>> All right. Good afternoon, everyone. It's the virtual board of -- monthly board of ethics
meeting for August 27th. Thursday, August 27th. It's 3.02. We waited a couple minutes
to give everybody time to jump on the Zoom. We have today our normal members myself, Don
Cartwright, Ron Johnson, and we have a couple of alternates to hit the quorum. We have Rob
Rayner and Bob Wombeck. And Madison, I don't know, do we need to, like, say whose excused
absences are on that -- in the actual meeting, or can we just deal with that as far as getting
it to the city secretary? >> I'm not sure, Trey, do you -- do we need
to say that in the meeting? >> Well, I mean, do -- I don't know. Do we
have the information for why they missed? I mean, I don't know if there's information
right now to determine whether that's excused or unexcused, but --
>> Well, I know Madison said -- >> You can just say they're absent for now,
and we can deal with excused or unexcused later. >> Okay. So I guess Sharla Bradshaw is absent.
I know she has an excused absence. Ronnie Mohair is currently absent. And I guess that's
-- is that it, Madison? Okay. All right. Well, then we'll jump into it. The first item for
consideration is approval of the draft minutes of July 30th, 2020, our last month's meeting.
I didn't see any issues with it. I don't know if anybody else did. They can voice them.
>> I move approval of the minutes. >> Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Second by Rob. And all in favor -- well,
I guess I'll have to go one by one. I forget that. Okay. Bob, do you vote in favor of approving
the minutes? >> Aye.
>> Don? >> Yes.
>> Annetta? >> Yes.
>> Rob? >> Yes.
>> Patricia? I think I saw her say yes. Ron?
>> Hello. >> And so I think we have approval then.
Madison, Ronnie has jumped on. So -- or maybe it more be a question for Trey. Do we have
too many people now and we need to get rid of another alternate? Okay. Well, I think
since Bob got to be on the last panel, he was the last alternate to participate. Sorry,
he came up to the city bump. I guess you could probably stay on the Zoom call, but you can't
participate in the discussion. >> I will mute myself.
>> Thank you. >> I've had some teachers and supervisors
that wish they had that button. >> And Ronnie, we just had Annetta move and
Rob second to accept the meeting from the July 30th meeting. Are you in favor of that?
>> Say that again. >> The meeting minutes from last month, approval
-- >> Aye.
>> All right. Okay. So I think that's unanimous approval. The minutes are approved. Moving
to the second item, receiver report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding
a professional services agreement with Borges law firm for the Board of Ethics legal services.
And I'll go ahead and put it on the screen. What -- okay. All right. So he -- it's the
proposal is Annetta -- it's pretty much that they'll continue to honor the rate of $245
an hour for legal services as needed. The agenda information sheet listed out when we
needed them, usually just when there's a council person that's part of an advisory opinion
or complaint is usually when we need them. So I'm going to stop share so I can say everybody
again. All right. So what we need to decide is either stick with this firm or get proposals.
We've been with this firm since the beginning. And I guess I'll just -- does anybody have
a feeling? Annetta? >> Does someone need to put it on the table
for approval? Move approval so that we can discuss it?
>> Trey, do we need to have it moved for that? >> Technically under Robert's rules of order,
that's the way that it's supposed to happen according to the book. The City of Denton
has never actually followed it that way under their own kind of rules. Especially the council,
they'll discuss an item and then have the motion. We haven't -- because council does
it that way, that particular Robert's rule hasn't been enforced in the committee meetings,
but she is right. That's the way Robert's rules would do it. That's helpful, but that's
the answer. >> May I just lay it on the table? I mean,
is that way being proper? >> Sure.
>> Well, except, I mean, here it's more of a work session in that we're not looking for
action from -- we're not looking for you all to actually adopt something here. We're not
looking for a voted recommendation on something. It's more of a -- this action is more of a
work session for that. Now, if we were bringing something to you, whereas, like, the items
wherein we have what the new draft is, when we took those and we wanted the vote up or
down from y'all, that's where it would take place. Because this one's a work session,
we're not looking for a final vote on this one. >> Yeah, the agenda item is to give staff
direction as far as -- >> I think we should just go with the way
the council does it. >> No. I mean, we're not going to be looking
for a motion or a second and a vote at the end of this item. It's more just direction
from and guidance from the board as to what you would like staff to consider pursuing.
