* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:01] HI, GOOD MORNING. IT IS, [Ethics Advisory Commission Working Group Meeting on March 3, 2026.] UH, 9 0 4. YEAH, 9 0 4 ON MARCH 3RD, THE MEETING OF THE EAC CODE OF ETHICS WORKING GROUP WILL NOW COME TO ORDER. UM, I'LL TAKE A QUICK ATTENDANCE, UH, MR. VIAL HERE. UH, MR. SCHMIDT? I'M HERE. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. AND MS. STOVALL? I'M HERE. GRANT. CAN, UH, MR. UH, SMID, CAN YOU TURN YOUR CAMERA? YES, I AM. I, I WILL TELL YOU THAT I'M, I'M IN MY CAR, BUT I WILL, HOLD ON A SECOND HERE. . HOLD ON ONE SECOND. I'M, I'M NOT, I'M NOT DRIVING. SO LET ME JUST, GOOD JUST GETTING READY TO ASK THAT QUESTION. OKAY. MR. SCHMIDT, I THINK THAT WE CAN PROCEED BECAUSE WE HAVE A QUORUM, UH, BUT YOU CANNOT YET PARTICIPATE UNTIL YOUR CAMERA IS UP AND RUNNING. ARE WE OKAY WITH THAT? IS THAT OKAY, MR. SCHMIDT? NO. OKAY. SO WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED. THANK YOU ALL FOR ATTENDING TODAY'S, UH, MEETING. THANK YOU, MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR MAKING THE CHANGES THAT WE DISCUSSED AT OUR LAST, UH, UH, MEETING. AND WE CAN JUST START GOING THROUGH THEM AND SEE HOW MANY ADDITIONAL CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE, IF ANY, BEFORE WE CAN THEN PROCEED TO THE NEXT PART OF THIS PROCESS, WHICH IS TO MAKE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE FULL ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION, OR THE CHANCE THE WORKING GROUP AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ENTIRE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION, AND THEN MOVE ON TO, UH, MAKING THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS TO BOTH CITY COUNCIL. OKAY? ALL RIGHT. UH, TO UPDATE THE WORKING GROUP ON, ON CURRENT PROGRESS ON THINGS. OF COURSE, YOU RECEIVED THE UPDATE FROM OUR LAST MEETING, NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, UH, PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT HAS BEGUN AS OF LAST FRIDAY. WE HAD OUR FIRST OF THREE VIRTUAL TOWN HALLS. UM, I HAVE, UH, NINE RESPONSES SO FAR, WHICH ISN'T BAD BECAUSE THE FIRST TOWN HALL ONLY HAD A DAY'S NOTICE . SO, UH, I'VE GOT THOSE RESULTS AND, UM, I WILL EMAIL THEM, UH, DURING THE MEETING HERE OR RIGHT AFTER TO MR. SCHMIDT AND MS. STOVALL, UH, SO THAT YOU HAVE THOSE, AND YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE PUBLIC IS SAYING. UH, ADDITIONALLY, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TIMM WILLIS HAS, UH, ASKED COUNCIL MEMBERS TO BEGIN MAKING THEIR SUGGESTIONS. AND SO ALL OF THIS SHOULD WRAP UP IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS OR SO. UH, AND OF COURSE, COUNCIL IS GONNA, AFTER THIS WEDNESDAY, [00:05:01] WILL BE OUT FOR TWO WEEKS. UM, SO THAT'S GONNA GIVE US THE LEEWAY TO, TO TAKE THE NEXT PHASE AFTER WE'RE CONCLUDED WITH, UH, CONSIDERING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. UM, AND THEN WE'LL BE SET UP IF THERE ARE ANY SUGGESTIONS TO, TO INCLUDE THOSE. BUT FOR TODAY, WHAT I DID IS I, I, UH, REORGANIZED THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE WORKED OFF LAST TIME. UH, I TOOK EVERYTHING THAT WE DECIDED NOT TO CONTINUE CONSIDERING, MOVE THAT TO THE VERY END. I TOOK EVERYTHING THAT WE DECIDED, UH, BY ACCLIMATION, SO TO SPEAK, THAT WE WERE PREPARED TO, UH, SAY YES AND, AND PUSH ON TO THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION AND ITS OWN SECTION AT THE END. AND THEN I LEFT THE REST, UH, FOR US TO CONSIDER. AFTER I SENT THIS TO YOU, I, I REALIZED THAT I HAD, UH, EXCLUDED ONE POINT THERE. THERE WAS ONE ISSUE THAT WE WERE NOT GONNA CONSIDER ANYMORE, BUT RELATED TO THAT, THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT I, I THINK YOU ALL CAN AGREE TO, RATHER THAN GET CONFUSING AND SENDING YOU A WHOLE NOTHER ONE AND, AND WONDERING WHO HAD DONE WHAT WORK. I'LL JUST GO THROUGH THAT ONE, UH, TODAY. SO THE PAGE NUMBERS THAT YOU'LL SEE ON MY SCREEN WILL BE OFF BY ONE PAGE COMPARED TO, UH, WHAT I SENT YOU ALL. UM, AND THAT ONE I PUT UP FIRST IN A, IN A CATEGORY OF NEW, UM, SO I'M TURNING NOW ON MY SCREEN TO THAT IS, UH, MS. AUGH AND MR. SPIT. CAN YOU SEE THAT? OKAY? IS THAT BIG ENOUGH? I CAN'T SEE IT YET. UM, OKAY. MAYBE, MAYBE I DON'T SEE, IT MAY NOT BE SHARING. LET ME OPEN BACK UP. I THOUGHT I WAS SHARING THIS PAGE. IS THIS WHAT YOU E THIS IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU EMAILED US. IT'S ONLY DIFFERENT BY ONE PAGE. OKAY. I ADDED PAGE THAT PRINTED OUT WHAT YOU YES. WHAT YOU EMAILED US. YEAH. NOW, NOW IS IT SHARING? YES. OKAY, GOOD. SO, UM, THIS FIRST ONE IS WAY DOWN IN THE CODE IN 12 A 47, AND IT 12 A 47 OUTLINES POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL. AND IF YOU RECALL FROM THE LAST TIME, UH, I HAD A RECOMMENDATION TO ADD TO THE CODE OF ETHICS, THE OBLIGATIONS THAT WOULD BEFALL A DEPARTMENT IF, UH, THEY RECEIVED A MANAGEMENT ADVISORY. WE DECIDED, UH, WE DIDN'T WANT TO TURN THOSE OBLIGATIONS INTO A VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF ETHICS, AND SO WE PUSHED IT OUT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS. WHAT I FORGOT WAS, UH, IMPORTANT, AND THAT IS JUST TO ADD TO THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF AN INSPECTOR GENERAL, THE ABILITY TO WRITE THESE REPORTS SO THAT IT, IT CAN NEVER BE QUESTIONED THAT THAT'S A PART OF WHAT THE, UH, INSPECTOR GENERAL CAN DO. AND SO, I'LL SCROLL DOWN HERE, AND IF YOU NEED ME TO SCROLL BACK UP, UH, THAT'S FINE. BUT HERE'S THE RECOMMENDATION, UH, WHICH IS TO ADD A NEW SUBSECTION NINE THAT WOULD SAY, UH, THIS IS A, THIS IS A LIST OF POWERS AND DUTIES. THIS WOULD BE THE LAST ONE TO ISSUE REPORTS INVOLVING ETHICS, FRAUD, WASTE, ABUSE, AND CORRUPTION OF CITY OFFICIALS, CITY EMPLOYEES, LOBBYISTS, AND PERSONS DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY, PARTICULARLY IN CASES OF IMMINENT HARM TO PERSONS OR CITY RESOURCES. SO, I'LL PAUSE FOR A MOMENT AND FOR, UH, QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL? I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION. SO FOR THESE, SOME OF THESE REPORTS, I GUESS AS I WERE DEFINING THEM, ARE, GIVEN THAT WE'RE UNDER THE LEGAL COUNSEL ARTICLE, ARE SOME OF THESE REPORTS GOING TO BE CONFIDENTIAL SLASH WOULD ANY OF THEM BE PRIVILEGED BEFORE THEY WOULD WANT, OR WOULD WE WANT ANY OF THEM TO BE PRIVILEGED BEFORE THEY'RE GOING TO BE USED BY THE CITY? THAT, THAT IS A, A PRESCIENT QUESTION BECAUSE, UH, THERE IS A CIRCUMSTANCE LIKE THAT RIGHT NOW. AND SO THE ANSWER'S YES, AND THAT WOULD NOT TYPICALLY BE, LET ME, I'LL JUST REMIND YOU GUYS. UH, THERE'S TWO TYPES OF REPORTS THAT, UH, HAVE BEEN DEVISED. THE FIRST ONE, UH, IS THE ONE [00:10:01] THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THE NEED FOR CONFIDENTIALITY FROM TIME TO TIME. AND THAT IS THE MANAGEMENT ALERT, WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO ADDRESS IMMINENT HARM TO PEOPLE OR RESOURCES. AND, UH, THERE, THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THAT NEEDS TO BE KEPT QUIET SO THAT, UH, THE RIGHT STEPS CAN BE TAKEN TO PREVENT THE LOSS. THE OTHER ONE IS A MANAGEMENT ADVISORY THAT IS MUCH, UH, MORE SIMILAR TO AN AUDIT. IT'S JUST, UH, UH, A NARROWER THING BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE THE CASE WHERE IN AN INVESTIGATION WE FOUND A PARTICULAR, YOU KNOW, GAP. WE'RE NOT AUDITING A WHOLE DEPARTMENT. WE JUST, WE FOUND A GAP. WE'RE LETTING MANAGEMENT KNOW IN A FORMAL WAY BECAUSE IT'S, UH, UH, A BIGGER RISK TO THE CITY. BUT THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY NEED TO BE. BUT THE ALERTS, UH, I THINK OFTEN THE, THE RELEASE OF THOSE WOULD BE DELAYED BECAUSE OF THE ISSUE YOU BROUGHT UP. SO THE REPORTS THAT ARE REFERENCED IN 12 A 47, YOU WOULD CONSIDER THOSE PRIVILEGED AFTER A REVIEW BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, OR WHAT, WHAT'S YOUR, SO THE MAN, SO, UH, THIS IS GOOD DISCUSSION. THE MANAGEMENT ADVISORIES, UH, THE, THE MAIN THRUST OF THOSE IS TRANSPARENCY. AND SO THE IDEA BEHIND THOSE IS NOT PRIVILEGED, NOT PRIVILEGED. HOWEVER, I, I LITERALLY RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE TWO CIRCUMSTANCES ONGOING, UH, THAT ARE ALERT TYPE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT REALLY DON'T NEED TO BE, UH, PUBLIC RIGHT NOW UNLESS, UH, IT'S REQUIRED BY LAW. AND I, I THINK THAT, SO THAT'S, THAT'S GONNA BE A REAL ISSUE. THE THING, THE THING THAT I WAS THINKING THROUGH, AND, AND YOU GUYS WILL BE ABLE TO, THIS MIGHT BE A MOOT POINT, BUT FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE, WE WANT MEMBERS OF THE, WE WANT FOLKS AT THE CITY TO BE ENCOURAGED TO REACH OUT TO THE OIG, RIGHT? AND ASK FOR CERTAIN, HEY, IS THIS OKAY? I, I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS, OR FOR THE ADVISORY OPINION TYPE OF SITUATIONS. AND THEN, SO I WAS JUST THINKING THROUGH, I JUST DIDN'T WANT THERE TO BE SOME TYPE OF FOOTFALL WHERE SOMEBODY ASKS FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION AND THEN ARGUABLY IT FALLS UNDER THESE TYPES OF REPORTS, BECAUSE MAYBE THERE, THE, THE OPINION IS THAT WOULD BE WASTEFUL, THAT COULD BE PERCEIVED AS FRAUD, AND THEN THEY DON'T DO IT. AND THEN DOES THAT DISINCENTIVIZE FOLKS, DOES THE ISSUANCE OF THOSE REPORTS THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN AN ADVISORY OPINION DISINCENTIVIZED, BUT MAYBE THIS IS COMPLETELY SEPARATE, AND THAT CONCERN IS, IS MOOT. THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I WANTED TO RAISE IT. AND, AND IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT WHAT THE AMENDMENT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS SIMPLY GIVING YOU THE POWER TO ISSUE REPORTS. THEN THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TYPE OF REPORT AND THE PRIVILEGE, ET CETERA, IS REALLY SOMEWHERE ELSE. IT'S NOT REALLY PART OF THIS RECOMMENDATION. IT'S PART OF WHEREVER THE LANGUAGE WOULD BE FOUND OF MANAGEMENT, ADVISORY, MANAGEMENT ALERT, ET CETERA. SO IF WE AGREE TO ADD THIS LANGUAGE, ALL WE'VE DONE IS PROVIDE YOU THE, THE POWER TO ISSUE REPORTS, HOW YOU DO IT, AND ALL THE REST IS MANDATED OR, OR COVERED BY WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, LANGUAGE REVOLVES AROUND THESE ADVISORIES AND REPORTS. IS THAT FAIR? I THINK IT'S FAIR. AND, AND, AND I THINK WHAT, AND I SEEK THE, THE HELP OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, BUT I THINK THAT THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF IT IS REALLY GONNA BE GOVERNED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION. WELL, NONE OF THESE REPORTS WILL HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ADVISORY OPINIONS BECAUSE THOSE COME OUT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THOSE WON'T BE COMING OUT OF THE OIG, SO THAT WON'T BE ANY PART OF THIS REPORT. PERFECT. PERFECT. THEN THAT, YEAH, THAT, THAT MUTES MY CONCERN THEN. OH, OKAY. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THEN WE CAN MOVE ON TO, OKAY, NUMBER NEXT. SO THIS IS, UH, WHAT IS ON PAGE TWO OF THE THINGS THAT TOM, TOM, UH, YES. I JUST HAVE, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS AT ALL. I'M JUST, I'M A LITTLE CURIOUS. UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT SPECIFIES IMMINENT RISK. AND THE EXAMPLE IS, UM, ALERTING COUNCIL THAT A VENDOR UP FOR RENEWAL HAS ISSUED FRAUDULENT INVOICES, ET CETERA. SO I'M ASSUMING THAT, UM, LOGISTICALLY, LIKE I WOULD ASSUME IF THERE IS A VENDOR ISSUING FRAUDULENT INVOICES THAT SHOULD GO THROUGH THE OIG. SO IS [00:15:01] THIS EXAMPLE LIKE A LOGISTIC THING? BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH TIME TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS? I'M, I'M JUST CURIOUS. IT'S A GOOD, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. AND, AND THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. SO CIRCUMSTANCES ARISE THROUGH THE COURSE OF INVESTIGATION, UH, OR WELL, JUST THROUGH THE COURSE OF INVESTIGATION THAT WE ARE AWARE OF THINGS THAT ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND, AND IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROCESS. AND THEN, AS AN EXAMPLE, LET'S SUPPOSE THAT WE'RE AWARE OF A VENDOR ISSUING FRAUDULENT INVOICES TO THE CITY. AND, AND WE HAVE SENT THAT TO THE DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, JUST, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE. AND, UH, THEN WE FIND OUT THAT THE CITY'S ABOUT TO PAY THE VENDOR, UH, YOU KNOW, HALF A MILLION DOLLARS OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS. UH, AND, AND THEY HAVE NO IDEA BECAUSE THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF INVESTIGATIONS AND, AND WHAT THEY HAVE NO IDEA THAT THE VENDOR HAS BEEN DOING THIS, UH, IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE. WE NEED A WAY TO, TO, TO TELL THEM. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS DOES. AND, AND THEN SOMETIMES THAT WILL HAPPEN IN, IN ONE OF TWO SITUATIONS. AND ONE SITUATION IS THOROUGHLY VETTED. WE'VE DONE INVESTIGATION AND GOTTEN PRETTY DEEP INTO THE INVESTIGATION AND WE CAN LITERALLY COULD PROVE UP IN A COURT OF LAW IF WE NEEDED TO, THAT THE FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY OCCURRED. BUT THERE WILL BE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT'S, IT, THERE'S A LOT OF SMOKE, BUT WE CAN'T PROVE IT UP IN A COURT OF LAW, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO DO A LONG INVESTIGATION. AND LEADERSHIP IN THE CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S SMOKE OUT THERE THAT THEY CAN'T SEE YET. SO IT'S, IT'S BOTH THOSE SITUATIONS AND THEN THEY, OKAY, THANK YOU. AND THEN THEY, THEY MAKE THEIR DECISIONS, UH, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, AT LEAST THEY'RE INFORMED DECISIONS AND STILL, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YES, IT DOES. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. OKAY. SO THE NEXT ONE IS, UH, TO, THAT GOES BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE CODE AND STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR, STANDARDS OF CIVILITY. AND THIS ONE WOULD I NEED TO, UH, JUST PA TAKE A PASS ON TODAY? UH, THE CONTEXT OF THAT IS I NEED TO GET TIME WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY WANNA HANDLE THIS. 'CAUSE THE MAIN THRUST OF THIS IS, UH, TO SLIDE 1284. CIVILITY PROCESS HAS TO DO WITH THE INTERACTION BETWEEN CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES FROM THE CITY MANAGER TO ACMS. AND THAT'S REALLY UP TO THE CITY MANAGER. AND WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON, UH, GETTING READY FOR SPRING BREAK, WE JUST HAVEN'T HAD A, UH, A, A CHANCE TO MEET ON THIS. SO, UH, I CAN'T, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING NEW TO OFFER THIS GROUP ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE TODAY. UH, BUT SHE'S AWARE THAT WE NEED TO MEET AND WE MAYBE WE'LL GET A, A BREAK, YOU KNOW, DURING SPRING BREAK TO SPEAK. ALRIGHT. UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT OR DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. WE'LL COME BACK TO, UH, AT, UH, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S DIRECTION. OKAY. NOW WE'RE AT NUMBER THREE 12 A 18. IT'S ON WHICH DEALS WITH REPRESENTATION. WE HAVE TWO, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO THAT ONE. THIS IS THE FIRST, UH, THE CONTEXT OF THIS IS, UH, WHAT KIND OF DISCLOSURE NEEDS TO BE MADE, UM, IN A PUBLIC SETTING WHEN, UH, A CITY OFFICIAL IS REPRESENTING, UH, ANOTHER ENTITY OR A PERSON BEFORE THE CITY. AND THIS WOULD REQUIRE THAT THEY, UH, DISCLOSE UPFRONT THEIR TITLE AND ROLE WITH THE CITY. UM, AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE NUT OF IT. IT'S A TRANSPARENCY BASED RECOMMENDATION. UH, THERE, I'VE SCROLLED UP TO SOME LANGUAGE THAT I THINK MIGHT WORK, UH, READS EACH CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE WHO ENGAGES IN REPRESENTATION OF PRIVATE INTERESTS BEFORE THE CITY SHALL ORALLY IDENTIFY HIMSELF OR HERSELF WITH ANY CLIENT HE OR SHE REPRESENTS BEFORE BEGINNING THE REPRESENTATION. AND I THINK THAT WAS IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE ISSUES ABOUT THE OR PEOPLE TO SPEAKING PUBLIC ABOUT MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN. THIS JUST MAKES SURE THAT BEFORE THOSE COMMENTS ARE MADE, THAT THEY DISCLOSE THAT THERE ARE SOME REPRESENTATION ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR COMPETENCE. YES, SIR. AND, AND THE ONLY THING I MIGHT ADD [00:20:02] IS IDENTIFY HIMSELF OR HERSELF SEEM, I MEAN, THAT COULD BE TAKEN AS JUST SAYING, IM JUST AL OR SO AND SO, AS OPPOSED TO INCLUDING IF APPLICABLE, IDENTIFYING ANY ROLE OR TITLE THEY HOLD IN THE CITY. SOMETHING OF THAT SORT. 'CAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO DO, RIGHT? YOU DON'T WANT 'EM TO SAY THEIR NAME. YOU WANT 'EM TO, TO CLARIFY, I'M SO AND SO OF THIS ROLE. SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO ADD A LITTLE BIT TO THEIR IDENTIFY HIMSELF OR HERSELF, INCLUDING IF APPLICABLE, YOU KNOW, ANY ROLE OR TITLE. THEY, THAT'S, THAT'S GOOD. YEAH, THAT'S THAT OKAY WITH YOU. I DID, I I JUST ADDED IT ON MY NOTES AND IT, EXCEPT ON THE SCREEN, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE NEEDED. YEAH. OKAY. VERY GOOD. ALRIGHT. UM, I HAVE, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. UM, WHY IS THIS LIMITED TO ORALLY? I MEAN, IS THIS, THERE'S NO SITUATION WHERE THERE WOULD BE A WRITTEN REPRESENTATION? THAT'S A, THAT'S A GREAT OBSERVATION. AND IF, UH, THERE'S NO REASON WHY WE COULDN'T. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LOBBYING SECTION OF THE CODE, IT HAS A SECTION SPECIFIC TO IDENTIFICATION OF CLIENTS, AND IT DOES GO THROUGH OTHER FORMS OF REPRESENTATION WRITTEN IN ORAL, AND, UH, I FORGOT THE THIRD. I CAN LOOK IT UP, BUT, BUT I COULD AMEND THIS TO INCLUDE THOSE. AND, UH, GIMME A SECOND AND I'LL, I CAN READ TO YOU, UH, LOBBYING IDENTIFICATION OF CLIENTS READS. UM, IT READS IT'S 12 A 36. IT AND OF COURSE THIS IS IN RELATIONSHIP TO LOBBYING, BUT, UH, THE FIRST ONE A IS APPEARANCES. THE SECOND ONE IS, UH, AND THAT'S COMING BEFORE THE CITY AND OFFICIAL MEETINGS. THE SECOND ONE IS ORAL LOBBYING CONTACTS WHERE IT'S JUST IN THE HALLWAY. AND THE THIRD IS WRITTEN LOBBYING CONTACTS. SO I, I, I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA TO EXPAND, UH, IF THAT'S WHAT, UH, WHAT YOU ALL THINK. SO WHAT THAT MEANS THAT A PERSON WHO IS SPEAKING FOR A, A CITY MEETING CITY BODY WOULD NOT ONLY HAVE TO ORALLY FIND THEIR ROLE OR, OR, UH, DISCLOSE THEIR ROLE, BUT ALSO DO IT IN PERSON WHEN THEY, I MEAN, IN WRITING, WHEN THEY APPEAR BEFORE THE PUBLIC BODY. SO THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE RIGHT NOW THAT REQUIRES REGISTRATION, AND THAT'S, THAT IS A REQUIREMENT, UM, FOR LOBBYISTS. THERE'S NO REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT. AND THE WAY THAT IT READS IN THE LOBBYING SECTION IS THAT IT'S SOMETHING LIKE, UH, YOU KNOW, SIGN ON TO SOME, UH, I FORGOT THE LANGUAGE. IT'S INTERESTING, UH, SIGN UP ON IT, ANY SIGN UP SHEET THAT'S THERE. BUT THERE, THERE IS NOTHING RIGHT NOW THAT REQUIRES, UH, REGISTRATION OF THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE LIKE YOU HAVE TO DO IF YOU ARE A, A LOBBYIST OVER THREE AND RECEIVING OVER $300 OF COMPENSATION, AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT REQUIRES THEM TO SIGN UP RIGHT NOW, THOSE ARE TWO CONDITIONS THAT FIT LOBBYING, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY. I THINK THE POINT WAS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF AN ORAL DISCUSSION, YOU WOULD HAVE TO ORALLY DISCLOSE WHO YOU ARE. BUT IF YOUR COMMUNICATION WITH THE CITY WAS IN ANOTHER FORM, SAYING A LETTER OR SOMETHING OF THE SORT, WOULD THAT LOBBYIST ALSO HAVE TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS THEIR CITY TITLE AND ROLE? IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE INTENDING TO SAY? MY QUESTION WAS SIMPLY NOT NEEDING TO, TO REGISTER IF YOU'RE ONLY SPEAKING, BUT IF YOU'RE REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN A WRITTEN FORM, THAT'S NOT ORAL. SHOULD YOU NOT ALSO HAVE TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS YOUR, WHAT YOUR ROLE IS IF YOU'RE A CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE, IF THAT, AM I MAKING SENSE? YES. YEAH. AND, AND I AGREE FULLY. IF IT'S AN ORAL REPRESENTATION, THEN YOU HAVE TO DISCLOSE BEFORE YOU SPEAK WHAT YOUR ROLE IS. IF IT IS A WRITTEN COMMUNICATION, THAT DISCLOSURE HAS TO ACCOMPANY OR PREFACE THAT WRITTEN COMMUNICATION. ARE, ARE WE ON THE SAME PAGE ON THAT? I, I AGREE. YES. YES. SO, SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS REFINE THIS TO, UH, ALIGN MORE CLOSELY WITH IDENTIFY IDENTIFICATION OF CLIENTS, PART OF, FOR LOBBYING, DO THE SAME KIND OF THING, ACQUIRE DISCLOSURE. I MEAN, YOU COULD, YOU COULD JUST TAKE OUT THE WORD ORALLY AND JUST SAY, SHALL IDENTIFY HIMSELF OR HER SET SELF. [00:25:01] SO THERE'S NOT THAT LIMITATION. I MEAN, I WOULD DEFER TO LAURA WITH REGARD TO ANY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, BUT YEAH, MAYBE BEFORE BEGINNING A VERBAL REPRESENTATION OR CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH A WRITTEN REPRESENTATION. UH, SAY THAT, GO AHEAD. UM, POINT, WELL, YOU ALL WANNA WORDSMITH THAT. I THINK WE, UH, AND I THINK WE ALL WANNA APPRECIATE, I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT AND MAYBE WE CAN INCORPORATE THIS INTO THE WORDING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COVER BOTH OVERALL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS WHERE THERE IS A NECESSITY FOR IDENTIFICATION OF YOUR ROLE. DOES THAT, DOES THAT WORK, MS. STO? YEAH. YES, IT WORKS FOR ME. OKAY. AND THEN I'LL JUST SAY ONE MORE THING ABOUT THIS SECTION IN, UH, PARAGRAPH THREE DOWN BELOW. UM, A ONE THREE PRESTIGE OF OFFICE AND IMPROPER INPUT IN CONNECTION WITH THE REPRESENTATION OF PRIVATE INTEREST FOR THE CITY. THE CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE SHALL NOT ASSERT THE PRESTIGE OF THE CITY OFFICIALS FOR EMPLOYEE'S POSITION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVANCING PRIVATE INTERESTS. I THINK WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT HOW THAT MIGHT PLAN TO, BUT NOW YOU'RE REQUIRED TO BASICALLY ASSERT YOUR POSITION WITH THE CITY. ARE THEY NOW VIOLATING THAT CLAUSE? SO I THINK, UM, BEFORE WE BRING THIS BACK TO THE WORKING GROUP, UM, I THINK JUST INTERNALLY, WE'LL, WE'LL HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT. OKAY. AND IS THAT AN 18 YOU'RE ALSO QUOTING? UH, IT IS, YES. IT'S, UH, UNDER A ONE OR NO, UNDER A THREE PRESTIGE I AND IMPROPER INFLUENCE. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE, WHETHER IT'S ORAL OR WRITTEN, THAT KIND OF DISCLOSURE. IT'S A GREAT POINT. I MEAN, 'CAUSE USUALLY BECAUSE OF THAT, WE WILL OFTEN TELL LIKE BOARD OR COMMISSIONERS WHO WANT TO COME DOWN AND, YOU KNOW, SPEAK TO CITY COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DO THAT. AND WE JUST ASK THEM TO SPEAK IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITY AND NOT ASSERT THEIR ROLE WITH THE CITY. UM, BECAUSE WE FEEL LIKE THAT MIGHT BE ASSERTING THE PRESTIGE OF THEIR OFFICE AND THERE BY LIKE, TRYING TO INFLUENCE UNFAIRLY, UH, THE PEOPLE THEY'RE SPEAKING TO. SO I THINK WE JUST NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT. THAT'S, THAT'S A GREAT POINT BECAUSE REALLY A LOT OF THIS RE UH, THIS RECOMMENDATION CAME OUT OF A MEETING WHERE YOU HAD A CITY OFFICIAL THAT GOT CALLED ON THE CARPET FOR NOT IDENTIFYING THEIR ROLE, BUT AS, AS THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SAYS, MS. MORRISON IS SAYING THERE'S A, THERE'S A SPECIFIC RULE RIGHT HERE ABOUT ASSERTING PRESTIGE. UH, SO WE, I GUESS WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT SOME MORE. YEAH. SO WE NEED TO LIKE, KIND OF PLAY OUT THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS AND MAYBE DO KIND OF A REWRITE OF THIS, SAY WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE TO BE DISCLOSING YOUR OFFICE WITH THE CITY FOR TRANSPARENCY PURPOSES. AND WHEN YOU REALLY SHOULDN'T BE DOING THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE RISKING THIS IMPROPER INFLUENCE BY ASSERTING THE PRESTIGE OF YOUR OFFICE. . WELL, I MEAN, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME TO BE A WAY WEIGH THE, THE GREATER OF THE TWO WORSTS, RIGHT? I MEAN, IS IT, IS IT WORSE THAT THEY IDENTIFY WHO THEY ARE AND THUS UNDULY INFLUENCE WHO THEY'RE COMMUNICATING WITH? OR IS IT WORSE THAT THEY DON'T IDENTIFY WHO THEY ARE AND SOMEHOW, YOU KNOW, THERE'S LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AS TO WHO THEY ARE. IT MAY, YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET BOTH YOU, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEN IT'D BE LIKE, WELL, I MEAN, IT MAY, WE MAY JUST HAVE TO CHOOSE WHICH IS THE LESSER OF THE TWO EVILS AND PICK ONE OR THE OTHER AND, AND KEEP IT THE WAY, EITHER KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS OR FLIP IT AND SAY THEY ALWAYS HAVE TO IDENTIFY IT. YEAH. AND I'D LEAVE IT TO Y'ALL WHO SEE IT MORE OFTEN AND HOW THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY WORK. AND IT, YOU KNOW, IS IT GONNA BE A, A CITY OFFICIAL WITH GREATER INFLUENCE TALKING TO PEOPLE THAT ARE BELOW THEM OR, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD, YOU KNOW, INFLUENCE? OR IS IT, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT, I THINK YOU JUST HAVE TO PICK WHICH ONE'S WORSE OR