[00:00:02]
IT IS 9 35[Ethics Advisory Commission on September 18, 2023]
ON, THIS IS THE, THE 18TH.THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION WILL NOW, UH, BE IN SESSION.
UH, CAN EVERYBODY ANNOUNCE THEIR, UH, THEIR ATTENDANCE, THEIR PRESIDENT? I START TOM PERKINS, VICE CHAIR.
VIN COMMISSIONER STAFF PLEASE.
MS. MARK DES INSPECTOR GENERAL.
LAURA MORRISON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
DONNA BROWN CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
WE HAVE CORUM MARTINEZ, CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
WE HAVE A QUORUM MEETING, WILL BE CALLED TO ORDER.
UH, MS. MORRISON, DO YOU WANT TO TELL US WHERE WE LEFT OFF AND GET US STARTED FOR THIS MORNING, PLEASE? YEAH, WE HAD A REALLY PRODUCTIVE MEETING A FEW WEEKS AGO.
UM, AND I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S PARTICIPATION AND INVOLVEMENT.
I THINK THIS HAS BEEN A REALLY WONDERFUL, UM, RULES COMMITTEE.
AND I THINK WE'VE GOT THROUGH PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THE, UM, HEARING PROCEDURES THAT ENDED ON PAGE 14.
BUT THEN I, I, I WENT BACK AND WORKED ON A FEW MORE THINGS, AND I JUST, I, UM, SENT THAT EMAIL OUT TO EVERYONE ON FRIDAY.
SO I HOPE EVERYONE RECEIVED THAT.
YOU ALSO HAVE A HARD COPY IN FRONT OF YOU FOR THOSE WHO ARE, UM, PRESENT HERE IN THE ROOM.
UM, SO WE'LL START BY GOING BACK THROUGH, UM, SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTED LANGUAGE THAT I'VE BEEN WORKING ON SINCE OUR LAST MEETING.
SO IF YOU'VE PAGE FIVE, UM, CHAPTER 12 A, UM, SAYS, AND THIS IS, UH, SOME LANGUAGE THAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IN JUNE THAT, UM, THE COMMISSION WILL BE THE PARTY TO REVIEW INVOICES SUBMITTED BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL AFTER THERE'S BEEN A HEARING.
UM, THE PREVIOUS CITY ATTORNEY WANTED THE COMMISSION, UH, TO BE THE PARTY THAT REVIEWS THOSE, BECAUSE FOR THE MOST PART, THEY'RE GOOD.
UM, THEY, THEY COME IN AND THEY LOOK FINE.
UM, NO ONE'S TRYING TO OVERCHARGE US, BUT THERE'S THE POTENTIAL FOR THAT TO HAPPEN.
SO WE JUST, THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS ASKED THAT THE RULES MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT'S REALLY ONLY WHEN THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS REASON TO, UM, POSSIBLY QUESTION THE INVOICE, THAT THEN THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL, UM, REQUEST THAT THE CHAIR PUT THAT ITEM ON THE COMMISSION'S NEXT AGENDA TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW, UM, THE INVOICE.
UM, THAT WAY YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO REVIEW IT EVERY SINGLE TIME.
IF IT COMES INTO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND IT LOOKS, IT LOOKS GOOD AND THERE'S NO, UM, QUESTION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THAT INVOICE, UM, THEN THIS WOULD GO AHEAD AND PAY IT.
BUT IF THERE IS A QUESTION, THAT'S WHEN IT WOULD COME BEFORE YOU.
UM, SO DOES ANYONE HAVE FEEDBACK FOR ME ON THAT? JUST E A C SHOULD NOT, SHOULD BE COMMISSIONED.
I'LL DO A CONTROL F, UM, TO FIND ALL OF THOSE, BUT THANK YOU FOR REMINDER.
AND, AND ALSO IN THE HEADING, IT'S COUNSEL S SHOULD BE S E L INSTEAD, DAN.
I, YEAH, BECAUSE IF YOU DEAL WITH, THERE'S A LOT OF C YEAH.
THAT'S SUCH A COMMON MISTAKE FOR ME.
SO IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE THERE, LET'S MOVE ON TO PAGE SIX SIX.
I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION ON 2.7.
DOES THAT INCLUDE, UH, COMMITTEES SUCH AS OURS? UH, YES.
IS IS IT JUST ASSUMED THAT IT'S SUBSUMED? YES.
UM, ALL OF OUR BODIES, ALL THE SUBCOMMITTEES TASK FORCES, ALL OF THAT, UH, WE HAVE EVERYTHING COMPLIED WITH THE TEXAS, SO IT, SO WHEN IT SAYS COMMISSION, IT MEANS ALL THE YES.
COMMISSION AND, UM, ANY AD HOC COMMITTEE.
ANYBODY AT THE CITY, WE DO, WE DO PUBLICLY.
UM, I ADDED ON PAGE SIX, UH, JUST SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT CONFRONTATION OF TIME.
UM, AND I GOT THIS LANGUAGE FROM THE PERSONNEL RULES, UM, THAT TALKS ABOUT THE TRIAL BOARD'S PROCEDURES.
AND I JUST WANTED IT, UM, TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT IF, YOU KNOW, A DEADLINE FALLS ON A SATURDAY OR SUNDAY OR OFFICIAL HOLIDAY THAT YOU'VE GOT, LIKE THAT EXTRA, UM, DAVE, UH, TO MEET THAT DEADLINE, IT'LL BE THE, THE VERY NEXT DAY.
THAT'S NOT A, A WEEKEND OR HOLIDAY.
WHY IS FIVE 15 A A KEY TIME? OH, THAT, THAT'S, UH,
[00:05:01]
WHEN CITY HALL CLOSES FOR THE DAY.CITY HALL IS OPEN EIGHT 15 TO FIVE 15, MONDAY TO FRIDAY.
TECHNICALLY, I THINK THESE ARE GOOD TOO, TO HAVE IN THERE BECAUSE IT ALIGNS WITH COURT RULES, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS LIKE COUNTING DAYS AND CARRYING OVER TO THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY.
I DID LOOK UP THE STATE LAW ON, YOU KNOW, DEADLINES IN THE CIVIL YEAH.
AND SO I JUST WANTED IT IN THERE.
UM, NOT SO MUCH FOR THE CITY SECRETARY OR FOR US, BUT FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, THE IGS OPPOSING COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, SO THAT THEY KNOW WHAT THE DEADLINES ARE GONNA BE.
LAWYERS WILL KIND OF THINK THIS WAY ANYWAY, SO RIGHT.
AND I JUST DIDN'T WANT THERE TO BE ANY QUESTION.
I HEARD, UM, AND MAYBE THE IG CAN WEIGH IN HERE.
UM, MR. IG, THIS IS WHEN A SETTLEMENT APPROVAL COMES BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND, UM, THEY DON'T WANT TO APPROVE IT.
THEY WANT IT TO GO TO A HEARING.
I THOUGHT MAYBE WE SHOULD PUT IN THERE THAT YOU HAVE 10 DAYS, UM, TO GO AHEAD AND FILE THAT INFORMATION TO START THE CLOCK.
UM, YEAH, I DON'T THINK WE WOULD BE INVOLVED IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS IF WE HADN'T ALREADY FILED THE INFORMATION.
SO YOU WOULD FILE AN INFORMATION, START THE CLOCK ON EVERYTHING, AND THEN TRY TO NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT.
IF I'M WRONG ON THAT, THEN I'LL SIT CORRECT IT, BUT I WASN'T SURE ABOUT THAT.
BUT THAT'S HOW YOU SEE IT PLAYING OUT.
I CAN WORK ON SOME LANGUAGE FOR THAT.
UM, CAN, WHAT WOULD YOU EX EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT, YEAH, WHAT, WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW? TELL, SO JUST SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS SECTION.
UM, THE IG HAS THE ABILITY, WHICH, WHICH SECTION? WHICH PAGE? PAGE EIGHT.
