* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. GOOD [00:00:01] MORNING EVERYONE. IT IS NINE [Ethics Advisory Commission Meeting: Evidentiary Hearing on June 9, 2026.] 30 ON JUNE 9TH, 2026, AND THIS EVIDENTIARY HEARING OF A PANEL OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION IS CALLED TO ORDER. THIS IS THE HEARING OF INFORMATION NUMBER E 26 DASH 0 0 2 FILED BY THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AGAINST MS. ANNA FAM, CURRENT EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION. I AM JAD MASO AND I WILL SERVE AS CHAIR OF THIS HEARING PANEL. LET THE, LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT A QUORUM OF THE PANEL IS PRESENT. I'LL ASK THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PANEL TO STATE THEIR NAMES FOR THE RECORD. MR. PERKINS, WOULD YOU START? THOMAS PERKINS. HOWARD RUBIN. MARCY HEAND. I'LL NOW ASK THE PARTIES TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES. MS. RESPONDENT ANNA FAM. THANK YOU. UH, THOSE PRESENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BARRON ELIASON, INSPECTOR GENERAL INTERIM LAURA FELAND, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL. THANK YOU. I'LL NOW ASK THE LEGAL ADVISOR TO THE PANEL TO INTRODUCE HERSELF. LAURA MORRISON, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. AND FINALLY THOSE PRESENT FROM THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE. DONNA BROWN. NANCY SANCHEZ. THANK YOU. NOW MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. ARE THERE ANY SPEAKERS ON TODAY'S AGENDA ITEM? HEARING NONE, WE WILL MOVE AHEAD. UM, AT THIS TIME, UH, WILL ANY WITNESSES THAT WILL BE TESTIFYING IN TODAY'S HEARING, PLEASE STAND ANY WITNESSES OTHER THAN THE RESPONDENT, MR. LYSON? WELL, I HAVE WITNESSES. THEY MAY NOT TESTIFY, BUT LET'S HAVE 'EM STAND JUST IN CASE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UH, WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND PLEASE? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TEST, THAT YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY WILL BE THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. THANK YOU. UM, DOES ANYONE INVOKE THE RULE NOW OR, OKAY, WE'LL MOVE AHEAD. UM, DO ANY OF THE PARTIES HAVE ANY MOTIONS TO PRESENT AT THIS TIME? THIS IS ALSO THE APPROPRIATE TIME FOR THE RESPONDENT TO PLEAD TRUE TO THE ALLEGATION IF THEY WISH TO DO SO. ANYTHING, UH, MS. SPAM AT THIS TIME? NO, SIR. YOU MIGHT ASK HER HOW SHE PLEADS . UH, MS. FAM, DO YOU, DO YOU PLEAD TRUE OR NOT TRUE TO THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST YOU? TRUE. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, THAT BEING THE CASE, WE WILL SKIP THE FIRST PHASE, BUT I ASSUME WE WILL STILL HAVE, UM, NORMALLY THESE PROCEEDINGS GO IN TWO INTO PHASES. THE FIRST PHASE IS FOR A, A FINDING OF WHETHER THE ALLEGATION IS TRUE OR NOT, AND THE SECOND PHASE IS FOR THE SANCTION, IF ANY, THAT WOULD BE ASSESSED. UM, SO WE'LL NOT HAVE THE FIRST PHASE, OBVIOUSLY WE CAN GO STRAIGHT INTO THE SECOND PHASE. UM, ARE THERE EXHIBITS THAT NEED TO BE ADMITTED AT THIS TIME? UM, I PREVIOUSLY EMAILED THOSE AND YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED THOSE VIA EMAIL. I DO HAVE TWO, UM, DOCUMENTS THAT I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS IN A BRIEF OPENING STATEMENT. OKAY. UM, ONE IS THE FILE STAMPED INFORMATION AND ONE IS JUST A COPY OF THE INVOICE. OKAY. JUST THOSE TWO THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS COMPLAINT? YES. ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THOSE TWO DOCUMENTS, THE INFORMATION, AND THEN THE ONE INVOICE? MS. FAM, ARE YOU ALL RIGHT WITH THE COMMISSION CONSIDERING THOSE? I'M, SO, UH, THE, THE TWO EXHIBITS THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS OFFERING, THE INFORMATION THAT EXPLAINS THE ALLEGATION AGAINST YOU AND THEN TO THE, THE ONE INVOICE THAT'S AT ISSUE HERE IS THAT, DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THOSE BEING USED IN THIS HEARING? OKAY, THANK YOU. THOSE EXHIBITS ARE ADMITTED. UM, ARE THERE ANY STIPULATIONS, , TO BE MADE AT THIS TIME? NONE FROM THE OIG. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. IN THAT CASE, WE CAN MOVE AHEAD WITH OPENING STATEMENT, UH, FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. GREAT, THANK YOU. LAURA FELAND, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL. IN OCTOBER, 2025, OIG RECEIVED A COMPLAINT FROM A CITY EMPLOYEE ALLEGING THAT A MANAGER NAMED ANNA FAM INSTRUCTED HER TO ALTER A VENDOR'S INVOICE ON A REIMBURSEMENT CONTRACT. THE CITY EMPLOYEE ALSO RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT THE METHOD OF PAYMENT ON THIS INVOICE, IN THIS CASE A WIRE PAYMENT. AND THAT IS BECAUSE TYPICALLY PAYMENTS ON A CONTRACT AT THE CITY ARE TO BE PAID VIA ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS, UH, DIRECTLY FROM THE FUND [00:05:01] ASSIGNED TO THAT CONTRACT. WE INVESTIGATED THE COMPLAINT AND WE SUBSTANTIATED THE ALLEGATION REGARDING THE ALTERED INVOICE. NOW, INITIALLY, WE WERE CONCERNED THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANA FAM AND THE VENDOR THAT WOULD EXPLAIN BOTH THE WIRED PAYMENT AND THE DIRECTING OF THE EMPLOYEE TO ALTER THE INVOICE. WE WERE ABLE TO RULE OUT THAT CONCERN. THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANNA FAM AND THE VENDOR, AND WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE WIRE PAYMENT IN THIS CASE WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY CONTROLLER'S OFFICE. IT WAS ALLOWED INSTEAD OF, UH, PROCESSING VIA ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER. THE WIRE PAYMENT WAS ALLOWED IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE VENDOR HAD REQUESTED IT. WE DETERMINED THAT THE INVOICE WAS ALTERED NOT FOR ANY NEFARIOUS PURPOSE, BUT RATHER TO FACILITATE THE PROCESSING OF THE PAYMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, IT WAS DONE OUT OF CONVENIENCE AND IT WAS DONE BECAUSE THE VENDOR IN SUBMITTING THIS AUGUST, 2025 REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT, THE VENDOR HAD SUBMITTED A SERIES OF INCORRECT INVOICES IN THE DAYS LEADING UP TO THIS INVOICE. INSTEAD OF GOING BACK TO THE VENDOR AND INSISTING THAT THE VENDOR CORRECT HIS INCORRECT INVOICE, ANNA