[00:00:01]
[Ethics Advisory Commission on August 21, 2023.]
UH, TWO 14 ON AUGUST 21ST, UH, 2023.THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION WILL, UH, CONVENE THE AD HOC, THE AD HOC COMMITTEE OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION.
UM, MEMBERS PRESENT TODAY, THOMAS PERKINS, THE CHAIR.
WILL THE MEMBERS, UH, STATE THEIR PRESENCE PLEASE? FOR THE RECORD? CHAD NASSAU.
GRANT SCHMIDT, AGAIN, I'M VERY SORRY FOR MY TARDINESS.
HOWARD RUBIN AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
BEAVERS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
LAURA MORRISON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE GENERAL COUNSEL, ME, LAVA MARTINEZ CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
DONNA BROWN CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
I THINK EVERYONE HAS ANNOUNCED THEIR PRESENCE, AND WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, AND I THINK WE'RE READY TO PROCEED.
UM, I GUESS TODAY'S GOAL, UH, MS. MORRISON, IS TO AT LEAST WORK THROUGH THE, THE PERMANENT, UH, CITY COUNCIL.
I MEAN, UM, UH, E A C RULES OF PROCEDURE.
UH, IT IS INTERESTING, FOUR OF THE FIVE MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC COMMISSION PARTICIPATED IN THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
SO THAT CAN MAYBE BE HELPFUL TO INFORM US AS WE KIND OF GO THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY GONE THROUGH THIS BEFORE.
SO, UM, MS. MORRISON, I'M GOING TO TURN THIS OVER TO YOU THEN, IF THAT'S OKAY? YES.
I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND READ IN OUR ONE AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS AMENDMENTS TO THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION.
UM, AS Y'ALL KNOW, WE'VE HAD SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 12 A OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE.
UM, YOU KNOW, SINCE DECEMBER, 2001, WE'VE CREATED, UM, THE CITY COUNCIL HAS CREATED A DIVISION OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
WE HAVE COMPLETELY REVAMPED OUR, UM, HEARING PROCEDURES, UM, IN THE CODE.
AND SO OUR OLD RULES OF PROCEDURE, I SAY, ARE, UM, I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE MYSELF A COMMISSIONER.
THE EACS, UM, OLD RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE DEFUNCT AND NEED TO BE REWRITTEN, UM, FOR THE MOST PART.
UM, SO THAT'S THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF RIGHT NOW.
AND JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THE PUBLIC'S INFORMATION, UM, THIS AD HOC COMMITTEE WAS CREATED BY, UH, CHAIR TIMOTHY POWERS.
HE'S THE CHAIR OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION.
UM, THOUGHT IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO HAVE AN AD HOC COMMITTEE, UM, THAT'S SMALLER IN NUMBER THAN 15.
UM, SO WE HAVE FIVE MEMBERS, UM, TO WORK AS KIND OF A WORKSHOP TO GO THROUGH THE RULES OF PROCEDURE TO BRING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE FULL ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION FOR THEIR APPROVAL, HOPEFULLY LATER, UH, THIS YEAR.
UM, SO I THOUGHT WE, I DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION, UM, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT I WAS ABLE TO DISTRIBUTE A DRAFT OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE AMENDED RULES AHEAD OF TIME TO THE MEMBERS.
AND SO I THOUGHT WE WOULD JUST GO THROUGH SECTION BY SECTION, UM, AND TALK ABOUT THE CHANGES.
AND PLEASE FEEL FREE TO JUMP IN AT ANY TIME, ASK QUESTIONS, GIVE ANY, UM, SUGGESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
UM, BART BEAVERS IS HERE, OUR INSPECTOR GENERAL.
UM, IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO ASK FOR HIS FEEDBACK AS WELL.
MR. BEAVERS, PLEASE, UM, ALSO JUMP IN IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT ANY OF THE SECTIONS WE GO OVER TODAY.
WE'LL, PROBABLY, WE PROBABLY WON'T, UH, BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH THE WHOLE THING.
SO I IMAGINE WE'LL HAVE AT LEAST ONE OTHER MEETING, UM, MAYBE TWO MORE IF WE NEED THEM.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED, UNLESS ANYONE ELSE HAS ANY, UM, ANY OTHER PRELIMINARY COMMENTS.
SO WE WILL START WITH SECTION ONE, UH, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH THE JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF THE E A C.
UM, WE, WE JUST ADDED UNDER 1.1 THAT THE COMMISSION ACQUIRES JURISDICTION OVER AN ETHICS CASE WHEN
[00:05:01]
THE IG FILED.AND THAT'S GONNA BE AT THE POINT WHEN THE IG FILES THE INFORMATION WITH THE CITY SECRETARY, AND SHE DISTRIBUTES THAT TO THE COMMISSION.
WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR, UM, THAT THAT REALLY FALLS OUTSIDE OF THE EACS JURISDICTION.
UM, DURING THE TIME WHEN THE IG IS RECEIVING TIPS AND COMPLAINTS AND INVESTIGATING THOSE, THAT'S, UM, NOT GONNA BE A TIME FOR THE E A C TO BE INVOLVED.
IT'LL ONLY BE, YOU KNOW, ONCE THOSE HEARINGS ARE SCHEDULED, UM, AND YOU'VE GOT THE INFORMATION TO REVIEW.
AND THEN CAN, CAN I ASK SOMETHING REAL QUICK? IS THERE, SO IS THERE NO WORLD WHERE THERE COULD BE SOME SORT OF ETHICAL ISSUE THAT HAS NOT, UM, GONE THROUGH THE IG THAT WE WOULD NOT GOVERN? I'M SORRY.
LET, LET ME, LET ME WORD IT THIS WAY.
IS THERE ANY SCENARIO WHERE WE WOULD HAVE SOME INVOLVEMENT IF IT HAS NOT YET GONE THROUGH? LIKE, WHAT IF THERE WAS MR. BEAVERS, DON'T BE OFFENDED BY THIS.
WHAT IF THERE WAS LIKE A QUESTION ABOUT MR. BEAVER'S INVOLVEMENT IN SOMETHING, LIKE HOW WOULD WE NAVIGATE THAT? UM, HE'D PROBABLY CALL ME AND ASK ME THAT QUESTION.
AND THEN I'D PROBABLY ESCALATE THAT UP, UH, TO THE INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY, UH, TO SEE HOW WE WOULD HANDLE THAT.
BECAUSE, UH, CHAPTER 12 A NOW DOES SAY THAT, UM, THE I G UM, IS NOT GOING TO BE INVESTIGATING HIMSELF OR ANY OF HIS STAFF.
WE WOULD CONTRACT, UM, WITH AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY, OUTSIDE INVESTIGATORS TO LOOK INTO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BUT YES, I MEAN, YOU WOULD BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY.
AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S SOMETHING, UM, BOARD YOU, Y'ALL ARE BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS, UH, BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS CAN GET WITH THE IG, UM, TO, YOU KNOW, PHONE IN A TIP TO REPORT A TIP, TO FILE A COMPLAINT, IF YOU DO KNOW OF SOMETHING HAPPENING AT THE CITY, JUST AS ANY CITY EMPLOYEE COULD, UM, THAT, THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING Y'ALL COULD DO.
'CAUSE IT DOES MENTION, OH YEAH, YOUR MIC IS ON.
NO, IT'S NOT VERY CLOSE TO IT.
UM, IT, YOU KNOW, I NOTED THROUGH THE REST OF IT, WE, WE TRANSITION OVER FROM A COMPLAINT TO AN INFORMATION, BECAUSE WHEN THE IG IS BRINGING SOMETHING TO US, IT'S THROUGH AN INFORMATION.
1.1 TALKS ABOUT WHEN A COMPLAINT IS FILED FOR PURPOSES OF, OF LIMITATIONS.
IS THAT TALKING ABOUT LIKE, WHEN A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC RAISES SOMETHING WITH THE IGS OFFICE, THAT'S WHAT STOPS THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE SORT OF CLEAR ON THAT SINCE WE DON'T, WE DON'T USE THE WORD COMPLAINT MUCH IN OUR RULES.
UM, THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION BECAUSE WE'VE KIND OF GOTTEN RID OF SECTION THREE FOR THE MOST PART THAT TALKS ABOUT COMPLAINTS.
I'M JUST LOOKING IN CHAPTER 12 A TO SEE WHAT OUR, UM, LANGUAGE IS FOR THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
SO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS SECTION IS, UH, 12 A DASH 50, SUBSECTION B, THE COMMISSION MAY NOT CONSIDER ANY ALLEGED OR SUSPECTED VIOLATION THAT OCCURRED MORE THAN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE OF FILING OF A COMPLAINT, OR MORE THAN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE INITIATION OF AN INVESTIGATION.
SO IT REALLY, IT'S NOT AN INFORMATION, IT'S WHEN A COMPLAINT COMES INTO THE IGS OFFICE.
BECAUSE IN SOME CASES, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE THAT THE IG DIVISION RECEIVES A TIP OR COMPLAINT, AND IT COULD TAKE A YEAR TO INVESTIGATE.
