WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:08.640 >> All right. Good afternoon, everyone. It's the virtual board of -- monthly board of ethics 00:00:08.640 --> 00:00:15.440 meeting for August 27th. Thursday, August 27th. It's 3.02. We waited a couple minutes 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 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 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 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 00:00:43.320 --> 00:00:48.080 it to the city secretary? >> I'm not sure, Trey, do you -- do we need 00:00:48.080 --> 00:00:53.680 to say that in the meeting? >> Well, I mean, do -- I don't know. Do we 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 00:00:59.160 --> 00:01:01.920 right now to determine whether that's excused or unexcused, but -- 00:01:01.920 --> 00:01:07.200 >> Well, I know Madison said -- >> You can just say they're absent for now, 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. 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 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 00:01:28.080 --> 00:01:34.720 consideration is approval of the draft minutes of July 30th, 2020, our last month's meeting. 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. 00:01:41.240 --> 00:01:47.760 >> I move approval of the minutes. >> Is there a second? 00:01:47.760 --> 00:01:52.920 >> Second. >> Second by Rob. And all in favor -- well, 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 00:01:59.400 --> 00:02:01.360 the minutes? >> Aye. 00:02:01.360 --> 00:02:03.360 >> Don? >> Yes. 00:02:03.360 --> 00:02:05.560 >> Annetta? >> Yes. 00:02:05.560 --> 00:02:07.560 >> Rob? >> Yes. 00:02:07.560 --> 00:02:13.680 >> Patricia? I think I saw her say yes. Ron? 00:02:13.680 --> 00:02:22.160 >> Hello. >> And so I think we have approval then. 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 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 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, 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 00:02:46.720 --> 00:02:51.880 participate in the discussion. >> I will mute myself. 00:02:51.880 --> 00:02:58.040 >> Thank you. >> I've had some teachers and supervisors 00:02:58.040 --> 00:03:05.400 that wish they had that button. >> And Ronnie, we just had Annetta move and 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? 00:03:10.840 --> 00:03:15.920 >> Say that again. >> The meeting minutes from last month, approval 00:03:15.920 --> 00:03:16.920 -- >> Aye. 00:03:16.920 --> 00:03:23.640 >> All right. Okay. So I think that's unanimous approval. The minutes are approved. Moving 00:03:23.640 --> 00:03:29.760 to the second item, receiver report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding 00:03:29.760 --> 00:03:37.640 a professional services agreement with Borges law firm for the Board of Ethics legal services. 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 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 00:04:00.680 --> 00:04:10.840 an hour for legal services as needed. The agenda information sheet listed out when we 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 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 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. 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 00:04:43.720 --> 00:04:48.120 a feeling? Annetta? >> Does someone need to put it on the table 00:04:48.120 --> 00:04:53.680 for approval? Move approval so that we can discuss it? 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, 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 00:05:07.480 --> 00:05:13.000 has never actually followed it that way under their own kind of rules. Especially the council, 00:05:13.000 --> 00:05:19.480 they'll discuss an item and then have the motion. We haven't -- because council does 00:05:19.480 --> 00:05:26.880 it that way, that particular Robert's rule hasn't been enforced in the committee meetings, 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 00:05:34.200 --> 00:05:43.440 the answer. >> May I just lay it on the table? I mean, 00:05:43.440 --> 00:05:46.920 is that way being proper? >> Sure. 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 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 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 00:06:01.240 --> 00:06:09.280 work session for that. Now, if we were bringing something to you, whereas, like, the items 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 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, 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 00:06:28.640 --> 00:06:35.520 direction as far as -- >> I think we should just go with the way 00:06:35.520 --> 00:06:40.040 the council does it. >> No. I mean, we're not going to be looking 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 00:06:44.740 --> 00:06:54.440 from and guidance from the board as to what you would like staff to consider pursuing. 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 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 00:07:06.480 --> 00:07:12.080 with them. >> I think I agree with Don. $2.45 an hour 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 00:07:21.040 --> 00:07:28.560 want to say that the city should be representing the city's interest and when -- 00:07:28.560 --> 00:07:32.000 >> Okay. Well, I'll just cut you off there. We've already discussed that several times 00:07:32.000 --> 00:07:36.200 and it's -- >> Okay. I'm just saying it for the record 00:07:36.200 --> 00:07:41.680 because I think that -- >> And for the record, as an attorney, you 00:07:41.680 --> 00:07:49.320 have certain ethical rules you have to follow. >> It appropriate for -- my speaker just started 00:07:49.320 --> 00:07:52.200 to stop working. Can you hear me? >> Yes, but -- 00:07:52.200 --> 00:07:59.680 >> Hold on. I can't hear everybody. My speaker is just disconnected. All right. Bear with 00:07:59.680 --> 00:08:13.280 me. Okay. Can you hear me? >> Yes. 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 00:08:18.720 --> 00:08:27.520 of battery. All right. So are there -- anybody else want to comment on the -- what staff 00:08:27.520 --> 00:08:30.440 direction we should go on item 2? >> I was going to say -- 00:08:30.440 --> 00:08:38.040 >> No. There's not going to be discussion about whether an outside counsel or the city 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. 