THAT'S WHAT WE CAN, SO THE IG HAS THE ABILITY TO ENTER INTO SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS INSTEAD OF GOING, UM, THROUGH A FULL HEARING.
NOT WITH CITY EMPLOYEES, BUT WITH CITY OFFICIALS.
UM, SO I, I'M JUST GONNA MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE INFORMATION WOULD BE FILED AND THEN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS.
AND SO THEN I SHOULD PUT IN SOMETHING THAT, LIKE WHAT STARTS THE CLOCK THEN? I GUESS IT WOULD STILL BE, WHEN THE INFORMATION IS FILED, WE WOULD, THE, THE CITY SECRETARY WOULD JUST PROCEED WITH GETTING EVERYTHING SCHEDULED AND, AND HAVING ALL OF THOSE DEADLINES FALL.
AND THEN THE HEARING WOULD BE CANCELED.
THEN I GUESS IF YOU PUT THE CITY SECRETARY IN THE PANEL ON NOTICE THAT A SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED AND THEN THE E A C WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE THAT.
AT THE RIGHT NEXT REGULAT MEETING.
IF THEY DECLINE IT, THEN IT GOES BACK ON THE DOCKET.
IF THEY APPROVE IT, THEN YES, I'LL WORK ON SOME.
THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE HERE IS, UM, IT SAYS A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY A THREE-FOURTHS VOTE OF THE COMMISSION.
IS THAT THREE OUT OF FOUR THAT REPRESENTS FOUR? WE HAVE A QUORUM REGULATION THAT SAYS IT'S FOUR PERSONS.
WELL, IT WOULD BE THE WHOLE COMMISSION AT THE REGULAR MEETING.
SO IT WOULD BE NOT A PANEL COMMISSION? NOT A PANEL.
SO IT WOULD BE OF THE ENTIRE, BUT WE HAVE THE RULING THAT SAYS THERE'S ONLY NECESSITY FOR SIX PEOPLE.
I THINK IT'S THREE QUARTERS OF THE COMMISSIONER'S PRESENT.
SO CAN WE ADD THAT'S PRESENT? UM, YEAH.
AND I'LL CHECK 12 A TO SEE IF THAT IS THE LANGUAGE COMMISSIONER'S PRESENT.
AND I'LL ADD, I'LL CLARIFY THAT THERE.
'CAUSE WE'VE GOT A LOT OF VARIANCES HERE BETWEEN THE, YOU KNOW, AND EVIDENTIARY AND A DIFFERENT KIND OF COMMISSION AND THEN MM-HMM.
AND THIS IS, AND IT GETS A LITTLE CONFUSING.
SO IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE HAD SOME CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THOSE NUMBERS.
I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE, UH, 4.2.
UH, SO I, I GUESS I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE COMMISSION'S DISCIPLINARY DECISION IN THE CONTEXT OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THAT WE HAVE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
I UNDERSTAND THE, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION OR THE APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT
[00:10:01]
AGREEMENT IS CONVEYED TO THE RESPECTIVE BOARD OR CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW.THAT I THINK I SHOULD CHANGE THAT TO INSTEAD OF SAYING DISCIPLINARY DECISION, THE COMMISSION'S APPROVED RECOMMENDED SANCTION.
PURSUANT TO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OR JUST THE SANCTION, UH, THAT'S PURSUANT TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT? IF WE TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE, UNDER SECTION FIVE, WE HAVE SOME, UH, HIGHLIGHTED LANGUAGE.
I WANTED THE IG TO BE ABLE TO SUPPLEMENT OR AMEND THE INFORMATION AFTER IT'S FILED, UM, JUST IN CASE, UM, HE NEEDS TO DO THAT AND HE'S GOT SEVEN DAYS TO DO THAT.
AND THEN A SUPPLEMENTED INFORMATION THEN RESTARTS THE CLOCK ON, UM, ALL OF THE DEADLINES.
AND THAT LARGELY CAME FROM OUR OLD RULES OF PROCEDURE BACK WHEN WE HAD, UM, JUST ANYONE COULD FILE A COMPLAINT.
THEY DID HAVE SEVEN DAYS TO SUPPLEMENT THAT COMPLAINT.
SO IT'S REALLY, UM, WE WANNA GIVE THE IG THE SAME, THE SAME ABILITY TO DO THAT.
AND THEN WITHDRAWING IN INFORMATION.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THINKS IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA FOR THE IG TO HAVE THAT OPTION IF DIFFERENT FACTS COME TO LIGHT WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR THE 60 DAYS, UH, TO PLAY OUT BETWEEN THE FILING OF THE INFORMATION AND THE SCHEDULED HEARING.
UM, IF SOMETHING COMES TO LIGHT AND THE IG FEELS LIKE HE, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING HE WISHES TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, THEN HE COULD GO AHEAD AND WITHDRAW THAT AS LONG AS HE'S GOT, UM, APPROVAL IN WRITING FROM THE OTHER PARTY.
UM, SAYS IG MAY WITHDRAW THE FILED INFORMATION IF THE RESPONDENT AGREES TO THE WITHDRAWAL IN WRITING.
SO IF WE CHOOSE TO AMEND AN INFORMATION FOR WHATEVER REASON, MAYBE THERE'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND WE FILE IT.
WE CAN'T GO FORWARD ON THE AMENDED INFORMATION UNLESS WE GET AN AGREEMENT BY THE NO, THAT'S ONLY IF YOU'RE WITHDRAWING IT.
YOU HAVE SEVEN DAYS TO AMEND IT.
AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO, THEY DON'T HAVE TO AGREE IN WRITING TO AN AMENDED INFORMATION, BUT IT WOULD RESET THE CLOCK ON ALL THE DEADLINES THAT COME SUBSEQUENT TO THAT.
SO THEY, IF WE'VE REACHED A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH SOMEBODY, CHANCES ARE THEY'RE GONNA AGREE TO THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE INFORMATION, WHICH WOULD DISPOSE OF THE CHARGING INSTRUMENT.
ON 5.2, WE CALL IT AMENDING THE INFORMATION INSTEAD OF SUPPLEMENTING IF IT GIVES THE ABILITY, I MEAN, JUST IF IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT SOMETHING OR TO REMOVE SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY AN AMENDMENT, NOT A SUPPLEMENTATION.
I KIND OF, I WENT BACK AND FORTH ON THAT.
I THINK I ALSO PREFER AMENDING THE INFORMATION OR AN AMENDED INFORMATION.
'CAUSE IT'S WHAT WE USED TO HAVE, UM, AND THE RULES.
BUT IF YOU GOT LIKE AMENDED, I'M HAPPY WITH THAT BECAUSE TO ME, I MEAN, AGAIN, I'M COMING FROM THE WORLD OF, YOU KNOW, TEXAS CIVIL PROCEDURE SUPPLEMENT JUST MEANS YOU'RE ADDING SOMETHING.
IT WOULDN'T GIVE YOU THE ABILITY TO REMOVE SOMETHING OR CHANGE SOMETHING IN THE EXISTING INFORMATION.
THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE CLEARER IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND THEN SUBSUME IT WOULD INCLUDE SUPPLEMENTATION.
AND THEN ON 5.3, JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY, WHAT'S THE REASON FOR NOT ALLOWING A WITHDRAWAL, I GUESS WITHIN 24 HOURS LOOKS LIKE, OF A, OF AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING? UM, IS THAT 'CAUSE WE'D WANNA APPROVE IT 'CAUSE THAT'S SUSPICIOUS OR SOMETHING? I DON'T KNOW.
I JUST THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S THE EVENING BEFORE OR THE MORNING OF, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PANEL SHOULD CONVENE AND THEN THE, THE PARTIES SHOULD REQUEST A DISMISSAL.
I, I WOULD HATE TO HAVE A SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE DOESN'T GET NOTICED THAT IT'S BEEN WITHDRAWN AND YOU SHOW UP AND NO ONE'S HERE.
IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO SHOW UP, THEY SHOULD HAVE TO SHOW UP TOO.
SORT OF, IT IS AN INCENTIVE TO GET IT DONE AND JUST GET IT DONE SO THAT WE HAVE TIME TO CANCEL EVERYTHING, UM, YOU KNOW, INCLUDING LUNCH.
YEAH, THERE'S NOTHING ELSE ON THAT.
UM, THE NEXT FEW SECTIONS HAVE SOME HIGHLIGHTED, UM, DEADLINES.
AND SO I CREATED THIS, UM, CALENDAR.
[00:15:02]
UM, THAT KIND OF GIVES AN IDEA.'CAUSE WE HAD TALKED ABOUT IN OUR LAST MEETING, UM, YOU KNOW, ONCE THE INFORMATION IS FILED, UM, WE WANNA SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
IF YOU HAVE, IF YOU KNOW YOU HAVE TO WAIT 60 DAYS TO HAVE A HEARING BECAUSE THAT'S, YOU KNOW, PUTS AN EYE ON THE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF THE RESPONDENT.
THEY NEED TIME, YOU KNOW, TO PUT THEIR DEFENSE TOGETHER, HIRE AN ATTORNEY, DO ALL OF THAT.
SO I PUT THE HEARING DATE HERE.
IF THE INFORMATION IS FILED ON THE THIRD OF ONE MONTH, UM, IT'D BE 60 DAYS.
IT WOULD BE THE SECOND ALL THE WAY DOWN HERE.
AND THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST DAY WE COULD HAVE THE HEARING.
IT WOULDN'T ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, THE HEARING WOULD ALWAYS TAKE PLACE ON THE 60TH DAY, BUT IF THIS WOULD BE LIKE THE TIGHTEST TIMEFRAME WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT.
SO 60 DAYS AFTER THE INFORMATION IS FILED, THAT'S THE FIRST DATE YOU COULD POSSIBLY HAVE THE HEARING.
EXHIBITS ARE EXCHANGED, UM, 21 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING RESPONSES ARE DUE.
UM, AND THE NOTICE OF THE HEARING IS SENT AT LEAST 45 DAYS OUT FROM THE HEARING.
SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
SO WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE A HEARING BEFORE 60 DAYS THOUGH, IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT.
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AT LEAST 60 DAYS OUT FROM THE DATE THE INFORMATION IS FILED.
I'M PRETTY COMFORTABLE WITH ALL THIS.
MY, MY ONLY QUESTION WAS IN 5.9, UH, REGARDING, UH, PRE PRELIMINARY MOTIONS, UH, THAT NEED TO BE FILED FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING.
SHOULD WE SAY FIVE BUSINESS DAYS? OR DOES THAT, IS THAT SCREW UP EVERYTHING? OR WE COULD JUST SAY SEVEN DAYS.
DOES THAT, MR IG, DO YOU HAVE A FIVE, SEVEN DAYS AS IT'S SEVEN WOULD BE FINE WITH ME.
IS THAT OKAY? WE GO WITH SEVEN DAYS.
THAT, THAT WAY YOU, THAT'S A GOOD, YEAH.
LONG WEEKEND SITUATION, HOLIDAYS.
UM, ONE THING I WANTED TO BRING UP WHILE LOOKING AT ALL THESE DEADLINES WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, I HAD THOUGHT THAT THE INFORMATION THAT THE I E G FILES WOULD HAVE, LIKE JUST MORE.
AND THEN I THOUGHT THAT THE INFORMATION IS FILED ALONG WITH THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT, BUT I GUESS THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF, IN ORDER FOR, I GUESS MY CONCERN IS IF THE RESPONDENT DOESN'T HAVE MUCH INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT'S BEING ALLEGED AGAINST HIM OR HER, HOW PREPARED ARE THEY GONNA BE TO SUBMIT A RESPONSE ONE WEEK BEFORE ANY EXHIBITS ARE EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE PARTIES? SO WOULD THE COMMITTEE BE INTERESTED IN HAVING THE IG AT LEAST JUST THE IGS INVESTIGATIVE REPORT BE SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENT? I'VE GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
YEAH, I WANT, WANTED TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT.
WHAT THE REST OF THE COUNTRY DOES IS WHENEVER DISCOVERY IS EXCHANGED, YOU GIVE 'EM EVERY SHRED OF PAPER, EVERY INTERVIEW, ANYTHING THAT YOU'RE GONNA OFFER AN EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM.
AND BY LOOKING AT THE CHARGING INSTRUMENT AND THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND EVERY SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU'RE GONNA OFFER AGAINST SOMEBODY, A LAWYER CAN LOOK AT THAT AND GO, OKAY, I CAN SEE WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE.
THIS IS THE CHARGE AND THIS IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY SAY SUPPORTS IT, THAT'S GONNA HELP ME PREPARE MY CLIENT FOR THE HEARING.
AND THAT'S THE WAY THE REST OF THE COUNTRY DOES IT.
UM, I THINK WE INADVERTENTLY FILED A INVESTIGATION REPORT ON THE FIRST CASE.
IT WAS THE FIRST TIME WE FILED ANYTHING AND WE WERE TRYING TO GET EVERYTHING IN, AND IT ENDED UP GETTING FILED.
AND I JUST THOUGHT, WELL, OKAY, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY NOT A GOOD DECISION, BUT WE WERE VERY BUSY TRYING TO GET THE FIRST CASE FILED.
BUT, UM, GOING FORWARD, I, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE WAY THAT, UH, THAT I WOULD DO IT, SIMPLY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN TIME HONORED IN THE PROCESS OF IG OFFICES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, YOU SEND THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT ALONG WITH,
[00:20:01]
YOU DON'T SEND IT OUT AT ALL? WE DON'T SEND AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT OUT, BUT WE SEND OUT ALL THE EVIDENCE OKAY.SO IF, UM, IF YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY LICENSED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS AND YOU CAN'T LOOK AT THE CHARGING INSTRUMENT AND ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS IT AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO COUNSEL YOUR CLIENT, YOU SHOULDN'T BE A LAWYER, IN MY OPINION.
WHEN, WHEN YOU SAY ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS IT, WHEN DOES THAT GET SENT OUT AND WHENEVER THE DISCOVERY EXCHANGE OCCURS.
SO THE, SO THAT HAPPENS AFTER THE RESPONSE IS DUE FROM THE RESPONDENT.
BUT THAT'S, I MEAN, THE PURPOSE OF THE RESPONSE IS NOT TO NECESSARILY, I MEAN, I GUESS WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE RESPONSE, RIGHT? RIGHT.
IS IT TO PRESENT THEIR CASE OR IS IT TO GIVE US AN IDEA OF THEIR, THE, I MEAN, IT'S SORT OF AN EQUIVALENT TO THE INFORMATION.
IT IT, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY TO PROVE THE CASE, IT'S TO GIVE US AN EXPLANATION OF THEIR SIDE OF THE STORY.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT HAS TO BE, WE WERE ASKING THEM TO PRESENT THEIR CASE AND THE RESPONSE IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT.
'CAUSE I THINK THAT AT THAT POINT THEY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO EVERYTHING THE I'S OFFICE HAS GOT.
BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE AT THAT POINT.
THAT'S, I MEAN, SO, SO THE INVESTIGATIVE, I'M SORRY, THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT, THAT'S YOUR, I DON'T WANNA SAY WORK PRODUCT.
YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S IS, THAT IS, THAT'S WHAT YOU CONSIDER THAT YES, SIR.
BUT YOU WOULD GIVE THEM ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT SUPPORT YOUR ALLEGATIONS SO THAT THEY CAN PREPARE.