FAM DECIDED TO FIX THE VENDOR'S INVOICE FOR HIM, THOUGH NOT BY DOING IT HERSELF, BUT BY DIRECTING ANOTHER EMPLOYEE TO CHANGE IT. THIS WAS AN AVIATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HANGAR AT DALLAS EXECUTIVE AIRPORT. OUR COMPLAINANT IN THIS CASE IS ELLI VILLA RULE. SHE IS A DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET ANALYST IN AVIATION. SHE'S BEEN WITH THE CITY FOR 26 YEARS, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SHE DOES IS SHE PROCESSES WIRES. SO SHE WILL REVIEW THE INVOICE, SHE WILL REVIEW THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, SHE WILL REVIEW THE PREVIOUS INVOICES THAT HAVE BEEN PAID ON A CONTRACT, AND WHEN EVERYTHING LOOKS IN ORDER, SHE WILL PROCESS THE PAYMENT. AND IN THIS CASE, IN AUGUST, 2025, ANNA FAM SENT AN EMAIL TO RSE VILLA RULE ASKING HER TO PLEASE PROCESS THIS PAYMENT ON THIS INVOICE. NOW, THIS WAS AN INVOICE FOR $940,000 AND IT HAD AN INVOICE NUMBER THAT ENDED IN DASH OH THREE. WELL, VILLA RULE REALIZED THAT SHE HAD ALREADY PROCESSED AN OH THREE INVOICE ON THIS CONTRACT IN MAY OF 2025, AND FOR A DIFFERENT AMOUNT, SHE TOLD ANNA FAM THAT THE VENDOR'S INVOICE NUMBER WAS INCORRECT. AND INSTEAD OF GOING BACK TO THE VENDOR TO INSIST THAT THE VENDOR CORRECT HIS INVOICE, ANNA FAM DIRECTED VILLA RULE TO FIGURE OUT WHICH FONT HAD BEEN USED ON THE VENDOR'S INVOICE. PRINT OUT A RED NUMBER FOUR, CUT IT OUT, TAPE IT ON TOP OF THE INCORRECT INVOICE, PHOTOCOPY THAT, SCAN THAT IN, AND SEND THAT TO OUR TREASURY DEPARTMENT FOR PROCESSING. AND WHILE WE JUST HAVE NO BUSINESS DOING THAT, UM, I'M GONNA SHARE AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE INVOICE THAT YOU'VE ALL PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED, AND I ALSO HAVE THE ORIGINAL THAT I'D LIKE TO ASK BARON TO PASS OUT TO YOU NOW SO THAT YOU CAN SEE IT. UM, I'LL POINT OUT A COUPLE THINGS THAT YOU'LL NOTICE. WHEN YOU SEE THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, YOU'LL SEE IN THE TOP LEFT HAND CORNER, YOU'LL SEE THE RED OH FOUR THAT HAS BEEN TAPED ON THERE WITH CLEAR TAPE TO COVER UP THE THREE. AND THEN IN ANOTHER PLACE IN THE DOCUMENT, SORT OF IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PAGE ON THE RIGHT SIDE, YOU'LL SEE, UH, A A FOUR, A SMALL BLACK FOUR THAT HAS BEEN TAPED ON THERE AS WELL TO COVER A THREE ON AN INVOICE NUMBER IN A SECOND LOCATION. ON THE DOCUMENT, WHEN WE INTERVIEWED MS. FAM, SHE ADMITTED THAT SHE INSTRUCTED VILLA RULE TO CHANGE THE VENDOR'S INVOICE, MERELY OUT OF CONVENIENCE BECAUSE SHE DID NOT WANNA GO BACK TO THE VENDOR. THIS PROCESS HAD BEEN GOING ON FOR ABOUT FIVE DAYS NOW, AND SHE WANTED TO GET THE PAYMENT PROCESSED. AND SO WE HAVE FILED TWO ETHICS CHARGES AND I'M GONNA SHARE [00:10:02] THE INFORMATION IF I CAN. SO WE HAVE FILED, UM, THIS INFORMATION HERE. WE'VE FILED TWO ETHICS CHARGES. UH, THE FIRST ONE IS 12 A FOUR A ONE, AND IT STATES THAT CITY OFFICIALS AND CITY EMPLOYEES SHALL CONDUCT THEMSELVES AND OPERATE WITH INTEGRITY IN A MANNER THAT MERITS THE TRUST AND SUPPORT OF THE PUBLIC. AND WE FILED A SECOND ETHICS CHARGE, WHICH WAS 12 A SEVEN B. OTHER PERSONS A CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE SHALL NOT VIOLATE ANY PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER THROUGH THE ACTS OF ANOTHER. UM, SO FOR THESE REASONS, WE'VE FILED THESE TWO ETHICS CHARGES AND WE ASK THAT YOU FIND THAT ANA FAM HAS VIOLATED THESE TWO PROVISIONS OF OUR ETHICS CODE. THANK YOU. UM, SO WE ARE IN PHASE JUST NOTING THAT WE ARE IN PHASE TWO. UM, UM, THERE'S NO REAL NEED FOR A FINDING OF VIOLATION BECAUSE SHE'S ADMITTED THAT. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE TO YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YOU WOULD ADD AT THIS TIME? NO, SIR. THANK YOU. UH, MS. FAM, DO YOU HAVE AN, AN OPENING, OPENING STATEMENT THAT YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE? UM, NO SIR. WE CAN THEN TURN TO A PRESENTATION OF, OF ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. THAT'S ALL I HAVE, SIR. ALRIGHT. UM, MS. FAM IS, IS, ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES OR EVIDENCE THAT YOU'D LIKE TO PRESENT THIS MORNING? UM, NO. IN THAT CASE, WE CAN MOVE TO CLOSING STATEMENTS. UM, ALRIGHT, GO AHEAD AND, SURE. UM, SO LET'S SEE, UNDER 12 A 59 B UM, CAN CONSIDER, UM, SEVERAL THINGS. HOLD ON JUST ONE SECOND. WE, WE DID HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. GO AHEAD. OKAY. JUST TO BE, JUST TO BE CLEAR, AND I UNDERSTAND WE'RE IN THE PENALTY PHASE. UM, YOU MENTIONED EARLY IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THAT THERE HAD BEEN SOME INCORRECT INVOICES SUBMITTED? YES. OKAY. THIS SAME INVOICE, THE VENDOR WAS TRYING TO GET PAID ON THIS SAME INVOICE? THIS SAME INVOICE, CORRECT. BUT HE SENT IT IN THE, IN THE DAYS LEADING UP TO THIS, UM, INCIDENT, HE SENT IT WITH THE WRONG DATE. OKAY. SO THIS IS NOT, ET CETERA, THIS INVOICE IS NOT ACCUMULATION OF OTHER INVOICES? NO. OKAY. UH, REALLY, AND THE INFRACTION STEMS FROM THE, UH, UH, CHANGES IN THIS INVOICE. DID IS IS IT ALSO BECAUSE OF THE, UH, UH, PAYMENT METHOD CHANGE IN THE PAYMENT? NO, WE WERE ABLE TO RULE OUT ANY CONCERN REGARDING THE WIRE PAYMENT THAT HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY CONTROLLER'S OFFICE AND IT WAS JUST DONE BECAUSE THE VENDOR WANTED IT DONE THAT WAY. AND SO WE HAD THE CITY AGREED TO DO THAT. ALRIGHT. I, THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER HELPIN, SINCE THIS IS THE PENALTY PHASE, I WAS WONDERING IF WE COULD BE INFORMED AS TO WHAT PRIOR ETHICS TRAINING MS. FAM HAD RECEIVED. YES. SHE, SHE HAS KEPT ABREAST WITH HER EVERY TWO YEARS. ETHICS TRAINING THAT IS REQUIRED UNDER THE CODE. SHE JUST TOOK ONE, UH, EARLIER THIS MONTH. SHE TOOK, UM, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OFFERS A MONTHLY, UM, TRAINING FOR CITY EMPLOYEES ON THE FIRST TUESDAY OF EVERY MONTH. MS. FAM RENEWED HER, UM, HER ETHICS TRAINING LAST WEEK. BUT PRIOR TO THIS ACTION, UM, MS. FAM, YOU HAD RECEIVED ETHICS TRAINING OR, I DON'T KNOW WHO SHOULD ANSWER THE QUESTION, BUT, UH, YES, MA'AM. UH, I, I, I KEEP, UH, EVERY TWO YEARS OR EVERY YEARS, WE, I, MY, MYSELF AND MY STAFF ATTEND THE EPIC TRAINING AND WE JUST THIS ONE, UH, ON LAST TUESDAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE PANEL? ALRIGHT, UH, MS. FELAND, YOU CAN GO AHEAD WITH YOUR CLOSING STATEMENT. SURE. UM, THERE'S SEVERAL THINGS THAT WE CAN TAKE, TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, UM, AND I'LL BRIEFLY TOUCH ON THOSE, THE CULPABILITY OF THE PERSON CHARGED. UM, IN THIS CONTEXT, WE CAN CONSIDER WHETHER THE VIOLATION WAS INTENTIONAL, [00:15:01] CARELESS, OR CAUSED BY A MISUNDERSTANDING ON THESE FACTS. THE VIOLATIONS WERE INTENTIONAL. SHE DIDN'T DO IT HERSELF, BUT INSTEAD DIRECTED SOMEONE ELSE TO DO IT. UM, THE HARM TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE INTEREST RESULTING FROM THE VIOLATION, THERE REALLY ISN'T A HARM TO THE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE INTEREST IN THIS CASE. UM, THE NECESSITY OF PRESERVING PUBLIC TRUST IN THE CITY, AGAIN, THERE JUST WAS NO REASON FOR US TO FALSIFY A DOCUMENT IN THIS WAY. UM, AND THAT'S JUST NEVER A GOOD IMPRESSION FOR CITY EMPLOYEES AND COLLEAGUES OR FOR THE PUBLIC, UM, AND FORTH. WHETHER THERE IS EVIDENCE OF A PATTERN OF DISREGARD FOR ETHICAL STANDARDS, WE DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT MS. FAM HAS DISPLAYED A PATTERN OF DISREGARD FOR ETHICAL STANDARDS. AND IN FACT, WE HAVE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, SHE'S BEEN EXTREMELY REMORSEFUL AND SHE UNDERSTANDS WHY HER ACTIONS WERE NOT APPROPRIATE. UH, SHE'S A GOOD EMPLOYEE. SHE'S BEEN WITH THE CITY FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS HERSELF, UM, JUST A GOOD EMPLOYEE WHO MADE A BAD CHOICE IN THIS CASE. AND THE FINAL, UM, ITEM WE CAN CONSIDER IS WHETHER REMEDIAL ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN THAT WILL MITIGATE THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THIS VIOLATION. AND I'LL JUST REPEAT THAT. SHE JUST, UM, RENEWED HER ETHICS TRAINING LAST WEEK. UM, SHE'S DEMONSTRATED AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES AND THE STANDARDS THAT WE HOLD HERE IN THE CITY. THANKS. JUST AS A FOLLOW ON TO, AS A FOLLOW ON TO THAT, DOES THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF AN APPROPRIATE SANCTION IN THIS CASE? UH, UNDER 12 A 59 B, THERE ARE THREE OPTIONS FOR SANCTIONS FOR A CITY EMPLOYEE, AND THERE'S REALLY ONLY ONE THAT WOULD APPLY UNDER THESE FACTS, AND THAT WOULD BE REFERRAL FOR ETHICS TRAINING. THANK YOU, MS. FAM, THIS IS YOUR, YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS US WITH ANY CLOSING REMARKS, ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO TELL US OR ASK US TO CONSIDER. YEAH, I HAVE LEARNED A LESSON FROM THIS, SO I'M BETTER GOING FORWARD. I'M, I'M SORRY, SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME. I SAY I HAVE LEARNED A BIG LESSON FROM THIS. I SHOULD NOT TAKE UP ON MYSELF TO DO IT. I SHOULD HAVE KICK IT BACK AND DON'T CARE HOW LONG IT TAKES. IF THE VENDOR WANT TO GET PAID, THEY WOULD SUBMIT IT. RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE FROM INSPECTOR GENERAL? NO, SIR. OKAY. AT THIS TIME, THIS IS CONCLUSION OF PHASE TWO OF THE HEARING AND THE PANEL IS NOW PREPARED TO DELIBERATE A RECOMMENDED SANCTION AT THIS TIME. UH, JUST