[00:00:01]
IT IS 9:43 AM[Ethics Advisory Commission Working Group on July 21, 2026.]
ON TUESDAY, JULY 21ST.UH, AT THIS TIME I'LL DO A ROLL CALL IF PRESENT PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING HERE OR PRESENT.
AND THE MEETING IS NOW CALLED TO ORDER.
WILL OTHERS PRESENT IN THE, UH, TODAY'S MEETING? ANNOUNCE THEIR PRESENCE, PLEASE.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BARRON ELIASON.
LAURA THILAN, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
SVA MARTINEZ, NANCY SANCHEZ AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
FIRST, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE ARE NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS THIS MORNING, IS THAT CORRECT? MADAM CITY SECRETARY? YES, SIR.
ALRIGHT, SO THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS BUSINESS THEN, IS THE CONSIDERATION.
UH, CONSIDERATION OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND DEBORAH CARPENTER.
UH, I THINK THE CITY, CITY ATTORNEY, MS. MORRISON HAS A CONFLICT ON THIS AND SHE HAS LEFT THE, UH, ROOM.
UH, SO, MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT IS BEFORE THE COMMISSION TODAY? I'M GONNA ASK, UH, MS. PHELAN TO DO THAT FOR US.
YOU ALL SHOULD HAVE, UM, A HARD COPY HANDOUT AND YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED ONE, UM, ELECTRONICALLY.
OOPS, I ACCIDENTALLY PUSHED STOP.
SO I'M GOING TO, I HAVE A REPORT OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO OUR ETHICS CODE SECTION 12 A 52 B THREE A.
UM, AND I'LL TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT.
UM, WE RECEIVED A COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT, UH, IN MARCH, ON MARCH 5TH AND MARCH 7TH, 2025, IN CONNECTION WITH HER OFFICIAL DUTIES, UH, A CITY PLAN COMMISSIONER CARPENTER SENT TWO EMAILS TO SEVERAL CITY EMPLOYEES AND WE INVESTIGATED AND WE DETERMINED THAT THESE EMAILS DID INTERFERE WITH THE WORK OF CITY EMPLOYEES, UH, BY ASKING THEM TO CHANGE LANDSCAPE PLANS ON A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION.
AND THEREFORE THIS WAS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 12 A FOUR B FOUR A.
SO, WE FILED ONE ETHICS CHARGE, UH, AGAINST MS. CARPENTER ON JUNE 2ND OF THIS YEAR, UM, ALLEGING THAT THESE TWO EMAILS THAT SHE HAD SENT IN MARCH WERE VIOLATIONS OF, UH, OUR RULE THAT SAYS CITY OFFICIALS SHALL TREAT EMPLOYEES AS PROFESSIONALS AND SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE WORK OF CITY EMPLOYEES.
UH, WE NEGOTIATED A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH MS. CARPENTER, UM, AND UNDER THE TERMS OF THAT NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH YOU'LL SEE HERE, UM, NEITHER MS. CARPENTER NOR THE OIG WILL, UH, REQUEST A HEARING ON THE MATTER.
[00:05:01]
RECOMMENDING TO THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION THAT THE COMPLAINT BE RESOLVED WITH ETHICS TRAINING PROVIDED BY US TO MS. CARPENTER AS THE FINAL SANCTION.AND SO THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE FOR YOU HERE TODAY, AND WE'RE ASKING THAT YOU APPROVE THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT WE REACHED WITH MS. CARPENTER.
ALRIGHT, WE'LL, WE'LL ASK, I'LL ASK FOR A MOTION AND THEN IF THERE IS A MOTION TO APPROVE, THEN IT WILL GO.
THEN WE WILL GO A DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS IF THERE ARE ANY COMMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
UH, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT? I, I MOVE.
IT HAS BEEN MO IT HAS BEEN, UH, THERE'S BEEN A MOTION TO APPROVE.
IT HAS BEEN SECONDED TO ANY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, WISH TO MAKE A COMMENT OR A QUESTION REGARDING THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HERE.
NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR OF, UH, APPROVAL.
APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PLEASE SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE.
AND WE WILL NOW PROCEED TO ITEM NUMBER THREE, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 21ST, 2026, ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
UH, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS ABOUT THE, UH, MINUTES WHICH HAVE BEEN APPROVED? UH, IF THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
MOTION PASSES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
UH, THE NEXT ITEM IS A ITEM FOUR.
ITS CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 12 A TO THE CODE OF ETHICS.
AND I'D LIKE TO REFER THAT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
UM, THIS ITEM THAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY, UM, MIGHT LOOK FAMILIAR BECAUSE I KNOW AT OUR LAST REGULAR MEETING, UH, BACK IN APRIL, WE DISCUSSED CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 12 A.
UM, AS YOU RECALL, THE, UH, CODE OF ETHICS, UM, AT THE VERY END OF THE CHAPTER ASKS THAT, UH, THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL LOOK AT THE CODE OF ETHICS EVERY TWO YEARS AND ENTERTAIN ANY NECESSARY AMENDMENTS THAT THE EAC UH, FINDS RELEVANT.
UM, AND THE COUNCIL AND THIS BODY MADE CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON GENERAL INVESTIGATING AND ETHICS.
AND THAT COMMITTEE MET ON JUNE 2ND AND, UH, DISCUSSED YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
ADOPTED, I, I THINK ALL OF THEM EXCEPT FOR ONE.
AND, UM, NOW AT, AT THAT MEETING, THEY DISCUSSED SOME ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT THEY WANTED THE EAC TO TAKE A LOOK AT.
UM, AND, UH, THEY'RE NOW ASKING THE EAC, UH, TO LOOK AT THOSE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS.
AND I WILL ADD THAT THE WORKING GROUP DID CONVENE LAST TUESDAY AND GO OVER THESE AMENDMENTS.
AND SO WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TO NOW TODAY IS WHAT CAME OUT OF THAT WORKING GROUP LAST WEEK.
AND I EMAILED THIS TO ALL MEMBERS LAST, I THINK THURSDAY MORNING.
UM, SO YOU SHOULD HAVE IT, IF ANYONE VIRTUALLY DOESN'T HAVE IT, UM, BEFORE YOU PLEASE SEND ME AN EMAIL AND I'LL JUST REPLY TO THAT, UH, WITH THIS ATTACHED.
UM, AND THEN IF ANY, HAVE, YEAH.
SO YOU'LL SEE IN THIS PACKET WE HAVE JUST A FEW ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS TO GO OVER.
YOU'LL SEE THAT, UM, THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THIS PACKET.
SOME IS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW AND SOME IS HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE.
THE YELLOW IS WHAT WAS REVIEWED BY THE WORKING GROUP LAST WEEK.
AND THE BLUE IS WHAT CAME OUT OF THE WORKING GROUP.
[00:10:01]
WAS ADDED IN THEIR MOTIONS.UM, SO WITH THAT, IF NO ONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT PROCESS AND, UM, WHAT THIS ITEM IS ABOUT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
UM, ON PAGE TWO, UH, PAGE TWO IS 12 A DASH 22.
IT'S PROHIBITED INTEREST IN CONTRACTS AND A GENERAL RULE ON CONTRACTS, UM, THAT CITY OFFICIALS SHALL NOT PARTICIPATE IN CITY CONTRACTS.
AND THEN YOU'LL SEE IN SUBSECTION C, THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE.
UM, AND RIGHT NOW, AS WRITTEN 12 A SAYS THAT THE RESTRICTIONS IN A AND B DO NOT APPLY TO MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS OR BODIES, OR BODIES THAT ARE ADVISORY ONLY COMMISSIONS OR TASK FORCES FORMED BY BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS.
A BOARD OF A NON-PROFIT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THAT ACTS AS AN INSTRUMENTALITY, UM, OR A MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT BOARD.
UM, SO THE COMMITTEE HAS ASKED US TO GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT WHETHER THESE EXCEPTIONS SHOULD STILL APPLY IN WHOLE OR IN PART.
AND THE WORKING GROUP DECIDED, UM, THAT THE RESTRICTIONS SHOULD NOT APPLY TO MEMBERS OF THE FOLLOWING BODIES WHO PARTICIPATE IN A CONTRACT THAT IS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW TO BE COMPETITIVELY BID OR WHO WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THE CREATION OF THE CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS OR IN DEFINING THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT.
UM, WHAT WAS, DID THE, UH, AD HOC COMMITTEE HAVE A ISSUE WITH THIS PARTICULAR SECTION? IF SO, WHAT WAS IT? UM, FROM MY RECOLLECTION, AND I'LL ASK THE OIG TO JUMP IN AS WELL, IF, UM, THEY CAN STATE WHAT THEIR MEMORY SERVICE, UM, I THINK THEY JUST WANTED THE EAC TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS TO SEE IF THESE, UM, IF THESE EXCEPTIONS WERE STILL GOOD EXCEPTIONS TO HAVE IN THE CODE.
