[00:00:02]
[Ethics Advisory Commission on April 15, 2025.]
MORNING COMMISSIONERS.UH, WELCOME TO THE MEETING OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.
IT IS 9:43 AM ON TUESDAY, APRIL 15TH.
PLEASE STAY PRESENT IF YOU ARE HERE.
DO WE HAVE A QUORUM? BUT COMMISSIONERS? BOWMAN AND MASO.
COULD YOU, UM, SPEAK AGAIN? I THINK WE MIGHT BE HAVING TROUBLE HEARING.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? YOU CAN HEAR.
I CAN'T HEAR YOU, BUT DOESN'T MATTER.
WE'RE GONNA TRY TO WORK ON THE VOLUME HERE IN THE ROOM.
CAN I GET ONE OF THE MEMBERS ONLINE TO TEST ONCE AGAIN? TESS, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.
YES, WE HEARD YOU MS. BOWMAN, COULD WE TEST YOUR AUDIO? YOU SEE ME? I KNOW.
I'M TRYING TO FIGURE THAT OUT.
OH, MS. BOWMAN, WE HEAR YOU NOW.
SHE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO HEAR US.
MS. BOWMAN, CAN YOU HEAR US? HOLD ON.
CAN YOU HEAR? I'M GONNA SWITCH TO AUDIO.
UM, SEE, MAYBE, CAN YOU HEAR NOW? BUT WE CAN HEAR? UH HUH.
MS. BOWMAN, CAN YOU HEAR US? YES.
UH, AT THIS TIME IT IS 9 46, UH, AND THE, UH, ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION IS NOW CALLED TO ORDER, UH, BESIDES MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, BUT OTHERS PRESENT AT TODAY'S, UH, MEETING INTRODUCED THEMSELVES, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
MY NAME'S BARB BEAVERS, AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.
UH, THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
LAURA FELAND, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
UM, UH, O OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, FORMERLY CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
NOW WITH OIG, UH, CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE, MAYOR SLAVO MARTINEZ, DONNA BROWN, NANCY SANCHEZ, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
LAURA MORRISON, LEGAL ADVISOR TO THE COMMISSION.
[00:05:02]
I BELIEVE THERE ARE NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS TODAY.IS THAT CORRECT? AND WE PROCEED TO TODAY'S AGENDA.
FIRST IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY, JANUARY 29TH, 2025, ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION.
I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
UH, UH, DO ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION WISH TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE.
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
VOTE THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
UH, WE'LL, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE IS A BRIEFING BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
AND MR. BEAVERS, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
UH, I JUST WANNA BRIEF YOU ON SOME OF OUR ACTIVITIES OVER THE SECOND QUARTER OF THIS FISCAL YEAR.
UH, WE HAD TWO RISK ASSESSMENT ROADSHOW MEETINGS WITH, UH, THE LIBRARY AND ANIMAL SERVICES IN JANUARY.
WE ALSO HAD AN ADDITIONAL SIX DEPARTMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT MEETINGS.
WE HAD A TOTAL OF 10 TRAININGS AND SIX DEPARTMENT RISK ASSESSMENTS THAT REACHED 608 PEOPLE.
UH, WE ALSO, WE ALSO WROTE FIVE OR SIX PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND DELIVERED THOSE TO COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT TWO MONTHS AGO.
SO WE'VE GOT OUR FINGERS CROSSED THAT WE CAN GET THOSE SCHEDULED AND GET THOSE RECORDED SO WE CAN GET THAT OUT AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING OUR JOB EXTERNALLY COMMUNICATION WISE.
UH, BUT WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING THAT DONE.
WE ATTENDED A STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS TRAINING BY THE ASSOCIATION OF INSPECTORS GENERAL DURING THE SECOND QUARTER, AND WE ALSO HOSTED A FRAUD AND CORRUPTION ROUND TABLE WITH THE US STATE DEPARTMENT.
AND THE, THE US STATE DEPARTMENT COMES BY ONCE A YEAR, USUALLY IN AROUND FEBRUARY SOMETIME.
AND THEY'LL BRING A CONTINGENT OF FRAUD AND CORRUPTION PROFESSIONALS FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY.
THE YEAR BEFORE IT WAS ANOTHER, UH, EUROPEAN COUNTRY, AND I CAN'T RECALL, THIS WAS DIFFERENT.
THESE FOLKS CAME FROM BELARUS, AND WHEN I GOT THEIR INFORMATION, IT WAS, THERE WERE A COUPLE THINGS THAT STOOD OUT THAT I DIDN'T REALLY QUESTION.
ONE THING IS THEY ALL LIVED IN POLAND.
I THOUGHT, THAT'S A LITTLE STRANGE.
AND THEIR JOB DESCRIPTIONS LISTED THEM AS FORMER PROSECUTOR, FORMER DETECTIVE, FORMER INVESTIGATOR.
AND I THOUGHT, WELL, THAT'LL BE INTERESTING TO WHEN THEY SHOW UP, WE HAVE SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT.
AND WE GO THROUGH THE FIRST 20 MINUTES AND JUST KIND OF LAY OUT GENERALLY WHO WE ARE, WHAT WE DO, UH, OUR THINKING ON FRAUD AND FRAUD PREVENTION AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
AND WHEN THEY TOOK THE FLOOR, IT, I WAS SPEECHLESS.
UH, THESE PEOPLE WERE FORMER, AND THEY WERE FORMER BECAUSE OF THE REGIME THAT'S IN POWER AND BELARUS.
AND ONE BY ONE, THEY WENT THROUGH AND, AND EXPLAINED, YEAH, I USED TO BE A PROSECUTOR, BUT NOW I HAD TO LEAVE MY FAMILY.
UH, ONCE I WAS, UM, ONCE I WAS PLACED IN POLAND, WE, WE LEFT.
SO I WOULDN'T BE IN PRISON FOR DOING MY JOB.
AND OH, YEAH, BY THE WAY, I WAS CONVICTED IN ABSTENTION.
SO THEY ACTUALLY TRIED ME WHEN I WASN'T THERE.
AND, OH, OH, BY THE WAY, I'M ON THE TERRORIST WATCH LIST FOR THE COUNTRY OF BELARUS.
AND ONE BY ONE THEY EACH WENT THROUGH.
AND IT WAS KIND OF A PARADIGM SHIFT OF WE GO THERE TO VISIT WITH PEOPLE TO DO WHAT WE DO.
AND THEN DURING THE COURSE OF THIS HOUR AND A HALF MEETING, I REALIZED THESE PEOPLE ARE ALL, UM, I CAN'T THINK OF THE TERM.
IT'S NOT EXTRADITED, BUT WHENEVER YOU'RE, UH, REMOVED FROM YOUR HOME COUNTRY, AND I COULDN'T BELIEVE HOW COURAGEOUS THESE PEOPLE WERE, UH, TO DO WHAT LAURA AND I DO, WHAT BARON AND I DO FOR A LIVING, AND TO HAVE IT COST YOU EVERYTHING AND TO HEAR THEIR TONE OF VOICE.
IT'S THE ONLY GROUP THAT EVER CAME BY THAT DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE PICTURES IN
[00:10:01]
THE FLAG ROOM.NORMALLY, WE TAKE PICTURES IN THE FLAG ROOM AND PUT IT ON LINKEDIN OR SOMETHING TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC'S AWARE THAT WE'RE REACHING OUT AND VISITING WITH PEOPLE WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COMES BY.
AND IT WAS, UH, IT'LL MAKE YOU STOP AND THINK WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU'RE AS CLOSE AS WE ARE TODAY, TO A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT ARE PAID EVERYTHING FOR DOING THE RIGHT THING.
BUT IT WAS QUITE INTERESTING TO SAY THE LEAST.
UH, WE ALSO MET WITH THE OAK CLIFF CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LEADERSHIP GROUP ON FRIDAY THE 14TH.
UH, WE ATTENDED THE BLACK HISTORY MONTH CELEBRATION LUNCHEON ON SATURDAY THE 22ND, AND WE OBVIOUSLY CONTINUED RELEASING OUR ETHICS MATTERS NEWSLETTERS AND OUR WEEKLY CATCH THE CANARY GAMES.
AND THAT WOULD BE A SUMMARY OF THE TRAINING AND COMMUNICATIONS WORK THAT WE'VE DONE OVER THE SECOND QUARTER.
SHIFTING GEARS TO OUR INVESTIGATORY WORK, WE DELIVERED TWO MANAGEMENT ALERTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND THE CITY COUNCIL BACK ON JANUARY 17TH.
UH, WE INCLUDED THOSE, UH, LAST WEEK WITH THE GIVING YOU GUYS ACCESS TO THE FINAL REPORTS AND THE EXHIBITS THAT SUPPORT IT.
AND WE FILED ETHICS CHARGES AGAINST ONE CITY OF EMPLOYEE DURING THE SECOND QUARTER.
AND THE THIRD CATEGORY OF WORK WOULD BE THE TRANSITION WORK.
WE, UH, THERE'S BEEN SOME BILLS FILED ON OUR BEHALF AT THE STATE LEGISLATURE HOUSE BILL 31 77, WHICH WAS AUTHORED BY REPRESENTATIVE ROCKDALE AND CHIA, UH, SENATE BILL 1564, WHICH WAS AUTHORED BY SENATOR NATHAN JOHNSON.
AND THEN THERE'S ACTUALLY ANOTHER BILL IN THE HOUSE, WHICH IS HOUSE BILL 39 48, WHICH WAS FILED BY REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS.
AND THE LAST WEEK OF MARCH, WHICH IS WITHIN THE SECOND QUARTER, WE WENT DOWN AND VISITED WITH QUITE A FEW PEOPLE AT AT LEAST 34 DIFFERENT PEOPLE DURING THIS TWO DAY TIME PERIOD.
UH, WE WENT BACK LAST WEEK, BUT LAST WEEK IS OUTSIDE THE SECOND QUARTER.
BUT JUST WANT TO KIND OF LET YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN DOWN TO THE CAPITOL TWICE OVER THE LAST THREE WEEKS.
AND, UM, THAT ALL THAT ALL BEGAN AFTER WE APPEARED BEFORE THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS ON JANUARY 6TH.
AND THEY ENTERTAINED THE MOTION OF US PURSUING LAW ENFORCEMENT STATUS TO GET THE TOOLS THAT WE NEEDED TO DO THE THINGS THAT WE NEEDED TO DO TO LOOK INTO FRAUD AND CORRUPTION.
THE FULL CITY COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THAT A WEEK, ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF LATER, JANUARY 22ND, I THINK IT WAS.
SO THAT'S THE REASON THAT THE BILLS WERE FILED ON OUR BEHALF, IS TO GIVE US ACCESS TO THE TOOLS, SYSTEMS, AND POWERS THAT YOU NEED TO DO THE WORK THAT'S BEEN ASSIGNED, AND THAT'S INVESTIGATING FRAUD AND CORRUPTION.