00:08:45.400 --> 00:08:53.080 Rob, Patricia, Ron or Ronnie, do you all have any discussion on this? 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 00:09:01.080 --> 00:09:07.480 think that's a good prize, great. >> I haven't heard any serious complaints 00:09:07.480 --> 00:09:13.040 about this organization and the rate sounds good. So it seems like it would cost more 00:09:13.040 --> 00:09:20.400 to start over. So I would be in favor of staying with the same group. 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 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 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 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 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. 00:10:06.320 --> 00:10:14.480 >> All right. Ronnie, any comments? Or we'll just move -- okay. Well, I think based on 00:10:14.480 --> 00:10:22.800 what everybody said, we will direct staff to just continue with work, Kez, and not seek 00:10:22.800 --> 00:10:27.400 proposals. All right. Do you need anything else on that, Madison? 00:10:27.400 --> 00:10:33.680 >> Nope. That's all I need. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. So moving to the third 00:10:33.680 --> 00:10:38.880 item on the agenda, receive a report, hold a discussion, and take necessary action regarding 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 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 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 00:11:12.040 --> 00:11:25.960 much what the city of Denton has in their city policy for their employees. The first 00:11:25.960 --> 00:11:34.320 thing in the packet is, I believe, taking the policy and changing it so much -- changing 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, 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 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 00:11:56.120 --> 00:12:00.840 paragraph of it doesn't make any prohibition. It's just a statement about what conflict 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, 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 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 00:12:30.640 --> 00:12:38.520 seem strong enough. It said that the action should be avoided, or it says that interest 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. 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 00:12:57.520 --> 00:13:02.080 being under it, you know, our current code has that. City official's immediate family. 00:13:02.080 --> 00:13:12.140 Our current code also has that. The client or employee, our current code currently covers 00:13:12.140 --> 00:13:19.320 that under 2-273A3B, a business entity in which the official or immediate family member 00:13:19.320 --> 00:13:26.800 holds an economic interest exceeding $600. Well, economic interest isn't defined, and 00:13:26.800 --> 00:13:32.600 our current code covers ownership of $600 in real property, or businesses, or stocks. 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 00:13:37.560 --> 00:13:43.160 is an officer, director, or policymaker. Our current code covers that, because if you're 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 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 00:13:54.960 --> 00:14:03.040 entity where they're listed or received or accepted employment in the last 24 months. 00:14:03.040 --> 00:14:07.800 Business opportunity is not defined, and that would be a big change from the current code, 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 00:14:14.360 --> 00:14:23.760 is receiving a campaign contribution of $300, exceeding $300. I think that would be, you 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 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 00:14:33.640 --> 00:14:40.680 covered by state and federal election law and campaign finance law. I would be concerned 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 00:14:47.120 --> 00:14:52.000 with the situation of, you know, a developer comes and just knows who might vote against 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 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. 00:15:02.960 --> 00:15:10.800 And in our current ordinance, our disclosure section is better than what is proposed here. 00:15:10.800 --> 00:15:18.280 I think that the, this code, this proposal just said submit disclosure. Our current code 00:15:18.280 --> 00:15:25.720 under 2-273A2 requires a sworn statement to a city officer. And this section, it says 00:15:25.720 --> 00:15:29.920 if in the proposal, if requested, disclosure forms will be reviewed by the board of ethics 00:15:29.920 --> 00:15:35.360 to determine if a conflict exists. And the board of ethics already does that through 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 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 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 00:15:55.000 --> 00:16:00.000 or identified, the city official will recuse from the decision-making influence or solicitation 00:16:00.000 --> 00:16:06.320 involving the party identified in the conflict. As far as will be recused, a city official 00:16:06.320 --> 00:16:15.320 would have to recuse themselves. And that's what our current code says under 2-273A1. 00:16:15.320 --> 00:16:22.600 And the training section of the proposal, under 2-276 of our current ordinance, training 00:16:22.600 --> 00:16:27.560 is already required and the auditor's office is actually who decides that training. So, 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. 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 00:16:37.920 --> 00:16:42.600 majority has a conflict in their interest. And that could be an issue of how business 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 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 00:16:58.200 --> 00:17:04.320 be more specific because there needs to be due process for city officials so they know 00:17:04.320 --> 00:17:14.920 what could be a violation against them. And the governing body of a nonprofit and unincorporated 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 00:17:22.360 --> 00:17:27.600 currently has a conflict and would not under this proposal. And there's also no exception 00:17:27.600 --> 00:17:34.600 for mutual funds that is currently in the current ordinance that's not in this proposal. 