* 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. [Ethics Advisory Commission on April 21, 2026.] [00:00:03] OKAY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING TO GET STARTED HERE. GOOD MORNING. UH, WELCOME TO THE MEETING OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DALLAS. IT IS 9:40 AM ON TUESDAY, APRIL 21ST. I'M GOING DO A ROLL CALL. IF YOU ARE PRESENT, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY EAR OR WHATEVER YOU CHOOSE. THOMAS PERKINS. PRESENT. PRESENT. UH, ANN FAY JUAN GARCIA, GRANT SCHMITT. LAUREN MELTON. JENNIFER STOVALL. PRESENT. DONNA GERMAN PRESENT. MARCY HEIN PRESENT. HOWARD RUBIN, RUBEN ROSE, ANDY VIAL. AND JED MASO. WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT AT THIS TIME AND THE MEETING IS NOW CALLED ORDER. OTHERS PRESENT AT THE MEETING? PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELVES STARTING WITH THE INSPECTOR OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BARRON ELIASON. INTERIM INSPECTOR GENERAL. GOOD MORNING. LAURA FELAN, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL. GOOD MORNING. UH, CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE. NANCY SANCHEZ, BOARD COORDINATOR AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. LAURA MORRISON, LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION. ALRIGHT, WE'LL NOW PROCEED WITH TODAY'S MEETING. MADAM CITY SECRETARY. ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS TODAY? NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS. NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER TWO IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 20, 20, 20 26. ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION. REGULAR MEETING. UH, MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES PLEASE? SO IT'S BEEN MOVED, SECONDED, AND SECONDED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? YES, PLEASE PROCEED. THERE WERE A COUPLE THINGS THAT I SAID AT THE MEETING THAT I THINK SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE MINUTE, MINUTES. ONE OF THEM WAS THE RECOMMENDATION THAT ONCE WE GO THROUGH AND MAKE CHANGES TO THE, UH, ACTUAL CODE, THAT WE GO BACK AND MAKE CHANGES TO OUR RULES. AND SO I WAS TOLD THAT THAT WAS A GOOD SUGGESTION OR WOULD BE DONE, BUT IT WASN'T REFLECTED IN THE MINUTES. YEP. THE THE MINUTES REALLY ONLY REFLECT THE, LIKE THE BRIEFINGS, THE, AND WHATEVER MOTIONS ARE MADE. SO THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE A MOTION. 'CAUSE WE, WE WILL DO THAT. SO YOU DON'T LIKE RECORD WHAT GOES ON? ALL COMMENTS? NO. NO. OKAY, GOOD. I THINK THE ANSWER IS, AND MS. MORRISON CAN CORRECT ME THAT WE SUGGESTED IT BE ON THE AGENDA FOR A SUBSEQUENT MEETING AFTER PROCESS IS DONE, THEN THAT WOULD BE ON THE AGENDA AND THEN THAT'S THE ROUTE YOU GO. YOU MEAN BRINGING SOMETHING UP THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA, BUT YOU WANNA PUT IT ON IT, ON THE AGENDA FOR US TO DISCUSS IT? WELL, THAT'S TRUE, BUT YOU KNOW, THE COMMISSIONER'S POINT WAS WELL TAKEN AND THAT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. IT JUST, IT, THAT WASN'T A DECISION ITEM FOR THE COMMISSION ON THAT AGENDA, SO IT WOULDN'T BE REFLECTED IN THE MINUTES. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING THE MINUTES? THERE HAS BEEN A MOTION AND A SECOND. NO HEARING, NO FURTHER IN DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. NAY. AND A MOTION PASSES. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL PROCEED TO ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS A CONSIDERATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND SAM [00:05:01] STAGGS, FORMER MUNICIPAL LIBRARY BOARD MEMBER. UM, MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT OR INTRODUCE THE ITEM WITH RESPECT TO THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, PLEASE? I'M HAPPY TO, UH, AND TO, AGAIN, TO INTRODUCE LAURA FELAN, SHE'S OUR, UH, LEAD PROSECUTOR IN THE CASE RIGHT NOW. SHE'S PASSING OUT A COPY OF THAT AGREEMENT. UM, BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, UNDER THE CODE OF ETHICS, UM, THE INSPECTOR OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL CAN NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT WITH SOME PEOPLE THAT COME UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CODE. UM, WE CAN'T DO THAT WITH EMPLOYEES AS AN EXAMPLE, BUT WE CAN DO THAT, UH, WITH PEOPLE LIKE MR. STACKS. AND SO WE HAVE DONE THAT. UM, WE'VE REACHED A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND HE HAS, UM, SIGNED OFF ON THAT. AND, UH, MS. FELAND CAN GIVE YOU THE DETAILS OF THE AGREEMENT AND THEN YOU ALL, UH, ACCORDING TO CODE WILL CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT TO ACCEPT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OR, UH, PUSH IT BACK FOR SOME DIFFERENT AGREEMENT OR, UH, ASK US TO GO AHEAD AND PLACE IT FOR A HEARING. SO I'LL ASK, UH, MS. FELAND TO GIVE YOU THE LOWDOWN ON THE AGREEMENT. SURE. AND AS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SAID, UNDER 12 A 50 D SIX OF OUR ETHICS CODE, THE EAC UH, MAY APPROVE, REJECT, OR MOD OR MODIFY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND RESPONDENTS. AND THEN YOU CAN ALSO TAKE A LOOK AT 12 A 52 B THREE THAT'S GONNA LAY OUT THE PROCEDURE FOR HOW TO GO ABOUT THIS. IT SAYS WHAT OUR REPORT MUST INCLUDE, THAT OUR REPORT MUST INCLUDE AN AGREED UPON FINAL SETTLEMENT, AND THEN THE EAG MAY, UH, THE EAC, UM, RATHER MAY REJECT OR MODIFY THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY A THREE FOURTHS VOTE OR APPROVE IT BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY. AND SO NOW I'LL TURN TO OUR REPORT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH WE FILED WITH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE BACK ON MARCH 23RD OF THIS YEAR. AND SO WE DID, UH, UH, WE FILED AN, UH, INFORMATION, UM, REGARDING AN EMAIL THAT WAS SENT BY A FORMER MUNICIPAL LIBRARY BOARD MEMBER NAMED SAM STAG AND SENT AN EMAIL TO A CITY EMPLOYEE IN NOVEMBER OF 2025. AND THIS EMAIL CONTAINS STATEMENTS WHICH WERE DIRECTED AT THE EMPLOYEE'S CHARACTER INTEGRITY AND MOTIVES. UM, AFTER INVESTIGATING THIS MATTER, UH, OUR OPS DETERMINED THAT THIS EMAIL DID VIOLATE, UH, SECTION 12 A FOUR B TWO OF OUR CODE OF ETHICS. UM, AND SUBSEQUENT TO THIS MUNICIPAL LIBRARY BOARD MEMBER SENDING THIS EMAIL TO THE CITY EMPLOYEE, UM, THAT INFORMATION MADE ITS WAY TO THE, UH, APPOINTING COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, FROM DISTRICT EIGHT. SO SHE INFORMED MR. STACK THAT SHE WOULD BE NOMINATING A NEW MUNICIPAL LIBRARY BOARD MEMBER. UM, AND SO BY THE TIME WE MET WITH HIM, HE WAS A FORMER, UH, CITY OFFICIAL. HE WAS A FORMER, UH, MEMBER OF THE MUNICIPAL LIBRARY BOARD. UM, WE DID AGREE ON A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT HE WOULD ACCEPT A FINAL SANCTION OF ONE HOUR OF ETHICS TRAINING, UH, TO BE PROVIDED BY THE OI OIG. AND WE DID, UH, GIVE HIM THAT TRAINING IN PERSON. AND SO THEN I'LL SCROLL DOWN TO THE NEXT PAGE OF WHAT OUR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ACTUALLY RECITES. UM, PARAGRAPH ONE JUST SAYS THAT WE'VE AGREED ON A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. UM, PARAGRAPH TWO, UH, GOES INTO THE, WHAT THE RULE IS THAT HE VIOLATED. SO, UM, 12 A FOUR, UM, 12 A FOUR B TWO, UH, REQUIRES CITY OF EMPLOYEES WHEN PERFORMING THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES TO TREAT OTHERS RESPECTFULLY AND NOT MAKE COMMENTS OR TAKE ACTIONS THAT ARE ABUSIVE, DEROGATORY, THREATENING, OR THAT INVOLVE PERSONAL ATTACKS ON ANOTHER PERSON'S CHARACTER, INTEGRITY OR MOTIVES. AND SO THIS EMAIL THAT IS ATTACHED TO THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, UM, DOES VIOLATE THOSE THAT RULE, UM, IN THAT IT INCLUDED PERSONAL ATTACKS ON THE EMPLOYEE'S CHARACTER INTEGRITY AND MOTIVES. SO PARAGRAPH FOUR, UH, IS GONNA RECITE HOW WE ARE RESOLVING THE MATTER. UM, NEITHER THE RESPONDENT NOR THE IG IS GONNA, UH, UH, REQUEST, REQUEST A HEARING. AND INSTEAD WE'RE GONNA AGREE THAT THE COMPLAINT [00:10:01] BE RESOLVED WITH ETHICS TRAINING PROVIDED BY US, MR. STAGGS, AS FINAL SANCTION. AND THAT'S THE FULL, UH, AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT THAT WE HAVE. SO IT'S SIGNED BY MR. STAGGS AND MR. ELIASON. AND THEN IF YOU GO ONTO THE NEXT PAGE, YOU'LL SEE THE INFORMATION THAT WE FILED AGAINST HIM, AND IT JUST RECITES THE RULE AND THE DATE ON WHICH THIS RULE WAS VIOLATED. AND THEN YOU CAN KEEP SCROLLING DOWN AND YOU'LL SEE, UH, THE EMAIL IN QUESTION. AND SO WITH THAT, I'LL LEAVE IT TO YOU TO DISCUSS WHETHER YOU WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE, MODIFY, OR REJECT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT UNDER 12 8 52 B FREE. UH, UH, FIRST, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM, UH, OF, OF THE, UH, INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS PROPOSED SETTLEMENT? YES, MR. , JUST TO CLARIFY, AT, AT THE TIME, UM, WHEN DID HE LEAVE HIS POSITION? UM, IN DECEMBER OF 2025. OKAY. SO ALL THIS TOOK PLACE AFTER HE LEFT HIS POSITION? CORRECT. THE EMAIL WAS SENT IN NOVEMBER. HE WAS REPLACED BY THE COUNCIL MEMBER OVER THAT DISTRICT IN DECEMBER. WE DID OUR INVESTIGATION IN JANUARY OF FEBRUARY, AND WE RESOLVED IT IN FEBRUARY. OKAY. I WAS JUST GONNA MAKE ONE GUDU COMMENT THAT I APPRECIATE THIS PROCESS BECAUSE I RECALL, I THINK IT WAS LAST YEAR, THERE WERE A COUPLE EXAMPLES WHERE THERE WERE VIOLATIONS, LIKE AGREEMENTS BY THE DEFENDANT TO THESE, THESE SUBRES, BUT WE STILL HAVE LIKE FULL-BLOWN HEARINGS ONLY TO THEN JUST SAY, OKAY, WE WILL HAVE A ONE HOUR. SO I'M JUST, UM, COMPLIMENTING YOU AND SAYING, THANK YOU FOR THIS PROCESS BECAUSE THIS IS FAR MORE EFFICIENT. AND, UM, IT'S ALSO IN LINE WITH EVERYBODY'S EXPECTATIONS SINCE YOU SIGNED OFF ON IT, ET CETERA. THIS MAKES WAY MORE SENSE. YES, WE'RE FOR CURRENT EMPLOYEES, HOWEVER, WE'RE NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE CODE TO DO THIS. WELL, WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CURRENT EMPLOYEE. SO ONLY BECAUSE HE WAS A FORMER CITY OFFICIAL, WE WERE ALLOWED TO DO THIS. SO THAT THAT MUST HAVE BEEN WHY. OKAY. SO IF HE WAS STILL WITH THE BOARD, THEN YOU WOULD'VE HAD TO DO A FULL BLOWN HEARING WITH US. NO, THE DIFFERENT, THE DIFFERENTIATING, THE KEY IS IF HE'S AN EMPLOYEE OR HE OR SHE, IF THEY'RE AN EMPLOYEE, THEN PERSONNEL RULES, PARTICULARLY IF THEY'RE A CIVIL SERVANT. BUT EITHER WAY, THE, THE PERSONNEL SYSTEM TAKES OVER, BUT, SO WE CAN'T NEGOTIATE IT IF IT WAS A CURRENT EMPLOYEE, THOUGH, YOU'RE SAYING WE COULDN'T, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO HAVE A HEARING. OKAY. THAT MUST HAVE BEEN WHY WE HAD TO DO IT THE OTHER TIME. OKAY. THAT'S HELPFUL CONTEXT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS? ONE OTHER QUICK QUESTION, IS THIS SIMILAR? IS THIS, UM, IS THIS SET OF PRECEDENT FOR OTHER SITUATIONS LIKE THIS? AND ARE Y'ALL COMFORTABLE WITH, WE HAVEN'T HAD SOMEBODY SIGN OFF ON LIKE, OH, I'M SUBJECTED TO FIVE HOURS. Y'ALL FEEL OKAY WITH THE PRECEDENT? I FEEL OKAY. I THINK, UH, I THINK EVERY CASE IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT. AND, UM, THE, THE RESPONDENT AND WHETHER THEY, UH, EVENTUALLY COME AROUND AND WE, WE GET A SENSE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'VE DONE, THAT, THAT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DISCIPLINE SECTION IN THE CODE OF ETHICS, YOU'LL SEE THAT, UH, THE PERSON'S INTENT AND KNOWLEDGE AND AND HOW THEY'RE HANDLING THEMSELVES, UH, IS COVERED IN THAT DISCIPLINE SECTION AND THE SANCTIONS GET PROGRESSIVELY WORSE. I I CAN SAY THAT IN THIS CASE, UM, HAD THIS PARTICULAR RESPONDENT NOT BEEN WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT THE, THE RECOMMENDATION TO THIS COMMITTEE FROM ME WOULD'VE BEEN VERY DIFFERENT. YES, MR. RUBEN? UH, I THINK THE SETTLEMENT A AGREEMENTS IS FINE. I JUST HAVE A HARD TIME RATIONALIZING OUR HOW, WHY ANYBODY WOULD CARE IF HE'S NO LONGER, UH, AN OFFICIAL. THE I CAN TELL YOU WHY THEY CARE, UH, THEY CARE BECAUSE THEY RECEIVED THE LETTER AND IT NEEDS TO STOP. OKAY. AND WE HAVE TO START DRAWING SOME LINES. AND I [00:15:01] WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, THIS, THIS ISN'T THE MOST ENGAGING CASE BECAUSE OF, BECAUSE OF THAT SCENARIO. UH, BUT IT'S AN IMPORTANT LINE TO BEGIN DRAWING. AND SO WE CHOSE TO, TO MOVE AHEAD AND THE CODE DOES COVER THE FOLKS LIKE MR. STAG, THEY'RE STILL COVERED UNDER THE CODE OF ETHICS, UH, FOR VIOLATIONS. SO I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT, AN IMPORTANT STATEMENT FOR THE IG TO MAKE THAT WE'RE, WE ARE LOOKING AT THESE THINGS AND IT'S A, IT'S A PATTERN THAT WHERE IT EXISTS NEEDS TO STOP. AND, UM, A PUBLIC HEARING, EVEN IF THERE'S A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, UH, IS NO FUN. AND, AND I THINK THAT, UH, IT'S FAIR TO SAY, UM, THAT THE RESPONDENT, THAT ANY RESPONDENT WOULDN'T WANT TO EVEN GO THROUGH THIS MUCH. SO WE'RE, WE'RE SENDING AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE IN, IN MY VIEW. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. YEAH, PLEASE. WOULD IT BEEN POSSIBLE, UH, FOR A PROVISION IN, IN HERE THAT HE WOULD NO LONGER BE ABLE TO SERVE ON ANY BOARD IN THE FUTURE? UH, THAT'S A, IT'S, THAT'S VERY SIMILAR TO, TO, UH, LIKE A DEBARMENT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I'M NOT SURE THAT'S AN OPTION IN THE DISCIPLINE SECTION. AND I'M NOT SURE THAT WOULD'VE APPLIED HERE. RIGHT. NO, JUST IN GENERAL. I'M LOOKING, UH, I THINK THIS HAS KIND OF COME UP BEFORE IN REGARD TO CITY EMPLOYEES AND OUR WAS THE POTENTIAL SANCTIONS, AND IT WAS ULTIMATELY DETERMINED THAT IT WAS SORT OF BE AN HR ISSUE AND IT WOULD BE IN THEIR RECORD AND PEOPLE STATE OUT HOW TO . HE, HE WASN'T AN EMPLOYEE. RIGHT. BUT I MEAN, THIS IS STILL PUBLIC RECORD AND I'LL SEND, SO 12 A 59 F UM, DISCUSSES THE SANCTIONS THAT A CITY COUNCIL MAY IMPOSE ON A FORMER CITY OFFICIAL, AND THERE'S EIGHT OF THEM. UM, THE, UH, BARRING OF THE ONE YOU MENTIONED, MR. RUBIN IS NOT ON IT. IT DOES OCCUR IN E WHICH IS YOU, YOU, YOU JUST HIT UPON AN INTERESTING SITUATION IN THE CODE BECAUSE E RIGHT? IT'S EE REFERS TO, UH, A FORMER CITY OFFICIAL OR A FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE. AND E SEVEN IS SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE. UH, THE CITY COUNCIL MAY RE MAY SUSPEND A CITY OFFICIAL OTHER THAN A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER FROM OFFICE FOUR PERIOD DETERMINED BY CITY COUNCIL IF THEY FIND A SERIOUS OR REPEATED VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER. SO THAT, THAT'S ADJACENT AT LEAST TO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT? UM, I, I HAVE ONE NOT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT, BUT ABOUT KIND OF PROCESS. UM, COULD YOU JUST BRIEFLY ADDRESS, UM, YOU KNOW, SENDING THE MESSAGE THAT THESE THINGS WILL BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY VERSUS THE CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS THAT SURROUND AN INCIDENT. THIS TYPE, SO THE CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS, UM, ATTACHED TO THE INVESTIGATION. AND ONCE THE INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED, THAT PROTECTION, UM, GOES AWAY. AND SO HERE WE ARE IN A PUBLIC HEARING, UH, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD'VE, WE COULD'VE HAD A HEARING OR WE'RE ADDRESSING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FROM HERE. THIS GOES ON TO COUNSEL. COUNSEL HAS TO APPROVE IT SO THAT THE CONFIDENTIALITY SHIELD STOPS ONCE THE INVESTIGATION IS CONCLUDED. OKAY. THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YES. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, CONCERNS? IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENTS? SO MOVED. I MOVE, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT. AND IS, WAS THERE A SECOND? I, I'M SORRY. I'LL SECOND IT. ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN MOVED. AND SECOND TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? NAY. MOTION PASSES. ITEM FOUR, CONSIDERATION [00:20:01] OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 12 A OF THE CODE OF ETHICS. MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. FIRST, I WANT TO THANK THE WORKING GROUP THAT WAS FORMED, UH, UH, FOR ALL THE HARD WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE IN, UH, VETTING AND DISCUSSING AND TOILING OVER MANY RECOMMENDATIONS. WE BEGAN WITH A LIST OF 25 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM ME. THEN THE PROCESS MOVED INTO SEEKING PUBLIC INPUT AND INPUT FROM MEMBERS OF THE CITY. THERE WERE FOUR TOWN HALL MEETINGS. I I WON'T SAY THERE WAS ROBUST ATTENDANCE. I WON'T PRETEND THERE WAS, BUT WE HAD THEM. THERE WAS ATTENDANCE, WE HAD GOOD DISCUSSION. UH, WE ALSO PUT OUT A PUBLIC SURVEY. THERE WERE 81 RESPONDENTS. I WAS ASKED IF ANY OF THE RESPONDENTS IN THE SURVEY WERE FROM THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL AT THE TIME. I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS. I DID A LITTLE RESEARCH. TURNS OUT WE HAD ONE INVESTIGATOR THAT TOOK THE SURVEY. SO 80 OF THE 81 RESPONSES, UH, CAME LEGITIMATELY FROM THE PUBLIC, BUT I WANTED TO BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT THAT. UH, WE ALSO CONSIDERED SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME FROM OUTSIDE OF THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, AND WE CONCLUDED THAT, UH, JUST LAST WEEK. AND THE RESULT NOW IS THAT WE BRING BEFORE YOU 16 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS OR DELETIONS, CLARIFICATIONS, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, UH, TO THE CODE OF ETHICS. THERE'S ONE ADDITIONAL ONE, UH, THAT LITERALLY, UH, CAME UP AFTER THE LAST MEETING. I'LL BRING THAT UP AT THE VERY END. IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, UH, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT. IT'S THE RESULT OF OUR EXPERIENCE WITH, UH, A CURRENT COMPLAINT AND A NEED TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT IN THE CODE. WE'LL, YOU'LL SEE THAT WHEN WE GET THERE. MY INTENTION NOW IS, IS JUST TO BRIEFLY, UH, GO OVER WHAT EACH RECOMMENDATION IS AND ALLOW YOU ALL TO ASK QUESTIONS IF YOU NEED ME TO ELABORATE FURTHER. IS THAT, DOES THAT SOUND OKAY? THAT SOUNDS GOOD. UH, BEFORE, BEFORE YOU START, I, I WOULD LIKE TO, TO THANK COMMISSIONER STOVALL, BILL AL, AND SMITH FOR ALL THE WORK THAT THEY DID. YES. FOR THE PAST MONTH OR TWO, UH, GETTING US TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY. SO ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO, TO, AND CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND INSPECTOR GENERAL. UM, SO ANYWAY, I'M SORRY. YOU'RE FORGETTING YOU'RE FORGETTING SOMEBODY THAT UH OH, OH YEAH. YOURSELF. ANYWAY, . UH, SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. NO, I'M GLAD YOU DID, AND, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT EVERYONE'S DONE. SO, UH, THE FIRST ONE, UH, IS VERY SIMPLE. IT IS PULLING DEFINITIONS INTO THE CODE OF ETHICS. THE, THE DEFINITIONS CURRENTLY EXIST IN SOMETHING CALLED AN ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE, TWO 14, BUT THEY'RE CENTRAL TO THE CODE OF ETHICS. WE HAVE JURISDICTION OVER OBVIOUSLY, ETHICS, CODE VIOLATIONS, UH, FRAUD, WHICH REALLY COVERS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, UH, WASTE AND ABUSE. AND THE DEFINITIONS OF FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE AREN'T IN THE CODE WHERE PEOPLE MIGHT BE LOOKING FOR THEM. SO THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT. SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT WE HAVE TO GO WITH THESE DEFINITIONS? I'M NOT SAYING YOU HAVE TO. UH, I AM SAYING THAT THERE, THERE ARE DEFINITIONS THAT CURRENTLY EXIST IN THE MATERIALS THAT SURROUND THE WORK THAT WE DO. AND SO, NO, WE COULD, THAT'S UP TO THE COMMITTEE, BUT MY RECOMMENDATION IS, UH, THAT WE USE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE BEING PULLED DIRECTLY FROM THIS ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE. WELL, WELL, I GUESS MY QUESTION STANDS, DO WE HAVE TO USE THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE BECAUSE THERE'S TYPOS IN THIS TYPOS WE COULD, WE CAN FIX, BUT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS SAYING THAT HIS RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE ADD THESE DEFINITIONS, UM, TO THE CODE OF ETHICS TO MATCH THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE. BUT ULTIMATELY IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION TO DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO DO THAT. SO I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. UNDER ABUSE, I BELIEVE IT REALLY SHOULD READ ABUSE NEEDS A VIOLATION OR CIRCUMVENTION OF CITY OR DEPARTMENTAL PROCEDURES INSTEAD OF, AND IT WOULD SEEM DEMEAN. AND, UM, AND I WOULD PUT THAT IT IMPAIRS THE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT EXECUTION OF CITY OPERATIONS. OTHERWISE, WHAT OPERATIONS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? [00:25:12] MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL? DO YOU HAVE ANY RESPONSE TO THAT? I THINK THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE GOOD CHANGES. I HAVE NO, NO ISSUE WITH THEM IS A GOOD CATCH. IT DOESN'T CHANGE IT, IT JUST MAKES IT CLEAR. THE WORD ABUSE, THE DEFINITION OF ABUSE. THE WHAT? OH, OF CITY OPERATIONS. SHE'S CHANGING, UH, THE WORD AND TO THE WORD OR AND SHE'S MODIFYING THE WORD OPERATIONS WITH CITI. SHOULD I GO ONTO THE NEXT ONE? UH, PLEASE. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS REALLY UP TO THE CHAIR. I DON'T KNOW IF, IF YOU WANT TO TAKE 'EM ONE, ONE BY ONE OR JUST DO 'EM ALL AT ONCE. UM, WHY DON'T, IF THERE'S NO O OPPOSITION, WHY DON'T WE DO THEM ONE BY ONE? WE CAN HAVE A VOTE ON EACH ONE. AND THEN, IS THAT, IS THAT OKAY? OR WOULD YOU RATHER TO DO ALL OF THEM AT THE SAME TIME? YES. YEAH, WE CAN DO DEFINITIONS SECTION. YEAH. YEAH. RIGHT. DEFINITIONS SECTION. THEN WE'LL GO TO STANDARD, THEN THE 1284 STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR. SO HOW ABOUT THIS? HOW ABOUT IF I, IF I WALK THROUGH THEM ONE BY ONE, WE'VE, WE'VE COVERED ABUSE. UM, FRAUD WOULD BE NEXT. I, I GOT SOMETHING. . IT'S SAYING IT'S DECEPTION INTENDED TO DEPRIVE A PERSON OR AN ORGANIZATION OF SOMETHING OF VALUE, BUT THEN WE SAY IT INCLUDES, BUT IT'S NOT LIMITED TO. AND SOME OF THE, THOSE ITEMS DO NOT DO DEPRIVE ANYONE THE ORGANIZATION OF SOMETHING OF VALUE. SO I WOULD ADD OR INAPPROPRIATELY ENRICH THE PERPETRATOR OF THE FRAUD. I'M, I'M HAPPY WITH THAT. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE DEFINITIONS SECTION? ALL I'VE GOT, THERE'S ANOTHER, UH, DEFINITION IN THERE ON WASTE. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE OTHER ONE RELATIVE OR WASTE. OKAY. AND SO THE NEXT ONE, I'M, I'M GOING BACK IN THE LINE. UH, THESE, SO THERE'S TWO OTHERS IN THE DEFINITION SECTION. UH, THE, THE NEXT ONE IS THE DEFINITION OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBER OR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL. UM, ON THIS DEFINITION, WE ARE ADDING A SENTENCE. IT SAYS, FOR PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE NOT CITY EMPLOYEES. THE REASON FOR PUTTING THIS IN THERE IS, IS THAT'S WHAT CASE LAW IS TELLING US. AND IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL TO KNOW IF YOU ARE BUMPING INTO THIS RULE, UH, AS A CITY OFFICIAL THAT'S ALSO EMPLOYED, WHETHER YOU COUNT AS AN EMPLOYEE, BECAUSE THE CODE MAKES THAT DIFFERENTIATION. SO HERE WE'RE ADDING THAT SENTENCE SO THAT EVERYBODY THAT READS THE CODE CAN KNOW, OKAY, UH, I'M A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, SO I'M NOT CONSIDERED A CITY EMPLOYEE. THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THAT. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DEFINITION SECTION? THE, THE LAST ONE IN THIS SECTION OF THE CODE IS THE WORD RELATIVE. AND WE ADDED, UM, A CLAUSE TO IT. AND THE PURPOSE OF DOING THIS IS TO HARMONIZE THE PERSONNEL CODE AND THE CODE OF ETHICS. SO THE, THE, UH, DEFINITION OF RELATIVE THAT YOU SEE WITHOUT THE HIGHLIGHT IS WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN THERE. IF YOU WERE TO GO TO THE PERSONNEL CODE, IT HAS A DEFINITION OF AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER, WHICH BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER WAY TO SAY A RELATIVE. AND IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO THE DEFINITION OF RELATIVE IN THE CODE OF ETHICS, BUT IT'S DIFFERENT IN, IN THE WAY HIGHLIGHTED. THIS IS A SUGGESTION THAT CAME IN FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WE HARMONIZE 'EM, IT, IT, IT, UH, I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA. AND SO I RECOMMEND THE CHANGE. SO WE'RE JUST CONSISTENT ACROSS OUR CODE ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A RELATIVE. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER [00:30:02] QUESTIONS, CONCERNS ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS SECTION? ALL RIGHT, THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CHANGES OF DEFINITION TO THE DEFINITION SECTION? AND MOVED THEN SECOND. SECONDED ALL THOSE, DOES, DOES THIS INCLUDE, UM, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY ON THE RECORD THAT THIS INCLUDES, UM, THE AMENDMENTS, UM, , YEAH. AYE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? NAY. MOTION PASSES 12 A FOUR STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR, STANDARDS OF CIVILITY. SO UNDER THIS SECTION, THERE ARE REALLY TWO ISSUES GOING ON. I'LL ADDRESS THE HIGHLIGHTED ONE FIRST. UH, THE IDEA WITH THE HIGHLIGHTS IS TO CLARIFY WHICH CITY OFFICIAL THIS SECTION APPLIES TO. CURRENTLY UNDER THE CODE, YOU'LL SEE IN THE STRIKETHROUGH IT APPLIES TO ALL CITY OFFICIALS. OF COURSE, A LOT OF THE CITY OFFICIALS ARE EMPLOYED HERE. AND SO IT'S, IT'S OUR JOB TO BE WORKING TOGETHER AND WORKING ON SOME, UH, ON PROJECTS TOGETHER. UH, AND SO FOR THAT REASON, UM, WE CLARIFIED WHICH CITY OFFICIALS THIS CIVILITY CLAUSE WOULD APPLY TO, UM, THAT BEING COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND OTHER BODIES. SO THAT'S THE FIRST PART. ALRIGHT. I'M READY FOR QUESTIONS OR WANNA ON. I'M READY. I'M READY. I'LL START SAYING THAT I'M READY FOR QUESTIONS. SO YOU GUYS WILL KNOW. SPEED IT UP. EVELYN. UM, WHAT DO WE MEAN BY AND OTHER BODIES? I FIND THAT VAGUE. SO YOU HAVE BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, TASK FORCES, UH, WHAT, AND THAT IS A PHRASE THAT IS USED IN THE CODE. UH, AND I THINK IT HAS TO DO WITH WHEN THE CITY GETS A GROUP OF PEOPLE TOGETHER TO DO BUSINESS. THAT'S ONE OF THOSE OTHER BODIES. BUT AREN'T ALL THOSE LISTED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSION? NO. IT, IT, I BELIEVE IT USES THE SAME LANGUAGE COMMISSIONS, UH, USE BOARDS OF COMMISSIONS IN OTHER BODIES. THAT PHRASE, I LOOKED BACK AT THE DEFINITIONS AND I FOUND THAT, UM, THE CITY OFFICIAL DEFINITION, WELL, I CAN I HAVE IT HERE, I CAN READ IT IF YOU'D LIKE. UH, UNDER 1282? YEAH. UM, THE, THE DEFINITION OF, WELL, BUT IT SAYS INCLUDING BODIES THAT ARE ONLY ADVISORY IN NATURE. OH. AND OTHER BODIES CREATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. SO SHOULD WE ADD THAT, SHOULD WE SAY, AND OTHER BODIES CREATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL? WELL, I THINK THE INTENTION HERE IS TO INCLUDE ALL BODIES. FOR INSTANCE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS A BODY CREATED BY THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION. AND WE STILL WANT MEMBERS OF THAT BODY TO ADHERE, UH, TO THIS, UM, YEAH, TO THIS, UH, STANDARD. SO THEY WOULD, THEY WOULD FALL UNDER JAY IN THAT DEFINITION. CITY COUNCIL? WELL, WELL, THAT WOULD BE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTED MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND ENTITIES, NOT CITY COUNCIL. OH, NO, IT'S THE VERY LAST FOR PURPOSES OF 12 A, A VOLUNTEER ON COMMITTEES OR TASK FORCES FORMED BY BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS. SO THAT'S GONNA BE LIKE THE SUBCOMMITTEES OF OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THEY'RE INCLUDED IN THIS BECAUSE THEY SHOULDN'T BE WORKING WITH LOW LEVEL STAFF PEOPLE UNLESS THEY'RE DIRECTED TO. SO INSTEAD OF SAYING IN OTHER BODIES, WHICH IS THEY, SHOULDN'T WE MAKE REFERENCE BACK TO WHAT WE REALLY WANNA INCLUDE HERE, EITHER MAKE REFERENCE BACK TO COMPLETELY TO SECTION 22, OR I, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT MIGHT PUT TOO MUCH IN A BOX AND YOU COULD POTENTIALLY BE EXUDING IF YOU TRY TO SPECIFY EVERYTHING THAT APPLIES TO YOU RATHER THAN GO COMMON SENSE ROUTE, THAT IT, YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY EXCLUDE CERTAIN BODIES THAT THIS SHOULD APPLY TO. BUT SHOULD THEY BE INCLUDED? IF THEY'RE NOT LISTED IN OUR CODE, WE WANNA BRING IN OTHER BODIES THAT WE HAVEN'T LISTED. I THINK THE CONTEXT OF OTHER BODIES HERE, I THINK WOULD BE [00:35:01] REALLY DEFINED BY THE NATURE OF THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION, SO THAT IT CAPTURES OTHER BODIES THAT ARE RELATED, UH, IN TERMS OF VOICE AND PERMISSION. SO THE CITY COUNCIL OF, OF THE CITY, DON'T WE, DO WE AGREE THAT SECTION 22 OF THE CODE IS AN ATTEMPT TO INCLUDE ALL BODY? THAT'S, THAT'S THE, UH, DEFINITION OF OFFICIAL OR CITY OFFICIAL INCLUDES FOLLOWING . UH, AND, AND THAT'S WHAT WE WERE JUST REFERRING TO, THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT INCLUDES VOLUNTEERS, COMMITTEES, TASK FORCES, MEMBERS OF ALL BOARDS AND COMMISSION. THAT'S A PRETTY LARGE GROUP. I DON'T SEE WHY WE'RE, I, I I DON'T, I'M, I GUESS OKAY WITH THIS, BUT I THINK IT COULD PROBABLY BE BETTER IF WE JUST SAY IN OTHER BODIES, UH, AS A DEFINED OR LISTED IN SUB SECTION 22. I MEAN, ANOTHER OPTION IF YOU WANT THIS TO APPLY, SEE IT USED TO SAY CITY OFFICIALS, WHICH THEN GOES BACK TO THE DEFINITION. WHY DID WE SWITCH IT FROM CITY OFFICIALS TO THESE SPECIFIC PEOPLE? WHY DID WE DELETE CITY OFFICIALS THAT WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM? WELL, BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO SPECIFICALLY NOT CAPTURE ALL DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS. A DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR SHOULDN'T HAVE TO WORK FOR THE CITY MANAGER. THEY SHOULD BE WORKING, THEY CAN WORK WITH THEIR OWN LOW LEVEL STAFF PEOPLE IN THEIR DEPARTMENT, JUST LIKE THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE. UM, WE, WE DON'T WANNA CAPTURE THEM. WE WANNA CAPTURE PEOPLE SERVING ON THE CITY COUNCIL, SERVING ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND OTHER CITY BODY. THEN I THINK WE DO NEED TO MAKE IT CLEAR OR JUST SAY IN OTHER BODIES COVERED BY THIS CODE. HOW ABOUT THAT? IT, IT WOULD APPEAR TO ME THAT THAT ONE SOLUTION TO, TO EXPAND OR, OR CLARIFY, WOULD BE TO REFER TO, TO, UH, 12 A, 2 22, THE DEFINITION OF A CITY OFFICIAL AND THE SUBSECTIONS, I, J AND L. EXACTLY. THAT THOSE ARE THE THREE SUBSECTIONS THAT DEAL WITH OTHER BODIES. WELL, J NOT J THAT'S THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER. WELL, WE CAN JUST SAY I AND KI GUESS OTHER BODIES LISTED IN THAT DEFINITION AND CITE, YEAH. GIVE A CITATION OF THAT DEFINITION. NO, BECAUSE THEN YOU ARE GONNA INCLUDE EXACTLY WHO YOU DON'T WANT TO, YOU'RE GONNA INCLUDE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR. NO, THEY ARE NOT A BODY. OH, OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. WOULD THAT WORK, WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE BODY? IT WOULD BE COMMISSION MEMBERS. I, I PERSONALLY, I PREFER TO SPECIFY I AND K BECAUSE, OR HI AND KI GUESS IT WOULD BE, BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE MAKING IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT YOU ONLY WANT THIS PROVISION TO APPLY TO VERY SPECIFIC ENTITIES. I, I NEED TO INTERJECT. SO YOU, I'M NOT SURE. YOU MAY HAVE AN OLD VERSION OF THE CODE. UM, OH, IT'S THE ONE THAT WAS PROVIDED TO ME. SORRY, THAT WAS IT'S OKAY. IT'S ON OUR LITTLE, BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE, YOU WERE REFERRING DEVICES UNDER THE CURRENT CODE TO I, J AND L AND OH, OKAY. SO I DON'T KNOW. ALL RIGHT. I SHOULD PULL UP. BUT THAT'LL, THE CURRENT CODE, WE DON'T HAVE THE PROPER CODE ON OUR DEVICES. YOU CAN GET A CURRENT WHILE, WHILE YOU'RE HERE. IF YOU DON'T HAVE, YOU CAN GET A CURRENT VERSION OF THE CODE FROM OUR WEBSITE. OIG, CITY OF DALLAS. THERE'S A LINK ON THE, YEAH, ON THE PAGE. YEAH. I GUESS WHAT WE WERE PROVIDED WAS NOT PROPER , WELL, THE INSPECTOR OR IS IT BECAUSE THE SUBSECTIONS IN 12 [00:40:01] A 2 22 THAT REFER TO OTHER BODIES AND ENTITIES, YOU KNOW, NOT CREATED BY COUNCIL AND JUST ALL OF THOSE OTHER ONES WOULD BE IJ AND L WOULD, WOULD THAT SOLVE THE PROBLEM? YES. OKAY. MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL AND THAT BE DONE? YES. AND, AND I BELIEVE MS. MORRISON'S WORKING ON THAT WITH THE, WITH THE CITY SECRETARY NOW TO MAKE SURE SHE CAUGHT THAT. OH. SO, BUT THE OTHER THING IS, UM, WHY DO WE NEED THAT? IT DOESN'T APPLY TO ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANCE WHEN WE'RE NOT INCLUDING EMPLOYEES. WHY DO WE NEED THAT SENTENCE? WELL, WE NEED THAT SENTENCE BECAUSE COUNCIL MEMBERS NEED TO BE ABLE TO WORK DIRECTLY WITH THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS WITHOUT GOING THROUGH, BUT ARE THEY COVERED BY THIS PROVISION? NUMBER FIVE? DIDN'T WE START OFF BY SAYING THAT IT ONLY APPLIES TO COUNCIL MEMBER? YES. THAT, OH, OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBERS NEED TO WORK WITH THEIR OWN ASSISTANTS WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY. THE CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS, THEY DEAL WITH THEM DIRECTLY. OKAY. IOO UH, GO AHEAD. THOSE CHANGES SATISFACTORY TO THE COMMISSION MEMBERS, TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL? YES. CITY ATTORNEY. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? IT'S BEEN MOVED AS THERE A SECOND. SECOND, AND THEN IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? NAY. MOTION PASSES. SO THE, THE NEXT ONE THAT'S RELATED TO THIS, YOU'LL SEE THERE'S A STRIKEOUT FOR DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR AND AN ADDITION OF ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER. ALL RIGHT. WHICH, SORRY, WHICH WE ARE STILL IN THE SAME SUBSECTION. OH, WE'RE STILL ON STANDARDS OF THE BEHAVIOR 12 A FOUR. YES, SIR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS A, THIS IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE. UM, THE BACKGROUND IS I DID REACH OUT, UH, TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. I'VE REACHED OUT TO THE CITY MANAGER, I'VE REACHED OUT TO THE, TO THE PUBLIC. THERE, THERE IS CONSIDERABLE INTEREST IN 12 A FOUR AND THE INTEREST RANGES ALL THE WAY, UH, FROM STRIKE THE WHOLE THING TO MAKE SOME CHANGES. UM, I WILL SAY THIS, THAT IN SPEAKING WITH THE CITY MANAGER, I, I EXPECTED THAT, UH, THIS WAS ABOUT A MONTH AGO AT LEAST, BUT I EXPECTED THAT THIS PROVISION WOULD BE BURDENSOME TO HER. UM, AND TO MY SURPRISE, IT WAS JUST THE OPPOSITE. SHE WANTS IT TO BE UTILIZED MORE OFTEN AND MADE THE SUGGESTION THAT WE CHANGE DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS TO ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS. SO IT'S KIND OF RAISING IT UP A LEVEL IN, IN OUR HIERARCHY. UM, AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT SHE, AND, AND IT, IT, IT BOTHERS ME A LITTLE BIT TO BE SPEAKING FOR HER, BUT I'M, I'M BEING ACCURATE. AT LEAST THIS IS WHAT I UNDERSTOOD. THE REASON FOR THAT IS SHE WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN PEOPLE NEED HELP, THEY GET TO THE RIGHT EMPLOYEE, NOT JUST THE ONE THEY KNOW, AND THAT SHE CAN MAKE SURE IT GETS DONE IN THE RIGHT WAY. SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS GREAT. UM, BUT THEN I CAN'T OVEREMPHASIZE HOW MUCH INTEREST THERE IS IN 12 A FOUR AND IT IS ALL OVER THE MAP. AND, AND SO I'M NOT OPPOSED TO ANYTHING YOU SEE ON THE PAGE. UM, I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO ELIMINATING 12 A FOUR ALTOGETHER. BUT I WOULD SAY THIS, I THINK, UM, IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 12 A FOUR RIGHT NOW IS INCONSISTENT ACROSS THE CITY. AND IT'S MY OPINION THAT REALLY THE FIX IS NOT IN RE RECRAFTING 12 A FOUR. THE FIX IS IN SOME KIND OF A RECOMMENDATION THAT, UH, WE COME UP WITH A CONSISTENT PROCESS TO ACCOMPLISH THIS GOAL, LIKE AN ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE. UM, SO THAT, THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION AS, AS SUCH AS IT IS, IS REALLY BE TO ALMOST CHANGE NOTHING OR [00:45:01] TO GO WITH WHAT THE CITY MANAGER WANTS TO DO. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THERE'S STRONG OPPOSITION TO MAKING THAT CHANGE. UH, SO I'D ALMOST SAY RECOMMEND YOU JUST LEAVE IT ALONE AND LET'S, LET'S TRY AND GET CITY COUNCIL TO FOCUS ON DIRECTING THAT, THAT A PROCESS THAT'S EFFICIENT, FAIR, UH, AND ACROSS THE BOARD BE DESIGNED AND IMPLEMENTED. SO YOU ARE SUGGESTING THAT THE LANGUAGE NOT CHANGE AT THIS POINT, AND THAT YOU WOULD COME BACK WITH A ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE AT SOME POINT? WELL, THE, THE, THIS IS THE PROBLEM. MY, MY INITIAL, UH, I BROUGHT THIS RECOMMENDATION, AND IN THE PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS, UH, I'VE TALKED TO SO MANY PEOPLE. I'VE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE, THE PROBLEM ISN'T GOING TO GET FIXED BY TINKERING WITH THE CODE OF ETHICS. IT'S GOING TO GET FIXED, UH, BY SOME KIND OF A PROCESS THAT'S IMPLEMENTED. AND, AND REALLY THE TRUTH IS THAT MOST OF THESE INTERACTIONS ARE GONNA FALL UNDER THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE. AND SO I, I'M HAPPY TO COLLABORATE WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, BUT, UM, I, I FEEL LIKE WHAT REALLY NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS A PROCESS NEEDS TO DEVELOP. AND ABOUT THE MOST THAT THE EAC COULD DO IS RECOGNIZE WHAT I'M SAYING AND, AND RECOMMEND THAT, UH, THAT BE LOOKED AT AND THAT A PROCESS BE DEVELOPED. BECAUSE IN MY EXPERIENCE, I CAN SAY ONE THING FOR CERTAIN, IT'S NOT, THERE'S NOT A CONSISTENT CAN CAN I JUST JUMP IN HERE? YES, PLEASE DO. DEVELOPING A NEW PROCESS IS NOT ON THE AGENDA, SO, RIGHT. SIR, WHAT IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS CHANGE? IS IT TO LEAVE DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS OR IS IT TO CHANGE DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS TO ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS? I THINK MY RECOMMENDATION IN THE END IS TO JUST LEAVE THIS ALONE, NOT, NOT MAKE A CHANGE. OKAY. OKAY. SO INCLUDING YOU WOULDN'T CHANGE, YOU WOULDN'T LINE THROUGH CITY OFFICIALS EITHER? NO, NO, NO, NO. I, I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT WHETHER YOU SWITCH DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS TO ASSISTANT CITY MANAGEMENT. OKAY. LOOKING AT THAT SPECIFIC VISION THOUGH, I, I GUESS I GOT, I GUESS I GOT LOST IN THE GENERAL DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER WE DO IT OR LEAVE IT ALONE OR NOT. IT WOULD SEEM TO BE BENEFICIAL TO INCLUDE BOTH ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER AND DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, OR, OR FOR . I, I WOULD AGREE. UH, I'M, I'M JUST BORDERLINE AMBIVALENT. I'M JUST MAKING A CHOICE BETWEEN ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS AND DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS. I, I WILL SAY THE, THE COUNTER ARGUMENT IS THE CITY MANAGER HAS SAID SHE'D LIKE IT TO BE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER. I, I JUST AM AWARE THAT, UH, OTHERS HAVE STRONGLY HELD OPINIONS ON THE OTHER SIDE. COULD WE JUST SOLVE THIS PROBLEM WITH THE BOARD SO THAT THERE'S AN OPTION OF GOING THROUGH AN ASSISTANT SENIOR MANAGER RATHER THAN THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR? AND THE LOGISTICS OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION OF DOING THIS IS TO MAKE THE LOGISTICS OF DEALING WITH CITY MANAGEMENT EASIER FOR EVERYBODY. AND ONE OF THE WAYS OF DOING THAT IS ALLOWING PEOPLE TO GO TO THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER THAT'S APPLICABLE RATHER THAN THE CITY MANAGER OR DEPARTMENT DIRECTLY. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MS. RESPONSIBLE OR ANY NO. IN INCLUDING BOTH THERE, UM, APPLICABLE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS OR DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS IS AN OPTION. I LIKE THAT OPTION. OR JUST ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OR DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR AS APPLICABLE. I MEAN, I THINK SHALL, I THINK SHALL IS A MANDATE, UH, IS THERE A, IS THERE, CAN YOU ENVISION A SCENARIO IN WHICH IT MAY NOT BE AP APPROPRIATE TO GO TO ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OR A DIRECTOR? I CAN, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE, UH, AS A MS. MORRISON WITH CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS INDICATED THAT THIS IS NOT A, WE'RE NOT HERE BY, BY WAY OF THE AGENDA FOR ME TO DISCUSS A PROCESS. OKAY. I COULD, BUT I CAN'T SAY I CAN DO THAT. WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THE SUGGESTION OF SIMPLY USING, OR IS IT GIVES THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GONNA CRAFT A PROCESS LATER FLEXIBILITY TO, TO DEFINE WHICH DIRECTION IT'S GONNA GO. ALRIGHT. SO THEN, UH, AN ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE THEN WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CHANGE IF THERE IS AN OR THERE. [00:50:01] UH, AND THAT WILL AT LEAST FACILITATE WHATEVER ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE NEEDS DIRECTIVES NEED TO FOLLOW WITH RESPECT TO THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION. YES, SIR. IS THAT RIGHT? MM-HMM . I WAS, I WOULD AMEND THEN, 'CAUSE I SAID I MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS, TO INCLUDE THE IJL AND THEN ALSO THEN TO INCLUDE OR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OR DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR. RIGHT? YES. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION. UH, WE WANT, IS THERE FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION OR ARE WE OKAY? ALL RIGHT. UH, HEARING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, UH, THE AMENDMENT AS AMENDED, UH, IS ON THE TABLE. IS THERE, IS, IS THERE A MOTION? NEEDS TO, IS THIS AS AMENDED WITH THE OR? RIGHT. DOES THAT COME FROM WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? YEAH. ALRIGHT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. AYE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. AND OPPOSED NAY. AND THE MOTION PASSES. NEXT. ETHICS TRAINING. ETHICS TRAINING. SO THIS IS ADDING SOME CLARIFICATION TO THE CURRENT RULE TO ADDRESS THREE ISSUES THAT HAVE JUST COME UP IN THE EXPERIENCE OF, OF THE OFFICE OF IG. AND WHAT IT DOES IS IT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE ETHICS TRAINING THAT'S REQUIRED UNDER THE CODE OF ETHICS, NUMBER ONE, IS, IS SOMETHING THAT IS OFFERED BY THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL IN THE SENSE OF, WE, WE MAY NOT ACTUALLY DO THE TRAINING, BUT WE'VE SAID THIS IS THE TRAINING. WE PROBABLY, WE WILL END UP BEING THE ONES DOING THE TRAINING, BUT WE'RE SAYING IT'S NOT SOME CLE ABOUT ETHICS OR ANYTHING ELSE. IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE PUT FORWARD THAT THERE, UH, NUMBER TWO, THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO THAT YOU CAN TAKE THE TRAINING, BUT IT'S GOT TO BE VERIFIABLE THAT YOU'VE COMPLETED IT. UH, AND NUMBER THREE, I WANTED TO ADD A PROVISION, WHICH IS REALLY GOING BACK TO A FORMER PRACTICE THAT I UNDERSTAND, UH, AT CITY HALL, WHICH IS JUST EVERY JANUARY OF THE CITY COUNCIL AS A WHOLE RECEIVES ETHICS TRAINING, UH, FROM THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL. AND I'LL, I'LL JUMP IN ABOUT THE JANUARY TRAINING BECAUSE THIS IS, UM, YOU KNOW, A QUESTION I HAD. AND THEN, UH, WE TALKED ABOUT HOW, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL MEMBERS, THEY GET ONBOARDED FOR NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS, THEY GET ONBOARDED. YOU KNOW, WE'VE MOVED OUR MAY LOCAL ELECTIONS TO NOVEMBER. SO THEY'LL DO AN ONBOARDING, UM, NOW IN DECEMBER. AND THE CODE OF ETHICS IS PART OF THEIR ONBOARDING. SO THEY WON'T BE, UM, SERVING FOR A MONTH, A MONTH AND A HALF WITHOUT THE ETHICS TRAINING. WE DO THE ONBOARDING IN OUR OFFICE, UM, PRETTY IMMEDIATELY UPON, UH, THEM BEINGS SWM. AND I'M READY FOR QUESTIONS. YOU HAD TO QUE I'M READY FOR QUESTIONS. I FORGOT TO SAY THAT. OH, . SO DOES THIS MEAN THAT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AS A WHOLE WOULD BE IN A GROUP WITH, UH, TRAINING OR THEY COULD DO INDIVIDUAL TRAINING VIRTUALLY, OR A PERSON? THE INTENTION IS TO, TO DO THIS IN A PUBLIC MEETING WITH ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. OKAY. BECAUSE I THINK BECAUSE THE SENTENCE TRAINING MAY BE GIVEN VIRTUALLY OR IN PERSON AS LONG AS COMPLETION IS VERIFIABLE, COMING RIGHT AFTER THAT SENTENCE KIND OF INDICATED TO ME, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS COULD JUST TAKE TRAINING. MAYBE I'M READING IT WRONG. THAT'S THE WAY I READ THAT ALSO. OKAY. I, I WOULD THEN I WOULD ACCEPT A FRIENDLY, LET'S CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DO IT IN PUBLIC AND, AND TOGETHER. AND THE REASON IS, UM, VERY SIMILAR TO THE, UH, INITIAL ITEM THAT WE ADDRESSED HERE. UM, IT'S, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE IG NUMBER ONE TO BE VISIBLE. AND IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE THE CITY COUNCIL GETTING THIS TRAINING. AND IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT BECAUSE EVERY YEAR THE TRENDS IN ETHICS AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, UH, MOVE AND SHIFT. AND I THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO EVERYONE TO, UH, ADDRESS THOSE TRENDS AND SHIFTS IN A, IN A PUBLIC SETTING. AND SO IF WE COULD CRAFT SOME LANGUAGE TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR THAT, THAT, [00:55:01] YEAH. IF, IF WE WANTED TO ADD THAT, UH, THE TRAINING TAKE PLACE AS A BODY AT A POSTED PUBLIC MEETING, WE CAN DO THAT. BUT I WOULD LEAVE OFF, UH, VIRTUALLY OR IN PERSON AND ALLOW THE COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE, UH, TO JUST SPEAK TO, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEIR RULES ARE ON VIRTUAL ATTENDANCE. I MAY HAVE TO LANGUAGE DRAWING SOMETHING DOWN HERE. I WOULD MOVE THE SENTENCE ABOUT TRAINING BEING GIVEN VIRTUALLY OR IN PERSON TO RIGHT AFTER THE FIRST SENTENCE. AND THEN I WOULD SAY THAT THE, UH, MAY OR MAYBE AFTER THE SECOND SENTENCE, AGAIN, I WOULD ASK THAT IF WE'RE GONNA REQUIRE THIS TO BE AT A PUBLIC MEETING, WE LEAVE OFF ANYTHING ABOUT VIRTUALLY OR PERSON AND ALLOW THE COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE. THEY GET TO DECIDE THEIR OWN RULES OF PROCEDURE AND WHETHER THEY ALLOW VIRTUAL ATTENDANCE AT THEIR PUBLIC MEETINGS. SO ESSENTIALLY IT'S LIKE THIS, LIKE SHE'S HERE AS A PART OF THE COMMISSION. RIGHT. RIGHT. BUT WE'RE ALSO IN A PUBLIC OPEN MEETING RIGHT NOW. THE COUNCIL RULES ALLOW FOR VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION AT THEIR FULL COUNCIL MEETINGS, BUT NOT AT THEIR, UH, MEETING MEETINGS. AND IT'S REALLY THE COUNCIL RULES THAT GOVERN THAT. AND, UH, THE COUNCIL COULD CHANGE THAT REALLY AT ANY TIME. EXACTLY. SO I WOULD, I WOULD SUGGEST, AS MS. MORRISON SAID, TO CHANGE IT TO MAYBE GIVEN AS A BODY, PURSUANT TO WHAT IS THE LANGUAGE THAT THE COUNCIL'S ROLES OF. SO, SO I DO NEED TO JUMP IN BEFORE YOU GET TOO FAR, BECAUSE I, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND IT'S GOOD. BUT THIS PROVISION IS BIGGER THAN JUST TRAINING FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND SO JUST MAKE THAT DIFFERENTIATION WHILE YOU'RE MAKING YOUR CHANGES. BECAUSE FOR INSTANCE, I GIVE GENERAL ETHICS TRAINING VIRTUALLY EVERY MONTH. I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE VERY LAST SENTENCE THAT SPECIFICALLY SAYS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SHALL RECEIVE. WE, WE ARE, IT'S NOT THE FIRST SENTENCE THAT SAYS ALL CITY OFFICIALS. WE ARE, BUT I'VE, I'VE HEARD, I'VE HEARD THE CONVERSATION BEING, LET'S REMOVE THE WORD VIRTUALLY AND THE, AND THOSE THINGS. SO I JUST WANNA BE, I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT I MEANT THAT ONLY, ONLY FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS, EMPLOYEES CAN STILL DO IN-PERSON OR VIRTUAL. RIGHT. I JUST DON'T WANT TO, I JUST DON'T WANT ANY MENTION OF VIRTUAL OR IN-PERSON IF WE'RE GONNA REQUIRE CITY COUNCIL TO MEET AS A BODY, THEIR RULES OF PROCEDURE DICTATE HOW THOSE MEETINGS ARE HELD. AND I AGREE. I I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE WAS CLEAR. UH, 'CAUSE I, I, I FELT LIKE IT WASN'T SO, I'M, I'M GOOD WITH THAT. WELL, AND I THINK, OH, SORRY. GO AHEAD. WELL, AS CAN I JUST, I'M SORRY, MS. GERMAN, CAN THAT'S OKAY. CAN WE JUST DECIDE ON WHAT WE WANT THE POLICY TO BE? AND THEN I WILL CRAFT THE LANGUAGE. I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE A WORKSHOP IN WRITING . I THINK IF, IF TO, TO ADDRESS HIS SITUATION, IF YOU ADD VIRTUALLY OR IN PERSON AFTER ALL NEW CITY