1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:10,340
 And we're here for a special call panel meeting of the Board of Ethics.

2
00:00:10,340 --> 00:00:14,400
 Today is Monday, October 26, 2020.

3
00:00:14,400 --> 00:00:17,960
 It is 5 o'clock or 5.01 p.m.

4
00:00:17,960 --> 00:00:24,380
 This meeting, the panel is going to consist of myself, Ronnie Mohair, and Rob Brainer.

5
00:00:24,380 --> 00:00:28,560
 Also present is Ian Stoosloff.

6
00:00:28,560 --> 00:00:30,680
 He is present at the meeting as well.

7
00:00:30,680 --> 00:00:36,680
 We are going to consider ethics complaint number 20-001, which was filed on October

8
00:00:36,680 --> 00:00:52,680
 15th of 2020, concerning alleged violations of ethics ordinance section 2-273.

9
00:00:52,680 --> 00:00:56,200
 And with that, I think we'll start the meeting.

10
00:00:56,200 --> 00:01:03,640
 Yes, I think we need to select a presiding officer for the meeting.

11
00:01:03,640 --> 00:01:18,200
 Madison or Madame Chair or Charla, I move that you be the chair of the hearing panel.

12
00:01:18,200 --> 00:01:21,380
 I second the motion.

13
00:01:21,380 --> 00:01:27,440
 All right, do we have a vote?

14
00:01:27,440 --> 00:01:31,000
 All in favor, aye.

15
00:01:31,000 --> 00:01:32,000
 Aye.

16
00:01:32,000 --> 00:01:33,000
 No nays.

17
00:01:33,000 --> 00:01:39,680
 So I'll lead the meeting.

18
00:01:39,680 --> 00:01:43,280
 So Charla, would it be helpful if I give kind of some background on this?

19
00:01:43,280 --> 00:01:44,280
 Absolutely.

20
00:01:44,280 --> 00:01:45,280
 Okay.

21
00:01:45,280 --> 00:01:53,920
 So like you just said, we received an ethics complaint admitted by Mr. Scott Campbell against

22
00:01:53,920 --> 00:02:03,900
 Council Member Deb Armenter on October 15th.

23
00:02:03,900 --> 00:02:10,400
 So in accordance with the ordinance, this panel is called to evaluate the complaint

24
00:02:10,400 --> 00:02:16,440
 on its face to determine if it is actionable or baseless.

25
00:02:16,440 --> 00:02:22,120
 And actionable means that the allegations and evidence contained in the complaint, if

26
00:02:22,120 --> 00:02:28,520
 true, would constitute an actual violation of the ordinance, whereas a baseless complaint

27
00:02:28,520 --> 00:02:34,000
 is that the allegations, if true, would not actually be, even if they were true, they

28
00:02:34,000 --> 00:02:36,320
 would not be a violation of the ethics ordinance.

29
00:02:36,320 --> 00:02:39,160
 So that's what's up to the panel today.

30
00:02:39,160 --> 00:02:44,760
 So it's not even really to consider if there's evidence, just if on the face of the complaint,

31
00:02:44,760 --> 00:02:50,840
 or it would be a violation.

32
00:02:50,840 --> 00:02:55,640
 So would you like me to like pull up the complaint or what would be helpful?

33
00:02:55,640 --> 00:03:09,120
 I do have it in front of me, which the complaint basically is complaining about at the dinner

34
00:03:09,120 --> 00:03:15,640
 and city council afternoon work session beginning at 1130 on October 5th, 2020.

35
00:03:15,640 --> 00:03:19,280
 Council person Deb Armenter actively campaigned for re-election.

36
00:03:19,280 --> 00:03:24,480
 Do I need to read the whole, I can read the whole thing if you'd like.

37
00:03:24,480 --> 00:03:27,480
 I think you can, I don't know if you need to.

38
00:03:27,480 --> 00:03:30,800
 Okay, I mean, that's basically what we're here for.

39
00:03:30,800 --> 00:03:38,240
 He talks about the unethical behavior, that's the words in the complaint, begins at about

40
00:03:38,240 --> 00:03:44,200
 39.50 in the video and continues until Mayor Watts says stop.

