[00:00:01]
ALRIGHT, IT IS ONE THIRTY THREE AND I WILL CALL THE MEETING OF THE GENERAL INVESTIGATING AND ETHICS COMMITTEE TO ORDER OUR, WE HAVE A QUORUM.
OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS APPROVAL OF OUR MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 13TH.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE? SECOND.
ALRIGHT, WE HAVE OUR INTERIM INSPECTOR GENERAL BARON ELIASON HERE TODAY.
AND LAURA PHELAN FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE.
MS. PHELAN, YOUR TITLE ESCAPES ME.
SO WE CAN PROCEED WITH THE ITEM.
WELL GOOD MORNING OR GOOD AFTERNOON AND, UH, THANK YOU.
MY NAME'S BARON ELIASON, INTERIM INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.
AND WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT A RANGE OF RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, THAT HAVE TO DO WITH, UH, THE CODE OF ETHICS 12 A.
WE BEGIN WITH ONE THAT CAME UP AT THE LAST MEETING, IF YOU RECALL.
UH, WE TALKED ABOUT A RANGE OF AMENDMENTS THAT ALL HAVE A FOCUS ON ONE THING, WHICH IS, UH, STRENGTHENING HOW THE CODE DEALS WITH PERSONS DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY.
AS A BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THAT, UH, UNDER THE CODE OF ETHICS, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OFFICE HAS JURISDICTION OVER EMPLOYEES, UH, CITY OFFICIALS, PERSONS DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY AND LOBBYISTS THAT THE QUESTION THOUGH BECOMES WHEN YOU START TRYING TO APPLY THE, IF THIS, THEN THAT RULES IN THE CODE, UH, THE CONNECTION OF THE CODE TO PERSONS DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY DISAPPEARS.
IT, IT WILL SPECIFICALLY SAY, UH, CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES THIS, AND IT LEAVES OUT PERSONS DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY.
AND THAT, UH, PUT US IN AN INTERESTING POSITION ON A COUPLE OF CASES, UH, THAT WE HAD, UH, BEFORE I WAS THE INTERIM.
BUT, UM, THERE WAS ONE IN PARTICULAR, JUST AS A BRIEF EXAMPLE, WHERE WE WOULD'VE FOLLOWED THROUGH ON CHARGES, BUT WE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE WE'D GET VERY FAR IN THE EAC BECAUSE ANY, ANY DEFENSE ATTORNEY WORTH THEIR SALT WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO DISTANCE THE CODE FROM THEM BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE RECOMMENDED TODAY.
NOW AT THE LAST MEETING, THREE QUESTIONS WERE BROUGHT UP ABOUT THAT, UM, WHICH I ADDRESSED.
AND SO IT'S COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE AT THIS POINT TO SEE IF YOU'RE READY TO MOVE IT FORWARD OR IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
UM, LIKE YOU SAID, WE DISCUSSED THIS MATTER BEFORE YOU'VE ADDRESSED OUR QUESTIONS, I HAVE ONE QUESTION, BUT I THOUGHT I WOULD GO ON AND ASK COLLEAGUES ON THE THIS, UH, CHANGE WITH PERSONS DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY.
IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ITEM.
DID YOU, ALRIGHT, SO I DID HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE I KNOW THIS IS ON CHANGE 10, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT WAS SETTING A TIME LIMIT.
AND I SEE THAT WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS JUST DURATION DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO WE WANT TO HANDLE THIS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
AND, AND IN SOME OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS, DIFFERENT TIMEFRAMES CAME UP.
SO THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS CRAFTED AROUND DEALING WITH AN INCONSISTENCY IN THE CODE.
AT, CURRENTLY THE CODE LEAVES IT UP TO THE COUNCIL IN ONE PROVISION AND IT'S JUST OPEN-ENDED.
AND THEN IN THE OTHER PROVISION IT'S GOT TWO YEARS.
AND SO THOSE WERE IN CONFLICTS, WE HAD TO FIX THAT.
AND SO AT THE EAC LEVEL, WE FIXED IT BY JUST LEAVING IT TO COUNCIL'S DISCRETION.
BUT I CAN SAY I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS AND DIFFERENT MINIMUM TIMEFRAMES HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED.
UH, THE MOST RECENT ONE WAS SAY SIX MONTHS.
UH, AND, AND TO UNDERSTAND THAT COMPLETELY, IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT IN THE CODE OF ETHICS WHEN DISCIPLINE APPLIES, THERE IS A RANGE OF DISCIPLINE.
SO IF YOU CHOSE SIX MONTHS, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT EVERY PERSON DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY THAT WAS FOUND GUILTY OF AN ETHICS VIOLATION WAS GONNA BE DEBARRED FOR SIX MONTHS.
DEBARMENT IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHOICES, BUT
[00:05:01]
IT'S A CHOICE ON A LIST REALLY, DEPENDING ON THE CULPABILITY OF THE PERSON THAT VIOLATED THE CODE.AND I'M, BUT PERSONALLY, AS AN IG, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR MY RECOMMENDATION, I I THINK EITHER LEAVING IT TO YOUR DISCRETION OR HAVING A MINIMUM TERM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE BOTH SUITABLE TO ME.
I DON'T HAVE OBJECTIONS TO EITHER ONE.
WELL, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, WELL IT SOUNDS LIKE, UM, I THINK WE WOULD HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE THIS TO COUNCIL.
DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? UM, I CHAIR, I MOVE, I SUGGEST I MOVE THAT, UH, WE ALLOW THIS TO MOVE TO COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
ANY OPPOSED? ALRIGHTY, CARRIES.
THIS IS, UM, ONE OF THIS COMMITTEE'S MAIN TASKS IN CHAPTER 12, A SECTION 64.
THE ENTIRE CHAPTER OF 12 A SHALL BE REVIEWED BY CITY COUNCIL EVERY TWO YEARS IN EVEN NUMBERED YEARS, BEGINNING IN JANUARY, 2024 AND EVERY OTHER JANUARY THEREAFTER.
SO THIS IS ANOTHER STEP IN OUR PROCESS.
UM, IF, UM, I DON'T RECALL IF YOUR DECK HAS A LITTLE BIT OF OUTLINE ON THAT.
WE DON'T REALLY NEED TO BELABOR IT, BUT THIS IS ABOUT THE PUBLIC TRUST.
AND SO THERE WAS VERY MUCH THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE WHO WANTED TO WEIGH IN ON THIS TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SUGGESTIONS.
THERE WAS, WE, WE DID, UH, FOUR TOWN HALLS WASN'T HUGE, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T A BIG CROWD, BUT WE HAD PEOPLE ATTEND AND WE DID PUBLIC SURVEYS AND WE HAD 81 RESPONDENTS.
UM, SO THE OPPORTUNITY WAS THERE.
WELL, I THINK SINCE YOUR ROLE IS STILL FAIRLY NEW, IT'S KIND OF BABY STEPS.
AND I THINK THAT HOPEFULLY WE'LL ACCLIMATE THE PUBLIC TO KNOWING THAT WE CARE VERY MUCH ABOUT, UH, ETHICS AND INTEGRITY AND THEIR TRUST.
AND SO, UM, WE ALWAYS WANT TO HEAR IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT CAN STRENGTHEN CHAPTER, CHAPTER 12 A.
UM, SO TELL ME JUST REAL QUICK ABOUT THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION AND THEN HOW THIS SUBGROUP, UM, LOOKED THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS.
SO, SO THE IDEA WAS TO PROVIDE A, A, A PROCESS THAT WAS ROBUST IN ORDER TO BRING AMENDMENTS AND DO SOME BACKGROUND WORK, UH, FOR COUNCIL SO THAT YOU COULD FULFILL YOUR OBLIGATIONS UNDER 12 A 64, I THINK IT'S 64, 62.
UM, SO WE BROKE THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION INTO WORKING GROUPS, UM, A WORKING GROUP.
WE HAD THREE MEETINGS AND, UH, CONSIDERED 25 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT I MADE CONSIDERED PROBABLY 20 OR SO.
I DIDN'T COUNT RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME IN FROM STAFF MEMBERS, UH, CITY OFFICIAL, UH, THE PUBLIC, AND ENDED UP AT THE 19 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE IN, UH, THE REPORT RIGHT NOW.
AND SO, AND THAT WAS, I'M SORRY.
AND THAT WENT TO EAC DISCUSSED, JUST IN FACT RIGHT HERE.
AND THEN THEY APPROVED THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
ALRIGHT, SO COLLEAGUES, WHAT WE'LL DO IS, THERE ARE THREE SECTIONS TO THIS, AND WE'RE GONNA START WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE WORKING GROUP AND THE EAC WORKED THROUGH.
AND, UM, SINCE THAT PRESUMABLY IS WHAT WE WOULD BE SENDING ON TO OUR COLLEAGUES.
AND THEN WE WILL, WE'VE GOT THE ITEMS THAT WERE NOT RECOMMENDED.
AND RATHER THAN GO THROUGH EVERY SINGLE ONE, I THINK WE CAN JUST CALL OUT THE ONES THAT WE MAY HAVE AN OBJECTION TO OR MIGHT WANNA SEE ADVANCE.
AND THEN, UM, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHER ENTRIES THAT HAVE COME UP SINCE THE WORKING GROUP AND THE EAC MET.
SO WE WANT THOSE TO BE CONSIDERED.
AND SO WE CAN TALK MORE ABOUT THAT PROCESS.
BUT WHY DON'T WE JUMP INTO, UM, THE RECOMMENDED ITEMS. OKAY.
UM, I THINK WE'VE COVERED THE BACKGROUND HISTORY, SO I'M JUST GONNA ROLL THROUGH THE PAPER VERSION, UH, THAT, THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY, DID YOU GET A SET? OH, HERE.
SO WE HAVE SOME RIGHT DOWN HERE.
DO YOU MIND, JUST GIMME YOUR, OKAY.
SO, UH, WE'VE ALREADY BEEN THROUGH THE FIRST ONE IN YOUR STACK AND NOW WE'RE ON THE SECOND ONE HAVING TO DO WITH THE, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE PASSED ALONG FROM THE EAC.
UH, THE WAY I'VE ORGANIZED THIS PRESENTATION IS, UH, I HAVE A, A RED LINE EXCERPT.
SO THERE, THERE'S A SLIDE FOR EACH RECOMMENDATION, AND
[00:10:01]
I SHOW YOU ON THAT SLIDE, UH, THE RED LINE EXCERPT.SOMETIMES I HAVE TO BREAK THAT SLIDE OUT BECAUSE THE EXCERPTS TOO LARGE.
AND THEN A BRIEF DESCRIPTION AND, AND THEN WHAT THE COUNCIL FOCUS, UH, MIGHT BE FOR THAT.
UM, ON PAGE SIX, YOU CAN SEE THE BREAKDOWN OR THE VARIETY OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAS MADE IT THROUGH TO THE COMMITTEE BY CATEGORY.
UH, I LABELED EACH OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY LETTER.
UM, BUT THERE THEY ARE DEFINITIONS, CORRECTIONS, TRAINING, TRANSPARENCY, AUTHORITY, DUE PROCESS, AND ENFORCEMENT.
UH, AND THAT BRINGS US, IF YOU ALL ARE READY ON, UH, PAGE SEVEN TO RECOMMENDATION A, WHICH IS FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
UH, IN THE CODE OF ETHICS, THERE'S A DEFINITION SECTION AT 12 A TWO.
OBVIOUSLY IN ANY KIND OF A STATUTE OR SOMETHING LIKE A CODE OF ETHICS, DEFINITIONS ARE CENTRAL.
UM, WE HAVE JURISDICTION OVER ETHICS, CODE VIOLATIONS, FRAUD, WASTE, ABUSE AND MISCONDUCT.
INTERESTINGLY, THERE IS NO DEFINITION IN THE CURRENT CODE OF ETHICS.
YOU LOOK LIKE YOU WERE GONNA SAY SOMETHING.
UH, THERE IS NO DEFINITION IN THE CURRENT CODE OF ETHICS FOR FRAUD, UH, FOR FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE.
THOSE DEFINITIONS EXIST IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE.
THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS NOT EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THAT WOULD BE NEWS TO A LOT OF PEOPLE AND IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC AND IT DOESN'T MAKE THE CODE EASIER TO USE.
AND SO THE WHOLE THRUST OF THIS RECOMMENDATION IS SIMPLY TO GRAB THOSE DEFINITIONS FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE, PUT 'EM IN THE CODE OF ETHICS.
ANY QUESTIONS? UHM, SHERIFF STEWART? JUST CONFIRMING THEM.
'CAUSE I WAS WONDERING WHERE THE DEFINITIONS CAME FROM.
THEY CAME FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE.
THEY DID WORD FOR WORD VERBATIM.
AND THEN I GUESS THE QUESTION IS JUST PROCEDURALLY, IF, IF YOU WANT TO, UH, DO ALL THIS AT ONCE OR HOW DO WE WANT TO GO THROUGH 'EM? I THINK WHAT WE CAN DO, WHY DON'T YOU GO THROUGH THEM.
AND BECAUSE SOME OF THESE ARE RATHER INVOLVED.
LET'S TOUCH ON IT AND THEN IF WE HAVE A QUESTION, LET'S GO ON AND ADDRESS IT IN THAT MOMENT.
AND THEN WE WILL CONTINUE TO MOVE THROUGH BECAUSE I HAVE A FEELING WE MAY SPEND MORE TIME ON SOME THAN OTHERS.
SO NOW WE'RE ON RECOMMENDATION B.
THAT SHOULD BE PAGE EIGHT IN YOUR PACKET.
WE HAVE A HANDFUL RIGHT OFF THE BAT, JUST IN THE DEFINITION SECTION.
THIS IS A CLARIFICATION, UM, ABOUT THE, THE STATUS THAT A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER HOLDS UNDER THE CODE.
UM, THIS COMES OUT OF CASE LAW AND IT JUST MAKES IT CLEAR TO PEOPLE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE CONFUSING IN TRYING TO APPLY THE CODE, WHICH IS THIS, ARE YOU EMPLOYEES OR NOT UNDER THE CODE? IF YOU ARE EMPLOYEES, THERE'S A CERTAIN SET OF RULES THAT WILL APPLY.
YOU, OBVIOUSLY, YOU'D RECEIVE MAYBE NOT ENOUGH, BUT YOU DO RECEIVE SOME PAY, BUT YOU'RE ALSO ELECTED.
SO IN MY WAY OF THINKING, THERE'S THREE TYPES OF CITY OFFICIALS APPOINTED, ELECTED, AND THEN EMPLOYED.
AND UNDER CASE LAW, YOU DO NOT QUALIFY AS AN EMPLOYEE FOR PURPOSES OF THE CODE.
AND THIS IS JUST CLEARING THAT UP SO THAT MAYBE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE CODE, YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE I FIT.
ANY QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR? OKAY.
AND MOVE ON TO RECOMMENDATION C.
UH, THIS HAS TO DO WITH, UH, RELATIVE, THIS HAPPENS TO BE ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME IN FROM AN EMPLOYEE, UH, HERE AT THE CITY.
UH, I'VE KNOWN THIS ALMOST FROM THE BEGINNING.
I'M NOT SURE WHY IT WAS IMPORTANT, BUT THERE IS A D UH, DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF THE TERM RELATIVE.
AND BY DEFINITION WHAT I MEAN IS HOW FAR OUT ON THE FAMILY TREE YOU GO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A RELATIVE, UM, UNDER THE CODE OF ETHICS.
AND THEN THERE IS UNDER THE PERSONNEL CODE.
AND THE RECOMMENDATION WAS JUST TO MARRY THESE UP SO THAT THEY'RE THE SAME.
IT PULLS WHAT IS LEFT OVER IN THE PERSONNEL CODE INTO THE CODE OF ETHICS.
UH, RECOMMENDATION, DE AND NOW I'M ON PAGE 10.
UH, THIS HAS TO DO WITH STANDARDS OF CIVILITY AND STAFF CONDUCT.
AND THIS LIMITS WHERE THE CODE IS, IT, IT, UH, REDUCES WHO THE CODE APPLIES TO IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION.
SO 12 A FOUR IS THE, TO ME IS THE CIVILITY SECTION OF THE CODE.
THE FIRST SECTION JUST HAS TO DO WITH TREATING ONE ANOTHER THE WAY WE'D LIKE TO BE TREATED, BEING RESPECTFUL, NOT BEING BELLIGERENT.
THE SECOND SECTION HAS TO DO WITH THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES WHEN CITY OFFICIALS
[00:15:01]
NEED INFORMATION ABOUT A PROJECT OR HELP WITH A PROJECT.AND CITY COUNCIL IN THE PAST HAS SET FORTH A PATHWAY FOR THAT TO HAPPEN.
UM, BUT RIGHT NOW THE WAY THE CODE READS IT READS IS ALL CITY OFFICIALS.
WHAT THIS DOES IS IT NARROWS THAT FROM, WELL, LET ME BACK UP.
I'M SURE YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH HOW THIS WORKS, BUT THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK IS THIS, BEFORE A CITY OFFICIAL, UH, ASKS AN EMPLOYEE FOR INFORMATION OR HELP WITH A PROJECT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO GET WITH THE APPROPRIATE APPOINTED OFFICIAL, WHICH IS ALMOST ALWAYS GONNA BE THE CITY MANAGER.
'CAUSE MOST OF THE EMPLOYEES ARE UNDER THE CITY MANAGER.
BUT IT COULD BE CITY ATTORNEY, IT COULD BE INSPECTOR GENERAL, AUDITOR SECRETARY, AND THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR.
SO YOU PAIR WITH THOSE TWO AND THEN THEY FIND THE RIGHT EMPLOYEE FOR WHATEVER IT IS YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH.
AND IT, RIGHT NOW IT APPLIES TO ALL CITY OFFICIALS.
BUT THIS RECOMMENDATION IS MADE BECAUSE I THINK MORE APPROPRIATELY, IT, THIS SHOULD BE NARROWED TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS, THOSE KINDS OF CITY OFFICIALS.
SO FOR INSTANCE, UH, AS AN EXAMPLE, UH, RIGHT NOW IN MY INTERIM ROLE, I'M A CITY OFFICIAL.
I, I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO GO TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND THEN THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR TO DEAL WITH EMPLOYEES.
AND, AND SO THAT'S, THAT WAS THE IDEA BEHIND NARROWING THE APPLICATION OF THIS CIVILITY PROVISION.
UM, MOVING ON TO ECHO RECOMMENDATION E ON PAGE 11.
THIS TIGHTENS UP ETHICS TRAINING AND, UH, WHAT IT IS, WHEN IT APPLIES, WHEN IT HAPPENS, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.
IT CLARIFIES THAT YOU CAN DO IT IN PERSON, YOU CAN DO IT VIRTUALLY.
SO LONG AS IT'S VERIFIABLE, IT CLARIFIES, UH, AND IT ADDS SOMETHING WHICH I THINK THE CITY COUNCIL USED TO DO.
AND I'M EAGER TO GET BACK TO AS A PERSON THAT LIKES TO, TO BE A TRAINER, I LIKE TO DO THAT.