BUT, UM, THAT'S A SUMMARY OF THE SECOND QUARTER, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL? I DO HAVE A QUESTION.
I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR GLOBAL INTERACTION, AND I THINK THAT'S AMAZING.
I'M CURIOUS IF THAT IS CITY OF DALLAS DOLLARS OR FEDERAL DOLLARS, LIKE HOW DOES THAT INTERACTION HAPPEN? I BELIEVE IT'S THE OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS IN THE CITY THAT HAS A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND IT'S USUALLY AN EMAIL THAT I GET FROM OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS.
HEY, THERE'S A GROUP OF PEOPLE FROM THE UKRAINE OR BELARUS, THEY'RE GONNA BE HERE FOR THIS 10 DAY TIME PERIOD.
CAN YOU PICK A DATE AND TIME THAT WORKS IN YOUR SCHEDULE? AND SO, SO IT'S NOT CLEAR WHOSE CITY OF DALLAS DOLLARS OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOLLARS? IT'S THE, IT'S THE US STATE DEPARTMENT.
AND IT IS ON OUR TIME, SO THE HOUR AND A HALF THAT WE MET WITH THEM WAS ON CITY TIME.
UH, I APPRECIATE THE, UH, THOROUGH WORK, UH, YOUR OFFICE DID ON THE, UH, MANAGEMENT ALERT.
AND, UM, YOU GOT A, FOR ME, IT WAS VERY EYE-OPENING.
UM, I WONDER WHAT HAD, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANYTHING THAT'S BEING DONE RECTIFY THE SHORT COMPANY SHORTCOMINGS, UH, THAT YOU DETAILED IN THESE MANAGEMENT ALERTS? NOT AT THIS TIME.
WHEN, WHENEVER WE ISSUE A MANAGEMENT ALERT OFF OF A FULL SCALE INVESTIGATION,
[00:15:01]
WE ALWAYS DELIVER IT TO THE FOLKS THAT, THAT NEED TO RECEIVE IT AND GIVE THEM 30 DAYS TO PROVIDE A MANAGEMENT RESPONSE.SO THE MANAGEMENT RESPONSES WERE DUE ON FEBRUARY 17TH, AND WE'RE HERE ALMOST APRIL 17TH.
I HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY MANAGEMENT RESPONSES AT THIS TIME.
SO IS THERE ANY FOLLOW UP THAT YOUR OFFICE CAN DO WITH REGARD TO THIS? I COULD REACH OUT TO THEM AGAIN AND SAY, WOULD YOU LIKE A MANAGEMENT RESPONSE? UH, BECAUSE THE REASON WE ASK FOR THAT IS WE'RE AFTER THE TRUTH.
AND IF SOMEBODY'S PROVIDES A MANAGEMENT RESPONSE RESPONSE AND SHOWS, OH, HERE'S A ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE THAT YOU MISSED IN YOUR INVESTIGATION, THAT MEANS ALL THIS STUFF WAS OKAY, THEN WE'LL ALTER OUR REPORT, INCLUDE THEIR MANAGEMENT RESPONSE AND ISSUE THE FINAL REPORT.
UH, BUT HAVING NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING, UM, I WOULD CERTAINLY BE WILLING TO REACH OUT AND ASK 'EM, YET ANOTHER TIME, WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROVIDE A MANAGEMENT RESPONSE? AND I'LL DO THAT.
IF THAT'S WHAT YOU THINK'S APPROPRIATE, PROBABLY IS APPROPRIATE.
BUT, UH, IF THERE'S NO MANAGEMENT RESPONSE, THEN YOU COMPLETE THE REPORT AND JUST EXCLUDE ANY MANAGEMENT RESPONSE IN YOUR FINAL REPORT.
THAT'S TYPICALLY WHAT IG OFFICES DO.
IF SOMEBODY DOESN'T RESPOND AND AFTER A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME, THEY'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND ISSUE THE FINAL, I'M SORRY.
MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL, COULD YOU FINISH WHAT YOU WERE SAYING? I OH, YEAH, I DID.
ALL I SAID WAS, UH, TYPICALLY WHAT IF YOU ISSUE A MANAGEMENT ALERT AND YOU GIVE SOMEBODY 30 DAYS TO RESPOND, YOU REALLY HOPE THAT THAT THAT'LL COME.
AND THEN YOU CAN MAKE THE INCLUSION INTO THE FINAL REPORT.
IF SOMEBODY DOES IT, THEN, UH, TYPICALLY YOU CAN WAIT A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME AND JUST CONSIDER IT FINAL.
MR. SMITH, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? UM, YES, I WAS GONNA, WELL, YES.
UM, KIND OF A SEPARATE TOPIC, BUT, UM, MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT SEEKING LAW ENFORCEMENT STATUS AND THE, SO THAT YOU COULD HAVE ACCESS TO THE RELEVANT TOOLS, SYSTEMS, POWERS.
CAN YOU JUST EDUCATE ME BRIEFLY ON WHAT THAT WOULD BE? WHAT, WHAT, LET'S SAY THEY SAID YOU GOT, UM, WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO DIFFERENTLY? WHAT WOULD YOU THEN BE ABLE TO DO DIFFERENTLY STARTING TOMORROW? GREAT QUESTION.
UH, LONG STORY SHORT, IN ORDER TO INVESTIGATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES INVOLVING FRAUD AND CORRUPTION, YOU HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THREE THINGS.
AND I WOULD SAY TOOLS, SYSTEMS, AND POWER.
A TOOL WOULD BE LIKE NCIC, THE NATIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER, THAT THE FBI OPERATES.
AND THE REASON THAT YOU WANT ACCESS TO A SYSTEM LIKE THAT IS YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHO YOU'RE TALKING TO, WHO YOU'RE, WHO YOU'RE FOCUSING ON.
THERE'S A LOT OF JOHN SMITHS IN DALLAS.
SOME OF 'EM HAVE THE SAME DATE OF BIRTH.
AND IF YOU DON'T MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE RIGHT ONE, THEN YOU COULD MAKE THE MISTAKE OF, UH, ARRESTING THE WRONG PERSON.
WHEN I WAS RUNNING THE BIG IG OFFICE DOWN IN AUSTIN FOR GOVERNOR PERRY FOR SEVERAL YEARS BACK IN 2009, I STARTED GETTING PHONE CALLS FROM THIS SMALLER OFFICE WITH 12 PEOPLE, AND THEY WERE APPLYING FOR JOBS.
AND I JUST THOUGHT, YEAH, THAT'S, SURE, WE'LL, WE'LL ABSOLUTELY LET YOU APPLY FOR SOME OF OUR OPEN POSITIONS.
BUT THEY NEVER REALLY TOLD ME WHY.
AND SO I DID SOME RESEARCH AND FOUND OUT WHAT HAPPENED.
THEY DID AN INVESTIGATION WITHOUT NCIC, AND THEY ARRESTED A GUY, AND THEY TOOK HIM DOWN TO THE TRAVIS COUNTY JAIL AND FINGERPRINTED HIM AND REALIZED THEY HAD MADE TWO MISTAKES.
NUMBER ONE, WE ARRESTED THE WRONG GUY.
NUMBER TWO, THE GUY THAT WE DID ARREST WAS THE COMMISSIONER OVER THE ENTIRE AGENCY THAT WE WORK FOR.
THAT IS WHAT CAN HAPPEN, UH, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE TOOLS.
THE SECOND THING THAT I TALKED ABOUT WERE SYSTEMS. UH, THE SYSTEMS PRIMARILY ARE GRAND JURIES AND THE COURT SYSTEM AND THE JUDGES THAT RUN IT, A GRAND JURY, YOU CANNOT GET IN FRONT OF A GRAND JURY IN THIS COUNTY UNLESS YOU HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT STATUS.
I CAN CALL THE BASEMENT OF THE CROWLEY BUILDING WHERE THEY ARE AND SAY, HEY, CAN I HAVE TWO HOURS OF GRAND JURY TIME NEXT FRIDAY? I GOT A CASE I WANNA PRESENT.
THEY'RE GONNA SAY, NO, YOU'RE
YOU CAN'T GET IN FRONT OF A GRAND JURY.
UH, YOU COULD SAY, WELL, YOU CAN APPROACH JUDGES.
[00:20:01]
CAN APPROACH A JUDGE WITH AN AFFIDAVIT FOR A SEARCH WARRANT.BUT HIS FIRST QUESTION'S GONNA BE, WHAT'S YOUR O UH, WHAT'S YOUR ORI NUMBER? OH, WELL, WE DON'T HAVE ONE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT.
OKAY, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT SIGNING ANY AFFIDAVITS TODAY, MR. BEAVERS.
SO YOU CAN PHYSICALLY APPROACH A JUDGE WHO'S ON THE BENCH, BUT HE'S NOT GOING TO SIGN A SEARCH WARRANT OR AN A PENDING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION THAT YOU'RE WORKING ON UNLESS YOU HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT STATUS.
THE THIRD THING WOULD BE THE POWERS.
POWERS, UH, ARGUABLY ARE, UH, GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS AND CRIMINAL SEARCH WARRANTS.
THOSE ARE ABSOLUTE NECESSITIES IF YOU'RE GONNA LOOK INTO STUFF.
AND ONLY THE STATE LEGISLATURE CAN GRANT THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT STATUS.
WHAT WE WERE ACTUALLY SEEKING WAS LIMITED LAW ENFORCEMENT STATUS.
WE HAVE NO DESIRE TO WEAR UNIFORMS, NO DESIRE TO DRIVE PATROL CARS, NO DESIRE TO MAKE ARRESTS.
ALL WE WANT TO DO IS BE ABLE TO DO THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DO IN ORDER TO FULFILL THE RESPONSIBILITIES THAT WE HAVE.
SO, UM, WE'VE GOT TWO OF OUR CURRENT FIVE INVESTIGATORS, ACTUALLY ALL FIVE ARE EITHER FLETC CERTIFIED OR TPO CERTIFIED.
BUT TWO OF THE FIVE HAVE AREN'T CRAZY ABOUT THE REQUIREMENTS THAT COME WITH IT, BECAUSE IF YOU'RE A PEACE OFFICER IN THIS STATE, YOU'RE REALLY NEVER OFF DUTY.
SO IF YOU TAKE YOUR FAMILY TO THE MAVERICKS GAME AND TWO PEOPLE ARE THROWING BEER ON EACH OTHER AND THE ROW IN FRONT OF YOU, AND THERE'S A FIGHT ABOUT THE BREAKOUT, WELL, THAT'S A BREACH OF THE PEACE.
YOU HAVE TO INSERT YOURSELF AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS A PEACE OFFICER TO STOP BREACHES OF THE PEACE.