41
00:03:44,200 --> 00:03:47,040
 So that's basically what we're doing.

42
00:03:47,040 --> 00:03:55,200
 And I mean, I'm happy to start if that's okay with you, Ronnie and Rob.

43
00:03:55,200 --> 00:04:15,360
 Okay, so in 2-273, you know, okay, the only thing that I saw with regard to this complaint

44
00:04:15,360 --> 00:04:29,120
 that would even remotely to me be for any for discussion would be the 2-273G.

45
00:04:29,120 --> 00:04:36,820
 And I'm just saying that as part of the 2-273, that's the only section I saw that really

46
00:04:36,820 --> 00:04:42,400
 to even look at with regard to this complaint, if that makes sense.

47
00:04:42,400 --> 00:04:46,800
 So I don't know if y'all had any thoughts or none of it applies.

48
00:04:46,800 --> 00:04:49,600
 So I'm going to open it up to y'all.

49
00:04:49,600 --> 00:04:54,320
 If I may ask, are you referring to what I think what I have is abuse of resources?

50
00:04:54,320 --> 00:05:01,880
 Yes, that's the only thing in 2-273 that I saw it just in my opinion would even remotely

51
00:05:01,880 --> 00:05:03,120
 be applicable.

52
00:05:03,120 --> 00:05:09,560
 So but I want to know if y'all see something else that since we're supposed to look at

53
00:05:09,560 --> 00:05:19,840
 actionable or baseless, I read it several times, I did not see anything that that complaint

54
00:05:19,840 --> 00:05:25,320
 could even fall under as being actionable or baseless.

55
00:05:25,320 --> 00:05:32,520
 Well, after looking at the video, and I read the complaint and looked at the video and

56
00:05:32,520 --> 00:05:44,040
 I had a problem putting it together based on the time factor.

57
00:05:44,040 --> 00:05:52,920
 When she held up the card, the card that had her name on it, when she held that card up

58
00:05:52,920 --> 00:06:03,280
 and the time from that point to the time she actually put it down, she actually never once

59
00:06:03,280 --> 00:06:09,920
 she never really mentioned the card per se, but she, I think she started to allude to

60
00:06:09,920 --> 00:06:15,160
 it and what was on it but was now correct me if I'm wrong, she was about to allude

61
00:06:15,160 --> 00:06:21,480
 to what was on the on the card or what it was for, but she was stopped.

62
00:06:21,480 --> 00:06:24,000
 The mayor stopped her.

63
00:06:24,000 --> 00:06:31,040
 So I just have a problem with that timing to say that that was a conflict because of

64
00:06:31,040 --> 00:06:45,760
 the timing wasn't enough to justify anything because I just I just it was so sure I mean

65
00:06:45,760 --> 00:06:52,200
 it was a matter of 30-45 seconds before she put the card down, I could be wrong on that,

66
00:06:52,200 --> 00:07:02,200
 but I agree that that time factor I think Madison I just want to point out I believe

67
00:07:02,200 --> 00:07:07,480
 in Ian please if you have a different opinion correct me, but the purpose of the preliminary

68
00:07:07,480 --> 00:07:12,880
 assessment is not really to evaluate the evidence and I know that I included the link to the

69
00:07:12,880 --> 00:07:20,400
 video but I just want to point that out it's it's more to evaluate if the complaint on

70
00:07:20,400 --> 00:07:26,000
 its face would be if it was true regardless of the evidence I believe in please correct

71
00:07:26,000 --> 00:07:32,480
 me if I'm wrong, would actually be a violation of the ordinance or not.

72
00:07:32,480 --> 00:07:38,760
 Madison you're correct that is the issue before you today it's whether the allegations and

73
00:07:38,760 --> 00:07:44,680
 the evidence that are complained in the complaint if they were true would that constitute a

74
00:07:44,680 --> 00:08:00,640
 violation and so I think the that specific provision in 2-273 subsection G abusive resources

75
00:08:00,640 --> 00:08:10,580
 that that provision would be at issue when there's an allegation as there is here that

76
00:08:10,580 --> 00:08:18,960
 a an officer of the city used resources belonging to the city for personal purposes or what

77
00:08:18,960 --> 00:08:28,240
 the what the code says is that that includes political purposes.