UH, WHICH IS TO OFFER CITY COUNCIL ETHICAL TRAINING ONCE A YEAR.
UM, AND THAT, THAT'S REALLY WHAT, WHAT THIS DOES.
AND I THINK FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS, IT ALSO SIMPLIFIES, UH, THE ISSUE OF WHETHER YOU GET YOUR ETHICAL TRAINING DONE EVERY TWO YEARS OR NOT.
IT, IT WILL GET DONE EVERY YEAR, BUT IT ALSO AFFORDS THE, UH, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL TO HIGHLIGHT THINGS THAT ARE SORT OF THE, THE VIOLATIONS DU JOUR.
NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT WHAT COUNCIL MEMBERS MIGHT BE DOING WRONG, BUT THINGS YOU NEED TO BE LOOKING OUT FOR BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S A TRENDING VIOLATION IN THE CITY.
UM, COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR, UM, IN IN THIS SECTION WHERE IT SAYS VERIFIABLE, IT SAYS TRAINING MAY BE GIVEN VIRTUALLY OR IN PERSON AS LONG AS COMPLETION IS VERIFIABLE.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IT, IT, IT JUST MEANS THAT WE CAN PROVE THAT, UH, IT WAS DONE.
I, I, I GET THE DEFINITION OF VERIFIABLE, BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN AS, UH, IS THAT IT CAN BE VERIFIED? DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO, THAT YOU HAVE TO SIGN OFF ON IT? DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO SIGN OFF SAYING THAT I SAW THIS PERSON TAKE IT.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN PRACTICE RIGHT NOW? UM, AND THIS, THIS MAYBE IS NOT IDEAL.
THE, THE WAY WE ARE PRACTICING RIGHT NOW, IT HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT, THAT I'M THE CHIEF INTEGRITY OFFICER AND I LIKE TO TRAIN PEOPLE IN PERSON.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO DO THAT.
AND SO WHEN I DO THAT, EITHER IN PERSON OR ON TEAMS, WE VERIFY AND LITERALLY GO THROUGH THEM ONE BY ONE.
THAT PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE CHANGED SO THAT IT'S NOT PERSONALITY BASED.
UM, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
UH, NOW SOMETIMES WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON SOMEONE ELSE'S COMPUTER, SO WE ALWAYS WARN 'EM, LOOK, IF, IF YOU'RE ON SOMEONE ELSE'S COMPUTER, WE MAY NOT BE SEEING YOUR NAME.
SOMETIMES, UH, WHEN WE'RE DOING, WHEN I'M DOING TRAINING FOR PEOPLE THAT WORK IN A TRUCK OR SOMETHING LIKE THEY DON'T HAVE COMPUTERS, THEY, THEY MIGHT GATHER MAYBE 10 IN A ROOM.
AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, WE GET A SIGN IN SHEET FROM THE SUPERVISOR AND THEN WE HAND GENERATE.
AND THAT'S NOT 'CAUSE WE DON'T KNOW BETTER ABOUT AUTOMATION, BUT WE WE'RE TRYING TO DO THINGS IN A VERIFIABLE WAY.
AND SO OUR ADMIN HAND GENERATES A CERTIFICATE FOR THEM BASED ON THAT.
SO, SO THAT'S WHAT VI VERIFIABILITY LOOKS LIKE, UH, RIGHT NOW.
[00:20:01]
BARON, UM, IN REGARDS TO THE ETHICS TRAINING, UM, I SEE THAT CITY OFFICIALS AND CITY EMPLOYEES ARE MENTIONED AND THEM DOING TRAINING EVERY TWO YEARS.WHAT ABOUT BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS? UM, MEMBERS? SO THEY QUALIFY AS CITY OFFICIALS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF A CITY OFFICIAL IN 12 A TWO.
AND SO IT, IT APPLIES TO THEM AS WELL BECAUSE THEY ARE CITY OFFICIALS.
AND THAT, THAT WOULD BE AT THE BEGINNING, I GUESS, OF THEIR TERM.
'CAUSE THEY USUALLY SERVE TWO YEAR TERMS. THAT IS A GAP THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
UH, YOU KNOW, EVERY WEEK I DO NEW EMPLOYEE ORIENTATION UHHUH AND I SHOULD, THAT SHOULD BE HAPPENING.
SO THAT'S A GOOD NEXT STEP, UH, WITH BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS.
AND I JUST WOULD BE FRANK, IT'S, IT'S HAPHAZARD.
AND THEN WHAT IS THE THOUGHT ABOUT DOING THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS EVERY YEAR? SINCE WE SERVE TWO YEAR TERMS, I'M ALWAYS FOR MORE, UM, TRAINING.
BUT, YOU KNOW, SINCE WE, WE DO SERVE TWO YEAR TERMS, UM, WOULD THIS BE LIKE A, I GUESS A COUNCIL BRIEFING OR IS IT HOW, YOU KNOW, WILL IT BE, HOW WOULD THIS HAPPEN? RIGHT.
IF, IF THE RECOMMENDATION GETS APPROVED, THE FIRST THING I WOULD WANT TO DO IS, IS LEAN ON THE HISTORY OF WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE IN THE PAST WHEN WE USED TO DO THIS AS A CITY AND FIGURE OUT HOW THEY DID IT, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WAS IN THE FORM OF A BRIEFING.
WHAT I PERSONALLY LIKE ABOUT IT AND WHY I RECOMMEND IT IS, IS AGAIN, BACK TO THAT IDEA.
BACK TO THE IDEA OF, UM, PROMOTING ETHICS.
AND, YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN DO IT IN A COUNCIL MEETING THAT'S TO THE PUBLIC, I THINK THAT ONLY BENEFITS THE WORK OF THE OIG 'CAUSE IT'S JUST ONE MORE WAY TO GET OUT IN FRONT OF THE, UH, THE PUBLIC.
BUT THEN THE OTHER THING THAT I MENTIONED BEFORE WAS JUST THAT, UH, ETHICS, IT MOVES IN TRENDS AROUND HERE.
FOR INSTANCE, RIGHT NOW, UH, A TREND THAT I'M SEEING A LOT OF IS A CONFIDENTIALITY PROBLEM.
YOU KNOW, SO THAT'S SORT OF THE DU JOUR THING LITERALLY RIGHT NOW IN REAL TIME.
AND I THINK BEING ABLE TO BRING THOSE INSIGHTS TO COUNCIL WILL HELP US MOVE THE BALL ALONG IN TERMS OF, OF ETHICS SO WE CAN TIGHTEN DOWN ON SOMETHING SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
SO WE'LL LET YOU ADJUST YEAR TO YEAR, MAYBE.
WHAT ARE SOME THINGS Y'ALL ARE SEEING? EXACTLY.
SO WITH ELECTIONS MOVING AND POTENTIAL OF RUNOFFS AND ALL OF THAT, I MEAN, WE'LL HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF INAUGURATION AND WHEN THIS WOULD FALL.
SO IT WORKS GREAT FOR THE, THAT EVERY TWO YEARS WHEN YOU'VE GOT NEW PEOPLE IN FOR A PUBLIC SESSION, BUT THEY WILL STILL BE GETTING THEIR PERSONAL TRAINING, THAT'S VERIFIABLE AS WELL.
AND SO WHEN ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT JUST FOR NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS PARTICULARLY? YEAH.
SO WHEN, WHEN THAT HAPPENS, UH, WHEN I WAS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WHEN WE WERE UNDER THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, I JOINED IN ON THE REGULAR TRAINING THAT THEY DO ABOUT ALL THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT YOU ALL NEED TO KNOW ABOUT.
AND I WOULD TRAIN IN ETHICS AT THAT TIME AND WE WOULD JUST KEEP DOING THAT BECAUSE YOU, YOU WANT PEOPLE TO BE EQUIPPED RIGHT OFF THE BAT.
UM, THE ONLY THING I DON'T LIKE ABOUT THAT, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU DO ABOUT IT, IS IT'S JUST A SHOWER UNDER NIAGARA FALLS OF INFORMATION FOR NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS.
BUT, UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GET AROUND THAT.
UH, LET'S GO ON TO, UH, RECOMMENDATION F.
THIS IS ABOUT, UH, AREA OF NOTIFICATION, RECUSAL REQUIREMENT.
IS EVERYTHING OKAY? SORRY, GO BACK.
MENDELSON, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON THE PREVIOUS ITEM? IT LOOKS LIKE SHE DID.
UM, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE TRAINING COULD BE A VIDEO THAT, UM, A COUNCIL MEMBER COULD ACCESS AS THEY'RE AVAILABLE? IT IS, YES.
AND, AND THAT'S THE PART ABOUT, UH, THE VIRTUALLY OR, OR IN PERSON, UH, BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP THOSE RESOURCES? AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S BECAUSE OF MY BACKGROUND.
I JUST LIKE TO TRAIN PEOPLE IN PERSON, BUT WE NEED VIRTUAL ASSETS 'CAUSE NOT EVERYBODY CAN, CAN BE THERE, UH, WHEN I'M AVAILABLE TO DO A TRAINING.
AND SO THAT'S INCORPORATED INTO THIS RECOMMENDATION.
WELL, I GUESS I'M SAYING EVEN A STEP FURTHER.
UM, LIKE THE STATE DOES ETHICS TRAINING WHERE YOU WATCH A VIDEO, IT'S, IT'S NOT WHERE YOU SCHEDULE A VIRTUAL MEETING
[00:25:02]
MM-HMMAND SO THIS ALSO PROVIDES STANDARD INFORMATION.
EVERYBODY HEARS THE SAME EXACT WORDS, NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, MAYBE SOMEONE WAS HAVING A GOOD DAY OR NOT A GOOD DAY WHEN THEY WERE DOING THE TRAINING.
SO, UM, I I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO SEE THAT HAPPEN.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN EASILY DO.
WELL, AND I KNOW YOU'VE HAD, I THINK IT'D BE A GOOD, I I, I THINK THE POINT'S WELL TAKEN THAT IT'S WELL TAKEN BY ME.
THAT WHEN YOU DO IT THAT WAY, YOU CAN MAKE SURE EVERYTHING THAT YOU WANT PEOPLE TO HEAR IS IN THE TRAINING AND THERE ARE NO GAPS.
WELL ALSO, IF YOU NEED TO GO BACK AND REVIEW A SECTION, YOU CAN YEAH.
YOU KNOW, YOU CAN GO LOOK IT UP AND REWATCH THAT ONE AREA.
MAYBE IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S GONNA APPLY TO YOU WHEN YOU START BEING A COUNCIL MEMBER AND THEN YOU FIND THAT ACTUALLY YOU'RE HAVING AN ISSUE.
UM, SO, AND FRANKLY YOU COULD DO THE SAME KIND OF THING THAT'S A LITTLE MORE EMPLOYEE ORIENTED.
UM, SO THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHTS.
UH, SO WE'RE BACK ON ITEM F, AREA OF NOTIFICATION AND RECUSAL.
THIS COMES OUT OF AN, OF AN ACTUAL CASE.
UM, AND, AND NOT TO TALK DIRECTLY ABOUT THE CASE, BUT JUST IN GENERAL, WHAT THIS IS ADDRESSING IS WHEN SOMEONE HAS TO RECUSE THEMSELVES OUT OF AN AREA OF NOTIFICATION CASE, IN OTHER WORDS, THEY HAVE A PROPERTY INTEREST, WHICH IS THE WAY THE CODE DESCRIBES IT.
ANY, IT'S, IT'S NOT SUBSTANTIAL THOUGH.
HERE'S JUST ANY, UH, THEY HAVE TO RECUSE THEMSELVES.
THE QUESTION THAT I THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS, BUT IT'S NOT CLEAR IN THE CODE, IS WHEN DOES THAT RECUSAL END? AND SO THAT CAME INTO SHARP RELIEF IN A CASE WHERE SOMEBODY RECUSE THEMSELVES, COUNSEL MADE THE DECISION, AND THEN THAT PERSON TRIED TO DO AN IN ROUND IN RUN AROUND THE DECISION AND GET IT CHANGED BEFORE IT WAS IMPLEMENTED.
AND SO WHAT THIS DOES TO ADDRESS THAT IS IT MAKES IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RECUSE YOURSELF, YOU REMAIN RECUSED UNTIL THE DECISION HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THAT IS.
SO THIS ONE CAUGHT MY ATTENTION AND I'M GLAD IT'S BASED ON AN ACTUAL SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
'CAUSE I WAS GONNA ASK YOU TO GIVE US AN EXAMPLE.
UM, SO FINAL DISPOSITION, DO WE NEED TO BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS OR DOES? IS THAT A, UNDER A TERM THAT OF OUR, THAT OF ART, SO TO SPEAK, THAT WE KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.
I'LL ASK IF, IF, UH, MS. MORRISON WOULD ADDRESS THAT.
I DON'T BELIEVE DISPOSITION NECESSARILY IS A TERM OF ART.
IT'S, IT WAS JUST A WAY TO GET AT THE FACT THAT THE DECISION'S BEEN MADE AND IT NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED.
SO A SALE OF PROPERTY, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, WOULD IT BE ONCE THE CLOSING HAS HAPPENED, ONCE THE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED? I MEAN, I'M JUST TRYING TO, BECAUSE I GUESS YOUR ILLUSTRATION POINTS OUT THAT IF SOMEBODY'S REALLY WORKED UP ABOUT THIS, THEY MAY TRY TO GET INTO IT AFTER A DECISION HAS BEEN MADE AND TRY TO CONTINUE THEIR INFLUENCE OR MM-HMM
OR START, START THEIR INFLUENCE BACK UP, SO TO SPEAK.
SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS AS TO HOW CLEAR ARE THESE PARAMETERS SO THAT WE CAN MEASURE THAT AND WE, AND WE KNOW IF SOMEONE'S BEHAVIOR IS WITHIN, IS BEING CONTROLLED BY THIS OR THE DISPOSITION HAS HAPPENED AND ALL'S GOOD, AND THEY'RE CLEAR TO SCREAM IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS NOW WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS ARE.
I, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT, ABOUT IT.
AND UM, IT OBVIOUSLY IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS TO LAWYERS ALL THE TIME WITH A WORD YOU GET INTO A GRAY AREA.
WELL, IS THIS DISPOSED OF OR NOT OFF SITTING HERE RIGHT NOW IN THE MOMENT? UM, I THINK TWO THINGS.
I THINK YOU, YOU'RE ONTO SOMETHING THAT IT NEEDS TO BE AS CLEAR AS IT CAN BE SO THAT WE DON'T WALK INTO GRAY AREAS.
UH, BUT THE SECOND THING IS, I MEAN, RIGHT NOW SITTING HERE, I DON'T HAVE A, A SUGGESTION THAT I THINK GETS IT MUCH FURTHER, WHICH DOESN'T MEAN WE, WE COULDN'T FIND ONE, BUT COMPLETION OF THE DECISION OR NOW ONE THING IS THIS, THIS HAS TO DO WITH AREA OF NOTIFICATION CASES, AND SO MAYBE WE COULD FIND A TERM THAT SPECIFICALLY APPLIES TO THOSE SINCE THAT'S THE SUBJECT THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.
I JUST WAS CURIOUS IF, IF WE WERE COMFORTABLE WITH
[00:30:01]
THAT LANGUAGE AS BEING CLEAR AND DEFINITIVE ENOUGH.I'M COMFORTABLE TO GIVE US A DIRECTION, PERSONALLY COMFORTABLE, BUT I THINK IT'S, IT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAT YOU ALL ARE COMFORTABLE WITH IT.
THERE'S JUST SO MANY GRAY AREAS IN TODAY'S WORLD, SO, ALL RIGHT.
RECOMMENDATION G UH, THIS, THIS ONE IS ACTUALLY COVERED ON SEVERAL PAGES BECAUSE IT, YOU JUST CAN'T FIT ALL OF THE SMALL CHANGES ONTO ONE SLIDE LIKE THAT.
BUT IT HAS TO DO WITH REPRESENTATION OF PRIVATE INTERESTS.
UH, THIS WAS ONE OF MY RECOMMENDATIONS.
THE ONE OF THE CHIEF REASONS I MADE IT WAS FROM THE GET GO.
IT HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT I'VE HAD TO REDRAW OUT ALMOST EVERY TIME ONE OF THESE ISSUES CAME UP.
IT, I THINK THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN, IT WAS CONFUSING.
IT WAS CONFUSING BECAUSE IT DIVIDED THE POPULATION OF PEOPLE.
THE CODE APPLIES TO, INTO SEVERAL GROUPS.
WHEN YOU'RE DOING YOUR REPRESENTATION, ARE YOU COMPENSATED? ARE YOU NOT COMPENSATED? ARE YOU AN EMPLOYEE? ARE YOU A CITY OFFICIAL? IF YOU'RE A CITY OFFICIAL, IS THIS QUASI-JUDICIAL OR IS IT ADVISORY? AND THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS THAT APPLY DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU FIT ON ALL THAT.
BUT NONE OF, NONE OF THOSE DIFFERENTIATING CHARACTERISTICS TO ME MADE A GREAT DEAL OF DIFFERENCE WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE SPIRIT OF THIS, WHICH IS TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE SQUARE DEALS IN THE CITY, AND THAT WHEN SOMEBODY IS REPRESENTING SOMEBODY ELSE, IF THEY ARE PART OF THE CITY, THERE'S TRANSPARENCY AND A SQUARE DEAL HAPPENS.
AND SO I FOUND, UH, THAT THIS RECOMMENDATION GETS AT THAT, WHICH IS KEEP THE, THE PARTS OF THE EXCEPTIONS THAT DO GOOD THINGS THAT WE LIKE, WHICH IS BASICALLY ALL THE EXCEPTIONS, BUT GET RID OF THE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN COMPENSATED AND UNCOMPENSATED.
SO THE RESULT IS WHETHER SOMEBODY'S PAYING YOU OR NOT, IF YOU'RE A CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE IN THE CITY, YOU'RE REPRESENTING SOMEBODY ELSE.
THERE ARE RULES AND EXCEPTIONS AND IT'S, IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE.
UM, SO WE COULD WALK THROUGH IF YOU'D LIKE, WHAT WAS TAKEN OUT.
UM, BUT IT'S BASICALLY THAT THE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN WHETHER YOU'RE COMPENSATED OR NOT.
UM, SUB 0.2, THE EXCEPTIONS I, I THINK NEED SOME GRAMMATICAL REVISION.
IT EITHER NEEDS TO SAY THE RESTRICTIONS IN THE SUBSECTION DO NOT APPLY IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES, OR IT NEEDS TO SAY AFTER THAT, UM, PREAMBLE UNDER A, A PERSON WHO IS A CITY OFFICIAL, ONLY BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS AN APPOINTED MEMBER OF A BOARD COMMISSIONER OR BODY WHO MAY REPRESENT A PERSON, GROUP, OR ENTITY BEFORE THE CITY SALONS.
THE REPRESENTATION IS NOT BEFORE, AND THEN THE FOLLOWING.
YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? MM-HMM
SUB POINT A DOESN'T SEEM TO BE GRAMMATICAL WITHOUT ONE OF THOSE TWO CHANGES.
