[Ethics Advisory Commission on July 16, 2024.]
[00:00:03]
UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, UH, WELCOME TO THE, UH, THIS MORNING'S MEETING OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.
IT IS 9:38 AM ON TUESDAY, JULY 16TH.
UH, I'M GOING TO DO A ROLL CALL TO DETERMINE WHO IS PRESENT.
SO I'LL START WITH MYSELF, TOM THOMAS PERKINS.
ANDY VIAL AND JAD MAO PRESENT.
THERE ARE SEVERAL MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT PRESENT, BUT NONETHELESS, WE HAVE A QUORUM.
ARE THERE OTHERS WHO ARE PRESENT TODAY FROM, FROM, UH, THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
YES, BARON ELIASON, UH, CHIEF INTEGRITY OFFICER FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DIVISION.
AND LAURA PHELAN IS, IS OFF TO YOUR RIGHT.
MAYOR ESLAVA MARTINEZ AND NANCY SANCHEZ.
AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
UH, AND SARAH MENDOLA, ALSO FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
THANK YOU, MADAM CITY SECRETARY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS FOR TODAY'S MEETING.
SO THE FIRST MATTER OF BUSINESS IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE APRIL 16TH, UH, ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION, UH, REGULAR MEETING.
UH, HAVE YOU ALL HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM? IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE BEFORE I HAVE A QUESTION? HOW DO I JUST NOTE A, A TYPO? CAN I NOTE THAT BEFORE THE MOTION? OKAY.
I JUST NOTED NOTICE AT THE END OF THE FIRST PAGE, IT JUST SAYS, FOR THE ASTERISK, IT SAYS, MEMBERS OF THE PERMIT AND LICENSE APPEAL BOARD PARTICIPATED BY VIDEO.
SO THAT SHOULD JUST SAY MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION, I BELIEVE NOTED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SMITH.
SO WITH THAT CORRECTION, UH, IS THERE A MOTION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 16TH MEETING? I, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE APRIL 16TH MINUTES MEETING.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND THERE.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
UH, WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, UH, THAT IS REGARDING THE REHIRE ELIGIBILITY PROCESS.
AND I'M GONNA TALK, UH, TURN TO THE CITY ATTORNEY WHO'S GOING TO AT LEAST SET UP WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE DISCUSSING THIS MORNING.
UH, LAURA MORRISON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, UH, FOR ALLOWING ME TO WELCOME AND INTRODUCE, UH, SARAH MENDOLA.
MS. MENDOLA IS THE CHIEF OF THE EMPLOYMENT SECTION IN THE LITIGATION DIVISION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
AND THE REASON THIS IS ON YOUR AGENDA TODAY IS BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD A COUPLE OF EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS WHERE A PANEL HAS MADE A DETERMINATION ON VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE OF ETHICS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES WHO ARE NO LONGER EMPLOYED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING.
AND EACH TIME, UH, THE PANEL HAS BROUGHT UP SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW REHIRE ELIGIBILITY WORKS, UH, ONCE SOMEONE, UH, LEAVES THE CITY, UH, VOLUNTARILY OR IS TERMINATED, UH, FROM THEIR EMPLOYMENT AT THE CITY.
AND SO, MS. MENDOLA IS HERE TO WALK YOU THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND HOW THAT WORKS AT THE CIVIL SERVICE AND HR LEVELS.
[00:05:01]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.SO, ESSENTIALLY, UM, WHEN AN EMPLOYEE IS TERMINATED FOR, I GUESS WE COULD SAY FOR CAUSE, ALTHOUGH THAT'S KIND OF A TECHNICAL WORD, BUT WHEN AN EMPLOYEE IS TERMINATED, THEY ARE GOING TO BE INELIGIBLE FOR REHIRE.
UM, AND THAT'S FOR CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES OR FOR NON-CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES.
UM, IF THEY RESIGN UNDER INVESTIGATION OR IN LIEU OF TERMINATION, THAT WOULD ALSO LIKELY BE THE APPROPRIATE DESIGNATION.
NOW, IF YOU ARE A NON-CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE, THAT DESIGNATION EXISTS FOREVER.
IF YOU ARE A CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE, YOU MAY PETITION AFTER TWO YEARS FROM YOUR TERMINATION TO THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD FOR REHIRE ELIGIBILITY, AND THEN THE BOARD WILL HAVE A HEARING AND THEY WILL MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO YOUR REHIRE ELIGIBILITY.
THERE IS AN EXCEPTION FOR FORMER SWORN SERVICE EMPLOYEES WHO WERE TERMINATED FOR PARTICULAR RULE VIOLATIONS, AND THAT'S IN THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES.
UM, THERE'S THIS CARVE OUT FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES WHERE THEY ARE PERMANENTLY INELIGIBLE FOR REHIRE.
AND SO THAT IS THE WAY THE PROCESS CURRENTLY WORKS.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING THEN, IS THAT IF A PERSON IS NO LONGER WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS AND THE COMMISSION MAKES THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REHIRE, THAT IS NOT ENFORCEABLE BY THE COMMISSION ITSELF.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT, SIR, BECAUSE THAT EMPLOYEE, A CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE, WOULD STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO AND PETITION THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD THAT'S IN THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD RULES.
AND SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, COULD BE ADDRESSED IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, A, A COUNCIL ACTION IF, IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, THE EAC WANTED TO ADD TO THEIR ARSENAL.
BUT WE WOULD NEED TO ADDRESS IT WITH THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD RULES AND THE EAC RULES AND MAKE SURE WE'RE BEING CONSISTENT, BECAUSE AS IT STANDS, THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD HAS JURISDICTION OVER REHIRE ELIGIBILITY AND, YOU KNOW, WOULD BE ENTITLED TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
I KNOW THIS COMES UP OCCASIONALLY, AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD A BRIEFING ON THAT.
AND IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS? YES, PLEASE.
CAN YOU CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE AND A NON-CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE? YES, AND I'M SORRY IF I'M NO, IT'S OKAY.
SO THE VAST MAJORITY OF CITY EMPLOYEES ARE GOING TO BE CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES.
UM, POLICE, FIRE, MOST OF THE DEPARTMENTS, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE LIKELY FAMILIAR WITH, UM, SANITATION, HOUSING, WATER.
