Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript


HI.

GOOD MORNING,

[00:00:01]

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE TIME IS 9 32 ON, UH, JUNE 26TH, AND THIS EVIDENTIARY PANEL, UH, OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION IS RECONVENING AFTER BEING CONTINUED ON MAY 18TH.

UH, THIS IS THE HEARING OF A COMPLAINT AGAINST JUAN, MR. JUAN GOMEZ, A DALLAS WATER UTILITIES EMPLOYEE.

AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGATIONS, I AM TOM PERKINS.

I WILL SERVE AS CHAIR OF THIS HEARING PANEL.

LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT A QUORUM OF THE PANEL IS PRESENT.

I'LL ASK THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PANEL TO STATE THEIR NAMES FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

JAD MASO.

GOOD MORNING, GRANT SCHMIDT.

GOOD MORNING, SUSAN BOWMAN, PAUL GARCIA, UH, WITH THOSE PRESENT FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE.

PLEASE STATE THEIR NAMES FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

BART BEAVERS WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE.

LAURA PHELAN WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE AND THE RESPONDENT AND HIS, HIS REPRESENTATIVE.

STATE HIS NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

THEIR NAMES FOR THE RECORD.

SO ANA OR THE RESPONDENT, YOU NEED HIM TO STAND ALSO, RESPONDENT, YOU NEED HIM TO STAND UP TOO.

PUT HIS NAME ON THE RECORD.

YEAH.

AND COULD YOU MAKE SURE YOUR MIC IS ON SO THAT IT IS RECORDING YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE? TO BE CLEAR, IT'S, IT'S KEVIN WIGGINS AND SALTANA FOR RESPONDENT JUAN GOMEZ.

GOMEZ IS PRESENT.

UH, THOSE PRESENT FROM THE SIKH CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.

PLEASE STATE THEIR NAMES FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

BILLY RAY JOHNSON.

MAYOR SLAA MARTINEZ, DONNA BROWN, AND THE ATTORNEY ADVISOR TO THE E AAC PANEL.

LAURA MORRISON.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS ON TODAY'S AGENDA? ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT.

FOR ALL THOSE WITNESSES WHO INTEND TO TESTIFY TODAY, UH, WE WILL DETERMINE WHETHER THE RULE IS GOING TO BE INVOKED.

UH, THE COUNSEL IS WELL, WELL AWARE OF THE, WHAT THE RULE MEANS.

UH, AND DO YOU HAVE AN, AN INTENT TO INVOKE THE RULE TODAY? WE DO, YOUR HONOR.

ALL RIGHT.

UNDER THAT CIRCUMSTANCE THEN, ANY WITNESSES ARE INSTRUCTED NOT TO DISCUSS, UH, THIS CASE OR THEIR TESTIMONY WITH ANY, ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ATTORNEYS INVOLVED IN THE CASE UNTIL THE HEARING IS COMPLETED.

THE WITNESSES WILL NOT BE ALLOWED IN THE HEARING ROOM, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE APPELLANT AND THE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE, UH, EXCEPT WHEN THEY'RE CALLED TO TESTIFY.

PLEASE WAIT IN THE HALL, UH, UNTIL YOU ARE CALLED TO TESTIFY OR HAVE BEEN PLACED ON STANDBY, UH, BY THE ATTORNEYS.

WOULD, AT THIS POINT, ALL WITNESSES, EXCUSE THEMSELVES, MAY I HAVE 30 SECONDS TO EXPLAIN TO OUR WITNESSES WHAT THAT MEANS? IN MY EXPERIENCE, IT TAKES A LITTLE WHILE TO MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTAND THE RULE.

YES, SIR.

THANK YOU, SIR.

PLEASE DO.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

[00:05:04]

WE'RE READY TO PROCEED, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES.

UH, UH, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND I WERE CHATTING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME PRELIMINARY ISSUES WE MIGHT LIKE TO BRING UP TO THE CHAIR AND PERHAPS TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE VOTE.

PLEASE PROCEED UNLESS THERE IS SOME OBJECTION BY MEMBERS OF THE PANEL.

JUST MIGHT STREAMLINE MATTERS.

ALL RIGHT.

PLEASE PROCEED.

FIRST IS A SUBSTANTIVE MOTION TO DISMISS, WHICH THE RESPONDENT WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT BASED UPON THE FACT THAT THE RESPONDENT IS NO LONGER WORKING FOR THE CITY, NO LONGER EMPLOYEE THAT.

AND SECONDLY, IT'D ACTUALLY BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TAXPAYERS STAFF AND THE, THE, UH, CITY AS A WHOLE TO HAVE IT DISMISSED.

AND THEN THIRDLY, IT'S IN THE BEST SENSE OF JUSTICE.

THIS MATTER BE DISMISSED.

THANK YOU.

IS THERE A RESPONSE TO THE MOTION? THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

UM, UNDER THE PROCEDURAL RULES, 3.5, IT SAYS, PROCEDURAL MOTIONS MUST BE FILED FIVE DAYS BEFORE.

UH, I OBVIOUSLY HEARD HIM CHARACTERIZE THIS AS A SUBSTANTIVE MOTION.

UM, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANYTHING FROM THE DEFENSE.

WE'VE CALLED THEM.

I ACTUALLY SPOKE TO MR. SANA AT THREE 15 ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON.

THEY CLAIMED TO HAVE EMAILED US THEIR WITNESS LIST, THEIR DOCUMENTS AND ALL THIS STUFF AND, AND A MOTION TO DISMISS.

AND WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANYTHING UNTIL NINE MINUTES BEFORE THIS HEARING BEGAN.

AND, UH, HE GAVE US SOME HARD COPIES.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

NUMBER ONE, I DON'T EVEN THINK THE EAC SHOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DISMISS WHEN IT WASN'T FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES THAT YOU GUYS CREATED.

MAY I RESPOND? YES.

YES, SIR.

AGAIN, AS, UH, AS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL POINTED OUT, UH, WE CHA THIS IS A SUBSTANTIVE MOTION READ, DISMISS.

IT'S NOT A PROCEDURAL MOTION.

SO, UH, WE BELIEVE THE, UH, THE COMMISSION CAN ENTERTAIN SUBSTANTIVE MOTION.

UH, SECONDLY, ON THE MATTER OF THE DOCUMENTS WE DID, UH, THE EXHIBIT LIST OR EXHIBITS AND AN EXHIBIT LIST, LIST PRINTED OUT LIST OF THE DIFFERENT ITEMS, THE 10 EXHIBITS WE WERE SENT, WE DID SAY WE WOULD SEND THEM OVER TO HOME ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON.

AND WE DID, MR. WIGGINS SENT THEM TWICE IF HE'D BE HAPPY TO KIND OF EXPLAIN THAT FURTHER, BECAUSE AGAIN, THIS GOES INTO A NEXT SECOND, PERHAPS WHAT WE CAN STIPULATE AS FAR AS AS EVIDENCE SO WE CAN BE NORMAL.

YEAH, I, UM, OKAY.

NO, I, UH, EMAILED, UM, THE DOC, DO I NEED TO PRESS THE, OKAY.

UM, MY RECORDS REFLECT THAT I EMAILED DOCUMENTS TO MR. BEAVERS AT HIS GIVEN EMAIL ADDRESS AT AROUND FIVE ON FRIDAY.

UM, LATER I GOT, UM, A NOTIFICATION BACK AND HAS NOT BEEN DELIVERED.

UM, SO AT 10 I EMAILED IT AGAIN, BOTH TO MR. BEAVERS AND TO, I'M SORRY, I'M NOT THE MOST TECHNOLOGICALLY SHIPPED PERSON, BUT IN ANY EVENT, I MAILED IT AGAIN AT 10, UM, OH SIX TO BOTH DONNA BROWN AND, UH, UH, MR. BEAVERS IN CASE I DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT EMAIL ADDRESS FOR HIM.

UM, AND I DIDN'T GET ANYTHING BACK AS FAR AS I CAN TELL.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, BUT I, I DO KNOW THAT I SENT THEM, I CAN LOOK IT, I CAN SHOW YOU THE EMAIL, THE SENT EMAIL.

AND I MIGHT SAY THAT I SPOKE PERSONALLY WITH MR. ER THAT AFTERNOON FRIDAY, GETTING HIS EMAIL ADDRESS, CUZ THEY DIDN'T PAN IT OUT ANYWHERE CITY AT STEVE BURN'S OFFICE.

HE GAVE IT TO ME, THE CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE, THEN CALLED ME BACK WITH THE EMAIL THAT MR. WIGGIN SENT IT TO, UH, EVENTUALLY CALLED ME BACK AND GAVE ME THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE READY, THE DOCUMENTS WERE SENT, MR. SAID AFTERNOON TWICE, ONCE TALKING ABOUT 10 DOCUMENTS AND THE EXHIBIT LIST.

MAY I RESPOND? AND THE WITNESS? YEAH, PLEASE DO.

I GAVE MY CONTACT INFORMATION TO MR. WIGGINS AT THE FIRST SETTING.

THAT WAS ON MAY 18TH, 2023, ONE MONTH AND NINE DAYS AGO.

UM, I GAVE MR. ANA MY EMAIL ADDRESS ON FRIDAY AT THREE 15 WHEN WE HAD A NINE MINUTE PHONE CONVERSATION.

I CALLED HIM THE DAY BEFORE AND DIDN'T GET A CALL BACK.

THAT'S WHY I CALLED HIM ON FRIDAY.

AND DAISY VIGAS WAS CONTACTED BY, I BELIEVE IT WAS MR. ANA ON WEDNESDAY OF LAST WEEK, AND SHE VERBALLY TOLD HIM WHAT MY EMAIL ADDRESS

[00:10:01]

WAS.

SO THEY'VE HAD OUR CONTACT INFORMATION FOR OVER A MONTH.

