[00:00:01]
[Ethics Advisory Commission on April 16, 2024.]
TODAY'S MEETING OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.IT IS 9 37, UH, AM ON TUESDAY, APRIL 16TH.
THIS TIME I WILL DO A ROLL CALL.
IF PRESENT, PLEASE SAY, HERE ARE TOM THOMAS PERKINS.
WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT AND THIS MEETING IS NOW CALLED TO ORDER.
WILL OTHERS PRESENT AT TODAY'S MEETING? PLEASE INTRODUCE AND, AND INTRODUCE THEMSELVES, STARTING WITH THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BART BEAVERS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, INSPECTOR GENERAL DIVISION, CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE, DONNA BROWN, MARTINEZ, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
LAURA MORRISON, LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE EAC.
WE'LL PROCEED WITH TODAY'S MEETING.
UM, MADAM CITY SECRETARY, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS TODAY? NO, SIR.
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS TODAY.
TODAY WE WILL PROCEED TO ITEM NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JANUARY, JANUARY 23RD, UH, 2024 ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION, SPECIAL CALLED MEETING.
UH, IS THERE, HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE MINUTES? IF SO, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? SO MOVED.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IF THERE IS NO FURTHER, IF THERE IS NO DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY OF SAYING AYE.
THE MOTION HAS PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
WE NOW MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.
UM, IS JUST GONNA, YEAH, SO FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE SOMEONE HERE FROM OUR EMPLOYMENT DIVISION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
SO IF WE WANNA MOVE ON TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT TO SEE IF MAYBE HE'LL, UM, BE PRESENT LATER IN THE MEETING.
UM, AND IF HE DOES APPEAR, THEN WE WILL MOVE BACK TO THE, THAT, UH, UH, ELIG ELIGIBILITY PROCESS BRIEFING.
SO ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS A BRIEFING BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
WE WILL GET AN UPDATE, UH, FROM THE DIVISION OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
I'VE GOT A TWO OR THREE MINUTE UPDATE ON WHAT WE'VE DONE OVER THE LAST 90 DAYS.
UH, CHAIRMAN PERKINS AND, UH, TIM POWERS WAS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TASK FORCE, UH, WHO FILED A PETITION ON OUR BEHALF WITH THE CHARTER COMMISSION AND WORKED WITH THEM A LITTLE BIT OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS ON GETTING SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE DONE.
ON FEBRUARY 22ND, WE PROSECUTED A THEFT CASE.
IT WAS A SKIMMING SCHEME, UH, AND WE WERE, UH, FORTUNATE TO RECEIVE A FAVORABLE DECISION BEFORE THE FIVE MEMBER EAC PANEL.
IT WENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 27TH, AND THEY APPROVED THE, THE FIVE PERSON EAC PANEL'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
UH, WE FINISHED OUR FIRST EVALUATION AND REVIEW, UH, SOMETIMES CALLED AN INSPECTION.
WE FINISHED THAT ON DECEMBER 14TH.
UH, WE GOT APPROVAL TO SEND OUT THE TRANSMITTAL MEMO ON MARCH THE 15TH OF 24, AND RECEIVED A MANAGEMENT RESPONSE THREE WEEKS LATER.
UH, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE DETAILS OF THAT YET UNTIL WE POST IT, BUT, UM, VERY EXCITED AND PLEASED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WE DID ACCOMPLISH OUR FIRST EVALUATION AND REVIEW.
LOOKS VERY MUCH LIKE AN INVESTIGATION, BUT THE GOALS ARE DIFFERENT, AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO VISIT WITH YOU ABOUT THAT.
WE ISSUED THE QUARTERLY REPORT IN THE LAST 90 DAYS.
FOR THE FIRST QUARTER, UH, RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM AN NBC TELEVISION
[00:05:01]
NEWS REPORTER WHO DID NOT WANT TO INTERVIEW ME, BUT WANTED TO HAVE COFFEE, SO SAT DOWN AND VISITED WITH THAT GENTLEMAN FOR AN HOUR.UM, WE ALSO ROLLED OUT OUR PERFORMANCE DATA COMPILER, WHICH IS A THREE MODEL MEASUREMENT SYSTEM FACILITATING INTERNAL OIG, ACCOUNTABILITY, EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS, AND OBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND REPORTING.
AND, UM, LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING HOW THAT'S GONNA ROLL OUT WITH OUR CONTINUED ACTIVITIES.