UH, HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME CARVE OUTS.
UM, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WE ARE A NON-CIVIL SERVICE.
THE LIBRARY PARKS AND RECREATION IS ACTUALLY A NON-CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT AS WELL.
UM, AND CERTAIN OFFICES OF THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, UM, AND ALL THOSE OFFICES UNDER THAT UMBRELLA, OFFICE OF ARTS AND CULTURE, IF IT'S AN OFFICE OF IS KIND OF A TRICK.
IT'S PROBABLY GONNA BE NON-CIVIL SERVICE.
AND THAT'S SET FORTH IN THE CHARTER AND IN THE CODE.
SO IF YOU EVER HAVE A QUESTION, AS YOU KNOW, WELL, IS THIS EMPLOYEE CIVIL SERVICE, YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE CHARTER AND THE DALLAS CITY CODE, AND IT SHOULD BE SET OUT THERE, BUT THE DEFAULT IS GOING TO BE CIVIL SERVICE.
THERE ARE ALSO SOME POSITIONS, UM, YOUR EXECUTIVES, EVEN LIKE A DIRECTOR OR AN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF A CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT.
THEY'RE UNCLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVICE.
AND SO THEY'RE NOT ENTITLED TO THE SAME PROTECTIONS AS A CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE.
AND WHAT BEING CIVIL SERVICE DOES IS THAT MEANS YOU HAVE A PROPERTY AND TRUST IN YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY.
AND SO THAT GIVES YOU, UM, DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, WHICH MEANS YOU CAN APPEAL YOUR TERMINATION, YOU CAN PETITION FOR REHIRE ELIGIBILITY AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
IS THAT, IS THAT IT? THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, IT ISN'T A QUESTION.
IT'S A, IT'S SORT OF A QUESTION.
IT'S, IT'S A RECOMMENDATION, UH, ON MY PART, AND MAYBE NO ONE ELSE FEELS THE NEED FOR IT.
BUT I GUESS I'M USED TO HAVING A PIECE OF PAPER SO THAT MAYBE WE COULD HAVE HAD SOMETHING IN ADVANCE THAT WOULD'VE GIVEN US THE INFORMATION ABOUT WHICH ARE CIVIL SERVICE, WHICH ARE NOT WHAT, UM, WHAT THE BOARDS, THE COMMISSION'S, UM, AUTHORITY IS, UM, TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON, AND THAT IT WOULD NOT THEN NECESSARILY BE, UM, UH, AGREED
[00:10:01]
BY, BY THE CIVIL SERVICE, UM, COMMITTEE, UM, OR BOARD.UM, IS THAT POSSIBLE WHEN WE ARE DOING THESE BRIEFINGS FOR THE, FOR THE COMMISSION, THAT WE WOULD GET SOMETHING, EVEN IF IT'S JUST A DAY IN ADVANCE, DOESN'T NEED TO BE A LOT, BUT THREE BULLET POINTS OF WHAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT IT OR, UM, A PARAGRAPH, JUST SOMETHING SO THAT I CAN READ IT.
MAYBE I MAY BE, I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO WANTS IT.
UM, BUT IT JUST MAKES IT EASIER TO COME PREPARED TO ASK A QUESTION.
UM, AS I'M LISTENING TO YOU, I DON'T HAPPEN TO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THIS ISSUE, BUT THE POINT IS, THERE MAY BE OTHER THINGS THAT COME UP WHERE WE ARE GIVEN A BRIEFING AND THERE WILL BE QUESTIONS, UM, PROBABLY NOT JUST FROM ME, BUT FROM OTHER PEOPLE ON, ON THE COMMISSION AS WELL.
SO IS THAT A POSSIBILITY I'LL DIFFER TO, TO MS. MORRISON ON THAT? I KNOW THAT SHE ADVISES YOU AND, UM, AND I JUST TOOK DIRECTION FROM HER.
SO I THINK IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WANTED, MS. MORRISON WOULD PROBABLY BE ABLE TO FACILITATE THAT.
SO IF, IF THE EAC IS GOING TO HAVE A BRIEFING, BUT THERE'S, IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE A QUICK BRIEFING AND THERE'S NO POWERPOINT PRESENTA.
IF THERE IS A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION THAT WOULD BE SENT OUT, UM, IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING SO THAT THE MEMBERS COULD REVIEW THAT, IF, UM, THE, THE EAC HAS AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA THAT WOULD INVOLVE LIKE A DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDING EITHER, UH, WELL AMENDING CHAPTER 12 A, THE CODE OF ETHICS, OR, UM, A DRAFT AMENDING THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THAT DEFINITELY GOES OUT AHEAD OF TIME SO THAT, UM, THE MEMBERS CAN REVIEW AND, AND START A LIST OF QUESTIONS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
UM, BUT FOR A, A QUICK BRIEFING WHERE THERE'S NOTHING TO HAND OUT, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW, MOVING FORWARD IF WE WOULD CREATE, UM, A DOCUMENT TO HAND OUT, BECAUSE THE BRIEFING IS THE INFORMATION.
OKAY, SO THE BOTTOM LINE, AND EXCUSE ME IF I HAVE THIS FLIPPED.
THE CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL THE NON-CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES, IF YOU RECOMMEND THAT THEY DON'T WORK AGAIN FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.
SO, UM, Y YOU'RE GENERALLY CORRECT.
I JUST WANNA BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC.
SO, CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES CAN APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION.
UM, THEY CAN ALSO, EVEN WHETHER THEY DO OR THEY DON'T APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION, WHATEVER THEIR DECISION IS, TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THAT TERMINATION, THEY CAN APPEAL OR THEY CAN PETITION THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD FOR REHIRE ELIGIBILITY.
AND SO IF THEY'VE BEEN MARKED INELIGIBLE FOR REHIRE, THEY'VE APPEALED AND DID NOT GET THEIR JOB BACK, THEY CHOSE NOT TO APPEAL, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, AFTER THAT TWO YEAR PERIOD HAS PASSED, THEY CAN PETITION FOR REHIRE ELIGIBILITY.
NOW, IF THE BOARD SAYS, YOU KNOW, WE, WE'VE HEARD FROM YOU, WE AGREE WITH YOU, YOU'RE, WE'RE GONNA CHANGE YOUR DESIGNATION TO ELIGIBLE FOR REHIRE, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE PERSON GETS THEIR JOB BACK.
