[00:00:01]
[Ethics Advisory Commission Meeting: Evidentiary Hearing on May 12, 2025]
UH, PANEL WILL GO INTO SESSION.UH, AND THIS EVIDENTIARY HEARING OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION, IT'S CALLED TO ORDER.
THIS IS A HEARING OF AN INFORMATION FILED BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AGAINST MR. DAVID SMITH, A CURRENT EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF, UH, PARK AND RECREATION.
I'M WILL SERVE AS CHAIR OF TODAY'S HEARING PANEL.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT A QUORUM OF THE PANEL IS PRESENT.
UH, I'D ASK ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PANEL TO STATE THEIR NAMES FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
HOWARD RUBIN, POSITION 12, CHAD MASO.
GOOD MORNING, GRANT SCHMIDT, AND, UH, WOULD THE PARTIES TO THIS MATTER INTRODUCE THEMSELVES TO THE RECORD, PLEASE? DAVID SMITH.
AND YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED, YOU'RE REPRESENTING YOURSELF, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
BART BEEPERS WITH THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.
GOOD MORNING, LAURA FELAN WITH THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.
UH, THE, I I ASK THE LEGAL ADVISOR TO THE PANEL TO INTRODUCE HERSELF.
LAURA MORRISON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
DONNA BROWN, MAYOR SALVA MARTINEZ, NANCY SANCHEZ.
ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS ON TODAY'S AGENDA? UH, NO.
I WOULD AT, AT THIS POINT ASK ALL PERSONS WHO ARE GOING TO BE, UH, CALLED AS A WITNESS STAND AND IDENTIFY THEMSELVES FOR THE RECORD AND HAVE THE CITY SECRETARY SWEAR THEM IN.
UH, MRS. SMITH, LET'S START WITH, UH, WITH YOU AS MRS. SMITH.
COULD YOU STAND AND BE SWORN IN, PLEASE? PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL GIVE BEFORE THIS COURT TODAY WILL BE THE TRUTH? I DO.
UH, HAS THE, IS THE, IS THE RULE GOING TO BE INVOKED BY ANY OF THE PARTIES TODAY? NOT BY THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.
AND MR. SMITH, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THE RULE MEANS? NO, SIR.
UH, THAT, WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THE WITNESSES ARE GOING TO BE INSTRUCTED NOT TO DISCUSS THEIR TESTIMONY WITH ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ATTORNEYS INVOLVED IN THE MATTER.
AND SINCE YOU ARE REPRESENTING YOURSELF, THAT'S NOT GONNA BE AN ISSUE.
UH, THE WITNESSES WILL NOT BE ALLOWED IN THE HEARING ROOM, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE RESPONDENT, UH, IS MR. SMITH, UH, AND ALL OTHER WITNESSES WILL BE ASKED TO WAIT IN THE HALL UNTIL THEY ARE CALLED TO TESTIFY.
SO ARE YOU ALL GOING TO BE WITNESS, YOU ALL IN THE, UH, AUDIENCE ARE GOING TO BE WITNESSES, IS THAT CORRECT? ALRIGHT, THEN I WOULD ASK THAT YOU PLEASE WAIT, UH, UH, MRS. SMITH, DO YOU WANT TO INVOKE THE RULE? THE RULE MEANING THAT THE WITNESSES THAT ARE GOING TO TESTIFY HAVE TO EXCLUDE AND THEMSELVES WAIT, IN THE OUTSIDE, WAIT IN THE HALLWAY, UH, THE, UNTIL THEY ARE CALLED,
[00:05:02]
DO YOU WISH TO INVOKE THE RULE? NO, I DO NOT.ALRIGHT, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON AND PROCEED THEN.
DO ANY OF THE PARTIES HAVE ANY MOTIONS TO PRESENT, UH, AT THIS TIME? UH, NOT AT THIS TIME, NO, WE DON'T.
THE, OH, THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL DOES NOT.
MR. SMITH, DO YOU HAVE ANY MOTIONS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT AT THIS TIME? NO, I DO NOT.
ARE THERE ANY EXHIBITS THAT START WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE? ARE THERE ANY EXHIBITS THAT YOU WOULD WISH TO ADMIT? YES, I HAVE EXHIBITS ONE THROUGH 27.
UM, I'VE GOT SOME COPIES, SOME HARD COPIES HERE, UH, THAT I'D LIKE TO OFFER, UH, FOR USING THIS HEARING.
UH, MR. UH, IG INSPECTOR GENERAL, DOES THE WITNESS HAVE COPIES OF THESE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU'VE JUST DISTRIBUTED TO THE COMMISSION? YES, SIR.
WE TURN THEM OVER ALL OF THEM.
WELL, THE, THE HEARING IS GOING TO CONSIST OF, UH, TWO PHASES.
UH, THE FIRST PHASE IS, UH, UH, PHASE ONE.
THE PANEL WILL DETERMINE WHETHER ONE OR MORE ETHICS VIOLATIONS OCCURRED.
THE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE FOR PHASE ONE IS BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.
IF THE PANEL FINDS THAT ONE OR MORE PROVISIONS, ETHICS, CODE PROVISIONS WERE VIOLATED, THEN WE WOULD PROCEED TO, UH, PHASE TWO, UH, TO DETERMINE THE RECOMMENDED SANCTION.
DID YOU ADMIT THE EXHIBITS THAT WE JUST OFFERED? UH, ALL RIGHT.
AND MS. MR. SMITH, HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN, UH, DISTRIBUTED TO THE COMMISSION? I HAVE.
ARE THERE ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED THIS MORNING? JUST, JUST A QUICK, QUICK, QUICK QUESTION.
UM, THERE'S SOME AUDIO, THERE'S VOICEMAIL, AND THEN EXHIBIT 10 IS A VOICEMAIL, AND THEN EXHIBITS 21 THROUGH 24 ARE AUDIO SLASH VIDEO.
SO I, I GUESS WE'RE GONNA SEE PORTIONS OF THOSE MAYBE? YES, I HAVE, UM, I HAVE THE FILE THAT I GRANTED ACCESS TO DAVID SMITH ON IT IS A SHAREPOINT FILE, AND IT CONTAINS ALL THE EXHIBITS, UM, THAT I'VE TENDERED HERE TODAY.
UM, BOTH THE AUDIO, UH, FILES AND THE DOCUMENTS, AND I WAS GOING TO, UH, WAIT UNTIL I HAD OFFERED AND HAD THOSE ADMITTED.
UM, AND THEN I CAN GRANT ACCESS TO THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE, UM, ON THAT FOLDER OF EXHIBITS THAT I SHARED WITH THE RESPONDENT BACK ON APRIL 28TH, ALL OF THE 27 EXHIBITS.
AND THEN, YES, I WOULD INTRODUCE THEM AS NECESSARY THROUGHOUT THE HEARING.
SO WE'RE NOT, WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO GO THROUGH EVERYTHING NOW 'CAUSE THEY'RE GONNA NEED JUST THE BAIL OBJECTION.
SO AT THIS POINT, THERE, UH, IS NO OBJECTION
[00:10:01]
TO, UH, THE, THE MATTERS THAT HAVE THE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE, UH, INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE.NO, THE HEARING OR OBJECTION, THE, UH, THE DOCUMENTS ARE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE AND I HEAR NO ISSUE THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE ADMISSION, THESE DOCUMENTS.
ALRIGHT, THEN THOSE RECORDS ARE ADMITTED.
WE WILL NOW PROCEED TO OPENING STATEMENTS.
