WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:10.340 And we're here for a special call panel meeting of the Board of Ethics. 00:00:10.340 --> 00:00:14.400 Today is Monday, October 26, 2020. 00:00:14.400 --> 00:00:17.960 It is 5 o'clock or 5.01 p.m. 00:00:17.960 --> 00:00:24.380 This meeting, the panel is going to consist of myself, Ronnie Mohair, and Rob Brainer. 00:00:24.380 --> 00:00:28.560 Also present is Ian Stoosloff. 00:00:28.560 --> 00:00:30.680 He is present at the meeting as well. 00:00:30.680 --> 00:00:36.680 We are going to consider ethics complaint number 20-001, which was filed on October 00:00:36.680 --> 00:00:52.680 15th of 2020, concerning alleged violations of ethics ordinance section 2-273. 00:00:52.680 --> 00:00:56.200 And with that, I think we'll start the meeting. 00:00:56.200 --> 00:01:03.640 Yes, I think we need to select a presiding officer for the meeting. 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. 00:01:18.200 --> 00:01:21.380 I second the motion. 00:01:21.380 --> 00:01:27.440 All right, do we have a vote? 00:01:27.440 --> 00:01:31.000 All in favor, aye. 00:01:31.000 --> 00:01:32.000 Aye. 00:01:32.000 --> 00:01:33.000 No nays. 00:01:33.000 --> 00:01:39.680 So I'll lead the meeting. 00:01:39.680 --> 00:01:43.280 So Charla, would it be helpful if I give kind of some background on this? 00:01:43.280 --> 00:01:44.280 Absolutely. 00:01:44.280 --> 00:01:45.280 Okay. 00:01:45.280 --> 00:01:53.920 So like you just said, we received an ethics complaint admitted by Mr. Scott Campbell against 00:01:53.920 --> 00:02:03.900 Council Member Deb Armenter on October 15th. 00:02:03.900 --> 00:02:10.400 So in accordance with the ordinance, this panel is called to evaluate the complaint 00:02:10.400 --> 00:02:16.440 on its face to determine if it is actionable or baseless. 00:02:16.440 --> 00:02:22.120 And actionable means that the allegations and evidence contained in the complaint, if 00:02:22.120 --> 00:02:28.520 true, would constitute an actual violation of the ordinance, whereas a baseless complaint 00:02:28.520 --> 00:02:34.000 is that the allegations, if true, would not actually be, even if they were true, they 00:02:34.000 --> 00:02:36.320 would not be a violation of the ethics ordinance. 00:02:36.320 --> 00:02:39.160 So that's what's up to the panel today. 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, 00:02:44.760 --> 00:02:50.840 or it would be a violation. 00:02:50.840 --> 00:02:55.640 So would you like me to like pull up the complaint or what would be helpful? 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 00:03:09.120 --> 00:03:15.640 and city council afternoon work session beginning at 1130 on October 5th, 2020. 00:03:15.640 --> 00:03:19.280 Council person Deb Armenter actively campaigned for re-election. 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. 00:03:24.480 --> 00:03:27.480 I think you can, I don't know if you need to. 00:03:27.480 --> 00:03:30.800 Okay, I mean, that's basically what we're here for. 00:03:30.800 --> 00:03:38.240 He talks about the unethical behavior, that's the words in the complaint, begins at about 00:03:38.240 --> 00:03:44.200 39.50 in the video and continues until Mayor Watts says stop. 00:03:44.200 --> 00:03:47.040 So that's basically what we're doing. 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. 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 00:04:15.360 --> 00:04:29.120 that would even remotely to me be for any for discussion would be the 2-273G. 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 00:04:36.820 --> 00:04:42.400 to even look at with regard to this complaint, if that makes sense. 00:04:42.400 --> 00:04:46.800 So I don't know if y'all had any thoughts or none of it applies. 00:04:46.800 --> 00:04:49.600 So I'm going to open it up to y'all. 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? 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 00:05:01.880 --> 00:05:03.120 be applicable. 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 00:05:09.560 --> 00:05:19.840 actionable or baseless, I read it several times, I did not see anything that that complaint 00:05:19.840 --> 00:05:25.320 could even fall under as being actionable or baseless. 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 00:05:32.520 --> 00:05:44.040 I had a problem putting it together based on the time factor. 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 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 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 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 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. 00:06:21.480 --> 00:06:24.000 The mayor stopped her. 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 00:07:26.000 --> 00:07:32.480 me if I'm wrong, would actually be a violation of the ordinance or not. 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 00:07:38.760 --> 00:07:44.680 the evidence that are complained in the complaint if they were true would that constitute a 00:07:44.680 --> 00:08:00.640 violation and so I think the that specific provision in 2-273 subsection G abusive resources 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 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 00:08:18.960 --> 00:08:28.240 the what the code says is that that includes political purposes. 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 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 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 00:08:49.560 --> 00:08:58.820 take it as face value that it was at 39 and 50 seconds of the video. 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 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 00:09:19.520 --> 00:09:26.180 you're not allowed to look at information that is outside the complaint itself and making 00:09:26.180 --> 00:09:33.360 a determination of whether the allegations are actionable or baseless the video is even 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 00:09:38.200 --> 00:09:44.360 included it's incorporated just by reference and that's information that's available but 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 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 00:09:57.680 --> 00:10:04.240 of a threshold question of whether assuming all of the allegations are true would that 00:10:04.240 --> 00:10:09.480 constitute a violation. Thank you. 