WE MET A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO WITH THE US STATE DEPARTMENT, HAD A GROUP OF INTERNATIONAL VISITORS FROM THE UKRAINE.
IT WAS A CONTINGENT OF PROSECUTORS, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS, JUDGES, AND REPORTERS FROM THE UKRAINE.
AND THEY WERE HERE VISITING, TRYING TO LOOK AT THE IG MODEL.
THEY WENT ACROSS THE FREEWAY VISIT WITH THE DA'S OFFICE, TRYING TO GET A FEEL FOR HOW THE UNITED STATES HANDLES AND PROSECUTES ETHICS VIOLATIONS, CRIMINAL CASES, AND SO FORTH.
IT WAS AN HONOR TO VISIT WITH THEM THREE WEEKS AGO.
I GOT TO BRIEF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE, THE GPFM COMMITTEE ON MARCH 25TH ON OUR ACTIVITIES.
OVER THE LAST TWO QUARTERS, WE RECEIVED APPROVAL TO SEND OUT THE PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT, AND I BELIEVE WE SENT OUT AN EMAIL THIS MORNING.
SO YOU SHOULD HAVE THAT IN YOUR INBOX.
THE PSA THAT WE'VE DONE OVER THE LAST QUARTER, THE LAST 90 DAYS, WE'VE RECEIVED 26 ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS.
AND THE CATCH THE CANARY GAME THAT WE BEGAN AS A CITY ONLINE ETHICS QUIZ HAS BEEN PLAYED 2017 TIMES BY 511 PEOPLE OVER THE LAST 90 DAYS.
UH, THE TRAINING THAT WE'VE DONE IN PERSON IS LIVE OR ON TEAMS. THAT'S 19 EVENTS REACHING 690 PEOPLE.
AND THE BRAINS BEHIND THAT IS OUR CHIEF INTEGRITY OFFICER.
HE HANDLES THE ADVISORY OPINIONS, COMES UP WITH THE CATCH THE CANARY IDEAS, THE TRAINING, AND ACTUALLY ALL OF OUR COMMUNICATIONS.
HE'S THE GENTLEMAN SITTING BEHIND ME NOW IN THE, IN THE, THE JACKET BEHIND ME.
THAT'S OUR BRIEFING FOR THE LAST 90 DAYS.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL? YEAH.
ARE, ARE THE ADVISORY OPINIONS PUBLIC? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I, I MIGHT GET MR. ELIASON TO HELP ME ON THAT.
I KNOW THAT THEIR PERSPECTIVE IN NATURE, SO YOU CAN ONLY ASK FOR YOUR BEHAVIOR, NOT SOMEBODY ELSE'S, AND YOU CAN'T ASK FOR SOMETHING YOU DID IN THE PAST.
SO, UH, THEY'RE CONFIDENTIAL, I THINK, BUT I'M, I'M SURE MR. ELIASON WOULD PROBABLY BE ABLE TO GIVE US SOME MORE DETAIL ON THAT.
THOSE OPINIONS ARE CONFIDENTIAL.
THE, THE PERSON THAT CAN RELEASE THEM IS THE REQUESTER OF THE ADVISORY OPINION.
AND, AND THE SECOND THING, I WAS ON THE PANEL, UH, IN FEBRUARY, AND IT STRUCK ME, UH, DEFINITELY WANT TO GIVE DEFERENCE TO DUE PROCESS FOR PEOPLE BEING ACCUSED, BUT IT STRUCK ME THAT WHEN A PERSON DOESN'T ANSWER THE COMPLAINT AND DOESN'T SHOW UP, WHETHER WE SHOULD LOOK AT AMENDING OUR PROCEDURES TO ALLOW FOR SOME KIND OF PROFFER OF EVIDENCE AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WE DID, WHICH, UH, WAS ENLIGHTENING.
BUT I JUST WONDER, UH, IF, IF, IF THE, UH, IF THE TESTIMONY COULD BE TRUNCATED A LITTLE BIT BY SOME KIND OF PROFFER SHORTENED.
IS, IS, IS IS THAT THE THAT WAS MY, WELL, THAT, THAT'S A QUESTION.
I MEAN, I, I, I GUESS IT'S UP TO US TO, UH, LOOK AT AN AMENDMENT TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND THEN SEND IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL IF WE WANTED TO DO THAT.