SO WE WOULDN'T WANT, YOU KNOW, THAT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TOLLING IN THE, THE MIDDLE OF THE INVESTIGATION, AND THEN THEY HAVE TO JUST GIVE UP.
SO, YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE.
I GUESS THAT COMPLAINT DOESN'T HAVE, AND I WAS TRYING TO PULL UP THE ORDINANCE AND I COULDN'T GET IT TO, UM, COMPLAINT DIDN'T HAVE SOME DEFINED MEANING THAT IT'S GOTTA BE ON A FORM OR SOMETHING.
I'M JUST GONNA MAKE MYSELF A NOTE OKAY.
TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THAT SENTENCE TO SEE IF I CAN TIGHTEN IT UP TO MAKE IT MIRROR, UH, THE 12 A LANGUAGE ON THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
UH, MAYBE I, I'VE LIVED IN OF, UH, MY TERMS TOO LONG, BUT WHY IS, WHAT ARE ALL THESE TERMS, UH, IN, UH, SMALL LETTERS? NOTHING'S IZED.
THAT'S JUST KIND OF A FORM ISSUE.
WHAT, WHAT TERMS ARE YOU REFERRING TO? WELL, THAT THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION AND COMMISSION IN THE
[00:10:01]
QUOTATION MARKS.I JUST WONDERED WHY THE, THERE'S NO CAPITALIZATION OF COMMISSION.
OH, THAT'S, UM, THAT'S JUST A STYLISTIC STANDARD AT THE CITY OF DALLAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY CODE.
WE USUALLY DON'T, UM, WE DON'T CAPITALIZE FOR WHATEVER REASON, LIKE CITY PLAN, COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, IT'S ALL LOWERCASE.
THAT, THAT'S, I MEAN, I LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE A LOT OF THAT IS CAPITALIZED.
SO, UH, UH, ALSO YOU SENT US THE, UH, UH, UH, THE APPEAL.
I, I GUESS IT WAS THE, UH, CIVIL SERVICE APPEALS, UH, DOCUMENT, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS VERY HELPFUL.
UH, SHOULD THERE BE, UH, SHOULD THERE BE A SECTION RELATING TO DEFINITIONS? UM, I MEAN, IF THERE'S A TERM IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT WE FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO DEFINE, WE COULD ADD THAT.
BUT THE DEFINITIONS IN CHAPTER 12 A WILL BE THE DEFINITIONS, UM, THAT WE USE FOR ANY TERMS, UH, IN THESE RULES.
LAURA, UM, COULD, WHEN YOU'RE ASKING A QUESTION, COULD YOU PLEASE CITE THE SECTION AND THE, AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD HELP US SO THAT WE CAN FIND IT QUICKLY? BECAUSE I'M, YOU KNOW, GET A LITTLE LOST IF WE, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 1.2 OR WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 2.6, SO IT WOULD BE EASIER, I THINK, FOR ME, I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYBODY ELSE FEELS.
IF YOU COULD JUST CITE THE, THE, THE PLACE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IN THE PAPER WORKS, ALTHOUGH WOULD BE, I'M NOT LOOKING AT ANY, I'M NOT LOOKING AT ANYTHING RIGHT NOW.
I I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE, UH, OKAY.
UH, APPEALS TO THE, UH, TRIAL AWARD THAT LAURA HAD SENT US, AND, UM, JUST WONDERED WHY THERE WEREN'T DEFINITIONS.
BUT THE EXPLANATION THAT THERE ARE DEFINITIONS IN THE CITY CODE SECTION WAS SUFFICIENT FOR ME.
I JUST WONDER IS IF, IF WE, UH, RELATE SOMEWHERE IN HERE TO, UH, WELL, WE DO, AT THE, AT THE VERY BEGINNING, WE, IT DISCUSSES, UH, RULES LISTED IN THE, UH, UH, DALLAS CITY CODE CHAPTER.
BUT, SO I GUESS WE'RE OKAY ON THAT.
UH, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THIS, WE MAY NOT EVEN HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THIS, UH, TODAY, BUT FOR INSTANCE, UH, IN, IN THE DISCUSSION OF, UH, VEXATIOUS, UH, COMPLAINTS, I WILL START OFF A LITTLE BIT BEING A DEFINITION OF WHAT A VEXATIOUS
AND WE HAVE A LOT OF DEFINED TERMS LISTED IN CHAPTER, UH, 12 A.
I MEAN, WE COULD ADD, UM, A SECTION THAT JUST SAYS THAT THE DEFINED TERMS CAN BE FOUND IN SECTION 12 A DASH, I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT IS.
2 4 12 A DASH FOUR, I THINK IS WHERE OUR DEFINED TERMS ARE.
SO IS VOUS DEFINED IN THOSE TERMS? I MEAN, 'CAUSE THAT WAS A QUESTION I HAD.
IT'S DEFINED IN 12 A WHERE WE TALK, IT IS DEFINED IN 12 A.
WHERE WE SAYING TALK ABOUT THE VEXATIOUS COMPLAINANT.
'CAUSE IT INCLUDES LIKE THE CRITERIA THAT YOU LOOK AT TO DETERMINE, 'CAUSE AT FIRST WHEN I READ THE RULES, IT WAS LIKE, WELL, WHAT IS IT? OKAY, BUT HOW DO WE KNOW? BUT IT'S ALL, IT'S ALL IN THERE.
WE DON'T, WOULD IT BE HELPFUL? IT'S NOT SO MUCH A DEFINED TERM BECAUSE THE COMMISSION DETERMINES WHO IS A VEXATIOUS COMPLAINANT BASED ON THE, THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO YOU AND THE CRITERIA, YOU HAVE TO EVALUATE THAT EVIDENCE.
SO, WELL, I'M JUST WONDERING FOR THE PUBLIC'S SAKE, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY EVER GET TO SEE THIS, BUT, UM, IF WE PUT, UH, SOMETHING IN PARENTHESES THAT SAID, UM, EXPLANATION, YOU KNOW, OR WELL, YOU'LL NOTICE AT THE END OF A LOT OF THE SECTIONS, YEAH, THERE'S A CITATION.
TO LIKE, WHERE, LIKE, WHERE DID WE GET THIS? THAT'S FINE.
I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THOSE.
IT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING I'LL JUST DO AT THE END.
BECAUSE AS I MOVE STUFF AROUND, I'LL HAVE TO KEEP CHANGING THEM.
[00:15:01]
A GOOD, YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF LIKE A KEY.WHERE, WHERE, WHERE DID WE GET POWERS AND DUTIES HERE? WILL YOU GO TO THAT SECTION IN 12 A? THAT'S RIGHT UNDER, UM, UH, SECTION 1.1, AND THEN YOU CAN READ MORE ABOUT IT IF YOU WANT MORE CODE LANGUAGE.
UM, THE POWERS OF THE E A C ARE LISTED HERE, AND THOSE ARE STRAIGHT OUT OF, UM, CHAPTER 12 A.
SO THEY'VE JUST BEEN, UM, UPDATED, AND I'LL GO THROUGH THEM ONE MORE TIME TO MAKE, JUST TO MAKE SURE THEY SPECIFICALLY MIRROR WHAT'S IN THERE.
I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THIS, AND I DON'T WANNA MAKE MORE WORK, BUT DO WE NEED TO REPEAT THEM HERE? DO WE REALLY NEED A RULE THAT SAYS WHAT OUR POWERS ARE IF WE'RE JUST QUOTING EXACTLY WHAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE? NOPE.
I MEAN, RATHER THAN, I MEAN, HAVING A RULE THAT WE NEED TO UPDATE EVERY TIME THEY MESS WITH THE ORDINANCE.
I MEAN, IT'S SORT OF LIKE GOING THROUGH DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA AND STUFF.
IF WE'RE JUST REPEATING, IS IT NECESSARY? IT'S, IT'S NOT HISTORICALLY.
UM, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN IN THERE, BUT IT'S COMPLETELY UP TO THE COMMISSION.
IF YOU THINK IT'S REDUNDANT, UM, WE COULD TAKE IT OUT.
UM, BECAUSE YOU, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY CODE.
SO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE CANNOT CONFLICT WITH THE CITY CODE BECAUSE THE CITY CODE IS ADOPTED, UM, BY COUNCIL VIA ORDINANCE.
UM, SO THE RULES CAN'T CONFLICT.
THEY CAN CLARIFY, THEY CAN EXPOUND.
UM, ONCE WE GET TO THE HEARING PROCEDURES, YOU'LL SEE, LIKE WE'VE PUT A LOT IN THERE THAT KINDA ADDS TO, BUT IT DOESN'T CON CONTRADICT ANYTHING IN 12 A.
SO, NO, I MEAN, THIS COULD BE TAKEN OUT COMPLETELY IF Y'ALL THINK, UM, YOU WANNA DO THAT.
I THINK THAT THE, IT, IT MAKES IT EASIER IF SOMEBODY IS, YOU KNOW, WHY WOULD WE, WHY WOULD WE DO A SECTION, A JURISDICTION OF POWERS AND NOT ITEMIZE THE POWERS? YEAH.