AND AS SOON AS WE PASS OUR INVESTIGATOR, OUR FIRST INVESTIGATIVE WITNESS, SOON AS WE PASS 'EM FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION, WE WOULD DO WHAT THEY DO AT MOST COURTROOMS. AND THAT WOULD BE HANDING OVER THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT SO THEY COULD HAVE AN INTELLIGENT BASIS TO MAKE THEIR CROSS-EXAMINATION.
SO THEY GET THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT PRIOR TO THEIR CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS AS, BUT, BUT RIGHT.
HOW MANY DAYS, WHAT HAPPENS? YEAH.
THE, THE QUESTION I HAVE, SO HOW MANY DAYS FROM THE FILING AND SENDING NOTICE OF A HEARING, ARE YOU RECOMMENDING THAT YOU BE REQUIRED TO GIVE THAT INVESTIGATIVE REPORT TO THE PERSON WHO'S NO, I HAVE TO HEAR IS THAT I DON'T, IS THAT AT THE HEARING? NO.
EVERY OFFICE THAT I'M AWARE OF HANDS THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT WHEN THEY PASS THEIR FIRST INVESTIGATIVE WITNESS.
BUT THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT WOULD NOT BE AN EXHIBIT THAT YOU'D BE SUBMITTING TO THE PANEL FOR BECAUSE IT'S NOT EVIDENCE.
AND IT'S NOT UNUSUAL FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL TO SAY, YOUR HONOR, CAN I HAVE 20 MINUTES TO LOOK THIS THING OVER? I MEAN, IT'S ONLY FIVE OR SIX PAGES USUALLY.
AND MOST JUDGES SAY, YEAH, SURE.
I SO DOES THE, I'M STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, IT DOESN'T GET EXCHANGED IN ADVANCE.
I MEAN, IT GETS EXCHANGED JUST TO THE DAY OF THE AT MO IF THEY ASK FOR IT, YOU CAN GIVE IT TO THEM AT THE HEARING.
I GUESS WHAT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT IS, IS THERE A REASON TO REQUIRE THE INVESTIGATOR REPORT TO BE GIVEN BEFORE THE HEARING AT SOME POINT? AND I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
WELL, BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, THE INVESTIGATIVE, I ONLY KNOW THAT THE IG DOES AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT BECAUSE WE'VE HAD THAT HEARING.
THERE'S NOTHING IN 12 A THAT REQUIRES THE G TO DO, UM, YOU KNOW, TO DRAFT AN OFFICIAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT.
AND IF HE'S NOT SUBMITTING IT INTO EVIDENCE AS AN EXHIBIT, IT'S YEAH.
IT SOUNDS LIKE HIS INTERNAL DOCUMENT.
SO I, I THINK THE WAY THAT YOU ADDRESS THOSE TYPES OF CONCERNS IS WITH MORE SPECIFICITY IN THE CHARGING INSTRUMENT, YOU KNOW? YEAH.
UM, IF YOU FILE AN AMENDED INFORMATION AND IT'S GOT AN EXTREME AMOUNT OF DETAIL ON IT, YOU MAY NOT EVEN HAVE TO LOOK AT THE EXHIBITS TO SIT DOWN.
BECAUSE WHEN A DEFENSE COUNSEL SITS DOWN WITH THEIR CLIENT, THEY'RE GONNA SAY, WHAT HAPPENED ON JANUARY 1ST? WELL, I DON'T KNOW.
OH, WELL THE INFORMATION SAYS THAT YOU DID THIS AND THAT IT WON'T TAKE MORE THAN 20 OR 30 SECONDS FOR 'EM TO GO
WHERE DO WE HAVE IN OUR RULES? SOMEWHERE OR IN 12 A, DOES IT SAY WHAT NEEDS TO BE IN THE INFORMATION IT'S IN? YES.
I WAS ACTUALLY GONNA PULL THAT UP.
IT IS IN THE DEFINITION INFORMATION, AND IT'S,
[00:25:01]
IT SAYS, AN INFORMATION MEANS A WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED WITH THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE OF ETHICS AND CONTAINS THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT.THE CITY RULE, OR CITY CODE OR CI CITY CHARTER PROVISION ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.
THE PLACE FOR THE VIOLATION IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION, AND A DESCRIPTION OF THE VIOLATION.
SO I THINK THAT LAST PART, A DESCRIPTION OF THE VIOLATION, I THINK THE INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE PRETTY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THE IG IS ALLEGED IS ALLEGING HAPPENED.
AND THAT'S IN 12 A, THAT'S NOT IN OUR, THAT'S IN 12 A.
SO AS LONG AS THE INFORMATION IS, IT'S GOT ENOUGH IN IT SO THAT THE RESPONDENT KNOWS WHAT'S BEING ALLEGED AGAINST HIM OR HER.
I, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD REQUIRE DISCLOSURE OF THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT.
IT DOES SEEM LIKE THAT'S AN INTERNAL DOCUMENT.
I GUESS MY ONLY CONCERN IS, IS WHETHER THE RESPONDENT'S GONNA HAVE FAIR NOTICE OF THE, THE, THE FACTUAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THE ALLEGATION.
BUT THAT COMES BACK TO WHAT'S IN THE INFORMATION, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE A SAY OVER THAT'S 12 A AND I THINK IF A RESPONDENT COMES TO US AND SAYS, I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO RESPOND TO THIS, THEN, THEN WE JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT THAT WAY.
THE, THE RESPONDENT COULD COME TO YOU THE MORNING OF THE HEARING AND, YOU KNOW, WITH THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS SAYING, I, THE INFORMATION DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH IN THERE FOR ME TO EVEN YEAH.
PREPARE ANY OR A CONTINUANCE, YOU KNOW MM-HMM.
OR CAN FILE A MOTION THAT YEAH.
REQUESTS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT SUPPORTS THE, AND SO THAT THEY CAN DEFEND THEMSELVES.
SO A MOTION WOULD BE IN ORDER IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE.
AND THEY COULD JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, WE NEED ANOTHER 60 DAYS TO PREPARE OUR DEFENSE BECAUSE THE INFORMATION, AND BY THE TIME WE GOT ALL THE EXHIBITS, WE ONLY HAD TWO WEEKS TO PREPARE FOR THE YEAH.
YOU KNOW, SO THERE, THERE ARE THINGS THAT THEY CAN ARGUE TO THE PANEL AND THE PANEL CAN BE LIKE, YEAH, LET'S RESET THIS FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER 60 DAYS.
SO THAT YOU CAN GET ALL THE INFORMATION YOU NEED FROM THE IT TO NOW THAT YOU'VE GOT THE EXHIBITS AND EVERYTHING'S BEEN EXCHANGED.
I'LL SAY I'M GOOD WITH IT AS IT'S THEN
I, I THINK I'M GLAD WE TALKED ABOUT IT BECAUSE YEAH, THAT MAKES MORE SENSE TO ME NOW.
ALRIGHT, MS. IJI, YOU OKAY? YES, SIR.
I MEAN, I THINK WE WENT THROUGH THE NEXT FEW.
PAIGE, WE TALKED ABOUT THE HEARING PROCEDURES STARTING AT THE END OF PAGE 11, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
UM, I'LL GIVE YOU GUYS A MINUTE TO JUST SCAN THROUGH TO SEE IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT.
IF WE, IS THE RESPONDENT'S PRESENCE REQUIRED FOR THE HEARING? UH, NO.
THEY COULD JUST SEND THEIR LAWYER.
I, I GUESS, UM, THEY COULD NOT RESPOND AND IT WOULD BE UP TO THE PANEL TO, YEAH.
I MEAN, WE WOULD JUST MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THEM PUTTING ON ANY EVIDENCE OF THEIR DEFENSE.
WELL, THAT'S A QUESTION THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE QUESTION I HAVE, WHICH IS, THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE THAT, THAT SAYS.
IT SAYS THAT THEY HAVE TO BE AT THE, THEY HAVE TO BE PRESENT, NOT THE, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE TO BE PRESENT, PHYSICALLY SAYS IT SOMEWHERE HERE IN THE BEGINNING.