78
00:08:28,240 --> 00:08:34,080
 Yes Rob so if I may ask Ian the way you had phrased that in the complaint it did spell

79
00:08:34,080 --> 00:08:43,560
 out the video in the specific time so would it would it have been improper for us to go

80
00:08:43,560 --> 00:08:49,560
 and review to view that video then and since it was part of the complaint or do we just

81
00:08:49,560 --> 00:08:58,820
 take it as face value that it was at 39 and 50 seconds of the video.

82
00:08:58,820 --> 00:09:08,760
 I think it is certainly relevant to your review you're looking at at the at the video that

83
00:09:08,760 --> 00:09:19,520
 was included now I I should point out that under that in your determination you can't

84
00:09:19,520 --> 00:09:26,180
 you're not allowed to look at information that is outside the complaint itself and making

85
00:09:26,180 --> 00:09:33,360
 a determination of whether the allegations are actionable or baseless the video is even

86
00:09:33,360 --> 00:09:38,200
 though it's not included in the complaint itself I think you read that broadly it's

87
00:09:38,200 --> 00:09:44,360
 included it's incorporated just by reference and that's information that's available but

88
00:09:44,360 --> 00:09:51,200
 that is certainly something that you can you can look at but it's it's not so much a an

89
00:09:51,200 --> 00:09:57,680
 evaluation of a complaint on the merits but just whether it kind of crawled it's sort

90
00:09:57,680 --> 00:10:04,240
 of a threshold question of whether assuming all of the allegations are true would that

91
00:10:04,240 --> 00:10:09,480
 constitute a violation. Thank you.

92
00:10:09,480 --> 00:10:20,140
 And if I can ask a question in in the complaint he states in armatures behavior is unethical

93
00:10:20,140 --> 00:10:27,880
 for several reasons including conflict of interest comma ie and then he says using an

94
00:10:27,880 --> 00:10:32,500
 official posted meeting of the Denton City Council to campaign for re-election during

95
00:10:32,500 --> 00:10:39,760
 an active campaign is does that matter I mean I couldn't find anything in two dash two seven

96
00:10:39,760 --> 00:10:43,800
 three like I said earlier except for that G that that would be applicable so I just

97
00:10:43,800 --> 00:10:49,800
 didn't know if that was referring to some other number I mean I didn't see that it did

98
00:10:49,800 --> 00:11:02,560
 but I just don't want to miss anything. You mean the weather another another subsection

99
00:11:02,560 --> 00:11:17,160
 and two dash two seven three or even two dash two. Yeah I don't think there's another subsection

100
00:11:17,160 --> 00:11:24,640
 that would be relevant two dash two seven three it includes the definition of conflicting

101
00:11:24,640 --> 00:11:34,240
 interest and the complaint does specifically alleged there is a I think it uses that term

102
00:11:34,240 --> 00:11:46,320
 conflict of interest so that so it's certainly two dash two seven three a is relevant but

103
00:11:46,320 --> 00:11:52,080
 just reviewing some of the other provisions in two dash two seven three I think of section

104
00:11:52,080 --> 00:12:02,480
 G abuse of resources is the only one that that would reasonably pertain to the allegations

105
00:12:02,480 --> 00:12:08,440
 and I agree with that I just wanted to be sure just in looking at this complaint that

106
00:12:08,440 --> 00:12:16,000
 it was all considered so based on the face of the complaint if that was true would it

107
00:12:16,000 --> 00:12:28,120
 violate two dash two seven three G and Ronnie and Rob y'all jump in here at any time I just

108
00:12:28,120 --> 00:12:41,880
 if y'all see something else in that two dash two seven three please let us know

109
00:12:41,880 --> 00:12:48,400
 the question I have is I don't see anything somebody could point something else out to

110
00:12:48,400 --> 00:12:58,840
 me I don't it the complaint then is under the two two point two seven three but nothing

111
00:12:58,840 --> 00:13:06,240
 else as to any sub sections of that so it is it so it's with the information that we