I, I LISTENED TO THE COMMITTEE MEETING AND I DON'T REMEMBER EITHER.
SO, SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, THE RULE USED TO BE THAT IF YOU WERE ON ONE OF THESE BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS, THEN YOU, THAT THERE WAS AN EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE THAT YOU COULDN'T PARTICIPATE IN CONTRACTS, RIGHT? RIGHT.
IF YOU'RE A BOARD OR COMMISSIONER BODY THAT IS ADVISORY ONLY.
SO THE EXCEPTION WOULD NOT APPLY TO OUR QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES.
WHICH THE OTHER WAY OF SAYING THAT IS THAT THE, THE PROHIBITION STILL DOES APPLY TO THE QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES.
WELL, SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, I WAS ON THE, UH, HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, WHICH IS COVERED BECAUSE IT'S, UH, AN INSTRUMENTALITY AND THERE'S NO WAY THAT YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO FUNCTION
SO I DON'T, YOU KNOW, THE REQUIREMENT ABOUT COMPETITIVELY BID SEEMS OKAY, RIGHT? BECAUSE NONE OF OURS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPETITIVELY BID.
OR IF THEY WERE, MAYBE THAT IS AN APPROPRIATE RESTRICTION.
BUT, UM, BUT YOU CAN'T, YOU, YOU, YOU COULD JUST DO AWAY WITH THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION IF YOU'RE GONNA SAY THEY CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN CONTRACTS.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DESIGNED TO DO.
UM, CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? YES.
I THINK THE DISCUSSION SORT OF CENTERED ON PEOPLE THAT ARE EITHER IN CHARGE OF OR EXTREMELY INVOLVED IN THE STRUCTURING OF CONTRACTS AND THEY HAPPEN TO BE A SOLE SOURCE PROVIDER OF SOMETHING THAT THAT PROJECT REQUIRES.
AND THAT THAT IS SORT OF THE INHERENT CONTRACT, THE INHERENT CONFLICT HERE, IF I'M, IF, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONERS THAT WERE ON THE WORKING GROUP.
I THINK THE IDEA WAS THAT WHERE, WHERE THE CONCERN COMES IS WHEN A MEMBER OF A BOARD THAT WILL BE DECIDING ON WHO WILL BE AWARDED A CONTRACT IS ABLE TO INFLUENCE
[00:15:01]
THE TERMS OR REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTRACT SUCH THAT THEY ARE UNDULY BENEFITED AND ABLE TO GAIN THE CONTRACT THEMSELVES.RIGHT? SO ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, ABLE TO STRUCTURE IT SUCH THAT THEY'RE THE ONLY POTENTIAL PARTY THAT COULD ACTUALLY FULFILL THE CONTRACT, YOU'RE GIVING THAT BOARD MEMBER OR COMMISSION MEMBER A UNDUE ADVANTAGE BY ALLOWING THEM TO STRUCTURE THE CONTRACT IN SUCH A WAY THAT NOBODY BUT THEMSELVES CAN BENEFIT FROM IT.
AND SO THE IDEA WAS, WAIT A MINUTE, WAIT A MINUTE,
THEY CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN ANYTHING WHERE THEY WOULD BE A BENEFICIARY.
THAT'S ABSOLUTELY NOT ALLOWED.
YOU CANNOT BE A BOARD MEMBER AND PARTICIPATE IN SOMETHING WHERE YOU HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST.
THIS IS, IF, IF, SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, IF THEY'RE UNABLE TO BID ON A CONTRACT FOR WHICH THEY'RE CREATING THE REQUIREMENTS OF, THEN I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THEIR PROCESS WOULD SHUT DOWN.
BY THAT I MEAN IF, IF, OH NO, FORGOT KNOW THE IDEA IS IF THEY'RE SETTING THE PARAMETERS FOR WHAT THE CONTRACT THAT THEY'RE GONNA PUT OUT FOR BID IS, THEY SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO SET THOSE PARAMETERS IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO WIN THE CONTRACT.
IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST DOESN'T ALLOW THEM TO VOTE ON IT, THEN I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT WOULD SHUT DOWN IF THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO WHAT WE'RE SAYING.
THEY, THEY CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN IT AT ALL.
BUT YOU'RE HAVING TWO CLAUSES HERE.
ONE IS ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE PUT OUT FOR BID, WHICH THAT DOESN'T APPLY TO THE DALLAS HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION OR THE PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION.
UM, BUT, UH, IT MIGHT APPLY TO LIKE THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT THEN YOU ADDED THAT OTHER WORDING,
ANYWAY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT WAS PUT IN THERE.
AND YOU CAN'T PARTICIPATE AT ALL IN A MATTER IF YOU COULD BE BENEFITED BY IT.
I MEAN, I'LL, I'LL DEFER TO, UM, OUR, UH, ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND OUR, UM, INSPECTOR GENERAL TO AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT.
BUT YOU CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN SOMETHING IF YOU WILL HAVE AN ECONOMIC BENEFIT FROM IT IN ANY WAY.
WELL, I, I I THINK THE QUESTION MIGHT HINGE ON WHEN YOUR PARTICIPATION HAPPENS.
IS IT IN THE CRAFTING OF THE CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS AND DEFINING THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT THAT WILL BE EXECUTED BETWEEN THE CITY AND A PRIVATE PARTY? OR IS IT AFTER A CONTRACT HAS ALREADY BEEN EXECUTED AND THE BLUE LANGUAGE ADDRESSES? OKAY, LEMME TELL YOU HOW, LEMME TELL YOU HOW THESE, HOW THESE INSTRUMENTALITIES WORK.
OKAY? YOU, UH, NEGOTIATE WITH A DEVELOPER A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AN MOU.
UM, IF I SERVE ON THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, I CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSING THAT MOU BECAUSE I COULD HAVE AN ECON, YOU KNOW, IF I'M THE DEVELOPER OR IN ANY WAY BENEFITED BY THAT DEVELOPER, I CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION OF THAT MOU BECAUSE I MEAN, HELLO
BUT THAT WAS WHEN I SERVED ON THAT COMMISSION.
SO LET ME ASK YOU IF THAT'S TRUE.
HOW IS THE LANGUAGE WHO ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE CREATION OF THE CONTRACT, IF YOU'RE SAYING YOU CAN'T PARTICIPATE? 'CAUSE THE DISCUSSION WAS IF YOU WANT TO BID ON A CONTRACT, THEN YOU SHOULD RECUSE YOURSELF FROM ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PARAMETERS OF THAT CONTRACT.
SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU THINK THAT.
UM, AND I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW YOU THINK THAT THIS ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE CONFLICTS WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
WELL, I'M NOT, UH, WALK ME THROUGH WHAT YOU THINK THIS SAYS BECAUSE IT'S SAYING THAT FIRST OF ALL, IT DOESN'T APPLY TO A MEMBER IF YOUR BODY IS PARTICIPATING IN A CONTRACT THAT IS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW TO BE COMPETITIVELY BID.
[00:20:01]
OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO? LIKE, AREN'T YOU SAYING THAT YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO PARTICIPATE, THAT YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE WORDING OF THE CONTRACT? RIGHT.IF IT'S REQUIRED TO BE COMPETITIVELY BID, I'M JUST NOT SURE THIS WHOLE ADDITION OF WORDING
NOW I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THESE OTHER ENTITIES BECAUSE I WAS NOT EVER, OTHER THAN THIS COMMITTEE, I'VE NEVER BEEN ON THOSE OTHER ENTITIES.
BUT, UM, WHO REQUESTED, I DON'T KNOW WHO REQUESTED THIS LANGUAGE AND WHETHER IT WAS VETTED BY, BY THOSE BOARDS AND, UH, INSTRUMENTALITIES THAT IT WOULD AFFECT.
AND WHY ARE WE, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE POSSIBLY CREATING SOME HORRIBLE PROBLEM HERE.
DID YOU WATCH THE, UM, CITY COUNCIL JUNE 2ND AD HOC COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ABOUT ALL OF THESE AMENDMENTS? NO, BECAUSE I'M ON VACATION
IT WAS, IT WAS BROUGHT UP BY 'EM AND SOMEBODY EXPLAINED WHY IT DIDN'T, WHY YOU WEREN'T CONCERNED ABOUT IT, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT IT.
BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO US THAT IT'S IN LINE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, WHICH IS A PARTY SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CREATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONTRACT IF THEY'RE GOING TO THEN TRY AND BID ON THAT CONTRACT, WHICH I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU SEEM TO THINK THAT THAT IS GOING TO SHUT DOWN THE PROCESS IF THERE'S ALSO A PARALLEL REQUIREMENT THAT THEY CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN A MATTER THAT THEY WOULD EVENTUALLY POTENTIALLY BENEFIT FROM.
THEY SEEM TO BE WORKING IN, IN CONJUNCTION WITH EACH OTHER.