BUT THAT, THAT WAS A COMMENT AND A QUESTION THAT IT'S A VERY, VERY INTELLIGENT COMMENT.
UM, I CAN TELL YOU, OF ALL THE FRAUD SCHEMES THAT I'VE HANDLED OVER THE LAST 30 PLUS YEARS, ONE OF 'EM THAT CONCERNS ME THE MOST ARE THESE OFF THE BOOKS FRAUD SCHEMES, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE DEALING WITH.
IF YOU STEAL MONEY AFTER IT'S ENTERED INTO THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM, THAT'S LARCENY.
IF YOU STEAL MONEY BEFORE THAT IS SKIMMING.
AND BECAUSE IT'S AN OFF THE BOOKS FRAUD CASE, ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU'RE GONNA BRING TO THE FACT FINDER, BE IT A JUDGE, A JURY, OR AN EAC PANEL, ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU'RE GONNA LAY BEFORE 'EM WILL BE DOCUMENTS SHOWING RECORDED TRANSACTIONS.
SO YOU'RE IN THIS POSITION OF, HEY, THAT TRANSACTION THAT WE'RE TELLING YOU HAPPENED, IT'S NOT HERE.
AND WHEN YOU'RE BRINGING DOCUMENTS IN, MY CONCERN IS, GEE, I'VE ONLY TRIED A COUPLE OF THINGS IN FRONT OF, OF, OF
[00:10:01]
THESE PANELS.WHAT'S GONNA BE ENOUGH? COULD WE DO A TRUNCATED 30 MINUTE PRESENTATION AND CROSS OUR FINGERS THAT WE CARRIED ENOUGH BURDEN? UH, OR SHOULD WE SPEND A COUPLE HOURS LAYING IT OUT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY KNOW THAT THIS THING WAS DONE? SO, I'M WITH YOU.
I, I WAS THINKING, BOY, I SURE WISH WE COULD COME IN HERE AND JUST LAY IT OUT REAL QUICK.
BUT THE RISK FOR US IS IF WE DO IT TOO QUICK AND TOO SLOPPY AND CUT CORNERS THAT SOMEBODY ON THE PANEL'S GONNA GO, MAN, THEY, I DON'T THINK THEY DID WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE.
SO, UM, AND THEN BECAUSE OF THE RULES THAT PROHIBIT EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, I CAN'T GO UP TO YOU GUYS AND GO, HEY, WHAT, WHAT DO YOU THINK, UH, THIS PERSON DIDN'T SHOW UP? DID, SHOULD I DO A 30 MINUTE DEAL OR A THREE HOUR DEAL? AND SO OUR CONCERN IS, IS THAT, AND IT'S ALSO WATCHING HOW YOU GUYS RESPOND TO WHAT WE DO AND TRYING TO LEARN FROM THAT.
UH, I WOULD'VE LOVED TO HAVE COME IN AND DONE A 20 OR 30 MINUTE PROFFER OF EVIDENCE AND GOTTEN OUTTA HERE WITH A FAVORABLE DECISION.
BUT MY CONCERN WAS, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THIS FIVE PERSON PANEL'S GONNA REQUIRE OF US THANK YOU TO, TO HOWARD'S POINT, YOU DON'T KNOW IF THAT PERSON'S GONNA SHOW UP OR NOT.
SO YOU HAVE TO PREPARE AND WE HAVE TO SEE WHAT YOU HAVE.
SO, I MEAN, IF IT'S TWO HOURS OR THREE HOURS, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
SO, I MEAN, YEAH, IT WOULD BE GREAT.
BUT, AND WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION AS WELL, IF, IF WE RECEIVE A FAVORABLE DECISION, THEY'RE GOING TO BE THIS FIVE PERSON PANEL'S GONNA BE MAKING SOME DECISIONS ON WHICH SANCTION, IF ANY, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
AND IF WE DON'T LAY OUT ENOUGH EVIDENCE, THEY'RE PROBABLY GONNA LOOK AT ME AND GO, WE, WE CAN'T EVEN MAKE A SANCTION RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE YOU WERE, YOU WERE TOO SHORT OR TOO QUICK, OR WHATEVER.
SO WE TRIED TO STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN NOT WASTING ANYBODY'S TIME AND PRESENTING ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT WE FELT YOU WOULD APPRECIATE.
SO DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? YEAH, I WOULD, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT, UM, THE FACT THAT THE PERSON DOESN'T COME, DOESN'T, ISN'T APPEARING.
