[00:00:02]
THIS WEBINAR IS BEING TRANSCRIBED AND
[Ethics Advisory Commission Working Group on July 14, 2026.]
SUMMARIZED.CALL MR. VIAL IS HERE DOWNSTAIRS.
PERKINS IS HERE, UH, CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE MORRISON, NANCY SANCHEZ, UH, AND CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, LAURA MORRISON.
WE HAVE A FEW FINAL AMENDMENTS TO WORK ON, UH, THIS MORNING.
THE, UH, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WAS KIND ENOUGH TO SEND US, UH, A DOCUMENT WITH THE, I THINK WE'VE GOT ABOUT SIX EXCEPT SIX, UH, UH, AREAS THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS AND MAKE THE FINAL AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE FULL COMMISSION.
UH, THE FULL COMMISSION AFTER WE MEET, WE'LL MEET, I THINK IT'S NEXT WEEK, THE 21ST.
I THINK IT IS TUESDAY, THE 21ST, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
SO WITH THAT, UH, WE HAVE A QUORUM.
IT'S A FULL COMMISSION MEETING.
SO THESE ARE THE FINAL, UH, AMENDMENTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER TODAY.
I'M GOING TO TURN THIS OVER TO MS. MORRISON SO SHE CAN TELL US OR DESCRIBE WHAT THE FINAL SIX AMENDMENTS ARE.
IF THERE'S GONNA BE ANY DISCUSSION, WE CAN DO THAT.
AND THEN HAVE A VOTE ON THE FINAL SIX AMENDMENTS AND THEY CAN THEN BE PRESENTED TO THE FULL COMMISSION WHEN WE MEET, UH, NEXT WEEK.
UH, THESE AMENDMENTS ARE BEING BROUGHT TO THE WORKING GROUP AT THE REQUEST OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON GENERAL INVESTIGATING AND ETHICS.
UH, THE COMMITTEE MET IN EARLY JUNE, JUNE 2ND, I THINK, AND THEY WENT OVER ALL OF THE EAC RECOMMENDED, UM, AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 12.
A, UH, FOR THE MOST PART, MAYBE EXCEPT FOR ONE.
THEY, UM, HAVE, HAVE CHOSEN, THE COMMITTEE HAS CHOSEN, UH, TO, TO MOVE THEM ALL FORWARD.
AND THEY HAD, UM, A FEW OUTSTANDING, COUPLE OF NEW ONES AND A COUPLE MAYBE THAT THEY, THEY WANTED THE EAC JUST TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY.
WE'LL GO THROUGH THEM ONE AT A TIME.
UM, I'LL KIND OF INTRODUCE THEM, BARON, AND THEN IF YOU WANT TO JUMP IN AND MAYBE PROVIDE A, A FURTHER EXPLANATION IF YOU THINK IT'S NEEDED, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
UM, THE FIRST ONE IN YOUR PACKET, IF YOU, I, UM, I'M, I DIDN'T CALL THE INSPECTOR JONES OFFICE AND I'M SORRY.
BARON ELIA, AN INTERIM INSPECTOR GENERAL RFE, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL.
SO ON ON PAGE TWO, WE HAVE 12 A DASH 22, WHICH IS OUR SECTION ON PROHIBITED INTEREST IN CONTRACTS.
AND THERE'S A GENERAL RULE, UM, THAT CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, UM, SHALL COMPLY WITH THE RESTRICTIONS ON FINANCIAL INTEREST IN CONTRACTS IN THE CHARTER.
UM, CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES MAY NOT, WHILE IN THE SERVICE OR EMPLOYMENT OF THE CITY, UH, BASICALLY PARTICIPATE IN EXECUTING CITY CONTRACTS, PARTICIPATE IN THE MAKING OF A CONTRACT.
AND THEN IN SUBSECTION C, WE HAVE EXCEPTIONS
[00:05:01]
TO THE GENERAL RULE, UH, WHICH IS THAT BOARD AND COMMISSIONS, UM, THAT ARE ADVISORY ONLY, UM, MAY ENTER INTO CITY CONTRACTS, COMMITTEES AND TASK FORCES PERFORMED BY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, UH, FOR A BOARD OF A NONPROFIT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THAT ACTS AS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE CITY.AND THEN ALSO THE MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT BOARD.
THOSE CAN, ALL, THOSE ARE ALL EXCEPTIONS TO BASICALLY THE BAN ON PARTICIPATING IN CITY CONTRACTS.
AND THE, UH, AD HOC COMMITTEE WANTED, UH, THIS, THIS BODY AND THE FULL EAC TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS TO SEE IF THIS IS STILL THESE, IT'S TO SEE IF THESE EXCEPTIONS ARE STILL A GOOD IDEA.
UM, WHAT WE'VE COME UP WITH HERE.
AND THEY, THEY INDICATED AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THEY SHOULD JUST BE ALLOWED TO ENTER INTO CITY CONTRACTS THAT ARE COMPETITIVELY BID.
SO THEY'D HAVE TO COMPETE FOR THOSE CONTRACTS, UM, AND NOT, AND FOLLOW THE GENERAL RULE PROHIBITING THEIR PARTICIPATION IN OTHER TYPES OF CONTRACTS.
SO THAT'S THE HIGHLIGHTED LANGUAGE YOU SEE THERE.
AND THEN THE ALTERNATE, UM, OPTION IS TO GET RID OF THE EXCEPTIONS ALTOGETHER.
SO I THINK IG, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA JUMP IN, IF YOUR, UM, RECOMMENDATION IS TO GO WITH THE HIGHLIGHTED LANGUAGE.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? I HAVE SOME SCENARIOS THAT I THINK WERE, ARE HELPFUL TO STIMULATE DISCUSSION OF, OF THE WORKING GROUP.
UM, IN TERMS OF, UH, A DIRECT RECOMMENDATION, I, I THINK IT, THIS SHOULD BE MORE, I, I WOULD GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.
I, I THINK THE DIRECTION I WOULD GO IN IS MORE OF DISCLOSURE AND, AND RECUSAL.
AND THE REASON IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IN THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE COMPETITIVE BID IS NOT REQUIRED, YOU, YOU'RE GONNA REQUIRE THESE FOLKS TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
AND I THINK YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO HANDLE IT BETTER WITH DISCLOSURE OR, OR RECUSAL.
UM, BUT, BUT I THINK SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE.
AND THE COUNCIL MEMBERS BROUGHT UP SOME SCENARIOS AND, AND I'M, I BASED THESE ON THAT CONVERSATION.
SO THE, THE FIRST ONE, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT A SITUATION WITH A COMPETITIVE BID, AND THEY HAD NO PROCESS ROLE.
THEY DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T PARTICIPATE.
SO AN ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER OWNS A COMPANY.
THEY SUBMIT THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BID FOR A CONTRACT REQUIRED BY STATE LAW TO BE COMPETITIVELY BID.
THEY DIDN'T HELP DRAFT THE SPECIFICATIONS, THEY DIDN'T SCORE THE PROPOSALS.
AND IN MY VIEW, THEN YOU, YOU MOVE OVER AND SAY YOU HAVE A TASK FORCE MEMBER AND THEY HELP SHAPE THE PROJECT REQUIREMENTS.
AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE EXAMPLES GIVEN BY A COUNCILMAN.
UH, THEN THEIR COMPANY SUBMITS A BID UNDER THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS.
WELL, AT LEAST IN THAT CASE, THERE'S A COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS.
AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THE THIRD SITUATION WHERE, WHICH WAS ANOTHER SCENARIO, UH, FROM A REAL CASE THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER SHARED WHERE, UH, A BORDER COMMISSION MEMBER, UM, CRAFTED THE PROPOSAL THAT THAT, UH, ENDED UP BEING APPROVED FOR THE CITY TO GO AFTER A CERTAIN TYPE OF WORK AND CRAFTED IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE COMPANY THEY HAPPENED TO OWN WAS THE SOLE SOURCE PROVIDER OF THAT.
AND SO THEN THEY ENDED UP GETTING THE CONTRACT.
AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK YOU ALL NEED TO WRESTLE WITH, UH, IN DETERMINING WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION.
WHEN, WHEN DOES A, SOMEBODY WHO IS SERVING THE CITY ON ONE OF THESE BOARDS THAT RIGHT NOW IS ACCEPTED FROM THIS PROVISION, WHEN DOES THEIR PARTICIPATION CROSS A LINE WHERE YOU NEED TO EITHER EXCLUDE THEM ALL TOGETHER IN THE BRIGHT LINE WAY, OR, UH, HAVE SOME KIND OF DISCLOSURE TO THE CITY AND TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT THEIR ROLE IN THE PROCESS? IS THAT, YEAH, I MEAN, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE FIRST ONE, WHICH IS IF YOU HAVE A COUNCIL OR A BOARD MEMBER, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THESE BOARD COMM COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO HAS NO ROLE IN THE DECISIONING OF WHO'S GONNA GET THE BID OR THE SHAPING OF WHAT THE BID REQUIREMENTS ARE, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, SHOULDN'T BE PROHIBITED FROM SUBMITTING A BID, RIGHT? I MEAN, THEY'RE, THEY JUST HAPPEN TO BE ON ANOTHER BOARD.
IT'D BE LIKE, IF ONE OF US OWNED A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND THERE'S SOME OTHER CITY CONTRACT AND, AND WE WANTED TO BID ON IT.
[00:10:01]
I THINK THE SECOND ONE, WHICH IS WHERE'S THERE'S A COMPETITIVE BID AND THEY, AGAIN, DON'T HAVE A ROLE IN, YOU KNOW, THE DECISIONING OR, OR KIND OF THE SHAPING OF IT, THAT THAT KIND OF FITS IN THE SAME ONE.I THINK ABSOLUTELY WHEN SOMEBODY HAS THE ABILITY TO INFLUENCE WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE OF A CONTRACT, THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SUBMIT THE BIDS ON, THAT THEY'D HAVE TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM THE MAKING OF THE REQUIREMENTS, OR, UH, THEY'D HAVE TO NOT BE ABLE TO BID.
I DON'T THINK DISCLOSURE OF THE FACT THAT I HAPPEN TO BE ON THIS COMMISSION THAT CREATED THESE REQUIREMENTS, BUT I'M STILL GONNA BE ABLE TO SUBMIT MY BID SOLVE FOR, I, I DON'T THINK THAT TAKES AWAY JUST BECAUSE I SAY, HEY, I WAS ON THE BOARD THAT CREATED THIS BID AND I'M STILL THE SOLE PROVIDER THAT, THAT GETS US FAR ENOUGH.
I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO EITHER HAVE THEM NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE REQUIREMENTS CREATION PROCESS OR NOT BE ABLE TO SUBMIT A BID.
JUST KIND OF OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THOSE, UM, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHEN I SAW THIS LANGUAGE, WHY THEY SAID ONLY WHEN IT WAS A COMPETITIVE BID, BECAUSE I MEAN, IT ALMOST SEEMS WORSE THAT, I MEAN, I, I, I DON'T KNOW.
I MEAN, I GUESS THEY'RE, THEY'RE SAYING THAT THE EXCEPTION ONLY APPLIES WHEN THERE'S COMPETITIVE BID.
IF THERE'S NO COMPETITIVE BID, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED FROM DOING THOSE THINGS.
IS THAT HOW IT'S KIND OF TRIED TO BE WRITTEN? THAT'S, THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTAND.
I'LL READ IT AGAIN, BUT I, BUT I THINK THOSE ARE THE, TO ME, IF THEY'RE ABLE TO BE INVOLVED IN THE CREATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS, THEY, THEY CAN'T PARTICIPATE.
THEY EITHER HAVE TO REC ACCUSE THEMSELVES FROM THAT CREATION OR NOT BID.
CAN I JUST ASK A QUESTION? STATISTICALLY IT COMPETITIVE BID VERSUS A NON-COMPETITIVE BID, IS THAT SOME BID SOME CONTRACTS AREN'T OPEN TO COMPETITIVE BIDDING, OR IT DOESN'T JUST MEAN THERE'S NOBODY ELSE BIDED? THERE'S A, YOU WANNA ANSWER? THERE'S A THRESHOLD, UH, RIGHT NOW, AND I THINK IT, UH, WE'VE RECENTLY MOVED UP TO A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.