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 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 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 00:17:59.200 --> 00:18:00.720 the board for discussion. 00:18:00.720 --> 00:18:13.200 My question is, so is this something we're looking to change? 00:18:13.200 --> 00:18:15.920 Are you saying the conflict of interest? 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? 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. 00:18:31.720 --> 00:18:38.040 I would say that I think this proposal is more problematic than what we currently have. 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 00:18:44.120 --> 00:18:46.320 to discuss what we want to do. 00:18:46.320 --> 00:18:51.720 I think Annetta had her hand raised first and then Rob. 00:18:51.720 --> 00:18:57.400 First of all, many people have said that the current conflict of interest definition that 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 00:19:03.760 --> 00:19:09.320 speech in January, he got questions about when we would have something different. I 00:19:09.320 --> 00:19:14.200 know council has directed us to come up with another definition. 00:19:14.200 --> 00:19:18.880 The biggest problem with our conflict of interest definition that we have right now is that 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 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 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 00:19:37.840 --> 00:19:40.840 it would no longer be a pending matter. 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:20:15.160 --> 00:20:22.520 Austin has matter in it or something like that, but nobody else has pending matter. 00:20:22.520 --> 00:20:28.240 It is very difficult to interpret. Some of the things you mentioned, yeah, should, could 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 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 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 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. 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 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 00:21:07.360 --> 00:21:12.600 the people who are in those offices. They should be following the rules and if not, 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 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. 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 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 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 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, 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 00:21:56.360 --> 00:22:03.240 up. Now, is this document different from what we were discussing with the potential attorney 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 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? 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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? 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 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 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 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 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 00:23:55.240 --> 00:23:59.160 more like our current ordinance. Cause it's missing things from our current ordinance 00:23:59.160 --> 00:24:04.760 and missing certain language from our current ordinance that I think it needs to have. Um, 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, 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 00:24:19.480 --> 00:24:24.680 motion, I will second that motion. Just, just from a procedural standpoint, right. What, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:25:13.480 --> 00:25:20.160 with the ethics ordinance as it is currently drafted. Madison. Yeah. And, and just to kind 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 00:25:25.560 --> 00:25:30.760 and take action, um, on language that isn't necessarily even in the proposal that was 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 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, 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. 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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 00:26:28.960 --> 00:26:37.960 about, um, you know, we talked about having meetings and continuous continuously discussing 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 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 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, 00:26:52.320 --> 00:26:56.080 they didn't really, they didn't ask for a new conflict of interest. My understanding 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 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 00:27:07.180 --> 00:27:13.520 of council that, that wanted a new conflict of interest, but not everyone. So, um, and 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, 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 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 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 00:27:38.120 --> 00:27:43.840 to discuss anything and anything we bring up gets immediately shot down and there is 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 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 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 00:27:59.740 --> 00:28:05.160 that we have had discussions about conflict of interest. I mean, I, they haven't been 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 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, 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 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 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 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 00:28:48.960 --> 00:28:57.800 of interest definition is terrible. It's unenforceable. Um, we need something better. And, and I, 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 00:29:02.520 --> 00:29:07.840 the code that we have. Not only does it have a terrible conflict of interest definition, 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 00:29:55.320 --> 00:30:00.880 pretty clear. Yeah, I agree. There's some things, you're right. Should to shall. Um, 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 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. 