BETTER. YEAH. PICK WHICH ONE SERVE WHICH ONE DOES MORE ARMY SERVES THE PUBLIC. YEAH. YEAH. PICK WHICH ONE SERVES THE PUBLIC BETTER, OR DECIDE WHICH CIRCUMSTANCES YOU DO ONE AND NOT THE OTHER. WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT. ALRIGHT, WELL, YOU ALL COME BACK WITH ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION [00:30:01] AFTER YOU WORD SMITH, THAT RECOMMENDATION. ALL RIGHT. SEE TO PAGE FIVE. NOW THIS ONE IS, IS, UH, MORE COMPLEX , BUT IT IS, IT IS A PART OF REPRESENTATION, UH, 12 A 18. SO WE'RE IN THE SAME SECTION. UH, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S REALLY JUST MORE COMPLEX. THE, THE, THE RECOMMENDATION IS SIMPLE, BUT THE, UH, SECTION ITSELF IS, IS COMPLEX BECAUSE OF THE, THE, THE MANY WAYS THAT SOMEONE COULD BE, UH, THE DIFFERENT BUCKETS THAT A PERSON COULD FIT INTO IN ORDER TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO WITH THEM, UM, IN TERMS OF REPRESENTATION. BUT, BUT THE IDEA HERE IS, UH, I ALMOST DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO BEGIN, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT REPRESENTATION, IT IMMEDIATELY, UH, SPLITS IT INTO, UH, TWO LARGE CATEGORIES, WHETHER YOU'RE BEING COMPENSATED FOR YOUR REPRESENTATION OR NOT. AND THEN BASED ON WHERE YOU FALL IN THOSE BUCKETS, UH, THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS THAT FOLLOW, AND THE EXCEPTIONS HAVE TO DO WITH WHETHER YOU ARE, UH, ONLY A CITY OFFICIAL BECAUSE YOU'RE APPOINTED, OR IF THE BODY THAT YOU ARE SERVING AND PERHAPS REPRESENTING BEFORE IS, IS ADVISORY AND NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL. UM, AND THEN THERE IS A GAP IN, IN THE SECTION THAT HAS TO, THAT'S CREATED BY THAT. SO, UH, THE RULE IS, IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. IF YOU ARE COMPENSATED, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO COME BEFORE THE CITY, BEFORE THE CITY. THE DEFINITION OF THAT IS, IS IN THERE AND IT'S DEFINED. IT'S, THAT'S VERY BROAD. BASICALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT CITY HALL, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE BEFORE THE CITY IF YOU COME BEFORE A BODY OR A PERSON, EMPLOYEE OR OFFICIAL. BUT WHEN IT BREAKS DOWN TO UNCOMPENSATED, WHAT THIS, UH, ADDRESSES IS, UH, CITY OFFICIALS THAT SERVE ON BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS, BUT IT DOES NOT ADDRESS ALL THE OTHER CITY OFFICIALS LIKE EMPLOYEES, CITY OFFICIALS, WHO ARE EMPLOYEES OR ELECTED. UH, WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE TO SIMPLIFY IT IS GETTING RID OF THE DISTINCTION. SO IT'S TWO PART RECOMMENDATION. NUMBER ONE, GETTING RID OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMPENSATED AND UNCOMPENSATED. UH, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, PRESERVING THE EXISTING EXCEPTIONS FOR CITY OFFICIALS WHO ARE ONLY CITY OFFICIAL BECAUSE THEY'RE APPOINTED OR THIS ISSUE IS BEFORE THEIR BODY AND IT'S ADVISORY IN NATURE. AND WHAT THAT DOES IS IT GETS, IT SOLVES THE GAP. IT SIMPLIFIES THE SECTION, BUT IT RETAINS THE, UH, THE EXCEPTIONS THAT ADDRESS THE REALITY THAT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S HARD TO GET PEOPLE TO SERVE ALREADY. AND IF WE STARTED, UH, PREVENTING THEM FROM REPRESENTING OTHERS, UH, BY NOT KEEPING THOSE TWO EXCEPTIONS, WE, WE, WE MAKE IT EVEN HARDER TO FILL OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. UM, SO I'M GONNA STOP THERE. THAT'S A LOT. AND JUST SEE IF WHAT YOU ALL ARE THINKING, WELL, THERE'S TWO COMMENTS. IF, IF WE DECIDE TO GO DOWN THIS PATH, I THINK YOU NEED TO FURTHER EDIT A ONE A BECAUSE I THINK A CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE SHALL NOT REPRESENT. I THINK YOU'D HAVE TO TAKE OUT FOUR COMPENSATION AND THEN YOU WOULD TAKE OUT THE WHOLE DEFINITION OF COMPENSATION. BECAUSE WHAT'S REALLY SAYING IS ANYBODY, THIS APPLIES TO, AND THEN BELOW, UNDER THE EXCEPTIONS, YOU SEEM TO TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, A PERSON WHO'S APPOINTED. BUT IF YOU'RE TRYING TO WIPE OUT THE COMPENSATION PIECE, I THINK YOU NEED MORE EDITING TO IT. UH, SO, UH, AND YOU ARE CORRECT. AND THAT'S A GOOD CATCH. AND THIS IS ONE OF THE CATCHES AFTER I SENT THIS TO YOU. SO THE, THE RULE UP ON THE SCREEN THAT I'M SHARING HAS THOSE CHANGES IN IT, JUST EXACTLY THE ONES YOU, YOU MENTIONED. OKAY. I DIDN'T SEE, OBVIOUSLY I WAS LOOKING AT THIS. YEAH, THAT'S FINE. THAT THIS IS NO, THAT'S FINE. I, I JUST, JUST LIKE, MINES, I GUESS. SO, SO THE GOAL HERE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT IF YOU'RE MAKING THESE PRESENTATION, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS COMPENSATED OR NOT, THAT THESE DISCLOSURES ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED. WELL, THAT IS THE GOAL OF THE FIRST THING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, RIGHT? AND NOW THE GOAL OF THIS IS TO SIMPLIFY THE CODE BY TAKING OUT THE DISTINCTION OF WHETHER YOU'RE COMPENSATED OR NOT FOR THE REPRESENTATION. AND THAT'S GONNA DO A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE OF THEM IS IT'S GOING TO MAKE THE [00:35:01] CODE EASIER TO UNDERSTAND. AND AGAIN, THIS IS ME. I, I HAVE STRUGGLED WITH THIS. I HAVE TO CHART IT OUT EVERY TIME, . AND SO I THINK IF I HAVE TO DO THAT, IT, IT MAY, IT, IT'S PROBABLY DIFFICULT FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO UNDERSTAND IT, AND THAT THAT MAKES IT EASY FOR SOMEBODY TO BREAK IT, NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, THERE'S A GAP IN IT. IT DOES NOT ADDRESS WHAT ABOUT UNCOMPENSATED REPRESENTATIVES FROM CITY OFFICIALS WHO, UH, WORK FOR THE CITY OR ARE ELECTED? YEAH. SO WHO'S ALSO SAYING YES. SO I GUESS MY ONLY QUESTION, AND I I I HAVEN'T QUITE STUDIED IT ENOUGH TO KNOW, UNDER B IS THERE ANYTHING THAT KIND OF DEFINED THE PERSON AS NOT GETTING COMPENSATION THAT NEEDS TO BE WORDS WITH, TO ACTUALLY BE AN ADDITIONAL EXCEPTION? IN OTHER WORDS, DID, WAS THERE SOMETHING ABOUT THOSE THREE SUBSECTIONS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE PRESERVE SO THAT THE CITY EMPLOYEE CAN DO THAT? OR THE, OR THE, YEAH, AND I DON'T KNOW. I, I, I HAVE TO THINK LONGER THAN I'VE THOUGHT SO FAR, BUT, SO WHAT, WHAT B IS SAYING? REPRESENTATION WITHOUT COMPENSATION. THIS IS FOR MEMBERS RIGHT NOW. IT'S, IT'S OF COURSE JUST FOR MEMBERS OF BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND BODIES. BUT I'M JUST GONNA LAY IT OUT. I'M GONNA SAY IT OUT LOUD AND, AND, UH, TO HELP US ALL, UM, THEY COULDN'T DO REPRESENTATION BEFORE THEIR OWN BOARD. THEY COULDN'T DO IT BEFORE STAFF HAVING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WORK OF THAT BOARD TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS, ET CETERA. THEY COULDN'T DO IT TO A BODY IN THE CITY THAT HAS APPELLATE JURISDICTION OVER THAT BOARD. ALL OF THOSE THINGS, I WILL SAY FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF BEFORE THE CITY. OKAY. AND IF WE MAKE THE CHANGES, UH, THEY WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO DO THAT. BUT THEN THE EXCEPTIONS WILL PICK UP CITY OFFICIALS WHO ARE APPOINTED. THEY'LL STILL BE ABLE TO, TO, UH, DO THAT, BUT NOT BEFORE THEIR BOARD COMMISSIONER BODY. SO THE ONE THING THAT IS MISSING, THIS IS HELPFUL TO SAY IT OUT LOUD, IS THOSE SECOND TWO, UH, WHICH ARE NOT ALLOWING THE, THE REP, THE REPRESENTATION. IT'S, IT'S REALLY TIGHTENING IT DOWN, OKAY. TO SAY YOU NOT ONLY CAN YOU NOT GO BEFORE YOUR BOARD OF COMMISSION, YOU CAN'T GO BEFORE STAFF AND YOU CAN GO BEFORE AN APPELLATE BODY. AND THAT RESTRICTION IS COVERED BY THE BEFORE THE CITY. IT IS. OKAY. AND THEN DO YOU NEED, IS, IS THE DEFINITION THAT'S DOWN BELOW UNDER 12 A THREE? NO, I'M SORRY, 12 A 18 A ONE A. IS THAT USED IN OTHER PLACES AS WELL? WHICH COMPENSATION? 12 A 18. IT'S NOT DEFINED ELSEWHERE IN THE CODE, AND IT, IT'S ONLY DEFINED HERE. WE COULD MOVE THAT TO DEFINITION, BUT I'M NOT SURE. NO, I'M JUST SAYING IF, IF IT'S ONLY DEFINED HERE AND IT'S ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS RULE, DO YOU THEN ELIMINATE THE COMPENSATION DEFINITION? YEAH, LET ME DELETE THAT. OKAY, GOT IT. I JUST DIDN'T SEE THAT. SO THE ONE THING THAT I'M NOT SURE I WAS CLEAR ABOUT IS, UH, SO IF WE PASS THIS AS, AS IT'S EDITED RIGHT NOW, WE PASS IT ALONG, UH, WHAT CHANGES, UH, IN, IN TERMS OF THE QUESTION THAT YOU BROUGHT UP, WHAT ARE WE LOSING? WE'RE WE ARE LOSING THE, HOLD ON, GIMME A MOMENT TO THINK ABOUT THIS. UM, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT YOU BROUGHT UP. SO WE'RE SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T DO ANY REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE CITY, AND THEN THE EXCEPTION IS MAY REPRESENT BEFORE THE CITY, SO LONG AS IT'S NOT BEFORE THE BOARD. SO WHAT'S MISSING IN THIS PARAGRAPH IS THE OTHER LIMITATIONS OF NOT ONLY NOT BEFORE THE BOARD, BUT BEFORE THE STAFF OR, OR A GROUP OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION. SO I CAN ADD THOSE TWO. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE, [00:40:01] IF THERE WAS A GREATER RESTRICTION ON ONE VERSUS THE OTHER, THAT WE DON'T LOSE SOME OF THAT. AND, AND NOW THEY'LL ALL BE ABLE TO DO, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT WE DIDN'T CONTEMPLATE THEM DOING. SO I THINK YOU JUST HAVE TO DIG THROUGH IT AND JUST KINDA WALK THROUGH AND MAKE SURE THAT IT TIES. I, I THINK WE'RE FINE WITH IT CONCEPTUALLY, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE, BECAUSE WE JUST ARE LOPPING OFF THOSE PIECES THAT WE'RE NOT LOSING SOME RESTRICTION OR, OR ALLOWED ACTION AS A RESULT OF IT. I, I THINK TO MAKE IT APP SORT OF APPLES TO APPLES, BUT FOR THE CHANGE IN COMPENSATION AND NEED TO ADD IN B AND C FROM THE SUBSECTION ABOVE SO THAT, UH, A REPRESENTATIVE THAT IS, UH, YOU KNOW, APPOINTED, THEY CAN STILL REPRESENT BEFORE THE CITY, BUT NOT BEFORE THEIR OWN BOARD, NOT BEFORE THE STAFF BOARD, AND NOT BEFORE A BODY WITH APPELLATE JURISDICTION. RIGHT. AND THAT'LL BE APPLES TO APPLES. YEP. OKAY. OKAY. ANY, ANY MORE QUESTIONS? NO, SIR. NOT HERE. ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, MS. STOBO OR MR. SCHMIDT? UH, NO. UH, SO I ASSUME THE NEXT TIME WE DO THIS WE'LL GET A SIMILAR DOCUMENT THAT IS, UM, THIS, THIS, I HAD TROUBLE WITH THIS ON THE VON LANE DOWN FROM DALLAS TO HOUSTON . SO, UM, YEAH, I WOULD, I WOULD JUST, IF YOU'RE GONNA REWORD IT AND THEN LOOK AT IT AGAIN, THAT, THAT WOULD WORK FOR ME. ALL RIGHT. WELL, UH, WE MAY, MAY HAVE TO HAVE ONE MORE OF THESE, AND MAYBE WITH ONE LAST ROUND OF EDITS, MAYBE I'LL WORK WOULD BE DONE. BUT I, I THINK WE LOOK AT THIS WITH THE NEW WORDING, UH, AT OUR NEXT SCHEDULE. I THINK SO BY THEN, IT SHOULD BE PRETTY REFINED AND IT SHOULD BE PRETTY QUICK , SO THEN, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. READY TO MOVE ON. THE NEXT ONE MOVES INTO, UH, LOBBYING. UM, THE LAST TIME, UH, WE, WE, UH, MADE SOME DECISIONS THAT WE WANTED TO TAKE EACH OF THESE EXCEPTIONS TO THE DEFINITION OF LOBBYING, UH, ONE AT A TIME AND NOT TRY TO DO IT, UH, IN A LUMP. AND THEN I WAS ALSO ASKED TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, UH, IN TERMS OF WHAT DOES IT MEAN UNDER THE CODE TO BE A LOBBYIST. SO I'LL WALK THROUGH THOSE PROVISIONS AND THEN WE CAN LOOK AT, UH, THE ONES THAT WE MIGHT PULL, UM, ONE-ON-ONE. AND, AND, AND THIS IS THE, UH, 18 8 29 DEFINITIONS SECTION WE'RE WORKING ON NOW, CORRECT? IS THAT RIGHT? OKAY. JUST WANNA MAKE SURE. ALL RIGHT. GOOD DEAL. WELL, IT'S, IT'S, UH, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT 12 8 18. NOW WE'RE, BUT YOU'RE CORRECT. IT'S 12 8 29, UH, IN THE CODE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THE SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS, CORRECT. OKAY. BUT IT'S, YOU'RE RIGHT. IT'S THE DEFINITION SECTION. YEAH. ALRIGHT. SO THE, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LOBBYISTS, UH, YOU CAN SEE, UH, 12, 8 30, YOU HAVE TO REGISTER, IF YOU RECEIVE $200 OR MORE THOUGHT, IT'S 300, BUT $200 OR MORE, UH, IN A CALENDAR QUARTER FOR REIMBURSEMENT OR COMPENSATION. SO THAT'S THE TRIGGER REQUIRING SOMEONE TO REGISTER. OKAY. WHEN THEY REGISTER. UH, SO IF, IF THEY QUALIFY AS A LOBBYIST, THEY HAVE TO FILE A SEPARATE REGISTRATION FOR EACH CLIENT. A LOT OF PEOPLE ASK IF THEY HAVE TO PAY THAT FEE EVERY TIME. THE ANSWER IS, IS NO. UM, BUT THEY HAVE TO FILE A SEPARATE REGISTRATION FOR EACH CLIENT WITHIN FIVE DAYS FROM LOBBYING, IF IT'S ZONING WITHIN FIVE DAYS, UH, OF THE APPLICATION BEING FILED. THIS RENEWS EVERY YEAR ANNUALLY. AND THERE, OF COURSE, IS THE ONE TIME, THE ONE TIME FEE, UH, ACTIVITY REPORTS. IF YOU ARE A LOBBYIST, YOU HAVE TO MAKE ONE. THEY'RE DUE JANUARY 15TH FOR ALL OF YOUR LOBBYING ACTIVITY IN THE PRIOR CALENDAR YEAR. SO THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT AN ACTIVITY REPORT. UH, THERE ARE RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES, UM, IN TERMS OF LOBBYING, IF YOU ARE A BIDDER OR PROPOSER ON A CITY CONTRACT OR A PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTER. PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTERS HAS A DEFINITION THAT WE COULD, UH, LOOK AT IF, IF YOU WANT. UH, AND THEN FINALLY, THERE'S THE IDENTIFICATION OF CLIENTS SECTION THAT WE HAD MENTIONED BEFORE. SO BEFORE YOU BEGIN YOUR LOBBYING ACTIVITY, WHETHER IT'S [00:45:01] BEFORE A, A BODY IN AN OFFICIAL MEETING, OR ORALLY IN THE HALLWAY OR WRITTEN IN SOME WAY, THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN IF THERE'S AN APPROPRIATE SIGN IN SHEET, THAT'S THE LANGUAGE OF THE CODE, YOU, YOU NEED TO SIGN IN. SO THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU'RE A IF, UH, WHEN YOU'RE LOBBYING, THOSE ARE THINGS YOU HAVE TO DO. THERE IS ANOTHER SECTION I DIDN'T PUT IN THERE. IF, IF YOU DON'T MEET THE DEFINITION OR IF YOU DON'T MEET THAT $200 PER QUARTER, UH, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO REGISTER UNLESS IT'S A, A ZONING CASE. UH, BUT THERE, THERE WOULD BE SOME REPORTS TO HAVE TO BE FILED. THAT TOO, I BELIEVE. BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE GIST OF IT, THAT THAT'S HELPING WITH THIS SUMMARY. YOU UNDERSTAND IF WE START SAYING THESE PEOPLE ARE LOBBYING WHEN WE GO THROUGH THESE SUBSECTIONS, WE'RE SAYING THEY HAVE TO DO ALL THESE THINGS. DO WANNA PAUSE HERE FOR A MINUTE? ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, WITH RESPECT TO, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING IT CORRECTLY, LOBBYISTS HAVE TO DO THE ABOVE THINGS ALREADY, RIGHT? THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S THEIR REQUIREMENT. SO UNLESS IT WOULDN'T, IT WOULDN'T, UNLESS IT, THE ONLY ACTIVITY THAT WOULD QUALIFY THEM TO DO THOSE THINGS ABOVE WERE THE FOUR THINGS THAT WE'RE ELIMINATING. THEY WOULD NOT THEN BE A LOBBYIST BECAUSE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY, BY DEFINITION NOT BE LOBBY. SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS UN IF, IF YOU DON'T, IF, IF ALL YOU DO IS THESE FOUR THINGS, OR I GUESS FIVE THINGS, UM, IN THE PAST YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST. BUT NOW, IF YOU'RE DOING THE SAME EXACT ACTIVITY, BUT IT IS IN THESE FIVE SETTINGS, YOU WILL NOW IN THE FUTURE, HAVE TO REGISTER AS LOBBYISTS. THAT'S IT. OKAY. SO IT'S REALLY NOT A, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT IMPACTING THEIR ABILITY TO APPEAR AT THESE FIVE OCCURRENCES IN ANY WAY, WHAT A FASHION OR, OR WHATEVER. IT JUST SIMPLY MEANS THAT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, REALLY CLARIFY THAT THEY'RE A LOBBYIST IN THAT SETTING. EXACTLY. OKAY. SO GO AHEAD. SO THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO EXCLUDE OR REMOVE THESE EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE CONTAINED IN B FOUR OF THEM. AND WE WERE, WE WERE GONNA TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DO IT AS LONG, IS IT FOUR OR FIVE? BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO THE X DOWN BELOW. OH, YEAH. SORRY, I MISSED IT. FIVE. RIGHT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YES. SO MY SUGGESTION IS TO GO THROUGH THEM AND DISCUSS EACH ONE SEPARATELY, BECAUSE THE GROUP MIGHT DECIDE TO STRIKE SOME OF THESE, BUT NOT ALL OF THEM. SO IT'S NOT LIKE A TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT ALL TYPE OF SITUATIONS. SO, UM, YEAH. SO I THINK A SEPARATE DISCUSSION WITH EACH ONE FOR EACH OF THE FOUR LISTED EXCEPTIONS DOES NOT INCLUDE A COMMUNICATION B UH, FIVE. LET'S SPLIT A FIVE. SO WITH FIVE, UM, THE DEFINITION OF LOBBYING, IT, IT IS NO, ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT CODE. AND SO MY RECOMMENDATION IN, IN EVERY CASE IS TO REMOVE THIS SUBSECTION. THE FIRST SUBSECTION. SUBSECTION IS SAYING IT IS NOT LOBBYING IF, AND I'M JUST GONNA SAY THIS IN A POINTED WAY, IF A LOBBYIST SHOWS UP, IT IS NOT LOBBYING. IF WHAT THEY DO HAPPENS AT A MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC UNDER THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. SO THAT EXCEPTION WILL BE ELIMINATE. YES, SIR. YEAH. AND FROM WHAT WE'VE DONE BEFORE, IF THEY MAKE AN APPEARANCE AT A PUBLIC MEETING, THEY'VE GOTTA DISCLOSE THEIR REPRESENTATION, WHO THEY ARE, AND WHAT INTERESTS THEY REPRESENT. CORRECT. OKAY. BUT UNLESS WE REMOVE THIS, THEY WOULDN'T ACTUALLY BE A LOBBYIST, THEREFORE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THOSE REPRESENTATIONS. CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THAT'S HAPPENING A LOT, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO I'M OKAY WITH US STRIKING FIVE. SAME HERE. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH FIVE? NO CONCERNS? ALL RIGHT. NO, MOVE ON. OKAY. UH, SAME SONG, SECOND VERSE. BUT AT THIS TIME, IT'S, UH, WHEN THE ACTIVITY IS MADE IN A, THE FORM OF A WRITTEN COMMENT THAT'S FILED IN THE COURSE OF A PUBLIC MEETING OR ANY COMMUNICATION THAT IS MADE ON THE RECORD IN A PUBLIC PROCEEDING. SO NOW IT'S, UH, I DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY OF THESE, UH, THE CHAIR PROBABLY DOES. [00:50:02] FORTUNATELY, UH, I I, I CANNOT EXPLAIN ALL OF THE EXCEPTIONS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY WRITTEN INTO THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT IT MAKES SENSE WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW, NOW THAT WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THESE, AND WE HAVE ACCOMPANIED THEM WITH DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS AND ALL OF THESE CONTEXTS FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS. I, I, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A NEED FOR THESE EXCLUSIONS. BUT ANYWAY, I, I, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH STICKS. UH, ANY OTHER CONCERNS, COMMENTS ABOUT WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS VERSUS ORAL CRIMINAL CASES? LOOKS LIKE HEARING, HEARING NONE? YEAH. OKAY. UH, NUMBER SEVEN, UH, MADE IN WRITING AS A PETITION FOR OFFICIAL ACTION AND REQUIRED TO BE A PUBLIC RECORD PURSUANT TO CITY PROCEDURES. I THINK THAT SOME OF THE SAME KIND OF ISSUES WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED AND ADDRESSED WOULD MAKE THIS RECOMMENDATION APPROPRIATE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? REQUEST, UH, QUESTIONS ON SEVEN. I'M OKAY WITH IT. ALL RIGHT. AND EIGHT, THIS IS A SITUATION, UH, WHERE IT, THE, THE ACTIVITY IS MADE IN AN ORAL OR WRITTEN RESPONSE THAT'S NARROWLY TAILORED TO ADDRESS AN ORAL OR WRITTEN REQUEST BY A CITY OFFICIAL FOR INFORMATION. SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR INFORMATION, AND THE, UH, PERSON WHO IS REPRESENTING, WHO IS A LOBBYIST, THEY MAKE A, A RESPONSE THAT'S NARROWLY TAILORED TO ADDRESS THAT QUESTION. I, I AM FULLY IN AGREEMENT. I'M OKAY WITH IT. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER CONCERNS, QUESTIONS ON THAT PROPOSAL? TION? NO, SIR. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. I'M SORRY. DID I MISS SOMEBODY? UH, NO, I, I JUST AGREED. NO, NO PROBLEM. OKAY. I'M SORRY. THE, THE LAST ONE IS THE ACTIVITY IS MADE IN RESPONSE TO A PUBLIC NOTICE THAT'S SOLICITING COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC AND IS DIRECTED TO THE OFFICIAL DESIGNATED IN THE NOTE NOTICE. SO I WOULD ASSUME HERE, LIKE A COUNCIL MEMBER SAYS, HEY, I, I WANNA KNOW WHAT THE PUBLIC THINKS ABOUT X, Y, AND Z. SEND ME YOUR, SEND ME YOUR THOUGHTS. YES. THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH, UH, WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING SO FAR. SO ON PAGE SEVEN, WHAT WE HAVE RESOLVED ALL THE, THE, THE DEFINITIONAL ISSUES, COMPENSATION, AND WHAT REPRESENTATION MEANS ON PAGE SEVEN, THAT IS THE END OF NUMBERS FOUR AND FIVE. RIGHT? AND THEN, UM, ON PAGE EIGHT BEGINS THE, UH, DEFINITION OF LOBBYING, AND THAT'S NUMBER SIX. OKAY. AND THAT ENDS ON PAGE NINE. AND NOW WE MOVE TO PAGE 10 FOR NUMBER SEVEN. UH, IF WE'RE READY, WELL, FOR YOU, IT WOULD BE PAGE NINE DIFFERENT. FORGIVE ME, YOU'VE GOT A DIFFERENT, YEAH, I FORGOT ABOUT MY EXTRA PAGE. OKAY. SO NOW I'M ON PAGE NINE FOR YOU. UH, LEGAL COUNSEL. LEGAL COUNSEL, 12 A 47. UM, THIS IS ONE THAT WE, I REFERRED TO IT AS THE, THE PERMANENT BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE. YOU KNOW, UM, WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE LAST MEETING WAS A COUPLE, A COUPLE OF THINGS, UH, HAVING TO DO WITH NUMBER ONE, THE CITY CHARTER WOULD NEED TO CHANGE IN ORDER TO, TO FULLY INSTITUTE A BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE. WHAT THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE WOULD DO IS IT WOULD, UH, BE A, A BODY, UH, LIKE A BOARD, BOARD COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION, JUST, IT WOULD BE A, AN OVERSIGHT BODY FOR THE IG, AND IT WOULD PROVIDE A BUFFER BETWEEN [00:55:01] THE IG AND CITY COUNCIL. UM, IN TERMS OF THE EVALUATION OF THE IG IN APPOINTMENT AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. I GAVE YOU, UH, THE BEST EXAMPLE I KNOW OF WHERE THIS TAKES PLACE, WHICH IS IN BALTIMORE. UM, I, I DO THINK IT, IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THERE ARE SOME, UH, PRETTY ROBUST PROTECTIONS FOR THE IG IN THE CODE RIGHT NOW. BUT, UM, I WANTED Y'ALL TO BE AWARE OF THIS. I'M, I'M A LITTLE ON THE FENCE ABOUT IT PERSONALLY. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND, I'M NOT PUSHING THIS REAL HARD AT ALL, BUT IF YOU THINK IT'S IT'S WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION, THEN WE CAN TALK FURTHER ABOUT IT. I CAN EXPLAIN MORE ABOUT HOW IT MIGHT WORK. I, I, I HAVE A, A QUESTION, UH, AND, AND MAYBE THIS IS TO STA WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEWING ALL OF THESE ETHICS ISSUES, ETHICS ISSUES, OR APPOINTMENTS OF, UM, I MEAN, 'CAUSE THIS REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING, ANYTHING TO DO WITH ETHICS ISSUES. THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE APPOINTMENT OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. SO YOU ASKING WHICH COUNCIL COMMITTEE, UM, DECIDES LIKE WHAT SEARCH FIRM TO GO FOR AND WHAT KINDS OF RESUMES THEY WANNA SEE WHEN IT COMES TO THESE APPOINTED POSITIONS LIKE THE AUDITOR AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND THE CITY ATTORNEY? YES. SO THAT WOULD BE THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS. OKAY. AND THEY WOULD HAVE NO, THAT COMMITTEE WOULD HAVE NO ROLE IN THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, OR EVALUATION OF THE INSPECTOR. JIM, IS THAT, I GUESS THAT'S MY, WHAT MY QUESTION IS, IF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS, ENDS UP BEING APPROVED, UM, WELL, NO, THE ONLY WAY THIS RECOMMENDATION COULD BE APPROVED IS IF THIS BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE SERVED ONLY AS A RECOMMENDING BODY TO CITY COUNCIL. SO I WOULD IMAGINE THIS COMMITTEE WOULD RECOMMEND SOME IG CANDIDATES, AND THEN IT WOULD STILL GO THROUGH COUNCIL'S AD HOC COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS, BECAUSE THE CHARTER SAYS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTS AN INSPECTOR GENERAL, AND THE ONLY WAY TO AMEND THE CHARTER IS TO TAKE IT TO THE VOTERS. SO THIS WOULD REQUIRE A CHARTER AMENDMENT AND VOTE IS THAT IF, IF THIS BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE NEEDS, I, I GUESS IF THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE APPOINTS THE IG, THEN YES, WE'D HAVE TO HAVE A CHARTER ELECTION, WHICH WE CAN'T HAVE FOR THE NEXT COUPLE YEARS. 