JUST TO MAKE THAT CLEAR, THAT INDIVIDUAL WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE NORMAL APPLICATION PROCESS WITH THE CITY AND, YOU KNOW, TRY TO GET, TRY TO GET A VACANT POSITION.
SO THE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION, THEY DO NOT, WILL NOT IMPACT THE DECISIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD IN TERMS OF THEIR ABILITY TO BE REHIRED, EVEN IF THAT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE, UH, ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION.
IS THAT RIGHT? UH, MR. CHAIR, I WOULD SAY THAT THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION SHOULD NOT BE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS ON A FORMER EMPLOYEE'S ELIGIBILITY OF REHIRE, UM, BECAUSE THAT DOES FALL UNDER A DIFFERENT PROCESS, AND THAT SANCTION IS NOT LISTED UNDER THE POSSIBLE SANCTIONS IN CHAPTER 12 A OKAY.
THAT THE, UM, HEARING PANEL CAN'T EVEN CONSIDER, I WOULD THINK THAT IT WOULD BE PERTINENT INFORMATION FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD TO CONSIDER IF AN EMPLOYEE HAS AN ETHICS, A SUSTAINED ETHICS COMPLAINT, I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE THAT INFORMATION WOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD FOR THE, THE BOARD TO REVIEW AND MAKING THEIR DETERMINATION.
THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS.
AND I WILL SPEAK WITH CIVIL, THE, IN THE RELEVANT PERSONNEL IN CIVIL SERVICE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE MATERIALS, BECAUSE I THINK THAT SHOULD BE PERTINENT TO THE DECISION IF THE EMPLOYEE DOES PETITION FOR REHIRE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT ISSUE? WELL, THANK
[00:15:01]
YOU VERY MUCH.I THINK THAT CONCLUDES THE BRIEFING ON THAT TOPIC.
I APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR ASSISTANCE.
WE NOW PROCEED TO THE NEXT ITEM IS THE A BRIEFING BY THE DIVISION OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
UH, MR. BEAVER SAYS HELLO, HE'S ON VACATION AGAIN.
I'M BARRON ELIASON, CHIEF INTEGRITY OFFICER.
I'LL OFFER THIS REPORT FOR MR. BEAVERS, IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE.
UH, THIS IS A THIRD QUARTER BRIEFING.
I CAN GIVE YOU SOME, UM, INFORMATION THAT'S MORE UP TO DATE, BUT THIS JUST OBVIOUSLY GOES THROUGH THE END OF JUNE.
ONE OF THE THINGS, UH, THAT HAPPENED IN THAT THIRD QUARTER WAS THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MED, AND THEY WENT AHEAD AND RECOMMENDED THAT WE BE PUT ON THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER FOR, UH, SEEKING INDEPENDENCE IN OUR OFFICE.
UM, THERE'VE BEEN SOME UPDATES TO THAT, WHICH I CAN ADDRESS IF, IF NEEDED.
SECOND THING, UH, WEAVER TIDWELL BEGAN THEIR AUDIT.
WE HAD A GREAT MEETING WITH THEM, UM, ALL OF SORT OF THE UNOFFICIAL EXECUTIVE TEAM, AND, UH, THAT WENT VERY WELL.
WE GAVE THEM A LOT OF INFORMATION.
UH, THERE HAD BEEN SOME UPDATES ON THAT SINCE THEN THAT I COULD ADDRESS SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE TEAM.
I THINK MOSTLY INVESTIGATORS WENT TO THE CYBER CRIME TASK FORCE MEETING, UH, NORTH TEXAS CYBER FRAUD TASK FORCE.
UH, NOTHING THAT, UH, AFFECTS WHAT I DO NECESSARILY, BUT EVIDENTLY IT WAS A GREAT, UH, VERY HELPFUL TO THE INVESTIGATORS.
UM, THERE WAS A BRIEFING MEMO TO THE GPFM ABOUT A CASE THAT, UH, WE CALL THE DAL TECH REVIEW, UM, THAT WAS DELIVERED BACK IN MAY.
IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA YET, BUT, UH, THAT'S A REALLY INTERESTING CASE AND A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT SOME THINGS, UH, THAT MIGHT SAVE US ALL, SOME MONEY.
IN MY LITTLE PART OF THE WORLD, WE HAD SOME NEW HIRES.
WE GOT, UH, MARCELLA QUINTAS, AND SHE'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, AND THEN KAITLYN BE, THEY'RE UP AND RUNNING, DOING GREAT.
AND THEN WE HAD, UH, CASES 1445 AND 1497.
YOU ALL ARE WELL AWARE OF THAT.
BUT, UH, THAT WAS A PROSECUTOR, WAS A THEFT CASE INVOLVING SOME SCRAP METAL.
AND, UM, THEN FINALLY OUR QUARTERLY REPORT CAME OUT FOR THE, UH, SECOND QUARTER THERE.
AGAIN, IN MY AREA, UH, MR. BEAVERS WAS INTERESTED IN SHARING, UH, SOME STATISTICS ABOUT THINGS THAT I'M WORKING ON.
UH, SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DO IS I WRITE CONFIDENTIAL ADVISORY OPINIONS.
AND TO DATE, END OF JUNE, UH, SINCE I BEGAN, WE'VE HAD 100 REQUESTS RIGHT ON THE BUTTON FOR ADVISORY OPINIONS.
UH, JUST LOOKING AT THE METRICS, ABOUT 40% OF THOSE END UP BEING ACTUALLY WRITTEN.
THE REST, UH, MAYBE WRITTEN IN THE FORM OF AN EMAIL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT, UH, THAT'S HOW THOSE GOES.
CATCH THE CANARIES THAT QUIZ GAME.
AND AS FAR AS TRAINING GOES, WE'VE HAD 90 IN-PERSON EVENTS THAT MIGHT, IN-PERSON MIGHT MEAN IN ON TEAMS AND WHATNOT, BUT AS OF THE END OF JUNE HAD TRAINED ABOUT, UH, 3,428 PEOPLE, THAT, THAT CONCLUDES THE REPORT FOR THE THIRD QUARTER.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? YES.