AND PEOPLE THAT HAVE DONE THAT FOR DECADES, SOMETIMES WHEN THEY GET AWAY FROM IT, THEY STILL LIKE TO DO THE WORK, BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO, THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO GO TO THE FIRING RANGE EVERY 90 DAYS TO QUALIFY.
THEY DON'T WANNA HAVE TO DO THE PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS WHEN THEY GO TO THE MAVERICK GAME AND A FIGHT BREAKS OUT AND THEY ROW IN FRONT OF 'EM, THEY WANNA LET THE, THE POLICE THAT ARE IN UNIFORM ON DUTY HANDLE IT.
SO, UH, BASICALLY THREE OF OUR FIVE CURRENT INVESTIGATORS ARE INTERESTED IN, IN DOING THAT TO HELP THE OFFICE.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YES, THAT I HAVE A COUPLE FOLLOW UP.
I, MY MEMORY OF THE CODE OF ETHICS MAKES ME FEEL LIKE, I FEEL LIKE WE DO HAVE THE POWER TO SUBPOENA PEOPLE AS A COMMISSION.
IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, THE CITY CODE, UM, GRANT YOU THE POWER OF SUBPOENA.
WE, SO WE AS A COMMISSION HAVE THE ABILITY TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA.
YOU COULD DO AN ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENA.
UH, A LOT OF CRIMINAL FRAUD AND CRIMINAL CORRUPTION CASES UTILIZE GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS.
AND IF A GRAND, IF A GRAND JURY WAS CONVENED TO ALLOW US TO ENTERTAIN AND EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, THEY COULD ISSUE SUBPOENAS THAT NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT.
AND, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS YOU GOTTA BE CAREFUL OF, UH, FRAUD OR CORRUPTION INVESTIGATION IS TIPPING OFF THE PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
SO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE? CORRECT.
UM, WELL, SO I WAS CURIOUS, HOW DO WE HELP, UM, FOR SOME OF THESE ITEMS, IT DOES SEEM LIKE YOU SHOULD HAVE THOSE TOOLS.
AND SO IS THIS MORE, I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE VARIOUS BUILD BEGINNING THROUGH, YOU SAID, UM, NATHAN JOHNSON AND, UM, MR. UH, DID YOU SAY THAT, UH, REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL AND CHIA? YES.
SO IS THERE, WHAT ELSE CAN WE BE, OR SHOULD WE BE THINKING ABOUT? ARE YOU, ARE YOU IN A STAGE OF LIKE, STILL MEETING WITH SOME OF THESE REPRESENTATIVES AND TRYING TO, THAT'S WHY YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO AUSTIN HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS, AND NOW IT'S JUST A MATTER OF PERSUASION OR JUST ALL LIKE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES.
WHAT'S THE, WHAT IS KIND OF THE NEXT STEP YOU'RE GONNA HAVE? ONE THEY WANNA ASK ABOUT LAST WEEK'S TRIP WAS TO GO THERE WHERE TWO OF THE STATE REPS ON TWO SEPARATE DAYS LAID OUT THEIR BILL, AND THAT'S WHEN THEY APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AND THEY SAY, HERE'S WHAT I WROTE, HERE'S THE KIND OF THINKING BEHIND IT.
AND BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, YOU GET THREE OR FOUR QUESTIONS, AND THEN THERE'LL BE A SERIES OF WITNESSES, UH, AT ONE OF THE HEARINGS.
SOMEBODY FROM THE COUNTY STOOD UP AND TESTIFIED ON OUR BEHALF AND THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT IDEA.
UM, AND THEN I WOULD GET UP AS A RESOURCE WITNESS, OR SME SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT AND TRY TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME OUT FROM THE ORIGINAL LAYOUT OF THE BILL.
AND WHEN ALL THE QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED, THEN THE REPRESENTATIVE TYPICALLY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CLOSE AND WE'LL COME UP AND
[00:25:01]
CLOSE IT OUT, AND THEN THEY GET ONTO THE NEXT BILL.SO AS FAR AS, UH, PROCEDURAL STEPS AFTER THAT, I THINK IT'S MORE OF GETTING ON A, ON THE CALENDAR.
AND SO IF IT, WHEN IT GETS OUTTA COMMITTEE, IT WOULD GO TO THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO BE VOTED ON.
AND THEN IF WHEN IT GETS APPROVED ON THE FLOOR, THEN IT WOULD GO OVER TO, UH, THE SENATE SIDE.
AND YOU HAD, WHEN I, WHEN YOU FIRST CAME ON, YOU HAD DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB OF EDUCATING US ON WHAT SOME OF THESE OTHER MAJOR METROPOLITAN CITIES WERE DOING.
LIKE, I REMEMBER YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF, AND YOU KIND OF EDUCATED US, HEY, LOOK, DALLAS IS VERY, THAT WAS WHAT LED TO SNOWMAN.
SO JUST REAL QUICK, HOW DOES THIS COMPARE YOUR PEERS AND SOME OF THESE OTHER, OTHER MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS, THE PERSON, MAN, OR WOMAN IN YOUR SEAT, ARE THEY, DO THEY HAVE THESE TOOLS, SYSTEMS AND POWERS THAT YOU DON'T YET? THE ONES THAT I'M AWARE OF IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM, UH, THAT HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS FOR FRAUD AND CORRUPTION, THE ONES I'M AWARE OF IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM, DO THE STATE IGS THAT I'M AWARE OF AT THE STATE LEVEL, WHO HAVE THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES, ALSO HAVE THOSE TOOLS.
UH, THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE AT THE COUNTY LEVEL AND AT THE CITY LEVEL WHERE I HONESTLY HAVEN'T DONE THE RESEARCH TO ASK THAT, BUT OKAY.
TYPICALLY IN THE IG COMMUNITY FROM FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, AND THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL, IF YOU HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY, THEN AT SOME POINT THEY GIVE YOU THE TOOLS TO ACTUALLY DO IT.
JUST GO BACK TO THE MANAGEMENT ALERT.
NOW THAT I'VE, I'VE HAD TO REMIND MYSELF THAT THESE BELOW, UM, SO YOU MIGHT HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED THIS, SO I APOLOGIZE, BUT SOMEONE SOLICITS THE, LIKE, THIS, OBVIOUSLY THESE ARE WELL DONE, TOOK A LOT OF TIME FOR Y'ALL, BUT THEN TOGETHER, AND SO WERE YOU SAYING THAT NOW IT COULD JUST, IT GOES OUT, HEY, WE THINK THERE'S, WE NEED HELP ON EDUCATING FOLKS ON THE RETREAT BUDGETS.
WE NEED HELP ON EDUCATING PEOPLE ON PROCUREMENT, AND THERE'S A CHANCE THAT IT JUST SITS THERE AND NOBODY, NOBODY DOES ANYTHING.
I, I THINK THE PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR THE CITY USUALLY JUMP ON STUFF WHEN WE NOTIFY 'EM ABOUT STUFF.
THEY ADDRESS THE RISK AND CREATE, UH, INTERNAL CONTROLS AND MAYBE TWEAK POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND DO THINGS.
BUT MY EXPERIENCE OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS, WHEN WE IDENTIFY A RISK OR WE IDENTIFY SOME MISSPENT FUNDS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, USUALLY PEOPLE JUMP ALL OVER IT AND ADDRESS IT SO IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.
I, I, I THINK I MISUNDERSTOOD.
I THOUGHT EARLIER YOU WERE SAYING THERE WAS NO, YOU MEANT THERE WAS NO FORMAL RESPONSE, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT, THAT THE RELEVANT PARTIES ARE NOT EATING YOUR SUGGESTIONS.
ARE YOUR BILLS OUTTA THE COMMITTEE YET? UH, I HAVEN'T CHECKED THIS MORNING.
AND, UH, THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON THE HOUSE SIDE THAT WE TESTIFIED TO LAST WEEK USUALLY CALENDARS THINGS ON TUESDAY.
SO THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT TODAY THAT, THAT ONE BILL, I JUST HADN'T HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AND SEE THOSE.
I DID SIGN UP FOR ALERTS FOR OUR BILLS AND OTHER BILLS, AND, UM, BUT I'M GONNA CHECK THAT PROBABLY BEFORE LUNCH.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. DAVIS? THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SPEAKERS.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
UH, CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 12, A CODE OF ETHICS THAT MAKE CERTAIN SECTIONS APPLY TO PERSONS DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY.
WOULD YOU KIND OF TELL US WHAT THAT'S ABOUT, PLEASE? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
LAURA MORRISON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
THIS IS AN ITEM THAT CAME OUT OF, UM, THE COMMISSION'S DISCUSSION EARLIER THIS YEAR IN OUR FIRST QUARTER MEETING.
AND IT WAS SOMETHING THE COMMISSION, UH, WANTED TO SEE ON, UM, THIS MONTH'S AGENDA.
AND A COPY OF THE PROPOSAL WAS DISTRIBUTED TO YOU LAST WEEK.
YOU SHOULD HAVE A PAPER COPY IN FRONT OF YOU.
UM, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL ON TO SEE WHERE WE THOUGHT IN CHAPTER 12 A IT WOULD BE MOST APPROPRIATE TO HAVE SOME PROVISIONS APPLY TO, UM, NOT JUST CITY EMPLOYEES AND CITY OFFICIALS, BUT ALSO, UM, THOSE DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY.
UM, SO I DON'T KNOW, UM, IF YOU WANT ME TO, TO GO THROUGH THE PROPOSAL SECTION BY SECTION IF YOU WANT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, UM,
[00:30:01]
TO EX TO EXPLAIN ANY OF IT.UM, AND IF NOT, LIKE, I'M, I'M HERE FOR QUESTIONS, AS IS THE HYGIENE.
UM, I APPRECIATE YOUR HIGHLIGHTING CHANGES.
UM, I PERSONALLY DON'T FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO GO ITEM BY ITEM THAT, BUT IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTS OBJECTION.
UM, ON THE VERY LAST ONE, THE DISQUALIFICATION FROM CONTRACTING ON PAGE FOUR, WHERE WE'VE ELIMINATED THE PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AND LEFT IT UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
UM, IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT, UM, INSTEAD OF COMPLETELY ELIMINATING IT, BUT, UM, AND LEAVING IT UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, UM, BUT, UM, PUTTING A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF YEARS IN RATHER THAN NO YEARS.
SO THAT CHANGE WAS MADE AS SUGGESTED BY OUR CHIEF INTEGRITY OFFICER BECAUSE WE HAD TWO PLACES IN CHAPTER 12 A THAT REFERS TO THIS, UM, DISBARMENT PERIOD.
ONE OF THE SECTIONS, AND IF YOU'LL GIVE ME A MINUTE, I'LL, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND IT, UH, REFERS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, UM, MAKING THAT DETERMINATION.