WE SHOULD STILL HEAR ALL OF THE PRESENTATION THAT YOU WOULD'VE DONE IF THAT PERSON HAD BEEN HERE IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT VALID DECISION ON WHAT KIND OF PENALTY.
SO I WOULD, WHICH WE DID TO HEAR THAT WE ARE ALL EXPECTING TO BE HERE SEVERAL HOURS.
IT'S NOT AS IF WE DON'T PLAN, YOU KNOW, WE PLAN TO WALK IN, WE KNOW THAT YOU'RE GONNA PRESENT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF, UH, INFORMATION AND DATA.
SO I WOULD THINK WE SHOULD HEAR IT ALL.
AND THE FEEDBACK THAT YOU JUST GAVE IS INVALUABLE TO US.
EVERY TIME YOU GUYS SAY SOMETHING, WE TAKE CLOSE NOTE OF IT.
AND, UH, BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE FEEDBACK.
SO, SO AT THIS POINT IT DOES NOT SEEM AS, OR APPEARS AS IF THERE IS A, UH, A, A A REAL DESIRE TO DO A TRUNCATED DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROCEDURE, BUT RATHER HAVE A FULL, UM, EXPLANATION AND DISCUSSION BY THAT, BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AS A BASIS FOR THE, THE DECISION ON.
DOES ANYBODY, UH, THAT'S ON THE OUR CALL, UM, HAVE A COMMENT THAT THEY'D LIKE TO, I, I ACTUALLY DO, UM, OUT, SO I, UH, I THINK MR. RUBIN WAS SPEAKING EARLIER ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A TRUNCATED, UM, HEARING.
BUT I JUST, I, AND I APPRECIATE, UH, MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL, YOU KNOW, THE WANT TO BE VERY, VERY THOROUGH, BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO REALLY EXAMINE IF WE CAN JUST HAVE A DEFAULT PROCEEDING IF SOMEONE WAS PROPERLY NOTICED OF THE HEARING.
IT'S, I MEAN, AND I THINK, UH, THERE WAS EVIDENCE PRESENTED THAT IT WAS, THEY SENT IT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL TO THEIR LAST KNOWN ADDRESS.
THEY EVEN HAD A LIST OF ALL FORMER ADDRESSES THAT THEY PROVIDED NOTICE TO.
I I JUST THINK IN A SCENARIO LIKE THAT, IF SOMEBODY'S NOT EVEN APPEARING FOR THE HEARING AFTER GIVEN PROPER NOTICE, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO EXPEDITE THE HEARING AND HAVE A DEFAULT HEARING INSTEAD.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S, I THINK IT'S NECESSARY BECAUSE WE WERE THERE FOR ABOUT THREE HOURS.
AND I'M NOT, I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T HEAR ALL THE EVIDENCE IF SOMEONE WERE TO APPEAR OR IF IF CIRCUMSTANCES WERE DIFFERENT.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT I THINK THERE IS A NEED FOR HAVING A DEFAULT PROCEEDING, UH, AND MEASURES TO, YOU KNOW, ALLOW FOR EVIDENCE JUST TO BE ADMITTED WITHOUT OBJECTION.
WELL, IT, IT APPEARS AS IF WE HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION WITH RESPECT TO THE ADVISABILITY OF DOING A TRUNCATED DEFAULT PROCEDURE
[00:15:01]
AS OPPOSED TO A FULL EXPLANATION OF THE CASE AND THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST.WOULD THE COMMISSION LIKE A BRIEFING ON THIS AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS IT FURTHER? OR WHAT'S THE MS. MORRISON? YEAH, I MEAN, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THOUGHTS YEAH.
TO CHANGE THE PROCEDURES, WE'D HAVE TO SEE IF THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 12 A.
BUT I THINK IT DEFINITELY WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE RULES.
MAYBE FOR THE JULY, UM, QUARTERLY MEETING COMING UP NEXT, WE COULD BRING, UH, SOME OPTIONS TO THE COMMISSION, UM, AND DO A BRIEFING OF JUST MAYBE WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE.
UM, IF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL THINKS THAT'S A GOOD IDEA, I'M ALL ABOUT TRYING TO MAKE THINGS MORE EFFICIENT.