AT THIS POINT, IT APPEARS AS IF ANY EFFORT TO AMEND THE CHARTER TO ADD THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE AS A CHARTER, UH, OFFICE, THAT THAT IS NOT PROCEEDING AT THIS POINT.
IS THAT CORRECT, MR. MR. CHAIR? I'M GONNA GIVE AN UPDATE ON THAT.
UM, ON THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, I'LL, I'LL GO INTO MORE DETAIL ON THE STATUS OF THAT CHARTER AMENDMENT.
MM-HMM,
UM, UH, WE GOT ALL OF THE COPIES THAT YOU SENT US OF THE QUARTERLY REPORTS, AND WE I THANK YOU.
UM, AS I WENT THROUGH THEM, I FOUND IT A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO FOCUS IN ON CERTAIN THINGS.
SO, UM, WHEN YOU GET TO THE END OF THE REPORT, THERE IS AN ISSUE TYPE SUMMARY.
UM, IT'S INCONSISTENT IN THE SENSE THAT, UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THE VERY FIRST ONE, IT STARTS WITH CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT QUARTERLY ONE, IT STARTS WITH POLITICAL ACTIVITY.
AND THERE ARE NOT THE SAME NUMBER OF TYPES IN THE SUMMARY.
AND I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE LOOKING AT A SERIES OF THEM GOING FROM
[00:20:01]
CONFLICT OF INTEREST, EXCEPT WHERE, UM, WITH, WITH JUST THE C ONE.BUT I ALSO FIND A ONE UNDER QUARTER, THIRD QUARTER OF 23, WHERE THE LAST ONE, IT DOESN'T START WITH CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
THAT'S THE SECOND FROM THE BOTTOM.
AND THE ONE FOLLOWING IT IS BRIBES AND KICKBACKS.
AND THAT DOESN'T APPEAR ANY ON ANY OF THE OTHERS.
SO IS IT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR NOBODY ELSE, BUT MAYBE ME, UM, FOR US TO START WITH, IF IT'S BEING DONE IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER, IF IT STARTS WITH THE SAME, UM, GET A CONSISTENT PATTERN, ABSOLUTELY.
IT STARTS FROM A TO Z AS OPPOSED TO, UM, P TO B.
UM, SO, AND, AND IF WE COULD HAVE THE SAME ISSUE TYPE SUMMARY.
UM, AND THE OTHER THING IS, UM, COULD WE GET A A AT THE END OF THE, UM, ON THAT PAGE OR ANY OTHER PAGE, UM, A NUMBER FOR HOW MANY EVIDENT, BECAUSE WE DON'T ALL SIT ON THE EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS SINCE THEY'RE RANDOMLY SELECTED, PEOPLE ARE RANDOMLY SELECTED.
IF YOU COULD JUST GIVE US A NUMBER SO THAT IN THIS QUARTER WE DID THREE, IN THIS QUARTER WE DID ONE.
UM, JUST TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR US TO KIND OF ABSOLUTELY.
WE CAN ADD THAT FIGURE OUT IF WE'VE GOTTEN A HUNDRED RE YOU KNOW, A HUNDRED THINGS COMING IN AS REQUESTS FOR SO MANY OF THEM ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE IGS OFFICE AND YOU'RE PASSING THEM ON TO A DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT.
UM, HOW MANY ARE ACTUALLY IN OUR BAIL WICK? AND, AND ACTUALLY DO WE DO, DO WE DO THREE HEARINGS IN A QUARTER? DO WE DO ONE? IT JUST MAKES IT A LITTLE EASIER FOR US TO, UM, FIGURE OUT HOW PRODUCTIVE WE'RE BEING.
AND OR HOW MUCH YOU NEED THERE IS IN CERTAIN AREAS, YOU KNOW? ABSOLUTELY.
AND, AND ANOTHER THING THAT I THINK THE, THE EAC WILL BE PLEASED WITH IS, UM, THE OFFICE, THE WHOLE DIVISION.
WE'RE, WE'RE WORKING ON ADDING SOME ADDITIONAL METRICS TO THE REPORTING AS WELL, SO THAT YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE, THE WORK PRODUCT THAT IT GOES THAT, THAT YOU JUST DON'T READ ABOUT BEYOND JUST A HEARING.
SO I THINK THAT WILL HELP YOU AS WELL.
BUT I'M, I'VE MADE A NOTE OF THAT AND WE'LL GET THAT ADDED.
OH, I DO HAVE ONE OTHER THING.
WHEN YOU LIST UP ALL OF THE, UM, THE ITEMS THAT COME IN BY DATE TO COMPUTERIZED COMPLETED INVESTIGATIONS, AND THEY MAY BE COMPLETED BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T, THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION NECESSARY, OR IF IT WAS UNSUBSTANTIATED.
YOU, THANK YOU FOR THE DEFINITIONS, BY THE WAY.
UM, BUT, UM, WHEN YOU PUT THE DATES DOWN, AND IF I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT ANY ONE OF THEM, IT WOULD BE MUCH EASIER IF WE, DO YOU HAVE CASE NUMBERS FOR THESE THINGS AS WELL AS DATES OR NOT? WE DO HAVE CASE NUMBERS.
UM, I, BUT I FEEL LIKE, UH, IF I WERE TO GIVE AN ANSWER OH YEAH, WE CAN PROVIDE THEM.
I MAY BE GETTING OUTSIDE MY LANE IN THE SENSE OF, UH, I DON'T THINK ABOUT THE RAMIFICATIONS OF INCLUDING CASE NUMBERS.
I IF IT, IF IT REPRESENTS A CONFLICT OR, OR A PROBLEM BECAUSE OF PUBLIC, YOU KNOW, IT, IT MAY OR IT MAY NOT.
IT'S JUST WHEN I'M LOOKING AT IT, SAY, OKAY, THERE'S SEVEN THAT CAME IN ON AUGUST THE FIFTH, I, I GOT, YOU KNOW, WHICH ONE OF THOSE 7:00 AM I GONNA ASK YOU ABOUT? MM-HMM.
IF YOU CAN'T BECAUSE IT'S, IT WOULDN'T, IT WOULD BE A CONFLICT OR IF IT WOULD HAVE SOMEONE'S DATA OR INFORMATION.
WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO ANY OF THAT.