ARE WE GOING TO, WE NEED TO PUT SOMETHING IN HERE, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THAT SAYS THAT IF THE PERSON IS HERE VIRTUALLY, EITHER YOU ARE GONNA ACCEPT THAT AS A, AS BEING PHYSICALLY HERE.
THE TEXAS O THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT ACCEPTS THAT AS PHYSICALLY HERE.
SORRY, THAT'S SOMETHING I DIDN'T REMEMBER.
UM, SO THEREFORE, COULD WE ASSUME THAT IF THE PERSON IS NOT HERE, BUT DOES APPEAR, UM, VIRTUALLY THAT THEY'RE HERE, THEY'RE PRESENT.
SO LIKE, THAT'S HOW, WHY I'D ASKED GRAHAM'S, LIKE, TRY TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE ON CAMERA, OTHERWISE, YOU'RE TECHNICALLY NOT HERE.
THIS IS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
[00:30:01]
WOULD IT BE ACCURATE TO SAY THAT A RESPONDENT CAN CHOOSE TO APPEAR VIRTUALLY OR IN PERSON, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO APPEAR AT ALL? UM, I MEAN, I THINK WE HAVE THAT IN FIVE 12, OR NO, IT DOESN'T SAY THAT WE HAVE THAT IN 12 A THAT THE PANEL HAS, CAN MAKE THE DECISION TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE HEARING REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS PHYSICALLY PRESENT.AND I DON'T WANNA PUT ANYTHING IN THE RULES ABOUT VIRTUAL VERSUS, UM, LIKE IN PERSON, BECAUSE THAT'S A CITY.
IT USED TO BE THE CITY'S POLICY THAT WE DIDN'T DO VIRTUAL ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS AT ALL, AND THEN COVID HAPPENED AND WE MADE IT AS PART OF OUR EMERGENCY REGULATIONS.
UM, SO I JUST WANT THAT TO BE LIKE THE CITY POLICY MOVING FORWARD.
UM, AS LONG AS IT ALL, UM, COMPLIES WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, WHICH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT IS PRETTY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHEN VIRTUAL ATTENDANCE IS ALLOWED.
AND THEN YES, YOUR COUNTED IS PRESENT AT THE, AT THE MEETING.
I WAS JUST GONNA BE SILENT ON, AND FIVE POINT 12 SAYS THAT WE CAN, EVEN IF THE PERSON HAS BEEN SUBPOENAED, THEY DON'T APPEAR, WE CAN STILL CONTINUE WITH THE PROCEDURE.
UM, IF YOU LOOK AT FIVE POINT 13, WE TALK ABOUT A FORUM OF FOUR COMMISSIONERS BEING PRESENT OR AN ANTERIOR HEARING.
UM, BUT SO WE, WE SAY THERE'S A QUORUM OF FOUR COMMISSIONERS MUST BE PRESENT.
UM, AND THEN SOMEWHERE ELSE, I, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT, LET'S SEE A COMPLAINT, WE ARE SAYING THAT, UM, WE MUST HAVE FOUR, WE MUST HAVE A UNANIMOUS DECISION OF FOUR COMMISSIONERS.
IS IT DIFFERENT? UH, LET ME LOOK FOR WHICH PAGE.
UM, OH, DEAR VEXATIOUS COMPLAINANT, UM, THE, TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF VEXATIOUS, THAT'LL COME BEFORE YOU AT YOUR REGULAR MEETING IN FRONT OF ALL 15.
SO THEN THAT'S WHERE THE, YEAH, SIX, SEVEN, WE, WE FIGURED IT'S, IT'S PRETTY BIG DEAL.
PUT A LID ON SOMEONE GOING TO IG TO COMPLAIN ABOUT STUFF.
SO WE WANTED THE WHOLE COMMISSION TO BE ABLE TO WEIGH IN ON, ON THAT.
MAY I ASK A QUESTION? IF, IF WE HAVE A FIVE PERSON PANEL WHO'S SCHEDULED TO HEAR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND ONE OF THE FIVE FOLKS WAKES UP WITH THE FLU AND THEY JUST CAN'T MAKE IT MM-HMM.
AT THAT POINT, WHEN WE GO FORWARD, IS IT A UNANIMOUS VERDICT COURT? THAT'S WHAT THAT'S THAT WAS MY ISSUE.
IT'S FOR, SO IT HAS TO BE UNANIMOUS.
SO WHAT WE DO AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WHICH IS ALSO, THAT'S ALSO THE CASE.
IT'S A, A, A PANEL OF FIVE MEMBERS, AND IF ONE DOESN'T SHOW UP, THEN YEAH, YOU NEED ALL FOUR PRESENT TO, TO VOTE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
SO WHAT THE CHAIR USUALLY DOES IS ALLOWS THE APPLICANT TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE TO A DATE WHERE ALL FIVE CAN BE PRESENT.
SO, I MEAN, THAT'S HOW I WOULD ADVISE THE CHAIR THAT DAY.
UM, LETTING THE PARTIES KNOW, WE'RE ONLY GONNA HAVE FOUR HERE AND THIS IS WHAT THAT MEANS AS FAR AS THE VOTE IS CONCERNED.
WOULD Y'ALL WANT TO RESET THIS? THAT WOULD BE MY ADVICE TO THE CHAIR.
UM, AND THEN IT WOULD BE UP TO THE PARTIES TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, TO EITHER GET TOGETHER AND SAY, YEAH, OUT OF FAIRNESS, LIKE LET'S JUST, UM, RESET IT OR EACH PARTY CAN MAKE THEIR, UM, ARGUMENT TO THE PANEL AND THEN THE, THE PANEL MAKES A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER TO MOVE FORWARD THAT DAY OR RESET IT.
CAN YOU LOOK AT PAGE 17, 6.7 WRITTEN DECISIONS? UH, WELL, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN BACK TO THAT.
YEAH, WE'RE STILL, UM, MOVING.
I THINK WE'VE GOTTEN 11 AND 12.
I THINK WE'VE GOTTEN THROUGH ALL THIS, DIDN'T WE? ALL THE ACTUAL PROCEDURES?
[00:35:01]
YEAH, I THINK WE WERE DOWN TO STARTING SECTION SIX.SECTION SIX, SPECIOUS COMPLAINANTS.
AND THIS IS, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THIS LANGUAGE I JUST TOOK FROM 12 A, UM, AGAIN, THIS IS GONNA BE DIFFERENT FROM AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
IT'LL BE BEFORE THE ENTIRE, UM, COMMISSION.
AND, UM, THE BURDEN WILL BE ON THE I G UM, TO DEMONSTRATE TO YOU THAT THIS PERSON HAS BEEN BASICALLY JUST HARASSING THE I G'S OFFICE.
UM, SO YEAH, AND THE, IT WILL PUT ON, YOU KNOW, EVIDENCE, THE, THE, THE PERSON WHO'S BEING ALLEGED TO BE A VEXATIOUS COMPLAINANT CAN BE THERE AND PUT ON THEIR OWN EVIDENCE, UM, LIKE, YOU KNOW, SHOWING THAT, NO, I MADE ALL OF THESE COMPLAINTS TO THE IG IN GOOD FAITH, AND HERE'S MY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT.
AND THEN Y'ALL MAKE A DETERMINATION THERE.
BUT IT WOULDN'T BE LIKE, I DON'T REALLY ENVISION THIS BEING LIKE, FULL ON HEARING WHERE WE'VE GOT ALL THE DATES WHERE THEY GIVE YOU A RESPONSE WHERE THEY, THEY, BUT THEY COULD SWAP THEIR EXHIBITS, THEY COULD DO ALL OF THAT.
BUT THIS IS JUST, WE'RE SETTING THIS, YOU COME, COME OUT HERE AND EXPLAIN YOURSELF SINCE THESE ARE THINGS THAT THE PUBLIC HAS AN OPTION TO LOOK AT.