AND, UH, BUT AT, AT THE END OF THE DAY, I'M THE GUY SITTING IN THE CHAIR THAT'S GOTTA GO, OKAY, WHAT, HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH TO GET A FAVORABLE VERDICT OR A FAVORABLE DECISION IN A GIVEN CASE? AND IF I ERR ON THE SIDE OF A LITTLE BIT MORE, IT'S BECAUSE I WOULD RATHER ERR ON THAT SIDE THAN TOO LITTLE.
AND SO THAT'S, IF THAT HELPS YOU UNDERSTAND MY THINKING.
AND, AND, AND, UH, AND, UH, EVEN IF WE HAD A TRUNCATED PROCEDURE, IT WOULD STILL BE UP TO YOU WHETHER TO USE IT YEAH.
DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
SO I THINK IT WOULD BE NICE, I THINK, I THINK THE POSSIBILITY IS ALREADY HERE IN THE PROCEDURE IN 12 A, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE NICE TO GIVE SOMEBODY THE OPTION TO SHOW UP AND PLEAD TRUE OR PLEAD TRUE AND FILE SOMETHING.
SO EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT GONNA SHOW UP, YOU'VE GOT THEIR DECISION ON THE CHARGES THAT WERE CHARGED AGAINST THEM.
I JUST, I MEAN, IN THE LAST YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF, THERE'S BEEN THREE CASES.
ONE WAS SETTLED SHORTLY BEFORE.
SO I, I FEEL LIKE WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS AN EXAMPLE TO OTHER EMPLOYEES AND JUST A, A NO SHOW WITH TRUNCATED EVIDENCE.
I'M NOT SURE THAT I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE DOING ANY SANCTIONS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT IF SOMEBODY JUST SIMPLY DOESN'T SHOW UP.
AND I THINK FOR THE RECORD, YOU KNOW, KNOW IT'S IMPORTANT TO SHOW THE SORT OF EVIDENCE THAT IS REQUIRED TO BRING CHARGES OR WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL 'EM, AGAINST SOMEBODY, A CITY EMPLOYEE OR ANYBODY, MY OPINION.
I THINK THAT WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION BOTH TO THE PERSON WHO'S BEEN ACCUSED OF SOMETHING AS WELL AS, UM, AND, AND IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO ME THAT, UM, IT'S AN IMPOSITION ON US AS COMMISSIONERS.
I MEAN, WE'RE NOT HERE EVERY WEEK OR EVERY DAY, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE, OUR TIME.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT IT, IT, IT, AT LEAST FOR ME, IT REPRESENTS, UM, THAT MUCH OF AN IMPOSITION TO MAKE IT AS EFFICIENT AS YOU NEED TO MAKE IT.
BUT YOU, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE ALL OF THE INFORMATION FOR ME TO MAKE AN HONEST DECISION AND ALSO FOR THE TRUST WITH THE COMMUNITY THAT WE SERVE.
SO I STILL BELIEVE THAT, UM, IT SHOULD NOT BE A TRUNCATED BECAUSE THEN WE ARE PUTTING YOU IN THE POSITION OF WE COULD BE THEN QUESTIONING YOU AS TO WHETHER YOU'VE PROVIDED SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF INFORMATION FOR US TO MAKE A DECISION.
AND THAT'S WORSE THAN THE LONGER, THE LONGER TIME PERIOD, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.
AND, AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, WE, I THINK WE WERE HERE ABOUT THREE HOURS.
WE WERE IN THE SIX E ES BRIEFING ROOM AS WHERE WE RECEIVED THE INVITATION TO GO.
AND IT WAS ABOUT FIVE MINUTES BEFORE THE HEARING BEGAN, BUT WE FOUND OUT IT WAS HERE, SO WE HAD TO RUN DOWN HERE AND PLUG IN.
SO IT WAS A LITTLE SLOW GETTING STARTED, BUT I THINK WE WERE HERE ABOUT THREE HOURS.
I COULD HAVE TAKEN THAT SAME EVIDENCE AND STRETCHED IT OUT TO SIX IF WE WANTED TO, TO REALLY SLOW DOWN.
BUT I TRIED TO MAKE IT EFFICIENT AND TRY TO HIT THE THINGS THAT WE NEEDED TO HIT.
UM, SO I, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU GUYS KNEW WE TRIED TO BE EFFICIENT WHEN WE PRESENTED IT, ESPECIALLY WHEN I SAW THAT THE RESPONDENT DID NOT SHOW UP.