I WOULD JUST, AND THEN IF, AND WOULD IT BE THE SAME AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES? I'M ASSUMING THAT'S ALSO IN THE, I MEAN, I KIND OF QUESTIONED ON 1.2 AND 1.3, WHETHER WE NEED EITHER OF THOSE.
I THINK, I THINK FOR TRANSPARENCY'S SAKE, I THINK YOU SHOULD, WE SHOULD LEAVE THEM.
BUT I THINK 1.3, YOU KNOW, I DID ADD SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT HOW THE CHAIR CAN APPOINT AN AD HOC RULES COMMITTEE.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT NECESSARY.
WE DID IT NOW WITHOUT HAVING THAT IN THERE.
BUT IT'S, IT'S NICE TO SHOW THE CHAIR, LOOK, YES, YOU CAN DO THIS, AND I HAVE SOMETHING TO POINT TO.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE COULD TAKE THAT OUT.
IT JUST OCCURRED TO ME, THERE'S A FEW PLACES IN HERE WHERE IT'S LIKE, WELL, WE'RE JUST SAYING, WE'RE JUST REPEATING WHAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE.
IF YOU REALLY WANT TO SIMPLIFY THE DOCUMENT, THERE'S PROBABLY A LOT THAT COULD BE REMOVED.
HOWEVER THE COMMITTEE FEELS ON THAT.
YOU KNOW, I, I, I DON'T WANNA GET ANY, ANY DISC PROLONGED DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS.
I'LL DEFER TO THE OF, OF COURSE, TO THE COMMISSION MEMBERS.
I MEAN, THE AD HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
UH, BUT I THINK THE MORE WE PUT IN HERE SO THAT THE CITIZENS ARE FULLY AWARE HERE IT IS, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING TO GO BACK AND LOOK TO THE ETHICS CODE, WHICH I HAVE HERE, AND WHAT IS SECTION 12 A, WHATEVER, THAT IT WILL BE EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO NAVIGATE IT IF IT'S ALL THERE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON, I AGREE WITH YOU.
THIS IS VERY O C D OF ME, BUT ON, UH, PART SEVEN, UH, COUNSELS, MISSPELLED SHOULD BE C O N SS E L.
IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, WE'LL MOVE ON TO SECTION TWO.
UH, SECTION TWO HAS TO DO WITH YOUR, UH, REGULAR AND SPECIAL MEETINGS THAT, UM, ARE NOT ETHICS HEARINGS.
UM, SO NOT A WHOLE LOT WAS CHANGED HERE BECAUSE MOST OF THIS LANGUAGE YOU'LL SEE IN THE CODE SECTIONS, UM, UNDER EACH SECTION.
THIS COMES FROM CHAPTER EIGHT OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE, WHICH IS OUR CHAPTER THAT GOVERNS, UM, ALL CITY BOARD AND COMMISSIONS.
SO A LOT OF THIS IS, UM, JUST STANDARD THROUGHOUT.
IT JUST MIRRORS CHAPTER EIGHT.
UM, BUT IT'S NICE TO HAVE IN HERE, IN MY OPINION, SO THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS COME AND GO, WE CAN GIVE THEM THIS AND THEY HAVE IT.
WE DON'T HAVE TO ALSO SAY, NOW GO ALSO CHECK CHAPTER EIGHT, UM, FOR THE RULES AS WELL, UNDER 2.3 QUORUM.
[00:20:01]
I JUST WONDER WHETHER SOMEONE CAN MISINTERPRET IT WHEN THEY SAY ONE, TWO THIRD LINE DOWN WHEN THERE IS, WHEN THERE ARE PHYSICALLY PRESENT, A SIMPLE MAJORITY.UH, SINCE WE ARE ALLOWING PEOPLE WHO CAN APPEAR VIRTUALLY, SHOULD WE ADD THAT TO THAT? UM, OR DOES EVERYBODY ASSUME THAT PHYSICALLY PRESENT INCLUDES SOMEONE WHO'S HERE? VIRTUALLY? WE'VE BEEN COUNTING, SO CHAPTER EIGHT STILL SAYS PHYSICALLY PRESENT BEFORE, UM, MARCH OF 2020, UM, THE CITY OF DALLAS DIDN'T ALLOW VIRTUAL ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS.
SO THIS IS A REMNANT OF THAT WE CAN DELETE, UM, THE WORD PHYSICALLY.
I WOULDN'T MIND DELETING THAT WORD.
UM, WE HAVE BEEN TREATING VIRTUAL ATTENDANCE AS IF YOU ARE PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THE ROOM.
YOU'RE ON CAMERA, YOUR, YOUR AUDIO AND VIDEO IS RIGHT.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.
I'M JUST SAYING IF IT'S NOT IN THE ORDINANCE, THEN WE CAN'T INCLUDE IT HERE.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU SAID THAT WE HAVE NOT, IT'S NOT INCLUDED.
THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES PHYSICALLY PRESENT.
SO OUR RULES CAN'T RELAX THAT REQUIREMENT.
BUT WE, BUT WE COULD TAKE THE WORD PHYSICALLY, BUT THE RULES CAN CLARIFY IT.
WE JUST, WE HAVEN'T CLARIFIED IT YET IN CHAPTER EIGHT, BUT WE CAN CLARIFY IT HERE, UM, TO REFLECT THE PRACTICE WE CAN GET RID OF.
WE CAN CROSS OUT PHYSICALLY'S.
SO WE'LL TAKE OUT PHYSICALLY, CORRECT.
I WILL, UH, ADD A STRIKE THROUGH THERE.
UM, WE CHANGED CITIZEN SPEAKERS TO PUBLIC SPEAKERS.
THE CITY OF DALLAS, UM, HAS BEEN WANTING TO MAKE THIS CHANGE, UH, THROUGHOUT RULES OF PROCEDURE THROUGHOUT THE CITY CODE.
UH, WE WANT EVERYONE, UH, EVERY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO FEEL LIKE THEY CAN COME TO CITY HALL, UM, TO SPEAK, NOT JUST PEOPLE WHO ARE, UM, CITIZENS.
AND THEN I, I CHANGED, UM, JUST SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THERE TO CLEAN IT UP A LITTLE BIT, UM, TO REFLECT WHAT CHAPTER EIGHT SAYS.
UH, GOING ON TO SECTION THREE, WHICH I HAVE LARGELY, UM, STRUCK THROUGH BECAUSE THIS ENTIRE SECTION IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF HOW, YOU KNOW, IT JUST DOESN'T REALLY APPLY, UH, TO OUR NEW NEWLY AMENDED CHAPTER 12 A.
THIS WAS, YOU KNOW, THE FILING OF COMPLAINTS, WHICH I'VE JUST TAKEN OUT COMPLETELY, BECAUSE NOW THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINTS GO THROUGH, UM, MR. BEAVER'S OFFICE.
UM, AND THESE ARE THE EACS RULES OF PROCEDURE.
SO I DIDN'T WANT ANY OF THE IGS PROCEDURES TO BE IN YOUR PROCEDURES.
UM, SO YEAH, A LOT OF THAT IS COMING OUT.
UM, PLEASE IGNORE THE FACT THAT NOW WE DON'T HAVE A SECTION THREE, AND IT JUST GOES TO SECTION FOUR.
I WILL RENUMBER EVERYTHING AT THE END.
IT'S JUST, YOU LEARN AFTER YEARS OF, UM, ORDINANCE DRAFTING THAT YOU RENUMBER AT THE END, OTHERWISE YOU'RE RENUMBERING EVERY DAY.
SO, UM, I HAVE A SECTION IN HERE ABOUT SETTLEMENT APPROVALS.
UM, HOW CAN I MAKE IT RIGHT? AND, YOU KNOW, IF THE IG, UM, SAYS, YEAH, LET'S COME TO SOME KIND OF AGREEMENT HERE, AND ALL PARTIES, UM, ARE IN AGREEMENT, THAT'LL COME TO THE FULL E A C, UM, TO GIVE A STAMP OF APPROVAL TO THAT SETTLEMENT.
UM, SO THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE ABOUT THAT.
QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THAT ONE.
UM, I SAW THAT IT ONLY APPLIES FOR AN AGREEMENT WITH THE RESPONDENT WHO IS NOT A CURRENT CITY EMPLOYEE.
I ASSUME THAT MEANS BECAUSE IF THEY ARE A CURRENT CITY EMPLOYEE, WELL, LET ME JUST ASK THAT QUESTION THEN.
SO WHAT HAPPENS IF IT'S A CURRENT CITY EMPLOYEE? CAN THERE BE A SETTLEMENT THERE OR A CITY OFFICIAL, EITHER CURRENT OR FORMER? WHY, WHY DON'T THOSE GET ADDRESSED HERE? UM, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
THAT WAS A CHANGE MADE IN 12 A AT THE REQUEST OF SOME OF OUR EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS.
AND I FORGOT
[00:25:01]
CAN'T OR SHOULDN'T BE ENTERING INTO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS? SOMETHING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, OUR PERSONNEL RULES SAY THAT YOU REPORT TO YOUR SUPERVISOR AND YOUR MANAGER AND THE CITY MANAGER.AND DO YOU WANNA EXPLAIN? YEAH, I, I, AS I RECALL, WE CAN'T TAKE THE ETHICS CODE AND RUN OFF INTO THE CORNER AND READ IT BY ITSELF.