I HAVE NO, NO ISSUE PERSONALLY WITH, UH, WE NEED TO FIX IT.
UM, WHICH, WHICH ONE DO YOU THINK IS THE BETTER OF THE TWO COUNCIL MEMBER? RIDLEY, THIS IS LAURA MORRISON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
I, I, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
UM, SINCE THERE ARE MULTIPLE SUB POINTS THROUGH D AT LEAST PERHAPS THE PREAMBLE SHOULD BE AMENDED TO SAY IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES, I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO SAY IT, BUT SINCE WE'RE IN A QUIET MOMENT, I WANT TO THANK THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR OUR COLLABORATION.
LET'S MOVE ON TO RECOMMENDATION H.
THIS HAS TO DO WITH EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.
AND, UH, THIS IS CLARIFYING AN ISSUE THAT ACTUALLY CAME UP IN A DIFFERENT FORM IN ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THAT WAS NOT MOVED FORWARD BY THE EAC.
UM, BUT IT, IT'S, IT'S BEEN A PERENNIAL PROBLEM.
AS AN EXAMPLE, I'M SURE YOU KNOW, CPC COMMITTEE HANDLES MATTERS THAT ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL AND ADVISORY, BUT WE THINK OF THEM, AT LEAST I DID AS AN ADVISORY BODY.
UM, BUT THE REAL ISSUE IS NOT THE, WHAT THE BODY DOES SINCE THERE'S MIXED, IT'S THE MATTER.
AND SO WHAT THIS DOES IS IT SWITCHES THE FOCUS OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS FROM WHAT BODY YOU SIT ON TO WHETHER THE MATTER IS QUASI-JUDICIAL OR ADVISORY.
[00:35:01]
I DISCRETIONARY CONTRACTS.UH, THIS ONE IS ONE THAT HAPPENS TO FLOW FROM AN ACTUAL CASE.
WHAT THIS PROVISION SUBSECTION OR SECTION 12 A 27 DOES, UH, IS, IS IT PUTS RESTRICTIONS ON FORMER EMPLOYEES ON THE KIND OF WORK THEY CAN DO WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR AFTER THEY LEAVE THE CITY.
AND, AND I IMAGINE THAT THE WHOLE PURPOSE HERE IS TO PREVENT COMPANIES FROM CHERRY PICKING EMPLOYEES THAT ARE WORKING ON PROJECTS, BRINGING THEM INTO THEIR COMPANY, THINKING THEY, THEY HAVE SOME INFLUENCE AT THE CITY, AND USING THAT INFLUENCE.
WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WAS, UH, A PERSON DID THAT, UH, THEY CONTINUED TO WORK ON A PROJECT, BUT THEY DIDN'T FIT THE DEFINITION UNDER THE CODE AS BEING AN OFFICER OR A PRINCIPAL.
AND SO WE, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO BRING THAT COMPLAINT, BUT WE ARE ABLE TO TRY AND FIX IT NOW BY REMOVING OFFICER OR PRINCIPAL AND JUST SAYING, LOOK, IF, IF YOU'RE GONNA OPERATE AS AN AGENT FOR THAT COMPANY, DON'T EXPECT YOU'RE, YOU'LL BE DOING THAT AT THE CITY OF DALLAS UNTIL YOU, YOU GET PAST YOUR ONE YEAR LIMITATION.
UH, THE NEXT ONE IS J ON PAGE 18.
IT HAS TO DO WITH LOBBYING DEFINITIONS.
AND, UH, THIS ONE IS REALLY ABOUT TRANSPARENCY.
UM, IN THE CODE OF ETHICS, THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO SETS OF DEFINITIONS.
THERE'S THE ONE IN 12 A THAT DEALS WITH MOST OF THE CODE, BUT THEN IN THE LOBBYING ARTICLE, I THINK IT'S ARTICLE FIVE, THERE'S ANOTHER SET OF DEFINITIONS THAT APPLIES TO THAT ARTICLE IN PARTICULAR, ONE OF THE DEFINITIONS IS THE DEFINITION OF LOBBYING WITHIN THAT DEFINITION.
AND AFTER YOU FIND OUT WHAT LOBBYING IS, IS A WHOLE LAUNDRY LIST OF EXCEPTIONS.
IN THOSE EXCEPTIONS, THERE ARE A SERIES OF ACTIVITIES WHERE I THINK THE BURDEN OF TRANSPARENCY IS, UH, LOW.
JUST SAYING THAT YOU'RE A LOBBYIST AND THE BENEFIT OF TRANSPARENCY IS HIGH.
AND THAT IS IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE INTERACTION OCCURS IN A PUBLIC VENUE.
AND SO WHEN YOU LOOK LIKE A PUBLIC MEETING OR A PETITION, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS THAT ARE PUBLIC.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S BEEN CROSSED OUT IN THE RED LINE EXCERPT, YOU'LL FIND ALL FOUR OR FIVE OF THEM, I'LL HAVE TO LOOK TO BE SURE.
UH, BUT THEY DEAL WITH, UH, PUBLIC THINGS.
SO FOR INSTANCE, THE NUT OF IT IS, RIGHT NOW LOBBYING DEFINITION IS X, Y, AND Z, BUT IT'S NOT IF YOU DO IT IN THE FORM OF A WRITTEN COMMENT FILED IN A PUBLIC PROCEEDING OR A COMMUNICATION THAT IS MADE ON THE RECORD IN A PUBLIC PROCEEDING.
SO, UH, THE SECOND ONE WOULD BE IT'S NOT LOBBYING IF IT'S MADE IN WRITING AS A PETITION FOR OFFICIAL ACTION AND REQUIRED TO BE PART OF A PUBLIC RECORD.
UM, IT'S NOT LOBBYING IF IT'S MADE IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC NOTICE SOLICITING COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC.
AND FINALLY, REALLY, I SHOULD HAVE READ THIS FIRST, IT'S NOT LOBBYING IF IT'S MADE AT A MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
SO I THINK WHAT HAPPENS IN PRACTICE, AT LEAST FROM TIME TO TIME, ASSUME, LET'S ASSUME I'M A LOBBYIST, BUT THIS IS A PUBLIC MEETING, BUT, AND SO I CAN ENGAGE IN LOBBYING ACTIVITY.
NOW, YOU KNOW, I'M A LOBBYIST, BUT NOBODY ON TV KNOWS I'M A LOBBYIST.
AND THAT'S A TRANSPARENCY ISSUE.
AND SO REMOVING THESE SECTIONS, UH, PLACES ALL THE BURDENS ON THE PERSON WHO IS A LOBBYIST TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES THAT EXIST ELSEWHERE IN THE CODE, WHICH IS TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES.
I'M LOBBYING FOR SUCH AND SUCH, CHAIR, RIDLEY.
SO THE INTENT OF THIS CHANGE IS TO DELETE EXCEPTIONS TO THE DEFINITION OF LOBBYING FOR PUBLIC ACTIVITY.
AND WHAT'S THE REASONING BEHIND THAT? THE REASON RATIONALE BEHIND IT IS TRANSPARENCY.
AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE BURDEN OF SAYING YOU REPRESENT SOMEONE IS LOW, YOU JUST SAY IT, BUT YOU GET TRANSPARENCY WITH THE PUBLIC.
SO YOU ALL LIKELY KNOW WHEN SOMEBODY'S UP HERE THAT IT'S THEIR JOB TO BE A LOBBYIST.
THEY DO IT ALL THE TIME, BUT THE PUBLIC DOESN'T KNOW THAT.
AND SO WHEN THEY'RE CONSIDERING SOMETHING AND A LOBBYIST COMES UP AND LOBBIES, THEY THINK IT'S JUST JOHN Q PUBLIC, THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
UH, AND SO JUST FOR THE PRICE OF SAYING, I HAPPEN TO BE A LOBBYIST, NOW, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT, WHAT I NEED TO TELL YOU.
SO THE INTENT OF THIS IS THAT LOBBYISTS CAN MAKE STATEMENTS AT PUBLIC MEETINGS AS LONG AS THEY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS A LOBBYIST AND WHO THEY'RE LOBBYING ON BEHALF OF.
[00:40:01]
YES.UM, I, I GUESS THAT'S A WORTHWHILE CHANGE.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT A LOBBYIST, IF THEY JUST PRESENT THEIR OPINION AT A PUBLIC MEETING WITHOUT SAYING THEY'RE A LOBBYIST, AND WHO THEY'RE LOBBYING FOR, PROBABLY HAS NO MORE INFLUENCE THAN A NORMAL MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.
THEIR INFLUENCE COMES FROM IDENTIFYING WHO THEY'RE REPRESENTING.
AND SO LET ME SAY MORE TO THAT.
THERE'S ANOTHER SECTION, A FEW MORE SECTIONS DOWN IN THE CODE THAT DEALS WITH IDENTIFICATION OF CLIENTS.
AND ONE OF 'EM HAS TO DO WITH WHEN YOU'RE IN A PUBLIC FORUM.
AND I BELIEVE THAT'S ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS, NOT JUST TO SAY YOU'RE, YOU'RE A LOBBYIST, BUT WHO YOU ARE REPRESENTING.
SO THAT DOVETAILS WITH SECTION 29 IN THAT THIS, UM, DESIGNATES A LOBBYIST ACTIVITY AS SPEAKING AT A PUBLIC MEETING.
AND THEN THE SUBSEQUENT REGULATION REQUIRES THAT THEY IDENTIFY WHO THEY'RE REPRESENTING.
AND THERE, THERE IS A WEAKNESS IN THAT THAT DID NOT COME UP, UH, THAT I THINK IT'S WORTH ME BREAKING OUT FOR YOU, UM, BECAUSE IT MAY GENERATE SOME MORE QUESTIONS OR, OR DISCUSSION.
BUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IDENTIFY IDENTIFICATION OF CLIENTS, THAT'S IN 12 8 36, AND IT'S BROKEN DOWN INTO THREE SECTIONS.
SO WHEN YOU MAKE AN APPEARANCE, THAT'S A, A, UH, WHEN YOU HAVE AN ORAL LOBBYING CONTRACT, UH, CONTACT IN THE HALLWAYS OR SOMETHING THAT'S B BUT THE THIRD ONE IS INTERESTING.
IT'S A WRITTEN LOBBYING CONTRACT, LIKE, UH, CONTACT, LIKE AN EMAIL.
AND IN THIS ONE FOR SOME, FOR, THERE'S SOME HISTORY, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT IT REQUIRES THAT YOU BE A REGISTERED LOBBYIST TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF.
AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD WANT TO, UH, HAVE THAT EXTRA PART IN THERE THAT MIGHT ELIMINATE SOME LOBBYISTS FROM IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES TO YOU WHEN THEY WRITE AN EMAIL TO YOU.
UM, BUT I BRING THAT UP JUST FOR YOUR EDIFICATION AND KNOWLEDGE OF THESE IDENTIFICATION THINGS AS YOU CONSIDER THE UNDERLYING RECOMMENDATION.
WELL, I'M NOT SURE THAT'S A WHOLE, BECAUSE A LOBBYIST HAS TO BE REGISTERED TO LOBBY, DON'T THEY? NO.
THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF LOBBYISTS REGISTERED AND UN AND UNREGISTERED, AND THIS IS A GREAT CONVERSATION.
SO THE, UH, SO I THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
IF THEY'RE NOT COMPENSATED WITH, UH, AND COMPENSATION IS BROADLY DEFINED, IF THEY'RE NOT COMPENSATED FOR THE LOBBYING AT A CERTAIN LEVEL, I BELIEVE IT'S $300, UH, EITHER THROUGH EXPENSES OR DIRECT PAYMENT, THEY DON'T HAVE TO, UH, REGISTER.
NOW, WHERE THAT GETS INTERESTING IS WHAT COUNTS AS COMPENSATION.
AND I THINK, UH, THAT BECOMES A PROBLEM WHEN SOMEBODY, UH, UM, I REALLY DON'T WANT TO SAY ALL THIS IN
HAVE I BEEN COMPENSATED? UH, I THINK THAT'S A, I THINK THAT PROBABLY HAPPENS.
I DON'T EVEN THINK IT, I KNOW THAT HAPPENS.
UH, AND I THINK IT'S, IT'S AN ISSUE THAT DOESN'T GET ADDRESSED WHEN WE SAY HERE, YOU HAVE TO REGISTER, BE A REGISTERED LOBBYIST IN ORDER TO HAVE TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF WHEN YOU WRITE EMAILS TO PEOPLE ABOUT PROJECTS.
UM, NOW THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE RECOMMENDATION, BUT IT IS THE FULLER SCOPE OF, OF WHAT'S GOING ON WITH LOBBYING SHERIFF STEWART.
WHEN IN WHAT SITUATION DOES A PERSON NEED TO DISCLOSE THAT THEY ARE A LOBBYIST? THERE IS SPEAKER AT A CITY COUNCIL MEETING RIGHT NOW THAT IS A PUBLIC MEETING, AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES.
UM, IN AN EMAIL TO A COUNCIL MEMBER, THEY ONLY HAVE TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES IF THEY'RE REGISTERED LOBBYISTS.
AND SO THEN YOU HAVE TO QUALIFY AS A REGISTERED.
THE BAR'S NOT HIGH, BUT, BUT THERE'S, IT'S JUST INTERESTING HOW THAT CAN PLAY OUT.
I THINK THERE'S SOME GRAY, A LOT OF GRAY AREAS IN THERE, IS WHAT I'M THINKING.
AND, AND THE WHETHER THEY HAVE TO REGISTER OR NOT, AND WHETHER THEY DO, AND, AND THEN I WOULD, I WOULDN'T SAY IT, IT IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE, THE
[00:45:01]
QUESTION YOU WERE GETTING AT BEFORE ABOUT THE WORD DISPOSITION.AND THAT'S JUST WHAT HAPPENS IN THE LAW.
YOU, YOU, YOU TRY AS HARD AS YOU CAN TO FIND JUST THE RIGHT WORD, BUT THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE TO HAVE LAWYERS.
'CAUSE AT SOME POINT THE FACTS AND THE SITUATION THAT ARE INVOLVED, AND, AND THAT'S HOW LEGAL OPINIONS WORK.
YOU HAVE LAW AND YOU HAVE FACTS, AND YOU MAKE A DECISION AND RATIONALE.
AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE CASES WHERE IF WE WERE GOING TO BRING A LOBBYING CASE TO THE EAC, UH, I CAN, I KNOW OF SOME SITUATIONS WHERE THERE WOULD, THERE WOULD BE SOME TECHNICAL, A LOT OF TECHNICAL REASONING GOING ON TO ARGUE THAT COMPENSATION HAD OCCURRED IN ORDER TO MAKE THE ELEMENTS OF THE CASE THAT A LOBBYING VIOLATION OCCURRED.
DID I MAKE IT WORSE? NO, IT JUST, THERE'S A LOT TO FOCUS TO KIND OF SORT THROUGH CHAIRMAN MENDELSON.
WELL, THIS ITEM ACTUALLY CAUGHT MY EYE BECAUSE I RECALL A SITUATION WHERE A PERSON SPOKE BEFORE COUNSEL THAT WAS KNOWN TO BE A LOBBYIST TO ME, BUT THEN WAS QUOTED IN THE MEDIA AS IF THEY WERE A, A TYPICAL CITIZEN, UH, ADVOCATING ON THEIR OWN BEHALF.
AND SO WHEN I SAW THIS, I THOUGHT, WELL, OKAY, YOU'RE GONNA TAKE CARE OF THAT ISSUE.
AND SO I DO THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY, AND I APPRECIATE IT.
I I WILL SAY ANECDOTALLY, I'VE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE COME UP TO ME, ESPECIALLY IN THE INTERIM ROLE, AND SAY, DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT PERSON AS A LOBBYIST? AND YES, I UNDERSTAND IT, BUT THERE'S AN EXCEPTION IN THE CODE.
AND THAT REALLY, THE REAL LIFE WORKING OUT OF THIS IN CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND PEOPLE SEEING THAT AND THINKING THIS IS NOT ON THE UP AND UP, AND THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY VIOLATING THE CODE.
THAT WAS THE GENESIS OF THIS RECOMMENDATION, WAS TO TRY AND FIX THAT RIGHT.
I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR CONFIDENCE.
EXTENDING THAT I THINK I CAN CONSTRUCT A SCENARIO WHERE THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT CHANGE, AND THAT IS WHERE WE HAVE A CONTROVERSIAL PUBLIC ISSUE, AND WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE TESTIFYING ON ONE SIDE OF THE ISSUE AS A RESULT OF COMPENSATION.
THEY HAVE RECEIVED FROM SOME INTERESTED PARTY, BUT THEY DON'T DISCLOSE THAT THEY'RE REPRESENTING THAT PARTY.
THEY APPEAR TO BE JUST MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
THIS NOW WOULD ELIMINATE THAT EXCEPTION.
THEY BECOME LOBBYISTS AND THEY HAVE TO DISCLOSE WHO THEY ARE REPRESENTING.
THAT'S AN ESSENTIAL CHANGE IS MORE THAN TWO.
SO ARE YOU, SO I MEAN, YOU GAVE SOME EXAMPLES THERE OF KIND OF AN END RUN MM-HMM
DID THE, DID THE, DID THAT GET WORKSHOPPED OR THAT WAS DISCUSSED? I MEAN, THAT SOUNDS LIKE A REALLY HARD THING TO PIN ON.
I, I DIDN'T BRING, I DIDN'T BRING THAT PARTICULAR THING UP TO THE EAC BECAUSE I THINK ON THE, ON THE FACE OF IT, BECAUSE OF WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY'S TALKING ABOUT IT, IT IS JUST CLEAR ENOUGH THAT, THE WAY I PHRASE IT, THE BURN, THE, THE BURDEN TO BENEFIT RATIO IS REALLY GOOD HERE.
YOU JUST HAVE TO SAY, I AM BARIS AND I'M, I'M REPRESENTING WHATEVER IT IS.
AND THEN MOVE ON WITH YOUR PRESENTATION.
AND YOU'VE, YOU'VE COVERED YOURSELF.
UH, I, I DIDN'T GET INTO THAT OTHER SITUATION.
WELL, AND THAT'S ANOTHER POINT ABOUT THIS IS, I MEAN, WE WE'RE GONNA, WE REVIEW THIS AND, UH, EVEN NUMBERED YEARS AND WE'RE TASKED WITH TAKING THIS ON, BUT THIS, WE CAN BRING THINGS FORWARD AT ANY TIME.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I, IF GOING BACK TO THE TRAINING PORTION, IT SOUNDS AS IF THERE MAY NEED TO BE TRAINING ALSO FOR LOBBYISTS OR P OR, OR AT LEAST SOME OFFER OF SOME VERIFICATION.
YOURE, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
AND THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S ON MY LIST OF, UH, THINGS TO DEVELOP.
UM, AND REALLY TO, UH, THE PLAN IS TO DEVELOP THAT TRAINING, MAKE IT CLEAR, EASY TO FIND ACCESSIBLE, TRACKABLE, AND ALSO, UM, MAKE IT A PART OF THE WEBSITE.
YOU JUST REALLY GOTTA PLAY IT UP.