SO I DON'T THINK THE COMMISSION REALLY HAS A PROBLEM.
BUT IF IT IS A PROBLEM FOR YOU, THEN JUST LET ME KNOW.
OBVIOUSLY, I'D LOVE TO SAY SURE, WE'LL DO THAT.
YEAH, THESE ARE JUST ALL ADMINISTRATIVE THINGS THAT HAPPEN AS YOU DEVELOP THE, THE PROGRAM, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IT'S JUST EASIER FOR US, I THINK.
JUST TWO, TWO QUICK QUESTIONS.
IN THE, UM, IN THE SECTION OF THESE QUAR QUARTERLY REPORTS, THE SUMMARIZED COMPLETED INVESTIGATIONS, A LOT OF THESE, MOST OF THESE ARE ANONYMOUS.
AND SO SOME OF THEM SAY, YOU KNOW, VERY LIMITED INFORMATION REQUESTED, UH, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
HOW, CAN YOU REMIND ME HOW THAT'S DONE? LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT IS ANONYMOUS, IS IT THROUGH WHATEVER THE, UH, PLATFORM IS? THERE'S A MESSAGE THAT CAN BE SENT BACK CONTINUOUSLY.
IS THAT, IS THAT FAIR? THAT'S, THAT'S FAIR.
IT'S A THIRD PARTY AND THEY, ALL THE COMMUNICATIONS RUN THROUGH THEM.
DOES SOMEBODY GET AN EMAIL AND
[00:25:01]
SAY, HEY, THIS SEEMS LIKE MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING HERE, MR. SCHMIDT, CAN YOU PROVIDE US MORE INFORMATION? THEY GET AN EMAIL THROUGH THAT PLATFORM.AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION I WAS GONNA ASK IS, IN A LOT OF THESE NARRATIVES, IT'LL SAY, UM, ETHICS AND ETHICS VIOLATION WAS NOT REFERENCED, OR NONE COULD BE IDENTIFIED.
SO I ASSUME, LIKE, EVEN THOUGH SOMEONE WHO MIGHT MAKE A COMPLAINT DOESN'T CITE THE SPECIFIC CHAPTER 12 A PROVISION, YOU ALL ARE READING IT.
I, I DON'T NECESSARILY WANNA USE THE WORD LIBERALLY, BUT YOU'RE, YOU'RE READING IT WITH AN EYE TOWARDS COULD THIS BE AN ETHICS VIOLATION, EVEN IF MR. SCHMIDT DOESN'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC PROVISION THAT'S BEING VIOLATED? A HUNDRED PERCENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
Y'ALL HAVE GOOD, GOOD MORNING.
NOW YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE CHARTER? YOU CAN JUST READ THE ITEM.
THE NEXT ITEM IS A BRIEFING ON THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL CHARTER AMENDMENT UPDATE.
UM, MISS CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE.
UH, LAURA MORRISON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
UM, WE DECIDED TO PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE WE FIGURED, UH, THE EAC WOULD WANT AN UPDATE ON THE CHARTER AMENDMENT THAT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, UH, WHICH WAS A RECOMMENDATION TO TAKE THE DIVISION OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND INSTEAD CREATE AN OFFICE, UM, OUT FROM UNDER THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, CREATE AN OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL THAT STANDS ALONE OUTSIDE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, UM, WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BEING APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
UM, AND ALL OF THAT WOULD BE OUTLINED IN THE CHARTER.
AS YOU KNOW, THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, UH, FINISHED UP THEIR WORK IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR.
UH, THE CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION BRIEFED THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 1ST, UH, DURING THEIR BRIEFING MEETING.
AND THEN ON MAY 15TH, THE CITY COUNCIL STARTED STRAW VOTING ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.
AND ON THAT DAY, ON MAY 15TH, A MOTION WAS MADE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO STRAW VOTE ON THAT RECOMMENDATION OF THE OIG.
AND WHAT HAPPENED THAT DAY WAS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, UM, AS A RESULT OF THE STRAW VOTING, HAS CHOSEN AT THIS POINT IN THE PROCESS TO NOT MOVE THAT CHARTER AMENDMENT TO THE VOTERS, UM, ON NOVEMBER 5TH OF THIS YEAR.
UM, AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE STAND RIGHT NOW.
THE CITY COUNCIL HAS NOT YET APPROVED THE ORDINANCE CALLING THE ELECTION.
UM, WE HAVE A, A DRAFT OF THAT ORDINANCE.
WE BROUGHT IT TO CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 26TH, AND THE CITY COUNCIL DECIDED TO HOLD THAT ITEM, UH, FOR A VOTE UNTIL AUGUST 14TH.
SO THAT'LL BE COMING UP IN AUGUST.
UM, EVEN THOUGH THE STRAW VOTING REFLECTS THAT OIG CHARTER AMENDMENT NOT GOING TO THE VOTERS IN NOVEMBER, UM, THE PROCESS ISN'T OVER.
AND, YOU KNOW, THE CITY COUNCIL COULD, UM, HOST A FLOOR AMENDMENT ON AUGUST 14TH TO ADD THAT BACK INTO THE ORDINANCE.
UM, BUT THAT HASN'T HAPPENED SO FAR, AND THAT'S WHERE WE STAND RIGHT NOW.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT IS A STRAW VOTE? CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS TO THE COMMISSION PLEASE? A A STRAW VOTING IS A TOOL, UM, THAT GOVERNMENTAL BODIES HAVE TO, WHAT THEY, WHAT HAPPENS ACCORDING TO ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, IS SOMEONE MAKES A MOTION TO GO INTO THE COMMITTEE OF A WHOLE.
UM, AND IF THAT'S APPROVED, THEN THE BODY ITSELF ACTS AS A COMMITTEE AND THEY CAN DO STRAW VOTING.
UM, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES THIS PROCESS DURING THE BUDGET, UM, MEANING THE, THE CITY MANAGER, UM, PROVIDES THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET, AND THEN THROUGH THE STRAW VOTING PROCESS, THE CITY COUNCIL IS ABLE TO MAKE, UM, AMENDMENTS TO THAT DRAFT BUDGET.
AND THEN THE FINAL BUDGET THAT THEN GOES TO CITY COUNCIL IS THE CITY MANAGER'S BUDGET AS AMENDED, UM, BY THE RESULTS OF THE STRAW VOTING PROCESS.