WE HAVE TO READ IT IN LIGHT OF OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT ARE AT PLAY, MORE SPECIFICALLY THE PERSONNEL ROLES AND THE CITY CHARTER MM-HMM.
SO WHAT, WHATEVER GOES INTO THE ETHICS CODE THIS WAY THAT I RECALL IT BEING HEARD WAS, WE HAVE TO READ THIS IN LIGHT OF THESE OTHER DOCUMENTS.
WE CAN'T PUT LANGUAGE IN THE ETHICS ORDINANCE THAT NULLIFIES SOMETHING IN THE CITY CHARTER, OR WE CAN'T PUT LANGUAGE IN THE ETHICS ORDINANCE THAT NULLIFIES WHAT'S IN THE PERSONNEL CODE.
AND SO READING THEM ALL TOGETHER, UM, I BELIEVE THAT THE EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS HAD SAID, YOU KNOW, GEE, IT'S KIND OF DANGEROUS GROUND IF YOU'RE PLEA BARGAINING AND ENTERING INTO SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES WITH EMPLOYEES, BECAUSE THAT KIND OF FLIES IN THE FACE OF EXISTING PROVISIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS.
AND IF YOU'LL RECALL IN CHAPTER 12, A, IF IT IS, IF THE RESPONDENT IS A CURRENT CITY EMPLOYEE, THERE ARE REALLY ONLY, YOU KNOW, IT SAYS IF A VIOLA, IF THE E A C PANEL FINDS THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED, THEN YOU RECOMMEND A SANCTION.
AND THE SANCTION HAS TO BE WHATEVER THAT DEPARTMENT MANAGER SUPERVISOR DEEMS APPROPRIATE YOU JUST, AND THAT'S A PERSONNEL MATTER.
AND THEN THERE ARE ONLY FOUR ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS THAT THE, THE PANEL CAN RECOMMEND ON TOP OF LEAVING IT UP TO THE DEPARTMENT TO HANDLE.
UM, AND THAT'S LIKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR ETHICS TRAINING, YOU KNOW, REFERRAL FOR DAMAGES, REFERRAL FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
I THINK THERE'S ONE OTHER THING.
UM, SO THERE'S, WHEN IT COMES TO CURRENT CITY EMPLOYEES, YOU CAN FIND THAT A VIOLATION OCCURRED AND THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO JUST SEND IT TO THE DEPARTMENT TO HANDLE AS A PERSONNEL MATTER.
AND THEN THERE ARE REALLY ONLY FOUR ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS THAT YOU COULD POSSIBLY RECOMMEND.
AND THAT EVEN THEN, IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION TO, YOU KNOW, THE CITY MANAGER OR WHOEVER IS YES.
I HAVE A QUESTION WHICH, UM, IF A PERSON IS NOT A CURRENT CITY EMPLOYEE, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT HE WAS NOT A PRIOR EMPLOYEE OR THAT HE EVER WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY.
SO IS THIS CLEAR ENOUGH? BECAUSE IT SAYS A RESPONDENT WHO IS NOT A CURRENT CITY EMPLOYEE, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY WERE A PRIOR CITY EMPLOYEE THERE.
IF YOU READ IT IN AS A LAY PERSON, MAYBE LEGALLY IT'S A, IT MEANS THAT, BUT TO ME AS NOT BEING A LAWYER, I'M LOOKING AT IT AND SAYING, WELL, BUT WAS HE A PRIOR CITY EMPLOYEE OR HE'S HE JUST SOMEBODY WHO CAME IN FROM OFF THE STREET AND RIGHT.
SO IF HE WAS A FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE, HE COULD ENTER INTO HE OR SHE, UH MM-HMM.
IT WOULD ONLY BE CURRENT CURRENT EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY.
ANY ANYONE ELSE CAN HAVE A SETTLEMENT.
AND IT, THAT WAS CONFUSING TO ME TOO.
SO INCLUDING A CURRENT CITY OFFICIAL OR A FORMER CITY OFFICIAL, CURRENT CITY OFFICIAL, WE HAVE SETTLEMENT THIS ONLY, THIS ONLY EXCLUDES THE, WE, THE ONLY PEOPLE WE CANNOT HAVE A SETTLEMENT WITH IS A CURRENT CITY EMPLOYEE.
ANYBODY ELSE UNDER OUR JURISDICTION, WHICH IS REALLY JUST FORMER CITY EMPLOYEES.
AND CURRENT AND FORMER CITY OFFICIALS.
PE-PEOPLE DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY, FORMER CITY EMPLOYEES, CURRENT CITY OFFICIALS, AND FORMER CITY OFFICIALS.
THEY, ANYBODY ELSE SUBJECT TO THE CODE OF ETHICS, THEY COULD ALL ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE IG, UH, FOR A SETTLEMENT, AND THEN THAT WOULD COME TO YOU.
UM, AND THEN THE FULL COMMISSION CAN APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT, REJECT THE SETTLEMENT, OR MODIFY IT, AND THEN IF, IF THE COMMISSION REJECTS IT OR MODIFIES IT, UM, A HEARING, THEN A, A FULL HEARING CAN BE SCHEDULED IF THE, UH, RESPONDENT REJECTS, UH, YOUR MODIFICATION AND THEY DON'T LIKE THAT.
THEY WOULD JUST BE SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING DURING THE NORMAL COURSE.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS REJECTED BY SIX SECONDS OF THE CONVENTION AS OPPOSED THREE QUARTER? I I'M SORRY.
IS IT DEEP? I'M HAVING TROUBLE HEARING YOU.
CAN YOU MAYBE GET A LITTLE, SORRY, CLOSE TO YOUR, WELL, HAD A, I HAD A BOOK ON THE TOP OF MY, UH, MICROPHONE.
[00:30:01]
UH, WHAT HAPPENS IF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS REJECTED BY ONLY 60% OF THE COMMISSION AS OPPOSED TO THREE QUARTERS? MY, MY READ OF IT AS WRITTEN IS THAT IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY THEN BE APPROVED BY DEFAULT, SO THAT IT LOOKS LIKE IT TAKES THREE QUARTERS TO REJECT OR MODIFY.IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO AFFIRMATIVELY APPROVE A SETTLEMENT, WE CAN WITH A MAJORITY VOTE, BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE A MAJORITY VOTE, IT GETS APPROVED ANYWAY.
IT'S SORT OF LIKE SOMETHING, SOMETHING GETTING PA UH, LEGISLATION BEING, YOU KNOW, ENACTED WITHOUT THE GOVERNOR'S SIGNATURE.
THAT, IS THAT THE INTENT? YES.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE TO ME.
THE, THE, THE BURDEN ON THE COMMISSION WOULD BE TO NOT DO WHAT THE I WHAT THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO DO.
BY SIMPLE MAJORITY, OR IF JUST THERE'S JUST NO CONSENSUS AT ALL, THEN IT GOES THROUGH.
AND MAYBE I COULD TIGHTEN THAT UP TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR TOO.
SO IT IS JUST BASICALLY THAT IT'S THAT IT'S DEEMED APPROVED.
UNLESS YOU GET A THREE QUARTER VOTE TO MODIFY OR REJECT THE SETTLEMENT.
ANY OTHER, UH, QUESTIONS OR FEEDBACK ON SETTLEMENTS? I, UM, OKAY.
AND NOW WE GET TO THE REAL MEAT OF THE RULES, WHICH, UH, IS THE EXCITING PART, THE EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS.
UM, SO WE HAVE IN THE BEGINNING THAT THE WHOLE PROCESS IS KICKED OFF BY THE IG FILING AND INFORMATION, UM, THAT GOES TO THE CITY SECRETARY AND THEN TO THE, UM, COMMISSION PANEL.
UM, AND THE COMMISSION PANEL IS, UM, ASSIGNED BY THE CITY SECRETARY, UH, RANDOMLY WITH, UH, THE CHAIR MEETING ONE OF THE SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS AND AT LEAST ONE OTHER MEMBER OF THE PANEL, UH, MEETING A SPECIAL QUALIFICATION.
WE CAN'T, UH, CHANGE THAT HERE.
AND I, YOU KNOW, I, I, I TALKED TO THE IG ABOUT THIS, UM, QUITE A BIT.
UM, AND WE HAD SOME DIFFERENT IDEAS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN A HEARING SHOULD BE SCHEDULED AFTER, UM, AN INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE KIND OF LANDED ON WE TO GIVE THE OTHER PARTY SUFFICIENT TIME TO PREPARE A DEFENSE.
WE REALLY DON'T WANT THE, WE WANT THE HEARING SCHEDULED IN A TIMELY MANNER BECAUSE WE WANNA KEEP THINGS MOVING ALONG HERE AT THE CITY, BUT WE, WE REALLY DON'T WANT IT SCHEDULED ANY EARLIER THAN 30 DAYS OF THEM RECEIVING THE INFORMATION, BECAUSE OTHERWISE, HOW ARE THEY GONNA, YOU KNOW, THEY NEED HIGH TIME TO HIRE.
THERE'S NO TIME TO PREPARE YEAH.