SO UP TO A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH A BIDDING PROCESS PER SE.
AND THEN IT'S VERY COMPLICATED, AT LEAST TO ME, I'M NOT A GERMAN EXPERT, BUT ALSO IF IT'S A SOLE SOURCE, AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE EXAMPLES THAT, THAT CAME UP WHERE YOU HAD A, A MEMBER OF ONE OF THESE GROUPS, UH, DESIGN, UH, A PROPOSAL THAT GOT APPROVED FOR THE CITY TO DO A CERTAIN THING.
AND ACCORDING TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, THEY, THEY MADE SURE THAT THEIR COMP, THAT IN THAT, IN CRAFTING THAT THERE WAS ONE PART THAT ONLY THEIR COMPANY DID AND WHEN IT'S, AND SO THAT MADE THEIR COMPANY THE SOLE SOURCE OF THAT ONE PART OF WHAT THE CITY WAS TRYING TO DO.
AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, WHEN IT SOLE SOURCE, YOU DON'T DO COMPETITIVE BIDDING BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER SOURCE OUT THERE.
THERE'S NO POINT IN DOING COMPETITIVE BIDDING BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING WE'VE GOTTA HAVE COKE.
AND IT JUST SO HAPPENS I'M THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS COKE IN MY COKE MACHINE.
UM, AND SO THAT HAS BEEN AN, THAT IS AN END RUN.
WHEN IT'S NOT DONE APPROPRIATELY, THAT CAN BE AN END RUN AROUND THE COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS.
SO LEMME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU, WHAT WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST SUGGEST.
UM, SO IF A BID IS NOT, OR IF A CONTRACT IS NOT COMPETITIVELY BID, THEN THIS EXCEPTION IS NOT GOING TO APPLY REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S A BOARD OF COMMISSION OR WHETHER IT IS A SOLE SOURCE BID, UH, OR SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU'RE NOT BIDDING ON CIRCUMSTANCES.
CAN YOU, CAN YOU HELP ME ARTICULATE WHERE, WHAT, WHAT YOUR FINAL SUGGESTION WOULD BE? AND THEN I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SEE IF SHE HAS THOUGHTS.
SO I WOULD, I WOULD SAY THAT WHETHER YOU CALL, WHETHER IT ENDS UP WHATEVER REASON THERE IS FOR THERE TO NOT BE COMPETITIVE BIDDING, WHETHER IT'S YOU DON'T MEET THE THRESHOLD OR IT'S A SOLE SOURCE.
I, I CAN RECOMMEND THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN BECAUSE IT, IT DOES HAVE THAT VISION IN THERE THAT, THAT THAT IT, IT DOESN'T SAY IT EXPLICITLY, BUT IF, IF IT'S COMPETITIVELY BID, YOU'RE PROTECTED BY THAT PROCESS.
[00:15:01]
ON IN THOSE OTHER SITUATIONS, UM, YOU WOULD NOT BE OTHER SITUATIONS, MEANING FOR WHATEVER REASON, THERE'S NO COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS.I THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO, TO DO THIS.
UM, BUT I'M, I THINK IT'S COMPLICATED.
I'M JUST, HONESTLY, I'M, I'M JUST INTERESTED IN, IN YOUR DISCUSSION, AND I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, UM, WE THINK THROUGH IT AS MUCH AS, YOU KNOW, GIVE IT, GIVE IT JUST DISCUSSION.
BECAUSE WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN, UH, I THINK THE, UM, OBJECTION IS GOING TO BE JUST THAT, LOOK, WE'RE, WE'RE HAVING A HARD ENOUGH TIME GETTING PEOPLE ON THESE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, AND WE'RE KEEPING THEM DOING BUSINESS WITH THE CITY AND THEY'RE THE EXPERTS AND ALL THOSE KINDS OF THINGS THAT I, I'VE ALREADY HEARD.
UM, AND SO WHAT, WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU'VE GOT A BOARD COMMISSION MEMBER THAT IS THE SOLE SOURCE AND IT'S LEGITIMATE? DO WE THEN THROW THAT INTO A COMPETITIVE BID? WE HAVE NO GUIDELINES FOR DOING THAT.
THE ONLY THE GUIDELINES SAY IT'S SOLE SOURCE.
IF IT'S LESS THAN A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT.
BUT I THINK THERE'S STILL A GAP THERE IN THOSE SITUATIONS, UM, TO THINK ABOUT, BECAUSE IT MAY BE THE RIGHT THING AND THE BEST THING FOR THE CITY, AND MAYBE FOR THAT PERSON ON THE BOARD OF COMMISSION AND THEIR COMPANY WHO, FOR INSTANCE, THE SOLE SOURCE TO HAVE THE CONTRACT.
BUT MAYBE WE JUST SAY FOR POLICY REASONS, IT'S OKAY IF WE DON'T GET THAT CONTRACT.
WE'LL JUST FIGURE OUT ANOTHER WAY WHEN THOSE SITUATIONS COME UP.
WELL, I THINK IF THAT'S THE CASE, AND WE'VE HAD THAT IN THE PAST, A BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER COULD RESIGN.
THEY'D HAVE TO DECIDE, WELL, WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME? AND THAT THAT RECENTLY HAPPENED.
SO WHAT'S, WHAT'S YOUR RECOMMENDATION? DID THAT COMMISSIONER THAT RESIGNED, DID THEY RESIGN BECAUSE THEY WANTED THE BID OR THEY COULDN'T HAVE THE COMMISSIONER? I MEAN, I DON'T RECALL.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHY THESE EXCEPTIONS WERE WRITTEN IN, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, IT, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT THE FACT THAT IT'S A SOLE SOURCE ISN'T REALLY INDICATIVE OF A PROBLEM IF THEY WEREN'T INVOLVED WITH THE CREATION OF A REQUIREMENT.
RIGHT? I MEAN, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS IN, IN, IN KIND OF THE PLAIN LANGUAGE IS KEEP THE COMPANY OWNER OR COMPANY OFFICER FROM BEING ABLE TO IMPROPERLY INFLUENCE THE, THE PROCESS SUCH THAT THEY'RE GONNA DEFINITELY WIN WIN.
RIGHT? AND, AND IF THERE'S A, JUST A NORMAL SETUP IN THE WORLD AND THEY GO THROUGH EVERYTHING AND THEY DECIDE, OKAY, THIS IS WHAT THE CITY NEEDS, AND THERE HAPPENS TO BE A BOARD MEMBER ON A COMMISSION OR A COMMISSION MEMBER THAT HAS A COMPANY THAT'S ABLE TO DO THAT, AND THEY WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THAT OR IN IMPROPERLY INFLUENCED THE CREATION OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS, I DON'T THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO DISQUALIFY THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO, TO GET THAT BIT, YOU KNOW, GET THAT CONTRACT.
SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD, IIII, I LIKE THE LANGUAGE ABOUT THE FOLLOWING BODIES, YOU KNOW, KIND OF ABOUT THE COMPETITIVE BIT.
I MEAN, I GET THAT A LITTLE BIT, BUT I MEAN, TO ME, I THINK WHERE WE REALLY NEED TO POINT THE RESTRICTION IS THAT IF THE BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER IS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF DEFINING THE TERMS OF THE, OF THE, OF THE CONTRACT OR THE, OR THE REQUEST OR THE, IF THERE'S A DECISION, RIGHT? IF THERE'S SOMEHOW THERE'S A DECISION OF THAT, THEN THEY CAN'T, YOU KNOW, SUBMIT THAT THIS EXCEPTION DOESN'T APPLY TO ME.
THAT'S WHERE I THINK THE PROBLEM IS, RIGHT? IT'S THE ABILITY TO INFLUENCE WHAT THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT'S GONNA BE BOUGHT IN SUCH WAY, LIKE, YOU KNOW, MR. LYSON SAYS THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO SET IT UP SO THAT YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WIN THAT AS LONG AS IT WAS, BECAUSE BOTH SIDES CAN BE OPEN, RIGHT? IT CAN BE JUST AN OPEN AND AND HONEST CREATION OF WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE OR AN OPEN AND HONEST CREATION OF THE BID.
AND IF ONE OF, AS LONG AS IT'S OPEN, YOU KNOW, THE ONE IS DONE CORRECTLY, THE OPEN, THE, THE CREATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS, THE FACT THAT ONE COMPANY IS THE ONLY ONE THAT DOES THAT SHOULDN'T BE A NEGATIVE.
I MEAN, I DON'T THINK, AS LONG AS THEY WEREN'T PART OF THAT PROCESS.
SO I, THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT THIS LANGUAGE IS IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ALLOW FOR A SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT WHEN IT WAS CREATED IN A PROPER MANNER.
SO IT COULD READ, YOU KNOW, THE RESTRICTIONS IN SUBSECTIONS A AND B DO NOT APPLY TO A MEMBER OF THE FOLLOWING BODIES WHO PARTICIPATE IN A CONTRACT THAT IS EITHER REQUIRED BY
[00:20:01]
STATE LAW TO BE COMPETITIVELY BID OR A CONTRACT WHERE THE MEMBER WAS NOT INVOLVED IN, UH, CREATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OR DEFINING THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT.WELL, IT WOULD BE, WAS NOT INVOLVED BECAUSE WE'RE SAYING THIS IS AN EXCEPTION.
AND THAT, THAT SOLVES MY ANXIETY, HUH? ON THE NOSE.
SO DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? MM-HMM
MADAM CITY ATTORNEY, AND YOU CAN CRAFT SOME LANGUAGE THAT, OH, I'M SORRY, I'M STILL ROLLING.
UM, AND I'M JUST SAYING TO THE POINT OF SAYING, UM, MR. WISE AND REFERENCE THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T WANNA BE DETRIMENTAL TO PEOPLE WANTING TO BE ON BOARDS WITH COMMISSIONS, THE PEOPLE THAT KNOW THESE THINGS, BUT I, I MEAN, THERE HAS TO BE ONE YEAH.
THE SOLE SOURCE BIDDING IS, WOULD BE THE, AND THEY SOLE SOURCE.
AND I MEAN, IF CITY COUNCIL, AS A POLICY MATTER WANTS, WE ENCOURAGE MORE PEOPLE TO BE ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, AND THEY THINK THIS IS GONNA BE NEGATIVE TO THAT, THEN THAT'S UPSET.
THE ISSUE WITH THAT, I WILL SAY THAT HAS COME UP IN DISCUSSIONS IN THE PAST THAT SOMETIMES IT IS DIFFICULT FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO FIND ENOUGH PARTICIPATION ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND FILL THOSE ROLES.
SO I'VE GOT ONE OTHER, IT'S RELATED.
AND THE QUESTION IS, IF WE, WE MAKE THIS MOVE FOR SOLE SOURCE, DO YOU ALL THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO DO IT FOR THINGS THAT ARE UNDER THE A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS THRESHOLD? I THINK THE WAY, WELL, IT'S, IT'S NOT ABOUT, SO I DIDN'T READ ANYTHING ABOUT SOLE SOURCE.
I YEAH, THAT WOULD, THAT, THAT WAS, THAT WOULD, SO IT WOULD BE FOR ANY CONTRACT? YES.
AS LONG AS IT'S COMPETITIVELY BID AND YOU WEREN'T INVOLVED IN THE YEAH, YEAH.
THAT WAS, THAT WAS THE POINT I WAS REALLY TRYING TO MAKE, WAS IF, IF WE WERE THINKING IT WAS ALL JUST ABOUT SOLE SOURCE OF WHAT WE WERE DOING.
SO ARE WE GOOD WITH THAT, MS. MORRISON? MM-HMM
I'LL MOVE, I'LL MOVE TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS, WITH THE CHANGES IN THE LANGUAGE I SUGGESTED.
ANY DISCUSSION OF THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
OKAY, WHAT'S NEXT? NEXT IS PAGE THREE 12 A DASH 23.
UM, RIGHT NOW, AS THIS SECTION EXISTS IN THE CODE, IT'S ONLY ABOUT, UM, A PROHIBITION ON, UH, CERTAIN TYPES OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.