WELL, MAYBE I'M MISUNDERSTANDING, BUT I THOUGHT WHAT I HEARD WAS THAT THERE'S A BLANKET RULE THAT YOU CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN A CONTRACT.
WAS THAT THE BEGINNING OF IT? NO, LAURA, LAURA GO THROUGH AGAIN, WHAT THESE EXCEPTIONS ARE.
THE GENERAL RULE IN A AND B IS THAT IF YOU ARE A CITY OFFICIAL, YOU CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN THE MAKING OF A CITY CONTRACT.
AND NOW WE ARE ADDRESSING THE EXCEPTIONS TO THAT RULE.
RIGHT NOW, AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE CITY, IF YOU'RE A MEMBER OF AN INSTRUMENTALITY, THAT RULE DOESN'T APPLY TO YOU.
AND WE ARE NOW JUST TIGHTENING UP THOSE EXCEPTIONS TO SAY WHEN THOSE EXCEPTIONS APPLY TO AN INSTRUMENTALITY OR A BORDER COMMISSION, THAT'S ADVISORY AND WHEN IT, AND WHEN THE GENERAL RULE DOES APPLY TO THEM, THE PROHIBITION.
SO THESE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROHIBITION, WHICH THE INSTRUMENT, WHICH THE INSTRUMENTALITIES NEED DESPERATELY.
THEY CAN'T, YOU CAN'T BE TYING THE HAND OF AN INSTRUMENTALITY AS TO CONTRACTS BECAUSE THAT'S THEIR WHOLE FUNCTION IS TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS WITH DEVELOPERS.
SO IT'S AN APPROPRIATE EXCEPTION RIGHT NOW, BUT NOW I THINK WE'RE FIDDLING IT WITH IT.
AM I, TELL ME WHERE I'M MISUNDERSTANDING RIGHT NOW.
IT APPEARS THAT THE EXCEPTION ALLOWS THEM TO PARTICIPATE WHEN THEY'RE ABLE TO CREATE THE PARAMETERS OF THE CONTRACT.
RIGHT? SO IT, IT, WHAT WE HAVE SEEN OR WHAT HAS BEEN SEEN BY THE CITY IS THAT MEMBERS OF A BOARD WILL CREATE A CONTRACT IN WITH TERMS OR REQUIREMENTS, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, THE, THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT NEEDS TO BE MET IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE PERSON ON THE BOARD BECOMES THE SOLE PROVIDER THAT COULD FULFILL THAT CONTRACT.
AND SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS YOU CAN ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY UNLESS YOU WERE THE ONE THAT CREATED THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT THE CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS ARE.
I THINK THE GOAL, THE GOAL HERE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE A SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT THAT THAT INDIVIDUAL OR AN INDIVIDUAL IS ELIGIBLE TO, UH, TO ENGAGE IN BECAUSE THEY HAVE CREATED A SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT AND BENEFITED BY IT.
SO TELL ME WHY OUR CURRENT ETHICS REQUIREMENT ABOUT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST DOESN'T TAKE CARE OF THIS.
BECAUSE AS 12 A IS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, IT'S AN EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE.
[00:25:04]
IT'S AN EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE.BUT WHAT ABOUT THE RULE THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE A, YOU CAN'T PARTICIPATE IF YOU HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, WHY AREN'T WE PROTECTED? WELL, THE CONFLICT IN ANY WAY WE NEED TO BE, THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULE COMES IN MAYBE AFTER YOU HAVE EXECUTED A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY.
NOW IF, IF ANY WORK HAVING TO DO WITH THAT CONTRACT COMES BEFORE YOUR BOARD OF COMMISSION, YOU WOULD, YOU ARE CONFLICTED OUT OF PARTICIPATING IN THAT DISCUSSION OR THAT VOTE.
BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE RULE THAT COMES LATER.
THAT'S NOT ABOUT THE DRAFTING.
IN TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, NO, NO, NO.
IT IS A CONFLICT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST IF YOU SERVE ON A BOARD.
I, I HAD, YOU KNOW, AS YOU KNOW, WE ALL HAD TO TAKE THIS TRAINING.
YOU CANNOT BID ON A CONTRACT OR DISCUSS IT IN BE IN ANY WAY, UH, DISCUSSING THAT CONTRACT EVEN BEFORE IT'S MADE, IF YOU COULD POTENTIALLY BENEFIT, I'M SORRY, BUT THAT IS, YOU KNOW, HELP ME OUT HERE, OTHER ATTORNEYS, BECAUSE ACCORDING THAT WAS MY SANDY, ACCORDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THAT HAS IN FACT HAPPENED.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED THAT SOMEBODY WHO AUTHORED OR WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN CREATING A CONTRACT FOR THE CITY HAPPENED TO BE THE SOLE SOURCE PROVIDER THAT COULD FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT CONTRACT AND THEN THEY BID ON IT.
INSPECTOR GENERAL
BUT THERE IS AN EXCEPTION AND THAT'S THE SECTION WE'RE WE'RE WORKING ON NOW THAT WOULD APPLY IF THE SECTION COVERED THE ROLE THAT THE PERSON HAD.
AND THERE ARE I THINK, FOUR EXCEPTIONS IN HERE.
FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU SERVE ON AN ADVISORY BODY.
AND SO WHAT WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE WITH THIS AMENDMENT IS WE'RE, WE'RE TIGHTENING DOWN TO CATCH A SITUATION WHERE A MEMBER THAT OTHERWISE WOULD, UH, BE ON THE ACCEPTED LIST TO THAT GENERAL RULE CRAFTS TO, TO HIS OR HER BENEFIT, UH, THE PROVISIONS THAT WOULD GO INTO A CONTRACT SO THAT THEY'RE THE ONES THAT END UP GETTING THE CONTRACT.
AND LISTENING, LISTENING, UH, TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THIS AMENDMENT WOULD NOT INTER, UH, INTERFERE WITH HFC AT ALL BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU SAID, WHEN YOU'RE ON, UH, HFC AND PROBABLY A PFC, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU, YOU SIGN SOMETHING THAT SAYS, I WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN A MATTER THAT IS A CONFLICT, NUMBER ONE.
AND THEN NUMBER TWO, YOU, YOU MENTIONED THE, THE, A MORE GENERAL RULE IN THE CODE THERE IS ONE AT 12, A FOUR FIVE, BUT IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, YOU KNOW, THE, THE SPECIFIC GOVERNS THE GENERAL, BUT THE GENERAL, AND THIS IS MORE SPECIFIC HERE, WHAT WE'RE GETTING TO IN THIS EXCEPTION.
BUT THE GENERAL RULE IS TO TAKE NO ACTIONS THAT COULD BENEFIT THE OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE PERSONALLY OR HIS OR HER RELATIVE.
A KEY PHRASE IN THIS IS TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE CITY, AVOIDING EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND TO ALWAYS EXERCISE GOOD JUDGMENT.
AND IN MY OPINION, YOU ARE, YOU ARE NOT AVOIDING THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IF YOU CRAFT THE PROVISIONS OF A CONTRACT AS A MEMBER OF A BOARD OF COMMISSION AND THEN END UP GETTING THAT CONTRACT.
AND I THINK IT'S GONNA COME UP MORE FOR SOME OF THE OTHER ENTITIES THAT ARE IN THE ACCEPTED LIST THAN IT WILL FOR HFCS.
BASED ON WHAT I'M HEARING, UH, MR. RUDY, I, I WOULD STRONGLY ADVISE IF YOU HAVE NOT, IF THIS COMMISSION HAS NOT
[00:30:01]
I'M JUST VERY FEARFUL THAT YOU'RE GONNA REALLY BE CREATING A PROBLEM BECAUSE TRUST ME, THE, THE, THOSE SEPARATE INSTRUMENTALITIES, THEIR BOARDS ARE IN CONTROL OF ALL CONTRACTS AND THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THOSE CONTRACTS.AND SO IF YOU HAVE THIS LANGUAGE THAT YOU'VE PUT, PARTICULARLY THE LANGUAGE YOU'VE PUT IN BLUE, I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS.
AND I'M NOT SURE WHY WE ARE HESITANT TO GET MORE INFORMATION FROM THEM ABOUT IT.
UH, MR. MR. RUBIN, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? WELL, I HAD A COMMENT, BUT NOW I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, DOES, DO THESE, UH, IF, IF WE, UH, VOTE ON THESE AND APPROVE THEM, THEN IT GOES BACK TO THE AD HOC COMMITTEE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO, UH, I THINK I'M SATISFIED THAT THE AD HOC COMMITTEE WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF CITY STAFF WILL LOOK AT THIS AGAIN, LOOK AT THIS LANGUAGE, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY HAVE THE, I GUESS THE NEXT, THE LAST SAY ON IT.
'CAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE CITY, WHOLE CITY COUNCIL HAS TO VOTE ON IT.