OFFICIALS AND CITY EMPLOYEES, BUT THEN DON'T, TO THE CITY COUNCIL, MAYBE THAT WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM. BUT I THINK THIS PUBLIC MEETING THING WOULD NEED SOME BEEFING UP ALSO, BECAUSE IF SOMEONE'S ABSENT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DO, IF YOU PUT IT ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA AND ONE OF THE MEMBERS ISN'T THERE, THEN YOU KNOW, THEN YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC MEETING JUST TO COVER THOSE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. I DON'T THINK THAT WORKS WELL. THAT, THAT ESSENTIALLY WAS MY POINT, IS THAT IF, WHAT DO YOU DO IF YOU HAVE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND SOMEBODY CANNOT LEGITIMATELY ATTEND IN PERSON, YOU BOX THEM INTO BEING TECHNICALLY IN VIOLATION OF THIS. SO, SO, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD. NO, I, I AGREE WITH LAURA. I, I THINK THAT, UH, I THINK THE ISSUE IS WHAT DO WE WANNA DO WITH THE LAST SET AND HOW WE WANNA CRAFT A BASICALLY A SEPARATE SITUATION FOR THE CITY COUNCIL. I, I CAN SAY, AND I THINK I'M THE ONE THAT WROTE THIS, AND MY INTENTION WAS THAT THAT VERY LAST SENTENCE APPLIED TO EVERYONE, BUT THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THAT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD DO IT IN A MEETING JUST FOR CLARITY. I, I SHOULD HAVE MOVED THAT SENTENCE UP, BUT SO DOES IT HELP THAT WE ALREADY HAVE AN E THAT THE ETHICS TRAINING AND INFORMATION WILL BE AVAILABLE IN A FORMAT AND MEDIUM AS DETERMINED BY THE CHIEF IN INTEGRITY OFFICER? DOES THAT KIND OF HELP? THAT WAY? YOU CAN DO A PUBLIC MEETING IF YOU WANT TO. [01:00:02] I, I, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY. WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO WORDSMITH THIS SO THAT I WOULD, IT REFLECTS WHAT THE, THE COMMISSIONERS WANTS, BUT WE DON'T, WE DON'T, WE DON'T WORDSMITH IT. AND, AND, AND MY QUESTION IS, IF WE, IF YOU WORDSMITH IT, THAT IS IN A WAY THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMISSIONER'S REQUESTS, HOW DO WE APPROVE THAT AND MOVE THIS ALL? YES, I WOULD, I'M NOT TRYING TO, I WOULD ASK THAT THE COMMISSION NOT WORDSMITH. I WOULD ASK THAT ANY MOTION, JUST TELL ME AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WHAT YOU WANT THE POLICY TO BE, AND THEN I WILL WRITE IT. SO IF YOU WANT THE POLICY TO BE THE CITY EMPLOYEES, THEY CAN ATTEND ETHICS TRAINING VIRTUALLY OR IN PERSON. UM, BUT FOR CITY COUNCIL, YOU WANT IT EVERY JANUARY AS OPPOSED TO PUBLIC MEETING. AND HONESTLY, WE CAN REMAIN SILENT ON IF SOMEONE'S ABSENT. THEY JUST HAVE TO MAKE IT UP AS LONG AS THEY HAVE HAD A PUBLIC MEETING WHERE THE PUBLIC CAN SIT IN AND WATCH, AND THEY'LL HAVE A MEETING IF THEY HAVE A QUORUM. AND THEN ANYONE WHO MISSES THE ETHICS TRAINING AT THAT MEETING CAN GET WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND, AND MAKE IT UP BEFORE THE END OF THE MONTH. MM-HMM . ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S OKAY. AS LONG AS YOU GO ON WITH THAT LAST PART IN THE PROVISION ITSELF. I MOVE TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THIS OF THE ATTORNEY JUST RIGHT. WAS THERE. NO, THEY WON'T. THEY JUST WILL HAVE TO RECEIVE THE TRAINING AS A BODY AND YOU'VE FULFILLED, WE WILL HAVE FULFILLED THE REQUIREMENT AS LONG AS TRAINING WAS WITH A FORM OF THE BODY IN A POST PUBLIC MEETING. ANYONE WHO MISSES IT CAN JUST MAKE IT UP WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO THE WAY YOU WANNA ADDRESS THEM, THEY DON'T HAVE TO, RIGHT? THEY DON'T HAVE TO. WHAT? MAKE IT UP. YES, THEY WOULD. BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SHALL RECEIVE ETHICS TRAINING FROM THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL EVERY JANUARY, UNLESS YOU WANNA SAY EACH CITY COUNCIL MEMBER. BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU'RE CLAIMING THAT THAT PUBLIC MEETING, AS LONG AS THERE'S A QUORUM, TAKES CARE OF IT. I THINK IT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE CLEAR. IT DOESN'T TAKE CARE OF IT FOR EACH COUNCIL MEMBER. IF THEY CAN'T ATTEND. THEY WILL JUST HAVE TO MAKE UP THE TRAINING. I GUESS I WOULD ASK THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WHETHER IT'S BETTER TO GET REALLY SPECIFIC HERE ABOUT THE PUBLIC MEETING OR WHETHER IT'S BETTER TO RELY ON EI THINK YOU'RE CORRECT THAT THAT E IS GONNA SOLVE A, A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS. AND I, AND I THINK MS. MORRISON'S ALSO, UH, CORRECT THAT THIS WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM. WE'RE, UH, AS WELL, I THINK YOU'RE BOTH CORRECT. SO I THINK IF WE JUST GO FORWARD AND LET MS. MORRISON WRITE THE PROVISION, UH, I CAN WORK WITH HER ON IT AS WE ALWAYS DO. AND, AND WE'LL, WE'LL LAND IN THE RIGHT PLACE. I, I, I THINK THE, YEAH. AND, SORRY, I'LL MAKE JUST ONE MORE. AND I'M NOT WORKING MS. MORRISON, BUT IT SAYS MAYBE GIVEN. OKAY. MS. MORRISON, DO YOU KNOW WHAT, UH, WHAT YOUR OMISSION IS? INDEED? I DO. , IS THERE, THERE'S ANOTHER QUESTION. HEARING NONE WITH THAT SECOND. SORRY. I'M GONNA SECOND THE MOTION. ALRIGHT, SO THERE'S NOW A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. NAY MAY. AND THE MOTION PASSES. NEXT IS 12 A 14. IT'S, UH, SECTION TITLED MISCELLANEOUS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. AND ONE OF THEM HAS TO DO WITH WHEN THERE IS A AREA OF NOTIFICATION MATTER, AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, IF A, A CITY OFFICIAL OWNS ANY INTEREST, IT'S NOT, DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SUBSTANTIAL. IF THEY OWN ANY INTEREST, THEY HAVE TO RECUSE THEMSELVES. AND WHAT HAPPENED IN ONE OF OUR CASES IS AFTER THE MATTER IN THE AREA, THE AREA OF NOTIFICATION MATTER WAS CONCLUDED BY VOTE. THAT PERSON CAME BACK INTO THE PROCESS TRYING TO INFLUENCE IT. AND, AND SO THERE, THERE WAS JUST THIS A GAP. AND THIS CLOSES THAT GAP BY SAYING ANY REQUIRED RECU RECUSAL UNDER THIS SUBSECTION. IT CONTINUES UNTIL THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE MATTER THROUGH [01:05:01] AND INCLUDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICY. SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE PREVENTING THE CITY OFFICIAL FROM RE RECUSING WHILE THEY VOTE AND THEN DOING AN END RUN AROUND THE, THE PROCESS. WHAT IF THE THING THAT THEY'RE RECUSING THEMSELVES FOR IS NOT A POLICY? I, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT WORDING AGAIN, IS WAY TOO VAGUE. LIKE SOMEONE COULD ARGUE, YOU KNOW, THAT SOMETHING ELSE CAME UP BEFORE THE COUNCIL THAT WAS PRETTY UNRELATED TO THE MATTER, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN SOMEONE'S LIKE, OH, WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU STILL HAVE TO RECUSE YOURSELF. WELL, THAT'S WHAT THESE HEARINGS WILL BE FOR. EXACTLY. THAT. IF IF SOMETHING LIKE THAT COMES UP AND A COMPLAINT IS FILED, THEN WE'LL INVESTIGATE AND WE'LL HAVE TO DETERMINE IF WE CAN SUBSTANTIATE A, A VIOLATION AND THEN IT WOULD COME BEFORE THIS BODY IF A NE UH, WHETHER NEGOTIATION WAS SETTLED OR NOT, TO DETERMINE IF, IF THAT WAS THE, THE CASE. UM, YOU KNOW, THIS PROVISION APPLIES TO PROPERTY. YES. AND THEN YOU TALK ABOUT A POLICY. SO I'M NOT SURE THOSE TWO GO TOGETHER, MS. MORRISON. YOU CAN, UH, CAN YOU FIGURE OUT A, A WAY TO REWRITE IT WITHOUT THE WORD, USE A DIFFERENT WORD THAN POLICY? UH, IN ORDER TO GET AT THE INTENT HERE, MAYBE THE INTEREST IN PROPERTY IN QUESTION, OR I'M JUST NOT SURE WHERE POLICY COMES FROM. WE COULD, DO YOU GO BACK TO THE WORD MATTER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE YEAH. THE MATTER. 'CAUSE WE REFER TO THAT WOULD BE FINE. WE DO REFER TO AGENDA ITEMS AS MATTERS ON THE AGENDA. SO THAT, THAT, THAT WOULD WORK. THAT WOULD, WOULD JUST ENDING IT AT MATTER. SOLVE THE PROBLEM MISSION IS DO THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE MATTER AND STOP. YES. IT, IT WOULD'VE SOLVED THE SITUATION IN, IN THE CASE THAT I REFERENCED. WELL, FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE MATTER. WE'RE TRYING TO SAY YOUR REFUSAL LASTS LONGER THAN THAT. IT'LL BE FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE MATTER AND THROUGH THE PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTING WHAT THEY VOTED ON THE MATTER. YEAH, I'M I'M SUGGESTING YOU JUST TAKE OUT THE WORD, THE POLICY AND REPLACE IT WITH THE MATTER. THAT SOUNDS GOOD TO ME. AND PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MATTER OF THE MATTER. YES, SIR. THAT WORK. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION WITH RESPECT TO CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS? I'LL MOVE THAT. UM, SECTION 12 A 14 B, UH, THAT THE CHANGE REQUESTED CHANGE BE MADE EXCEPT TO REPLACE THE WORD POLICY WITH THE WORD MATTER. SECOND, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY THE SAME? AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? NAY. MOTION PASSES REPRESENTATION OF PRIVATE INTERESTS. THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. THIS IS 12 A 18 REPRESENTATION OF PRIVATE INTERESTS. THE, UH, RECOMMENDATION IS TO SIMPLIFY THIS. UH, RIGHT NOW THE PROVISION, UH, BREAKS IMMEDIATELY BETWEEN WHETHER THE REPRESENTATION IS FOR COMPENSATION OR IF THE REPRESENTATION IS NOT FOR COMPENSATE COMPENSATION. AND THEN THERE ARE A VARIETY OF EXCEPTIONS THAT FOLLOW. UM, BUT IT, IT'S ALL LEADING TO THE SAME INTENT, WHICH IS WE JUST, WE DON'T WANT, UH, A CONFLICT OF INTEREST TO EXIST WHEN A CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE IS, IS REPRESENTING ANOTHER PERSON BEFORE THE CITY. THE EXISTENCE OF THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHETHER YOU'RE COMPENSATED OR UNCOMPENSATED MAKES IT MAKES THE RULE, UH, MY WORD IS BYZANTINE. IT JUST MAKES IT VERY COMPLICATED, AT LEAST FOR ME. I WILL SAY FOR ME IT DOES, REMOVING THE DIFFERENTIATION, UH, WOULD HAVE SOME EFFECT ON THE EXCEPTIONS. AND SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS, NUMBER ONE, WE'VE REMOVED THE DIFFERENTIATION. SO IT'S JUST REPRESENTATION WHETHER YOU'RE COMPENSATED OR NOT. BUT NUMBER TWO, WE'VE CAPTURED ALL OF THE EXCEPTIONS AND, AND PUT THEM INTO WHAT WOULD BE THE AMENDED SECTION SO WE DON'T LOSE ANY OF THE EXISTING PROTECTIONS, UM, THAT ARE IN THE CODE AND EXCEPTION. SO I'M [01:10:01] READY FOR QUESTION. SO, UM, I THINK THAT THE WHOLE THING, THE SUBSECTION A ONLY REFERS TO CITY OFFICIALS, RIGHT? OR A, AN APPOINTED MEMBER OF A BOARD COMMISSIONER BODY. BUT THEN IN SUB LITTLE THREE I, WE TALK ABOUT EMPLOYEES. WHAT, WHAT I'M LOOKING AT UNDER THE GENERAL RULE REPRESENTATION IS THE HEADING A CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE SHALL NOT REPRESENT. SO IT DOES INCLUDE BOTH, RIGHT? BUT THEN THE EXCEPTIONS, OH NO, SHE'S, SHE, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. IN, UH, ROMAN AT THREE WE NEED TO CROSS OUT OR EMPLOYEE. AND THAT WAS ACTUALLY PART OF A CORRECTION ORDINANCE THAT CAME THROUGH THIS BODY BEFORE YOU REMEMBER. SO THAT WAS MY MISTAKE. I SHOULD HAVE CROSSED THAT OUT. THAT HASN'T GONE A COUNCIL YET, BUT IT WILL. AND SO THOSE TWO WORDS OR EMPLOYEE WILL BE, WON'T BE THERE. 'CAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THAT CORRECTION. SO I GOT IT. OKAY. YOU GOT IT? MM-HMM . AND THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE PART OF A MOTION 'CAUSE THAT'S ALREADY BEEN THROUGH, THROUGH HERE. THAT WAS JUST MY, MY ERROR. AND THEN ARE WE GOOD WITH SAYING THAT AN EMPLOYEE CAN REPRESENT BEFORE A BOARD IF IT'S ADVISORY IN NATURE? NO. IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE A CITY EMPLOYEE PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE REPRESENTING PEOPLE BEFORE ANY BOARD OR COMMISSION. BUT I DON'T KNOW. I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION. I THINK EMPLOYEES DON'T FALL UNDER AN EXCEPTION. YEAH, IT DOESN'T FALL TO EMPLOYEES. YOU'RE SAYING ALL OF SUBSECTION TWO ONLY DOES NOT APPLY TO EMPLOYEES, RIGHT? SO YES. PARAGRAPH TWO, UM, NO BA DOESN'T APPLY TO EMPLOYEES. YEAH, BUT B WOULDN'T IT? YES. YES. B DOES APPLY TO EMPLOYEES. SO WE ARE ALLOWING AN EMPLOYEE TO REPRESENT YOU FOR A BOARD IF IT'S ADVISORY IMAGE. YEAH. AND THOSE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, THEY RECEIVE BRIEFINGS. UM, THEY DELIBERATE ON TOPICS, BUT THEY, THEY SEND THINGS TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION, BUT THEY DON'T MAKE A FINAL DECISION, UM, ON ANYTHING. SO SOMETIMES IT IS, I WOULD SAY IT IS VALUABLE TO MAYBE HAVE AN, AN EMPLOYEE IF THEY, YOU KNOW, ARE REPRESENTING THEMSELVES. A LOT OF CITY EMPLOYEES DO LIVE IN DALLAS AND THEY WANNA BE PART OF THAT CONVERSATION. UM, SO JUST SOME, SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT IT. BUT IT IS UP TO THE, SO THE LANGUAGE AS PROPOSED IS NOT BEING CHANGED THEN? IT, IT HAS BEEN CHANGED IN SUBSECTION TWO. IN SUBSECTION TWO THREE. LITTLE I RIGHT TO DELETE THE REFERENCE TO EMPLOYEES. RIGHT. OKAY. ANY OTHER CHANGES TO THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION? ALRIGHT, WELL, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE DELETION OF EMPLOYEE IN A LITTLE I THREE, UH, IS THERE A MOTION I'LL MOVE THAT. UM, WE ACCEPT THE CHANGES TO, UM, SUBSECTION TO 1218. IS THAT WHAT WE'RE IN? YEAH, 1218. EXCEPT THAT IN THAT SUBSECTION TWO, THREE LITTLE I, WE REMOVE REFERENCE TO EMPLOYEES. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION QUESTIONS? IS THERE A MOTION? UH, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. SECONDED, UH, IF NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAINT AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? NAY. MOTION PASSES. [01:15:03] THE NEXT SECTION IS 12 A 23. AND THE DECISION HERE WILL, UM, WILL AFFECT THE WORDING IN THAT WE JUST CAME UP WITH, BUT IT'LL BE A SIMPLE FIX. SO IF YOU APPROVE THIS, WE NEED TO MAKE THAT SAME ADJUSTMENT IN WHAT YOU JUST DID. BUT THIS HAS TO DO WITH EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. AND THERE, THERE IS, UM, THERE ARE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS LIKE, UH, CPC AS AN EXAMPLE THAT MOST PEOPLE WOULD CONSIDER BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY DO. QUASI-JUDICIAL, BECAUSE THAT'S A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY. IN TRUTH, IT'S A BODY THAT HANDLES MATTERS WHICH ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL AND SOME MATTERS THAT ARE NOT. AND THAT, THAT HAS CREATED SOME CONFUSION. AND TO ADDRESS THE CONFUSION, THIS RECOMMENDATION IS CHANGING THE LANGUAGE, UH, FROM REFERRING TO QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES TO REFERRING TO QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTERS. AND SO THAT EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS ARE PROHIBITED WHEN THE, THE CONVERSATION WOULD BE ABOUT A MATTER THAT IS, UH, AS OPPOSED TO, FOR INSTANCE, ANYTHING THAT'S COMING BEFORE. UM, CPC. IF WE, IF YOU MAKE THIS CHANGE, THEN YOU GO BACK TO THE ONE WE WERE JUST IN, THAT REFERS TO QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES AND YOU MAKE THEM QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTERS AS WELL. I'M READY FOR QUESTION AND I'LL JUST JUMP IN. FOR INSTANCE, THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION, WE THINK OF YOU AS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY BECAUSE YOU DO HANDLE QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTERS SUCH AS THE, UM, THE EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS ON ETHICS COMPLAINTS, BUT YOU ALSO HANDLE MATTERS SUCH AS THE ITEM WE'RE CURRENTLY ON, WHICH IS AMENDING THE CODE OF ETHICS. THAT'S, THAT'S JUST A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION OF THIS BODY. AND YOU CAN BE LOBBIED, UM, OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC MEETING ON THIS ITEM, BUT NOT ON AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ITEM. SO WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE DISTINCTION HERE THAT WHEN IT COMES TO QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES, THEY GENERALLY HANDLE BOTH TYPES OF MATTERS. AND SO IT'S REALLY JUST THE QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTERS THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS ON. I DIDN'T FOLLOW THE LAST PIECE OF WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT HOW IT WOULD AFFECT THE PREVIOUS, THE, THE PREVIOUS SECTION THAT YOU JUST MADE A RECOMMENDATION ABOUT REFERS TO QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES. AND WE'RE REALLY SAYING SOME, SOME OF THESE BODIES, THEY'RE NOT JUST QUASI-JUDICIAL, THEY DO OTHER THINGS TOO. AND SO YOU WOULD CHANGE THE WORD BODIES TO MATTERS TO, TO BE IN LINE WITH THIS PROVISION AND TO RECOGNIZE THAT NOT EVERYTHING A COMMITTEE DOES IS GONNA BE QUASI-JUDICIAL. SO COULD YOU GO OVER WHAT THE CHANGE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT WILL BE A CHANGE TO TWO A ONE IN THE PREVIOUS PROVISION? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? IT, IT WOULD, UH, QUA, LET'S SEE THE EXCEPTIONS IN TWO A ONE WHERE IT SAYS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD, COMMISSION OR BODY THAT THE PERSON IS A MEMBER OF. AND I WOULD, I WOULD ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO FIGURE OUT, FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MAKE THE ADJUSTMENT TO MATTER. WE WOULD JUST, WE WOULD JUST MIRROR THE LANGUAGE. WE WOULD MAKE THE CHANGE TO MIRROR THE LANGUAGE TO SAY A MEMBER OF A CITY BOARD COMMISSION REGARDING THE QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER THAT OKAY, SO WE DO, WE HAVE TO GO BACK 'CAUSE WE DIDN'T MAKE THAT CHANGE. WE DIDN'T VOTE ON THAT CHANGE. WELL, YOUR VOTE ON THAT CHANGE DEPENDS ON YOUR VOTE ON 12 A 23. OH, OKAY. I WOULD MOVE TO MAKE THIS CHANGE TO 12 A 23. WOULD THE ADDITION OF OTHER ADDING LANGUAGE TO MIRROR IT IN THE PREVIOUS OR JUST EVEN ADDING LANGUAGE, LIKE, EXCEPT PURSUANT TO 12 A 23. I'M JUST SOME WAY TO MIRROR THIS. SO I WOULD MOVE TO A DO THAT. THERE'S BEEN, THERE'S A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? AS A SECOND? SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION QUESTION OR DISCUSSIONS? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? NAY. MOTION PASSES. AND DID THAT COVER THE ONE BEFORE? I THINK IT DID, YES. I THINK IT WAS A MOTION. YES. CORRECT. YES. 12 A 29, 12 A 29 DEFINITIONS. IT IS CONNECTED, UM, WITH 12 A 35. THIS ALL HAS TO DO WITH RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING IN 12 A 35. [01:20:01] UH, G IT REFERS TO PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTERS. OH, EXCUSE ME. WAIT, WAIT, LET ME, LET ME, LEMME SLOW DOWN. I SKIPPED ONE 12 A 29 DEFINITIONS. UM, THE FIRST ONE IS IN THE LOBBYING SECTION. IT, THE DEFINITION OF CITY OFFICIAL IS DIFFERENT BY ONE PERSON FROM THE DEFINITION OF CITY OFFICIAL IN 12 A TWO. THE DEFINITIONS THAT GOVERN THE REST OF THE CODE, WHAT IT DOES IN THE LOBBYING SECTION IS IT, UM, LEAVES OUT THE CITY MANAGER'S CHIEF OF STAFF AND THEREFORE IF, IF THAT PERSON WERE TO BE LOBBIED, THEY, THEY WOULDN'T BE INCLUDED AS A CITY OFFICIAL. UH, AND SO THE IDEA HERE IS TO ADD THEM IN. UM, I BELIEVE THIS IS WHAT WAS INTENDED AND IT JUST SLIPPED THROUGH, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE, BUT I THINK IT MAKES SENSE. I'M READY FOR QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTION? ALL RIGHT THEN. DOES THAT, THERE'S THE OTHER CHANGES. YEAH, I WAS GONNA SAY, THAT DOESN'T RESOLVE ALL OF THE ISSUES HERE WE CAN. SO I'LL, I'LL KEEP GOING. YES, KEEP GOING. YES. THE NEXT SET IS, UH, REALLY DELETIONS TO THE DEFINITION OF, OF LOBBYING. SO OBVIOUSLY LOBBYING HAS A DEFINITION IN THE CODE, AND THEN THERE ARE A LIST OF EXCEPTIONS TO IT. AND THERE ARE SEVERAL IN THERE THAT, UM, CENTER AROUND THE FACT THAT WHEN THE ACTIVITY, WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD BE LOBBYING TAKES PLACE, IT TAKES PLACE IN SOME FORM OF PUBLIC MEETING. UM, AND SO THE RESULT OF THAT IS A, I THINK A LOSS OF TRANSPARENCY IN THAT A LOBBYIST CAN COME BEFORE, SAY CITY COUNCIL, NOT IDENTIFY WHO THEIR CLIENT IS, THAT THEY'RE A LOBBYIST AND THEY'RE IN ACCORD WITH THE CODE OF ETHICS. NOW, I'M GUESSING EVERYONE ON CITY COUNCIL PROBABLY KNOWS THAT PERSON IS A LOBBYIST AND MAY EVEN KNOW WHO THEY REPRESENT. BUT THE ISSUE IS TRANSPARENCY FOR THE PUBLIC THAT DOESN'T KNOW ALL THE CASTS AND CHARACTERS. AND SO FOR THAT REASON, I'M RECOMMENDING THAT THOSE PROVISIONS BE DELETED SO THAT WHEN A LOBBYIST COMES BEFORE THE CITY, UH, IN A PUBLIC MEETING, THEY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS SUCH. AND, UH, I THINK THAT'S A, A GOOD TRADE OFF OF TRANSPARENCY FOR A LOW BURDEN, WHICH IS SIMPLY TO SAY WHO YOU'RE REPRESENTING. COULD YOU POINT US TO, UM, THAT THEY, TO ME IT'S JUST IMPORTANT THAT THEY CAN SPEAK AS LONG AS THEY SAY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. SO, UM, DO WE FEEL LIKE THAT'S CLEAR? UH, THAT WAS THE EFFORT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WITH THE, THAT THE CHANGES DID NOT RESTRICT SPEECH, BUT JUST MADE SURE THAT BEFORE THEY SPEAK, THAT THEY IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES IN ON THE RECORD IN PUBLIC WHO THEY ARE AND WHO THEY REPRESENT. SO THAT WAS THE GOAL. SO ARE WE BETTER OFF? SHOULD, ARE WE BETTER OFF LEAVING IT IN, IN LIKE UNDER SUB FIVE SAYING MADE AT A MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC UNDER THE TEXAS OF MEETINGS ACT SO LONG AS THE LOBBYIST BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, AND DO THAT INSTEAD OF, I MEAN, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE ARE ACCOMPLISHING WHAT OUR GOAL WAS. I'M AFRAID I NEED SOME CLARIFICATION TO, TO BE HELPFUL. THE GOAL FOR ME WAS IN MAKING THIS RECOMMENDATION WAS TO ENSURE THAT THE FACT THAT IT'S IN A PUBLIC SETTING DOES NOT REMOVE THE ACTIVITY AS A LOBBYING ACTIVITY. AND TO SAY THAT MEANS THAT A LOBBYIST HAS CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS, UH, TO WHICH MAINLY IS, UH, IN THIS CASE, TO IDENTIFY THEIR CLIENT AND, AND WHO THEY'RE REPRESENTING. AND, AND I THINK IN A PUBLIC MEETING OF ALL PLACES, IT'S, UH, VERY IMPORTANT FOR PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY. AND SO THAT'S, THIS IS GETTING, THAT THIS IS, WOULD ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN. IT WOULD NOT PROHIBIT ANYBODY FROM LOBBYING. IN FACT, THEY'RE DOING IT NOW. THEY JUST DON'T HAVE TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. I WONDER IF WE COULD FIX IT BY CLARIFY IT. I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. BUT I THINK WE COULD MAYBE CLARIFY IT BY JUST UP IN B SAYING LOBBY OR LOBBYING DOES [01:25:01] NOT COMMUN INCLUDE A COMMUNICATION, UM, UH, SOMEHOW, SOMEHOW UP THERE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT, UH, THAT THIS DOES NOT, IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO SAY THAT THE PERSON CAN'T SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC MEETING. THE WAY THAT I READ IT, AND THE WAY THAT WE DISCUSSED THIS AT LENGTH IS THIS IS SIMPLY REMOVING AN EXCEPTION TO LOBBYING. AND ANYTIME A LOBBYIST DOES SPEAK, THEY ARE REQUIRED VERBAL LOBBYING RULES TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. SO I THINK IT'S INFERRED OR IMPLIED. IF YOU HAVE TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF, YOU'RE ABLE TO SPEAK. THAT CERTAINLY WAS THE INTENT HERE TO ALLOW SPEECH, BUT TO MAKE SURE THAT REGARDLESS OF WHO YOU'RE, SO, SO DO WE WANNA MAYBE BROADEN 12 A 36 TO COVER ALL THE THINGS WE'RE DELETING INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING IN A PUBLIC MEETING? UH, OR AS A WRITTEN COMMENT OR IN RESPONSE TO A PUBLIC NOTICE SOLICITING COMMUNICATIONS. IN OTHER WORDS, DOES IT HAVE TO BE A PUBLIC MEETING, UM, TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THEY CAN DO THESE OTHER THINGS? THEY CAN DO ALL OF THESE THINGS AS LONG AS THEY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES READING THIS DIFFERENTLY? BECAUSE I DON'T SEE ANY PRECLUSION FROM THEM DOING THAT. THEY'RE SIMPLY REMOVING THE EXCEPTIONS FROM LOGGING IT. YEAH, I, I GET IT. AND I DON'T HAVE A COMMENT ON, UM, WHATEVER PROVISION THIS IS. UM, 29, I GUESS I'M WANTING TO BROADEN 36. WHY DON'T WE FINISH 29. OKAY. AND THEN, WE'LL, 36, I GUESS I'M NOT GONNA BE HAPPY WITH AGREEING TO 29 IF WE DON'T THEN COVER THOSE THINGS IN 36. SO JUST FOR THE SAKE. SO ONE, THE ISSUE IN 12 A 36 WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OR WHERE THAT IS COMING FROM, HAS TO DO WITH, UH, THE, THE FACT THAT THE PART THAT IS BEING DELETED THERE IDENTIFIED IN SECTION 12 A 29 1 H, THE 12 A 29 1 H DOESN'T EXIST IN THE CODE. SO WE WERE SIMPLY TRYING TO, UH, FIX THAT. IF SOMEBODY GOES LOOKING FOR IT, YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT GONNA FIND IT. UM, SO READING 12 A 29 A, EACH PERSON WHO LOBBIES OR ENGAGES ANOTHER PERSON TO LOBBY BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OR BEFORE A CITY BOARD OF COMMISSION, WHICH IS ALWAYS GONNA BE A PUBLIC MEETING, SHALL ORALLY, ORALLY IDENTIFY HIMSELF OR HERSELF WITH ANY CLIENT THEY REPRESENT IN AN ADDRESS. SO THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING BY REMOVING THE EXCEPTIONS IN, UH, 29. RIGHT. YOU'RE SAYING THAT THOSE ARE ALL LOBBYING, GOING TO BE CONSIDERED LOBBYING, WHICH IS YES. OKAY. WITH ME. AS LONG AS THEY CAN STILL DO EACH OF THOSE THINGS, AS LONG AS THEY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AND THE CLIENT THEY REPRESENT. AND SO THE DEFINITION OF LOBBYING WHEN THEY REPRESENT A CLIENT AND THEY, THEY COME AND DO THAT THING, THE REST OF THE CODE WILL REQUIRE THEM WHILE THEY'RE DOING THAT THING, WHILE THEY'RE GIVING THEIR SPEECH AND HAVING THEIR SAY TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. BECAUSE NOW IT WILL BE LOBBYING UNDER THE CODE INSTEAD OF BEFORE IT WAS AN EXCEPTION TO LOBBYING. SO THEY WEREN'T CONSIDERED LOBBYISTS AND THEY COULD STILL TALK. THEY DID NOT HAVE TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. SO IT IS DOING, I THINK, I THINK WE'RE JUST TALKING AROUND, BUT IT, BUT IT, THIS IS DOING WHAT YOU WANT IT TO DO BASED ON WHAT I'M HEARING. YES. BUT FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S LOOK AT LITTLE SEVEN THAT YOU'RE DELETING. 'CAUSE YOU'RE NOW GONNA SAY THAT IS LOBBYING. SO THEY, [01:30:01] THEY CAN'T, THEY'LL BE LOBBYING IF THEY WRITE A PETITION FOR OFFICIAL ACTION. THAT WOULD BE A PUBLIC RECORD. DO WE WANNA SAY THEY CAN'T DO THAT AT ALL? OR DO WE WANNA SAY IN 36 A THAT YEAH, THEY CAN DO THAT AS LONG AS THEY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AND WHO THEY REPRESENT. SO 36 IS ACTUALLY DIVIDED INTO THREE PARTS. YOU ARE, YOU ARE ONLY SEEING SECTION A, HAVING TO DO WITH APPEARANCES ON YOUR HANDOUT, BUT B, GOVERNS ORAL LOBBYING CONTACTS, AND C GOVERNS WRITTEN LOBBYING CON CONTACTS. UM, AND SO FOR INSTANCE, IN C, ANY REGISTRANT WHO MAKES A WRITTEN LOBBYING CONTACT, INCLUDING ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION WITH THE CITY OFFICIAL SHALL IDENTIFY THEMSELVES DOT, DOT DOT. OH, OKAY. I GET IT. OKAY. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE WERE THOSE OTHER ONE. YEAH, THAT SHOULD DO IT. OKAY. SO DOES THAT TAKE CARE OF 29 AND 36 THEN? IT THERE, UH, IS THERE A MOTION ON 29 AND 36? I MOVE THE READ AS AS AMENDED. NO, WE DIDN'T. OKAY, THEN AS WRITTEN. AS WRITTEN, OKAY. GREAT. UH, IS, SO IS THERE A MOTION MADE THE MOTION? UH, YEAH, I MADE MOTION. SECOND. I'LL SECOND. UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL FAVOR IFIED BY SIDE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? NAY. AND MOTION PASSES. 12 A 43. WE'RE GETTING DEEP INTO THE CODE, WHICH MEANS WE'RE GETTING DEEP, CLOSER TO THE END. ALL RIGHT. HANG IN THERE. UH, THIS ONE HAS TO DO WITH, UH, REPORTING 12 A, THE FORTIES THERE HAVE TO DO WITH GIFTS AND TRAVEL AND ALL THOSE THINGS. UM, IF YOU RECEIVE DONATIONS, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO REPORT IT TWICE. UH, RIGHT NOW, UNDER THE CODE, YOU MAKE A QUARTERLY REPORT TO THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE, AND YOU MAKE A REPORT IT EVERY 30 DAYS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE. AND WHAT THIS, UH, RECOMMENDATION IS DOING IS REMOVING THAT DUPLICATION AND CHOOSING TO, UH, KEEP OF THE TWO, THE 30 DAY RESPONSIBILITY AFTER RECEIPT OF THE DONATION TO REPORT TO THE CITY MANAGER. I'M READY FOR QUESTION. OKAY. UM, SO IN A, DO YOU WANT IT TO APPLY TO ANY DONATION OR ONLY THOSE OF A THOUSAND OR MORE REPORTABLE DONATIONS? SO THAT'S INCLUDED IN THIS, THAT, UH, ALL THE OTHER PROVISIONS THAT TALK ABOUT WHAT IS A, A DONATION THAT IS REQUIRED OR IS REPORTABLE ARE STILL IN EFFECT. AND SO IF IT'S NOT A REPORTABLE DONATION, THEN YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO MAKE IT. THIS IS, SO YOU DON'T WANNA PUT THE WORD REPORTABLE BEFORE THE WORD DONATION IN A, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. ALL RIGHT, SO , SO IF WE PUT REPORTABLE DONATION, DOES THAT SOLVE OUR PROBLEM? SOLVES MY PROBLEM? YEAH. OKAY. ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. UH, IS THERE A MOTION? LET'S SEE IF, IF WE THERE A MOTION ON THIS? I'LL DO A MOTION ALL IS THAT I MOVE THAT WE, UM, ACCEPT THE, UH, REVISIONS TO SECTION 12 A DASH 43, EXCEPT TO PUT THE WORD REPORTABLE IN THE FIRST LINE BEFORE THE WORD DONATION. IS THERE A SECOND? A THEN MOVED AND SECONDED. UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. UH, AND OPPOSED NAME PASSES. WE ARE AT 12 A 47 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS THE FIRST PLACE. WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. DID I MISS ONE? THERE'S, UM, I THINK IT'S, OH, YES. OKAY. 45.1. SO, UH, 45.1, UH, IS A HELPFUL CHART. WELL, THAT, THAT'S JUST UPDATING THE CHART TO REFLECT THE CHANGE THAT WE MADE, UM, IN 12 A 43. SO THAT'S JUST TO MARRY IT. IT'S NOT A SEPARATE SUBSTATION. WELL, UM, [01:35:02] CREATING AN AMBIGUITY, BECAUSE IN 45.1, THE WAY IT LOOKS RIGHT NOW, IT SAYS IN THE FAR RIGHT CORNER, RIGHT COLUMN, CITY MANAGER, IT SHOULD SAY CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE. THAT'S THE WAY THAT 43 READS. BUT THE, BUT THE CHART, IT'S JUST, IT'S SHORTHAND. THE CHART IS HELPFUL, BUT YOU REALLY NEED TO READ THE TEXT. WE JUST, WE TRY TO KEEP THE CHART AS CONCISE AS POSSIBLE. SO, I MEAN, YES, IT'S, AND DESIGNING, BUT I, IF YOU WANNA ADD IT, YOU CAN. IT'S JUST WE TRY AND KEEP THE CHART AS AS FEW WORDS AS POSSIBLE, JUST SO THAT IT'S FAN. UM, TO GET ALL OF THE DETAILS, YOU GOTTA GO TO THE TEXT OF THE, OF THE REGULATION. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? NOT ONLY THAT, UP TO THE GROUP, BUT THAT ACCEPTABLE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION? YES. ALL RIGHT. YES, , WE ARE AT 12 A 47, 12 8 47. OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. UM, THERE ARE TWO, THIS DESCRIBES THE OFFICE. AND UNDER THE POWERS AND DUTIES SECTION, UH, THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION IS TO ADD THE ISSUANCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVISORIES TO CITY MANAGEMENT. I BELIEVE THE, THE, UH, YOU ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCESS OF A MANAGEMENT ADVISORY. WE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT. IT'S, UH, A NEW WAY FOR OUR OFFICE TO RESPOND, PARTICULARLY TO ISSUES OF, OF WASTE AND ABUSE WHERE THERE'S NOT AN ETHICS CODE VIOLATION, BUT MANAGEMENT NEEDS TO BE MADE AWARE THAT MAYBE THERE'S A GAP IN A POLICY OR SOMETHING AND IT NEEDS CORRECTIVE ACTION. AND SO THIS IS SPECIFICALLY GIVING THE OIG THE POWER TO DO THAT. I'M READY FOR QUESTION. ANY QUESTIONS? I THOUGHT I HAD A TYPO, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF MAYBE I WAS NOT LOOKING AT THE RIGHT, BECAUSE THERE WERE NINE ITEMS UNDER A, IN THE VERSION THAT I WAS LOOKING AT, AND THEN IT ENDED UP THAT THERE WERE ONLY EIGHT, LIKE THERE USED TO BE SOMETHING NUMBER SEVEN THAT SAID ISSUE ADVISORY OPINIONS TO CITY, CITY OFFICIALS AND CITY EMPLOYEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTION D. DID THAT THAT'S CORRECT. THAT WAS DELETED FROM 12 A UNDER THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE IG, BECAUSE THAT HAS NOW, UM, REMAINED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. SO THAT WAS A CHANGE THAT WE MADE TO THE CODE PURSUANT TO THE NOVEMBER 20, 24 ELECTION THAT MOVED THE IG OUT OF THE, OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. IT'S NOT HELPFUL WHEN WE'RE GIVEN OLD VERSIONS OF THINGS. I KNOW, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW Y'ALL ENDED UP WITH AN OUTDATED VERSION OF THE CODE. UM, A GOOD RULE OF THUMB IS TO ALWAYS USE THE CODE ON AMERICAN LEGAL'S WEBSITE. THAT'S OUR OFFICIAL PUBLISHER. I THINK THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE HAD AN OUTDATED VERSION OF THE CODE LINKED ON THEIR WEBSITE. I THINK SO TOO. OKAY, SO HERE'S MY QUESTION. UM, SO SOMEONE HAD RECOMMENDED IN THE DROP FROM FURTHER REVIEW, UM, LEMME FIND IT, UM, TO REALLY, UH, GO INTO MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE ADVISORY. AND THAT WAS WHAT I MENTIONED AT THE LAST MEETING, THAT, UH, I FEEL LIKE IF WE DO A MANAGEMENT ADVISORY, THE COUNCIL OUGHT TO KNOW ABOUT IT. SO, UH, THAT ACTUALLY WAS MY ORIGINAL INTENT AND WAS A RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WAS TO REALLY FLESH OUT WHAT A MANAGEMENT ADVISORY IS AND WHAT THE OBLIGATIONS MIGHT BE FOR ONE. BUT AFTER RICH DISCUSSION, WE JUST DECIDED THAT WE DIDN'T WANNA CREATE 12 A VIOLATIONS OUT OF A, A PROCESS FOR THE BACK AND FORTH WITH MANAGEMENT ADVISORIES THAT IS REALLY FOLLOWING A MODEL THAT'S FAMILIAR TO THE CITY, THE AUDIT MODEL. AND SO WE SHIFTED FROM PUTTING ALL OF THAT DETAIL IN THE CODE OF ETHICS TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND COLLABORATION WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE OF A MANAGEMENT ADVISORY PROCESS. HAD LOTS OF PARTNERS, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DIFFERENT, A COUPLE OF ATTORNEYS HAVE HAD A LOOK, ACMS HAVE HAD A LOOK. IT'S, IT'S, AND IT IS NOT ANY, IT'S NOT SUBSTANTIVELY ANY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE FIRST CAME UP WITH, BUT IT HAS BEEN REFINED. IT'S REALLY, I THINK ABOUT READY TO GO [01:40:01] AND IT WOULD INCLUDE, UM, CITY COUNCIL BEING ADVISED. IN FACT, THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY AN ISSUE OF TRANSPARENCY. AND THE WHOLE POINT OF DOING A MANAGEMENT ADVISORY IS TRANSPARENCY, BECAUSE WHATEVER THE, SO FOR MORE INFORMATION, SOMETIMES WE REFER A CASE OUT, WE DON'T EVEN ASK FOR A RESPONSE. IT'S SUCH A SMALL THING. SOMETIMES WE ASK FOR A RESPONSE JUST TO MAKE SURE IT'S BEING TAKEN CARE OF. MANAGEMENT ADVISORIES ARE FOR SITUATIONS THAT ARE MORE MODERATE OR IF NOT EVEN HIGH RISK, AND, AND THEY NEED TO BE DEALT WITH BY CORRECTIVE ACTION WITH A, WITH AN AUDIT TRAIL. AND SO TRANSPARENCY IS, IS HUGE, WHICH MEANS CITY COUNCIL, EVERYBODY'S GONNA KNOW ABOUT THE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY. SORRY, WHAT? HOW DID YOU SAY EVERYBODY? HOW, HOW IS THE COUNCIL GONNA KNOW? I'M GONNA SEND IT TO HIM. WELL, SO WHY COULDN'T WE SAY IN NINE? I'M NOT SAYING TO PUT THIS WHOLE PROCEDURE, I'M JUST SAYING ISSUE MANAGEMENT ADVISORIES TO CITY MANAGEMENT AND COUNCIL. I'M FINE WITH THAT. OKAY. THE NEXT PART OF 12 A 40, WELL, YOU GUYS NEED TO VOTE. NO. AND, AND I HATE TO SAY THIS, ESPECIALLY PUBLICLY, BUT I, I COULD USE TWO MINUTES BEFORE WE GET TO THE NEXT ONE, WHICH I THINK IS GONNA GENERATE A LITTLE DISCUSSION. CAN WE HAVE A TWO MINUTE BREAK? TWO, FIVE MINUTES. FIVE MINUTES. FIVE MINUTE RECESS. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. YES, SIR. UH, WHAT THIS IS DOING IS IT'S, THIS IS A SUBSECTION THAT OUTLINES HOW INVESTIGATIONS HAPPEN. UM, AND PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO GATHERING OF EVIDENCE, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. THE UNDERLYING CONCERN WITH THE, THE CHANGES HERE, WHICH IS GAIN ACCESS TO INFORMATION NEEDED FOR INVESTIGATION AS DISCREETLY AS WE CAN IN KEEPING WITH THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF INVESTIGATIONS. AND SO THE WAY THE CODE CURRENTLY READS, THERE'S A WORD, UH, SHALL IN THERE. AND, UH, WE JUST HAD A MEETING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ACTUALLY YESTERDAY WHERE WE, WE DISCUSSED THIS. AND, AND THE WORD SHALL THAT'S IN THERE ACTUALLY APPLIES TO EVERYTHING THAT COMES AFTERWARDS, WHICH IS PROCEDURAL. BUT I, WHEN I READ IT, I READ IT AS A REQUIREMENT TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES EVERY TIME WE WANTED DOCUMENTS. SO THIS JUST CLARIFIES THAT PROBLEM. IF SOMEBODY ELSE READS IT THE WAY I DID IT, IT COULD CREATE A PROBLEM IN A HEARING TO SAY, WELL, THE CODE SAYS YOU REQUIRED A SUBPOENA AND YOU DIDN'T DO IT. SO THIS IS, UH, PROVIDING SOME FLEXIBILITY AND REALLY, UH, SOME DAY-TO-DAY FAIRNESS, BUT ALSO JUST REASONABLENESS IN GATHERING SO WE, UH, EVIDENCE SO WE CAN GO TO PEOPLE THAT HAVE EVIDENCE AND ASK FOR IT KINDLY. AND IF WE DON'T GET IT, THEN WE MAY, UH, ISSUE A SUBPOENA. I'M READY FOR QUESTIONS. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT THE WORKING GROUP DID NOT DEFER TO US, OR, YEAH, I HIGHLIGHTED THIS IN BLUE INSTEAD OF YELLOW JUST TO SIGNIFY THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE WORKING GROUP INSTRUCTED, UM, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO KEEP WORKING ON, BUT TO GO AHEAD AND BRING IT TO, UH, THE FULL EAC. SO THIS IS THE WORDING THAT I HAD COME UP WITH BASED ON FEEDBACK WE GOT FROM THE WORKING GROUP AND JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT, THAT THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WOULD HAVE UNFETTERED ACCESS TO ALL CITY DOCUMENTS AND CITY MATERIALS. AND THIS WAS SORT OF THE COMPROMISE THAT HE CAN HAVE ACCESS, BUT PRIOR TO ISSUING A SUBPOENA TO GET, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE WITH THE INFORMATION THAT HE WANTS? HIS CONCERN WAS THAT THE MINUTE THAT HE ISSUES A SUBPOENA, EVERYONE KNOW THE, THERE'S GOING TO BE A DISCLOSURE OF HIS, UH, UH, FOCUS AND HIS WORK. SO THIS WAS, WHAT WAS THE, THE COMPROMISE THAT NOT UNLIMITED A ACCESS TO ALL DATA, BUT IF YOU NEEDED AND CANNOT WORK WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND GET WHAT YOU NEED, THEN PROCEED. DOES THAT, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IS THAT, IS THAT A FAIR, THAT'S VERY FAIR. AND I WOULD ADD THAT, [01:45:01] UH, JUST FOR YOUR EDIFICATION, YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE SURVEY RESULTS ON THERE, UH, THAT I CHARTED OUT FOR YOU, JUST TO SHOW THAT TO THE PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY LIKE THIS IS, IS, IS, IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND ACCESS IS REALLY IMPORTANT. AND WE TRIED TO FIND THE MIDDLE GROUND WITH THIS. I'M READY FOR THAT. ANY ANY, YEAH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ON THIS ITEM? SO I LIKE THE WAY THAT, UM, THIS IS HEADED, BUT I THINK I WOULD JUST CHANGE IT TO SAY WHEN VOLUNTARY PRODUCTION, UM, IS NOT TIMELY DELIVERED OR IS NOT TIMELY RESPONDED TO, BECAUSE WHAT IF THEY DON'T REFUSE, LIKE, NOTIFY YOU THAT THEY'RE REFUSING? I I CAN TELL YOU HOW I MAY NOT BE THE IG FOR MUCH LONGER. WE, WE DO HAVE A SEARCH COMING. I CAN TELL YOU HOW I WOULD HANDLE THAT AS I WOULD PERSONALLY SAY THEY'VE JUST REFUSED AT, AT SOME POINT, YOU, YOU GET YOUR CHANCES AND THEN WE MOVE TO A BUT WHY SAY REFUSE? CAROL WOULD DETERMINE YEAH. WHAT IS REVIEWED. YEAH, IT'S GONNA, I CAN, I CAN FORESEE THAT. UH, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, WITH ADDING THE WORD TIMELINE. HONESTLY, IF YOU WANNA DO THAT, IT'S STILL GONNA BE UP TO THE, IT'S INTERPRETATION, BUT IT DOES, IT DOES ADDRESS THE ISSUE. IF THAT'S A THING. I HONESTLY, I THINK IF YOU ADD SOMETHING LIKE A WORD WEB TIMING THAT WAS GONNA MAKE IT MORE QUESTIONABLE. LIKE IF HE GETS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION BY A CERTAIN DATE AND IT DOESN'T OCCUR, IT'S REFUSED. WELL, I COULD, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY WHEN YOU REQUEST IT, IF YOU DON'T RESPOND WITHIN X DAYS, HOW IT WILL BE DEEMED A REFUSAL. I CAN'T SAY THAT THE MARKETPLACE, UH, HAS AN SO TO SPEAK. THE MARKETPLACE HAS AN EFFECT WHEN , IF I WERE TO GIVE A DEADLINE THAT WAS TOO SHORT, THERE'S GONNA BE PUSHBACK NOT JUST FROM THE RESPONDENT OR THE WITNESS FROM OTHERS, UH, AND VICE VERSA. UH, SO THERE IS KIND OF A MARKETPLACE THAT SHAPES WHAT IS A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME ON THESE THINGS. I GUESS I'M SAYING THAT IF THAT, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE WORD REFUSED, EXCEPT I THINK YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO BE CAREFUL MM-HMM . TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT SOMETHING WILL BE DEEMED A REFUSAL IF YOU DON'T HEAR BACK. LIKE, IN OTHER WORDS, THAT SOMEONE CAN'T JUST FAIL TO RESPOND . SO I CAN TELL YOU IN PRACTICE, I'VE DONE THAT SEVERAL TIMES. OKAY? AND IT WORKS LIKE THIS. UH, THIS IS MY SECOND TRY. I'M GIVING YOU UNTIL FRIDAY OR I'M FILING CHARGES. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. MOVE THAT WE, UH, ACCEPT THIS, UH, . ALL RIGHT THERE A SECOND. I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION IS, UM, LIKE IF I HAVE AN ARBITRATION, THE ARBITRATOR CAN'T NECESSARILY ENFORCE THE SUBPOENA IN THE SAME WAY THAT A STATE COURT CAN. AND SO I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THIS DOES, IF THIS DOES COME TO A HEAD, IT DOES SAY IN THE SAME MANNERS AS IS PRESCRIBED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE. HOW DOES IT, I THINK WE'VE WRESTLED WITH THIS BEFORE, BUT HOW DOES IT ACTUALLY OCCUR? LIKE THEY DON'T RESPOND. THEN WOULD YOU FILE A NEW, LIKE I'VE DONE IN MY PRACTICE, YOU'D FILE A NEW MATTER IN DALLAS COUNTY STATE COURT. UM, AND THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ENFORCED IN THAT REGARD BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO SOMEBODY WHO ISSUES THE SUBPOENA, AND MAYBE THAT'S WHAT THIS CREATES, AND LAURA, YOU MIGHT KNOW, BUT, UM, Y'ALL KNOW, HAVE Y'ALL WRESTLED WITH THAT YET? WE ARE, WE ARE CURRENTLY WRESTLING WITH, WITH IT ACTUALLY. AND, UH, WE'VE GOTTEN SOME IDEAS FROM OTHER, OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY THAT ISSUE THESE SUBPOENAS. UM, I DO THINK THAT ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CODE, SAY, WELL, I DON'T WANNA EVEN GIVE ANYBODY ANY IDEAS, BUT IF THEY'RE NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CODE, THEY CAN TELL US TO POUND SAND, AND THEN WE HAVE TO START GETTING CREATIVE AS, AS YOU SUGGEST, MAYBE TRYING A STATE COURT. BUT RIGHT NOW, THE CORPORATION COURT FOR US IS THE MUNICIPAL COURT. OKAY. THAT'S WHERE WE START. AND I WILL SAY THAT SECTION TWO DASH NINE OF THE CITY CODE DEALS WITH EXACTLY THAT. GOT IT. AND LEAVES UP PROCESS. COOL. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTION AND CONCERNS ABOUT SECTION TWO SUBSECTION TWO? HEARING NONE. WHAT WAS THERE MOTION? I'M SORRY. YOU, IT IS ALREADY BEEN MOVED AND WELL, I THINK WE WERE DOING IT BY SECTION. AND SO I [01:50:01] WONDER IF THAT REFERENCE TO THE WORDS IN COUNSEL SUBSECTION NINE NINE ISSUE MANAGEMENT ADVISORIES TO CITY MANAGEMENT AND COUNCILS. SHE WANTS THAT ADDED. OKAY. YES. BUT THAT'S WITH THAT EDIT. WITH THAT EDIT, UH, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. OKAY. UH, SECOND. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. IS THERE, UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SIGNIFY BY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? NAY. MOTION PASSES THE NEXT SECTION. 12 8 12 8 48. UH, THERE'S AN ECHO. SO I, I THOUGHT SOMEBODY WAS TALKING. UM, IT'S ABOUT OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL. THIS IS A REFINEMENT TO THE RULE. SO WHEN SOMEONE'S CHARGED WITH A COMPLAINT, THEY OBVIOUSLY HAVE A RIGHT TO, TO COUNSEL, AND THEY ALSO UNDER THE CODE, HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE A COUNSEL OF THEIR CHOOSING AND GET THAT PAID FOR. IF THEY WIN, IF THEY LOSE, THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR THOSE LEGAL FEES. AND WHAT THIS RECOMMENDATION IS DOING IS RESPONDING FROM A RECOMMEND A SUGGESTION REALLY FROM THE PUBLIC, UH, ABOUT THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL. AND THAT, THAT THIS EXISTING, THE, THE PROVISION THAT EXISTS NOW WAS LIMITING ON THAT IN AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL WAY. AND WE FELT LIKE THIS RECOMMENDATION GOT AT THAT MOVING FROM, UH, A LIST THAT ALREADY EXISTS TO, UH, A SITUATION WHERE WHEN SOMEONE CHOOSES THEIR COUNSEL THAT GOES TO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THEY VET THE COUNCIL TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO CONFLICTS. UH, AND THEN IF THEY'RE APPROVED, THEY WOULD GET TO BE THAT PERSON'S CITY ATTORNEY. UM, UH, EXCUSE ME. THEY WOULD GET TO BE THAT PERSON'S REPRESENTATIVE. UM, MS. MORRISON, DO YOU WANNA SAY ANYTHING? YEAH, THE CITY ATTORNEY DOES KEEP A LIST OF, UH, PRE-APPROVED, UM, ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE ALREADY PASSED OUR, OUR, UH, CONFLICTS, CHECK THE LIST, HOWEVER, HAS GOTTEN SHORTER. UH, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN A LOT OF INTEREST IN PEOPLE WANTING TO BE ON THE LIST. SO HOW THIS HAS, UM, HOW THIS HAS BEEN WORKING IN PRACTICE IS, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY SOMEONE WILL FIND THEIR OWN ATTORNEY, BRING THE NAME OF THAT ATTORNEY TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. WE GO AHEAD AND WE DO THE CONFLICTS CHECK. AND IF THEY PASS THAT, THEN THE CITY ATTORNEY JUST APPROVES THEM TO USE, UH, THAT COUNSEL FOR THAT MATTER. SO, UM, SO THIS JUST KIND OF DELETES A FEW WORDS, UH, TO REFLECT THE PRACTICE. ALL RIGHT. UH, LET'S SEE. I, I GUESS, WHAT IS THIS D COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS? THAT, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE NOW. THIS IS THE NEXT ONE. UM, AND I, I JUST WANT TO INQUIRE MR. SCHMIDT, HOW ARE WE DOING ON YOUR CLOCK? OKAY, SO THIS ONE'S IN BLUE. UM, AND WHAT THIS HAS TO DO WITH IS THE SITUATION, UH, WHERE A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER HAS A COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST THEM. UH, AND I'VE REALLY ASKED, AND, AND I APPRECIATE THE, THE WORKING GROUP LETTING THIS FLOAT FORWARD FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. AND I'M HOPING THAT, UH, WE ALLOW THAT PROCESS TO KEEP GOING. THE REASON IS 'CAUSE I, I BELIEVE THERE'S A, JUST AN INHERENT CONFLICT IN THE SYSTEM, UM, WHERE I AM, UH, TO DIRECTLY REPORT AND BE SUPERVISED BY CITY COUNCIL. AND WHEN A COMPLAINT COMES IN AGAINST THEM, AND THEY DO SOMETIMES FROM OTHER CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, SOMETIMES FROM JUST OTHER PEOPLE, IT CREATES AT LEAST AN APPEARANCE ISSUE. AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH WAY I DECIDE THE MATTER. AND I CAN TELL YOU SINCE WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS, UH, THAT APPEARANCE ISSUE IS CROPPED UP TWICE, UM, WHERE PEOPLE, I CAN'T TALK ABOUT, UH, EXISTING CASES, BUT WHAT I CAN SAY IS TWICE NOW, TRUST IN WHAT THE IG OFFICE AND ME IN PARTICULAR ARE DOING ON CASES HAS BEEN, UH, A SHADOW'S BEEN CAST OVER THAT BECAUSE I'M SUPERVISED BY THE PEOPLE I'M SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING INTO. AND SO I, I PROPOSED TWO POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS. ONE OF 'EM ISN'T REALLY POSSIBLE BECAUSE IT WOULD REQUIRE A CHARTER, UM, AMENDMENT. UH, THIS IS THE SECOND. AND THE COMPROMISE WAS THIS, TO MAKE IT A MAY AND NOT A SHALL OF. WHAT I, WHAT I'M ASKING FOR YOU TO CONSIDER IS [01:55:01] THAT IF A COMPLAINT IS FILED AGAINST THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, I HAVE THE MAY TO HIRE AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO ADDRESS THAT SITUATION. NOW, IT'S SIMILAR TO SOME THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE CODE. SO FOR INSTANCE, UH, IF THERE IS A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, THIS AT THE CITY, THE CITY ATTORNEY MAY REQUEST THAT YOU HIRE AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THE CITY SO THAT THEY'RE NOT IN THE WAY. UM, IT'S SIMILAR TO ANOTHER PROVISION IN THE CODE THAT SAYS IF THERE'S A CHARGE FILED AGAINST THE OIG, WE DON'T GET TO INVESTIGATE IT BECAUSE IT APPEARS FUNNY. AND I THINK THIS IS IN THE SAME KETTLE OF FISH. UM, I KNOW THERE IS AT LEAST SOME COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR THIS. UM, IT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT IN TERMS OF WHO, WHO I'VE SPOKEN WITH, BUT I WOULDN'T SAY THAT'S MORE THAN TWO OR THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN A BROAD TOPIC. BUT I'M BEING, TRYING TO BE FAIR ABOUT THAT. I'M READY FOR QUESTIONS. ARE THERE ANY CONCERNS, QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PROVISION? DID YOU SAY I JUST HAVE A TYPO. , I HAVE A TYPO. COUNCIL MEMBERS IS NOT ONE WORD. ALRIGHT. YOU OKAY? BESIDES THE, BESIDES THE COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU, YEAH, WE, WE OFTEN SEE IT AS ONE WORD AT THE CITY, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT IN THE CODE OF ETHICS, IT'S TWO. SO I'LL AYE. BESIDES THAT, WE ARE OKAY WITH THE LANGUAGE. ALL RIGHT. UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING, SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. A JUST QUICKLY, WE DISCUSSED THIS IN THE