AND THEN THE OTHER SECTION HERE IN 12, A DASH 62 REFERRED TO A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS.
SO, UM, THE SUGGESTION FROM THE CHIEF INTEGRITY OFFICER, UH, BARON ELIASON, WAS THAT WE AMEND 12 A 62, UM, TO MIRROR THE PREVIOUS PROVISION THAT REFERRED TO JUST DETERMINATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
AND AS A QUICK FOLLOW UP ON THAT, UH, IF I READ IT CORRECTLY, IT COULD BE A PERMANENT DISBARMENT.
THERE IS NO CAP AT THIS POINT, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN YES.
THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW.
BUT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO MINIMUM, UM, CAP ON IT.
I MEAN, THAT MEANS WE COULD HAVE PEOPLE WHO, UM, ARE FOUND TO BE KNOWINGLY VIOLATED ANY PROVISION, AND THEY CAN SAY, OKAY, WE'LL PUT IT IN, UH, WE'LL ONLY GIVE THEM A SIX MONTH, UM, DISQUALIFICATION.
LIKE, I MEAN, THIS BODY COULD PUT, UM, A MINIMUM THEY, THIS BODY COULD RECOMMEND A MINIMUM TO CITY COUNCIL.
SO, SO YOU, THE LANGUAGE COULD BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE A MINIMUM OF TWO YEARS OR WHATEVER PERIOD OF TIME YOU RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL? YES.
UM, YEAH, MINIMUM OF TWO YEARS OR WHATEVER TIME IS, UH, DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OR RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
WHATEVER TIME IS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT NO LESS THAN TWO YEARS.
IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING? YES, THAT'S WHAT I'M SUGGESTING.
WELL, I THINK THE, IT DOES SEEM LIKE THERE SHOULD BE, THE POINT HERE IS TO GIVE DISCRETION.
EVERY SITUATION IS SO UNIQUE, RIGHT? I MEAN, TWO YEARS IS A LOT.
AND IF WE SAY THE ALTERNATIVE, WE SAY TWO YEARS OR WHATEVER, THEN IT KIND OF BECOMES DISCRETIONARY ANY WAY.
BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A PERSON WHO HAS KNOWINGLY VIOLATED ANY PROVISION OF THE CODE OF ETHICS.
BUT I PUSH BACK ON THAT IS SOME OF THESE PROVISIONS I'VE ALWAYS FELT LIKE SOME DIVISIONS ARE A LITTLE SQUISHY.
LIKE, AGAIN, WE'RE ON THE COMMISSION, SO I'M, I WANT EVERYBODY TO COMPLY.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT IT, IT, I WOULD HATE IT FOR IF THERE WERE SOME UNIQUE SITUATION WHERE SOMEBODY KNOWINGLY DID SOMETHING, BUT THERE WERE ALL SORTS OF REASONS FOR IT TO TIE THE HANDS FOR TWO YEARS ANYWAY.
IT'S JUST, I LIKE THE DISCRETION, BUT, UH, I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY OF IT.
I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, BUT IT'S NOT ON THIS TOPIC.
SO, WELL, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN, YEAH.
UH, SO MR. SCHMIDT, YOU DON'T LIKE THE MINIMUM TWO YEARS OR LIKE, DISCRETION OF THE COUNCIL? I LIKE THE WAY IT IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED WITH THE YELLOW HIGH.
SO I, I ALSO AGREE WITH THAT, THE DISCRETION OF THE COUNCIL, WHICH WILL PROBABLY TAKE TWO YEARS.
[00:35:01]
RIGHT.SO, SO THERE WOULD BE NO MINIMUM, IT WOULD BE STRICTLY AT THE, FOR A DURATION AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
IS THAT, IS THAT, AND JUST TO GO BACK TO IT'S SECTION 12, A DASH 59, UM, SUBSECTION F1 OF THE SANCTIONS FOR SOMEONE DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY'S, UH, THE CITY COUNCIL MAY TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW PROHIBIT THE PERSON FROM ENTERING INTO CONTRACTS WITH THE CITY, OR FROM LOBBYING BEFORE THE CITY ON BEHALF OF CLIENTS.
THE SCOPE AND DURATION OF THE DISQUALIFICATION SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH OTHER MEMBER, OTHER PROVISIONS OF THERE, UH, OKAY.
BUT WE HAVEN'T CHOSEN TO, TO MAKE THAT ONE, UH, WITH ANY LIMITATION.
AND HAS, WHAT, WHAT'S THE EXPERIENCE WITH THAT BEEN? DO WE KNOW, ARE YOU ASKING IN THE PAST, HOW HAS THIS BEEN APPLIED? YES.
WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL HAD DISCRETION IN 59, WHAT HAS BEEN THE EXPERIENCE? HAVE THEY GIVEN THEM WITH SOMEONE WHO'S KNOWINGLY VIOLATED ANY SUPERVISION OF THIS CHAPTER? UM, HAVE THEY JUST, UM, GIVEN THEM A SIX MONTH REPRIEVE, A 60 DAY REPRIEVE, OR A SIX YEAR? UH, UM, AS, AS, AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN ETHICS MATTERS WITH THE CITY, UH, THIS HAS NOT COME UP.
CITY COUNCIL HAS NOT PLACED A FINAL SANCTION ON SOMEONE DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY.
UM, AND A DEPARTMENT HASN'T HAPPENED SO FAR UNDER 59 OR UNDER 62 EITHER.
SO AT THIS POINT, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, I MEAN FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
SO THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED OR, OR THE DURATION IS TO DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, WHICH AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ETHICS CODE.
THAT'S THE, UM, THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, CONCERNS? YES, PLEASE.
SO THE PROVISION ABOUT SUBCONTRACTORS HAVING SPENT A LITTLE BIT OF TIME IN DESTRUCTION LAW
I MEAN, SUBCONTRACTORS DON'T DIRECTLY CONTRACT WITH THE CITY.
THERE COULD BE SUB SUBCONTRACTOR THAT DON'T CONTRACT WITH THE CITY.
UM, I WONDER, UH, HOW FAR WE HAVE TO DIG DOWN, YOU KNOW, WHETHER WE SHOULD BE DIGGING DOWN TO THAT SECOND OR THIRD TIER OF CONTRACTORS, UH, WITH THIS ORDINANCE OR WITH THIS, UH, UH, RECOMMENDATION.
YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT CONCERN.
UM, IT'S ONE I THINK I HAVE AS WELL.
THIS WAS PROPOSED, UM, BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THE IEG WANTS TO WEIGH IN ON, ON THAT PART OF THE PROPOSAL ON THE PIECE REGARDING SUBCONTRACTORS.
UM, REALLY IT'S IN 12 A DASH ONE.
IF, IF THE CITY ENTERS INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE A BC CORPORATION, WE HAVE PRIVITY OF CONTRACT WITH THEM.
AND IF A BC HIRES X, Y, Z AS A SUBCONTRACTOR, UH, I I THINK YOU GOT A PROBLEM THERE WITH CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT IF YOU'RE MONITORING A CONTRACT WHEN WE DON'T HAVE PRIVITY OF CONTRACT WITH THE SUBCONTRACTOR.
I THINK THE THINKING, OUR THINKING WAS WITHOUT THE CHANGES, THE PEOPLE DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY, WE'RE NOT LIABLE FOR ANYTHING.
SO THIS IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
UH, AND WE TRIED TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WE THOUGHT WAS REASONABLE, BUT ALSO BROUGHT A MEASURE OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND HAD SOME TEETH INTO IT.
SO, UH, WHEN YOU LOOK AT 12 A 59 F FIVE, AS LAURA HAD MENTIONED, THE SCOPE AND DURATION WOULD BE DETERMINED BY COUNCIL.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT 12 A 62, THERE'S A TWO YEAR PROVISION.
SO OUR THINKING WAS WE'VE GOTTA COME UP WITH SOME LANGUAGE THAT ADDRESSES THE ISSUE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME RECOGNIZES THE FACT THAT WE HAVE TWO PROVISIONS ALREADY, OSTENSIBLY AT, AT PLAY HERE.
SO WE ERRED ON THE SIDE OF DOING, UH, THE DISCRETION TO THE COUNCIL.
[00:40:01]
AND THEY'RE VERY FACT SPECIFIC TOO.RIGHT? EVERY CASE IS DIFFERENT.
AND, UH, IF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION MEMBERS WANTED TO RECOMMEND A MINIMUM, CERTAINLY, UH, THAT'S UP TO YOU.
UH, BUT I CAN TELL YOU DEALING WITH CONTRACTORS AND DOING THESE THINGS OVER THE YEARS, SOME PEOPLE ARE MORE CULPABLE THAN OTHERS.
SOME PEOPLE ARE MORE LIABLE THAN OTHERS.
SO, UM, IF I WAS A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER FOR A DAY, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ENOUGH BREADTH TO PUT A MEASURE DOWN THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE CASE BEFORE ME.
SO IF THAT HELPS YOU UNDERSTAND OUR THINKING, THAT'S OKAY.
SO IF I AM A CONTRACTOR WITH THE CITY AND I HIRE MR. PERKINS TO DO SOME WORK, I HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO SUPERVISE THAT WORK.
AND IF HE DOES SOMETHING THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR, I'M ON THE LINE FOR THAT.
'CAUSE I HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY.
WHAT I READ IN THIS IS THAT THE SUBCONTRACTOR, IT COULD, COULD GET DANG, WHEN THE SUBCONTRACTOR HAS NO DIRECT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY, I'M PERFECTLY WILLING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT MR. PERKINS DOES.
BUT I I, I JUST WONDER IF WE'RE GOING A STEP TOO FAR IN INCLUDING SUBCONTRACTORS AS A DEFINITION OF SOMEONE DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY AND THAT THAT'S MY CONCERN.
YEAH, I THINK ONE OF THE CONCERNS WAS SOMETIMES PEOPLE WHO DO BUSINESS WITH THE CITY HIRE SUBS AND THEY DO THAT TO USE THEM TO GET AROUND THE CODE.
AND I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY TIMES OVER THE YEARS, SOMEBODY HAS BROUGHT A FRAUD COMPLAINT TO ME, AND I LOOK AT IT AND SAY, THAT'S REALLY NOT FRAUD.
THAT'S A POORLY DRAFTED CONTRACT.
AND NUMBER TWO, IT'S A CONTRACT THAT WAS NEVER MONITORED, AND THEY WANNA SPRINKLE FRAUD DUST ON IT, HELP ME SOLVE THEIR PROBLEM FOR 'EM.
UH, AND WE ACTUALLY TOOK STEPS IN MY LAST JOB TO CREATE A CONTRACT FRAUD UNIT AND WORKED WITH THE FEDS BEFORE WE ULTIMATELY DECIDED NOT TO DO IT.