SO THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.
THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION HAS SENT THEIR REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE ORDINANCE ORDERING THE NOVEMBER ELECTION THAT FINALLY GETS APPROVED IS GOING TO BE AN ORDINANCE THAT REFLECTS THE, UH, CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED BY THE STRAW VOTING THAT'S HAPPENED AT COUNCIL, UM, PLUS ANY FLOOR AMENDMENTS THAT HAPPEN, UM, ON THE VOTING AGENDA DAY.
[00:30:01]
QUESTIONS? JUST ONE QUE AND YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS, BUT WERE, WAS THERE A SPECIFIC REASON WHY THERE WAS RESISTANCE TO THE CHANGE? OR OBVIOUSLY EVERYBODY, THE VARIOUS COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY HAVE HAD THEIR OWN REASONS, BUT I WONDER IF THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN THAT A MAJORITY OF THEM HAD ABOUT MAKING THAT CHANGE? SURE.MANY OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WEIGHED IN, UM, AFTER THE MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED, THEY HAD DEBATE ON THE ITEM.
UM, AS YOU SAID, MANY OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAD THEIR OWN REASONS FOR NOT WANTING TO MOVE THIS FORWARD.
SOME OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS DID SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF MOVING THIS FORWARD TO THE VOTERS.
HOWEVER, UM, FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, UM, I WAS PRESENT AT THE MEETING, AND SOME OF THE REASONS FOR NOT MOVING THIS FORWARD IS THAT SOME OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS SEEM COMFORTABLE WITH THIS OFFICE REMAINING AS A DIVISION UNDER THE CITY ATTORNEY.
UM, SOME CITED, UH, THE POLITICIZATION OF THE OFFICE IF MOVED FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY.
HAVING THAT, THAT ONE STEP OF SEPARATION AWAY FROM THE COUNCIL AND THEN PUTTING IT DIRECTLY UNDER THE COUNCIL AND BEING APPOINTED BY THE COUNCIL MIGHT POLITICIZE, UH, THE POSITION.
UM, THE, YOU KNOW, I KNOW AT LEAST ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS CITED THAT THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR, OR SORRY, THE DIVISION OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS STILL NEW.
IT'S STILL GROWING, AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S DIFFICULT TO AMEND THE CHARTER.
UM, IT'S A LOT LESS DIFFICULT TO AMEND CHAPTER 12 A, UM, SO THEY CITED, LIKE, LET'S, LET'S JUST CONTINUE TO SEE HOW IT GOES.
UM, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT 10 YEARS, UM, TO AMEND THE CHARTER.
UH, SO SOME DID INDICATE THAT YOU CAN'T AMEND THE CHARTER ANY MORE THAN TWO YEARS.
UM, THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, UH, UH, PROHIBITS AMENDMENTS TO CITY CHARTERS ANY MORE OFTEN THAN EVERY TWO YEARS.
BUT SOME OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS INDICATED THAT MAYBE IN A COUPLE OF YEARS THAT WOULD BE A BETTER TIME TO PUT THIS IN THE CHARTER.
BUT AGAIN, UM, I JUST WANNA REITERATE, THE PROCESS IS NOT FINISHED.
WE'RE STILL, IT'S STILL PENDING.
SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE IS WHERE WE STAND RIGHT NOW.
ALSO, UM, I WANT TO GIVE YOU, IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK AND WATCH THE DEBATE, UM, AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL WHEN THEY WERE, UM, DISCUSSING THIS STRAW VOTE, YOU CAN GO TO DALLAS CITY NEWS.NET, UM, AND THEN CLICK WATCH LIVE, AND THEN CLICK ON CITY COUNCIL AND SCROLL DOWN TO THE MAY 15TH MEETING.
AND I CAN SEND THIS IN AN EMAIL TO ALL OF YOU.
UM, AND THEN IT'S AT THE FIVE HOUR, 19 MINUTE, 42ND MARK.
I DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE TO WATCH ALL OF IT.
WILL THAT BE IN THE EMAIL? YES.
SO IN CASE YOU WANNA WATCH SOME OF THAT DISCUSSION, UM, WE'LL, I'LL PROBABLY HAVE NANCY SEND THAT OUT TO YOU WITH ALL THAT INFORMATION.
HAVE THEY, HAVE THEY REQUESTED ANY INPUT FROM ANYONE FROM THE COMMISSION, FROM THE CHAIR, FROM THE DEPUTY CHAIR? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, AND POSSIBLY, BUT NOT THAT I KNOW OF.
I GUESS MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT, UM, THE, THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORTING TO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT HAS A RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEFENSE OF THE, UM, IN, IN A SENSE THE, THE DEFENDING THE EMPLOYEES.
IT SEEMS LIKE YOU, YOU'VE GOT SOMEONE WHO'S ON ONE SIDE AND WENT ON THE, ON THE OTHER END.
THEY, THEY DON'T SEEM TO BE ABLE TO, TO MANAGE.
I MEAN, WE HAVE YOU, LAURA, SO THAT'S GOOD.
THAT'S, THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT UNUSUAL FOR THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT HERE.
THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, YOU KNOW, WE PLAY MA MANY ROLES IN MANY DIFFERENT, UH, PROCESSES.
UM, FOR INSTANCE, SOMETIMES I SERVE AS THE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR, UH, CIVIL SERVICE TRIAL BOARD AND YOU KNOW, SARAH MANOLA AND HER PEOPLE, AND THAT'S IN THE EMPLOYMENT SECTION OF LITIGATION SERVE TO DEFEND THE CITY'S POSITION, UM, TO UPHOLD THOSE TERMINATIONS.
BUT YET I'M ALSO THERE TO ASSIST THE TRIAL BOARD IN THEIR PROCEDURES.
UM, AND SO WE JUST SERVE DIFFERENT ROLES, SO WE DON'T TALK TO EACH OTHER ABOUT THE CASE.
UM, SO I I JUST SAY THAT TO POINT OUT THAT THAT'S NOT AN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, BUT IT IS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THE POLITICALIZATION OF THE, THAT THAT THEY, IF, IF THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE USING AS AN EXCUSE OR REASON, UM, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, UM, WE, THINGS GET POLITICIZED FROM, IN A VARIETY OF WAYS.
