> 00:11:34,320 thing in the packet is, I believe, taking the policy and changing it so much -- changing 104 00:11:34,320 --> 00:11:40,400 it somewhat for our purpose. And then after that, it's just the city's policy. I mean, 105 00:11:40,400 --> 00:11:48,520 my overall impression of that is that a lot of things are already covered in ours. There's 106 00:11:48,520 --> 00:11:56,120 some different wording, and I'm not sure how this would improve our current code. The first 107 00:11:56,120 --> 00:12:00,840 paragraph of it doesn't make any prohibition. It's just a statement about what conflict 108 00:12:00,840 --> 00:12:12,280 of interest is. And if you jump to the ordinance under 2-266, there's already a purpose given, 109 00:12:12,280 --> 00:12:21,440 much like what has been given to us. And as far as Section IA of the proposal, the general 110 00:12:21,440 --> 00:12:30,640 rules, it lays out what would be a conflict, which I don't like the wording. It doesn't 111 00:12:30,640 --> 00:12:38,520 seem strong enough. It said that the action should be avoided, or it says that interest 112 00:12:38,520 --> 00:12:45,120 by avoiding certain actions, and in our current code, it says it shall be a vet violation. 113 00:12:45,120 --> 00:12:57,520 So I like the current code wording more than that. And as far as just the city official 114 00:12:57,520 --> 00:13:02,080 being under it, you know, our current code has that. City official's immediate family. 115 00:13:02,080 --> 00:13:12,140 Our current code also has that. The client or employee, our current code currently covers 116 00:13:12,140 --> 00:13:19,320 that under 2-273A3B, a business entity in which the official or immediate family member 117 00:13:19,320 --> 00:13:26,800 holds an economic interest exceeding $600. Well, economic interest isn't defined, and 118 00:13:26,800 --> 00:13:32,600 our current code covers ownership of $600 in real property, or businesses, or stocks. 119 00:13:32,600 --> 00:13:37,560 So I think that's already covered. It has a business entity in which the city official 120 00:13:37,560 --> 00:13:43,160 is an officer, director, or policymaker. Our current code covers that, because if you're 121 00:13:43,160 --> 00:13:47,560 an officer or director of policy code, you'll either be an employee or have an ownership 122 00:13:47,560 --> 00:13:54,960 or be on the board for a business. The next one in the proposal is a person or business 123 00:13:54,960 --> 00:14:03,040 entity where they're listed or received or accepted employment in the last 24 months. 124 00:14:03,040 --> 00:14:07,800 Business opportunity is not defined, and that would be a big change from the current code, 125 00:14:07,800 --> 00:14:14,360 because it would mean if you're a former employee for the past two years. The next one on here 126 00:14:14,360 --> 00:14:23,760 is receiving a campaign contribution of $300, exceeding $300. I think that would be, you 127 00:14:23,760 --> 00:14:27,440 know, if we were going to add that, I think we'd probably have to have a whole meeting 128 00:14:27,440 --> 00:14:33,640 on that and probably have counsel here as far as what we would cover versus what's already 129 00:14:33,640 --> 00:14:40,680 covered by state and federal election law and campaign finance law. I would be concerned 130 00:14:40,680 --> 00:14:47,120 if, I mean, I totally understand why that would be a conflict, but then how do you deal 131 00:14:47,120 --> 00:14:52,000 with the situation of, you know, a developer comes and just knows who might vote against 132 00:14:52,000 --> 00:14:57,000 them and then just gives each of those members $500, and those members can't vote. I'd be 133 00:14:57,000 --> 00:15:02,960 afraid of how it could be used against a council person when it's something they're not doing. 134 00:15:02,960 --> 00:15:10,800 And in our current ordinance, our disclosure section is better than what is proposed here. 135 00:15:10,800 --> 00:15:18,280 I think that the, this code, this proposal just said submit disclosure. Our current code 136 00:15:18,280 --> 00:15:25,720 under 2-273A2 requires a sworn statement to a city officer. And this section, it says 137 00:15:25,720 --> 00:15:29,920 if in the proposal, if requested, disclosure forms will be reviewed by the board of ethics 138 00:15:29,920 --> 00:15:35,360 to determine if a conflict exists. And the board of ethics already does that through 139 00:15:35,360 --> 00:15:41,600 advisory opinions under 2-278. So it would just be, and it would also be adding duties 140 00:15:41,600 --> 00:15:47,400 to the board. So we'd have to also add a new section to the ordinance that would add that 141 00:15:47,400 --> 00:15:55,000 duty to the board of ethics. And if a comp, the proposal also says if a conflict is declared 142 00:15:55,000 --> 00:16:00,000 or identified, the city official will recuse from the decision-making influence or solicitation 143 00:16:00,000 --> 00:16:06,320 involving the party identified in the conflict. As far as will be recused, a city official 144 00:16:06,320 --> 00:16:15,320 would have to recuse themselves. And that's what our current code says under 2-273A1. 145 00:16:15,320 --> 00:16:22,600 And the training section of the proposal, under 2-276 of our current ordinance, training 146 00:16:22,600 --> 00:16:27,560 is already required and the auditor's office is actually who decides that training. So, 147 00:16:27,560 --> 00:16:32,960 you know, the, and we've had meetings before where we discuss what should be in the training. 