IS THERE'S SOME PLACE IN HERE WHERE WE COULD PUT AN EXPLANATION FOR THE PUBLIC'S BENEFIT OF WHAT DEX JUST MEANS.
OH, IT'S IN 12 A, IT IS IN 12 A UHHUH, BUT WE'RE NOW TELLING THEM TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE PUBLIC HAS SOME, WE DON'T WANNA MAKE IT ANY MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE PUBLIC TO SAY THAT WE ARE NOT BEING TRANSPARENT.
SO IT'S A, IT'S A SHORT SENTENCE BECAUSE I SAW IT SOMEPLACE ELSE HERE ORIGINALLY, THAT IT'S A, ANOTHER THREE, FOUR, OR FIVE WORDS THAT TALKS ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY COME, THEY'RE, THEY'RE, IT'S MORE CONSISTENT AND IT KIND OF CONTINUES TO, UM, COMPLAIN ABOUT ISSUES.
UM, COULD WE FIND SOMETHING VERY BRIEF TO JUST PUT IN EXPLAINING IT WHAT SIX IS? YEAH, IT'S BEEN 12 A.
I MEAN, IT'S IN 12 A I DON'T, PUBLIC DOESN'T HAVE 12 A AND OH, THEY, THEY DO.
THEY, THEY CAN ACCESS IT AT ANY TIME.
I JUST DON'T WANT, LIKE, THE RULES OF PROCEDURE SHOULDN'T HAVE JUST ALL 12 A PUT IN HERE.
THESE ARE JUST THE PROCEDURES.
IF THEY WANNA KNOW WHAT'S OF VEXATIOUS COMPLAINT, WHAT DO I HAVE TO PROVE ALL THAT.
AND THAT'S WHY, LIKE AT, YOU'LL SEE AT THE, AT THE BOTTOM, I SEE AT THE, AT THE BOTTOM OF DIFFERENT SECTIONS, AND I'M GONNA, BEFORE I BRING THESE RULES IN, IN FRONT OF THE WHOLE COMMISSION, I'LL UPDATE ALL THESE CITATIONS SO THAT WAY THEY KNOW, WELL, HERE'S THE SECTION IN 12 A I GO TO, TO READ MORE ABOUT WHAT ALL OF THIS MEANS.
AND SO, UM, I THOUGHT ABOUT REMOVING ALL THOSE, BUT I WANNA KEEP 'EM BECAUSE I THINK IT'S REALLY HELPFUL.
YEAH, I THINK IT IS FOR PEOPLE.
MAY I SAY SOMETHING? I, I THINK THERE'S AN OBJECTIVE COMPONENT OF THAT AND A SUBJECTIVE COMPONENT.
THE OBJECTIVE IS OBVIOUSLY THERE IN THE 12, A 63, UH, WHERE SOMEONE PERSISTENTLY FILES ETHICS COMPLAINTS THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE E A C TO DETERMINE WHETHER, WHETHER THAT HAS OCCURRED, THE LANGUAGE AND THE RULES OF PROCEDURES SAY, SAYS, IF I CREDIBLY SUSPECT.
AND SO JUST OUT OF, UM, JUST OUT OF FULL DISCLOSURE, I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW KIND OF WHAT MY DEFINITION OF CREDIBLY MEANS WHEN I ASSESS SOMEBODY'S CREDIBILITY.
IT DEALS WITH OBJECTIVITY, COMPETENCE, AND PROFESSIONALISM.
UM, OBJECTIVITY IS A STATE OF MIND WHERE THE PROPONENT OF THE EVIDENCE IS BASING THEIR CONCLUSIONS AND OPINIONS ON REASON AND COMMON SENSE BASED UPON THE FACTS, INSTEAD OF BASING THEIR CONCLUSIONS AND OPINIONS UPON PERSONAL FEELINGS, INTERPRETATIONS, BIASES, AND SO FORTH.
UM, COMPETENCE IS A QUALITATIVE STATE WHERE A WITNESS POSSESSES THE REQUISITE SKILLS, ABILITIES, ADEQUACIES KNOWLEDGE, AND SO FORTH.
AND COMPETENCE IS THE ART OF DEMONSTRATING ONE'S COMPETENCE.
UM, YOU COULD HAVE A COMPETENT PERSON WHO DOES ADEQUATE AND COMPETENT WORK, BUT IF THEY SHOW UP IN THEIR STREET CLOTHES, THEY DON'T LOOK PROFESSIONAL.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS CLEAR WITH YOU.
WHEN I ASSESS SOMEBODY'S CREDIBILITY, THAT'S THE STANDARDS THAT I GO BY.
IS THE COMPLAINT THAT LED TO THE VEXATIOUS COMPLAINT, UH, REFERRAL STATE UNTIL THIS DETERMINATION IS MADE.
[00:40:01]
THE IG PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, THE IG HAS THE DISCRETION TO INVESTIGATE WHAT COMES INTO HIS OFFICE, UM, TO NOT INVESTIGATE SOMETHING IF HE THINKS THIS PERSON IS JUST HARASSING HIS OFFICE AND FILING, UM, A BUNCH OF NONSENSE.UM, SO THAT, THAT WOULD REALLY BE UP TO THE, IT'S DISCRETION TO INVESTIGATE OR, OR HOLD OFF ON ANY INVESTIGATION UNTIL, UM, YOU KNOW, A DETERMINATION ON VEXATIOUS COMPLAINANT IS MADE.
UM, IF THERE'S NOTHING MORE ON THAT, AND I ANTICIPATE THAT THESE PROCEDURES, UM, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO VEXATIOUS COMPLAINANT, WE MIGHT HAVE TO GIVE IT ANOTHER LOOK ONCE WE HAVE ONE OF THESE.
I THINK THIS IS WHAT, WE'LL, THESE ARE LIKELY TO BE VERY RARE ANYWAY.
UM, HOW MANY, JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY, HOW MANY COMPLAINTS WOULD IT TAKE FOR SOMEBODY TO FILE FOR MOST OF THE E A C MEMBERS TO SAY, DANG, THAT'S, THAT'S RIDICULOUS.
YOU KNOW, IS IT EIGHT OR 10? IS IT 15 OR 20? WELL, HONESTLY, I THINK IT'S, IT'S LESS THE NUMBER BECAUSE MAYBE THERE'S JUST A LOT OF CRAZY STUFF HAPPENING.
YOU HOLD SOMEONE, IT'S MORE OF THE INTENT.
BUT IF I DON'T GET, AND THE MOTIVATION IN FILING A WITNESS, IF I DON'T GET A FEELING FOR WHAT THESE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN MEAN BY THAT, THEN I'M JUST CURIOUS.
I MEAN, PERSONALLY, I WOULD SAY IF THEY ARE TOTALLY FRIVOLOUS, THREE OR FOUR, FIVE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED, POLITICALLY MOTIVATED, TOTALLY FRIVOLOUS, BAD FAITH, I MEAN, TO ME, A FEW HARASSMENT MIGHT BE ENOUGH, BUT THAT'S, IT'S GOING TO, IT'S TO ME, IT'S, IT'S NOT JUST QUANTITY, IT'S QUALITY.
IT'S LIKE YOU SAID, LAURA, MALICIOUS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED NONSENSE.
DO WE REALLY NEED TO WAIT FOR THEM TO FILE SIX OR SEVEN OR EIGHT OF THEM THAT YOU HAVE TO INVESTIGATE? YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T THINK WE DEFINE, I, I DON'T THINK WE CAN.
I THINK, I THINK WE'RE GONNA, IT'S GONNA BE CASE BY CASE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO JUST GET A FEEL FOR, IS THIS TOTALLY, ARE THEY TRYING TO WASTE OUR TIME OR ARE THEY TRYING TO DO SOMETHING MALICIOUS? I JUST FELT LIKE I MIGHT BE REMISS IN MY DUTIES IF I DIDN'T ASK FOR SOME KIND OF QUANTIFICATION OF THAT.