SO, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT.
HEARING NONE, UH, NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.
I THINK THE FINAL MATTER IS, UH, A DISCUSSION OF THE EXPEDITED HEARING PROCEDURE WHEN THE RESPONDENT IS NOT PRESENT.
[00:35:01]
SITUATIONS WHERE THE RESPONDENT IS NOT PRESENT, DOES NOT MAKE AN APPEARANCE.UH, AND TO ME IT APPEARS AS IF IT'S LIKE A, UH, A DEFAULT JUDGMENT HEARING WHERE THERE'S A RECORD MADE OF ASSOCIATED WITH THE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS WHATEVER DECISION IS MADE BY THE, UH, OR RECOMMENDATION IS MADE BY THE COMMISSION.
UH, AND THERE HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW MUCH EVIDENCE OR HOW MUCH DISCUSSION SHOULD PRECEDE A RECOMMENDATION BY THE COMMISSION.
UH, THAT DISCUSSION DID NOT, WE DIDN'T FINISH THAT DISCUSSION.
SO THAT IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW.
HOW DO WE HANDLE THE AMOUNT OR THE LENGTH OF THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING THAT SUPPORTS A RECOMMENDATION WHEN THE RESPONDENT IS NOT PRESENT? IS THAT RIGHT, MS. MORRISON? UH, YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT.
UM, THIS CAME UP IN YOUR APRIL QUARTERLY MEETING.
UM, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHEN A RESPONDENT IS NOT PRESENT AT THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING, UM, SHOULD THE PANEL ENCOURAGE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE TO EXECUTE A MORE EXPEDITED HEARING WHEN PUTTING ON THE CASE? UM, AND I JUST, I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT I, I CONTINUED THAT DISCUSSION WITH THE IGS OFFICE, UM, DURING THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS.
AND I, AND, YOU KNOW, I'LL INVITE THE IGS OFFICE TO ALSO WEIGH IN ON THIS.
UH, WE THINK THAT RIGHT NOW, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CHAIR DOES HAVE THE DISCRETION TO RUN THE MEETING, UM, TO MAKE IT KNOWN TO THE IGS OFFICE THAT SINCE, UH, THE RESPONDENT IS NOT HERE TO PUT ON A DEFENSE, UM, WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO AHEAD AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE EXPEDITE YOUR CASE IN CHIEF AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
UM, BUT THE IG SHOULD STILL HAVE THE DISCRETION TO PUT ON AS MUCH EVIDENCE AS HE OR SHE NEEDS TO IN ORDER TO MAKE THE CASE TO THE PANEL, BECAUSE OTHERWISE, HOW DOES THE PANEL, UH, MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED? AND ALSO, DON'T FORGET, THERE IS A PHASE TWO OF THE HEARING WHERE THE PANEL WILL BE ASKED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE SANCTION, AND THEN THAT RECOMMENDATION GOES TO THE ACTUAL SANCTIONING PARTY.
UM, SO IT, IT IS USEFUL FOR THAT SANCTIONING PARTY TO BE ABLE TO GO BACK AND WATCH THE HEARING, TO SEE THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED, TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW THEY WANNA MOVE FORWARD ON, ON SANCTION.
UM, AND ALSO PUTTING ON EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING REALLY DOES SERVE TO EDUCATE, UH, CITY EMPLOYEES, CITY OFFICIALS, AND THE PUBLIC ABOUT WHAT KIND OF INVESTIGATIONS, THOROUGH INVESTIGATIONS THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, UH, CONDUCTS WHEN THEY CATCH WIND OF A POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ETHICS.
SO, TRUNCATING IT TOO MUCH WOULD KIND OF UNDERMINE, UH, THE GOAL OF THE IG, UM, IN EDUCATING CITY EMPLOYEES, CITY OFFICIALS, AND THE PUBLIC ABOUT, UM, WHAT WE EXPECT AS FAR AS ETHICAL CONDUCT AT THE CITY.
UM, MR. CHAIR, UH, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS ISSUE? I, I, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING MS. MORRISON SAID, BUT I'D ALSO ADD THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR BETTER OR WORSE, OUR PROCEDURES DON'T HAVE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT TYPE REMEDY WHERE IF THE RESPONDENT DOESN'T SHOW UP, THEY'RE DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED ANYTHING.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAVE THE REALITY THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HAS TO MEET THEIR BURDEN REGARDLESS OF ANYBODY SHOWS UP TO CONTEST IT.
SO, YEAH, I THINK IT'S GREAT TO, YOU KNOW, WITHIN REASON EXPEDITE THINGS, BUT OF COURSE, I THINK WE'VE GOTTA GIVE THEM THE DISCRETION TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE MEETING THEIR BURDEN AND PROVING WHAT THEY NEED TO PROVE AND TELLING US THE STORY THEY NEED TO TELL SO THAT WE CAN ASSESS AN APPROPRIATE OR RECOMMEND AN APPROPRIATE SANCTION.
UM, MR. S DO WE, YOU'VE ANSWERED THIS QUESTION FROM YOU BEFORE.
DO WE FORMALLY SERVE, UM, LIKE THROUGH A NORMAL SERVICE PROCESS? THE RESPONDENT THAT NOTICE GOES OUT THROUGH CERTIFIED MAIL? OKAY, BUT THEY'RE NOT PERSONALLY, I MEAN, HAVE WE HAD ANY EXAMPLES YET WHERE SOMEONE ACTUALLY COMES BACK AND SAYS, I LEGITIMATELY DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS.
I'LL HAVE THE IGS OFFICE WEIGH IN ON THAT.
I, I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE THOSE DETAILS.
UM, I WOULD ALSO SAY I A HUNDRED PERCENT AGREE WITH, UM, MS. MORRISON AND I, I THINK PART OF THIS POSITION IS PAPERING THE FILE FOR WHATEVER RECOMMENDATIONS WE MAKE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO LOOK AT IF THEY HAVE TO.
WE CANNOT HAVE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT.
[00:40:01]
LIKE THAT'S NOT THE POINT OF BEING HERE.IT'S NOT THE POINT OF ANYBODY'S JOB.