AN ATTORNEY, UM, TO REVIEW THE IGS ALLEGATIONS VERY CAREFULLY, TO GET THEIR WITNESSES SQUARED AWAY AND PREPARED FOR, TO GIVE THEIR TESTIMONY, UM, TO FILE A RESPONSE IF THEY WANT TO FILE A RESPONSE.
UM, YOU KNOW, SO, AND I, I, I JUST NOTICED TODAY IN READING THIS, THE CITY SECRETARY SHALL SCHEDULE AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING A MINIMUM OF 30 DAYS.
I'M GONNA CLEAN THAT UP A LITTLE BIT.
THE INTENT IS THAT THE HEARING WON'T HAPPEN WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS.
NOT THAT SHE'S GOT 30 DAYS TO SCHEDULE IT.
WE WANT HER TO SCHEDULE IT KIND OF, UM, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE FOR THE HEARING NOT TO BE HELD, UM, FOR THE NEXT 30 DAYS.
SO I'LL CLEAN THAT UP A LITTLE BIT TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR.
BUT, UM, ANY FEEDBACK, UM, ON THAT? SOME, A COUPLE THINGS ON 5.1.
UM, I NOTICED THAT, THAT THERE'S NOT ANYTHING IN HERE, AT LEAST I DIDN'T SEE IT ABOUT WHEN THE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO THE RESPONDENT, THERE'S TALK, YOU KNOW, YOU GET AT LEAST 20 DAYS NOTICE OF THE HEARING, WHICH IS IN 5.3, BUT IT SEEMED LIKE IN 5.1, PERHAPS, OR SOMEWHERE WHEN THE INFORMATION IS FILED WITH THE CITY SECRETARY, SHOULD IT ALSO BE SENT TO THE RESPONDENT? YEAH.
LET'S ASK THE IG UM, MR. BEAVERS, DO YOU SEND THE INFORMATION TO THE RESPONDENT OR DO YOU JUST FILE IT WITH THE CITY SECRETARY AND HAVE THE CITY SECRETARY FORWARD IT TO THE RESPONDENT?
[00:35:01]
UH, MY VISION GOING FORWARD WOULD BE THE FIRST, WELL, FIRST OFF, I GOT A QUESTION WHEN WE WERE TALKING IN 5.2 ABOUT THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING, A MINIMUM OF 30 DAYS AFTER RECEIVING THE INFORMATION.AM I CORRECT TO ASSUME THAT THE MEANING BEHIND THAT IS AT LEAST 30 DAYS OUT? MM-HMM.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, UH, AND I BELIEVE THE QUESTION HAD TO DO WITH EXCHANGE OF DISCOVERY.
UM, WITH, HOW, HOW DOES THE RESPONDENT, THE PERSON WHO'S THE SUBJECT OF THE INFORMATION, HOW DID THEY RECEIVE THE INFORMATION? DOES THAT COME FROM YOU STRAIGHT FROM YOU, OR DOES THAT COME FROM THE CITY SECRETARY AFTER YOU FILE IT WITH THE CITY SECRETARY? I THINK IT'S BOTH.
ONCE WE FILE IT WITH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE, IT'S A PUBLIC RECORD.
SO, UM, BUT JUST OUT AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION AND FAIRNESS, WHEN WE SEND SOMEBODY THE DISCOVERY THAT, THAT THE EVIDENCE THAT WE INTEND TO OFFER AT A HEARING, I WOULD CERTAINLY INCLUDE A COPY OF ANY INFORMATIONS THAT, THAT ARE AT ISSUE IN THE, IN THE CASE THAT WE FILED, OR CASES THAT WE FILED.
AND JUST OUT OF THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE WAY TO DO IT.
I THINK LAST TIME WE ACTUALLY SENT A COPY OF THE INTERIM RULES OF PROCEDURE, SO WE DIDN'T JUST SEND 'EM ALL WHAT WE, WHAT WE HAD TO, WE SENT 'EM THE INFORMATION.
IT'S ALREADY PUBLIC, BUT TO ME IT'S JUST COURTESY TO INCLUDE THAT WITH THE EVIDENCE PACKAGE AS WELL AS THE RULES THAT WERE AT ISSUE, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS EARLY ON.
I THINK THAT'S TOO LATE BECAUSE THE, THE EVIDENCE PACKAGE, I MEAN, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT 5.5, THAT'S SEVEN DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING, THAT'S THE SAME DEADLINE FOR THE RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO THE INFORMATION.
SO IF THE RESPONSE TO THE INFORMATION IS DUE SEVEN DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING, THEY'VE GOTTA HAVE IT AT LEAST, YEAH, I WOULD THINK THIR AT LEAST 30 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING, IF THEY'VE GOT A RESPOND SEVEN DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING, I THINK THINK BECAUSE THEY NEED TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE BEING CHARGED WITH, I THINK TO ASK THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE TO BASICALLY IMMEDIATELY FORWARD, THE INFORMATION MAY WITHIN, I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE WANNA WEIGH IN WITH 24 HOURS ON 5.1.
COULDN'T WE JUST, UM, THE, WITH THE, THE, BY SUBMITTING THE INFORMATION TO THE CITY SECRETARY TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE COMMISSION AND RESPONDENT MM-HMM.
THE OTHER, ANOTHER QUESTION THAT I HAD LOOKING AT THIS GOT ME THINKING ABOUT WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD EARLIER.
SO LIMITATIONS STOPS RUNNING WHEN THE TIP OR WHATEVER COMES INTO THE IGS OFFICE.
IS THERE ANY DEADLINE BY WHICH THE IG HAS TO FINISH AN INVESTIGATION AND BRING IT TO US? OR CAN IT SIT THERE FOREVER? AND, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE COULD BE SOME CONCERN, NOT THAT MR. BEAVERS WOULD DO IT ON PURPOSE, OF COURSE, BUT IF SOMETHING GETS MISPLACED OR SET ASIDE OR WHATEVER, AND TWO YEARS LATER WE'VE GOT SOME, I MEAN, IS COULD THAT HAPPEN OR SHOULD THERE BE SOME TIME LIMIT THERE? UM, IS NO TIME LIMIT.
UM, THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, IF WE WANTED A TIME LIMIT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO BE IN CHAPTER 12 A BECAUSE THAT WOULD SPEAK MORE TO THE IGS PROCESS THAN THE EACS PROCESS.
BUT MR. BEAVERS, DO YOU WANNA WEIGH IN ON, ON THAT? UM, I CAN'T, I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING IN 12 A THAT SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE IG DIVISION HAS TO WRAP UP AN INVESTIGATION WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY LIMITATIONS LIKE THAT.
UM, IF THE CONCERN IS WE WOULD INVESTIGATE SOMETHING AND SIT ON IT FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AND THEN TRY TO FILE IT, UM, I, I CAN'T ENVISION A SITUATION WHERE THAT WOULD OCCUR.
UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA BE MAKING DISPOSITION DECISIONS BASED ON OUR ANALYSIS AND REVIEW OF RECORDS AND THINGS THAT WE EXAMINE, AND THEN GETTING ONTO THE NEXT CASE, IF IT'S, IF IT'S GOOD ENOUGH, WE THINK WE CAN FILE IT, WE'RE GONNA FILE IT.
UM, IF, IF IT'S SOMETHING WHERE IT'S UNFOUNDED OR UNSUBSTANTIATED OR WE HAVE SOME EVIDENTIARY ISSUES OR SOME CREDIBILITY ISSUES WITH ONLY WITNESSES THAT ARE AVAILABLE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'LL MAKE THE PROPER DISPOSITION AND JUST GET ON THE NEXT CASE.
UH, MR. BEAVERS, DO YOU THINK THAT SHOULD BE A TIME WHEN THERE'S SOME CERTAINTY TO WHEN YOU SHOULD WRAP UP YOUR BUSINESS AND MAKE WHATEVER RECOMMENDATIONS YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE? OR IS SHOULD IT BE OPEN-ENDED? LIKE, LIKE I GUESS WHERE WE ARE TODAY? DO YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON THAT?
[00:40:04]
I COULD TELL YOU FROM, FROM BEING IN THE FRAUD INDUSTRY ALMOST 30 YEARS, THERE'S DIFFERENT TIMELINES THAT PEOPLE WORK.UH, I CAN TELL YOU THAT WHEN I WAS A PROSECUTOR WITH THE DALLAS DA'S OFFICE IN THE SPECIALIZED CRIME DIVISION, WE HANDLED ALL THE FRAUD, UH, STUFF THAT THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATED.
AND IT WAS NOT UNUSUAL FOR THEM TO PICK UP A CASE AND WORK IT IN THREE TO FOUR MONTHS, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES SIX MONTHS OR WHATEVER.
UM, I CAN TELL YOU EVERY CASE THAT I HANDLED WITH THE SECRET SERVICE WERE FORGERY CASES INVOLVING COUNTERFEIT MONEY.
THOSE WERE AT LEAST, AT LEAST SIX TO 12 MONTHS.