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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. 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 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. 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 00:31:36.920 --> 00:31:43.040 council members. If they do something wrong, there's no real punishment in our ethics code. 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, 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 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 00:31:58.920 --> 00:32:05.440 my feeling with what we have. And I appreciate the work you've done on it. 00:32:05.440 --> 00:32:09.760 With all due respect, I have seen problems. There have been two city council members who 00:32:09.760 --> 00:32:16.360 got called out because they were university. One was married to a faculty member and the 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 00:32:23.240 --> 00:32:29.920 in financial dealings of the university. It was crazy that they got called out. But on 00:32:29.920 --> 00:32:30.920 top of that... 00:32:30.920 --> 00:32:35.680 And I'll note that that was a change we made as far as polling places. 00:32:35.680 --> 00:32:45.100 Yeah, but it still says that university, the word university is still listed as a business 00:32:45.100 --> 00:32:52.880 partner and the university is a nonprofit government entity and it shouldn't be listed 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, 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 00:33:06.480 --> 00:33:10.760 could be doing something really horrible in terms of making money and there wouldn't be 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 00:33:17.480 --> 00:33:20.880 we didn't have an ethical code. 00:33:20.880 --> 00:33:30.240 I think Patricia, you had your hand up? You're on mute. 00:33:30.240 --> 00:33:36.520 I just wanted more information about... Was that discussed about what Annetta said about 00:33:36.520 --> 00:33:40.840 pending matter? Is that something that is open to discussion whether to leave that in 00:33:40.840 --> 00:33:43.800 or take that out or is that a problem? 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 00:33:48.240 --> 00:33:57.560 ones and bring up the minutes. Deborah Cosmo, either one or two different meetings brought 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 00:34:01.640 --> 00:34:07.360 a PowerPoint. So we have gone over that before. Yes. 00:34:07.360 --> 00:34:13.840 We discussed it in February and March and all of that discussion just got shot down 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 00:34:20.000 --> 00:34:21.000 on the minutes. 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 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 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 00:34:36.560 --> 00:34:49.760 discussed now. Are there any other comments from other members? 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 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 00:35:14.760 --> 00:35:24.720 something better and when we do introduce it here and in the meantime continue on or 00:35:24.720 --> 00:35:27.480 is that not where we are? 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:36:08.640 --> 00:36:18.640 proposals or different proposals to go over. 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 00:36:24.720 --> 00:36:28.400 it to make sure that you would be okay with it? 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 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 00:36:43.320 --> 00:36:47.720 somebody's ideas. Because when I talked to Madison, I told her like, maybe next time 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 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 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 00:37:01.440 --> 00:37:02.440 the next month. 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. 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. 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 00:37:21.440 --> 00:37:28.200 find a better definition. That's a motion. 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 00:37:41.260 --> 00:37:42.260 I'm saying. 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 00:37:48.920 --> 00:37:54.920 as we go. I think Rob, did you have your hand up? 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 00:38:00.720 --> 00:38:04.480 get it, does it die? And then I'd like to ask a question after that. 00:38:04.480 --> 00:38:15.360 Okay. Are there any seconds to Annette's motion? Can you repeat the motion? 00:38:15.360 --> 00:38:21.760 Annette, she asked for you to repeat the motion. 00:38:21.760 --> 00:38:29.480 The motion is to move forward with seeking a better conflict of interest definition. 00:38:29.480 --> 00:38:35.940 I would second that. Okay. And I would agree with Ron that, I mean, 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 00:40:17.000 --> 00:40:29.480 for taking so long, madam chair. I will not be supporting this motion. 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 00:40:33.720 --> 00:40:39.040 about the conflict of interest anymore until after the election and, and that type of thing. 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 00:40:43.040 --> 00:40:47.960 about it. Uh, I don't know. I don't remember that coming 00:40:47.960 --> 00:40:51.520 up. I, I thought at the previous meeting we were 00:40:51.520 --> 00:40:59.120 going to entertain a conflict of, uh, interest, uh, resolution suggestion and everybody had 00:40:59.120 --> 00:41:03.360 the opportunity to put them in. Yeah, this was two meetings ago. I was talking 00:41:03.360 --> 00:41:14.280 about, I'm referring to the last meeting. Right. Madison, can I ask for clarification 00:41:14.280 --> 00:41:19.800 on what the motion would mean logistically? Like if this motion passes, would that mean 00:41:19.800 --> 00:41:26.480 that I should include, uh, this sort of caption where we can discuss conflict of interest 00:41:26.480 --> 00:41:32.520 section on every agenda going forward, regardless of if I receive a proposal or not, or 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 00:41:38.920 --> 00:41:43.680 the motion. I definitely think we need to keep talking 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 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 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, 00:42:05.680 --> 00:42:11.040 then, um, I need a better understanding of what you were saying. 