BUT THERE ARE LOTS OF FOLKS THAT WILL BRING COMPLAINTS.
AND WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU REALLY LOOK AT THE DETAILS, SOMETIMES YOU WILL FIND THAT THERE'S A POORLY DRAFTED CONTRACT AND A CONTRACT THAT WAS NEVER MONITORED.
WELL, THAT SHOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTING PARTY.
SHOULDN'T THE CONTRACT SHOULDN'T BE PARTY CONTRACTING WITH THE CITY, BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR NOT HAVING MONITORED CONTRACT WITH WITH SOMEBODY ELSE? NO.
I WONDER, I WONDER IF THERE MIGHT BE A WAY, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'LL CALL THIS RIGHT NOW, BUT MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL, I IMAGINE THAT THIS IS WHERE THE DISCRETION COMES INTO PLAY.
BECAUSE IF IT IS, IF IT IS, LEMME THINK ABOUT THIS.
IF IT'S A SUBCONTRACTOR WHO TRULY DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE, WELL, LET'S JUST SAY IT'S A SUBCONTRACTOR WHO VIOLATES ONE OF THESE PROVISIONS, WHO ACTUALLY DOESN'T EVEN KNOW THAT THE OKAY.
OH, WHAT'S TALKING ABOUT THAT? OH, SOMEBODY RAISING THEIR HAND.
I THINK OUR CHIEF INTEGRITY OFFICER WOULD LIKE TO WEIGH OUT.
LET'S DO THAT FIRST ALL BOARD.
THIS IS BAR ELIASON, THE CHIEF INTEGRITY OFFICER.
BUT MR. ELIASON, WE, WE NEED YOUR CAMERA ON FOR YOU TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.
I'M HAVING THE DARNEDEST TIME.
UH, IT'S JUST NOT WORKING, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S NOT WORKING.
IT'S NOT, I'VE TRIED EVERYTHING I CAN IN THE SETTINGS TO GIVE ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM FORM JUST WON'T COME ON.
UH, CAN WE STILL PROCEED? UH, WE CAN'T HEAR FROM YOU IF YOUR CAMERA'S NOT ON THE TEXAS OPEN MEETING.
ZACH REQUIRES VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION ONLY IF, UH, YOUR FACE IS ON CAMERA.
I WILL TRY TO, I WILL TRY TO SWITCH FROM MY COMPUTER TO MY PHONE.
IF YOU SEE MY PICTURE, THEN I'LL BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE.
LET ME TRY THAT AND WE'LL JUST SEE IF THAT, IF YOU SEE MY PICTURE, THEN, THEN YOU WILL KNOW.
[00:45:01]
THAT OKAY? OKAY.AND IF I COULD BRING THE COMMISSION'S ATTENTION TO PAGE THREE, UH, 12 A DASH SEVEN, SUBSECTION B, UH, WE HAVE WRAPPED PERSONS DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY INTO THIS PROVISIONS TO READ.
A CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE OR A PERSON DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY SHALL NOT VIOLATE ANY PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER THROUGH THE ACTS OF ANOTHER.
SO I THINK THAT WOULD MEAN THAT A CONTRACT, SOMEONE WHO HAS CONTRACTED WITH THE CITY, COULD NOT USE ONE OF THEIR SUBCONTRACTORS TO VIOLATE THE CHAPTER ON THEIR BEHALF.
AND IF THEY DO, THEN THEY WOULD BE, UH, LIABLE FOR THAT.
SO PURSUANT TO THIS 12 A 62, THIS QUALIFICATION CONTRACTING, ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE KNOWINGLY VIOLATED THE PROVISION MM-HMM
THEY WOULD COME IN FRONT OF US, CORRECT.
AND THEN WE WOULD MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL.
SO ANY PERSON THAT HAS DONE THIS WOULD THEORETICALLY COME BEFORE UPS, IS THAT CORRECT? IF WE FILED A CASE ON THEORETICALLY, THAT IS CORRECT.
SO I, I FEEL LIKE DISCRETION IS I, I'M IN SUPPORT OR DO YOU, SO ARE YOU CONCERNED, I'M JUST CURIOUS, LIKE FROM THE LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, YOU'VE BEEN, THINK YOU'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS A LOT.
UM, ARE YOU, SORRY, ARE YOU, UH, CONCERNED ABOUT THAT? I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY I UNDERSTAND WHAT HOWARD'S RAISING.
THERE'S, THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT YOU DEAL WITH IN THE CONTEXT OF COMMERCIAL LITIGATION ALL THE TIME IN TERMS OF LIABILITY, THAT'S A GOOD FLAG.
BUT ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT THAT? WHERE BASICALLY THE CONCERN IS THAT A SUBCONTRACTOR IS HELD LIABLE AND THEN THEY HAD NO REAL INVOLVEMENT SLASH THE BUCK SHOULD STOP WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR? YEAH.
UM, I MEAN, I'M, I WOULD ALSO BE INTERESTED TO SEE, UM, WHAT MR. ELIASON HAS TO SAY ABOUT IT.
BUT I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WOULD BE COMFORTABLE LEAVING SUBCONTRACTORS OUT BECAUSE THE CITY CONTRACTS WITH WHO WE DECIDE TO CONTRACT WITH, AND WE HOLD THOSE PEOPLE TO A CERTAIN STANDARD.
UH, THOSE PEOPLE, THOSE COMPANIES, THOSE BUSINESS ENTITIES, UM, I, I, I DON'T KNOW MYSELF HOW MANY SUBCONTRACTORS GET WHO CONTRACT WITH A CONTRACTOR KNOW THAT IT'S A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY.
UM, AND MY OTHER CONCERN IS THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK PEOPLE DO DIRECTLY DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY.
THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A CODE OF ETHICS THAT, UM, THEY HAVE TO ABIDE BY.
BUT A SUBCONTRACTOR CONTRACTING WITH SOMEONE WHO'S NOT THE CITY, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WOULD EVEN HAVE A, A COPY OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ETHICS IF THEY'VE NEVER CONTRACTED DIRECTLY WITH THE CITY BEFORE.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S A CONCERN, UM, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WOULD'VE.
AND MR. BIEBERS, I GUESS YOUR CONCERN IS WHEN A GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS, IT'S ALMOST LIKE AN ALTER EGO ISSUE, OR THEY'RE USING, OR SHELL GAME A SHELL GAME ISSUE.
AND SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF LIKE, THERE'S A WAY WE COULD ADD, TRYING TO THINK CREATIVELY, BUT IF THERE'S A WAY WE COULD ADD A PROVISION THAT WOULD ONLY PULL IN A SUB SUBCONTRACTOR WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT A GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS USING THAT SUBCONTRACTOR TO DIVERT RESPONSIBILITY.
'CAUSE OTHERWISE, IT, OTHERWISE, I THINK YOU'RE, I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN.
YOUR CONCERN, UH, WOULDN'T BE PRESENT UNLESS THAT HAPPENED.
AND WE DON'T WANNA FILE ON ANYBODY UNLESS WE HAVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THEY DID SOMETHING THAT THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE.
SO, UH, THERE'S A BALANCE THERE.
HOW CAN YOU PUT SOME TEETH AND BRING SOME MEASURE OF ACCOUNTABILITY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME CREATE ENOUGH FREEDOM FOR PEOPLE TO EXERCISE THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES? I THINK THERE'S A POSSIBILITY.
IN MY WORK WITH IG OFFICES, THERE'S ALWAYS THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOU CAN CONSTRICT THINGS SO TIGHT THAT YOU, UH, CHOKE AN ORGANIZATION MM-HMM
AND I DON'T, DON'T WANNA DO THAT.
I WANNA BRING SOME ACCOUNTABILITY, RIGHT.
BUT I DO THINK THAT IF YOU STEP TOO FAR, YOU CAN REALLY CONSTRICT THINGS AND CREATE A PROBLEM.
SO THERE'S A, A BALANCED APPROACH.
THAT'S WHAT I REFER TO AS A BALANCED APPROACH.
MR. ELIASON, MR. ELIASON IS NOW, WE HAVE A, UH, WE HAVE THIS VIDEO.
[00:50:01]
TO HEAR FROM MR. ELIASON ABOUT WHY HE MADE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS? MR. ELIASON? YES.I, I, AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR MY TECHNICAL ISSUES.
UM, THE, THE FIRST THING I, I WANTED TO ADDRESS WAS, UM, THE, THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN ANY DISBARMENTS AND, UM, ONE REASON FOR ALL OF THE PROVISIONS, OR REALLY
THERE WAS TO LINK PEOPLE DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY TO THE PROVISIONS IN THE CODE.
AND THAT, THAT'S BEEN A, A PART, IT'S JUST BEEN A HOLE IN THE CODE.
AND SO ONCE 12, A SEVEN IS AMENDED AS RECOMMENDED, THEN THERE'S A POSSIBILITY FOR, UH, OR A GREATER POSSIBILITY FOR DE DEPARTMENTS.
BECAUSE UP UNTIL THIS POINT, READ THROUGH THE CODE, YOU'LL FIND THAT THE INDIVIDUAL PROVISIONS APPLY TO CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES.
BUT, BUT THEY, THAT PERSON'S DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY WASN'T THERE.
AND SO THAT MIGHT BE ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE SANCTION OF, UH, DEBARMENT.
UM, RELATED TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE SUBCONTRACTORS, UH, THAT WAS PUT IN THERE JUST BASED ON EXPERIENCE WITH THE IGS, SINCE I'VE, I'VE BEEN HERE SEEING CASES WHERE, UM, IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT PERSONS DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY WEREN'T LINKED TO THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE CODE AS THEY'RE RECOMMENDED TO BE HERE, THEY WERE SUBCONTRACTORS THAT AS, AS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HAS SAID, WERE, WERE DOING THINGS THAT I, I WOULD THINK, UH, AS THE, UH, COMMISSION MEMBER STATED WHO, UH, HAS BEEN SUBCONTRACTED BEFORE, THAT THE CONTRACTOR WOULD BE LOOKING OVER THEM, BUT THEY'RE NOT.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY DON'T HAVE KNOWLEDGE, UH, SENSIBLY.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THE SUBCONTRACTOR, UM, CAN BE USED AS A TOOL TO CIRCUMVENT THE PURPOSES OF THE CODE.
AND SO, I, I BELIEVE THAT THE WAY THIS WORK PRACTICE IS, UH, IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT, IF YOU COULD NOT PROVE THAT THE CONTRACTOR KNEW THE SUBCONTRACTOR WAS NOT DOING THINGS THE WAY THEY SHOULD, AT LEAST THE CITY COULD, UM, DEBAR THAT SUBCONTRACTOR FROM, UH, BEING A COMPANY OR A BUSINESS THAT CAN DO BUSINESS WITH THE CITY IN THE, IN THE FUTURE.