You know, I can strongly recommend them. They've worked very, very well with us. I don't think
we've had any problem with them. They haven't raised their fee any. I've been very satisfied
with them. >> I think I agree with Don. $2.45 an hour
is a pretty reasonable rate for an attorney. >> I think they've done a great job. I do
want to say that the city should be representing the city's interest and when --
>> Okay. Well, I'll just cut you off there. We've already discussed that several times
and it's -- >> Okay. I'm just saying it for the record
because I think that -- >> And for the record, as an attorney, you
have certain ethical rules you have to follow. >> It appropriate for -- my speaker just started
to stop working. Can you hear me? >> Yes, but --
>> Hold on. I can't hear everybody. My speaker is just disconnected. All right. Bear with
me. Okay. Can you hear me? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Now I can hear you. It won't be as clear because I think my headphones ran out
of battery. All right. So are there -- anybody else want to comment on the -- what staff
direction we should go on item 2? >> I was going to say --
>> No. There's not going to be discussion about whether an outside counsel or the city
is representing us because that's not this agenda item. So I don't think it's appropriate.
Rob, Patricia, Ron or Ronnie, do you all have any discussion on this?
>> I've been happy with the events that I have seen them operate in. Great. And if you
think that's a good prize, great. >> I haven't heard any serious complaints
about this organization and the rate sounds good. So it seems like it would cost more
to start over. So I would be in favor of staying with the same group.
>> I think that the price is good. We haven't had terrible service from them. But I have
to admit that I was curious as to what other firms would bring to the table, especially
since we have a conflict of interest code from the Borowitz law firm that we can't work
with. I would -- I just wonder if another firm could help us out of this dilemma better
than what we've gotten so far from them. But I'm not adverse to continuing with them.
>> All right. Ronnie, any comments? Or we'll just move -- okay. Well, I think based on
what everybody said, we will direct staff to just continue with work, Kez, and not seek
proposals. All right. Do you need anything else on that, Madison?
>> Nope. That's all I need. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. So moving to the third
item on the agenda, receive a report, hold a discussion, and take necessary action regarding
potential changes to Chapter 2, Article 11, Section 2-273A. And 2-273A would be the conflict
of interest portion of the ethics code. And everybody got a copy of what was sent. My
understanding is that it's pretty much -- and I'll share my screen -- is that it is pretty
much what the city of Denton has in their city policy for their employees. The first
thing in the packet is, I believe, taking the policy and changing it so much -- changing
it somewhat for our purpose. And then after that, it's just the city's policy. I mean,
my overall impression of that is that a lot of things are already covered in ours. There's
some different wording, and I'm not sure how this would improve our current code. The first
paragraph of it doesn't make any prohibition. It's just a statement about what conflict
of interest is. And if you jump to the ordinance under 2-266, there's already a purpose given,
much like what has been given to us. And as far as Section IA of the proposal, the general
rules, it lays out what would be a conflict, which I don't like the wording. It doesn't
seem strong enough. It said that the action should be avoided, or it says that interest
by avoiding certain actions, and in our current code, it says it shall be a vet violation.
So I like the current code wording more than that. And as far as just the city official
being under it, you know, our current code has that. City official's immediate family.
Our current code also has that. The client or employee, our current code currently covers
that under 2-273A3B, a business entity in which the official or immediate family member
holds an economic interest exceeding $600. Well, economic interest isn't defined, and
our current code covers ownership of $600 in real property, or businesses, or stocks.
So I think that's already covered. It has a business entity in which the city official
is an officer, director, or policymaker. Our current code covers that, because if you're
an officer or director of policy code, you'll either be an employee or have an ownership
or be on the board for a business. The next one in the proposal is a person or business
entity where they're listed or received or accepted employment in the last 24 months.