WELL, I THINK WITH ANY OF THESE CHANGES, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE COMMUNICATING TO PEOPLE THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY SOME OF THE CHANGES.
AND I, I HAPPEN TO, TO AGREE THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, IN THERE, IN MY OPINION, UH, RECOMMENDATION K, IDENTIFICATION OF CLIENTS.
THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
[00:50:01]
IT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.UM, IT DOES SPECIFICALLY IF, IF THE PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATION IS PUT INTO PRACTICE, THEN THIS ONE JUST FLOWS RIGHT FROM IT.
IT ALSO REMOVES, UH, THAT PHRASE IDENTIFIED IN SECTION 12, A 29, 1 H 12, A 12, A 29 1 H DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE IN THE CODE.
SO THIS IS JUST AN ERROR THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED.
UM, AND THEN YOU ADD IN A PUBLIC MEETING.
AND THAT DOVETAILS REALLY WELL WITH WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT.
COUNCIL MEMBER ENA UH, RECOMMENDATION.
MY, SORRY, I HAD ONE QUESTION.
JUST, YOU KNOW, AS I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE LOBBYIST, SO HOW WOULD YOU DEF UM, SEE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LOBBYIST VERSUS AN ACTIVIST? BECAUSE THEY COULD IN SOME WAYS BE BOTH WITH, I THINK I'M GETTING CONFUSED WITH
IT CAN HAPPEN AND, AND THERE, UH, WHAT YOU DO RUN INTO, I THINK THAT WILL, I, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE GONNA ADDRESS THIS.
AND THIS IS WHERE I THOUGHT, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY WAS GOING A MOMENT BEFORE IS, UH, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT IS A LOBBYIST FOR SOMEONE, BUT THEY ALSO FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT THIS AND THEY COME DOWN AND THEY EXERCISE THEIR FREE SPEECH RIGHTS TO TALK ABOUT AN ISSUE, UM, THAT BECOMES REALLY INTERESTING AND I THINK WILL ALWAYS BE, UH, SOMETHING THAT WE WILL STRUGGLE WITH.
WELL, AND I CAN THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW WE'RE HAVING A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT IMMIGRATION, UHHUH
AND SO THEY ARE, THEY'RE LOBBYING, BUT THEY'RE NOT GETTING COMPENSATED BY, YOU KNOW, BY MONETARILY, BUT THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT CERTAIN ISSUES.
AND SO I THINK WITH SOME OF THESE DEFINITIONS, WE ALSO HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT NOT CATEGORIZING PEOPLE THAT ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, ACTIVISTS FOR CERTAIN, YOU KNOW, THINGS.
UM, I, I JUST CAN SEE WHERE IT CAN GET A LITTLE BIT MUDDY THERE.
MAY I RESPOND TO THAT? GO AHEAD.
WELL, I THINK THE DISTINCTION IS THAT AN ACTIVIST IS SOMEONE WHO FEELS PASSIONATELY ABOUT THE ISSUE FROM THEIR OWN PERSPECTIVE, UM, OR THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.
THE DISTINCTION IS WHERE A LOBBYIST IS EXPRESSLY REPRESENTING SOMEONE ELSE'S POSITION.
AND IF WE ARE REQUIRING LOBBYISTS TO IDENTIFY WHO THEY'RE REPRESENTING, THEN IF THEY'RE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THAT PERSON, THEY HAVE TO SAY THAT IF THEY HAPPEN TO BE A LOBBYIST FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSE AND WANT TO EXPRESS THEIR PERSONAL OPINION, THEN THEY JUST SAY, I'M REPRESENTING MYSELF.
THEY CAN MAKE THAT DISTINCTION.
COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR, YOU HAVE GOING ON, ON, UM, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER CENA'S QUESTION ABOUT DEFINITION OF LO WHEN YOU BECOME A LOBBY VERSUS WHEN YOU ARE JUST AN ACTIVIST AND LISTENING TO, UH, CHAIR, UH, RIDLEY, WOULD IT BE, WOULD IT BE THE THOUGHT OR THE CONCEPT GETTING PAID BY WHO WOULD MAKE THE DIFFERENCE OF WHETHER LOBBYISTS OR ACTIVISTS OR WHETHER YOU'RE NOT GETTING PAID AT ALL? AND WOULD IT BE BENEFICIAL TO IDENTIFY SOMEWHERE IN HERE? BECAUSE I SEE WHERE, WHERE THERE COULD BE A VERY THIN LINE BETWEEN ACTIVISTS AND LOBBYISTS TO I, TO I, WELL, TO DEFINE THE TWO SOMEWHERE IN HERE SO THAT THERE IS A CLEAR DELINEATION BASED ON OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE TWO, SO THAT IT'S EASILY IDENTIFIED.
SO, SO RIGHT NOW, IN TERMS OF DEFINITIONS, THE TWO KEY DEFINITIONS THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT, AND THEY'RE BROAD, AND I THINK THEY'RE PURPOSELY BROAD, BUT IT DOES VENN DIAGRAM RIGHT INTO WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, IS THE DEFINITION OF LOBBYING AND THE DEFINITION OF A MUNICIPAL QUESTION.
BECAUSE IN THE DEFINITION OF LOBBYING, IT REFERS TO, AT THE VERY END ANY MUNICIPAL QUESTION.
AND SO LOBBYING IS JUST SIMPLY, UH, ON BEHALF OF SOMEONE ELSE TRYING TO INFLUENCE CITY COUNCIL ON ANY MUNICIPAL QUESTION.
AND A MUNICIPAL QUESTION MEANS A PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE OF A DISCRETIONARY NATURE THAT IS PENDING OR MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF
[00:55:01]
ACTION BY CITY COUNCIL BOARD COMMISSION.IT INCLUDES, BUT ISN'T LIMITED TO PROPOSED ACTIONS, PROPOSALS FOR ACTIONS IN THE FORM OF ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, MOTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, REPORTS.
IT'S PURPOSELY BROAD, INCLUDING THE ADOPTION OF SPECIFICATIONS, AWARDS, GRANTS, OR CONTRACTS.
THE TERM DOES NOT INCLUDE THE DAY-TO-DAY ADMINISTRATION OF THE, OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPEN IN THE CITY.
AND SO IF YOU WERE GOING TO TRY AND MAKE A DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN LOBBYING AND ACTIVISM, I, I THINK IT WOULD TAKE A, I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO, BUT I THINK IT GETS BACK TO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY IS SAYING ABOUT, UH, WHETHER YOU'RE SPEAKING FOR YOURSELF OR SOMEBODY ELSE AND, AND IDENTIFYING YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.
AND I THINK THAT'S ABOUT AS FAR AS YOU, YOU CAN GO PERSONALLY, JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD RIGHT HERE, BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, UH, BUT IF SOMEBODY STARTS PAYING YOU, THEN YOU'VE CROSSED A LINE AND THERE ARE PROVISIONS FOR HOW YOU NEED TO REPORT YOUR CONTACTS.
SO WHETHER YOU HAVE TO REGISTER OR NOT, YOU DO HAVE TO REPORT.
IF YOU HAVE TO REGISTER THE REPORTING'S MORE ROBUST.
BUT EVEN AS AN UNREGISTERED LOBBYIST, YOU STILL HAVE TO, UH, MAKE SOME REPORTS.
AND JUST, JUST TO CLARIFY, THE THRESHOLD IS $200 IN A CALENDAR QUARTER.
SO IN THE HYPOTHETICAL THAT COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY PROPOSED, IF SOMEONE IS TESTIFYING AND IS PAID LESS THAN $200, THEN THEY WOULDN'T, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO REGISTER OR DISCLOSE THAT, I GUESS WAS THAT AMOUNT EXPLORED? DID THE COMMITTEE TALK ABOUT THAT? UH, NO, WE DIDN'T.
IT, I WOULD IMAGINE THE HISTORY OF THAT GOES GOES BACK PRETTY FAR BECAUSE JUST LIKE A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN PROPERTY IS $2,500, WELL, A STOP SIGN, A PLOT OF LINE WITH A, A PLOT OF LAND WITH A STOP SIGN'S WORTH $2,500 OR MORE.
AND, AND, AND SO IT DOESN'T TAKE MUCH TO GET TO $200.
AND SO IF SOMEONE WAS IN VIOLATION OF THIS, UM, SOMEONE WOULD JUST FILE AN ETHICS VIOLATION OR, OR, OR THE, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, I HAVE BROUGHT AUTHORITY.
THE CODE SAYS TO INITIATE THINGS, BUT GENERALLY, I MEAN, IN ALMOST EVERY CASE WE'VE HAD, IT'S A COMPLAINT.
CHAIR MENDELSON THAT, I THINK THAT'S MY COMPUTER.
MENDELSON, I SEE YOUR HAND UP.
I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT, UM, IF A SCENARIO WAS CONSIDERED, AND IF I CAN JUST MAKE ONE UP.
LET'S SAY THE BAN HORSE CARRIAGE FOLKS, UM, WANTED TO HAVE PEOPLE COME AND TESTIFY.
COULD SOMEBODY MAKE A DONATION TO AN ANIMAL ADVOCACY GROUP AND ASK THEM TO HAVE THEIR MEMBERS COME? SO WHAT IF I SAID, I'LL PAY YOU $10,000 TO PETA, AND PETA THEN SENDS THEIR MEMBERSHIP TO COME TALK TO US.
SO PETA'S THE RECIPIENT OF THE FUNDS TO ADVANCE THE, THE BAN HORSE CARRIAGES AND THE MEMBERS AREN'T NECESSARILY BEING PAID, BUT THE ORGANIZATION IS, HAS THAT, IS THAT COVERED THROUGH THIS OR IS THAT A DIFFERENT SCENARIO? IT, IT IS COVERED BY ANOTHER DEFINITION, WHICH IS THE DEFINITION OF COMPENSATION.
AND, AND THIS WOULD, IF, IF A COMPLAINT WAS BROUGHT, AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT BEFORE THE EAC THAT THE ELEMENT OF COMPENSATION WAS MET.
YOU'D GET TO THIS, THIS PHRASE, UH, IT IS THE, I'LL TELL YOU THE ARTICLE, IT'S ARTICLE 12 A 29, IS IT, UH, 12 A 29, AND THEN COMPENSATION'S NUMBER THREE.
AND IT'S BROAD, UH, MONEY SERVICE FACILITY, UH, COMPENSATION MEANS MONEY SERVICE FACILITY OR OTHER THING OF VALUE THAT IS RECEIVED OR IS TO BE RECEIVED.
SO, YOU KNOW, I, I CAN'T PROMISE YOU TO PAY YOU LATER.
IT'S STILL GONNA COUNT IN RETURN FOR, OR EVEN IN CONNECTION WITH LOBBYING SERVICES RENDERED OR TO BE RENDERED SOMEDAY LATER.
SEE HOW BROAD IT IS, INCLUDING REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN, IN LOBBYING.
AND SO YOU WOULD BE ARGUING THAT IN CONNECTION WITH LOBBYING WOULD APPLY TO YOUR SCENARIO, AND THEN YOU JUST HAVE TO SEE IF THE EAC WOULD, WOULD BUY THAT OR SAY SPECIFICALLY AMEND THE CODE TO INCLUDE THINGS LIKE THAT.
WELL, I GUESS I'M INTERESTED IN THE IDEA THAT WE, WE KNOW THAT, UM, THERE ARE GROUPS THAT RECEIVE DONATIONS, SIGNIFICANT DONATIONS TO ACTIVATE THEIR MEMBERSHIP TO COME AND LOBBY.
[01:00:01]
I, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WOULD SAY, WELL, IT'S LIKELY THAT THAT MEMBERSHIP HOLDS THE SAME OPINION IN THE CASE THAT I USE THE EXAMPLE OF, I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE TRUE, BUT I THINK THERE'S OTHER SCENARIOS WHERE ONE MIGHT BE A MEMBER OF AN ORGANIZATION AND, UM, THE ORGANIZATION RECEIVES EVEN A SIZABLE DONATION AND THE ORGANIZATION THEN ASKS ITS MEMBERSHIP TO COME OUT TO DO THIS.AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU JUST READ WOULD COVER THAT SCENARIO.
AND I, I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO BACK AND THINK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY HIRING A COMPANY TO DO THIS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A NONPROFIT OR EVEN A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION.
UM, SO THIS IS, THIS IS SOMETHING I'M INTERESTED ALSO IN.
I I, I PUT IT ON THE LIST AND, AND I, IT IS SOMETHING I WILL WORK ON AND IF WE WANNA MOVE IT FORWARD HERE IN THIS BODY AND SEND IT TO A WORKING GROUP, UH, WE CAN START THERE.
BUT I, I'VE GOT IT ON MY LIST.
THIS IS MAKING ME THINK ABOUT 5 0 1 C3, 5 0 1 C FOUR BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD MAKE A DONATION TO A NONPROFIT.
WELL, THE, THEIR MEMBERSHIP OBVIOUSLY MUST HAVE SOME SORT OF PASSION FOR THE ORGANIZATION, SO IT MIGHT BE NICE THAT THEY RECEIVE THAT DONATION, BUT THEY MAY SHOW UP OF THEIR OWN VOLITION.
SO, UH, IT DOES SOUND LIKE THERE ARE SOME OTHER ASPECTS OF THIS THAT COULD BE COMBED THROUGH AND WE'LL GET TO WHEN THAT COULD HAPPEN.
UM, AFTER WE GET TO THE LAST ITEM.
ITEM L IS ABOUT DONATION REPORTING.
AND SO RIGHT NOW, UM, DONATION REPORTING HAPPENS REALLY TO, TO TWO APPOINTED OFFICIALS IN TWO DIFFERENT TIMEFRAMES.
UH, THE REPORTS ARE, ARE OWED FOR REPORTABLE DONATIONS, WHICH I BELIEVE IN, I'M JUST GONNA DO THIS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
I BELIEVE IT'S A THOUSAND DOLLARS.
IT MAY BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
BUT THE POINT IS, YOU, YOU, UH, HAVE TO MAKE A REPORT TO THE CITY'S SECRETARY QUARTERLY, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO REPORT YOUR DONATIONS WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT TO THE CITY MANAGER.
NOW, UH, I'M GONNA HAVE TO WALK THIS RECOMMENDATION BACKWARDS A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE IN CONVERSATION AFTERWARDS, SOMETHING CAME UP, UM, THAT DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TIMM WILLIS POINTED OUT, AND I THINK SHE'S RIGHT, BUT, UH, WHERE THIS RECOMMENDATION COMES DOWN RIGHT NOW IS ELIMINATING REPORTING, UH, TO BOTH THE CITY SECRETARY AND THE CITY MANAGER AND, AND JUST HAVING ALL THE REPORTING OF DONATIONS GO TO THE CITY MANAGER.
UM, I, I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT ANYMORE.
UH, AND THE REASON IS, UH, SO I'M UNDOING MY RECOMMENDATION, BUT IT'S STILL A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE EAC, THAT'S JUST WHAT I'M SAYING.
NOW, THE, THE PROBLEM IS THE, THE REASON FOR HAVING DONATIONS GO TO THE CITY SECRETARY, OR A REASON FOR THAT IS SO THAT WHEN PEOPLE WANT, UH, TRANSPARENCY OR MAYBE EVEN ACCOUNTABILITY BY FINDING OUT WHO HAS DONATED WHAT, THAT'S WHAT THE CITY SECRETARY DOES AND IS EQUIPPED TO DO.
AND SO FOR THAT REASON, I THINK, UH, YOU COULD MAYBE GO THE OTHER WAY AND JUST HAVE ALL THE REPORTING GO TO THE CITY SECRETARY, BUT, OR YOU COULD JUST LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS.
BUT WE, WE'VE RUN INTO A PROBLEM, I THINK, WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION.
ALRIGHT? AND SO, YES, I DID OBJECT TO THIS AND I DID NOT WANT TO ADVANCE THIS.
I WOULD WANT IT TO STAY WHERE IT IS BECAUSE THE CITY SECRETARY IS OUR AGENT FOR FULFILLING FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS.
AND SO WHILE THERE MAY BE A MONTHLY MECHANISM TO THE CITY MANAGER, WHAT I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A DISTINCTION BETWEEN GIFTS AND DONATIONS AND THAT OUR POLICE AND FIRE GET A LOT OF DONATIONS AND THEY'RE REPORTING THOSE AND THAT'S GREAT, BUT WE MIGHT, COUNCIL MEMBERS MIGHT OCCASIONALLY GET SOME KIND OF DONATION, BUT WE NEED TO HAVE THAT FILED WITH CITY SECRETARY.
I THINK IF IT'S QUARTERLY, THAT'S NOT TOO ONEROUS.
UM, AND SO THAT WOULD JUST LEAVE IT AS IT IS.
I ALSO ASKED THE CITY SECRETARY IF SHE SUPPORTED THIS AND SHE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CHANGE
AND SO, UM, I WOULD SAY COLLEAGUES, IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS ON THIS, UH, I'D LOVE TO HEAR IT, BUT I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND ADVANCING THIS ONE.
ALRIGHT, I, I'M GETTING DIRECTIONAL, UH, AGREEMENT WITH THAT.
M UM, M IS, WE CAN GET PAST THIS REAL QUICK.
UH, M IS A CHART IN THE CODE OF ETHICS THAT JUST PUTS THE DONATION, GIFT AND TRAVEL REQUIREMENTS INTO A CHART FORM.
AND WE'VE BROUGHT IT IN ACCORD WITH THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, WHICH MEANS IF YOU DON'T WANT TO MAKE THE CHANGE TO DONATIONS, THEN YOU DON'T WANT THIS RECOMMENDATION EITHER BECAUSE ALL IT'S DOING IS ALIGNING THOSE TWO,
[01:05:01]
UM, RECOMMENDATION IN, UH, HAS TO DO WITH, UH, A COUPLE OF THINGS.AND, UH, LOOKING AT WHAT I PUT ON THIS SHEET, UH, I MADE A MISTAKE.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK ON PAGE 23 AND ON PAGE 24, IT HAS THE SAME RED LINE VERSIONS OF IT.
SO ON RECOMMENDATION N WHAT HAPPENS IN THE ACTUAL RED LINE VERSION, WHICH YOU SHOULD HAVE IN ALL THE MAT, OTHER MATERIALS THAT I SENT YOU, IS IT GIVES THE AUTHORITY TO THE OIG TO, UM, WRITE WHAT ARE CALLED, WHAT WE ARE CALLING MANAGEMENT ADVISORIES AND MANAGEMENT ALERTS.
SO THAT'S WHAT IN DOES, DESPITE WHAT I PUT THERE IN THE EXCERPT, UH, MANAGEMENT ADVISORIES AND, AND ALERTS ARE PROCESSES THAT DEAL WITH WASTE AND ABUSE IN THE CITY IN A SEMI-AUTO, UH, AUDIT FORMAT.
WE'RE WORKING WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.
WE'VE WORKED WITH CITY ATTORNEYS ON DEVELOPING A PROCESS FOR THAT.
I THINK YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH MANAGEMENT ALERTS.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE CITY IS, IS, UH, IMMINENTLY AT RISK OF LOSING MONEY OR SOMEBODY'S GONNA GET HURT.