148 00:16:32,960 --> 00:16:37,920 And then other problems with the proposal is that it doesn't have an exception if the 149 00:16:37,920 --> 00:16:42,600 majority has a conflict in their interest. And that could be an issue of how business 150 00:16:42,600 --> 00:16:48,520 is done. The current ordinance is more specific on what is a conflict as far as 5% interest 151 00:16:48,520 --> 00:16:58,200 in a business or stocks, $600 or more on certain tax forms. I would say that it's better to 152 00:16:58,200 --> 00:17:04,320 be more specific because there needs to be due process for city officials so they know 153 00:17:04,320 --> 00:17:14,920 what could be a violation against them. And the governing body of a nonprofit and unincorporated 154 00:17:14,920 --> 00:17:22,360 association is not included in the proposal. So somebody that's on the board of a nonprofit 155 00:17:22,360 --> 00:17:27,600 currently has a conflict and would not under this proposal. And there's also no exception 156 00:17:27,600 --> 00:17:34,600 for mutual funds that is currently in the current ordinance that's not in this proposal. 157 00:17:34,600 --> 00:17:42,640 And I mean, I know I have an IRA and a pension and I don't know what it's, you know, I don't 158 00:17:42,640 --> 00:17:53,720 go and look at each thing that IRA and that pension is, has in it. So I guess I say all 159 00:17:53,720 --> 00:17:59,200 that just to go over it. It's not something I would support, but I will open it up to 160 00:17:59,200 --> 00:18:00,720 the board for discussion. 161 00:18:00,720 --> 00:18:13,200 My question is, so is this something we're looking to change? 162 00:18:13,200 --> 00:18:15,920 Are you saying the conflict of interest? 163 00:18:15,920 --> 00:18:26,040 And you read even at the disclosure, is that what we're looking to change or add to? 164 00:18:26,040 --> 00:18:31,720 I mean, I guess that's up to the board. I would just say overall, there's a lot of problems. 165 00:18:31,720 --> 00:18:38,040 I would say that I think this proposal is more problematic than what we currently have. 166 00:18:38,040 --> 00:18:44,120 So I mean, I'm saying like I would be against this proposal and it's open for the board 167 00:18:44,120 --> 00:18:46,320 to discuss what we want to do. 168 00:18:46,320 --> 00:18:51,720 I think Annetta had her hand raised first and then Rob. 169 00:18:51,720 --> 00:18:57,400 First of all, many people have said that the current conflict of interest definition that 170 00:18:57,400 --> 00:19:03,760 we have is unenforceable. And I know that when the mayor did his State of the Union 171 00:19:03,760 --> 00:19:09,320 speech in January, he got questions about when we would have something different. I 172 00:19:09,320 --> 00:19:14,200 know council has directed us to come up with another definition. 173 00:19:14,200 --> 00:19:18,880 The biggest problem with our conflict of interest definition that we have right now is that 174 00:19:18,880 --> 00:19:25,360 it has the pending matter term in it, which is so narrow, it's difficult to understand 175 00:19:25,360 --> 00:19:33,240 what that could mean. And just for an example, if someone wanted to do something that they 176 00:19:33,240 --> 00:19:37,840 shouldn't do, they could vote on the matter and then do the thing the day after because 177 00:19:37,840 --> 00:19:40,840 it would no longer be a pending matter. 178 00:19:40,840 --> 00:19:47,240 So it's a narrow definition. It's well, let's say it's a real estate deal. Let's say you're 179 00:19:47,240 --> 00:19:52,560 going to do something that would not be in the best interest of all of the people in 180 00:19:52,560 --> 00:19:58,320 the city and it would be something that would benefit you more than $600. You could go ahead 181 00:19:58,320 --> 00:20:02,280 and vote on it and then do your real estate deal the next day. And that's, that's just 182 00:20:02,280 --> 00:20:09,720 an easy example. So is that pending matter language that is the problem? I have not seen 183 00:20:09,720 --> 00:20:15,160 that. I've read many, many other ethical codes and I've never seen that anywhere. I think 184 00:20:15,160 --> 00:20:22,520 Austin has matter in it or something like that, but nobody else has pending matter. 185 00:20:22,520 --> 00:20:28,240 It is very difficult to interpret. Some of the things you mentioned, yeah, should, could 186 00:20:28,240 --> 00:20:33,240 be changed to shall. I mean, we could hammer out some things very easily. I'm not opposed 187 00:20:33,240 --> 00:20:41,040 to that, but I've read many model codes and this is basically what they say, but I really 188 00:20:41,040 --> 00:20:47,280 like the city of Denton. It's written in plain English. It's not legalese. A person without 189 00:20:47,280 --> 00:20:52,760 a law degree could interpret it. I think that would make it so much better for everybody. 190 00:20:52,760 --> 00:20:59,140 And by the way, you don't write an ethical code for, for whoever's for city council or 191 00:20:59,140 --> 00:21:07,360 whatever public official you write it for the good of everyone. So it's not at all for 192 00:21:07,360 --> 00:21:12,600 the people who are in those offices. They should be following the rules and if not, 193 00:21:12,600 --> 00:21:19,160 we're trying to say what would happen, how, how they would be held accountable and not 194 00:21:19,160 --> 00:21:26,200 that I want to, but anyway, okay. I'm getting signals to stop, so I will stop. 195 00:21:26,200 --> 00:21:32,280 And I think Rob, I think you had your hand raised. I have two questions. One, so on part 196 00:21:32,280 --> 00:21:39,120 of this, the doing a business opportunity within the past 24 months, the city's is 12 197 00:21:39,120 --> 00:21:46,600 months. Is it not now? I think the city, I think that the policy was in our packet after 198 