AND I'M SATISFIED WITH THIS LANGUAGE, UH, THAT, UH, WE COULD PASS ON TO THE AD HOC COMMITTEE.
WELL, I THOUGHT THE AD HO COMMITTEE ALREADY MET, I THOUGHT WE WERE VOTING TO APPROVE THESE ITEMS, PERIOD.
WELL, WE, WE HAVE COUNCIL, THEY, THEY KIND OF PASSED IT ON BACK TO US AND FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION OR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT.
BUT, UH, WE HAVE NO, UH, AUTHORITY TO PASS ON A, UM, AN AMENDMENT, UH, GOING DIRECTLY TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
I THINK THE AD, THE AD HOC COMMITTEE IS THE NEXT TO THE LAST STOP, IF I'M CORRECT IN THAT.
SO I THINK THE POWER HERE IS IN THE COMMISSION, NOT AN AD HOC COMMITTEE.
SO I THINK THE AD HOC COMMITTEE WAS SUPPOSED TO STUDY THESE OKAY.
AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION? NO, THE AD HOC COMMITTEE REVIEWED OUR PRIOR COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
THEY MET, THEY DISCUSSED IT, IT'S AVAILABLE ONLINE, YOU CAN WATCH IT.
UM, THEY PASSED, A LOT OF THEM, SENT A FEW THINGS BACK AND THEY WANT US TO DISCUSS IT AGAIN, WHICH WE DID LAST WEEK.
AND NOW WE ARE SUBMITTING IT TO THE ENTIRE EAC TO DECIDE WHAT TO THEN RECOMMEND BACK TO THE AD HOC COMMITTEE BEFORE THEY THEN RECOMMEND IT TO THE ENTIRE COUNCIL.
SO WE ARE INVOLVED IN A PROCESS THAT IS NOT YET COMPLETE, THAT'S GOING TO BE ADDITIONAL REVIEW OF THIS, OF THIS AND ALL THE OTHER CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.
UH, AND THE GOAL IS TO PROCEED WITH THESE RECOMMENDED CHANGES KNOWING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER ROUND OF REVIEW, UH, AND BEFORE IT MAKES A ITS FINAL, UH, BEFORE THERE WAS A FINAL DECISION REGARDING THE, THE CONTENTS OF THESE AMENDMENTS.
IS THAT RIGHT? SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT I ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT THE WAY IT WORKED, AT LEAST THE LAST TIME AROUND, WE MADE CERTAIN IT, IT'S GOING TO BE REPORTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHETHER WE, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, HAD MOVED TO APPROVE THIS OR NOT, RIGHT? ISN'T THAT THE WAY IT'S GONNA GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL? THE EACS RECOMMENDATION WILL BE BRIEFED TO THE AD HOC COMMITTEE, AND THEN WHATEVER THE AD HOC COMMITTEE DECIDES IS WHAT WILL THEN BE BRIEFED TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL.
AND THEN THE ITEM WILL BE PLACED ON CITY COUNCIL'S VOTING AGENDA ONLY THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE AUTHORITY AND THE JURISDICTION TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE.
RIGHT? I MEAN, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH US RECOMMENDING THIS WHEN WE, THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDING IT, THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDING IT AND BRIEFING THAT IT BE PASSED, HAVE NOT DONE DUE DILIGENCE TO SEE WHETHER THIS WILL INTERFERE WITH THE WORKINGS OF SOME OF OUR INSTRUMENTALITIES THAT ARE REALLY SIGNIFICANT FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.
UM, MS. MORRISON CAN, UM, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT AS, AS OUR ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION IS IN THAT POSITION TO DO THAT SORT OF COMMUNICATE.
[00:35:01]
MS. MORRISON, ARE YOU SATISFIED THAT WE, WE ARE IN A POSITION TO PROCEED WITH AT LEAST THIS RECOMMENDATION, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE, UH, THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE, UH, COMMITTEE, AND THEN WE'LL PROCEED WITH THE PROCESS AND IF THERE ARE FURTHER CONCERNS, THE FINAL DECISION IS GOING TO BE MADE AFTER A FINAL DECISION BY THE COMMITTEE AND THEN BEFORE THE DALLAS CITY COUNCIL.SO THERE ARE GOING TO BE AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING THIS MATTER? CORRECT.
SO IS THAT WHAT WE DECIDE TO DO, IS THAT WE DECIDE TO RECOMMEND THINGS THAT WE HAVE NOT FULLY VETTED OURSELVES? I'M, I'M JUST, UH, VERY UNCOMFORTABLE.
SO WHY ARE WE EVEN HAVING THIS MEETING, IF ANYTHING? THAT THE AD HOC COMMITTEE IS JUST GONNA BE RECOMMENDED BY US.
UM, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE NOT TAKING IT UPON OURSELVES TO LET, TO, UM, RECOMMEND THAT THIS BE VETTED BY THOSE INSTRUMENTALITIES, BECAUSE WHY WOULD WE WANT TO TIE THEIR HANDS? I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.
WELL, THESE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE SENT OUT TO EVERY MEMBER OF THIS BODY LAST WEEK.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, IN THE WEEK LEADING UP TO THIS MEETING, ANY MEMBER OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION COULD REACH OUT TO ANYONE.
THEY WANT TO VET ANY OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE HAVE TO RECOMMEND THEM BECAUSE IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO COORDINATE WITH THE AD HOC COMMITTEE, EACH OF US TO CHANGE IT AT THAT LEVEL? THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.
I'M, I'M NOT SAYING YOU HAVE TO RECOMMEND THIS LANGUAGE.
YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION THAT WE NOT, THAT THE BODY NOT SEND THIS TO THE AD HOC COMMITTEE.
WELL, OH, YOU MEAN MAKE NO RECOMMENDATION TO THE AD HOC COMMITTEE? WELL, THE, IS THAT OUR THREE CHOICES? UH, NO RECOMMENDATION WOULD JUST BE THAT THIS BODY RECOMMENDS NO CHANGE TO, UH, THIS SECTION OF CHAPTER 12 EIGHT A.
ALRIGHT, ARE THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS? I JUST WANT, IS THERE A MOTION ON THE, IS THERE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR? NO.
CAN I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE YES, PLEASE.
THAT WE RECOMMEND, UM, THIS AMENDMENT TO THE AD HOC COMMITTEE.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING THIS RECOMMENDATION? ALL RIGHT, LET'S PROCEED TO THE NEXT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ALL RIGHT, MS. MORRISON, NOW I'LL INVITE EVERYONE TO TURN TO PAGE THREE OF YOUR PACKET.
THIS IS 12 A DASH 23, WHICH CURRENTLY IS OUR PROVISION ON EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.
UH, WHICH ACCORDING TO THIS RECOMMENDATION WOULD NOW BE SUBSECTION A.
AND NOW WE WOULD ADD TO THIS SECTION SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS.
AND I'LL JUST EXPLAIN, UH, BRIEFLY WHAT A PUBLIC HEARING MATTER IS, UM, ON SOME VOTING AGENDAS AT SOME, UH, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, AND AT THE CITY COUNCIL LEVEL, UH, NOT EVERY VOTING ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, BUT SOME ITEMS ARE REQUIRED TO BE CALLED AS PUBLIC HEARINGS AT A PUBLIC MEETING.
AND, UH, THOSE ARE STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS.
FOR INSTANCE, A ZONING CASE HAS TO BE A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE A ZONING CHANGE CAN HAPPEN.
UM, IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, UM, NOTICES HAVE TO BE SENT OUT AND PEOPLE NEED TO BE INVITED TO COME DOWN TO THE MEETING AND HAVE THEIR THREE OR SO MINUTES TO SPEAK ON THE MICROPHONE AT THAT PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE A MOTION IS MADE ON THE ITEM AND A VOTE IS TAKEN.
UM, SO WHAT THIS LANGUAGE DOES IS IT SAYS THAT FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM ONLY, UM, NO BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER SHALL MAKE PUBLIC STATEMENTS, INCLUDING COMMENTS, REACTIONS,
[00:40:01]
OR ENDORSEMENTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA ANNOUNCING OR IMPLYING WHAT THE MEMBER'S FINAL DECISION ON A PUBLIC HEARING MATTER WILL BE BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING.BEFORE THAT MEMBER'S BODY OR COMMISSION.
THIS PROHIBITION APPLIES TO ANY PUBLIC HEARING ITEM THE MEMBER KNOWS IS LIKELY TO COME BEFORE THE MEMBER'S BOARD OR COMMISSION FOR ACTION BY THAT BOARD OR COMMISSION.
SO THIS ISN'T ANY ITEM THAT MIGHT COME BEFORE A BOARD OR COMMISSION.