WORKING GROUP, BUT, SO THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT SAYS IT HAS TO BE IN THE OIGS BUDGET AS OPPOSED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY BUDGET OR ANY OTHER BUDGET, AND NO, THAT WOULD BE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO WORK OUT WITH THE CITY MANAGER AT BUDGET TIME IF THEY WANNA SET MONEY ASIDE FOR IT OR NOT. WELL, I ASSUME THAT DIDN'T NEED TO BE A DEAL, RIGHT? I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. YEAH, WE, YEAH, IT WOULD NOT BE, HEY, SO DID WE, DID WE VOTE ON THAT? I'M, I'M SORRY, BRIAN. WE VOTED, BUT THERE WAS NO MOTION OR SECOND TO MY KNOWLEDGE ALL THAT. SO THERE, ALL RIGHT, SO THERE, IS THERE A MOTION? I'LL MOVE THAT FOR SECTION 12 A DASH 48. WE APPROVE THE CHANGES TO BOTH B TWO AND D. THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION. SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT, MOVING RIGHT ALONG THE, THE NEXT, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THAT. YEAH. UM, THE NEXT AMENDMENTS OR CHANGES REALLY IS TO COMBINE, UH, TWO SECTIONS OF THE CODE. I'LL ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY BECAUSE SHE, SHE REALLY DID THE HEAVY LIFTING ON THIS. I CAN SAY I'M IN FAVOR OF IT FOR THIS REASON. UM, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S ALL THE SAME TOPIC. ONE SECTION WAS LABELED DISCIPLINARY ACTION. THE, THE NEXT WAS LABELED SANCTIONS. AND TO ME, THAT WAS CONFUSING FOR A WHILE UNTIL I READ IT THOROUGHLY. SO I THINK COMBINING THEM INTO ONE, NOTHING HAS CHANGED. THAT'S MY, THAT'S WHAT I THINK. THAT'S WHY I'M GONNA ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY 'CAUSE SHE DRAFTED IT, BUT I DON'T THINK ANYTHING'S CHANGED. IT'S JUST BEEN BROUGHT TOGETHER INTO ONE SECTION. YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. THERE'S NO, UH, SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES, UH, TO THE CONTENT HERE. IT REALLY IS JUST COMBINING THESE TWO SECTIONS THAT HAD TO DO WITH SANCTIONS AND TO ONE. SO YOU JUST HAVE THE ONE SECTION TO GO TO IF YOU NEED TO KNOW, UH, WHAT, WHAT THE SANCTIONS ARE AND HOW YOU GET THERE. WE DISCUSSED THIS QUITE A BIT, UM, AND IT LOOKS REALLY LONG, BUT IT'S, IT'S REALLY A CLARIFICATION AND ELIMINATING THE THAT WAS IN THE CASE. BUT I MEAN, IF WE LOOK AT THE OLD, THE OLD CODE AND THE TWO SECTIONS, ALL THE LANGUAGE IS STILL IN THERE EXCEPT HOW DO WE KNOW WHO THIS, LIKE WE REFER TO THE PERSON OR ENTITY IMPOSING THE SANCTION, BUT HOW DO WE KNOW WHO DOES IT THAT IS GOING TO, THERE ARE OTHER RULES THAT TELL YOU IF IT'S, UH, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GOES TO CITY COUNCIL. IF IT'S AN EMPLOYEE, IT GOES HERE. IF IT, THERE'S A WHOLE . SO THERE'S ANOTHER SECTION OTHER THAN THE ONE WE DELETED THAT TELL YOU THAT I THINK WHAT YOU'RE DELETING PULLED THAT INFORMATION INTO THIS SECTION. IT, IT REFERENCES THAT INFORMATION IN EACH PARAGRAPH UNDER SUBSECTION C SANCTIONS. [02:00:07] SUBSECTION C STILL REFERS TO THE SANCTIONING PERSON. WELL, THAT'S FOR CITY EMPLOYEES BECAUSE CITY EMPLOYEES ARE SANCTIONED BY THEIR SUPERVISOR AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERSONNEL RULES. SO IT'S GONNA DIFFER, UM, FOR CITY EMPLOYEES. EACH CITY EMPLOYEE IS GONNA HAVE A DIFFERENT SANCTIONING PERSON. AND SO YOU HAVE TO REFER TO THE PERSONNEL RULES FOR THAT. SO CAN YOU SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS, FOR EACH TOP, FOR EACH CATEGORY, WHO WILL BE OPPOSING THE SANCTION? YEAH. SO AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF PAGE 10, UM, IF THE CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY AUDITOR, CITY SECRETARY, OR A MUNICIPAL JUDGE FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THIS CHAPTER OR VIOLATES THIS CHAPTER, THEY MAY BE DISCIPLINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PERSONNEL RULES. AND THE SANCTION MUST BE DECIDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THERE'S A CIVIL PROVISION FOR THE CIVIL SERVICES DIRECTOR, ATION DIRECTOR MM-HMM . AS THEY SANCTIONED. AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE SANCTIONED, UH, BY THE RESPECTIVE BOARDS BECAUSE THE CIVIL SERVICE DIRECTOR, UM, REPORTS ACTUALLY TO THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD. THE PARK AND RECREATION DIRECTOR ACTUALLY REPORTS TO THAT BOARD IS THERE UNDER SUBSECTION C. IT'S ALL BEEN PULLED IN UNDER SUBSECTION C. RIGHT. SO THERE ARE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF SANCTIONING AUTHORITIES, DEPENDING ON THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE SANCTIONED PERSON. PARAGRAPH FOUR ON PAGE 11, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, BOARD COMMISSION MEMBERS, FORMER CITY OFFICIALS AND FORMER CITY EMPLOYEES. THE SANCTION IS DECIDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THANK, YEAH. ALL, ALL THE LANGUAGE, UH, FROM 12 A DASH 58 IS JUST MOVED DOWN INTO 12 8 59. SO YOU JUST HAVE THE ONE SECTION TO GO TO FOR SANCTIONS. I DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING OF A SUBSTANTIVE NATURE. OKAY. ARE YOU OKAY? WELL, SO, UM, FOR CITY EMPLOYEES, WHICH ONE COVERS THAT? THAT'LL BE PARAGRAPH ONE C ONE AT THE TOP OF PAGE 10. YEAH, IT SAYS THE SANCTIONING PERSON, BUT WHERE DID WE SAY WHO THAT WAS? IT'S IN THE PERSONNEL RULES. THE SANCTIONING PERSON IS WHOEVER THE SUPERVISOR IS OF THE PARTICULAR CITY EMPLOYEE. OKAY. OKAY. SO NOW I HAVE IN C TWO, I GUESS IT IS, YEAH, C TWO. UM, WHAT'S THAT STEP WITH THE BRACKETS? OH, THAT NEEDS A STRIKETHROUGH. I CAUGHT THAT. I STRUCK THROUGH IT IN MY COPY. THAT'S JUST AN ERROR ON MY PART. WELL, THE WAY IT SEEMS TO ME IT SHOULD READ AFTER THE UNDERLYING PART THAT ENDS WITH BOARDS. IT SHOULD SAY THE SANCTIONING ENTITY MAY IMPOSE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS. IS THAT HOW YOU HAVE IT? THE SANCTIONING ENTITY SHALL TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERSONNEL RULES. WELL, THE PERSONNEL RULES IS UP ABOVE WHERE YOU GOT THE YES ADDITION, BUT THE CIVIL SERVICE DIRECTOR, THE PARK AND RECREATION DIRECTOR, AND THE EMPLOYEE'S RETIREMENT FUND ADMINISTRATOR, THEY ARE ALSO CITY EMPLOYEES. SO THEY'RE ALSO GOVERNED BY THE PERSONNEL. I GET IT. BUT IT SAYS THAT IN THE UNDERLYING PART ABOVE, DOESN'T IT? IT SAYS THEY MAY BE DISCIPLINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERSONNEL RULES AND THE SANCTION MUST BE DECIDED BY THEIR RESPECTIVE BOARD. SO THEN IT SEEMS TO ME THE ONLY ADDITIONAL SENTENCE WOULD BE THE SANCTIONING ENTITY MAY IMPOSE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS. WHY DO WE HAVE TO REPEAT ABOUT THE PERSONNEL RULE? IF YOU WANNA DELETE THAT, WE CAN, I JUST THINK LEAVING IT IN MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR THAT THE SANCTIONING ENTITY DOESN'T, THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT LIMITED TO JUST THOSE FOLLOWING THROUGH THINGS. I, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT, THAT YOU DO LEAVE IT WHILE I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THAT IT'S DUPLICATIVE. UM, FOR OUR STAND, FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, WE'RE READING THROUGH THE WHOLE CODE AND WE'RE, WE'RE SEEING THE WHOLE PROVISION. THE PEOPLE THAT WILL BE USING THIS OR BE, ARE DESPERATELY LOOKING AT IT TO SEE WHAT THE DISCIPLINE'S GONNA BE, ARE GONNA SKIP ALL THAT AND GO DIRECTLY TO THIS PART. AND SO IT'S HELPFUL, I THINK, EVEN THOUGH IT IS REDUNDANT TO HAVE THAT THERE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT LIKELY TO READ ABOVE AND FIND [02:05:01] OUT, UH, WHAT THESE, WHAT WHAT IT SAYS. THAT'S MY 2 CENTS. AND THAT'S YOUR RECOMMENDATION? YES, SIR. THAT'S MINE AS WELL. AND THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY OF ATTORNEY. I, I WOULD SAY TO AGREE, VOTE ALL, UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THE MOTION ON THIS DIVISION, THE WHOLE THING. THINK THIS GETS US TO 12 EIGHT. I WOULD I MOVE TO APPROVE THAT IF WE'RE DONE WITH THAT SECTION. ALL RIGHT. ARE WE YES, PLEASE. I WILL. WE NEED A SECOND TO THAT MOTION. WELL, OKAY. WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. . OKAY, SO IN FOUR, IT STARTS OFF TALKING ABOUT CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, BORDER COMMISSION MEMBER, FORMER CITY OFFICIAL AND FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE. AND THEN WE REPEAT IT AGAIN TO SAY, FOR A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, A BORDER COMMISSION MEMBER, A FORMER CITY OFFICIAL, OR A FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE, WHY DO WE, WHY I DON'T GET THIS REPETITION THING. IT'S IN THE SAME PROVISION. WE'RE NOT ASKING SOMEONE TO GO TO SOME OTHER PART OF THE CODE. WHY DO WE KEEP REPEATING OURSELVES? THE DOUBLE UNDERLYING PART, THE HEADING OF THE SECTION. SO THAT'S NOT A SENTENCE IN AND OF ITSELF. SO THAT WILL BE UNDERLINED ONCE IT'S ONCE ONCE ALL OF THIS IS PUBLISHED WITH AMERICAN LEGAL. THAT'S WHY IT'S A DOUBLE UNDERLINED. WELL, YOU'VE ALREADY SAID IT. OKAY. YOU'VE GOT THE HEADING. AND THEN YOU'VE GOT, IF A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, BOARD COMMISSION MEMBER, A FORMER CITY OFFICIAL, A FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE, FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THIS CHAPTER OR VIOLATES THIS CHAPTER, THE SANCTION MUST BE DECIDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WHY DO YOU THEN HAVE TO SAY AGAIN, FOR A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, A BORDER COMMISSIONER? WE'RE NOT SAYING, AGAIN, OFFICIAL THAT IS STRUCK THROUGH. SO THAT IS LANGUAGE TO BE DELETED. OKAY. SO IT'S JUST GONNA SAY THE CITY COUNCIL MAY IMPOSE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING. YES. I DIDN'T GET ABOUT THE . OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTION? DISCUSSION ON THIS PROVISION? HEARING NONE THE MOTION. AND SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MAY. AND THE MO MOTION PASSES. OKAY. THESE, UH, WE'RE ON THE LAST ONE THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR MATERIALS. THERE'S ONE ADDITIONAL ONE THAT IS, UH, I THINK BOTH OF THESE SHOULD BE QUICK 12 A 62 DISQUALIFICATION FROM CONTRACTING. I THINK THIS ONE SHOULD BE RECOMMENDED PENDING APPROVAL OF, UH, OF THE RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU MADE TO ADD PERSONS DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY TO THE CODE. THAT ONE IS STILL PUSHING ITS WAY TOWARDS COUNCIL. UM, GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS AND ETHICS HAD SOME QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION TWO MONTHS AGO. AND SO ANYWAY, IF THAT ONE GETS APPROVED, THEN THIS ADDITION OF SUBCONTRACTOR AND 12 A 62, UH, WILL FIT WITH THAT. IF, IF IT DOESN'T GET APPROVED, THIS WON'T FIT. SO I THINK THE RECOMMENDATION HERE WOULD BE TO ADD SUBCONTRACTOR, SO LONG AS THE, THE OTHER RECOMMENDATION IS PASSED BY COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS? DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE. SO MOVED TO INCLUDE SUBCONTRACTOR WITH AN ASTERISK . IS THERE, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY THYE SAINT AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? NAY. MOTION PASSES. PASSES. THE FINAL ONE, AND IT'S A, IT'S A NEW ONE. AND I'M GONNA ASK MS. PHELAN TO DESCRIBE IT. IT INVOLVES 12 A 27, AND THIS IS BASED ON RECENT EXPERIENCE OF THE OIG, UM, WITH A CASE AND MAKING A CHANGE THAT WOULD, I THINK, GET TO THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CODE, UM, AS OPPOSED TO THE WAY IT'S SITTING RIGHT NOW. IT'S, IT'S PREVENTING US FROM MOVING FORWARD. WHATEVER DECISION YOU MAKE ISN'T GONNA APPLY TO THE PENDING CASE, BUT IT WILL HELP US GOING FORWARD. YOU SAID 27? YES. UH, 27 12 A 27 B TWO. UM, SO 12 A 26 AND 12 A 27 HAVE TO DO WITH THE ISSUE OF SUBSEQUENT REPRESENTATION. AND WHAT WE MEAN BY THAT IS, OR THE INTENT BEHIND THESE TWO RULES IS A FORMER CITY OFFICIAL OR CITY EMPLOYEE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THEY LEAVE THE SERVICE OF THE CITY, MAY NOT COME BACK BEFORE THE CITY REPRESENTING THEIR NEW EMPLOYER. AND THEY ALSO MAY NOT COME BACK BEFORE THE CITY, [02:10:01] UH, TO NEGOTIATE A DISCRETIONARY CONTRACT LOOKING SPECIFICALLY AT 12 A 27 B TWO, I'M GONNA START READING FROM B ABOUT ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS. RIGHT NOW IT SAYS A FORMER CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE MAY NOT WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER LEAVING THE SERVICE OR EMPLOYMENT OF THE CITY, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR AS THE OFFICER OR PRINCIPAL OF A PRIVATE BUSINESS ENTITY. AND THEN THEY CAN'T, UH, SUBMIT A PROPOSAL, UH, TO MAKE ANY DISCRETIONARY CONTRACT, OR THEY CAN'T NEGOTIATE OR ENTER INTO ANY DISCRETIONARY CONTRACT. AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO CHANGE THIS HIGHLIGHTED LANGUAGE RIGHT HERE IN B, THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS OFFICER OR PRINCIPLE OF A PRIVATE BUSINESS ENTITY, WE ARE SUGGESTING TO CHANGE THAT TO AGENT OF A PRIVATE BUSINESS ENTITY. UM, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, UM, IT'S ONLY PREVENTING AN OFFICER OR A PRINCIPAL OF A PRIVATE BUSINESS ENTITY FROM COMING BACK AND NEGOTIATING A DISCRETIONARY CONTRACT. AND WE WANNA PULL IN THOSE OTHER EMPLOYEES, UH, THAT WOULD BE DOING THAT ON BEHALF OF THEIR NEW EMPLOYER. SO WE WOULD BE DELETING OFFICER OR PRINCIPAL AND JUST REPLACE IT WITH AGENT. YES, CORRECT. RATHER THAN ADDING AGENT. RIGHT? UM, I WANNA DELETE OFFICER OR PRINCIPAL AND I WANNA ADD THE WORD AGENT. DOES THE CITY ATTORNEY COMPANY, NO, IT, I MEAN IT, THE CHANGE IS FINE. I ANY, IT WOULD ENCOMPASS ALL OF IT. AND ALSO AGENTS, IT WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM THAT TEACHES THAT DONE. IT WOULD BE ANYONE DOING THAT ON BEHALF OF THAT COMPANY, INCLUDING IF ATTORNEY. SURE. OKAY. UH, ANY QUESTIONS? CONCERNS? SO NORMALLY MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD AGENT, IT WOULDN'T INCLUDE AN EMPLOYEE. UM, I THINK IT WOULDN'T YEAH, GOOD. GO BACK. YEAH. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IF I OWN A BUSINESS AND I HIRE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE THERE, AN AGENT OF THE BUSINESS, YOU THINK ALL OF THEM ARE DESIGNATED AS AGENTS, NOT JUST LIKE A W2 EMPLOYEE. YOU THINK THEY CAN, THEY WOULD BE AN AGENT OF THE BUSINESS, , EVERY EMPLOYEE ENTITY. I THINK ANYBODY ACTING ON BEHALF OF THAT ENTITY WOULD BE CONSIDERING AN AGENT. WELL THINK IN THIS CONTEXT, AGENT WOULD ENCOMPASS, UH, EMPLOYEE FOR AN OFFICER. SO WHEN WE DRAFT DOCUMENTS AND WE SAY OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE TO SAY OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES. WE ONLY HAVE TO SAY AGENTS. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE THINKING? RIGHT. YEAH. I THINK IT WOULD BE INCLUSIVE OF THAT. IN, IN THIS CONTEXT. I MEAN, YOU'RE SENDING AN EMPLOYEE TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THAT AGENT OF YOUR ORGANIZATION YES. OR THE, TO THE SENATE MAKE A DEAL WITH THE SENATE. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS? WAS THERE A MOTION? AND I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE. THERE WAS A MOTION AND OFFICER SECOND. UM, MO NO. WHERE DID I, I MOVE APPROVE. AYE UH, THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SECOND. AYE. AYE. AS OPPOSED NAY. MOTION PASSES. OKAY. MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL, YOU HAVE DROPPED FROM FURTHER REVIEW. WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE YOUR INTENTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THESE FINAL PAGES? I, I THINK FOR THE SAKE OF TRANSPARENCY, [02:15:01] WE, WE'VE ALREADY INCLUDED THEM IN, IN THE AGENDA HERE. I THINK IT'S, IT'S GOOD FOR PEOPLE TO, TO KNOW EVERYTHING THAT, ALL THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE, BUT THAT WE WE'RE COME OUT OF THAT WITH THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. AND SO, I MEAN, MY INTENTION WOULD BE TO PASS THE DOCUMENT ALONG, UM, TO GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS AND ETHICS COMMITTEE, THAT AD HOC COMMITTEE, THEY'LL, THAT'S THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS SO THAT THEY'RE AT LEAST AWARE OF IT, BUT NOT NECESSARILY TO, TO PUSH IT. I'M HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE IF YOU'VE LOOKED OVER THEM AND WANNA TALK. AND OF COURSE, THE OTHER, OTHER, UH, WORKING GROUP MEMBERS ARE HERE TO, TO CHIME IN AS WELL. YEAH. JUST TO REITERATE WHAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SAID, THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS IS TO BRING THIS COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO, UH, THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS AND ETHICS CHAIRED BY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO, TIM WILLIS. UM, I DON'T KNOW THE TIMELINE FOR THAT, BUT THAT IS THE NEXT STEP AND IT'LL, IT'LL, UM, IT'LL BE A RECOMMENDATION OF THIS BODY THAT MOVES FORWARD. SO I DO HAVE A QUESTION. I THOUGHT THAT THE, UM, THAT IT WOULD BE TRUE THAT IF SOMEONE, UH, FEELS LIKE THEY'RE GONNA MAKE A COMPLAINT, BUT THEY'RE HELD TO A STANDARD THAT THEY KNOW IT'S A VIOLATION. WHY DID YOU REJECT THAT ONE ABOUT THE REASONABLE BELIEF STANDARD? WHICH NUMBER IS THAT? I'LL TAKE A LOOK. 12 A EIGHT DUTY TO REPORT. OH, RIGHT. SO ON THAT ONE, UH, THAT WAS A RECOMMENDATION THAT I, I ACTUALLY WAS IN FAVOR OF, BUT WE HAD A RICH DISCUSSION AND WE DECIDED THAT, THAT IT REALLY WOULD BE MORE OF A CAN OF WORMS THAN ANYTHING ELSE. AND THAT'S WHY WE DECIDED NOT TO MOVE THAT FORWARD. UM, HERE, UM, EITHER WAY YOU LOOK AT IT, UH, YOU END UP IN, IN THIS DISCUSSION OF, WELL, DO I KNOW, DO I REALLY KNOW THAT'S WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW? I MEAN, AM I REALLY, REALLY SURE? I'M NOT REALLY, REALLY, REALLY SURE. THAT'S WHERE, THAT'S HOW I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO COME FORWARD. AND YOU, YOU, WELL, AND YOU CAN, WHAT, WHERE THE CODE IS RIGHT NOW IS IT REQUIRES THAT YOU FILE A COMPLAINT IF, YOU KNOW, AND IF WE WERE TO GO WITH THIS, UH, REASONABLY BELIEVE STANDARD, YOU END UP IN THE SAME CONVERSATION. BUT, BUT I DO THINK THAT IN THE END, I WOULD AGREE WITH THE WORK OF THE, OF THE WORKING GROUP JUST TO SAY, IF YOU'RE GONNA HAVE ONE DISCUSSION OF THE OTHER, I LIKE IT WHERE THE DISCUSSION IS NOW, AS OPPOSED TO TRYING TO APPLY SOME REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD TO THE ANALYSIS. I, I JUST THINK YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THIS CONVERSATION, BUT THE WAY IT IS NOW IS EASIER. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE FROM THE WORKING GROUP HAS A, AN OPINION, BUT THAT THAT'S WHAT WAS GOING ON THERE. SO IF, IF YOU THINK THE CODE'S BEEN VIOLATED, YOU CAN FILE IF YOU KNOW THERE'S A DUTY TO FILE, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY. THAT, AND THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY OUR DISCUSSION IS THAT YOU JUST, THE LOGISTICS OF HAVING A REQUIREMENT TO A REASONABLE PERSON'S BELIEF STANDARD SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD JUST BECOME VERY COMPLICATED AS FAR AS IT MIGHT. SO I MEAN, IF THEY BELIEVE IT, THEY CAN REPORT IT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT GONNA GET IN TROUBLE FOR MAKING A COMPLAINT. OKAY. IF THE COMPLAINT ENDS UP BEING, YOU KNOW, NOT FOUNDED, THEN THE PROCESS WILL GO THROUGH ANYWAY. GENERALLY SPEAKING, THAT'S SORT OF THE VEIN OF WHAT WE HAD DISCUSS. UNLESS CHAIR BUR HAS ANOTHER LETTER, AND I'LL JUST ADD THAT, YOU KNOW, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WHEN HOLDING SOMEONE TO ACCOUNT FOR NOT REPORTING WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE, CAN PUT ON EVIDENCE, UH, PROOF THAT SOMEONE BEL UH, THAT SOMEONE KNEW SOMETHING. BUT IT'S HARD TO PUT ON EVIDENCE THAT SOMEONE BELIEVED SOMETHING. SO JUST, UM, SINCE THIS IS ALL FAIRLY NEW TO ME, WILL YOU POINT ME TO THE PART THAT DOES TALK ABOUT WHO CAN MAKE A COMPLAINT, I BELIEVE RIGHT NOW THAT WAS ONE OF THE, UH, THAT WAS ONE OF THE PARTS THAT WAS REJECTED 12 A 52 A. THERE WAS A SUGGESTION ON THAT FROM PUBLIC. SAYS ANY PERSON RIGHT NOW, THE RULE IS ANY PERSON MAY FILE RIGHT NOW THE PROVISION IS [02:20:01] THAT ANY PERSON MAY FILE. CORRECT. YEAH. SO THAT ONE SAYS BELIEVES THERE HAS BEEN. OKAY, GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S GOOD. I JUST DIDN'T YEAH. MAKE THAT, UM, DIFFERENTIATION, SO THAT'S GOOD. OKAY. SO YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT? YEAH. YEAH. I DIDN'T, OKAY. ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE PROVISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN DROPPED FROM FURTHER REVIEW? SO WASN'T, WASN'T THERE ONE THAT WAS REJECTED THAT I DIDN'T SEE IN HERE THAT WE'VE BEEN NOTIFIED OF, UH, ABOUT IF SO, AS AN ERROR ABOUT, UM, WHETHER PEOPLE COULD SPEAK TO STAFF MEMBERS ABOUT, UM, ABOUT MATTERS WHERE THERE WAS A CITY SUBSIDY OH, PUBLIC. THAT'S IN, JUST RIGHT THERE. THAT'S THE PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTER. OH, IT'S IN THE, IN THE RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDED FOR EAC FEDERATION, I THINK. OKAY. IS THAT THIS DOCUMENT? SO, AND THAT SHOULD NOT BE IN THAT DOCUMENT BECAUSE THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE WORKING GROUP, BUT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE OTHER ONE. RIGHT. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE ONE THAT DROPPED FROM FURTHER REVIEW. RIGHT. OKAY. SO, UM, ERIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 12 8 29 AND 12 8 35 ABOUT THE PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTERS. MM-HMM . THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE DOCUMENT TITLED, RECOMMENDED FOR EAC CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THE WORKING GROUP DID NOT RECOMMEND THAT CHANGE. SO I'D LIKE TO HEAR ABOUT THAT. SO THE, THE SUGGESTION ON THAT WAS TO, SO THIS, THIS IS THE ONE I ACTUALLY STARTED TALKING ABOUT IT IN ERROR, UM, WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING LOBBYING. UH, THE SUGGESTION ON THAT HAS TO DO WITH 12 A 29 AND 12, A 35, 12, A 29 IS AND 35 ARE IN THE LOBBYING ARTICLE OF THE CODE 12 A 29 IS THE DEFINITION SECTION IN THAT SECTION. IT HAS A DEFINITION OF PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTERS AND IT OUTLINES, I BELIEVE IT'S A THROUGH H ABOUT THAT MANY THINGS THAT IT'S JUST, THESE ARE PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTERS THAT COMES INTO APPLICATION AT 12 A 30 5G TWO, I BELIEVE. I'LL TAKE A LOOK. UM, AND IT'S A PROHIBITION. YOU'VE GOT A G ONE AND A G TWO. YOU'VE GOT A PROHIBITION IN THERE FOR PEOPLE THAT, UM, HAVE A PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTER BEFORE THE CITY. AND IT'S NOT, THE DEFINITION I DON'T THINK IS BEFORE THE CITY, IT'S MORE NUANCED THAN THAT, BUT I'M TURNING TO IT RIGHT NOW. AND, AND IT'S PROHIBITING THEM FROM TALKING TO, UH, LEMME JUST PULL IT UP. 12 A 35 SHALL NOT LOBBY A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, AND THEN IN B ON UNDER PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTER. IT'S COMING AT IT FROM THE OTHER DIRECTION SAYING, A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER SHALL NOT DISCUSS AN APPLICATION OR REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH A LOBBYIST, OR REALLY ANYBODY FROM THE TIME A COMPLETE APPLICATION OF A PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTER OR REQUEST IS ACCEPTED UNTIL THE APPLICANT OR REQUESTER IS NOTIFIED THAT THE PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTER WILL NOT BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA OR IT'S APPROVED. THE ARGUMENT THERE THAT WAS MADE BY THIS MEMBER FROM THE PUBLIC WAS REALLY TWOFOLD. UH, ONE WAS THAT THESE ARE, THESE ARE LEGISLATIVE MATTERS. AND SO THEY'RE WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL AND THE WAY THINGS ARE WORKING NOW, BECAUSE THIS PROVISION IS THERE, UM, EMPLOYEES IN THE CITY ARE FILTERING SOME OF THESE OUT AND TAKING ON THAT EXECUTIVE FUNCTION. AND IF THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE, UM, THE OTHER ARGUMENT AGAINST, AND SO THAT PERSON WANTED TO REMOVE THIS BECAUSE IT FEELS LIKE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN'T REALLY BE DOING THEIR JOB. THE ARGUMENT AGAINST STRIKING THE PROVISION IS SIMPLY THAT, UM, YOU, YOU DON'T WANT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND LOBBYISTS TO, TO MEET ABOUT THESE PROJECTS, [02:25:01] WHICH TEND TO BE HIGH DOLLAR PROJECTS. AND WHILE IN THE PAST, IN SOME OF THE INSTANCES WHERE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE RUN AFOUL OF CRIMINAL LAW, UH, THEY WEREN'T MAYBE PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTERS. I'M NO ACCIDENT, I'M NO EXPERT ON THAT. UH, IT IT'S THAT ISSUE OF WE WANT TO PREVENT COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM THAT TEMPTATION AND, AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE PROVIDING THESE, UH, PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTERS AND TRYING TO GET 'EM PASSED FROM MAKING THOSE, UM, MY PERSONAL INTEREST IN THIS IS THAT THERE, THERE WOULD BE SOME KIND OF MIDDLE GROUND BECAUSE I THINK BOTH INTERESTS ARE CORRECT. UM, I THINK THAT WOULD TAKE SOME WORK, BUT THE MIDDLE GROUND MIGHT BE SOMETHING LIKE, UH, SUPERVISED VISITATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT YOU, THERE'S STRONG OPINION ABOUT THIS. YEAH. AND ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT IT IS THAT THE CONSISTENT ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS BEEN NO, NO, DON'T DO THAT. AND SO RIGHT NOW, THE WAY CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN DEAL WITH THAT IS BY WORKING THROUGH STAFF. AND THAT'S A SUMMARY AND I'D INVITE ANYBODY TO, TO, TO ADD TO THAT, THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT HAPPENED. SO HAVING SERVED ON THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION BOARD FOR MANY YEARS, INCLUDING BEING THE PRESIDENT OF THAT BOARD, UM, I'M, UM, I'VE HAD MY FINGER ON THE PULSE OF, UH, WHAT GOES ON WITH THAT. AND, UH, I WILL SAY THAT THEY HAD A HUGE HEARING ABOUT HOUSING MATTERS AND THE, THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS KEPT SAYING, WE DON'T WANNA BE IN THE DARK. AND IN FACT, IN THAT HEARING, UH, IT WAS A, A COUNCIL MEETING. UM, WELL, THEY'RE GONNA VOTE ON IT, UH, TOMORROW. BUT, UM, I THINK THAT THERE IS GONNA BE A PROVISION NOW IN THE POLICY MANUAL THAT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS MUST BE NOTIFIED IF IT'S IN THEIR DISTRICT, WHICH IS GOOD. AND, AND THEY ALL WANTED THAT, THAT WAS, CAME OUT VERY STRONG. BUT THEN IF THEY GET NOTIFIED ABOUT IT, AND THE ONLY PERSON THAT THEY CAN GET INFORMATION FROM IS A CITY STAFF MEMBER, I, I PERSONALLY THINK THAT THAT'S A PROBLEM. MY, I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS. TO ME, THIS IS, HAS BEEN SUCH A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE FOR THE CITY, CITY OF DALLAS IN THE PAST THAT I, I THOUGHT THIS SHOULD BE A COUNCIL DECISION AS OPPOSED TO THIS BODY THAT IS A MAJOR POLICY ISSUE FOR THIS CITY. AND IS IT, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO RUN AWAY FROM THIS ISSUE, BUT MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE A MAJOR COMFORT DISCUSSION AS, AS THIS THING IS PERCOLATING THROUGH THE PROCESS. SO ANYWAY, THAT WAS WHY IT WAS REMOVED BY, I I THOUGHT BY A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO THOUGHT, WELL, WELL, MAYBE THIS SHOULD BE A COUNCIL POLICY MATTER AS OPPOSED TO THIS BODY MAKING SUCH A SIGNIFICANT POLICY. SO ARE WE ASSURED, DO YOU THINK THAT THE COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER IT IF WE DON'T INCLUDE IT? I, I, I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THEY WILL, BECAUSE I, I KNOW IT, AT LEAST THE PROPONENT, UH, ONE PROPONENT, NOT THE ONLY ONE PROPONENT, UM, IS A COUNCIL MEMBER AND VERY INTERESTED IN THIS DISCUSSION. SO IF IT DOESN'T, I WILL BUY YOU LUNCH AND I WOULD BE VERY SURPRISED WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. OKAY. SO THAT'S THAT, THAT, I THINK THAT'S THE, IS THAT IT? THAT'S, THAT'S EVERYTHING THAT I'VE GOT. THAT'S CITY ATTORNEY. IS THAT IT? THAT'S IT FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM. I BELIEVE. IF WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE, MR. CHAIR. YOU READY? OH, THERE, THE NEXT, THERE. THERE. YES. IT'S A BRIEFING FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, UM, ON THERE. MARCH. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. I WILL GO QUICKLY. LET'S SEE. UM, YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF THE MONTHLY REPORT FROM MARCH. YES. AND I'M JUST GONNA RUN THROUGH SOME HIGHLIGHTS. UM, ONE OF THE THINGS OUR OFFICE DID WAS WE DEVELOPED A QUARTERLY SYSTEM OF REPORTING FOR THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE. IT ROLLED OUT FOR THE FIRST TIME, UH, FOR THIS FIRST QUARTER. [02:30:01] UH, THERE, THERE WERE SOME ISSUES WITH, UH, WITH IT WORKING TECHNICALLY, BUT IT DID PROVIDE, UH, IT FILLED THE GAP. THERE WERE SOME PARTS OF THE REPORTING THAT JUST WEREN'T HAPPENING BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SYSTEM FOR IT. SO I WAS REALLY HAPPY TO WORK WITH BILLY RAY ON THAT, AND THAT WAS FUN. UM, WE'VE DONE THE 12 A RECOMMENDATION PROCESS. I'M NOT GONNA TALK ABOUT THAT ANYMORE. UH, WE HAVE SOME MORE CASES THAT ARE MOVING TO THE EAC. WE HAVE SOME IN THE HOPPER OR THE BATTER'S BOX, SO TO SPEAK. AND, UH, ONE THAT'S, THAT'S BEING SET PRESENTLY. UM, I'VE TALKED ABOUT MANAGEMENT ADVISORIES THAT WORK IS ABOUT DONE. WE, WE ACTUALLY MADE A CHANGE IN 12 A TODAY, UH, IN REFERENCE TO THAT, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NOTICED IT OR NOT, BUT THE OIG MADE ITS FIRST PRESS STATEMENT THAT WAS IN REGARDS TO A GROWING NEWS STORY ABOUT DUAL EMPLOYMENT IN AUSTIN AND DALLAS. AND, UH, A LOT OF WORK WENT INTO THAT ONE. I WAS REALLY SURPRISED AT HOW MUCH WORK GOES INTO THOSE THINGS. BUT THAT'S BEHIND US NOW. AND IT WAS, IT WAS FUN. I'M GLAD THAT WE DID THAT. AND I THINK IT TELLS THE PUBLIC THAT WE'RE OUT THERE AND WE ARE DOING GOOD WORK. UM, UNFORTUNATELY I FOUND OUT TODAY THAT OUR FEDERAL GRANT THAT WE PROPOSED TO GET SOME NEEDED INVESTIGATORY TOOLS, DIDN'T, DIDN'T MAKE IT SO, UM, WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SPEND FEDERAL DOLLARS TO BUY SOME TOOLS. ON THE GOOD NEWS SIDE, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET CLEAR AND, UM, THAT ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION PROCESS IS JUST ABOUT DONE. UH, AND SO WE WE'RE GONNA HAVE CLEAR REAL SOON. UM, CLEAR IS A TOOL THAT WE'VE USED EXTENSIVELY WHEN WE WERE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, BUT WE COULDN'T TAKE IT WITH US AND IT JUST TAKES A WHILE TO GET THINGS DONE SOMETIMES. BUT WE'RE ALMOST THERE AND I'M READY FOR QUESTIONS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? QUARTERLY REPORT WILL BE COMING OUT SOON AND YOU'LL SEE A RISE IN NEW CASES. UM, RIGHT NOW, IN TERMS OF STAFFING, UH, WE FILLED THE TWO VACANT INVESTIGATION, UH, INVESTIGATOR POSITIONS AND NO SOONER DID WE DO THAT. WE HAD ONE RETIRE AND NOW, UH, WE ARE VERY CLOSE TO BEGINNING INTERVIEWS TO GET THAT POSITION REPLACED AND WE'LL HAVE ALL OUR INVESTIGATED. ALRIGHT. AND, AND HOW'S THE PROCESS GOING FOR THEIR SEARCH? THE SEARCH FOR THE IG UH, OFFICIALLY BEGAN, UH, THEY POSTED IT, THE COMPANY'S CALLED SGR. THEY POSTED THE POSITION LAST WEDNESDAY ON TAX DAY . UM, IT, IT APPEARS THAT THERE'S A DEADLINE FOR RESUMES OF MAY 17TH. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, UH, COUNSEL WOULD PREFER IF THEY COULD COMPLETE THE PROCESS MID-JUNE. UM, WE'LL SEE IF THAT HAPPENS. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER BUSINESS? WELL, WE WILL SEE, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. THEY WILL NOW GO TO THE RE RESPECTIVE COUNCIL COMMITTEE FOR CONS, THEIR CONSIDERATION. AND THEN FINALLY, TO THE CITY COUNCIL OR ADOPTION, I JUST MAKE ONE REQUEST OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. UH, ONCE WE KNOW WHEN THIS IS SCHEDULED FOR THE AD HOC COMMITTEE, CAN WE LET NANCY KNOW SO THAT SHE CAN SEND OUT AN EMAIL TO ALL THE MEMBERS IN CASE THEY WANNA WATCH AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO WATCH LIVE? THEY, UH, WE DO KEEP THE RECORDINGS ONLINE. SO IF YOU CAN'T WATCH LIVE, UM, THEN YOU CAN WATCH OUT THAT. YES. AND, AND I THINK THAT MEETING'S COMING UP VERY QUICKLY. I'M, I'M GONNA MEET, I IMMEDIATELY WITH DEPUTY MEPO TIM WILLIS, JUST TO LET HER KNOW WE'VE COMPLETED THE WORK. OKAY. GOLLY, THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH. THIS HAS BEEN GREAT. ALL RIGHT. UH, UH, HAVING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, IT IS, IS 1221. AND OUR, UH, WORK HERE IS DONE MEETING AS ADJOURNED. * 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.