I THINK THREE HOURS WAS SUFFICIENT
AND ALSO, NOT TO MENTION THAT IF ANYBODY CAME BACK AND QUESTIONED
[00:20:02]
ANY DECISION THAT ANY OF US MADE, WE WOULD HAVE A PAPER FILE THAT SAYS, OKAY, THIS IS WHAT WE DID.WE DIDN'T JUST SAY YOU DIDN'T SHOW UP, SO THEREFORE YOUR, YOU KNOW, YOU DID THIS.
SO I JUST, I THINK IT'S A GOOD STANDARD REP PRACTICE.
I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE, UM, THINGS THAT NEED TO BE MET.
IT'S, BUT BASICALLY WHEN SOMEONE DOESN'T SHOW UP TO A HEARING AFTER GIVING PROPER NOTICE AND THEY ELECTED TO JUST NOT SHOW UP, YOU KNOW, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STILL HAS TO PROVE UP HIS CASE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO TAKE THREE HOURS TO DO THAT, ESPECIALLY IN WITH, GIVEN THE FACTS THAT WE HAD IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IN FEBRUARY, THE EMPLOYEE HAD ALREADY BEEN LET GO.
UM, SHE DIDN'T SHOW UP TO THE HEARING.
UH, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL GAVE US, UH, EVIDENCE THAT PROPER NOSE WAS GIVEN.
AND I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, HE WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND AND HE EVEN PRODUCED EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT HE DID A MASSIVE SEARCH IN A, IN THE DATABASE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THIS PERSON LIVED.
AND THIS PERSON STILL DIDN'T SHOW UP.
SO I DO THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE AN OPTION FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO EXPEDITE A HEARING AND ESSENTIALLY JUST PROVE UP WHATEVER DAMAGES HE HAS.
AND THEN AT THAT POINT, WE CAN STILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
'CAUSE WE'LL HAVE THE EVIDENCE, THEY'LL JUST BE ADMITTED WITHOUT HAVING TO, YOU KNOW, UH, GO THROUGH THE WHOLE HEARING, UH, AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE CALL A WITNESS OR TWO TO PROVE UP CERTAIN THINGS.
BUT OTHERWISE, IT SHOULD BE PRETTY SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS, MS. MS. MORRISON, MIGHT IT BE A GOOD IDEA THAT WE SET A BRIEFING ON THIS SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A, PEOPLE CAN COME PREPARED TO DISCUSS WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE A TRUNCATED DEFAULT PROCEDURE OR NOT.
AND WE CAN MAKE A, WE CAN MAKE A DECISION AS A COMMISSION FOREWARNED THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND PEOPLE CAN COME PREPARED TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND WE CAN MAKE A DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
DOES THAT, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO THE COMMISSION AND TO THE MOTION? NOW, THIS ISN'T A VOTING ITEM.
I THINK WE'LL JUST TAKE THE DISCUSSION OF THE COMMISSION AND WE'LL PUT SOMETHING ON FOR THE JULY MEETING WHERE YOU CAN, UM, VOTE ON SOME OPTIONS.
IS THAT SATISFACTORY TO THE COMMISSION? I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CASES WHERE THE COMMISSION HEARS A MATTER, THE PERSON HAS ALREADY RETIRED OR BEEN TERMINATED, AND WHAT ARE THE SANCTIONS, PROCEDURES, AND CONSEQUENCES UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES? AND THAT WARRANTS THE DISCUSSION.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO, WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TODAY.
WELL, DOES THAT NEED TO BE TABLED UNTIL JULY IF THE EMPLOYMENT PERSON ISN'T HERE? YEAH, WE'RE GONNA TABLE THAT.
I'VE JUST RECEIVED NOTIFICATION THAT HE'S ILL TODAY.
SO WE'LL PUT THAT BACK ON FOR JULY.
I THINK THAT'LL BE A FRUITFUL DISCUSSION BECAUSE THAT DOES COME UP, UM, DURING THE PANEL'S EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS.
IT'S COME UP A COUPLE OF TIMES.
SO I JUST WANTED, UH, THE COMMISSION TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT PROCESS AND HOW THAT WORKS THROUGH HR.
UM, SO WE'LL PUT THAT BACK ON FOR JULY.
AND THE COUNCIL HAD, COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE ALSO ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE.
SO IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO SCHEDULE A BRIEFING ON THAT SO THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE AND THE CONSEQUENCES ARE AND THAT SORT OF THING.