SO I DON'T, I YEAH, I THINK IT'S GONNA BE HARD TO, TO QUANTIFY WHEN YOU CROSS THAT LINE TO BE FIX VERSUS, UH, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN DEFINE IT, BUT IF YOU PUT YOUR FINGER ON THE PULSE AND GET SOME FEEL FOR WHAT YOU'RE THINKING, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO ME.
AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, I AGREE THAT WE'RE PROBABLY JUST NOT GOING TO SEE THIS A LOT.
THE FACT THAT IT'S IN 12 A, THAT WE CAN COME AFTER YOU FOR BEING A VEXATIOUS COMPLAINANT WILL HOPEFULLY WARD OFF SOME OF THAT BEHAVIOR.
AND I, AND I THINK YOU'LL KNOW IT WHEN YOU SEE IT.
IT WAS PLACED IN THERE BECAUSE SCOTUS WOULD SAY,
SO I, I THINK THERE'S ALMOST MORE SUBJECTIVITY YES.
THAN I ARGUE MIGHT SOME OBJECTIVE MEASURE.
BUT I WOULD HATE TO CONSTRAIN HOW THE, THE COMMISSION VIEWS THE ATION VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS.
IT'S GONNA BE BASICALLY A CASE BY CASE.
IS THAT, IS THAT OKAY, MR. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THAT.
YOU KNOW, I'VE GOT JOHN Q PUBLIC LOOKING OVER MY SHOULDER EVERY DAY, AND, UH, I GET UP EVERY DAY AND ASK THE QUESTION, WHAT COULD WE DO VERSUS WHAT SHOULD WE DO? AND IF I DON'T ASK FOR INFORMATION FROM THE BODY OF PEOPLE THAT ARE GONNA MAKE THAT DECISION, THEN I'M NOT DOING MY JOB OF, SO, SO WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH LEAVING THIS AS IT IS.
AND I THINK IT HAS TO BE, I THINK IT HAS TO BE NUANCED.
YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHO'S SAYING IT, AND IS THERE SOME MOTIVE BEHIND WHAT THEY'RE SAYING OTHER THAN THAT THEY WANT TO BE A GOOD CITIZEN AND, UH, THEY'RE LOOKING TO GET SOMEBODY IN TROUBLE.
IT'S, I MEAN, THEY MAY, IF THERE'S SOME REASON THAT PERSON, YOU KNOW, BUT OTHERWISE, I JUST THINK THEY HAVE TO USE GOOD COMMON SENSE.
AND I AGREE WITH MS. MORRISON AT SOME POINT,
[00:45:01]
IF WE HAVE ONE OF THESE AND WE FIND THAT, OKAY, WE DO NEED DEFINITIONS, WE DO NEED NUMBERS, AND WE CAN ADDRESS IT AT THAT POINT, BUT IF WE COULD START WITH AT LEAST HAVING SOME, UH, SUBJECTIVE MEASURE, THEN THAT GIVES THE COMMISSION THE AUTHORITY TO YEAH.I GUESS I'M A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT A VEXATIOUS COMPLAINT BE TAKEN UP BY THE WHOLE COMMISSION, BUT THEN THERE'S A PROVISION IN HERE IN 12 A, I JUST LOOK, I HAVE THE MOST RECENT VERSION, I THINK IT SAID THE OLD ONE TOO, THAT THAT SPEAKS OF A EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND WE DON'T HAVE RULES FOR THAT.
OR DO WE GO BY THE RULES THAT WE HAVE FOR HEARING 6.5? THE HEARING PROCEDURES? YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.
I MAYBE I JUST NEED TO REFERENCE, IT'S BASICALLY THE, BASICALLY THE SAME AS OUR REGULAR HEARING PROCEDURES.
DO I REFERENCE 6.5 IN THE VEXATIOUS COMPLAINANT? NO, I MEAN, THAT'S, I MEAN, 6.5 IS HEARING PROCEDURES FOR A VEXATIOUS COMPLAINANT HEARING.
PRESENTING EVIDENCE, CALLING WITNESSES, BUT THERE'S NO DISCOVERY DEADLINE, UH, EXCHANGE OF WI YEAH, ALL THAT.
I MEAN, I, I DIDN'T SEE THAT HAPPENING.
I DIDN'T SEE, YOU KNOW, THE COMPLAINANT SUBMITTING A RESPONSE.
YOU JUST SHOW UP AND PUT ON YOUR EVIDENCE.
UM, I'M, YOU KNOW, I I, LIKE YOU SAID BEFORE, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO SEE HOW THIS WHOLE THING PLAYS OUT.
IF, IF WE RUN INTO SOME ISSUES SIX MONTHS FROM NOW, I MEAN, I, I COULD WRITE IN THAT, YOU KNOW, 14 DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING, THEY HAVE TO EXCHANGE ALL OF THE EXHIBITS AND WITNESS LISTS, OR I THINK THEY, I DON'T IF THEY GET THAT MUCH NOTICE OF THE HEARING THOUGH.
YEAH, WELL, HEARING IS SO MUCH FASTER.
IT, IT'S 10 DAY NOTICE, BUT THE HEARING COULD TAKE PLACE AT OUR ORDERLY MEETING, WHICH WOULD GIVE, DEPENDING ON WHEN THE NOTICE IS, OR IT CAN BE DONE AT A, AT A, UH, SPECIALLY CALLED MEETING.
UH, I GUESS I'M OKAY WITH LEAVING IT LIKE IT IS NOW.
AND, UH, YOU, YOU JUST CAN'T PLAN FOR EVERYTHING.
I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW AREAS WHERE THERE AREN'T SPECIFIC DETAILS REGARDING HOW WE CONDUCT A VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS MATTER.
AND THEY CAN ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, IF, IF, IF THIS IS, IF, IF WE HAVE A VEXATIOUS COMPLAINT ISSUE, THAT'S GONNA BE MORE COMPLEX.
YOU KNOW, AND LET'S SAY, I MEAN, I THINK ODDS ARE THEY'RE GONNA GET A LOT MORE THAN 10 DAYS NOTICE OF THE HEARING, BUT LET'S ASSUME THEY ONLY GET 10 DAYS AND IT IS SOMETHING COMPLEX, THEY'RE GONNA ASK FOR MORE TIME.
THEY'RE PROBABLY GONNA HAVE A LOT OF NOTICE BECAUSE YOUR REGULAR MEETINGS ARE ONLY ONCE A QUARTER.
AND WE ALWAYS KNOW WHEN THE NEXT ONE'S GONNA BE, BECAUSE YOU APPROVE A CALENDAR AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY YEAR.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, 10 DAYS WOULD BE THE VERY LEAST, BUT THEY COULD HAVE ALL LIKE, ALMOST 90 DAYS NOTICE THAT IT'S MONTHS.
DOES THE CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION HAVE THE RIGHT TO, UH, AND SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO, UH, SEND OUT A, A, UH, A ORDER IS NOT A GOOD WORD, BUT TO, TO DO SOME KIND OF SCHEDULING? UH, FOR DISCOVERY OR FOR EXCHANGE? I MEAN, FOR EXCHANGE OF, OF EXHIBITS? JUST ON HIS OWN? ON HIS OWN.
I MEAN, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK SO.
UM, I GUESS THE CHAIR COULD SEND OUT A LETTER ASKING THE PARTIES, ADVISING THEM THAT HE THINKS IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO EXCHANGE, BUT THERE WOULD BE NOTHING THAT ALLOWS HIM TO COMPEL ANYONE TO DO THAT.
HAVING SAID ALL THAT, I'M STILL COMFORTABLE WITH PROCEDURES.
UM, SHOULD WE MOVE ON TO SECTION SEVEN?