00:21:46,600 --> 00:21:52,240 that. I'm not, I'm not sure though. I thought I read that. Well, any material. Oh yeah, 199 00:21:52,240 --> 00:21:56,360 you're right. Actually. Yeah. The city's is 12 months. That's great. I just looked it 200 00:21:56,360 --> 00:22:03,240 up. Now, is this document different from what we were discussing with the potential attorney 201 00:22:03,240 --> 00:22:08,680 in that are we looking to give somebody direction? Are we going to make motions on this? Are 202 00:22:08,680 --> 00:22:15,560 we still just talking and, and what is, what do you see that we need to do concerning this? 203 00:22:15,560 --> 00:22:22,840 I mean, if you ask me, I would say we, we table it. I mean, I think that this one's 204 00:22:22,840 --> 00:22:28,400 too problematic and we need, I think this one's worse than what we currently have, but 205 00:22:28,400 --> 00:22:33,000 that's up to the board to decide what we do with it. I would say if we were to go forward 206 00:22:33,000 --> 00:22:39,120 with it, I think we definitely need an attorney. Probably the, the board has firm to work with 207 00:22:39,120 --> 00:22:43,720 us on it. Cause I think some of the legalese that isn't in it, I mean, is in our current 208 00:22:43,720 --> 00:22:48,960 code for a reason, because there is a hearing and there needs to be due process for city 209 00:22:48,960 --> 00:22:59,240 officials. Um, so that, I guess that's it. Thank you. Oh, did it turn off? Yeah. Anyone 210 00:22:59,240 --> 00:23:12,000 else with comments? I agree with you. So do we, do we need to just table this to another 211 00:23:12,000 --> 00:23:25,680 time schedule a meeting with the law firm? Is that what's the best avenue to take to? 212 00:23:25,680 --> 00:23:35,120 I mean, if you're asking me, my opinion would be, uh, not to go with this. Um, but if the 213 00:23:35,120 --> 00:23:40,280 board were to think we need to switch to this, I would think, I would think we need an attorney 214 00:23:40,280 --> 00:23:44,760 to look it over, but I don't think that this is better than what we currently have. And 215 00:23:44,760 --> 00:23:49,640 I think it would cost, it would be a lot of time spent by us and a lot of money spent 216 00:23:49,640 --> 00:23:55,240 for an attorney to fix this code, to possibly make it just more like our current code and 217 00:23:55,240 --> 00:23:59,160 more like our current ordinance. Cause it's missing things from our current ordinance 218 00:23:59,160 --> 00:24:04,760 and missing certain language from our current ordinance that I think it needs to have. Um, 219 00:24:04,760 --> 00:24:11,680 so I mean, I would be, my opinion would be that we, we table this proposal as it, well, 220 00:24:11,680 --> 00:24:19,480 I guess not table it, but, um, not vote to go forward with this proposal. If that's a 221 00:24:19,480 --> 00:24:24,680 motion, I will second that motion. Just, just from a procedural standpoint, right. What, 222 00:24:24,680 --> 00:24:29,840 what this caption is set for was for y'all to, I mean, you've got the backup, but it's 223 00:24:29,840 --> 00:24:33,800 for you to discuss it. And then it's posted so that you can take action if you wanted 224 00:24:33,800 --> 00:24:41,040 to. And that, you know, that would be motion second and, and following boat. And it's much 225 00:24:41,040 --> 00:24:46,520 like we had done in the past, where if y'all have language that you're ready to recommend 226 00:24:46,520 --> 00:24:51,160 as a board to counsel, or if you have a specific action that you want to, okay, you want to 227 00:24:51,160 --> 00:24:58,520 consider as a board, you want to move forward with working on this new language, you can 228 00:24:58,520 --> 00:25:04,080 take action as a board under this posting to do that. If you have the board decide you 229 00:25:04,080 --> 00:25:09,720 want to take action on any of these items, then the, or any of the things that we're 230 00:25:09,720 --> 00:25:13,480 talking about, if you as a board don't want to take action, then we will move forward 231 00:25:13,480 --> 00:25:20,160 with the ethics ordinance as it is currently drafted. Madison. Yeah. And, and just to kind 232 00:25:20,160 --> 00:25:25,560 of pray, please correct me if I'm wrong. Um, you could, you could take act, make a motion 233 00:25:25,560 --> 00:25:30,760 and take action, um, on language that isn't necessarily even in the proposal that was 234 00:25:30,760 --> 00:25:36,540 included in the backup, um, with the way that the caption is raised. So you decided you 235 00:25:36,540 --> 00:25:40,560 wanted to add something that's not in the backup, but you all agreed that that was, 236 00:25:40,560 --> 00:25:45,720 you wanted to make that recommendation. We could do that today as well. It's my understanding. 237 00:25:45,720 --> 00:25:52,840 The posting is broad enough for that. Yes, ma'am. Or, I mean, uh, and I'm not, I'm not 238 00:25:52,840 --> 00:25:59,600 trying to direct your discussion in any way, uh, chair, but in the sense of taking action, 239 00:25:59,600 --> 00:26:05,840 it had been raised in prior meetings here at this board that part of council's question 240 00:26:05,840 --> 00:26:12,720 was is there an impasse or is there a recommendation by the board regarding the language either 241 00:26:12,720 --> 00:26:18,760 way? And so it could be the board's decision today that the board is fine with the language 242 00:26:18,760 --> 00:26:23,480 as it is, and that can be a recommendation to council that can be made. But, I mean, 243 00:26:23,480 --> 00:26:28,960 obviously that's for the board to decide. Yeah. And I think the last meeting we talked 244 00:26:28,960 --> 00:26:37,960 