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 00:42:22.320 --> 00:42:31.680 conflict and conflict, the conflict article, every meeting, is it any different than if 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? 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 00:42:44.640 --> 00:42:49.720 meeting. And just to run, to clarify my question at 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 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 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 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 00:43:13.440 --> 00:43:17.980 what you intended, Annette? Yes, I just think we should keep talking 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 00:43:24.560 --> 00:43:30.160 and, and, you know, conflict of interest is the heart and soul of an ethical agreement 00:43:30.160 --> 00:43:39.520 and, um, yeah, I mean. My understanding of the effect of, of the, of 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, 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 00:43:53.440 --> 00:43:58.160 council that you, you've reached a stalemate. You're, this is basically just the opposite. 00:43:58.160 --> 00:44:05.600 You want an affirmation by the board that we're absolutely working on it, not declaring 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 00:44:11.960 --> 00:44:22.080 as a whole can consider different ideas, different proposals regarding this, whether this motion 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 00:44:27.280 --> 00:44:37.720 a stalemate. Is that, is that. Absolutely. That's correct. Yeah. Okay. Um, and to clarify, 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 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 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. 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 00:44:56.120 --> 00:45:01.440 can be ongoing because that, that is the ongoing duty of this board to suggest amendments, 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 00:45:08.280 --> 00:45:15.360 motion, Patricia? I do think it was helpful to compare and contrast with your help the 00:45:15.360 --> 00:45:20.520 differences between a couple different definitions of conflict of interest. And if somebody brings 00:45:20.520 --> 00:45:24.780 a different one next month, you know, and you can go through the same process again, 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 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 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, 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 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 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 00:45:59.120 --> 00:46:07.480 to do nothing today and just leave things as they are, if another conflict of interest 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 00:46:15.400 --> 00:46:23.960 is concerned, we're still working. Would that not tell them that information just like a 00:46:23.960 --> 00:46:33.800 motion that we're considering would tell them that? Um, I think, uh, you have communicated 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, 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 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 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. 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, 00:47:07.360 --> 00:47:18.600 you certainly welcome to. Okay. Uh, any other comments on the motion? I just will comment 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 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 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 00:47:43.240 --> 00:47:49.260 more discussion about the specific motion that Annetta has brought forth and Patricia 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? 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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, 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 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 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 00:49:22.160 --> 00:49:34.440 of discuss how we're going to go forward with, with, um, with changes. Rob. 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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 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 00:50:30.400 --> 00:50:37.160 for next month. Um, but if you submitted a proposal after that date, we could include 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 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 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 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, 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, 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, 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 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 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. 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 00:51:45.640 --> 00:51:54.760 with that unless there's, um, anything else everyone wants to discuss today within posting 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, 00:52:04.360 --> 00:52:10.720 all right. So Madison, you said the 16th of next month, if people have proposals, um, 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, 00:52:16.440 --> 00:52:20.080 there's meeting minutes. If for some reason meeting minutes is the only thing on there. 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 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 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.