IS THE RESPONDENT GONNA ENTER A PLEA OF TRUE OR NOT TRUE TODAY? MR. SMITH? UH, ARE YOU PREPARED TO ENTER A, UM, RESPONSE OF TRUE OR NO? TRUE WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLEGATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS COMPLAINT? I'LL BE, UH, SUBMITTING A PLEA OF TRUE IN REGARDS TO THE DIGITAL SIGNATURE IN QUESTION.
SO TRUE AS OPPO, UH, WITH REGARD TO THE SIGNATURE THAT APPEARS ON THE DOCUMENTS, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? CORRECT.
AND SO, WHICH ETHICS VIOLATION ARE YOU PLEADING TRUE TO AT THIS POINT? THERE ARE TWO ALLEGATIONS.
ETHICS VIOLATION NUMBER ONE, CITY OFFICIALS SHALL ENACT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES, COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING STANDARD OF BEHAVIOR TO CONDUCT THEMSELVES AND TO OPERATE WITH INTEGRITY, UH, AND IN A MANNER THAT MERIT MERITS THE TRUST AND SUPPORT OF THE PUBLIC IN VIOLATION OF 12 A DASH FOUR.
A, UH, ONE AND ETHICS VIOLATION.
NUMBER TWO, CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES SHALL WHEN ACTING IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING STANDARD OF BEHAVIOR TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL, UH, ACTIONS, UH, AND THE EFFECTS SUCH ACTIONS COULD HAVE ON POSITIVELY OR NEGATIVELY ON THE CITY'S REPUTATION, AND BOTH IN THE, IN THE COMMUNITY AND ELSEWHERE IN VIOLATION OF 12 A FOUR.
UM, MR. SMITH, YOU ARE ENTERING A TRUE TO WHICH ETHICS, UH, ALLEGED ETHICS VIOLATION.
THAT WOULD BE TO BOTH, YOU ARE ENTERING TRUE TO BOTH CORRECT.
WE'RE GOING TO CONCLUDE THIS, UH, PHASE ONE.
UH, MR. SMITH, THE RESPONDENT HAS ADMITTED TRUE TO BOTH, UH, ETHICS VIOLATIONS, ETHICS VIOLATION NUMBER ONE, AND ETHICS VIOLATION NUMBER TWO, WHICH HAVE BEEN READ INTO THE RECORD.
UH, SO AT THIS POINT, WE WILL PROCEED TO PHASE TWO, WHICH IS THE SANCTIONS PART OF THE FIELD, RIGHT? ALL RIGHT.
THEN WE'LL PROCEED TO OPENING STATEMENTS IN PHASE TWO.
UH, WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE OPENING STATEMENT OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
GIMME ONE MINUTE TO SHARE MY SCREEN.
MR. SMITH, THIS AS A REMINDER, WHAT WE'RE GETTING READY TO DO NOW IS CONSIDER WHAT SANCTIONS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
SO I'M GONNA TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE INSPECTOR TENANT'S OFFICE
[00:15:01]
FOR ANY OPENING STATEMENTS ON SANCTIONS.AND THEN YOU HAVE, UH, MRS. SMITH, YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, UH, AFTER THE INSPECTOR GENERAL GIVES HIS OPENING STAY.
UH, SO LET'S GO BACK IN TIME BRIEFLY TO DECEMBER OF 2023 IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PARK AND RECREATION.
THERE IS A CITY PARK, THE WILLIE MAE BUTLER PARK, AND IT IS IN EAST DALLAS.
IT IS ABOUT 13 MINUTES EAST OF WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.
AND THIS IS THE WILLIE MA BUTLER PARK.
THE CITY HAD A PROJECT AT THIS PARK TO REPLACE THE PLAYGROUND WOOD CHIPS.
THIS SUBSTANCE IS KNOWN AS ENGINEERED WOOD BY BAR OR PLAYGROUND MULCH, OR SOMETIMES KITTY CUSHION.
THE INDUSTRY STANDARD FOR THIS MATERIAL IS TO FIRST PUT DOWN A LAYER OF FABRIC SO THAT WATER CAN DRAIN THROUGH, AND THEN ON TOP OF A FABRIC, YOU CAN PLACE A LAYER OF THESE PLAYGROUND WOOD CHIPS.
THE CITY WAS WORKING TO COMPLETE THIS PLAYGROUND PROJECT BY DECEMBER 20TH, 2023, BECAUSE ON THAT DATE, A PLAYGROUND INSPECTOR WAS GOING TO DO A FINAL INSPECTION ON THE PLAYGROUND.
THIS CASE INVOLVES TWO CITY EMPLOYEES.
THEUS METTER IS THE COMPLAINANT.
SHE WAS AN OFFICE ASSISTANT IN PARK IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PARK AND RECREATION.
DAVID SMITH IS THE RESPONDENT IN THIS CASE.
HE WORKED IN DISTRICT ONE IN PARK AND RECREATION, AND HE HAD RECENTLY BEEN PROMOTED FROM MANAGER IN DISTRICT ONE TO AREA MANAGER OVER DISTRICT ONE AND TWO.
AND ON DECEMBER 13TH, DAVID SMITH TYPED UP A MEMORANDUM STATING THAT THE CITY WOULD NEED 360 CUBIC YARDS OF FIVE BAR WITH THE WOOD CHIPS THAT I SHOWED YOU.
HE EMAILED IT TO NINE PEOPLE AT THE CITY, INCLUDING AN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AND INCLUDING FETUS, THE OFFICE ASSISTANT.
NOW, THERE WERE TWO PROBLEMS WITH THIS MEMO.
FIRST, IT INCORRECTLY STATED THE CITY WOULD NEED 360 CUBIC YARDS AT FIVE R, WHEN REALLY WE WOULD ONLY NEED 230 IN SECOND.
INSTEAD OF SIGNING HIS OWN NAME, DAVID SMITH ELECTRONICALLY FORGED FETUS'S NAME WITHOUT HER KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT.
NOW, FETUS SAW THAT EMAIL AND SHE SAW THE BID MEMO THAT SHE DIDN'T SIGN, AND SHE IMMEDIATELY TRIED TO STOP THE USE OF HER FORGED SIGNATURE.
AND WHEN THAT DIDN'T WORK, SHE REPORTED IT TO ANYONE WHO WOULD LISTEN FIRST.
SHE REPLIED BACK A FEW MINUTES LATER, ABOUT 40 MINUTES LATER, DAVID, WHO SIGNED MY NAME TO THIS MEMO, I DID NOT.
AND, UH, SHE POINTED OUT THAT THE MEMO SAID D ONE, AND THAT WAS INCORRECT BECAUSE FETUS WORKED IN DISTRICT TWO.
SO SHE IMMEDIATELY FIRST POINTED THIS OUT TO DAVID.
NEXT FETUS SENT AN EMAIL REPORTING THIS INCIDENT TO TRAN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE ETHICS OFFICER, AND HE FORWARDED THAT EMAIL TO THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.
THAT'S HOW WE GOT THE COMPLAINT.
AND AFTER THEUS CONFRONTED HIM, UH, THAT SAME MORNING, A FEW MINUTES LATER, DAVID SMITH AMENDED THE FORGED BID MEMO, AND HE CHANGED THE DISTRICT ONE TO D TWO, WHERE THEUS ACTUALLY WORKED.
AND THEN HE SENT IT OUT AGAIN TO ALL THE SAME NINE PEOPLE.
AND HERE'S THE AMENDED BID MEMO WHERE IT SAYS, DISTRICT TWO.
NEXT THEUS REPORTED THIS TO VANESSA GRAY, IN PART IN RECREATION TO ONE OF THE HR PARTNERS.