AND THIS TRIAL BY AMBUSH GIVING US DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS, AND WITNESS LISTS, NINE MINUTES BEFORE THIS HEARING BEGINS IS COMPLETELY IMPROPER.

MAY I SPEAK, YOUR HONOR? UH, YES, PLEASE.

YEAH.

I, I DEEPLY RESENT THE IMPLICATION OR DIRECT ACCUSATION THAT WE WERE SOMEHOW, OR I WAS SOMEHOW, UH, TRYING TO ENGAGE IN A TRIAL BY AMBUSH.

I DO NOT REMEMBER , HIS GIVING ME THE EMAIL, BUT NONETHELESS, THAT DOESN'T MATTER.

WHEN I GOT IT FROM MR, I GOT IT FROM MR. SANA ON THE DAY THAT I WAS SENDING IT.

IT IS THE ONE THAT HE SAYS HE, UH, IS HIS CORRECT EMAIL.

I ALSO SENT IT TO MS. BROWN AT WHAT I KNOW TO BE HEARD, CORRECT EMAIL.

AND SO I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, BUT MY PHONE SHOWS THAT IT WAS SENT.

MAY, MAY I RESPOND? YES, SIR.

UH, I'D BE INTERESTED KNOWING IF MS. BROWN RECEIVED THAT EMAIL THAT I DID NOT.

NO, I DID NOT.

BUT MAY I SHOW YOU MY ? I MEAN, AS THE ONLY EVIDENCE I HAVE IS, IS THAT I SENT IT AND IT'S ON MY PHONE.

SO I MIGHT ALSO ADD ON THE ISSUE OF THIS TRIAL BY AMBUSH, THE 10 LITTLE TEENY DOCUMENTS ARE ALL INTERNAL EMAILS FROM THE CITY.

EVERYTHING THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WHO'S LOOKED THROUGH THIS FILE, LOOK THROUGH MR. DO'S RECORD, BE THERE.

THOSE ARE THE 10 SIMPLE INTERNAL CITY EMAILS THAT WE ASKED TO BE SUBMITTED.

EVIDENCE THAT HE NOW RESISTS SOMEHOW TRIAL BY ANSWER.

MAY I RESPOND? YES, PLEASE.

UH, UNDER 12 A 50, JURISDICTION AND POWERS B3, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS UP TO ONE YEAR IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH, WHICH USED TO BE B, BUT IT'S NOW C AFTER THE REVISIONS THAT WERE PASSED LAST WEEK.

UM, THE TERMINATION OF A CITY OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES DUTIES DOES NOT AFFECT THE JURISDICTION OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OCCURRING PRIOR TO THE TERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYEE'S OFFICIAL DUTIES.

YOU CLEARLY HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THIS, AND ONE REASON IT'S IMPORTANT IS THE CITIZENS OF DALLAS NEED TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED.

MAY I RESPOND MR. CHAIR? YES, SIR.

WE DO NOT CHALLENGE THE PROCEDURAL JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION TO HEAR THIS.

WE HAVE A SUBSTANTIVE MOTION TO DISMISS BASED UPON MY CITATION A MOMENT AGO, PROCEDURALLY WHEN I CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION.

ALL RIGHT.

COUPLE OF A COUPLE OF THINGS.

FIRST, I THINK THIS, UH, HEARING IS GOING TO BE CONDUCTED UNDER THE PREVIOUS RULE.

IS THAT CORRECT? NOT THE AMENDED RULES.

IS THAT CORRECT, MR. TO THE ATTORNEY? RIGHT.

THE CONDUCT IN QUESTION, UM, OCCURRED PRIOR TO JUNE 14TH, UM, OF THIS MONTH.

SO ANY REFERENCES TO THE CODE OF ETHICS SHOULD BE UNDER THE, UM, THAT WAY MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE FORMAL RULE, WHICH IS NOW AFTER JUNE 14TH, UM, A NEW CITATION.

SO I THINK THAT'LL JUST STREAMLINE THE PROCEEDINGS TO MAKE IT EASIER.

UM, SO MR. CHAIR, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WANT, WANNA PROCEED ON THIS MOTION, UM, TO DISMISS, MAYBE, UM, SUMMARIZE THAT THERE'S A MOTION TO DISMISS FROM THE APPELLANT, UM, WITH THE, A SUMMARY OF THE REASONING BEHIND THE MOTION AND THEN PUT IT TO THE PANEL.

ALL RIGHT.

WELL, LET ME SEE.

FIRST, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PANEL BEFORE WE PROCEED TO, UH, A DISCUSSION OR DETERMINATION OF THE MOTION ON THE TAPE? ARE WE ADDRESSING ONLY THE PROCEDURAL PROPRIETY OF THE MOTION, OR ARE WE ADDRESSING THE MERITS OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE BASIS THAT MR. UH, IS NO LONGER A CITY EMPLOYEE? IT'S ON, ON THE MERITS AT THIS POINT.

OKAY.

THEN I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, AND THAT IS, IS THERE ANY DISPUTE FACTUALLY AS TO WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS CURRENTLY A CITY EMPLOYEE? THERE'S NO DISPUTE AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED.

I HAVE RECEIVED CONFIRMATION THAT HE DID RESIGN ABOUT A WEEK AGO, MAYBE EIGHT DAYS AGO, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO HE IS TERMINATED FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT.

AND WHAT IF WE WERE TO PROCEED WITH THE HEARING AND FIND A VIOLATION? WHAT, WHAT WOULD THE SANCTIONS OPTIONS BE FOR A FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE? I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY SANCTIONS OPTION.

I THINK WHAT'S AT ISSUE WOULD BE THE INFORMATION ITSELF AND THE DISPOSITION OF THOSE CHARGING

[00:15:01]

INSTRUMENTS.

AND AS I UNDERSTAND THE ETHICS RULES, YOU EITHER SUBSTANTIATE OR YOU UNSUBSTANTIATED.

IF YOU HAPPEN TO SUBSTANTIATE ONE OF THE EIGHT VIOLATIONS THAT WE ARE ALLEGING IN THESE TWO FACT PATTERNS, THEN YOU COULD, IF HE WAS STILL AN EMPLOYEE, YOU COULD MAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO HIS MANAGEMENT BY SAYING, THIS IS OUR RECOMMENDATION TO GO THROUGH ETHICS TRAINING, TO BE TERMINATED, TO BE WHATEVER.

ALONG WITH THAT, I BELIEVE YOU COULD MAKE THE, YOU COULD MAKE A, AN ASTERISK OR WHATEVER SAYING, THIS PERSON SHOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR REHIRE.

AND SO, UM, IF THE E AAC GRANTS THIS MOTION TO DISMISS, UM, THERE WON'T BE ANY RECOMMENDATION, NOTHING TO STOP HIM FROM COMING BACK AND REAPPLYING FOR THE CITY FIVE MONTHS FROM NOW AND TRYING TO, UH, GET EMPLOYED WITH THE CITY AGAIN IN A DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT.

THERE'S, THE PUBLIC WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE AND EVALUATE WHY WE FILED ON THIS GUY.

SO I HOPE THAT ADDRESSES YOUR QUESTION.

I I JUST WANT, I WANNA REFER THIS QUESTION TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.

THERE ARE SANCTIONS THAT CAN BE IMPOSED FOR A FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE.

IS THAT CORRECT? UH, MISS, UH, CITY ATTORNEY? UH, YES.

THE LIST OF SANCTIONS FOR A FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE ARE FOUND IN SECTION 12 A DASH 57 E.

UM, AND THAT IS A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION, LETTER OF ADMONITION, UH, REPRIMAND, RESOLUTION OF CENSURE, VOIDING OF PRIOR ACTIONS, UH, REF REFERRAL FOR DAMAGES OR INJUNCTION AND REFERRAL FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

SO BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH THE DISCUSSION, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PANEL WAS AWARE THAT THERE ARE POTENTIAL SANCTIONS FOR A FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE WHO IS NO LONGER EMPLOYED BY THE CITY.

WITH THAT, UH, I TURN THIS OVER TO DISCUSSION BY THE PANEL, PLEASE, MS. MORSON, IS THERE ANYTHING UNDER THOSE CATEGORIES THAT YOU JUST READ THAT WOULD FALL UNDER SOMETHING LIKE PREVENTING, UM, THE OPPORTUNITY FOR REHIRE? NO, THOSE RULES FALL UNDER, UM, THE PERSONNEL RULES AND THE DALLAS CITY CODE, AND THOSE ARE INTERDEPARTMENTAL POLICIES.

OKAY.

SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO RECOMMEND THAT DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE EAC.

OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PANEL? W MR. PERKINS? ONE MORE, ONE MORE, MORE QUESTION.

JUST PROCEDURALLY THOUGH, DID WE RESOLVE THE ISSUE THE FIVE DAYS BEFORE MS. MORRISON? WHAT IS THE, I UNDERSTAND THIS, THIS POINT ABOUT SUBSTANTIVE VERSUS PROCEDURAL, BUT WHAT IS THE RULE THAT WE PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO IN TERMS OF MOTIONS THAT WOULD BE FILED AHEAD OF THE HEARING? UH, THOSE ARE PROCEDURAL REQUESTS.

IT'S, UM, AS THE IG STATED, IT'S 3.5 IN YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, ALL PROCEDURAL MOTIONS THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OR RESPONDENT WISHES THE PANEL TO CONSIDER AT THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE NO LATER THAN FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

AND WE DON'T REALLY, WE DON'T PROVIDE FOR A DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBSTANTIVE OR PROCEDURAL.

UM, BUT IT SURE SEEMS LIKE THIS IS ARGUABLY STILL COULD BE PROCEDURAL IN NATURE AS WELL.

THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE PANEL TO DETERMINE.

ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS, WHICH HAS BEEN FINAL BY THE RESPONDENT? IS THAT EARLIER? YEAH.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SORRY, ONE MORE.

I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN GETTING, UH, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S PERSPECTIVE ON THIS, UH, THIS DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBSTANTIVE VERSUS PROCEDURAL.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO GET THEIR RESPONSE ON THAT? PLEASE RESPOND AS TO RESPECT TO GENERAL.

I TRY TO KEEP OPPOSING COUNSEL INFORMED ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO AND DO THINGS ABOVE THE TABLE.

I DO READ THAT THE RULES, THE INTERIM RULES STATE THAT IT'S A PROCEDURAL MOTION OR PROCEDURAL MOTIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FILED.

IF, IF THAT WAS ME, I WOULD FOLLOW THOSE FOR ANY SUBSTANTIVE MOTIONS.

EITHER IT, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S GET YOUR HANDS ABOVE THE TABLE AND LET'S DO IT UP HERE.

UM, I JUST THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S CRAZY TO INTERPRET THAT AS, OKAY, UH, IT SAYS PROCEDURAL MOTIONS, BUT I CAN MAKE A SUBSTANTIVE MOTION, UH, AND, AND, AND GIVE

[00:20:01]

OPPOSING COUNSEL ALL THAT STUFF FIVE TO NINE MINUTES BEFORE THE ACTUAL HEARING STARTS.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHY YOU GUYS CREATED THESE RULES.

I THINK YOU GUYS CREATED THESE RULES TO CREATE SOME SENSE OF ORDER TO PREVENT THIS LAST MINUTE TOUGH TACTICS.

MIGHT I RESPOND MR. CHAIR? UM, THE RULES ARE WRITTEN PROCEDURAL MOTIONS.

IF IT, IF THE WRITERS OF THE RULES HAD MEANT ALL MOTION, THEY WOULD'VE SAID ALL MOTIONS.

THERE'S A DISTINCTION CLEARLY MADE IN THE, IN THE DOCUMENTS ABOUT PROCEDURAL.

THIS IS A SUBSTANTIVE MOTION TO DISMISS THE, THE MATTER BEFORE YOU.

I I AND ALSO, I DISCUSSED THIS EXTENSIVELY WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ON FRIDAY, EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE GONNA BE DOING TODAY AND WHY WOULD WE BE DOING IT BECAUSE THIS IS THE BEST INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

ALL RIGHT.

THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, UH, OR FURTHER DISCUSSION BY, OR QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PANEL? YES.

YES.

UM, JUST THE COMMENT THAT IF WE WERE DOING THIS, UM, EVEN IF IT WAS SENT ON FRIDAY, THAT'S NOT FIVE DAYS.

SO WOULD IT BE AN OPTION TO FURTHER DELAY THE HEARING TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THOSE DOCUMENTS? OR WHAT IS THE OPTION AT THIS POINT? I MEAN, SINCE IT WASN'T SUBMITTED FIVE DAYS PRIOR, AND IF WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TAKE A LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS, WOULD IT BE AN OPTION TO FURTHER DELAY THE HEARING OR IS THAT JUST KIND OF OUT OF THE QUESTION AT THIS POINT? THE PANEL ALWAYS HAS THE OPTION, UH, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING IF MORE TIME IS NEEDED.

UM, BUT AT THIS TIME, IF, IF THAT'S NOT WHAT THE PANEL CHOOSES TO DO, THEN WE WOULD NEED A MOTION FROM THE PANEL TO EITHER GRANT THE MOTION TO DISMISS OR DENY THE MOTION TO DISMISS.

YES, SIR.

I'LL JUST STATE MY PIECE.

AS FAR AS THE PROCEDURAL ISSUE OF WHETHER THE MOTION IS APPROPRIATE.

I THINK WE CAN SPLIT HAIRS OVER WHETHER IT'S A PROCEDURAL MOTION OR A SUBSTANTIVE MOTION.

I TEND TO THINK IT'S A SUBSTANTIVE MOTION, BUT EITHER WAY, I THINK THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HAS ADEQUATELY RESPONDED TO IT.

I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION IN THE MOTION TO DISMISS.

UM, THERE'S NOT A DISPUTE AS TO THE UNDERLYING FACTS.

THE QUESTION IS, IS THERE A REASON? TO ME THE QUESTION IS, IS THERE A REASON TO PROCEED WITH THIS HEARING NOW OR EVER, UM, IF THE RESPONDENT IS NO LONGER EMPLOYEE, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY IS THAT THERE ARE, THERE A DIFFERENCE CAN BE MADE IF THE CITY COUNCIL CAN IMPOSE A SANCTION SUCH AS A REPRIMAND OR A CENSURE, SOMETHING THAT WOULD GO INTO A RECORD AND PREVENT THE RESPONDENT FROM BEING REHIRED AGAIN ON THAT BASIS, I THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE MOTION REGARDLESS OF THE TIMING ISSUE, AND I THINK WE SHOULD DENY THE MOTION AND PROCEED WITH THE HEARING THERE.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT.

THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO DENY, UH, THE MOTION.

UH, I JUST, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, WAS THAT A MOTION YOU WERE MAKING? YES.

I SO MOVE.

OKAY.

IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND.

THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE TO DENY THE MOTION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

AYE.

AYE.

AYE.

ALL RIGHT.

I THINK IT TAKES FOUR OUT OF FIVE TO, AND I, I, I VOTE.

AYE ALSO, UH, SO AT THAT POINT, I THINK THE WILL OF THE PANEL IS THAT WE PROCEED WITH THE HEARING.

IS THAT RIGHT, MS. THE ATTORNEY? RIGHT.

DO WE STILL NEED TO DEAL WITH THOUGH THE, THE TIMELINESS OF THE WITNESS LIST, EXHIBIT LIST, ET CETERA? UH, ALL RIGHT.

SO I GUESS AT THIS POINT THERE, THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THERE ARE ANY EXHIBITS THAT SHOULD BE ADMITTED AT THIS POINT.

MR. CHAIR? YES, PLEASE.

THE, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES IS WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE HEARING THAT THE PARTIES MUST EXCHANGE AN EXHIBIT LIST, A WITNESS LIST, AND THE ACTUAL DOCUMENTS AND THE ACTUALLY LIST OF THE ACTUAL DOCUMENTS, WHICH WE, AS WE'VE SAID WE DID FRIDAY EVENING.

UM, AND, AND I SAID THESE ARE JUST DOCUMENTS THAT ARE INTERNAL TO THE CITY AND DEAL WITH, UH, MR. GOMA.

SO WE, WE FEEL WE DID, DO, WE DID THAT BEST AS WE COULD.

UH, THERE'S NO TRYING TO BE SURPRISED HERE.

AND, UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 10 DOCUMENTS.

NOW.

THERE IS AN ISSUE THAT I'VE RAISED WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, NOT HIS DOCUMENTS.

WE'VE MENTIONED THAT.

UM, BUT

[00:25:01]

THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S, WE'RE JUST TRYING, WE WERE TRYING TO, BEFORE THE HEARING STARTED, TRY TO STIPULATE THESE DOCUMENTS COME IN FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THESE DOCUMENTS SHALL, MAY I RESPOND? YES, PLEASE.

WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY IS THE VERY FIRST ETHICS ORDINANCE PROSECUTION UNDER THE NEW SYSTEM.

WHATEVER DECISIONS THAT YOU GUYS MAKE TODAY ARE GONNA BE PRECEDENT SETTING AND EVERYBODY'S GONNA GONNA PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT HAPPENS.

AND THEN YOU'RE GONNA SEE ACTIONS AND BEHAVIOR CONSISTENT WITH THAT.

AND THE WAY I LOOK AT IT, RULES ARE RULES.

SOMEBODY CREATES A RULE AND THEY'RE IN AUTHORITY, THEN I NEED TO FOLLOW IT.

UH, WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANYTHING FROM THEM UNTIL NINE MINUTES BEFORE THIS HEARING BEGAN AT NINE 30.

MS. BROWN DIDN'T RECEIVE THE SAME EMAIL THAT THEY CLAIMED TO HAVE SENT ME AT THE SAME TIME.

AND, UH, IT'S, IT'S JUST TRIAL BY AMBUSH AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO BE PUT IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT.

AND SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO, UH, I WOULD ASK YOU JUST TO ENFORCE THE RULES THAT YOU CREATED AND LET'S GET ON.

WE'RE READY TO TEE THIS THING UP.

WE'RE READY TO PRESENT THIS EVIDENCE.

AND I JUST ASK YOU TO ENFORCE THE RULES THAT YOU VOTED ON.

AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, I, I TAKE UMBRAGE AT THE SUGGESTION THAT THERE WAS SOME MISCONDUCT WITH RESPECT TO OUR ATTEMPT TO SERVE THE DOCUMENTS.

I MEAN, WE COULD HAVE HAND DELIVERED THEM.

UH, APPARENTLY THAT'S NOT DONE ANYMORE, SO I SENT THEM VIA EMAIL.

UM, I DON'T, HAVING DONE THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT MORE I SHOULD HAVE DONE TO MAKE SURE THE DOCUMENTS WERE RECEIVED TIMELY.

UM, I CAN SHOW YOU THE EMAIL THAT WE SENT, UH, OR I SENT THAT I SENT, UM, FORWARDING THE DOCUMENTS.

UM, AND I, I DO NOT DOUBT THAT THEY DID NOT RECEIVE IT, BUT WHAT I DO DOUBT IS ANY IMPLICATION THAT THERE WAS SOME EFFORT TO SOMEHOW UNDERMINE THIS PROCESS OR NOT FULFILL OUR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS PROCESS.

DEEPLY OFFENDED BY SUCH A SUGGESTION.