AND BEFORE WE CAN DO A BIG INVESTIGATION, YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT IT.
THIS IS GIVING US THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THOSE.
THE THE SECOND PART IS CORRECT IN THE EXCERPT, AND IT'S DOING A COUPLE OF THINGS.
UH, REALLY THE WAY THE CODE READS TO ME, EVEN THOUGH IT, IT MAY, CAN BE INTERPRETED DIFFERENTLY, UH, THE WAY IT READS TO ME IS THAT IF WE WANT INFORMATION FROM SOMEBODY, UH, WE SHALL SUBPOENA THAT INFORMATION.
AND THAT'S JUST NOT PRACTICAL.
UM, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S ANYBODY'S INTENT.
NORMALLY, WE JUST ASK FOR THE THINGS AND WE GET THEM.
NOW, THE WAY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE INTERPRETS THIS IS THAT IT'S NOT THAT WE HAVE TO SUBPOENA EVERY TIME.
IT'S THAT WHEN YOU SUBPOENA, YOU SHALL DO IT THIS WAY, BUT IT'S NOT CLEAR.
AND SO THIS MAKES IT CLEAR THAT WE MAY SUBPOENA IF WE WANT TO.
THAT'S THE FIRST THING, UH, THAT IT DOES.
AND IT ALSO, UM, RE REINFORCES THE FACT THAT INVESTIGATIONS ARE CONFIDENTIAL THINGS.
AND SO YOU NEED TO KEEP IT CONFIDENTIAL AND, AND PEOPLE THAT ARE WITNESSES AND WHATNOT OR STAFF MEMBERS DON'T GET TO DECIDE WHO KNOWS THAT AN INVESTIGATION IS GOING ON.
ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? OKAY.
AND THIS, THIS REALLY IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS OFFICE IS LEARNING TO FLY
YOU ARE, THINGS ARE EVOLVING AND THE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY AND ALERT PROCESS AND PROCEDURE IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE LOOKING AT SO THAT WE CAN BE SURE THAT NOT ONLY ARE YOU IDENTIFYING, UH, ISSUES, BUT THAT WE HAVE A CONSISTENT PROCESS BY WHICH TO ADVISE WHOEVER NEEDS TO BE ADVISED.
AND, AND IT, AND IT NEEDS SOME WORK.
BUT I, WE'VE GOT ENOUGH WORK HERE, BUT I COULD TALK SOME MORE ABOUT THE SUBPOENA PROCESS.
UH, BUT MAYBE ANOTHER DAY, UH, RECOMMENDATION P HAS TO DO WITH OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL.
THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION THAT CAME IN FROM OUTSIDE OF THE CITY AND ALSO FROM A CITY OFFICIAL.
IT HAD TO DO WITH THE HOW, UM, THIS SITUATION.
SO IF YOU COME UNDER A COMPLAINT BY THE OIG, THE CODE OF ETHICS SAYS YOU'RE ENTITLED TO HAVE A, YOUR, UH, AN ATTORNEY AND THE CITY WILL PAY FOR IT AS LONG AS YOU PREVAIL.
IF YOU DON'T PREVAIL, THEN YOU OWE THOSE ATTORNEYS FEES.
AND THE QUESTION IS, WELL, WHO'S IN THE GROUP OF ATTORNEYS THAT YOU GET TO PICK FROM? AND THIS MAKES A CHANGE.
UM, AND THE CHANGE ALLOWS A RESPONDENT TO RETAIN, UH, ANY OUTSIDE ATTORNEY THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WOULD APPROVE, AS OPPOSED TO THE WAY IT IS NOW, WHICH IS THERE'S A LIST.
AND SO IF YOU'RE NOT ON THE LIST, I DON'T GET TO PICK WHO I WANT.
I ONLY GET TO PICK WHO'S ON THE LIST.
SO THAT'S WHAT THE CHANGE IS HERE.
AND I THINK THE RATIONALE FOR THE CHANGE HAD TO DO WITH, UH, WHETHER IT WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY OKAY FOR US TO LIMIT WHO SOMEBODY GETS TO PICK AS AN ATTORNEY.
AND REALLY IT COMES DOWN TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
IF YOU WANT MS. FELAN, YOU'RE NODDING YOUR HEAD IF YOU WANNA SHARE SOMETHING THERE.
NO, I WAS JUST AGREEING WITH YOU.
IT'S JUST A CONFLICT CHECK THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY WANTS TO PERFORM.
SO THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY HURDLE IS JUST MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT OKAY.
UH, Q RECOMMENDATION Q UH, THIS IS ONE OF SEVERAL, IT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT MADE IT THROUGH HAVING TO DO WITH THIS RELATIONSHIP THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND
[01:10:01]
THE CITY COUNCIL HAS, WHICH IS JUST VERY INTERESTING BECAUSE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND THE OFFICE RECEIVES COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE GROUP THAT SUPERVISES THEM.AND HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THAT? AND A MIDDLE GROUND WAS REACHED.
UM, AND THIS IS IT THAT, UH, THIS IS NOT BUDGET NEUTRAL, WHICH IS AN ISSUE, BUT I WANNA BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT THAT.
BUT IF A COMPLAINT IS FILED AGAINST THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL MAY REFER THE CASE TO OUTSIDE COUNSEL.
THERE'S PLENTY OF PRECEDENT FOR THIS IN CITY HALL WITH AUDIT AND, AND ALL KINDS OF PRECEDENT.
BUT, UM, I THINK IT'S A GOOD CHANGE.
UH, BUT THIS WAS THE COMPROMISE THAT WE REACHED IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF EAC.
I'D LIKE TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT.
UM, ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR SHALL, SO IF, IF IT'S A SHALL, UM, I'LL JUST TELL YOU FROM MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, UH, HERE, I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GOING UP TO BAT AGAINST COUNCIL MEMBERS.
UM, AND IT'S NOT ABOUT ME, BUT I'M JUST USING A PERSONAL EXAMPLE.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DOESN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GOING TO BAT AGAINST COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I THINK IT'LL HAVE A COUPLE OF EFFECTS.
I KNOW FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, UH, IT'LL ALLOW THEM TO STAY FOCUSED ON EVERYBODY ELSE THAT COMPLAINTS ARE FILED AGAINST AND NOT BE WORRYING ABOUT THAT DYNAMIC.
AND THAT WAS, THAT WAS WHAT MADE THIS HARD FOR THE EAC, UM, IN MY OPINION, JUST AS AN OBSERVER OF THE PROCESS TO PUT THIS, MAKE THIS A RECOMMENDATION.
ISN'T THAT YOUR JOB? THAT WAS THE FIRST QUESTION THAT I GOT.
UM, BUT I CAN ALSO SAY THAT IN TALKING TO OTHER INSPECTOR GENERALS AROUND THE COUNTRY, UM, IT'S, UH, IT'S AN INHERENT CONFLICT.
SO I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE COMPROMISE.
BUT AGAIN, UM, SHALL MAKES IT REALLY EASY, BUT IT GETS EXPENSIVE.
SO, UM, WITHOUT REVEALING TOO MUCH ABOUT JOB INTERVIEWS, I THINK THIS IS A QUESTION WE'VE ASKED
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S JOB GETS VERY DIFFICULT MM-HMM
UM, BUT I, I LIKE THE WORD MAY 'CAUSE THERE MAY BE SOME SITUATIONS THAT ARE CLEAR CUT OR THERE'S JUST SOMETHING ABOUT THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH.
THERE MAY BE MANY OF THE COMPLAINTS THAT COME THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WOULD NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE.
AND SO IT'S, IT'S LEAVING THAT DECISION, I THINK, UP TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
UM, AND THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE IT SHOULD LIE, BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEX, THE, THE, ALL OF THE RAMIFICATIONS, ALL OF THE COMPLEXITIES OF THAT DECISION.
SO, UM, I, I THINK FROM A BUDGETARY PERSPECTIVE AND FROM, UM, JUST A MORE PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE, THAT THERE MAY BE THE INSTANCES WHERE IT MAKE WHERE IT'S DOABLE, BUT I THINK THERE MAY BE MANY SITUATIONS WHERE IT WOULD NOT BE.
SO I'M RELIEVED THAT WE HAVE THAT, UM, UM, OPTION TO OUTSOURCE AND TO GET A, AN, UM, A DIFFERENT ATTORNEY, UM, TO, TO FILL THAT ROLE.
AND IF YOU, IF YOU WANT, I CAN GIVE YOU SOME EXAMPLES WITHOUT GOING TOO, TOO FAR.
BUT YOU'RE RIGHT ON POINT, IN MY OPINION.
I THINK IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, UM, YEAH, UNLESS ANYBODY REALLY WANTS THOSE EXAMPLES, THEY CAN BOOK SOME TIME WITH YOU.
UH, RECOMMENDATION R THIS HAS TO DO WITH, UH, DISCIPLINE AND SANCTIONS.
THERE, THERE ARE TWO SECTIONS IN THE CODE THAT DEAL WITH WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION FIND SOMEONE'S VIOLATED THE CODE.
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING, BUT THEY USED TWO DIFFERENT WORDS, WHICH MAKES IT CONFUSING.
IT MADE IT CONFUSING TO ME UNTIL I FINALLY FIGURED IT OUT.
ONE WORD IS DISCIPLINE, ONE WORD IS SANCTIONED.
SO ALL THIS IS DOING IS COMBINING THOSE TWO SECTIONS UNDER ONE WORD.
NOTHING IS LOST, IT'S JUST NOW UNDER ONE WORD.
AND, AND EVERYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AND DESCRIBED, OR THE RANGE OF PUNISHMENT THAT IS AVAILABLE, DEPENDING ON THE CATEGORY OF THE PERSON IS ALL REMAINS THE SAME.
[01:15:04]
ALRIGHT.CAN YOU BELIEVE IT? RECOMMENDATION S UM, THIS ONE SHOULD BE EASY AS WELL.
IT WAS ONE THAT WAS MISSED IN THE FIRST PRESENTATION ON PERSONS DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY.
IF YOU DECIDE TO PASS THAT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WILL HAPPEN IS SUBCONTRACTORS WILL BE CONSIDERED A PERSON DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY.
SO IF YOU PASS THAT, THAT SHOULD BE CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE CODE.
AND SO THE WORD, UH, SUBCONTRACTOR IS ADDED HERE TO 12 A 62 SO THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU MIGHT APPROVE IF, IF YOU WANT, UH, WHICH YOU ALREADY HAVE.
SO THIS WOULD REALLY GOING FORWARD IF, UH, WITH THE PERSON'S DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY, I'D PULL THIS OUT AND ATTACH IT TO WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY APPROVED.
I'D PUT THIS IN WITH THE PERSON'S DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY STUFF.
SO SINCE THAT CONCLUDES THE FIRST PART OF THIS ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION.
SO WHERE I HAVE THAT WE NETTED OUT IS THAT RECOMMENDATION L WE DO NOT WANNA ADVANCE, WE WANT TO KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS WHERE THE CITY SECRETARY GETS A QUARTERLY REPORT ON DONATIONS.
AND THEN IT SOUNDED LIKE ON RECOMMENDATION K, WE WANTED THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT WORKSHOPPED A LITTLE BIT MORE WITH REGARD TO LOBBYISTS AND SOME DISTINCTIONS, UM, WITH ACTIVISTS AND THAT SORT OF THING.
IT JUST NEEDS A LITTLE MORE THINKING AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION DOING MORE WORK ON THAT BEFORE IT, WITH THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE TODAY.
UH, SO IT COULD COME BACK TO US.
AND SO I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION OF ADVANCING THE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS TO A COUNCIL BRIEFING WITH THE EXCEPTION OF L AND THEN SENDING, AND KAY, WHICH WE'LL GO BACK TO A WORKSHOP.
AND, AND IF I MIGHT, AND YOU ALSO WANT TO GET RID OF M BECAUSE IT'S RELATED TO DONATIONS.
SO I'M, I'M L AND L AND M ARE BASICALLY THE SAME THINGS.
AND, UM, REMOVING K FOR RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE WE WANT MORE WORK DONE ON THAT.
UM, I MOVE THAT WE MOVE, WE ADVANCE THIS TO COUNSEL WITH L STAYING AS IS AND WELL, YEAH, A L IS BEING REMOVED AS WELL AS K, M AND K IS TO GO BACK TO WORKSHOP.
I HAVE A QUESTION, OR MAYBE I MISSED IT IN YOUR MOTION.
UH, I DID YOU ESTABLISH THAT THIS WOULD BE COMING IN AUGUST? NOT YET.
SO LET'S GO ON AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE, THE ITEMS THAT YOU HAD REFERENCED AT THE HEAD OF THE PRESENTATION, THAT THERE WERE MANY THAT WERE NOT RECOMMENDED.
AND INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH EVERY SINGLE ONE, WE CAN JUST KIND OF READ, I'LL READ THESE OUT, AND THEN IF ANYONE HAS AN ISSUE THEY WANNA BRING UP THAT MAYBE THEY DO WANNA SEE IT MOVE FORWARD.
UM, LET'S, LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE PRESENTATION, THIS IS THE ONE TITLED, SORRY, I KNOW ALL OF THESE ARE TITLED PRACTICALLY THE SAME THING.
SO CHAPTER 12, A CODE OF ETHICS SUGGESTIONS, CONSIDERED BUT NOT RECOMMENDED BY THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION.
SO ON PAGE 13, IT'S ITEM H 12, A EIGHT.
THIS IS DUTY TO REPORT VIOLATIONS.
DID ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS? I KNOW I HAVE ONE.
ALRIGHT, SO THIS IS, TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DISTINCTION HERE BETWEEN THE REASONABLE BELIEF STANDARD AND THE KNOWLEDGE STANDARD AND WHY THE COMMITTEE DID NOT WANT TO BRING THIS FORWARD.
UM, SO CURRENTLY THE STATE OF THE CODE IS, IF YOU KNOW, WHICH IS A TERM THAT'S DEFINED, UM, IT'S, IT'S LESS THAN INTENT IF YOU KNOW THAT THE CODE HAS BEEN WELL, AND THAT'S USUALLY IN TERMS OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE.
BUT, UH, ANYWAY, THE, THE STATE OF THE CODE RIGHT NOW IS IF YOU KNOW THE CODE HAS BEEN VIOLATED, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT THAT.
SO IT'S A VIOLATION IF YOU DON'T, WHERE PEOPLE GET CAUGHT UP IN PRACTICES.
WELL, DO I REALLY KNOW? I MEAN, I KIND OF KNOW IS THAT, DO I KNOW?
[01:20:01]
AND SO THIS RECOMMENDATION, UH, WE'VE DEALT WITH THAT PLENTY.UM, NOW, BY THE WAY, IF YOU THINK THE CODE'S BEEN VIOLATED, YOU MAY REPORT IT.
UH, BUT THIS WAS, UH, I THOUGHT A GOOD RECOMMENDATION THAT CAME FROM OUTSIDE, IT CAME FROM A CITY EMPLOYEE, AND IT APPLIES INSTEAD OF A KNOWLEDGE STANDARD, A REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD.
AND THE REASON THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION DIDN'T LIKE IT IS BECAUSE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE BEEN BRINGING UP.
IT JUST GETS YOU INTO THE DISPOSITION.
IT GETS YOU INTO WHAT'S COMPENSATION, WHAT, WHAT IS A REASONABLE MAN OR PERSON STANDARD, AND DO YOU WANNA HOLD SOMEONE ACCOUNTABLE FOR VIOLATING THE CODE IF IT TURNS OUT LATER THAT YOU THINK A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD'VE FILED THIS AND THEY DIDN'T.
SO THAT'S WHY THEY DIDN'T DO IT.
ON THE OTHER HAND, I LIKE, I LIKE THE STANDARD BECAUSE IT GIVES PEOPLE I'M COMFORTABLE WITH AMBI THE AMBIGUITY.
AND YOU JUST HAVE TO MAKE YOUR, MAKE YOUR ARGUMENTS.
AND I THINK IT IS, IT IS MORE FAVORABLE TO US GETTING MORE COMPLAINTS, WHICH THEN WE JUST DEAL WITH, LIKE, WE DEAL WITH EVERY OTHER COMPLAINT.
BUT YOU DO HAVE THE ISSUE OF TURNING A, A, A REASONABLE PERSON'S STANDARD INTO AN ETHICS VIOLATION.
BUT I THINK YOU HAVE THE SAME ISSUE WITH THE WORD KNOWLEDGE, BUT THAT'S WHY THEY REJECTED IT.
SO YOU GET INTO THIS DUTY TO REPORT, AND I, I DO NOT KNOW HOW IN HR, IN EMPLOYEE TRAINING, HOW THAT'S COVERED.
LIKE MAYBE IT'S COVERED THERE, BUT THIS JUST TAKES IT A STEP FURTHER AND WE DON'T NECESSARILY, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S WHERE THE EAC HAD ISSUES.
I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S ACCURATE.
EVERYBODY GET IT? IT'S REAL SIMPLE.
YEAH, I THINK WE UNDERSTAND IT.
UM, ARE YOU THINK, UH, CHAIR, WOULD YOU, UM, THINK THIS IS WORTH BRIEFING AND DEBATING AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL? I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE HEADED.
I THINK, I THINK WE CAN SUPPORT THAT.
WELL, I DO THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE AIRED AT THAT, THAT LEVEL TO THE FULL BODY, JUST SO WE ALL KNOW THAT IT COULD EXIST AND MAYBE WE'LL ARRIVE AT THE SAME PLACE THAT THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION DID, BUT I, I, I THINK WE NEED TO ADVANCE THIS ONE.
ON, UM, ITEM, I, I KNOW I HAVE A QUESTION, SO IF YOU WANNA, OH, I'M SORRY.
UH, I DON'T SEE CHAIR MENDELSON, BUT I SEE A HAND UP.
I, IT LOOKS LIKE I'M FROZEN THIS SECOND.
UM, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, I AGREE WITH ADVANCING IT, AND I THINK THAT THERE IS CONFUSION ON WHAT THE DUTY IS.
WE CANNOT SEE, AND I'D RATHER YOU DON'T SEE ME AT ALL.
I AGREE WITH YOU ADVANCING IT
UM, ALRIGHT, SO LET'S GO ONTO ITEM.
I I DID HAVE A QUESTION, SO IF YOU WANNA COVER THAT ONE.
DO YOU, DO YOU WANT ME TO, UH, WALK THROUGH IT? OKAY.
THIS IS ONE THAT CAME OUT OF A COUNCIL MEETING.
WE HAD, I BELIEVE A CHAIR OF, I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS A COMMITTEE OR, OR A COMMISSION.
I, I KNOW THE PERSON'S NAME, BUT I'M, I'M NOT GONNA, I DON'T, I DON'T FEEL LIKE I NEED TO MENTION IT, BUT HE WAS IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL AND HE WAS TALKING ABOUT, UH, SOMETHING THAT HE THOUGHT NEEDED TO HAPPEN.