SO WE'LL SCHEDULE BOTH OF THOSE FOR JULY, IS THAT RIGHT? FOR OUR JULY MEETING? YEAH, I THINK THAT'S, UM, CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
IS IT THE THIRD TUESDAY? HOWARD SAID THAT'S THE ALL-STAR GAME.
DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERE, RIGHT?
[00:25:01]
SO WE'LL SCHEDULE THAT, WE'LL SCHEDULE BOTH OF THOSE ISSUES FOR THE 16TH FOR, FOR BRIEFING.MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD FOR TODAY'S BUSINESS? NO, SIR.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WHAT IS THIS? I DO THIS.
OH, THAT'S THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.
THE BRIEFING OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, THE CHARTER AMENDMENT.
AND THAT IS BY MS. MORRISON AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
LAURA MORRISON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
UM, I, FOR THOSE PRESENT IN THE IN COUNCIL CHAMBER, I HANDED OUT, UM, A HANDOUT THAT IS THE WORDING THAT WILL ADD THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, UH, TO THE CITY CHARTER.
UM, SHOULD THE CITY COUNCIL CHOOSE TO SEND THIS TO THE VOTERS FOR THOSE ATTENDING VIRTUALLY, I HAD ASKED THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE TO EMAIL THIS TO YOU.
I HOPE Y'ALL HAVE RECEIVED IT SO THAT YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO OFFER A QUICK, UM, UPDATE ABOUT THIS ITEM THAT WAS ON YOUR AGENDA AT THE LAST QUARTERLY MEETING.
AND THIS IS THE ITEM THAT WILL TAKE THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OUT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND MAKE IT ITS OWN, UM, INDEPENDENT OFFICE IN THE CITY CHARTER.
THE, UH, CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION HEARD THIS ITEM ON MARCH 4TH.
UM, MR. TIM POWERS WAS THERE, UM, TO GIVE A, A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE ITEM AND OF THE RECOMMENDATION THAT CAME OUT OF THE MAYOR'S, UH, TASK FORCE ON ETHICS REFORM.
AND, UM, HE WAS THERE TO EXPLAIN THAT THIS COMMISSION HAD MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE THIS FORWARD AND TO PUT IT IN THE CHARTER.
UH, THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION ON THAT DATE, ON MARCH 4TH, VOTED UNANIMOUSLY, UH, TO INCLUDE THIS IN THEIR RECOMMENDATION.
UM, BUT THEY DID ASK FOR IT TO COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION AT A LATER DATE SO THAT THEY COULD KIND OF NAIL DOWN THE LANGUAGE AND TO GIVE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TIME WITH MR. POWERS AND, UM, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO GET THE LANGUAGE JUST RIGHT THAT WE, THAT WE'RE GONNA WANNA SEE IN THE CHARTER.
SO THAT WENT BACK TO THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION THIS PAST THURSDAY, APRIL 11TH, AND THEY AGAIN VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE THIS WORDING, UM, THAT WAS HANDED OUT THIS MORNING.
UM, THIS WORDING, UM, KINDA SUMS UP WHAT CHAPTER 12 A ALREADY SAYS ARE THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
UM, IT MAKES THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, UM, APPOINTED BY COUNSEL INSTEAD OF BEING HIRED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
UM, I ALSO WANNA POINT OUT THAT, UM, IN ORDER FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO BE DISCHARGED BEFORE THE END OF HIS OR HER TERM, IT WOULD REQUIRE A THREE-QUARTER VOTE OF COUNSEL.
SO THAT WOULD BE MORE THAN A SIMPLE MAJORITY, UH, TO LET THE INSPECTOR GENERAL GO IF THAT WAS NEEDED FOR ANY REASON.
UM, AND THEN ON PAGE TWO OF THE HANDOUT, I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT IT'S RECOMMENDED, UM, THAT CHAPTER 11, SECTION TWO BE AMENDED, UH, TO INCLUDE THAT JUST LIKE THE CITY AUDITOR, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WILL, UM, SUBMIT HIS OR HER, UH, BUDGET SEPARATELY FROM THE CITY MANAGER'S BUDGET TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW.
UM, AND THEN ANY REDUCTION TO THE IGS BUDGET MUST BE APPROVED BY A THREE QUARTER VOTE OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE, UH, CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION ADJOURNED FOR THE LAST TIME ON THURSDAY, APRIL 11TH.