NEXT, HE JUST REPORTED THIS TO HER SUPERVISOR, LETTING HER KNOW THAT SHE HAD MADE THE ETHICS REPORT ABOUT THE UNAUTHORIZED USE OF HER SIGNATURE.
AND ALL OF THIS HAPPENED ON DECEMBER 13TH, 2023.
TWO DAYS LATER, ON DECEMBER 15TH, 2023, DAVID SMITH LEFT FETUS A VOICEMAIL, APOLOGIZING FOR ANY MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN HAPPENING THERE, AND STATING THERE WAS NOTHING MALICIOUS GOING ON.
HEY, I JUST WANTED TO REACH OUT TO YOU AND, UH, DISCUSS THE CONCERN THAT CAME UP IN REGARDS TO THE BID MEMO FOR THE FIVE BAR FUNDING FROM PLANNING AND DESIGN.
[00:20:01]
WERE, GIMME A CALL AT YOUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE, AND I I JUST WANNA TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT, LET YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S NOTHING MALICIOUS HAPPENING THERE.IT'S JUST A MATTER OF, UH, YOU KNOW, GETTING THAT FACILITATED.
THAT WOULD COME FROM D TWO FROM YOU.
BUT, UH, I JUST WANTED TO GO AND HELP OUT WITH FELLOW, BUT, UH, MY APOLOGIES FOR ANY MISCONCEPTIONS OF WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN HAPPENING THERE.
BUT, UH, GIMME A CALL WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.
ALSO ON DECEMBER 15TH, UH, LET'S SEE.
MADAM, THE SECRETARY OR ANYTHING?
HEY, I JUST WANTED TO REACH OUT TO YOU AND, UH, DISCUSS A CONCERN THAT CAME UP IN REGARDS TO THE BID MEMO FOR THE FIVE BAR FUNDING FROM PLANNING THE DESIGN.
HEY, IF, IF YOU WOULD GIMME A CALL AT YOUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE, AND THAT I JUST WANNA TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT, LET YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S NOTHING MALICIOUS HAPPENING THERE.
IT'S JUST A MATTER OF, UH, YOU KNOW, GETTING THAT FACILITATED, THAT WE COME FROM B TWO FROM YOU.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO GO AND HELP OUT.
BUT, UH, MY APOLOGIES FOR ANY MISCONCEPTIONS OF WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN HAPPENING THERE.
BUT, UH, GIMME A CALL WHEN YOU GET, THANK YOU.
ALSO, ON THE MORNING OF DECEMBER 15TH, FETA POINTED OUT IN AN EMAIL TO HER COLLEAGUES, UH, INCLUDING DAVID SMITH, WE HAVE AN INCONSISTENCY HERE.
THE FORGED BID MEMO SAYS, WE'RE GONNA GET TWO THINGS RIGHT HERE, SAYS, WE'RE GETTING FIBER FIVE R AND FABRIC.
AND THE PRICE AGREEMENT SAYS, WE'RE ONLY GETTING ONE THING PLAYGROUND MULCH THE ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER.
AND THERE'S FETUS RIGHT THERE ON DECEMBER 15TH, LETTING EVERYONE KNOW THE MEMO THAT YOU CREATED AND THE PRICE AGREEMENT DO NOT AGREE WITH EACH OTHER.
THERE IS AN INCONSISTENCY HERE.
AFTER THAT FE WAS REMOVED FROM THE PROJECT AND SHE HAD NO FURTHER INVOLVEMENT WITH THE WILLIE MAE BUTLER PARK, SHE DECIDED IT WAS TIME TO SEEK A TRANSFER OUT OF THAT DEPARTMENT.
SO THE NEXT MONTH IN JANUARY, 2024, SHE BEGAN INTERVIEWING FOR OTHER POSITIONS WITHIN THE CITY.
SHE WAS SUCCESSFUL IN THAT ENDEAVOR.
SHE TRANSFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CODE COMPLIANCE IN MARCH OF 2024, WHERE SHE NOW WORKS AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIAL.
WE FILED, UH, TWO ETHICS CHARGES AGAINST DAVID SMITH OUT OF THIS TRANSACTION, AND WE ASK YOU TO SUBSTANTIATE THESE TWO VIOLATIONS TODAY.
THE FIRST ONE IS THAT CITY OFFICIALS SHALL COMPLY, UH, WITH, UH, THE FOLLOWING STANDARD OF BEHAVIOR.
WE WANT THEM TO CONDUCT THEMSELVES AND OPERATE WITH INTEGRITY AND IN A MANNER THAT MERITS THE TRUST AND SUPPORT OF THE PUBLIC.
AND WE, IN THE SECOND ETHICS VIOLATION, IS WE WANT CITY EMPLOYEES TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL ACTIONS AND THE EFFECTS SUCH ACTIONS COULD HAVE POSITIVELY OR NEGATIVELY ON THE CITY'S REPUTATION, BOTH IN THE COMMUNITY AND HEALTH.
OUR INVESTIGATORS INTERVIEWED DAVID SMITH, HE ADMITTED AS WELL TO OUR, UH, INVESTIGATORS TO USING THETA TO SIGNATURE WITHOUT HER PERMISSION.
UM, WE'VE GOT THAT HERE FOR YOU TODAY IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAR IT.
UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I'M SORRY.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AT THIS POINT? I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR PART OF THAT INTERVIEW, BUT I THINK YOU, UH, YES, WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT WE, UH, RECORDING AND THEN WE'LL HEAR FROM MR. SMITH.
UH, MR. SMITH, DO YOU HAVE AN OPENING STATEMENT AT THIS POINT? UH, THE ONLY THING I WOULD, UH, LIKE TO SAY IS, UH, MY, MY, UH, MY CONDUCT WAS,
[00:25:01]
UH, MISGUIDED, NOT MALICIOUS, AS I STATED TO THEAS IN THAT VOICEMAIL.UM, IN THE EMAIL THAT I SENT TO HER FOLLOWING, FOLLOWING UP, LETTING HER KNOW MY MISTAKE.
UM, YOU KNOW, I, I KNOW IGNORANCE IS IN, UH, UH, LACK OF TRAINING OR NOT AN EXCUSE.
UM, AND, AND I, AND I COULD HAVE REACHED OUT FOR ADDITIONAL HELP KNOWING THAT I HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MEMO, AND I DID NOT.
SO I DO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT, BUT ALSO UNDERSTANDING THAT, THAT, UM, WHAT THIS MEMO MEANT, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, AS FAR AS WHAT IT WAS GOING TO ACCOMPLISH, IT, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NO, UM, THERE WAS NO NOTHING THAT I WAS GOING TO GAIN.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO REASON FOR ME TO, TO, UH, YOU KNOW, TO PUT, UH, MS. MEDER IN, IN A BAD POSITION.
THAT WAS NOT MY INTENT OR MYSELF, OR PLANNING IN DESIGN.
IT WAS JUST A MATTER OF GETTING THE, UM, GETTING THE NECESSARY MATERIAL IN THE PLAYGROUND FOR PLANNING THE DESIGN PRIOR TO.
AND I WAS TOLD THAT WAS THROUGH A BID MEMO.
UM, ONCE AGAIN, I SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM, YOU KNOW, JEREMY WILSON WAS ONE OF THE, WAS WAS A GENTLEMAN THAT PROVIDED ME THAT I DID NOT ASK HIM FOR ANY ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE.
JUST, UH, HAPHAZARDLY FILLED IT OUT, YOU KNOW, IN THE SENSE OF ADDING THE'S NAME WHEN I COULD HAVE PUT MY OWN NAME ON THERE.