AND MR. CHAIR, I MIGHT SAID I'VE KNOWN MR. WIGGINS FOR 40 YEARS AS A FORMER JUSTICE OF THE, OF THE COURT OF APPEALS HERE IN DALLAS TO ATTACK HIS REPUTATION.

I FIND DISGUSTING BENEATH THE, ANY KIND OF POSITION THAT ANYONE IN THE CITY SHOULD TRY TO DO.

HE SAID HE SENT IT.

I BELIEVED IT WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT IT FRIDAY.

HE DID.

IF MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL CAN STAND UP AND SAY THAT IT, THERE'S NOT A GLITCH HERE AND SAID IT MADE, CAN YOU SAY IT DID NOT GET HERE? IT ABSOLUTELY DID NOT GET HERE FOR SOME TECHNICAL REASON.

I'VE WORKED OUT AT CITY HALL, A LOT OF THINGS DON'T HAPPEN CORRECTLY.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE MY EMAIL, I'D BE HAPPY TO SHOW IT TO YOU.

I I, I PREFER TO SEE SOMETHING THAT WILL REFLECT ACTUAL RECEIPTS OR, WELL, BUT THE, THE, IT SAYS EXCHANGE I IS, IS THE LANGUAGE IN THE TERM EXCHANGE.

AND LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION.

THOSE DOCUMENTS WOULD'VE SENT TO WHO, UH, UH, MS. BROWN AND SHE SAID SHE DIDN'T RECEIVE IT.

AND MR. BEAVERS, BOTH OF THEM.

ALL RIGHT.

SO, SO MR. BEAVERS, YOU DID NOT RECEIVE THE DOCUMENTS? NO, SIR.

I DIDN'T SEE ANY OF THAT STUFF UNTIL NINE MINUTES BEFORE THIS HEARING BEGAN.

MS. BROWN, DID YOU RECEIVE THE DOCUMENTS? NO, I DID NOT.

ALL RIGHT.

SO AT, AT THIS POINT, ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS REGARDING THESE DOCUMENTS, THE ADMISSION OF THESE DOCUMENTS? I, I HAVE A QUESTION.

ARE WE JUST TALKING ABOUT EXHIBITS AT THIS POINT? YES.

10 EXHIBITS.

HOW MANY PAGES TOTAL ARE WE TALKING ABOUT FOR THOSE 10 EXHIBITS? APPROXIMATELY 40.

FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU NEED THIS MORNING IF WE GAVE YOU A SHORT DELAY TO LOOK AT THOSE 40 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS? IF THEY ARE DOCUMENTS YOU HAVEN'T SEEN BEFORE, IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THEM, I WOULD THINK AT AT LEAST 30 MINUTES, MAYBE AN HOUR.

AND THIS CITY ATTORNEY, IS THAT WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE BODY TO GRANT THIS ADDITIONAL TIME? UH, YES.

THE PANEL COULD RECESS FOR 30 TO 60 MINUTES TO GIVE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE TIME TO REVIEW THE, THE PROPOSED EXHIBITS.

I HAVE, MAY I RESPECTFULLY THE REQUEST? YES, I HAVE A, UNBEKNOWNST TO ME WHEN THIS WAS SET, I HAD ANOTHER HEARING SET AT 11.

IT WILL BE VERY, VERY SHORT.

IT'S JUST, UH, ON A PROBATE MATTER AND I'M THE ATTORNEY AD LITEM.

SO, UH, THAT MAY TAKE 15 OR 20 MINUTES, BUT IT'S SET FOR 11 O'CLOCK.

SO IF WE COULD COME BACK AT 1130, IT'S A ZOOM MEETING

[00:30:01]

TO WALK OUTSIDE AND WELL, HOW, HOW WOULD YOU HAVE NAVIGATED THAT IF WE WOULD'VE STARTED THE HEARING? UM, WE WOULD'VE BEEN IN THE PROCESS.

MR. SANA WOULD'VE BEEN, UH, HERE AND HANDLED WHATEVER CAME UP DURING THE EARLY PART OF THE HEARING.

AND I WOULD'VE ALSO ON, ON THAT POINT, UH, I WOULD'VE ASKED FOR LIKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK.

SO MR. UH, WIGGINS COULD DO THIS ZOOM MEETING.

WE LEAVE PROBATE COURT.

THERE WAS NO INTENT TO DISRUPT THE, THE PROCESS HERE.

IT WAS GOING TO GO FORWARD AND THERE WAS NO, NO, UH, NO INTENT ON MY PART TO DELAY THIS.

AND I THINK I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE TWO DAYS SCHEDULED FOR THIS TODAY AND THURSDAY, BUT I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA WASTE YOUR TIME.

THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S MY POINT.

I HAD NO INTENTION OF ASKING FOR DELAY, UM, WHILE I WAS GOING WITH THE HEARING TO GO ON WITH MR. .

AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO HELP MOVE THAT ALONG WHILE STIPULATING AS TO THE EVIDENCE TO THAT, YOU'LL HAVE TO HEAR.

ALL RIGHT.

SO, SO, SO THIS MATTER HAS BEEN CONTINUED ONE TIME AS I, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

IS THAT CORRECT? SO IS, I THINK IT'S IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC THAT WE FIN THAT WE PROCEED WITH THE HEARING THIS MORNING.

THE QUESTION IS, DO WE GIVE THE ADDITIONAL TIME FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO TAKE, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED, MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL HAVING ONLY SEEN THESE DOCUMENTS NINE MINUTES BEFORE THE HEARING? I'M GUESSING THAT IT WOULD TAKE ME 30 TO 60 MINUTES TO GO THROUGH THEM AND TRY TO EVALUATE THEM.

I WOULD PREFER THAT THEY NOT EVEN BE ENTERTAINED BECAUSE OF THE LATE NATURE OF, OF THEIR SERVICE U UNDERSTOOD.

DOES IS THE, THE WILL OF THE BODY TO GIVE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 30 MINUTES OR DO WE MOVE ON THE MOTION TO ADMIT OR DENY THESE DOCUMENTS NOW? MY SENSE WOULD BE THAT WE SHOULD NOT EXCLUDE THE DOCUMENTS AT THIS TIME.

ALLOW THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 30 MINUTES TO REVIEW THEM AND IF THERE'S A MOTION TO BE MADE ON THEIR EXCLUSION, IT SHOULD BE BROUGHT THEN YOU WANTED TO YEAH, I WOULD, JUST AS A TAGLINE, I THINK YEAH, ONCE MR. BEAVERS HAS A CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM, IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE A COMPLETE TRANSITION IN HIS STRATEGY, UM, AND IT WOULD CAUSE HIM PREJUDICE TO MOVE FORWARD, GIVEN THE LIMITED TO TIME, I THINK WE COULD ENTERTAIN IT AFTER HE HAS A CHANCE TO REVIEW.

SO IS IT THE WILL OF THE BODY TO GIVE, UH, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 30 MINUTES YES.

TO LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS? IS THAT YES.

THAT, THAT IS THE WILL OF THE BODY AT THIS POINT, UH, TO GIVE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE 30 MINUTES TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS AND THE, UH, PROCEEDING WILL RESUME IN 30 MINUTES.

WE'LL RE WE'LL RESUME AT 10, 10 35.

WE STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 10 35.

ALL RIGHT.

IT IS 10 35.

THE PARTIES PREPARED TO RESUME THE HEARING.

THE RESPONDENTS PREPARED.

MR. CHAIR AS AN INSPECTOR IN GENERAL, ARE YOU PREPARED TO PROCEED? YES, WE, WE DID.

UM, AND WE'VE BEEN TALKING INSPECTOR GENERAL ABOUT HOW BEST TO PROCEED WITH THE EVIDENTIARY MATTERS TO STIPULATE TO OR NOT STIPULATE OR NOT AGREE SO AS TO STREAMLINE THE HEARING.

UH, WE, AND WE'D LIKE TO PERHAPS DISCUSS THAT WITH THE, THE COMMISSION THAT WE HAVE A MOMENT.

UH, PLEASE PROCEED.

UH, IS THAT OKAY WITH THE BODY? I THINK WE CAME REAL CLOSE TO COMING INTO A COMPLETE AGREEMENT FOR PHASE ONE.

UH, THE WAY I SEE IT, PHASE ONE WOULD BE LIKE THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE PHASE OF A CRIMINAL TRIAL.

PHASE TWO, YOU WON'T GET THE PHASE TWO UNLESS YOU GUYS SUBSTANTIATE SOMETHING.

SO WE TRIED TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON PHASE ONE AND STIPULATE, AND I THINK WE GOT REAL CLOSE, BUT MR. UH, ANA MAY DISAGREE.

WAS THAT ACCURATE, MR. ANA? DID WE COME VERY CLOSE TO AGREEING? YES.

MR. BEAVERS, I THINK, UH, WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THERE'S A PHASE ONE, PHASE TWO, HOWEVER, AND IN THE KO, MR. BEAVERS, THIS IS, UH, YOUR FIRST HEARING WITH THE ATTER, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

YOU'RE SETTING PRECEDENCE AS TO WHAT TYPES OF EVIDENCE YOU'LL BE LOOKING AT AND THE FUTURE.

AND THAT'S IMPORTANT.

UM, SO FOR MY CLIENT AND FOR ALL THE POTENTIAL, YOU KNOW, UH, RESPONDENTS IN THE FUTURE, WE'RE ARGUING THAT WHAT YOU SHOULD NOT CONSIDER IN PHASE ONE OR PHASE TWO IS ANY KIND OF EVIDENCE PRIOR TO THE EMPLOYEE WORKING WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS.

VERY SIMPLE.

CERTAINLY THAT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME.

ANYTHING PRIOR TO

[00:35:01]

THE EMPLOYEE WORKING HERE IS OBVIOUSLY NOT RELEVANT TO THIS COMMISSION AND THIS BODY.