Business opportunity is not defined, and that would be a big change from the current code,
because it would mean if you're a former employee for the past two years. The next one on here
is receiving a campaign contribution of $300, exceeding $300. I think that would be, you
know, if we were going to add that, I think we'd probably have to have a whole meeting
on that and probably have counsel here as far as what we would cover versus what's already
covered by state and federal election law and campaign finance law. I would be concerned
if, I mean, I totally understand why that would be a conflict, but then how do you deal
with the situation of, you know, a developer comes and just knows who might vote against
them and then just gives each of those members $500, and those members can't vote. I'd be
afraid of how it could be used against a council person when it's something they're not doing.
And in our current ordinance, our disclosure section is better than what is proposed here.
I think that the, this code, this proposal just said submit disclosure. Our current code
under 2-273A2 requires a sworn statement to a city officer. And this section, it says
if in the proposal, if requested, disclosure forms will be reviewed by the board of ethics
to determine if a conflict exists. And the board of ethics already does that through
advisory opinions under 2-278. So it would just be, and it would also be adding duties
to the board. So we'd have to also add a new section to the ordinance that would add that
duty to the board of ethics. And if a comp, the proposal also says if a conflict is declared
or identified, the city official will recuse from the decision-making influence or solicitation
involving the party identified in the conflict. As far as will be recused, a city official
would have to recuse themselves. And that's what our current code says under 2-273A1.
And the training section of the proposal, under 2-276 of our current ordinance, training
is already required and the auditor's office is actually who decides that training. So,
you know, the, and we've had meetings before where we discuss what should be in the training.
And then other problems with the proposal is that it doesn't have an exception if the
majority has a conflict in their interest. And that could be an issue of how business
is done. The current ordinance is more specific on what is a conflict as far as 5% interest
in a business or stocks, $600 or more on certain tax forms. I would say that it's better to
be more specific because there needs to be due process for city officials so they know
what could be a violation against them. And the governing body of a nonprofit and unincorporated
association is not included in the proposal. So somebody that's on the board of a nonprofit
currently has a conflict and would not under this proposal. And there's also no exception
for mutual funds that is currently in the current ordinance that's not in this proposal.
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
go and look at each thing that IRA and that pension is, has in it. So I guess I say all
that just to go over it. It's not something I would support, but I will open it up to
the board for discussion.
My question is, so is this something we're looking to change?
Are you saying the conflict of interest?
And you read even at the disclosure, is that what we're looking to change or add to?
I mean, I guess that's up to the board. I would just say overall, there's a lot of problems.
I would say that I think this proposal is more problematic than what we currently have.
So I mean, I'm saying like I would be against this proposal and it's open for the board
to discuss what we want to do.
I think Annetta had her hand raised first and then Rob.
First of all, many people have said that the current conflict of interest definition that
we have is unenforceable. And I know that when the mayor did his State of the Union
speech in January, he got questions about when we would have something different. I
know council has directed us to come up with another definition.
The biggest problem with our conflict of interest definition that we have right now is that
it has the pending matter term in it, which is so narrow, it's difficult to understand
what that could mean. And just for an example, if someone wanted to do something that they
shouldn't do, they could vote on the matter and then do the thing the day after because
it would no longer be a pending matter.
So it's a narrow definition. It's well, let's say it's a real estate deal. Let's say you're
going to do something that would not be in the best interest of all of the people in
the city and it would be something that would benefit you more than $600. You could go ahead
and vote on it and then do your real estate deal the next day. And that's, that's just
an easy example. So is that pending matter language that is the problem? I have not seen
that. I've read many, many other ethical codes and I've never seen that anywhere. I think
Austin has matter in it or something like that, but nobody else has pending matter.
It is very difficult to interpret. Some of the things you mentioned, yeah, should, could
be changed to shall. I mean, we could hammer out some things very easily. I'm not opposed
to that, but I've read many model codes and this is basically what they say, but I really
like the city of Denton. It's written in plain English. It's not legalese. A person without
a law degree could interpret it. I think that would make it so much better for everybody.