about, um, you know, we talked about having meetings and continuous continuously discussing 245 00:26:37,960 --> 00:26:41,800 it. I mean, I don't think we have to shut the door on conflict of interest that there 246 00:26:41,800 --> 00:26:46,260 won't ever be a recommendation, but if we don't have anything now, I feel like we don't 247 00:26:46,260 --> 00:26:52,320 need to go to council. Um, because I mean, the last time I went to council, um, I mean, 248 00:26:52,320 --> 00:26:56,080 they didn't really, they didn't ask for a new conflict of interest. My understanding 249 00:26:56,080 --> 00:27:01,840 is that they just want to know whether, um, you know, they want to know whether we're 250 00:27:01,840 --> 00:27:07,180 in an impasse or not. Um, I mean, I didn't get a whole, I mean, there's certain members 251 00:27:07,180 --> 00:27:13,520 of council that, that wanted a new conflict of interest, but not everyone. So, um, and 252 00:27:13,520 --> 00:27:18,320 you know, I guess they're kind of above us, but we don't have a recommendation. I mean, 253 00:27:18,320 --> 00:27:22,360 we don't, we don't have to, I don't think in this situation, we have to have a recommendation 254 00:27:22,360 --> 00:27:31,680 or not at any specific time under the ordinance. Um, anyway, is there anyone else that wants 255 00:27:31,680 --> 00:27:38,120 to, Annette? I don't see how we can say we're at an impasse when we're really never allowed 256 00:27:38,120 --> 00:27:43,840 to discuss anything and anything we bring up gets immediately shot down and there is 257 00:27:43,840 --> 00:27:48,280 no discussion. So if that's where you want to be, I just want to go on record saying 258 00:27:48,280 --> 00:27:53,160 that I disagree with that approach. Okay. Um, well, if you look back at our, our minutes 259 00:27:53,160 --> 00:27:59,740 and if you look at the agenda information sheet under three, um, it lists all the times 260 00:27:59,740 --> 00:28:05,160 that we have had discussions about conflict of interest. I mean, I, they haven't been 261 00:28:05,160 --> 00:28:12,680 discussions. There have been, uh, many discussions for many hours about this. It's been on the 262 00:28:12,680 --> 00:28:20,840 agenda and a number of times and it's immediately been shot down by you. Okay. Well, um, I mean, 263 00:28:20,840 --> 00:28:26,880 I don't like to sit here and just, and go back and forth with the same things over and 264 00:28:26,880 --> 00:28:33,480 over. So, um, and as far as some of the things in this proposal, some things just aren't 265 00:28:33,480 --> 00:28:40,360 workable. Um, and I mean, we're discussing right now, you can say what things you think 266 00:28:40,360 --> 00:28:48,960 are, or not. And, um, I am really open to amendments, but I think that the current conflict 267 00:28:48,960 --> 00:28:57,800 of interest definition is terrible. It's unenforceable. Um, we need something better. And, and I, 268 00:28:57,800 --> 00:29:02,520 I think that's not just my opinion, but there are a lot of residents of Denton who hate 269 00:29:02,520 --> 00:29:07,840 the code that we have. Not only does it have a terrible conflict of interest definition, 270 00:29:07,840 --> 00:29:12,640 but it actually has a back door, which means that if somebody's doing something that they 271 00:29:12,640 --> 00:29:17,680 shouldn't be doing, they can continue to do it after they leave office because it's their 272 00:29:17,680 --> 00:29:25,400 business. And that's, um, this is kind of timely. That's not a good thing. Yeah. Unfortunately, 273 00:29:25,400 --> 00:29:30,600 the proposal today, um, doesn't really fix, fix a lot of those issues and it causes other 274 00:29:30,600 --> 00:29:37,040 issues. This is just a starting point, but I think that changing, I'm not saying that 275 00:29:37,040 --> 00:29:41,320 I'm the only person who can write a conflict of interest definition, but I have consulted 276 00:29:41,320 --> 00:29:47,800 a lot of other cities, things that work. And I do think that the, this is from the policy 277 00:29:47,800 --> 00:29:55,320 that Todd Howman put in when he came into office and it is good. I like it. Um, it's 278 00:29:55,320 --> 00:30:00,880 pretty clear. Yeah, I agree. There's some things, you're right. Should to shall. Um, 279 00:30:00,880 --> 00:30:08,680 I mean, yeah, you mentioned several things that I'm fine with, but, um, we need to get 280 00:30:08,680 --> 00:30:18,440 rid of that pending matter language. It's, it's, um, too narrow. I've never seen it anywhere. 281 00:30:18,440 --> 00:30:25,040 And I've, I've spent hours and hours and hours pouring over conflict of interest definitions 282 00:30:25,040 --> 00:30:34,840 and, and is the most odd definition I've ever seen. It's a joke. So if you guys are fine 283 00:30:34,840 --> 00:30:48,720 with it, then I just want to go on record saying that I'm not, I'm sorry. I guess Don, 284 00:30:48,720 --> 00:30:54,520 you know, in the two over two years that I've been on ethics committee and in sharing some 285 00:30:54,520 --> 00:31:03,680 of our panels, I haven't seen a problem that we've had. And this is, uh, what we're going 286 00:31:03,680 --> 00:31:11,560 by is what the city council and the legal firm that we retained wrote. And this is what 287 00:31:11,560 --> 00:31:18,360 the city's voted on. We've been using it. There has not been a problem with it yet. 288 00:31:18,360 --> 00:31:23,520 Uh, my feeling is if there's a problem, let's correct it. Or if we see that there's going 289 00:31:23,520 --> 00:31:29,800 to be a problem, maybe we can correct it. But so far I think it's gone very, very well. 290 00:31:29,800 --> 00:31:36,920 The only