IT'S ONLY A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM BECAUSE, UM, I, I THINK THE REASONING IS IF A MEMBER OF ONE OF THOSE BODIES IS MAKING IT PUBLICLY KNOWN THAT THEIR MIND HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE UP ON ANY OF THESE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, IT HAS A CHILLING EFFECT, UM, ON THE PUBLIC FOR COMING DOWN AND MAKING THEIR VOICES HEARD ON THOSE ITEMS. THANK YOU, MS. MORRISON.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO THIS RECOMMENDATION? SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY FREE SPEECH CONCERNS ABOUT THIS? NO, BECAUSE YOU CAN DISCUSS THE ITEM.
NO ONE'S SAYING YOU CAN'T DISCUSS THE ITEM, ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ITEM, SHARE YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT THE ITEM, BUT WE JUST DON'T WANT THESE BOARD OF COMMISSION MEMBERS TO CROSS THE LINE INTO INDICATING THAT THEIR MIND HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE UP AND HOW THEY'RE GONNA VOTE ON THE ITEM.
BUT THEY CAN DO THAT, AND THEY SHOULD DO THAT AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AND A MOTION IS MADE AND DEBATE ON THE ITEM BEGINS.
SO WE'RE NOT WORRIED ABOUT IMPLYING, YOU KNOW, WHAT THAT MEANS.
LIKE IF I ASK A QUESTION, CAN SOMEONE SAY, I IMPLIED THAT MY DECISION HAD BEEN MADE, I GUESS, OR IF I MAKE ANY COMMENT? I GUESS I, I GUESS I'D LIKE TO KNOW HERE, WHAT HAPPENED THAT MADE SOMEONE THINK THIS WAS NECESSARY? THE AD HOC COMMITTEE AGAIN, ASKED THIS BODY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS WORKSHOP, IT, SEE IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT THIS BODY RECOMMENDS BE ADDED TO THE CODE OF ETHICS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? HE, YOU OKAY? YEAH.
I MOVE THAT WE, UH, RECOMMEND, UH, THESE A THIS AMENDMENT TO THE, UH, AD HOC COMMITTEE.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? IT'S BEEN SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING THE MATTER? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
WHAT WE HAVE ON PAGES FOUR AND FIVE OF YOUR PACKET IS 12 A 29, AND, UH, 12 A 30 12 8 29, AND 12 A 30 ARE LOCATED IN ARTICLE FIVE OF CHAPTER 12 A, WHICH IS OUR ARTICLE GOVERNING BEHAVIOR BY OUR LOBBYISTS.
UH, 12 A 29 IS DEFINITIONS AND 12 A 30 IS PERSONS REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS LOBBYISTS.
AND RIGHT NOW, THE GENERAL RULE IS, UM, IF YOU'RE A LOBBYIST RECEIVING COMPENSATION OF $200 OR MORE IN A CALENDAR QUARTER, UH, AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, YOUR COMPENSATION FOR THE LOBBYING WORK YOU'RE DOING, THEN YOU HAVE TO REGISTER AT THE CITY AS A LOBBYIST.
AND THERE WAS DISCUSSION AT THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ABOUT, UH, A LITTLE BIT OF A LOOPHOLE HERE WHERE IF YOU'RE LOBBYING ON BEHALF OF A NONPROFIT AND THE NONPROFIT IS RECEIVING DONATIONS TO HAVE MEMBERS OF THAT NONPROFIT LOBBY THE CITY ON SOMEONE'S BEHALF, UM, THEN YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY COVERED.
SO THE LANGUAGE THAT'S BEEN ADDED HERE, UH, COVERS THAT SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE, UM, DONATES MONEY TO A NONPROFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING MEMBERS OF THAT NONPROFIT COME TO THE CITY AND LOBBY ON THEIR BEHALF.
AND THIS LANGUAGE ISN'T SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T DO THAT, IT'S A PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE, UH, FORM OF LOBBYING.
IT JUST SAYS THAT NOW, YOU KNOW, IF THAT HAPPENS, THEN YOU HAVE TO REGISTER AT THE CITY AS A LOBBYIST.
[00:45:01]
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SO THIS SEEMS TO ME TO BE LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF A GRAY AREA AS IT RELATES TO DONATIONS OR COMPENSATIONS TO A NONPROFIT GROUP.SO WOULD THAT PARTICULAR DONATION HAVE TO BE EXPLICITLY EARMARKED FOR THE PURPOSE OF LOBBYING? MEANING AS OPPOSED TO SOMEONE MAKES A DONATION TO A NONPROFIT AND IT'S SORT OF EXPRESS, IT SORT OF IMPLIED THAT THERE BE A POSITION SUPPORTED.
THERE'S, THERE'S A SORT OF A GRAY AREA THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH EXACTLY WHEN YOU'VE MET THE CRITERIA FOR, UM, THIS, THIS PROVISION TO APPLY.
YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
I'LL ASK THE INSPECTOR GENERAL MAYBE TO WEIGH IN ON, UM, IF, WHEN IT COMES TO ENFORCING THESE PROVISIONS, IF YOU SEE THAT BEING AN ISSUE, YOU'VE IDENTIFIED A, A FAIR CONCERN.
IT, IT'S CONCERN THAT EXISTS IN, IN A LOT OF OUR CASES.
A GREAT EXAMPLE, UH, WOULD BE ANY KIND OF, HE SAID, SHE SAID SITUATION WHERE YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY NOT HAVE A SMOKING GUN EMAIL THAT SAYS, UH, WHAT YOU NEED IT TO SAY TO PROVE YOUR CASE BEFORE AN EAC HEARING.
AND SO IT, IT IS LIKELY THAT THAT, UM, I THINK IF SOMEONE'S TRYING TO DO THIS THE WRONG WAY AND GET AWAY WITH IT, THEY, THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO THAT SIMPLY BY MAKING A DONATION AND, AND, UH, NOT CLARIFYING THAT IT IS RELATED TO LOBBYING, AND THAT'S JUST A WEAKNESS.
BUT AT LEAST THE PROVISION IS THERE.
IT WILL ALLOW US THE OP, IT WILL ALLOW PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT MAY BE GOING ON TO MAKE A COMPLAINT.
AND FOR US TO AT LEAST, UH, ON THE CITY'S BEHALF USE THE, UH, INTEGRITY OF THE CITY TO INVESTIGATE.
AND, AND PERHAPS YOU NEVER KNOW, BUT SOMETIMES, UH, YOU'LL FIND A WITNESS OR A SMOKING GUN DOCUMENT THAT'LL HELP.
BUT IT, IT'S A GENUINE WEAKNESS YOU'VE IDENTIFIED.
AND, AND, AND I, I THINK THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE FOR A PERSON SPEAKING, UH, AT THEIR REQUEST DIRECTION AUTHORIZATION, TRIES TO CAP, TRIES TO CAPTURE ALL OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE THAT PERSON CAN BE IDENTIFIED AND, AND PROVEN.
AND THAT WILL BE A MATTER OF PROOF, AS YOU SAY, UH, MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL.
UH, BUT THAT, THAT IS THE EFFORT HERE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAPTURE, OR THE ORDINANCE, UM, UH, AMENDMENT CAPTURES ALL OF THAT SORT OF, UH, CONDUCT THAT IS ON BEHALF OF THAT, UM, UH, IN, UH, UH, ORGANIZATION.
AND, AND IF I MET, I WILL SAY, I THINK THE MORE PEOPLE THAT GET INVOLVED WITH CLARITY, SO FOR INSTANCE, A NONPROFIT, IF WE, IF WE, IF THIS IS IN THERE, THIS IS MY OPINION AS THE IG AND THERE'S CLARITY ABOUT IT, THE LESS LIKELY IT IS THAT SOMETHING, UM, IS GONNA HAPPEN HERE, WHERE SOMEBODY'S ON THE NONPROFIT SIDE IS, IS GOING TO BREAK THE RULE.
'CAUSE NOW IT'S CLEAR IF WE, IF WE MAKE THIS RECOMMENDATION, IF WE DON'T MAKE IT, THAT SITUATION IS REMAINS FUZZY 'CAUSE WE HAVEN'T ADDRESSED IT IN THE CODE.
AND I THINK THAT IS A BUFFER, UH, TO THIS BEHAVIOR, WHICH WAS IDENTIFIED BY THE AD HOC COMMITTEE AS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS.
UH, AND SO I THINK THERE'S VALUE IN PROVIDING THE CLARITY, BECAUSE AGAIN, SOMEBODY ON ON THE NONPROFIT SIDE MIGHT SAY, WELL, THERE'S A RULE AGAINST IT, AND I JUST CAN'T DO THAT.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, HEARING NONE.
IS THERE A MOTION WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND IS THERE A SECOND? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO THIS RECOMMENDATION OF THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
MOTION PASSES, MS. MORRISON ON PAGE SEVEN OF YOUR PACKET IS 12 8 35.
AND THIS SHOULD LOOK FAMILIAR BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING, UM, THAT THE BODY DID DISCUSS, OR AT LEAST THE WORKING GROUP DID.