AND THE PROPOSAL IS TO ADD ANOTHER PROVISION HAVING TO DO WITH PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS.
AND I'LL JUST FOR A MINUTE EXPLAIN WHAT A PUBLIC HEARING MATTER IS, AND I'LL GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF MATTER I WORK WITH ALL THE TIME, WHICH IS A ZONING CASE.
UH, THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT ANY CHANGE OF ZONING IN A HOME LOAN MUNICIPALITY BE, UM, BE EFFECTUATED ONLY AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING.
AND IN DALLAS, THAT'S A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION AND A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE PLAN COMMISSION HOLDS A PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH MEANS THE MICROPHONE IS OPEN TO ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THE MATTER, WHETHER THEY'VE SIGNED UP BEFORE OR WHETHER THEY JUST SHOW UP THE DAY OF, AND THEY GET THEIR THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
AND THEN ONLY AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS A MOTION MADE AND THEN SECONDED, AND THEN DEBATED AND THEN VOTED ON.
UM, AND THEN THE PLAN COMMISSION MAKES A REC, MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON THOSE, UM, ITEMS. AND THEN THE SAME PROCESS HAPPENS AT THE CITY COUNCIL LEVEL WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CALLED.
PEOPLE COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND THEY GET TO SPEAK ON THE MATTER.
AND THEN ONCE ALL SPEAKERS HAVE HAD THEIR, SAY, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED, AND THEN A MOTION IS MADE AND SECONDED, AND THERE'S DEBATE AND A VOTE.
UM, AND ALL OF THAT IS REQUIRED BY LAW.
UM, THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES IN THE PAST WHEN CERTAIN BOARD OR COMMISSIONERS, BOARD MEMBERS OR COMMISSIONERS
[00:25:01]
HAVE INDICATED PUBLICLY HOW THEY INTEND TO VOTE ON A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM BEFORE HAVING THE PUBLIC HEARING.AND IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE ADVICE OF THE CITY TO THOSE MEMBERS, UM, YOU KNOW, TO WARN THEM AGAINST DOING THAT BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING OUT AHEAD OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND IT DISCOURAGES PARTICIPATION IN A LEGALLY REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU THINK THE MEMBERS HAVE ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MIND ON HOW THEY'RE GONNA VOTE ON THE ITEM.
SO THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ASKED US TO LOOK AT THIS, UM, TO SEE IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE COULD WRITE INTO THE CODE OF ETHICS THAT SAYS, IF YOU INDICATE PUBLICLY HOW YOU'RE GONNA VOTE ON A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM BEFORE YOU HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING, THEN THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION.
IS THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ALSO PROHIBITED FROM COMMENTING ON HOW THEY MIGHT VOTE ON A MATTER BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT OCCURS BEFORE THEY'RE, THEN THAT'S NOT PART OF THE PROPOSAL HERE.
UM, AND AGAIN, IT'S NOT REALLY A STATE LAW REQUIREMENT THAT THIS IS SOMETHING YOU CAN'T DO.
IT'S JUST ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE WARNED PEOPLE AGAINST BECAUSE OF, OF, UM, BECAUSE OF THE APPEARANCE THAT IT GIVES PEOPLE THAT THE MATTER IS SETTLED AND THEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IS JUST A FORMALITY.
BUT I IF I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY, YOU SAID THAT THERE'S 2, 2 2 TIMES THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE REQUIRED, ONE BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSION MM-HMM
AND THEN SECONDLY, BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL.
AND WOULDN'T THE CHILLING EFFECT OF A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER SAYING, WELL, I'M GONNA DEFINITELY VOTE AGAINST THAT ZONING PROPOSAL OR THAT, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER IT IS, HAVE THE SAME CHILLING EFFECT ON THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE.
SO I WAS ASKING, IS THERE ALREADY A PROHIBITION OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS DOING THAT, OR ARE WE ONLY FIXING HALF THE PROBLEM, WHICH IS THE BOARD AND THE COMMISSION SIDE, AND WE'RE STILL ALLOWING THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO GET OUT OF THE FRONT OF ISSUE AND, YOU KNOW, MAKE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE POSITION? YES.
SO THE AD HOC COMMITTEE HAS ONLY ASKED YOU TO LOOK AT THIS REQUIREMENT AS IT PERTAINS TO BOARD COMMISSION MEMBERS.
HOWEVER, YOU COULD HAVE IT ALSO PERTAIN TO COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I WILL SAY THOUGH, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AS A BODY IS MORE POLITICAL THAN OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, UM, OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, WE TRY TO KEEP THEM, YOU KNOW, KIND OF APOLITICAL, WHEREAS CITY COUNCIL BY NATURE IS MORE POLITICAL BODY.
YEAH, I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE, WHAT THE LAY OF THE LAND WAS BEFORE I STARTED TO THINK ABOUT IT.
UM, NOT THAT I THINK WE WANT, I MEAN, I, I GET WHY A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER IS GOING TO ARTICULATE THEIR POSITION SO THAT THEIR CONSTITUENTS KNOW THAT THEY'RE SUPPORTING OR, YOU KNOW, OPPOSING SOMETHING THAT THOSE CONSTITUENTS CAN STRONGLY FEEL IT IN THEIR INTEREST OR NOT.
UM, I, I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY THAT WE'RE ONLY CONSIDERING THIS FOR ONE AND ALLOWING THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER TO DO WHAT THEY DON'T WANT THE BOARD OF PERMISSION.
AND ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR, OR MS. STOBEL? I DID WATCH THE A HOC OKAY.
MEETING, UM, AND I MEAN, I WAS GOOGLING A LOT OF THINGS LIKE WHAT A PSC IS AND WHAT, AND WHATEVER LEARNED A LOT.
UM, WHAT I MOSTLY LEARNED IS THAT THAT IS, THERE ARE SO MANY POLITICS IN POLICY ISSUES AND BUDGETARY ISSUES AND TIME MANAGEMENT ISSUES THAT WEREN'T EVER REALLY IN MY BRAIN WHEN I'M JUST LOOKING AT A CODE.
UM, SO I UNDERSTAND, AND THE POINT MADE WAS THAT IF THE COUNCIL MEMBER, IF ISN'T ALLOWED TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GONNA VOTE FOR A CEMENT PLANT IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
SO I JUST, I FEEL LIKE I UNDERSTAND A LOT MORE ABOUT THE POLITICS INVOLVED, AND I THINK IF SOMETHING IS A POLITICAL OR BUDGETARY OR POLICY ISSUE, THEN THAT SHOULD GO TO THEM AND MAKE THAT THEIR DECISION.
AS FAR AS THE LANGUAGE HERE GOES, I DON'T HAVE A, A PROBLEM WITH IT.
I UNDERSTAND HIS POINT THAT IT, IT'S NOT APPLICABLE TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS THEMSELVES.
UM, SO, BUT THEY'RE ALSO GONNA, WHICH IS ABOUT RIGHT.
SO ANYWAY, THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS, MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL, UH, JUST, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR DISCUSSION? UH, AGAIN, I'LL HAVE SCENARIOS FOR EACH ONE THAT, THAT I THINK WILL HELP UNPACK, JUST LIKE WATCHING, UH, THE LAST MEETING WOULD
[00:30:01]
HAVE.AND, UM, THERE, THERE ARE, THERE IS SOME, THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN HERE THAT I THINK, UH, WILL BE DIFFICULT, UH, TO FOLLOW FOR PEOPLE READING THE CODE AND TRYING TO FOLLOW IT.
ONE, ONE OF THEM IS JUST, AND, AND THIS IS USED ELSEWHERE IN THE CODE, BUT YOU KNOW, IF THE MEMBER KNOWS SOMETHING IS LIKELY TO COME BEFORE THE MEMBER'S BOARD OR COMMISSION FOR ACTION, THAT I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THAT, BUT IT IS A LITTLE LOOSE WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, IT, IT CAN BE LOOSE.
UM, BUT LET'S GO THROUGH SOME SCENARIOS.
SO YOU, BEFORE THE HEARING, A COMMISSIONER SAYS, AND THIS IS, THIS IS JUST AN OPEN-MINDED COMMENT, I'VE RECEIVED MANY EMAILS AND PLAN TO LISTEN CAREFULLY TO STAFF THE APPLICANT, THE PUBLIC FOR DECIDING.
THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
I'M GONNA JUST, I'M GONNA LISTEN.
THEN YOU'VE GOT A BOARD MEMBER WHO PUBLICLY STATES THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS AN IMPORTANT CITY PRIORITY, BUT HE DOESN'T DISCUSS THE MERITS OR LIKELY VOTE ON A PENDING PROJECT.
HE JUST SAID, THIS PRINCIPLE IS IMPORTANT.
I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
THEN YOU'VE GOT ONE WHERE BEFORE THE HEARING CONCLUDES A COMMISSIONER POSTS OR IN THE PENDING TIME, THIS PROJECT IS WRONG FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I WILL VOTE NO, THAT'S HAPPENING.
RIGHT? AND, AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT THAT HELPS AT ALL, BUT IT HELPS ME TO HAVE SOME SCENARIOS TO THINK ABOUT THOSE KINDS OF ISSUES.
AND SO ON THIS SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE SOME PERMITTED KINDS OF CONVERSATIONS, AND I'M WALKING YOU THROUGH THIS BECAUSE IF WE ENACT THIS AND WE START TRYING TO ENFORCE IT, THIS IS HOW WE'LL BE SEEN.
THEN, UH, PROCESS, COMMENTS, LOGISTICS, POLICY VIEWS, LISTENING TO RESIDENTS THAT'S IN THE, OKAY, BASKET GETS RISKY WHEN THEY'RE MAKING, IF WE PASS THIS PUBLIC ENDORSEMENTS ANNOUNCING THEIR LIKELY VOTE, UH, SOCIAL MEDIA REACTIONS, CRITICIZING COUNCIL MEMBERS ABOUT THEIR BEING FOR, AGAINST THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, APPEARING CLOSED MINDED TO AN IDEA.
THOSE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IF THESE COMPLAINTS START COMING IN ARE CROSSING THE LINE.
UM, AND THEN WE HAVE THESE QUESTIONS THAT WILL COME UP, UH, ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES LIKELY TO COME BEFORE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? DOES IT MATTER WHETHER THE BOARD'S ADVISORY OR, OR, OR THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER? DO YOU THINK IT MATTERS MORE WHEN THE BORDER COMMISSION DOING SOMETHING ADVISORY VERSUS THEY'RE MAKING A DECISION AS OPPOSED TO A RECOMMENDATION? AND, UH, IS THERE, IF SOMEBODY GOES OUT AND SAYS SOMETHING AND CROSSES THE LINE, SHOULD THAT JUST TRIGGER A RECUSAL FOR THEM FROM VOTING IN THE MATTER? SO THOSE ARE SOME QUESTIONS THAT I THINK SHOULD BE BEFORE YOU, WHEN, WHEN YOU DISCUSS IT, BUT I IN GENERAL, I LIKE AND WOULD RECOMMEND THE CHANGE.
BUT THOSE ARE THE KIND OF ISSUES THAT I WAS HEARING IN THAT DISCUSSION FROM GENERAL, UM, INVESTIGATION AND ETHICS.
SO, SO I THINK, I THINK THE LANGUAGE HERE PROVIDES FOR ONE OF YOUR, OR ONE OF THE CONCERNS HERE, UH, WHICH IS THAT THE COMMENT OR PUBLIC STATEMENT OR YOU KNOW, WRITTEN STATEMENT IS ONLY PROHIBITED IF IT ESSENTIALLY FORETELLS WHAT YOUR DECISION IS.
SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY WHO SAYS, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT MATTER, I INTEND TO YOU GO TO THE, I CAN'T WAIT TO GO TO THE HEARING, HEAR WHATEVER, NOT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS TO MY, YOU KNOW, MY, TO THE CITY.