UM, WE ARE FINALIZING, UM, THEIR FINAL REPORT THAT WILL BE BRIEFED TO CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 1ST.
UM, SO THEN ALL OF THE CHARTER REVIEW ITEMS, UH, WILL BE IN THE HANDS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE CITY COUNCIL WILL HAVE A FEW MONTHS TO DO THEIR WORK.
AND THEN WHATEVER THE CITY COUNCIL FINALLY DECIDES IS WHAT YOU'LL SEE ON THE BALLOT THIS, UH, NOVEMBER.
AND I WILL OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS.
MR. CHAIR, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I JUST CURIOUS, WHAT IS THE TERM? THE INSPECTOR CHAIR? OH, TWO YEARS.
UM, AND THAT LANGUAGE MIRRORS THE SAME TWO YEAR TERM LANGUAGE THE CHARTER HAS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE CITY SECRETARY, AND THE CITY AUDITOR.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES.
I GUESS TWO YEARS SEEMS LIKE A VERY SHORT TIME TO ME.
IT DOESN'T WORK WITH THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IT DOESN'T WORK ANYWHERE.
YOU JUST ABOUT FEAR YOUR WAY AROUND THE BUILDING IN TWO YEARS.
UM, BUT THAT DOES SEEM LIKE A VERY SMALL
[00:30:02]
NUMBER OF YEARS FOR A POSITION AS IMPORTANT AND AS COMPLEX AS THIS ONE IS.IS THERE A REASON FOR THE TWO YEARS EXCEPT TO MAKE IT SIMILAR TO WHAT IT GOES ON IN THE, IT'S TO KEEP IT UNIFORM ACROSS THE BOARD.
AND I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT ONCE AN INSPECTOR GENERAL SERVES FOR TWO YEARS, HE OR SHE IS NOT TERMED OUT.
THEY CAN BE REAPPOINTED, UM, BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
AND, YOU KNOW, FOR THESE POSITIONS, THE AUDITOR, THE SECRETARY, THE CITY ATTORNEY, UM, THEY'RE OFTEN REAPPOINTED, UM, BY CITY COUNCIL.
SO IT'S NOT JUST TWO YEARS AND YOU'RE DONE, IT'S TWO YEARS.
AND THE COUNCIL HAS AN OPPORTUNITY, UM, TO EVALUATE YOU IN CLOSED SESSION, UM, AND TO, YOU KNOW, DECIDE IF, UM, THE PERSON IN THAT POSITION SHOULD BE RECEIVING A RAISE, IF THEY SHOULD BE, UM, REAPPOINTED.
SO IT'S REALLY, IT'S TWO YEARS AND THEN THEY'RE UP FOR EVALUATION.
NO, THEY COULD BE REAPPOINTED TWO YEARS.
I THINK THERE WAS AN EFFORT TO HAVE SOME CONSISTENCY WITH THE OTHER, UH, UH, CITY CHARTER.
UH, UH, APPOINTEES AND COUNCIL APPOINTEES IN TERMS OF THE, THE CITY MANAGER, THE CITY AUDITOR, CITY SECRETARY, AND NOW THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? I, I, I WANT TO, UH, AT LEAST POINT OUT THAT THE, THE SUPPORT OF THE COMMISSION WAS IMPORTANT.
IT WAS, IT ENABLED ALL OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED, INCLUDING THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, THE, UH, TASK WITH TIM POWERS WHO REPRESENTED THE TASK FORCE AND, AND THE CITY AND THE, UH, ETHIC COM ETHICS COMMISSION TO JOIN TOGETHER AS ONE AND, AND SUPPORT THIS AS IT, UH, UH, WAS PRESENTED TO THE, UH, COMMISSION THAT'S GOING TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OR NOW HAS MADE THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ITS FINAL APPROVAL.
AND THAT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THE PROCESS.
SO I, I THANK YOU ALL FOR THAT MS. MS. MORRISON, IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS ON THAT ITEM, UM, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOTTEN TO THE END OF OUR AGENDA.
SO, MR. CHAIR, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN AND WE'LL SEE EVERYONE IN JULY.
ALRIGHT? I DON'T, DO I, I DON'T NEED A MOTION FOR THAT.
UH, IF IS THERE ANY FURTHER BUSINESS, IF THERE IS NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT 10.