UM, I DON'T THINK IT'S HUGELY BURDENSOME TO COME HERE EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE AND HEAR OUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I WOULD, AND I KNOW THIS IS A SEPARATE ISSUE THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA, BUT IF WE FILLED THE FIVE VACANT SEATS, THEN MAYBE THE PANELS WOULDN'T ALWAYS KIND OF BE THE SAME PEOPLE.
DO WE NEED TO, LIKE INDIVIDUALLY REACH OUT TO OUR COUNCIL PEOPLE? YEAH, IT IS UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO NOMINATE AND THEN CONFIRM MEMBERS OF THIS BODY.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE FACT REMAINS IS THAT WE DO HAVE VACANCIES.
SO, YOU KNOW, ANY MEMBER MAY REACH OUT TO ANY COUNCIL MEMBER TO ASK THEM IF THEY, UM, HAVE THOUGHT OF ANYONE THAT THEY THINK WOULD BE GOOD TO SERVE ON, ON THIS BODY.
AND YES, I, I DO BELIEVE THAT'S A GOAL, YOU KNOW, FOR US TO BE AT 15 MEMBERS, I DON'T US, I'M NOT A MEMBER
SO THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE GET A MORE DIVERSE REPRESENTATION ON THE, UM, ON THE PANELS MOVING FORWARD.
SO, CAN I BE HEARD ALSO? YES, PLEASE.
I THINK I MAY HAVE BEEN THE ONE THAT ORIGINALLY BROUGHT THIS ISSUE UP IN, UH, AT THE LAST MEETING.
UM, I'LL RESPECTFULLY DISSENT IN PART, UH, I DO THINK THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE, UH, WE OUGHT TO LOOK INTO AMENDING OUR RULES, UH, TO PROVIDE FOR A FAIR, UH, SOMEWHAT TRUNCATED PROCESS WHEN THE EVIDENCE APPEARS THAT THE RESPONDENT WILL NOT ATTEST.
UH, THE, UH, COMPLAINT THOUGH, UH, I, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH WHAT'S BEEN SAID, ALTHOUGH I, I, UH, I WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT DID SIT THROUGH WHAT SEEMED LIKE A TWO, TWO AND A HALF HOUR PRESENTATION, UH, THAT PROBABLY COULD HAVE BEEN TRUNCATED A LITTLE BIT WITH A PROFFER OF EVIDENCE, UH, STILL PROVIDING, UH, A GREAT DEAL OF INFORMATION ON, UH, UH, WHAT THE, UH, UH, UH, COMPLAINT WAS ABOUT, WHAT THE CHARGES WERE AND ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR US TO, UH, UH, MAKE A DECISION ON SANCTIONS.
SO, UH, WITH THAT, I'LL MUTE MYSELF AGAIN.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? UM, ONLY THAT I THINK THAT, UM, WE DO NEED TO LEAVE IT UP TO THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL TO PRESENT EXACTLY WHAT THEY FEEL WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
AND, UM, IF SOMEONE DOESN'T THINK THEY CAN AFFORD THAT, THEY DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO DO THAT, THEY CAN ALWAYS REFUSE TO BE ON THAT, UM, COMMISSION, UH, ON THAT, UH, PANEL.
I'M SURE THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE.
WE STILL HAVE NINE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION RIGHT NOW.
WELL, UH, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE PUBLIC HAS ACCESS TO THE PROCEEDINGS TO HEAR THE BASIS FOR ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE BEING MADE BY THE, IT'S FAIR TO THE RESPONDENTS.
UH, IT IS GOOD FOR THE PUBLIC TO KNOW WHAT WE DO AND THAT THERE'S A RECORD THAT SUPPORTS THE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE, AND ALSO FAIR TO THE COUNCIL, THAT THE COUNCIL IS AWARE OF WHAT WE, WHAT THE COMMISSION DOES.
AND THAT IS, IT IS MAKING, UH, REASONED DECISIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON THE FACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE, SO, I, I, I, I DON'T KNOW.
IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO PUT SOME GREATER PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED? OR IS IT JUST AT THE DISCRETION OF THE, THE CHAIR AND THE, UH, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE ON HOW MUCH EVIDENCE IS ACTUALLY PUT IN THE RECORD? I'M STILL A LITTLE UN UNCERTAIN ABOUT HOW DO WE RE HOW DO WE RESOLVE THIS? IT'S MY RECOMMENDATION IS YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL THAT NO AMENDMENT TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE IS NEEDED.
UH, BECAUSE THE CHAIR DOES HAVE THE DISCRETION TO CHIME IN AT, AT THE MEETING.
YOU KNOW, IF, IF, IF THE QUESTIONING AND, AND THIS WOULD BE THE CASE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS PRESENT OR NOT PRESENT, UH, THE CHAIR RUNS THE MEETING AND THE CHAIR CAN CHIME IN AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? I FEEL LIKE YOU'VE GONE OVER THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING A NUMBER OF TIMES.
CAN WE JUST MOVE ON TO SOMETHING ELSE? AND THEN THE PANEL CAN OBJECT AND SAY, YOU KNOW, NO, I, I DO WANNA HEAR MORE
[00:45:01]
ON THIS ISSUE.AND THEN A VOTE CAN BE TAKEN TO OVERTURN, UH, THE CHAIR'S RULING ON THAT.
UM, SO BECAUSE THE DISCRETION IS ALREADY THERE AND BECAUSE THE IG STILL HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT HE OR SHE HAS TO MEET, I, I, I RECOMMEND NO CHANGE TO THE RULES.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? I, I WOULD JUST SAY AGAIN, UM, TALKING ABOUT POLITICIZING AGENCIES OR WHATEVER, I THINK THE PRESENTATION ALSO TAKES THEM INTO ACCOUNT FOR WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND HOW THEY'RE PROVING PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE.
THEREFORE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S JUST ALL OUT IN THE OPEN.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE? ALRIGHT.
IS THAT THE, I THINK THAT'S THE, IS THAT THE LAST AGENDA ITEM? NO MORE BUSINESS.
MR. CHAIR THERE? ANY OTHER COMMENTS? UH, HEARING NONE, I THINK THAT WE ARE PREPARED TO ADJOURN IF THERE'S NO FURTHER BUSINESS.
THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT 10:23 AM ON TUESDAY, JULY 16TH.