I, YOU KNOW, THIS WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WE TAKE CONSIDER A VERY CAREFULLY, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT FORESHADOWING WHAT THEY'RE GONNA DECIDE, I DON'T THINK THAT'S IN ANY WAY BAD OR SHOULD BE PROHIBITED IF YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER, FORESHADOWING YOUR POSITION SUCH THAT IT'S GONNA CHILL PUBLIC DURING, OR, OR, YOU KNOW, INCREASE PUBLIC.
I MEAN, YOU JUST SHOULDN'T FORESHADOW, RIGHT? I MEAN, THE WHOLE IDEA IS YOU SHOULDN'T MAKE UP YOUR MIND BEFORE YOU'VE ACTUALLY HAD THE PROCESS TAKE PLACE.
SO I THINK THAT WORKS PRETTY WELL.
AND I THINK HERE IT SAYS ANNOUNCING OR IMPLYING WHAT THE FINAL DECISION ON THE MATTER WILL BE BEFORE THE CONCLUSION THAT IT DID.
SO I THINK THEY'VE COVERED THAT PRETTY WELL.
I WILL SAY, UH, TO MR. ELIASON'S POINT, BEFORE HE EVEN COMMENTED, I HAD MARKED AND HIGHLIGHTED THE LAST SENTENCE OF THIS, WHICH IS THE PROHIBITION APPLIES TO ANY PUBLIC HEARING THAT THE MEMBER KNOWS OR IS LIKELY TO COME KNOWS, IS LIKELY TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
I, I, I THINK THAT CREATES SOME POTENTIAL AMBIGUITY.
[00:35:01]
I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THESE, YOU KNOW, MATTERS.I DON'T KNOW THE WHOLE PROCESS, YOU KNOW, IN VERY, IN GREAT DETAIL AS TO HOW SOMETHING COMES.
OBVIOUSLY SOME PEOPLE ARE GONNA KNOW, LIKE JOHN, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND, AND YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMEBODY ZONING OR SOMETHING.
IT'S BEEN A KIND FOUR YEAR GROUP.
AND IT SHOULD IMPLY THERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS TOO BROAD THE WAY THEY'VE WRITTEN IT, SUCH THAT PEOPLE ARE SURPRISED THAT THEY MADE A COMMENT, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW IT'S BEFORE THEIR ADMISSION.
IF IT'S NOT, I MEAN, IF THE, IF THE PATHS TO THE COMMISSION ARE PRETTY CLEAR AND THEY ARE LIKELY TO KNOW THAT THIS IS COMING AND THEY JUST TRY TO GET OUT AHEAD OF IT BEING PUT ON THE AGENDA, I, I DO AGREE THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO MEET THOSE S EITHER.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I SEE IT AS A, A KINDA A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S AN EMPTY LOT HERE AND A COMMISSIONER SAYING, WELL, I WOULD HATE TO SEE SUCH AND SUCH BUILT THERE, BUT THERE'S NO PENDING ZONING PACE.
NO ONE'S FILED A ZONING APPLICATION, NOTHING.
AND THEN A FEW MONTHS LATER, SOMEONE DOES FILE A ZONING APPLICATION TO BUILD EXACTLY THAT.
THEY SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED FOR WHAT THEY SAID BEFORE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT A ZONING PACE WAS EVEN GONNA BE COMING BEFORE THEM HAVING TO DO WITH THAT PIECE OF PROBLEM.
I MEAN, AND THAT, THAT'S A GREAT, GREAT EXAMPLE OF, OF IT, YOU KNOW, THERE IS, HE HAD NO REASONABLE MEANS BY WHICH TO, UH, OR SHE, THAT THAT, THAT THIS WOULD BECOME AN ITEM BEFORE, YOU KNOW, AND THEN THE STATEMENT WAS MADE.
THEY HAD NO, NO FACTS OR, OR REASONABLE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS GONNA BE SOMETHING TO DO.
AND SHE DECIDED, SO DOESN'T THIS LANGUAGE COVER THAT SITUATION? THEN IF THEY ARE, IF THEY DO NOT KNOW THAT A MATTER IS LIKELY TO COME BEFORE THEIR BODY, THEN THEY HAVE HAVE THE ABILITY TO COMMENT, UH, IN A PUBLIC YEAH, I WAS JUST, I BROUGHT IT UP SO THAT WE ALL CONFIRM THAT WE FEEL LIKE IT COVERED THAT FORCE.
I MEAN, I, I WASN'T IMPLYING THAT IT DIDN'T, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CONSCIOUSLY ALL, UH, CONCLUDED OR AGREED THAT THIS COVERED IT THE WAY WE WANTED IT, RIGHT.
WHEN THEY KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT IT WAS KNOWN COME BEFORE THEM, OR IF, UH, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT SAYS, KNOWS, IS LIKELY TO COME AND KNOWS OR SHOULD KNOWN THAT WAS GONNA COME BEFORE THEM.
YOU COULD PUT NO, OR THAT IS LIKELY I THINK IT'S, I I, I'D, I'D RATHER NOT EXPAND IT ANY FURTHER.
JUST BECAUSE I THINK THAT STARTS TO MAKE IT, YOU KNOW, EVEN HARDER.
BECAUSE THEN, LIKE YOUR EXAMPLE, WELL, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT EVENTUALLY SOMEONE'S GONNA BUILD ON THAT EVENT, ON THAT LOT, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THEN THERE'S GONNA BE SOMETHING AND IT'S SHOULD, SHOULD YOU KNOWN THERE'S ENOUGH STUFF OUT THERE THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS GONNA BECOME A PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU OR YOU KNOW, IT'S COMING YOUR WAY.
AND THEN THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD YOU HAVE KNOWN THIS WOULD EVENTUALLY BE A ZONING CASE? JUST 'CAUSE NOTHING IS BUILT THERE? WELL, PLENTY COULD BE BUILT THERE BY RIGHT, RIGHT NOW, AND MAYBE, YOU KNOW, I WOULDN'T WANT THE COMMISSIONER TO HAVE TO DO SOME INVESTIGATIVE WORK.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE ALL AGREED THAT IT COVERED IT THE WAY WE WANTED TO.
UM, THAT, SO THERE'S ONE OTHER ISSUE THAT IS INTERESTING AND I THINK WE'RE RELATED TO THAT.
IT WAS BROUGHT UP BY A COUNCIL MEMBER AND, AND IT'S THE TOTAL NON-STARTER.
AND I CAN GIVE YOU AN OBVIOUS EXAMPLE, BUT AT SOME POINT IT'S GONNA GET GRAY.
AND WHEN IT GETS GRAY, I THINK WE JUST, MY RECOMMENDATION IS WE KEEP THIS AND JUST HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT.
UH, AND THE EXAMPLE WAS THE BATCH PLAN.
UM, THE COUNCIL MEMBERS SAID, LOOK, IF, IF A, IF A BOARD COMMISSION MEMBERS AT A TOWN MEETING OF SOME KIND, AND SOMEBODY SAYS, I I WANT TO PUT A BATCH PLANT RIGHT IN NEXT DOOR TO THIS, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD AT THIS POINT, THAT PERSON CAN'T TELL THEM.
WHAT IS OBVIOUS IS THAT IS A NON-STARTER.
YOU CAN, YOU CAN PROPOSE THAT YOU CAN BID, PUT IT THERE ALL YOU WANT, THAT WILL NEVER GET PAST OUR GROUP.
UM, AND WITH THIS RULE, WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER'S POINT WAS IT'S GONNA GO FORWARD.
IT'S GONNA, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO, IF, IF, IF THE BOARD OF COMMISSION MEMBER IS NOT ALLOWED TO SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT, LIKE, I JUST KNOW THAT'S NEVER GONNA HAPPEN, DON'T WASTE YOUR FILING FEE.
DON'T WASTE THE CITY'S TIME IN WORKING THIS UP.
WELL, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE THE STATEMENT PUBLICLY.
THEY CAN HAVE THE PRIVATE CONVERSATION WARNING THEM AGAINST, YOU KNOW, YOU MIGHT RECONSIDER FILING A ZONING APPLICATION LIKE THAT BECAUSE I DON'T REALLY SEE THE COMMISSION GOING FOR IT.
THEY COULD HAVE THAT PRIVATE CONVERSATION.
SO, WELL, AND, AND, AND I THINK EVERYONE SHOULD GET THEIR, YOU KNOW, TIME AT THE PLATE IF THEY THINK THEY CAN SOMEHOW MAKE IT HAPPEN.
[00:40:01]
SO PERSUASIVE AND THAT THEY'RE GONNA, DESPITE ALL THE OPPOSITION, YOU KNOW, SOMEHOW CONVINCE THE COMMISSION TO LET 'EM DO IT, TAKE A SHOT.I MEAN, IF YOU WANNA SPEND YOUR MONEY AND, YOU KNOW, SPEND SOME TIME, WE SHOULDN'T CHILL THAT, YOU KNOW, IMPERMISSIBLY, I MEAN, LET 'EM TAKE TRY.
I MEAN, EVEN IF IT'S DEAD IN THE WATER, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO GIVE A SHOT.
AND, AND, AND I THINK THAT THAT PUBLIC, THAT'S THE KEY.
SO IS EVERYONE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS LANGUAGE AFTER THIS DISCUSSION? OKAY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS BY COMMISSION MEMBERS OR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL? OH, OKAY.
WELL, MS, UH, I MOVE TO SEND THIS, UH, I GUESS WE'LL SUMMARY TO YES.
UM, AS IT, AS IT FURTHER SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALTHOUGH IN FAVOR, PLEASE STATE IN FIVE BY SAYING AYE.
ADAM, CITY ATTORNEY, UM, PAGES FOUR AND FIVE, WE HAVE 12 A 29, UH, THIS IS IN OUR LOBBYING ARTICLE AND THIS, SO 12 A 29 IS THE DEFINITIONS IN OUR LOBBYING ARTICLE.
AND THEN 12 A 30 ON PAGE FIVE, THAT THIS IS THE SECTION THAT SPELLS OUT WHO'S REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST.
AND GENERALLY SPEAKING, IT'S SOMEONE WHO'S BEING PAID, UM, TO LOBBY ON SOMEONE ELSE'S BEHALF.
AND THE COMMITTEE STARTED A DISCUSSION ABOUT, WELL, YOU KNOW, THAT'S OBVIOUS.
IF YOU'RE BEING PAID TO LOBBY ON SOMEONE ELSE'S BEHALF, THEN YOU SHOULD REGISTER AND ALL OF THAT, AND EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS.
BUT WHAT ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE WHO WORKS MAYBE FOR A NONPROFIT OR EVEN VOLUNTEERS FOR A NONPROFIT AND AN ORGANIZATION DONATES TO THE NONPROFIT, AND THEN TO GET THE NONPROFIT TO DO THE LOBBYING ON THEIR BEHALF.
AND SO WHAT I DID HEAR WAS ADD, UM, SOME LANGUAGE TO THE DEFINITION OF LOBBYING FIRM, UH, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE A PERSON SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF OR REPRESENTING A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT HAS RECEIVED COMPENSATION FOR LOBBYING.
AND THEN UNDER WHO'S REQUIRED, UH, TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST.
IT'S, UM, A PERSON MUST, UH, A PERSON MUST REGISTER WITH THE CITY SECRETARY IF THE PERSON LOBBIES AS THE AGENT, REPRESENTATIVE, EMPLOYEE, OR EMPLOYEE OF A LOBBYING FIRM THAT HAS RECEIVED COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT OR DONATIONS OF $200 OR MORE, UM, IN A CALENDAR QUARTER FOR LOBBYING.
SO THE GOAL HERE IS TO ENSURE THAT NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE RECEIVING INCOME OR ENGAGED IN QUOTE UNQUOTE LOBBYING ACTIVITIES, THEY WOULD BE COVERED AS A LOBBY UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRED TO REGISTER AND REQUIRED TO REGISTER.
SO, AND, UM, AGAIN, I WATCHED THIS AND THE EXAMPLE THEY GAVE IS, SO SOMEBODY DONATES $10,000 TO PITA OR THAT SBCA OR SOMETHING AND THEN GETS ALL THE PEOPLE TO GO.
STEVE, MY ONLY QUESTION IS IF WE SHOULD ADD SOME LANGUAGE HERE.