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 00:10:20.140 --> 00:10:27.880 for several reasons including conflict of interest comma ie and then he says using an 00:10:27.880 --> 00:10:32.500 official posted meeting of the Denton City Council to campaign for re-election during 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 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 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 00:10:49.800 --> 00:11:02.560 but I just don't want to miss anything. You mean the weather another another subsection 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 00:11:17.160 --> 00:11:24.640 that would be relevant two dash two seven three it includes the definition of conflicting 00:11:24.640 --> 00:11:34.240 interest and the complaint does specifically alleged there is a I think it uses that term 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 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 00:11:52.080 --> 00:12:02.480 G abuse of resources is the only one that that would reasonably pertain to the allegations 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:13:35.240 --> 00:13:46.680 could possibly be applicable I mean on the complaint it if true would 00:13:46.680 --> 00:14:02.640 it be a violation I mean he says that she actively campaigned for reelection so she 00:14:02.640 --> 00:14:08.720 actively campaigned for reelection then I think that sends us to two dash two seven 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 00:14:22.200 --> 00:14:28.720 I wanted to make sure I reviewed everything but I understand what Mr. Stoosloff Stoosloff 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 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 00:14:50.880 --> 00:14:59.120 about looking at that complaint just on its face just there and then looking at article 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 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. 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 00:15:26.240 --> 00:15:32.080 that it looks like that Mr. Campbell because of the first paragraph felt it was important 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:16:33.200 --> 00:16:45.600 software supplies or staff time for private purposes including political purposes except 00:16:45.600 --> 00:16:52.900 to the extent that citizens have those same resources and you know there is that section 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 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 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 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 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 00:17:25.600 --> 00:17:33.040 officials that though it cannot serve as a basis for a complaint nevertheless it's very 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 00:17:40.100 --> 00:17:48.280 of a conducting to me procedure on the expectations versus an actual violation somewhere that 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:19:22.320 --> 00:19:32.680 review is limited to the contents of the complaint no extraneous information may be considered 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 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 00:19:45.720 --> 00:19:54.960 be frivolous which is a different different question so so it really comes down to what 00:19:54.960 --> 00:20:01.320 under under the board's rules what are the contents of the complaint are the contents 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 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 00:20:18.440 --> 00:20:28.960 filed electronically but it refers to the video and it specifies where it can be found 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 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 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 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 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 00:21:03.800 --> 00:21:10.040 that exists outside of the document itself but which is nevertheless publicly available 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:22:14.640 --> 00:22:26.120 to the video does that make sense 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 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 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 00:22:45.680 --> 00:22:56.160 actually contain and it doesn't contain the video itself it includes a reference to it 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 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 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 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 00:23:25.920 --> 00:23:29.520 CDBenton website and you have to take you have to take some additional steps to find 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:24:18.400 --> 00:24:23.600 because for us for future hearings but more importantly for the public if you're going 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 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 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 00:24:38.360 --> 00:24:45.160 wrong Ian but that way we're looking at all this without doing any outside investigation 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 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 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 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 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 00:25:24.920 --> 00:25:29.520 because the postcards were not included although they were displayed briefly during the video 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 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 00:25:41.000 --> 00:25:47.800 being brandished about so quickly that answers my question thank you madam chair the other 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 00:25:57.320 --> 00:26:06.400 an inclusive list of facilities personnel equipment software supplies or staff time 00:26:06.400 --> 00:26:13.200 for political purposes private purposes including political purposes so I mean it's a city council 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 00:26:24.960 --> 00:26:33.080 it's city facilities the rest of it doesn't apply so 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 00:26:42.600 --> 00:26:50.120 if councilmember armature was recognized for a specific thing and then pivots to as we 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:28:19.220 --> 00:28:23.920 I think you're saying baseless pardon me yes the whatever correct terminology baseless 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:29:46.680 --> 00:29:53.160 you're supposed to file a written notification that the complaint has been dismissed with 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:31:19.760 --> 00:31:23.480 as adjourned well enjoyed it y'all take care you too