112
00:13:06,240 --> 00:13:13,880
 have it is our responsibility then to look at all of that section to see if anything

113
00:13:13,880 --> 00:13:19,960
 may have been violated is that correct ma'am chair yes and I was saying I did that and

114
00:13:19,960 --> 00:13:28,620
 I could only find G that would even be remotely applicable here yes and I didn't even have

115
00:13:28,620 --> 00:13:35,240
 an if you know maybe this one or maybe that one that's the only one that I saw so it

116
00:13:35,240 --> 00:13:46,680
 could possibly be applicable I mean on the complaint it if true would

117
00:13:46,680 --> 00:14:02,640
 it be a violation I mean he says that she actively campaigned for reelection so she

118
00:14:02,640 --> 00:14:08,720
 actively campaigned for reelection then I think that sends us to two dash two seven

119
00:14:08,720 --> 00:14:22,200
 three G to look at it I'm with Ronnie I saw I mean I saw the video too it was sent and

120
00:14:22,200 --> 00:14:28,720
 I wanted to make sure I reviewed everything but I understand what Mr. Stoosloff Stoosloff

121
00:14:28,720 --> 00:14:34,200
 is saying that we're supposed to just look at the complaint and no evidence or anything

122
00:14:34,200 --> 00:14:50,880
 outside of that so so at this point what are your wishes ma'am chair what are y'all thoughts

123
00:14:50,880 --> 00:14:59,120
 about looking at that complaint just on its face just there and then looking at article

124
00:14:59,120 --> 00:15:08,800
 G if that would even apply to the complaint to me if it doesn't then me it would be baseless

125
00:15:08,800 --> 00:15:18,760
 because it wouldn't be a violation of G so I think looking at G closely with what Mr.

126
00:15:18,760 --> 00:15:26,240
 Campbell put in his complaint is I think what we're being asked to do yes I'd have to say

127
00:15:26,240 --> 00:15:32,080
 that it looks like that Mr. Campbell because of the first paragraph felt it was important

128
00:15:32,080 --> 00:15:40,640
 for the video to be seen to give support to his next paragraph because on the face of

129
00:15:40,640 --> 00:15:48,000
 it my opinion what he has given us yes it sounds bad but I would tend to agree with

130
00:15:48,000 --> 00:15:55,840
 both of you I don't see where it fits into this particular G which is maybe the closest

131
00:15:55,840 --> 00:16:01,440
 one we have I think that's that's why I wanted to ask about the video the importance of it

132
00:16:01,440 --> 00:16:09,480
 because it must have been important Mr. Campbell but overall and looking at what we have available

133
00:16:09,480 --> 00:16:22,280
 to justify any action I would agree that that's pardon the pun the bridge too far I agree

134
00:16:22,280 --> 00:16:33,200
 with everything you just said and if you look at G it talks about facilities personnel equipment

135
00:16:33,200 --> 00:16:45,600
 software supplies or staff time for private purposes including political purposes except

136
00:16:45,600 --> 00:16:52,900
 to the extent that citizens have those same resources and you know there is that section

137
00:16:52,900 --> 00:16:58,720
 two dash two seven one that talks about expectations of any of us that are city officials and you

138
00:16:58,720 --> 00:17:03,240
 know there's a couple of those to me that would be applicable but those cannot be the

139
00:17:03,240 --> 00:17:13,620
 basis for a complaint yeah I would hope it was more so that but that's not the basis

140
00:17:13,620 --> 00:17:20,560
 of a complaint and I'm just saying that for discussion I would yes I would agree I would

141
00:17:20,560 --> 00:17:25,600
 like to think that the expectations of nothing else could be used as just a reminder to all

142
00:17:25,600 --> 00:17:33,040
 officials that though it cannot serve as a basis for a complaint nevertheless it's very

143
00:17:33,040 --> 00:17:40,100
 important as how the public views us as officials and how we should conduct ourselves it's more

144
00:17:40,100 --> 00:17:48,280
 of a conducting to me procedure on the expectations versus an actual violation somewhere that

145
00:17:48,280 --> 00:17:55,320
 I truly can't find either yeah it looks like on the expectations that might be see and