NOW, OBVIOUSLY IF YOU WERE TO THE CLIENT OR THE RESPONDENT OR, BUT THEY'RE LYING AND BEAVERS WILLING TO IMPEACH HIM WITH, OH NO, YOU LIED ABOUT X, Y, Z WHEN YOU WERE IN KINDERGARTEN.

THAT'S FAIR GAME.

BUT I THINK FOR OPENING, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE COMMISSION, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RULE TO FOLLOW.

ONLY FAIR TO THE ACCUSED TO SAY THAT WITH WHAT HE DID OR SHE DID AT THE CITY AS AN EMPLOYEE IS WHAT YOU SHOULD FOCUS ON, NOT WHAT THEY DID IN HIGH SCHOOL, NOT WHAT THEY DID IN COLLEGE.

AND THAT'S WHERE, THAT'S WHERE I'M SAYING.

SO THOSE, THOSE ISSUES, THOSE ITEMS THAT THE MR. BEAVER MIGHT LIKE TO REDUCE OR HAVE YOU CONSIDER OF PRIOR ACTIONS OR ACTIVITIES THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ALLEGED FOR, UM, MR. VES WAS THE CITY EMPLOYEE, NOT TO CONSIDER, NOT TO BE REPORT YOU, UH, MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL? YES, SIR.

MAY I RESPOND? YES, PLEASE.

IF I WAS A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE AND I GOT ON THE WITNESS STAND AND I LOOKED AT THE JURY AND I SAID, I'M A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, I WOULD NEVER HAVE DONE THAT.

THAT OPENS THE DOOR FOR SOMEBODY TO COME AND ATTACK ME AND IMPEACH MY CREDIBILITY WITH, LET'S SAY FOR EXAMPLE, UM, I WAS BEING PROSECUTED TODAY FOR DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, AND IT WAS MY THIRD TIME, AND THAT'S A FELONY.

AND I GET ON THE STAND AND I SAY, I WOULD NEVER DRINK AND DRIVE.

I'M A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN.

THEN THE PROSECUTION COULD IMPEACH ME MY CREDIBILITY WITH THE FOUR PREVIOUS DWIS THAT I HAD YEARS AGO TO SHOW THAT, HEY, YOU'RE ATTACKING HIS CREDIBILITY.

IF I'M FOOLISH ENOUGH TO GET ON THE STAND AND OPEN THE DOOR BY SAYING SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT.

YOU WOULD BE, EXPECT SOMEBODY TO ATTACK MY, UH, UNDER MY HYPOTHETICAL THAT, THAT I HAD SOME PRIORS OR WHATEVER.

AND SO THAT, UM, THAT'S REALLY NOT RELEVANT IN PHASE ONE, UNLESS, UNLESS YOU TAKE THE STAND AND OPEN THE DOOR BY SAYING SOMETHING FOOLISH.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN FENCING ABOUT HERE BEFORE WE RESUME THESE PROCEEDINGS.

AND WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF OFFERING ANYTHING BEFORE HIS EMPLOYMENT.

I THINK HE STARTED HERE IN JUNE OF 2015.

BUT IF MR. GOMEZ TAKES THE WITNESS STAND AND SAYS SOMETHING THAT WE THINK IS FALSE, IT'S NOT JUST PERJURY, IT'S AGGRAVATED PERJURY.

AGGRAVATED PERJURY IS WHEN YOU TESTIFY FALSELY DURING AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING THAT IS A THIRD DEGREE FELONY THAT CAN GET YOU 10 YEARS OF PRISON.

SO IF HE WANTS TO GET ON THE STAND AND TESTIFY, HEY, THAT'S HIS RIGHT, BUT IF HE GETS ON THE STAND AND TESTIFIES AND OPENS THE DOOR BY SAYING SOMETHING LIKE, I'M A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, I WOULD NEVER DO WHAT I WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE DONE, THEN AT THAT POINT, I GUARANTEE YOU, YOU'RE GONNA HEAR FROM ME.

BUT THAT'S THE ISSUE.

WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE DETAILS, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE FENCING ABOUT BEFORE THE PROCEEDINGS RESUMED.

WELL, OF COURSE, THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.

IT'S NOT A CRIMINAL TRIAL.

WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS TRYING TO SET PRECEDENCE FOR THE ETHICS COMMISSION AND IS, AS MR. BEAVER VERY ELOQUENTLY POINTS OUT IF ANYONE GETS UP THERE AND LIES, THAT'S A PERJURY, WAS IT THIRD DEGREE PERJURY, AGGRAVATED PERJURY, AGGRAVATED PER, AND THAT'S NOT FOR YOU TO HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT.

THANK GOD IT'S GONNA GO ON TO A CRIMINAL COURT.

ALRIGHT.

SO IF ANY, ANY WITNESS IS FOOLISH ENOUGH TO DO THAT, YOU KNOW, AND, AND YOU, THAT'S, THAT'S UNFORTUNATE.

UM, BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S, UH, THERE ARE, THERE ARE, UH, PENALTIES AND PROCEDURES OUTSIDE OF THIS BODY FOR HANDLING.

ALL RIGHT, LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION.

HAVE, HAS THERE BEEN AN AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO STIPULATIONS ON THE EXHIBITS THAT HAVE BEEN PROFFERED BY ANY PARTY TODAY? I WOULD BE WILLING TO AGREE TO STIPULATE OF ALL THE THINGS THAT HE GAVE ME NINE MINUTES BEFORE THE HEARING BEGAN TODAY, IF HE WILL AGREE TO ALLOW A THROUGH G, WHICH IS ALL PHASE ONE STUFF.

WE DON'T EVEN GET TO PHASE TWO UNLESS YOU GUYS SUBSTANTIATE SOMETHING, YOU MAY UNSUBSTANTIATED EVERYTHING AND THEN IT'S OVER.

THERE IS NO PHASE TWO.

BUT IF WE GET TO A PHASE TWO, THERE MAY BE SOME THINGS THAT WE WOULD TEND TO WANNA OFFER AT THAT TIME.

AND TO ME, THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE, I THINK.

AND WE HAVE A, AN AGREEMENT MR. ANA, UH, TO STIPULATE TO EACH OTHER'S EXHIBITS FOR PURPOSES OF PHASE ONE ONLY.

IS THAT CORRECT? UH, I WOULD, AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, UM, MR. MR. CHAIR,

[00:40:01]

WE, UM, THE RESPONDENT CANNOT NOT AGREE ON PRINCIPLE TO ALLOWING DOCUMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN EITHER PHASE, UH, THAT OUR, UH, THE PREDATE THE RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES, IT SOUNDS LIKE.

IS THAT WHAT MR. BEAVERS IS SAYING? YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT UNLESS THE DOOR IS OPENED? THAT IS CORRECT.

AND, AND WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO IF THE DOOR IS OPENED? IF THE DOOR IS OPEN, OBVIOUSLY, UH, I THINK THAT, UH, THAT THAT'S THE WITNESS ALLOWS ANYTHING TO COME IN TO, TO, UH, TO IMPEACH, UH, THAT WITNESS, UH, WHERE HE OR IT LOOKED AS IF HE MIGHT BE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.

I AGREE WITH THAT.

AS FAR AS JUST AN EVIDENTIARY POINT, I THINK WE, SOUNDS LIKE WE GOT AN AGREEMENT FOR PHASE ONE.

I WANT TO GET THIS THING GOING.

LET'S GO.

BUT YOU DO SET PRECEDENCE AGAIN, REMEMBER ABOUT EVIDENCE THAT YOU'RE GONNA BE LISTENING TO IN THE FUTURE.

THIS IS THE FIRST CASE FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

ARE YOU GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO BRING, BRINGING IN ALL KINDS OF EVIDENCE AND HAVE THIS FIGHT ALL THE TIME? I MEAN, THIS IS DOC EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTATION PRIOR TO EMPLOYMENT IS REALLY THE ISSUE.

WELL, I THINK WE CAN CROSS THAT BRIDGE IF WE HAVE TO.

RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST CONCERNED WITH, HAVE YOU ALL REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE STIPULATIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD AT THIS POINT? AND AM I CORRECT ABOUT THAT? BOTH PARTIES? THAT SOUNDS LIKE EXACTLY THE WAY I'M THINKING ABOUT IT.

ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PANEL? WELL, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, WE CAN'T MAKE YOU STIPULATE IF Y'ALL HAVE A STIPULATION, TELL US WHAT IT IS, JUST SO WE'RE ALL CLEAR.

I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER, UH, PROSECUTION EXHIBITS A THROUGH G.

UH, WHAT WE'RE OFFERING TODAY IS WHAT WAS SERVED ON MR. GOMEZ BEFORE HE HIRED MR. ANA AND MR. WIGGINS TO REPRESENT HIM.

WE GAVE THAT TO HIM DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST SETTING.

SO, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO, UM, THEY WERE SERVED ON MAY 16TH, AND I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU GUYS A HARD COPY OF EXHIBIT D AS IN DOG, PAGE ONE AND EXHIBIT C, PAGE FIVE.

IT'S WHAT THEY'VE HAD FOR A MONTH AND NINE DAYS NOW.

BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU GUYS KNEW THAT.

DON'T GIVE IT TO 'EM UNTIL WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT HERE.

UM, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU GUYS HAD A COPY SINCE WE, WE CHANGED THOSE, WE ALTERED THEM SLIGHTLY BEFORE THE FIRST SETTING.

SO THEY'VE HAD WHAT WE'RE GONNA TRY TO OFFER TODAY, THEY'VE HAD FOR OVER A MONTH NOW.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAD ACCURATE COPIES.

WE HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH THE, WITH, WITH THE, UM, INSPECTOR GENERAL'S, UH, D ONE C5.

SO, SO DO WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT? YEAH.