problem that I have is that there's no way to even punish the city council, city 291 00:31:36,920 --> 00:31:43,040 council members. If they do something wrong, there's no real punishment in our ethics code. 292 00:31:43,040 --> 00:31:49,920 And that's the only problem that I see with the code. But what you brought here today, 293 00:31:49,920 --> 00:31:54,160 you know, it's like going and you like one kind of car, I like another kind of car, but 294 00:31:54,160 --> 00:31:58,920 they both get us back and forth to work. You know, there's not a problem with it. And that's 295 00:31:58,920 --> 00:32:05,440 my feeling with what we have. And I appreciate the work you've done on it. 296 00:32:05,440 --> 00:32:09,760 With all due respect, I have seen problems. There have been two city council members who 297 00:32:09,760 --> 00:32:16,360 got called out because they were university. One was married to a faculty member and the 298 00:32:16,360 --> 00:32:23,240 other one was a faculty member. Faculty members at a university do not have any say whatsoever 299 00:32:23,240 --> 00:32:29,920 in financial dealings of the university. It was crazy that they got called out. But on 300 00:32:29,920 --> 00:32:30,920 top of that... 301 00:32:30,920 --> 00:32:35,680 And I'll note that that was a change we made as far as polling places. 302 00:32:35,680 --> 00:32:45,100 Yeah, but it still says that university, the word university is still listed as a business 303 00:32:45,100 --> 00:32:52,880 partner and the university is a nonprofit government entity and it shouldn't be listed 304 00:32:52,880 --> 00:33:00,160 as a business partner because it's really not. So there are all kinds of... No, I mean, 305 00:33:00,160 --> 00:33:06,480 I understand that you feel it's okay. I totally disagree. And I think right now that somebody 306 00:33:06,480 --> 00:33:10,760 could be doing something really horrible in terms of making money and there wouldn't be 307 00:33:10,760 --> 00:33:17,480 any way to hold them accountable. And that's pretty sad. I mean, we were better off when 308 00:33:17,480 --> 00:33:20,880 we didn't have an ethical code. 309 00:33:20,880 --> 00:33:30,240 I think Patricia, you had your hand up? You're on mute. 310 00:33:30,240 --> 00:33:36,520 I just wanted more information about... Was that discussed about what Annetta said about 311 00:33:36,520 --> 00:33:40,840 pending matter? Is that something that is open to discussion whether to leave that in 312 00:33:40,840 --> 00:33:43,800 or take that out or is that a problem? 313 00:33:43,800 --> 00:33:48,240 We had a couple of meetings. I'd have to maybe have Madison do some research about which 314 00:33:48,240 --> 00:33:57,560 ones and bring up the minutes. Deborah Cosmo, either one or two different meetings brought 315 00:33:57,560 --> 00:34:01,640 that up and we discussed that. And some of you that were on the board will remember there's 316 00:34:01,640 --> 00:34:07,360 a PowerPoint. So we have gone over that before. Yes. 317 00:34:07,360 --> 00:34:13,840 We discussed it in February and March and all of that discussion just got shot down 318 00:34:13,840 --> 00:34:20,000 that we never really discussed it. We never took a vote. It actually didn't even appear 319 00:34:20,000 --> 00:34:21,000 on the minutes. 320 00:34:21,000 --> 00:34:25,680 I mean, well, I would say that... I mean, it was discussed as we're discussing things 321 00:34:25,680 --> 00:34:30,960 now. I mean, I think that when you think something's shot down, it's because it's your idea and 322 00:34:30,960 --> 00:34:36,560 it's not being accepted. But it was discussed like it's being discussed, things are being 323 00:34:36,560 --> 00:34:49,760 discussed now. Are there any other comments from other members? 324 00:34:49,760 --> 00:35:00,920 Let's take a checkpoint where we are now. We have a conflict of interest provision that 325 00:35:00,920 --> 00:35:14,760 may or may not be the best. So is it our mission in the future to see if we can come up with 326 00:35:14,760 --> 00:35:24,720 something better and when we do introduce it here and in the meantime continue on or 327 00:35:24,720 --> 00:35:27,480 is that not where we are? 328 00:35:27,480 --> 00:35:32,080 I think I would agree. I think that's kind of the conclusion we came to last meeting 329 00:35:32,080 --> 00:35:37,400 is that we'll have monthly meetings and we can have, if there's certain things that want 330 00:35:37,400 --> 00:35:44,040 to be discussed, they can be sent to Madison and we have a meeting to discuss specific 331 00:35:44,040 --> 00:35:52,600 things or possible amendments. I mean, because I don't think anybody's opposed to any future 332 00:35:52,600 --> 00:36:00,400 changes. So I think that's where we are. I mean, I don't feel like there's a consensus 333 00:36:00,400 --> 00:36:08,640 that we want to adopt this current proposal, but we can come back whenever there are more 334 00:36:08,640 --> 00:36:18,640 proposals or different proposals to go over. 335 00:36:18,640 --> 00:36:24,720 Do you think it would help if I write something and then I get your feedback before I submit 336 00:36:24,720 --> 00:36:28,400 it to make sure that you would be okay with it? 337 00:36:28,400 --> 00:36:35,000 Well, I mean, I'm not like the king of the meeting, but I did actually talk to Madison 338 00:36:35,000 --> 00:36:43,320 about this because I mean, I don't like to sit here and just, you know, just take down 339 00:36:43,320 --> 00:36:47,720 somebody's ideas. Because when I talked to Madison, I told her like, maybe next time 340 00:36:47,720 --> 00:36:52,080 send it to me first. And so that maybe I could tell Lynetta, like I could have sent you my 341 00:36:52,080 --> 00:36:56,840 notes that like, you know, these are the specific legal reasons I don't think this would be 342 00:36:56,840 --> 00:37:01,440 good. And it might've been something where you want it to retract it and maybe come back 343 00:37:01,440 --> 00:37:02,440 the next month. 