UM, IT SAYS ON BEHALF OF, I MEAN, MAYBE WE CAN ADD SOME LANGUAGE, LIKE AT THE REQUEST OF, OR I DON'T KNOW, THAT WAS JUST WHAT WE TALKED ON THAT YEAH.
A PERSON SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF, OR AT THE REQUEST OF THAT WAS MY ONLY THOUGHT.
I THOUGHT I THOUGHT OF SOME LANGUAGE ALONG THOSE LINES.
YOU KNOW, REQUEST DIRECTION OR AUTHORIZATION OF THE NONPROFIT.
IT'S CAPTURING WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
YOU'RE BEING DIRECTED BY YOUR NONPROFIT AS A, I MEAN, IF THEY'RE JUST A VOLUNTEER ACTIVIST, I DON'T, THEY, THEY DON'T NEED AUTHORIZATION OR DIRECTOR.
I JUST, I THINK THAT MIGHT JUST CAPTURE ON BEHALF OF THIS PRETTY, PRETTY AMBIGUOUS TO ME.
UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN CAPTURE SOME, SAY THERE'S SOME SORT OF, YOU KNOW, ETHICS QUESTION, IF THERE'S SOME SOCIAL MEDIA POST THAT YOU CAN CAPTURE THAT SAYS EVERYBODY NEEDS TO DO ONE CITY
[00:45:01]
HALL.LIKE, I JUST FEEL LIKE YOU SHOULD TRY TO CAPTURE SOME, SOME MORE, SOMETHING MORE THAN ON BEHALF OF, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS.
AND WHAT WERE YOUR, WHAT WAS YOUR LANGUAGE, MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL? IT, IT WAS THREE WORDS REQUESTS, DIRECTION OR, OR AUTHORIZATION.
UM, AND, AND I RECOGNIZE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THEY'RE JUST VOLUNTEERS.
THEY DON'T NEED THE DIRECTION.
BUT, BUT, BUT TO ME, THE, THE TERM DIRECTION IS, HEY MEMBERS, WE GOTTA GET OUT THE, WE GOTTA SHOW UP AT CITY HALL.
WE JUST GOT THIS GREAT DONATION.
AND THEY WOULD NEVER SAY THAT, BUT YOU KNOW, WE GOT THIS GREAT DONATION, WE NEED TO SHOW UP IN FORCE, WEAR YOUR T-SHIRTS, WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THIS.
UH, AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE AUTHORIZED TO DO IT ON, ON BEHALF OF OUR ORGANIZATION, OR, UH, THAT'S WHAT I MEAN BY DIRECTION.
BUT, BUT I THINK REQUEST OR AUTHORIZATION, MAYBE THOSE ARE SOME WORDS.
SO INSTEAD OF JUST ON BEHALF OF, WE WOULD EXPAND THAT DEFINITION, SO TO SPEAK, DO INCLUDE THE TERMS, REQUEST AUTHORIZATION, DIRECTION OF, AND I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER RIDLEY'S POINT ON THIS WAS THEY'RE, WE'RE JUST MAKING IT CLEAR THEY'RE NOT SPEAKING ON THEIR OWN BEHALF.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE BEHALF LANGUAGE CAME FROM.
PROBABLY, PROBABLY FROM THAT COMMENT.
THEY'RE NOT SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE THERE BECAUSE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS NONPROFIT AND WHAT'S HAPPENED.
AND THAT IS A TRANSPARENCY ISSUE THERE.
THAT NEEDS TO BE, I MEAN, I, I THINK PEOPLE COULD BE SPEAKING ON THEIR OWN BEHALF MM-HMM.
BECAUSE THEY AGREE WITH THE PRINCIPLES YES.
OF THE ORGANIZATION THAT THEY'RE A MEMBER OF.
SO THEY COULD BE THERE ON THEIR OWN BEHALF MM-HMM
BUT THEY'VE BEEN REQUESTED TO SHOW UP.
SO I JUST, I THINK IT SHOULD BE MORE EXTENSIVE THAN ON BEHALF OF.
AND DOES, DOES HIS LANGUAGE IN TERMS OF REQUEST AUTHORIZATION, THE DIRECTION, DOES THAT GIVE SOME YEAH.
DOES THAT GIVE SOME CONTEXT OR SOME GREATER CERTAINTY TO WHAT ON BEHALF OF MEANS? AND, AND I THINK IT PROVIDES A SAFE HARBOR IF I HAPPEN TO BE A MEMBER OF THAT NONPROFIT, BUT I REALLY CARE ABOUT THIS.
I'M GONNA GO TALK WHETHER THE NONPROFIT IS INTERESTED OR NOT, BUT THIS KIND OF LANGUAGE, GIVE ME A SAFE HARBOR LOOK, YOU KNOW, THEY CALL, BUT I DON'T CARE.
I'M HERE, I'M IZING AND I'M SPEAKING ABOUT THIS.
SO I THINK ON THAT QUESTION, I THINK IT HAS TO BE, AND I THINK YOU'VE CAPTURED PROBABLY, BUT IT HAS TO BE THAT THE NONPROFIT IS PUSHING YOU OR PUTTING YOU OUT IN FRONT AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVE OF SORTS TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF, RIGHT? BECAUSE THEY WANT THEIR POSITION AND INFLUENCE TO COME TO THE MATTER.
SO I THINK WHATEVER LANGUAGE WE USE, IT'S, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE JUST, YOU HAPPEN TO BE PART OF OR AGREE WITH THEM, ET CETERA, BUT YOU'RE ONLY DOING IT BECAUSE OF YOURSELF, THAT'S ONE THING.
BUT WHEN YOU SPEAK ON BEHALF OF, OR YOU KNOW, YOU REPRESENT THE NONPROFIT AT THIS MEETING, THAT'S WHAT SHOULD BE PROHIBITED.
BUT I HAD A ANOTHER QUESTION, AND I THINK WE NEED TO WORDSMITH THE BACK END A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE WHEN I FIRST READ THIS SENTENCE, I GOT THE IMPRESSION THAT THE COMPENSATION WAS GOING TO THE PERSON FOR LOBBYING ON THE NONPROFIT.
AND REALLY WHAT IT IS, IS THAT THE NONPROFIT WAS GIVEN COMPENSATION, THUS THEY SENT SOMEBODY TO GO ADVOCATE ON THIS.
AND, AND SO IF WE READ IT, A PERSON SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF OR REPRESENTING A NONPROFIT THAT HAS RECEIVED COMPENSATION, I, I DON'T KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WAS MODIFYING A PERSON INSTEAD OF MODIFYING THE NONPROFIT THAT RECEIVED COMPENSATION MM-HMM
SO I JUST THINK WE GOTTA CLARIFY THAT.
'CAUSE IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, THE MONEY GOES TO THE NON-PROFIT AND THEREFORE THE PERSON SHOWS UP AND THAT'S WHAT, UH, IS THE PROBLEM.
AND I JUST THINK I'M NOT, I'M IT'S NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT HAS RECEIVED COMPENSATION.
YOU UNDERSTAND? I'M JUST SAYING, I JUST THINK THERE'S A LITTLE AMBIGUITY THERE THAT IT'S WHETHER THE PERSON GOT THE MONEY OR THE NON-PROFIT, BUT WE GOTTA MAKE CLEAR THAT IT'S THE NON-PROFIT, BUT THEY GOT IT AND THEN SENT THE PERSON.
AND THEN OTHERWISE, I'M OKAY WITH THE PRINCIPLE THAT THOSE SHOULD NOT BE, UH, ALLOWED WITHOUT REGISTERING.
AND THEN I THOUGHT YOUR LANGUAGE FOR FOUR UNDER THE, UH, REGISTERING PART WAS GOOD.
I DIDN'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR CHANGE THERE.
AND I HAVE, HAVE ONE OTHER THING THAT I'VE, THAT I HEARD.
IS THAT, ARE WE MOVING ON OR IS THIS, IS THIS LANGUAGE I THINK I, I NEED TO PUT, I HEARD THIS.
AND I, I'M GONNA NEED MS. MORRISON'S HELP.
[00:50:01]
I HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT, WHAT ABOUT THE NONPROFIT GROUPS THAT ARE EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION, THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT THAT, AND EMPLOYEES COME AND ADVOCATE.IS THAT GONNA COUNT UNDER THIS RULE? OR IS THERE SOME EXCEPTION WE SHOULD MAKE BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THAT NONPROFIT? WELL, WHAT AN, WOULD AN OUTSIDE GROUP BE DONATING TO AN EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION TO GET EMPLOYEES TO LOBBY THEIR OWN EMPLOYER? WELL, I CAN, I CAN SEE THAT.
IF SO, I THINK WE NEED TO KNOW AND THEY SHOULD REGISTER AS LOBBYISTS.
I, I THINK THE, THE NEGATIVE COMPONENT THAT, OR THE, THE TRIGGERING COMPONENT THAT REQUIRES YOU TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST IS WHEN SOMEBODY OUTSIDE THE ORGANIZATION PROVIDES COMPENSATION FOR THE ORGANIZATION.
I THINK THAT IF AN ORGANIZATION IS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING AND THEY ADVOCATE AND ALL THE REST, THEY'RE NOT ACTING AS A LOBBYIST.
THEY'RE ACTING AS AN ADVOCATE.
AND I THINK IT'S THE, THE, THE FUND IS MOVING FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING THEM SPEAK.
SO IN YOUR CASE, IF YOU'VE GOT AN EMPLOYEE, YOU UNION OR WHATEVER IT IS, YOU KNOW, NONPROFIT AND THE EMPLOYEES ALL, YOU KNOW, RUN OUT AND SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THAT BECAUSE IT'S BAD FOR THAT EMPLOYEE GROUP.
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
IT'S ONLY WHEN SOMEBODY ELSE CAME TO THE TABLE AND SAID, HEY, WE THINK YOU SHOULD GO DO THIS, AND WE'LL GIVE YOU A A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS TO DO IT.
NOW THEY'VE GOTTEN THE FULL COMPENSATION OF THE VOTES ARE FOR THEIR SELF INTEREST.
EVEN IF THEY'RE ALIGNED, THE MINUTE YOU START ACCEPTING MONEY FOR IT IS WHEN YOU BECOME LOBBYIST.
AND I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR, THERE'S STILL NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
YOU JUST HAVE TO THEN REGISTER IT, UH, BAD WORDS THAT YOU'RE LOBBYING ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER GROUP.
BUT YES, IF A, IF AN EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION THAT'S A NONPROFIT, IF, IF THE MEMBERS OF THAT ORGANIZATION COME DOWN TO CITY HALL, UH, TO, TO, TO SPEAK FOR WHAT THAT ORGANIZATION WANTS, THEN THAT'S REALLY NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THAT, THAT'S FINE WITH, I I WASN'T, I WAS, THAT WAS A QUESTION WAS I'M NOT SURE WHAT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.
SO THANK YOU FOR THE, UH, INPUT.
UM, SO I DO THINK THIS IS A, I DO HAVE SOME PAUSE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHERE'S THE LINE BETWEEN PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO JUST COME 'CAUSE THEY'RE PASSIONATE ABOUT SOME ISSUE AND SOMEBODY DONATED A BUNCH OF MONEY TO THAT NONPROFIT, AND NOW THAT PERSON IS NOT ALLOWED TO GO SPEAK.
THEY ARE ALLOWED, THEY JUST HAVE TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST.
AND THUS THAT, IT'S THAT IF WE REMEMBER BACK TO OUR CONVERSATION, THERE WAS A, A, WE FELT THERE WAS AN IMPORTANCE FOR PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, ON THE COMMISSION OR ANYWHERE ELSE TO KNOW THAT THIS PERSON WHO'S NOW SPEAKING SO PASSIONATELY MAY NOT BE JUST DOING IT BECAUSE THEY'RE THAT PASSIONATE.
THEY'RE ALSO RECEIVING COMPENSATION FOR, RIGHT.
SO IT'S, IT'S NOT A PROHIBITION TO THEM TO PARTICIPATE OR, OR HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.
IT'S THE TRANSPARENCY THAT WE ARE ABLE TO AT LEAST WEIGH YOUR WORDS AGAINST THE MOTIVES OF IT.