AND, UM, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS, WHICH WOULD BE MULTIPLE SUSPECTS OR DEFENDANTS IN A CRIMINAL CASE, AND YOU HAVE, AND I, THAT MEANS MORE THAN TWO OR MORE, AND YOU HAVE MULTIPLE BANK ACCOUNTS, I CAN TELL YOU THAT IS AT LEAST 18 MONTHS, IF YOU GOT TWO SUSPECTS AND SIX BANK ACCOUNTS, THAT WILL TAKE 18 MONTHS.
AND I CAN TELL YOU FROM WORKING WITH THE F B I OVER THE LAST 28, 29 YEARS, IT IS NOT UNUSUAL FOR THEM TO WORK A CASE 4, 5, 6 YEARS.
AND SO EVERYBODY HAS DIFFERENT TIMELINES, AND ANY TIMELINES AND POSTS ON US WOULD KIND OF BE, UM, I DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE, THE DIFFERING TYPES OF THINGS THAT WE LOOK AT.
AND, UM, SO WE CERTAINLY TRY TO WORK THINGS RESPONSIBLY AND EFFICIENTLY AND QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
BUT I DON'T WANT TO THROW, UM, CAUTION TO THE WIND AND, AND HAVE SPEED BE TOO MUCH OF AN ISSUE WHEN, WHEN THE, WHAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO DO IS BE THOROUGH AND KNOW THAT WE FEEL EXTREMELY CONFIDENT WITH, WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING WHEN WE FILE A CASE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS A TOPIC FOR ANOTHER DAY.
I MEAN, WE'RE DEALING WITH AN ORDINANCE ISSUE, NOT A RULES ISSUE.
AND YEAH, I, I FEEL STRONGLY THAT THAT WOULD BE A CHANGE TO CHAPTER 12 A YEAH.
BUT IT'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IN A CRIMINAL SETTING, LIMITATIONS IS RUNNING WHILE THE INVESTIGATION'S GOING ON, AND HERE IT'S NOT.
SO ANYWAY, BUT AN ISSUE FOR ANOTHER DAY.
JUST AS A, A PHILOSOPHICAL MATTER MATTER, I REALLY THINK THESE TIMEFRAMES ARE TOO COMPRESSED.
UH, SEVEN, I KNOW WE, UH, UH, EXCHANGING WITNESS SEVEN DAYS BEFORE A HEARING, FOUR DAY DEADLINE,
I WONDER IF SOME OF THESE, UH, AND I HAVEN'T DONE A LOT OF THINKING ABOUT IT, BUT I WONDER IF SOME OF THESE DEADLINES SHOULD NOT RELATE TO THE FILING OF THE INFORMATION.
UM, LIKE I SAID, I HAVEN'T DONE A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT IT, BUT IF I HAD TO DO IT, I WOULD SUGGEST S PERHAPS THE MINIMUM TIME BEFORE A HEARING WOULD BE 45 DAYS, MAYBE EVEN 60 DAYS.
AND SOME OF THESE OTHER DEADLINES BE EXTENDED A LITTLE BIT, SO BOTH PARTIES COULD HAVE, OR AT LEAST THE RESPONDENT COULD HAVE A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.
I, I, I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT THE IGS OFFICE IS READY, IS IS READY FOR TRIAL IMMEDIATELY.
AND I JUST WANNA REITERATE, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE NUMBERS I CAME UP WITH, UM, WITH THE HELP OF THE IG DIVISION AS WELL, JUST TO GET THE CONVERSATION STARTED.
UM, WE CAN MAKE THE TIMELINE SHORTER.
WE CAN MAKE IT LONGER, YOU KNOW, MAKING IT LONGER JUST, YOU KNOW, FOR THE SAKE OF DUE PROCESS AND GIVING THE RESPONDENT ENOUGH TIME TO, YOU KNOW, PUT THEIR, HIS OR HER DEFENSE TOGETHER.
YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES IT TAKES A WHILE TO HIRE A LAWYER.
UM, IN FACT, OUR, OUR, YOU KNOW, THE GAMMAS CASE, WE HAD TO CONTINUE THAT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT TOOK HIM A WHILE TO GET AN ATTORNEY ON BOARD.
UM, AND HE HAD JUST HIRED HIS LAWYER BY THE TIME WE HAD THE HEARING SET.
SO WE HAD TO CONTINUE THAT IN ORDER TO GIVE HIM TIME, UH, TO, TO PUT HIS DEFENSE TOGETHER.
SEE, A LOT TIMELINE MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO ABUSE, BUT I THINK IT'S WORTH A DISCUSSION.
WELL, AND I THINK THAT THE TIGHT TIMELINES
[00:45:01]
WE HAD, AND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE BEFORE WAS A SYMPTOM OF THE PROCEDURE WE HAD AT THE TIME.YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE WASN'T SOMEONE PROSECUTING THOSE CASES.
IT WAS JUST THE CITIZEN COMPLAINANT, UM, OR RESIDENT COMPLAINANT OFTENTIMES.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IT JUST, IT JUST WASN'T QUITE THE TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATIVE TYPE OF HEARING THAT WE'RE GONNA BE HAVING MOVING FORWARD.
SO MAYBE, YEAH, ALLOWING MORE TIME ON THE FRONT END FOR THE PARTIES TO PREPARE, UM, IS A GOOD IDEA.
YEAH, I WAS JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT, I MEAN, UM, IN FOUR POINT, UH, 5.4, WHICH IS NOW, UM, IT SAYS THE INSPECTOR'S OFFICE AT LEAST SEVEN FOUR WAS CROSSED OUT DAYS BEFORE THE, THE DATE OF THE EVIDENTIARY HAING.
UM, SO THE IG MAY HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME TO REVIEW, REVIEW THE RESPONSES, AND THEN IT'S THE NEXT PARAGRAPH, FAILURE TO FILE.
THE RESPONSE GOES ON AND ON AND IT SAYS FOUR DAY, SHOULD IT BE SEVEN DAY AT LEAST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE, UH, WHAT THE FORMER YEAH, YEAH.
AND I, AND I HAD A CONCERN ABOUT THAT BEING SEVEN DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING ANYWAY.
BECAUSE IF THE RESPONDENT'S FILING THE RESPONSE SEVEN DAYS BEFORE, AND ALSO ON THAT SAME DAY, THE IGS OFFICE HAS TO FILE ALL OF THEIR EXHIBITS AND WITNESSES AND ALL OF THAT, THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO, TO, TO, TO DO ANYTHING IN RESPONSE TO WHAT THIS, WHAT IS SAID IN THE RESPONSE, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE OUGHT TO BE A GAP THERE.
SO MAYBE IT'S, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF 20 DAYS NOTICE OF THE HEARING, WHICH SEEMS AWFULLY QUICK CONSIDERING THAT A LOT OF THINGS GO OUT BY MAIL.
AND I GET NOTICES FROM THE CITY SOMETIMES A WEEK AFTER THEY'RE DATED BECAUSE THE MAIL IS SLOW.
SO MAYBE WE DO 30 DAYS NOTICE OF THE HEARING, 30 DAYS, YOU KNOW? YEAH.
I MEAN, I'M JUST MAKING THIS UP.
SO JUST IF FOR AN EXAMPLE, YOU COULD DO 30 DAYS NOTICE OF THE HEARING RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE IS DUE 10 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING, AND THEN YOU DO THE EXCHANGE OF EVERYTHING ELSE SEVEN DAYS.
SO AT LEAST THERE'S, AT LEAST MR. BEAVERS GETS TO READ THE RESPONSE TO DECIDE WHAT EXHIBITS HE'S ACTUALLY GONNA NEED AND WHAT WITNESSES.
SO HE'S HOLD, HE'S TRYING TO GET OUR ATTENTION.
OH, MR. BEAVER'S GO RIGHT ON AHEAD.
YEAH, I I HAD MY ELECTRONIC HAND UP THERE FOR A WHILE.
I DIDN'T MEAN, SORRY, SORRY, SIR.
UM, BUT, UH, THE, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN UP NOW, WE WORK, WORKED THROUGH THIS, LAURA WAS KIND ENOUGH TO INCLUDE US IN THIS WHOLE PROCESS.
AND THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN UP NOW, THERE'S, UH, SEVEN DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING IS WHEN THE SWORN STATEMENT BY THE RESPONDENT IS DUE.
AND THAT'S ALSO WHEN DISCOVERY'S DUE.
AND, AND MY INPUT WAS, MAN, IT SURE WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE 10 BUSINESS DAYS OR 14 CALENDAR DAYS, BECAUSE EVERY CASE IS DIFFERENT.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GONNA DO.
WHAT, WHAT IF THEY COME UP WITH 500 PAGES OF STUFF AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WE GOT SEVEN DAYS AND WE GOTTA DROP EVERYTHING WE'RE DOING.
UM, WE, WE GOT A LOT OF STUFF GOING ON, BUT I, I COULDN'T, I, I CAN RECOGNIZE PEOPLE'S VOICES, BUT I CAN'T RECALL, SOMEBODY HAD MENTIONED MAYBE IT WAS, UH, COMMISSIONER MAO ABOUT EXTENDING THE DEADLINES AND SO FORTH.