WHAT, WHAT IS THE AGREEMENT? RIGHT? I'LL AGREE TO EVERYTHING THAT THEY GAVE ME, THE 10 EXHIBITS, NINE MINUTES BEFORE THE HEARING BEGAN.

I WILL AGREE THAT THAT IS ADMITTED IF THEY WILL AGREE THAT A, B, C, D, E, F, AND G WILL BE ADMITTED SO WE CAN GET THIS THING GOING OR WE'LL STIPULATE TO THAT.

ALL RIGHT.

SO THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE PANEL WITH, WITH UNDERSTANDING SO THAT, AGAIN, ON CERTAIN OF THOSE DOCUMENTS CAN ONLY BE USED FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES.

IS THAT RIGHT? EXACTLY.

I'M NOT GONNA GET INTO ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED BEFORE HIS EMPLOYMENT.

I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF EXHIBITS MARKED, BUT I'M NOT GONNA EVEN GET INTO THAT UNLESS HE TAKES THE STAND AND SAYS SOMETHING TO OPEN THE DOOR FOR ME TO IMPEACH HIS CREDIBILITY AND THEN THE EAC CAN MAKE A DECISION AT THAT TIME TO ENTERTAIN THAT.

WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT? SURE.

ALL RIGHT.

ARE WE READY TO PROCEED TO THE MERITS OF THIS MATTER? YES, PLEASE.

ONE LAST, UH, UH, ITEM JUST FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES.

THIS IS THE FIRST HEARING WE'RE HAVING BEFORE YOU ON, ON, UM, THIS MATTER WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

WE, FOR, FOR THE PURPOSES OF TODAY'S HEARING WITH WHICH STANDARD OR PROOF, WHICH I UNDERSTAND WAY I READ IT WOULD BE THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE STANDARD OR PROOF, NOT THE NEW ONE.

MY, MY, MY UNDERSTANDING, IF I'M INCORRECT, PLEASE CORRECT ME, MISS CITY ATTORNEY, IS THAT CLEAR AND CONVINCING IS THE STANDARD THAT WE WILL USE FOR THE STANDARD OF PROOF IN THIS HEARING? THAT'S CORRECT, MR. CHAIR.

TODAY'S STANDARD OF PROOF IS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT THE STANDARD OF PROOF WAS IN THE CODE OF ETHICS WHEN THIS INFORMATION WAS FILED WITH THE E AAC.

I'M IN ABSOLUTE AGREEMENT.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.

ALL RIGHT, WE'RE READY.

UH, ONE MORE QUESTION.

THERE WAS SOME CAVEATING,

[00:45:01]

SO JUST SO WE'RE ALL CLEAR, EXHIBITS A THROUGH G FOR MR. BEAVER SIDE IN EXHIBITS ONE THROUGH 10 FOR THE RESPONDENT'S SIDE ARE ADMITTED, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT EVERYBODY IS STIPULATING TO.

THAT IS WHAT I'M STIPULATING TO.

YES, SIR.

AGREED.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

WE ARE PREPARED FOR OPENING STATEMENTS.

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WILL NOW PRESENT, UH, THE OPENING STATEMENT OF YOUR OFFICER.

MAY I PROCEED MR. CHAIRMAN, PLEASE DO.

UH, MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION, WE HAVE TWO CASES THAT WE FILED AGAINST JUAN GOMEZ.

JUAN IS A ROAD RAGE ALLEGATION.

THE OTHER IS A FRAUDULENT FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS ALLEGATION, UH, THE ROAD RAGE ALLEGATION CONTAINS FIVE SEPARATE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS.

THE FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS ALLEGATIONS CONTAINS THREE SEPARATE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS.

THE ROAD RAGE CASE IN THIS SITUATION OCCURRED ON FEBRUARY 7TH, 2023, AND WE'VE ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION AND WE PLED IN THE CONJUNCTIVE SO WE CAN PROVE IN THE DISJUNCTIVE.

UH, WE MADE TWO ALLEGATIONS THAT HE DROVE A CITY VEHICLE IN AN UNSAFE MANNER AND THAT HE MADE OBSCENE GESTURES AT TERRENCE PERKINS.

THE SCUR WHERE THIS OCCURRED IS SOUTH OF SECOND AVENUE AND BRUTON ROAD WHERE THOSE TWO ROADS INTERSECT.

AND THE G P S SATELLITE DATA IN THIS CASE IS GONNA SHOW THAT MR. GOMEZ WAS DRIVING 39.09 MILES PER HOUR IN A SUGGESTED 20 MILE PER HOUR ZONE.

IT OCCURRED AT EXACTLY 2:34 PM WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE COMPLAINANT TOLD US WHEN HE FILED THIS CASE.

IT HAPPENED AROUND TWO 30.

SO WE, THE EVIDENCE IS GONNA SHOW THAT WE PULLED THE GPS SATELLITE DATA JUST TO SEE IF THE GUY'S EVEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HE WAS, HE WAS EXACTLY WHERE TERRENCE PERKINS SAID HE WAS.

AND THE FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS CASE INCLUDES A 10 MONTH TIME PERIOD FROM APRIL 23RD OF LAST YEAR TO FEBRUARY 13TH OF THIS YEAR.

AND SO IF YOU'VE NEVER HEARD OF THE PERIODIC METER EXCHANGE OVERTIME PROGRAM, IT IS PEOPLE WORK THEIR NORMAL SCHEDULING WORK HOURS.

MR. GOMEZ WAS SEVEN TO THREE.

THAT IS NORMAL WORK HOURS.

YOU DO NOT DO OVERTIME METER EXCHANGES DURING YOUR WORK HOURS.

IF YOU WANNA WORK THOSE HOURS, IT'S GOTTA BE, UH, AFTER 4:00 PM ON THE WEEKDAYS AND BEFORE SUNSET.

IF YOU WANNA WORK THAT PROGRAM ON THE WEEKENDS, YOU CAN DO THAT, BUT THAT'S GOTTA BE SEVEN TO THREE.

AND THE EVIDENCE IS GONNA SHOW THAT MR. GOMEZ WAS DOING PERIODIC METER EXCHANGE OVERTIME EXCHANGES DURING HIS NORMAL WORK HOURS, WHICH IS AGAINST THE RULES, OBVIOUSLY.

THE, UM, HIS WORK SCHEDULE IS SEVEN TO FOUR AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE STANDARD WAS SET ON JUNE 25TH, 2015 WHEN HE SHOWED UP AND WENT THROUGH ORIENTATION AND WAS SPECIFICALLY TOLD FALSIFYING TIME IS A VIOLATION.

AND HE SIGNED THOSE RECORDS ON HIS FIRST DAY OF EMPLOYMENT WITH ORIENTATION.

THAT'S THE STANDARD.

HE KNEW THE STANDARD ON DAY ONE.

AND WE VERIFIED THE ACCURACY OF THESE VALID ALLEGATIONS, NOT THROUGH ONE, NOT THROUGH TWO, BUT THROUGH THREE METHODS.

THE FIRST METHODOLOGY THAT WE USED WAS QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISITS.

WHEN YOU GO OUT AND YOU DO A PERIODIC METER EXCHANGE ON THE OVERTIME PROGRAM YOU FILL OUT WHEN YOU ARRIVE, WHEN YOU LEFT, AND THE DATE THAT IT HAPPENED, ALONG WITH THE INFORMATION OF THE ADDRESS ON A QUALITY CONTROL CHECK SITE VISIT, A SUPERVISOR COMES BACK THE NEXT DAY OR DAY LATER AND SAYS, HEY, LET ME ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS.

I GOT SOME PAPERWORK HERE.

UH, TELL ME ABOUT THE METER EXCHANGE THAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY AT 6:00 PM IF THE HOMEOWNER SAYS 6:00 PM NO, IT WAS ONE O'CLOCK YESTERDAY, THAT'S WHEN IT WAS DONE.

THAT WOULD BE VERIFYING THROUGH THE HOMEOWNER THAT WAS ACTUALLY THERE, THAT IT WASN'T DONE AS WRITTEN DOWN ON THE RECORDS THAT HE FILED.

AND DURING THE PERIODIC METER EXCHANGE PROGRAM ISSUES ON THE FALSIFICATION THAT WE VERIFIED THROUGH THAT FIRST METHODOLOGY, WE DISCOVERED NOT JUST TIME DISCREPANCIES, BUT DATE DISCREPANCIES.

THAT'S THE FIRST METHODOLOGY THAT WE USED.

WE DIDN'T STOP THERE.

WE WENT TO A SECOND METHODOLOGY AND CONFIRMED THE FALSIFICATIONS THROUGH A SECURITY GUARD ENTRANCE LOG ON JULY 20TH OF LAST YEAR.

WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING A CITY TRUCK AND YOU'RE DONE, YOU TAKE YOUR TRUCK AND YOU DRIVE IT BACK IN.

AND WHEN YOU DRIVE IT BACK IN TO 28 61 MUNICIPAL, YOU GET LOGGED IN THE TIME YOU DROVE THE TRUCK IN AND ON JULY 20TH OF LAST YEAR, HE DROVE HIS TRUCK IN AT 7:26 PM 7:26 PM AND THE RECORDS ARE

[00:50:01]

GONNA SHOW THAT HE ON HIS PAPERWORK, SAID HE BEGAN HIS LAST JOB OF THE DAY, 60 SECONDS EARLIER AT 7:25 PM AND THAT WAS A 20 MINUTE VISIT.

YOU CAN'T BE TWO PLACES AT ONCE.

AND SO THE, THE SECURITY GUARD INTEREST LOG, THE ENTRY BEFORE THAT WAS FIVE AND A HALF MILES AWAY FROM 28 61 MUNICIPAL.