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS OR ARE YOU JUST SAYING IT BECAUSE YOU'RE A LOBBYIST? OR BOTH? I MEAN, IT'S KIND OF THAT IDEA.
I, IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK, IT'S SIMPLY THAT WE ALL GET TO KNOW THAT YOU GOT SOME MONEY ALSO TO BE HERE TODAY.
SO, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
I'M TALKING ABOUT A PERSON THAT'S NOT GETTING MONEY, BUT THEY BELONG TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT HAS GOTTEN MONEY, AND SO THEREFORE THEY'RE NOT GETTING ANY MONEY.
BUT THAT'S JUST MY ONLY CAUSE IS, IS NOW THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO GO TALK WITHOUT SAYING I'M A LOBBYIST.
I, I THINK, BUT THEY MIGHT NOT BE A LOBBYIST.
I MEAN, WELL, I THINK PROBABLY IF THEIR ORGANIZATION HAS RECEIVED MONEY, AND THAT'S WHY I THINK WORDSMITHING THIS A LITTLE BIT IS A GOOD IDEA.
IF THE PERSON WHO HAS BEEN HAS BEEN SENT TO CITY HALL ON AT THE REQUEST OF THE DIRECTION OF THE AUTHORIZATION OF, BUT IF NO ONE'S DONE THAT AND TOLD THEM, HEY, WE RECEIVED MONEY, SO I NEED YOU TO GO DOWN THERE.
UM, AND IF THEY JUST SHOW UP HERE AND SAY, YEAH, I'M A MEMBER OF THIS ORGANIZATION AND OUR ORGANIZATION IS REALLY PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS, AND THEY MIGHT NOT EVEN KNOW THE ORGANIZATION WAS PAID, THEN THEY'RE NOT LOGGING THAT, THAT HELPS ME ON THAT.
SO I WOULD MOVE TO, SO, SO IF WE ADD THE REQUEST AUTHORIZATION DIRECTION, IF YOU, IF YOU ADD THE LANGUAGE WE DISCUSSED, I WOULD, I MOVE TO, UH, APPROVE THAT D AND, UM, THREE A FOUR A
[00:55:01]
PARAGRAPH FOUR SUBSECTION A TO THE EACAND BETWEEN, BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT TUESDAY, I'LL WORK ON THIS WORDING.
UM, JUST THAT ALSO I'LL ALSO, THAT PART TO JUST CLARIFY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, THE ORGANIZATION RECEIVING COMPENSATION AND ALL THE PERSON, WHICH I THINK YEAH.
SO IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE? INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE? PARDON ME? I WAS ASKING LAURA A QUESTION.
WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT? OH, UH, DOES THIS, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE LANGUAGE? YES.
SO IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
THIS IS THE RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES WHEN IT, UH, AS THEY PERTAIN TO PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTERS.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THIS WORKING GROUP AND THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION WAS ASKED TO LOOK AT ORIGINALLY.
AND THE REQUEST ORIGINALLY WAS TO REALLY DELETE ALL OF THESE RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES WHERE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU FILE FOR A PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTER, YOU CAN'T LOBBY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THAT PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTER AFTER THE FILING OF THE MATTER UNTIL THE MATTER IS RESOLVED.
UM, THERE WAS A HEALTHY DEBATE ABOUT THIS AT THE AD HOC COMMITTEE, AND THE AD HOC COMMITTEE, UM, BROUGHT UP A, A LOT OF POINTS ABOUT HOW SOMETIMES AFTER A PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTER IS FILED WITH THE CITY, THEY JUST HAVE FACTUAL QUESTIONS THAT THEY NEED ANSWERED, UM, ABOUT THE MATTER.
AND THEY DON'T WANNA BE LOBBYING NECESSARILY, BUT THEY DO, YOU KNOW, WANNA GET THEIR QUESTIONS ANSWERED BEFORE THE DAY, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY'RE SLATED TO VOTE ON THE MATTER.
SO THEY'VE ASKED FOR US TO BRING THIS BACK TO THE WORKING GROUP AND THE EAC TO SEE IF THERE'S SOME KIND OF MIDDLE GROUND THAT CAN BE FOUND BETWEEN, UM, A COMPLETE PROHIBITION ON ALL COMMUNICATION, UH, BETWEEN THESE APPLICANTS AND THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AFTER A PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTER IS, UH, APPLICATION IS FILED, UM, OR JUST UNFETTERED LIKE A MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN COMPLETE PROHIBITION ON COMMUNICATIONS AND UNFETTERED LOBBYING ON THESE MATTERS.
AND SO, UM, THIS SUBPARAGRAPH C IS, UM, SOMETHING WE CAME UP WITH THAT PROVIDES THE CITY COUNCIL AN OPPORTUNITY AFTER AN APPLICATION IS FILED TO, IN WRITING, ASK ONLY FACTUAL QUESTIONS AND GET FACTUAL ANSWERS BACK WITHOUT, UM, WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY LOBBYING DURING THAT TIME.
I, I TOO LOOKED AT THE, UH, THE FILM, UH, AND THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT CONCERN FOR, UH, THE MEMBERS OF THE ME AND I I THINK THIS IS, THIS IS, THIS IS ADDRESSES IT, THIS ADDRESSES IT TO THE EXTENT THAT THESE COMMUNICATIONS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE IN WRITING.
SO THERE'S GONNA BE A PUBLIC RECORD OF WHAT THOSE COMMUNICATIONS, WHAT THE QUESTIONS ARE, WHAT THE ANSWERS ARE, BECAUSE THEY'RE, ALL THE QUESTIONS ARE SUBMITTED IN WRITING.
THE ANSWER WAS SUBMITTED IN WRITING.
SO AT LEAST THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR BACK AND FORTH, BUT IT IS IN WRITING.
SO THERE'S A RECORD OF THOSE COMMUNICATIONS.
AND I LIKE THE FACT THAT IT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE DALLAS CITY EMAIL BECAUSE THAT HELPS PRESERVE THE RECORD, RIGHT? I MEAN, THE FACT THAT THAT COMMUNICATION IN WRITING HAS TO GO THROUGH A CHANNEL THAT'S THEN I WOULD ESSENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, BELIEVE IS STORED AND, AND MANAGED BY SOMEBODY OTHER THAN THE TWO PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE COMMUNICATION AS FAR AS THE, YOU KNOW, GATHERING OF FACTS PRIOR TO THE HEARING.
I THINK IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE, RIGHT? YOU WANNA FULLY UNDERSTAND IT AS BEST YOU CAN GOING INTO THE HEARING.
SO ASKING FACTUAL QUESTIONS TO, YOU KNOW, FLESH OUT WHAT IS POTENTIALLY NOT COMPLETE ON PAPER MAKES SENSE TO ME AS WELL.
HUH? OKAY, MS. MS. STBA, YOU HAVE, SO YEAH, AFTER THE, THE AD HOC DISCUSSION ON THIS, I, I WAS JUST LOGISTICALLY TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND HOW THEY
[01:00:01]
WERE TALKING ABOUT MAYBE YOU HAVE AN INTERMEDIARY PRESENT, BUT YOU KNOW HOW YOU FIND THAT PERSON AND WOULDN'T APPOINT A PERSON FOR LIKE EVERY PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTER THAT MUST BE PRESENT FOR A CONVERSATION.AND I WAS LIKE, THIS, THERE'S, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS CAME OUT REALLY.
SO TO ME, I THINK THIS SEEMS LIKE THE MOST PRACTICAL WAY TO DO IT.
UM, I MEAN, ASSUMING THAT NOBODY NEEDS TO BE COPIED ON IT, LIKE THE CITY FOR AN EMPLOYEE OR ANYBODY LIKE THAT, LIKE, I THINK THAT IT'S IN WRITING, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S GONNA, THE HISTORY.
UM, AND I, I DON'T, I MEAN, I, I APPRECIATE THE LANGUAGE ABOUT ONLY FACTUAL INFORMATION.
UM, BUT IF I, I DON'T, I THOUGHT ABOUT IT AND I COULDN'T, I, THIS IS SMARTER THAN WHAT I WOULD'VE ABOUT
SO YEAH, I DON'T, THOSE ARE MY ONLY, WELL, AT, AT LEAST THERE WAS A WRITTEN RECORD OF WHAT THE COMMUNICATIONS ARE, AND THEN IF THEY ARE POTENTIAL ISSUES OR PROBLEMS, AT LEAST THERE'S A RECORD FOR PEOPLE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT THEY SAID AND WHAT THOSE RESPONSES WERE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS BY THE COMMISSION? THEN I WANT TO HEAR WHAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL MUST SAID ABOUT, ARE WE OKAY ON THE COMMISSION? ALRIGHT, MR. MS. MS. INSPECTOR GENERAL, YOU ALL HAVE COMMENTS ON THIS? UH, YES.
I, YOU KNOW, I'VE SPOKEN WITH SEVERAL COUNCIL MEMBERS, SOME ARE SO I DON'T WANNA REPRESENT ANYBODY'S VIEW.
UH, SOME ARE FOR IT, SOME ARE AGAINST IT.
AGAINST WHAT? AGAINST OPENING.
UH, GREAT QUESTION AGAINST, UH, OPENING UP THE ABILITY OF COUNCIL MEMBERS TO ENGAGE DURING THE, THE TIMEFRAME WHERE, WHERE RIGHT NOW UNDER THE CODE, THEY CAN'T ENGAGE WITH, UH, PEOPLE THAT ARE INTERESTED IN PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTER, RIGHT? I THINK THIS IS ALSO RELATED TO THE PROVISION ABOVE IT ABOUT CITY CONTRACTS.
IT'S REALLY THE SAME THING IN A JUST DIFFERENT SET OF ISSUES, CONTRACTS VERSUS PUBLIC SUBSIDY.
BUT IT, IN TERMS OF BEING A, AN INSPECTOR GENERAL OR AN OIG OFFICE THAT'S INTERPRETING THESE THING, I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO BRING UP, UH, THIS SCENARIO.
'CAUSE THEY'RE JUST, THEY'RE JUST OBVIOUSLY OKAY.
UM, FACTUAL QUESTIONS GOING BACK AND FORTH UNDER THE RECOMMENDATION.
BUT, UM, YOU, YOU START BLEEDING OVER, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE ALL THE FUN IS IN THE GRAY AREAS HERE, WHERE A COUNCIL MEMBER MIGHT ASK SOMETHING LIKE, WELL, HOW MANY ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE UNITS COULD YOU ADD IF I SUPPORTED THIS SUBSIDY? AND IT, IT STARTS TO IMPLY THAT YOU NEED MORE, YOU WANT MY VOTE, ADD SOME AFFORDABLE UNITS.
AND SO THAT, THAT'S THE GRAY AREA THAT WE GET IN.
BUT I, I AGREE WITH MS. STOBO AND I COULDN'T COME UP WITH ANYTHING PERSONALLY THAT WAS BETTER THAN THIS.
UM, I, I ANTICIPATE THAT THIS WON'T, THAT REALLY NOTHING OTHER THAN UNFETTERED ACCESS
BUT I THINK THERE DO HAVE TO BE GUARDRAILS AND IT IS A TRADE OFF, BUT THE ONES THAT ARE FOR IT SEE THEMSELVES AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS AND THEY ARE FEEL HAMSTRUNG, UH, BY THE INABILITY TO ENGAGE WITH THEM ABOUT THESE THINGS.
AND THE CONTEXT SEEM TO BE, UH, AT THEIR DISTRICT MEETINGS AND PLACES LIKE THAT WITH ONE-ON-ONE IN PERSON, OBVIOUSLY GETTING A THIRD PARTY INTERMEDIARY THERE IS NEVER GONNA WORK.
UM, THERE'S, THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THAT, BUT I WON'T BELABOR THAT.
UM, AND, AND I THINK IT'S REASONABLE FOR A COUNCIL MEMBER TO SAY, UH, I HEAR YOUR CONCERN.
I'M GOING TO EMAIL YOU SOME QUESTIONS, GET IT ON THE CITY SYSTEM.