And by the way, you don't write an ethical code for, for whoever's for city council or
whatever public official you write it for the good of everyone. So it's not at all for
the people who are in those offices. They should be following the rules and if not,
we're trying to say what would happen, how, how they would be held accountable and not
that I want to, but anyway, okay. I'm getting signals to stop, so I will stop.
And I think Rob, I think you had your hand raised. I have two questions. One, so on part
of this, the doing a business opportunity within the past 24 months, the city's is 12
months. Is it not now? I think the city, I think that the policy was in our packet after
that. I'm not, I'm not sure though. I thought I read that. Well, any material. Oh yeah,
you're right. Actually. Yeah. The city's is 12 months. That's great. I just looked it
up. Now, is this document different from what we were discussing with the potential attorney
in that are we looking to give somebody direction? Are we going to make motions on this? Are
we still just talking and, and what is, what do you see that we need to do concerning this?
I mean, if you ask me, I would say we, we table it. I mean, I think that this one's
too problematic and we need, I think this one's worse than what we currently have, but
that's up to the board to decide what we do with it. I would say if we were to go forward
with it, I think we definitely need an attorney. Probably the, the board has firm to work with
us on it. Cause I think some of the legalese that isn't in it, I mean, is in our current
code for a reason, because there is a hearing and there needs to be due process for city
officials. Um, so that, I guess that's it. Thank you. Oh, did it turn off? Yeah. Anyone
else with comments? I agree with you. So do we, do we need to just table this to another
time schedule a meeting with the law firm? Is that what's the best avenue to take to?
I mean, if you're asking me, my opinion would be, uh, not to go with this. Um, but if the
board were to think we need to switch to this, I would think, I would think we need an attorney
to look it over, but I don't think that this is better than what we currently have. And
I think it would cost, it would be a lot of time spent by us and a lot of money spent
for an attorney to fix this code, to possibly make it just more like our current code and
more like our current ordinance. Cause it's missing things from our current ordinance
and missing certain language from our current ordinance that I think it needs to have. Um,
so I mean, I would be, my opinion would be that we, we table this proposal as it, well,
I guess not table it, but, um, not vote to go forward with this proposal. If that's a
motion, I will second that motion. Just, just from a procedural standpoint, right. What,
what this caption is set for was for y'all to, I mean, you've got the backup, but it's
for you to discuss it. And then it's posted so that you can take action if you wanted
to. And that, you know, that would be motion second and, and following boat. And it's much
like we had done in the past, where if y'all have language that you're ready to recommend
as a board to counsel, or if you have a specific action that you want to, okay, you want to
consider as a board, you want to move forward with working on this new language, you can
take action as a board under this posting to do that. If you have the board decide you
want to take action on any of these items, then the, or any of the things that we're
talking about, if you as a board don't want to take action, then we will move forward
with the ethics ordinance as it is currently drafted. Madison. Yeah. And, and just to kind
of pray, please correct me if I'm wrong. Um, you could, you could take act, make a motion
and take action, um, on language that isn't necessarily even in the proposal that was
included in the backup, um, with the way that the caption is raised. So you decided you
wanted to add something that's not in the backup, but you all agreed that that was,
you wanted to make that recommendation. We could do that today as well. It's my understanding.
The posting is broad enough for that. Yes, ma'am. Or, I mean, uh, and I'm not, I'm not
trying to direct your discussion in any way, uh, chair, but in the sense of taking action,
it had been raised in prior meetings here at this board that part of council's question
was is there an impasse or is there a recommendation by the board regarding the language either
way? And so it could be the board's decision today that the board is fine with the language
as it is, and that can be a recommendation to council that can be made. But, I mean,
obviously that's for the board to decide. Yeah. And I think the last meeting we talked
about, um, you know, we talked about having meetings and continuous continuously discussing
it. I mean, I don't think we have to shut the door on conflict of interest that there
won't ever be a recommendation, but if we don't have anything now, I feel like we don't
need to go to council. Um, because I mean, the last time I went to council, um, I mean,
they didn't really, they didn't ask for a new conflict of interest. My understanding
is that they just want to know whether, um, you know, they want to know whether we're
in an impasse or not. Um, I mean, I didn't get a whole, I mean, there's certain members
of council that, that wanted a new conflict of interest, but not everyone. So, um, and
you know, I guess they're kind of above us, but we don't have a recommendation. I mean,
we don't, we don't have to, I don't think in this situation, we have to have a recommendation
or not at any specific time under the ordinance. Um, anyway, is there anyone else that wants
to, Annette? I don't see how we can say we're at an impasse when we're really never allowed
to discuss anything and anything we bring up gets immediately shot down and there is
no discussion. So if that's where you want to be, I just want to go on record saying
that I disagree with that approach. Okay. Um, well, if you look back at our, our minutes
and if you look at the agenda information sheet under three, um, it lists all the times
that we have had discussions about conflict of interest. I mean, I, they haven't been
discussions. There have been, uh, many discussions for many hours about this. It's been on the
agenda and a number of times and it's immediately been shot down by you. Okay. Well, um, I mean,
I don't like to sit here and just, and go back and forth with the same things over and
over. So, um, and as far as some of the things in this proposal, some things just aren't
workable. Um, and I mean, we're discussing right now, you can say what things you think
are, or not. And, um, I am really open to amendments, but I think that the current conflict
of interest definition is terrible. It's unenforceable. Um, we need something better. And, and I,
I think that's not just my opinion, but there are a lot of residents of Denton who hate
the code that we have. Not only does it have a terrible conflict of interest definition,
but it actually has a back door, which means that if somebody's doing something that they
shouldn't be doing, they can continue to do it after they leave office because it's their
business. And that's, um, this is kind of timely. That's not a good thing. Yeah. Unfortunately,
the proposal today, um, doesn't really fix, fix a lot of those issues and it causes other
issues. This is just a starting point, but I think that changing, I'm not saying that
I'm the only person who can write a conflict of interest definition, but I have consulted
a lot of other cities, things that work. And I do think that the, this is from the policy
that Todd Howman put in when he came into office and it is good. I like it. Um, it's
pretty clear. Yeah, I agree. There's some things, you're right. Should to shall. Um,
I mean, yeah, you mentioned several things that I'm fine with, but, um, we need to get
rid of that pending matter language. It's, it's, um, too narrow. I've never seen it anywhere.
And I've, I've spent hours and hours and hours pouring over conflict of interest definitions
and, and is the most odd definition I've ever seen. It's a joke. So if you guys are fine
with it, then I just want to go on record saying that I'm not, I'm sorry. I guess Don,
you know, in the two over two years that I've been on ethics committee and in sharing some
of our panels, I haven't seen a problem that we've had. And this is, uh, what we're going
by is what the city council and the legal firm that we retained wrote. And this is what
the city's voted on. We've been using it. There has not been a problem with it yet.
Uh, my feeling is if there's a problem, let's correct it. Or if we see that there's going
to be a problem, maybe we can correct it. But so far I think it's gone very, very well.
The only problem that I have is that there's no way to even punish the city council, city
council members. If they do something wrong, there's no real punishment in our ethics code.
And that's the only problem that I see with the code. But what you brought here today,
you know, it's like going and you like one kind of car, I like another kind of car, but
they both get us back and forth to work. You know, there's not a problem with it. And that's
my feeling with what we have. And I appreciate the work you've done on it.
With all due respect, I have seen problems. There have been two city council members who
got called out because they were university. One was married to a faculty member and the
other one was a faculty member. Faculty members at a university do not have any say whatsoever
in financial dealings of the university. It was crazy that they got called out. But on
top of that...
And I'll note that that was a change we made as far as polling places.
Yeah, but it still says that university, the word university is still listed as a business
partner and the university is a nonprofit government entity and it shouldn't be listed
as a business partner because it's really not. So there are all kinds of... No, I mean,
I understand that you feel it's okay. I totally disagree. And I think right now that somebody
could be doing something really horrible in terms of making money and there wouldn't be
any way to hold them accountable. And that's pretty sad. I mean, we were better off when
we didn't have an ethical code.