SO THAT I, I, I REALLY WANT EVERYBODY TO, UH, UNDERSTAND THAT I DID HAVE MY OWN AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.
AND, UH, HOPEFULLY THIS REFLECTS THAT IT WAS JUST A MISGUIDED, UH, MISTAKE.
I DO, UH, YOU KNOW, APOLOGIZE AND, UH, REGRET, YOU KNOW, PUTTING THEUS IN THAT POSITION AND HAVING HER FEEL THAT WAY.
ALSO, THE CITY OF DALLAS, PUTTING THEM IN THE POSITION IF THIS WERE TO BE LOOKED BACK THROUGH OPEN RECORDS TO SEE INCONSISTENCIES.
UM, BUT WITH THAT, UH, I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO END WITH, UM, THEUS, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THAT STATEMENT.
UM, SHE, SHE MADE THAT SHE, SHE WAS PULLED OFF OF THE, PULLED OFF OF THE, UM, PARTICULAR WORK ORDER.
YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS.
IT'S NOT THAT SHE WAS PULLED OFF.
HER PORTION WAS COMPLETE, SO, YOU KNOW, THROUGH MY OWN MISTAKES, BUT, BUT HER PORTION WAS COMPLETE, SO THERE WAS NO MUL MALICIOUS INTENT EVEN AFTER THE FACT.
UM, THEUS HAD ALREADY BEEN LOOKING FOR ANOTHER JOB FOR SEVERAL MONTHS AND, AND MUCH LONGER THAN THAT.
AND WE ENCOURAGED HER TO DO SO.
SHE ACTUALLY WENT AND GOT A PLAYGROUND LICENSE.
SO I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT SHE WAS NEVER PUT IN A POSITION BY MYSELF OR HER DIRECT SUPERVISOR, THE DISTRICT MANAGER, OR THE OTHER SUBSEQUENT SUPERVISORS UNDERNEATH, UM, WHERE SHE WAS PRESSURED TO, TO, TO LEAVE.
SHE DID THAT ON HER OWN ACCORD.
UM, ONCE AGAIN, AS THIS MEMO, UM, YOU AS, AS, AS IT HOLDS WEIGHT, AND IT WAS DONE INCORRECTLY.
UM, YOU KNOW, I, I WAS HELD TO ACCOUNT WITHIN, WITHIN THE DISTRICT BY MY AD AND, AND HR.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, I, I JUST WANT IT TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS WAS, UH, A ONE-OFF MISTAKE.
AND, YOU KNOW, ONCE AGAIN, UH, NO INTENTION OF BEING HERE TODAY, JUST, UM, JUST TRYING TO GET THE JOB DONE.
UNFORTUNATELY, I MADE A MISTAKE.
UH, ARE THERE ANY, UH, RESPONSIVE, UH, COMMENTS BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE? NO.
WE WILL PROCEED TO THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE.
WITH RESPECT TO PHASE TWO, UH, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, UH, MAY PRESENT HIS OR HER CASE AT THIS POINT, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE PANEL, UH, WE HAD A RESPONDENT SHOW UP AND PLEAD TRUE IN THE PAST, AND WE WALKED THROUGH EVERY DOCUMENT AND EVERY EXHIBIT, AND WE RECEIVED SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE PANEL AT THAT TIME THAT WE WOULD APPRECIATE AN ABBREVIATED HEARING WHEN THIS OCCURS.
[00:30:01]
PRESENT YOU AN ABBREVIATED REVIEW OF THE MAJOR DOCUMENTS IN THIS CASE.AND, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT US TO WALK THROUGH EVERY DOCUMENT OR IF YOU'VE REACHED THE LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU THINK IT WOULD SUFFICE, BUT, UH, WHAT WE HAD JUST ATTEMPTED TO DO WAS RESPOND IN A MANNER BASED ON THE FEEDBACK WE'VE RECEIVED FROM PREVIOUS HEARINGS.
UH, WOULD YOU, WOULD THE, UH, COMMISSION MEMBERS, UH, REQUIRE OR REQUEST ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE AT THIS POINT? I, MY, UH, ESPECIALLY IT MIGHT HELP.
I MIGHT HAVE SOME QUESTIONS THAT PROBABLY COULD BE ANSWERED BY SOME OF THE EXHIBITS.
MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL, I GUESS I'M A A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO THE, UH, EITHER THE HIERARCHY OR THE, UH, UH, WHO DOES WHAT IN THE PARKS AND RECREATION BETWEEN THE, UH, COMPLAINING WITNESS AND MR. SMITH.
COULD YOU, UH, CLARIFY THAT FOR ME? CLARIFY WHO DOES WHAT? YEAH, I MEAN, WHO, WHO'S THE SUPERVISOR? UH, WHAT DOES AN AREA SUPERVISOR DO, OR THEUS METTER WAS THE OFFICE ASSISTANT.
I CAN CALL HER AND SHE CAN EXPLAIN LIKE HER DUTIES, HER JOB DUTIES, UH, AND THEN THE SUPERVISOR OVER AREAS, UM, TWO DISTRICTS, ONE AND TWO WOULD BE DAVID SMITH.
THAT PRETTY MUCH ANSWERS MY QUESTION.
I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, PLEASE.
UM, DO THE CITY SUFFER ANY MONETARY LOSS? UH, UH, WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPLAINT? NO.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WAIT, SO IS THIS OUR, SO WHEN YOU SAY QUESTIONS FOR EITHER SIDE OR WHAT, WHAT, SINCE WE'RE THE IG AT THIS POINT, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE, AND SO THE IDEA IS THAT Y'ALL ARE, THIS IS THE ABBREVIATED VERSION, SO THERE WILL BE NO OTHER EVIDENCE UNLESS WE SEEK IT.
UH, I, YOU KNOW, I HAVE A TIMELINE THAT I COULD WALK YOU GUYS THROUGH WITH ALL OF MY EXHIBITS FROM START TO FINISH.
WE COULD GO THROUGH ALL 27 EXHIBITS, AND I HAVE A COUPLE WITNESSES THAT I WOULD DO THAT THROUGH.
I GUESS MY MAIN QUESTION IS, UM, OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO PROTECT PEOPLE USING OTHER SIGNATURES WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION, BUT IS IT, IS IT TRUE THAT MR. SMITH HAD THE SAME COULD, BECAUSE TO ME, THIS IS JUST A PROBLEM WITH FLAGGING.
IF MR. SMITH DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GET THIS SIGNED OFF ON HIM, THAT IS WHY HE HAD TO ADD MS. UH, NEER'S NAME SIGNATURE.
DID HE HAVE, COULD HE HAVE SIMPLY USED HIS OWN NAME? YES.
AND IT WAS JUST A FORMALITY THAT HE USED EDIT'S NAME.
HE COULD HAVE USED HIS OWN NAME.
I, I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION, AND THIS IS PROBABLY SOMETHING FOR BOTH SIDES TO ADDRESS, BUT I'LL ASK IT OF THE OIG FIRST IS, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD THE BASIC EXPLANATION THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE.
I, I GUESS WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR, SINCE WE ARE IN PHASE TWO, AND THE QUESTION IS, WHAT, IF ANY SANCTION SHOULD BE IMPOSED IS WHY, WHY, WHY DID HE DO WHAT HE DID? WHAT DOES THE INSPECTOR GENERAL THINK THE MOTIVE WAS HERE? UM, DOES THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DISAGREE THAT THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AN OVERSIGHT OR A HARMLESS ERROR? IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING MALICIOUS OR THAT HE COULD HAVE GAINED SOMETHING FROM IT? I JUST, SOMETHING THAT I'M, I'M LEFT WONDERING AT THIS POINT, ACKNOWLEDGING WE'RE EARLIER IN THE HEARING, IS WHY DID HE, WHY HE, HE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE DID IT.
BUT I GUESS THE, AN THE QUESTION IS WHY, AND I KNOW MR. SMITH CAN SPEAK TO THAT WHEN IT'S HIS TURN, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR THE, THE OIG G'S POSITION ON IT.
THE FABRIC THAT WAS NEEDED TO GO UNDERNEATH THE WOOD CHIPS, THE FABRIC WAS NOT ON ANY MASTER AGREEMENT, AND IT SHOULD HAVE GONE OUT FOR BID, BUT THEY WERE IN A RUSH.
AND IN ORDER TO GET THE PROJECT COMPLETED TO MEET THE INSPECTION DEADLINE, UM, THEY CAME UP WITH THIS SOLUTION
[00:35:01]
TO, UH, TO MAKE A PRICE AGREEMENT THAT WAS INACCURATE.THAT SAID, THE CITY WAS ONLY GETTING MULCH WHEN THE CITY WAS ACTUALLY GETTING MULCH AND FABRIC, WHICH IS WHAT FETUS WAS POINTING OUT IN THAT EMAIL.
MAY I SAY SOMETHING? THE FIBER FABRIC GOES ON THE GROUND.
THE ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER GOES ON TOP TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
THE ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER GOES ON TOP.
SO WHEN A KID FALLS OFF A SWING SET OR MONKEY BARS, THEY HAVE THE CUSHION, THE FIBER FABRIC UNDERNEATH WAS NOT COVERED BY THE MASTER AGREEMENT.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS, WHAT THEY NEEDED WAS 230 CUBIC YARDS OF ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER THAT WAS INFLATED TO 360 TO HIDE THE COST OF THE FIBER FABRIC THAT THEY KNEW WAS NOT COVERED BY THE MASTER AGREEMENT.
SO THE MOTIVE WAS INFLATE THE PRICE OF THE ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER TO HIDE THE FACT THAT THE WHAT WAS UNDERNEATH IT'S GONNA COST MONEY WAS NOT COVERED.
AND SO THE MOTIVE, I THINK, UH, I THINK MR. SMITH SAID IT PRETTY GOOD IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT.
I DON'T THINK HE WAS REALLY MALICIOUS.
HE WANTED THIS OFF HIS DESK BECAUSE HE IS 10 DAYS AWAY FROM THIS THING BEING INSPECTED.
AND WE HAD NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS, SHOULD WE GO CRIMINAL WITH THIS? SHOULD WE MAKE A REFERRAL WITH THIS? AND WE DIDN'T SEE THE INTENT TO DEFRAUD OR HARM.
WHAT WE SAW WAS THE INTENT TO GET THIS THING OFF HIS DESK AND, UH, AND MOVE THIS ON SO THEY COULD GET ONTO THE NEXT THING.
AND IS, I GUESS, IS THE ARGUMENT THEN THAT HE PUT HER NAME ON IT INSTEAD OF HIS, IN CASE IT WAS CAUGHT, SHE'D GET IN TROUBLE INSTEAD OF HIM? THAT SEEMS REALLY SPECULATIVE FOR ME TO GET IN HIS HEAD, BUT I THINK ONLY HE COULD ANSWER THAT.
BUT THAT'S A, THAT COULD BE A REASONABLE DEDUCTION FROM THE EVIDENCE.
UH, BUT HOWEVER YOU, THE APPROPRIATE, UM, WORK WAS DONE.
IN OTHER WORDS, FA FABRIC WAS PUT DOWN AT NOT A GREATER COST THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BECAUSE CORRECT.
THE COST WAS BEING ALLOCATED TO THE FIVE BAR.
THE FABRIC, THE COST OF THE FABRIC WAS ABOUT $3,200.
AND MAY I RESPOND TO ONE THING? YOU SAID, THAT'S ANOTHER THING.
WHEN YOU MAKE A REFERRAL ON A FORGERY CASE TO THE DA'S OFFICE, IT TYPICALLY GOES TO THE SPECIALIZED CRIME DIVISION.
ONE OF THEIR FIRST QUESTIONS IS, WHAT DID, WHAT DID THE SUSPECT GET? DID HE GET 20,000 BUCKS? DID HE GET A LUXURY CARD? DID HE GET A BASS BOAT PARKED OUT AT LAKE DALLAS? WHAT DID HE GET OUT OF IT? AND THERE WAS NOTHING THAT HE GOT LIKE THAT.
SO IT, IT'S NOT THE TYPE OF THING THAT A DA'S OFFICE IS SUPER EXCITED ABOUT RECEIVING.
SO THERE WAS NO PERSONAL BENEFIT.
NO BENEFIT OTHER THAN GETTING THAT PROJECT OFFICE DESK, OB YEAH.
AND COMPLETED IN TIME AND FASHION.
THE QUESTION, AND THAT IS, SINCE, UM, THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY, UM, THE, THE PERSON, MS. NEEDER IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED THE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE THAT SHE HAD NOT SIGNED THIS, UH, IN FACT, HE WOULD STILL BECOME RESPONSIBLE IF THIS WAS TO BE CONSIDERED, CONSIDERED SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE OR FORGERY OR WHATEVER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO SHE NEVER BECOMES RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT ISSUE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
UH, VITAS MATTER WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE.
SHE DID NOT GIVE HER EFFECTIVE CONSENT, AND THAT'S WHY WE PLED THAT IN THE INFORMATION THAT WE FILED, CORRECTION WAS MADE BEFORE THE WORK WAS COMPLETED OR NONE.
WHAT CORRECTION? THE CORRECTION THAT, UH, MR. SMITH HAD IMPLEMENTED THIS? NOT MS, NEITHER.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
THE, THE, ALL OF THE, UM, DOCUMENTS, AT LEAST AT THE BEGINNING THAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO GO THROUGH, IT INDICATES THAT THIS, UM, THIS COMMENTARY THAT MR. SMITH MADE ABOUT THIS WAS IMMEDIATELY SEEN TO BE HIS RESPONSIBILITY, NOT MS. METER'S RESPONSIBILITY.
SO SHE IS, I BELIEVE SO, IS NEVER IN A POSITION WHERE SHE WOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR PUTTING DOWN AN INCORRECT AMOUNT AND FOR ONE KIND OF, OF THE FIVE BAR RATHER THAN THE TWO ITEMS? I BELIEVE SO.
I, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR MS MATTER IF SHE'S VERY WELL
[00:40:01]
SPOKEN INDIVIDUAL, BUT I THINK HER CONCERN WAS THAT FIBER FABRIC WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS MASTER AGREEMENT, AND THE PRICE OF THE ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER WAS INFLATED TO COVER THAT UP.AND I DON'T WANNA BE THE PERSON HELD RESPONSIBLE IF THIS THING GETS ROLLED OUT.
UM, I MEAN, RIGHT NOW THE, THE INFORMATION IS FOCUSED ON THE FORGING OF THE SIGNATURE, AND THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE UNDERLYING FACT.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE, I MEAN THAT YES, I, I GET IT.
AND THE OTHER ISSUE THAT MAYBE THERE'S JUST DEBRIEFING AS TO WHY IT WASN'T INCLUDED, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SOME ALSO ISSUE WITH TRANSPARENCY IN TERMS OF WHAT, AND MR. BEAVERS, YOU MENTIONED THE HIDING OF THE OTHER BUCKET, IF YOU WILL, OF, OF PRODUCT.