YOU CAN'T GET THERE AND BE WHAT'S DAMAGING ABOUT THE RECORDS THAT WE'RE GONNA PRESENT TO YOU ON THE SECOND METHODOLOGY IS THEY WERE LISTED SEQUENTIALLY BY MR. GOMEZ, A TO B TO C TO D TO E TO F, ALL THE WAY DOWN.

AND SO IF THOSE LAST TWO ENTRIES ARE FALSE BEYOND ALL DOUBT BECAUSE OF THE SEQUENTIAL NATURE OF THESE VISITS, THEY'RE ALL FALSE.

WE DIDN'T STOP THERE.

WE USED THE THIRD METHODOLOGY AND THAT IS THE GPS SATELLITE DATA THAT WAS AFFIXED TO THESE TRUCKS IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR.

AND WE'RE GONNA SHOW YOU EVIDENCE OF WHEN HE WAS ACTUALLY THERE BASED ON THE GPS, UH, DATA FROM HIS TRUCK.

AND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO COMPARE THAT TO WHAT HE WROTE DOWN.

SO WE DIDN'T JUST DO IT FROM ONE, NOT TWO.

WE USED THREE METHODOLOGIES TO VERIFY THAT THESE RECORDS ARE FALSE.

AND WHEN WE'RE DONE PRESENTING THIS EVIDENCE, WE'RE GONNA ASK YOU FOR EIGHT VERDICTS OF SUBSTANTIATED.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

THANK YOU.

UH, DOES THE RESPONDENT WISH TO MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT, MR. CHAIR? WE DO, BUT WE RESERVE OUR OPENING STATEMENT UNTIL WE PUT ON OUR CASE.

I GUESS THERE'S NO REASON FOR REBUTTAL AT THIS POINT.

WE WILL PROCEED WITH THE PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE.

UH, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL MAY BEGIN PRESENTING, UH, YOUR OFFICE'S CASE.

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

AND JUST SO THE RECORD'S CLEAR A THROUGH G HAVE BEEN ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE FOR ALL PURPOSES.

YES, SIR.

THANK YOU, SIR, FOR THAT CONFIRMATION.

I CALL AS MY FIRST WITNESS, AMANDA MOLNAR.

MS. BROWN, I WANNA MAKE SURE I KNOW HOW TO SHARE MY SCREEN HERE.

DO YOU JUST CLICK THAT SHARE BUTTON ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT HERE, SCREEN, SCREEN BACK.

THAT'S WHAT I NEED.

OKAY, SO YOU NEED TO GO THROUGH SCREEN, SCREEN HIGHLIGHTED? MM-HMM.

SHARE AGAIN, WISH COULD YEAH.

UH, WAS A MEMBER SHARE.

I MINIMIZE THAT.

IT SHOULD SHOW UP.

OKAY.

I DON'T, DO YOU THINK OUR PRESENCE ON THE VPN IS AFFECTING OUR ABILITY, MARY? OKAY.

THERE WE GO.

THANK YOU MARY.

MAY I PROCEED, MR. CHAIRMAN? UH, YES.

MAY.

I'M GOING TO FIRST SWEAR IN THE WITNESS.

MS. BROWN, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU GIVE TODAY IS THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO.

HOWEVER, MY NAME IS MOLNAR.

I'M SORRY.

I APOLOGIZE.

NO PROBLEM.

MS. MOLER WOULD, WOULD YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION AND SPELL YOUR LAST NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? SURE.

I'M AN INVESTIGATOR.

AMANDA NAR, M O L N A R.

[00:55:01]

AND WHAT DO YOU DO FOR A LIVING? I'M AN INVESTIGATOR PER INSPECTOR GENERAL DIVISION.

UH, WHEN DID YOU BEGIN YOUR CAREER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT? JUNE 23RD, 2022.

OH, I'M IN LAW ENFORCEMENT.

I'M SORRY.

THAT WOULD'VE BEEN 1999.

AND WHERE DID YOU WORK IN LAW ENFORCEMENT? UM, SEVERAL DIFFERENT PLACES.

I STARTED IN CHEYENNE, WYOMING, UM, WORKED IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT FACILITIES THERE.

UM, LAST WORKED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT BEFORE HERE AS A POLICE DETECTIVE IN MONUMENT, COLORADO.

WHAT DID YOU HAVE TO DO TO BECOME A POLICE OFFICER IN COLORADO? UM, HAD TO GRADUATE THE POLICE ACADEMY.

UM, COMPLETE FTO, UM, PROOF PROFICIENCY AND ALL THE BASIC SKILLS, FIREARMS DRIVING, ARREST CONTROL.

DID YOU HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE AN ABILITY OF PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS? YES.

DID YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH ACADEMY? YES.

DID YOU HAVE TO PASS AN EXAM? YES.

DID YOU HAVE TO ESTABLISH THAT YOU WERE PROFICIENT WITH FIREARMS? YES.

WHAT ABOUT ARREST CONTROL, TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OR INVESTIGATION? YES.

WHAT KIND OF TRAINING OR EDUCATION DO YOU HAVE? UM, I HAVE AN ASSOCIATES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND A BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE.

I HAVE HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF TRAINING IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND MOST RECENTLY IN FRAUD TRAINING THIS LAST YEAR WE HELPED TWO CLASSES HERE.

AND THOSE WERE THE NATIONAL WHITE COLLAR CRIME CENTER CLASSES, THE FIT FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS IN PRACTICING SKILLS COURSE? YES.

AND THEN THE FINANCIAL RECORDS EXAMINATION AND ANALYSIS COURSE, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

WHAT POSITION DO YOU CURRENTLY HOLD? UM, LEAD INVESTIGATOR.

AND WHAT DO YOU DO FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DIVISION? I'M AN INVESTIGATOR AND INVESTIGATE CASES, BUT I ALSO SUPERVISE THE INVESTIGATIVE TEAM AND I'M ALSO ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT TO LEADERSHIP.

AND WHAT KIND OF CASES DO YOU INVESTIGATE? UM, ANYTHING RELATED TO FRAUD, WASTE, ABUSE, AND PUBLIC CORRECTION IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN THIS POSITION? UM, I STARTED IN JUNE, BUT I WAS PROMOTED IN NOVEMBER TO LEAD INVESTIGATOR.

LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE ROAD RAGE ALLEGATIONS IN THIS CASE.

WHEN DID YOU FIRST HEAR ABOUT THE ROAD RAGE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JUAN GA? UM, WE RECEIVED A COMPLAINT ON FEBRUARY 10TH OF 23.

IS THAT ON PAGE FOUR OF YOUR INVESTIGATIVE REPORT? I HAVE TO REFER TO MY REPORT, BUT I BELIEVE IT IS.

YES, IT IS.

LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE FIVE OF YOUR INVESTIGATIVE REPORT.

WHEN DID YOU REACH OUT TO PAUL COSTAK? UM, I REACHED OUT TO HIM ON FEBRUARY 15TH.

AND ALSO ON PAGE FIVE OF YOUR REPORT, WHEN DID YOU DISCUSS THE INTERVIEW OF PERKINS? UM, WAS THAT FEBRUARY 22ND? YES, IT WAS FEBRUARY 22ND.

AND DID YOU INTERVIEW PERKINS ON MARCH 1ST? YES, I DID.

AND WAS WHAT TERRANCE PERKINS SAID IN THAT INTERVIEW ON MARCH 1ST CONSISTENT WITH HIS WRITTEN STATEMENT WITH BOTH OF HIS WR WRITTEN STATEMENTS? YES.

AND IS THAT DOCUMENTED ON PAGE SIX OF YOUR INVESTIGATIVE REPORT? YES, IT IS.

ON MARCH 22ND, 2023, DID YOU INTERVIEW LADALE HALL? YES, I DID.

AND SHE WAS THE PASSENGER IN THE CAR WITH MR. PERKINS? SHE WAS.

AND IS THAT DOCUMENTED ON PAGE SEVEN OF YOUR INVESTIGATIVE REPORT? YES, IT IS.

WAS HER TESTIMONY DURING THAT INTERVIEW CONSISTENT WITH TERRENCE PERKINS' STATEMENTS? YES, IT WAS.

IS THAT FACT CONFIRMED ON PAGE SEVEN OF YOUR INVESTIGATIVE REPORT? YES, IT IS.

ON MARCH 29TH, DID YOU REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE GIVEN TO YOU BY PAUL COSTELLO? YES, I DID.

AND WHAT RECORDS DID YOU REVIEW? WELL, THERE WAS A LOT OF RECORDS, UM, IN RELATION TO THIS.

IT WAS G P S DATA.

ARE THE RECORDS THAT YOU REVIEWED DETAILED ON PAGE EIGHT OF YOUR INVESTIGATIVE REPORT? YES, THEY ARE.

CAN YOU JUST TELL THEM THE RECORDS THAT YOU REVIEWED, PLEASE? SURE.

UM, WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM PERKINS, WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM, UM, JUAN EZ, UM, PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE VEHICLE, UM, GPS SPREADSHEETS, UM, ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE NOTICE LETTER OF COUNSELING, UM, CITY VEHICLE INCIDENT REPORT FOR AN AT-FAULT ACCIDENT THAT GEZ WAS IN LETTER OF COUNSELING.

COUNSELING DATED, UM, JUNE 5TH OF 19.

SERVICE REQUEST, CITIZEN COMPLAINT DATED, UM, JANUARY 24TH, 2020.

UM, A WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM EZ DATED 1 28 OF 2020.

SERVICE REQUEST.

UM, ANOTHER CITIZEN COMPLAINT DATED 2 24 OF 2020.

ANOTHER WRITTEN STATEMENT WAS NOT DATED, BUT IT WAS RE REGARDING THE FEBRUARY 24TH, 2020 INCIDENT.