I think Patricia, you had your hand up? You're on mute.
I just wanted more information about... Was that discussed about what Annetta said about
pending matter? Is that something that is open to discussion whether to leave that in
or take that out or is that a problem?
We had a couple of meetings. I'd have to maybe have Madison do some research about which
ones and bring up the minutes. Deborah Cosmo, either one or two different meetings brought
that up and we discussed that. And some of you that were on the board will remember there's
a PowerPoint. So we have gone over that before. Yes.
We discussed it in February and March and all of that discussion just got shot down
that we never really discussed it. We never took a vote. It actually didn't even appear
on the minutes.
I mean, well, I would say that... I mean, it was discussed as we're discussing things
now. I mean, I think that when you think something's shot down, it's because it's your idea and
it's not being accepted. But it was discussed like it's being discussed, things are being
discussed now. Are there any other comments from other members?
Let's take a checkpoint where we are now. We have a conflict of interest provision that
may or may not be the best. So is it our mission in the future to see if we can come up with
something better and when we do introduce it here and in the meantime continue on or
is that not where we are?
I think I would agree. I think that's kind of the conclusion we came to last meeting
is that we'll have monthly meetings and we can have, if there's certain things that want
to be discussed, they can be sent to Madison and we have a meeting to discuss specific
things or possible amendments. I mean, because I don't think anybody's opposed to any future
changes. So I think that's where we are. I mean, I don't feel like there's a consensus
that we want to adopt this current proposal, but we can come back whenever there are more
proposals or different proposals to go over.
Do you think it would help if I write something and then I get your feedback before I submit
it to make sure that you would be okay with it?
Well, I mean, I'm not like the king of the meeting, but I did actually talk to Madison
about this because I mean, I don't like to sit here and just, you know, just take down
somebody's ideas. Because when I talked to Madison, I told her like, maybe next time
send it to me first. And so that maybe I could tell Lynetta, like I could have sent you my
notes that like, you know, these are the specific legal reasons I don't think this would be
good. And it might've been something where you want it to retract it and maybe come back
the next month.
I would be open to that, but what I'm getting is that, okay, it's not good. Let's move on.
Let's, we'll just table it. And, and I think we need to come up with something better.
And I'd like to move that we vote on whether or not we'd like to move forward to try to
find a better definition. That's a motion.
Isn't, isn't that what our mission is? Whether we do something today or not? Without a motion
I'm saying.
Yeah. I think that's, that's in the ordinance that we can amend, you know, amend the ordinance
as we go. I think Rob, did you have your hand up?
Well, one of two things, if, if Annetta made a motion, we need a second. If she doesn't
get it, does it die? And then I'd like to ask a question after that.
Okay. Are there any seconds to Annette's motion? Can you repeat the motion?
Annette, she asked for you to repeat the motion.
The motion is to move forward with seeking a better conflict of interest definition.
I would second that. Okay. And I would agree with Ron that, I mean,
it's part of our, our job to, to recommend amendments to the ordinance. But I guess there's
discussion on that. Rob, does your question fall within this and that I don't think anyone
on this board is looking to stop anyone from trying to improve our better life in Denton.
And I think that's why we're spending time doing this. Why we're here is to enhance the
living in Denton. I just read an article where we have been listed as the ninth best place
to move and live in. And so I thought that was pretty nice. It wasn't because of this
board, but that's, that's all right. But my point with Annette, I would be, I'm sorry
that you feel like that this motion needs to be made because I think we're all wanting
to improve. And I don't think any of us are going to be ridiculed for submitting potential
changes. Let us have a chance to look at them. We may take part of it. We may not take any
of it, but I, I don't, I don't want us to have, lead this thinking, uh, this is, uh,
Coney and type of just operation. We're all open to submit anything and we can discuss
it because Laura is the chair and she's talking about it. That's fine. Uh, but if you want
more participation, I'll speak up too. I don't like any of it that you brought because I
thought we already had it fit quite nicely, but not being an attorney, I, I really pay
attention to what their thoughts are on the legal ease that needs to be put in. Uh, sorry
for taking so long, madam chair. I will not be supporting this motion.