WHY WASN'T THAT, WHY ISN'T THAT PART OF THE INFORMATION, THE MASKING OF THE OTHER COSTS? WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS WHAT WE COULD SUBSTANTIATE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HEARING? NONE, UH, MR. SMITH, UH, YOU ARE NOW, ARE YOU PREPARED TO MAKE YOUR CASE IN CHIEF WITH RESPECT TO THE, UH, PHASE TWO OF THIS MATTER? YES, SIR.
WELL, PLEASE PROCEED, MR. SMITH.
SO I, EXCUSE ME FOR A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION.
SO, UM, I, I JUST, I WOULD LIKE TO EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND THAT, YEAH, ONCE AGAIN, THE, THE LACK OF MALICIOUS INTENT HERE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY I DID NOTHING TO GAIN.
UM, AND, AND, AND, AND UNDERSTANDING AS MUCH AS YOU, AS MUCH AS WE HAVE GOING ON IN THE CITY OF DALLAS, AND THIS PROJECT WAS NOT MY OWN, THIS WAS ACTUALLY PASSED DOWN TO THE DISTRICT MANAGER FROM PLANNING AND DESIGN.
UM, AND IT WAS NOT THE PRESSURE THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THERE WAS PRESSURE ACROSS THE BOARD, BUT IT WAS THE NEED FOR PLANNING AND DESIGN TO HAVE THIS PROJECT.
THIS WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT I HAD ORCHESTRATED.
THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS, UH, AT THE LAST MOMENT PASSED DOWN.
UH, THERE, YOU, YOU DON'T HAVE THE EMAIL CHAIN TO REFLECT THAT INFORMATION THAT CAME FROM PLANNING AND DESIGN, BUT, UM, I JUST WANTED TO, I JUST WANTED TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT MYSELF NOR THE DISTRICT HAD INSTIGATED THIS PROJECT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.
THIS WAS THROUGH PLANNING AND DESIGN, AND I DO BELIEVE IT WAS A BOND PROJECT.
UM, UNFORTUNATELY, THEY DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T, UH, BUILD THE SCOPE LARGE ENOUGH TO ENCOMPASS THE THINGS THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE WHEN YOU REDO A PLAYGROUND.
SO THEY WERE GONNA BE USING, UM, THE DISTRICT GENERAL FUND TO BE ABLE TO, TO SATISFY THOSE NEEDS AND CAME TO US LAST MINUTE TO FACILITATE IT.
NOT THAT THAT JUSTIFIES ANYTHING HERE.
I JUST WANT THE CONTEXT TO BE UNDERSTOOD.
UM, IN REGARDS TO THE, UH, THE, THE TWO COMPONENTS, YOU KNOW, UH, OF THE FILTER FABRIC.
YOU KNOW, I HONESTLY, I WOULD, YOU KNOW, I I, I DON'T RECALL THAT INFORMATION.
YOU KNOW, I, I'M JUST NOW HEARING THIS PIECE OF IT, YOU KNOW, OR JUST RECALLING THIS PIECE OF IT, I GUESS THAT IT WAS THERE IN THE EMAILS.
BUT, UM, AND, AND, AND YEAH, I JUST CAN'T RECALL EXACTLY THE CONTEXT AROUND IT.
UH, AS I WAS NOT THE ONLY PERSON INVOLVED WITH THIS IN DIFFERENT, UH, COMPONENTS OF IT, YES, I WAS PART OF THE BID MEMO, BUT, UH, THE BID MEMO IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ACTUAL PROCUREMENT WRITEUP FROM THE PRICE AGREEMENT.
UM, SO I, I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK, I WOULD'VE TO GO BACK AND, YOU KNOW, THINK ABOUT MY DAYS ON HOW, YOU KNOW, HOW THINGS LED UP TO THAT.
SO, BUT, UM, ONCE AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I, I REALLY JUST WANT TO, YOU KNOW, REFLECT MY, UH, YOU KNOW, MY REGRET FOR IT.
UM, AND, UH, DEFINITELY, UH, PLEASE, UH, UNDERSTAND THAT MOVING FORWARD I HAVE, UH, THAT, THAT I DO HAVE A RESPECT FOR, FOR, FOR THIS.
AND, UH, UNDERSTAND IF I, IF I DO SOMETHING, UH, THAT I'VE QUESTIONED, I PROBABLY DON'T NEED TO DO IT.
UM, AND JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M CROSSING MY T'S AND DOTTING MY I'S, UH, I WAS, UH, DID RECEIVE EXTENSIVE COACHING FROM MY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AND FROM HR IN REGARDS TO THIS MATTER.
SO I DO APPRECIATE THE MAGNITUDE OF IT, UM, WHETHER, YOU KNOW, BIG OR SMALL.
UM, IT DOES HAVE AN IMPACT ON, ON PEOPLE IN VARIOUS WAYS, AND I DO APPRECIATE THAT.
AND, UH, UH, WE'LL DEFINITELY NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE TWICE.
[00:45:01]
THANK YOU.ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS REGARD, UH, OF MR. SMITH AT THIS, AT THIS TIME? YEAH, MR. SMITH.
MR. SMITH, IF YOU COULD JUST, YOU MENTIONED THE, THERE'S DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF ALL THIS.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE BID MEMO ITSELF IS? SO, I WAS TOLD THAT THE BID MEMO, THIS WAS MY FIRST TIME WITH IT, US UTILIZING IT, THAT'S WHY I REACHED OUT TO JEREMY WILSON.
HE'S ONE OF THE HEAD, UH, ONE OF THE SUPERVISORS OVER FACILITIES DEPARTMENT.
AND I WAS TOLD THIS WAS A, JUST A MATTER OF ACKNOWLEDGING WHERE THE FUNDING WAS GOING TO COME FROM FOR THE WORK TO BE DONE.
UM, SO, SO YEAH, TO, THAT'S THE EXTENT THAT I UNDERSTOOD.
SO I JUST KNEW I'D RECEIVED, I, I ASKED JEREMY WILSON IF HE COULD SEND ME A, AN EXAMPLE OF ONE THAT HE USED IN THE PAST, AND HIS EXAMPLE HAD THE OFFICE ASSISTANT ON IT AT THE BOTTOM.
UM, JEREMY WILSON HAS THE SAME AUTHORITY, IF NOT MORE THAN I DO, SO HIS NAME COULD HAVE BEEN ON THERE.
I IN A HURRY, UH, MISTAKENLY JUST JUST SAW THAT HIS OFFICE ASSISTANT WAS ON THERE.
SO I DID THE SAME THING, AND THAT IS WHY I WAS MORE THAN HAPPY TO, NOT MORE THAN HAPPY, BUT MORE THAN WILLING TO, YOU KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE WHEN I, WHEN I FIRST SENT OUT THE EMAIL, IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THAT FIRST EMAIL WHERE I SENT THE BID MEMO OUT, I ATTACHED THEIST TO IT SO SHE WOULD BE AWARE THAT I WAS DOING IT.
IT WAS NOT TO HIDE IT FROM THE GET GO.
WHEN I FIRST SENT IT OUT, SHE WAS ATTACHED.
SO THERE WAS NO INTENT TO HIDE WHO, WHO ACTUALLY INITIATED THIS, WHICH WAS MYSELF.
SO, UM, BUT YEAH, WITH THAT BID MEMO, IT WAS JUST A MATTER OF WHERE THE FUNDING WAS COMING FROM.
THE FUNDING WAS GOING TO COME FROM EITHER, YOU KNOW, UH, DEPARTMENT A OR DEPARTMENT B.
I HOPE THAT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.
UH, ONE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAVE, AND YOU, YOU MENTIONED THIS BRIEFLY, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND IT.