AND ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER MENTIONED, WELL, YOU'RE NOT JUST A MEMBER OF THIS OTHER BODY, YOU'RE, YOU'RE ACTUALLY THE CHAIR OF IT.
ISN'T THAT CORRECT? AND, AND THERE WAS THIS FEELING THAT THERE WAS A LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AND THAT THIS PERSON SHOULD HAVE IDENTIFIED THE ROLE THAT THEY HAD AS A CITY OFFICIAL AT THE TIME.
AND SO THAT'S WHERE THIS RECOMMENDATION WAS COMING FROM, WAS, WAS TO SAY THAT, UH, YOU SHOULD IDENTIFY WHERE YOU SERVE.
IT'S AGAIN, BENEFIT AND BURDEN.
THE PROBLEM WITH THAT THOUGH, IS THAT IN THE SAME SECTION OF THE CODE, THERE IS, UM, A PROHIBITION AGAINST USING THE PRESTIGE OF OFFICE WHEN YOU ADVOCATE FOR THINGS.
AND THAT HAS BEEN THE LONGSTANDING ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT YOU DO NOT MENTION WHERE YOU SERVE BECAUSE IT, IT BRINGS THE WEIGHT AND THE GRAVITAS OF YOUR POSITION.
AND SO THERE'S A, THERE'S A TUG OF WAR GOING ON HERE.
WELL THIS IS INTERESTING TO ME BECAUSE, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF HOW YOU SAID
[01:25:01]
THIS IS IN CONFLICT.ON THE ONE HAND, IT IS, YOU SHOULD DIVULGE WHAT YOUR ROLE IS AND WHY YOU'RE STANDING BEFORE THIS BODY AND HAVE SUCH AN INTEREST.
AND ON THE OTHER HAND, IT'S ABOUT THE PRESTIGE OF OFFICE.
AND THAT BY, BY DECLARING THAT YOU'RE IN THAT ROLE, IT MIGHT HAVE SOME KIND OF UNDUE INFLUENCE ON THE BODY.
AND THAT TO ME SOUNDED A LITTLE BIT LIKE THE OLD DAYS.
I, THE CLIMATE I SENSE IS MORE OF DIVULGE WHO YOU ARE AND LET INDIVIDUALS MAKE UP THEIR MIND ABOUT HOW MUCH THAT PRESTIGE WEIGHS OR HOW INFLUENTIAL THE PRESTIGE SHOULD BE.
IT GOES BACK TO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, PEOPLE AROUND THE HORSESHOE MAY KNOW SOMEONE IS THE CHAIR OF A BOARD, BUT THE PUBLIC MAY NOT KNOW THAT THEY'RE THE CHAIR OF A BOARD.
AND SO IT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT FOR THAT PUBLIC TRUST, UH, REINFORCEMENT TO KNOW THAT SOMEONE'S TALKING ABOUT AN INTEREST, BUT THEY ALSO ARE IN A POSITION TO PERHAPS MAKE IT HAPPEN.
AND SO THAT'S WHY I, I PAUSED ON THIS, NOT MAKING IT THROUGH.
UM, AND I WANTED TO HEAR FROM YOU ALL ABOUT THIS HERE.
COULD I KNOW? WELL, I, I CAN THINK OF A, UM, ZONING CASE THAT I RECENTLY HAD, WELL, NOT TOO LONG AGO, WHERE A BOARD MEMBER MENTIONED THEY WERE ON A BOARD AND WERE SPEAKING AGAINST AN ITEM.
AND I FELT LIKE IT, IT DID, IT COULD POSSIBLY INFLUENCE IT NOT, UM, IN A POSITIVE WAY.
AND SO I CAN SEE WHERE THERE IS SOME CONFLICT WITH THIS.
UM, I, I CAN SEE THE OTHER SIDE OF IT AS WELL.
SO YEAH, I CAN SEE MAYBE WHY THERE WAS SOME HESITATION IN MOVING THIS ONE FORWARD.
COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR, UM, I, I THINK I'M WITH YOU, BUT ALSO IN A DIFFERENT, UM, WAY.
I HAVE SEEN WHERE THERE, THERE HAS BEEN, UM, THOSE THAT ARE IN A, IN A, IN A HIGHER LEVEL, GOING TO THE LOWER LEVEL AND TRYING TO EXERT UNDUE INFLUENCE TO STILL GET A DECISION THAT THEY NORMALLY MAY NOT HAVE GOTTEN BECAUSE OF THEIR TITLE.
UM, I HAVE ALSO, I COULD ALSO SEE WHERE YOU'RE OUT AND ABOUT AND OH, I AM THIS PERSON, SO I, YOU OWE ME THIS.
I, I BELIEVE THAT, THAT WE MAY NEED TO, UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT, BUT I THINK WE, WE MAY NEED TO OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, AND I, I, I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW, MAYBE HOW WE WOULD DO IT, BUT WE WOULD, WE MAY NEED TO HAVE CONSIDERATION BOTH WAYS.
UM, THAT SAYS A TITLE IS YOUR TITLE.
IT IS, IT, IT, IT SHOULD NOT BE A TITLE THAT IS USED FOR THE, FOR A BENEFIT OF SELF.
UM, IT'S GONNA ENA WELL, AND I THINK THE OTHER THING IS THAT I THINK FOR SOME OF THESE POSITIONS EVEN, YOU KNOW, LIKE LOBBYIST, UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A LIST THAT COMES OUT FOR BOARD MEMBERS.
THERE IS, IT IS ON OUR CITY WEBSITE.
SO IT, THERE IS PUBLIC INFORMATION ON THE POSITION THAT THEY HOLD, BUT WHEN A PERSON COMES HERE, THEY'RE NOT ALWAYS SPEAKING ON, YOU KNOW, IN THEIR, IN THEIR POSITION.
AND THEY, I, YOU KNOW, SO THERE IS THAT, THAT FINE LINE, RIGHT? UM, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT I, HAVING BEEN AROUND FOR EIGHT YEARS, MORE PEOPLE MAYBE DIDN'T SPEAK IN THEIR, MAYBE SPECIFICALLY FOR THEIR POSITION.
IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
UM, BUT THAT'S JUST WHAT I'VE SEEN.
I, I, YOU KNOW, BUT I CAN DEFINITELY SEE WHERE IT'S GOOD THAT WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT, UM, WE LOOK AT THINGS LIKE THIS.
I THINK, UM, BUT IT, BUT IT IS A HARD ONE.
WELL, AND THAT'S WHY I, UH, STOPPED ON THIS ONE.
UM, AND, AND TO THIS POINT, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE CONTROL EXTERNALLY, I DON'T KNOW, BUT IN PUBLIC MEETINGS IT'S REALLY FOCUSED ON THAT DISCLOSURE IN PUBLIC MEETINGS.
SO WOULD YOU ALL BE OPEN FOR THIS TO GO TO FULL COUNSEL DISCUSSION? YES.
SO DO WE JUST NEED THAT DIRECTIONALLY? OKAY.
WE WILL HAVE THAT CONSIDERED BY THE FULL BODY.
THAT'S WHY I WANTED YOU TO COVER THAT.
[01:30:03]
YOU, YOU WERE SORRY.ITEM J REQUIRES CITY CONTRACTS INVOLVING APPOINTED BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS TO GO THROUGH STANDARD COMPETITIVE BIDDING OR SOLICITATION PROCESSES, EVEN WHEN AN EXCEPTION APPLIES.
AND I DON'T RECALL THE DISCUSSION.
IT, IT MAY HAVE, SOME OF THESE WENT REALLY QUICK AND THIS MAY HAVE BEEN ONE OF THOSE.
UM, I, I DON'T THINK IT'S A, I THINK THE ISSUE I'LL JUST SPEAK FOR MYSELF IS WHEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE SERVING ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND THEY'RE VOLUNTEERS, I THINK THAT SOME OF THE CONSIDERATION THAT THAT'S GIVEN THAT THAT, UH, THEY, THEY HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITIES TO STILL DO BUSINESS WITH THE CITY, BUT I, I'M NOT SURE, AND THIS WOULD, WOULD, WOULD PENALIZE THEM, UH, IF THERE WAS A SITUATION WHERE A CONTRACT OR, OR A PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTER OF SOME KIND CAME UP THAT, THAT WHATEVER IT WAS, DID NOT REQUIRE BIDDING.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO ENGAGE IN BIDDING WHERE A NORMAL PERSON WOULDN'T.
SO THERE WOULD BE A PENALTY FOR BEING A BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER.
THAT'S WHERE I, I WOULD GUESS THE, THE ISSUE WAS WITH THE EAC.
ALRIGHT, WELL THIS ONE INTERESTED ME BECAUSE WE DID HAVE A CASE AT LEAST ONE THIS PAST YEAR AND, UM, AND IT BECAME AN ISSUE AND THE BOARD MEMBER RESIGNED.
BUT THE, THE PUBLIC, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT, UM, BECAME PUBLIC AND THEREFORE IT WAS THIS PERSON'S A MEMBER OF A BOARD AND THEY GOT A CITY CONTRACT AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO TO GO THROUGH OUR PROCUREMENT PROCESS.
SO HOW DOES THAT LOOK? AND SO THAT'S WHY I SAW THIS AND THAT JUST MADE ME STOP ON THAT.
UM, I SEE CHAIR MENDELSON'S GOT HER HAND UP.
UM, I THINK THIS HAPPENED BEFORE ANY OF YOU WERE ON COUNCIL, BUT IN MY FIRST TERM, UM, I'LL SAY THAT BEFORE I WAS ON COUNCIL, I SERVED ON THE HOUSING POLICY TASK FORCE AND WE SAW A CASE WHERE THE CHAIR, HE WAS A CO-CHAIR OF THE ENTIRE COMMISSION, UM, DESIGNED A PROGRAM AND THEN TURNED AROUND AND BID FOR THE NEW PROGRAM THAT HE RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY.
AND SO I ACTUALLY DON'T EVEN THINK THIS GOES FAR ENOUGH BECAUSE THERE'S NOT EVEN AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF LIKE, WELL, WHAT IF I'M SERVING ON LIKE, ANIMAL ADVISORY, BUT I HAVE A, YOU KNOW, UM, I HAVE A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND I'M JUST BIDDING ON A REMODEL FOR LET'S SAY A REC CENTER.
SO MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING FAIR ABOUT THAT.
BUT WE HAVE LITERALLY HAD THIS SITUATION WHERE SOMEBODY WAS IN A POLICY MAKING OR RECOMMENDATION ROLE THAT THE COUNCIL ACCEPTED AND THEN TURNED AROUND FOR THEIR OWN PLAN THAT THEY DEVISED.
AND SO I THINK THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AND I JUST THINK UNILATERALLY, IF IT'S SOMEBODY WHO IS ACTIVE IN CITY HALL, THEY HAVE, THEY CANNOT JUST HAVE A SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENT OR AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.
I MEAN, THAT IS SO INSIDER AND IT LOOKS TERRIBLE AND POSSIBLY FOR GOOD REASON.
SO I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THAT WORKS.
AND IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE WHO ARE KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THE SITUATION I'M TALKING ABOUT.
THE PERSON WAS VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY WERE THE RIGHT PERSON TO SERVE IF THEY WANTED TO ALSO BID ON CONTRACTS.
UM, COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.
DOES IT MEAN, SO IF, AND, AND IF WE HAVE, IF I AM JOE BLOW AND, AND I'M ADDING, I'M TRYING TO GET A, A CONTRACT THAT ANYBODY ELSE WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS.
ARE YOU, ARE YOU ADVOCATING HERE THAT BECAUSE I'M ON A BOARD AND COMMISSION, I DO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS EVEN THOUGH ANYBODY ELSE WOULD NOT HAVE TO? WELL, I THINK, I DON'T BELIEVE THIS WAS ONE OF MY RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT, UM, FOR SOME REASON THIS ONE IS JUST NOT GOING THROUGH MY BRAIN LIKE ALL THE REST OF 'EM ARE.
SO I DON'T THINK IT, IT CAME FROM ME, BUT I DO HEAR THE, THE MERIT OF IT BECAUSE THE CODE NUM, YOU KNOW, I TOLD YOU ABOUT THE THREE BUCKETS, THE CODE'S
[01:35:01]
ABOUT SQUARE DEALS.THIS FEELS OR LOOKS, THE APPEARANCE OF THIS, WHICH THE CODE SAYS WE'RE TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE APPEARANCE OF OUR OFFICIAL ACTIONS.
AND, AND, AND EVEN PERSONAL ACTIONS.
THE APPEARANCE DOESN'T LOOK GOOD IN, IN LIKE THE SCENARIO THAT COUNCIL MEMBER MENDELSSOHN, UH, BROUGHT UP.
BUT THE, BUT YOU'RE GONNA RUN INTO, WHICH DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T CRAFT AROUND IT.
UM, THE, THE SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE BELOW THE A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS THRESHOLD AND SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE AN RFP WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO, BUT AT LEAST IT'S A FAIR PLAYING FIELD.
WELL, I THINK THAT, AND CHAIRMAN MENDELSSOHN, I SEE YOUR HAND IS STILL UP.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S INTENTIONAL.
UM, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE, BECAUSE WE'VE HAD A COMMENT ABOUT MAYBE IT DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH AND THERE DEFINITELY HAS BEEN, I MEAN, NOW I'VE HEARD THE SECOND INSTANCE OF THIS, THAT IT COULD TAKE SOME MORE EXPLORATION.
AND I'M GETTING A SENTIMENT THAT WE WANT TO, UH, WORKSHOP THIS.
UM, MS. ANA, I JUST, I WANTED MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT 'CAUSE I THINK ONE OF THE CASES THAT I CAN THINK OF IN MY HEAD IS THAT, YOU KNOW, SAY SOMEBODY'S FROM A CERTAIN BOARD OF COMMISSION AND IT MAY BE MAKES THEM SEEM LIKE THEY'RE AN EXPERT IN SOMETHING, AND YET IT'S NOT, UM, THERE COULD BE SOME QUESTION ABOUT THAT, THEN IT COULD INFLUENCE A DECISION IN, IN A NEGATIVE WAY.
SO I THINK WE ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT SIDE TOO, TO MAYBE FLUSH IT OUT SOME MORE.
SO WE'RE GONNA BILL THAT ON THAT.
UM, OKAY, ON ITEM K, I PROMISE I DID NOT PULL ALL OF THEM.
SO ITEM K HAS ANYONE, UH, OKAY, LET'S, UH, ITEM LM THIS ONE IS, UH, RECUSAL AND DISCLOSURE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS.
YES, PLEASE TELL US ABOUT ITEM O.
WHAT DID YOU, OKAY, SO THIS ONE IS, IS VERY INTERESTING AND IT GETS, AND I'M SURE THAT THE CITY, UH, ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WOULD WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS, BUT, UH, THIS WAS A RECOMMENDATION THAT CAME FROM ME.
I, BUT I DO ACKNOWLEDGE, UH, THAT IT'S DIFFICULT.
UM, BUT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THE OIG JUST IN A GENERAL SENSE, TO HAVE COMPLETE ACCESS TO INFORMATION IN THE CITY WITHOUT HAVING TO DO WHAT I CALL RINGING THE BELL, GO AROUND ASKING FOR INFORMATION ALL THE TIME BECAUSE THAT'S A CONFIDENTIALITY ISSUE IN THE END.
UM, THIS GOES TO THAT ISSUE IN THE SENSE THAT WHEN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS PENDING MATTERS, IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO KNOW WHERE THEY ARE.
BUT THAT BUMPS INTO TRIED AND TRUE LAW ABOUT, UM, CONFIDENTIALITY AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS RELATED TO CASES.
AND SO THAT'S IN THE END WHY I THINK, UH, EAC, THIS WAS JUST A BRIDGE TOO FAR TO ASK FOR THAT.
WELL, I PAUSED ON THIS TOO MM-HMM
BECAUSE OF AN INCIDENT THAT ACTUALLY THIS BODY HAS VOTED ON, WHICH IS BECAUSE OF THE HAWKEYE TO YOUR LEFT THERE WHO SPOTTED AN ITEM ON A CITY AGENDA MM-HMM
UM, OF AN ISSUE THAT HAD BEEN INVESTIGATED BUT WAS NOT WIDELY KNOWN AT THE POINT, AND IN FACT IS NOT YET.
AND, UM, IT, IT CAUSED AN ACTION TO PROTECT THE CITY AND OUR TAXPAYERS.
AND SO THIS IS A DIFFERENT ZONE, BUT IT STRUCK ME IN THE SAME WAY IS THAT THOUGH THIS IS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, THERE MAY BE, UH, SOMETHING GOING ON THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BEING ABLE TO SEE THIS INFORMATION ABOUT A LAWSUIT OR WHATEVER YOU POSSESS KNOWLEDGE YOUR OFFICE POSSESSES KNOWLEDGE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE MAY NOT.
AND SO IF EXPOSURE TO THAT, AND OBVIOUSLY YOU WORK IN A CONFIDENTIAL WAY.
I MEAN, YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE, THIS IS THE INTEGRITY OF THIS OFFICE, IS THAT BEING EXPOSED TO WHAT IS GOING ON IN ANY OF THESE LAWSUITS THAT YOU MAY HAVE MORE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT, UM, ANOTHER CASE THAT'S GOING ON OR AN INVESTIGATION THAT'S GOING ON, AND BEING ABLE TO FLAG THAT AND SHARE SOME INFORMATION THAT COULD BE, AGAIN, OF BENEFIT TO THE TAXPAYER AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE WORK THAT'S DONE AT CITY HALL HALL.
I JUST, UM, I THOUGHT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE EXPOSURE TO THAT INFORMATION, SO I'LL OPEN IT UP TO COLLEAGUES TO SEE WHAT YOU THINK.
[01:40:01]
MS. GOODNA, DO WE HAVE ANY FEEDBACK FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON THIS ONE? UM, YEAH, I THINK YOU KNOW WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT AT THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION, I'M SORRY, THIS IS LAURA MORRISON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WAS THAT THIS IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CAN LOOK AT AND SPEAK WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ABOUT.WE DON'T THINK IT NECESSARILY NEEDS TO BE CODIFIED IN THE CODE OF ETHICS.
WE CAN HAVE AN INTERNAL POLICY ABOUT INFORMATION SHARING.
UM, BUT IF YOU WANTED, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANTED TO PUT IT IN THE CODE OF ETHICS, WE WOULD JUST NEED TO BE VERY PRECISE WITH OUR LANGUAGE.
UM, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THIS JUST SAYS SHARE LITIGATION STATUS ON PENDING ACTIVE AND COMPLETED LITIGATION.
I MEAN, WE HAVE A LOT OF LITIGATION AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WOULD BE INTERESTED IN EVERY CASE THAT COMES THROUGH THE LITIGATION DIVISION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
SO JUST SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND.
AND ALSO I WOULD THINK THAT Y'ALL ALSO HAVE TO HAVE CONFIDENTIALITY FOR SOME OF THE CASES THAT Y'ALL ARE TRYING AS WELL.
UM, AS YOU KNOW, THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL OFTEN BRING THE CITY COUNCIL INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATION BECAUSE THAT TYPE OF THING IS CONFIDENTIAL.