[00:50:04]
IT DIDN'T CHANGE VERY MUCH.I JUST HAD TO ADD THE IG BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE IG REFERENCED AT ALL IN OUR OLD RULES.
CITY SECRETARY, UH, STAYS THE SAME.
MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL, DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS WITH RESPECT TO YOU, YOUR 7.3? JUST ONE NOTE I'LL MAKE IS THAT WE DO SEEM TO FLIP BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN CALLING AND COMMISSION AND E A C.
YOU'RE GONNA DO A FINE REPORT? YEAH, I'M GONNA, YEAH, I DON'T CARE WHICH, BUT I JUST, I THINK IT LOOKS FINE.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE I JUST HAVE, UM, A FEW THINGS TO POLISH UP, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU GUYS WANNA TRUST ME TO DO THAT AND THEN BRING THIS BEFORE THE COMMISSION OR WE CAN MEET ONE MORE TIME.
BUT I THINK THESE RULES ARE PRETTY MUCH READY TO GO.
AND I CAN WORK ON THE, UM, ALL THE 12 A REFERENCES AT THE END OF THE SECTIONS.
SO GET THIS ON MAYBE FOR OUR OCTOBER REGULAR MEETING.
I KNOW THAT THE CHAIR CHAIR POWERS WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS.
I WAS GONNA ASK IF YOU JUST, UM, THERE'S LOTS OF PLACES WHERE THINGS DID SLASH HER IS CASES, AND IN OTHER PLACES WE USE THERE UHHUH, T H E I R JUST MAKE THEM CONSISTENT SO THAT THEY'RE ALL THE SAME.
AND THEN THERE'S ONE OTHER THING HERE WHERE, UM, WRITTEN DECISIONS IN ONE PLACE, SAY, I THINK FOR THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING, IT SAYS 20 DAYS FOR WRITING IT, AND IN SOME PLACES, AND THEN FOR OTHERS IT'S 10 DAYS.
IT'S EITHER 10 DAYS THAT IT'S HAS TO BE WRITTEN UP OR IT MAKE IT 20 DAYS.
WELL, IT HAS TO BE, THAT'S IN 12 A, SO WE CAN'T CHANGE IT IN THE RULES.
I THINK IT'S, SO IN ONE HEARING IT'S 10 DAYS.
AND ANOTHER ONE'S 12 WRITTEN DECISION ON PAGE 13.
SO PAGE 13, FIVE POINT 17 SAYS 20 DAYS, I THINK.
AND THEN SOMEPLACE ELSE IT SAYS 10 A NOTIFICATION.
SO WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE NO 20 DAYS WITH REASONABLE EFFORTS TO, RIGHT.
WRITTEN DECISIONS AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING.
I MEAN, IT, IT GOES OUT WAY BEFORE THAT 20 DAYS.
WELL, THEY SAYS 20 DAYS, SO WE CAN'T CHANGE IT HERE 'CAUSE IT CAN'T.
UM, SO ARE, ARE YOU GOING TO, YOU CIRCULATE WHAT WE HAVE TO THE COMMISSION AND THEN WE WILL HAVE VOTE ON WHETHER THESE WOULD BE THE PROVISIONS THAT WE WOULD THEN, UH, TRANSMIT TO THE COUNCIL YEAH.
SO WHAT WILL HAPPEN NOW IS WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION HERE FROM THE COMMITTEE TO RECOMMEND THESE RULES MOVE FORWARD TO FULL COMMISSION TO BE PUT ON THE OCTOBER AGENDA.
AND IF THAT IS APPROVED, I WILL CLEAN THIS UP.
I'LL GET IT SENT OUT TO THE FULL COMMISSION.
UM, HOPEFULLY WITH PLENTY OF TIME FOR EVERYONE TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW IT BEFORE THE MEETING.
WE WILL DISCUSS IT AT THE MEETING.
UM, THERE COULD BE A MOTION AT THE MEETING TO APPROVE IT, UM, APPROVE THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION OR APPROVE THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION WITH SOME WHATEVER, UM, EDITS THE FULL COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE.
AND THEN I WILL DRAFT A RESOLUTION TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL.
CITY COUNCIL DOESN'T HAVE TO APPROVE YOUR RULES.
IT'S JUST A RESOLUTION THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE AMENDED YOUR RULES AND THAT THEY'RE IN RECEIPT OF THEM.
SO THERE'S NO ACTION BY THE COUNCIL WITH RESPECT
[00:55:01]
TO THE RULES THAT THEY RECEIVE.THEY WILL PROBABLY PUT IT ON CONSENT
JUST THEM APPROVING THE RESOLUTION THAT SAYS THEY ARE IN RECEIPT OF YOUR NEWLY AMENDED RULES OF PROCEDURE.
JUDGE, CAN WE OPERATE UNDER THESE RULES BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL SAYS THEY RECEIVED THEM? YES.
SO AS SOON AS Y'ALL APPROVE THEM, THEY'RE GOOD.
SO THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE A FULL COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND, UH, AND DELIBERATION WITH RESPECT TO THESE ARE THE PROPOSED, UH, RULES THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEND TO THE COUNCIL UPON THE COMMISSION APPROVAL.
AFTER TODAY, WHICH, UM, IF FOREMAN WANTS TO MAKE A MOVE TODAY, SECOND, UM, I'LL MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND THESE RULES WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED TODAY TO THE FULL COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL AT OUR, AT THE NEXT MEETING.
AND THAT WAY IF PEOPLE HAVE SUGGESTIONS, CHANGES BEFORE THEY GO TO THE COUNCIL, THE FULL COMMISSION WILL HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS IT AND MAKE WHATEVER MODIFICATIONS OTHER MEMBERS OF COMMISSION FEEL NECESSARY.
IT LOOKS LIKE WE'LL HAVE ONE MORE MEETING, THEN WE HAVE TO SECOND NEED A SECOND.
UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR DELIBERATION WITH RESPECT TO THE MOTION MISSION MEMBERS, PANEL MEMBERS? MR. IG, I JUST WANNA THANK YOU FOR GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE SOME INPUT.
THAT MEANS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT TO ME, SO THANK YOU.
THAT'S OUR, THAT SHOULD BE PART, THAT SHOULD BE PART OF THE PROCESS.
UH, HEARING NONE, THEN WE'RE READY FOR A VOTE.
IS THAT RIGHT? A ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
AND ASSUME, UH, DID, DID YOU OWE GRANT? GRANT, GRANT, ARE YOU STILL THERE? YES.
YOU DO YOU WANNA VOTE ON, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEAH, YOU CAN HEAR ME NOW? YEAH.
DO YOU WANNA VOTE? YES, I SAID I, I'M, I'M IN FAVOR.
WELL I WANNA THANK THIS COMMITTEE FOR ALL THEIR HARD WORK.
I'M GONNA REPORT BACK TO CHAIR POWERS THAT Y'ALL, UM, REALLY HELPED ME OUT A LOT IN DRAFTING THIS AND THAT.
UM, IT WAS A REALLY GOOD DECISION ON HIS PART TO HAVE THIS COMMITTEE.
IT'S JUST SO MUCH EASIER TO WORK WITH A SMALLER GROUP WHEN IT'S LIKE A DRAFTING WORKSHOP LIKE THIS.
UM, SO I THINK THAT WORKED OUT REALLY, REALLY NICELY.
UM, THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR VOLUNTEERING.
THE ACTUAL WORK WORK WE JUSTED IN WITH IDEAS.
ALL RIGHT, WELL, UM, YEAH, SO THEN I'LL SEE YOU GUYS IN OCTOBER.
THIS HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL AND WE WILL MOVE THIS ALONG TO THE NEXT PHASE.
IT'S ADJOURN THE ANNOUNCE 10 33.
THE E A C PANEL, UH, ADJOURNED FOR THE AD HOC COMMITTEE.
I'M SORRY, AD HOC, COMMITTEE HOC BUSINESS IS COMPLETE FOR THE DAY.