I think my concern was that the previous meeting, it was said that we weren't going to talk
about the conflict of interest anymore until after the election and, and that type of thing.
And so I was just hoping that and that it was clarifying that we will continue to talk
about it. Uh, I don't know. I don't remember that coming
up. I, I thought at the previous meeting we were
going to entertain a conflict of, uh, interest, uh, resolution suggestion and everybody had
the opportunity to put them in. Yeah, this was two meetings ago. I was talking
about, I'm referring to the last meeting. Right. Madison, can I ask for clarification
on what the motion would mean logistically? Like if this motion passes, would that mean
that I should include, uh, this sort of caption where we can discuss conflict of interest
section on every agenda going forward, regardless of if I receive a proposal or not, or
I guess, I guess that's a question for Annette. I would for clarification on the agenda on
the motion. I definitely think we need to keep talking
about this. I think that Laura made some good suggestions. I'm fine with them. Um, I think
just tabling it in whole because we don't want to change anything is, is a bad idea
and that's what I heard from her. So if, if Laura, if that's not what you meant, then,
then, um, I need a better understanding of what you were saying.
Trey, Trey, if, if this motion passes and, and creates, uh, a necessity for us to discuss
conflict and conflict, the conflict article, every meeting, is it any different than if
the motion didn't pass, wouldn't we have that same ability to discuss it every meeting?
If the motion did not pass, yes, you would still have the ability to discuss it at every
meeting. And just to run, to clarify my question at
the, at the time, my, my understanding of the direction I've received is that I would
include this kind of caption on the meeting agenda if I received a request from a council
or sorry, from a board member to have it on the agenda. Um, whereas I think if this motion
passes, I would just always include it until I was got direction not to basically. Is that
what you intended, Annette? Yes, I just think we should keep talking
about it and not say, well, we've discussed it, we're done. Um, I think it's too important
and, and, you know, conflict of interest is the heart and soul of an ethical agreement
and, um, yeah, I mean. My understanding of the effect of, of the, of
the motion, if it were to pass and, and Ms. Ramsey, please, please correct me if I'm wrong,
is that basically this is the antithesis of a motion to recommend or a motion to tell
council that you, you've reached a stalemate. You're, this is basically just the opposite.
You want an affirmation by the board that we're absolutely working on it, not declaring
a stalemate. Yeah. Is that correct? Exactly. That's the case. I mean, I think the board
as a whole can consider different ideas, different proposals regarding this, whether this motion
passes or not, it's just that this would be an affirmative step to say we are not claiming
a stalemate. Is that, is that. Absolutely. That's correct. Yeah. Okay. Um, and to clarify,
my thoughts would not be to use this proposal because I think what we would need to do is
just make this proposal more like our current code in order for it to cover as much as our
current code. Um, so just to clarify that, that I'm not, I don't think we should stop.
I don't think the discussion is over about conflict of interest, but I think that that
can be ongoing because that, that is the ongoing duty of this board to suggest amendments,
but I would, I wouldn't support this proposal. Um, so is there any more discussion on a Netta's
motion, Patricia? I do think it was helpful to compare and contrast with your help the
differences between a couple different definitions of conflict of interest. And if somebody brings
a different one next month, you know, and you can go through the same process again,
I think it's helpful, uh, to, you know, see what's good and what needs to be changed in
our current, if anything needs to be changed in our current. So I thought it was very helpful
even if you, you know, even if, uh, maybe what we have now in some ways is better. Um,
I think it still was helpful. The exercise itself was helpful. Yeah. I mean, that's what
I did. I just, I brought it up on my screen, the current one and the new one and all the
differences. And that's, that's when I made my, my decision. Madison, uh, if we decided
to do nothing today and just leave things as they are, if another conflict of interest
proposal comes in, we'll consider it and leave it open and discuss that as far as council
is concerned, we're still working. Would that not tell them that information just like a
motion that we're considering would tell them that? Um, I think, uh, you have communicated
to council in the past that you are not at an impasse. Um, and so I think that's the,
what the assumption they're operating under currently. And we, I don't know that it's
necessary to re-communicate to them that you're still not at an impasse. Well, yes. In that
I don't think that you're advocating that a motion has to be the vehicle to tell them.