IT'S PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, AND THAT'S A PRIVILEGE THAT Y'ALL SHARE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WHEN WE'RE GIVING LEGAL ADVICE ON OUR PENDING LITIGATION.
SO WE WANT, WOULD WANNA BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT THAT.
YEAH, I KNOW WHEN I WORKED AT A HOSPITAL, WHENEVER WE HAD, UM, ACCESS TO PATIENT INFORMATION, IT WAS VERY MINIMAL ON WHO COULD HAVE ACCESS TO, UH, PATIENT'S INFORMATION.
SO YOU WANTED TO LIMIT WHO HAD ACCESS TO THAT EVEN IN THE FIRST PLACE.
SO, UM, I, I CAN DEFINITELY SEE WHY MAYBE THERE WAS SOME HESITATION IN MOVING THIS ONE FORWARD.
WELL, AND IT MAY BE A CASE WHERE YOU FLIP IT, MAYBE THEY LOOK AT YOUR LIST,
SO, UM, MS. MORRISON, I LIKE THE, THE POINT ABOUT THIS MAY BE MORE OF A POLICY OF SOME SORT, AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO SUSPEND IT FROM WHERE IT IS ON JUST NOT RECOMMENDED, BUT SEE IF THIS, IT COULD BE REVISITED IN A WAY THAT MAYBE THERE'S A WAY THAT IT COULD BE ADDRESSED WHERE IT'S NOT NECESSARILY IN 12 A, BUT I, WE'VE SEEN THE VALUE OF WHAT CATCHING SOMETHING CAN DO MM-HMM
AND I THINK WE NEED, THIS IS A ZONE WHERE WE REALLY HAVE GOT TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO SHARE SOME INFORMATION IN THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO ULTIMATELY GIVE MORE CARE AND PROTECTION TO OUR TAXPAYERS.
I THINK THAT THE, THE POINT'S WELL TAKEN BY ME ABOUT, UH, THE, THE TAXPAYERS, I THINK THE GREATEST IMPACT THAT WE ARE HAVING RIGHT NOW AS AN OFFICE IS PROACTIVE IMPACT WHERE WE SEE A PROBLEM BEFORE IT'S HAPPENED.
RIGHT NOW, THE OFFICE IS PRIMARILY REACTIVE, WHICH MEANS JUST LIKE THE POLICE, THE CRIMES ALREADY HAPPENED AND THE POLICE COME IN JUST TO WRITE THE REPORT.
UM, ANY ANY OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE HAVE TO CATCH THINGS QUICK ENOUGH HAS THE POTENTIAL TO AVOID STOP, RECOVER, UH, RECOVER FUNDS.
AND, AND, AND THEN OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, YOU KNOW, UH, IS GOING TO BE A LICENSED PRACTICING ATTORNEY AND SUBJECT TO ALL THE ETHICAL CODE STUFF THAT COMES WITH THAT FROM THE STATE BAR.
SO I THINK WE COULD WORK SOMETHING OUT, BUT OKAY.
UM, ITEM R UM, I ACTUALLY, THAT WAS DEALT WITH IN ITEM P ON THE RECOMMENDED LIST, RIGHT? YEAH.
THAT WAS ADDRESSED OR THAT'S HOW THE EAC ADDRESSED IT.
SO IT'S DIFFERENT THAT THAT RECOMMENDATION WAS DIFFERENT, BUT THAT'S HOW IT GOT ADDRESSED.
ANYONE ON, UM, S UH, EAC SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS? UM, THERE, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE THAT I, I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET TO, UM, I'LL JUST WEIGH, OKAY.
LET ME KNOW IF I'M GOING TOO FAST HERE.
UB OKAY, SO WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE ONES THAT YOU HAVE IN THE PRESENTATION, HOWEVER YOU THINK ONE WAS OVERLOOKED.
IT'S, IT'S NOT, I WAS SURPRISED 'CAUSE I THOUGHT I'D OVERLOOKED IT.
I DIDN'T OVERLOOK IT, BUT IT'S HIDING
UM, THE WAY THAT IT'S HIDING IS THAT, AND IT,
[01:45:01]
BUT IT'S A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.AND IT'S THIS, UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOP OF THE LIST, THERE ARE A LIST OF PROPOSALS, UH, A THROUGH G THAT RECOMMENDED STRIKING A PROVISION.
THE ONE THAT I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO TALK ABOUT IS, UM, G OR EXCUSE ME, F WHERE IT SAYS, LET'S STRIKE 12 A 30 5G TO RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES HAVING TO DO WITH PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTERS.
UM, SO WHAT I SHOULD HAVE DONE IN YOUR PACKET IS FLESH OUT, FLESH THIS ONE OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE, BECAUSE LIKE I SAID THERE, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.
WHAT WHAT THIS HAS TO DO WITH IS, UM, IT'S UNDER THE LOBBYING SECTION AND UNDER THE LOBBYING SECTION IN 35, THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE PUT ON, UM, COMPANIES OR BIDDERS ON PROJECTS AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SPECIFICALLY IN TERMS OF INTERACTION.
AND ONE OF THE KEY TERMS IN THERE IS PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTERS.
AND THERE'S, UH, THERE IS INTEREST ON THE COUNCIL.
I THINK IT'S FAIR TO REPRESENT THAT, THAT, UH, THIS GETS IN THE WAY OF COUNCIL MEMBERS DOING THEIR DUTY OF DUE DILIGENCE AND LOOKING INTO PROJECTS THAT ARE, THAT ARE COMING UP.
UM, BECAUSE IT, IT SAYS VERY DIRECTLY, YOU CAN'T HAVE DIRECT OR INDIRECT CONVERSATIONS WITH, SAY, A BIDDER ON A CONTRACT OR SOMEBODY THAT HAS A HOUSING TAX CREDIT.
ONE OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, UM, FROM THE MOMENT IT'S FILED UNTIL THE MOMENT IT'S DECIDED.
AND A LOT OF TIMES YOU WOULD REALLY LIKE TO DO THAT.
AND SO IT, IF IT'S, LOOK, AND SO HERE'S MY SUGGESTION AND, AND I THINK IT'S GETTING SOME MOMENTUM IN THE CITY, UH, IS TO DEAL WITH IT IN THIS WAY.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT THE WAY THAT IT IS WHERE YOU ABSOLUTELY CAN'T SPEAK TO THEM.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO THROW THE WHOLE THING OUT THE WINDOW TO MAKE THIS WORK.
YOU JUST HAVE TO CRAFT A WAY SO THAT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS IN A WAY THAT IS ABOVE BOARD, WHICH TO ME MEANS SUPERVISED BY SOMEBODY, WHATEVER WORDS YOU'D LIKE TO USE.
BUT, UH, SO I'VE TALKED TO SOME MEMBERS IN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE ABOUT IT.
I THINK, UM, THEY WOULD BE ON BOARD WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND I THINK IT'S JUST TO USE THE ADAGE, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE TO THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATH WATER.
WE CAN HAVE OUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO.
WE JUST GOTTA AVOID THE SITUATION WHERE COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE PUT IN COMPROMISING SITUATIONS.
AND THEN, UH, WE HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES HOVERING AROUND CITY HALL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON.
UH, BUT THAT'S KIND OF HIDDEN IN HERE.
UH, BUT THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON.
I CAN DEFINITELY SEE, UM, SOME BENEFIT OF MAKING SOME CHANGES.
UM, SPECIFICALLY LIKE WITH I THINK HFCS OR PFCS WHERE WE HAVE A ZONING CASE TIED TO, UM, DEALS.
I, I USED TO SCREEN CALLS FOR A COUNCIL MEMBER SO I KNOW WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT QUESTIONS TO ASK AND YOU WANNA MAKE SURE.
UM, BUT I COULD ALSO SEE SOME BENEFIT OF MAYBE HAVING STAFF AVAILABLE IN THOSE MEETINGS.
AND THAT MIGHT BE THE SUPERVISION THAT YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, TALKING ABOUT WHENEVER AN APPLICATION HAS THEN BEEN FILED, UM, TO, TO KIND OF WORK THROUGH SOME OF THOSE SITUATIONS.
I, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THAT MIGHT WORK FOR, YOU KNOW, ECO DEV DEALS AND, UM, SOME OF THE OTHER, UM, BENEFITS AS WELL.
I THINK THE ART OF IT IS GONNA BE PICKING WHO THAT PERSON'S GOING TO BE SO THAT YOU GAIN THE INDEPENDENCE THAT IS GOING TO SHOW EVERYBODY THAT DEALS ARE SQUARE AND WE'RE FOLLOWING BEST PRACTICES THAT I THINK THAT'S THE ART OF IT COUNCIL.
HE'S GONNA BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.
COUNCIL, SORRY, I I KIND OF TOTALLY AGREE WITH, UH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER ADEENA, THERE ARE TIMES THAT AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU WANT TO HELP WITH THE CRAFTING SO THAT IT SOLIDIFIES THE BEST PRACTICES FOR YOUR DISTRICT AND IT ALSO ALLOWS YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE WITH NOT ONLY THE, THE, THE APPLICANT, THE, THE PROVIDER, WHOEVER COVER IT.
IT WOULD SAVE TIME BECAUSE YOU'D BE IN, AT THE, THE FRONT END AND NOT AT THE, AT THE BACK END HAVING TO REDESIGN A, A, A A DEAL BECAUSE AT THE BACK END, ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY FORGOT SOMETHING OR THE COMMUNITY WANTS SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
SO I, I TOTALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
AND I DON'T KNOW, ARE WE ASKING THAT, THAT, THAT GETS
[01:50:01]
PULLED OUT AND AND CRAFTED? UM, CHAIR, ARE WE ASKING THAT TO GET PULLED OUT AND CRAFTED OR ARE WE OKAY, THANK YOU.YEAH, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WAS ADDED TO THIS LIST, BUT WE'LL JUST, OH, I'M SORRY.
SO I'LL JUST TELL YOU, UM, THIS SOUNDS VERY WORRYING TO ME AND I'M WORRIED THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE PEOPLE ENDING UP IN JAIL.
UM, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE THING THAT CAUSED PEOPLE TO GO TO JAIL THAT HAVE SERVED ON THE CITY COUNCIL.
AND IF YOU'RE WANTING TO OPEN IT UP, I THINK IT SHOULD BE VERY SPECIFIC TO ZONING, UM, CASES AND GIVE A VERY SPECIFIC WINDOW.
AND THE SECOND PERSON IN THE ROOM SHOULDN'T BE SOMEBODY WHO REPORTS TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER.
AND EVEN WHEN YOU START THINKING ABOUT, WELL, WHO WOULD IT BE? WHO WOULD BE THE PERSON WHO'S GONNA GO SAY, THIS COUNCIL MEMBER ASKED FOR DEMANDED, THREATENED SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE? AND THAT'S A PRETTY TOUGH POSITION TO BE IN.
SO, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE WORK WE CAN DO THAT SAYS, BEFORE YOU EVEN FILE A CASE, BEFORE YOU FILE, HAVE YOU TALKED TO YOUR COUNCIL MEMBER TO GET THAT KIND OF INPUT SO THEY CAN DESIGN SOMETHING APPROPRIATE? UM, BUT I THINK THIS IS MUCH TRICKIER THAN WE'RE MAKING IT TO BE.
AND I THINK THE BEST INTENTIONS ARE, UH, BEING EXPRESSED ABOUT WANTING TO BE ABLE TO HELP DEVELOP GREAT PROJECTS AND HAVE COMMUNITY INPUT.
BUT THIS IS VERY, VERY RISKY ITEM.
THE, JUST TO ADD TO THAT, IT IS, IT OBVIOUSLY IT IS RISKY.
UM, I THINK THE RELIEF VALVE THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS IS THAT YOU CAN TALK TO THEM ALL YOU WANT BEFORE IT GETS ON AN AGENDA.
UM, BUT IT'LL BE, IT'LL BE TRICKY.
SO COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR, SO HERE'S, HERE'S WHAT MY EXPERIENCE HAS, HAS BEEN SO FAR, PFC HFCS, UM, I HAVE, I, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE, AS YOU SAID BEFORE, IT GETS TO, UM, BEFORE THEY, THEY FILE AN APPLICATION MM-HMM
THAT THEY WOULD THEN BE, THE QUESTION WOULD NEED TO BE ASKED.
AND, AND IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED, HAVE YOU COMMUNICATED WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER AND THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH YOU ARE GOING TO DO THAT THING? AND THEN IT, ONCE THAT, THAT HAS HAPPENED, THEN THROUGH THE, THROUGH THE, THE, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEAL, WE'RE NOT INVOLVED AND THEN IT, THEN WE SEE IT AGAIN AT THE BACK END OR NOT UNLESS WE'RE SUPERVISING AND SUPERVISED IT.
IS NOT MY STAFF MEMBER IS NOT MY, MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBER, STAFF MEMBER, BUT IT IS STAFF THAT SITS AND HAVE DISCUSSION WITH COUNCIL MEMBER SO THAT THERE IS NEVER THE ABILITY FOR US TO MAKE A DEAL THAT WOULD SEND US TO JAIL.
THEN WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO ZONING, THE WAY I, I WOULD SEE THAT IT WOULD HAPPEN IS SAME THING BEFORE YOU OPEN UP THE ZONING CASE, HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH YOUR COUNCIL MEMBER, UM, AND, AND LOOK AT YOUR AND, AND, AND, AND HAVE A COUNSEL AND, AND TALK WITH YOUR COUNCIL MEMBER, EVEN YOUR COMMISSIONER, WHATEVER.
THEN ONCE IT IS IN IT, ONCE THAT, THAT IT HAS BEEN OPENED FOR A ZONING REQUEST COUNCIL MEMBERS OUT UNTIL IT'S DONE WITH CPC AND THEN WE HAVE OUR ABILITY TO DISCUSS IT.
I UNDERSTAND WITH THE P-F-C-H-F-C, I HAVE HAD THAT BEEN TOLD TO ME ALREADY, I CAN'T TALK ONCE THEY OPEN UP THEIR RIGHT, THEIR, THEIR, THEIR, UM, CASE.
I, NOT UNLESS I'M SUPERVISED AND I DON'T LIKE THE WORD SUPERVISE.
AND THE, THE WORD THAT WE USE IS UNLESS STAFF PROTECTED IS PRESENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF THE, THE, THE DISCUSSION.
SO I, I GET THAT AND I SEE THAT, AND I CAN APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO GO TO JAIL CHAIR STEWART.
I JUST WANTED THE HONORABLE PHILIP KINGSTON TO BE ABLE TO SAY OUT LOUD,
[01:55:01]
WHEN DOES THE COMMUNICATION STOP? I, I KNOW, I THINK I KNOW, BUT I YOU'RE, YOU'RE ABOUT TO JUMP OUTTA YOUR CHAIR THERE.SO I THOUGHT I'D GIVE YOU A CHANCE.
IT'S JUST, IT'S FRUSTRATING TO HEAR SO MUCH MISINFORMATION.
UM, IT, ONCE YOU FILE ANYTHING, YOU CAN NO LONGER SPEAK TO STAFF BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS OR COUNCIL MEMBERS UNTIL STAFF MAKES ITS PROPOSAL TO Y'ALL.
AND EVEN THEN, THE ONLY WAY I CAN TALK TO ANY OF YOU IS TO COME TO THE MEETING THAT IS A SOLUTION CHASING A PROBLEM.
THERE HAVE BEEN FOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO WENT TO JAIL FOR PUBLIC CORRUPTION IN THE CITY OF DALLAS'S.
RECENT HISTORY OF THOSE, NONE, NONE WOULD'VE BEEN CAUGHT BY THIS RULE.
NONE OF THOSE MATTERS WERE DESIGNATED PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTERS.
BUT THAT'S A STATE PROGRAM THAT REALLY THE ONLY THING CITY COUNCIL DOES IS AGREE TO THE APPLICATION TO THE STATE.
UM, AND SO THE, THE POINT OF ME SAYING THAT IS THAT THOSE CORRUPTION CASES WOULD'VE HAPPENED NO MATTER WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ZONING CHANGES TO DWU POLICIES, ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO THE, THIS RULE HAS BEEN IN EFFECT, UM, I DUNNO, 15 YEARS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IT HAS NEVER PREVENTED ANYBODY FROM GOING TO JAIL.
DWAYNE AND CAROLYN WENT TO JAIL, BUT IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTERS.
SO I THINK THIS NEEDS SOME FURTHER LOOK LOOKING AT AND DISCUSSION AND TRYING TO DECIDE.
I MEAN, WHAT, WELL, I I, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. KINGSTON, IF THAT'S OKAY.
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE MISINFORMATION IS BECAUSE THE CODE IS VERY CLEAR THAT UP UNTIL THE TIME, IN FACT, I'LL READ IT FROM THE TIME THE ADVERTISEMENT OR PUBLIC INFORMATION OF THE REQUEST FOR BIDS OR REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS IS MADE.
THAT IS WHEN YOU ARE CUT OFF RIGHT NOW UNDER THESE RULES.
AND ALL THAT'S BEEN SAID SO FAR IS THAT BEFORE THAT HAPPENS, YOU CAN TALK TO PEOPLE.
SO I NEED TO HEAR WHAT THE MISINFORMATION MR. ELIAS AND THE MISINFORMATION IS YOU ARE READING FROM A PROCUREMENT.
YEAH, WE, WE DON'T NEED TO GET BACK AND FORTH ON THIS, BUT THE ISSUE IS THAT WE ARE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE EXPERIENCED SOME ISSUES ON TIMING AND QUESTIONS ON PROJECTS, ET CETERA.
THIS IS A VERY FINE LINE, AND IT DOES SOUND LIKE THERE'S, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE WANTING TO LOOK AT THIS MORE, BUT I KNOW, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER KANA HAD ANOTHER QUESTION.
UM, CHAIR STEWART, I JUST, LET ME JUST FINISH.
SO, UM, I'VE HAD A COUPLE OF PROJECTS WHERE THEY'RE APPLYING FOR TIP DOLLARS AND THEY, WE HAD SOME CASUAL CONVERSATIONS AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN I GET THE EMAIL THEY'VE APPLIED, YOU CAN NO LONGER SPEAK TO THIS PERSON.
AND I IMMEDIATELY COME UP WITH 15 QUESTIONS IN MY HEAD YEAH.
THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK, BUT I CAN'T.
SO THAT, THAT TO ME IS A BARRIER TO COMING UP WITH A PROJECT THAT WORKS WELL FOR THE DISTRICT.
IT THERE SHOULD BE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR DIALOGUE, AND YET WE KNOW THERE IS ALSO, UM, THAT'S A DANGER ZONE.
SO I WOULD JUST SAY, I I, WE HAVE A LOT OF SMART PEOPLE.
I LIKE TO SAY THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF SMART PEOPLE WHO WORK AT THE, AT CITY HALL, AND WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CRAFT SOME SCENARIO WHERE WE CAN ALLOW THE CONVERSATION, ALLOW THE INFORMATION TO FLOW WITHOUT BEING FEARFUL OF OTHER THINGS HAPPENING.