'CAUSE WE RECENTLY AMENDED OUR CHARTER, AND THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION SAYS WE CAN'T AMEND IT MORE THAN ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS. SO IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APPOINTING AND OVERSEE THE APPOINTMENT THEREOF OF, UH, TO, TO, TO ME, THERE IS, I CAN TELL YOU A, A PRACTICAL PROBLEM RIGHT NOW, AND, UM, IT'S NOT A MAJOR PROBLEM. AND I'LL TELL YOU HOW I'M WORK, HOW I'M DEALING WITH IT. SO THE, THE PRACTICAL PROBLEM IS UNDER THE, UNDER THE CHARTER, UH, THIS IS AN APPOINTED POSITION AND WE REPORT TO COUNSEL. UM, I, I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO HAVE ANY REAL ENGAGEMENT WITH, WITH COUNCIL. UH, THE WAY I'M DOING THAT RIGHT NOW IS I'M HAVING, UH, THE MOST ROBUST ENGAGEMENT WITH THE CHAIR OF THE GOVERNMENT OR THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS AND ETHICS, UM, WHICH IS, OF COURSE, A, UH, A GROUP THAT IS FORMED BY THE MAYOR, UH, EACH YEAR. AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S HOW I AM TRYING TO STAY CONNECTED AND IN COMMUNICATION WITH, UH, WITH COUNCIL RIGHT NOW. AND TO GET A, A LITTLE BIT OF FEEDBACK ON THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY. UH, THE WAY THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE WORKS, SAY IN BALTIMORE, THERE'S A, THERE'S A PANEL THAT THE IG THERE GOES TO ISABEL CUMMINGS, AND THEY, THEY VET THESE THINGS AND TALK ABOUT, AND THEN, AND SO YOU HAVE A BODY THAT IS, UH, I MEAN, POLITICAL IN NATURE IN THE SENSE THAT [01:00:01] SOME OF THE MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED, BUT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S ALSO A LITTLE LESS POLITICAL THAN SAY, YOU KNOW, YOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL BE. AND, AND THEY, THEIR PURVIEW IS TO GET INTO THE NITTY GRITTY OF, OF WHAT'S HAPPENING, TO STAY ON TOP OF WHETHER THE IG IS DOING A GOOD JOB OR NOT. UH, YOU KNOW, AND TO REALLY BE INVOLVED AT A DEEPER LEVEL. AND I THINK THEIR BENEFITS THERE. UM, BUT IT, IT MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT TIMING BECAUSE REALLY THE GREATEST BENEFIT OF IT IN A SYSTEM, AND THE REASON WHY THEY DID IT IN BALTIMORE WAS TO TAKE THE POLITICS OUT OF THE APPOINTMENT OF AN IG, UM, AND TO PROVIDE THAT, THAT KIND OF PROTECTION. SO IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING, IT MAY BE AN IDEA BEFORE ITS TIME, BUT, UM, I THOUGHT IT WAS WORTH AT LEAST BRINGING UP. SO ARE THERE ISSUES THAT YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED THAT, THAT THIS ORANGE POINT WARRANT, THIS AMENDMENT, THE ONLY ONE WOULD, WOULD BE, UH, THE ONGOING WORK OF HOW AN APPOINTED PERSON GETS FEEDBACK, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS FROM, FROM COUNCIL. BUT THERE ARE OTHER APPOINTED POSITIONS THAT ARE DOING THAT NOW. UH, AUDIT CITY ATTORNEY, CITY MANAGER THROUGH FRIDAY MEMOS OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. UM, SO I, IT'S NOT, THE BRIDGE ISN'T GONNA FALL DOWN WITHOUT, WITHOUT THIS, IT'S, THERE'S NO IMMINENT THREAT THAT THIS IS GOING TO SOLVE. I'VE EXPRESSED MY, I DON'T WANNA SAY CONCERNS, BUT MY, MY THOUGHTS ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF THIS, UH, WHAT ARE THERE, WHAT ARE THE THOUGHTS OF, OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE, THE TASK FORCE, OF THE WORKING GROUP ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR RECOMMENDATION, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING IT CORRECTLY? IT'S REALLY ABOUT, I MEAN, TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, YOU'VE GOT THE CHECKER, RIGHT? THE WATCHDOG WHO IS BEING APPOINTED AND OVERSEEN BY THE PERSON THEY'RE WATCHING AS WELL, RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT'S THE DRILL CONFLICT WE'VE GOT. YES. AND SO YOU'RE TRYING TO INSERT SOMEWHAT OF A BUFFER, RIGHT? THIS BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE THAT WOULD SIT IN THE MIDDLE, THEY ARE STILL ABLE TO INFLUENCE THAT PARTICULAR GROUP. SO WHILE THEY DON'T HAVE QUITE AS EASY A TIME, IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO KIND OF, YOU KNOW, INFLUENCE THAT THEY COULD STILL DO IT, RIGHT? I MEAN, IT WOULD, IT WOULD, IT'S NOT COMPLETELY ISOLATING IT. UM, I THINK IT'S INHERENT IN, IN, I MEAN, THIS IS JUST KINDA THE WAY IT WORKS, RIGHT? I MEAN, UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS THE REALITY OF THE WAY THESE POSITIONS ARE STRUCTURED IN, IN CITIES. UM, I THINK YOUR POINT THAT IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND PEOPLE TO SERVE ON COMMITTEES ALREADY AND BOARDS ALREADY IS, YOU KNOW, VERY RELEVANT. I MEAN, WOULD WE BE ABLE TO FILL THIS BOARD? UH, I DON'T KNOW. UM, AND WHAT IT ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU WANT, WHICH IS TO GIVE YOU, OR THE, THE, THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, THE ABILITY TO REALLY DO THEIR JOB WITHOUT FEAR OF, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER. I MEAN, I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING IDEA. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE READY FOR IT, BUT I DON'T, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT. I JUST DON'T KNOW IF WE'D BE, I I DON'T KNOW HOW VIABLE IT IS AT THIS SECOND. AND I, I, I, I GUESS I SHARE THOSE CONCERNS. I, AND WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS AS I, I THINK THIS KIND OF CONCERN IS INHERENT IN THE POSITION IN WHICH YOU SERVE. UM, I, I, I DO, I BELIEVE THAT THAT CONCERN WARRANTS THIS CHANGE. I, I, I, I DON'T KNOW. I I HAVE, I I, I CERTAINLY WILL DEFER TO THE THOUGHTS OF THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP ON THAT. UM, ANYWAY, WHAT, WHAT DO YOU ALL, DO YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON THOSE? THE OTHER MEMBERS? SORRY TO INTERRUPT. UM, I, I SHARE WHAT, UM, ANDY, UH, COMMISSIONER VIAL JUST SAID, AND WE DISCUSSED THIS AT THE LAST MEETING REGARDING THE DIFFICULTY GETTING APPOINTMENTS MADE, UH, LOOK AT OUR OWN COMMISSION. UM, I DO HAVE A QUESTION. I, AND I SHARE THE THOUGHTS OF CHAIR PERKINS. UM, [01:05:02] MR. LYSON, YOU REFERRED TO THE FACT THAT THERE ARE CURRENTLY ROBUST PROTECTIONS IN THE CODE FOR THE IG AND THAT YOU ARE ON THE FENCE. I WOULDN'T MIND SOME REFERENCES TO THOSE PROTECTIONS THAT YOU REFER TO. UM, AND ALSO JUST THE LOGISTICS OF THIS, BECAUSE THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A, A CHARTER AMENDMENT, WHICH COULD NOT OCCUR FOR TWO YEARS. UM, WHAT WOULD, EVEN IF WE WERE TO GO DOWN THIS ROUTE, LOGISTICALLY, I MEAN, IS, SO IN TWO YEARS, THIS PROCESS HAS TO HAPPEN AGAIN. YOU KNOW, WOULD THAT BE BEFORE OR AFTER ANY ELECTION ON THE CITY CHARTER? BECAUSE IF IT'S A MOOT POINT UNTIL THERE IS ANOTHER CITY CHARTER ELECTION. SO IS THIS THE LAST TIME ANY, IF WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, WOULD IT SAY, YOU KNOW, WE CAN MAKE THIS RECOMMENDATION, BUT IT COULDN'T HAPPEN UNTIL THERE'S A CITY CHARTER ELECTION. SO LAURA, PERHAPS YOU COULD ADDRESS THE LOGISTICS OF THAT. 'CAUSE IF THERE'S GONNA BE ANOTHER REQUIRED PROCESS OF THIS IN TWO YEARS, UM, I JUST DON'T, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE TIMING AND HOW THAT WOULD, I MEAN, IT, IT'S A MOOT POINT IF THERE'S GONNA BE ANOTHER WORKING GROUP BEFORE THE NEXT CHARTER ELECTION. UH, YEAH, I MEAN, I, I THINK AS SUBMITTED BY THE OIG, THIS WOULD, THE IDEA IS THAT THIS COMMITTEE WOULD BE A RECOMMENDING BODY TO THE CITY COUNCIL. BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. IF IT WAS, IF IT, IF IT WAS THE PROPOSAL THAT THIS COMMITTEE FULLY SELECTS THE IG, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A CHARTER AMENDMENT. AND THAT COULD HAPPEN FOR, I THINK, A LITTLE OVER A YEAR. UM, MY, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S NOT ALWAYS THE CASE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS TO CONTRACT WITH A SEARCH FIRM, UH, TO SEARCH FAR AND WIDE OR CANDIDATES FOR CITY SECRETARY, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY AUDITOR, INSPECTOR, GENERAL CITY MANAGER. UM, BUT THEY OFTEN DO CONTRACT WITH THE SEARCH FIRM. SO I ALSO DON'T KNOW HOW, LIKE, WHERE THAT WOULD PLAY IN WITH A BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE WITH THE SEARCH FIRM BE WORKING THEN WITH THE COMMITTEE INSTEAD OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S AD HOC COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS. I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT WOULD WORK EITHER. UM, WE, I MEAN, WE COULD MAKE, THE CITY COULD MAKE IT WORK, BUT THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE ROAD IS A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN WE'RE PROBABLY READY TO DO RIGHT NOW. I MEAN, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE, I THINK WE KEEP IT AS SOMETHING WE'RE LOOKING AT OR CONSIDERING, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S RIGHT FOR THIS RIGHT, THIS RIGHT, THIS REWRITE. IT'S ALSO, UM, I WILL SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, COUNSEL DOES HAVE THE POWER TO APPOINT, YOU KNOW, A RECOMMENDING BODY ON SPECIFIC ISSUES. SO EVEN IF THIS ENDS UP NOT GOING INTO THE CODE OF ETHICS, COUNSEL'S HANDS AREN'T TIED WHEN IT COMES TO APPOINTING A RECOMMENDING BODY ON A VERY SPECIFIC, UM, ISSUE SUCH AS BEING POINTING A 19. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS BY MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP? UH, HEARING NONE, MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL, IF WE WOULD ELIMINATE THIS PROPOSAL, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT AT THIS, AT, AT THIS JUNCTURE, UH, OF OUR WORK? I'M, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. AND, AND PARTLY BECAUSE, UH, JUST TO ADDRESS ANOTHER QUESTION FROM MS. STOVALL THAT THE, THE ROBUST, BUT I SAID THAT I THINK THERE'S SOME FAIRLY ROBUST PROTECTION. IT'S REALLY A ROBUST PROTECT SHUN SINGULAR, BUT IT'S A BIG DEAL. AND IT'S IN THE CITY CHARTER, WHICH IS THAT TO REMOVE AN IG, UM, IT REQUIRES A SUPER MAJORITY. AND I THINK THAT IS A, IS A ROBUST, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THE IG MAY NEED TO FILE SOME COMPLAINTS AGAINST 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT GENERALLY GONNA BE THE WHOLE CITY COUNCIL. AND I THINK, UH, THAT TWO THIRDS IS, IS A SIGNIFICANT PROTECTION, UM, THAT DOES THE SAME KIND OF THING. YOU NEED SOME KIND OF PROTECTION, UH, 'CAUSE YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, THE IG IS A WATCHDOG BITING THE HAND, IT FEEDS IT, SO TO SPEAK. BUT, UM, [01:10:01] IT'S NOT LIKE RIGHT NOW IF WE DID NOTHING, THERE'S, WE'RE LEAVING THE PERSON, UH, IN THIS ROLE WITHOUT SOME PROTECTION. SO I'M, I'M COMFORTABLE, BUT I THOUGHT, UH, IT WAS WORTH BRINGING UP. FRANKLY. NOW, I KIND OF WISH I HADN'T BROUGHT IT UP. 'CAUSE IT'S, UH, IT'S JUST, I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S TIME HAS COME. UM, I CONCUR WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. I THINK MANY OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, ALL, ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE REALLY GOOD. I, I, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT I, I THINK I SHARE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S THOUGHTS AND THE INSPECTOR AND, AND MR. BILLY REAL'S COMMENT THAT MAYBE THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT TIME FOR THIS PARTICULAR RECOMMENDATION. I AGREE. UH, ANY, ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS OR COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. WELL, THAT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE, THE WILL OF THE BODY AT THIS POINT ON THAT RECOMMENDATION. ALL RIGHT. UH, THE NEXT ONE IS RELATED IN, UH, I THINK IT'S RELATED. LEMME SEE. NO, SORRY. NEXT ONE'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. UH, THIS ONE HAS TO DO WITH DIRECT ACCESS TO INFORMATION FOR THE OIG. THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT, UH, ISSUE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S READY FOR, I THINK IT'LL BE READY FOR US TO DISCUSS IT THE NEXT TIME. BUT, UM, IN OUR PREPARATION FOR TODAY, UH, LISTENING TO COUNSEL FROM CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND, AND, UH, MY TEAM, IT, I THINK BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION ON THIS, UH, THE IG OFFICE NEEDS TO DO SOME MORE HOMEWORK AND MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T ALREADY HAVE ALL THE ACCESS THAT WE NEED. SO JUST GIVE ME A, A, YOU KNOW, I'LL BE ABLE TO COME BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING AND, AND REPRESENT THIS ONE A LITTLE MORE ACCURATELY. THERE'S NO REASON TO PUSH, UH, BECAUSE I'VE JUST COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT I MAY NOT, WE MAY HAVE MORE ACCESS THAN I THINK WE DO. RIGHT? I THINK THIS IS A GOOD SUGGESTION. YEAH. UH, BUT I CERTAINLY WILL WAIT UNTIL YOU HAVE DONE YOUR, YOUR HOMEWORK AND FEEL THAT, UH, YOU DON'T HAVE THE, THE NECESSARY TOOLS TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION YOU NEED TO DO YOUR JOB. I DO, SINCE I WORKED ON IT SO HARD, I DO THINK THE PICTURE THERE IS VERY ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE, OF THE ISSUE. YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANNA BE RINGING THE BELL. UH, WE JUST WANT ACCESS TO INFORMATION SO WE CAN DO OUR INVESTIGATIONS AND ANYWAY, I'LL, I'LL COME BACK ON THAT ONE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, UM, REAL, REAL QUICK ON THAT ONE, UM, THE PAGE YOU JUST SHOWED IS NOT THE PAGE THAT I GOT IN THE EMAIL, SO I DON'T, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK IT IS OF ANY IMPORTANCE, BUT I WOULD JUST, UM, UH, POINT THAT OUT. YEAH. WHAT I'M WORKING OFF OF NOW IS MY AMENDMENT, UH, AFTER I SENT THAT TO YOU AND I DECIDED IT WOULD JUST BE CONFUSING BECAUSE THE CHANGES WERE MINOR EXCEPT FOR THE ONE ADDITION, THE NEW RECOMMENDATION. UH, AND