I don't think it has to be. Uh, but I also think if you would like to make a motion,
you certainly welcome to. Okay. Uh, any other comments on the motion? I just will comment
that I know we have looked at, um, changes to the policy and, um, I think we did that
in January or February and I don't think we took a vote. I mean, is that pending matter
part that is, that is so problematic with this code? Okay. Are there any more, uh, any
more discussion about the specific motion that Annetta has brought forth and Patricia
second? All right. Um, well, let's take a vote. I would vote against. Don? No. Um, Annetta?
Yes. Rob? No. Patricia? Yes. Ron? No. And I think, I, I guess I said Ron. I think Ronnie
said no. Ron Johnson. No, I think he said no as well. Okay. All right. So the motion
does not pass. Um, it does not mean that we, I mean, I, I think as, as Ron kind of threw
this question to Madison, I think the council already knows that it is ongoing and we haven't
said we're in an impasse and I don't feel like, uh, you know, even, even though some
of, I don't think, I still don't think we're at an agreement that we are in an impasse.
Um, I guess, I guess moving forward, um, I don't just from our discussion and hearing
everybody say something, I don't think there's going to be a majority that just wants to adopt
this current proposal. Um, we can go forward like we did last meeting and, um, you know,
if anybody give a drop dead date, we can work with Madison, give us a date. If there's proposals
for changes, we would send them, uh, to the board by then. Um, and, uh, and we can go
forward like that, like we did last month. Um, I guess I'll, I'll let the board kind
of discuss how we're going to go forward with, with, um, with changes. Rob.
I go back to, if you have, we've been reading these, we know the bylaws. If you have something
that you think might work or you've read, just as Neda has, excuse me, submit it. No
timeframes, no, just get it in the pipeline as it were. Is that what you're asking? Yeah.
Well, I, I say time frame because our meetings have to be, um, you know, there's like the
public meetings act. So it just has to be enough time where Madison can get the agenda
made. Oh, I apologize. Then what is the time frame? How, when, when's the latest I could
submit something for it to be on the agenda? Probably what? Five days to a week, Madison.
Um, yeah, I think last week we did last, uh, sorry, this month we did the Wednesday, we
did the 19th was the kind of the drop dead date per se. Um, so that would be the 16th
for next month. Um, but if you submitted a proposal after that date, we could include
it on the next agenda. So you submitted a proposal on the 17th of September, it could
go on the October meeting. Um, and my question is, is it, is this considered business as
the counting point? I think it's just, it's just a date. You could, you could submit something
to me on Saturday if you wanted to. That's why if I just five days before the meeting,
I know when I can do my own calendar work. Um, let's see. Whatever the number is. Uh,
let's say eight days before. I love it. Eight days. I mean, I think that works just because,
you know, Madison has to get everything together and I don't want to, um, you know, you can
wait till the next month unless, you know, it's some sort of emergency and I don't, you
know, don't want to make, she's got other jobs now since she's going to be the auditor.
All right. Um, well, I guess I'm not hearing a whole lot. I guess we'll just go forward
with that unless there's, um, anything else everyone wants to discuss today within posting
it. Yeah. Well, it would be yeah. Two dash two seven three a, um, amendments. Okay. Um,
all right. So Madison, you said the 16th of next month, if people have proposals, um,
send them by then. Uh, I don't, I guess we won't have the work as thing and there's,
there's meeting minutes. If for some reason meeting minutes is the only thing on there.
I don't know if there's really a reason to have a meeting, but, um, if there's more proposals
we will discuss them at the scheduled meeting. Um, so I, I guess if, if there's nothing else
we'll, we will adjourn. Thank you for your time. Thank you all. Take care. Thank you.