AND IT WAS RECOMMENDED, UH, TO, TO BE NO CHANGE TO THE
[00:50:01]
RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES LANGUAGE.RIGHT NOW, THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT ONCE SOMEONE FILES A REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTER AT THE CITY, NO MORE DISCUSSION CAN BE HAD BETWEEN THAT APPLICANT AND THE COUNCIL PERSON UNTIL, UH, THE ITEM APPEARS ON AN AGENDA FOR A VOTE.
AND THEN, UM, ALL DISCUSSION HAPPENS AT THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, THIS CAME UP AT THE AD HOC COMMITTEE AND THERE WAS, UM, SOME ROBUST DISCUSSION ABOUT, UM, SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT SOME OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS SEE IN THIS, UM, IN THIS PROCESS WHERE SOMETIMES ONCE A PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTER IS FILED AT THE CITY, THE COUNCIL MEMBER MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS, UM, ABOUT THE MATTER, AND THEY HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE DAY OF THE VOTE TO JUST GET THEIR QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
AND SO THEY HAVE ASKED THE EAC TO TAKE, UM, ANOTHER LOOK AT THIS, MAYBE A HARDER LOOK AT IT, TO SEE IF THERE'S SOME KIND OF MIDDLE GROUND, UH, TO BE HAD BETWEEN ABSOLUTELY NO CONVERSATION DURING THE PENDENCY OF A PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTER.
UM, AND SOME MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN NO, NO COMMUNICATION WHATSOEVER AND OUT AND OUT, LIKE NO RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING.
UM, SO IN WORKING WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, WE CAME UP WITH THIS HIGHLIGHTED LANGUAGE HERE THAT'S UNDERLINED IN PARAGRAPH C, WHICH SAYS, ONCE A PUBLIC SUBSIDY MATTER IS FILED, A COUNCIL MEMBER MAY, IF THE COUNCIL MEMBER HAS SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MATTER, THE COUNCIL MEMBER CAN SEND AN EMAIL ON THEIR CITY OF DALLAS EMAIL ADDRESS ASKING FACTUAL QUESTIONS ONLY, AND THE APPLICANT CAN RESPOND TO THAT EMAIL IN WRITING.
UM, JUST ANSWERING, UH, THOSE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS WITH FACTS ONLY, THAT STILL DOESN'T ALLOW ANY ACTUAL LOBBYING ON THE MATTER.
AND I, I THINK THE IMPORTANT, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT PARTS OF THIS IS THAT BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO BE IN WRITING, THERE IS GOING TO BE A RECORD OF THAT PARTICULAR COMMUNICATION THAT GOES TO A COUNCIL MEMBER SO THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LANGUAGE AND THE SPIRIT OF THIS PARTICULAR DIVISION.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS REGARDING THIS RECOMMENDATION? HEARING NONE.
IS THERE A MOTION I MOVE THE, WE, UH, APPROVE IT FOR SENDING IT TO THE, UH, AD HOC COMMITTEE? IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
I, I, DID WE SKIP OVER OR DO WE HAVE TO DO ANYTHING ON PAGE FIVE WITH 12 A 30 OH OH, THAT, THAT WAS ALL THE SAME DISCUSSION.
I INVITE THE MEMBERS TO TURN TO PAGES EIGHT AND NINE.
UM, AS YOU KNOW, SECTION 12 A 50 LISTS, UM, THE JURISDICTION OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION.
SO, AS YOU KNOW, THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION DOESN'T JUST HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO LOOK AT VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 12 A.
THERE ARE SOME OTHER CITY ORDINANCES, SOME STATE LAW PROVISIONS THAT THE EAC ALSO HAS JURISDICTION, UM, OVER.
AND IT, THE CONVERSATION THAT THE AD HOC COMMITTEE WAS THAT THE EAC MIGHT WANT TO HAVE JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND THE TEXAS, UH, PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT.
SO THOSE HAVE BEEN ADDED HERE.
AND IN THE ADDENDUM ATTACHED ON THE NEXT FEW PAGES ARE, UH, I'VE PASTED IN THESE PROVISIONS OF THE STATE LAW.
AND SO FOR, UH, PARAGRAPH L OR I GUESS SUBPARAGRAPH L WOULD BE THE OPEN MEETINGS REQUIREMENT THAT ANY MEETING OF, UM, OF THE GOVERNMENT BODY MUST OCCUR, UM, IN A PUBLIC MEETING THAT'S POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND THAT ANY WALKING QUORUM
[00:55:01]
IS NOT ALLOWED.UM, SO IF ANYONE WERE TO VIOLATE PROVISIONS OF THOSE STATE LAWS, THEN THEY COULD BE BROUGHT IN FRONT OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION, UM, TO, TO, TO FACE A HEARING ON THE, ON VIOLATIONS OF THAT.
AND THEN IN SUBPARAGRAPH M THAT'S, UM, BASICALLY OPEN RECORDS.
AND THE RULE THERE IS THAT YOU CAN'T, UH, DESTROY, REMOVE, OR ALTER ANY PUBLIC INFORMATION THAT IS SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST.
AND IT ALSO PROHIBITS DISTRIBUTION OR MISUSE OF CONFIDENTIAL PUBLIC INFORMATION.
SO AGAIN, THESE ARE STATE LAW OFFENSES, MEANING I BELIEVE ALL OF THESE ARE CLASS A MISDEMEANORS.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, AND THE IG CAN, CAN STEP IN AND SAY WHAT THE PROCEDURE FOR THAT WOULD BE.
BUT IF MATTERS, IF THESE MATTERS GOT REFERRED TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY TO PURSUE, UH, CRIMINAL CHARGES ON THESE MATTERS, THAT AGENCY COULD DECLINE, UH, TO PURSUE THOSE CHARGES.
SO THEN THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO PURSUE THINGS HERE INTERNALLY AT THE CITY IN FRONT OF THE EAC, UM, SO THAT THE EAC CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION ON WHETHER A VIOLATION HAPPENED.
MR. INSPECTOR IN GENERAL, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? NO, I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY SUMMARIZED IT QUITE WELL.
AND, UM, I CAN SAY JUST FOR, FOR CLARITY OF THE LEVEL OF PUNISHMENT IN, UH, THE CRIMINAL WORLD UNDER TOMA, YOU'RE GONNA BE, UH, AND OR 100 TO $500 FINE AND ONE TO SIX MONTHS IN JAIL UNDER THE PUBLIC PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT TO BE IN THE, AND, OR, UH, $25 TO $4,000 FINE AND THREE TO THREE MONTHS IN JAIL.
SO THEY'RE NOT CLASSIC MISDEMEANORS LIKE YOU FIND IN THE REST OF THE PENAL CODE, BUT, BUT THEY'RE IN THAT RANGE.
BUT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE CODE WORKS, WHEN WE RECEIVE A CRIMINAL MATTER, WE REFER THAT AND STOP OUR INVESTIGATION.
AND SO, AS SHE SAID, UH, IF IT GETS KICKED BACK, WE MIGHT PICK IT UP AND THIS WILL PROVIDE CLARITY ABOUT THAT.
ANY QUESTIONS? INSPECTOR, HAVE YOU HAD, UM, I GUESS VISIBILITY OR PRACTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HAVE ARISEN IN THE PAST ON ANY KIND OF, YOU KNOW, REGULAR BASIS THAT, WITH RESPECT TO EITHER OF THESE TYPES OF ISSUES? YES.
AND, AND SO THIS WOULDN'T BE GOVERNED BY THE DARTH VADER STATUTE WHERE THE STATE HAS ALREADY, UM, YOU KNOW, LEGISLATED ON THIS, AND THEN WE'RE TRYING TO GO BEYOND THAT? WELL, I DON'T THINK WE'RE TRYING TO GO BEYOND THAT.
WE'RE SAYING IF THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES DON'T WANNA PURSUE ANY CRIMINAL CHARGES ON THESE MATTERS, BUT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DOES BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF THESE PROVISIONS DID HAPPEN HERE AT THE CITY, THEN, UM, WE CAN HANDLE IT INTERNALLY AS AN ETHICS COMPLAINT.
SO THAT CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DOES NOT FEEL THAT IT VIOLATES THAT STATE STATUTE.
AND WE WERE PRECLUDED FROM DOING THAT BEFORE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS, IT JUST WASN'T LISTED UNDER YOUR POWERS AND DUTIES.
SO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DIDN'T PURSUE THINGS BECAUSE HE, YOU KNOW, IT, IT WASN'T LISTED AS SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD LOOK AT.
AND SO NOW ADDING IT HERE, RECTIFIES THAT PROBLEM.
I, I THINK THE DISCUSSION, AND CORRECT ME ANYBODY ELSE WHO WAS INVOLVED IN IT, WAS THERE WAS A SORT OF AN ALL-ENCOMPASSING FOR ALL-ENCOMPASSING PHRASE, WHICH IS AS PERTAINS TO ETHICS, IF THERE'S A VIOLATION AS PERTAINS TO ETHICS.