UM, IF THAT'S WHAT THE E A C WANTS TO DO, UM, IT MIGHT BE NICE TO HAVE A COUPLE OF WEEKS YEAH.
UH, TO HAVE BETWEEN THE EXCHANGE OF DISCOVERY AND WALKING IN, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU GUYS, BUT I'VE BEEN TRYING CASES FOR ALMOST 29 YEARS AND I'VE ANNOUNCED NOT READY THREE TIMES.
I LOVE TO COME IN AND ANNOUNCE READY
AND IT, IT'S VERY FRUSTRATING FOR ME IF I GET IN A SITUATION AND I THINK IT'S RESPECTFUL OF THE COMMISSIONER'S TIME, IF WE ALL SHOW UP AND WE'RE READY AND THERE'S NO EXCUSES, LET'S GO.
THOUGHTS ON WHAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE TIMEFRAME.
YOU GUYS CAN TAKE MORE TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT.
MAYBE WE CAN COME BACK TO IT AT OUR NEXT MEETING, OR WE COULD HASH IT OUT NOW.
I THINK THAT, UM, THE IGS RECOMMENDATIONS OF EITHER 14 CALENDAR DAYS OR 10 BUSINESS DAYS SEEMS REASONABLE.
AND IF EVERYBODY AGREES, LET'S, LET'S NOT, IS THAT, HOLD ON.
AND JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR THOUGH, ARE WE SAYING 14 FOR THE SOREN RESPONSE AND THEN STICK WITH SEVEN FOR THE EXCHANGE OF DOCUMENTS AND EXHIBITS OR NO, HE'S SHAKING HIS HEAD NO.
MR. BEAVERS, YOU'RE SAYING 14 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING EXCHANGE OF EXHIBITS AND WITNESS LISTS.
SO HOW FAR BEFORE THAT WOULD YOU WANT TO HAVE THE SWORN RESPONSE? ANOTHER WEEK
[00:50:01]
UNDER THE EXISTING TIMELINE, IF WE CHANGE TWO THINGS, IF WE CHANGE THE SWORN STATEMENT BY THE RESPONDENT, WHICH IS IN WRITING RIGHT NOW, IN THIS DRAFT COPY, SEVEN DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING, IF WE CHANGE THAT AND THE DISCOVERY DEADLINE WHERE IT'S DISCOVERY HAS TO BE EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE PARTIES, IF WE MOVE THOSE TWO THINGS BACK SEVEN DAYS, WHICH WOULD GIVE US 14, AND THEN WE MOVE THE NOTICE, UH, FROM 20 DAYS TO 30 TO TO 27 DAYS, YOU COULD STILL KEEP YOUR 30 DAY DEADLINE AND GIVE THE RESPONDENT NOT JUST SIX DAYS, BUT 13 DAYS FROM THE TIME THAT THEY RECEIVED NOTICE TO THE TIME THAT THEY HAVE TO EXCHANGE DISCOVERY AND FILE A RESPONSE.BUT THAT DOESN'T GIVE YOU ANY TIME TO CHANGE YOUR PLAN ONCE YOU GET THE SWORN RESPONSE.
MY CONCERN WAS IF YOU GET THE SWORN RESPONSE ON THE SAME DAY THAT YOU HAVE TO DESIGNATE EXHIBITS AND WITNESSES, YOU DON'T GET A CHANCE TO, TO, TO RETHINK YOUR PROSECUTION PLAN.
WOULDN'T WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER IF YOU HAD AT LEAST A FEW DAYS IN THERE? YEAH, IT WOULD.
BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY PUTS IN THE RESPONSE THAT JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE WERE EYEWITNESSES AND HERE'S STATEMENTS FROM THEM, UH, AND THESE ARE ALL EXONERATING, IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE SOME TIME TO GO FIND THOSE TWO FOLKS AND TALK TO 'EM AND FIND OUT IF, IF IN FACT THAT IS CORRECT.
UM, BUT I, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER WHEN YOU HAD MENTIONED HAVING A GAP BETWEEN THE EXCHANGE OF DISCOVERY AND THE TIME, UH, I THINK I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING NOW, THAT THAT PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE A BAD IDEA.
THAT'S WHY PERHAPS 30 DAYS IS NOT, NOT ENOUGH.
I WAS GONNA RECOMMEND IF, IF WE'RE GONNA START MOVING THINGS BACK, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE IT'S PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA, WE SHOULD MOVE IT ALL.
I MEAN, LOOK, WE'RE STARTING AT THE HEARING MM-HMM.
YOU KNOW, DO YOU WANT SEVEN DAYS BEFORE THAT FOR SWORN RESPONSE BEING DUE? THAT WOULD BE 21 DAYS.
I MEAN, I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT.
AND THIS IS SOMETHING I CAN WORK ON BETWEEN THIS MEETING AND OUR NEXT ONE, AND I CAN CREATE KIND OF A TIMELINE.
SO LIKE, IF AN INFORMATION IS FILED TODAY, THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST DAY WE COULD HAVE THE HEARING.
AND THESE ARE ALL THE DATES IN BETWEEN WHERE THINGS ARE DUE SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE ON A CALENDAR YEAH.
AND THINK THROUGH IF YOU'RE THE RESPONDENT AND YOU'RE GETTING IT IN THE MAIL A WEEK AFTER IT WAS SENT.
AND I'M NOT BITTER ABOUT THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION I GOT FROM MY FRONT YARD COMING TO ME A WEEK LATER,
UM, BUT I JUST KNOW THAT IT CAN HAPPEN.
UM, YOU KNOW, FACTORING IN TIME TO GET IT, TIME TO FIND A LAWYER, TIME TO THINK THROUGH, OH GOD, WHAT IS THIS? YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE'RE LOOKING AT 45 OR 60 DAYS FROM INFORMATION TO HEARING INSTEAD OF 30.
WE COULD DO INFORMATION 60 DAYS NOTICE OF HEARING 45 DAYS.
45, SOMETHING LIKE THAT MIGHT WORK.
AND THEN, UM, SO I'LL PREPARE THAT BEFORE OUR NEXT MEETING.
AND THEN LAURA, WE, AND THEN I'LL, I'LL PUT A CALENDAR TOGETHER SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
I, I WAS GONNA SAY, AND I GUESS TOO, WOULD WE BE WILLING OR ABLE TO INCLUDE SOME TYPE OF PROVISION THAT SAYS THAT THE PARTIES CAN SEEK, LEAVE FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IF, YOU KNOW, I, I GUESS WE'D HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT STANDARD WOULD BE, BUT IF SOMETHING HAPPENS, RIGHT? THERE'S SOME, UH, EMERGENCY OR, OR MAYBE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE ALREADY HERE, OH, WE HAVE THAT.
IT SAYS HERE, THE PANEL AT ITS DISCRETION MAY WAIVE THE REQUIREMENTS AND RESPONSE MAY BE CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING.
I MEAN, THAT'S ONE WAY OF LOOKING AT IT.
I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT MORE.
LIKE IF IT WERE ME, I WOULD NOT WANNA RISK THAT I WOULD WANT TO FILE SOME TYPE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE.
THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS BECAUSE THIS ISN'T A COURT OF LAW, YOU SOMEONE CAN'T FILE THAT MOTION AND THEN HAVE THIS BODY RULE ON THAT MM-HMM.
SO WE COULDN'T TAKE IT UP BEFORE THE SCHEDULED HEARING DATE ANYWAY.
NOW, WHAT SOMEONE COULD DO MISS THE DEADLINE, LIKE SAY FOR, UH, SENDING, WHAT IS IT? THEIR, THEIR WITNESS LISTS, EXHIBIT LISTS.
LET'S SAY THEY MISSED THE DEADLINE BY TWO DAYS.
UH, THE RESPONDENT DOES, THE IG COMES BEFORE YOU AT THE HEARING, UM, ARGUES THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE, OR YOU KNOW, THAT THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED.
YOU KNOW, Y'ALL HEAR THE ARGUMENTS AS TO LIKE, WHAT SHOULD BE THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT? AND Y'ALL DECIDE JUST IN THE INTEREST OF FAIRNESS,
[00:55:01]
HOW TO PROCEED.UM, WELL, LIKE WE DID IN GAMT, I MEAN, THAT KIND OF HAPPENED.
IT WASN'T THE EXACT SCENARIO, BUT THAT HAPPENS AT THE TRIAL BOARD.
UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A GUIDE, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT EVERYONE TO DO.
UM, BUT HONESTLY, IF YOU MISS YOUR DEADLINE BY A DAY, IN THE INTEREST OF FAIRNESS, ARE YOU JUST GONNA, IS THE PANEL REALLY JUST GONNA SAY, WELL, THEN YOU CAN'T PULL ANY OF THESE WITNESSES YEAH.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S PROBABLY NOT THE FAIREST WAY TO HANDLE IT.
UM, BUT AT LEAST YOU KNOW THE RULES SAY, THIS IS THE EXPECTATION.
WE REALLY DO WANT EVERYONE TO ADHERE TO THESE DEADLINES.
WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU DON'T? WELL, THAT'LL BE UP TO, UM, THE CHAIR OF THE PANEL AND THE PANEL, YOU KNOW, REALLY ITSELF CAN, UM, CHALLENGE THE CHAIR'S RULING.