THERE WAS ALSO, UH, IT SOUNDS LIKE AN HR PROCESS THAT YOU WENT THROUGH, UM, SOME COACHING.
WHAT, WAS THERE ANY OTHER, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE FULL SPECTRUM OF AS A RESULT OF THIS INCIDENT.
WHAT, WHAT HAS, WHAT HAS BEEN DONE WITH YOU? I GUESS? UH, IT WAS, IT WAS JUST VERBAL COUNSELING, YOU KNOW, IT, IT WAS NOT DOCUMENTED, BUT IT WAS VERBAL COUNSELING AND COACHING BETWEEN HR AND, UH, AND, UH, MY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR WITH MYSELF.
ARE THERE, YES, UH, MR. SMITH, HOW LONG DID THAT VERBAL, UH, COUNSELING TAKE OVER A COUPLE DIFFERENT SESSIONS? A COUPLE HOURS.
WERE YOU ASKED TO RESIGN FROM YOUR POSITION BECAUSE OF THE ERROR? NO, MA'AM.
AND MR. SMITH, ARE YOU, UH, TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU HAVE THESE BID MEMO BID MEMOS TO SEND OUT, DO YOU HAVE A, A TEMPLATE THAT YOU NOW USE THAT HAS YOUR OWN SIGNATURE? I DO.
THERE, THERE IS ONE THAT I'VE DONE SINCE THEN.
I'VE DONE ONE SINCE THEN, YES.
AND IT DOES HAVE MY NAME ON IT.
AND THEN JUST THE, THE ISSUE SURROUNDING, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
THIS, THE DECEMBER 13TH DOCUMENT REFERENCES 360 YARDS OF FIBER, AND THEN THE ATTACHMENT, LET'S SEE, THEN THERE'S THIS BID FROM NARO MULCH, LLC, AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT ALSO SAYS 360 CUBIC YARDS PLAYGROUND MULCH.
I JUST WANT TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY FROM YOU ON WHAT, WHAT IS IT, RIGHT, THAT IT WASN'T JUST IS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE? CORRECT.
THAT, IN FACT, IT WASN'T 360 YARDS OF FIBER.
IN FACT, IT WAS 200 AND SOMETHING PLUS SOME OTHER MATERIAL.
AND WHY IS IT RIGHT THAT YOU DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT BREAKDOWN? BECAUSE OF LACK OF TIME.
SO, SO JUST FOR CLARITY HERE, YOU'RE SAYING THE QUOTE FROM NARO MULCH REFLECTS 362 CUBIC YARDS.
THAT'S THE ONE I'M SEEING AS ATTACHED TO EXHIBIT TWO.
THEN THERE'S A, AND THERE SHOULD BE ANOTHER EXHIBIT THAT REFLECTS THE PRICE AGREEMENT WHERE THERE WAS ONLY ONE LINE ITEM.
AND HOW MANY CUBIC GUARDS DOES THAT STATE? THERE'S A PRICE AGREEMENT REQUEST THAT'S ALSO EXHIBIT TWO THAT SAYS 360 YARDS.
SO I'M CONFUSED IF, IF THE QUOTE FROM THE VENDOR SAYS 362 AND OUR QUOTE SAYS 362, WHERE'S THE INFORMATION REGARDING THE, THE FIVE BAR TO SHOW THAT IT WAS EVEN INSTALLED?
[00:50:01]
JUST, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT CONFUSED HERE.UM, THAT'S EXHIBIT ONE A, UM, DECEMBER 13TH, UM, WHERE IT SAYS 360 YARDS OF FIBER BAR TO BE INSTALLED.
AND THEN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH CONTINUING ON IT SAYS, THIS WILL ALSO INCLUDE THE INSTALLATION OF A FIRE FILTER FIBER FACTOR LAYER, FABRIC LAYER BELOW THE FIVE BAR LAYER AND BREAKDOWN.
IT'S NOT BROKEN DOWN BY THE TWO, IT JUST HAS A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $9,716 AND 40 CENTS.
SO IS IT, IS THAT NOW FROM, IT SAYS THEM CONTACT YOU, OR IS THAT FROM THE VENDOR? THIS IS FROM THE CITY OF DALLAS TO CHRISTINA WARE AND LAURA JOHNSON, SUBJECT, WILLIE MAE BUTLER PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENT.
IT IS THAT YOU PUT DOWN, I'M ASSUMING THIS IS THE, UM, IT SAYS THAT PLEASE CONTACT DAVID SMITH WITH YOUR PHONE NUMBER, BUT THE, UM, SIGNATURE IS, THAT IS
SO I'M NOT QUITE SURE THE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT BOTH OF THE ITEMS WERE IN THIS ARTICLE, THIS, UM, LETTER SENT TO CHRISTINA NOTE WHERE I DON'T KNOW.
YEAH, MAYBE THE, WAS ABLE TO GIVE US THE, I MEAN, I, EXCUSE ME.
I MEAN, I, I CAN'T RECALL EXACTLY, BUT MAYBE THE VENDOR WAS ACTUALLY JUST GIVING US THE ADDITIONAL, THE, THE, THE MINOR ADDITIONAL FIVE MARK.
THIS WASN'T A FULL NEW INSTALL OF A PLAYGROUND, IT WAS A REPLACEMENT.
SO I KNOW THERE WAS SOME DRAINAGE WORK THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE, AND MAYBE THERE WAS JUST A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF FIVE BAR, OR EXCUSE ME, A FILTER FABRIC THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO INCLUDE IN THERE.
BUT THAT PRICE AGREEMENT IS NOT WRITTEN UP BY MYSELF.
IT'S WRITTEN UP BY SOMEBODY ELSE, AND THEY HAPPENED AT TWO DIFFERENT TIMES.
SO THERE WAS A LITTLE CONFUSION IN THERE.
AND BECAUSE OF THE TIME DIFFERENCE, WHAT ARE THE SIGNATURES ON THE BOTTOM OF THAT PRICE AGREEMENT? IT LOOKS LIKE A, UM, COMPUTER, UM, SIGNATURE FOR MS. METER.
THERE'S, THERE SHOULD BE ANOTHER SIGNATURE AS WELL.
THERE ISN'T TO HER SUPERVISOR, THE DISTRICT MANAGER DID NOT SIGN IT.
SO IN TERMS OF THE TIMEFRAME, IT SAYS NO.
SO LET ME, SO YES, ON THE PRICE AGREEMENT, YES, THERE'S, IT SAYS PREPARED BY THEUS METER, AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER SIGNATURE BELOW.
I I JUST WANNA GO BACK TO MY QUESTION THOUGH.
SO THERE WERE, WHAT THE, WHAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SAID IS THAT THE BID WAS FOR, AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS A BIG DEAL, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
THEY SAID EARLIER THAT IT ENDED UP BEING A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN THAT.
I WROTE DOWN, I DON'T HAVE IT ON HERE, BUT SOMEWHERE IN THE 200.
SO I GUESS MY, LET ME JUST BREAK IT DOWN THIS WAY.
SO WHAT, TWO 30? SO MR. SMITH, IS THAT CORRECT THAT IT ULTIMATELY, IT DIDN'T TAKE 360 YARDS, BUT IT WAS ONLY 200? IS THAT RIGHT? IF, IF, IF THAT'S WHAT'S REFLECT IN THERE.
I I CANNOT RECANT THE, THE, THE EXACT DETAILS RIGHT NOW, BUT IF THAT, IF THAT'S WHAT IT'S SAYING, I'M, I, I WOULD ASSUME THAT'S TO BE TRUE.