AND THIS JUST MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THOSE VIOLATIONS PERTAIN TO ETHICS.
CORRECT ME PLEASE IF I AM WRONG.
THE LAST ITEM ON PAGE NINE, IT SAYS, ANY OTHER CITY RULES OR CITY CODE OR CITY CHARTER PROVISION PERTAINING TO THE ETHICAL CONDUCT OF CITY OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES.
AND THE REASON THE IG CAN'T LEAN ON THAT PROVISION TO PURSUE, UM, VIOLATIONS OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT OR THE TEXAS PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT IS BECAUSE
[01:00:01]
THOSE ARE STATE STATUTES, THOSE ARE NOT CITY RULES, UM, OR CITY CODE OR CITY CHARTER PROVISIONS.SO IT'S, IT'S GOOD TO GO AHEAD AND LIST THEM HERE SPECIFICALLY.
ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? WELL, SO IN SOME OF THE OTHER ONES IT HAS SAID, UM, I'M TRYING TO FIND THAT ONE.
UH, IT HAS SAID SOMETHING ABOUT, OH, SO IT'S SAYING EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT IT IS ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED BY THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION, SO YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE THESE NEED THAT EXCEPTION.
THESE ARE NOT ENFORCED BY THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION.
BUT I MEAN, IS THERE, BUT THERE'S ANOTHER OFFICE THAT DOES ENFORCE THEM IF THEY SO CHOOSE, UM, THE DA'S OFFICE COULD BRING CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST SOMEONE THAT THE DA THINKS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND THAT HE CAN PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE VIOLATION OCCURRED.
BUT THE DA HAS WIDE DISCRETION IN THE CHARGES HE OR SHE PURSUES OR DOESN'T CHOOSE TO PURSUE.
I THINK THE GOAL HERE WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS SPECIFICITY WITH RESPECT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TO PURSUE THESE KINDS OF MATTERS.
WHEN THERE IS, UM, UH, A, A, A CHOICE THAT'S MADE BY, UH, AUTHORITIES WITH, UH, WITH CRIMINAL AUTHORITY THAT THEY REFUSE TO PURSUE, THEN IT BECOMES A MATTER THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HAS THE AUTHORITY UNDER, UH, THE, UH, ETHICS ORDINANCE TO PURSUE THOSE AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.
YES, MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL AND, AND, AND I WOULD ADD THAT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE VERY SPECIFIC IN THAT THE ENTIRE TEXAS OPEN MEETING ACT IS NOT BEFORE US.
THE ENTIRE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT IS NOT BEFORE US.
JUST REALLY, I BELIEVE, ABOUT FOUR SECTIONS HAVING TO DO WITH DESTROYING DOCUMENTS OR HAVING A PUBLIC MEETING WHEN THE PUBLIC'S NOT THERE.
SO IT'S NOT AS IF EVERY VIOLATION OF SOME SECTION IN TOMA IS NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN GONNA BE AN ETHICAL ISSUE UNDER THE CODE.
IT'S THESE VERY SPECIFIC ISSUES, A WALKING QUORUM, NOT I, I, I CAN OUTLINE 'EM, BUT I, LAURA MIGHT BE ABLE TO OUTLINE IT QUICKER THAN ME.
BUT, UM, THERE'S FOUR OF THEM.
AND SO IT'S NOT ALL OF THOSE STATUTES, IT'S TWO THINGS THAT SEEM TO BE PERENNIAL CONCERNS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS? HEARING NONE? IS THERE A MOTION I'LL MOVE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD TO THE AD HOC? ALRIGHT, IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? SECOND.
UH, ANY FURTHER DIS ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT? HEARING NONE, THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
UH, MOTION PASSES MS. MORRISON, ARE THERE ANY OTHER MATTERS THAT THERE YEAH, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER, UH, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 12 A.
SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO ITEM FIVE, WHICH IS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S QUARTERLY REPORT.
MR. INSPECTOR JONO, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
WE DO HAVE A QUARTERLY REPORT THAT WILL BE COMING OUT AND WRITING SOON.
WE'RE FINISHING UP SOME OF THE WORK FOR THAT.
SO I THOUGHT I'D JUST HIGHLIGHT SOME KEY METRICS.
UM, UNDER INTEGRITY, WE HAVE TRAINING, WHICH WE DO, AND THIS QUARTER WE OFFERED 16 EVENTS AND REACHED 607 EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS AS FAR AS COMPLAINTS GO, UM, 125 CAME IN AND 106 WERE CLOSED IN THAT QUARTER.
IF YOU ANNUALIZE THAT, THAT WOULD BE 500 COMPLAINTS.
SO WHAT WE ARE SEEING AS A TREND IS THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS IS RISING OUT OF THAT.
UM, THERE WERE FIVE, WHAT WE WOULD CALL FULL INVESTIGATIONS WHERE YOU REALLY PULL OUT ALL THE STOPS AND YOU'RE LOOKING HIGH AND LOW.
WE DID MAKE 37 REFERRALS TO DEPARTMENTS, WHICH, WHICH, UM, IS GOOD INFORMATION IN THE SENSE THAT COMPLAINTS ARE MADE AND
[01:05:01]
THEY'RE BEING HANDLED.IT JUST WASN'T SOMETHING THAT, THAT OUR DEPARTMENT WOULD HANDLE.
UM, UNDER ACCOUNTABILITY, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT ONE OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS ALREADY TODAY, AND MS. PHELAN CAN SPEAK TO ANOTHER ONE.
AND WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING WITH THAT? WE HAVE HAD ONE ETHICS HEARING SINCE THE LAST TIME WE MET FOR A QUARTERLY, REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING.
SO I'LL JUST, UM, BRIEF YOU ON THAT ONE QUICKLY BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE WAS THERE, UM, AS IT WAS JUST A HEARING BEFORE A PANEL OF THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION.
SO, UM, WE HAD A HEARING RELATED TO TWO ETHICS CHARGES THAT WE FILED BACK IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR.
UM, WE HAD A HEARING ON JUNE 9TH.
THE FACTS OF THOSE CASES WERE, WE HAVE A CURRENT CITY EMPLOYEE WHO INSTRUCTED ANOTHER EMPLOYEE TO ALTER A VENDOR'S INVOICE THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ON A REIMBURSEMENT CONTRACT.
THE VENDOR'S INVOICE CONTAINED SEVERAL ERRORS ON THE INVOICE NUMBER, JUST ON THE INVOICE NUMBER.
UH, AND INSTEAD OF SENDING THE INVOICE BACK TO THE VENDOR AND INSTRUCTING THE VENDOR TO CORRECT THE INVOICE, THE EMPLOYEE DIRECTED JUST OUT OF CONVENIENCE, DIRECTED ANOTHER EMPLOYEE TO PRINT OUT A NUMBER FOUR AND THEN AFFIX WITH TAPE TO THE VENDOR'S INVOICE, AND THEN PHOTOCOPY IT WITH THE NEW NUMBER ON IT AND THEN SUBMIT THAT ALTERED INVOICE TO OUR OWN TREASURY DEPARTMENT FOR PAYMENT.
UH, AND SO WE FILED TWO ETHICS CHARGES OUT OF THAT SET OF FACTS.
UM, THE FIRST ONE WAS THE RULE STATING CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES SHALL CONDUCT THEMSELVES AND OPERATE WITH INTEGRITY IN A MANNER THAT MERITS THE TRUST IN SUPPORT OF THE PUBLIC.
AND THE SECOND CHARGE, UH, THE SECOND RULE THAT WAS VIOLATED OUT OF THESE FACTS WERE, WAS A CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE SHALL NOT VIOLATE ANY PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER THROUGH THE ACTS OF ANOTHER.
UH, THE EMPLOYEE, UH, AT THE HEARING PLEADED TRUE TO BOTH OF THE ETHICS CHARGES.
UH, THE CITY EMPLOYEE ATTENDED ETHICS TRAINING IN THE FIRST WEEK OF JUNE.
THE PANEL ISSUED FINDINGS RECOMMENDING THAT THE SANCTIONING PERSON TAKE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERSONNEL RULES UNDER SECTION 12 A 59 B.
UM, BECAUSE THIS WAS A CITY EMPLOYEE, UH, THIS JUST GOES BACK TO THE DEPARTMENT, UM, FOR ANY FURTHER PERSONNEL CONSEQUENCES.
SO, UM, SHE WAS A GOOD EMPLOYEE AND SHE'S BEEN WITH THE CITY A LONG TIME AND JUST MADE A BAD CHOICE.
SO, UM, THAT IS MY UPDATE ON THAT PROSECUTION.