344 00:37:02,440 --> 00:37:10,320 I would be open to that, but what I'm getting is that, okay, it's not good. Let's move on. 345 00:37:10,320 --> 00:37:15,240 Let's, we'll just table it. And, and I think we need to come up with something better. 346 00:37:15,240 --> 00:37:21,440 And I'd like to move that we vote on whether or not we'd like to move forward to try to 347 00:37:21,440 --> 00:37:28,200 find a better definition. That's a motion. 348 00:37:28,200 --> 00:37:41,260 Isn't, isn't that what our mission is? Whether we do something today or not? Without a motion 349 00:37:41,260 --> 00:37:42,260 I'm saying. 350 00:37:42,260 --> 00:37:48,920 Yeah. I think that's, that's in the ordinance that we can amend, you know, amend the ordinance 351 00:37:48,920 --> 00:37:54,920 as we go. I think Rob, did you have your hand up? 352 00:37:54,920 --> 00:38:00,720 Well, one of two things, if, if Annetta made a motion, we need a second. If she doesn't 353 00:38:00,720 --> 00:38:04,480 get it, does it die? And then I'd like to ask a question after that. 354 00:38:04,480 --> 00:38:15,360 Okay. Are there any seconds to Annette's motion? Can you repeat the motion? 355 00:38:15,360 --> 00:38:21,760 Annette, she asked for you to repeat the motion. 356 00:38:21,760 --> 00:38:29,480 The motion is to move forward with seeking a better conflict of interest definition. 357 00:38:29,480 --> 00:38:35,940 I would second that. Okay. And I would agree with Ron that, I mean, 358 00:38:35,940 --> 00:38:44,680 it's part of our, our job to, to recommend amendments to the ordinance. But I guess there's 359 00:38:44,680 --> 00:38:52,760 discussion on that. Rob, does your question fall within this and that I don't think anyone 360 00:38:52,760 --> 00:39:04,020 on this board is looking to stop anyone from trying to improve our better life in Denton. 361 00:39:04,020 --> 00:39:09,800 And I think that's why we're spending time doing this. Why we're here is to enhance the 362 00:39:09,800 --> 00:39:16,020 living in Denton. I just read an article where we have been listed as the ninth best place 363 00:39:16,020 --> 00:39:21,160 to move and live in. And so I thought that was pretty nice. It wasn't because of this 364 00:39:21,160 --> 00:39:27,040 board, but that's, that's all right. But my point with Annette, I would be, I'm sorry 365 00:39:27,040 --> 00:39:31,360 that you feel like that this motion needs to be made because I think we're all wanting 366 00:39:31,360 --> 00:39:38,640 to improve. And I don't think any of us are going to be ridiculed for submitting potential 367 00:39:38,640 --> 00:39:43,920 changes. Let us have a chance to look at them. We may take part of it. We may not take any 368 00:39:43,920 --> 00:39:51,580 of it, but I, I don't, I don't want us to have, lead this thinking, uh, this is, uh, 369 00:39:51,580 --> 00:39:55,600 Coney and type of just operation. We're all open to submit anything and we can discuss 370 00:39:55,600 --> 00:40:00,320 it because Laura is the chair and she's talking about it. That's fine. Uh, but if you want 371 00:40:00,320 --> 00:40:05,440 more participation, I'll speak up too. I don't like any of it that you brought because I 372 00:40:05,440 --> 00:40:11,960 thought we already had it fit quite nicely, but not being an attorney, I, I really pay 373 00:40:11,960 --> 00:40:17,000 attention to what their thoughts are on the legal ease that needs to be put in. Uh, sorry 374 00:40:17,000 --> 00:40:29,480 for taking so long, madam chair. I will not be supporting this motion. 375 00:40:29,480 --> 00:40:33,720 I think my concern was that the previous meeting, it was said that we weren't going to talk 376 00:40:33,720 --> 00:40:39,040 about the conflict of interest anymore until after the election and, and that type of thing. 377 00:40:39,040 --> 00:40:43,040 And so I was just hoping that and that it was clarifying that we will continue to talk 378 00:40:43,040 --> 00:40:47,960 about it. Uh, I don't know. I don't remember that coming 379 00:40:47,960 --> 00:40:51,520 up. I, I thought at the previous meeting we were 380 00:40:51,520 --> 00:40:59,120 going to entertain a conflict of, uh, interest, uh, resolution suggestion and everybody had 381 00:40:59,120 --> 00:41:03,360 the opportunity to put them in. Yeah, this was two meetings ago. I was talking 382 00:41:03,360 --> 00:41:14,280 about, I'm referring to the last meeting. Right. Madison, can I ask for clarification 383 00:41:14,280 --> 00:41:19,800 on what the motion would mean logistically? Like if this motion passes, would that mean 384 00:41:19,800 --> 00:41:26,480 that I should include, uh, this sort of caption where we can discuss conflict of interest 385 00:41:26,480 --> 00:41:32,520 section on every agenda going forward, regardless of if I receive a proposal or not, or 386 00:41:32,520 --> 00:41:38,920 I guess, I guess that's a question for Annette. I would for clarification on the agenda on 387 00:41:38,920 --> 00:41:43,680 the motion. I definitely think we need to keep talking 388 00:41:43,680 --> 00:41:51,080 about this. I think that Laura made some good suggestions. I'm fine with them. Um, I think 389 00:41:51,080 --> 00:41:58,240 just tabling it in whole because we don't want to change anything is, is a bad idea 390 00:41:58,240 --> 00:42:05,680 and that's what I heard from her. So if, if Laura, if that's not what you meant, then, 391 00:42:05,680 --> 00:42:11,040 then, um, I need a better understanding of what you were saying. 