SO IS, IS THERE A WAY THAT WE COULD MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS A GOOD CAUSE STANDARD TO REQUEST AN EXTENSION OF ANY OF THESE GUIDELINES? AND THEN WHAT I'M SAYING IS THEY CAN'T, HOW DO THEY REQUEST AN EXTENSION? WHO RULES ON THAT? THAT HAS TO BE HANDLED AT A PUBLIC MEETING.
IT WOULD BE HANDLED ALONG WITH ANY OTHER PRELIMINARY MOTIONS, I GUESS.
SO IT'S THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR TO EITHER ACCEPT THAT THERE IS A GOOD CAUSE STANDARD MOTION.
I'M, I'M SORRY, WHAT? WHAT WAS THAT? WHAT? I MISSED THE COMMENTS.
WELL, THERE, THERE'S A, THERE'S A, UH, FOR PRELIMINARY MOTIONS, IF YOU FILE A PRELIMINARY MOTION LATE, THERE'S A GOOD COST STANDARD FOR, UH, DETERMINING WHETHER IT'S IT'LL BE ALLOWED.
'CAUSE WE SAY PRELIMINARY MOTION SHOULD BE FILED FIVE DAYS IN ADVANCE.
IF IT'S FILED LESS THAN FIVE DAYS IN ADVANCE, WE COULD STILL CONSIDER IT IF THERE'S A GOOD CAUSE.
SO I THINK THAT KIND OF COVERS THAT SCENARIO OF, AND IT WOULD BE, YEAH, RAISED AT THE PRELIMINARY MOTION PART OF THE HEARING.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, JUST IN AN INTEREST OF FAIRNESS, HOW DOES THE PANEL WANNA HANDLE, YOU KNOW, SO, AND, AND IT MIGHT JUST END UP BEING, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'RE JUST GOING TO CONTIN.
WE'RE GONNA GRANT A CONTINUANCE, RESET SOME OF THESE DEADLINES, GIVE YOU NEW DEADLINES, YOU HAVE TO HIT THESE, UM, BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO BE HAVING THE HEARING AT THE NEXT, UM, TIME WE CONVENE WHETHER YOU'RE READY OR NOT.
I HAD ONE OTHER QUESTION FOR, I THINK THIS MIGHT BE FOR DONNA, BUT ON THE, THE SCHEDULING, THERE'S A, THERE'S INITIALLY AN EFFORT BY DONNA OR THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE TO ASSESS AVAILABILITY.
SO IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT JUST THAT, UM, THERE'S GONNA BE A DATE THAT'S CHOSEN.
FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE HAS, UM, A LITTLE BIT OF LEEWAY IN SELECTING THE PANEL MEMBERS BASED ON THE AVAILABILITY OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
BUT LIKE THEY, BUT DONNA WOULD REACH OUT TO THE RESPONDENT AND SAY, HEY, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE FOLLOWING DATES.
ARE YOU AVAILABLE, YOU AND YOUR COUNSEL AVAILABLE? I THINK SO, UNLESS DONNA HAS ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD, YOU WORK WITH THE RESPONDENT ON AVAILABILITY? I WOULD, I WOULD THINK IN THE LAST HEARING IT, I WORKED STRICTLY WITH E A C I DID NOT CORRESPOND ON A DATE WITH THE RESPONDENT AT ALL.
SO THEY GET, THEY JUST GET A DATE.
BUT SHOULD, I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING IS SHOULD WE, AGAIN, MAYBE WE CAN DO THIS WHEN IT'S, WHEN IT'S CALENDARED OUT, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THAT COULD, THAT COULD SOLVE OTHER LOGISTICAL ISSUES DOWN THE ROAD IF WE REACH OUT AND SAY, HEY, THE, THIS IS THE DATE, THESE ARE THE OPTIONS.
UM, AND MAYBE WE CAN'T ACCOMMODATE, BUT IF THEY, IF THEY SAY, I'M OUT OF, I'M LITERALLY OUT OF THE COUNTRY, OR MY LAWYER IS AT ANOTHER HEARING THAT DAY.
RIGHT? SO WE DO HAVE, UM, SOMETHING IN HERE WHERE IF THE C S O SCHEDULES, THE HEARING, EVERYTHING'S READY TO GO, TURNS OUT THE RESPONDENTS GOT, YOU KNOW, A TRIP COMING UP, THEY'RE GONNA BE GONE.
THEY GET WITH THE I G BOTH PARTIES AGREE.
THE IG WILL BE LIKE, WELL, YEAH, WE CAN'T HAVE THE HEARING IF YOU'RE GONNA BE OUTTA THE COUNTRY.
SO LET'S AGREE TO A CONTINUANCE.
THEY SEND THAT INTO THE C S O.
THEY HAVE GIVEN THE C S O LIKE THE NUMBER OF DAYS NEEDED, THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF DAYS NEEDED FOR A CONTINUANCE.
AND THEN THAT WAY THE C S O CAN JUST RESCHEDULE IT AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE PANEL IF IT'S AN AGREED CONTINUANCE.
YOU MOVING OFF OF THIS OH, GO AHEAD.
JUST, YEAH, THAT, THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME.
I JUST KNOW THAT I'VE SEEN DON THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT DONNA HAS TO DO UP FRONT TO MANAGE ALL OF OUR SCHEDULES MM-HMM.
SO I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THERE'S JUST, I JUST KINDA
[01:00:01]
WANTED TO PLANT THAT SEED FOR, FOR THE CSOS TEAM IF THEY THINK THEY'RE, YEAH.AND THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE IN THE E A C RULES.
THAT'S MORE OF LIKE HOW A, THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE HANDLES THEIR, I WAS GONNA SAVE, SAVE THEM SOME HASSLE.
AND I WAS JUST GONNA MENTION, UM, SAVA MARTINEZ, ASSISTANT CITY SECRETARY.
SO IDEALLY WHAT WE DO IS WE'LL PICK A COUPLE OF DATES AND SHARE THOSE WITH THE MEMBERS AND CHECK THEIR AVAILABILITY.
AND IF THERE IS MORE OF A CONSENSUS ON ONE DAY THAN THE OTHER, UM, THAT IS A DAY THAT WE WILL PICK.
SO WE DON'T JUST, WE DO HAVE DESIGNATED DAYS, BUT WE PRESENT OTHER DATES AS WELL.
WELL, BUT MARY, I THINK, UM, WHAT THE COMMISSIONER IS ASKING ABOUT IS, YOU KNOW, YOU DO ALL THAT WORK TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'VE GOT A FIVE COMMISSIONER PANEL READY TO GO ON A CERTAIN DATE, AND THEN, AND ONLY THEN DO YOU FIND OUT, WELL, THE RESPONDENT'S GONNA BE OUTTA THE COUNTRY.
SO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A GOOD PRACTICE IS REACH OUT TO THE RESPONDENT, MAYBE LET THEM KNOW WE'RE LOOKING AT DATES IN THESE RANGES.
ARE YOU GOING TO BE AVAILABLE? I, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, TO DO ALL THAT WORK TO GET FIVE COMMISSIONERS NAILED DOWN AND THEN TO FIND OUT THAT THE RESPONDENT'S NOT GONNA BE YEAH.
AND IN THE PAST, WE DID SHARE THOSE DATES THAT WE SELECTED WITH THE RESPONDENT, BUT LIKE DONNA MENTIONED THIS PREVIOUS HEARING, WE DID NOT CORRESPOND WITH THE RESPONDENT.
IS, IS IT A REAL PROBLEM TO CORRESPOND WITH THE RESPONDENT SO THAT IN FAIRNESS TO THEM, THEY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON IN TERMS OF TIMING OF THE HEARING? AND CHAIR, IF I MAY INTERJECT AGAIN, I'M SORRY.
SO, BECAUSE IN THE PAST THE COMPLAINTS WERE FILED WITH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE, THAT WAS PART OF OUR CRITERIA TO GET FROM THE, UM, COMPLAINANT WAS THE INFORMATION.
SO, UM, PHONE NUMBER, EMAIL ADDRESS, UH, WHICHEVER INFORMATION THE COMPLAINANT COULD PROVIDE FOR THE, UH, RESPONDENT.
SO IN, IN THIS CASE, WE WOULD RELY ON THE IG TO PROVIDE US WITH COMPLETE DETAILS ON HOW TO CONTACT THE RESPONDENT.
MS. BOWMAN, YOU HAD A QUESTION? UNLESS GRANT, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? NO, NO, NO, NO.
OH, UM, WELL, WITH THAT, I THINK I'VE GOT MY MARCHING ORDERS TO MASSAGE THESE DATES TO DO THE 60 45, 21 14, AND THEN CALENDAR IT FOR Y'ALL TO SEE IF THAT KIND OF WORKS OUT AND IF IT LOOKS GOOD, AND WE CAN, YOU KNOW, WE CAN TWEAK IT AGAIN LATER AT OUR NEXT MEETING IF IT TURNS OUT THAT IT, IT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD.
UM, BUT I THINK THIS WAS A REALLY GOOD CONVERSATION BECAUSE HONESTLY I