I JUST THOUGHT WE'D END UP AT THE MEETING WITH SEVERAL DIFFERENT VERSIONS. AND SO I, I, I DIDN'T SEND THIS OUT, BUT I WILL SEND THIS CORRECTED VERSION OUT TO YOU UH, AFTER THE MEETING. OKAY, THANKS. OKAY, WHAT'S NEXT? THE NEXT ONE GETS BACK TO, UH, THAT INDEPENDENCE TYPE OF AN ISSUE. AND, UH, THIS WAS AN IDEA THAT ACTUALLY WAS, WAS FLOATED, WELL, I WON'T SAY THAT, BUT, BUT THE POINT OF THIS ONE IS TO GET AT ONCE AGAIN, THE ISSUE OF, UH, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE IT CHIEF FILES COMPLAINTS OR RECEIVES COMPLAINTS AND INVESTIGATES CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE IS TO HIRE OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO, TO DEAL WITH THOSE, UM, ALL THE SAME DISCUSSION APPLIES. UM, AT THE LAST MEETING, UH, YOU KNOW, MR. CHAIR, YOU HAD A GREAT QUESTION. ISN'T THAT THE JOB OF THE IG TO DO THAT? AND MY RESPONSE WAS, YES, IT IS THE JOB. AND, UH, THERE IS THAT PROTECTION OF THE TWO THIRDS MAJORITY. AND AS LONG AS EVERYTHING'S TRANSPARENT, THE PUBLIC KNOWS THAT'S SIGNIFICANT. PUBLIC KNOWS WHAT'S GOING ON. UM, BUT THIS IS ANOTHER IDEA. [01:15:01] IT'S, IT'S, UH, I'M TRYING TO DO GOOD INTERIM WORK IN PART WHILE I HAVE THE CHANCE, UH, TO SET THE IGS OFFICE UP AS, AS WELL AS I CAN. AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE OTHER IDEAS THAT HAPPENS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS. AND I'M JUST INTERESTED IN WHAT Y'ALL WANNA DO. I AM OKAY EITHER WAY. IT'S THE SAME DISCUSSION WE JUST HAD. UM, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S A, IT'S A BAD IDEA AND IT'S, IT'S CERTAINLY LESS COMPLICATED THAN LU PREVENT. YEAH. WELL, IT, IT, IT BASICALLY REQUIRES THE CITY ATTORNEY TO RETAIN AN INDEPENDENT OUTSIDE LAWYER. UH, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE THOUGHT BEHIND THIS. UM, I, I, I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT TODAY, I BELIEVE. BUT THE CITY ATTORNEY BELIEVES THAT THAT IS AN APPROPRIATE THING TO DO UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? UM, YEAH. THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WILL SOMETIMES HIRE OUTSIDE COUNSEL. UM, DEFINITELY IF THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS A CONFLICT, UM, A CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT WOULD HAPPEN. BUT ALSO IF A LEGAL ISSUE AROSE THAT WAS VERY, VERY NICHE AND REQUIRED, UM, A HIGH DEGREE OF SPECIALIZATION THAT OUR OFFICE JUST DOESN'T, UH, HAVE. AND NOW IN THIS CASE, THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HIRE OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS BECAUSE IT FALLS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. AND SO, I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS WOULD THEN COME UNDER THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR NECESSARILY THE BUDGET OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO RETAIN A BUNCH OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO STEP INTO THE SHOES OF AN INSPECTOR GENERAL WHO IS NO LONGER ASSOCIATED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. UM, I MEAN, I GUESS SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO RETAIN, UM, SOMEONE TO DO THIS, UM, WHO WOULD BE IN CHARGE OF THAT? UM, I THINK WE'D HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT. UM, BUT I THINK THIS WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE STEPPING INTO THE SHOES OF THE IG. SO I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT WOULD GO THROUGH THE CITY ATTORNEY WHO IS, YOU KNOW, ALSO APPOINTED BY COUNSEL AND IS LIKE KIND OF A CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT. UM, CAN I, CAN I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THIS? IS THE, IS THE CONCERN THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WILL HAVE A PREEXISTING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER? YOU KNOW, THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME, UH, BIAS, UM, OR JUST LIKE TOO MESSY? WHAT'S THE, I HAVE A COMMENT, BUT I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS WHAT WOULD BE LIKE THE POLICY REASON FOR THIS? I THINK THAT THE POLICY REASON IS, UH, THAT TO, TO, NOT TO BE TOO CUTE, BUT YEAH. WATCHDOG FIGHTING THE HAND THAT FEEDS IT CREATES AN INHERENT CONFLICT BOTH FOR COUNSEL LATER IN HOW THEY DEAL WITH THE IG AND FOR THE IG. IT JUST RAISES THOSE CONCERNS IN THE PUBLIC'S EYE. SO IF, UH, IF SOMETHING IS NOT ADDRESSED OR IT IS ADDRESSED, UH, GIVEN THE, THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE IG SITTING UNDER THE COUNCIL, IT JUST, IT DOESN'T LOOK GREAT. YEAH. NO, I, THAT, THAT MAKES, THAT MAKES SENSE. I MEAN, ONE TO PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, BUT I DON'T, I'M NOT SUPER OPINION ABOUT THIS. I MEAN, I GUESS AS A, AS QUOTE OUTSIDE COUNSEL, I'M JUST, I'M, I'M CURIOUS, BUT I MEAN, ISN'T THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE SEPARATION THOUGH? LIKE, DON'T WE, ISN'T THE OIG IN THE BEST, EVEN THOUGH I FULLY ACKNOWLEDGE THERE WOULD BE SOME, FOR LACK OF A BETTER NOUN AWKWARDNESS, UM, ISN'T THAT KINDA WHY WE HAVE THE SEPARATION THAT WE HAVE? IT, IT, IT IS, AND I CAN TELL YOU JUST FROM A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE RIGHT NOW, SITTING AS THE INTERIM IG, UH, THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE TO ME BETWEEN WHERE I SIT WITH AN I INTERIM BY MY NAME AND WHERE I WOULD SIT IF I WERE APPOINTED TO BE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. RIGHT NOW, I HAVE NO PROTECTION. AND YEAH, THAT'S AN ISSUE. YEAH, I'M NOT GONNA UNDERSTAND THAT. IT'S NOT WELL, AND I THINK, BY THE WAY, I THINK IT'S ADMIRABLE FOR YOU TO RAISE THIS WITH TRANSPARENCY, BECAUSE THAT IS, THAT IS A, [01:20:01] YOU'RE, YOU'RE ACKNOWLEDGING YEAH. LIKE SOME OF THE PRESSURES THAT YOU WOULD FACE IN TRYING TO BE NEUTRAL AND OBJECTIVE. SO I, I DO THINK IT'S SUPER IMPORTANT. I'M JUST CURIOUS, LIKE, LET'S SAY, YOU KNOW, ONCE YOU HAVE A PERMANENT QUOTE UNQUOTE, UM, INSPECTOR GENERAL, THERE'S GONNA BE THE ONLY CON OF DOING THIS IS THAT THAT PARTICULAR MAN OR WOMAN HAS INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND A LOT OF, BY THAT POINT, HOPEFULLY A LOT OF STREET CRED BUILT UP. AND THEN YOU, YOU MIGHT LOSE THAT BY JUST HIRING, YOU KNOW, SOME OUTSIDE LAWYERS. SO IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. I, I DON'T THINK IT'S TOO BIG OF A DEAL. IT'S A, IT'S AN EXTRA LAYER OF PROTECTION. IT'S JUST THOSE TIMES MIGHT BE THE MOST IMPORTANT TIMES FOR THE OIG TO KIND OF STEP UP AND, AND LEAD. BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO IGNORE JUST 'CAUSE THOSE ARE GONNA BE THE MOST HIGH PROFILE MOMENTS IN SOME WAYS. BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO IGNORE THE REAL ISSUE THAT YOU FLAGGED, WHICH I THINK IS SUPER IMPORTANT. I, THERE'S A, THERE'S ANOTHER INSIGHT IN JUST FROM OTHER IGS, UH, YOU KNOW, LIKE A CONGRESS PERSON, UH, YOU KNOW, THE COUNTRY WAS SET UP FOR PEOPLE TO DO THEIR CIVIL DUTY AND THEN, AND THEN GET OUT. UM, AND THERE'S GOOD REASON FOR THAT WITH IGS. WHAT HAPPENS, UH, OR AT LEAST THIS IS WHAT'S GETS TALKED ABOUT, YOU CAN EITHER GET TOO FRIENDLY WITH COUNCIL OR YOU CAN, IT CAN BECOME SO ACRIMONIOUS THAT IN EITHER CASE, UH, YOU, THE CITY'S NOT GETTING WHAT IT NEEDS FROM AN, AN IG THIS, THIS APPROACH, UH, UM, IS SORT OF THE DEVIL ADVOCATE, DEVIL'S ADVOCATE ANSWER TO, UH, TO THAT IF YOU, IF YOU HAD THIS APPROACH THAT WOULD AVOID WHAT DOES TEND TO HAPPEN OVER TIME. AND SOME IGS JUST TRY AND STAY FOREVER. AND SOME SAY, I'VE BEEN HERE LONG ENOUGH, UH, IT'S TOO ACRIMONIOUS, I'M TOO FRIENDLY. YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S, THAT'S PART AND PARCEL OF THE REALITY OF HUMAN BEINGS AND, AND TRYING TO DO GOOD WORK. SO JUST PRIOR TO YOUR LAST COMMENT, I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT MAYBE THIS SHOULD BE A, MAY RETAIN, RIGHT? BECAUSE I WAS THINKING MORE ON THE ACRIMONIOUS SIDE THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME FORM OF, YOU KNOW, RETALIATION OR RELUCTANCE TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE THE INVESTIGATION TO ITS FULLEST EXTENT BECAUSE OF THE IMPACT, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. IF THERE'S IS EQUAL RISK OF NOT DOING IT BECAUSE THE, THE, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO PROTECT OR, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, ET CETERA. I CAN UNDERSTAND MORE FOR THE SHALL. I THINK WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, THOUGH THAT THE BLANK BEFORE IT, WE MAY HAVE TO THINK OF WHAT THAT IS, RIGHT? 'CAUSE IT MAY NOT BE THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL, OR I DON'T KNOW HOW MAYBE THE BLANK SHALL, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHO, I MEAN, THERE, THERE IS MORE THAN JUST, I DON'T HOW THE CITY ATTORNEY'S GONNA KNOW WHEN TO RETAIN OUTSIDE COUNSEL IF IT'S IG WELL, WHEN IT WOULD HAPPEN WOULD BE EVERY TIME, RIGHT? SO, I MEAN, THIS IS THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN. EVERY TIME THERE'S A COMPLAINT THAT WOULD HAPPEN. I THINK THAT THE QUESTION REALLY COMES A LOT TO THE DOLLARS, RIGHT? I MEAN, MY GUESS IS THAT WHOEVER HAS TO RETAIN IT ALSO HAS TO PAY FOR IT. SO THAT'S A REAL, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A REAL CONCERN. I MEAN, IN, IN, IN TODAY'S WORLD OF BUDGETS AND ALL THE REST. SO I, I, I STRUGGLE WITH IT. I MEAN, I GET IT. I, I, I KIND OF THOUGHT THAT THE OIG WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO BOW OUT WAS MY THOUGHT WHEN THEY THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD, THEY WOULD BE UNABLE TO DO THEIR JOB. BUT YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THEM BEING TOO FRIENDLY WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER KIND OF THREW THAT INTO FLUX FOR ME. SO I THINK IT'S GOT MERIT. I JUST THINK IT MAY NEED A LITTLE MORE WORK OR DISCUSSION BEFORE HAVING WHERE WE NEED IT. I, I, I LIKE THIS IDEA A LOT BETTER THAN THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE. YEAH, I MEAN, IF WE'RE CHOOSING BETWEEN THE TWO FOR SURE, AND WE MAY NOT NEED THE TWO. IF, IF WE GO THIS ROUTE, THE BLUE RIBBON MAY BE BOOMY, I THINK IT IS. SO, WELL, SO IF WE SUBSTITUTE MAY AS OPPOSED TO SHALL, DOES THAT ADD ANY ADDITIONAL CONFIDENCE IN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL THAT YOU, LET'S ASSUME IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES IT'S NOT GONNA BE AN ISSUE, BUT IF THERE ARE, THEN THE CITY ATTORNEY RETAINS THE ABILITY TO APPOINT OUTSIDE COUNSEL IF THE CITY ATTORNEY BELIEVES IN WHATEVER CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST, THAT THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE THING TO DO. I, I, I HAVE A QUESTION. UM, REGARDLESS OF, YOU [01:25:01] KNOW, MAY OR SHALL IF THE SEPARATION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY IN THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, I MEAN, THAT EXISTS. SO AS MS. MORRISON WAS SAYING, THE LOGISTICS OF THIS, I MEAN, I THINK WE WOULD NEED TO KNOW, YOU KNOW, WOULD THAT COME OUT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S BUDGET? UM, I, I JUST, UH, ARE THEY, DO THEY HAVE, HOW, HOW DO THESE DYNAMICS FIT TOGETHER? BECAUSE UNTIL THERE'S SOME SORT OF FRAMEWORK BY WHICH THIS COULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN AND THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY IS THE APPROPRIATE ENTITY TO BE DOING THIS. I, I DON'T, SO I JUST, THE SPECIFICS OF THE LANGUAGE TO ME, ARE SECONDARY TO FIGURING OUT HOW IT WOULD ACTUALLY WORK IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, POSSIBLE OR FUNCTIONALLY TO EVEN GO THROUGH THE CITY'S CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. YEAH. SO MY, MY THOUGHTS ARE WHEN, WHEN THE CITY ATTORNEY NEEDS TO HIRE OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO STEP INTO THE SHOES OF THE CITY ATTORNEY TO HANDLE A LEGAL ISSUE FOR THE CITY, YOU KNOW, THE CITY ATTORNEY IS IN CHARGE OF FINDING THAT OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND WORKING WITH THAT OUTSIDE COUNSEL. IT JUST SEEMS TO ME, IF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS ASKING AN OUTSIDE ENTITY TO COME IN AND STEP INTO THE SHOES OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, THEN IT'S THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE WHO SHOULD BE WORKING WITH THAT OUTSIDE ENTITY TO STEP INTO THOSE SHOES. I DON'T KNOW WHY THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULD BE INVOLVED, BECAUSE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS NOT INVOLVED IN BRINGING ETHICS COMPLAINTS TO THE EAC. SO THAT'S MY EXACT QUESTION. SO I THINK THAT ISSUE SHOULD BE RESOLVED BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT LIKE MINCING WORDS. AND I, I I GUESS YOUR CONCERN, I COULD, THE, DOES THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HIRE OUTSIDE COUNSEL? WELL, THAT'S WHAT THIS, WHAT THIS WOULD DO. MY CONCERN IS THAT THIS, IF THE OIGS OFFICE WANTS OUTSIDE COUNSEL, WOULDN'T IT FALL UNDER THEM AND THEIR BUDGET AND THEIR STAFF TO FIND OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND, AND HANDLE THAT BECAUSE OF THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL? THAT'S MY QUESTION, ESSENTIALLY. YEAH. AND YOU KNOW, IF WE CHANGE THE SHELL TO MAY, AND IT SAYS THE CITY ATTORNEY MAY, THEN IT'S UP TO THE, THE IG GO TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND SAY, WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO HIRE OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO, TO STEP INTO OUR SHOES TO FULFILL OUR ROLE. AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS FORCED TO MAKE A DECISION THERE BASED ON NOTHING. I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE THAT SAYS WHEN THIS SHOULD HAPPEN, IF THERE'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR IF THERE'S, SO THE CITY ATTORNEY IS JUST BLINDLY SAYING YES OR NO TO THAT REQUEST. AND I, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULD HAVE ANYTHING TO GO ON, ON WHETHER OR NOT TO SAY, UH, YES, WE'LL DO THAT. YOU KNOW, I, I FEEL THAT IF THE IG DOES NOT WANT TO INVESTIGATE A COMPLAINT ON A COUNCIL MEMBER, THEN THE IG SHOULD FIND SOMEONE TO DO IT FOR THE IG. AND I I DON'T, DON'T YOU HAVE SEPARATE BUDGETS ALSO? YES. YES. I THINK THAT THAT'S SIMPLIFIES THINGS A LOT. THERE WAS, THERE WAS NOT A LOT OF THOUGHT PUT INTO IT GOING BY ME PUT, PUT INTO IT GOING TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OTHER THAN, OH, THIS IS A LAWSUIT. SO IT GOES TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. BUT, BUT GIVEN THIS DISCUSSION, IT MAKES SENSE THAT YOU WOULD CARRY THE, THE BUDGET FOR THIS UNDER THE IG AND THEN IG WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT WORK. SO, SO THE, THE WORK HERE WOULD ALSO INVOLVE, OR, OR WOULD IT THE ABILITY FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO RETAIN OUTSIDE COUNSEL? CAN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DO THAT? WELL, IF, IF WE PASS THIS AND SPECIFIED IT THAT WAY, AND [01:30:02] IF IT WAS FUNDED, YOU KNOW, IT COULD END UP BEING AN QUOTE UNQUOTE UNFUNDED MANDATE. BUT, UM, OKAY. BUT THIS SAYS THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL RETAIN IT DOESN'T SAY THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL MAY OR SHALL RETAIN. YEAH, I THINK THE CONVERSATION IS CHANGING. POSSIBLY CITY ATTORNEY TO INSPECTOR GENERAL HAVE ALL OF THIS. OKAY. SO WE WOULD WANT THIS TO READ THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SHALL OR MAY RETAIN, DOES THAT REQUIRE A CHARTER CHANGE TO ENABLE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO RETAIN OUTSIDE COUNSEL? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION AS WELL. YOU GO TO THE CHARTER WHILE YOU ARE LOOKING THAT UP, I THINK THAT SOLVES FOR WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE THE FIRST PROBLEM, WHICH IS WHEN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS RELUCTANT TO INVESTIGATE THE COUNCIL MEMBER. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S, IF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS THEN GONNA PICK THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, DOES IT SOLVE FOR WHEN THEY'RE CRONIES? RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU JUST GET YOUR BUDDY TO DO IT AND YOU'RE DOING IT BY PROXY. I MEAN, I'M JUST THROWING OUT, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING YOU BROUGHT UP AS, AS THE RISK THAT'S INVOLVED WITH THAT. YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN THE, WHEN THE SAME PERSON WHO IS, YOU KNOW, SUPPOSEDLY UNABLE TO MAKE A, YOU KNOW, PROPER INVESTIGATION, THEN HIRES THE PERSON TO DO IT, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY I THINK YOU COULD MUCH, I THINK YOU COULD SOLVE FOR THAT AND IT REQUIRE SOME MORE WORK. MAYBE WE COME BACK, BUT YOU, YOU COULD PROBABLY SOLVE FOR THAT IF YOU HAD A POOL AND A LOTTERY SYSTEM. YEAH. POOL OF FIRMS IN A LOTTERY. YEAH, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I JUST THINK IT'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. WE'RE MAKING IT MORE COMPLICATED, BUT I ALSO THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO, IF WE'RE GONNA DELVE INTO THESE WATERS, WE WANNA ACTUALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM. AND IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE IT'S A DUAL PROBLEM. ONE IS WHEN YOU FEEL LIKE YOU CAN'T DO A GOOD JOB BECAUSE OF THE, YOU KNOW, RELATIONSHIP OR, OR WE, PEOPLE WORRY THAT YOU WOULDN'T, YOU DIDN'T DO IT. A INSPECTOR GENERAL DIDN'T DO A GOOD JOB BECAUSE OF THE RELATIONSHIP. AND ALSO ON THE OTHER SIDE, WHICH IS YOUR, YOU KNOW, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS RELUCTANT TO DO A GOOD JOB BECAUSE OF THE RAMIFICATIONS OF POSSIBLY THAT AND, AND WHATEVER MAY, RIGHT. I'M NOT SAYING THOSE WOULD HAPPEN, BUT I MEAN, THE POSSIBLE RAMIFICATIONS. AND I I, I GO BACK TO THIS ISSUE. I RAISED THEM WHEN THIS WAS YOUR JOB, YOU SIGNED UP FOR THIS, THAT'S YOUR JOB. RIGHT? YOU SIGNED UP FOR IT. YOU SIGNED UP FOR IT. AND IF IT IS AN UNCOMFORTABLE DECISION TO MAKE, THAT DOESN'T EXCUSE THE FACT THAT THAT IS YOUR JOB. AND IF IT MEANS THAT, GOLLY, I I I MADE THE DECISION HERE THAT'S UNCOMFORTABLE THAT I'M GOING TO ACTUALLY INVESTIGATE MY BOSS. AND IS, THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE BEAST. THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE JOB. FIREMEN STILL RUN INTO BUILDING. YEAH, RIGHT. ANYWAY, THE AUDITORS STILL AUDITS. YEAH. COUNCIL OFFICES AND THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL TELL COUNCIL THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO SOMETHING THEY WANT TO DO. IF IT'S, IT'S, I GUESS THAT I, MAYBE HAVING THE SCARS OF TELLING CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS THINGS THAT THEY MAY NOT WANT TO HEAR HERE, BUT IF YOU ARE DOING YOUR JOB, THAT THOSE SITUATIONS MAY ARISE. AND I THINK IT'S IN THE NATURE OF THE POSITION. IF YOU TAKE THAT POSITION, THEN MAYBE THEY'RE GOING TO BE UNCOMFORTABLE DECISIONS THAT HAVE TO BE MADE BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. BUT ANYWAY, I THAT'S A GOOD POINT. WELL, AND UM, JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON CHAIR PERKIN'S COMMENT, UH, WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT, UM, YOU HAVE THE PROTECTION OF REQUIRING A SUPER MAJORITY. SO, UM, I, I LEAN, I LEAN TOWARDS THAT, UM, THAT WAY TOO. BUT EVEN IF WE PROCEED WITH THE DISCUSSION, I THINK IT WOULD HAVE TO DO WITH ONLY THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL AND NOT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. MR. SCHMIDT, YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON THIS? ARE YOU STILL THERE? STILL HERE? I'M MOVING OVER HERE. I KNOW I NEED TO BE ON CAMERA, BUT I'M MOVING INTO MY OFFICE HERE. BUT I, I, UM, I AGREE. I MEAN, I, I THINK I JUST WANT THE ATTORNEY. I JUST WANT TO FIND WAYS TO EMPOWER THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, THAT THAT'S REALLY WHAT I'M THINKING THROUGH. BUT I ALSO THINK WHAT THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED ARE VERY LEGITIMATE. THEN I DON'T WANT PEOPLE WORRYING ABOUT THEIR JOBS [01:35:01] EITHER. SO I'M JUST THINKING THROUGH HOW WE COULD EMPOWER, BUT ALSO PROTECT. AND THE TWO THIRDS SUPER MAJORITY IS SOME LEVEL OF PROTECTION FOR THE POSITION OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL THAT ARE ALREADY BUILT INTO THE PROCESS. ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE THE, THE OTHER THING, I DID WANT TO ASK THIS TOO, AND I GUESS I'D LO I'D LOVE TO LEARN THIS, NOT, NOT TODAY, THIS IS ANOTHER, ANOTHER TIME, BUT Y'ALL WERE TALKING ABOUT LIKE KIND OF THE, LIKE THE PA, THE, UM, THE PANEL, LIKE THE PANEL OF FIRMS, ET CETERA. IT'D BE INTERESTING TO KNOW AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT PROCESS RIGHT FOR SELECTING THE VARIOUS FIRMS. 'CAUSE YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT THE SAME PROBLEM COULD, I THINK THIS IS WHAT Y'ALL WERE ALLUDING TO EARLIER, YOU COULD HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM WHERE WE HA YOU KNOW, THERE'S THREE LAW FIRMS THAT ARE TRUSTED, BUT THEN LIKE, BECAUSE THEY'RE THE GO-TO OR THEY'RE ON THE PANEL, IF YOU WILL, THEY DEVELOP THIS RELATIONSHIP, YOU KNOW, THEN IT BECOMES THE SAME, BECOMES THE SAME PROBLEM. SO ANYWAY, JUST I'M GONNA BE THINKING ABOUT THIS ONE BECAUSE NOT JUST FROM A PROCEDURAL, BUT I DO THINK IT'S PRETTY IMPORTANT SUBSTANTIVELY JUST BECAUSE THE CASES INVOLVING CITY COUNCILMEN AND WOMEN WILL BE, IN MY OPINION, THE MORE HIGH PROFILE ISSUES IF THEY ARISE. HOPEFULLY THEY NEVER ARISE. BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M THINKING THROUGH. IT. IT, IT'S A VERY INTERESTING, IN THE, IN THE IG WORLD, EVERY STEP YOU TAKE, YOU GET BACK TO THE SAME DISCUSSION. IS IT ENOUGH FOR THE SAKE OF TRANSPARENCY AND THE INDEPENDENCE? BECAUSE, UH, YOU TAKE THE NEXT STEP AND THESE SAME ISSUES ARISE. BUT WHAT IF, WHAT IF THE ATTORNEYS ON THE, ON THE GROUP ARE SUCH AND SUCH, OR WHAT IF THIS AND IT, IT'S JUST, IT'S ENDLESS SOMEWHERE THERE'S A SWEET SPOT. UM, AND I DO THINK THAT THE TWO THIRDS MAJORITY WAS A SIGNIFICANT AND IMPORTANT, THE TWO THIRDS REQUIREMENT, UH, YOU KNOW, TO, TO UNSEAT AN APPOINTED IG WAS A SIGNIFICANT ADDITION TO THE, TO THE CHARTER IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. IF THAT WERE, WERE TAKEN AWAY, THERE'S A MUCH STRONGER ARGUMENT FOR THESE OTHER IDEAS. I WILL SAY, JUST IN GOING BACK TO THE CHARTER, UM, IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, UM, HAS THE POWER OR DUTY TO HIRE OUTSIDE COUNSEL, BUT IT ALSO DOESN'T REALLY SAY IT UNDER THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND THE CHARTER EITHER. BUT THE LAST POWER AND DUTY LISTED UNDER THE IG IS DOING ALL THINGS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE FUNCTIONS SET FORTH IN THIS CHAPTER. AND I REALLY DO THINK THAT IF THE IG HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN PURSUING A SPECIFIC COUNCIL MEMBER UNDER A SPECIFIC FACT SCENARIO BECAUSE MAYBE THE IG WAS INVOLVED IN SOMETHING, OR EVEN IF MAYBE HIS ENTIRE OFFICE IS CONFLICTED OUT, THEN HE, HE, HE WOULD HIRE AN OUTSIDE PARTY TO COME IN AND TAKE THAT OVER. UM, AND THERE'S NOTHING REALLY THAT PROHIBITS HIM FROM DOING THAT. UM, JUST LIKE, YOU KNOW, IF THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS A CONFLICT, UM, IN A LEGAL MATTER, THEN THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULD RECUSE HERSELF AND EITHER DESIGNATE SOMEONE ELSE IN HER OFFICE THAT SHE HAS ENOUGH SEPARATION FROM OR HIRE OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO HANDLE IT. UM, AND SO I JUST FEEL LIKE IG WHEN IT COMES TO ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST, NOT JUST A BLANKET, I DON'T WANNA INVESTIGATE MY BOSS, BUT LIKE AN ACTUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST BASED ON THE FACTS, I DO THINK THE IG WOULD PROBABLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HIRE SOMEONE FROM THE OUTSIDE TO COME IN AND ACCOMPLISH THAT TASK. SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, DO, DO WE NEED THIS ONE AT THIS POINT? WHAT ARE YOUR, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS MEMBERS? I, I ALSO, IF IF, OH, GO AHEAD. SORRY, PLEASE. NO, NO, NO, THANK YOU. I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, IF IT DOESN'T, IF, IF WE DON'T FIGURE THIS OUT AND RIGHT NOW, WHAT'S THE CURRENT, LET'S SAY TOMORROW THERE'S A BIG TIME TIP ON A CITY COUNCILMAN OR CITY COUNCILWOMAN, AND WHAT'S THE CURRENT STATE OF PLAY? WE JUST MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CURRENT OIG FUNCTION. IS THAT, IS THAT RIGHT? UH, YEAH. WE JUST TREAT IT LIKE EVERY OTHER COMPLAINT THAT COMES IN. AND YOU, YOU DO YOUR [01:40:01] INVESTIGATION ENSURE YOU HAVE JURISDICTION AND VIABLE, UH, CAUSE OF ACTION, SO TO SPEAK, AND YOU BEGIN THE INVESTIGATION. IF WE CAN SUBSTANTIATE IT, WHICH FOR US MEANS WE THINK WE CAN PROVE IT, THEN WE FILE THE COMPLAINT. UM, YEAH. AND, AND ONE THING I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT, I WOULD LOVE YOUR REACTION THIS, AND, AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS LATER AT ANOTHER TIME, BUT IF THE, IF WHAT YOU ARTICULATED EARLIER, WHICH I THINK, LIKE I SAID, I WANNA EMPHASIZE A VERY VALID CONCERN. IF YOU PLAY THAT OUT TO THE EXTREME, LET'S SAY THAT RIGHT NOW, THIS, THAT HAPPENS AND YOU RUN THESE THINGS TO GROUND AND YOU ARE THE CONSUMMATE PROFESSIONAL THAT YOU ARE, AND, UH, YOU DOT EVERY I YOU CROSS EVERY T YOU FIND, YOU FIND THAT YOU HAVE JURISDICTION, YOU FIND THAT IT'S BEEN SUBSTANTIATED AND YOU JUST HANDLE IT PERFECTLY, RIGHT? IT'S, IT'S, AND IT WAS A CLEAR VIOLATION. AND LET'S JUST SAY THAT THEN, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A GROUP OF CITY COUNCILMEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE SO MAD AT YOU, UH, BECAUSE THEY LOVED THAT CITY COUNCILMAN OR THAT CITY COUNCIL WOMAN, THAT IF YOU TAKE IT TO THAT AND THEY, AND THEY TRY TO FIRE YOU JUST SIMPLY BE WITH NO BASIS OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT, UH, YOU TRIED, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU, UM, WENT ON THIS WITCH HUNT. I MEAN, THE THING THAT IS STOPPING THAT RIGHT, IS I GUESS THE, THE PUBLIC NATURE OF ALL OF THIS. UM, AND, AND ALSO ALSO THE TWO THIRDS. IS THAT, IS THAT KIND OF THE IDEA? THAT'S WHAT, IF EVERYTHING WORKED THE WAY IT SHOULD, THAT'S WHAT WOULD PROTECT. THAT'S RIGHT. THE, OKAY. YEAH. SO TWO, TWO THIRDS VOTE TO REMOVE THE IG AND THAT'S IN THE CHARTER AND CAN ONLY BE CHANGED BY THE VOTERS. AND YOU KNOW, I AGREE THAT THE POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THE COUNCIL UNSEATING AN IG BECAUSE RIGHT, HE OR SHE PURSUED A COMPLAINT AGAINST A DIRTY COUNCIL MEMBER. UM, I THINK THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THAT COULD BE QUITE SEVERE, RIGHT? THAT'S JUST KIND OF HOW I'M VIEWING IT. AND, BUT I ALSO, LAST THING I'LL SAY ON THIS, I JUST DON'T WANNA IGNORE YOUR CONCERNS BECAUSE BARON YOUR CONCERNS BECAUSE THAT'S, UM, IN YOUR ROLE THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT. SO ANYWAY, FOR NOW, MY, MY ADVICE WOULD BE FOR US TO NOT ADOPT THIS YET. I'M, I'M JUST NOT, I'M PERSONALLY NOT YET COMFORTABLE WITH IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T WANNA TAKE IT OFF THE RADAR. UM, AND I'LL ADD, UM, IF I CAN, UH, I HAD THE SAME THOUGHTS AS MS. MORRISON, ALTHOUGH SHE ARTICULATED THEM MUCH, MUCH BETTER THAN I WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO THAT, UM, I, I CAN IMA I IMAGINE, AND IT SEEMS LIKE FROM THE CHARTER LANGUAGE, THAT IF THERE'S A, A, A SPECIFIC CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH THE, THE WATCHDOG, YOU KNOW, EXAMPLE, UH, IT APPEARS THAT, THAT THEY'RE NOT PRECLUDED FROM DOING THAT. SO IT'S, AGAIN, I, AND I, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THAT SITUATION IS ALREADY IN PLACE AND NOT, DOES NOTHING NEED TO BE DONE FOR THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL TO, IN A NONPOLITICAL SITUATION, BUT AN ACTUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST TO, TO HIRE OUTSIDE COUNSEL. SO, SO THERE IS SOME, AND I, AND I, I DO AGREE THAT THIS SHOULD BE TABLED, UM, AT THIS POINT, AT LEAST THE CLOSEST THING RIGHT NOW IN THE CODE TO THAT IS, IS IF IF THERE'S AN ALLEGATION MADE AGAINST THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OR THE OFFICE, THEN OUTSIDE COUNSEL IS, IS HIRED. 'CAUSE YOU DON'T WANT US OVERSEEING AN INVESTIGATION, YOU KNOW, INTO OUR OWN OFFICE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT, IF THAT IS ADDRESSING NO, I MEANT, I MEANT INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE COUNCIL. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, I DON'T WANNA SAY THERE'S A MOTION, BUT LISA, THERE'S A THOUGHT THAT WE MOVE ON FROM THIS AND TABLE IT FOR THE MOMENT. ARE THERE ANY, IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? IF NOT, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON FROM THIS ONE. OKAY. UH, THE NEXT ONE, IT REFERS TO JURISDICTION AND POWERS. AND, UH, THE WAY WE LEFT IT WAS THAT, UH, OUR OFFICE AND CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WERE GONNA GET TOGETHER AND TRY AND CRAFT A, UH, BETTER DEFINITION OF THE CONCEPT OF, OF A, AN ISSUE PERTAINING TO ETHICS. THE CONTEXT FOR THAT IS A CATCHALL IN THE JURISDICTION SECTION OF THE CODE. UM, [01:45:01] AND WE, UH, MS. MORRISON AND I, AND, AND MS. PHELAN, WE, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS AND REALLY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IN THE END IT'S JUST GONNA BE BETTER FOR THE IT'S OFFICE TO MAKE THE CASE, UH, ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS THAT WHATEVER HAPPENED PERTAINS TO ETHICS, AND THEN LET THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION, UH, DECIDE IF THEY AGREE THAT IT PERTAINS TO ETHICS OR NOT, AS OPPOSED TO TRYING TO CRAFT SOMETHING BECAUSE IT'S JUST A VERY SLIPPERY, UH, CONCEPT. AND SOMETIMES IT'S GONNA BE QUITE OBVIOUS AND OTHER TIMES IT'S NOT. BUT TO, TO TRY AND DEFINE IT IS AS ALMOST AS DANGEROUS AS NOT. SO YOU'RE RECOMMENDING NO CHANGE? YES, SIR. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR THOUGHTS ON THAT? I'M OKAY WITH IT. ALL RIGHT. I'M OKAY WITH THAT. AND HEARING NO OTHER THOUGHTS OR DISCUSSION, WE CAN RIGHT, WE CAN MOVE ON. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. NEXT CULPABLE MENTAL STATE. SO, UM, THIS IS IN THE CODE OF ETHICS TO JUST RECALL THIS ISSUE. THERE ARE, WERE TWO SECTIONS DEALING ESSENTIALLY WITH THE SAME THING, WHICH IS HOW IS, UH, THE SANCTIONING PROCESS GOING TO WORK? AND SO UNDER THE EXISTING CODE IS SECTION 58 AND 59, AND I MENTIONED BEFORE THAT IT, IT HAD BEEN CONFUSING TO ME UNTIL I FIGURED IT OUT. AND SO, AGAIN, I THINK IT MIGHT BE CONFUSING TO OTHERS THAT 58 DEALT WITH THE ROUTING, DEPENDING ON A PERSON'S ROLE OF, UH, YOU KNOW, WHO'S GONNA DECIDE WHAT THE SANCTION WAS GONNA BE. AND THE, THE TERMINOLOGY WAS DISCIPLINE. THEY THREW THAT DISCIPLINE WORD IN 58, AND THEN 59 WAS ABOUT WHAT THE SANCTIONS OR THE ACTUAL DISCIPLINE WAS GOING TO BE. AND SO WE CONSIDERED, UH, COMBINING THOSE, AND MS. MORRISON WAS KIND ENOUGH TO DO THAT. AND, UH, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS ONE IS, IS, IS JUST SIMPLY COMBINING 58 59 INTO ONE. UH, AND IT DOES AWAY WITH THE CONFUSION THAT I KNOW I HAD IN AS A NEWCOMER, READING TO THE CODE, READING THE CODE, UH, BUT REALLY ESSENTIALLY CHANGES NOTHING. I JUST THINK IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR SOMEBODY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN NEXT TO READ THE CODE. YEAH, I AGREE WITH THE IG THAT IT WAS CONFUSING TO HAVE TWO SEPARATE SECTIONS ON SANCTIONS. ONE CALLING IT DISCIPLINE, ONE CALLING IT SANCTIONS. SO WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU IN THE HANDOUT IS A CLEANED UP VERSION OF COMBINING THOSE TWO INTO ONE SECTION. UM, BUT NO SUBSTANTIVE SUBSTATIVE CHANGE HAS BEEN MADE. IT'S ALL, IT'S ALL THE SAME LANGUAGE. IT'S COMBINED INTO ONE SECTION TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON. WELL, IT'S NOT RED LINE, IT WAS CHANGED. YEAH. JUST SO, JUST SO I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE, YOU DID MAKE A LOT OF CHANGES, AND THIS IS THE FINAL, FINAL CLEAN VERSION OF THAT. THIS IS THE CLEAN VERSION OF HOW IT WILL LOOK AFTER, UM, APPROVAL AND PUBLICATION INTO THE CODE. OKAY. THE, THE WAY IT'LL APPEAR IN THE ORDINANCE IT GOES TO COUNCIL IS, YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT. A BUNCH OF . I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTOOD WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT, BUT I DID THAT AND IT WAS A MESS. SO I DECIDED TO JUST GIVE YOU THE CLEAN NO PROBLEM. CLEAN NOTE, JUST SO I, I JUST WANTED THAT UNDERSTANDING SO I KNEW WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT. ALL RIGHT. YEAH, THIS, THIS MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. YEAH, I'M GOOD WITH IT. I'M GOOD WITH IT TOO. OKAY. WE ARE IN OUR LAST ONE, . ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU ALL. THIS IS A GREAT DISCUSSION TODAY. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. THE EFFORT. UM, THIS LAST ONE IS A CLEANUP. UH, SO CURRENTLY THE, UH, GOVERNMENT, THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS AND ETHICS IS LOOKING AND IS ALREADY DISCUSSED ONCE, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION TO MAKE SOME ADDITIONS TO THE CODE, WHICH WOULD STRENGTHEN THE CODE'S APPLICATION TO PERSONS DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY. UH, IN DOING THE REVIEW FOR THIS, I RECOGNIZE THAT IN 12 A 60 2D UH, THE WORD SUBCONTRACTOR IS NOT IN THERE. AND, UH, TO ADD IT WOULD SIMPLY CONFORM 12 A 62 TO THE OTHER CHANGES THAT WE'VE ALREADY RECOMMENDED. SO, SUBJECT TO THOSE OTHER CHANGES BEING RECOMMENDED AND APPROVED, WE WOULD ADD THE WORD SUBCONTRACTOR IN 12 A 60 2D. [01:50:01] DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES, YES. YES. THAT'S IT. OKAY. IS THAT, IS THAT IT? THAT IS IT. AND EVERYTHING AFTER THAT WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED FOR EAC CONSIDERATION AND THE OTHER ONE WAS THE ONES WE ALREADY TOOK OUT COMPLETELY FROM THE THING, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY, GOOD. ALRIGHT. EXCELLENT. ALRIGHT. I WAS GETTING A LITTLE WORRIED BECAUSE IT'S SO, GOT A LONG WAY TO GO. YEAH. OKAY, GOOD. THIS IS GOOD. I, UM, I, I APPRECIATE THE WAY YOU ORGANIZED THIS WITH THOSE SECTIONS AT THE END, UM, BECAUSE I TOO WAS LIKE, WOW, . SO THANK, SO THANK YOU. IT JUST TELLS YOU HOW MUCH WORK, UH, THIS WORKING GROUP HAS ACCOMPLISHED. ALRIGHT, VERY GOOD. VERY GOOD. OKAY, SO I GUESS MAYBE WE NEED TO MAKE ONE MORE TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A CLEAN RECOMMENDATION TO SEND TO THE FULL, UH, ETHICS COMMISSION FOR ITS CONSIDERATION BEFORE THEN GOES TO THE COUNCIL. I, SO WITH THIS ONE, UH, UH, I HATE TO SAY THIS, BUT I THINK YOU'RE CORRECT. I THINK WE'LL KNOCK IT OUT. WE'LL KNOCK OUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE COMING FROM THE OIG, UH, IN COLLABORATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OFFICE. IF SOME SIGNIFICANT SUGGESTIONS COME IN THROUGH PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT OR CITY COUNCIL THERE, THERE MAY BE A FEW OTHERS, BUT, UH, I HAVE NO WAY OF, I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THAT. BUT BASED ON TODAY'S CONVERSATION, WE SHOULD ONLY HAVE ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE THAT WE JUST NEED FURTHER DISCUSSION. I MEAN, WE'VE LIMITED NOW THAT TOP SECTION'S ONLY GONNA BE THE FOUR OR FIVE, SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN YEAH. AND IT'S PRETTY REFINED. YEAH. BLOW THROUGH THAT PRETTY QUICK. SO, UM, WHEN IS THE END PERIOD OF THE PUBLIC, UM, INPUT? UH, TWO AND A HALF MORE WEEKS. SO WE'LL HAVE, UH, ANOTHER VIRTUAL TOWN HALL THIS FRIDAY AND THEN ONE FOLLOWING. AND SAME WITH, WITH, UH, COUNSEL THROUGH DEPUTY MAYOR BROOKE TIM WILLIS' EMAIL ABOUT MID-MARCH THAT THAT'S THE CUTOFF TO RECEIVE SUGGESTIONS. AND WE NEED TO HAVE READY FOR THE EAC BY WHEN, UH, THE NEXT EAC REGULAR MEETING IS IN APRIL. SO IF WE WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND GIVE THAT TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND TO WAIT TO SEE IF, UM, COUNCIL MEMBERS AND DEPARTMENTS HAVE SUGGESTIONS FOR THE IE ON AMENDMENTS. I MEAN, I, I THINK PROBABLY IF WE MET MARCH 30TH OR 31ST, THAT WOULD GIVE TIME TO RECEIVE ALL THAT FEEDBACK FOR THE OIG TO WORKSHOP THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND WORK WITH ME ON THEM AND THEN TO BRING THEM TO YOU. AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE, UM, WE THEN WE WOULD STILL HAVE TIME TO GET EVERYTHING READY FOR THE, FOR THE APRIL. UM, NANCY, WHAT'S THE APRIL MEETING? WHAT DAY IS APRIL 7TH? APRIL 7TH? YES. WAIT, NO, APRIL, IS IT APRIL AND FIRST? APRIL? YEAH, BECAUSE THEN THAT, YEAH, THAT WOULD GIVE US A FEW WEEKS TO FINALIZE EVERYTHING TO PRESENT TO THE FULL AND IT GETS US PAST SPRING BREAK. YEAH. SO THAT PEOPLE CAN WORK TOGETHER. YOU KNOW, I, THAT WORKS FOR ME. 30TH TO 31ST, WHATEVER FOR THE OTHER MEMBERSHIP. RIGHT. SO, AND THAT WOULD GIVE US ENOUGH TIME TO MEET THE COUNCIL MEMBERS' THOUGHTS ON GETTING THIS TO THE FULL COUNCIL. OH, RIGHT. SO THE 31ST, IS THAT MARCH? MARCH 31ST. MARCH 31ST, TUESDAY, MARCH 31ST. YEAH. HUH. DOES THAT MEET WITH OTHER TASK FORCE MEMBERS? SCHEDULES? IT WORKS FOR ME. IT WORKS FOR ME. IT MIGHT BE JET LAG, BUT I THINK THAT SHOULD WORK. BUT I'M SORRY, SHE MIGHT BE JET LAGGED. UH OH. . SHE'S, SHE GOT A MORE, EITHER MORE FUN OR LONG TRIP PLAN RIGHT AROUND THERE. ? UH, YEAH. LONG TRIP. SO , BUT YOU CAN MAKE IT ON, RIGHT? YOU CAN MAKE IT ON THE 31ST. YEAH. YES. AND YOU'RE OKAY MR. SCHMIDT? YES. I THINK THAT SHOULD WORK. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. WELL I THINK OUR WORK HERE IS DONE AND IS 11 O'CLOCK AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. PERFECT. GOOD JOB. THAT WAS GOOD WORK. THANK YOU. THANKS A LOT. COURSE. IT WAS REALLY GOOD. THANKS EVERYONE ALL. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.