I MEAN, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
COUNCIL MEMBER KANA, I THINK ALSO TOO, 'CAUSE UM, ONE OF THE REASONS HOW I ENDED UP AT CITY HALL WAS A CEMENT BATCH PLANT THAT GOT $3 MILLION FROM CITY COUNCIL.
AND THERE WAS NO PUBLIC INPUT.
WE ALL SHOWED UP HERE AT COUNCIL, THERE WAS NO WAY TO STOP IT.
UM, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO MEET WITH THE APPLICANT.
AND SO I DO SEE SOME BENEFIT OF BEING ABLE TO HAVE PUBLIC MEETINGS THROUGHOUT THE, THE PROCESS SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN ALSO BE, UM, EDUCATED ON GOOD OR BAD PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING INTO THEIR COMMUNITY.
AND SO NOT BEING ABLE TO TALK TO AN APPLICANT AS IT MOVES ALONG, YEAH, THE COUNCIL MEMBER MAY BE IN FAVOR OF IT WHEN IT'S AN APPLICATION, BUT AS IT MOVES ALONG, THERE MAY BE SOME INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WE DON'T KNOW ON MAYBE WHY THAT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA FOR THAT AREA.
SO, AND, AND I BELIEVE YOU'RE, YOU'RE IDENTIFYING ANOTHER ELEMENT OF THE PROCESS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, WHICH IS, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING A SECOND, A THIRD PARTY THERE, YOU DO IT IN PUBLIC MEETINGS, THAT'S ANOTHER WAY TO GET AT A SITUATION.
COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR, I I, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH, UH, WITH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER DEN THAT THAT AND COUNCIL AND CHAIR, UM, STEWART, THAT THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES,
[02:00:01]
THERE ARE TIMES WHEN AS SOON AS YOU'RE TOLD YOU CAN'T TALK, YOU HAVE 15,000 QUESTIONS YOU WANNA ASK, YOU CAN'T ASK.AND IF YOU ASK IT AT THE BACK END, IT CHANGES THE TIMELINE OF A DEVELOPMENT.
THAT, BUT, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE EXPERIENCE THAT THE HONORABLE KINGSTON HAS ALREADY EXPERIENCED AND SEEN THAT IT MAY NEED THIS, THIS ITEM MAY NEED TO BE FLUSHED OUT FOR THERE TO BE DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS SO THAT WE ALL GET THE BENEFIT OF A DECISION THAT IS PERTINENT TO ALL EVERYBODY.
BUT, SO THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE WE SHOULD DO.
WELL, I, IT'S SOUNDING LIKE WE ARE IN FAVOR OF, UH, HAVING THIS LOOKED AT FURTHER.
MY CONCERN IS THAT THE EAC, THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION MAY NOT HAVE ALL OF WHAT THEY NEED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS, BECAUSE I TOO HAVE HAD THIS FRUSTRATION WHERE YOU GET A CUTOFF AND THEN YOU'VE GOT QUESTIONS AND YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO GET THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED ON A PARTICULAR PROJECT.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOTHING NEFARIOUS THERE.
IT'S JUST WANTING MORE INFORMATION, REPRESENTING A NEW POINT OF INFORMATION THAT SOME NEIGHBORS MIGHT HAVE BROUGHT UP TO YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT HAVE BROUGHT UP.
AND SO WHEREAS WE'RE ABLE TO DO THAT IN OTHER PROCESSES, IT'S, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO HEAR.
AND SO, UM, THIS IS ONE THAT WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA NEED TO THINK ABOUT.
IT'S KIND OF LIKE ITEM O WHERE IT'S GONNA TAKE MAYBE SOME POLICY OR SOME OTHER THINKING OUTSIDE OF JUST THAT BODY TO CAPTURE THE EXPERIENCE ON THIS SIDE OF THE, THE TABLE.
I AM HEARING THAT THAT'S GONNA BE ONE THAT WE GO BACK ON.
AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, I MEAN, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID AND, AND, AND I ALSO THINK THAT, UM, IT'S CLEAR JUST BEING AROUND AND TALKING TO PEOPLE THAT, THAT THIS IS NOT WORKING.
IT'S, IT'S CAUSING PROBLEMS. AND SO WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT WORK.
ALRIGHT, SO I THINK WHERE WE ARE ON THE NON RECOMMENDED ITEMS IS THAT, UH, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT SENDING TO FULL COUNSEL, UH, ITEM H AND I AND WORK SHOPPING JO AND THEN THIS WAS ITEM F.
AND IT MAY BE THAT ON SOME OF THESE, IT MAY BE THROUGH THE EAC, BUT ON A COUPLE OF THEM ON F AND ON O IT WAS, IT MAY BE MORE LIKE, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE WORKED OUT VIA A POLICY? LIKE IN THE CASE OF, UM, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BEING ABLE TO SEE OUR LAWSUIT INFORMATION? MM-HMM
DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THAT? UH, NEXT.
ALRIGHT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AND, ALRIGHT, THAT CARRIES, AND WE HAVE ONE MORE, UH, ITEM THAT WE WANT TO ADDRESS IN THIS PACKAGE.
SO WE HAD RECOMMENDED ITEMS, WE HAD THOSE THAT WERE NOT RECOMMENDED.
AND THEN WE HAVE A COUPLE THAT CAME UP AFTER THEY HAD CONCLUDED THEIR INITIAL ROUND OF WORK THAT, UH, WE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT.
WHETHER THAT GOES TO A WORKSHOP, UM, WE PROBABLY WOULD WANT IT TO GO TO A WORKSHOP SINCE IT HASN'T BEEN THERE YET.
BUT IF YOU JUST WANNA TOUCH ON THAT REALLY QUICKLY.
I KNOW IT'S THREE 30, SO I KNOW WE NEED THREE PEOPLE FOR OUR QUORUM.
SO, UH, THE FIRST ONE IS, UH, WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE ETHICS ADVI, TECHNICALLY THIS WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION TO HEAR A CASE.
SO THAT'S HOW THE CODE OF ETHICS DEALS WITH IT.
UM, OBVIOUSLY ANYTHING WITHIN 12 A THE CODE OF ETHICS IS SOMETHING THAT, THAT WE CAN TAKE TO THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION.
BUT WHAT, WHAT ARE THESE O WHAT ARE THERE OTHER THINGS THAT WE CAN BRING? AND THOSE ARE ALL LISTED IN THIS, UH, 12 A 50 JURISDICTION SECTION.
AND, UH, THE, THE QUESTION, AND BY THE WAY, THIS WOULD ONLY AFFECT FUTURE CASES, NOT CURRENT CASES, BUT A QUESTION THAT HAS BEEN COMING UP, UH, A LOT AND PUBLICLY IS, UH, WHAT HAPPENS WITH, UH, VIOLATIONS OR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT? WHAT HAPPENS WITH TOMA CASES? AND SO WHAT THIS IS, IS ATTEMPTING TO DO IS ISOLATE OUT OF THOSE, UH, TWO, UH, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS OUTTA THE STATE GOVERNMENT CODE, UH, UH, THE, THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT ARE COMING UP AND PLACE THOSE UNDER THE CIVIL JURISDICTION OF THE EAC AS SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD LOOK AT.
THE ALTERNATIVE RIGHT NOW IS IN A CATCHALL PHRASE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY M WHICH SAYS, UH, THAT THE, THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION CAN LOOK AT THINGS THAT, UH, AND THE KEY PHRASE IS PERTAINS TO ETHICS.
AND SO, UH, IF IT'S NOT IN THE LIST,
[02:05:01]
THE ARGUMENT, AND THAT'S THE RELIEF VALVE RIGHT NOW, IS TO ARGUE THAT GOING AGAINST THIS CODE OR THAT CODE PERTAINS TO ETHICS.SO DO YOU AGREE? AND IF SO, LET'S GO FORWARD WITH THE HEARING.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT, IS TO DO SOME WORK ON THAT.
SO SIMPLY PUT, THERE ARE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF INVESTIGATIONS THAT ONCE THEY BECOME, IT BECOMES EVIDENT THAT THERE'S A CRIMINAL.
THAT IT'S CRIMINAL, IT GOES OUT OF YOUR OFFICE'S HANDS, IT HAS TO BE TURNED OVER TO SOME KIND OF AUTHORITY.
IF IT'S A CRIME WE'RE DONE AND WE REFER IT.
HOWEVER, THIS WOULD GIVE THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION A CIVIL PATHWAY TO INVESTIGATE IT, UM, MAKE SOME SORT OF RULING OR NOT TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL.
SO WHAT I FOUND INTRIGUING WHEN YOU BROUGHT, WHEN THIS CAME UP AFTER THE FACT WAS THAT SO OFTEN SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PUBLIC TRUST, IS THERE WILL BE AN INCIDENT THAT'S REPORTED IN THE MEDIA AND IT GOES OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
AND THIS BODY DOESN'T KNOW WHERE IT IS OR WHEN WE'LL FIND OUT ABOUT IT.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC CAN'T KNOW THAT.
THE MEDIA CAN'T KNOW THAT IT'S JUST FLOATING OUT THERE SOMEWHERE.
AND WE'RE HOPING IT'S GETTING DEALT WITH FAIRLY.
IF THERE'S NOTHING THERE, THERE'S NOTHING THERE.
BUT IF THERE'S SOMETHING THERE, THEN WE'D LIKE TO KNOW, BUT IT'S OUT OF OUR HANDS.
THIS GIVES A CIVIL PATHWAY TO WHERE A BODY THAT'S APPOINTED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND, UM, THEY HAVE VERY DEFINED CREDENTIALS WOULD BE ABLE TO CONSIDER A MATTER IN FROM THE CIVIL LENS.
AND SO I'M, I WOULD ADVISE AT LEAST LIKE TO SEE THIS EXPLORED BY THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION AND THEN ULTIMATELY COME TO OUR COUNCIL TO THINK ABOUT, BECAUSE I KNOW, I HEAR PEOPLE EXPRESS CONCERNS ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS IS.
AND IT'S LIKE, WELL, NOBODY KNOWS WHERE IT IS, BUT THIS MIGHT GIVE US A MECHANISM TO SAY, WE KNOW WHERE AT LEAST THIS ASPECT, UM, OF THIS CONCERN IS THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN MORE SIMPLIFIED WELL OPEN TO HAVING THAT MOVED TO A WORKSHOP.
THE SECOND ITEM, UH, THE, THE SECOND ONE IS, UH, COMES OUT OF REAL LIFE, WHICH MOST OF THESE DO, BUT I MEAN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, UH, I THINK HAPPENS ENOUGH THAT IT'S, IT'S WORTH LOOKING AT AND, AND THAT'S THE, THE SITUATION.
SO TO BEGIN, I WANT TO, AND I'LL KEEP IT SHORT, BUT YOU KNOW, THERE ARE THREE TYPES IN MY VIEW OF CITY OFFICIALS APPOINTED, ELECTED, EMPLOYED.
UM, THE APPOINTED ONES GENERALLY SERVE ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
AND WHAT'S INTERESTING IS WHEN A CASE COMES UP BEFORE A BORDER COMMISSION AND THEN A BORDER COMMISSION MEMBER BEGINS TO ADVOCATE IN THE COMMUNITY, AND THEY'RE THE DECISION MAKER WHO'S SUPPOSED TO APPROACH THIS WITH, UH, AN OPEN MIND AND HEAR THE EVIDENCE IN A PUBLIC MEETING, BUT IT, IT, THE APPEARANCE IS THEY'VE ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MIND.
IT'D BE LIKE A JURY MEMBER THAT'S ALREADY SAYING, WELL, ANYBODY THAT'S ACCUSED OF THIS IS GUILTY.
AND SO WHAT THIS GETS AT IS SAYING FOR BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS, UH, THEY WOULD, I'LL JUST, UH, RE READ IT.
BORDER COMMISSION MEMBER, UH, SHALL MAKE PUBLIC STATEMENTS INCLUDING COMMENTS, REACTIONS, ENDORSEMENTS, ANNOUNCING OR IMPLYING WHAT THEIR FINAL DECISION, UH, WILL BE ON A PUBLIC HEARING MATTER BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, BEFORE THAT MEMBER'S BOARD OR COMMISSION.
AND THIS APPLIES TO ANY PUBLIC HEARING ITEM THE MEMBER KNOWS IS LIKELY TO COME BEFORE, UH, AND NOT JUST IS BEFORE COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR.
THAT'S CHALLENGING, THAT'S REALLY CHALLENGING FOR ME.
UM, AS THE, AS THE PREVIOUS CITY, UH, PLANNING COMMISSIONER, THERE ARE TIMES WHEN I'VE HAD TO TELL AN APPLICANT I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT.
A BATCH, A CASE IN POINT, A BATCH PLANT IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, I'M NOT GONNA DO IT.
AND THIS IS SAYING, I CAN'T SAY IT UNTIL IT COMES BEFORE THE BOARD OR COMMISSION, BUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE TELLING THE APPLICANT, SINCE I CAN'T TELL YOU UP FRONT, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S A NON-STARTER.
YOU ARE BOGGING DOWN STAFF WITH ZONING CASES THAT THEY DON'T NECESSARILY
[02:10:01]
NEED TO HEAR OR GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF, AND THE, THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS.YOU'RE ASKING AN, YOU'RE REQUIRING AN APPLICANT TO PAY THOSE FEES WHEN THE DECISION IS ALREADY MADE THAT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
IT, IT'S WHETHER IT IS, UM, IMPROPER USE OF LAND IN, IN, IN THAT AREA, OR IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT A COMMUNITY WANTS IN THAT AREA, OR IT'S AGAINST A LAND USE THAT WE HAVE.
IT COULD BE AGAINST, UM, UM, UH, YOU, YOU, YOU HAVE A, A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OR AUTHORIZED OR AUTHORIZED HEARING, YOU'VE GONE THROUGH ALL THOSE PROCESSES AND NOW YOU WANNA COME IN WITH SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T FIT YOU, YOU'RE WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME AND, AND YOU'RE WASTING THE APPLICANT'S MONEY.
SO I WOULD NOT, I WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE THAT MOVE THAT WAY.
UM, BASICALLY FOR THAT REASON, MEMBER KANA.
AND I CAN ALSO THINK, I KIND OF AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BLAIR, BECAUSE I THINK A BUDGET SEASON THAT'S COMING UP AND WE HAVE LIBRARY BOARD, WE HAVE PARK BOARD, ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT BOARD MEMBERS ARE GOING TO BE ADVOCATING FOR THEIR DISTRICTS, THEIR, YOU KNOW, THEIR ITEMS IN FRONT OF COUNCIL, BUT ALSO IN FRONT OF THEIR OWN BOARDS AS WELL.
AND I THINK SOME OF THE PUBLIC GOES TO THOSE BOARD MEMBERS TO GET INFORMATION ON WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THOSE MEETINGS AS WELL.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE BASICALLY VOLUNTEERS REPRESENTING THEIR COMMUNITY, UM, YEAH, FOR THE COMMUNITY.
AND, AND THEY, THEY WANT INFORMATION FROM THOSE BOARD MEMBERS, UH, FOR THOSE, FROM THOSE, UM, COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
SO THAT'S MY HESITATION WITH THIS.
SO, UM, I MEAN THIS IS ADDED TO THIS BECAUSE THERE MAY BE CASES THAT FALL IN BETWEEN THESE, UH, EXAMPLES THAT, UM, I THINK COULD BE VALUABLE FOR, UH, THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION TO WEIGH AND JUST GET SOME OTHER POINTS.
I MEAN THAT'S ONE POINT, THIS IS ANOTHER POINT.
THERE COULD BE SOME OTHERS THAT, YOU KNOW, VIOLATE THE PUBLIC TRUST IN THE PROCESS.
AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE CONCERN IS THAT HOW ARE YOU ABLE TO DO THESE THINGS BUT ALSO ENSURE THAT IF SOMEONE HAS A DIFFERING OPINION, THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE TREATED AS FAIRLY AND EQUITABLY AS SOMEONE WHO HAS ANOTHER.
SO IT'S, IT'S REALLY KIND OF ABOUT THAT PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.
AND SO THAT'S WHY I THINK I, I, ON BOTH OF THESE, I JUST FEEL LIKE IT'S, THEY DIDN'T GET THE BENEFIT OF THE WORK SHOPPING, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU, YOU KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SHOULD BE HEARD.
SO I WOULD JUST LIKE, ON THE OTHER ONE I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE GO TO A WORKSHOP WITH THAT ITEM AS WELL.
IS THIS, I'M GETTING DIRECTIONALLY.
SO THIS IS, THESE LAST TWO ITEMS CAN GO INTO THE WORKSHOP AND I THINK THAT, UM, SO WITHOUT OPENING A BIG CAN OF WORMS, SINCE WE KNOW, ALTHOUGH I THINK WE'VE GOT A LOT OF ITEMS THAT THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION MAY NOT, MAY HAVE THOUGHT THEIR WORK WAS DONE, BUT WE'VE GIVEN THEM QUITE A TASK LIST TODAY.
UM, THERE IS STILL A PUBLIC PROCESS BEFORE US.
THEY WILL BE MEETING IN JULY AND THEN WE WILL COME BACK IN AUGUST AND UH, OUR COMMITTEE WILL NEED TO MEET TO GET THE RESULTS OF THESE THINGS THAT WE'VE ASKED THEM TO TAKE A LOOK AT.
AND THEN IT WILL GO TO A FULL COUNCIL BRIEFING.
NOW I WAS ASKED, SHOULD THIS JUST BE PUT ON THE AGENDA? AND I JUST FEEL LIKE OUR COLLEAGUES, JUST AS WE HAVE, WILL PROBABLY LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN
AND SO, AND ALSO I THINK JUST THE GRAVITAS OF 12 A AND THAT THIS IS ABOUT OUR ETHICS CODE, THAT IT ALSO NEEDS THE PUBLIC EXPOSURE THERE AS WELL.
SO THAT WOULD HOPEFULLY TAKE PLACE IN AUGUST AND THEN WE CAN, AND YOU KNOW, IT MAY TAKE MORE THAN ONE MEETING, BUT THAT WE COULD MOVE TOWARD CONCLUDING THIS IN THE FALL.
AND, AND I MIGHT ADD, IF UH, YOU WANT TO EN ENCOURAGE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SIT DOWN AND NOT, I'M NOT GONNA ADVOCATE, BUT I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS, THAT'S GONNA HELP.
UH, IT'S JUST SO MUCH AS, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GONE THROUGH.
SO I'M, I'M HAPPY TO, UH, SIT DOWN IN ADVANCE AS OFTEN AS SOMEBODY NEEDS TO, TO EXPLAIN ALL THIS.
WELL, I APPRECIATE THE WORK OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION OF YOUR OFFICE, OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND OF COUNCIL MEMBERS.
'CAUSE THIS IS, THIS WAS NOT AN EASY MEETING TODAY.
SO THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING IN AND ASKING SUCH GREAT QUESTIONS.
[02:15:01]
WELL, IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, IT'S 3 48.SO THE MEETING OF THE GENERAL INVESTIGATING AND ETHICS COMMITTEE IS ADJOURNED.