AND I THINK THAT WOULD, UH, HELP TO INCENTIVIZE CONTRACTORS TO WATCH THEIR SUBS A LITTLE MORE CLOSELY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? I, I MEAN, HOWARD, WHAT DO YOU, I'M CURIOUS YOUR THOUGHTS.
YOU'RE THE ONE WHO RAISED THAT INITIALLY.
SO WHAT, IN LIGHT OF BARON'S POINT, WHAT DO YOU WELL, UH, THE O THE, UH, OIGS OFFICE IS THE EXPERT IN THIS AREA, THIS AREA, AND I'M, I'M CERTAINLY WILLING TO GIVE IT A TRY.
SO, WHEN, WHEN, UH, OUR CON WELL, MAYBE A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION.
MAY WHEN CONTRACTORS, UH, BID ON A JOB OR, OR GET A CONTRACT, ARE THEY PROVIDED WITH A, WOULD THEY BE PROVIDED WITH A LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS OR OTHER CONTRACTORS WHO COULD NOT, UH, DO BUSINESS WITH THE CITY? IF, IF I'M, IF I MAY RESPOND, OR, OR INSPECTOR GENERAL, WOULD YOU TAKE THAT IF I MAY RESPOND THAT THE, UH, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS IN THE CODE, BUT, UH, IN ANTICIPATION, THESE RECOMMENDATIONS PASSING? UM, THERE ARE, UM, TWO FOLLOW-ONS THAT, UH, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OFFICE, UH, WOULD DO IN RESPONSE TO THE PASSING OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND THE SECOND ONE WOULD BE SENDING, UM, THE BUSINESSES.
AND THEN IT WOULD BE THEIR RES, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE SUGGESTED TO THEM TO GET THIS TO THEIR SUBCONTRACTORS, UH, A HANDBOOK AND A SET OF RESOURCES FOR UNDERSTANDING, UH, HOW THE CODE OF ETHICS WORKS.
UM, NOW THE CODE OF ETHICS, IF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS PASS, WILL REQUIRE, UH, PEOPLE DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY TO,
[00:55:01]
UH, READ THE CODE AND BE AWARE OF THESE PROVISIONS.BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S PARTICULARLY FAIR.
I MEAN, IT, IT'S, IT'S TECHNICALLY FAIR, BUT I THINK PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.
PLUS IT WILL BOLSTER ANY CASE IF A CASE NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT IF WE PROVIDE THOSE RESOURCES.
AND THAT'S THE INTENTION OF THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.
SHOULD THESE RECOMMENDATIONS PASS, I HAVE JUST ONE QUICK COMMENT.
IF I COULD CHAIR, UM, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME, IF WE THINK OF THE TWO PROVISIONS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING TOGETHER, WE MAY HAVE SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE, RIGHT? UM, IF WE DO INCLUDE THE SUBCONTRACTORS AND THERE IS NOT A HARD PUNISHMENT THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, BE, UH, YOU KNOW, PUT UPON THE SUBCONTRACTOR WHO MAYBE KNOW UNKNOWINGLY OR DIDN'T KNOW THEY WERE WORKING WITH THE CITY, ET CETERA.
I THINK WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE DISCRETION, IF WE HAVE SOME FAITH THAT THE PROCESS WOULD WORK, ALL OF THOSE FACTS WOULD COME OUT, RIGHT? WE WOULD FIND OUT THAT THE SUBCONTRACTOR WAS NOT AWARE, THE CONTRACTOR DIDN'T DO THIS, OR, OR, YOU KNOW, THE LEVEL OF THE, THE VIOLATION OR, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE HISTORY OF THE SUBCONTRACTORS, UH, YOU KNOW, WORK WITH THE CITY, ET CETERA.
AND THE PUNISHMENT COULD FIT THE CRIME TO THE EXTENT THAT THE SUBCONTRACTOR WAS AWARE OF IT, KNOWINGLY VIOLATED IT, OR WE FOUND THAT IT WAS A SHELL CORPORATION, OR IT WAS A, YOU KNOW, INSTANCE WHERE THE SUBCONTRACTOR IS THE SON, OR YOU KNOW, THE COUSIN OF THE, THE CONTRACTOR, AND THEY'RE REALLY USING A SUB THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT THAT LIABILITY.
ALL OF THAT HOPEFULLY WOULD COME OUT IN THE INVESTIGATION.
AND THEN THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PUNISHMENT OR THE BAR WOULD FIT THAT PARTICULAR SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
YOU KNOW, IF WE THINK ABOUT IT THE OTHER WAY, WELL, IF, IF IT'S GONNA BE A TWO YEAR MINIMUM PUNISHMENT OR, YOU KNOW, IT'S NO, NO PUNISHMENT OF THE SORT, THEN YOU COULD END UP WITH THAT REALLY UNJUST SITUATION WHERE THE SUBCONTRACTOR HAS NO IDEA HE'S WORKING WITH THE CITY, AND NOW HE'S BARRED FOR TWO YEARS.
YOU KNOW? AND THEN IN THE OTHER CASE, IF IT IS SOMEBODY WHO'S DOING SOMETHING WRONG AND THEY'RE USING THE SUBCONTRACTOR TO CIRCUMVENT IT, WE HAVE A WAY OF BRINGING THAT INTO THE, INTO THE MIX.
SO I THINK IN A WAY WHERE I WAS CONCERNED AT THE BEGINNING ABOUT THE BAR BEING DISCRETIONARY, I ACTUALLY THINK IT HELPS THE TOTALITY OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE AS CHANGES.
SO IT'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT THAT MAYBE THEY DO WORK WELL TOGETHER, AND IF WE HAVE SOME FAITH, MAYBE WE GET THE RIGHT RESULT IF THE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, REALLY DO A GOOD INVESTIGATION.
AND I WILL ADD, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE FIVE FACTORS FOR THE, UM, EAC AND THE CITY COUNCIL TO, UH, TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHEN DETERMINING SANCTIONS.
AND ONE IS THE CULPABILITY OF THE PERSON CHARGE, AND THAT CULPABILITY MIGHT BE LOW IF THEY'RE TWO DEGREES SEPARATED, UH, FROM THE CONTRACT WITH THE CITY THEMSELVES.
TO THAT, TO THAT POINT, I THINK, UH, AND, AND I CANNOT, AND, AND AM NOT SPEAKING FOR THE COUNSEL, AND, UM, I DO NOT, I'M NOT AWARE OF ALL OF THE HISTORY BEHIND THE RULES IN 12 A 59 AND 12 A 62, BUT I CAN SAY AS A, AS AN ATTORNEY THAT THINGS LIKE THIS, MEANING CODE SECTIONS ARE, ARE BIOGRAPHICAL IN THE SENSE THAT THEY DEVELOP OVER TIME IN RESPONSE TO PARTICULAR, UH, EVENTS THAT HAPPENED.
AND THAT IS WHY I BELIEVE THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN THE CODE JUST TWO SECTIONS APART, THAT INITIALLY WHEN, WHEN THESE SANCTIONS WERE DRAWN UP, THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL WAS TO HAVE THAT DISCRETION TO ADDRESS CULPABILITY AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.
AND THEN AT SOME POINT IN TIME, SOMETHING REALLY BAD HAPPENED, 62 WAS ADDED WITH THAT MINIMUM TWO YEAR DEPARTMENT.
AND SO IN, IN CHOOSING BETWEEN HAVING DISCRETION IN THE TWO YEAR, UH, THAT'S WHY WE CHOSE TO GO IN THE DIRECTION, IN THE RECOMMENDATION BEFORE YOU, FOR THE DISCRETIONARY SIDE, JUST ASSUMING THAT THERE'S SOME BAD STORY OUT THERE THAT CREATED THE TWO YEAR MINIMUM.
SO I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT PERSPECTIVE.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING HERE IS IT'S DISCRETIONARY.
I UNDERSTAND THE END AROUNDS THAT MIGHT BE GOING ON, BUT CAN WE NOT AS A CITY, ASK ANYBODY WE CONTRACT WITH TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THEIR SUBCONTRACTORS, AND THEN WE HAVE THE DISCRETION TO DECIDE CULPABILITY MM-HMM
AND THAT IS, THAT IS, IF I MAY, THAT IS THE WAY THE RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IN MY VIEW, THE CODE IS, IS SET UP, UM, IT, BECAUSE UNDER THE CODE TO VIOLATE THE CODE, YOU HAVE TO DO SO
[01:00:01]
WITH KNOWLEDGE.SO YOU HAVE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS.
ONE MIGHT BE A CONTRACTOR THAT'S DOING THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND A SUBCONTRACTOR THAT IS JUST REALLY GOOD AT, AT ESCAPING THAT SCRUTINY.
AND SO THE CONTRACTOR'S NOT TO BLAME, BUT THE SUB IS.
AND THEN SOMETIMES YOU MIGHT HAVE A SITUATION WHERE A CONTRACTOR IS INTENTIONALLY AND KNOWINGLY USING A SUB WITHOUT THE SUB'S KNOWLEDGE.
SO IT'S, IT'S KIND OF THE REVERSE.
AND, AND THE WAY THAT, THAT THIS RECOMMENDATION IS CRAFTED, UM, YOU'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO GET AT THE CULPABLE PARTY, UM, EITHER WAY.
THANK YOU MI MR. RUBEN, DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER YEAH.
QUESTION OR CONCERN? DO WE UNDER, UH, SECTION 62, UH, DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO RECOMMEND A, UH, SANCTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL? UH, WHAT HAPPENS? YEAH.
NOT UNDER 62, BUT UNDER 12 A DASH 59, UM, THAT'S GONNA BE THE LIST OF SANCTIONS FOR THE EAC TO CONSIDER AT, UM, THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
AND IT'S SUBSECTION F THAT IS, UH, FOR A PERSON WHO IS NOT A CURRENT OR FORMER CITY OFFICIAL OR A CURRENT OR FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE.
UM, AND EXAMPLES OF THIS ARE LOBBYISTS, PEOPLE DOING WITH CITY, UM, CITY COUNCIL MAY IMPOSE, UM, WHAT ANY OF THE FOLLOWING SANCTIONS.
AND IT'S, IT'S UNDER THAT, UM, PARAGRAPH FIVE DISQUALIFICATION FROM CONTRACTING.
SO THAT WOULD BECOME, UH, OR THAT WOULD COME BEFORE, UM, A PANEL OF THE EAC DURING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
AND THEN IT WOULD BE THAT PANEL THAT MAKES A RECOMMENDATION IF THEY WANTED TO GO WITH DISQUALIFICATION, THE TIME PERIOD, THE SCOPE AND DURATION, YEAH, THE PANEL WOULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, BUT THEN THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD CONSIDER THAT.
ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. RUBIN.