392 00:42:11,040 --> 00:42:22,320 Trey, Trey, if, if this motion passes and, and creates, uh, a necessity for us to discuss 393 00:42:22,320 --> 00:42:31,680 conflict and conflict, the conflict article, every meeting, is it any different than if 394 00:42:31,680 --> 00:42:40,320 the motion didn't pass, wouldn't we have that same ability to discuss it every meeting? 395 00:42:40,320 --> 00:42:44,640 If the motion did not pass, yes, you would still have the ability to discuss it at every 396 00:42:44,640 --> 00:42:49,720 meeting. And just to run, to clarify my question at 397 00:42:49,720 --> 00:42:54,100 the, at the time, my, my understanding of the direction I've received is that I would 398 00:42:54,100 --> 00:42:59,280 include this kind of caption on the meeting agenda if I received a request from a council 399 00:42:59,280 --> 00:43:06,800 or sorry, from a board member to have it on the agenda. Um, whereas I think if this motion 400 00:43:06,800 --> 00:43:13,440 passes, I would just always include it until I was got direction not to basically. Is that 401 00:43:13,440 --> 00:43:17,980 what you intended, Annette? Yes, I just think we should keep talking 402 00:43:17,980 --> 00:43:24,560 about it and not say, well, we've discussed it, we're done. Um, I think it's too important 403 00:43:24,560 --> 00:43:30,160 and, and, you know, conflict of interest is the heart and soul of an ethical agreement 404 00:43:30,160 --> 00:43:39,520 and, um, yeah, I mean. My understanding of the effect of, of the, of 405 00:43:39,520 --> 00:43:44,820 the motion, if it were to pass and, and Ms. Ramsey, please, please correct me if I'm wrong, 406 00:43:44,820 --> 00:43:53,440 is that basically this is the antithesis of a motion to recommend or a motion to tell 407 00:43:53,440 --> 00:43:58,160 council that you, you've reached a stalemate. You're, this is basically just the opposite. 408 00:43:58,160 --> 00:44:05,600 You want an affirmation by the board that we're absolutely working on it, not declaring 409 00:44:05,600 --> 00:44:11,960 a stalemate. Yeah. Is that correct? Exactly. That's the case. I mean, I think the board 410 00:44:11,960 --> 00:44:22,080 as a whole can consider different ideas, different proposals regarding this, whether this motion 411 00:44:22,080 --> 00:44:27,280 passes or not, it's just that this would be an affirmative step to say we are not claiming 412 00:44:27,280 --> 00:44:37,720 a stalemate. Is that, is that. Absolutely. That's correct. Yeah. Okay. Um, and to clarify, 413 00:44:37,720 --> 00:44:41,880 my thoughts would not be to use this proposal because I think what we would need to do is 414 00:44:41,880 --> 00:44:46,580 just make this proposal more like our current code in order for it to cover as much as our 415 00:44:46,580 --> 00:44:52,320 current code. Um, so just to clarify that, that I'm not, I don't think we should stop. 416 00:44:52,320 --> 00:44:56,120 I don't think the discussion is over about conflict of interest, but I think that that 417 00:44:56,120 --> 00:45:01,440 can be ongoing because that, that is the ongoing duty of this board to suggest amendments, 418 00:45:01,440 --> 00:45:08,280 but I would, I wouldn't support this proposal. Um, so is there any more discussion on a Netta's 419 00:45:08,280 --> 00:45:15,360 motion, Patricia? I do think it was helpful to compare and contrast with your help the 420 00:45:15,360 --> 00:45:20,520 differences between a couple different definitions of conflict of interest. And if somebody brings 421 00:45:20,520 --> 00:45:24,780 a different one next month, you know, and you can go through the same process again, 422 00:45:24,780 --> 00:45:29,920 I think it's helpful, uh, to, you know, see what's good and what needs to be changed in 423 00:45:29,920 --> 00:45:34,560 our current, if anything needs to be changed in our current. So I thought it was very helpful 424 00:45:34,560 --> 00:45:41,920 even if you, you know, even if, uh, maybe what we have now in some ways is better. Um, 425 00:45:41,920 --> 00:45:46,600 I think it still was helpful. The exercise itself was helpful. Yeah. I mean, that's what 426 00:45:46,600 --> 00:45:51,360 I did. I just, I brought it up on my screen, the current one and the new one and all the 427 00:45:51,360 --> 00:45:59,120 differences. And that's, that's when I made my, my decision. Madison, uh, if we decided 428 00:45:59,120 --> 00:46:07,480 to do nothing today and just leave things as they are, if another conflict of interest 429 00:46:07,480 --> 00:46:15,400 proposal comes in, we'll consider it and leave it open and discuss that as far as council 430 00:46:15,400 --> 00:46:23,960 is concerned, we're still working. Would that not tell them that information just like a 431 00:46:23,960 --> 00:46:33,800 motion that we're considering would tell them that? Um, I think, uh, you have communicated 432 00:46:33,800 --> 00:46:40,360 to council in the past that you are not at an impasse. Um, and so I think that's the, 433 00:46:40,360 --> 00:46:44,720 what the assumption they're operating under currently. And we, I don't know that it's 434 00:46:44,720 --> 00:46:55,680 necessary to re-communicate to them that you're still not at an impasse. Well, yes. In that 435 00:46:55,680 --> 00:47:02,680 I don't think that you're advocating that a motion has to be the vehicle to tell them. 436 00:47:02,680 --> 00:47:07,360 I don't think it has to be. Uh, but I also think if you would like to make a motion, 437 00:47:07,360 --> 00:47:18,600 you certainly welcome to. Okay. Uh, any other comments on the motion? I just will comment 438 00:47:18,600 --> 00:47:26,400 that I know we have looked at, um, changes to the policy and, um, I think we did that 439 00:47:26,400 --> 00:47:35,600 in January or February and I don't think we took a vote. I mean, is that pending matter 440 00:47:35,600 --> 00:47:43,240 part that is, that is so problematic with this code? Okay. Are there any more, uh, any 441 00:47:43,240 --> 00:47:49,260 more discussion about the specific motion that Annetta has brought forth and Patricia 442 00:47:49,260 --> 00:47:59,080 second? All right. Um, well, let's take a vote. I would vote against. Don? No. Um, Annetta? 