A REMINDER THAT THE RESPONDENT IS A CURRENT CITY EMPLOYEE, THE PANEL MAY RECOMMEND THAT THE SANCTIONING PERSON, UH, SHALL TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERSONNEL RULES AS ANY, AS WELL AS ANY OF THE THREE ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS LISTED IN SECTION 12 A, 59 B. IF ANY. IS THERE A MOTION FROM THE PANEL AS TO AN APPROPRIATE SANCTION? MAY, MAY, MAY I ASK A QUESTION? YEAH. ARE, ARE THERE PERSONNEL VIOLATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CONDUCT THAT THAT WOULD BE UP TO A DETERMINATION MADE BY THE RESPONDENT'S SUPERVISOR? VIOLATIONS OF PERSONNEL RULES DON'T COME BEFORE THE EAC. OKAY. OKAY. WELL, NO, GO AHEAD. WELL, HAS THERE BEEN ANY, UH, APPROPRIATE PERSONNEL ACTION TAKEN? DO WE KNOW MS. PHELAN? NOT THAT I KNOW OF. I DON'T, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY, UH, PERSONNEL ACTIONS THAT HAVE, UH, BEEN TAKEN TO DATE. I BELIEVE THE SUPERVISORS WERE JUST GONNA WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENED AT THE HEARING. AND, AND MY INTERPRETATION OR MY READING OF THE, THE CODE, AND I'M SURE MS. MORRISON WILL CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS THAT OUR OPTION HERE IS WE CAN, ANY PA ANY, ANY SANCTION WE IMPOSE IS GOING TO INVOLVE ASKING THE SANCTIONING PERSON TO TAKE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH PERSONNEL RULES. SO I THINK THAT'S A GIVEN. THE QUESTION FOR US IS, DO WE WANT TO DO JUST THAT OR ALSO REFER TO ETHICS TRAINING, FOR EXAMPLE? IS THAT, IS THAT A FAIR UNDERSTANDING? BUT OUR DOCUMENT HERE SAYS THAT WE CAN RECOMMEND IT. YES. THAT'S OUR, I THINK OUR, OUR OPTIONS ARE, DO WE JUST RECOMMEND PERSONNEL ACTION OR DO WE RECOMMEND PERSONNEL ACTION PLUS ETHICS STRAINING? IS THAT ACCURATE? YES. OKAY. [00:20:02] DOES ANYONE WANNA MAKE A MOTION OR I CAN ? WELL, I HAVE PROVIDED, UM, A HANDOUT THAT CONTAINS SAMPLE MOTIONS FOR ANYONE, UH, WHO WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION. THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR THAT. I'LL, I'LL MOVE, UH, I MOVE FOR THE SANCTIONING PERSON TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERSONNEL RULES. CHOICE ONE. CHOICE ONE. IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND. ANY FURTHER, UH, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION AND WHICH HAS BEEN SECONDED FOR ESSENTIALLY THE, THE OPTION ONE, WHICH IS A MOTION FOR THE SANCTIONING PERSON TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERSONNEL RULES, UH, AND NO OTHER FURTHER SANCTION. ANY QUESTIONS? UM, IN THAT CASE, UM, WE CAN PROCEED TO VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. UH, THAT'S RECOMMENDATION IS UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTED AND I BELIEVE TODAY'S WE HAVE TO SIGN ANY OF THAT OUT. YEAH, I'VE GOT IT. YOU GOT IT. OKAY. WE'LL TAKE CARE OF THAT. OKAY. ANYTHING OKAY WITH THAT? TODAY'S HEARING HAS NOW CONCLUDED IT IS 9 52 ON JUNE 9TH, 2026, AND THIS EVIDENTIARY HEARING OF A PANEL OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION IS NOW ADJOURNED. THANK YOU ALL. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.