146
00:17:55,320 --> 00:18:04,960
 or d this is just my opinion but I just Ronnie you want to jump in I'm still I'm still at

147
00:18:04,960 --> 00:18:12,000
 the point of I just don't see where it matches up I I agree unless it's in the expectations

148
00:18:12,000 --> 00:18:21,040
 which are inapplicable for a complaint I I agree you know I go back to what Rob was saying

149
00:18:21,040 --> 00:18:30,680
 here about in the complaint he used that that time factor as a way of leading into that

150
00:18:30,680 --> 00:18:37,400
 second paragraph mm-hmm which would lead us into having to see the video to match that

151
00:18:37,400 --> 00:18:47,640
 second paragraph up to his time factor because as he puts that in there but attorney here

152
00:18:47,640 --> 00:18:55,360
 says that we're not supposed to use that correct mr. Ian is that is that what you're saying

153
00:18:55,360 --> 00:19:01,880
 that you cannot use the video yeah for us for the three of us are you saying that that

154
00:19:01,880 --> 00:19:10,000
 we can't use that for a well what what I was saying is that and and this is just under

155
00:19:10,000 --> 00:19:22,320
 application well under the the board's rules this is rule d7 that rule says that a panel's

156
00:19:22,320 --> 00:19:32,680
 review is limited to the contents of the complaint no extraneous information may be considered

157
00:19:32,680 --> 00:19:39,360
 and then it goes on and says unless the panel wants to review information to consider whether

158
00:19:39,360 --> 00:19:45,720
 you were going to make a recommendation that you hold a hearing to determine if it may

159
00:19:45,720 --> 00:19:54,960
 be frivolous which is a different different question so so it really comes down to what

160
00:19:54,960 --> 00:20:01,320
 under under the board's rules what are the contents of the complaint are the contents

161
00:20:01,320 --> 00:20:11,840
 of the complaint the video or or not now the the complaint refers to the video but it you

162
00:20:11,840 --> 00:20:18,440
 know it's it's filed as a you know as a document I think in this case I don't know if it was

163
00:20:18,440 --> 00:20:28,960
 filed electronically but it refers to the video and it specifies where it can be found

164
00:20:28,960 --> 00:20:35,640
 and so it's ultimately going to depend on how broadly you're going to read that part

165
00:20:35,640 --> 00:20:44,040
 of your rules is that part of the contents of the complaint or not and I you know I think

166
00:20:44,040 --> 00:20:52,560
 I mean ultimately that would be your interpretation of of your rules but that that is a question

167
00:20:52,560 --> 00:20:57,920
 is is that something that you can be considered that can be considered here because it wasn't

168
00:20:57,920 --> 00:21:03,800
 included as an actual attachment it was included sort of by reference was it referred to something

169
00:21:03,800 --> 00:21:10,040
 that exists outside of the document itself but which is nevertheless publicly available

170
00:21:10,040 --> 00:21:17,720
 well yeah and I think what's odd here is I agree with Ronnie it if we look look at the

171
00:21:17,720 --> 00:21:25,040
 video and look at what's written there it's you know different for lack of a better word

172
00:21:25,040 --> 00:21:33,680
 I mean I you know I mean it was there and I mean I looked at it I am having a very hard

173
00:21:33,680 --> 00:21:37,640
 time matching that up because I agree with Ronnie it never got there it looked like that's

174
00:21:37,640 --> 00:21:43,760
 where it was going and Mayor Watts you know conducted to me properly in the meeting not

175
00:21:43,760 --> 00:21:53,920
 to let that occur and so it didn't but I mean he didn't attach it yes Rob

176
00:21:53,920 --> 00:21:58,600
 oh no go finish up please no I was just gonna say and it wasn't attached I was just saying

177
00:21:58,600 --> 00:22:08,880
 that I don't know if he if he let me ask you this and if if he had attached it um well

178
00:22:08,880 --> 00:22:14,640
 I guess if someone if he had attached the video is that really different than he referred

179
00:22:14,640 --> 00:22:26,120
 to the video does that make sense

180
00:22:26,120 --> 00:22:31,200
 it makes sense that there's I think there is a distinction to extending it as part of