443 00:47:59,080 --> 00:48:13,200 Yes. Rob? No. Patricia? Yes. Ron? No. And I think, I, I guess I said Ron. I think Ronnie 444 00:48:13,200 --> 00:48:20,360 said no. Ron Johnson. No, I think he said no as well. Okay. All right. So the motion 445 00:48:20,360 --> 00:48:26,840 does not pass. Um, it does not mean that we, I mean, I, I think as, as Ron kind of threw 446 00:48:26,840 --> 00:48:31,480 this question to Madison, I think the council already knows that it is ongoing and we haven't 447 00:48:31,480 --> 00:48:37,040 said we're in an impasse and I don't feel like, uh, you know, even, even though some 448 00:48:37,040 --> 00:48:43,200 of, I don't think, I still don't think we're at an agreement that we are in an impasse. 449 00:48:43,200 --> 00:48:51,200 Um, I guess, I guess moving forward, um, I don't just from our discussion and hearing 450 00:48:51,200 --> 00:48:56,200 everybody say something, I don't think there's going to be a majority that just wants to adopt 451 00:48:56,200 --> 00:49:02,160 this current proposal. Um, we can go forward like we did last meeting and, um, you know, 452 00:49:02,160 --> 00:49:08,000 if anybody give a drop dead date, we can work with Madison, give us a date. If there's proposals 453 00:49:08,000 --> 00:49:17,920 for changes, we would send them, uh, to the board by then. Um, and, uh, and we can go 454 00:49:17,920 --> 00:49:22,160 forward like that, like we did last month. Um, I guess I'll, I'll let the board kind 455 00:49:22,160 --> 00:49:34,440 of discuss how we're going to go forward with, with, um, with changes. Rob. 456 00:49:34,440 --> 00:49:41,000 I go back to, if you have, we've been reading these, we know the bylaws. If you have something 457 00:49:41,000 --> 00:49:47,960 that you think might work or you've read, just as Neda has, excuse me, submit it. No 458 00:49:47,960 --> 00:49:53,160 timeframes, no, just get it in the pipeline as it were. Is that what you're asking? Yeah. 459 00:49:53,160 --> 00:49:59,760 Well, I, I say time frame because our meetings have to be, um, you know, there's like the 460 00:49:59,760 --> 00:50:03,760 public meetings act. So it just has to be enough time where Madison can get the agenda 461 00:50:03,760 --> 00:50:09,080 made. Oh, I apologize. Then what is the time frame? How, when, when's the latest I could 462 00:50:09,080 --> 00:50:16,120 submit something for it to be on the agenda? Probably what? Five days to a week, Madison. 463 00:50:16,120 --> 00:50:24,160 Um, yeah, I think last week we did last, uh, sorry, this month we did the Wednesday, we 464 00:50:24,160 --> 00:50:30,400 did the 19th was the kind of the drop dead date per se. Um, so that would be the 16th 465 00:50:30,400 --> 00:50:37,160 for next month. Um, but if you submitted a proposal after that date, we could include 466 00:50:37,160 --> 00:50:42,560 it on the next agenda. So you submitted a proposal on the 17th of September, it could 467 00:50:42,560 --> 00:50:49,280 go on the October meeting. Um, and my question is, is it, is this considered business as 468 00:50:49,280 --> 00:50:56,520 the counting point? I think it's just, it's just a date. You could, you could submit something 469 00:50:56,520 --> 00:51:01,760 to me on Saturday if you wanted to. That's why if I just five days before the meeting, 470 00:51:01,760 --> 00:51:10,440 I know when I can do my own calendar work. Um, let's see. Whatever the number is. Uh, 471 00:51:10,440 --> 00:51:18,160 let's say eight days before. I love it. Eight days. I mean, I think that works just because, 472 00:51:18,160 --> 00:51:24,600 you know, Madison has to get everything together and I don't want to, um, you know, you can 473 00:51:24,600 --> 00:51:28,960 wait till the next month unless, you know, it's some sort of emergency and I don't, you 474 00:51:28,960 --> 00:51:34,520 know, don't want to make, she's got other jobs now since she's going to be the auditor. 475 00:51:34,520 --> 00:51:45,640 All right. Um, well, I guess I'm not hearing a whole lot. I guess we'll just go forward 476 00:51:45,640 --> 00:51:54,760 with that unless there's, um, anything else everyone wants to discuss today within posting 477 00:51:54,760 --> 00:52:04,360 it. Yeah. Well, it would be yeah. Two dash two seven three a, um, amendments. Okay. Um, 478 00:52:04,360 --> 00:52:10,720 all right. So Madison, you said the 16th of next month, if people have proposals, um, 479 00:52:10,720 --> 00:52:16,440 send them by then. Uh, I don't, I guess we won't have the work as thing and there's, 480 00:52:16,440 --> 00:52:20,080 there's meeting minutes. If for some reason meeting minutes is the only thing on there. 481 00:52:20,080 --> 00:52:24,720 I don't know if there's really a reason to have a meeting, but, um, if there's more proposals 482 00:52:24,720 --> 00:52:32,160 we will discuss them at the scheduled meeting. Um, so I, I guess if, if there's nothing else 483 00:52:32,160 --> 00:52:38,280 we'll, we will adjourn. Thank you for your time. Thank you all. Take care. Thank you.