UM,

[01:00:01]

THE DOCUMENTED CONVERSATION BETWEEN, UM, SUPERVISOR TIMMERMAN AND JUAN EZ, A MEETING SIGN AND SHEET FOR CONVERSATION WITH DEEZ DATED THE 13TH OF 22.

AN EMAIL FROM 10 TRUSTEE, UM, AN INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE REGARDING TRUSTEE'S FEEDBACK ON TWO 15 OF 23.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS PROSECUTION.

EXHIBIT B OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS OF YOUR INVESTIGATIVE.

YES.

TELL US WHAT PAGE D ONE IS THOSE WERE DISPLAYING? YES, THESE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SCENE OF THE ROAD RAGE INCIDENT.

OKAY.

IS, IS, IS THIS THE DIRECTION THAT THE CARS WERE DRIVING INVOLVING THE ROAD RAGE ALLEGATION? YES.

THAT IS A, A ONE-WAY ACCESS RAMP TO AN INTERSTATE.

AND THIS SHOWS A, A, A BACK VIEW OF THE S-CURVE THAT'S AT ISSUE, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.

IT'S AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CURVE, YES.

AND THAT IS D TWO.

UM, THAT'S JUST A CLOSER END VIEW OF THAT SAME S CURVE.

JUST SO YOU CAN SEE THE KIND OF THE END OF THE FIRST TURN AND THE BEGINNING OF THE SECOND RIGHT HAND CURVE, I NOTICED THERE'S A DROP OFF ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD.

CAN YOU TELL THE MEMBERS OF THE EAC ABOUT HOW DEEP THAT DROP OFF IS? SURE.

IT'S, IT'S KIND OF LIKE A REALLY STEEP DROP OFF.

I WOULD SAY IT'S PROBABLY 20 TO 30 FEET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROAD.

AND THERE'S NO GUARDRAILS, IS THAT CORRECT? NO, THERE ARE NO GUARDRAILS.

CORRECT ME YOUR ATTENTION TO B3, IS THIS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SAME INTERSECTION? IT IS.

IS THIS FACING THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM THE FIRST TWO PHOTOGRAPHS? I, I BELIEVE SO.

DO YOU NEED ME TO ZOOM IN SO YOU CAN SEE? YEAH, IT'S NOT SCREEN ON THE OVERHEAD FOR SOME REASON.

OH, THERE IT IS.

YOU NEED TO SEE IT CLOSER.

YES.

THAT WOULD BE FACING THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM THE FIRST TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, RIGHT? SO IS THAT CORRECT? HE WOULD'VE BEEN COMING FROM THAT DIRECTION.

DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO V4, THAT'S BACK IN THE DIRECTION THE FIRST TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, CORRECT? CORRECT.

THAT'S AS YOU CROSS OVER SECOND STREET AND YOU CAN SEE THE DROP OFF HERE, CORRECT? FROM V FIVE, THAT'S KIND OF THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD VIEW OF THE SAMES CURVE.

AND IT SHOWS THE SIGN TO MERGE, RIGHT? CORRECT.

AND V6 IS, UH, MORE CLOSE IN OF THE LAST, UM, THE RIGHT HAND CURVE.

AND DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN? I'D HAVE TO LOOK.

I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT DATE OF ALL THIS.

IT WAS DURING YOUR INVESTIGATION? IT WAS, IT WAS DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION WAS ALREADY BEEN ADMITTED TO EVIDENCE OF EXHIBIT C PAGE ONE.

UH, WHAT IS THIS? THAT'S AN OVERVIEW OF THE MAP OF THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THERE'S A RED SQUARE AROUND THE AREA WHERE THE INCIDENT OCCURRED.

OKAY.

SO IF THE MEMBERS OF THE EAC ARE CURIOUS ABOUT WHERE DID THIS HAPPEN? THEY CAN SEE THE DOWNTOWN AREA RIGHT HERE WHERE WE'RE SITTING WITH THE GATE, CORRECT? CORRECT.

AND THAT THIS RED SQUARE IS SOUTHEAST OF DOWNTOWN DALLAS? CORRECT.

OKAY.

IS MAP TWO THAT I'M ABOUT TO SHOW YOU A BLOW UP OF WHAT'S IN RED ON THIS MAP RIGHT HERE? YES.

OKAY.

AND THEN I SEE ANOTHER RED SQUARE.

WHAT IS THIS RED SQUARE IN THE MIDDLE ON B2? THAT RED SQUARE IS THE, IT'S JUST AROUND THE SCENE AND WHERE IT HAPPENED.

JUST A CLOSER IN VIEW.

OKAY.

SO WHEN WE GO TO B3, IS THIS THE S CURVE C3? WHEN WE GO TO C3, IS THIS THE S CURVE THAT'S IN QUESTION, UH, INVOLVING THE ROAD RAGE ALLEGATION? CORRECT.

THIS IS THE VIEW THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE STREET NAMES AND THAT S-CURVE IS AN UNNAMED ACCESS RAMP.

SO YES, THAT IS THE S-CURVE.

AND IS THIS WHERE THE ROAD RAGE, UH, INCIDENT OCCURRED THAT PERTAINS TO THE ALLEGATIONS THAT WE'VE MADE? YES.

AND IS THIS IN THE CITY OF DALLAS? YES IT IS.

DID YOU COMPARE THE MAPS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA TO THE GPS DATA

[01:05:01]

LOGS FROM MR. JOHN'S TRUCK? YES, I DID.

AND DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE FOUR, WHEN THE ALLEGATION CAME IN, DID YOU JUST BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU HEARD OR DID YOU PULL THE G P S DATA OUT SATELLITE DATA TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT MR. GOMEZ WAS EVEN THERE? YES, I DID.

I DID LOOK AT THE GPS DATA TO CONFIRM THAT HE WAS EVEN IN THE AREA.

AND DID THIS OCCUR ON FEBRUARY 7TH, 2023? YES, IT DID.

AND ON THAT C4, I NOTICED THAT THERE'S A DOCUMENT FROM A 21 TRANSPOSED AT THE TOP, AT LEAST THE GPS DATA LOGS FROM A 21 SUPERIMPOSED ON THE MAP, UH, SHOWING HIS DRIVING AND THE DIRECTION HE WAS GOING.

YES, THEY ARE.

AND SO WHY DID YOU COMPARE THE MAP TO THE GPS DATA LOG? JUST TO PROVE THAT HE WAS IN THE AREA? I TRIED JUST AS HARD TO PROVE IT TRUE AS UNTRUE.

AND IN THIS CASE, IT PROVED IT TRUE THAT HE WAS DRIVING IN THE DIRECTION OF THE INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED IN YES.

CURB.

SO WHEN AN ALLEGATION COMES IN, YOU DON'T NECESSARILY BELIEVE EVERYTHING HE TOLD YOU? NO.

YOU LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS ACTUALLY THERE.

ABSOLUTELY.

DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION, I SEE.

UH, 0.1 TO 0.2 ON THIS MAP IT SAYS ONE MILE AND TWO UNITS.

UH, HOW DID YOU CALCULATE HIS SPEED? UM, I USUALLY CALCULATE SPEED BY DOING SPEED EQUALS DISTANCE DIVIDED BY TIME.

WHAT DID YOU KNOW? UM, THAT HE TRAVELED ONE MILE.

AND YOU KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE MEASURED IT.

YEP, WE MEASURED IT.

WHAT ELSE DID YOU KNOW? UM, THAT HE DID IT IN TWO MINUTES AND THAT HE WAS DRIVING 30 MILES PER HOUR.

OKAY.

SO WE KNOW THERE'S 60 MINUTES IN AN HOUR, CORRECT? CORRECT.

DID YOU CONVERT MINUTES TO HOURS BY DIVIDING TWO MINUTES BY 60 MINUTES? YES.

AND DID THAT COME UP WITH 0.03333 HOURS? UH, NO.

IT CAME UP WITH 0.03333 HOURS, 0.03333? CORRECT.

DID YOU DIVIDE THE DISTANCE OF ONE MILE THAT HE TRAVELED BY THE TIME THAT HE DID IT IN 0.03333 OF AN HOUR? CORRECT.

AND THAT'S WHERE YOU GOT YOUR 30? YES'.

SO WHEN YOU SAY HE IS GOING 30 MILES AN HOUR, THAT'S THE METHODOLOGY THAT YOU USE TO CALCULATE THE SPEED? YES, IT IS.

DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE, UH, 0.2 TO 0.3, DID YOU USE THE SAME METHODOLOGY IN CALCULATING THE SPEED THERE? I DID.

AND SO HOW FAR DID HE TRAVEL? UM, HE TRAVELED 1.2 MILES AND YOU KNOW THAT CAUSE OF WHAT I MEASURED IT, AND HE DID THAT IN TWO MINUTES.

AND IS THAT BECAUSE GPS SHOWS TWO MINUTES? YES.

IT'S SO DID YOU COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT GPS WAS CHECKING IN EVERY TWO MINUTES? BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT 8 21 AT THE TOP, IT'S EXACTLY TWO MINUTES SEGMENTS.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

SO, UH, YOU KNOW THERE'S 60 MINUTES, AN HOUR? YES.

DID YOU CONVERT MINUTES, HOURS BY DIVIDING TWO MINUTES BY 50 MINUTES? YES, I DID.

AND YOU CAME UP THE SAME NUMBER, 0.03323? CORRECT.

DID YOU DIVIDE THE DISTANCE OF HIS TRAVEL 1.2 MILES BY THE TIME THAT HE DID IT IN? YES.

AND WHAT NUMBER DID YOU COME UP WITH? 36 MILES PER HOUR.

DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE TWO, SAME EXHIBIT 0.3 TO 0.4, DID YOU USE THE SAME METHODOLOGY TO CALCULATE HIS SPEED FROM 0.3 TO 0.4? YES, I DID.

OKAY.

DID YOU HAVE ANY OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT