* 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. GOOD. [00:00:02] ALL RIGHT. IT IS NINE [Ethics Advisory Commission on April 14, 2026.] 16. THE EAC WORKING GROUP MEETING WILL NOW COME TO ORDER, UH, THE, LET ME AT LEAST CALL THE ROLL. UH, MS. STO HERE. MR. VI. REAL HERE. MR. SCHMIDT? NOT HERE. UH, THE CITY ATTORNEY IS, IS PRESENT AND YOU ANNOUNCE, UH, LAURA MORRISON PRESENT AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE. UH, BARRON ELIASON, INTERIM INSPECTOR GENERAL LAURA FELAN, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL. ALL RIGHT. AND THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE. AND THEN SUSAN SANCHEZ. AYE. DONNA BROWN. WE HAVE A QUORUM AND WE WILL PROCEED FIRST. WE WILL, UH, HAVE PUBLIC SPEAKERS. I THINK THERE IS ONE SPEAKER THAT HAS SIGNED UP. UH, THE NORMAL SPEAKING TIME IS THREE MINUTES. UM, I, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO EXTEND THAT TO FIVE MINUTES, IF THAT IS OKAY WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE PANEL. YES. UH, GOOD MORNING. I'M PHILLIP KINGSTON 5 9 0 1 PALOP PINTO. UM, I'VE GOT, I HAD REDLINED THE ENTIRE CODE, AND I'M HAPPY TO SHARE THAT WITH Y'ALL. I THOUGHT I HAD KIND OF HOPED IT WOULD'VE ALREADY BEEN SHARED WITH THE WORKING GROUP, BUT I'LL MAKE SURE TO, TO SEND IT ON TO, UH, MR. ELIASON TO DISTRIBUTE. SO YOU CAN SEE, UH, A LOT OF THE DIFFERENT THOUGHTS I HAVE. BUT THE MAIN THING THAT I'M HERE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT TODAY IS SOMETHING THAT HAS, UH, SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED ME AND MY CLIENTS IN MY PRIMARY BUSINESS, WHICH HAS BECOME, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS. THAT IS PRIMARILY DONE WITH THE HELP OF CITY SUBSIDY, UH, TIFF, UH, MONEY, UH, THE, THE FUNDS COLLECTED FROM THE FEE IN LIEU OF PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNDER CHAPTER 20 OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. UM, SO THESE ARE FUNDS THAT WE REQUIRE IN ORDER TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING. UM, IT, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PRIVATELY FUNDED AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE UNITED STATES. UM, I CAN EXPLAIN THE ECONOMICS OF THAT TO ANYBODY WHO, WHO DOESN'T UNDERSTAND IT. UM, BUT THE, THE 12 A HAS A PROVISION THAT PROHIBITS THE LOBBYING OF CITY OFFICIALS ON MATTERS OF DESIGNATED PUBLIC SUBSIDY. AND IT DEFINES DESIGNATED PUBLIC SUBSIDY TO INCLUDE ALL THOSE TYPES OF FUNDING. BUT STRANGELY ENOUGH, NOT LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS, WHICH ARE NOT GIVEN OUT BY THE CITY. THOSE ARE FEDERAL DOLLARS GIVEN OUT BY THE STATE. AND THE EXAMPLES OF BAD BEHAVIOR MOST OFTEN CITED TO SUPPORT THIS, UH, PROVISION OF 12 A ARE MATTERS IN WHICH AN OFFICIAL WAS SOLICIT EITHER SOLICITED BRIBES OR WAS OFFERED BRIBES FOR LITECH SUPPORT. AND ALL THE CITY DOES WITH LITECH IS TO SEND A LETTER TO THE STATE SAYING, WE DO NOT OBJECT TO THIS PROJECT. THAT'S IT. YOU CAN'T GET MONEY FROM THE CITY, FROM LITECH. YOU CAN ONLY BE TURNED DOWN AT THE CITY. BUT THE PROHIBITION ON LOBBYING MEANS THAT ME AND MY CLIENTS CANNOT GO TO, UH, A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, A MEMBER OF THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT, UM, ANYBODY IN THIS BUILDING, BASICALLY TO ASK FOR HELP AND SUPPORT IN GETTING TIFF MONEY. UH, THE IN LIE, MONEY, HOUSING BOND MONEY, ALL THESE ARE PROHIBITED ITEMS. UM, MY CLIENTS CAN'T EVEN TALK TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. THEY'RE ALLOWED TO TALK TO THE, THE, THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT. BUT I CAN'T BECAUSE A CLIENT ADVOCATING FOR ITSELF IS NOT LOBBYING UNDER THE TERMS OF 12 A. BUT, UH, CONVERSATIONS WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS ON MATTERS OF DESIGNATED PUBLIC SUBSIDY ARE STILL PROHIBITED EVEN BY APPLICANTS. THIS IS NOT A PROCUREMENT. THIS IS NOT A COMPETITIVE BIDDING SITUATION IN WHICH AN OFFICIAL MUST REMAIN COMPLETELY NEUTRAL. THESE ARE MATTERS OF POLICY WHERE PEOPLE NEED TO BE ABLE TO ADVOCATE FOR THEMSELVES. AND HERE'S THE PARTICULAR PERVERSITY OF THE RULE. [00:05:01] EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE CITY WHO IS NOT ME OR MY CLIENT, IS ALLOWED TO TALK TO ALL OF THESE PEOPLE ON THIS MATTER, UH, INCLUDING, FOR INSTANCE, OTHER, UH, LANDOWNERS IN A TIF DISTRICT WHO MIGHT ACTUALLY WANT THE TIF DOLLARS THAT I'M ASKING FOR. SO IT, IT CREATES A DEEPLY UNFAIR SITUATION. THERE'S ALSO A LEGAL PROBLEM HERE BECAUSE COUNSEL AND, UH, THEIR APPOINTEES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE LOBBIED. UM, THE, ESSENTIALLY THE STAFF IS DETERMINING THE ORDER AND MAGNITUDE OF ALL OF THESE AWARDS. SO, FOR INSTANCE, THE DECISION MAKERS MIGHT WANT TO SEE THE 10 ITEMS IN THE HOPPER, THE THINGS THAT ARE COMING THEIR WAY IN THE FUTURE, SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION ABOUT WHICH ONES TO FUND BASED ON THE RELATIVE MERITS OF THE PROPOSALS. THAT'S NOT HAPPENING. STAFF IS DRIBBLING THESE OUT AT THEIR DISCRETION TO THE DECISION MAKERS, ESSENTIALLY DETERMINING WHICH PROJECTS ARE CONSIDERED FOR FUNDING. THAT IS AN ILLEGAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO AN EXECUTIVE. AND AS YOU, AS SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW, IN TEXAS, WE HAVE AN EXTREMELY STRONG SEPARATION OF POWERS LAW, AND I BELIEVE WE ARE VIOLATING IT DAILY IN THIS BUILDING. UH, BUT REGARDLESS WHAT THIS HAS DONE, HAS CREATED A MASSIVE BOTTLENECK FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS. I HAVE ONES WAITING ON, UM, UH, LETTERS OF, OF, UH, AGREEMENT FROM THE CITY. I HAVE ALL I HAVE, I I I KNOW PROJECTS THAT HAVE DIED ON THE VINE TRYING TO GET THROUGH HERE. MR. KINGSTON, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. MR. PERKINS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE, THE PANEL OR ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT? WELL, THANK YOU FOR WORKING ON THIS. SO WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH THE PROPOSALS ONE BY ONE. AND MR. KINGSTON, IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU AT THAT TIME, WHEN WE GET TO THAT PART OF IT THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, THEY CAN STILL ASK YOU QUESTIONS THEN. GREAT. I'LL STICK AROUND. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL, THE MICROPHONE IS YOURS. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO, UH, AND, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR ENGAGEMENT IN THIS PROCESS ALL ALONG, AND THANK YOU FOR MR. KINGSTON TO, UH, COME DOWN HERE AND TO OFFER HIS COMMENT ON THINGS. UM, I DID WANT TO RESPOND TO ONE THING JUST SO THAT HE WAS AWARE. UM, I DID IN, IN THE, UH, MATERIALS THAT THE EAC WORKING GROUP HAS, UH, ALL OF YOUR LINED OUT, 12 A THEY'RE IN THERE. SO YOU DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT, UH, SENDING ME THAT SO THEY CAN SEE THOSE. UM, IN TERMS OF HOW I'VE ORGANIZED, UH, THIS, UH, THERE ARE, UH, IT'S THE SAME DOCUMENT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON. IT IS, IT IS DIVIDED NOW INTO THE COMPONENT PARTS OF NEW RECOMMENDATIONS. UM, AND TODAY, WE WILL RECEIVE THE BODY OF NEW RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE COME IN THROUGH THE PUBLIC. SO WE HAD A PUBLIC SURVEY AND WE DID SOME VIRTUAL TOWN HALL MEETINGS, AND A WHOLE BUNCH OF SUGGESTIONS CAME IN, AND THEY'VE MOSTLY BEEN INCLUDED. I DIDN'T INCLUDE EVERYONE BECAUSE MANY OF THEM JUST WEREN'T APPLICABLE TO OUR WORK, BUT ALL THE ONES THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE APPLICABLE TO OUR DECISION MAKING HERE OR TO YOUR DECISION MAKING RATHER HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AS A NEW RECOMMENDATION. THE SECOND SECTION, UH, OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH, UH, ITEMS THAT WE WANTED TO REFINE BEFORE THEY CAME BACK TO THE WORKING GROUP. THE THIRD SECTION, OR ITEMS WE'VE ALREADY DECIDED AS A, OR THE WORKING GROUP HAS ALREADY DECIDED THAT, UH, WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND. AND THEN THE FOURTH SECTION HAS ALL THE THINGS THAT THE WORKING GROUP DECIDED, UH, WILL NOT MOVE FORWARD TO THE NEXT STAGE OF DELIBERATIONS. SO, UM, BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY BEEN WORKING ON SOME OF THIS, I'M GONNA, UH, AND, AND WE HAVE A BUNCH OF BRAND NEW RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE WORKING GROUP WILL BE HEARING FOR THE FIRST TIME. [00:10:01] I'M GONNA START WITH THE THINGS THAT WE'VE ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSING, AND WE CAN MOVE THROUGH THAT PRETTY QUICKLY. AND THEN I WILL MOVE TO ALL OF THE NEW RECOMMENDATIONS. AND I, I DON'T THINK IT WILL TAKE LONG AT ALL. SO, UH, WITH THAT IN MIND, ON YOUR HANDOUT ON PAGE TWO, WE HAVE, UH, THE LAST OF THE NEW RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, THAT ARE COMING REALLY FROM ME. AND THIS IS, UH, HAVING TO DO WITH 12 A 36 A. THE INTENT HERE IS TO CLARIFY, UH, THAT BOARDS, UH, OR COMMISSIONS, WHICH ONES APPLY. UH, AND, AND HERE IS THE DISCUSSION. UM, SUBJECT 12 A 29 1 H UH, NO LONGER EXISTS. SO THIS IS JUST A CLEANUP THING. AND, UH, THE CODE CURRENTLY IS REFERENCING SOMETHING THAT JUST DOESN'T EXIST. AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO FIX THAT. UH, IT JUST HAPPENED IN THE NATURAL COURSE OF AMENDING THE CODE THE LAST TIME. UH, AND THE FIX WOULD BE TO CHANGE 12 A 36 A APPEARANCES, UH, TO WHAT YOU SEE THERE, ELIMINATING THE PART THAT REFERS TO 12 A 29 1 H, WHICH NO LONGER EXISTS. AND JUST ADDING IN, IN A PUBLIC MEETING. EACH PERSON WHO LOBBIES OR ENGAGES ANOTHER PERSON TO LOBBY BEFORE THE CITY IN A PUBLIC MEETING, UH, SHALL ORALLY IDENTIFY HIMSELF OR HERSELF. UH, AND SO THAT IS THE, THE RECOMMENDATION TO FIX, FIX THAT ERROR, AND ALSO BRING, UH, THIS SECTION OF THE CODE INTO, UH, ALIGNMENT WITH SOME OF THE OTHER WORK WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED TO MOVE FORWARD IN THE PROCESS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I MEAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THAT THERE'S A MOTION TO APPROVE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. AS MOTION PASSES. OKAY. SO NOW I'M SKIPPING DOWN PAST ALL THE BRAND NEW, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, TO PAGE EIGHT. THESE ARE, UH, SO WE CAN WRAP UP OUR WORK TO DATE. BEFORE WE GET TO THE, TO THE REALLY NEW THINGS, ON PAGE EIGHT, IT SHOULD READ THEIR 12 A FOUR STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR STANDARDS OF CIVILITY. THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING NINE AT NINE. IT'S PAGE NINE FOR YOU ALL. OKAY. UM, SO THIS IS AN INTERESTING PROVISION IN THE CODE. IT HAS MERIT, IT'S, IT ACTUALLY, AS IT APPLIES TO COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, IT IS, IS A PART OF THE CITY CHARTER, ACTUALLY. AND, AND THIS HAS TO DO WITH HOW DO CITY OFFICIALS ENGAGE AND INTERACT, REQUEST INFORMATION, AND GET HELP WITH PROJECTS FROM CITY EMPLOYEES. IT'S UNDER THE CIVILITY SECTION OF THE CODE. UH, AND WHAT IT DOES IS IT, IT SETS UP A SYSTEM WHEREBY CURRENTLY ALL CITY OFFICIALS, UH, ARE REQUIRED TO WORK THROUGH ONE OF THE FIVE APPOINTED OFFICIALS. AND THAT'S ALMOST ALWAYS GOING TO BE THE CITY MANAGER AND, UH, THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR FROM WHICH THE CITY OFFICIAL NEEDS HELP, GUIDANCE INFORMATION, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. IN MY, IN MY VIEW, WHAT IT DOES IS IT PROTECTS EMPLOYEES, UH, NUMBER ONE, UH, FROM FROM SITUATIONS WHERE, UH, SOMETIMES THERE ARE CITY OFFICIALS THAT BECAUSE THEY, THEY HAVE POWER, THEY DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW HOW TO USE IT, OR, OR THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO INTERACT WITH AN EMPLOYEE IN AN APPROPRIATE WAY. AND SO THAT CAN SOMETIMES CREATE A CIVILITY ISSUE. AND SO, UH, A BENEFIT OF THIS RULE IS IT, IT GETS OTHER EYES ON THE INTERACTION, NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, UH, WHAT IT DOES IS IT WILL HELP, UH, THE CITY MANAGER OR WHOEVER THE APPOINTED DIRECTOR IS, UH, APPOINTED A CITY OFFICIAL, IS TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THE CITY OFFICIAL THAT NEEDS THE HELP GETS TO THE RIGHT EMPLOYEE AND GETS THE HELP THAT THEY NEED IN AN EFFICIENT MANNER. UM, I THINK THE, THE TRUTH IS THAT THIS IS NOT CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED. AND SO MY INTENT IN RAISING THE ISSUE, UH, HERE, WAS TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT HOW WE COULD GET [00:15:01] THIS PROVISION TO BE CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED. I, AND I NEVER GOT THERE. I, I JUST THROUGH 12 A, UH, I DON'T THINK, UH, THIS, THE, THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT BEING FOLLOWED, IT, UH, IT CAN BE ADDRESSED EFFECTIVELY. I DO THINK WHAT WE CAN DO IS CLARIFY WHO THE CITY OFFICIALS ARE, UH, THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO. AND SO I THINK IT SHOULD, UH, APPLY TO COUNCIL, AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE CITY CHARTER SAYS IT HAS TO. AND THAT'S, UH, AS MS. MORRISON FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REMINDED ME OF THE SECTION. THANK YOU ALWAYS. UH, CHAPTER THREE, SECTION 15, UH, THIS IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED, UM, BUT ALSO IT SHOULD, UH, APPLY TO BOARD AND COMMISSION OFFICIALS. UM, IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE IN MY VIEW, FOR IT TO APPLY TO, UH, EMPLOYED OFFICIALS. FOR INSTANCE, LIKE THE CITY ATTORNEY RIGHT NOW, IF YOU, IF A STRICT READING OF THIS, THE CITY ATTORNEY, IF SHE WANTS TO TALK TO ANOTHER EMPLOYEE SOMEWHERE OUTSIDE, SHE'S GOTTA WORK THROUGH THIS CITY MANAGER AND A DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR AS AN EXAMPLE. SO THAT IS A RECOMMENDED CHANGE THAT I WOULD MAKE. OTHERWISE, I WOULD, UH, LEAVE 12 A FOUR ALONE. NOW, UH, THE RECOMMENDED CHANGE THAT I JUST MADE IS NOT IN YOUR, UH, HANDOUT. SO, UH, FOR PURPOSES OF CLARITY, I WOULD CHANGE THE WORD CITY OFFICIALS AT THE START, AND I WOULD REPLACE THAT WITH COUNCIL AND BOARD AND COMMISSION OR OTHER BODY MEMBERS. THEY SHALL WORK THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER, CITY SECRETARY, CITY ATTORNEY THAT, SO THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION IN TERMS OF ADDRESSING THE FACT THAT, UH, THIS IS INCONSISTENTLY APPLIED. UH, I THINK THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO DEAL WITH THAT IS FOR ME AND OTHERS TO BEGIN WORKING ON AN ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE TO DEFINE HOW THIS IS GOING TO BE APPLIED SO EVERYBODY CAN GET ON THE SAME PAGE. SO THAT'S, UH, THAT'S EVERYTHING ON THIS. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SO YOU'RE SUGGESTING INSTEAD OF CITY OFFICIALS, IT'S A, SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF COUNCIL AND BOARD IN COMMISSION. MEMBERS, MEMBERS, MEMBERS, THAT, THAT'S CORRECT. AND OTHER BODIES, THE, THE, AND OTHER BODIES IS LANGUAGE THAT IS USED THROUGHOUT THE CODE. I GUESS THAT'S TO PICK UP PEOPLE WHO ARE CITY OFFICIALS BECAUSE THEY SERVE ON A COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION, THAT KIND OF THING TO SAY, BOARD AND COMMISSION DOESN'T CAPTURE EVERYBODY. UM, SO THIS IS IN PROGRESS, OR IS THIS LIKE THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION? THIS WOULD BE MY FINAL RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. DOES THIS, UH, CITY ATTORNEY HAVE ANY OPINION? YOU'RE, YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF THAT MISS CITY ATTORNEY? YEAH, THE REASON I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS CHANGE IS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, THE CITY SECRETARY IS A CITY OFFICIAL, AND IT READS THAT THE CITY SECRETARY SHALL WORK THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY, RIGHT? UM, SHE'S GOTTA BE ABLE TO JUST WORK WITH HER OWN PEOPLE WITHOUT GOING THROUGH SOMEONE ELSE. SO I THINK IT, I THINK THE INTENT OF THIS PROVISION WAS ALWAYS TO ADDRESS, UM, UH, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS GOING THROUGH HIGHER LEVEL PEOPLE AND NOT CONTACTING LOWER LEVEL CITY STAFF DIRECTLY. UM, I THINK HOW IT WORKS GENERALLY, AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TOUCHED ON THIS, IS THAT OFTEN THESE OFFICIALS WILL, WHAT WE LIKE TO SEE, I THINK IS, YOU KNOW, THEM WORKING THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER AND ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER. AND THEN ONCE THEY GET DIRECTION FROM THAT INDIVIDUAL ON WHO SPECIFICALLY TO WORK WITH MOVING FORWARD ON THAT PROJECT, THEN THAT'S WHO THEY GO TO. BUT AS LONG AS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S BEEN CLEARED FROM MANAGEMENT, UM, AND THEN THEY GET DIRECTION AND WHO TO WORK WITH. AND THAT, I THINK IS WHAT BARON IS SAYING, THAT CAN, THAT PROCEDURE CAN BE CLEANED UP IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, CONCERNS? IS THERE A MOTION I MOVE TO SUBMIT THIS TO THE EAC FOR APPROVAL? SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. [00:20:01] THOSE OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES. THE NEXT SECTION'S 12 A 18, UH, REPRESENTATION OF PRIVATE INTERESTS. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO ADDRESS IN THIS SECTION HAD TO DO, UH, WITH THE IDENTIFICATION OF A CONFLICT, UH, OR NOT NECESSARILY A CONFLICT, JUST BEING TRANSPARENT ABOUT, UH, WHO AND WHAT ROLE A PERSON HAS WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY'RE REPRESENTING OTHERS, UH, BEFORE THE CITY. AND AN ISSUE THAT IMMEDIATELY AROSE, UH, WAS THAT, ON THE ONE HAND, WE WANT THAT TRANSPARENCY, THE BENEFIT OF THAT TO THE BURDEN OF JUST SAYING I HAVE THIS RELATIONSHIP TO THE CITY, UH, IS IT'S JUST THERE'S NOT MUCH TROUBLE THAT IT CAUSES FOR PEOPLE SIMPLY TO IDENTIFY THE RELATIONSHIP. AND WE GET THE BENEFIT OF PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY. BUT THE PROBLEM IS, UH, THOUGH THAT WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY ADVISED, AND IT'S IN 12 A RIGHT NOW, THAT WHEN, UH, CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES DO COME BEFORE THE CITY AND, AND REPRESENTATION THAT THEY NOT USE THE PRESTIGE OF THEIR OFFICE, UH, IN THE COURSE OF THAT REPRESENTATION. UH, AND SO BY IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES, THERE'S A COLORABLE ARGUMENT THAT THEY'RE USING THE PRESTIGE OF THEIR OFFICE, BUT WE WANT THAT TRANSPARENCY AT THE SAME TIME. AND SO, UM, WHAT I'M RECOMMENDING HERE IS WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE A MIDDLE GROUND WHERE WE ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF, UH, IDENTIFICATION. UM, BUT IT, BUT IT'S LIMITED. AND SO THE WAY THAT, UH, IN A WAY THAT, THAT HOPEFULLY ALLOWS, UH, THE RULE AGAINST USING THE PRESTIGE OF ONE'S OFFICE TO CONTINUE TO HAVE ITS EFFECT, BUT ALSO TO GAIN THE BENEFIT OF PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY. AND SO YOU CAN SEE THERE, UH, HOW THAT'S DONE. UM, WE, WE ADD TO THE PRESTIGE SECTION OF 12 A 18, THAT PHRASE, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN 12 A 18 FIVE. AND THEN WE ADD A SECTION 12, A 18, FIVE, UH, ENTITLED, UH, APPEARANCES. AND IT SAYS, EACH CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE WHO ENGAGES IN REPRESENTATION OF PRIVATE INTEREST IN A PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE CITY, THOSE ARE ALL, UH, RELATIVELY TERMS OF ART HERE IN THE CITY, SHALL IDENTIFY HIMSELF OR HERSELF, AND ANY CLIENT HE OR SHE REPRESENTS UPON BEGINNING AN ADDRESS. UM, SO THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION TO, TO TRY AND REACH A MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN THOSE TWO PROVISIONS. UH, THERE'S A QUESTION BY THE CITY ATTORNEY BARON, WHEN YOU SAY SHALL IDENTIFY HIM OR HERSELF, DOES THAT JUST MEAN THEIR NAME? BECAUSE THAT'S ALREADY THE RULE. THAT'S NOT WHAT I INTENDED. SO I THINK IT'D BE A GREAT, UH, ADDITION TO PUT, TO IDENTIFY, UH, LET'S HELP CRAFT THIS, BUT THEIR ROLE IN THE CITY. 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING AT HERE IS WHEN SOMEONE HAS AN ACTIVE POSITION IN THE CITY. AND FOR CONTEXT, THIS, THIS CAME UP AT A, UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS A COUNCIL MEETING, BUT THERE WAS A PERSON THAT WAS REPRESENTING A PROJECT, AND THEY ALSO HAPPENED TO BE THE CHAIR OF ANOTHER COMMITTEE IN THE, UH, CITY. AND THE COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, THAT WAS ASKING THEM QUESTIONS WAS SAYING, HEY, YOU KNOW, SO AND SO, YOU'RE NOT JUST ANYBODY ARE, YOU KNOW, YOU SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, RIGHT? YES. AND ACTUALLY, YOU'RE THE CHAIR OF THIS COMMISSION. SO I THINK, UH, THE ADDITION HERE, I'M HAPPY TO RECEIVE A OR TO HEAR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, BUT, UM, TO MY RECOMMENDATION, BUT WOULD BE TO IDENTIFY THEIR CURRENT ROLE IN THE CITY. MISS CITY ATTORNEY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS? YEAH, AND I DID DISCUSS THIS WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. I RECOMMEND AGAINST THIS CHANGE, I STILL THINK THAT THIS CONFLICTS WITH THE PROHIBITION AGAINST CITY OFFICIALS AND CITY EMPLOYEES ASSERTING THE PRESTIGE OF THEIR OFFICE WITH THE CITY, UH, WHEN THEY'RE EXERCISING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS IN FRONT OF THE CITY. I ALSO THINK, ESPECIALLY FOR LOWER LEVEL CITY EMPLOYEES WHO, UH, COUNCIL MEMBERS DO NOT KNOW THIS WILL HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT AND THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO COME BEFORE CITY COUNCIL TO EXPRESS, UM, ANY CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE. A LOT, YOU KNOW, MOST OF OUR CITY EMPLOYEES DO LIVE HERE IN THE CITY OF DALLAS. AND SO THEY DO HAVE, UM, [00:25:01] KIND OF A DUAL ROLE WHERE THEY ARE CITY EMPLOYEES AND THEY ARE ALSO RESIDENTS, UM, HERE IN DALLAS. AND I JUST THINK THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CITY, UM, AS A RESIDENT TO SPEAK AS A RESIDENT AND NOT AS A CITY EMPLOYEE. AND THE SAME, UH, WITH OUR BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS. THEY ALSO HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT, UM, TO SPEAK IN FRONT OF THE CITY AS RESIDENTS. ALRIGHT, SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO HELP ME HERE. THIS WOULD RE REQUIRE THAT IF THEY ARE REPRESENTING PRIVATE INTERESTS, UH, THEY IDENTIFY THEMSELF AND THEIR CLIENT OR THE INTERESTS THAT THEY REPRESENT BEFORE BEGINNING TO, WELL, IT COULD BE THEIR OWN INTEREST. THEIR OWN INTEREST IS A PRIVATE INTEREST. UH, AND IT'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, LONG STANDING FOR, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN WORKING HERE FOR 17 YEARS AND WE'VE ALWAYS WARNED, UH, CITY EMPLOYEES AND BOARDING COMMISSION MEMBERS AGAINST USING THEIR TITLE WHEN SPEAKING IN FRONT OF A CITY BODY, BECAUSE WE THINK THAT'S THEM ASSERTING THE PRESTIGE OF THEIR OFFICE. YOU KNOW, SAYING, WELL, I WORK IN SUCH AND SUCH OFFICE, OR I SERVE ON SUCH AND SUCH BORDER COMMISSION, SO YOU REALLY NEED TO LISTEN TO ME CLOSER THAN YOU WOULD LISTEN TO ANYONE ELSE BECAUSE I'M SPECIAL. AND, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S HOW WE'VE ALWAYS HANDLED THAT. I WOULD BE INCLINED TO AGREE THAT THESE ARE PRIVATE INTERESTS AND THEY ARE RESIDENTS AND ALSO EMPLOYEES THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS AS RESIDENTS. AND SINCE THIS IS ALREADY KIND OF LIKE A, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A MIDDLE GROUND, IT, IT, IT, I MEAN, IF IT CONTINUE, IF THERE'S A PROBLEM, LIKE IT COULD BE ADDRESSED IN THE FUTURE, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE IT'S FINE THE WAY IT IS. AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD PROHIBIT SAY A COUNCIL MEMBER FROM WANTING IT PUT ON THE RECORD THAT, YOU KNOW, JUST FOR TRANSPARENCY'S SAKE, YOU ARE, SAY, PRESIDENT OF THE PARK BOARD, IF THEY JUST WANT IT ON THE RECORD LIKE THAT, THERE'S NOTHING, RIGHT. AND IT'S OPEN, IT'S OPEN MEETINGS, SO MM-HMM . AND THERE WOULD BE NOTHING PROHIBITING THAT PERSON FROM THEN JUST CONFIRMING THAT. YES. BUT TO REQUIRE SOMEONE TO STATE THEIR ROLE HERE AT THE CITY, ESPECIALLY IF WHAT THEY'RE SPEAKING ON, UM, HAS TO DO WITH THEM AS A RESIDENT, MAYBE A CONCERN THEY HAVE AS A RESIDENT THAT REALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH, UM, THEIR EMPLOYMENT HERE AT THE CITY OR WITH THEIR ROLE ON A CITY BOARD OR COMMISSION. UM, YEAH, MY, MY ADVICE IS TO REJECT THIS CHANGE, MR. ELIASON, RIGHT? ELIASON OH, WELL, IT, IT'S, I MEAN, SHE'S RIGHT. AND THERE'S JUST A TENSION HERE. AND WE NEED TO, UH, WITH A WORKING GROUP, MY, MY GOAL HERE IS TO RAISE THE TENSION AND, UH, AND THEN LET THE PROCESS PLAY OUT. I DON'T THINK THE CITY, IT'S, IT EITHER WAY THE WORKING GROUP DECIDES, I THINK THE CITY IS GONNA BENEFIT BECAUSE ONE OR THE OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES IS, IS GOING TO BE, UH, COVERED. WE'RE EITHER GONNA KEEP THE PRESTIGE OF OFFICE AWAY AND, UH, AND OUT OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, OR WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THE BENEFIT OF TRANSPARENCY AND SAY, IN THESE CASES, THIS IS MORE ABOUT TRANSPARENCY WITH THE PUBLIC IN THE MOMENT, NOT ABOUT ASSERTING PRESTIGE, BUT IT'S CLEAR, YOU KNOW, I WOULDN'T, I'M NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT THAT, UM, THIS WOULD NOT HAVE SOME KIND OF EFFECT ON A BORDER COMMISSION TO FIND OUT AT THE OUTSET THAT, THAT THIS PERSON BELONGS ON A, A CITY BORDER COMMISSION SOMEWHERE ELSE, AND THEREFORE HAS SOME SPECIAL, UH, INSIGHT. IT'S, UH, IT'S JUST, IT'S A CHOICE. AND, AND WE HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS ABOUT THAT. BUT, UH, NOW WE HAND IT OVER TO THE WORKING GROUP TO DECIDE WHICH ONE THAT YOU THAT YOU WANNA MOVE FORWARD AND, AND MISS CITY ATTORNEY. YOU THINK THAT IT SHOULD STAY AS IT IS, AND THAT WE DON'T NEED THIS ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE? YES. ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS BY MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP? [00:30:05] SO I MOVE TO TABLE THIS AND NOT MAKE THIS CHANGE. UM, JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. I, I THINK, UH, WHAT I'M HEARING THAT YOUR, UH, MOTION WOULD BE IS TO, IS TO MOVE IT TO THE NOT RECOMMENDED PILE. 'CAUSE THERE'S NO TABLE AFTER THIS, CORRECT? I THINK WE'LL BE DONE. NOT, NOT RECOMMENDED. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? UH, SECOND I'LL SAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. IT IS MOVED AND, UH, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED, UH, THAT WE NOT PROCEED WITH THIS PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? AND THE MOTION PASSES. THE NEXT ONE'S, UH, 12 A 18. AND THE DIRECTION FROM THE WORKING GROUP WAS TO TAKE A SECOND LOOK AT IT AND MAKE SURE THAT WE WEREN'T IN, UH, IN MAKING THE CHANGES THAT WE WERE MAKING, THAT WE'RE NOT LOSING ANY OF THE, UH, GOOD THINGS THAT WE LIKED ABOUT IT AND THE GOOD THINGS THAT WE REALLY WANTED TO KEEP. UH, I HAVE INSERTED IN RED, THAT WOULD BE ON YOUR PAGE 12. UM, AND SO I THINK THE WORK HAS BEEN DONE, UH, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DIDN'T LOSE ANYTHING IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING THOSE CHANGES. UM, YOU CAN SEE WITH THE BLUE ARROW WHAT I'VE DONE. I'VE JUST TAKEN THE LANGUAGE THAT, UH, WE WANTED FROM THE PRIOR SECTION THAT WE'RE, UH, ELIMINATING AND TAKING THE LANGUAGE WE WANTED AND PULLING IT DOWN, UH, INTO THE NEXT SECTION. SO IT'S, IT'S NOTHING NEW. IT'S JUST ME FOLLOWING UP AND MAKING SURE THAT, UH, THE WORDING IS WHAT WE INTENDED. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL? MISS CITY ATTORNEY, DO YOU HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION? NO. HAVE HAVING NO QUESTIONS, IS THERE A MOTION I MOVE TO APPROVE THIS, TO SUBMIT IT TO THE FULL COMMISSION? UH, I'LL, I'LL SECOND THAT. OH, OKAY. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED NAY. AND THE MOTION PASSES. THE NEXT ONE, WHICH WOULD BE ON YOUR PAGE 13, IS, UH, AN AMENDMENT TO 12 A 47 ON THE ISSUE OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF INVESTIGATION. AND THERE ARE A COUPLE OF CHANGES THAT ARE IN HERE THAT I'M RECOMMENDING. UM, THE, THE FIRST ONE HAS TO DO WITH THE EXTENT OF THE ACCESS THIS, THIS COMES, UH, FROM, FROM TWO PLACES. UM, AND WHEN I SAY THAT THIS COMES FROM MY BRINGING THIS UP, UH, ONE, IT COMES FROM JUST PAYING ATTENTION TO THE NATIONAL CONVERSATION AND OTHER OIGS, UH, PARTICULARLY BALTIMORE AND CHICAGO, WHICH, UH, RIGHT NOW ARE ENMESHED IN, UH, SOME, SOME REAL STRONG BATTLES, SOME BIG BATTLES ABOUT ACCESS TO INFORMATION. AND SO, UH, I'M TRYING TO STRENGTHEN THE CODE SO THAT IF ISSUES LIKE THAT DO ARISE IN DALLAS, THE CODE IS, IS READY FOR THEM. AND THE KEY THERE IS, UH, THE ISSUE OF DIRECT ACCESS. AND, YOU KNOW, THE, THE IMAGE THERE, UH, OF WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY AND WHAT I'M ASKING FOR, I THINK TELLS THE TALE. BUT, BUT WE ACTUALLY, EVEN THIS LAST WEEK, UH, HAD AN INVESTIGATION THAT WAS NOT BLOWN UP, BUT SOMETHING SHORT OF BLOWN UP . UH, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO INFORMATION, WE HAVE TO RING THE BELL TO GET IT. AND, UM, LONG STORY SHORT, AN AN EMPLOYEE, WELL-MEANING, I'M SURE, UH, BUT BECAUSE WE HAD TO GO THROUGH THEM TO GET SOME INFORMATION, IT TOOK, IT, IT'S, IT'S CREATED AN ISSUE IN THE CASE BY THE WAY THEY HANDLED IT. IT'S OUTED THAT THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION IN THE FIRST PLACE, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, WHEN IF WE HAD DIRECT ACCESS, WE COULD HAVE JUST [00:35:01] QUIETLY GOTTEN THE INFORMATION. AND FRANKLY, THAT CASE WOULD BE OVER BY NOW. UH, NOW IT'S NOT, UH, IT'S KIND OF CHURNING ON. UM, SO THERE'S A REAL LIFE EXAMPLE EVEN FROM RECENT HISTORY OF THAT. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I'M, I WANT TO BE FAIR, WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE SHOULD BE LIMITS ON THAT POWER. AND SO YOU SEE THOSE LIMITS HERE THAT, UH, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, AND HERE'S THE ADDED LANGUAGE, SHALL HAVE DIRECT, DIRECT ACCESS TO ALL CITY DATA SYSTEMS, BUT THEN IN A PARENTHETICAL SUBJECT TO INFORMATION THAT IS COVERED BY EXCEPTIONS TO A PUBLIC INFORMATION ACCESS REQUEST, UH, THAT GIVES US SOME PROTECTION THAT'S ACTUALLY MORE PROTECTION THAN IS PROVIDED TO, UH, COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO GET INFORMATION, UH, ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON. UM, AND THEN THE SECOND PART, THE LAST SENTENCE AT THE END, INFORMATION MAY ONLY BE ACCESSED ON A NEED TO KNOW BASIS IN CONJUNCTION AND IN DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO AN ACTIVE AND OPEN INVESTIGATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH 12 A 17 A. AND SO THAT'S THE FIRST PART. AND WE CAN TAKE THE PARTS IN TURN, THAT MIGHT MAKE MORE SENSE THAN ME TELLING YOU THE SECOND PART AND FIGURING OUT WHAT, WHAT YOUR AMENDMENT'S GONNA BE. SO THE FIRST PART IS TO STRENGTHEN THE CODE IN REGARDS TO THE IG, HAVING DIRECT ACCESS TO INFORMATION. MS. CITY ATTORNEY, DID YOU HAVE A, UH, YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR BARON. WHAT IS THE PARENTHETICAL MEANS? SUBJECT TO INFORMATION THAT IS COVERED BY EXCEPTIONS TO A PIA REQUEST. WHAT THAT MEANT TO ME, AND WE MAY NEED TO RE REWORK THE LANGUAGE, IS JUST IF, IF IT'S NOT, UH, IF, IF THERE'S AN EXCEPTION IN THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT THAT WOULD REQUIRE INFORMATION BE REDACTED, THEN UH, WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT. AND I, AND I HAVE OTHER THINGS IN MIND TOO, LIKE THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, UH, ISSUES, YOU KNOW, WE WOULDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED THINGS, UH, BUT MOST OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE WANT, UH, YOU COULD GET THROUGH A PUBLIC INFORMATION ACCESS REQUEST, BUT WE'RE HAVING TO GO THROUGH OTHER CITY EMPLOYEES THAT ARE NOT C JS CERTIFIED. THAT'S A CERTIFICATION THAT HAS TO DO WITH, UH, KEEPING THINGS CONFIDENTIAL. AND WE'RE ESSENTIALLY RINGING THE BELL AROUND THE CITY THAT AN INVESTIGATION IS IN PROGRESS. SO I'M TRYING TO STOP RINGING TO, TO, TO STRENGTHEN THE CODE SO THAT WE STOP RINGING THE BELL. OKAY. SO DO YOU MEAN THE, THE INFORMATION THAT YOU'RE SEEKING, THE DATA SYSTEMS THAT YOU HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO WOULD BE SUBJECT ALSO TO LIKE THE SAME REDACTIONS THAT WE WOULD MM-HMM . THAT WOULD APPLY TO SAY, AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST YOU, BUT IF YOU HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO, IT'S A PROBLEM TO THE CITY DATA SYSTEMS, NO ONE'S REDACTING THAT INFORMATION. HOW DO, SO HOW DO, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WORKS. I THINK ONE WAY TO DO THIS WOULD BE TO WORK WITH, UH, THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE BECAUSE THEY ARE, ARE EXPERTS IN THIS TO GET, UH, UH, THEM CGES CERTIFIED AND TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION FLOW THAT WAY. WHAT IS CJ? IT'S AN ACRONYM. IT'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS. I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT THE ACRONYM STANDS FOR, BUT IT'S A FEDERAL STANDARD THAT, UH, WE ARE ALL CGIS CERTIFIED. AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS, YOU KNOW, WE'VE TAKEN A, A LITTLE COURSE AND WE'VE BASICALLY SWORN WE'RE GONNA KEEP CONFIDENTIAL THINGS CONFIDENTIAL, AND THERE'S, THERE ARE PARAMETERS FOR WHAT THAT MEANS. LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, IT'S, IT GOES DOWN TO EVERYTHING FROM WHO YOU LET SEE YOUR COMPUTER SCREEN. SO WE HAVE THESE BLOCKERS ON OUR SCREENS, AND IT JUST, IT'S A STANDARD, UH, THAT YOU APPLY FOR TO ENSURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND HOW TO KEEP THINGS CONFIDENTIAL AND THAT YOU, YOU DO THAT. OKAY. UM, I HAVE QUESTIONS. OKAY. UM, FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WOULD BE IN THE PURVIEW OF CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE. UM, SECONDLY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. IF YOU HAVE A SUBPOENA AND YOU WALK SOMEPLACE WITH A SUBPOENA, CAN YOU NOT JUST GET THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE THE SUBPOENA FOR? WE CAN. WHY DO YOU NEED TO HAVE DIRECT [00:40:01] A ACCESS? WELL, TO ALL CITY DATA SYSTEMS, AND MY UNDERSTANDING FROM WHAT I READ IN THE ARTICLE, ONE OF THE ARTICLES YOU SENT WITH REGARD TO BALTIMORE, THEY WERE TRYING TO SKIRT THE SUBPOENA BY SAYING, THE SUBPOENA IS NOT GOOD BECAUSE THIS IS SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST, AND THEREFORE WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST ROUTE AND NOT THE SUBPOENA ROUTE. IF YOU HAVE A SUBPOENA, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CANNOT GET ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED. IF YOU'RE CORRECT, IF WE HAVE A A SUBPOENA, WE CAN GET THAT. AND THAT'S THE SECOND PART OF, OF THIS IS DEALING WITH THE SUBPOENA. BUT I THINK BRINGING IT UP NOW IS, IS IMPORTANT. UM, WE, WE CAN GET IT. AND THE WAY YOU GET A SUBPOENA IS THROUGH A PUBLIC PROCESS, THROUGH A COURT, AND YOU'RE RINGING THE BELL. AND IF IT'S YOU WHO A COMPLAINT HAS BEEN MADE AGAINST, YOU'D PREFER THE BE NOT BE WRONG, PARTICULARLY IF YOU'RE INNOCENT, UH, AND YOU HADN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG, BECAUSE IT CAN AFFECT YOUR REPUTATION. MY, AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE UNDERLYING PURPOSE HERE, IS TO KEEP INVESTIGATIONS, UH, AS CONFIDENTIAL AND, AND QUIET AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN BE UNTIL IT'S DETERMINED WHETHER THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE CAN SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM AND SEND IT TO A HEARING OR WHAT OTHER, WHATEVER OTHER OUTCOME THERE IS. BUT IF WE ASK FOR A SUBPOENA, WE, WE WILL PROBABLY GET THE INFORMATION. THE ONLY REASON WE WOULDN'T IS IF, UH, THERE WAS A MOTION TO QUASH THAT WAS SUCCESSFUL, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS A BIG RISK, BUT THAT'S THE ONLY WAY WE WOULDN'T GET THE INFORMATION. MS, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? QUESTION? UH, I HAVE ONE. I KNOW THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS A QUESTION OR COMMENT AND YEAH. MISS CITY ATTORNEY. YEAH, I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE DIRECT ACCESS. SO YOU'RE SAYING THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WILL HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO ALL CITY DATA SYSTEMS, SO ANYONE WHO WORKS FOR THE OIG CAN LOG IN AND JUST HAVE ACCESS TO ANY DATA THROUGHOUT THE CITY. UM, AND THEN HOW DOES THAT WORK WITH REDACTING CERTAIN INFORMATION? THAT WOULD BE AN EXCEPTION TO PUBLIC INFORMATION? IF YOU HAVE DIRECT ACCESS, THERE'S NO ONE TO REDACT ANYTHING, IT'S JUST ALL THERE FOR ANYONE IN YOUR OFFICE. SO I THINK, I THINK THE WAY TO, THE WAY TO HANDLE IT PRACTICALLY IS IF, IF WE PASS THE RULE, THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO CREATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE OF SOME KIND TO FIGURE OUT HOW YOU DO IT. AND, AND THE WAY THAT I WOULD ENVISION THAT YOU WOULD DO THAT IS YOU WOULD GET SOMEBODY THAT UNDERSTANDS PUBLIC INFORMATION ACCESS, REDACTIONS, SOME PROBABLY IN THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE, BUT IT COULD BE THROUGH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND, AND, UH, MR. FLANNERY, IT, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER TO ME, BUT YOU FIND SOMEBODY THAT CAN DO THAT. YOU MAKE SURE THEY'RE CGES CERTIFIED, AND THEN THEY WORK ALONGSIDE WHEN WE'VE GOTTA MAKE THESE REQUESTS, THEY WOULD WORK ALONGSIDE THE IG. SO THERE IS A FILTER THAT BEFORE IT, IT GETS THERE. UH, BUT YOU, BUT YOU ALREADY HAVE DIRECT ACCESS, I THINK. SO HOW WOULD YOU, THE KIND OF ACCESS WE HAVE, IF YOU HAVE DIRECT ACCESS, IT SEEMS YOU WOULDN'T BE WORKING THROUGH ANYONE, YOU WOULD JUST LOG IN AND HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO EVERYTHING. WELL, WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE, WE WOULDN'T, WE WOULD HAVE DIRECT ACCESS. AND TO ME, WHAT THAT, WHAT THAT MEANS IS WE'RE NOT GONNA GO TO A DEPARTMENT AND THE WAY WE DO IT NOW AND SAY, PLEASE PULL THESE RECORDS, PLEASE DO THESE THINGS. WE COULD DO IT OURSELVES. BUT, BUT BECAUSE OF THIS PUBLIC INFORMATION ACCESS ISSUE, WE COULD DO THAT THROUGH SOMEBODY. I'M NOT SAYING LIKE MR. FLANNERY, BUT I, I'M NOT SAYING MR. FLANNERY, BUT SOMEBODY LIKE THAT, THAT COULD MANAGE THAT. UH, MAYBE IT WOULD BE A STAFF POSITION, UH, IN THE IG ITSELF, WHERE YOU'VE GOT SOMEBODY THAT, THAT IS THE, THE IN-BETWEEN FILTER FOR THAT BEFORE IT EVER GETS TO AN INVESTIGATOR. H HA HAVE YOU ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE? NO. UH, [00:45:01] THIS IS QUITE A TOOL THAT YOU WOULD BE HANDED TO GET BASICALLY UNFETTERED ACCESS TO ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT IS STORED IN A CITY DA DATABASE. IS THAT CORRECT? ABSOLUTELY. OH BOY. AND IT IS LIMITED BY THIS LAST SENTENCE, ONLY ACCESSED ON NEED TO KNOW BASIS IN CONJUNCTION AND DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO AN ACTIVE AND OPEN INVESTIGATION. I, I THINK, I THINK WHILE THE LAST SENTENCE IS INTENDED TO BE A LIMITER, THE REALITY IS THAT IT'S ONLY A LIMITER INSOFAR AS THAT THE, I, THE IGS OFFICE FOLLOWS IT, RIGHT? I MEAN MM-HMM . IF YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY, AND THERE'S NO MEANS BY WHICH TO STOP THE ACCESS, IT THEN BECOMES WHOLLY DEPENDENT ON THE IGS OFFICE AND EVERYONE IN IT ACTING PROPERLY, RIGHT. WHILE THE, WHILE THE SENTENCE MAKES SENSE. AND IT'S, IT'S VERY, YOU KNOW, HOPEFUL THAT, THAT THAT'S HOW PEOPLE WOULD ACT. I THINK THE CONCERN IS THAT ANYONE WHO CHOOSES NOT TO WOULD HAVE NO BUFFER AND NO STOP, AND THEY'D BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY GET TO STUFF THAT THEY POTENTIALLY SHOULDN'T BECAUSE THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW, AS WE'VE SAID, UNFETTERED ACCESS, DIRECT ACCESS. I THINK THAT'S MY CONCERN. SO I DON'T WANNA BEAT A DEAD HORSE, BUT THAT IS TRUE. IT'S ALSO TRUE RIGHT NOW THAT TO GET ACCESS, WE'RE GOING TO PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT FOLLOWING, NOT ADHERING TO CONFIDENTIALITY, ARE NOT CGIS CERTIFIED, DON'T UNDERSTAND 12 A DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT COULD HAPPEN TO SOMEONE'S REPUTATION IF THEY ARE NOT DOING CORRECTLY, SOMETHING THEY DON'T REALIZE THEY'RE NOT DOING CORRECTLY. UM, SO NOT TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE ISSUE. SO IF WE DON'T GO IN THIS DIRECTION, THEN WE'RE ALLOWING THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS TO GO FORTH IN THE CONTEXT OF RINGING THE BELL ALL OVER THE CITY, WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF TARNISHING REPUTATIONS, WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF ALLOWING PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING THINGS THAT AREN'T RIGHT TO FIND OUT THERE'S AN INVESTIGATION AND TO COVER IT UP BECAUSE YOU DON'T TRUST, GIVEN THIS RATIONALE THAT THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL WILL BE GETTING INFORMATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATIONS. AND I, I FIND THAT HARD TO SWALLOW. OKAY. UM, THIS IS CLEARLY A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS. MM-HMM . I THINK THE COST IS PRETTY STEEP. UM, I HAVE A TECHNICAL QUESTION ABOUT, YOU HAVE SUBPOENA POWER. YES. SO YOU'RE SAYING, IF I NEED TO GET A SUBPOENA, WE'RE RINGING THE BELL AND TELLING EVERYBODY THAT THERE'S AN INVESTIGATION. HOW DO YOU SPECIFICALLY GO ABOUT GETTING A SUBPOENA IF YOU HAVE SUBPOENA POWER? AND HOW DOES THAT NOTIFY ALL CITY EMPLOYEES THAT SOMETHING'S GOING ON? IT DOESN'T NOTIFY ALL CITY EMPLOYEES. UM, SO THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE. UM, BUT IT, IT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. YOU GO TO A CORPORATION COURT WITH YOUR MOTION, AND A JUDGE DECIDES IF YOU CAN HAVE IT, AND THEY SET A TIME AND A PLACE FOR A PERSON TO SHOW UP, UM, EITHER WITH DOCUMENTS OR JUST, OR JUST TO SHOW UP. AND THEN IN THOSE CASES, UH, IF, IF THE PERSON'S JUST A WITNESS, YOU, YOU HAVE TWO TYPES OF PERSONS THAT YOU MIGHT SUBPOENA RECORDS FROM. ONE WOULD BE JUST A WITNESS. YOU JUST NEED INFORMATION FROM THEM. UH, ANOTHER PERSON MIGHT BE THE TARGET OF THE INVESTIGATION. AND THOSE TWO SITUATIONS ARE, ARE VERY DIFFERENT. UM, WHEN IT'S, WHEN THE PERSON THAT'S GETTING THE SUBPOENA IS THE TARGET OF THE INVESTIGATION, IT'S MORE LIKELY THAT THEY WILL HIRE COUNSEL TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS, WHICH IS FINE. OBVIOUSLY, IT'S A GOOD IDEA FOR THEM TO DO THAT. AND THEY MAY MAKE A MOTION TO QUASH AND, AND, UH, TRY AND, UH, CONVINCE THE JUDGE THAT WE DON'T NEED THAT [00:50:01] INFORMATION FOR SOME REASON, UH, WHEN IT'S A WITNESS, THAT'S LESS LIKELY TO HAPPEN. UM, THAT'S, THAT'S IT. NOW IT'S, I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA AT THIS POINT, UH, TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SECOND RECOMMENDATION HERE, WHICH IS TO CHANGE THE WORD SHALL TO THE, TO THE WORD MAY, UH, IN TERMS OF SUBPOENA SUBPOENAING, UH, WITNESSES AND OTHERS TO BRING DOCUMENTS AND, AND TO SHOW UP THEMSELVES. SO RIGHT NOW, UH, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, UH, IF, AND TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, IF WE FOLLOW THIS RULE, THEN EVERY TIME WE WANT A WITNESS TO SHOW UP WITH DOCUMENTS, UM, WE'RE GONNA WRITE A SUBPOENA AND GO TO A CORPORATION COURT. THAT'S THE WAY THE TECHNICALLY THE RULE READS RIGHT NOW. THAT'S WHAT WE SHALL DO. WE'RE NOT DOING THAT, UH, BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S IMPRACTICAL. AND NORMALLY IF WE JUST ASK FOR THE THINGS, EVEN IF WE'RE RINGING THE BELL, WE GET THE INFORMATION. UH, I, I DON'T THINK IT WAS INTENDED THAT, UH, THE WAY THE RULE'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, I DON'T THINK THE INTENTION WAS, EVERY TIME WE NEED DOCUMENTS, WE WRITE A SUBPOENA. HOWEVER, I WILL SAY THIS, UH, WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THE RULE THE WAY IT IS NOW AS A SHALL FOR GETTING A SUBPOENA, IS THAT IT DOES PROVIDE SOME LEVEL OF PROTECTION FOR EMPLOYEES THAT ARE WITNESSES, UH, AND HAPPEN TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST THEIR BOSS TO SAY, WELL, I'M SORRY BOSS, BUT I DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE. I WAS SUBPOENAED. SO THAT IS AN ARGUMENT FOR ISSUING A SUBPOENA EVERY, EVERY TIME. BUT I THINK IN TERMS OF THE PRACTICALITIES OF IT, IT WOULD BE NICE FOR THE IG TO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY JUST TO ASK FOR THINGS SO THAT AN INVESTIGATION CAN MOVE FORWARD. AS AN EXAMPLE, WE'VE GOT A CASE THAT WE'RE WORKING RIGHT NOW THAT AGAIN, UH, WITH LIMITED COOPERATION WOULD BE CLOSED. UM, BUT, UM, WE WEREN'T GETTING THAT. AND NOW IT'S, IT'S, IT'S SPINNING INTO MORE PROCESS. BUT, UM, SO ANYWAY, THERE'S AN ANSWER PLUS A LITTLE DELVING IN A LITTLE BIT TO, UH, THE SECOND RECOMMENDATION, BARON, WOULD, WOULD YOU SAY IT'S ACCURATE THAT RIGHT NOW IF THE IG IS NEEDING INFORMATION THAT THE I, THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CAN REQUEST IT WITHOUT A SUBPOENA, AND THEN YOU GO THE SUBPOENA ROUTE IF THE INFORMATION ISN'T VOLUNTARILY HANDED OVER BY A DEPARTMENT OR BY CITY MANAGEMENT? I JUST WONDER IF MAYBE THE CHANGE THAT WE MAKE HERE IS JUST CHANGING SHALL TO MAY, AND THEN YOU HA YOU WORK WITH CITY MANAGEMENT ON INTERNAL PROCESSES OF HOW THE OIG CAN GO ABOUT GETTING CITY GETTING CITY INFORMATION THAT'S NEEDED BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO EFFECTUATE AN INVESTIGATION BEFORE RE YOU KNOW, RESORTING TO SEEKING OUT A SUBPOENA. I, I DO THINK THAT THAT'S A DIRECTION WE CAN GO AND IT'LL BE BETTER THAN, THAN WHERE WE ARE NOW. I THINK THE BEST IS TO CLEARLY STATE, UH, DIRECT ACCESS IS THE, AND I DON'T WANNA BEAT A DEAD HORSE. I'VE, I'VE ALREADY SAID THIS ENOUGH, BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S THE BEST. I JUST, I THINK SOME MEMBERS ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY WITH THIS DIRECT ACCESS PRINCIPLE. AND, AND REALLY THROUGH THE DISCUSSIONS HERE TODAY, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT, IT WOULDN'T BE DIRECT ACCESS, IT'S ACCESS THROUGH SOMEONE WHO WOULD BE REDACTING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT THE OIG DOESN'T NEED FOR PURPOSES OF THEIR INVESTIGATION. SO REALLY THAT'S KIND OF INDIRECT ACCESS IF, IF YOU'RE GOING THROUGH SOMEONE TO GET IT. UNLESS, UNLESS WE HIRE A STAFF MEMBER AND THERE'S NO BUDGET MONEY FOR THAT. RIGHT. WE, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, THERE'S GONNA HAVE TO BE SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS HOW TO PUSH THE BUTTONS AND PULL THE STUFF, AND THAT THAT'S NOT US. SO WE WOULD NEED SOME HELP. BUT I, I DO THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT, UM, TO MAKE THAT CHANGE BECAUSE, UH, AND THE CHANGE THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS CHANGING THE SHALL TO MAY, RIGHT. BECAUSE, AND A TECHNICAL READING TO ME IS MY INTERPRETATION. I I THINK IT'S REQUIRING US TO GET A SUBPOENA EVERY TIME. RIGHT. AND I DON'T THINK THAT WAS EVER THE PURPOSE OF, I DON'T EITHER THIS PROVISION THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO GET A SUBPOENA EVERY TIME. YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE, UM, UPON A SIMPLE REQUEST FROM THE OIG [00:55:01] IS, IS A GOOD OPTION. UM, SO JUST CHANGING THE SHALL TO MAY, I THINK WOULD MAYBE BE A GOOD COMPROMISE HERE. UH, AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS A, I I I, I THINK IT'S A PRETTY FAR REACHING POWER OR AUTHORITY THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE WOULD BE GIVEN. UH, AND THIS IS OF COURSE, NOTHING PERSONAL. SURE. IT'S JUST, IT'S A PRETTY, UH, I, I THINK SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITY, UH, AND WHETHER MAY ADDRESSES MY CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR OFFICE'S DIRECT ACCESS TO ALL CITY, CITY DATA SYSTEMS, SUBJECT TO OF COURSE. UM, GOLLY. AND IF THERE ARE CITY DATA SYSTEMS THAT CITY MANAGEMENT AGREES THAT THE OIG SHOULD HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE WORKED OUT, MAYBE IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE, MAYBE JUST IN A POLICY. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE OIG COULD WORK OUT WITH CITY MANAGEMENT. UM, BUT, BUT DEFINITELY I DON'T THINK THIS PROVISION WAS EVER MEANT TO BE A LIMITING PROVISION, KEEPING THE OIG FROM ASKING THE CITY MANAGER, THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE CITY SECRETARY, TO VOLUNTARILY PRO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES. I, I CAN SAY THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE DECISION IS, SO LET'S, I'LL JUST ASSUME THE DECISION IS GONNA BE, THIS IS A BRIDGE TOO FAR STILL GOING FORWARD WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE WORK. 'CAUSE THE SYSTEM NEEDS TO BE TIGHTENED. I CAN, I CAN AT LEAST DEADEN THE BELL WHETHER YOU APPROVE THIS OR NOT. AND, AND THAT WOULD BE MY INTENTION. 'CAUSE IT, I, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE DELAY, MAYBE THERE'S A, SOME LANGUAGE THAT YOU AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE COULD COME UP WITH THAT MAY BE A LITTLE BIT MORE PALATABLE IN TERMS OF YOUR UNCONSENTED TO ACCESS TO ALL OF, ALL OF THE CITY DATA SYSTEMS? UH, SURE. AND, AND I, AND I THINK IT'S, IT'S ALSO TO ME, IT'S THAT IS THIS DIRECT ACCESS IS ONE ISSUE. THE OTHER ONE IS THE SHALL OR MAY TO ME IS, IS SEPARATE IN THAT THAT RECOMMENDATION IS WHETHER YOU WANT US TO DO A, A, A SUBPOENA EVERY TIME WE NEED INFORMATION, OR IF WE CAN ASK FOR INFORMATION FIRST, AND THEN WE MAY GET A SUBPOENA IF WE DON'T GET IT. UH, I THINK THOSE ARE SEPARATE ISSUES. AND, AND I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUE WITH SEEKING VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE. YEAH. AND IF YOU DON'T GET IT, IF YOU DON'T GET A COOPERATION, THEN, THEN FILE A SUBPOENA, UH, MISS CITY SECRETARY IS, IS THERE A WAY THAT WE COULD POSTPONE THIS PARTICULAR A VOTE ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE AND SEE IF THERE'S A WAY TO RESOLVE? AND I THINK I, I DON'T, I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO MAY SHARE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THIS UNFETTERED ACCESS ISSUE. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY, I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH, I THINK MAYE VERSUS SHALL, I THINK THAT'S SMART. THE SHALL DIRECT HAVE, SHALL HAVE DIRECT ACCESS. I THINK THAT'S A BRIDGE TOO FAR. UM, AND IF, IF THERE'S A WAY TO, WITH REGARD TO YOUR, YOUR, SO YOUR CONCERN IS THAT PEOPLE WILL DESTROY EVIDENCE IF THE BELL IS RUNG. IT IS. AND, AND THE SECOND CONCERN, IF YOU LOOK AT, UH, I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT'S CHICAGO OR, UM, BALTIMORE OR BOTH, IS PREPARING FOR THE DAY WHEN IT'S A REALLY BIG CASE AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, LET'S TAKE THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL AND THE CURRENT MAYOR AF OUT OF THIS, JUST SO I DON'T INVITE TROUBLE. LET'S SAY 10 YEARS FROM NOW, YOU, YOU, YOU HAVE A MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBER THAT AS THEY'RE DOING IN CHICAGO OR BALTIMORE SAYS, WELL, I'M SORRY, BUT YOU'RE JUST NOT GETTING IT. SO GO POUND SAND. SO I'M, I'M, [01:00:01] UH, I'M TRYING TO PREPARE FOR THAT DAY. WELL, I THINK, UM, ON THIS DAY THAT CHANGING IT TO MAY AND TABLING THE SHALL HAVE DIRECT, DIRECT ACCESS IS WHAT I WOULD YEAH. I CAN MAYBE SEE IF I CAN COME UP WITH SOME LANGUAGE THAT ADDRESSES, UM, THE OIG, YOU KNOW, WORKING WITH THE CITY SECRETARY, THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE CITY MANAGER, THE CITY AUDITOR, TO GET VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE AND PRODUCING RECORDS AND WITNESSES, AND THEN IN THE ALTERNATIVE, YOU KNOW, MAY SEEK A SUBPOENA. UM, AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU, IF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS GRANTED A SUBPOENA, SAY TO POLL SPECIFIC EMAILS BETWEEN TWO PARTIES, HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO SERVE THAT SUBPOENA TO THE PERSON HE'S INVESTIGATING, YOU KNOW? CORRECT. YOU COULD GO TO OUR IT PEOPLE. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW, YOU KNOW, AND THAT, AND THAT WORKS WITHOUT, AS YOU SAY, RINGING THE BELL AND THAT DEPARTMENT, YOU DON'T, YOU'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO THAT DEPARTMENT TO, TO GET THOSE ITEMS NECESSARILY. SO IN A PRACTICAL SENSE, WHAT I'M GONNA START TRYING TO DO IS, IS GET LIAISONS, CGES, CERTIFIEDS, UM, AND GO THROUGH SIGNIFICANT TRAINING TO TRY AND STOP, UH, THE LEAKING. SO HERE, HERE'S MY SUGGESTION. I, I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO THE NEXT PHASE OF THIS AND PRESENT THIS TO THE APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE, UH, AND THEN TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHOUT HAVING A ANOTHER MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP. UH, IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN JUST BRING IT TO THE FULL EAC ON TUESDAY? WOULD, WOULD THAT WORK? I THINK THAT THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE FULL EAC. YEAH. YEAH. AND I CAN WORK ON SOME LANGUAGE. WE COULD EVEN, YOU KNOW, JUST AN OPTION AND BEARING YOU AND I CAN TALK ABOUT IT LATER. UM, WE CAN THINK ABOUT IT BEING A VIOLATION OF 12 A TO RELEASE, UM, RELEASE INFORMATION ABOUT AN IG REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES OUTSIDE OF THE HEARING. UM, LIKE SAY FOR INSTANCE, YOU GO TO A DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR TO SEEK RECORDS, IT COULD, YOU KNOW, WE COULD WRITE SOMETHING IN HERE THAT THE FACT THAT THAT REQUEST HAS BEEN MADE AND FULFILLED, UM, OR EVEN JUST MADE AND EVEN DENIED, HAS TO REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL. LET'S WORK, WE CAN WORK ON, WE, WE, WE WORK ON THINGS ALL THE TIME. LET'S DO THAT. OKAY. SO, SO THE ANSWER FOR THIS ONE IS WE WILL PUT IT ON THE FULL EAC AGENDA WHEN WE MEET IN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO, A WEEK FROM TODAY. AND, UH, HOPEFULLY BY THAT TIME, THERE'LL BE A COMPROMISE THAT, UH, EVERYONE CAN LIVE WITH AND, AND WE WILL GET THE, THE AGREEMENT OF THE FULL EAC AT THAT POINT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT DOES. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. OKAY. THE, THE NEXT ONE, UM, I THINK IS GONNA FALL IN THE SAME CATEGORY THAT YOU MAY WANT TO PASS IT ALONG. UM, , THIS, THIS HAS TO DO WITH, WE'VE DISCUSSED IT AND I HAD IT DOWN AS, UH, HOLD FOR ADDITIONAL THOUGHT. UM, THIS HAS TO DO WITH WHEN THERE'S A COMPLAINT AGAINST A COUNCIL MEMBER. UM, HOW CAN YOU DEAL WITH THE, THE CONFLICT THAT THAT IS INHERENT, UH, THAT THEY ALSO, UH, ARE MY BOSSES AND I'M IN CHARGE OF THE OFFICE THAT'S INVESTIGATING MY BOSSES. AND I, I, WE'VE DISCUSSED BEFORE TWO DIFFERENT, UH, SOLUTIONS THAT I RECOMMENDED. ONE WAS A BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE, WHICH RIGHT, WHICH ISN'T POSSIBLE EVEN IF WE WERE INTERESTED IN IT, BECAUSE IT'S, THAT'S A, WOULD BE A CITY CHARTER CHANGE. THE OTHER SUGGESTION THAT I HAD WAS, WAS THIS ONE, UH, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH, UH, IF THAT HAPPENS, YOU, YOU FIND AN OUTSIDE LAW FIRM AND THERE'S, THERE'S LOTS OF ISSUES WITH DOING THAT CORRECTLY. SO THAT, BUT YOU FIND AN OUTSIDE GROUP TO HANDLE THE INVESTIGATION. UM, I PROVIDED YOU SOME OF THE INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC SURVEYS. UM, I DON'T WANT TO PRETEND THAT THE, THE, UH, PUBLIC SURVEYS, THAT THERE'S THOUSANDS OF THEM. [01:05:01] THERE WERE 90 OF THEM. BUT WHAT I CAN SHOW YOU IN THE CHARTS IS, UH, THAT ALL BUT ONE PERSON THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD OR VERY GOOD IDEA, UH, FOR THAT TO HAPPEN. UM, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT, UH, I HAVEN'T DONE A, ANY KIND OF A FORMAL SURVEY WITH, UH, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, BUT THE ONES THAT HAVE CHOSEN TO TALK TO ME, I CAN PUT IT THAT WAY, SEE, UH, VALUE IN DOING SOMETHING LIKE THIS. UM, AND SO NOW WE'RE AT THE POINT OF, UH, EITHER RECOMMENDING IT TO GO FORWARD OR JUST SAYING WE'RE AT AN IMPASSE AND WE WANT THEM TO BE IN PART OF THE CONVERSATION. ALL RIGHT. SO WHEN YOU SAY OUTSIDE FIRM, SUBJECT TO, IS YOU, YOU'RE ENVISIONING AN OUTSIDE LAW FIRM WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING THIS? I AM. AND, AND WHAT, WHAT I ENVISION IS SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT AUDIT ALREADY DOES. UM, AND ALSO WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WHO GETS TO PAY FOR IT, UM, THE SAME THING THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DOES WHEN THERE'S A COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST THE IG, THEY FIND A, A LAW FIRM, AND THEY TRY AND DO IT IN A WAY, WELL, I I, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. I DUNNO EXACTLY HOW THEY DO IT. MY IMPRESSION WOULD BE THEY FIND A LAW FIRM THAT THEY THINK DOESN'T HAVE A CONFLICT, UH, IN ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OR DOING THE INVESTIGATION, AND THEY HAVE A FUND TO, TO HIRE THEM. I THINK WITH AUDIT, THE WAY THAT THEY'RE DOING IT IS, UH, THEY HAVE A FUND AND SOME, UH, FIRMS THAT DO AUDIT WORK HAVE BEEN, I THINK THEIR ACCOUNTING FIRMS HAVE BEEN PRESELECTED THROUGH SOME KIND OF COMPETITIVE PROCESS. AND THEN ONE OF THOSE IS RANDOMLY CHOSEN. UH, AS ONE COUNCIL MEMBER HAS, HAS POINTED OUT THE, THE ONE ISSUE WITH DOING THIS IS YOU'RE GONNA, THE SELECTION OF THE LAW FIRM, UH, IS GONNA HAVE TO BE, BE DONE PRETTY CAREFULLY BECAUSE THE LEGAL COMMUNITY, YOU WE'RE CONNECTED, AND YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT HIRING A FIRM. AND, YOU KNOW, STATE BAR RULES WOULD, UH, WOULD COME INTO PLAY AND EVERYTHING, BUT YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE HIRING A FIRM THAT REALLY IS COMING AT THIS WITH A CLEAN SLATE. AND NO CONFLICTS. A ANY COMMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR? I HAVE A QUESTION RECOMMENDATION. UM, SO ACCORDING TO THIS, IT SAYS THE PUBLIC SURVEY DATA, THERE WERE 81 PARTICIPANTS. YEAH. OKAY. AND, UM, APOLOGIZE FOR ASKING THIS QUESTION, BUT WERE ANY EMPLOYEES OF THE OIG G NO PARTICIPANTS IN THAT? OKAY. UM, THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION, BUT NO, BUT IF THERE WERE, THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD ONLY BE IF WE ALL DID IT, THAT WOULD BE 10 OF THE 81 ONE. THAT'S PRETTY LARGE PERCENTAGE, YEAH. YEAH. 10, 10, 12%. UM, COULD THIS BE ANOTHER ONE THAT WE KICK TO THE FULL EAC? I THINK, I THINK THIS IS A PRETTY BIG ONE THAT, I MEAN, I WOULD PREFER FOR LIKE A FULL QUORUM TO DISCUSS THIS. I, I, YEAH. YEAH. AND SO AT LEAST WE GET THE PULL THE INPUT AND CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS FROM THE FULL EAC BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION ON THIS ONE. I, I LIKE, I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT CHOICE, PERSONALLY, IF YOU WANT MY OPINION, I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT CHOICE. IT'S NOT BUDGET NEUTRAL. IT IS A BIG DEAL. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S WHAT WE WILL DO WITH OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. NEXT, THIS ONE'S PRETTY EASY. UH OH, NO, WE'RE DONE. WE ARE DONE WITH THOSE. NOW WE ARE MOVING BACK TO NEW RECOMMENDATIONS. AND THESE ARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, THAT HAVE COME IN FROM THE PUBLIC. AND THAT BEGINS ON WHAT YOU WOULD SHOW AS PAGE THREE. PAGE THREE, PAGE TWO. OH, YOU SHOW IT AS PAGE TWO. OKAY, GOOD. THAT'S WHAT I SHOW TOO. OKAY. UM, SO THE FIRST ONE IS, UH, A RECOMMENDATION THAT CAME IN ASKING US TO HARMONIZE THE DEFINITIONS BETWEEN THE PERSONNEL CODE AND THE CODE OF ETHICS. THE CODE OF ETHICS HAS A TERM, UH, RELATIVE THAT HAS A DEFINITION. THE, UH, PERSONNEL [01:10:01] CODE USES ANOTHER, ANOTHER TERM, IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE, UH, BETWEEN THE TWO IS WHAT YOU SEE THERE IN BOLD, UNDERLINED TEXT. SO IF WE ADDED THAT TO THE CODE OF ETHICS, UM, THAT WOULD HARMONIZE THE TWO TERMS. I THINK THAT'S JUST A, A GOOD THING. I, I DON'T HAVE, UH, ANY CASES OR ANYTHING IN MIND WHERE THIS ADDING THIS WOULD'VE MADE A DIFFERENCE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. BUT IT, IT DOES SIMPLIFY THINGS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT DEFINITIONS YOU'RE WORKING WITH. SO THAT'S, SO I'D RECOMMEND WE ADD THAT. BUT ON PAGE, JUST GO BACK TO PAGE TWO. OKAY. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. ARE, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS? MM-HMM . UM, NO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A RELATIVE DEFINITION? YEAH. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT. SO, YES. SO 12 A TWO IS THE SECTION OF THE ETHICS CODE THAT HAS ALL, MOST OF THE DEFINITIONS. THERE'S SOME DEFINITIONS ELSEWHERE IN THE CODE, ESPECIALLY FOR LOBBYING, BUT THESE ARE THE MAIN ONES FOR THE CODE. UH, DEFINITION 30 IS ABOUT THE TERM RELATIVE. UM, IT'S, IT'S WRITTEN DIFFERENTLY, BUT IT, IT REALLY COVERS THE SAME MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY TREE. BUT FOR THAT LAST BOLDED PORTION, WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE PERSONNEL CODE AS AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER, BASICALLY A RELATIVE, I THINK THERE'S SYNONYMS. AND SO IT'S JUST, UH, TO HARMONIZE THE CODE SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT CODE YOU'RE DEALING WITH AND WHATNOT. BUT ARE, ARE, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS, CONCERNS ABOUT THIS RECOMMENDATION? NO. HEAR, HEARING NONE? IS THERE MOTION? SO MOVED. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S, UH, ALL IN FA ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE, PLEASE. AND AYE, THAT MOTION PASSES. ALL RIGHT. WHERE ARE WE NEXT? UH, FROM HERE ON OUT, UH, WE REALLY ARE DEALING WITH A LOT OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT, UM, MR. KINGSTON HAD TALKED ABOUT. UH, HIS RED LINES ARE HERE, UM, ARE MO IF NOT ALL, I THINK THEY ALL ARE HERE, BUT THE FIRST ONE IS A RED LINE TO 12 A 18, AND A RECOMMENDATION TO STRIKE LANGUAGE HAVING TO DO WITH THE CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURES. UM, OH, SORRY. I SKIPPED ONE. APOLOGIES. UM, ONE OF THE, THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION HAS TO DO THANK YOU, LAURA. UH, WITH 12 A FOUR. AND THIS IS, UH, THE ONE THAT WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED, AND WE WANTED TO REFER IT TO THE WHOLE EAC. UH, BUT THE RECOMMENDATION THAT CAME FROM, I'LL JUST SAY, UH, THE, THE PUBLIC, UH, WAS TO STRIKE THE WHOLE SECTION. AND MY RECOMMENDATION IS, UH, TO REJECT STRIKING THE WHOLE SECTION AND TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, UH, THE WORK THAT WE'VE, WE'VE ALREADY DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE EAC. SO, TH THIS HAS TO, I THOUGHT WE WERE JUST GONNA CHANGE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR TO ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER. YOU, YOU'RE YOU. WELL, I THINK WE DECIDED TO SEND THE WHOLE, UH, WHAT DID WE DECIDE ON THAT ONE? YEAH, WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS ONE. YEAH. UM, AND THE CHANGES THAT THE GROUP HAS RECOMMENDED, BARON IS JUST SAYING THAT THE PUBLIC IS RECOMMENDING STRIKING THE WHOLE PROVISION, AND THE IG IS NOT RECOMMENDING STRIKING THE WHOLE PROVISION. NO, I, I, I THINK JUST THE CHANGE TO THE A CM SOUNDED LIKE THAT WOULD BE A GOOD WAY TO GO, RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, DISCUSSION? THANK YOU. IS THERE A MOTION I MOVE TO NOT STRIKE THIS PASSAGE AND GO FORWARD WITH JUST CHANGING APPLICABLE APARTMENT DIRECTOR TO A CM? AND ALSO WE TALKED ABOUT CHANGING CITY OFFICIALS TO BOARD COMMISSION MEMBERS AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AS WELL. YEAH, I INCLUDE THAT IN MY MOTION. , ANY QUESTIONS? CONCERNS? THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE. THOSE IN, UH, IN [01:15:01] FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. IS THAT RIGHT? UH, THE, THE NEXT ONE IS 12 A 18. AND IT WAS A SU UH, I GUESS YOU'D SAY IT WAS A SUGGESTION CAME IN THROUGH THE, THE, UH, PUBLIC, UH, TO STRIKE 12 A 18 SECTION FOUR, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH, UH, CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURES. UM, A PERSON WHO'S PAID TO PARTICIPATE IN OR SERVED AS A CAMPAIGN TREASURER IN A SITTING COUNCIL MEMBER'S MOST RECENT CITY COUNCIL CAMPAIGN.DO THEY, THIS PROVISION REQUIRES THAT THAT PERSON, UH, IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, UH, WHEN THEY'RE BASICALLY BEFORE THE, BEFORE THE CITY. THERE'S A DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT AT THE END. UM, I COULD, I COULD USE SOME HELP FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON THIS ONE, BUT MY, UH, UNDERSTANDING IS THIS IS A RELATIVELY RECENT ADDITION TO THE CODE. UH, AND I THINK THE, THE BENEFIT I, I USE THIS TERM A LOT, THE BENEFIT TO BURDEN, UM, THE BENEFIT IS TRANSPARENCY, UM, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF OUR OFFICE, THAT'S, UH, A, UH, A VERY IMPORTANT BENEFIT. AND THE BURDEN IS LIMITED. A PERSON JUST SAYING, I WAS INVOLVED IN A CAMPAIGN. SO FOR, FOR THAT REASON, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO NOT STRIKE THE LANGUAGE. ANY DISCUSSION, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS? IS THERE A MOTION I MOVED TO, I MAY, SORRY. I MOVED TO, TO NOT STRIKE THIS LENGTH. UH, CAN I, CAN I ASK JUST A POINT OF OF ORDER? I, I'M AWARE THAT, THAT THERE'S SOMEONE HERE THAT HAS OPINIONS ABOUT IT, AND I'M NOT, WE MAY WANT TO, I DON'T, I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE HOW THEY ENGAGE THE PROCESS IF, IF THEY GET INVITED OR NOT. I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW. BUT I KNOW THAT HE'S SITTING HERE, UM, TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE THINGS. I DON'T, I DON'T, I JUST DON'T WANT HIM TO SIT HERE AND NOT HAVE A CHANCE IF HE WANTS TO ENGAGE. 'CAUSE IT'S WHY HE'S HERE. WELL, UH, MR. KINGSTON, IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS OR COMMENTS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE WITH RESPECT TO THE DE THE DELIBERATIONS THAT WE ARE GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW, WOULD YOU PLEASE LET US KNOW? AND THANK YOU, MR. PERKINS. ALL I WANNA SAY IS, UH, EACH ONE OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS I HAVE MADE HAS COME FROM AN EXPERIENCE THAT I HAVE HAD BECAUSE I AM PROBABLY THE MOST EXPERIENCED LAWYER PRACTICING IN 12 A , UH, IN THE CITY. UM, AND, UH, I'M, THIS BODY NEEDS TO DO ITS WORK AND GET ITS WORK TO THE EAC. AND SO IF YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM ME, PLEASE DO ASK QUESTIONS. UM, BUT I UNDERSTAND ROBERT'S RULES AND I UNDERSTAND HOW THIS PROCESS WORKS. AND YOU HAVE MY, I PUT COMMENTS IN MY RED LINE AND I WOULD LOVE IT IF YOU GUYS WOULD READ IT, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S, THIS IS HOW THE PUBLIC GETS INPUT INTO THE SYSTEM. AND YOU GUYS EITHER HAVE QUESTIONS OR YOU DON'T. AND I DON'T WANNA WHIP YOUR BUTTS WITH UNNECESSARY OPINION IF YOU'RE NOT FEELING IT. YOU KNOW, THE, THE POINT OF THIS ONE IS, IT'S POINTLESS. THERE'S NEVER BEEN A PROBLEM WITH THIS. IT'S NEVER RESULTED IN A COMPLAINT. IT NEVER WILL RESULT IN A COMPLAINT. AND THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY PENALTY FOR WORKING FOR A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING TO A PERSON TO MAKE THEM LESS THAN OR DIRTY OR ANYTHING. IT'S WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO AS A CITIZEN. A A LOT OF MY COMMENTS THAT YOU WILL SEE IN THE, IN THE RED LINE HAVE TO DO WITH MY BELIEF THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF 12 A IS POINTLESS. I DUNNO, I DUNNO. WHERE. SO IF, IF I CAN RESPOND, [01:20:05] WHAT IS THE MOTION? THE MOTION IS TO NOT MAKE THIS HAPPEN. THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO NOT STRIKE THIS LANGUAGE. MR. CHAIR, I'M NOT SURE IF THERE WAS A SECOND, I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. THERE'S NO REASON. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY REASON TO STRIKE THE LANGUAGE ABOUT DISCLOSURE OF SOMEONE WHO HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE CAMPAIGN. ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? ARE THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. OCEAN PASSES NEXT ISSUE. UH, THE, THE NEXT SUGGESTION HAS COME IN FROM THE PUBLIC IS TO STRIKE SECTION 12 A 21. UM, I'LL READ IT. SOLICIT OR RECEIVE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR A CANDIDATE, POLITICAL PARTY OR POLITICAL COMMITTEE. UH, EXCEPT THAT A CITY OFFICIALS IS NOT PROHIBITED FROM SERVING ON A STEERING COMMITTEE TO PLAN A PROGRAM OF SOLICITATION AND LISTING THE CITY OFFICIALS NAME WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OFFICE HELD WHEN THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE IS, IS LISTED. RIGHT? UM, MY, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE, UH, TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION AND TO, AND TO MAKE THIS, UH, ACTUALLY INSTEAD OF A PART OF A, TO MAKE IT B AND APPLY IT TO, UH, PLACES ONE THROUGH 15, UH, AS OPPOSED TO AS IT CURRENTLY APPLIES, AS I READ IT TO ALL ELECTIONS. IT, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, UH, TO ME PERSONALLY, THAT, THAT IT WOULD APPLY TO ALL ELECTIONS, BUT IT DOES MAKE SENSE THAT IT WOULD APPLY, UH, TO CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS. UH, AND I THINK THIS WOULD BE A GOOD PROTECTION FOR, UH, FOR PEOPLE THAT SERVE ALONGSIDE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SAY, LOOK, I JUST, I CAN'T THROW THIS PARTY FOR YOU. I CAN'T DO THIS THING FOR YOU IN YOUR OWN ELECTION. UH, AND THAT TO ME IS MORE OF A PUBLIC POLICY REASON FOR, UH, MAKING THE CHANGE. SO I'M, I'M KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE, UM, NOT STRIKING IT COMPLETELY, BUT LIMITING IT TO PLACES ONE THROUGH 15 AS OPPOSED TO ALL ELECTIONS. ALL RIGHT. I I HAVE, I HAVE A QUESTION. UH, MS. MR. KINGSTON, ARE YOU GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THESE WORD BY WORD AS YOU'VE DONE? OR IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN REVIEW YOUR CHANGES IN I HAD, I HAD HOPED, AND MY POINT WAS TO, UM, LET THIS WORKING GROUP BE THE MASTERS OF WHATEVER IT IS I PARTICIPATE IN, IN THIS MEETING. I, I, I'VE GIVEN YOU ALL MY WRITTEN STUFF, AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, I CAN EXPLAIN IT FURTHER AND, AND AM HAPPY TO, BUT YOU GUYS HAVE WORK TO DO AND I CAN GO TO THE EAC MEETING ALSO, YOU KNOW, SO DON'T, DON'T WORRY ABOUT ME. MAKE, GET THE INFORMATION YOU FEEL LIKE YOU NEED. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? QUESTIONS, CONCERNS? I, I, I'M REALLY CONCERNED, UH, MR. MR. MR. CHAIR? NO, YOU GO AHEAD, . IS IT POSSIBLE, MR. KINGSTON, THAT YOU COULD, SINCE I, I DON'T KNOW, HAS EVERYONE RECEIVED THIS IN TIME TO DIGEST IT? UH, IT'S ALWAYS AN ISSUE , UH, THAT I, I HATE TO DO THIS WITH RESPECT TO THE NEXT MEETING. UH, BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ISSUES HERE THAT I, I, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, AND THIS PROBABLY JUST ME, I'M CONFUSED, AND THAT'S NOT DIFFICULT TO ACCOMPLISH. UH, THAT COULD YOU APPEAR AT THE NEXT COUNCIL [01:25:01] MEETING TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT MEMBERS OF THE FULL A EHC MAY HAVE ABOUT YOUR SUGGESTIONS AND MAKE DECISIONS AT THAT POINT? OR THAT'S WHAT THIS, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS NOW, YOU CAN ASK ME NOW. THAT'S WHAT THIS GROUP IS SUPPOSED TO BE. OKAY. DOING. ALRIGHT. I, I DO, UM, I KNOW THIS IS GOING LONG. UM, I DON'T SEE A REASON TO STRIKE 12 A 21 I A A THREE. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR ANY OTHER OPINIONS FROM MR. RE AL OR I, I DON'T, MR. PERKINS. I DON'T SEE ANY REASONS TO STRIKE A THREE EITHER. ANY ANYONE ELSE COMMENTS, CONCERNS? I, I AGREE. ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. SO THE NEXT ITEM IS 12 A 23. AND, UH, THE SUGGESTION HERE IS THAT, LET ME, LET ME GIVE YOU THE CONTEXT. THE CONTEXT IS, UH, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADJUDICATED MATTER AND A LEGISLATIVE MATTER. AND ONE IS, UH, HAS TO DO WITH CITY POLICY AND THE OTHER HAS TO DO MORE WITH YOU'RE MAKING A DECISION. UH, YOU, YOU GET EVIDENCE AND YOU'RE MAKING DECISION. AND, UM, WE HAVE SOME, UH, BODIES IN THE CITY. UH, I THINK CPC WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF ONE, THAT THEY HAVE MATTERS THAT COME BEFORE THEM THAT ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL. UM, AND THEN THEY HAVE SOME THAT ARE LEGISLATIVE IN NATURE. UH, BUT THE INTERPRETATION, UH, WHAT THIS, WHAT THE PERSON IS SAYING IS THE INTERPRETATION OF WHETHER A MATTER'S QUASI-JUDICIAL OR LEGISLATIVE IS LEFT UP TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND IT'S NOT CLEARLY ESTABLISHED IN THE CODE. AND SO I THINK WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR HERE IS TO GO AHEAD AND SPELL OUT WHAT IS, WHAT, WHAT BODIES ARE QUASI JUDICIAL, UM, TO PROVIDE SOME CLARITY. UM, I THINK IT'S WORTH A DISCUSSION. I, BUT I I DON'T THINK IT'S THE CORRECT WAY TO DO IT FOR TWO REASONS. UM, THE FIRST REASON IS THAT IT'S REALLY THE MATTER, NOT THE BODY. AND SO IT, YOU, YOU COULD SAY THAT CPC IS AN EXAMPLE, IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY, BUT THAT'S NOT TRUE. THEY ALSO HEAR LEGISLATIVE THINGS. UM, AND SO IF WE'RE GONNA MAKE ANY CHANGES, I THINK IT SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON, UH, DRILLING DOWN AND MAKING IT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND WHAT A QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER IS. AND, UM, NUMBER TWO, AS FAST AS THINGS, THIS IS MORE OF A PRACTICAL ISSUE AS, AS FAST AS THINGS CHANGE AROUND HERE, UH, THERE, THERE'S A, A, A SIGNIFICANT RISK IN MY OPINION THAT, UH, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS OR MATTERS WILL BE LEFT OUT OF THE LIST OR WILL CHANGE NAMES AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. AND THAT CREATES PROBLEMS OF, ITS, OF ITS OWN. BUT I THINK IT'S, IT'S WORTH DISCUSSION. BUT MY RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME IS THAT, THAT YOU WOULDN'T MAKE A LIST. I CAN GIVE AN EXAMPLE, UH, OF SOMETHING THAT'S NOT ON THIS LIST, UH, THAT, YOU KNOW, ARGUABLY, UH, SHOULD BE THERE. BUT, UM, AND, AND THAT TO ME IS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF, OF, OF WHY MAKING THIS LIST IS FRAUGHT WITH SOME ISSUES. ALRIGHT, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. , MISS CITY ATTORNEY, DO YOU HAVE ANY, ANY, UH, UH, COMMENTS ON THIS? I AGREE WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL THAT I, I DON'T THINK I COULD EVEN COME UP WITH AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST IF I TRIED. UM, I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA, BUT I THINK, I THINK WHAT MATTERS ON THIS ITEM IS TO CLEAR UP THE LANGUAGE IN THE FIRST PART, UM, OF THE PROVISION WHERE IT SAYS COMMUNICATIONS WITH ANY CITY, CITY OFFICIAL OR ANY QUASI-JUDICIAL CITY BOARD OR COMMISSION. I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE MISLEADING BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, LIKE BARON SAID, TAKE THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION. PART OF THEIR AGENDA CONSISTS OF QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTERS, AND PART OF THEIR AGENDA CONSISTS OF LEGISLATIVE MATTERS THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO BE LOBBIED ON, UH, WHICH ARE THE [01:30:01] ZONING CASES. THE QUASI-JUDICIAL CASES ARE THE, UM, ARE THE SUBDIVISION DOCKET. UM, AND YOU KNOW, HERE IT SAYS ALL PROCEEDINGS OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION. WELL, THAT, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, SOME OF YOUR MATTERS ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL, LIKE YOUR EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS. AND THEN THE PROCESS LIKE, LIKE THIS, YOU KNOW, AMENDING THE CODE OF ETHICS IS LEGISLATIVE, AND YOU CAN BE LOBBIED, UM, ON HOW TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE CODE OF ETHICS. SO MY RECOMMENDATION HERE IS INSTEAD OF SAYING OF ANY QUASI-JUDICIAL CITY BOARD OR COMMISSION, IT WOULD BE TO CHANGE IT TO SAY, REGARDING IS ANY QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER COMING BEFORE A CITY BOARD OR COMMISSION? JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR, IT'S REALLY ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE ITEM, NOT REALLY THE NATURE OF THE BOARD OR COMMISSION ITSELF, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, LIKE WE WENT OVER A LOT OF THESE ARE, ARE KIND OF A MIXED BAG, UM, ON THEIR AGENDA. SO, UM, THAT SOUNDS GOOD. UM, I'M AFRAID OF THE LIST. UH, 'CAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT PUTS IT IN A BOX THAT, UM, AND IF THERE WERE TO BE A LIST, I THINK IT SHOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE INCLUDED, BUT NOT LIMITED TO. BUT I THINK IT'S CHANGING IT TO A QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER. MM-HMM . WOULD BE MORE, UM, LESS LIMITING, I GUESS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, CONCERNS? I WOULD DEFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ONE. SO MOVED. SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ARE THOSE IN FAVOR? SIGN SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. MOTION PASSES. NEXT ITEM. NEXT ITEM IS, UH, A SUGGESTION TO AMEND OR ADD SOME LANGUAGE TO THE RECUSAL PROVISION OF THE CODE, WHICH IS 12 A 24. AND THE IDEA, THE BIG IDEA HERE IS, UM, TO ALLOW OTHER MEMBERS OF A, OF A BODY THAT BELIEVED THAT ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE BODY HAS A CONFLICT, UH, TO ARTICULATE THAT. AND THE, UH, THERE'S A PROCESS THAT'S OUTLINED HERE FOR THAT TO TAKE PLACE, YOU KNOW, IN A PROCEDURAL, ORDERLY WAY. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN, YOU CAN SEE SOME BENEFIT TO THAT ON, ITS ON ITS FACE. UH, HOWEVER, MY, MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO REJECT IT. AND THE REASON HERE IS THAT, UH, TWOFOLD, I THINK THE SOLUTION IS, UH, ALREADY IN THE CODE, WHICH IS TO FILE A COMPLAINT. IF SOMEBODY HAS, UH, CONFLICT AND THEY DON'T RECUSE THEMSELVES, YOU, YOU FILE A COMPLAINT. THE SECOND, UH, IS MORE OF A BENEFIT, UH, TO BURDEN PRACTICAL WAY OF, OF, OF VIEWING THIS. I CAN SEE, UH, BOARD AND COMMISSION, BODY COUNCIL MEMBER MEETINGS, UH, DEVOLVING INTO DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CONFLICTS. UH, IF WE PROVIDE, UH, A WAY FOR PEOPLE TO ALLEGE THAT A CONFLICT EXISTS. AND, AND I THINK THE, THE BENEFIT OF THAT IS OUTWEIGHED BY THE, THE BURDEN I FORESEE THAT IT WOULD CREATE. AND SO MY RECOMMENDATION ON THIS WOULD BE TO REJECT ANY QUESTIONS, CONCERNS. I CONCUR WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION. UH, IS THERE A MOTION I MOVE TO NOT MAKE THESE CHANGES? SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. MOTION PASSES. NEXT ITEM. UH, THE NEXT ITEM IS A SUGGESTION THAT'S RELATED TO, UH, CODE OF ETHICS, SECTION 12 A 26, HAVING TO DO WITH SUBSEQUENT REPRESENTATION. AND IT'S FOCUSED ON, UH, REPRESENTATION IN LITIGATION ADVERSE TO THE CITY. UM, AND I BELIEVE THE, BASED ON THE, THE COMMENT FROM THE PROPONENT, THE IDEA HERE IS, UH, TO, TO, UH, REMOVE THIS SECTION. UM, AND I, I JUST HAVE TO ASK 'CAUSE MY NOTES AREN'T CLEAR. IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT THE SUGGESTION WAS TO REMOVE IT? YEAH, I MEAN, THE, IT'S, IT'S, UH, IT'S OVERBROAD AND SUPERFLUOUS. THERE'S ALREADY A PROHIBITION AGAINST USING THE CITY'S CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AGAINST [01:35:01] IT. AND SO IF YOU HAVE A PA PIECE OF LITIGATION AFTER YOU'VE LEFT COUNSEL THAT YOU WANT TO REPRESENT THAT WHERE THE CITY IS ADVERSE AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT WILL BE EXPOSED. THERE'S JUST SIMPLY NO REASON FOR THIS PROHIBITION. I, I HONESTLY, IF SOMEBODY CHALLENGED THIS ONE IN COURT, IT WOULD FAIL. THIS, THIS IS AN IMPOSITION ON THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, WHICH IS CONSTITUTIONAL. SO WITH THAT, WITH THAT CLARIFICATION, UH, MY, UH, MY RECOMMENDATION IS, UH, TO REJECT DELETING THIS BECAUSE I, I THINK IT JUST PROVIDES CLARITY FOR THE CODE. IT, IT, WHAT, WHAT YOU HEAR, UH, FROM ME AND FROM MR. KINGSTON'S KIND OF TWO SIDES OF, OF A, OF A COIN IN A SENSE, IN MY OPINION. I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR NECESSARILY, YOU KNOW, BUT, UH, I, I THINK I'M ALWAYS PUSHING FOR MORE DEFINITIONS, UH, MORE RULES IN THE CODE FOR THE SAKE OF, OF CLARITY. UM, AND I THINK THIS PROVIDES THAT, WHAT'S WHAT'S INTERESTING TO ME ABOUT THIS IS, UH, THE ARGUMENT ABOUT, UH, YOUR RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION OF COUNSEL. 'CAUSE THERE, THERE IS, THERE ARE, THERE'S ANOTHER SET OF RULES, UH, THAT'S VERY SIMILAR TO THIS IN THE CODE ABOUT, UH, SUBSEQUENT REPRESENTATION. WHEN YOU, YOU HAVE TO WAIT A YEAR. IF YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON A PROJECT, AND THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY FOR ATTORNEYS AND LITIGATION, BUT YOU, YOU, YOU'RE ALREADY REQUIRED BY THE CODE TO WAIT A YEAR, UM, BEFORE YOU START WORKING ON SOMETHING THAT YOU WERE WORKING IN WITH THE, WITH THE CITY. AND I THINK, UH, THERE'S SOME GOOD REASONS FOR A RULE LIKE THAT, THAT AT ANY RATE, UM, MY VIEW IS THAT YOU WOULD LEAVE IT IN FOR THE SAKE OF THE CLARITY OF IT. UH, MISS, MISS, UH, CITY ATTORNEYS, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, OPINION? UM, I WOULD JUST, UH, I WOULD LEAVE THIS UP TO THE, TO THE WORKING GROUP. ALL RIGHT. UH, MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP QUESTIONS, CONCERNS? NO, I MEAN, I THINK, I THINK THIS IS, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS CONCEPT IS FAIRLY COMMON, ALTHOUGH THERE IS REDUNDANCY POTENTIALLY. I THINK THAT THE REDUNDANCY ACTUALLY SUPPORTS THE FACT THAT THIS CONCEPT IS, YOU KNOW, IS APPROPRIATE. THAT YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO LEAVE A POSITION WHERE YOU WERE, YOU KNOW, PRIVY TO CERTAIN INFORMATION AND THEN, UH, YOU KNOW, HAVE, UH, THE ABILITY TO THEN LITIGATE AGAINST IT. SO I WOULD, YOU KNOW, SUPPORT NOT MAKING THIS CHANGE AND, AND JUST, YOU KNOW, NOT, UH, STRIKING THIS FROM THE, FROM THE CODE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS? I AGREE. AND, UH, IS THERE A MOTION WITH RESPECT TO THIS ITEM? I MOVE TO REJECT THE DELETION OF THIS FROM THE CODE? ALL THERE A SECOND. UM, MR. CHAIR? YES. CAN I MAKE A MOTION FOR A BATHROOM BREAK? UH, YES. SO LET'S, LET'S VOTE ON THIS AND THEN, AND YES. OH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. AND WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS, PLEASE. WE WILL RESUME IN FIVE MINUTES. I COULD USE . OKAY. [01:41:11] YOU ARE WELCOME. I THINK WE'RE ALMOST DONE. YEAH, I KNOW. ARE WE? BUT I REALLY NEEDED THAT BREAK, SO I, OH GOD. I'M SORRY. THIS IS TAKING, SO, NO, IT'S FINE. I MEAN, THIS IS WHY WE'RE HERE. AND IF WE'RE NOT DOING IT NOW, WE'RE GONNA . ALRIGHT. THANK GOD FOR THE CHAIR. BUT NOW I'M AFRAID YOU'RE GONNA MAKE IT BE ME . I NEED TO TALK LESS . OH MY GOD. THERE'LL BE A, THERE'LL BE A NEW MAYOR SOON. WHEN GREEN, WHEN GREEN'S HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IN . OH MY GOD. [01:45:26] OKAY. IT IS 10 11 0 2. UH, WE'LL GO BACK IN SESSION. WE ARE ON WHAT NUMBER? WE ARE ON PAGE FIVE. WE ARE ON, UH, CODE OF ETHICS SECTION 12 A 29. UM, THIS WAS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE ONES THAT WAS INITIALLY ADDRESSED, UH, IN PUBLIC COMMENT BY MR. KINGSTON, HAVING TO DO WITH THE LTEC AS THE EXAMPLE. AND THE FOCUS OF THIS IS TO, UH, ELIMINATE, UH, THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTER FROM THE DEFINITIONS SECTION OF THE LOBBYING ARTICLE. SO THERE, CAN I, CAN I STOP YOU RIGHT THERE? YOU CAN'T JUST TAKE 12 A 29 BY ITSELF, 12, A 29, AND 12. A 35 SHOULD BE CONSIDERED RIGHT TOGETHER. I'M, YEAH. SO I'M GET, I'M GETTING THERE. UM, AND, AND I DON'T NEED TO SAY SHE'S CORRECT, SHE IS CORRECT , BUT THEY, BUT THEY'RE RELATED BECAUSE THIS DEFINITION IN 12, A 29 IS PICKED UP IN 12 A 30 5G, WHERE YOU FIND PROHIBITIONS, UH, HAVING TO DO WITH, WITH BASICALLY LOBBYING. UM, AND SO WHEN YOU PICK IT UP IN 12 A 35, THEN YOU SEE THERE AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE FIVE OTHER, UH, SUGGESTED, UH, DELETIONS. AND, UH, WE'VE ALREADY STARTED THE DISCUSSION A LITTLE BIT, UH, BEFORE, UM, MY, MY RECOMMENDATION ON THIS, UH, HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT I, I RECOGNIZE ANOTHER PLACE IN THE CODE, UH, WHERE THEY'RE COMPETING INTERESTS AT, AT STAKE. UM, ONE, ONE OF THOSE IS TO PREVENT THE APPEARANCE OR, OR REALITY. UM, BUT, BUT DEFINITELY THE APPEARANCE THAT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD BE ENTERTAINING, UH, WHAT ARE CALLED HERE PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTERS, UM, AND ARE DOING SO FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE MERITS OF THE CASE VIA ONE-ON-ONES WITH THE PROPONENTS OF PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTERS. UM, ON THE OTHER HAND, I THINK IT'S, IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT IN MY VIEW ANYWAY, THE SYSTEM IS, IS NOT WORKING AT ITS HIGHEST EFFICIENCY AND, AND, AND THAT THERE ARE PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES THAT COUNCIL SHOULD BE MAKING. AND IT, AND IT APPEARS, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT, THAT THERE'S SOME FILTERING GOING ON BEFORE IT EVER GETS TO THEM. AND SO WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IS SOME TYPE OF A MIDDLE GROUND, AND THIS WOULD TAKE SOME WORK, UH, BUT THE IDEA WOULD BE, UH, COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE LOBBIED, BUT THAT WOULD BE IN SOME KIND OF SUPERVISED SETTING. THERE WOULD NOT BE ONE-ON-ONES AND YOU, AND YOU'D HAVE TO COME UP WITH, WITH SOMETHING TO ENABLE THEM TO GET THE INFORMATION THAT THEY NEED TO HAVE, BUT NOT IN A ONE-ON-ONE WAY. AND FRANKLY, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD DO THAT, BUT THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO EITHER LEAVE THINGS AS THEY ARE OR TO FIND A MIDDLE GROUND, UH, THAT PREVENTS THE APPEARANCE OF DECISIONS BEING MADE FOR OTHER THAN THE MERITS OF THE CASE. WELL, I, I THINK A BIDDER OR PROPOSAL IS NOT PROHIBITED FROM SPEAKING AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WHEN THE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT IS CONSIDERED. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. SO THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MATTER, UH, AND MAKE WHATEVER ARGUMENTS FOR OR AGAINST THAT THE BIDDER ON A PROPOSAL HAS, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. SO I I I, I WILL SAY, JUST IN FAIRNESS, UH, THERE'S SOME CONCERN THAT MATTERS, NEVER MAKE IT TO COUNSEL, AND THAT IT WOULD, SHOULD REALLY BE COUNSEL'S DECISION TO DECIDE IF THE MATTER GETS TO THEM. AND THEY HAVE NO MECHANISM TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S ALL DONE BY EMPLOYEES [01:50:01] RIGHT NOW. I BELIEVE THAT'S THE ARGUMENT. AND SO IN SOME CASES, THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR A COUNCIL MEMBER TO ASK THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE THE QUESTION, THE, THE, THE, THE PROJECT NEVER MAKES IT TO COUNCIL. ADAM, CITY ATTORNEY, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION WITH RESPECT TO 29 AND 35? THIS IS JUST UP, UP TO THE WORKING GROUP. WELL, I, I, I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THIS. UH, YOU KNOW, THERE HAVE BEEN ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH LEGAL PROBLEMS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTERS. THIS WAS A POLICY DECISION THAT WAS MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, TO ADDRESS THOSE KINDS OF CONCERNS. AND I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO CHANGING WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS DETERMINED, UH, AS HOW TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTERS AND WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE MAKE NO CHANGES WITH DUE RESPECT. THERE HAVE NOT BEEN, EXCUSE ME, WITH DUE RESPECT, MR. PERKINS. THERE HAVE NOT BEEN, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SUSTAINED COMPLAINT RELATED TO DESIGNATED SUBSIDY MATTERS. THERE'S NEVER BEEN A PROSECUTION RELATED TO DESIGNATED SUBSIDY MATTERS. MR. FIELDING, UH, MR. CARAWAY AND MS. DAVIS WERE ALL PROSECUTED FOR OTHER ITEMS THAT RESULTED IN BRIBERY. UM, THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH TIFF APPLICATIONS, APPLICATIONS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DOLLARS, NONE OF THAT. AND AS I SAID BEFORE, LITECH ISN'T EVEN INCLUDED IN THIS LIST. AND THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MR. CARAWAY WAS ACCUSED OF ACCEPTING BRIBES FOR. THE OTHER EXAMPLE I GAVE TO, UM, BARON IS THAT, LOOK, IF DWU MAKES A CHANGE TO, UH, INDUSTRIAL WATER RATES TO TRY TO DO MORE CONSERVATION OR GIVE THE PUBLIC A BREAK, AND AN INDUSTRIAL USER COMES TO CITY COUNCIL, THAT INDUSTRIAL USER IS ALLOWED TO HIRE A LOBBYIST, TALK TO ANY CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, ARGUE OVER SOMETHING IN WHICH THAT PERSON HAS A PECUNIARY INTEREST, AND NOBODY CARES BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. IT'S A POLICY MATTER. AND COUNCIL NEEDS TO HAVE FULL ACCESS TO ALL POLICY MATTERS. AND LIKE I SAID, I THINK THAT WE ARE REALLY ON THE EDGE WHEN WE GIVE STAFF SO MUCH DISCRETION OVER A MATTER OF POLICY. I THINK IT'S A REAL SEPARATION OF POWERS PROBLEM. AND, AND I AGREE THAT THIS INVOLVES POLICY ISSUES. AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, I THINK THIS IS A POLICY MATTER THAT SHOULD GO BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL IF THERE ARE GOING TO BE DELETIONS WITH RESPECT TO THESE MATTERS IN, UH, LISTED IN, UH, NUMBER 29 AND NUMBER 35. SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS? I'LL AGREE WITH, UM, CHAIR PERKINS THAT, UM, AS POLICY MATTER, THIS MIGHT HAVE TO GO AWAY FROM THIS WORKING GROUP AND GO TO THE, THE CITY COUNTY, RIGHT? YEAH. ALL RIGHT. MOTION I MOVE TO NOT MAKE THESE CHANGES AND REFER THIS IN OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COUNCIL TO REVIEW IT. UH, I SECOND THAT MOTION. UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGN, OR IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'M SORRY, WITH RESPECT TO THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE. HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. MOTION PASSES. MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. WE ARE GETTING SO CLOSE, AND SO I THANK YOU FOR YOUR ENGAGEMENT. I KNOW THIS HAS TAKEN A LONG TIME, BUT THIS WILL HAVE EFFECTS FOR A LONG TIME. AND, UH, JUST AWARE OF APPRECIATION. THE NEXT SUGGESTION IS, UH, HAS TO DO WITH 12 A 47. [01:55:01] THIS IS THE SECTION OF THE CODE THAT OUTLINES ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL. WHAT ABOUT, WHAT ABOUT J AND 12? UH, PARDON ME. UH, LAURA'S ASKING ME A QUESTION. MINE SHOWS 43 BARON, JUST SO YOU KNOW THAT SOMEHOW, UH, I MUST HAVE DELETED IT FROM MY COPY, SO I'M GONNA USE LAURA'S COPY. APOLOGIES. SO, UH, 12 A 43. UH, SHIFT TECHNICAL FILING RESPONSIBILITIES AWAY FROM LINE EMPLOYEES WHEN A DONATION IS OFFERED OR RECEIVED. UM, I, MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE HANDLE THIS THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE, BUT IT IS, IT IS SOMETHING THAT CAME THROUGH AND WE COULD INCLUDE IT, UH, IN, UH, 12 A AND 12 A 43 IF, IF THAT'S THE, THE WILL TO PASS THAT RECOMMENDATION ON. I THINK IT MAKES SENSE IN, IN THE LIMITED, BUT IN THE POSSIBLE OR PLAUSIBLE SITUATIONS WHERE A LINE EMPLOYEE IS GIVEN A DONATION TO THE CITY AND THE CODE PUTS ON THEM SOME TECHNICAL, UH, REQUIREMENTS TO FILL OUT DONATION, PAPERWORK, ET CETERA. AND, UH, I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR TRANSPARENCY AND PROBABLY FOR THE PROCESS TO REQUIRE THAT PAPERWORK TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE SUPERVISORS AND, AND PEOPLE WHO ARE MORE ADMINISTRATIVE IN, IN THEIR, UH, ROLE WITH THE CITY. ANY CONCERNS, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, WITH RESPECT TO THIS RECOMMENDATION? SO BASICALLY, IF THEY'RE, IF A, AN EMPLOYEE RECEIVES A DONATION, THEY WOULD THEN HAVE TO REPORT THAT OR SUBMIT IT THROUGH THEIR, THE EMPLOYEE WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT UNIT AS OPPOSED TO REPORTING IT THEMSELVES. IS THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. WORK WITH THEIR SUPERVISOR TO, TO, UH, GET IT REPORTED AND HANDLED CORRECTLY. ALRIGHT. ANY COMMENTS, CONCERNS, QUESTIONS? IS THERE A MOTION? I JUST EXPLAIN THE REASON THAT I, I, AGAIN, I'M, I'M SPEAKING FOR, THIS ONE LITERALLY CAME FROM THE PUBLIC. IT ACTUALLY CAME FROM AN EMPLOYEE IN THE CITY WHO'S VERY INTERESTED IN THE SUBJECT OF, OF DONATIONS. I FIND MYSELF IN, YOU KNOW, HAVING TO KIND OF EXPLAIN WHAT THEY WANTED, UH, THIS PARTICULAR PERSON HAS, HAS NOT SHOWN UP. BUT FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, I'M COMFORTABLE SAYING THAT FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, IT, IT, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IF, UH, SOMEBODY WHOSE, WHOSE JOB IS TURNING A WRENCH AND IS NOT REALLY ADMINISTRATIVE, THEY TURN WRENCHES, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IF SOMEHOW THEY RECEIVE A DONATION TO THE CITY, UH, TO EXPECT THEM TO KNOW THE CODE, TO KNOW THE REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTING DONATIONS, AND TO DO THAT ACCURATELY, TO EVEN HAVE A COMPUTER ASSIGNED FROM THE CITY TO DO IT. AND SO YOU WOULD HAVE THEIR SUPERVISOR FILL OUT THE DONATION PAPERWORK. WHY, WHY IS THE PERSON TURNING THE WRENCH GETTING A DONATION? AND I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. OKAY. I'M JUST, I GUESS I'M CONFUSED. I THINK AS IT HAPPENS NOW, IF ANYONE RECEIVES A DONATION, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S THE DEPARTMENT THAT D THAT THEN REPORTS THAT TO THE CITY MANAGER, AND THE CODE EVEN SAYS, OR THE CITY MANAGER'S DESIGNEE, WHICH COULD BE THE DESIGNATED ETHICS OR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER EXACTLY WHAT THIS SAYS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS NEEDED, YOU KNOW, EVERY SO FUNCTIONALLY, THIS IS JUST FUNCTIONALLY EVERY DEPARTMENT HAS KIND OF THEIR OWN POLICY ON HOW TO HANDLE DONATIONS TO THE CITY. SO THIS IS JUST PUTTING IT INTO WORDS. YEAH, I'M, I SUPPOSE, BUT I JUST, I DON'T UNDERSTAND TAKING THAT ACCOUNTABILITY AWAY. LIKE IF THERE ARE DEPARTMENT'S HANDLING IT ALREADY, WHY DO WE HAVE TO DO THIS AND NOT, I MEAN, THAT IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE THAT YOU WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO JUST BE LIKE, OH, IT'S NOT MY JOB TO REPORT THIS DONATION. RIGHT NOW IT SAYS CITY OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND DEPARTMENTS RECEIVING A DONATION TO THE CITY SHALL REPORT, [02:00:01] REPORT THE DONATION TO THE CITY SECRETARY AND THE CITY MANAGER OR THE CITY MANAGER'S DESIGNEE. I MEAN, I THOUGHT WE TALKED, TALKED ABOUT TAKING OUT THE CITY SECRETARY BECAUSE SHE DOES NOT DEAL WITH DONATIONS IN ANY WAY. UM, SO DELETING CITY SECRETARY THERE, I THINK WOULD BE A GOOD THING. BUT REALLY, AS LONG AS DEPARTMENTS ARE, UH, REPORTING THESE DONATIONS TO THE CITY MANAGER OR WHOEVER THE CITY MANAGER DESIGNATES TO HANDLE THAT, WHICH IS ALREADY THE LANGUAGE IN THE CODE, THEN WE'RE GOOD. AND EVERY, EVERY DEPARTMENT HAS THEIR OWN INTERNAL POLICIES ON, ON HOW TO HANDLE THAT FROM A PRAGMATIC MATTER. SO THIS WOULD BE REDUNDANT AND YOU WOULD RECOMMEND TAKING OUT CITY SECRETARY? YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OH, JUST A POINT, POINT. JUST I NEED TO, I NEED TO ADD SOMETHING BECAUSE WE, UH, I, WE TALKED ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS AND, AND, UH, HAVING TO DO WITH WHERE THE DONATION REPORTS GO, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS, IS SUGGESTING THAT WE REMOVE, RIGHT NOW YOU REPORT DONATIONS QUARTERLY TO THE CITY SECRETARY AND EVERY 30 DAYS TO THE CITY MANAGER. UH, I THINK THAT'S REDUNDANT. AND SO I DID WANT TO WANT TO REMOVE ONE OF THE TWO. I WANTED TO REMOVE THE CITY MANAGER AS OPPOSED TO THE CITY SECRETARY. UM, AND I THINK WE SHOULD JUST MAKE A CHOICE. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE MERITS OF LEAVING IT WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE IS THAT THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE IS LIKELY TO BE THE, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE DONATIONS ARE GONNA BE COMING THROUGH. BUT THE REASON TO LEAVE IT WITH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE IS THEY HAVE THE PROCESSES, UH, FOR RECEIVING REPORTS AND RECORDING, UH, REPORTS AND ALL THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. SO I, I WOULD SAY LEAVE IT WITH THE CITY SECRETARY AND THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION, BUT IT'S, WELL, I, I SEE IT DIFFERENTLY. I THINK IF IT IS SENT TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, CITY MANAGER HAS OVERALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT MM-HMM . AND THEY ARE THEN, OR GOING TO BE ASSIGNED THE ROLE OF DOING WHAT IS PURSUANT TO THE RULES, WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH THE DONATION AS OPPOSED TO THE CITY SECRETARY. SO WHERE, WHERE ARE WE THEN? MISS CITY ATTORNEY DISCUSSING IT. RIGHT. SO I THINK YOU HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. I WAS JUST ADDING, UM, SO I MOVED TO JUST DELETE TO THE CITY SECRETARY. AND SO IT'LL JUST SAY, REPORT THE DONATION TO THE CITY MANAGER. RIGHT. AND WE'LL REMOVE THE REFERENCE TO SUPPORTING OR SUBMITTING REPORTS TO THE CITY SECRETARY. ALRIGHT. OKAY. NOW, UH, I'M SORRY, ONE MORE THING. IT'S JUST PRACTICAL IF WHILE WE'RE DOING THIS, YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE A TIMELINE. SO RIGHT NOW, DO WE WANT IT TO REMAIN QUARTERLY OR EVERY 30 DAYS? BECAUSE THE CITY SECRETARY REPORTING IS QUARTERLY CITY MANAGER REPORTING IS EVERY 30 DAYS. RIGHT. SO SHE'S SAYING WE'LL JUST ELIMINATE THE QUARTERLY OKAY, GOT IT. FILING TO THE CITY SECRETARY. EVERYTHING ELSE REMAINS THE SAME. I DON'T ALL, I JUST, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE AS A SECOND. I'LL SECOND. UH, ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED NAY. WHAT'S NEXT? OKAY, THE NEXT ONE'S 12 A 47. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S THE, UH, SECTION OF THE CODE THAT DEALS WITH ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. SORRY, GO AHEAD. WHAT SECTION? BARON? THIS SAYS 12 A 43. SKIP, IT WAS J AND THEN K. AND I THINK YOU JUST SKIPPED TO L DID WE DO K? WE DID, WE DIDN'T DO K, WE DID NOT DO K. AND, AND K HAS CHANGED FROM THOSE TO HAVE SOME RE REASONABLE BELIEF THAT, UH, A FACTS CONSTITUTE A MATERIAL VIOLATION. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING? I THINK IT'S A GOOD CHANGE. AND AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE. THE FAIR, THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT, WHAT SECTION IS THAT? IT'S NOT THE RIGHT SECTION. THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT SECTION. YEAH, I COULDN'T FIND IT IN THE CODE. YEAH. THE, THE REPORTING DUTY WILL BE IN 12 A 47. I SHOULDN'T HAVE, I SHOULD NOT, SOMETHING HAS GONE WRONG WITH THE WORK THAT I DID HERE. I SHOULD NOT HAVE JUST CUT AND PASTED 12 8 47 IS OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. [02:05:01] YEAH. AND SO NOW I'M LOOKING FOR THE, UH, REPORTING. NO, I'M, I'M TRYING 12 A EIGHT, UH, WOULD BE THE DUTY TO REPORT. AND RIGHT NOW I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE STANDARD IS. THE STANDARD IS THAT IF A CITY EMPLOYEE OR OFFICIAL KNOWS THAT THE CODE HAS BEEN VIOLATED, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE A FILE A COMPLAINT AND REPORT IT. UM, IF THEY BELIEVE THAT, THAT, OF COURSE, THEY MAY FILE A COMPLAINT, BUT IF THEY KNOW THEY MUST. AND, UM, THIS SUGGESTION IS, UH, TO CHANGE THAT, UH, REQUIREMENT FROM, IF YOU KNOW, TO, IF YOU REASONABLY BELIEVE, UM, I THINK IT WAS A GOOD SUGGESTION. UH, 'CAUSE IT, I'M SORRY, MR. LIES, TO CLARIFY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 12 8 12 8 8, YES. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. SORRY, GO AHEAD. NO, IT'S, I'M THE ONE THAT HAS MADE THIS CONFUSING AND I, I AM EMBARRASSED, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BUT, BUT AT LEAST WE KNOW WHAT CODE SECTION THIS, UH, THIS PERSON WAS MAKING THE SUGGESTION ABOUT. AND I, AND I KNOW WHAT IT SAYS. SO RIGHT NOW, IT REQUIRES, IF YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE CODE'S BEEN VIOLATED TO FILE A COMPLAINT. THE PROPONENT SAYS, I THINK A REASONABLE BELIEF, UH, IS A, IS A BETTER STANDARD. I CAN SAY THAT WE RUN INTO THIS WITH PEOPLE WHO HIM AND HAW ABOUT, WELL, DO I REALLY KNOW? DO I REALLY, I MEAN, I THINK IT LOOKS PRETTY CLEAR, BUT I'M NOT SURE. I KNOW THEY DO HAVE A REASONABLE BELIEF, UH, BUT THEY HAVEN'T DONE AN INVESTIGATION AND CAN'T PROVE IT, SO, OKAY. IT'S WORTH CONSIDERATION. PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT THAT'S VERY SUBJECTIVE. AND IF YOU'RE GONNA MAKE IT A, A DUTY MM-HMM . IN A REASONABLE BELIEF, WHICH IS A SUBJECTIVE STANDARD, UM, I, I DON'T, THAT'S, I, THAT'S HOW I FEEL. SO YOU WOULD PREFER THAT IT STAYS AS IT IS. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THAT MISS CITY ATTORNEY? UM, I, I THINK I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE COMMISSIONER. UM, RIGHT NOW, IF YOU KNOW A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED, YOU DEFINITELY HAVE A DUTY TO REPORT IT. IF YOU HAVE, IF YOU SUSPECT, UM, TO PUT A DUTY ON SOMEONE WHEN THEY SUSPECT MAY, SOMETHING MAY BE GOING ON, BUT THEY REALLY DON'T KNOW. UM, AND IS IS AM MERE SUSPICION, A REASONABLE BELIEF? IT'S, AND IT DETERMINES WHETHER IT'S REASONABLE. YEAH. YEAH. I TEND TO AGREE. ALRIGHT. SO THAT MEANS IT WOULD STAY AS, NO. IS THAT A MOTION I MOVE TO LEAVE IT AS IT IS? IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? YES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY AYE, PLEASE. AYE. AYE. MOTION PASSES. WHAT'S NEXT? I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE ON L 12 A 47. IS THAT WHAT YOU SHOW? YES. OKAY. UH, THIS IS, UH, A SUGGESTION THAT THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, UH, BE CLARIFIED FURTHER IN REGARDS TO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN, UM, A CRIMINAL MATTER COMES UP. UM, AND IT JUST GOES INTO DETAIL ABOUT THAT. UM, MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO REJECT BECAUSE IT, IT'S JUST, IT'S RESTATING WHAT THE CODE ALREADY SAYS. UM, BUT I AM ONE THAT ARGUES FOR CLARITY AS WELL. AND SO IF YOU THINK IT CLARIFIES HELPFULLY, I, I DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION, BUT IT, IT'S, IT IS RESTATING WHAT IS ALREADY IN THE CODE. PERSONALLY, I, UH, I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY REDUNDANT AND IT MIGHT ACTUALLY CONFUSE SITUATIONS BECAUSE THERE COULD BE A CRIMINAL MATTER AND AN ETHICS MATTER, AND IT SEEMS UNNECESSARY TO ME ANY FURTHER, ANY FURTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, SUGGESTIONS? SO THE MATTER IS TO NOT CITY ATTORNEY. DO YOU HAVE ANY OPINIONS? I AGREE THAT THIS DOESN'T NEED TO BE IN. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS SOMETHING THE IG ALREADY DOES. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS MEANS THIS LANGUAGE WOULD NOT BE IN THE SUGGESTED [02:10:01] AMENDMENTS. IS THAT CORRECT? ALL RIGHT. UH, NOT BE ADDED THOSE, OR IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? QUESTION? UH, THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SIGNIFY WITH SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. MOTION PASSES. NEXT ITEM, UH, 12 A 48. UH, DARREN, DO YOU, DO YOU WANT ME TO TALK ABOUT THIS ONE? YES. OKAY. UH, THIS IS A PROPOSAL TO STRIKE THE LANGUAGE FROM AN, AN APPROVED LIST PROVIDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. AND THIS IS A LIST THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE KEEPS OF LAWYERS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO A CITY OFFICIAL OR A CITY EMPLOYEE WHEN THEY ARE FACING, UM, ALLEGATIONS OF VIOLATING THE CODE OF ETHICS. UM, THE REASON WHY THIS WAS, IS IN HERE IS BECAUSE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DOES A CONFLICTS CHECK. WE DON'T WANT, UM, A CITY OFFICIAL OR CITY EMPLOYEE USING AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY THAT WOULD BE OTHERWISE CONFLICTED OUT OF THAT. NOW, THIS, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS FINE BECAUSE IN PRACTICE, YES, THERE'S A LIST, BUT ALSO A CITY EMPLOYEE OR CITY OFFICIAL CAN CHOOSE ANY, UM, ATTORNEY THEY WANT, AS LONG AS THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DOES RUN THAT, UM, CONFLICTS CHECK, AND THEN GETS APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO GO AHEAD AND USE THAT OUTSIDE ATTORNEY. SO IT'S FINE IF WE JUST WANT TO SAY, UM, IF A CITY OFFICIAL OR CITY EMPLOYEE CHARGED IN A COMPLAINT RETAINS AN INDEPENDENT OUTSIDE COUNSEL APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, UM, BECAUSE PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, YOU CAN CHOOSE SOMEONE WHO'S OFF THE LIST AS LONG AS, UM, THE ATTORNEY, UM, PASSES THE CONFLICTS CHECK. SO THAT'S WHAT I RECOMMEND. AND I MEAN, THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME THAT THE LIST WOULD CHANGE AND MM-HMM . UM, AS LONG AS IT'S APPROVED. ALRIGHT. THERE'S, IS THERE A MOTION ON THAT? I MOVE, I MOVE TO TAKE OUT THE LANGUAGE REGARDING THE APPROVED LIST AND JUST INCLUDE LANGUAGE AS LONG AS IT'S APPROVED, APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, CONCERNS, QUESTIONS? IS THERE, UH, UH, ALL THOSE IN, I THINK WE'VE HAD DISCUSSION ON THIS. DID I MOVE OR I DID NOT MOVE. I MOVED. I SECONDED . I IT MOTION HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. AND THEN THE NEXT CHANGE UNDER THAT SAME SECTION, 12 A 48, IS TO CHANGE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL, BUT IT REALLY IS THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION THAT MAKES THE FINDING OF WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON HAS VIOLATED THE CODE OF ETHICS. SO THAT NEEDS TO STAY AS ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION. DID WE SKIP THEN? I I'M STILL ON M THERE ARE TWO PARTS TO M I'M SORRY. OH, UNDER PARAGRAPH THREE. OH, IT IS THE EAC THAT MAKES THOSE FINDINGS NOT THE CITY COUNCIL. SO WE SHOULDN'T CHANGE IT FROM EAC TO CITY COUNCIL. SO IT SHOULD REMAIN AS IT IS. YES. RIGHT. SO I MAY WE KEEP, KEEP IT THE WAY THAT SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY AYE, PLEASE. AYE. AYE. AY, MOTION PASSES. A WHERE WE HAND. OKAY. OKAY. AND THAT'S IN . . THE NEXT, THE NEXT ONE ON THE LIST IS, UH, FROM A, A PROPONENT IN THE PUBLIC TO STRIKE THIS, WE'RE DEALING WITH, UH, SECTION 12, A 29, HAVING TO DO 49, EXCUSE ME. UH, HAVING TO DO WITH, UH, THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION AND THE REQUIREMENT THAT AT LEAST TWO MEMBERS MEETING THE SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS MUST BE ASSIGNED TO THE FIVE MEMBER PANELS THAT HEAR COMPLAINTS. UH, THE PROPONENTS SEEKS TO STRIKE THAT, WHICH WOULD MEAN, UH, A PANEL COULD BE IMPANELED WITHOUT AT LEAST TWO MEMBERS. I, I SUPPOSE WITHOUT ANY, UM, AND MY RECOMMENDATION IS, UH, TO REJECT THAT DELETION FOR THE REASON THAT THE SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS, UH, ARE, ARE THERE SO THAT PEOPLE WITH LIFE EXPERIENCE IN THOSE AREAS CAN BRING THAT EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE TO BEAR. WHEN COMPLAINTS ARE HEARD. [02:15:01] I MOVE TO REJECT THIS, THAT THREE OF THE FIVE CAN BE NOT SPECIALLY QUALIFIED. I SECOND THAT MO I SECOND MOTION. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. MOTION PASSES. AYE. I'M, I'M SORRY. MOTION . I'M SORRY. MOTION PASSES. UH, THE DELETION IN D ONE. WHERE ARE WE? THANK YOU. A 50 OH OH OH OH OH YEAH. 12 A 50. I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT THERE WAS ALREADY A, I I THOUGHT THERE WAS ALREADY A PROVISION THAT LIMITED THE SO WHAT ASKING FOR EVERYBODY ON THIS COMMISSION NEEDS TO THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY WHEN THE MATTER WAS A SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE TEXAS RECOMMENDATION ETHICS COMMISSION. IS THAT NOT RIGHT? SO, SO, I, I DON'T, AND, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS LANGUAGE IS NECESSARY. IS THAT CORRECT? UH, IS THERE A MOTION? IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OF THIS ISSUE? HEARING NONE. IS THERE A MOTION I MOVE THAT WE REJECT THE SUBMISSION OR THE, UM, INCLUSION OF THIS IN YOUR LANGUAGE? SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. MOTION PASSES. NEXT ITEM. SO I WAS, UH, ASKING A QUESTION AND I MISSED, WHAT, WHAT ITEM ARE WE ON NOW IN THE AGENDA? P THE LAST ONE THEY REJECTED O OKAY. UM, WE'VE GOT THIS ONE AND, AND ONE MORE. UH, AND THAT'S IT. 12 A 52 ADD THE FOLLOWING UNDER, UH, LANGUAGE. THE PROPONENT IS, IS SEEKING TO ADD HERE THAT WHEN A COMPLAINT IS FILED, THAT, UH, WHO GETS TO FILE THE COMPLAINT IS EXPANDED IT. RIGHT NOW THE CODE READS ANY CITY OF DALLAS RESIDENT AND THE, UH, PROPONENT IS ASKING FOR, AND ANY NON-RESIDENT HAVING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY MAY FILE A COMPLAINT. UM, MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT. UM, RIGHT, THAT'S NOT CORRECT. RIGHT NOW, THE CODE SAYS ANY PERSON MAY FILE A COMPLAINT. SAID, YEAH, ANY PERSON. SO THIS WOULD LIMIT IT. SO THIS, IF, IF YOU WENT, IF YOU GO WITH THIS LANGUAGE, THAT MEANS A CITY EMPLOYEE WHO IS NOT A RESIDENT OF DALLAS COULDN'T FILE A COMPLAINT. AND ALSO WE ACCEPT ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS, IN WHICH CASE, THAT COULD BE ANYONE. IT COULD BE ANYONE WE WANT. I MEAN, I, I DON'T KNOW. I THINK WE WANT ANYONE WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT SOMEONE HAS VIOLATED THE CODE OF ETHICS TO BRING THAT FORWARD AND SHED LIGHT ON IT. I THINK THE, THE PROPONENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH AN OLD VERSION OF THE CODE. I JUST COPIED THIS RIGHT OVER, AND I'M LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE, AND IT IS CORRECT. IT DOES SAY ANY PERSON MAY FILE A COMPLAINT. SO I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING BECAUSE THE PROPONENT'S SUGGESTION WAS ENCOMPASSED IN THE CURRENT CODE. MR. ELIASON, THE CURRENT CODE SAYS ANY PERSON, BUT THE RED LINE DELETES PERSON AND ADDS CITY OF DALLAS RESIDENT AND ANY NON-RESIDENT HAVING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY. SO, FOR INSTANCE, MS. MORRISON'S EXAMPLE OF A CITY EMPLOYEE WHO DOESN'T LIVE IN THE CITY, THAT PERSON ABSOLUTELY WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO FILE A COMPLAINT. AND IT IS SPECIFICALLY INTENDED TO ELIMINATE ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS. OH, OKAY. OH, I SEE. OH, IT IS, IT IS DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE ANON ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS. SOMEBODY'S GONNA HAVE TO VERIFY THAT THE PERSON IS A RESIDENT OR HAS BUSINESS. WHAT IS THE CURRENT POLICY WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBMISSION? ANY PERSON IS THAT THAT THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S THE WAY THE CODE CURRENTLY READS. I I CAN TELL YOU IN PRACTICE, WE, WE DO GET A LOT OF ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS. THE PRACTICAL REALITY WITH AN ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT IS IF WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE WANT TO TRY AND SUBSTANTIATE THAT BEFORE THE EAC, THE, IT'S LIKELY GONNA REQUIRE THAT WITNESS TO TESTIFY. BUT THERE ARE GOING TO BE TIMES WHERE AN ANONYMOUS COMPLAINANT GIVES US INFORMATION [02:20:01] AND WE ARE ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE WITHOUT THEM. AND WE WOULD NEVER HAVE GOTTEN THE COMPLAINT HAD THEY NOT MADE IT. AND BASED ON THAT UNDERSTANDING OF, OF THE INTENT, UH, MY RECOMMENDATION IS, IS TO REJECT THE CHANGE. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? MANS? THERE IS ONE. THERE IS ONE MORE. AND, OH, OKAY. WELL LET, LET'S, WELL, YOU HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT. YES. SORRY. UH, UM, I MOVE TO LEAVE IT AS ANY PERSON. SO THE MOTION IS TO LEAVE IT AS ANY PERSON, UH, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL THOSE? ANY, ANY COMMENT, DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE, PLEASE. AYE. A MOTION PASSES. AND I THINK THERE'S, THERE'S ONE MORE. AND I'M, LIKE I SAID, I'M EMBARRASSED. I DON'T KNOW HOW I MESSED UP THESE COPIES, BUT THERE'S ONE ADDITIONAL, UH, RECOMMENDATION FROM A PROPONENT THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE MAKEUP OF THE EAC COMMISSION AS A WHOLE. AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT EVERY MEMBER OF THE EIC BE, UH, AN ATTORNEY. UM, I, I MOVE TO REJECT THAT. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION OF THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY AYE. SAYING AYE. AYE. MOTION IS TO REJECT THE MOTION PASSES AND OUR WORK HERE IS DONE WITH THAT. IT IS 1138, THE MEETING OF THE, THIS MEETING OF THE, UH, ADVISORY COMMISSION. UH, UM, UH, WHAT IS THIS? THE, UH, WORKING GROUP, WORK WORKING GROUP IS NOW COMPLETED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH EVERYONE FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS, AND WE WILL SEE YOU ALL NEXT WEEK. THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU EVERYONE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. * 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.