AND THEN IN TERMS OF OTHER PROGRESS UNDER THE, IN THE OFFICE, THE ETHICS, ETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION DEALS MOSTLY WITH VIOLATIONS OF THE ETHICS CODE IN HEARINGS AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS AS WE'VE DONE TODAY THERE.
BUT THERE ARE ALSO ISSUES OF WASTE AND ABUSE THAT GET ADDRESSED BY OUR OFFICE AND, UM, SOME NEW WAYS OF ADDRESSING THAT.
ONE'S CALLED A MANAGEMENT ALERT AND THE OTHER'S A MANAGEMENT ADVISORY HAVE REALLY COME ONLINE IN THAT LAST QUARTER AND RESULTED IN, UM, A LITTLE OVER ONE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS OF MONIES AND FUNDS IDENTIFIED IN THE CITY AS EITHER AN ACTUAL LOSS THAT'S POTENTIALLY RECOVERABLE OR UNAVOIDABLE LOSS.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S COMING, LET'S NOT, LET'S NOT LET THIS KEEP HAPPENING.
AND SO I'M, I'M VERY PROUD OF, UH, THAT WORK.
AND OTHERWISE WE'VE WELCOMED A NEW INVESTIGATOR TO THE TEAM, SABRINA URA, AND, UH, OUR EFFORTS TO, TO GET A NEW CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR THE OFFICE ARE STILL UNDERWAY, STILL CHUGGING ALONG, AND NOW WITH THE BUDGETARY STRESSES, WE'LL, WE'LL SEE IF THAT HAPPENS.
BUT OTHERWISE, UH, THE OFFICE IS DOING WELL.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL? I HAVE, I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
MR. INSPECTOR GENERAL, I THINK YOU SAID THAT THERE WERE 165, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT NEW CASES AND DISPOSED CASES.
UH, I FORGET THE EXACT NUMBER.
UH, HOW MANY OF THOSE CASES WERE DISPOSED OF WITH A FINDING OR DETERMINATION BY YOUR OFFICE? UH, THAT THERE WAS NO COST TO FURTHER PROCEED.
IF, IF YOU'LL ACCEPT A BALLPARK OUT IN MY HEAD, AND I CAN RUN THE NUMBERS QUICKLY, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS 67 WHERE THE COMPLAINT WAS FAULTY, THE COMPLAINANT WOULDN'T GET BACK IN TOUCH WITH US.
[01:10:01]
A SO ROUGHLY 50% OF THE COMPLAINTS THAT CAME IN, UH, THAT WOULD BE FAIR TO SAY, JUST REALLY DIDN'T AMOUNT TO MUCH.UM, SO YOU JUST MENTIONED THAT, UM, COMPLAINTS COME IN, BUT SOMETIMES THEY'RE NOT UNDER YOUR PURVIEW, THEY'RE HANDLED UNDER OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
WOULD THAT BE LIKE AN HR DEPARTMENT OR A CRIMINAL MATTER OR, I MEAN, WHAT, CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY WHAT THAT MEANS? I CAN, UM, MOST OFTEN THOSE ARE GONNA BE HR REFERRALS, BUT SOMETIMES THEY'LL GO TO ANOTHER DEPARTMENT.
IT'S GONNA OBVIOUSLY DEPEND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THAT THOSE NUMBERS WILL ALSO INCLUDE REFERRALS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.
UH, SOMETIMES THAT IS A GENERAL REF AND THERE'S THREE KINDS OF THOSE.
LET ME BACK UP REFERRALS TO DPD BREAKDOWN INTO THREE CATEGORIES AND, AND I'M HAPPY TO DRILL DOWN FURTHER IF YOU'D LIKE.
UM, I MEAN, WILL THIS ALL BE IN YOUR REPORT? IT WILL, IT WILL.
THEN THERE'S NO NEED TO BREAK IT DOWN.
LOOK AT IT THERE AND WE CAN ADDRESS IT IN A FUTURE DATE.
IF ONE THING THAT I AM DOING IN THE REPORT, WHICH IS A CHANGE THAT I THINK WILL BE HELPFUL IS INSTEAD OF PUTTING ALL THE CASE SYNOPSIS IN DATE ORDER, I'M DOING IT BY CATEGORY OF HOW THE CASE WAS CLOSED.
SO YOU'LL BE ABLE TO GET THERE REALLY QUICKLY.
YOU WON'T HAVE TO READ, YOU KNOW, 125 OF THESE THINGS TO, TO FIGURE IT OUT.
IF 50 OR 60% OF YOUR CASES ARE IN THE CATEGORY OF, IF I HEARD YOU PARAPHRASE IT CORRECTLY, DIDN'T AMOUNT TO MUCH, UM, WHAT GUIDANCE WOULD YOU GIVE, UH, IF ANY AT THIS TIME, RELATED TO, UM, TRAINING OR OTHER WAYS TO ENSURE THAT, UM, THINGS THAT DON'T REALLY NEED TO BE REPORTED DON'T GET REPORTED? UH, KEEPING IN MIND THE FACT THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU WANT, YOU DON'T WANNA DISCOURAGE THE PROCESS OF REPORTING THINGS THAT PEOPLE FEEL GENUINELY.
SO THERE'S A BALANCING ACT THERE.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD SHARE WITH THE COMMITTEE IN TERMS OF THINGS THAT WE REALLY CAN DO TO IMPROVE THAT PROCESS IN THE SENSE OF NOT, YOU KNOW, WASTING YOUR TIME, YOUR STAFF'S TIME ON THINGS THAT ULTIMATELY DON'T AMOUNT TO MUCH? I, AGAIN, I THINK THERE'S A BALANCING ACT BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO FEEL DISCOURAGED FROM FILING SOMETHING THAT THEY FEEL REALLY NEEDS TO BE FILED.
UH, AND TAKING A LOOK AT THAT, BUT ALSO PERHAPS MAYBE TIGHTENING UP TRAINING SO THAT THINGS THAT DON'T, UH, NEED TO COME BEFORE YOUR OFFICE DON'T, 'CAUSE THAT SEEMS LIKE A HIGH PERCENTAGE.
AND I DON'T KNOW NATIONALLY HOW WE WOULD COMPARE, BUT IT IS AN, AN ISSUE.
I THINK YOU, YOU'RE RIGHT TO POINT OUT THERE'S A BALANCING ACT.
I THINK THE, THE, THERE ARE TWO ANSWERS TO IT BECAUSE WE GET COMPLAINTS FROM TWO MAJOR SOURCES, PEOPLE WITHIN THE CITY AND PEOPLE WITHOUT, WITHIN THE CITY IT GETS TO, TO TRAINING, UM, AND IDENTIFYING THE THEMES OF, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE'RE GETTING COMPLAINTS THAT AREN'T ACCURATE AND TRYING TO PRESS IN ON THAT WHEN WE HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO TRAIN, WHICH, UM, IS MONTHLY AND WEEKLY DEPENDING ON HOW YOU LOOK AT IT.
AND THEN A NEW INITIATIVE I DIDN'T MENTION, BUT SOMETHING THAT THE OIG HAS DONE THAT MIGHT ADDRESS AT SOME POINT, UH, HOW THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS RIGHTFULLY A COMPLAINT WITH THE OIG IS, UH, WE'VE ESTABLISHED A LINKEDIN PAGE AND WE'VE ESTABLISHED A, A FACEBOOK PAGE AND ARE POSTING TO THAT TO TRY AND PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL EDUCATION, YOU KNOW, TO THE PUBLIC.
AND THEN SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE GET ARE SO ESOTERIC.
I, I REALLY, IT WOULD BE HARD FOR SOMEONE TO KNOW, UH, UNLESS THEY'VE REALLY SAT DOWN WITH THE CODE THAT THEY WERE NOT MAKING A COMPLAINT TO THE RIGHT AREA.
RETALIATION WOULD BE THE PRIME EXAMPLE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, CONCERNS? HEARING NONE,
[01:15:01]
CHAIR CHAIR.CAN I JUST SAY, OH, YES, PLEASE.
UM, I'D LIKE TO JUST SAY I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS DONE AND THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL HAS DONE.
AND, UH, I, I DO APPRECIATE BEING SENT THE LINKS TO SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE JUNE 2ND AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETING.
I THINK A LOT OF US WATCHED IT.
UM, AND I THINK IT'S VERY HELPFUL IN HAVING DISCUSSIONS LIKE THIS, UM, TO SORT OF HELP US ALL BE, UM, ON THE SAME PAGE.
BUT I DO REALLY APPRECIATE ALL YOUR WORK.
I I APPRECIATE THE LINK TO THE MEETING TOO.
IT INFORMED A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION THAT I THINK WE'RE HAVING TODAY.
SO, UH, I, I AGREE WITH, UH, I AGREE WITH THAT.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, CONCERNS BEFORE THE TODAY'S MEETING IS ADJOURNED? HEARING NONE, UH, THE, UH, THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT 10:59 AM ON TUESDAY, JULY 21ST, 2026.