ALRIGHT, JUST, JUST FOR ONE LAST INTELLECTUAL EXERCISE, I THINK, I THINK WE PROBABLY SHOULDN'T DO THIS.
I JUST WANNA SAY IT SO THAT WE LAND WHERE WE ARE.
THE ONLY WAY THIS, THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE COULD BE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU SAID INCLUDING SUBCONTRACTORS, TO THE EXTENT THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT RIGHT, AND YOU WOULD GO DOWN SOME ROAD THAT THE GENERAL CONTRACTORS USE THEM.
BUT I THINK THAT IS LIKE OPENING UP A CAN OF WORMS BECAUSE THEN IN TERMS OF HOW WE WOULD ACTUALLY DESCRIBE WHAT THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR DOES, WE CAN DEBATE THAT FOR ANOTHER TWO DAYS.
DO Y'ALL AGREE WITH THAT? I AGREE WITH THAT.
AS, AS IS THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTS, RIGHT? SO THIS IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE, UH, MS. ELIASON AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND, AND THE IG.
UH, ARE, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS AT THIS POINT? BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION? IT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'RE NOT HOLDING THE CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR INFORMING THE SUBCONTRACTOR.
AND IF HE DOESN'T WANT, AND IF HE'S LOOKING FOR A WORKAROUND, THEN, UM, HE'S NEVER GOING TO GIVE THE, UH, SUBCONTRACTOR THE INFORMATION, UM, THAT MAKES THE, AND, AND 62 SAYS KNOWINGLY.
SO WE WOULD NEVER BE GIVING THE SUBCONTRACTOR A, UH, RESTRICTION BECAUSE HE DIDN'T KNOWINGLY KNOW IT.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'RE, WE'RE GOING AROUND, AROUND, AROUND IN A CIRCLE HERE.
UM, QUITE HONESTLY, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IT, BUT THIS IS A MAJORITY VOTE.
UM, COMMISSIONER BOWMAN, WHAT WOULD YOU RECOMMEND AS AN ALTERNATIVE? OKAY, COMMISSIONER BOWMAN, UM, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT SHE HAD ASKED ME THAT.
UM, SINCE THIS HAS KNOWINGLY VIOLATED, I THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT IS A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF, UM, PUNISHMENT, IF YOU WILL.
UM, I'M NOT, I GUESS I'M, I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THIS FROM A MORE POLICY POINT OF VIEW THAN A POLITICAL ONE.
THE, THE POLITICAL ONE IS, WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, THEY'RE FRIENDS OF THE CONTRACTOR, THEY'RE FRIENDS OF THE, THEY, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY, IT, IT JUST MEANS THAT THERE'S, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, THAT THERE'S SOMETHING THERE THAT IS AT LEAST A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF SOMEONE
[01:05:01]
KNOWINGLY.AND THIS NEEDS TO, MAYBE IF WE HAD SEEN 59 AND HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT BOTH OF THEM, MAYBE WE WOULD'VE MADE, UM, A DIFFERENT DECISION.
SO, UM, SO, SO IS THERE A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU WOULD HAVE OTHER THAN WHAT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED THUS FAR? I, I SEE MR. YEAH, MR. ELIASON WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING.
I THINK THAT, UM, WE COULD, I, I COULD CERTAINLY CRAFT SOMETHING, UH, TO THAT END TO GO INTO THE CODE OF ETHICS.
UM, I WILL SAY THAT INCLUDING SUBCONTRACTORS UNDER THE DEFINITION, WE'VE LOST YOUR CAMERA.
YOUR, YOUR FACE HAS DISAPPEARED FROM THE BROADCAST HERE.
UM, I COULD CERTAINLY CRAFT SOMETHING, UH, ALONG THOSE LINES.
UM, IWI, YOU KNOW, IN MY, AND I, I WANT TO DISCUSS THAT BRIEFLY.
IT WON'T TAKE FOREVER, BUT IN MY WAY OF THINKING, THIS IS, I BELIEVE THE MATH IS, ISN'T THAT CALCULUS WHERE YOU'RE JUST GETTING CLOSER AND CLOSER TO ZERO? AND, AND I THINK THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE HAVE ARE GETTING CLOSER AND CLOSER, SO IT'S A MOVE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY CRAFT SOMETHING IN THE CODE.
BUT JUST FOR EVERYONE'S AWARENESS, INCLUDING SUBCONTRACTORS IN THE DEFINITION OF THE CODE OF ETHICS OR PERSONS DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY, THEY'LL IMPOSE ON SUBCONTRACTORS THE DUTY, WHETHER THEY RECEIVE THE CODE OR NOT.
UH, WHICH I KNOW THAT'S A, THAT'S AN ISSUE, BUT WHETHER THEY RECEIVE IT OR NOT, TO BE AWARE OF IT, TO READ IT AND TO, UM, FOLLOW IT.
AND SO I CAN SEE TWO COURSES OF ACTION.
ONE WOULD BE TO AMEND THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAKE THAT CLEAR, UH, PERHAPS IN THE DEFINITION OF PERSONS DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY, OR MAYBE IN 12 A SEVEN.
BUT, BUT THAT, UH, SUBCONTRACTORS WILL NEED TO BE APPRISED OF THE, THE CODE OF ETHICS.
OR THE OTHER APPROACH MIGHT BE TO ADD A, A BOILER PRE BOILERPLATE PROVISION TO THE, UH, CONTRACTS THAT THE CITY ATTORNEYS WRITE WITH THE, UM, BUSINESSES.
AND IN THAT BOILERPLATE, YOU STATE SIGNING THIS CONTRACT, YOU KNOW, YOU UNDERSTAND X, Y, AND Z, THE CODE APPLIES.
YOUR SUBCONTRACTORS ARE GONNA BE, UH, UH, LIABLE AS WELL.
YOU NEED TO PROVIDE THEM WITH THIS AND THIS WARNING, YOU KNOW, SO YOU COULD, THE EAC COULD RECOMMEND TO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT THAT BOILER PAPER BOILERPLATE PROVISION BE A PART OF CONTRACTS, OR WE COULD, WE COULD DO IT IN THE CODE OF ETHICS OR WE COULD DO BOTH.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? UH, I WOULD JUST, JUST RECOMMEND THAT WE VOTE ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS ARE, AND IF WE FIND THAT IT FAILS, THEN WE ASK, YOU KNOW, MR. ELIASON OR THE OTHERS TO, YOU KNOW, GO BACK TO THE DRAWING TABLE AND SEE IF THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY COULD DO.
AND, AND I'M JUST CURIOUS, UM, FOR THE CONTRACTORS, DO THEY PROVIDE THE CODE OF ETHICS IN SPANISH FOR SUBCONTRACTORS? LIKE, OR ANY OTHER LANGUAGE THAT MAYBE PEOPLE WHO HAVE A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE? I MEAN, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW RIGHT NOW IF PEOPLE WHO CONTRACT WITH THE CITY PROVIDE THE CITY'S CODE OF ETHICS TO THEIR SUBCONTRACTORS.
I MEAN, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR THAT.
UH, I MOVE THAT WE, THE COMMISSION, UH, ACCEPT THE OIG RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 12 A AS, UH, REFLECTED IN THE, UH, DRAFT THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED, UH, TO PROCEED WITH, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION OF ALL OF THE CITY OFFICIALS INVOLVED.
UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, UH, BY, UH, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY THAT SAME, AYE, AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED A, UH, TWO NAYS.
[01:10:01]
I THINK WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, DISCUSSION OF, UH, ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION VACANCIES.
UH, I THINK ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION RECEIVED A MEMO FROM, UH, THE CITY SECRETARY, MS. JOHNSON, UH, THAT ADVISED VARIOUS COUNCIL MEMBERS OF OPENINGS OR VACANCIES IN THE COMMISSION FOR THEIR SPECIFIC, UH, PLACES ON THE CITY COUNCIL.
UM, SO I, I DON'T, WELL, THIS IS A MATTER FOR DISCUSSION.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE AT LEAST EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT AT LEAST THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL WHERE THERE ARE VACANCIES HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED BY THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
UH, AND, AND MAYBE THIS WILL BE RESOLVED BY MS. JOHNSON'S, UH, LETTER TO THOSE, UH, COUNCIL MEMBERS, OR WE COULD BRING THIS MATTER BACK, UH, DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS, WHAT'S THE WILL OF THE BODY HERE? I DON'T THINK ANYTHING'S GONNA GET DONE UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION.
LAURA MORRISON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
EVERYONE'S TERM, UM, CONTINUES UNTIL THE END OF SEPTEMBER, SO I DON'T KNOW IF TAKING IT UP IN JULY, UH, WOULD BE FRUITFUL, BUT MAYBE THE LAST MEETING OF THE YEAR JUST TO GET A STATUS OF VACANCIES AFTER THE CURRENT TERMS EXPIRE.
AND, YOU KNOW, THE NEW COUNCIL THEN GETS INAUGURATED IN JUNE AND, YOU KNOW, WE CAN GIVE THEM TIME, UM, TO WORK ON THEIR BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTEES.
AND THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, BY OCTOBER WE'LL HAVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE STATUS OF THIS, UH, THE VACANCIES ON THIS COMMISSION AFTER THE NEW COUNCIL HAS BEEN SEATED AND THEY'VE BEEN ON THEIR WORK AND THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON THEIR BOARD COMMISSION APPOINTEES, NO, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ELECTIONS ARE COMING AND THERE ARE GOING TO BE CHANGES AND, UH, DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPOINTMENTS, I, I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE THAT WE WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTIONS THAT OCCURRED AND THEN SEE WHAT, WHAT THE STATUS OF APPOINTEES IS AT THAT POINT.
I, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT HAVE TO LIVE IN THE SAME DISTRICT AS THE COUNCIL MEMBER.
SO I MEAN, I HOPE ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AREAND THAT, THAT IF THERE ARE PEOPLE INTERESTED.
WELL, AND I GUESS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS WITH THE TERMS ENDING IN SEPTEMBER, THE ELECTION, YOU KNOW, THE NEW COUNCIL COMING IN IN JUNE, MAYBE JULY IS A GOOD TIME FOR US TO LEAST SEE.
DOES IT SEEM LIKE I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROCESS IS FOR THEIR NOMINATION AND THEN THE ACCEPTANCE OF 'EM.
IS THAT GONNA OCCUR AFTER SEPTEMBER? IS IT GONNA OCCUR RUNNING INTO SEPTEMBER? RIGHT.
I MEAN, THERE, IS THERE A GAP BETWEEN THE TIME THAT THE TERM ENDS AND THE NEW PEOPLE ARE BROUGHT IN? IT WILL DEFINITELY OCCUR AFTER OUR JULY MEETING, UM, BECAUSE THE INAUGURATION IS IN JUNE, LIKE LATE-ISH JUNE.