SO I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH ALL OF THAT DISCUSSION.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHAT I'M HEARING FROM COUNCILMAN.
AND, AND, AND I THINK THIS AT LEAST AFFORDS FROM AN INVESTIGATOR'S STANDPOINT MM-HMM
SOME EVIDENCE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER OF WHETHER THE QUESTION THAT IS IN WRITING IS AN ATTEMPT TO PERSUADE AS OPPOSED TO A LEGITIMATE QUESTION.
AND, AND I THINK THAT BECOMES A MATTER OF
[01:05:01]
PROOF WHETHER THERE'S A VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE, BUT AT LEAST THERE IS SOME RECORD OF THESE COMMUNICATIONS.AND I, I THINK IT'S UP FOR THE COMMISSION AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO BEAR IT OUT.
IS THERE SOME HIDDEN, UH, PURPOSE FOR THIS COMMUNICATION THAT IS VIOLATIVE OF THE, UH, THE CODE? AND ONE, ONE THING FOR, FOR THE WORKING GROUP TO CONSIDER ALONG THOSE LINES, UH, IS INTERESTING IS, AND IT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NATURE OF OUR WORK BEING REACTIVE, MEANING WE RESPOND TO COMPLAINTS, WHICH IS PRIMARILY WHAT WE ARE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF, UH, WE JUST LACK SOME TOOLS TO BE MORE PROACTIVE.
THIS SITUATION REALLY LENDS ITSELF TO A MORE PROACTIVE APPROACH.
UM, AND YOU, YOU, MS. DOBA, YOU WERE, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, NOT HAVING TO COPY ANYONE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
UM, THE DIFFICULTY ON THE OIG AND FERRETING OUT WHETHER THIS RULE HAS BEEN BREACHED IS GONNA BE EVEN KNOWING THAT, THAT THE EMAIL HAPPENED IN THE FIRST ONE.
BUT I, I CAN WITH, WITH AI AND, UH, CO-PILOT LICENSING THAT WE'RE WORKING ON, IF THERE WAS SOME KIND OF A COPY TO A MAILBOX WE COULD LET AI DO THE WORK IN, IN DIGGING THROUGH ALL THESE FACTUAL EMAILS AND FINDING THE ONES THAT AREN'T FACTUAL AND BE PROACTIVE.
AND SO THAT WOULD LEND ITSELF TO, IF YOU AGREE AND A A LITTLE ADJUSTMENT HERE THAT YOU USE YOUR GOVERNMENT EMAIL AND YOU COPY BLANK ADDRESS.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK IT'S, IT'S A GOOD COMPROMISE.
AND I THINK THAT BECAUSE NOBODY'S GONNA BE HAPPY WITH IT.
I WOULD NOT ADD THE KIND OF THE MONITORING TOOL UNTIL WE HAD THE MONITORING TOOL BUILT.
SO I WOULD NOT SEND IT TO AN ADDRESS OR ANYTHING OF THAT.
I MEAN, I THINK EVENTUALLY YOU, YOU CAN OBVIOUSLY, AS YOU SAY, IF IT, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT COMES FROM IT, YOU KNOW, AND SOMEBODY SAYS, OH, I FEEL THAT IT WAS AN UNFAIR INFLUENCE.
THE OTHER THING THAT I DO LIKE ABOUT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IS THAT SINCE IT IS IN WRITING, IT TAKES AWAY A, YOU KNOW, PERSON'S ABILITY TO SAY, WELL, I DIDN'T REALLY MEAN THAT.
IT JUST WAS A SPUR OF THE MOMENT STATEMENT.
THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE TO CRAFT AN EMAIL GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO WRITE IT IN A WAY SINCE IT IS FACTUAL AND THAT THEY KNOW THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO INFLUENCE 'EM.
IT'S NOT LIKE, UH, THEY WOULD SAY, WELL, IT'S CURRENTLY SET UP FOR 22 UNITS, BUT I COULD PROBABLY GET 35 IF THAT WOULD HELP.
YOU WANNA VOTE FOR THIS? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF THING.
SO I THINK THAT IT, YOU KNOW, IT TAKES AWAY THAT ARGUMENT BY THE PARTY THAT, WELL, I JUST, I MEAN, IT JUST CAME OUT RIGHT? WELL, YOU TOOK THE TIME TO WRITE THE EMAIL, SO YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EDIT YOURSELF.
AND SO I'M FINE WITH IT THE WAY IT IS.
I WOULDN'T ADD ANYTHING, BUT THAT'S ME.
UM, I WILL AGREE THAT NOTHING SHOULD BE WRITTEN IN UNLESS THERE'S A TOOL IN PLACE.
UM, MY ONLY TO THE POINT OF HAVING SOME SORT OF CC SITUATION ON THERE.
I THINK THE BENEFIT OF THAT WOULD BE THERE ARE ALLEGATIONS OF UNDUE INFLUENCE.
THE OFFICER OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL COULD GO BACK AND ACCESS THAT, BUT I MEAN, AT THE SAME TIME, YOU DON'T, I MEAN, WANNA BE READING EVERY, EVERY SINGLE EMAIL.
I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS, BUT SO, UH, JUST TO PROVIDE, UM, SOME, SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THAT SIDE.
UM, IT'S, IT AND HOW IT WORKS.
WHEN WE, WHEN SOMEONE MAKES A COMPLAINT, FOR EXAMPLE, WE SET PARAMETERS, UH, ALL EMAIL BETWEEN THIS PERSON, THAT PERSON, THESE DATES, THESE SUBJECTS, AND SOMEONE IN THE CITY SENDS THOSE IN A FILE.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE START GOING THROUGH THEM.
RIGHT NOW WE'RE DOING THAT MANUALLY, BUT LITERALLY YESTERDAY I JUST FINISHED A MEETING, UM, WORKING WITH OUR PARTNERS AT MICROSOFT, AND, UH, SOON WE'LL BE GIVING, UH, THE TOOLS THAT WE NEED WITH COPILOT, WHICH IS THE CITY'S ENTERPRISE VERSION OF AI.
UH, AND THIS BASICALLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS, THE SYSTEM IS, WE DON'T HAVE IT, BUT IT, IT EXISTS.
WE'RE JUST WAITING ON THE LICENSES.
BUT, BUT TO THE COMMISSION MEMBER'S POINT, YOU DON'T NEED THE CC THOUGH TO
[01:10:01]
DO THAT, RIGHT? ALL YOU, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE TO GO TO A PARTICULAR MAILBOX.YOU THEN TO PULL FROM THAT MAILBOX, THE FACT THAT IT WENT TO THE CITY MAILBOX, YOU'RE ABLE TO PULL FROM THE CITY SYSTEM JUST USING THE PARAMETERS.
YOU SAID YOU DON'T NEED TO THEN ADD A THIRD PARTY THAT SAYS ALSO SEND IT TO MONITORING@CITYDALLAS.COM OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT.
AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE IF YOU, IF YOU'RE GONNA BE REACT, IF YOU'RE GONNA BE REACTIVE LIKE WE ARE NOW, RIGHT? UH, YOU DON'T BECAUSE SOMEONE WILL FILE A COMPLAINT AND THEN WE'LL GO, RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT.
YEAH, BUT YOU WANNA BE PROACTIVE AND BE WATCHING OR OUT FOR, UH, ABUSES, THEN YOU DO NEED THAT CC AND THEN THE QUESTION IS BEGGED, WELL, IF THEY'RE GONNA DO THAT, THEY PROBABLY WON'T WRITE AN EMAIL ANYWAY.
BUT YOU WELL THAT, THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING BEFORE, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT PROACTIVE SYSTEM IN PLACE YET.
YOU DON'T HAVE SOMEBODY WHO'S MONITORING THAT.
YOU DON'T HAVE FUNDING FOR SOMEBODY TO LOOK THROUGH ALL THOSE EMAILS AND TO BE LOOKING FOR ALL THIS STUFF.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS A, AN ISSUE THAT IS OF SUCH GRAVE IMPORTANCE THAT WE WANT TO BUILD THAT AS OUR PRIORITY.
SO THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING EARLIER THAT I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO ADD THE, THE CC PART OR THE MON, WE DON'T HAVE THAT MONITORING.
IF YOU GET TO A POINT WHERE YOU HAVE THE FUNDING AND YOU BUILD A PROCESS AND SOMEBODY'S ACTUALLY GONNA BE LOOKING AT THAT, OR YOU'RE GONNA BE SENDING, SENDING IT THROUGH THE AI AND, AND ALL THE REST OF THE STUFF LOOKING FOR THE IMPROPER LANGUAGE, AT THAT POINT YOU CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AND ADD THAT.
THEY THEN HAVE TO COPY, YOU KNOW, MAILBOX CC AT WHATEVER.
SO I, AND THEN I'LL, I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR, THIS IS NO COST TO THE CITY.
THE CITY HAS THE TECHNOLOGY WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR IT TO BE PROVIDED TO.
AND WHEN YOU GET IT, THEN YEAH, CHANGE THE LANE.
WELL, I MEAN THE CODE OF ETHICS ONLY GETS LOOKED OUT EVERY TWO YEARS.
SO, UM, MY ONLY OTHER POINT THEN IS, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M JUST PRESSING WORDS, BUT, UM, MAYBE CONSIDER ADDING SOME LANGUAGE LIKE DALLAS EMAIL GIVING FACTUAL ANSWERS ONLY TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER SPECIFIC, BUT THERE'S, OKAY.
I MEAN, IT'S PROBABLY UNNECESSARY ABOUT
WELL, I, I, I THINK IT IS A GOOD ADDITION.
AND THE REASON IS OF AN EMAIL THAT I SAW RECENTLY WHERE, WHERE THEY DIDN'T JUST SAY, THIS PROJECT IS FACT, FACT, FACT THIS PROJECT BENEFITS, YOU KNOW, FILL IN THE BLANK.
SOMEBODY IN A, IN A GROUP OF PEOPLE IN A SITUATION THAT YOU REALLY CARE ABOUT AND EVERYONE SHOULD WANT TO SAY NOW, FACT, FACT, FACT.
SO IT'S, IT'S A KIND OF CROSSING OVER THE ADVOCACY, OKAY? MM-HMM
SO WE WE'RE, WE'RE GOOD WITH THIS.
AND JUST LET ME, OKAY, SO IT'S ONLY ONE WAY THE COUNCIL MEMBER CAN EMAIL QUESTIONS TO SOMEBODY, BUT THEY CAN'T EMAIL INDEPENDENTLY LIKE THE APPLICANT.
THEY CAN RESPOND ONCE THEY'VE BEEN ASKED THE QUESTION, THEY SHOULDN'T BE REACHING OUT TO THE THOMPSON.
AND THAT'S CLEARING, RIGHT? YEAH.
MAY ONLY RESPOND MORE WRITING.
AND, AND I THINK THAT'S HOW THAT, UH, REMINDS ME, I THINK VOID BLAIR'S COMMENT, BUT THAT GIVES THE COUNCIL MEMBERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SOME DEGREE, BUT NOT TO THE DEGREE THAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT, BUT, BUT TO AT LEAST GET SOME INPUT INTO WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE PROJECT.
HER POINT, WHICH WAS REALLY, UH, ABOUT WASTE IS THAT, UH, OKAY, YOU'RE GONNA LOSE LEGAL COUNSEL AT 10 45.
ARE WE DONE WITH THIS ITEM? THANK YOU.
ON PAGE EIGHT IS, UH, 12 A DASH 29.
IT IS AGAIN, UH, THE DEFINITIONS IN OUR LOBBYING ARTICLE.
AND THIS WAS POINTED OUT, UH, BY THE COMMITTEE THAT WE DON'T HAVE SPECIFICALLY STATED IN HERE THAT LOBBYING DOES NOT INCLUDE A COMMUNICATION MADE BY AN INDIVIDUAL ACTING ON HIS OR HER OWN BEHALF WHO REPRESENTS HIS OR HER OWN INTERESTS.
AND I THINK IT'S BECAUSE EVERYONE JUST KNEW THAT, SO WE DIDN'T WRITE IT IN, BUT I THINK IT'S, WE THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO JUST HAVE IT IN THERE.