AND THEN IN YOUR, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, IS IT, UH, IS IT THE CASE THAT THE ACTUAL FABRIC LAYER, IF YOU DON'T KNOW, THAT'S FINE, BUT IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, IS THE FILTER FABRIC LAYER FREQUENTLY PRICED OUT SEPARATELY FROM THE UNDERLYING FIBER, OR IS THAT OFTEN INCLUDED IN THE FIBER COST? IT, IT CAN GO BOTH WAYS.
IF IT'S A, A BRAND NEW INSTALL, YOU CAN SEE IT IN THERE.
UM, AND IF IT'S A REPLACEMENT, YOU MAY NOT, BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN, THAT, THAT FILTER FABRIC, THEY, THEY'LL, AS THEY STATED, THE THE FIVE BAR GOES ON TOP OF THE FILTER FABRIC.
SO IF IT'S A REPLACEMENT, AND A LOT OF TIMES THEY'LL JUST TAKE OUT THE OLD FIVE BAR AND PUT DOWN NEW, UM, IF THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF DAMAGE AND IT NEEDED SOME REPLACEMENT, MAYBE 'CAUSE THE COMPANY DID IT, THEY WERE WILLING TO DO SO.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
UM, AT THIS POINT WE'LL HAVE CLOSING STATEMENTS.
UH, WE'LL START WITH, UH, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
DO YOU HAVE A CLOSING STATEMENT, MR. UH, INSPECTOR GENERAL WITH RESPECT TO THE DELIBERATIONS ON PHASE TWO?
[00:55:06]
YES.UH, REGARDING, UM, SANCTIONS, UH, AGAIN, WE ASK YOU TO SUBSTANTIATE THE, UH, VIOLATIONS ON THE TWO ETHICS CHARGES THAT, UH, DAVID SMITH PLEADED TRUE TO.
AND AS FAR AS SANCTIONS WOULD GO FOR CURRENT CITY EMPLOYEES.
THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, UH, RECOMMENDS REFERRAL TO ETHICS TRAINING.
I'M SORRY, ETHICS TRAINING IS WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS? YES.
UH, MRS. SMITH, UH, YOU, YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A CLOSING STATEMENT AT THIS POINT IN REGARDS TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
UH, I, I WELCOME IT AND, UH, AND I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO, TO, UH, TAKE ON THAT TRAINING AND SHARE THAT ADDITIONAL TRAINING WITH, UH, THE STAFF THAT I WORK WITH AS WELL.
'CAUSE THERE'S ALWAYS OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, CLOSE UP GAPS AND, UH, ENSURE THAT WE'RE PROVIDING BETTER SERVICE.
THE HEARING WILL, UH, NOW PROCEED TO A MR. UH, IG.
DO YOU HAVE A REBUTTAL TO MR. SMITH'S COMMENTS? NO REBUTTAL.
MR. CHAIRMAN? I DO HAVE A QUESTION.
MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL, I NOTICED IN THE CODE, IF WE ARE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF REFERRAL TO ETHICS TRAINING, UM, WE ARE TO ALSO RECOMMEND THE MANNER AND QUANTITY OF TRAINING.
DOES THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HAVE A, A RECOMMENDATION AS TO WHAT SORT OF TRAINING AND HOW MUCH? I THINK IT WOULD BE, UH, ONE TO TWO HOUR TRAINING, SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED BY OUR CHIEF INTEGRITY OFFICER TO ADDRESS THIS SITUATION AND THE SPECIFICS THAT WERE LAID OUT AND THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED.
I THINK WE, IF THERE ARE NO MORE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, I THINK PHASE TWO, UH, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PHASE TWO HEARING, AND AT THIS POINT THE PANEL, UH, ARE THERE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A SANCTION THAT, UH, ANY MEMBER OF THE PANEL HAS AT THIS POINT? I HAVE ONE, ONE MORE QUESTION.
IS THIS, UM, AND THIS IS I GUESS FOR LAURA, FOR US, IF WE DO WHAT EVERYONE'S SUGGESTING, DOES IT, IS IT STILL, UH, HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL? NO.
FOR CURRENT EMPLOYEES, IT DOES NOT GO TO CITY COUNCIL.
OKAY, THEN, THEN I WOULD, I WOULD RECOMMEND A COURSE THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT EVERYBODY HAS LARGELY AGREED TO, WHICH IS A REFERRAL.
I WOULD MOVE FOR THE, I WOULD MOVE FOR THE SANCTIONING PERSON TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERSONNEL RULES.
AND I FURTHER MOVE TO IMPOSE THE FOLLOWING SANCTION, WHICH WOULD BE REFERRAL TO ETHICS TRAINING ONE TO TWO HOURS VIA THE CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER.
AND, UH, WHICH WAS LARGELY AGREED TO BY BOTH, BOTH MR. SMITH AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? UH, MOTION A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED SANCTION? UH, I WONDER HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE TO, UH, PREPARE FOR THAT SANCTION, PREPARE FOR THAT, THOSE SESSIONS, AND WHETHER WE GET ANY FEEDBACK FROM THAT.
I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR MS. MORRISON.
UH, I BELIEVE DAVID SMITH'S DIRECT SUPERVISOR WOULD BE THE PERSON TO DECIDE WHAT'S ACTUALLY GONNA HAPPEN.
UH, I DON'T KNOW IF, I GUESS MS. MORRISON COULD ADDRESS THAT.
ARE YOU ASKING IF THE EAC WILL RECEIVE ANY INFORMATION ON WHAT THE, UM, ON WHAT THE, WHAT DISCIPLINARY ACTION THE DIRECTOR MIGHT TAKE, OR? UH, NOT NECESSARILY.
I JUST WANT, UH, SOME FEEDBACK THAT IT'S BEEN COMPLETED WHEN IT WAS COMPLETED.
[01:00:01]
IG COULD ADD THAT TO HIS REPORT IF YOU REQUEST HIM TOO.THERE'S A, A MOTION ON THE TABLE THAT'S BEEN SECONDED.
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
SO I'LL BE PREPARING THE FINDINGS SHEET FOR EACH MEMBER TO SIGN.
UH, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE WE CONCLUDE TODAY'S HEARING? I WOULD JUST SAY IS I DO, I MEAN, I APPRECIATE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BRINGING THIS TO OUR ATTENTION.
I ALSO APPRECIATE MR. SMITH TAKING ACCOUNTABILITY.
I'M NOT CONDONING WHAT HE DID, UM, BUT I DO APPRECIATE HIM TAKING, TAKING RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE SETTING.
MR. CHAIRMAN, DID, DID YOU GUYS SUBSTANTIATE THAT HE WAS IN VIOLATION OF BOTH CHARGES? YEAH, HE PLEDGE TRUE.
TO EACH ONE OF THE ALLEGATIONS, DID YOU FIND THAT IT WAS TRUE AFTER HE PLED TRUE? THE PANEL DOESN'T NEED TO DO THAT.
I SECOND WHAT MR. SCHMIDT SAID.
UH, I, I, I WANNA SAY I AGREE WITH THAT TOO.
I, I REALLY DO APPRECIATE, UH, MR. SMITH'S HONESTY AND, UH, IN DEALING WITH THIS PROBLEM AND COOPERATING WITH YOUR OFFICE.
AND, UM, I, I, I THINK WITH THAT, I THINK OUR WORK HERE IS DONE.
UH, SO AT THIS, IT IS 10:37 AM AND TODAY'S HEARING IS NOW IN CONCLUDED, UH, UH, UH, AND WE NOW ADJOURN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONERS AND UH, UH, STAFF.