THEN COUNCIL HAS ONE REGULAR VOTING AGENDA MEETING, AND THEN COUNCIL IS ON RECESS FOR ALL OF JULY.
AND THEN IN AUGUST THEY ARE REALLY, REALLY FOCUSED ON THE BUDGET, UM, BECAUSE THE BUDGET NEEDS TO BE PASSED AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER.
SO REALLY AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER IS VERY, UH, IT'S VERY BUDGET HEAVY WORK FOR THE COUNCIL.
UM, SO I, I WOULD REALLY THINK IT WOULD BE AFTER SEPTEMBER, UM, UNTIL WE, WE SEE SOME MOVEMENT, UM, QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS CAN HOLD OVER INDEFINITELY.
UM, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S ALLOWED BY THE, UM, ACTUALLY REQUIRED BY THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION.
AND THEN THERE'S A PROVISION IN OUR CITY CHARTER THAT SAYS FOR ADVISORY BOARDS THEY CAN HOLD OVER UP TO NINE MONTHS PAST THE EXPIRATION OF THEIR DATE.
SO REALLY IT'S GONNA BE PROBABLY AFTER SEPTEMBER WHEN A LOT OF THE BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS START GETTING APPOINTED BY THE FULL COUNCIL.
OKAY, WELL THEN I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO WAIT TILL OCTOBER.
AND YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'LL NEED TO SEE IS ARE THEY REALLY ACTIVELY DOING IT? 'CAUSE IF NOT, WHAT WE'RE GONNA END UP WITH IS NO COMMISSION FOR SOME GAP, RIGHT? WITH IF SOME PEOPLE ROLL OFF OR IF, YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE CHOOSE NOT TO RENEW OR IF YOU KNOW, THE COUNCIL MEMBER THAT APPOINTED THEM, YOU KNOW,
[01:15:01]
ISN'T SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR CAMPAIGN, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.BUT I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S UNFORTUNATE RISK THOUGH THAT WE MAY HAVE TO TAKE AND WE'LL JUST HAVE TO SEE WHERE WE'RE AT IN OCTOBER AND HOPEFULLY THERE'S BEEN SOME MOVEMENT AND WE'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST A SUFFICIENT NUMBER THAT CAN ATTEND SO WE CAN KEEP HOLDING THE MEETINGS.
AND THIS COMMISSION IS QUASI-JUDICIAL, SO I MEAN, AT LEAST FOR THE MEMBERS WE HAVE, UM, EACH ONE OF YOU COULD HOLD OVER AND DEFINITELY IF YOU DON'T RESIGN.
SO, AND, AND WHO, HOW IS THAT DECISION MADE? RIGHT? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD, YOU KNOW, IF THEY WERE SUCCESSFULLY REELECTED OR WHATEVER, THEY WOULD THEN SAY YOU HOLD 'EM OVER, OR, OR IS IT YOU'RE HELD OVER UNTIL IT'S AUTOMATIC? OKAY.
YOU STAY ON UNTIL YOUR SUCCESSOR IS, UM, APPOINTED.
SO THIS WILL COME BACK TO US IN, UH, OCTOBER AND OCTOBER MEETING.
WE'LL, UH, DISCUSS THIS AGAIN.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS MATTER? GOOD.
UH, ITEM NUMBER SIX IS A DISCUSSION OF PROCESS OF REPORTING FINAL SANCTIONS TO THE EX ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION.
MS. MORRISON, YOU WANT TO TELL US WHY THIS IS HERE AND WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE ON THIS? YES.
SO THIS ALSO CAME OUT OF, UM, THE MEETING EARLIER THIS YEAR, AND THE COMMISSION HAD BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, ONCE A PANEL RECOMMENDS A, A FINAL SANCTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OR TO, UM, THE CITY MANAGER, WHATEVER OFFICE IS GOING TO BE MAKING THE FINAL SANCTION FOR A CURRENT EMPLOYEE, UM, Y'ALL AREN'T ALWAYS INFORMED OF WHAT THE FINAL, FINAL SANCTION ENDS UP BEING.
AND I WANTED TO PUT THAT DISCUSSION ON HOLD UNTIL TODAY JUST SO THAT I COULD CHECK WITH OUR EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS WHEN IT COMES TO, UM, CURRENT CITY EMPLOYEES BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEIR FINAL SANCTIONS, UM, ISSUED TO THEM BY THEIR SUPERVISORS.
AND FROM, FROM WHAT I LEARNED FROM OUR EMPLOYMENT SECTION IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT IS A PRIVATE PERSONNEL DECISION THAT THEN SHOULD NOT BE SHARED, UM, WITH ANYONE UNLESS YOU KNOW, IT'S THE, THE PERSON, THE EMPLOYEE THEMSELVES WHO WANTS TO SHARE IT.
UM, AND THEN I DID SPEAK WITH THE IG ABOUT, FOR, FOR ANYONE ELSE, FOR SANCTIONS THAT GET DETERMINED FINAL SANCTIONS THAT GET DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT HAPPENS AT A PUBLIC MEETING.
SO IT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD AND, UM, IT'S MY RECOMMENDATION THAT THE IG INCLUDE THAT IN THE QUARTERLY REPORT OF WHAT THAT SANCTION ENDS UP BEING AND THE IG CAN JUMP IN AND STATE WHETHER HE SUPPORTS THAT.
MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL, I LIKE THAT RECOMMENDATION.
I THINK IT'S REASONABLE AND FOR US TO FOLLOW AFTER A CASE IS OVER TO FIND OUT WHAT THE FINAL IS, ASSUMING IT DOESN'T GO TO A MANAGER BECAUSE THAT MANAGER HAS STUFF IN THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION WHERE THEY HAVE TO MAKE THE CALL ON CERTAIN DISCIPLINARY THINGS.
BUT IF IT'S NOT AN EMPLOYEE, BOARD MEMBER, COMMISSION MEMBER, COUNCIL MEMBER, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE MOST JUDICIOUS WAY TO DO IT, IS JUST INCLUDE IT IN OUR QUARTERLY REPORT AND MAKE SURE YOU GUYS GET THAT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ON THAT? MR. RUBIN? I DON'T, I JUST HAVE A GENERAL, A QUESTION IN GENERAL.
SO ARE, ARE WE SAYING THAT WHEN WE HAVE A HEARING, UH, REGARDING AN EMPLOYEE, IF I RECALL WE DID A FEW MONTHS AGO AND WE FIND THAT, UM, AND, AND WE RECOMMEND A SANCTION, THEN BECAUSE OF THE RULES REGARDING, UM, EMPLOYEE CONFIDENTIALITY, WE DON'T EVER GET TO HEAR WHETHER THAT SANCTION WAS EVER IMPLEMENTED.
THOSE ARE PERSONNEL DECISIONS.
I, I DON'T, I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND HUMAN RESOURCES.
UNDERSTAND IF SOMEBODY IS VIOLATING THE CODE OF ETHICS OF CITY OF DALLAS AND HAS BEFORE THIS COMMISSION, WHY IS THAT PRIVATE? LIKE WHY IS THAT CONFIDENTIAL? UH, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM EMPLOYMENT, THOSE PERSONNEL DECISIONS ARE CONFIDENTIAL.
UM, I DON'T KNOW LIKE ALL THE INS AND OUTS OF THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT I LEARNED, YOU KNOW, FROM OUR, FROM OUR EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS.
NOW, YOU KNOW, IN THE CODE OF ETHICS, THERE REALLY ARE ONLY THREE POSSIBLE SANCTIONS THAT, UM, THE EAC CAN RECOMMEND, WHICH IS REFERRAL TO ETHICS TRAINING, REFERRAL FOR DAMAGES OR INJUNCTION AND
[01:20:01]
REFERRAL FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.BUT THEN THERE ARE ALSO, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THE PERSONNEL RULES, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS OTHER DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS THAT A SUPERVISOR CAN TAKE, THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE SUPERVISOR.
AND SO THE SUPERVISOR IS NOT JUST LIMITED TO THOSE THREE.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THE SUPERVISOR COULD SUSPEND THE EMPLOYEE, MAYBE TERMINATE THE EMPLOYEE, LIKE ALL OF THAT IS, YOU KNOW, UP TO THE SUPERVISOR.
AND THAT WOULD NOT COME BACK TO THE EAC BECAUSE THAT'S PERSONNEL DECISION.
SO THOSE PERSONNEL DECISIONS, THO THOSE ARE NOT UN UNLIKE A DISC, UH, A DISCIPLINARY MATCH MATTER THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE, BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE THERE ARE CONCERNS REGARDING THE PRIVACY INTERESTS OF THOSE WHO HAVE SOME PERSONNEL ACTION THAT IS TAKEN THAT CAN CREATE SOME ISSUES IN TERMS OF, UH, PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OR PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THOSE PERSONNEL.
WHAT WILL BE, UM, A, A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD IS THE FACT THAT THE EAC PANEL HAS FOUND THAT THE EMPLOYEE VIOLATED, UM, PROVISIONS OF THE CODE OF ETHICS AND THOSE PROVISIONS WOULD BE ON THE RECORD.
AND THEN, UM, A RECOMMENDATION ON SANCTION FROM THE, UH, PANEL, WHICH WOULD BE JUST LIMITED TO THOSE THREE.
UH, REFERRAL TO ETHICS TRAINING, REFERRAL FOR DAMAGES OR INJUNCTION AND REFERRAL FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
UH, MR. RUBIN, AND WHAT I'M HEARING MR. BEAVERS, IS THAT YOU WOULD FOLLOW UP ON THAT AND LET US KNOW OR PUT IN A REPORT WHETHER THESE SANCTIONS WERE EVER EFFECTUATED OR I GUESS THAT'S MY CONCERN.
ONLY WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ONLY AS ONLY AS TO THE SANCTIONS, RIGHT? THE THREE HANDED DOWN BY CITY COUNCIL? NO, NOT, NOT THOSE.
SO WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS, WELL, AFTER YOU HAVE A HEARING AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, THEN IT'S UP TO CITY COUNCIL AND THAT'S WHERE THINGS KIND OF GET LOST, RIGHT? AND WE DON'T HEAR EVER HEAR BACK, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING.
THAT THE IG IS GONNA PUT THAT IN THERE QUARTERLY REPORT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? ALL RIGHT, I THINK, I THINK WE HAVE COMPLETED, UH, WORK HERE TODAY, MS. MORRISON, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND THE COMMISSION'S NEXT REGULAR QUARTERLY MEETING IS IN JULY.
UM, MR. CHAIR, I'LL BE IN CONTACT WITH YOU TO SEE IF WE'LL HAVE ANY BUSINESS FOR JULY.
IF THERE IS NO FURTHER BUSINESS, UH, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
UH, ON TUESDAY, APRIL 15TH, 2025 AT 11:06 AM.