181
00:22:31,200 --> 00:22:40,880
 an attachment or just making a reference to it here on your your the board's rule is that

182
00:22:40,880 --> 00:22:45,680
 your review is limited to the contents of the complaint so what is the what is the complaint

183
00:22:45,680 --> 00:22:56,160
 actually contain and it doesn't contain the video itself it includes a reference to it

184
00:22:56,160 --> 00:23:08,160
 and it's a suggestion of where you can find it so it's not um you know I I think that's

185
00:23:08,160 --> 00:23:13,840
 that's ultimately a question that you'd have to decide is is that even a does is that part

186
00:23:13,840 --> 00:23:20,120
 of the contents of the complaint itself when it's just sort of it's just referring to that

187
00:23:20,120 --> 00:23:25,920
 video and specifying that it can specifying where it can be found it can be found on the

188
00:23:25,920 --> 00:23:29,520
 CDBenton website and you have to take you have to take some additional steps to find

189
00:23:29,520 --> 00:23:37,720
 it you know if I look at the if it is part of it if I look at the complaint that first

190
00:23:37,720 --> 00:23:43,000
 sentence I believe and I scrolled down to the statute but the the ordinance I'm sorry

191
00:23:43,000 --> 00:23:50,320
 is that it makes a statement but then when you look at the video he referred to I'm not

192
00:23:50,320 --> 00:23:58,960
 seeing that that occurred so if we're referring I mean that's this is my opinion so it looked

193
00:23:58,960 --> 00:24:11,600
 like it was cut off to me so trying doesn't mean doing it in my opinion oh yes Rob and

194
00:24:11,600 --> 00:24:18,400
 I appreciate that and the dovetail with Ronnie I think and I appreciate Ian's input on this

195
00:24:18,400 --> 00:24:23,600
 because for us for future hearings but more importantly for the public if you're going

196
00:24:23,600 --> 00:24:28,160
 to file a complaint it's going to be have to be very thorough for us to be able to look

197
00:24:28,160 --> 00:24:32,920
 at it according to what I think Ian is saying in that if there is a video or if there are

198
00:24:32,920 --> 00:24:38,360
 pictures necessary they should be part of the complaint as well and correct me if I'm

199
00:24:38,360 --> 00:24:45,160
 wrong Ian but that way we're looking at all this without doing any outside investigation

200
00:24:45,160 --> 00:24:52,560
 to see if this had merit is that a fair statement Ian that's that's fair and it's really going

201
00:24:52,560 --> 00:25:00,000
 to come down to how how you want how you understand the contents of the complaint and for the

202
00:25:00,000 --> 00:25:07,600
 for documents that exist online is it enough just to include a link to it or does it actually

203
00:25:07,600 --> 00:25:17,360
 have to be submitted as an attachment you know as a standalone file and this this would

204
00:25:17,360 --> 00:25:24,920
 this is you could also make the same raise the same question with respect to the postcards

205
00:25:24,920 --> 00:25:29,520
 because the postcards were not included although they were displayed briefly during the video

206
00:25:29,520 --> 00:25:37,400
 and should those postcards be included as well if that's going to be part of the allegations

207
00:25:37,400 --> 00:25:41,000
 that's what I thought we really were discussing with those flyers because that's what was

208
00:25:41,000 --> 00:25:47,800
 being brandished about so quickly that answers my question thank you madam chair the other

209
00:25:47,800 --> 00:25:57,320
 thing I was going to say is in two dash two seven three g it makes a list there that's

210
00:25:57,320 --> 00:26:06,400
 an inclusive list of facilities personnel equipment software supplies or staff time

211
00:26:06,400 --> 00:26:13,200
 for political purposes private purposes including political purposes so I mean it's a city council

212
00:26:13,200 --> 00:26:24,960
 meeting I I'm not matching up facility personnel equipment so forgetting all the other I unless

213
00:26:24,960 --> 00:26:33,080
 it's city facilities the rest of it doesn't apply so

214
00:26:33,080 --> 00:26:42,600
 I would like to suggest though since if we look at Robert's rules on this if she chairman

215
00:26:42,600 --> 00:26:50,120
 if councilmember armature was recognized for a specific thing and then pivots to as we