SO MY ONLY QUESTION ON THIS WAS 13, WHICH IS RIGHT BEFORE IT IS MADE BY A PERSON SOLELY OR ON BEHALF OF THAT INDIVIDUAL, HIS OR HER SPOUSE OR DOMESTIC PARTNER OR HIS, OR, OR MINOR CHILDREN
[01:15:01]
REPRESENTING THEIR BEHALF, THEIR INTERESTS.WOULD THAT, I MEAN, ISN'T THAT KIND OF ALREADY SAYING THAT THEY'RE TALKING ON THEIR OWN BEHALF, IT'S JUST THAT YOU'RE ADDING WHO REPRESENTS THEIR OWN INTERESTS? YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY RELY ON THAT.
I'D LEAVE THAT UP TO THE, AND IF YOU WANNA, IF YOU THINK WE NEED TO ADD THE PART THAT SAYS THAT THEY'RE REPRESENTING THEIR OWN INTERESTS, WE COULD JUST SIMPLY ADD IT TO, TO 13 AND SAY MADE BY A PERSON SOLELY ON BEHALF OF THAT INDIVIDUAL, HIS OR HER SPOUSE OR DOMESTIC PARTNER, HIS OR HER MINOR CHILDREN WHO REPRESENT THEIR OWN INTERESTS OR THE, THE, IF YOU WANTED, I MEAN, I, I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS REDUNDANT.
THAT WAS THE ONLY THING I WAS TRYING TO MAKE A POINT.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S VERY MUCH THE SAME EXCEPT THAT WE ADDED THIS REPRESENTS THEIR OWN INTERESTS.
YEAH, WE COULD ADD THE INTEREST.
I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO OVERLY, UM, YOU KNOW, MAKE, BECAUSE THEN SOMEBODY GOES, WELL HOW'S 13 AND 14 DIFFERENT? I'M FINE.
THE THE THE NEED FOR THE CLARIFICATION OR, OR THE NEED FOR THE CLARITY THAT WHEN THEY'RE ACTING ON THEIR OWN, THEY'RE NOT LOBBYING IT.
I THINK WE HAD THAT DEBATE WHEN WE HAD THE CONVERSATION EARLIER, SO I SUPPORT THAT.
OKAY, SO WE DONE NO, WELL I'M ON PAGE NINE.
OH, DO WE NEED TO MOVE TO, UH, MOVE TO APPROVE THAT TO THE FULL AC UH, WITH HER WITHOUT, WOULD SUGGEST? YEAH, WE'LL PROBABLY WORDSMITH 13 MINUTES AGO.
THIS IS THE LIST OF EVERYTHING THAT COMES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE EAC.
SO REALLY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT THE EAC HAS THE POWER TO LOOK AT, IT'S MORE THAN JUST CHAPTER 12 A, UH, CODE OF ETHICS.
THERE ARE A LIST OF OTHER THINGS, UM, THAT THE IG CAN BRING BEFORE YOU AS, AS FAR AS, UM, VIOLATIONS OF THESE OTHER, UH, SECTIONS IN THE CHARTER.
WE'VE GOT SOME STATE LAW HERE IN H AND I, UM, AND OVER IN J AND K AS WELL.
AND SO THE COMMITTEE HAS ASKED US TO BRING TO YOU OF CERTAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND THE TEXAS PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT.
AND SO WE WROTE THOSE, UH, SECTIONS IN HERE AND I'VE ADDED THEM KIND OF AS AN ADDENDUM ON PAGES 11 AND 12.
I DON'T KNOW, UM, MR. IG, IF YOU WANNA PUT SOME COLOR ON YEAH.
SO, UH, THESE ARE BOTH STATE LAW.
THEY'RE NOT COVERED UNDER OUR CURRENT JURISDICTION.
WE, IT, IT'S INTERESTING AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CODE OF ETHICS, UH, THERE IS A, A SORT OF A REAL GENERAL LANGUAGE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE JURISDICTION ABOUT ALL LAWS AND ORDINANCES AND, BUT IT'S VERY BROAD, BUT HERE IT GETS MORE SPECIFIC.
SO THIS IS THE RULE THAT GOVERNS WHAT THE EACS JURISDICTION IS.
AND SO THAT BY EFFECT COVERS WHAT WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT AND WHAT HAPPENS, UH, WITH POMA AND PIA IS CERTAIN OFFENSES, THERE ARE CRIMINAL OFFENSES, AND SO WE REFER THEM WHEN WE GET THEM.
OFTENTIMES THEY COME BACK AND THEY'RE NOT GONNA DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
AND THEN THE QUESTION IS, WELL, CAN WE LOOK AT IT? AND, AND THIS WILL MAKE THAT CLEAR WHETHER WE CAN OR NOT.
WE, IT, WHEN WE GET ONE OF THESE IN TERMS OF PROCESS, IT'S STILL GONNA BE REFERRED AS A CRIMINAL REFERRAL FIRST.
'CAUSE THE CODE ALSO SAYS WE, WE CAN'T, WE DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER CRIMINAL MATTERS.
AND WHEN WE LOOK AT IT, WE'RE NOT GONNA BE LOOKING AT IT CRIMINAL.
I THINK WE'RE GONNA BE LOOKING AT IT AS JUST A CROSSING AN ETHICAL LINE, BUT THE SAME ELEMENTS THAT EXIST IN THESE IN TOOMA AND PIA OR BE ELEMENTS THAT WE'LL BE, BE LOOKING AT.
AND, BUT THE STANDARD WILL BE DIFFERENT.
IT WOULDN'T BE A CRIMINAL STANDARD.
IT WOULD BE THE KNOWING THE STANDARD AND BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT'S IN THE CODE OF ETHICS.
AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I HAD TO ADD.
DO WE THINK THESE ARE ETHICAL, UH, ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IF THE CRIMINAL COURTS DON'T PICK THEM UP? SO THIS IS CLEARER THAT IT GIVES YOU THE AUTHORITY YES.
UNDER THE ACT, UNDER THE ORDINANCES TO INVESTIGATE VIOLATIONS OF THESE TWO PROVISIONS, WHICH THE, AND, AND YOU'RE RIGHT, THE, THE, THE BEGINNING OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCES DOES SAY SIMILAR OR A WIDE
[01:20:01]
RANGE OF ACTIVITIES CAN BE VIOLATIONS.THESE ARE SPECIFIC TO THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND THE PUBLIC INFORMATION.
IT GIVES YOU THAT SPECIFIC THOUGHT.
MY ONLY QUESTION WOULD BE LOOKING AT THE OTHER, YOU KNOW, KIND OF EXPANDED POWERS BEYOND THE CODE OF ETHICS.
DO ANY OF THE OTHER ONES ALSO HAVE KIND OF THE TWO TIERED REVIEW, WHICH IS IT WOULD BE REVIEWED AT A CRIMINAL STANDARD.
DID THIS CO DID THIS PERSON COMMIT A CRIME? OKAY.
THEN DID THEY, YOU KNOW, YOU BREACH SOME ETHICAL CODE, WHICH IS A LOWER STANDARD.
DO ANY OF THE OTHER ONES HAVE A SIMILAR KIND OF MAKEUP OR ARE THESE THE FIRST TWO THAT WE'RE BRINGING IN THAT HAVE THE CRIMINAL REVIEW, BUT IF THEY, YOU KNOW, FAIL THAT COULD STILL HAVE AN ETHICAL VIOLATION? DO DO YOU MEAN DO ANY OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS LISTED IN, RIGHT, LIKE SECTION 11, FINANCIAL INTEREST OF EMPLOYEES, YOU KNOW, UH, NO OFFICER EMPLOYEE ACCEPTING GIFTS, THE, THE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE PART, IF ANY OF THESE OTHERS THAT WERE THE EXPANDED POWERS, ARE THEY SIMILAR TO THESE TWO WHERE THEY ARE BEING REVIEWED BY SOMEBODY AT, AT SAY A CRIMINAL LEVEL AND THEN RE-REVIEWED USING THE LOWER STANDARD BY THIS GROUP? OR ARE THESE THE FIRST TWO THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAY? WELL, EVEN THOUGH THEY DIDN'T MEET THE CRIMINAL STANDARD, WE STILL THINK THEY SHOULD BE REVIEWED FOR AN ETHICAL VIOLATION.
I DO THINK, I'LL BE HONEST, ARE WE LIKE EXPANDING TO A NEW
AND IT'S, IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU LOOK AT THE CONDUCT, YOU SAY, WELL, MAYBE A CRIME HADN'T OCCURRED.
SO THEN WE TAKE IT TO THE EAC.
IT'S MORE OF, IF, IF YOU VIOLATED THESE PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, THEN YOU COMMITTED A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR.
IT'S JUST THAT THE DA ISN'T ALWAYS GOING TO BE INTERESTED IN PURSUING A PROSECUTION ON THAT CASE.
SO WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THEN THE PERSON HAS JUST GOT FREEWAY GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT.
AND SO MAYBE INSTEAD, IF THE DA IS NOT, UM, INTERESTED IN PURSUING THAT PROSECUTION, THEN THE ALTERNATIVE IS, OR WE CAN AT LEAST BRING YOU IN FRONT OF THE EAC FOR.
YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T OVERLY EXPANDING SOMETHING TO WHOLE NEW AREA, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE NOT, SO I I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH EITHER, EITHER ONE OF THESE TWO.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS BY AN INSPECTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE? ANY OTHER COMMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THE, WHAT ARE WE WORKING GROUP
OH, SURELY WE HAVE 11 MINUTES AND I'LL ONLY TAKE ONE
AND THE POINT THE COUNCIL MEMBER MADE WAS IF THEY, IF THEY DON'T GET TO HAVE A BACK AND FORTH WITH PEOPLE THAT ARE INTERESTED IN THESE PROJECTS, THEN WHAT HAPPENS SOMETIMES NOT EVERY TIME IS A PROJECT GETS APPROVED AND THEN THE COUNCIL HAS TO COME BACK BEHIND IT AND START REDOING IT BECAUSE THEY HAD NO INPUT.
YOU KNOW, THEY, AND THEY WOULD, AND, AND UNDER THE CHANGE THAT WE'RE MAKING RIGHT NOW, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE NO INPUT 'CAUSE THEY'RE JUST ASKING FOR FACTUAL QUESTION.
UM, AND SO IF I'M CLEAR IN, IN EXPRESSING THAT, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE ALL ARE THINKING ABOUT THAT AND IF THINKING ABOUT THAT WOULD MAKE SOME SMALL ADJUSTMENT TO THE PUBLIC SUBSIDY, UH, PROVISION WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT OR NOT.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, SHOULD THE COUNCIL MEMBER BE ABLE TO INFLUENCE WHAT THE ULTIMATE PROJECT IS SUCH THAT THEY MAKE IT BETTER, WHICH THEY CAN'T DO BY JUST ASKING QUESTIONS.
THAT, IN MY OPINION, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT I, I DON'T THINK YOU GET TO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF CUSTOMIZE WHAT'S COMING BEFORE YOU BASED ON YOUR OWN INDIVIDUAL VIEWPOINT.
I THINK THAT SHOULD BE DONE IN THE PUBLIC FORUM AND THAT SHOULD BE THROUGH THE PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS AND ALL THE REST.
ALL, ALL YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO IN PRIVATE IS LEARN MORE FACTS AND THEN THE PUBLIC DEBATE AND DISCUSSION OF WHAT SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T BE PART OF THAT PROJECT SHOULD BE DONE IN PUBLIC.
WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE SAID THAT PART OUT LOUD BECAUSE IT, THAT WAS ONE OF THE OBJECTIONS.
SO W HAVE WE COMPLETED OUR YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK TECHNICALLY DO I NEED TO MOVE THE OH ON, MOVE THIS FORWARD, UH,
[01:25:01]
ON THE LAST ONE, ON THE, THE SEC, THE PROHIBITED COMMUNICATIONS AND, AND THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT? YEAH, I DON'T THINK WE HAD A MOTION AND THERE A SECOND.ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ALL RIGHT, WELL THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR COMING TODAY AND THIS JUST HELPED AN AWFUL LOT IN TERMS OF GETTING US THROUGH THIS PROCESS.