216
00:26:50,120 --> 00:26:56,220
 are being told a political thing I don't think that's proper because that wasn't the purpose

217
00:26:56,220 --> 00:27:07,880
 for the recognition to begin with but but that's just a that's just an air of of that

218
00:27:07,880 --> 00:27:22,000
 particular person but once you see the video when she she pivots it's to the question of

219
00:27:22,000 --> 00:27:30,640
 what she was talking about maybe no I got you maybe I didn't catch that but once again

220
00:27:30,640 --> 00:27:40,480
 I think we may be chasing something because I think we're all in agreement madam chair

221
00:27:40,480 --> 00:27:48,120
 yeah and so if y'all have any more discussion we can have it otherwise I'm ready to call

222
00:27:48,120 --> 00:28:00,920
 for our move for a vote yes round chair I move for dismissal of case is this correct

223
00:28:00,920 --> 00:28:10,800
 Madison of case 20-001 as presented to us on this date October 26th that's the correct

224
00:28:10,800 --> 00:28:19,220
 number and Rob just to confirm we're the motion we're supposed to decide baseless or actionable

225
00:28:19,220 --> 00:28:23,920
 I think you're saying baseless pardon me yes the whatever correct terminology baseless

226
00:28:23,920 --> 00:28:31,680
 yes ma'am okay all right all in favor of that motion to vote that it is we have a second

227
00:28:31,680 --> 00:28:40,880
 yeah I'm sorry yeah I'm a second she Charles the second right he's a chair you're the second

228
00:28:40,880 --> 00:28:47,200
 oh okay I'm the second I thought she said I was a second she said it's a delay on video

229
00:28:47,200 --> 00:28:57,360
 sorry second did it y'all not hear that now there we go there's a video delay Ronnie whenever

230
00:28:57,360 --> 00:29:03,020
 you're talking so that's why we're not responding right away okay yeah there's kind of a freezing

231
00:29:03,020 --> 00:29:11,340
 going on so all right all in favor of the complaint being baseless say aye aye aye

232
00:29:11,340 --> 00:29:21,200
 aye or raise your hand since it's video aye aye and there's no one else for nays Ian

233
00:29:21,200 --> 00:29:30,460
 is there anything else that we need to decide I know that that is the issue and that's that's

234
00:29:30,460 --> 00:29:37,720
 the only issue before you this evening okay and do I have a motion to adjourn the meeting

235
00:29:37,720 --> 00:29:46,680
 one moment oh sorry um we do as I guess as a presiding officer of this meeting I believe

236
00:29:46,680 --> 00:29:53,160
 you're supposed to file a written notification that the complaint has been dismissed with

237
00:29:53,160 --> 00:30:00,200
 me I can send you some draft versions of that if you would like okay sure no yeah that would

238
00:30:00,200 --> 00:30:06,520
 be great and we will have Ian review those just to make sure they look good okay and

239
00:30:06,520 --> 00:30:11,520
 is that something that um Ian that I would just sign and send in or do I need to send

240
00:30:11,520 --> 00:30:19,000
 it to uh Rob and Ronnie as well is it just me that sends it yeah it should just be you

241
00:30:19,000 --> 00:30:28,280
 who sends it and it can be um yeah and and I can I'm happy to review it and um you know

242
00:30:28,280 --> 00:30:34,720
 just to to address how much detail is included okay all right yeah a draft would be good

243
00:30:34,720 --> 00:30:43,100
 but I would I want to get it right and um this is our first one of doing this my my

244
00:30:43,100 --> 00:30:50,960
 me so me too get it right all right yeah I'll definitely send um you a few versions of that

245
00:30:50,960 --> 00:30:58,360
 okay but that's that's all we need I'll take care of the rest thank you so is there a motion

246
00:30:58,360 --> 00:31:10,120
 to adjourn I'll make a motion that we adjourn this panel meeting Rob seconded it all in

247
00:31:10,120 --> 00:31:19,760
 favor of adjourning say aye aye raise our hands there we go all right so call this meeting

248
00:31:19,760 --> 00:31:23,480
 as adjourned well enjoyed it y'all take care you too